volvo sta wgan faster than 944 n/a?
10-19-2002, 01:09 PM
#31
Deer Slayer
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
A Volvo 740 is one of the better handling cars on the road, even now. The weight distribution is excellent, and the chassis can be made very tight with stiffer struts, etc. When I drove our 740 regularly I put decent rubber on it and so on... I surprised more than a few people.
But to compare it to a 944... well, that's plain silly.
Thaddeus
But to compare it to a 944... well, that's plain silly.
Thaddeus
10-19-2002, 04:11 PM
#32
Advanced
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Glenville, NY
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Volvos are "ballsy" cars, even though they are driven by middle aged women. They also need matinence more than a 944. My mom had a '99 V70 X-Country. It was "luxurios", except that it needed to be fixed every month. No joke. The car was in the shop once a month for 2 years. My mom decided that it was time to get a new car when the turbo busted, $1750 to replace. It was an auto, I got a chance to drive it every now and then, and it had no problem pushing to 6000 rpms. But i dont know about a Volvo having more accel. than a 944.
10-19-2002, 06:12 PM
#33
Intermediate
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: La Mirada Ca
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote]Originally posted by Luis de Prat:
<strong>
I'll give you the mileage, but seriously, which of you fellow '83 owners has seen 130 on their speedo? Mine's been up to 110 and that's about it. Now the S2 and the turbo regularly see 140...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't have any trouble reaching 120 in my '83 and it feels like its got a little more top end to spare. Of course I barely just turned over the 100k mile mark so maybe that has something to do with it.
btw, I haven't really tried going faster than 120 yet so I'm not sure if it will do that or not. I sort of wimp out around 120 mph (I know I'm a wuss.)
<strong>
I'll give you the mileage, but seriously, which of you fellow '83 owners has seen 130 on their speedo? Mine's been up to 110 and that's about it. Now the S2 and the turbo regularly see 140...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't have any trouble reaching 120 in my '83 and it feels like its got a little more top end to spare. Of course I barely just turned over the 100k mile mark so maybe that has something to do with it.
btw, I haven't really tried going faster than 120 yet so I'm not sure if it will do that or not. I sort of wimp out around 120 mph (I know I'm a wuss.)
10-19-2002, 10:10 PM
#34
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Burlingame, California
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just from my experience... 8.8 is a really slow 0-60 time for an N/A. I've done it in 7.4 in my 85.5 n/a and the 1/4 in 15.7
And as far as top speed goes, the speedo read 145 when i let off. How accurate the speedo was i don't know though.
And as far as top speed goes, the speedo read 145 when i let off. How accurate the speedo was i don't know though.
10-20-2002, 04:55 AM
#36
Three Wheelin'
A funny sidenote...
In a 1988 copy of Air & Space magazine I have, there is a story about Mojave, and the general aviation there. In the 80's, one of the runways at Mojave was routinely "rented out" to the film/TV industry for movies, etc.
In between aviation tidbits, the story details a "sedan" (doesn't say which brand... lol) sitting off to the side of the rental runway, junked and flattened after its manufacturer attempted to shoot a commercial with the vehicle shouldering a cargo truck on its roof... <img src="graemlins/roflmao.gif" border="0" alt="[hiha]" />
Way to go Volvo!
Micah
In a 1988 copy of Air & Space magazine I have, there is a story about Mojave, and the general aviation there. In the 80's, one of the runways at Mojave was routinely "rented out" to the film/TV industry for movies, etc.
In between aviation tidbits, the story details a "sedan" (doesn't say which brand... lol) sitting off to the side of the rental runway, junked and flattened after its manufacturer attempted to shoot a commercial with the vehicle shouldering a cargo truck on its roof... <img src="graemlins/roflmao.gif" border="0" alt="[hiha]" />
Way to go Volvo!
Micah
10-20-2002, 08:06 AM
#37
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: central california
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
0-60 times are all depending on which magazine and what model year. When the first 944 came out for 83, it had 143hp (europe had 160) for the u.s. (until 1986 or 87? not sure. the times were around 8.6 to 9.0 (again depending on the magazine). In 1986 or 87 (not sure the year), the hp was increased alittle but not much. time to 60mph also improved, but not much. In 87, S model was introduced and it reached 60 at 7.7 flat (car and driver).
in 1988, hp was increased to 158hp for the n/a model. car and driver tested it at 8.0 flat for that model year.
in 89, displacement was increased to 2.7 with 4 more hp (and little more torque). 0-60mph was improved to 7.5 (car and driver).
That same year, s2 was introduced with 208hp(3.0), it went from 0 to 60 in 6.6 seconds (porsche factory claims are 6.9, 149mph). Motor trend tested the car and it topped out at 152 mph. Thus factory claims were somewhat conservative. however, when car and driver and road and track did the test, it "only" went 148mph.
Turbo S (or 1989 turbo) are the fastest of the bunch! it goes to 60 at 5.6 seconds and qt mile at 14.1 seconds! the regular turbo did 6.6 and 14.6 (motor trend 10/1985).
in 1988, hp was increased to 158hp for the n/a model. car and driver tested it at 8.0 flat for that model year.
in 89, displacement was increased to 2.7 with 4 more hp (and little more torque). 0-60mph was improved to 7.5 (car and driver).
That same year, s2 was introduced with 208hp(3.0), it went from 0 to 60 in 6.6 seconds (porsche factory claims are 6.9, 149mph). Motor trend tested the car and it topped out at 152 mph. Thus factory claims were somewhat conservative. however, when car and driver and road and track did the test, it "only" went 148mph.
Turbo S (or 1989 turbo) are the fastest of the bunch! it goes to 60 at 5.6 seconds and qt mile at 14.1 seconds! the regular turbo did 6.6 and 14.6 (motor trend 10/1985).
10-20-2002, 10:31 AM
#38
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Joseph, MO
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would much rather be beaten by the Volvo wagon than a riced out Honda Civic full of snerts . . . .
The 944 is not a quick car, at all. It was for it's time, but that time is long done. The 944 looks great and handles pretty good, but even modified the NA does not qualify as quick. Maybe with nitrous and a new set of ring gears . . .
LOL.
Like everyone says, you want quick go with a 951 or - better yet - a V8 conversion.
My 944 does not even run now, so take what I said with little salt. Once it is running again all 944's will be quick and fast and bad @ss.
:-)
Steve
The 944 is not a quick car, at all. It was for it's time, but that time is long done. The 944 looks great and handles pretty good, but even modified the NA does not qualify as quick. Maybe with nitrous and a new set of ring gears . . .
LOL.
Like everyone says, you want quick go with a 951 or - better yet - a V8 conversion.
My 944 does not even run now, so take what I said with little salt. Once it is running again all 944's will be quick and fast and bad @ss.
:-)
Steve
