Classic (old, retro) cars for sale £0-5k
Discussion
CharlesdeGaulle said:
Welshbeef said:
golfer19 said:
That is lovely. 
V8RX7 said:
0a said:
I am not very good at remembering which engines on these blow up all the time.
Basically if it's a Porsche flat 6 made in the last 25ish years then it's at risk of several different failures even the GT3 that everyone says is fine has problems as my friend who had his "fixed" 3x by Porsche in 3 years, can attest.Bore scoring / ovaling, IMS, RMS....
VladD said:
V8RX7 said:
0a said:
I am not very good at remembering which engines on these blow up all the time.
Basically if it's a Porsche flat 6 made in the last 25ish years then it's at risk of several different failures even the GT3 that everyone says is fine has problems as my friend who had his "fixed" 3x by Porsche in 3 years, can attest.Bore scoring / ovaling, IMS, RMS....
mx5ian said:
Looks nice but I'm amazed at the price the bidding is up to already, especially as it is puke yellow, auto and a saloon - generally the least favoured combination. And it is a shady import as well. 
I was looking for a Volvo T5 / T5-R only a few weeks back and I noticed even a couple of similarly priced and quite nice T5-R estates were just hanging around unsold.
As my username suggests I am a big fan of these cars but I simply wouldn't pay that much for one. They are a very old design now, not fast, safe or luxurious by modern standards.
Edited by VolvoT5 on Tuesday 26th April 14:34
VolvoT5 said:
mx5ian said:
Looks nice but I'm amazed at the price the bidding is up to already, especially as it is puke yellow, auto and a saloon - generally the least favoured combination. And it is a shady import as well. I was looking for a Volvo T5 / T5-R only a few weeks back and I noticed even a couple of similarly priced and quite nice T5-R estates were just hanging around unsold.
As my username suggests I am a big fan of these cars but I simply wouldn't pay that much for one. They are a very old design now, not fast, safe or luxurious by modern standards.
Edited by VolvoT5 on Tuesday 26th April 14:34
I think it'll go over this threads budget too, if it doesn't someones had a steal, Jap import ones in the sort of condition that one purports to be will be useable cars for the next 20 years and only go up in value.
I agree some late 90s and early noughties T5 and T5 AWD R do seem over priced but that one in particular looks very purchasable.
FredClogs said:
That car isn't slow. Even by modern standards.
I think it'll go over this threads budget too, if it doesn't someones had a steal, Jap import ones in the sort of condition that one purports to be will be useable cars for the next 20 years and only go up in value.
I agree some late 90s and early noughties T5 and T5 AWD R do seem over priced but that one in particular looks very purchasable.
I didn't say it was slow, just not fast by modern standards. Unless it has been remapped I don't see how it is hitting the 0-60 of < 6 seconds the seller is claiming. More like 7.5 for the auto and many 'warm' cars will do that or better now. I think it'll go over this threads budget too, if it doesn't someones had a steal, Jap import ones in the sort of condition that one purports to be will be useable cars for the next 20 years and only go up in value.
I agree some late 90s and early noughties T5 and T5 AWD R do seem over priced but that one in particular looks very purchasable.
I don't me wrong I have a real soft spot for the 850 T5, but not for 5k+. Utterly bonkers when you look around at the modern cars you can buy for that, or even the other classics on this thread.
People have been claiming the R models will go up in value since I had my first ever T5, which is going on 10 years ago now. I don't see any upward surge in prices and it certainly isn't going to appreciate if you use it regularly and pile on the miles.
Edited by VolvoT5 on Tuesday 26th April 14:56
VladD said:
V8RX7 said:
0a said:
I am not very good at remembering which engines on these blow up all the time.
Basically if it's a Porsche flat 6 made in the last 25ish years then it's at risk of several different failures even the GT3 that everyone says is fine has problems as my friend who had his "fixed" 3x by Porsche in 3 years, can attest.Bore scoring / ovaling, IMS, RMS....
