Looking to buy a used volvo. Is the 940 less maintanence than 850?
I just want a safe reliable car and speed is not very important.
Any thoughts on turbo vs non-turbo?

Thanks Dave

I own a 740T and an 850T and live in balmy Buffalo. Driving the RWD turbo in wintertime w/out snow tires on all four corners is near suicidal. The 850T shod with 4 Blizzaks is unstoppable. It is so good in snow that I really wonder who needs a XCountry??

You have to maintain both. The difference is in what happens after something inevitably breaks despite your PM. I'll be hanging on to my 8 valve NA cars as long as I possibly can because there's less to break and when it does the engine doesn't convert itself to scrap or exhibit other idiotic behaviors. Also vastly easier to work on than the FWD cars.

As far as turbo vs. nonturbo goes, turbo is definitely more fun to drive, but for a hint as to effect on engine life look at the TBO on similar NA vs. turbocharged versions of aviation engines and you'll get an idea. 1700 vs 1400 hours is a typical figure. Normally this wouldn't matter, but Volvos are not normal cars- they're supposed to go 300,000 miles! Triple the TBO numbers for automotive applications, and you see a hypothetical lifespan difference of maybe 60k miles, which is quite a bit. Overhaul intervals are shorter and hourly cost of operation is higher because the whole engine is stressed more when turbocharged. Lifespan of the turbo itself is a minor component of the total cost of maintaining a turbo engine. So if you're looking for minimum maintenance and are careful not to put yourself into suicidal passing maneuvers, left turns into oncoming traffic, etc. stick with NA.

Just my opinions in any case. I have to confess I understand the temptation. The first time I drove a turbo was in France in a Citroen diesel when attempting a deep lane changing operation while swarmed by aggressive Gauloise puffing drivers, and it truly blew (heh) my mind when the thing went into boost and put me where I needed to be, albeit at the risk of life and limb. Maybe it's worth a thousand hours, especially if it's a rental.

listen to the "kick inside" - ditto.

740/940 "non turbo" are ok around town but nobodys home at higher speeds.
740/940 turbo @ 162 HP much better, It's the 195 NM of torque that mostly helps.
I've owned and maintained both types - the key is to find a "mint" example that
has'nt been irresponsibly driven / maintained.

seems like all the answers point in *one* direction. Fine one and drive it !

Good luck

I would say that the choice depends more on your way of driving and opinion on RWD and FWD rather than the design and construction of the car. Both are Volvos, both are well built and both require maintenance. Of course, RWD and FWD is not just about driving. Working on any FWD engine is hell because there is no space to access anything. Even with turbo and AC, the engine bay of a 700/900 is a dream to work on.

George
--
1987 745 GLE Turbodiesel Intercooler (D24TIC)/1988 745 Turbo Intercooler (B230FT/M46)

The 940 8-valve and even the turbo is almost as maintenance free as you can get with a Volvo. Obviously the Turbo adds another few maintenance steps here and there, but in the long run it isn't that bad. If you take really good care of a Turbo (VERY routine oil changes especially) they can be really good. In fact, by the 1990s, most of the turbo cars Volvo built were excellent all around.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. A lot of people start urban legends that they had a Volvo and it never needed anything... of course they don't say that it was a chunk of crap and they never fixed anything that broke.

Every Volvo is more maintenance intensive than, say, a Toyota Avalon, which is a similar sized car, featured similarly to a lot of 940s. The struts on the 940 are more work. Both have similar ABS systems (Bosch). Both need timing belts at routine changes. Parts cost is often as much on a Toyota. But the 940 will have a couple more electrical faults, and the engine mounts wear out faster on the 940.

So does this mean the 940 is NOT a good choice? No. But if you neglect fixing little things here and there, I don't really think ANY Volvo product that I know of to this day, is the most maintenance free car on the road. Don't look at 16v engines as a generally-accepted maintenance free engine. the 8-valve ones are good.

Moving on to the 850, there are a couple of things that have plagued that series.

First of all, no 1993 models. Some people don't have problems, but they own 5-speeds. Second, watch for A/C evap leaks, rear main seal leaks (big bucks for both) and ABS/TRACS issues.

Outside of that? The 850 has proven to be a pretty decent car as well, but you have to stay on top of the timing belt maintenance, whereas on the 940 you should stay on top of the schedule, but a breakage won't ruin the engine.

Both cars are nice to drive in different ways.

That should be some food for thought. I say, go with the 940 for the LEAST potential (and expensive) problems.
--
1992 940 wagon, very low miles
as well as others.

I have to have RWD for my tastes and mechanical abilities. I can live with the NA 240 series, but have to have turbos on my 740/940 series. Drive both and decide for yourself. NA is OK for around town but out on the highway it makes a very big difference with the turbo. It not so much about going fast (but they can) it is more of acceleration in passing and merging.

Randy

faced the same dilema myself not long ago...

nothing wrong with any of them...the 940 is the last stage of development of the 4 cylinder red block engine (in fact the car is the end of the 200 series development really...)

850 was a totally new machine, totaly different with the white block 5 cylinder engine (new).

850 is reputed to handle better and be faster...

Parts can be more expensive for 850 (particularly panels)(£1400 for a tail gate...)

Turbos have higher running costs as the turbo iteslf needs replacing every so often (typically 75k - 150k depending on maintenance/driving) and they use more fuel, and more tyres etc)

I went with a 940 turbo...my grounds were as follows:-


940 NA - nice, relaible, low running costs, I wanted more power
940 Turbo - nice, fairly relaiable, reasonable running costs, fast enough
960 (6 cylinder) - can be a maintenace nightmare and fuel costs high
850 NA - new design, i will let someone else work the problems out - too much electronics.
850 turbo (t5 etc) - very nice WILL have been thrashed! - dont want someone elses thrashing!

but hey that just my take...