I have a 91 745T standard. It runs beutifully. It almost has too much power. Every time I left those sporty cars behind who would dare to underestimate a square box car, I feel both good and bad about it. I'd much rather driving my wife's 93 245 NA and be a good person. Having too much power will bring all the bad out of you. Oh, something welse to share about a well tuned turbo car: I car cycle my gas padel in a way that my wife and the kids think that they hear a cop car is coming toward us! Erwin

I've had a few turbos over the years. The one I liked the most was an '89 765Ti w/ the 16v 4-cyl powerplant. Pretty rare brick, and she served my family well for over 400k. It was an auto, but boy did it move. If it had been a standard, it would have been wrecked long before it hit 200k.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I've had some 200 series turbos and the my '83 244GLTi w/ an m46 was fantastic. Everything was stock but the turbo had been upgraded to water-cooled by the previous owner after his stock oil-fed unit toasted. It got about 26ish mpg on the highway and 22 in town---normal driving, not speed-racer style. I got the car w/ about 150k on it, drove for a few years and sold it.

My '82 245GLT is another story. All stock w/ a AW70...uugggh. It's got 246k on it and the tranny is showing it's age. I just recently inherited it from a friend and the previous owners were senior citizens.
It gets a steady 19.3-20mpg on the highway crusing mainly between 60-70mph. In town it's 16.5-17mpg. It's par for her age. She's my daily driver and needs some suspension attention, but is solid and reliable. The turbo was rebuilt at about 140k and the car likes oil, likes it alot. It doesn't obviously burn any based on my mpg and lack of other symptoms like smokey exhaust, oil leaks, etc.....and it's my guess the turbo's the culprit since it's just an oil-fed unit. I haven't bothered even looking at the intake piping from the turbo, but I know there's oil in it. And, stock oil-fed turbos do like to have oil changes a little more frequently than their NA peers...

ON THE OTHER HAND, my '86 244DL w/ m46 gets 30mpg highway and 23-25mpg town. That car has 255k and has much more get-up & go than the '82 245GLT, not to mention a much higher top speed...but that's more due to the trans & rear end ratio. I don't think the turbo could compete w/ the '86 in a drag race...

So, if you want more power, better mileage, go with a late 80's/early 90's B230 w/ the newer style intake manifold. You're not dealing with the CIS (right?) gas eater B21FT not to mention the extra hardware to have to deal with.

Many at Turbobricks may disagree with me, but an NA will last longer and when properly tuned, will give plenty of power. Just dumping on a stock turbo exhaust on an NA and a K&N filter makes a noticeable difference.

That's all I have to say about that.

I'm a Brickboard type of guy.. Stage zero is zen for me. Having a normally aspirated car running as good as new.

That being said, my Volvo 240 buddy is exactly the opposite and used to run high boost through a B21 in his 245. The car had like 300k miles on it, wanted to die, but he wouldn't let it. He ran a 14.5 second quarter mile, which isn't super fast by sports car standards, but for a stock 245 that looks like it wants to just be left alone? It's scooting.

There were nights we drove around town like maniacs. MANIACS. It didn't have a hood on it for a while, and after a bit of hooliganism, the exhaust manifold would glow orange from the heat. It was a beautiful abuse of machinery.

The car still runs to this day, but always needs to be messed with.

His other car is a gutted 79 GT 242. (normally aspirated)

I've always associated turbo 240s with the need for speed because of him.

Meanwhile, my slow, boring cars just always sort of run well and never let me down.

That being said, my VW Beetle is a turbo diesel, and I wouldn't want it any other way. The car is torquey, gets good fuel economy, and is nice to drive with the turbo boost available.

Converting to an M46 (if you have an automatic) will get you better fuel economy *and* provide a little more zip at the wheels.

If you're really curious about a turbo, I'd check out TurboBricks. Some good articles, and some really smart people over there.... and unfortunately some really not-so-smart people, too.

I wouldn't say more frequent oil changes are necessary with a turbo, but running synthetic oil is.

Converting to a turbo is probably a slippery slope, in the same way that suspension upgrades can be: you do upgrade one thing.... and then you say, "Wow! maybe next I'll do this... and this... and this!" :-)

-Ryan
--

Athens, Ohio
1987 245 DL 314k, Dog-mobile
1990 245 DL 134k M47, E-codes, GT Sway Bars
1991 745 GL 300k, Regina, 23/21mm Turbo Sway Bars

For most of the 80's, Ford and Chevrolet used a 305/302 V8, respectively, in all of their mid and full-size cars. These engines typically made 140-160 horsepower depending on the model of the car. Camaro's had a 160-ish horsepower V8 for most of the 80's, and they weighed around 3200 lbs.

So, a Volvo with a 2.1L turbocharged and intercooled 4-banger that made 160HP was pretty darn amazing at that time. A 244 turbo with a stick (M46) was faster than just about any American sedan at that time.

They still hold their own today. The intercooled turbo with a stick will accelerate from 0-60 mph in about 8 seconds. A naturally aspirated B21 with a stick takes about 12 seconds. There is also a great deal more mid range power for passing, climbing steep grades, and emergency maneuvers.

With a stick the gas mileage is pretty close to a naturally aspirated B21 *IF* you drive conservatively. 25+ mpg is very possible on the road. If you have an automatic the mileage is markedly worse than a n/a B21 with the slushbox.

Turbos are faster. That's pretty much it. I have had the opportunity to grab all the parts I would need to turbocharge my 240 several times but I never have. I read Turbobricks almost every day and I see what those people go through with broken rods, busted trannies, burnt valves, etc. I don't need to spend countless hours tuning in my car so that I don't destroy it.

I have also heard people say that the stock non-intercooled turbos (such as the '82 models) were not much faster, if any, than a late model 2.3l B230F with a good cam. And past stock boost levels on your old '82, that's when you start breaking things.

How much money and time do you have? If you have plenty of both, go for it. But if that's your daily driver and it needs to be on the road constantly, leave well enough alone.

--
'93 244: 'A' cam 4 deg. advanced, 25/22 sways, custom heim endlinks, poly bushings, and a lot more styling customization than I care to recount.