Volvo DL | 1982 | Frontal Crash Test | NHTSA
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 01. 2013
- 1982 Volvo DL
Impact speed 35mph
Head Injury Criteria: Driver-545, Passenger-381
--
Thumbs up for the crash dummies!
Do you think this vehicle is safe when compared to others in the same class? Please comment.
More crash tests every week:
Subscribe to CrashNet1!
czcams.com/users/subscription_cente... - Auta a dopravní prostředky
Back in the mid 90's I lived in Alaska, and worked at an auto body shop as a collision tech. My girlfriend and I both drove 240's. She had the exact car in this test. One night while coming home She ran her 240 into a moose traveling at highway speeds. (If you've ever seen a moose accident you will know they are usually very bad.) Most of the time you take out their legs and the massive body of the animal comes crashing into the windshield/roof area of the vehicle collapsing the A pillars and consequently the roof on to your head. This is exactly what happened that night however the 240's A pillar stood up to the impact, only causing the the roof structure to become slightly out of square. She was actually able to drive the car back to my place and in the morning I brought the old Volvo to the shop, gave a tug on the roof to square things up, popped a new windshield in and away she went.
As someone who worked in the collision repair business for many years I can tell you the bulletproof design of the cockpit, combined with carefully engeniered crumple zones , makes the 240 a very very safe car...Airbags or not.
@Matthew Dawood Khaghani seriously? It's like telling your grandpa to run 10 miles, you CANNOT compare an 80's car with today's car, back then these 240s and the saab 900 were the safest cars you could buy. Today all the cars must be safe or they won't even get into production. Things were different back in the 80's with not a lot of tech you know..
How did the moose make out?
Matthew Dawood Khaghani wrong! I totaled a 2007 Chrysler with my 1988 Volvo 740, my 740 I just bent back into shape, replaced the hood bumper and lights and continued driving.
Have you ever watched any crash test videos on BRAND NEW cars? Watch small overlap crash tests , then look at small overlap tests on any Volvo.
An old Volvo would obliterate a new Nissan Sentra.
@@BrandonTejadaSkates The older cars are much more durable in that you can keep driving them afterwards. The crumple zones on newer cars are different so they total easily, but the passenger area is extremely stiff and overall you're much safer in a modern car. The old Volvo's and Saab's were the best of their time though.
@@simonvs5401 oh shu5 the fuck up the 80s had plenty of tech Maybe not in India a shithole piss poor country 😁😂😂😂
I daily drive one of these old beasts... and the fact that the windscreen didn't even crack during these front on collisions is pretty impressive. As far as classic cars go, I think the 244 is probably one of the safest to daily.
I flipped one into a tree going 100 kmh and hit it roof first, Roof bended slightly and it saved my life from closing in on me
No classic's very safe TBH, I'd say it's one of the better ones, but any modern car would devastate one in a head on crash.
@@user-sf7kl9uh7ksolely because modern cars are made dangerously heavy. Just don’t get hit head on and you’re good.
@@obeseperson You're wrong, even a modern 1000kg shopping trolley like a Fiesta, or even a Smart car is safer.
They're made using high tensile steels, with highly engineered load paths, and frontal crash members to spread the crash energy. Take a 240 and a Smart car both doing 40 mph and crash them offset. The modern car will compress the soft mild steel of the 240 all the way up to the bulkhead, and crush the passenger compartment. The modern car will have damage across it's whole frontal area, there will be very little or no footwell intrusion, the A Pilar will show little distortion, the passenger compartment will retain it's shape.
Then loads of silly people will claim a wizard stole the Volvo's engine, or cut it's structure through. Or that the test 'wasn't done in the right way' etc etc.
So you can prevent others people from making mistakes? Why wear a seatbelt at all if you're so good at predicting the future?
@@user-sf7kl9uh7kidk why there are people out there who believe that classic cars are safer than modern cars. People used to die in what are considered small impacts today because classic cars are deadly.
the volvo didnt crash into the wall , the wall crashed into the volvo
No , the gravity did.
It's an old mild steel coffin
You know in Sweden Volvo has a crash investigation team, when there is a real world crash with a Volvo they go and see what all they can improve upon and what fails during a crash. That's a commitment to safety. I'd love to own another 240 if I can find one. They used to be everywhere and I cry to think how many got destroyed with cash for clunkers
А в россии если лада попала в дтп , и ты позвонишь на завод, тебя отправят в эротическое путешествие
The first genuinely safe Volvo was the 240
I feel pity for the wall.
