 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Volvo Cars / August 200590's Volvo Wagon Power
Hi all, Recent changes at home are precipitating a change in our vehicles: we need to go to a wagon. Now I have a 1983 240 Turbo that I thought was pretty peppy. Then we added a 760 GLE and I find it to be CONSIDERABLY more peppy. In searching for used wagons I'm moslty finding 240/740/940 models in my price range (some with Turbo) and am wondering if these 4-cylinder models (with the added weight of being a wagon) are going to be sluggish or wimpy. The 760 has a surprising amount of power (it's the first V6 I've ever owned) and I am reluctant to give up that power. In addition to this it is significantly more fuel-efficient than my 240, which came as quite a surprise. I always expected a 6-cylinder to be much worse that a 4 for gas consumption but this hasn't proven to be the case. So am I going to be dissatisfied with these 4-cylinder wagons or do they hold their own well? 850 wagons are just on the periphery of my price range and I know they go well but they've got 5 cans and even that might make a significant difference over a 4. On Sunday I had the 760 up to 175km/hr before I ran out of road, can I expect that from a 740? Thanks for you opinions. blurp ps. Anyone in southern ontario want to buy a 240T and a 760GLE cheap? (or trade both for one good wagon?) Only you can answer these questions. Sure, there are more powerful cars, but the 240s have a reputation that is second to none. Sure, my 960 is WAY more powerful than my 240GL, but the 240 can climb our hill at 60 (it's a stick). But just like your questions, how steep of a hill? And sure, it takes longer to get there, but it just got 26mpg (100+ temps and 70+mph with the air on), which ain't bad (the 960 got 24 on the same drive, more or less). I would say for a 4 it is quite nice with a good amount of bottom end torque, but it does take a little longer to get there when matching speeds. One way to answer the question- go drive one! If nothing else, the lower amount of power will teach you humility and patience. ;-) >Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >ps. Anyone in southern ontario want to buy a 240T and a 760GLE cheap? >(or trade both for one good wagon?) __ __ Randy & \ \/ /alerie's \__/olvos '90 240 Estate - '93 960 Estate "Shelby" & "Kate" > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > On Sunday I had the 760 up to 175km/hr before I ran out of road, can I > expect that from a 740? Is your 240 Turbo intercooled? The intercooled turbo engines (which the 700 series all are) are considerably more powerful than the V6, and there's far more potential for increased power. Add to that improved fuel economy, much easier to find parts and a more robust engine overall and it's the way to go. Most people avoid the V6 like the plague, a few have had good luck with it but many more have had nightmares. There is nothing wrong with the B280 version of the V6 engine. There were inadequate oilways on the B28 and B27 versions which caused camshaft bearing problems if the oil changes were too infrequent. All the best, Peter. 700/900/90 Register Keeper, Volvo Owners Club (UK). >> Hi all, >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > with > it but many more have had nightmares. > There is nothing wrong with the B280 version of the V6 engine. There were > inadequate oilways on the B28 and B27 versions which caused camshaft bearing > problems if the oil changes were too infrequent. > > All the best, Peter. I would agree that it was much improved, though the problem remains that it's a very rare motor and finding parts and someone who knows how to work on it can be difficult. It still has less power and worse fuel economy than the 4 cyl turbo so it's still one to be avoided generally. It is the same engine as fitted to the large Renaults and Peugeots (they had turbo versions) and the DeLorean. All the best, Peter. >> There is nothing wrong with the B280 version of the V6 engine. There were >> inadequate oilways on the B28 and B27 versions which caused camshaft [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > than > the 4 cyl turbo so it's still one to be avoided generally. > It is the same engine as fitted to the large Renaults and Peugeots (they had > turbo versions) and the DeLorean. > > All the best, Peter. Which are all extremely rare on this side of the pond... DeLorean only made a few thousand cars for a few years, and I don't think Renault or Peugeot have sold anything over here in close to 20 years. > It is the same engine as fitted to the large Renaults and Peugeots (they had > turbo versions) and the DeLorean. Not quite. It's similar, but from the heads up, it's a different enough beast to cause trouble. The DeLorean motor is a B28F, not a B280F. The Eagle Primer / Dodge Monaco used a 3.0L version of the V6. I believe it was based on the even-fire (think B280F here) version. Parts are still quite expensive compared to the parts for the four banger. ... The USA was Peugeot's biggest market for their version of the V6. Volvo, OTOH, did not sell any V6 wagons in the US.  