Volvo turbo reliability?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
28
Location
Northern Colorado
I’m considering a 2005 Volvo S60 and have seen turbo and NA models available. I test drove a turbo S60 and it was nice but haven’t yet had a chance to drive a NA model. Anyways, I’m not exactly sure how a turbo works, but doesn’t it produce more pressure inside the engine? Is reliability much better with a NA engine over the long run or is the difference negligible?
 
If the oil and maintenance is looked after, and the engine is built for a turbo, considering it’s Volvo it should be, they should last just as long at an NA. Just take care of it, and it should take care of you.

Yes, a turbo forces more air into the engine. More air, more bang. it can help with gas mileage if the engine and turbo are matched too.
 
Older Volvo Turbos seem to have a good reputation. I don't know about the newer ones. A turbo uses the rapidly expanding hot exhaust gas to spin a vane as the exhaust exits the manifold. That vane is one one end of a rod, the other end has another vane that is in the Intake air pathway. Spin the unit faster by having more exhaust pass by, and the intake air pathway becomes more pressurized by the spinning intake vane. When your intake Valve opens...more air is forced into the cylinder, so, more fuel can be sprayed in there by the fuel injector, the result is a higher compression ratio and more power.

It's a simple concept. The devil is in the details, such as all the electronic feedback mechanisms that must work in harmony to achieve the highest efficiency, as well as prevent "over-doing-the-boost-pressure". And, it tends to be a hot-natured thing, requiring more attention to oil cooling as well as water-cooling the turbo jacket.

What I'm trying to say is: the mechanics of it are simple, and reliable as long as they are cared for as specified in the manual. The glitches happen when the care is sub-par, OR, when one (or more) of the sometimes fickle electronic sensors fail.

If you don't work on cars, it's not a big deal...you just take it in when it acts up. If you like to work on cars, the electronics can be a nightmare, unless you REALLY like to work on cars and have all the diagnostic tools available.
 
If you run synthetic and keep to the manufactures recommended OCI you should have no problem seeing 200K plus miles out of the turbo. My 1987 Volvo 745 I had to replace the turbo at 247K miles after it seized. Had I known what I know now and used synthetic the turbo may have lasted past 300K miles.
 
Turbos have more complexity and generate more heat, so one would have to concede that this makes for poorer reliability overall. But I like them: I love the push of SAAB turbos. The turbo lag is something you may have to get used to, but modern turbos are much better than they used to be. Drive the NA and then decide. You have to decide what it's worth for the extra squirt, because it'll cost you in extra insurance, as well as the up front costs. And if you keep your foot in it, it will be a real gas hog.
 
Originally Posted By: Tosh
You have to decide what it's worth for the extra squirt, because it'll cost you in extra insurance


Would you believe that my 2006 Saab 93 2.0T costs the same to insure as my 1996 Ford Contour 2.5L did?
 
Originally Posted By: Tosh
... poorer reliability overall. ...The turbo lag is something you may have to get used to ...cost you in extra insurance, as well as the up front costs.


I have had over 400 cars with lots of them being turbos.

re Reliability - I would not generalize and say that overall turbos are less reliable. I have had one saab go 318k with no problems at all including original turbo. I had one POS caravan turbo that was toast at 80k (turbo had no water jacket, terrible design). Reliability really depends on the specific make and model, just as it does with non-turbos.

re Turbo lag- see above comment regarding generalizations. I have had many light pressure turbos (saabs and volvos) and these cars have virtually no lag. The drawback is they have less power overall and less of an acceleration rush. Most modern cars have reduced the lag to very little if not nothing so it again depends on specific make and model. I currently have a volvo turbo 190hp that has no lag but is dissapointing in my mind in terms of overall power.

re Insurance - I have never paid more for insurance due to a turbo. Maybe insurance on turbo cars cost more in other places however.

re OP's question - I have had better reliability with NA volvos than turbo volvos but I would defer to Volvohead, Pablo, and others who know more about volvos than I do.
 
A good way to explore reliability is to ask dealer service managers and independent volvo specialist shops about the specific cars. Ask them what are the problems they have seen with those cars. Almost every car has a weak spot that chronically fails. These guys that deal with them everyday can usually tell you what to watch out for and whether it is a small inconvenience type item or a major expense item.
 
Originally Posted By: brianl703
Originally Posted By: Tosh
You have to decide what it's worth for the extra squirt, because it'll cost you in extra insurance


Would you believe that my 2006 Saab 93 2.0T costs the same to insure as my 1996 Ford Contour 2.5L did?

Yes, but that same SAAB without the turbo would be cheaper to insure. Or a Contour Turbo would be more expensive. Insurance companies reward SAAB owners because of their low injury claims.
 
Thank you all for the great input and information. I understand that you must be more diligent to maintain a turbo, paying special attention to lubrication. What I'm also hearing is that it's difficult to generalize - neglect may play as much a role as the design.