The car did what it was designed to do - crumple at a controlled and predictable rate so as to reduce/dissipate/distribute the impact forces of the 35mph crash and lessen the crash energy transmitted to the passengers. The visible crumpling of the front structure of the car is therefore a good thing to be observed in such a crash - not a bad thing.
Even one of today's cars would be destroyed - written off by the insurance company. No car is driving away from such a crash!
"Destroying", "decimated", "crocks" are all vague and unscientific terms that should not be used when trying to prove a scientific point. When you provide empirical evidence to back your belief, rather than anecdotal, than we can begin to truly discuss the merits of "modern" versus older cars.
@Matthew Dawood Khaghani lol, you must be like the white knight of modern cars.. "Yeah, b-b-but a modern car would distintegrate these pieces of crap!"
Sheesh, no shit Sherlock.. We all know that. But for their time, these cars were impressive as hell and they are still unbelievably safe in solo crashes.
Buying an old Volvo you take the risk of fatality in a 2 car collision. But at the same time you pay less than third of the price and you get to drive away from under 25 mph crashes, I shit you not. Rear end a new car at 25 and off you go to the shops to buy a new one..
So whatever you're trying, you're preaching to the choir.. The choir just doesn't give a crap about old cars being unsafe. It's about preference. I bet you won't be driving that Renault Modus after 300 000 miles and 21 years without hick ups.
@Matthew Dawood Khaghani yeah but why you gotta state the obvious gazillion times? Trust me, people know without you reminding them literally every waking moment..
Sweden registered a 5.4 earthquake
And everyone in the world and Sweden said Amen 👍
@Matthew Dawood Khaghani They are insanely reliable and safe. Albeit, less safe than most modern cars, these cars are without a doubt safer than most cars built in the 1990s. If you are in the market for a classic car, these cars make sense. It is not pathetic to appreciate a great car. This car was very advanced for the time.
@@rileymcmonigle9614 The way you've duplicated that name could constitue harassment.
@rileymcmonigle9614 Stop duplicating names, they're not safe any modern car would crush one.
I was rear ended twice in mine (1982 244 GLT) first time wrote off a Toyota Corolla, second time trashed a Renault 21. Only damage to the Volvo was a mark on the rubber covering the bumper. Oh, and I destroyed a concrete bollard later in a 760GLE wagon (nicknamed the Flying Fortress), no damage to the car then either.
If everyone drove these, Body repair shops would be out of business. A 5mph crash cost's 10k with modern cars, someone must be making good money out of it.
Perhaps, with all those crashes, it's time to hang-up the keys! lol
@@bobjohnson205 Yeah, he must have spilt loads of vodka over many a pair of jeans.
There was a head on crash I remember reading about 20 odd years back , a Nissan sunny crashed head on into one of these Volvo estates , those in the Nissan were all dead , the Volvo driver opened his door and got out virtually unscathed. They are safe cars up to a finite limit of course.
It's true. My dad had a 245 and once we crashed into an E34. The back end of that Bimmer was completely f*cked, yet the Volvo just got it's grill , headlamps and bonnet replaced the next day(even the front bumper pretty much survived the crash). My dad sold it for about 600$ the next year and thought it was just too old , thought it met it's limits. Now though, I want one so bad.. And prices are doubled nowadays, too!
my aunty got rear ended in her E34 by a fiesta and it was a complete write off and the E34 just needed a new bumper haha. Don't buy a fiesta
lee nevin surprised the fiesta even scratched the paint.
@Matthew Dawood Khaghani Modern cars have bumpers designed to crumple. Older cars do not. In crashes like the ones previously mentioned it makes sense that more damage was done to the Fiesta. The passengers would be safer in a Fiesta, and at high speeds, any new car is safer.
@Henry Discipline The 240 wouldn't do well in modern crash testing but it was extremely safe by the standards of the 1980s. In 1982 there were few if any safer vehicles on the road, maybe a Mercedes S-Class. It wasn't until the 1990s that midsize cars started to catch up with the 240, and at that point the 850 was introduced in 1992. The 850 did well in the same moderate overlap crash test they use today, it had good head restraints and a very strong roof, and with side impact airbags (on 1995+ models) and SIPS it would probably at least pass the side impact.
October 18, 2019 1:31 pm
Airbags? Who needs airbags when you ride a 242?
