See a number of complaints on the BB about the 240 being sluggish. My '86 245 is not the fastest rig in the world, but its performance with the 4spd+OD tranny is very reasonable. If I had to guesstimate, I'd say she goes 0-60 in about 11 seconds. Not bad for a heavy Swedish wagon, no?

Okay, keep in mind that I have never driven a Mustang, Corvette, Camaro, etc. so my perception of "speed" and "acceleration" may be slightly skewed. But seriously...Wouldn't ever drag with this brick, but I seem to be able to keep up with everyone on the highway without any difficulty.

How much faster is the 240T??

Stock Volvo 240s, whether Turbo or not, are doggy slow cars by modern standards. While I dearly love my '82 245DL with M46, and I enjoy zipping through the gears, any new, stock automatic Hyundai will blow it into the weeds in a stoplight drag race. And in case you're wondering, yes, my car is well maintained and well-tuned. Off the line, I can nose out most automatic cars for a short distance, but it's all over after that. The Turbos are a little faster, but still slower than the vast majority of everyday modern cars, like Camrys, Accords, etc. I mean really, even 165HP in a car the size of a 245 isn't much at all. I love my Volvo for it's durability, practicality, ease of repair and maintenance, and everyday reliability. If need speed, I drive my modified BMW 2002.

Incidentally, one thing I HAVE noticed about the performance of my 245 is that it handles remarkably well for a wagon. I plan to replace the stock sway bars with Turbo bars and give it some new Bilstein shocks to improve it even further. I have surprised quite a few other drivers in long sweeping curves in the Volvo. It would probably not fare as well in abrupt twisties, but it's still very good for a wagon. All in all a wonderful car.
Colin

How much faster is a 240T? Lots. I've found that shifting at maybe 3500 I can still accelerate past most cars off of the line. Keep in mind the maximum boost is raised at 3500 and beyond on intercooled 240s. Going up a moderate incline on the highway, I can barely touch the boost (hardly into the yellow zone) and still accelerate past most traffic (altho at this point my OD doesn't work anyways - fourth gear provides a bit more passing power).

I like this car because it's capable of producing more power with some simple tweaks.. however, even more fun is that stock there's more than enough power to get out of its own way. In intercooled form it's got quite a bit of torque (182 lb/ft IIRC).

- alex

I have driven an 850 turbo wagon...man, that baby was fast! Makes my 240 seem quite tame, but if I want speed, I would buy a car built for speed. 240s were built primarily for comfort, durability, reliability and other practical reasons.

I get annoyed at soccer moms in their Chrysler family taxis or I'm-more-important-than-you businessmen in their Lexus riding my butt just because I do the speed limit and don't accelerate like a horny jackrabbit. There's a reason why my car has over 200K miles and is in excellent mechanical condition. But I don't sweat it too much. I have complete insurance coverage, so if I get hit, I always could use a new bumper or body panels! I got the entire driver's side repainted for free thanks to a deer.
--
Mike F - 1984 244 DL - 202K miles 'Bob the Butterscotch Beast'

I've got a pretty good perspective on this issue, since I formerly owned a 1981 Cadillac Coupe DeVille (slow) and a 1990 IROC-Z Camaro (VERY fast). I currently own both a 1983 245DL 4spd and a 1983 244 Turbo automatic.

The 1983 245DL is pretty slow alright. I've modified this car a fair amount (aggressive K camshaft, 2.25" exhaust, airbox modification) and it gets easily outrun by everything. I've taken it to the track repeatedly, and managed to get it (in modified form) to run 17.9, and a 0-60 of under 10 seconds. There are very few cars (or trucks or vans for that matter) being made today that it can outrun. It's still fun to drive and row through the gears with the K cam though, slingshot powerband and all.

My 244 turbo in STOCK form will not outrun my 245DL by much if at all. It's still mighty slow with the stock 127hp it puts out. The newer intercooled model 240 turbos (1984.5-1985) are pretty fast though, with around 165hp. They'll keep up with most cars on the road pretty well. I have however modified my turbo car for practically no money (less than $100), and it is now VERY FAST. Just adding an intercooler, running a free flowing exhaust, and raising the boost has turned my car into a monster. I'm sure it'll scare the hell out of a lot of people once I get it insured so I can drive it on a daily basis. I plan to take it to the track, and it'll probably run low 15's to high 14's, which for reference is sport sedan territory. There are people with high performance turbo 240s that have had them pumping out 190+hp for years with no more than the usual turbo car problems.
--
Isaac Babcock - '83 245DL 'Borkie' and '83 244 turbo project

