Need a engine for a 965 with 210K. After shopping around I found a couple of candidates. A 92' with 150K for $1500 and a 95' with 96K for $1800.
My shop wants $1300 for labour. Is it worth putting this kind of $$$$ into this with all these miles? What life expectancy does the tranny have? The body is in good condition. and has new radiator ac compressor. new pullies/ rollers and water pump.

By the way if anyone needs any parts from it let me know. I also have a green manual TP 230520

Thanks alot

VHT








--
VHT

I would use the younger engene. I would say that the car was worht fixing. You could go out and spend 40,000+ and buy a brand new volvo, and have a car that is not nearly as well made as yours was. If the body and interior are good, then I would do it in a heart beat. You could not buy another 960 with a 96k motor for $3500. I would say go with it. Good luck and happy bricking.
--
1988 244 DL + Virgos, and Power Windows, 1983 244 Turbo +Intercooler

The '95 has less miles and a 70K timing belt. I recommend the 95. At 96K, this engine is just broken in. I would have no concerns. The trans will last for a VERY, very long time as long as you change the fluid in it often. You can't replace this kind of car $3,100 IMHO. Have fun.

DEWFPO
--
1998 S90 071,245 and 1995 964 154,100

How much do you like the car? You have to look at the whole car and its condition over all. I use the 10 cent rule on repairs. At 282K I dropped in a remanufactured B230FT in my 87 745T at a total cost of $4,200. Everyone thought I was nuts spending the money. Funny 38K miles later those same people don't think I was nuts. In another 4K miles that motor is paid for.
As long as there isn't any rust or body damage I'd go with it. Even if it costs you $3500 to install the engine if you get another 35K miles out of the car you ahead. That is the ten cent rule. It cost you 10 cents per mile which isn't bad.

The trasmission will live for many more miles to go. I wouldn't worry about that. I'm just not sure it worth the money to put another engine in the car if you are also paying for labor. Whats the condition of the rest of the car? How did this engine die?
If you do replace the engine, go with the 95. $300 extra for 55k less miles is a good deal. Just save the cams from your old engine just in case the 180hp is not to your liking.
Good luck.
Justin

I would defintily go with the '95 motor.
If it is a US spec 960, it is 191 hp. It is much better built than the pre 95 motor. Don't save the cams, they are useless in the '95 which is a high torque motor getting more hp and torque than the early 201 hp motor at 2800 rpm (note the early '92-94 is 201 at 5200 rpm) and the later one is a much better suited motor to propell the big 960 heavy chassis. It has many of the known failures of the early motor fixed, like lifter probs, leaky oil seals, cooling prob's.

Also, I would get the matching ECU for the '95 motor to have the fuel maps match the cam performance. It also gets better mileage than the pre '95 motor.
--
'89 245 Sportwagon, '04 V70 2.5T Sportwagon

US spec 92-94 960 has 201hp at 6000rpm and 197lb/ft at 4300rpm. 95-98 960 had 181hp @ 5200 rpm, 199lb/ft at 4100rpm.
94 960 specs
95 960 specs
I would hardly call that a worthwhile low end torque advantage. Certainly not worth loosing 20hp at the top of the rev range. There is a memeber on this board that swapped early cams into a 95+ 960 with great results. I'm sure he might have something to add to this. Volvo reduced the power of the 960 in the US for emissions purposes. In Europe the 960 continued to have 204hp. No manufacturer wants to advertise that their new model has less power than the old. They tried to cover their tails with the low end torque myth.
He does not need the 95 ECU in order to swap the later engine. 95+ engine runs just fine with early cams. He should keep the old cams just as an insurance policy. It only takes about half an hour to remove the old ones if he is junking the engine. And they are free to him. If he likes the 181hp cams great. If not he has an option.
Whats the point of having 201hp if you are not going to use it. Watch the needle bounce off the rev limiter and hold on tight.

There is a big difference on the torque curves between the two engines. If someone could find the link I looked and can't find it to a review of a 960/S90 on a British site. But anyways it showed the difference between the 181 and the 204 HP engines. The 181 HP motor hits 190 plus ft lbs near 2000 rpms and stays up there until around 4500 before it starts to drop off. While the 204 HP motor has about 100 ft pounds at 2000 rpms and doesn't hit 190 plus until 4000 rpm. It is almost a straight line between the two points. I know the butt dyno can lie but after seeing the data on the charts I would want the 181 hp motor for every day driving. Lets face how many of you are running your 6304 at 3,500 rpm's most of the day while driving around. And we all know it is torque not HP that spins the tires.

