Hi everyone, Help! I am interested in buying a '96 2.5 20V 850se auto estate, @ 135,000 miles. The car appears to be in very good condition with full leather, switchable gearbox, trip computer A?C etc. Bodywork is excellent and car seems to have been looked after well by present owner who has put 50,000 miles on car during his ownership. He has carried out maintenance himself and is from a mechanical background. However i have a few queries which I would appreciate if you could answer them for me.
1. Car is using 1/2 litre of oil per 1000 miles, but does not blow blue smoke, is this normal consumption ? or possible problem ?
2. It has only had one cam belt change (prior to present owner) Should this be addressed soon ?
3. Owner is looking for around £ 1,000 to include new mot, does this sound like a fair price ?
Thanking you in anticipation (great forum !)

 

Seems a little high to me for oil consumption. I change mine every 3,000 miles and I'm down about a quart when I change it, so it's not a whole lot more than what that one is using. The timing belt is scheduled for change every 70K or five years whichever comes FIRST. So if it's been more than five years or over 70K I would have it changed soon.

My advice is to look for a Turbo model. They are just much more fun to drive and get the exact same gas mileage and are no more expensive to maintain. Most people on this board and any other msg board will agree, and you can get them for the same price and the NA model, if not less.

 

Agree, Do not buy an NA unless you have something against turbo vehicles. I personally find that turbo models are cheaper to purchase then na and they are so much more fun to drive...I feel like Im driving a lil 4 bangin civic when I drive my gfs dads na 850

 

About 3 quarts (1.5 liter) per 3000 miles is not good.... At that rate you don't have to do oil change because your oil is always fresh....LOL
I prefer N/A over turbo model

 

There you guys go again, beating up on the N/A cars....

Considering the mileage that's probably accecptable oil consumption iff that's under "spirited" driving conditions. If you're getting that kind of consumption when driving like a little old lady with the trans switch in "E" mode, then i would consider that a bit excessive.

Oil consumption also depends on type of oil used (viscosity primarily), ambient temperature conditions, etc.

And BTW james, i have driven civics, and i never confuse my 850 NA for a civic...

 

Rebuilt, right down to the mains, my 96 NA last november and my 96 T5, also right down to the mains, last month. The motors are different, the T5 being a superior motor.

I bought the NA with 136K on it and it never burned oil. Odometer broke at 168k just after I took a job 75 miles from home. I did the commute for a year, serviced at expected intervals, and the car started burning big time oil.

Bought the really abused T5 with broken(like most of the car) odometer 126k but it was leaking oil everywhere.

Differences in the motors... The T5 has piston cooling jets that spray oil under the pistons, the NA does not. The T5's bores measured like a dream. I had to do it about 5 times just to convince myself. IMO the jets make a huge difference it how the motors wear. But from what I've seen it's not about wear it's about cooling the cylinder walls so they don't get distorted by the high loads and rpm.

 

Why would you prefer a N/A model over the turbo? I have owned both and the N/A model is just nowhere near the same league as a T5 model.

And like previous posts have said you can get the T5 for the same if not less money.Much better car all around and of course a lot more power and way more potential to make more.

BTW My current 97 T5 has over 155k and doesnt burn any oil that I have noticed.And I check the dipstick @ least once a week.

 

Well hang on just a second...rich1 are you sure it's using it? It might be leaking...it's a common problem on these cars.

Check the PCV system and check for leaks from the main seal. (checking the pcv system - look for smoke coming from the dipstick, also with the engine idling open the oil cap and put a sheet of paper on top - if it blows it away, it's bad, the PCV system will need replacement)

 

Why would I prefer a N/A model over the turbo? Since I like to keep everything in my life simple, less parts means that less things can go bad (no boost, to much boost, stuck turbo, leaks, oil in lines,....etc). If you check here you will see so many ''turbo trouble'' treads. Also with N/A I do 3 oil changes a year vs 4 or 5 or 6 with turbo (about 20K). In 9 years I owned her that is 9 or 18 or 27 oil changes less. My mpg average is 25.6.
BTW My 96 N/A has over 210K no oil burn or leaks.
I have nothing against turbo cars, I own one but it is not me. I need my car to be my DD and get me from point A to point B not to race other cars, so I don't need that extra power.
Can you explain "Much better car all around" if everything is same but engine?

