(first posted 6/22/2015) Typically, when a car is arriving to the end of its commercial life, its maker doesn’t try to do significant changes to it; perhaps a “special edition” with more extras (like new hubcaps and bodywork adhesive stripes!) for the same price, maybe introducing a cheaper entry-level version, and that´s all. So it was somewhat unusual when in 1989 Volvo showed a top-of-the-range version of its 740 with an almost brand-new turbocharged 16 valve engine, and decided to sell it in just a few select luxury car markets.
At the end of the ’80s, Volvo was ready to enter in a new era. The future of the small Swedish car maker relied on the project “Galaxy” born a decade earlier, which would create two families of front wheel drive cars: a medium sized car, the 400 series (440 on left), and the big (for European standards) 850 (right). The 440/ 460 and the coupé 480, designed to replace the ancient and awful 300 series, were a half- hearted attempt (it showed) and they stayed in Europe, although initially Volvo had plans for selling the 480 in the U.S market (a weak dollar prevented that). The 850, however, was a very important car for Volvo; a truly modern FWD sedan and station wagon that would provide the Swedish with a competitive car against the likes of Mercedes, Audi and BMW.
The 850 was one of the two successors of the 700 series; the other was the 900 series, a more traditional rear wheel drive car, and an evolution of the 740. I suppose the 900 was Volvo´s plan B, just in case typical buyers considered the 850 too radical. The 700, launched in 1982, was not a state of the art car even when new, especially compared to the Audi 100 C3/5000, launched in the same year: staid and boxy styling, old engines carried from the 200 series, antiquated interior, and a big, fat live rear axle. As the years went by, newer cars such as the Mercedes W124, BMW 5 Series E34 and Saab 9000 were leaving it behind even more, making the 700 almost uncompetitive, only adequate for Volvo’s traditional customers. I´m not saying that the 740/760 were cars without any merit or appeal, and certainly they had charm, but objectively speaking, they weren’t the best in class.
It´s easy to assume than in those final years of the 700 series Volvo was glad to let it die, anxiously finishing the new 850, which also would bring a new generation of five cylinder engines to leave the old “red block” four cylinders obsolete. So it´s a bit strange that Volvo, just a couple of years before the death of the 700 series, concerned themselves to develop a sixteen valve version of that engine (called B234F), destined for a relatively short life.
The red block eight valve was a good powerplant in many key features. It was a simple, rugged, reliable, easy to work on engine, with good torque at low revs and, in turbo form, could be rather quick. Unfortunately refinement wasn’t one of its virtues, and fuel economy left something to be desired. Perhaps this wasn’t so important in the US market, but in Europe fuel economy could be a problem, mainly when other makers were reading more efficient, 2 litre sixteen valve engines.
So Volvo worked a four valve per cylinder variant of the red block, in 2.3 litres form. This engine featured double overhead camshafts, counter rotating balance shafts and hydraulic tappets, but would lose one advantage (for the lazy owners, at least) of the old one: it was an interference design, so if the timing belt broke, the engine would commit suicide. Ouch. Nevertheless, the new sixteen valve was more powerful at 155 bhp and fuel economy improved a bit. The following Volvo 940 would use it, too. The top of the range engine was still the eight valve turbocharged red block, though.
Still, even more strange was that a few months later Volvo launched a sixteen-valve turbo 2.0 litre version, the B204FT/GT available in 190 bhp (FT) and 200 bhp (GT), reaching the remarkable figure of 100 hp/litre (no mean feat). This new engine was installed in the 740 and 780 Coupé; while the 780 was an attractive, in an old fashioned way, “luxury personal coupé” that welcomed the arrival of the powerful B204GT, the marriage of an old fashioned car like the 740 and such a modern powerplant was a bit unusual, to say at least.
The 740 Turbo 16 Valve, as was named, would be available only in some European markets, mainly the ones where “big” displacement engines were heavily penalised by taxes. Yes, in Europe, an engine bigger than 2 litres was considered “big”. The two usual 740 bodies, sedan and station wagon, were offered, but only with a four speed plus overdrive manual transmission.
A 200 hp engine in a rather pedestrian chassis would have made the 740 too fun to drive. At least Volvo bothered to install the new independent multi link rear suspension, which debuted in 1987 in the 760, so the new car had the potential to handle decently and ride better than the live rear axle 740s. That was a sedan-only feature, however; the Station Wagon had to make do with the rear live axle.
