What are the differences between the turbo and non turbo engines in 850's?

um, the turbo :grin: other than that, you have to make sure that they are of the same displacement, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 if you are thinking of putting a turbo onto a non-turbo, it is not as simple as that. there are a bunch of similar posts here. just do a search.

A hell of a boost in performance!
:) :) :)

The differences are... err, well, mainly in the engine.
:)

By Nature a non turbo SHOULD be more reliable than a Turbo.... less to go wrong, the engine is subjected to less pressure in it's life etc. Also anyone who buys a non turbo when turbo's are readily available, is not likely to be caught up in "wanting performance" and driving fast so again, the non turbo is likly to have been treated a bit more gently in its life.

These were the main thoughts i had when i found myself looking for an 850 that would already be 10 years old when i bought it. 3 years and 60,000 miles later it's still going strong :banana:

Non turbos are also slightly cheaper on the maintenance

As already mentioned, the small differences are such that it is totaly a non starter to convert from non turbo to turbo.

:banana: Tons more fun for starters and as others have stated a few more parts that can go bad....I've found maintenance wise if one takes care of their vehicle there is very little difference plus you've got that extra zip with a turbo...

actually, with a turbo, being that there is a boost in performance (horsepower and torque) the turbo theoretically, should be better in gas mileage. i will explain, please don't post idiotic things to me. with a boost in torque, a vehicle will use less fuel to maintain a given speed. now, all bets are off on this statement, a lover of speed will of course see a drop in mpg because of the turbo. but all things being equal, more torque will equate to better mileage because of the power. less stepping on the pedal to keep the mass moving. as long as the boost gauge doesn't move too much, you will use less fuel. and if you think this is wrong, there is a magazine article, car and driver if i am not mistaken that pointed this out. think about it, moving 4,000 lbs of car with a non-turbo engine, and a small one at that, we are not talking v-8 here, will need alot of pushing to get a car rolling. now, a boosted car, as long as you are not redlining it, will get the car moving in less time and keep it going at a given speed for longer. less hunting and gear changing. that is my two cents, hope it lasts. :grin:

Makes sense to me Greek. Also add in the fact that non-turbo may be a somewhat smaller engine, but Volvo's are also heavy cars. So if the theory is correct then I would think it would be even more noticable on a heavy car like a Volvo.

i thought that the non turbo is a 2.5 and the turbo is 2.3...

there is a lpt glt that is a 2.3. i also think that the wagon's came with a non-turbo 2.3 i think, but the last time i thought of something, the garage burned down. a mind is a terrible thing. :thumbsup:

I thought all 2.3L Volvos (i.e. T5, T-5 & T5R) were fitted with a Mitubishi TD-04 15g turbo while the 2.4L ran a Mitubishi 13g.

Personally, I haven't heard of Volvo making a GLT with a 2.3L engine but, hey, someone out there please correct me if I'm wrong.

Let's not forget the 2.0L versions. Someone once admitted to owning a T5 on 2L engine in another forum. Didnt get the chance to verify that though.

i thought that i had seen one for sale. it might have been a rebuild, though. not sure.

But imagine yah, a 2-litred T5... And here i was, thinking the 2.3-litre is not big enough.

HA HA HA

I want a turbo :o :( :huh:

This is TRUE. The turbo on my 850 broke due to a leaky hose and I basically ran the car at very low RPM purely on engine power with little or no turbo aid and my MPG dropped like mad (almost 3 times more), and this is driving at average 60-80kmph (distance: 40km)
However, with the turbo, I've saved more fuel by contrast by driving at cruising speed of 120kmph interstate (distance: 200km)! A cross city run using more fuel than an interstate run. Go figure.

Yep, 20v 2.0L 850 Volvo Turbos were produced and they were no slouch either!

Dont worry.
Please continue.




This is 100% correct, in theory.

But in practice, why do people still complain of bad mileage?
Actually, in a non-technical term explanation, there is a range of revving where the fuel is consumed at the most optimal level. Outside that optimal level, the fuel is either wasted or choked of.

Now, if i am not mistaken, the boost that is supposed ot save fuel is only as it is defined as, which is just to give alittle boost to the engine performance, not the neck-breaking 1.3bar of boost that the Volvo streetracers set at.

The economical boost, is just around 0.1 to 0.2bars (Of course, it varies from engine to engine) to provide that little added 'boost' to pull the car forward.




100% right there, bro.
:)




... you mean PULLING...?
:)
Unless of course, you're talking about a RWD car.


Cheers, bro.
:)

I always wondered why they used a smaller capacity for the turbo engines (even the S60R) if they used the 2.5 it would have the extra capacity AND boost, more of both is always better....


is there a fundamental reason why the 2.5 can't take big boost? there is light pressure 2.5 S60s, but still no high 2.5s.

Prolly more towards fuel-consumption issue...?