Here's where my concern comes from: I had an Audi 1.8T that was a great car. I followed the MFG plan but, after the warranty, I took it to an independent (Audi exclusive specialist) who told me to get rid of it quick. He showed me some warning signs that pointed to a potential sludge problem supposed to be related to the turbo/engine design. There were other reasons to dump it, but I really would have liked to keep it for a long time.

I'd appreciate some more comments specifically about the Volvo turbo. I still want to test drive the NA S60 and see how it feels - I'm leaning towards the NA in theory because I'm looking at used cars (seems like a safer bet).
 
Originally Posted By: saaber1
Originally Posted By: Tosh
... poorer reliability overall. ...The turbo lag is something you may have to get used to ...cost you in extra insurance, as well as the up front costs.


I have had over 400 cars with lots of them being turbos.

re Reliability - I would not generalize and say that overall turbos are less reliable. I have had one saab go 318k with no problems at all including original turbo. I had one POS caravan turbo that was toast at 80k (turbo had no water jacket, terrible design). Reliability really depends on the specific make and model, just as it does with non-turbos.

re Turbo lag- see above comment regarding generalizations. I have had many light pressure turbos (saabs and volvos) and these cars have virtually no lag. The drawback is they have less power overall and less of an acceleration rush. Most modern cars have reduced the lag to very little if not nothing so it again depends on specific make and model. I currently have a volvo turbo 190hp that has no lag but is dissapointing in my mind in terms of overall power.

re Insurance - I have never paid more for insurance due to a turbo. Maybe insurance on turbo cars cost more in other places however.

re OP's question - I have had better reliability with NA volvos than turbo volvos but I would defer to Volvohead, Pablo, and others who know more about volvos than I do.



Why did you cut and paste my post to remove the context and qualifiers I made?
All else being equal, more complexity equals lower reliability. Sounds like this was also your OWN experience with Volvos? And I don't believe for a minute that a faster, more expensive (read: turbo) car costs the same to insure as the base model.
 
The less complex a system is, the better. Another complex part is just another complex part to fail. I'd get the NA if it were me.
 
Originally Posted By: Tosh
.....You have to decide what it's worth for the extra squirt, because it'll cost you in extra insurance, as well as the up front costs. And if you keep your foot in it, it will be a real gas hog.


I disagree except maybe upfront costs.

We got quoted the same for a Subaru Legacy Wagon with NA engine(170HP) and Legacy GT Wagon(250HP turbo) which we own. Our Legacy GT wagon's insurance($410/year) is nearly $200/year less than my wife's previous 1996 Honda Civic LX(100HP NA pig).

Your statement of keeping your foot in it is true of a NA engine too. I find myself flooring the base engines always to get any power and quite annoying. Wife/I rarely rev our Legacy GT wagon past 3500 RPM as its moving fine.
 
There is no free lunch with the turbo. Knowing how they work is most of the battle. Technically speaking, an engines' life is shortened via the use of a turbo vs. a normally asspirated engine. This won't affect most owners though, as few own one from cradle to grave. Good Luck!
 
Originally Posted By: Tosh
Yes, but that same SAAB without the turbo would be cheaper to insure. Or a Contour Turbo would be more expensive. Insurance companies reward SAAB owners because of their low injury claims.


No it would not--State Farm rates cars without regard for the size or horsepower of the engine that's installed in them (based on the table I saw). As far as the Saab goes, the liability rating index (amount of liability claims made by Saab 93 drivers) is also lower than average. Therefore Saab 93 drivers cause fewer accidents with fewer damage claims.

Incidentally, the same table also showed me that State Farm does not charge more for red colored cars, which is another insurance myth I've heard.

http://www.statefarm.com/insurance/auto_insurance/veh_rating/veh_rating.asp
 
Last edited:
Back in the early 90s when I had my SAAB 900S and was shopping for a 900 Turbo, there would have been a jump in insurance (Allstate). Similar when my parents got their 9000CSE (turbo) in 1996. Our friend who had a Volvo 240(?) Turbo said the same thing. And the same for a coworker who had a Dodge (hatchback thingy?) turbo.
 
If you use a good synthetic oil your 5-cylinder Volvo's turbo will last as long as the engine. Off boost it is a very low stress engine. The turbo is not all that bad because you don't have to stand on it as much to get going. A friend has one with 180k+ on the clock and a boroscope view inside the cylinders shows an engine that looks like new.
 
As a rough rule of thumb, a turbocharged 4-cylinder engine will have about as much power as a normally-aspirated 6-cylinder with 50% greater displacement -- and will get 50% better fuel economy.

I owned a 1984 Saab 900T for 16 years, and when I got rid of it at 292k miles the turbo was still fine. I now have 260k miles on a Golf TDI, and am thinking about upgrading to a new turbo -- the original one might be good for another 100k miles, but I have the opportunity to get a better one for a really attractive price. And since I rely on my car to make my living, I can't afford to wait for the turbo to fail, I need to be proactive and sometimes replace parts before they fail.

Regarding the VW/Audi 1.8T (and now the 2.0T), those are fine engines that simply need careful monitoring of oil level and regular oil changes with the proper engine oil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top