|
Just wanted to chime in here with my personal findings about the engine differences.
I drive a 97 964, and my mother has a 93 965. I have driven both around town and on long (8+ hr) trips and I would have to say I prefer my 97.
When you really put your foot down on the 93 it 'feels' faster, but I think thats because it's power curve is sharper than the 97. The 97 has more power lower down so it has a better starting point, which helps make up for its lack of top end HP.
I actually took the time to graph the hp/torque curves for each year. From what I remember, at a given engine speed, the 97 has about 15-20 hp/ft*lbs more than the 93, up until 4100. At that point the 93 keeps building until 6000, whereas the 97 drops off.
Consider that when you are cruising at 70 on the highway, your RPMs are right around 2500 or so, favoring the 97. I believe even downshifting to third will still briefly favor the 97s power band, unless you rev past 4100 until redline (but how fast are you going then, approaching 100?). I do a lot of highway driving and frequently drive 80-90. The 97 never feels wanting for power at those speeds, and feels better than the 93. I never got it this fast, but I imagine you have to be going 110+ to start favoring the 93 in top gear.
So ask yourself how often you find yourself going past 4100 RPM. I think that's the real question.
If this was a sports car I would prefer having power on the high end. But given the car, transmission, and the kind of driving I find myself doing, I think the 97 has the better engine.
Just some food for thought.
BTW, what does the Volvo Pocket Book base its data on? I'd like to know where the 202@4,350 torque figure comes from, I'm pretty sure my owners manual says 199@4100. Same with the 204@6000 hp, shouldn't that be 201?
|