VolvoT5 said:
mx5ian said:
Looks nice but I'm amazed at the price the bidding is up to already, especially as it is puke yellow, auto and a saloon - generally the least favoured combination. And it is a shady import as well. I was looking for a Volvo T5 / T5-R only a few weeks back and I noticed even a couple of similarly priced and quite nice T5-R estates were just hanging around unsold.
As my username suggests I am a big fan of these cars but I simply wouldn't pay that much for one. They are a very old design now, not fast, safe or luxurious by modern standards.
Devil2575 said:
VolvoT5 said:
IUtterly bonkers when you look around at the modern cars you can buy for that[/footnote]
You could say this for any classic.Anyone buying a classic on the grounds of performance is barking up the wrong tree IMHO.
Beauty - not much
Simplicity - not really
Fun factor - not really
Performance - Ho hum
Status - none
To capture your youth - not at all
Summer / Winter toy - no
My question would be to any potential buyers - why would you choose to spend £5k on a Volvo T5 ?
V8RX7 said:
Devil2575 said:
VolvoT5 said:
IUtterly bonkers when you look around at the modern cars you can buy for that[/footnote]
You could say this for any classic.Anyone buying a classic on the grounds of performance is barking up the wrong tree IMHO.
Beauty - not much
Simplicity - not really
Fun factor - not really
Performance - Ho hum
Status - none
To capture your youth - not at all
Summer / Winter toy - no
My question would be to any potential buyers - why would you choose to spend £5k on a Volvo T5 ?
A modern car can give you pretty much everything else better, aside from simplicity (and in some cases looks), but then simplicity doesn't actually make classics any more reliable does it.
Devil2575 said:
You could say this for any classic.
Anyone buying a classic on the grounds of performance is barking up the wrong tree IMHO.
But clearly I wasn't talking about performance alone. What I was getting at is they aren't really very special for the money you suggested it was worth / would go for. When it comes to spending 5k+ there are better ways in my view - In fact there are half a dozen other cars in the last few pages of this thread alone. Anyone buying a classic on the grounds of performance is barking up the wrong tree IMHO.
Heck if you like Volvos why not go really retro and get an old school brick Volvo.... i.e. 240,340,360,740,760,940,960, etc:
This is RWD, much cooler, less than half the price and tunable.
Devil2575 said:
VolvoT5 said:
IUtterly bonkers when you look around at the modern cars you can buy for that[/footnote]
You could say this for any classic.Anyone buying a classic on the grounds of performance is barking up the wrong tree IMHO.
Devil2575 said:
but then simplicity doesn't actually make classics any more reliable does it.
I think it does - what you don't have, and don't want can't go wrong. I've never in my life felt I acctually wanted or needed any of my cars to be fitted with sensors that bleep if there's a weight in a seat but no seat belt in use. And when it goes wrong, as those sensors eventually do, it's something that costs you time and money. I've got a bill to prove it somewhere.Also the lower sophistication of older cars reduces the consequences of when things do go pop. If a minor failure can be rectifield complately for trivial cost in no time using unskilled labour, that's a really good thing in my book. It barely counts as a problem at all.
Example, last weekend I had a headlamp bulb go on my old BMW 5. Replaced both bulbs, the dead one and the working one (on the grounds that the live was was probably as old as the dead one, and these things do have a lifespan). Total cost: under £20 and five minutes.
On a lot of even modest spec modern cars replacing a bulb is a big deal involving significant disassambly and faff, and on a modern 5-series with gee-whiz lights it's also extremely expensive. I think when one of the LED tail indicators went under warranty on my E91 the parts cost alone was well into three figures (though fortunately I didn't have to actually pay for it thanks to the warranty)
Nowadays you have to have all kinds of things like batteries and steering wheels and other replacements having to be coded to the individual car rather than just being drop-in replacements. Modern cars are a serviceability pain unless you want to take everything to a dealer or fully-equipped indy when it used to be a five-minute home job.