Well there you go. Your bricks have lots against them. The DL has the lower compression B23F. With a high compression B23F (grab pistons from an 84 B23F w/ auto) and the K cam, you could get a bit more power - doubt it'll pass smog in CA tho. And yer turbo.. the turbos w/ AW71s are SLUGS. Especially off the line. I've found the intercooled and non w/ autos pretty comparable around town. The one I finally ended up with was an 85 w/ M46. Very different beast. OTOH if you were to get an uprated valve body and higher stall speed torque convertor it would probably be much more liveable. 'Course you could also grab a rear end from a 240T w/ auto (3.91:1) and drop it in your DL for some stump pulling power and awful highway crusing (the AW71 has a much lower OD ratio) :^)

If you can find or otherwise source a 4.10:1 rear end, that would work nicely in yer turbo (the AW71s have a 4th gear ratio of 0.60:1 IIRC, M46s have maybe 0.72:1 or so).

- alex

An eleven second 0-60 isn't abominable. You can easily keep up with 90% of the traffic on the road, being SUVs and such.

The problem is when you end up in one of two areas: The first is the area of the Trend Pixie. They're (self) important so they're always in a hurry in their '00 Jetta. Then the other place you're too slow is in pickemup truck territory, 'specially in Union Yes northern IL and Southern WI. Then you've got every Hank Buttcrack in the vicinity crawling up your backside.

Funny, either Ford pickups are slow, or they are driven by more mature people. They're never on my ass. But the Dodges and Chevrolets... that's a different story. But that is beside the point.

The other real problem with the standard trans cars is WHAT you have to do to them to get the fires lit. You have to dump the clutch between shifts because the flywheel is a gigantic lump, way overweight. And you have to rev it until the bolts start loosening up on everything bolted to the engine.

All told, though, the car CAN hold it's own. It's just noisy and irritating to make it keep up wiht traffic.

On the highway, it's a different story. Unless there's a massive headwind with the A/C on, you should have no problem whatsoever. I don't. Personally I think the 240 5-speed makes a sucky city car. But as a highway car, it isn't the worst.
--
Chris Herbst, near Chicago, IL. 93 940, 91 240, 90 240, 88 740, 87 240

"Funny, either Ford pickups are slow, or they are driven by more mature people. They're never on my ass. But the Dodges and Chevrolets... that's a different story."


I might have a little useful insight on this. This past summer I helped my dad move car parts every weekend for a few weeks. Each time he rented a full size pickup truck, and each time it was different. A Ford, a Chevy, and a Dodge. They all had big gas sucking V8 engines, so acceleration was not a problem. On the highway, the Ford was apparently a pig. My dad didn't like the handling at all, and didn't really toss it into corners as much (note: he's an aggresive driver, and with a rental, the vehicles see their full potential for speed and cornering constantly). The Chevy was pretty good, with stable handling at the limits of traction, but the Dodge was the clear winner. It was the best handling of the three with the fastest cornering and it also did the best burnouts. Riding the brake and on a slight incline, it layed down a strip of rubber about 30ft long.
--
Michael -- 1987 244 GT | Volvo 240 Links

The 240 makes a sucky city car? Hmm. I don't have much problem - other than the heavy clutch in stop and go traffic. Later 240s supposedly got a reduce effort clutch setup. Is it the gearing you don't like? Or just that a stick in the city is a pain in general?

I've found that 2nd gear works pretty well for me - if traffic slows I can seriously lug the engine (yes, yes, I know it's a bad idea) and keep it inching along and yet I have room to accelerate a bit.

Incidentally the B21FT makes far fewer disturbing noises while revving to keep up with traffic than my Taurus w/ its Vulcan V6 did. That car was AWFUL in stop and go traffic.

- alex

They're slow. I smoked a guy in a white 244 a couple weeks back! (same car I drive, by the way) I wonder if he was thinking "why doesn't my car do that?"

"How much faster is the 240T??"

Lots. Just try keeping up with one that you're trying to follow. 1st to 25mph, 2nd to 45mph, and he's still EASILY pulling away, and quickly. I eventually catch up most of the time, but the acceleration is no comparison (this was B230F/M47 vs. B21FTi/M46).
--
Michael -- 1987 244 GT | Volvo 240 Links

Unless you're going to the race track, it makes, almost, no difference.

So many times, while driving my non turbo bricks on the road, Ive observed these "fast" cars (vet, camaro, porsch, turbo brick...etc)pass me .

But then, so many times, as I proceed down the roadway, I pass these same "fast" cars sitting in the turn lane waiting for the green .

Or I catch up and pass them at the toll gate, or...

one specific incident comes to mind:

A car passed me on the right side, and cut in front of me. At the next intersection, I pulled up next to him at the light. He was blocked. I went ahead.

Again, he passed me on the right, cut in front of me. Again, I pulled up next to him at the next red light. Once again, he was blocked,once again I went ahead...?

