It’s pretty easy to set a price ceiling when you’re shopping for a car. But what about a price floor? Is it worth cross-shopping a much cheaper car? That’s what we’re investigating today. We’ve got a Volvo that seems like a pretty decent deal, and a Mitsubishi that’s so cheap it might be too good to be true.
Yesterday, we looked at a couple of nice old-person cars, about a decade apart in age. The voting was pretty close, about a 55-45 split, in favor of the Buick. The Chrysler won quite a few fans by virtue of being newer and presumably safer, but the Park Avenue’s old-school charm won the day.
I’d go for the Buick as well, I think, precisely because it’s older. I already know my way around it. If you’re doing the repair and maintenance work yourself, like I do, simplicity and user-friendliness counts for a lot. I’m sure I could do whatever I needed to on that Concorde, but ’80s/90s GM products just feel like old friends to me.
If your budget for a car is, say, $3,000, chances are you’re going to walk right up to that line, and maybe even look at a few cars over it. It makes sense; spend more money, get more car. But there’s always a spot to enter a bottom end of the range, too. What do you set that to? $2,000? $1,500? Lower? Is it worth even bothering looking at cheaper cars?
Of course it is. Most cars down in that price range are going to be junk, but there are a few hidden gems. And why spend more money if you don’t have to? So let’s look at a decent three-grand car, and one for half as much, and see whether it makes sense to spend more.
1996 Volvo 850 – $2,850
Engine/drivetrain: 2.4-liter OHC inline 5, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Dearborn, MI
Odometer reading: 150,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Old Volvos generally make really good used cars. They’re built like tanks, and usually have more safety stuff than their contemporaries. The old 240 series used to be a good bet, but they’ve started to climb in value, and the good ones are getting snapped up by collectors. Its replacement, the 850, doesn’t have nearly the following, and probably will stay cheap for a while yet.
Granted, the 850 is driven by what some consider the “wrong” wheels, and it doesn’t have the famous “red block” engine that is so prized by Volvo enthusiasts, but what it has is pretty good. The 850 uses a transversely-mounted five-cylinder engine, and in this case, an Aisin four-speed automatic. It’s durable stuff; I’ve seen these cars with twice as many miles as this one has. It has a bunch of new parts, and the seller says it runs and drives well.
Volvos aren’t really luxury cars, but you can option them up to be pretty fancy, and this one looks like it has quite a few boxes checked. It has power leather seats, keyless entry, and more. The seats are cracked in places, but still comfy-looking. One thing that does need some attention is the air conditioning; the condenser has a crack in it and needs replacing. Hey, at least they didn’t try to say it just needs recharging.
It looks good outside, except for a ding in the trunk lid in the back. The trunk still opens and shuts all right, so it’s purely a cosmetic issue. The black plastic strips on the bumpers are fading to gray, as they all seem to. But I don’t see any signs of rust. I mean, it is a Michigan car, so you’d be wise to look underneath, but from the top it looks damn good.
1998 Mitsubishi Galant ES – $1,400
Engine/drivetrain: 2.4-liter OHC inline 4, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Richland, WA
Odometer reading: 201,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
The Mitsubishi Galant is one of those “Oh, right” cars. The Toyota Camry and Honda Accord so completely overshadowed it that it’s sometimes easy to forget the Galant even exists until you see one. But from everything I’ve heard, they’re good cars. I’ve had a couple of friends who owned Galants, and had good luck with them. And there’s an upside to being completely overshadowed by Toyota and Honda: you’ll pay a whole lot less for a Galant than you will a Camry or Accord.
US-market Galants were built in the Diamond-Star Motors plant in Normal, Illinois, alongside Eclipses and Eagle Talons. Only one engine was available, a 2.4 liter four-cylinder, with either a single or a double overhead camshaft setup. This being an ES model, it has the SOHC engine. It runs and drives great, the seller says, but that’s all they say. No, really – that’s it. “Runs and drives great, reliable, good on gas.” That’s the entire ad.
