850 GLT vs 850 TURBO?

Volvolian · Post by **Volvolian** » 29 Feb 2016, 22:12

Given the choice, an 850 GLT Wagon or an 850 TURBO? Specifically a '96 850 GLT vs a '95 TURBO. I've heard that the TURBOs can be problematic but I don't know if that's tied to a certain year or true of all TURBOs or not true at all. Does anyone here have a '95 TURBO? Do you like it? Had any problems?

Post by **j-dawg** » 29 Feb 2016, 22:30

I have a '99 T5 and don't regret it.

I was in the same boat as you - not looking for a turbo car, kind of unsure if I wanted one for maintenance reasons, but it came up nearby - and I bought it, thinking that I'd been looking for a manual wagon for ages and they were few and far between so I'd better take what I could get. I am glad I have the turbo. It does make maintenance a little trickier, sure. But the maintenance schedule itself isn't really different from that of the non-turbo car, the turbo system itself isn't too hard to work on, insurance costs are nearly the same, mileage isn't really worse....all else being equal, if I were faced with a non-turbo and turbo car again, I'd take the turbo car every time. It will squeeze you a little harder, but you're being squeezed anyway.

All else is rarely equal, though. A battered turbo car will cost you a lot more to live with than a well-maintained NA, and vice versa. Also, before '98 you couldn't get a turbo and a manual in the same car, if that's something you care about.

Volvolian · Post by **Volvolian** » 29 Feb 2016, 22:54

I don't mind having an automatic. I live in Los Angeles so you never get out of first anyway. I'm leaning towards the TURBO.

Post by **abscate** » 01 Mar 2016, 04:33

Turbos in these cars are really solid. Use synthetic oil and change it every ( see oil change interval threads) .

Inspect and replace the small turbo coolant hoses for trouble free running.

Post by **misha** » 01 Mar 2016, 05:11

You heard wrong....like abscate allready said...they are pretty solid and durable.

Post by **rspi** » 01 Mar 2016, 06:56

Turbo, until they take them away from us.

Post by **erikv11** » 01 Mar 2016, 07:58

Here are some thoughts, some of them disagree with what others have posted. We have two of each these days and I love the turbo cars. But for daily stop and go I rarely get above 45 mph and always drive the NAs for those trips.

- Turbo is much more fun to drive when you have some space to open it up, overall mpg is no different.

- Turbo is no more and no less solid than NA, but it requires *much* more attention for annoying little maintenance items, unless you sweep through absolutely every little thing up front when you purchase it. Even then, "stage 0" is a lot harder to get to. These items are specific to the turbo: turbocharger itself is bulletproof, but at 20 years all of the rubber lines are falling apart, little vacuum leaks will crop up all the time and stump you, the intercooler piping is on its last legs, the oil cooler lines are probably leaking or close to it, all turbo coolant lines need an overhaul, maybe a few others.

- Turbo engine bay is much more of a pain to work in, the NA you can practically pull up a chair and sit down in the engine bay. In the turbo car everything is much more difficult to reach: oxygen sensors oxygen sensors, oil cooler lines are a complete PITA job, CPS and TPS sensors are buried instead of a handshake away, coolant hoses are buried. Don't get me wrong I actually like working on the cars, but let's be frank about what it is like to own a mid-90s P80.

- A 95 turbo will have EGR which I consider a supreme PITA, more crap added to the engine bay that after 20 years will likely be all coked up. The 96 could have EGR but it is unlikely. Post up the VINs or decode them yourself, if you are not sure (http://new.volvocars.com/ownersdocs/199 ... n1996.html etc.).

- The 96 will have a guaranteed ABS module failure very soon if it hasn't already been fixed. This is cheap and easy to fix but the ABS wiring harness in 96 is flawed, if the wiring gets cracked you are screwed. The ABS on the 95 will not fail, it is a different system.

- If you never get out of first gear then you never get to enjoy the turbo.

- Still, I doubt I will ever buy another NA Volvo, unless it is handed to me. But can envision additional turbo cars in my future. If I could only have one P80, then for me it would be a turbo.

- What j-dawg said is key, if both of these are typical CA cars that have aged well and been taken care of equally well then it is a matter of preference, but if their maintenance histories differ then don't take a junker just because it has a turbo, you will regret it. Unless you want a project, in which case dive in!

Post by **combatkarl** » 01 Mar 2016, 09:43

So, is the OP's question pertaining to the comparison of a turbo vs a non-turbo car or the GLT (low pressure turbo) vs T-5 turbo (high pressure)?

Just wondering.

Erik's thoughts would sum up my feelings on working within the engine bay of a GLT.
Thanks

Post by **erikv11** » 01 Mar 2016, 10:18

96 GLT is non-turbo.
97+ the GLT is low pressure turbo (LPT).

OP asked specifically about a 96 GLT, which is a non-turbo with a decent accessories package.

Post by **combatkarl** » 02 Mar 2016, 12:01

Thanks Erik... I thought all GLTs were a turbo (low pressure). Still have much to learn do I.