Its the nature of our transportation system.

Consider the Sacrameto to san francisco corridor. I see these "fast" cars scurrying in and out of traffic. From the fast lane, to the slow lane, back to the fast lane. Cutting others off by inches. Risking carnage to all.

But when you get to the toll plaza, they're all there?

What is the point?

I can say that while the 200 series cars are not the most fastest cars in the world, they are also not the slowest. Yet, this is interesting---my 1989 244GL is way more powerful than my 1984 244GL. Both are mated to automatics, yet the 89 feels so much more smoother and powerful. Go figure...

Hi!

Kinda senseless discussion. 240 Volvo is not for racing: heavy body with pretty much weak engine. Plus, not so contemporary aero-dynamic shape. But! People love Volvos for reliabily, longevity and other excellent features which you won't find on other cars...

Best regards,
Dmitriy.

My '81 B21 245 and my '83 B23 245 are acceptable -- my adolescent male hormones are cooling down at age 50. But my sons find these cars intolerably slow. When we got an '87 B230 244, I was amazed at how much more zip this car has. I can actually be pressed into the seat.

So...what is the difference? Is the B230 that much more powerful or is the 244 that much lighter? Just curious...

Rob Kuhlman

Depends on how you define "slow." Your definition of slow is not being able to keep up with traffic. I agree that the 240 passes that test. After that, what is slow and what is fast becomes very subjective. You admit that you have not driven many, if any, supposedly fast cars such as domestic V8 sports cars. So your "fast" reference would vary from that of those who have driven supposedly fast cars. To you, the 240 probably does have an undeserved reputation for being slow.

To me, it is deserved. I have driven cars that I consider slow such as an automatic 6 cylinder Plymouth Volare Wagon and cars that I consider fast such as a Porsche 911 SC. But I do find perfectly acceptable for daily driving a stock intercooled 240 Turbo or a stock 740/760/780/940 Turbo, although they are not as fast as I like in stock form.

Philip Bradley

With a few simple mods 240T's are a LOT faster. Way overcomes the "turbos aren't reliable" myth.

As for the perception....well..er...NA 240's are slugs....ok,ok OLD slugs on downers...uphill, with a 120 mph head wind and crutches....

But worse is that Hyundai driver who thought he could take me....NO NO!! Worse even, is the other Hyundai driver who just cuts right in front of any 240 ASSUMING that the 240 is doing 15 MPH max, when in reality the 240 is doing 55, and when I write "cuts in front" I mean with a whole, generous 20 ft, turning right into the same lane, from a dead stop. Please see other posts for reasons to have the best brakes!

have replaced Chevette drivers at the bottom of the food chain. Driving one advertises to the world "I'm stupid, and I don't care if everyone else knows it!" Fortunately, they seem bent on extracting themselves from the gene pool, too. Note the insurance stats on these makes at THIS HERE which indicate that they hurt themselves about twice as often as "normal" people do.

And speaking of "abnormal people" the reason - I think - that Volvos "delight" is that "some" Volvos can do things that are entirely unexpected by the other traffic. A 245T 4-speed will smoke most automagic Bimmers at least to the other side of the intersection, at which point heh, it's a Volvo wagon and you're a Boy Scout, right? Bimmer Bob better take it in to Werner for a tune-up!

-Bill the Cat

Link is: http://www.carsafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ictl/ictl_4dr.htm

R&T's 0-60 times of some "Classic" 240 Volvos:

240 GL (March, 1980) 0-60: 14.2

260 Diesel (September, 1980) 0-60: 18.5

240 GLT Turbo (May, 1982) 0-60: 10.2

For comparison:

S70 T5 (February, 1999) 0-60: 6.1

S60 T5 (April, 2001) 0-60: 6.6

S80 T6 (February, 2000) 0-60: 6.6

Cars equipped with manual transmissions except for the S60 and the S80.

-Bill the Cat

P.S. I looked this up in old issues of R&T . A collection of 0-60 times is available at
http://www.missouri.edu/~apcb20/times.html including the 140 series Volvo...
...unfortunately without references. Some numbers seem accurate, others suspect.

It doesn't show up on the acceleration charts because no magazines seem to want to publish 0-10 or 0-20 figures, but just about anything with a manual tranny will beat just about anything with an automatic off the line. Since about 93% of US cars have automatics....

That's because the torque converter of an automatic is still bringing itself up to speed while the manual tranny car is already moving. Back in my formative years (the dinosaur era) it was always fun to see a VW Beetle smoke a Mustang or Camaro from the stoplight - at least for the first 30 feet, until the VW ran out of 1st gear!

A relatively low HP car with a manual box can be a lot of fun because of that, and because no one else knows you're racing!

-Bill the Cat