Indeed. That 3-point seatbelt doing it's job.
the other car driver :)
@Matthew Dawood Khaghani volvo 242 is already indestructible
I sure would like to have airbags to prevent my head from hitting the steering wheel at 35 mph like the test dummy in this DL did.
Of course it would be better with an airbag, but at the time it had the lowest HIC ever recorded, so it's not bad at all. Later 240s had an airbag though.
Was driving mine around today (1984 244DL) and the brake pedal dropped to the floor about a mile out from the NY/CT state line... NY-35 takes you up and around to a steep decline as you come into Ridgefield CT... not a hair raised as I flew down the highway approaching a populated area doing 65 in a 25 by the time I casually engaged the handbrake (in increments) and came to a smooth stop in a Starbucks parking space. That’s right, it was still able to maneuver into a parking SPACE. Pumped the brake line and let her cool off and had an uneventful trip home.
Did you order 'to go' at Starbucks? lol
65 in a 25? Shiiiit that’s just how we roll, 40 over the speed limit at all times
Why were you speeding like that in an old crock? Sounds like you're trying to kill yourself or someone else. Don't be proud of such recklessness
A 240 saved my moms life, and now I finally have one of my own. Best ever!
To all who says that Mercedes invented the crumble zones.
Your wrong!!
Back in the 60's, (or maybe earlier) Volvo invented the steel safety cage, wich is a another word for crumble zones.
Every single safety equipment is invented by Volvo, such as:
Laminated windows - 1944
3 point seatbelt - 1959
The lambda sond - 1976
Side impact protection system, a.k.a Side airbag - 1991
City safety - 2008
Pedestrian airbag - 2013
Now you know!!
Liquid Chrome Mercedes are claimed to have invented crumple zone/ rigid cell design in the 50ies. The Volvo Safety Cage is usually quoted as 1944. Those two are related, but not the same. Crumple zones are specifically designed to absorb the impact at as close to a specific consistent rate, thus limiting deceleration to a safe upper limit for a given initial speed. Crumple zones are specifically a design method for re-distributing the impact energy. A rigid safe space is necessary but not sufficient for crumple zones to work as such. I think all of these ideas had been floating around, it will come down not simply to the first company to claim it, but how successfully these were implemented at various points in history by the makers.
You've collected buzzwords uncritically and sloppily. The lambda sonde is not a safety feature, it's an engine efficiency feature and emission control system.
Laminated safety glass had been invented around 1905-1910 and was mandatory in UK for windshield on all vehicles in 1930 and standard on Ford worldwide. So Volvo was late to the party.
3 point seatbelt is indeed a Volvo original and extremely relevant. We are all very thankful to Volvo for this, especially for their decision not to make it a proprietary invention but to allow open use.
Side airbags, which are btw not an invention but an innovation, were indeed first developed by a Swedish company and a Volvo supplier, and first appeared in 1995 Volvo model year. However they were available to other companies too, and those also started offering them soon after. As to the relevance... i'm not certain how to rate this. It was obvious in 1990 that side impact safety tests would be relevant in 1997-ish, however never to the same speed at frontal collision safety. Side airbags are never quite without issues. I'd rather rely on other means of protection.
As for original iteration of side impact protection system from 2001... this seems like a failed experiment, because it didn't work well as a whole, like side impact protection was possibly improved but offset frontal or rear was badly compromised.
City safety - interesting. I am not actually sure whether it doesn't decrease actual safety - i wouldn't claim one way or another, but this needs a deep a scientific study which takes driver's behaviour into account. One company already copied it, so it appears to be relevant.
Pedestrian airbag - a very interesting and potentially highly relevant innovation indeed, but it might be too early to tell.
One of my favourites is not on the list - traction control and stability control. Originating from Toyota, then copied and improved upon by Bosch, and it's the Bosch version that is typically used by EU car makers, including Volvo. The airbag per se is also not a Volvo invention, but has multiple origins in the US navy and around US car industry. So obviously claiming that "every single safety equipment is invented by Volvo" is grossly incorrect.
I think you'll find that while this Volvo behaves really well in a wide-area frontal collision, the passenger cage has a tendency to disintegrate on offset collisions. Mercedes platforms of the 80ies like W123 and W201 however behave exceptionally well both in full area and in offset frontal and rear collisions, and even in side collisions, and they only got better since. So while general design and the intention of design are similar, it is my belief that Mercedes offered a better implementation in those eras, but i'm not sure how it was before. The scarier part is that Volvo vehicles, in my opinion, while they added safety features nominally, they failed to improve structurally for a while till mid 90ies. I don't like marketing and buzzword competitions.