Signaturealex > I would agree that it was much improved, though the problem remains that > it's a very rare motor and finding parts and someone who knows how to > work on it can be difficult. It still has less power and worse fuel > economy than the 4 cyl turbo so it's still one to be avoided generally. You're forgetting that the original poster is getting better mileage from his V6 than from his turbo four. Neither motor is known for being terribly light on fuel. If the V6 fuel consumption is acceptable, I'd say it's not an issue for a future purchase. Signaturealex >> I would agree that it was much improved, though the problem remains that >> it's a very rare motor and finding parts and someone who knows how to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >terribly light on fuel. If the V6 fuel consumption is acceptable, I'd say >it's not an issue for a future purchase. Well first of all I thank you all for your advice, it's taken very seriously. Our experience with the 760GLE has been nothing but easy good times. Since buying it in November '04 (as a winter car with the intent to only drive it a few months before scrapping) we have put 16K km on it with only a couple of wear-and-tear repairs done at the shop (tranny seal and sticky caliper sliders). All other work done on the car has been straight forward enough for me to do it myself (with lots of advice and instructions from all of you). It seems to be rock solid and reliable every time plus lots of pep: it has 336K on it and I had it up to 170km/h two weeks ago before I ran out of road. In addition to this, with the exception of AC, all of the electrical junk was easy to fix and is now working well. It is for all these reasons that I was hoping to get another similar model in a wagon format. If I didn't need a wagon I would be looking at all. Now I may just have been lucky but all of the previously mentioned reasons (ease of repair, access to adequate parts, real relative fuel economy, comparable 'pep') are reasons enough for me to look for other models. Not to mention that previous threads on this group have more-or-less established the 940 as the best of the used models and that availability of *40 models outnumber *60 models about 10 to 1. As for the 240T, it is lots of fun to drive but when I first got it it needed a new turbo and 6 months later needed another one (installer error, my cost) so I'm a bit gunshy where turbos are concerned. It isn't intercooled (or water-cooled) so it really was an added concern at all times while driving. I am, however, suspicious of turbo owners' motive for selling, even though the turbo in the one I'm selling is fine. If the newer intercooled models are less delicate then I'll definitely consider them in my search. Again, thanks for your advice. As this is the only Volvo community available to me I appreciate the views of those who know. Cheers, blurp > As for the 240T, it is lots of fun to drive but when I first got it it > needed a new turbo and 6 months later needed another one (installer [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Again, thanks for your advice. As this is the only Volvo community > available to me I appreciate the views of those who know. Intercooling doesn't affect turbo life, water cooling most certainly does. Either is easily retrofitted to a car that came without, though the water cooling requires a different turbo but when changing the turbo there's no reason not to spend the extra 100 bucks to get a water cooled unit and the additional plumbing kit. >> As for the 240T, it is lots of fun to drive but when I first got it it >> needed a new turbo and 6 months later needed another one (installer [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >reason not to spend the extra 100 bucks to get a water cooled unit and the >additional plumbing kit. Just thought of another consideration: if I get a turbo model will I need to fuel up with the premium octane gas? That's all I used to put in the 240 Turbo and it's another reason the 760 is cheaper to operate, it runs fine on the cheap stuff. Fuel prices are topping $1/L today and the primo is another $6-8/tank. Thanks, blurp Haven't noticed a difference betwen any of the grades in my 940 Turbo...maybe a bit less power with the lowest...but a double blid study would probably show it's all in my head ;) Switched down to the midgrade (from 93 to 87 RON) at the beginning of this year and haven't noticed any difference in performance or distance per unit of liquid measure, but don't know if the electronics in a 940 Turbo act the same as the 240 Turbo..think it would be all about the automatic anti-knock timing adjustment? >Haven't noticed a difference betwen any of the grades in my 940 >Turbo...maybe a bit less power with the lowest...but a double blid [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Turbo act the same as the 240 Turbo..think it would be all about the >automatic anti-knock timing adjustment? The 83 240 Turbo predates anti-knock timing adjustment and virtually all electronics. No knock sensor, nothing. LOL > Just thought of another consideration: if I get a turbo model will I > need to fuel up with the premium octane gas? That's all I used to put > in the 240 Turbo and it's another reason the 760 is cheaper to > operate, it runs fine on the cheap stuff. > > Fuel prices are topping $1/L today and the primo is another $6-8/tank. I run mid grade with stock boost levels, it works fine. The cheap stuff will work too, but the timing retards further resulting in lower fuel economy and more expense than just running mid grade. Premium results in about the same economy as the cheap stuff so there's such thing as too much of a good thing, but you can run higher boost. would a V6 froggy engine survive if it was lubed only with Synthetic oil, I know mine many years ago did the camsjust chewed them out but as I was told use BP Corse plus I