I am looking for 940 wagon (ideally 1994 or 1995) and am not sure whether to consider the turbos. I used to drive a 740 non-turbo and have no problems with the minimal acceleration on the non-turbo. Also, I have concerns about the turbo cost and maintenance. I'd appreciate any feedback from others on this topic. Thanks.

Back in late 1994 when my wife and I were shopping for a new car, we were not even considering a Volvo (too much money we thought). We were retiring a 1985 diesel VW Jetta (btw 46 mpg!) with 102K. Had the chance to test drive identical 940's with and without turbo chargers. The price difference was about $1500 for the blower. You really feel that extra weight/horsepower ratio accelerating up the on ramp and merging with 65mph semi's on the interstate. When we bought the new Volvo my wife commented to our seven year old son: "you will probably be driving this when you turn 16"...we turned the keys over to him two months ago.

Face it people. why do we buy these out of style "bricks"? Because they are well designed and crafted vehicles that are really close to armored personel carriers for our families. Bottom line was: screw the fuel economy, give me the Swedish steel.

If you are OK with the N/A stay with that, gas prices are not going
down anytime soon. I have owned both types, currently am slightly bitter
about only getting 230-250 miles per tank driving responsibily. Fortunately
the car is paid for and gas + insurance are only costs. Dont get me wrong, I
do enjoy the turbo. It pulls my family of five quite comfortably through
Wyoming and Colorado, my old 745 N/A was a bit of a dog on long mountain
passes. If I had to do it all over I probably would want 945 N/A ('94-'95)
Lower heat under hood, better fuel MPG, simpler engine, appliance quality
reliability with simple maintenance.

overall condition and maintenance records are most important considerations.
just my .02$

I recomend Turbo.

Of our 7 bricks, 3 were turbos. Our favorite of all time was Celia, an '88 745 GLE na.

However, right now the 744 TI gets the nod as the favorite drive, but that is because we limit our girls access to the R.

The R is addictive!

I have seen no penalty for having a turbo except for a few bucks at the gas pump.
--
96 855R, 95 855,854, 90 744 Ti - 340,000 Volvo miles put on 7 bricks

"have no problems with the minimal acceleration on the non-turbo"...this is the key phrase...stick to NA.
Good Luck,
Chris

To T to not to T....tough question. The three 940s my wife and I drivw are n/a. My 18 year son has a 95 T and I was a just a wee bit jealous. I'm almost over that. My son doesn't drive hard and wanted to trade me cars because of the better gas mileage in the n/a.

Since I can maintain, at the very least, 65MPH going up the steepest mountain from Mt. Airy, NC through VA and WV, I am happy with a n/a. I find myself passing up a lot of under powered "junk" too! I can go almost just as fast as a turbo but it just takes me a little longer to get there. I will not say I'm an old fart, just yet, though.

Either way, in a 940, it wouldn't matter. I all depends on your need for faster acceleration, verses a little economy, and the many intangibles.

Geez, there are a lot of good deals out there if you can take your time. I just saw a '94 940T for $2500. I was thinking about it, but I have no more room, and I can't get rid of any. (Did I just say I wanted a T?)
--
Tom F. Three 940s. '93 T-Rex now running. Mods, RainX. Lien holder on two more (the kid's). Rust In Pieces, '78 245

Turbo, yes, definitely.
There's no particular maintenance penalty, and once you use the power, you'll like it, a lot.
--
Jim McDonald

Turbo: more power but needs premium gas and fuel economy is 10-15% less. Non-turbo: simpler, less maintenance; less acceleration

We have a NA wagon and it's fine.

i have had two turbos and five n.a. motors. i will take the turbo at this point in life (42 yrs). makes me feel younger ;^)

I've been thinking about this post for the past few days and if I had a choice, I would probably go with the non-turbo, though overall I am very happy with my turbo.

My '93 945T was cheap ($1,800 from my brother-in-law, with 130,000 miles when I bought it two months ago, though it had been totalled due to a bad passenger side impact 9 years and 100,000 miles before, it has no problems, it was rebuilt very well). I just got back from a 400 mile round trip, mainly interstate @ 70 to 75 mph, I only got 24.2 mpg on 93 octane fuel. The tires were inflated correctely and I've recently changed the oil with Mobil 1. For the same trip I would have gotten ~ 33 mpg on 87 octane fuel in my '99 Honda Accord (5-speed manual).

It also depends on where you live. If you live in a flat region like I do (central Illinois) and will mainly be using it for highway traffic, then you will like the mileage on the non-Turbo. If you are in a hilly area or need to make some fast starts due to your traffic conditions, or if you don't mind 20 mpg to 24 mpg, then go with the Turbo.

So... take into account where you live (flat or hilly), your driving habits and the conditions where you will be driving (start / stop, mainly highway, etc), but the overriding factor would be the condition of the used car. I'd take a good non-turbo over a beat-up turbo, and vice versa.