Which Is The Better Cheap Sedan? 2009 Volvo S60 vs 2009 Ford Fusion

The bottom end of the online classifieds is chock-full of some pretty uninspiring cars. Some days I scroll for ages looking for something, anything, to inspire me. I see dozens of Chevy Malibus and Ford Escapes and other hopelessly mundane vehicles that I just can’t think of anything to say about, good or bad. But I strive to offer a variety here, and in that spirit, today I offer two dull cars that at least caught my eye. I hope you like one of them.

This is in direct contrast to yesterday’s choices, which were too weird for most of you. When the vote total is that low, I know I’ve pushed things too far. Thank you to the fewer than 500 of you who did get into the spirit of the game. Your reward is a big silly Ford F-150 that’s cosplaying as a semi truck.

I kind of like the billboard truck just for the familiarity of it, but then again, I ended up hating the job I worked at that was near that truck. So maybe I don’t want the reminder. Yeah, I guess the F-150 is the right call here. At least it runs, and it’s a conversation starter.

I think we’re going to look back at the cars of the late 2000s and early 2010s as being “the last good ones.” The bugs had been ironed out of drivetrains, everything ran well, and they had all the features you wanted without all the gimmicky shit and nagging nannies that today’s cars have. Sadly, we never recognize a golden era until it fades away. The good news, I guess, is that cars of that era are reaching the bottom of their depreciation curves, so there are some deals to be had. Let’s check out a couple of cheap sedans from 2009 and see which one does it for you.

2009 Volvo S60 2.5T – $2,000

Engine/drivetrain: Turbocharged 2.5-liter OHC inline 5, five-speed automatic, FWD

Location: Minneapolis, MN

Odometer reading: 162,000 miles

Operational status: Runs and drives well

Volvo made roundy RWD cars in the 1960s, boxy RWD cars in the ’70s and ’80s, boxy FWD cars in the ’90s, and roundy FWD cars starting in the early 2000s. They’re always a step behind the times fashion-wise, but somehow, no matter which era they’re from, Volvos almost always manage to look timeless. Plenty of other cars from fifteen or twenty years ago look dated, but this S60 is still a handsome machine, even if this isn’t the most pristine example around.

The trim level, 2.5T, tells the tale of the driveline: it’s a 2.5-liter turbocharged engine. Easy enough. But Volvo wasn’t content in this era to make engines with even numbers of cylinders; this is an inline five, mounted transversely in the front and driving the front wheels through a five-speed automatic. It runs and drives well, and with only just under 162,000 miles on it, it should have plenty of life left. The seller does say it has a minor coolant leak; rather than fixing it, they’ve just been topping it off. That’s probably a better solution than dumping stop-leak into it, I suppose, but it should be found and fixed.

The interior shows some signs of wear, but nothing serious, and those seats do look comfy. The S60 is as different from the old boxy Volvos on the inside as it is on the outside; gone is the stark industrial-looking dashboard of the 240 series. This looks like a proper modern car inside. It does have a few electrical gremlins: one power lock doesn’t work, and there’s some weirdness with the key fob. And am I reading it right that the wipers don’t work? That’s kind of an important thing to fix. On the plus side, the air conditioning works fine, so you’re good in the heat – just not a rainstorm.

It’s a bit banged up outside; the right front fender and right mirror have seen better days, and it looks like a lower valance panel on the front bumper is missing. But at least it isn’t rusty, and at this price point, you can forgive a couple of scars. They just make it look tough.

2009 Ford Fusion S – $2,150

Engine/drivetrain: 2.3-liter DOHC inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD

Location: Chicago, IL

Odometer reading: 173,000 miles

Operational status: Runs and drives well

Ford’s midsized car game was dreadful for a long time before the Fusion came along. There was the Granada, which was a warmed-over design from the early ’60s. Then there was the Fairmont, which despite the later triumphs of the Fox platform was a horrible car. The Fairmont was followed by the Tempo, which, ew. The “world car” Contour showed promise, but much like the Ford Escort of the ’80s, it was just far enough removed from its European counterpart to vaguely suck. But the Fusion was pretty good. It’s as if Ford finally built a castle on a swamp that stayed up. Mazda helped, though.

The Fusion is built on the same platform as the Mazda 6, and it’s powered by the excellent Duratec/Mazda MZR four-cylinder engine, here displacing 2.3 liters. A five-speed manual transmission came standard, but you don’t see them often. This one has it, and that makes it an especially good choice as a used car, assuming you’re able and willing to drive a stick. The seller doesn’t give us much information about its condition, so an inspection is a good idea.

This is the basic S model, with everything you need and probably not much you don’t want. It’s got power windows and locks and whatnot, and a stereo with an “aux” input, which makes it better equipped than most of the cars I’ve owned. It’s in decent condition inside too, and the AC works. Honestly, what more could you want?

Outside, it’s a perfectly nondescript city car, in a non-color, with just enough dings and dents to make it blend in. The plastic wheel covers have left the chat, but good riddance, I say. I don’t see any signs of rust, but it’s a Chicago car, so take a good look underneath to make sure it’s all solid.

Neither one of these is going to be a whole lot of fun, despite one being turbocharged and one being a manual. But they should both be reliable, and that’s a lot more important if you only have two grand to spend on a car. And two grand seems to be just about the minimum for a decent cheap car these days. $500 beaters are gone, and they’re not coming back. But I’ve had my share of $500 beaters, and these are both much better cars than all of them were, so maybe we’re better off these days. If you found yourself in need of a cheap set of wheels, which one of these would turn your head?