wonder if this helped cause the problems as its a very thick oil, as well the wet sleave motor needs good anti corrosion fluid now we have 2x 740 turbos and 88 and a 90 plus my sons 240 dl which seems fine at 300000 klms.Run our Volvos on BP synthetic oil 5 -40 seems fine . > There is nothing wrong with the B280 version of the V6 engine. There were > inadequate oilways on the B28 and B27 versions which caused camshaft [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >> with >> it but many more have had nightmares. I've had a '91 940 Turbo Wagon now for 8 years. The thing is as fast as I need (faster than anyone expects especially when I want to merge or get in front off a light) and have had only minor issues with the electro/mechanical parts like some relays and switches. Has been the best performing and least expensive car I've ever owned. Mind you I seldom see more than 22mpg...and no it doesn't matter if you are on the gas or just putt putting and coasting around, it gets basically the same mpg. Hope that helps! That helps plenty. I know Rob Guenther is also always raving about his 940 so more testimonials really seem to be pushing me toward the 940 wagon. SO... wanna sell yours? LOL Thanks for your input! b n 2 Aug 2005 10:56:54 -0700, the illustrious "rndthought" <plancer@gmail.com> favored us with the following prose: >I've had a '91 940 Turbo Wagon now for 8 years. The thing is as fast >as I need (faster than anyone expects especially when I want to merge [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Hope that helps! I thought Rob was driving a 960? I have put about 500 miles on my new (to me) 240, 5 speed stick. It's no race car, but happily cruises along at 70+ with ease. With mostly highway miles, at 100+ temperatures, at 70+ most of the time, air on, and about 20-30 city miles, I got 26.4mpg on the last tank. That's not spectacular in these days, but my '74 Ford 4wd F100 gets 9mpg! >That helps plenty. I know Rob Guenther is also always raving about his >940 so more testimonials really seem to be pushing me toward the 940 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> >>Hope that helps! __ __ Randy & \ \/ /alerie's \__/olvos '90 240 Estate - '93 960 Estate "Shelby" & "Kate" > That helps plenty. I know Rob Guenther is also always raving about his > 940 so more testimonials really seem to be pushing me toward the 940 > wagon. His is a 960, quite a different beast with the inline 6, nice cars though. Especially if it has the twin turbo T6 engine as in the top XC90 (possibly UK only). All the best, Peter. 700/900/90 Register Keeper, Volvo Owners Club (UK). >> That helps plenty. I know Rob Guenther is also always raving about his >> 940 so more testimonials really seem to be pushing me toward the 940 >> wagon. > > His is a 960, quite a different beast with the inline 6, nice cars though. > Especially if it has the twin turbo T6 engine as in the top XC90 (possibly > UK only). That'd be a fantastic car but alas we never got a turbocharged 960 here. >> Especially if it has the twin turbo T6 engine as in the top XC90 (possibly >> UK only). > >That'd be a fantastic car but alas we never got a turbocharged 960 here. I always thought that a five speed stick 960 would be sweet. __ __ Randy & \ \/ /alerie's \__/olvos '90 245 Estate - '93 965 Estate "Shelby" & "Kate" You will have to go to Europe/UK for that. There was a manual option offered of the M90 box on 960s and S/V90s after '94 when the 2.5 Litre engine was introduced. All the best, Peter. 700/900/90 Register Keeper, Volvo Owners Club (UK). >>> Especially if it has the twin turbo T6 engine as in the top XC90 >>> (possibly [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > '90 245 Estate - '93 965 Estate > "Shelby" & "Kate" > Especially if it has the twin turbo T6 engine as in the top XC90 (possibly > UK only). Isnt the V8 coming to the UK next year?? Tim.. There is talk of it but nothing definite yet. You will have to take your place in the queue I am afraid. All the best, Peter. 700/900/90 Register Keeper, Volvo Owners Club (UK). >> Especially if it has the twin turbo T6 engine as in the top XC90 >> (possibly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Tim.. > I've had a '91 940 Turbo Wagon now for 8 years. The thing is as fast > as I need (faster than anyone expects especially when I want to merge [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Hope that helps! Sure has mattered for me, I've gotten as low as 14 mpg driving hard and as high as 27 mpg with a light foot on the freeway. Oh my lord! 27mpg!?!? I'd go to church! Only times I see much difference is when taking long highway trips. Maybe I've go my foot on the gas more than I think... ;) Always thought it was due to the fact that when I was off the turbo, the compression was lower than a 4 banger that was normally aspirated, so mileage would suffer...then when on the gas and the turbo was spinning and well, that isn't exactly a "fuel saving" mode either. > Oh my lord! 27mpg!?!? I'd go to church! > Only times I see much difference is when taking long highway trips. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > mileage would suffer...then when on the gas and the turbo was spinning > and well, that isn't exactly a "fuel saving" mode either. That was in the summer, entirely on the highway in a rather flat area, tires at 37 psi and it's a manual gearbox with synthetic engine and gearbox oil. Typical fuel economy is closer to 25 mpg. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.