Okay, i've been looking for a while for an older 4cyl wagon. I had a 90 740 non-turbo and loved it. My main motive is fuel economy, and I don't want a small Japanese car. With that said what can I expect as far as fuel economy on a740 turbo wagon. A car I have been looking at is a 92 model, one owner, with 128k, timing belt done at 100k, all dealer service records and in immaculate shape. It will probably take 3500-3800 to buy the car. I think this is somewhat high, but once again you'd have to see this car to appreciate it. I assume the fuel economy will be less with the turbo, and will there be more problems/repairs with the turbo model? I'm not really that concerned with performance, my main concern is saving at the pump. I really like this car, but something tells me to wait and find one non-turbo. Any opinions would be appreciated. Thanks

 

I don't know if the turbo drivers operate their vehicles more "spiritedly" but the turbos do seem to perform less economically. I have an '89 non-turbo auto (n/a) wagon and get 22 to 25 MPG depending on my driving. I drove an '88 Saab 9000 manual hatch before and got a consistent 30 MPG so Volvos are definitely less efficient. But they are easier to work on (these RWD models, that is). I also have a perception that the Volvo is going to break less often. Since I've had mine only a half year and 4000 miles (at 220K) it remains to be proven. The Saab had slightly higher mileage. By the way, my brother drives a '95 Saab 9000 turbo auto and he gets 26 MPG in more traffic than I deal with. (Traffic, auto, and turbo all hurt MPG to varying degrees.)

Another reason to look for a n/a engine is lower maintenance. Non turbo cars never need turbos worked on. That said, Saab and Volvo appear to build well designed turbos that don't break much (as opposed to GM and VW).

 

A non turbo is definitely more economical than a turbo, and easier to maintain...