Actually after more research, the sips and side airbag was in 1994, not 1995.
The very first model with this equipment was the 850 model, wich also was the very first Volvo with FWD
And about the Lambda sond, it is a type of safety, made not only for envirement but also for pedestrians so we won't breathe in dangerous amaount of toxic gas.
The Lambda sond reduces the amaount of toxic gas with 95-98%
I have buzzwords wich are uncritically and sloppily? And my oppinions about Volvo are "grossly incorrect"??
Think twice before you critisize other peoples choice of words.
No offence.
And btw, Toyota is most certanly not a good example of safe cars.
Toyota sued Volvo for saying safest cars in the world (wich they actually are). After that scandal, Toyota had to eat their words, becuse it didn't take long time to make a fool of themselves by having problem with their brakesystems, wich is a big threat to a carsafety.
And that problem caused many accident ending with death. And Toyotas lame excuse about this?
"They make too much cars that they don't have time enough to inspect their cars."
Yeah, that's a safe carbrand allright...
Volvo has a long story with safety tech. Just read their books, clips etc. Safety has always been their main focus.
Unlike shitty Toyota...
+Liquid Chrome I agree with Sianna.
Liquid Chrome I agree with you bro I work in a body shop and Volvo are the best on safety!!.
While I love Volvo with all my heart, I gotta give some credit to Toyota for making wonderful engines, you can't compare them with Volvo engines (well maybe the b6304t to a 2jz) but they are different and beautiful in their own way. Volvo For Life though!
Far and away the strongest car in its class around in that year, probably for quite a few years, until its replacement was introduced.
Only a slight driver´s head touch with the rim of steering wheel, crumple zone apparently did its job well to achieve low G and shortway movement of the dummies.
It's what Volvos do for a living.
Actually NHTSA conducted this test at 35 mph.
The 240 is the best volvo ever built ,resilient, safe. I love my break on wheels !!!!
It's not safe, any modern car is much stronger
I went into a steep ditch in the mountains going 40 mph and pulled myself out by using the momentum and the steering to get my back right wheel out. The only “damage” was my side trim popped out a bit, which I just popped back in and my exhaust bent just a tiny bit so my car sounded cooler. These things are beyond bulletproof
Photo's, or it didn't happen
I had a head on collision with mine (other driver crossed the center line going about 30 mph or so, I was probably going 20 at best up a steep turn so 50mph combined?) and I opened my door without any trouble and had no serious injuries whatsoever! I bought another one of course!
Photos, or it didn't happen
@@user-sf7kl9uh7kWhat do you hope to gain from asking questions on a 10 year old post?
It's amazing how well the 80's Volvos and Saabs held up in crash tests compared to just about anything else. Mercedes was the only other carmaker even remotely close.
Now almost any car is safe.
except the PT cruiser
@@chrisredfield3240 The way you've duplicated that name could constitute harassment.
@@matthewking5612 harassment too who it's a made up character.
@@chrisredfield3240 I'm just looking out for you dude, some people have been in trouble for it recently.
This car had steel chassis like a truck! Also had shock absorber bumpers! My father had this machine, I remember when he had a small accident where a smaller truck cutted his way and 244dl hit him in his wheel. The wheel droped of the track and 244dl had minor scratches.
Not safe today I'm afraid, things have moved on.
Nokia owns Volvo lol
This car is an actual tank
Don't forget the reliability. Those old European cars are built to last.
No, soft if you hit it in a newer car
fEXCELLENT! For those years.
So sad to see :(
“Just a flesh wound”
Poor 242 they are really rare these days
They are found in heated garages and occasional car meets.
Are later volvos like a from early 90s as safe as this?
Ross it’s the same basic car over its 20 year production span. I’ve seen some nasty looking crashes involving 240s at The junkyard and never seen one where the doors didn’t still open as though nothing happened
Burrito Supreme wait you found some at the junkyard? I don’t believe you because that’s impossible.
Each generation of car is safer than the last.
This isn't safe, a modern city car would wipe one out in a crash.
In the united states all those ford250s make all cars deathtraps lol
i like to call it the tank... or at least mine. considering (not me, someone else) rear ended a toyota camery, (i probably spelled that wrong and i should add that it was acidental) but the point is. the camery was destroyed. but the only damage the volvo had was a cracked headlight
I was involved a rear in collision with my Vivl 245 5spd manual on the Southern State Parkway (NY) with a Buick. The only damage to the Colvo was BENT exhaust systems. The Buick's hood buckled and head lights wete damaged . Gret car
Photos, or it didn't happen 😊
The DL performed fairly well, but the lack of an airbag allowed the driver's head to strike the steering wheel with a pretty high force, which could have produced a skull fracture. Of course, this was the 80s so airbags were rare. I wouldn't want to be in this car in a crash.
When this Volvo was tested on February 10, 1982, it was the best performing vehicle ever tested up to that point in this crash test. Over 70 vehicles had been tested by then. The forces on the head were far too low to produce a skull fracture, the dummy barely grazed the steering wheel. Severe injuries such as a skull fracture generally start happening around a HIC of 1,000. This was 550. I'd much rather be in this car than almost any other 1982 car in a crash. Yes, modern cars are much safer, but this Volvo is probably equivalent to the average car from about 1995. By then, it was out of production and had been replaced by the 850.
November 5, 2019 1:14 am
@@whattheheck1000 The German TUV did a modern crash test on a rusty 1950s Mercedes Ponton, and it held up surprisingly well. Such pre fuel crisis designs like the Ponton and Volvo 140/240, seem stronger than cars introduced in the '80s and '90s. Fuel economy and making cars lighter really compromised car safety from 1975 to the late '90s.Then NCAP forced them to lift their game.
@@tlake64 Mercedes Ponton very rigid, not as the w124 or w210 in the same conditions, decelerations was 100% deadly in the Ponton even if it had even carried airbags and advanced seat belts
Not everything is stiffness. The Volvo Amazon (Folksam statistics from 1987) with the corresponding belts also performs worse than the VW Beetle in the Folksam statistics for car-to-car accidents in 1991/92. And at the same time less deadly than the MB W120 "Ponton" even if they had added seat belts... The later released MB (1959, 1968 and 1976) had less risk of injury than the older ones, although they were softer (passenger compartment) ... And the 1968 (W114 / W115) did not pass even the less demanding tests (type AMS at 55 km/h and still others under 50 km/h) than those of Euroncap ...
And at the same time less deadly than the MB W120 "Ponton", even if they had added seat belts (or even with airbags and belts)... The later coming MB (1959, 1968 and 1976) had less risk of injury than the older ones, although they were softer (passenger compartment)... And the 1968 (W114/W115) failed even the less demanding tests (type AMS at 55 km/h and even others below 50 km/h) than these from Euroncap. .. W124 (which passed the AMS tests at 55k / h against a wall were completely undeformable unlike those tested against each other) tp. its interior was totally undeformable,
the clashes at 55 km/h and 50% overlap were not particularly undeformable,
so that in the German magazine AMS, where the test was published,
medium damage was recognized thigh area / knees and feet both in execution both with and without an airbag (knee airbags did not exist then and would not have been of much use), (because of less deceleration: less risk of injury) and 60kph against a deformable barrier and 50% overlap
(less demanding conditions than Euroncap: at 64 km/h and 40% overlap) ..
Certain deformations were also noted in the cabin (and the MB w124 was not rusty and the deformable barrier was not used before) (unlike this rusty and "modest" Mercedes 180 pontoon and that they were against a deformable barrier already used before and in "rougher" conditions both in terms of speed and on the overlap!!!)
Yes, the W120 pontoon was it (non-deformable in these euroncap conditions), but im Exchange for very high and deadly decelerations ... From the year 2000 it was possible to combine rigid cabins with low risk of injury but with seat belts and airbags (greater "dependence" on their restraint systems, for this they get results unthinkable years ago: both in relation to the 70/80/90 and the predecessors (MB from the 50s))
Manolom.
Very stiff for its time. The class c w202 deformed much more in the same conditions (its room). Obviously, despite everything, the risk of injury on the pontoon was much higher and lethal even if the seat belts had been added. But I doubt very much that, for example, in the side crash it was better than the mb w111 tails of 59 (that tp guaranteed not even a hint of survival, not even at less than 50 km/h, unlike the Vw Beetle (yes, as you are reading and which was demonstrated almost 20 years ago) that I get 13 points out of 16 possible in the side test at 50 k/h x 12 of the class c w202 with its corresponding side airbag included).
Many people say that old cars suck because they are not safe ! But this would rather change their perception!
They're not safe
...after all, Volvo created the crumpling zones in the 70's and featured them from the begining of the 200 series
Mercedes Benz had crumple zones in 1953 (i drive a Volvo 760)
Actually in 1944 when they made the safety cage.
The 200 series has the same platform as the 140-series (1966).
A lot of the body structure was shared, but the 240 had improvements like better crumple zones and an improved steering column, making it safer in crashes.
@mattiasjohansson1727 Not safe now
A crash that made history.....
thanks for sharing , in real life it looks like they can walk away with minor injuries judging by the looks of the steering wheel and the survival space
I loved my 80, but only way to accelerate it was drive it off a cliff. MPG was so bad, but never felt unsafe.
A brilliant car
Even by todays standards very good
The best all cars.
السياره الامتن والاقوى في العالم
THIS PERFECT volvo 242 1982,the BEST volvo.
What's the "Hic" limit?
- M.D.N - anything above 1,000 indicates that serious injury would be likely. On this car, the HICs were low enough on both occupants for likely injury to be minor.
May 14, 2019 10:55 am
@@whattheheck1000 thanks.
Euroncap,650 como mucho, entre 1000 y 1250 en las pruebas frontales Ams al principio y 1500 como mucho en las pruebas de Eeuu
MY FIRST CAR
Saw a video earlier this week of some modern (well a few years old) Indian or Chinese cars going through crash tests. Personally I would feel safer in this 40 year old Volvo than in one of those new cars (which all got 0 stars).
HIGH IMPACT VOLVO VIOLENCE.
volvo is the car vertion of nokia 3310
i want one
The best volvo 240 1982.
Back when volvo was the best in both Safety and Reliability.
These cars aren't safe by today's standards
Wonder how much of that energy transferred thru the driver... gotta be killer
@ Still, the driver's head hit the steering wheel pretty hard and looks like one hell of a head injury.
No, the head injury criteria HIC it was very low... The standard for a severe damage is 750 HIC and in this test volvo have 545 for the driver and 380 for the passenger they was probably are survive to this accident
after all mercedes invented the crumple zone not volvo, and in 1951 not 1953, but bettered by volvo with multi stage crumple zones with different grades of steel. the volvo 240 what a great car.
I think if this had airbags this would be up to snuff.
No
Now if only every crash was a full frontal into a concrete barrier!
Exactly,.modern tests are far more demanding.
I AM TOO LATE WHY?!!
damn that's kinda tanky, tho fuck that, hitting the head on the steering wheel like that
this is the way cars should be made Ok
Modern cars are much safer
"classic wall crash test"
1981 Cali model 245, best Volvo ever.🤔
Краш тест стены
This was the real Volvo. Made in Sweden. Now, made in CHINA, assembled in Sweden.
I agree with you completely 👍
Geely is basically just funding, nothing more. It's still the safest cars out there. I have to agree with you, Volvo has lost it's spirit, but tbh that happened when the 240/740 and 940 went out of production. Still love 850's and such, but only for their t5's.
Fake news. Developed in Sweden. Made in Sweden and Belgium and USA. Also made in China, but only for the chinese market (all manufacturers who mean business have a factory in China, just common sense).
Actually, this '82 242 was probably 'made' at the Volvo assembly plant in Halifax, Nova Scotia. That is where most 240 series Volvos destined for the North American market were produced.
OldNewSweetRides Only the S90 is built in China - the rest are still built in Sweden or USA.
Volvo does not make car anymore with shock absorbing big bumper which is the signature of Volvo car.
Nowadays Volvo cars plastic bumper is a pain in the neck following the Germans and Japanese as cost cutting measures in easy assembly .
Volvo is shit anyway. No sane person would drive one!
well I must be insane then. I own a 1982 turbo coupe, a 1995 850 turbo sedan , and a 2003 C70.
Really?! Im 14. years an i have a volvo 244 dl 2.1 bj.75 and i think no cars are better than Volvos!
Sorry for my Bad english im from german.
Mit 14 schon ein eigenes Auto? :'D
Na ja, vielleicht läuft sein 240er im Vattis oder Muttis Namen. Er muss bis 18 warten um es fahren zu dürfen.
HateIronMaiden go fuck yourself. coming from a person that knows nothing about good music.