What are the pros and cons of a turbo vs a non-turbo engine? Is a turbo engine more difficult and expensive to maintain? What about the 'Intercooler' models. Do all turbo engines have an intercooler and is the intercooler badge just a marketing gimmick.

 

All turboed Volvo are intercooled since 1985, and no it's not a gimmick! The IC adds about 20HP to the engine's output--it cools the air thus making it more dense and it burns more efficiently.

I prefer non turboed Volvos. Turbos are less economical, messier, blow out a lot of oil, and maintenance is more involved. NA cars to me also have better personality, that undefinable quality that's hard to explain about any car. Yes, they do have less power, 114 vs 161hp, but I don't consider my Volvos as speed sleds, even the turbos. A well tuned, good NA seems to do the job and I have never been able to discern the big HP difference indicated by the HP numbers. Still, turbos are more popular, no doubt...

 

I like my turbo. its not the 160HP, its the 190 ft-lbs of torque

for sure, turbos are more complicated, more things to take care of (additional coolant and oil lines for the turbo, pressurized air intake paths, etc). for sure, turbos get crappy gas mileage (I get 16-18 around town in my 1992 740T wagon, and at best 22-23 on the highway).

 

Man, that was perfect. One for and one against. For my 240 people try to coax me into getting a turbo engine for it. But, I get good gas mileage and for a 240 the power is enough. I am satisfied. The 740s and 940s are bigger and heavier than a 240. One good thing about Volvo turbos is that they were well built and relatively trouble free.

 

these are pretty close to the stock non-turbo shocks, and will give a well controlled smooth ride.
https://www.fcpeuro.com/products/vol...-760-advantage

I believe the stock turbo shocks were boge 'progas' which aren't available anymore.

this is the sporty upgrade.
https://www.fcpeuro.com/products/vol...740-745-760-hd

and I wouldn't use anything else.

 

I don't own a Volvo yet, but this is my two cents...

Really, it comes down to what you want from your car. If you intend to use it as your daily driver and fuel economy is a concern for you, then a non-turbo car may be better suited to your needs.

However, if you prefer more performance from your car, or you plan on adding performance parts, doing mods, etc., then perhaps a turbo model would be best.

Conversely, and as previously mentioned, turbos also generally require a little more long-term maintenance and use more oil than non-turbo cars. The turbos on old Volvos seem to be more reliable than turbos installed on other cars from that era, but a turbo is still an additional part that will eventually require service. So if you also prefer less long-term maintenance, a non-turbo might be better.

With that said, neither turbo or non-turbo is "better" than the other. It just comes down to your needs, preferences and your overall driving style. Myself, I prefer non-turbo 240/740/940s, because when I finally do get one, I intend on it being my everyday driver and fuel economy will be more important to me than quick acceleration.

So ultimately, if you prefer better fuel mileage and a little more long-term reliability, and you don't need the extra acceleration, then go for a non-turbo car. But if you prefer more performance and you can't settle for less, go with a turbo-equipped car.

Neither is "wrong". It all just comes down to what your needs are and what YOU like.

Cheers.