Edited by Lowtimer on Wednesday 27th April 14:28
V8RX7 said:
Devil2575 said:
VolvoT5 said:
IUtterly bonkers when you look around at the modern cars you can buy for that[/footnote]
You could say this for any classic.Anyone buying a classic on the grounds of performance is barking up the wrong tree IMHO.
Beauty - not much
Simplicity - not really
Fun factor - not really
Performance - Ho hum
Status - none
To capture your youth - not at all
Summer / Winter toy - no
My question would be to any potential buyers - why would you choose to spend £5k on a Volvo T5 ?
2) It's yellow
3) It won't rust (caveats apply)
4) It won't break (caveats apply)
5) It'll go up in value (caveats apply)
6) Quick volvos are cool.
When I was a youngster one of my Dad's mates had one... It just looked like a 'proper' motor V8RX7 said:
VladD said:
V8RX7 said:
0a said:
I am not very good at remembering which engines on these blow up all the time.
Basically if it's a Porsche flat 6 made in the last 25ish years then it's at risk of several different failures even the GT3 that everyone says is fine has problems as my friend who had his "fixed" 3x by Porsche in 3 years, can attest.Bore scoring / ovaling, IMS, RMS....
The 2.5 & 2.7 Boxster engines have the same bore. The 3.2 Boxster S has a larger piston and cylinder bore size (and more power) - but the outside diameter of the casting mould has also been increased to compensate, so the cylinder wall thickness is similar. The 3.4 and 3.6 996 engine has a piston 3mm bigger than the 3.2 S but the outer casting mould is the same size – so the
cylinder wall thickness of this more powerful engine is measurably thinner than the preceding engine sizes – resulting in a similar scenario to the result of boring a conventional engine out bigger – too thin!!!!.
So whatever the technical reason for the gradual ovality that we can measure on the 996 engines (and eventual cracking), the increased power combined with thinner cylinder wall thickness seems contributory to their eventual failure. If so - we guess the problem will gradually affect more and more engines as they age. As it becomes increasingly more difficult to justify huge expense repairing older cars – we are currently manufacturing and testing various affordable solutions. All the 996 engines we have stripped and rebuilt for any reason have shown measurable signs of this elongation of the bore on the thrust side (going oval) and the amount is increasing with age and mileage. If this means that it will eventually affect a lot of engines then any engine rebuilt meanwhile for some other reason may eventually also suffer a cracked liner in the future – requiring yet another rebuild. Or an engine with one cracked liner repaired – may crack another one again later.
Edited by VladD on Thursday 28th April 08:41
VladD said:
http://www.hartech.org/docs/buyers%20guide%20web%2...
The 2.5 & 2.7 Boxster engines have the same bore. The 3.2 Boxster S has a larger piston and cylinder bore size (and more power) - but the outside diameter of the casting mould has also been increased to compensate, so the cylinder wall thickness is similar. The 3.4 and 3.6 996 engine has a piston 3mm bigger than the 3.2 S but the outer casting mould is the same size – so the
cylinder wall thickness of this more powerful engine is measurably thinner than the preceding engine sizes – resulting in a similar scenario to the result of boring a conventional engine out bigger – too thin!!!!.
So whatever the technical reason for the gradual ovality that we can measure on the 996 engines (and eventual cracking), the increased power combined with thinner cylinder wall thickness seems contributory to their eventual failure. If so - we guess the problem will gradually affect more and more engines as they age. As it becomes increasingly more difficult to justify huge expense repairing older cars – we are currently manufacturing and testing various affordable solutions. All the 996 engines we have stripped and rebuilt for any reason have shown measurable signs of this elongation of the bore on the thrust side (going oval) and the amount is increasing with age and mileage. If this means that it will eventually affect a lot of engines then any engine rebuilt meanwhile for some other reason may eventually also suffer a cracked liner in the future – requiring yet another rebuild. Or an engine with one cracked liner repaired – may crack another one again later.