I can only comment from my own experience. Having owned both a 94 960 and 96 960, there is a clear and big difference between how these cars drive, and the later re-designed , I mean completely re-designed not just cams, B6304S engine is a far better performance engine in my experience. Certainly better for a daily driver with higher torque, low rpm cruising, but it is a faster acceleration to 100 or to 40 mph and contrary to what you've commented about hp numbers, my owners manual stated 191 hp, not 181.
My brother-in-law blew the engine on his '93 960 and the engine was replaced by Volvo with the redesigned 191 hp engine, and we can both attest to the fact that the later engine is a better more effective powerful engine than the 201 hp version. Honestly, I always doubted that the 201 hp rating actually achieved the hp it was supposed to, even reve'd to 6000 rpm. I really didn't like the early 960 engine. I believe the 92 740ti I had was more powerful, drove like it was quicker, even though they were about the same weight. Also note that both the 960's I owned had less than 20k miles when I bought them as Volvo select cars in perfect condition, so each was operating as if new.
--
'89 245 Sportwagon, '04 V70 2.5T Sportwagon

The thing is, we are never accelerating at 2000rpm since the transmission 92-94 cars has a 2700prm torque converter. Just driving around town at maybe 1/4 to 1/2 throttle, the engine routinely revs to 3500rpm before shifting. It makes up for the high stall speed with the lock up feature as well as 3.31 rear end gears. That equates to only 3000rpm at 90mph!
95+ cars in the other hand have 3.73 gears. Thats probably where most of the butt dyno torque advantage comes from. The 95+ cars in the US have been give up some of the high speed prowess in exchange for off the line acceleration.
Is this the chart you were thinking about?

S90 Specs

On the left is the European market 204hp engine, on the right the US 181hp market engine. Remember the euro market continued with 204hp to the end of production in 98.
The extra torque peak on the US market cams translates to 180 lb/ft at 2200rpm vs the old cams' 169 lb/ft at the same 2200rpm. Please correct me if im wrong.
The important thing is that you are happy with the car you have. Some people like low end torque, some people prefer all out horsepower. I've driven a 96 960 on a few occasions. After 400rpm it just felt like it ran out of steam. Not unlike the B230 NA engine with an M cam.

Thanks that was the chart I was talking about.

I do a lot of my driving on the open highway. I haven't done the stop watch measurements yet but I for sure know there is more power/torque available to accelerate into that opening in traffic at 60+ if I "deck" the throttle and cause a downshift.

Around town the car is slower in taking off from a stop with the low stall speed torque converter and tall lower gears in the transmission but it is still plenty fast enough unless you are trying to win a "Stop Light GP".

BTW, remember that torque at the wheel is engine torque multiplied by the effective gear ratio of the drive train. HP is a rate of doing work so getting to any particular speed is the result of average delivered HP during the time interval. In this case the extra low speed engine torque is only effective up to the time the first shift point in the transmission is reached. Once there, at full throttle, the RPMs stay pretty much between 4000 and 6000 RPM where the extra torque available from the 201 cams makes a real difference.

I would change them again in a heart beat.
--
'96 965, 16' wheels, rear 18mm bar & Koni + 204HP cams at 124K. Had '85 745 Turbo Diesel for 200K.

I haven't driven a 204 HP engine. In fact the first time I jumped on it was Thursday night. I was impressed with the power up to 5000 rpms. She kept the rpms screaming up to 5800 before the car slammed into third gear. I had the selector in Sport mode to try it out for the first time under full power. Normally it is running in economy mode and she always shifts before 2500 rpms through out the range with a light foot. With a heavier foot always under 3000. I guess I'm one of those typical American drivers that they went for that wants the higher torque at a lower RPM. It still isn't as much fun as my 65 GTO was as far as torque goes. First to 40 mph (4000 rpms) and shift into forth(dropped to 2000 rpms). Who needs 2nd and 3rd when cruising around town.