I have both 240 non-turbo and 945 Turbo. Prefer the 945 Turbo Wagon of the 240 sedan. 945 has much more power, higher top end, and more comfort. Have about 110K on the turbo and no problems. Local mechanic credits this to 2 factors. First, it is properly maintained, an secondly, my wife is the primary driver of the 945 turbo. She is religous about letting the car idle for about 60 seconds before shutting it down. This allows the turbo to slow and not be deprived of oil. I understand one of the worst things for a turbo engine is to shut it down with the turbo spinning "dry". I'd jump for the 940 turbo over non-turbo.

Aside from one bad hose (expensive in my opinion) our turbos (3 out of 7 bricks) have not caused any extra expenses.

All four drivers in our family still take the '90 744 TI for trips around town if the R is not available.

This car is using some oil, but does not foul plugs and passes emission testing, even though it has 235,000 miles - and I know that it has not seen a new turbo since 130,000, and possibly since it was new!

A lot of things cost more than a turbo.
--
'96 855R, '95 855, 854, '90 744 TI, 366,000 miles put on 7 bricks

I will add my $.02. I owned a 82 245 wagon new for 20 years and throughly enjoyed it, even though it lacked power at the high end above 75. I have since bought a 940SE sedan and wagon. These models are a little special in that they are 960 body style with the Garret 25 turbo. The wagon is great, plenty of power and can haul more than my 245 as 945 is wider. I can't speak to the other turbos as I haven't hadn't problems with either of the Garrett turbos with both having 120K. I am using Mobil 1 and changing the oil every 5K. The turbo hoses have just a trace of oil when I check them at each oil change. Alot will depend on the PO maintenance of the car. Enough said.

I have owned both types 4 cyl., the non turbo 4 cyl is indeed sluggish. If you can get past that these are extremely reliable and for the size deliver impressive

fuel MPG.

The turbo will have a little punch and is cool for a while, the
20 mpg in town thing gets old with fuel costs what thay are. maintenance seems
very similar with either. Of course I have not owned a poorly maintained or
"beat on" type car. finding a clean well maintained example should be the top
priority. I do drive a 945 turbo and for now I'll keep it, 170K and still
runs & drives like new.
--
Kevin P Walsh, Casper WY. '91 945 SE turbo 165,000 miles / paid for

I have both, a 91 940 SE turbo 112K and a 94 940 NA 190K both wagons, the turbo costs more to operate and gets only 22mpg but more fun to drive. The 94 gets 26 mpg never needs anything, will keep up with traffic at 70-75mph, will only beat a 2CV if I could find one. My next one will be a 93 240, still like the 240's best have 3, 86, 89, 90.

Regards

Tom

Turbo 940 vs 960. Yes the 960 is smoother. It is also more unforgiving. It is an interference engine. The 940 is not. If you break the timing belt on the 960 you will break some valves and maybe some pistons. Think big $ and possibly a new/rebuilt engine. If you look at 960's know what the timing belt interval is. My 92 is 30,000 mi(not 31,000 but 30,000). My 97 is 70,000 mi. You cannot overstress the importance of this maintenance item. Know when it was changed. Don't go over the recommended mileage. It has to be part of your buying decision between turbo and the non-turbo I6.

i've owned 2 240 turbos and jumped straight into the 960.i dont miss the turbo at all.i like the 960 over my daughters 940t.dont get me wrong,i love boost,but the I6 engine is soo smooth with no lag at all.no turbo to replace.
--
92-965-211k, 94-965-215k, 92-944t-205k, 83-242dl,totaled(8/04), 84-242GLT,totaled(2/03),83-245GLT,retired(03)

Have you taken a close look at the 960s (excluding the gawdawful '92, that is)?
--
We have met the enemy and they is us. [Pogo] S70 T5 cop car : Rough Rider suspension, Walmart fog lights, eBay speakers, ambiance by Pall Mall, trim by Le Duc d'Tape, 8-channel THD by OEM amps

I like the turbos, if you change the oil regularly, your turbo will live long and prosper. Around town, you may not notice much of a difference between the two types but on the highway, the difference is greatly apparent. I do not see a big difference in maintenance costs between my 240 n/a and my 940T but I do all my own work. Drive a few around and decide.
--
Bob Kraushaar '94 945T, '88 240, '84 242Ti, '88 300 TE, '89 560 SL, '68 Shelby GT-500 KR

Personally I find the 700 and 900 NA cars to be slugs. Especially on the interstates. Having the extra power and ability to accelerate at highway speed is a real bonus. I still drive a couple of 240's but would love to equip one with a B230FT for the added enjoyment it would deliver. My wife drives a 91 745t that we both love. Road trips are taken in this car because of its great driveability.

No question that the turbo cars are a bit more expensive to drive. The lower compression engine associated with the turbos will give up about 2 miles per gallon even when driven without enjoying the boost.

If you should happen to get a car that would need a turbo replaced while you owned it you might find that procedure to be rather expensive if you could not do the work yourself.

Try to drive both types of cars in all kinds of conditions and make the decision based on your needs. Then take the time to find the car that has a good set of records and a history of caring owners. You may have to pay a bit more for the right car but it will be money well spent. Do not hesitate to pay a competent mechanic to inspect good candidates. It will be money well spent.

Randy

I switched to a '92 745T which is the darn close to the same as a 945T, they are nice speed wise but for some reason I'm pondering switching back to a late 245 with cam/exhaust upgrades. After having a 2 year old plastic radiator rupture on the highway (no metal ones made for post '91 7/900Ts) resulting in a blown head gasket along with a few electrical gremlens leaves me wishing for the simplicity of my '88 240 with the hauling capacity of a wagon. In my experience with 4 turbo Volvos over the years the only additional cost is fuel, as McDuck says, your foot can control that, if you have the will power.
--
Dave Shannon
Spring Valley, California
'65 1800S ????K
'67 1800s 79K
'73 1800ES 117K
'88-240 190K+
'92 745Ti 160K
my pages

Yes, the non-turbos are sluggish; no, the turbos require no extra maintenance.
Fuel cost is dependant on throttle foot pressure.