So much for beautifully engineered.The 2.5 & 2.7 Boxster engines have the same bore. The 3.2 Boxster S has a larger piston and cylinder bore size (and more power) - but the outside diameter of the casting mould has also been increased to compensate, so the cylinder wall thickness is similar. The 3.4 and 3.6 996 engine has a piston 3mm bigger than the 3.2 S but the outer casting mould is the same size – so the
cylinder wall thickness of this more powerful engine is measurably thinner than the preceding engine sizes – resulting in a similar scenario to the result of boring a conventional engine out bigger – too thin!!!!.
So whatever the technical reason for the gradual ovality that we can measure on the 996 engines (and eventual cracking), the increased power combined with thinner cylinder wall thickness seems contributory to their eventual failure. If so - we guess the problem will gradually affect more and more engines as they age. As it becomes increasingly more difficult to justify huge expense repairing older cars – we are currently manufacturing and testing various affordable solutions. All the 996 engines we have stripped and rebuilt for any reason have shown measurable signs of this elongation of the bore on the thrust side (going oval) and the amount is increasing with age and mileage. If this means that it will eventually affect a lot of engines then any engine rebuilt meanwhile for some other reason may eventually also suffer a cracked liner in the future – requiring yet another rebuild. Or an engine with one cracked liner repaired – may crack another one again later.
Edited by VladD on Thursday 28th April 08:41
rovermorris999 said:
VladD said:
http://www.hartech.org/docs/buyers%20guide%20web%2...
The 2.5 & 2.7 Boxster engines have the same bore. The 3.2 Boxster S has a larger piston and cylinder bore size (and more power) - but the outside diameter of the casting mould has also been increased to compensate, so the cylinder wall thickness is similar. The 3.4 and 3.6 996 engine has a piston 3mm bigger than the 3.2 S but the outer casting mould is the same size – so the
cylinder wall thickness of this more powerful engine is measurably thinner than the preceding engine sizes – resulting in a similar scenario to the result of boring a conventional engine out bigger – too thin!!!!.
So whatever the technical reason for the gradual ovality that we can measure on the 996 engines (and eventual cracking), the increased power combined with thinner cylinder wall thickness seems contributory to their eventual failure. If so - we guess the problem will gradually affect more and more engines as they age. As it becomes increasingly more difficult to justify huge expense repairing older cars – we are currently manufacturing and testing various affordable solutions. All the 996 engines we have stripped and rebuilt for any reason have shown measurable signs of this elongation of the bore on the thrust side (going oval) and the amount is increasing with age and mileage. If this means that it will eventually affect a lot of engines then any engine rebuilt meanwhile for some other reason may eventually also suffer a cracked liner in the future – requiring yet another rebuild. Or an engine with one cracked liner repaired – may crack another one again later.
So much for beautifully engineered.The 2.5 & 2.7 Boxster engines have the same bore. The 3.2 Boxster S has a larger piston and cylinder bore size (and more power) - but the outside diameter of the casting mould has also been increased to compensate, so the cylinder wall thickness is similar. The 3.4 and 3.6 996 engine has a piston 3mm bigger than the 3.2 S but the outer casting mould is the same size – so the
cylinder wall thickness of this more powerful engine is measurably thinner than the preceding engine sizes – resulting in a similar scenario to the result of boring a conventional engine out bigger – too thin!!!!.
So whatever the technical reason for the gradual ovality that we can measure on the 996 engines (and eventual cracking), the increased power combined with thinner cylinder wall thickness seems contributory to their eventual failure. If so - we guess the problem will gradually affect more and more engines as they age. As it becomes increasingly more difficult to justify huge expense repairing older cars – we are currently manufacturing and testing various affordable solutions. All the 996 engines we have stripped and rebuilt for any reason have shown measurable signs of this elongation of the bore on the thrust side (going oval) and the amount is increasing with age and mileage. If this means that it will eventually affect a lot of engines then any engine rebuilt meanwhile for some other reason may eventually also suffer a cracked liner in the future – requiring yet another rebuild. Or an engine with one cracked liner repaired – may crack another one again later.
Edited by VladD on Thursday 28th April 08:41
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff