Selling van for car? Help!

[scatterbunny]

These Volvos look nice and are in the right price range:

http://portland.craigslist.org/mlt/car/285244365.html

http://portland.craigslist.org/clk/car/287207490.html

Volvos had headrests before everyone else, right? I can't see in the pictures what the backseats look like.

 

[southpawboston]

if you can swing a little more, you can jump up to a 2001 hyundai elantra (don't go for a pre-2001), which gets awesome mileage (32-35 hwy), has locking seatbelts, and LATCH. it also has side torso airbags, but overall gets fair crash test ratings relative to other 2001 cars. the reliability is quite good, and the resale values are low... you can pick one up with 60-70k miles for about $3000. they also come nicely equipped and roide quite well. of all the cars you mentioned in your original post, it's closest in size to the early 90s accord.

we had a 2002 (same as 2001) and we generally liked it a lot! ours did have problems which the dealer was unable to fix after repeated attempts, which was the main reason we got rid of it, but ours aparrently was the exception-- CR rates these as most desired and "best picks". (CR, i know, i know...)

 

[southpawboston]

Another thought -- you could concentrate on older luxury cars. You'd be getting something older with higher miles, but you'd be more likely to find some safety features. Maybe an older Volvo? Just brainstorming.

this is true, but repair costs on older german/swedish cars can be very high. it can break your bank owning one if it develops problems.

that said, there still are great deals to be had. you can pick up a 1998 volvo V70 wagon or S70 sedan (same car), for about $4000 (our friends have one). they do exceptionally well in crash tests, including side impact and rear impact. they are also quite roomy and comfy. they get average fuel economy. but scatterbunny, do stay away from the really old volvos (especially ones with turbos and high mileage like you listed)... you will with all certainty have problems, and spend several times what you paid for the car keeping it going...

check out this search for volvos on cars.com (i recommend cars.com, you can search by zipcode):

1998 volvo V70's near boston

 

[lynsgirl]

Ok, editing because I agree w/Nisi - the Sables/Tauruses of that era are actually pretty good. And I have a headache today and am not even thinking too hard about crash test ratings, etc. I do know I'd skip the Stratus if only b/c og the Gen3 belts, but also the transmission. Ok, nak now and done talking about vehicles lol .

 

[RubysGirl]

I have no clue, but I totally understand where you are. Honestly, that price range sucks, you just don't know what you're getting with a car that old. (I should talk, I love my car but I put an average of 1200 into it a year and we're not talking oilchanges.)

I know you guys are limited like us, but is there anyway you can hold off and save just a little longer? You've reached a point with your current vehicle where it's not going to decline in value as rapidly, you know? It's almost bottomed out. Atleast that way you know your van, it's problems, and what to expect. You can't say the same about another car in that price range. They're just such a gamble.

(oh, and I'm totally a downer, I'm sorry. feel free to ignore me.LOL)

 

[scatterbunny]

You're probably right about it being smarter to hold onto the van awhile to save some money...but right now dh is saving for a paramotor (he's big into paragliding), and he has about $2000 to go. When I got the laptop for Xmas/birthday I promised he could save every bit towards his paramotor. We have some bills we need paid off, too. My van is annoying me SO badly with seatbelt issues and gas mileage that I figured if I could go back to a car I always liked or something even newer, for the price I could sell my van for, would be great.

Dh really liked the 97/98 Ford Taurus, mainly for price and the fact that it will be the newest vehicle we've ever owned. I like it because it's rated pretty well for a vehicle of that era, and because it's got a wide backseat known for easy carseat installation and fitting three across.

Anyone know how high the seatbacks are? I don't think they have true headrests, do they?

The older Accords had really high outboard seatbacks, sort of molded little headrests (nonadjustable), at least my '91 Accord did. The '93 looks to have real headrests, or at least the molded ones are taller than my '91.

 

[southpawboston]

i'm pretty sure that generation taurus does not have true headreasts, just the little bumps molded into the seatback... if that.

another car to consider, which i remembered as i was walking home tonight, is the 1992-1996 camry. that was probably singlehandedly the best generation camry every made; that particular design was so reliable and solid, then the next generation camrys that debuted in 1997 (bigger and more rectangular) went downhill in terms of quality. i don't know how much those are selling for. my sister had a 1993 and they sold it with over 250,000 miles. very little went wrong with it. but it's still slightly smaller than a mid-90s taurus.

 

[RubysGirl]

LOL, my aunt has one of those camries for sale, but they want around five I think.

I think I'd go for the taurus if I were you. My friend had a 93 or 94, it was great. It had the molded headrests. It was very easy to get three across though.

 

[LuvBug]

i'm pretty sure that generation taurus does not have true headreasts, just the little bumps molded into the seatback... if that.

my sister's 05 taurus just has the high back seat, no headrests. I wonder if they ever put them in the sedans at all?(in the back that is)

 

[scatterbunny]

As long as the seatback is high, it's no issue. I don't care if the headrests are adjustable, like I said, the ones in my '91 Accord were just the molded raised ones, but they were high enough.

My mom has a '96 Camry and I love it, but IIHS rates the '97+ models as safer. In a quick search, I can't find a 1992-1993 Camry for less than $3000.

 

[AdventureMom]

Jenny,

Wish I had some insight to offer, but I don't... Just wanted to chime in and say that I see you over there - 3000 miles away, on your laptop, scouring cars.com and craigslist... It's maddening, isn't it?!?

 

[nisi]

As long as the seatback is high, it's no issue. I don't care if the headrests are adjustable, like I said, the ones in my '91 Accord were just the molded raised ones, but they were high enough.

My mom has a '96 Camry and I love it, but IIHS rates the '97+ models as safer. In a quick search, I can't find a 1992-1993 Camry for less than $3000.

The Taurus has pretty high seat backs. It's high enough for me, but then I'm only 5'2" . There aren't actual headrests, though. Also, the 3rg generation (96-99, aka the "oval" years) has a center shoulder belt It's the kind where the shoulder part is a separate piece of webbing that clips to the lap belt. You can see it in this auction
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200084510712
That thing at the top center of the back seat picture is the shoulder belt.

 

[Melanie]

I'd personally steer clear of the Stratus. I used to have one and besides a ton of minor work, it needed a new transmission at 40k miles and another transmission at just under $100k.

Good luck on your car search.

 

[southpawboston]

it needed a new transmission at 40k miles and another transmission at just under $100k.

wow!! that's an expensive tranny... not worth it IMHO!!

 

[abacus2]

I add a vote for the Taurus as well. $2000 is right in the price range for a late '90s American car (some of which are very good cars). I own a '97 Dodge Intrepid and a '98 Chevy Cavalier, both of which have a private party value of $1,500-2,000.

 

[scatterbunny]

Thanks, I think I've decided on a late 90's Taurus, unless I can find a Chevy Impala in my price range, which is doubtful. They seem to go for more.

Good news is, a friend of dh's wants to buy the van, so as soon as my tech class is over next weekend we should sell it and have the $$ to start looking for my car.