Strangely, my country (Spain) was one of those markets which received the new 740 Turbo 16 Valve, others being Portugal, Belgium and Italy (perhaps France too?). I say it was strange because our government didn’t penalize big engines, and because back in 1989, while our economy was steadily improving, the luxury car market was relatively small, And, in Spain the Volvo 740, priced at about 1989’s five million pesetas (or 30,000 euros, or 34,000 US dollars), was a luxury car indeed.
One of the few 740 Turbo 16 Valve that got to Spain was bought new by a foreigner living here, or at least that can be deduced reading the car´s documents: first registration was made with a “Placa Turística”, or “tourist number plate”, a formula used back then in my country for owners who resided here for just a few months a year (there were some tax deductions implicated). I don´t know how many owners followed, but the current one is a friend of mine, Javier. He bought it unseen, trusting in my (not always reliable) second hand car buying skills. I picked the 740 up from the seller, drove it for 150 kilometres home, where I treated it for a well deserved session of detailing, before sending the car to Javier by tow truck, 900 kilometres away.
It´s a very curious car, the 740 Turbo 16 Valve; an appealing mix of old and new. The styling is plain’y antiquated, but somehow I find it attractive. The rear window is as controversial as always, and the huge bonnet and roof, almost completely flat, are so remotely different to today´s trends, that the 740 seems a car from forty years ago. But the gorgeous sixteen inches “Hydra” alloys give the car real stance. The car looks terrific: square, proud, self-confident. We christened the car “Badass”…
Inside, it´s a bit of a let down, with the plain standard 740 dashboard; only a slightly “sporty” cloth upholstery lives things up, but the unremittingly blackness is sad. However there are almost no rattles or squeaks, and the plastics have stood the test of time (26 years!) very well. The electrical equipment works perfectly, although the air conditioning doesn’t. Good thing Javier lives in the north of Spain, where summers are a lot cooler than in the south where I live.
And, how does it drive? It´s a shame, but I can´t say anything conclusive. The engine condition wasn’t the best when I drove the 740; black smoke in the exhaust and not much thrust were the response when I floored the throttle. I´m sure that Javier´s mechanical skills will solve that. The same about handling. Original shocks and 200,000 kilometers on the clock don´t mix. Ride comfort seems a lot better than my father´s rear-live-axled 940, though.
This rare 740 Turbo 16 Valve is one of the crown jewels of Javier´s garage. When Javier gets tired of it I wouldn’t mind to drive it 900 kilometres south to my garage. Incidentally, this engine appeared in a short lived version of the 960 for the European market. Yeah, Javier owns one of those, too.
Wonderful, thanks for helping fill in my 1980s Volvo knowledge. Some of Volvo’s decisions during that era are curious. They bring in the 740, but retain the 240. Then, they end up selling the 240, 740 and 940 at the same time? Bizarre. I really love the look of these 740s, though, even in sedan form. I dig the box look, and I think they’re better-looking than the 240 and 940, especially in sporty trim levels.
Volvo often used to sell it’s older models as an affordable, proven alternative to the new model that would be markedet as a more luxurious alternative. It was a strategy that worked well in Scandinavia were buyers were sceptical of the “new” and afraid to show off witha posh new model.
The 240 always outsold the 740 here in Norway, although selling both the 240, 740 and 940 seems bizarre in retrospect. Silly swedes…
The 850 was launched in Europe at the end of 1991, so in some markets the 240, 740, 940 and 850 appeared in car magazine´s price lists at the same time for a few months…Volvo salesmen (and customers) should be rather confussed back then.
I have never heard this engine referred to as a white block. The white block designation has always referred to the 4/5/6 cylinder engines (debuting in the 960 and 850 and later used in Fords as well) everywhere I have seen it used.
I suppose your username refers to this engine?
My apologies. You are right, “the white block” refers to the modular 4/5/6 cylinder engine. I´ll edit my mistake.
My username refers to my old Saab 9000 Aero engine. I owned one for seven years, great car.
Interesting. I didn’t know Saab engines were named so similarly. Although I’m primarily a Volvo guy when it comes to Swedish cars, I do remember lusting after the 9000 Aero. I remember it being insanely fast in tests, much faster than its 225 hp would have you think. The Swedish car magazine Bilsport hit 62mph/100kph in 6.55 whereas the then-new 850 T-5R took 6.9 seconds. That was quite a blow for me back then.