 

LOL Everything?!! The same ?? But the engine??

I have had 2 850 TURBO's and 1 850 GLT and there is no comparison.The TURBO model is by far superior in every respect.Nicer rims,more power,better transmission etc.

And BTW both the T5's have been my daily drivers and have been much less trouble than the 850 GLT .
The 96 850 TURBO I drove very hard and had no problems other than regular maint. issues.I had that car for 2 years and it was the best car I ever had.
The 97 T5 I have is my current daily driver and is also a great car with a lil over 155k

The GLT was a nightmare and to be blunt a POS.Had to have the trans rebuilt @ a lil over 100k,amongst many other problems.168hp? lol Thats just nowhere near enough for my taste.To each their own..I guess

 

Erm...NO! The transmission in the turbo and the NA is the same. The "more power" argument comes back to the engine. And the nicer turbo rims...I have them on my NA. So apart from more power, the turbo cars have nothing more than my car (except the traction control, which we all know is totally useless).

 

You dont need traction control on a N/A model cause they dont have enough power to even spin the tires.lmao

LOL you have the same rims but the car is nowhere near the same as the turbo model.Thats like a base model BMW putting M3 rims on and thinking its the same as a M3.lmfao !!! Have a nice day.

 

What me and blackbrick are trying to tell you, is that apart from the engines the cars are the same. I have the same level of interior equipment, same suspension components, same transmission, same brakes, and even the same wheels as pointed out earlier.
So apart from more power, what is it that the Turbo 850 has that the NA doesn't? Enlighten me, please.

(I'm not saying that the NA is the better car, I'm just arguing against your claim that they are completely different cars)

 

B00$T CR33P I was thinking exactly same like you ................ ................ 20- 25 years ago, when I was young and restless LOL
I test drove 4 850s this month, 3 96 turbos and 1 95 n/a. They all had same rims like yours and mine. Didn't notice any difference in shifting. N/a was in best shape, 1 owner, but price was to high for me $ 3k and was due to timing belt change.Turbos were better priced $ 2 - 2.5k but one was blowing blue smoke with new used engine, second white smoke with rebuilt engine and third one was fake R with bunch modifications and shaky steering wheel. This make me wonder why is that n/a hold price better than turbo models? So my conclusion is that turbo cars are driven harder by younger male drivers and n/a are driven softer by ladies and old farts like me. And after 14-15 years new buyer is set for more maintenance cost so that offset price. I also noticed that N/As have less previous owners. This may not be truth but it is what I got after being in hunt for new/used first car for my son (hope he choses n/a)
And about one wanting to spin wheels, one have to be:
1 stupid,
2 young,
3 rich
I'd prefer to be 2 and 3
best regards to all

 

LOL Both the 850 TURBO's I have bought had 1 previous owner and they were a middle aged man and a woman.Doubt either 1 was driven hard or abused as evident from how good the condition of both cars have been.

And I also had a 850 GLT that was bought new and it was the biggest POS I've ever had.

Both the turbo's were over 13 years old and ran better and had less problems than the GLT which was bought brand new.

LOL @ your comment about spinning wheels.I never said I wanted to spin wheels.In fact I'd rather not.I was simply pointing out at how underpowered the GLT is.

LOL Never heard of a "new used engine" !! LMAO !!!!!!!!! Neither 1 of my turbo 850's have smoked @ all

 

So explain why when you get a transimission there is 1 for N/A models and 1 for turbo models?

 

LOL Never heard of a "new used engine" !! LMAO !!!!!!!!!
If you never heard that expression that tells me a lot why we have this conversation
New used is new for that car and is used from donor car ( wrecker) meaning not rebuilt

 

I.E. meaning not new @ all.

Used is used.Bottom line.

 

They may have different bolt patterns and the speed sensor is located differently throughout the years, but it's essentially the same transmission - Aisin Werner 50-42LE.

Here is an interesting read about all the specs and diagnosis procedures of that transmission:
http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/tech/ser...sDiagnosis.pdf

But I have a feeling we may have drifted slightly off-topic...

 

Yes and I apologize for hijacking rich1 tread but I hope that we all learn something here.
1 It is OK for turbo cars to use some extra oil and it is not Ok for N/A
2 Shape the car is in depends on how its been treated by previous owner ( old female is the best)
3 New/used is short for engine was replaced by used non rebuilt one