90's Volvo Wagon Power

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. ;-)

blurp wrote:

__ __ Randy & \ \/ /alerie's \__/olvos '90 240 Estate - '93 960 Estate "Shelby" & "Kate"

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 05:54:54 GMT, the illustrious Alex Zepeda favored us with the following prose:

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

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" favored us with the following prose:

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!

blurp wrote:

__ __ Randy & \ \/ /alerie's \__/olvos '90 240 Estate - '93 960 Estate "Shelby" & "Kate"

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.

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.

His is a 960, quite a different beast with the inline 6, nice cars though.

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.

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 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.

That'd be a fantastic car but alas we never got a turbocharged 960 here.