It has over 200,000 miles on it, and it shows in the interior condition. It’s not torn up or anything, but there’s a lot of wear. Being an ES, it has power windows and locks, and probably cruise control and stuff like that. But of course, there’s no telling how much of it still works until you try.
Outside, it’s missing some clearcoat, but it’s straight, and it should be rust-free, being a Washington car. Good color, too. We didn’t know how good we had it in the ’90s with all the teal cars, not to mention all the other color choices.
So what do you think? Is the Volvo twice as much car as the Galant? Is the lack of information in the Galant ad enough of a red flag to make it a no-go? Or is it the bargain of the year?
This is a rust vs. no rust decision. Mitsubishi all day long.
The $1450 price canyon will buy a LOT of repair parts, too. If this were on the right side of the country, I would get it in a heartbeat for my teenager.
That 2.4 is a huge plus for me.
Guess I’m gonna DOX myself today.
That Volvo is a block and a half away from me, and I’ve been ogling it for the three years they have owned it. It used to have a one of those yellow “Student Driver” bumper stickers on the back, and there are more dents than the pictures show; which I know because I stopped and looked at it when they street parked it with the for sale sign on it.
I’d still buy it over the Galant, if it were a manual with functioning air conditioning I would already have it parked behind my 2003 Civic out back. The seats do look like Palpatine’s face though.
But you’d pay extra for that kid of patina on a leather chair from a furniture store.
Mitsubishi, no question. Cheaper and likely rust free PNW car. The Michigan based Volvo will be rusty underneath even if the exterior still looks presentable. Every nut and bolt will be a battle. After growing up in Michigan I would never buy a rust belt car again.
The Volvo also has a cracked evaporator not condenser so that means the dash needs to come apart and this is a brittle 30 year old dash.
The $1450 saved will pay for maintenance for a while and if I’m shopping cars less than $3,000 and 30 years old it is because money is really tight.
At this price range, functional is key….they’re both pretty good cars but I’d pick the Galant. That 2.4 is as reliable as anything from Honda and Toyota, and aside from the faded paint it looks to be in great shape.
This was a tough one, as I like the Volvo more than the Galant, but that gen Galant isn’t a terrible car and it isn’t in the rust belt. Galant wins for me by merit of less likely to be rusty and lower price.
The Galant is the better choice here.
Galant!
If you can swing the money for budget transport, the Volvo. It will be easier to keep going, so worth the difference in the long run. And the Volvo is just going to be nicer, if quirkier.
I have very limited experience with Mitsubishi Galants, but I’m sure it’s “a car”. And despite being a bit tatty, the interior actually looks kind of nice and airy. I’m drawn to the Volvo, but that may just be due to familiarity. There have always been one or two of those in my orbit. Still, I think I want my kid in the Volvo, as I actually am looking for a first car for him pretty soon and don’t wanna blow a bunch of money.
Something else I just thought of- ROI. If kept in this exact condition, the Volvo might actually appreciate in value a bit if you fix the AC and swap out the trunk lid with a unit from a junk yard (that gold color was super common). You could easily sell it for another $500-1000 on top of your investment even with another 50k miles.
That Galant will never be worth any more than it is right now because it needs nothing other than a bath.
Mitsubishi.
1990s Japanese reliability, but without the reliability tax, because Mitsubishi never got the traction of Toyota or Honda here.
Hardest part: finding parts for a nearly 30-year old obscure Mitsubishi.
For $1,400, it’s a fine winter car until something major goes.
Just reading through the comments, and no, no I don’t want to spend a weekend fixing the air conditioning. Nor do I want to spend a Galant-worth of mostly labor having my mechanic do it. I don’t care about how good Euro is, how reliable old Volvos are, or how well it did in the BTCC, (it didn’t, it wasn’t the S40), I’m taking the Galant. It’s cheap enough that AC working is a bonus.
ooo the S40! Hey, wasn’t that a Mitsubishi too? 😛
When the starting price is $1400, saying that the Volvo is double the price isn’t a huge gap, but I think the overall experience between these two would be. Not to be boujee or throw stones at the Mitsu Galant fans (I like the early 90’s models as well), but it seems that the Volvo would offer a much better value for a modest bump in price. It shows very well and is still a handsome (if understated) car that wouldn’t look out of place in an upscale neighborhood, country club parking lot, or fancypants restaurant…of course I don’t live or go to any of those places, but I *could*
Either of these is great deal by 2026 standards. Went Volvo because it’s 25% fewer miles and 25% more cylinders than the Mitsu.
