Hi folks:

Wondering if anyone could tell me how much difference there is in "real world" performance between a 240 turbo and a normally aspirated 240 DL/GL. The turbo without intercooler only has a 15 horsepower advantage over a normally aspirated B23F/B230F. Looks like the intercooler adds another 20 or so ponies to the stable. I imagine that a turbo intercooler with 157hp and 175 ft. lbs. would perform like a small V6, but I've never actually driven one.

Is the maintenance trade-off worth the increase in power output? Were the turbo models available with manual transmission? All of the turbos that I've seen to date have been autos.

Thanks.

My two cents.. yeah it makes a difference. I ran one of my former 240Ts at non-IC levels, the other at unlimited boost for a while.. then back to stock IC levels. Maybe it was the difference between having a stick and having an automatic, but both cars were much faster than my friend's 85 NA 245.

If you set them up right, it's more like having a small block V8 under the hood.

- alex

Yeah a stock 240 Turbo only really comes alive past the 3 o'clock mark. However I did lots of non OD highway driving so that wasn't a problem.

But.. if you set them up right, you can get full boost well below 3 grand. And then you've got that big little engine feeling.

- alex

Not at all like a V6.

My wife is afraid to drive mine. Too much power at mid-higher RPM's. Not a problem for me.

Yes they are a bit higher maintenance, but the rest of the car is pretty much 240. The real key is the cooling system. Yes a water cooled and intercooled car is better, but this taxes the cooling system even more.

After 6 years of 240T ownership here's why I think the cooling system is the weakest link. A couple reasons why:

1) The intercooler is sandwiched in front of the radiator....think about that.
2) The coolant runs through a glowing hunk of iron (the turbo)...think about that.
3) The rubber cooling line are attached to turbo via metal line. This rubber hose gets brittle and need replacing every 3-4 years or so.
4) The basic cooling system is designed for a non turbo. (you do have an oil cooler though)
5) Side note, I dig having an electric fan that can pull cool air real hard when shutting down at idle rpm.
6) I killed a weak Nissens rad. The CSF in there now is GREAT. If the cooling system blows, you have limited time to get off the road.

That said, do the smart mods, run synthetic oil and still idle down, warm it before boosting, add an external oil filter mount (I have a dual mount, more oil for more cooling)
--
Paul's Amsoil and other lubricants

Huge difference. A little tricky from takeoff, at around 3000 rpms you are driving a muscle car. Not much on the road can keep up when you stand on it, from 2500-5500 in third gear in a 24XTi.

As posted.......you'll be glad you did.

I was very leary of being "bit" by the turbo, when I bought my first one. All sorts of maintenace worries. I got "bit" alright.......wish I'd bought a turbo sooner. As stated, the power/ acceleration waiting for your command is truly awsome.

Oh, to ensure longevity in the turbo....Once you start the car, let it idle for a minute or two..........turbos get very hot, very quick...allow the oil and other components to warm a bit before you start out. Before you shut down, let it idle a bit.........remember, the turbo and componets get very hot.......too cool things down, before you shut it down.

Go for it and enjoy the other side of "Bricks" !!!

Al
--
84, 242GLTi, 167K, 4+OD, in hibernation; 89, 245 DL, 239K, M 47, daily driver; and other toys.

'81 242 turbo, M46 tranny.

Once you've had turbo, you'll never go back...

OK, so that doesn't really answer your question. I drove a NA '82 245 for about 10 years. It was slow...period. Once it got rolling, it would cruise at 80 all day long, but it hated hills. My turbo can be driven around town just like a NA car, if I keep my foot out of the throttle ;-) but get it out on the highway and it cruises right along, never seeing hills. With the turbo, I feel like I have some power in reserve if I need it to get out of trouble, or make a pass. I never felt like that with the NA car.

I have not had to replace a turbo in either car (knock on wood), so I can't comment on that, but the rest is just normal Volvo maintainence.

--
don hodgdon '89 744ti, '81 242t, '71 D-35

I'll tell you this: At 6500Ft altitude (where I live), the difference is night and day. Also, for the intercooled car, 165 HP is the number that's stuck in my brain, though I might be mistaken. Whether more horsepower is worth more maintainance is a question you'd have to ask yourself. For me, doing my own work, the answer is yes. There's not a four-lane road within 20 miles of my house and if I need to get around someone, that boost is essential for getting me out of the oncoming lane as quickly as possible. Some people don't like the turbo lag on 240Ts. Unless you're at 2500 RPM or above, the car feels rather sluggish but the power comes in quickly above that. Get out and drive one someday and decide if you like the power or not.


--
Bob W.
16 Volvos ('58-'91)
445-544-122-240-740
Four turbos

Hi, Giiis--

For what it's worth...A friend who's had several 700 series turbos told me a while back that the turbo lag got much reduced when Volvo switched from the Garrett to the Mitsubishi turbo in (1988?). The Mitsubishi has a smaller moment of inertia and so spins up lots faster.

If anyone is facing a turbo replacement, and you're tired of turbo lag, you might look into whether you can fit a Mitsubishi unit onto the 240 intercooler and exhaust piping.

I'd be interested in hearing what you find out. Someday when my b230 gets tired I'd like to put a later turbo engine in my 1992 wagon. I suppose I'd run into the same interface issues between the Mitsubishi turbo (which I'd get with the engine) and the 240 intercooler (which I'd need to fit the 240 engine bay) and exhaust.

Doug Harvey

I'm aware of the Mitsubishi and the lag issue. The wife has one in the '91 740T. However, since it's a smaller turbo, The thing runs out of breath at about 5K RPM. It certainly is more driveable at lower revs but I like the T3 in my 245, It's still pulling hard at 5500. Also, I got a totally remanufactured T3 cartridge for $125. The Mitsu runs more like $350.

--
Bob W.
16 Volvos ('58-'91)
445-544-122-240-740
Four turbos

>>Some people don't like the turbo lag on 240Ts. Unless you're at 2500 RPM or above, the car feels rather sluggish but the power comes in quickly above that.<<

It's sorta' fun when you get used to it. This is how I wished my old 142 ran when I was a kid ;-)

--
don hodgdon '89 744ti, '81 242t, '71 D-35

When I first got my Saab turbo (in college for $500), my mom first
drove it on a rainy day. Her car is a non-turbo ~115Hp VW Jetta.
The first time she started in 1st gear, the wheelspin was somewhat
impressive!
.
Turbos can be slightly faster with automatic transmissions, because
automatics keep the RPM and power output (and, hence, boost) up
during shifts, whereas manuals allow boost to drop off between
shifts. A laggy turbo will take a while to rebuild boost (though,
on the positive side, it will take a while to spin down and lose
boost).
.
-b.

Automatics can be faster on some cars, but they're usually cars with mountains of torque (the small block chevy v8 in the 84-94 corvettes come to mind). No doubt, the automatic made those vettes a bit faster, but then again, you had about 330 ft-lbs of torque helping out.

Todays 6 speed manual corvette is a tad quicker then the 4 speed automatic, simply due to more ratios.

With erspect to Volvos, the 700 and 200 series turbos with automatics are NOT faster then their m46 manual counterparts.

I have owned and have driven many aw71 automatic and m46 manual turbocharged 700 and 200 volvos and I've never ONCE seen an automatic that can hold a candle to the m46 manual in terms of acceleration.

There's a distinct noticeable difference.

In terms of acceleration on a 200 or 700 volvo turbo, the m46 beats the aw71 hands down.

Yes, both the 240Ts and 740Ts were available with the manual (M46).
.
-b.