760 - POS?

[altitude]

Hey everyone.

I've been a volkswagen enthusiast for the last few years, I'm absolutley in love with my mark 3 jetta!

Despite my love for vws, I have come across a friend who is trying to sell his volvo 89 760 wagen. I need a wagen for lugging around my djing equipment, and I love the look of this model wagen slammed on some nice rims! Besides looks, the engine also sounds like it should have some umph, v6 turbo intercooled, I would think after a few upgrades this car could have some real sleeper-possibility.

Anyways, I called a friend of mine well educated in all verses of automobile, who informed me that the v6 in this year volvo is actually a peugeot engine and is, to put it in his words, a "french piece of krap."

Is this true? also, could it be the 4 cylander? Please, sell me on this car...why should I be a volvo head?

we can do most of the work ourselves..but how easy are these cars to work on? do we need a lot of special tools? are the parts expensive?

anyways I appreciate any help from some fellow car enthusiasts!(and not the rice kind either )

[potroast]

i know the 5cyls are awsome. I've owned 3 of em, and I'll buy another if I ever needed it. An indestructable engine.

I see a lot of 760's on the road, so they have to be reliable. Parts are expensive on any volvo -- prepare yourself for that. I do most of my own labor (as long as it doesn't involve lifting the engine, I'm usually the one to do it) so you can save money there.

Volvos are very picky vehicles. To be honest, they like to be driven hard. Not abused... But driven hard.

Personally, I would not get the 4-banger, but the 760 or 850 are excellent models. 760 is rear-wheel drive, as well, so that adds a little bit of fun

[altitude]

how easy (compared to just the general car population) would you say volvos are to work on ?

1 - 10
5 being avg.
10 being very easy
1 being extremley hard

any other opnions about reliablilty? also, what kinda numbers does this car put out? hp? tq? 1/4? 0-60? curb weight?

thanks!

[matthew1]

4
4 turbo (great engine)
6 inline
6 V6 (avoid)

That's my very limited knowledge of RWD engines.

That's 700 and 900 series. Someone here just a week or two ago gave a grrreat rundown of 7/900 engines on this RWD forum. I'll look for it.

[matthew1]

Here it is
https://www.matthewsvolvosite.com/chat/p ... php?t=1409

[potroast]

so, what kinda numbers does this car put out? hp? tq? 1/4? 0-60? curb weight?

day-to-day reliability is high. But when something breaks, it usualy is pretty catastrophic until you fix it. Things also tend to break several in a row, as well.

It's like working on any other car. Nothing notably different. Basic mechanical knowledge applies. It's a european car, so they do have some differences when compared to american, or asian vehciles. Audi, Volkswagon, and Saab are cars that are very similarly designed -- although VW seems to share more asian traits than the others.

HP : good. non-turbo around 170-200. Turbo around 250-300
torque : little to none
1/4 : 14-15 seconds
0-60 : dog slow
curb weight : omg, that's a huge bitch.

Summary:
These are HEAVY vehicles. They are very safe, but doing that requires a lot of hard and thick materials, as opposed to thin and light materials. They are lovingly refered to as "tanks" due to their safety -- but the weight certainly qualifies, as well.

Horsepower is better than average. With a turbo you can get 300hp reliably. When you're on the freeway, or going 35mph+ you'll definitely have some fun.

Torque is pathetic. My only complaint about these cars is that they're heavy, and have ZERO torque. Getting off the line is painful. I think an old lady with a walker could get going faster. Once you get to around 30-35mph, you're good to go, however.

[Volvord]

The 760 came with one of two engine options. The standard engine was the Euro V6 which was a joint ventiure between Peugot, Renult, and Volvo. The engine was OK but definitly not up to the usual Volvo standards. It was naturally aspirated with the bigest problem being the camshafts would need replacing which required the engine to be removed from the car because the cams are installed from the rear of the engine.

An upgrade option was the 4 cyliner 2.3 L turbo engine (Car was designated the 760 Turbo) This is Volvo's flagship engine, the B230FT wich is a fantastic engine.

If it is the 760 Turbo it will definitly serve you well and can definitly be made into a real perfomance sleeper.

Some corrections to the above post: The 2.3 L turbo produced 165HP @5700 and 185 ft./lbs torque at 3400 making it quite quick stock. The car weighs about 3200 to 3300 pounds which is actually quite light compared to similarly sized cars of that age. There is always the assumption that Volvo's are heavy where in reality they are of average weight but possess very ridgid chassis.

potroast, with your comments about low torque I would be taking a close look at your set-up or state of tune. There is some turbo lag but I can easily take most cars off the line with my 765TI. I would say there may be a problem somewhere that is impacting the performance.

[potroast]

I myself own 3 volvos (93 854 GLT, 94 855, 95 854 Turbo) They all suffer from a less-than-acceptable off-the-line performance. Please test-drive a Toyota Tacoma (my truck) and you will be quite impressed with it's off the line abilities. Even the Toyota Camry beats volvo off the line.

[Volvord]

The cars being discussed were 700 series, does your Tacoma have the V8? If so the acceleration difference is understandable. Also your impressive collection of Volvo's are all 850 series wich are really quite different from the 700 series.

I understand what you mean, my 302 powered 700 has incredable acceleration compared to my stock 760, but the power of the 760TI will blow the doors off my daughters 1981 Monte Carlo and leave it in the dust from any stop sign.

[potroast]

the tacoma was never available with a V8. You are thinking about the Tundra.

The tacoma has the option of a 2.4L and 2.7L Inline-4, or a 3.4L V6. I have the V6.