If I’m looking for a car in this price range that isn’t special to me, it must be because I have hit a rough patch and need basic transport. In that case, I’m going to save the money and get the Mitsubishi, so that’s how I voted, even though I like the volvo better. Also, for me, the volvo wouldn’t be driveable in the summer without fixing the AC, and that could be another grand on top.
Basic cheap A to B transportation is why people buy shitboxes. That is how I always vote in the Shitbox Showdown.
I’ll take the underdog Mitsubishi, it even comes with less holes in the front seat!
The 200 series Volvo’s replacement was the 700 series, which then became the 900s.
The 850 was an attemp at making a more compact and sporty car, and came 9 years later than the 700s.
The 850 was well sorted by 96.
B5234 is stout.
GREAT car.
I like that gen Galant, but not that one.
Volvo, all day. This is from the time when the then-Swedish company built ’em sturdy. Looks like it has been taken care of, too.
Mitsubishi built a few pretty jazzy Galants. This isn’t one of them. And that’s a lot of miles on the clock for a car that was a lower-price entry to begin with.
Also, the bad fit of the passenger-side airbag cover make me wonder….
I’m going with the Volvo because #whiteblock and 5 cylinder noises, but that AC issue is probably NOT ONLY the cracked condenser BUT ALSO the evaporator- which was a near 100% failure rate on them and is a dash out job.
Also, I’d be curious to see a pic of the odometer. If the trip meter shows all 0’s, it’s broken… like they all do and isn’t counting mileage. Thankfully, 1996 was the first year of OBD2 and you can find the accurate mileage in the BCM.
Everyone os always afraid of taking dashes out. It’s not a huge deal, just labor and finesse. If you can keep as much assembled as possible and remove it similarly to how it was installed during assembly, it’s easier.
But an 850 evap is a big job you will have to do if it wasn’t done.
Still worth it. I did a heater core in my 240 – another job everyone complains about but isn’t that bad.
Did 740 evaps and heater cores too.
Oh, I know it’s not terrible, but it’s daunting for the unaware. Plus, that’s a great time to install the dash repair kit (are those still made?) cuz you KNOW that squeeks, too! LOL!
The ad says the evaporator is cracked.
Oh gotcha. Script here says condenser and I didn’t read the ad, just scrolled the pics looking for an odometer shot.
Yeah, I’m about 99% certain that Volvo’s had “150K” for at least 15-20 years.
I picked the Mitsubishi. The Volvo seems nice, but the Galant is a better color, from the PNW so every bolt won’t be rusted in place, and man is it cheap!!!
both are probably considered good deals in the current crazy used car market, simply because they run and drive and have a title. Volvo seems like the better of the two options to me, though I do like the pre-bloat Gallants just fine. I just know that the 200K Part search could quickly fill that price gap.
I’m flipping a coin and going with the cheaper one, if I’m shopping to save pennies. Especially if the AC works in the Mitsu.
But I have a friend that’s a big Volvo fan, he posted last night the one he has now with 300k miles is finally too rusty to save. So he bought a nicer shell that he’s transferring the drivetrain over to. That’s a fan.
We need the “BOTH” option!
I’m going Volvo because, assuming it was even marginally well maintained, it’s still got at least another 100k left in it, the AC condenser is an easy enough fix, but most of all I’ve always wanted a car with wipers on the headlights.
The Volvo is great, but that’s a Mitsu that fits you for very little money.
I’m taking the Galant by virtue of it being very clean and very cheap.