Yes, the nomenclature used by Volvo and Saab engines is similar.
Nowadays I drive a 850 R. My 850 has an automatic transmission and the 9000 had a stick, so they´re not exactly like for like; but the 9000 felt (and was) faster despite the small power disadvantage. The 9000 is a good car but the engine is great. Shame the chassis isn´t up to level…
Volvo’s unusually long design cycles has always mystified me. It just goes to show you how strong their brand loyalty is. (Meaningful mechanical updates help too). Other brands would only be able to do this by dumping vehicles onto fleets in later years.
Your friend’s 740 in very nice condition for 26 years old. Northern Spain must have a good climate for CCs.
Northern Spain´s climate is rather rainy, similar to Great Britain´s, so in the future rust can be a problem.
But this car has spent its life between Madrid (though cold in the winter, rather less rainy than in the North and hardly snowy) and a small town in Extremadura (hot and dry in the summer, cold in the winter but no snow at all).
Very enjoyable article, and great find.
Agreed…I enjoyed reading it as well.
I also didn’t know Volvo combined the 16 valve head with the turbo. The Volvo was of such a conservative design, with a mature if often liberal clientel, that you would not have thought Volvo would offer versions like this. They had a six on the 760 after all.
I think Bob Sinclair their and later Saab’s US leader had a lot of influence on the creation of models like this. The bright colors and unique wheels were there to make your sporty job stand out. It earned the 740 more younger buyers than you would have expected.
Thanks for the writeup.
But the hot 760 was the 760 Turbo with the four cylinder B23ET. In euro spec it had 182 hp while the n/a V6 had 155.
True, and it made the turbo version notably faster than the French 90 degree V6 they were offering in the senior model.
It would have been interesting if they would have kept the 3.0 inline 6 from the 164 and incorporated the 4 valve head and turbo. 300hp and better engine manners from an engine that was not at war with itself like a 90 degree V6. I also liked the longer front end, as it set the car further apart from the 4 cylinder versions.
By the time they had such an engine with the later 2.9 in the S80 T6, they were saddling it with FWD. A missed opportunity.
The B30 in the 164 was an outdated pushrod engine. They stopped using that family (B18 and B20 were four cylinder versions of that same engine) in 1975 IIRC.
The PRV V6 was definitely a failure. It was intended to be a V8 but those plans were dropped due to the fuel crises of the seventies.
Regarding the T6 engine: It’s basically the same as the I6 in the 960, so a swap should be doable without too much hassle.
You are of course correct that the B30 was outdated. It probably would have been updated along with the four to overhead camshaft during the transition from 144 to 244 if the merger talks with Renault had not been happening at the time. The PRV V6 was a disaster for Volvo, which needed to be upmarket, with it’s high Swedish production costs.
Regarding the T6 engine. It was quite a achievement to get it in the S80. An inline 6 transverse mounting was difficult enough but then add two small turbos. Having done this, you have overmatched the Aisen-Warner transmission so you had to procure GM Cadilac 4T65E with a chain drive. I bet Ford loved that when they bought Volvo.
That’s a fun fact about the transmission. I did not know that.
The PRV was fixed late in the game. The B280F was a significant redesign of the engine, even-fire, with a number of revisions. No oiling problems except on the very earliest ones, smoother, more powerful, longer-lasting. However, the reputation of the earlier B27 and B28 PRV engines hurt its sales. As long as you don’t neglect maintenance, a B280F will exhibit Volvo durability–however its lifespan on the market was short as the whiteblock inline six replaced it at the 960’s debut. So the only Volvos to feature the B280F, that I know of, were ’87 and later non-turbo versions of the 760 and 780.
It is too bad the 780, perhaps as the 980 or later C90, didn’t survive to see the 2.9 inline whiteblock engine. It really would have been a great engine for it. The 780 was such an elegant package, it deserved a top line engine.
It’s too bad about that interior, it’s very black, dark and sober. Geez guys, a little bit of colour or some lighter greys wouldn’t have been a bad thing, would they? Also, why do cars always have to be “best in class” all the time?
Thanks for a little more knowledge about this turbo engine. That interior looks quite cheerful to me, mainly because of that manual shifter. Those were quite rare (if even available) in the U.S.
Very interesting information above this engine in Turbobricks:
http://forums.turbobricks.com/showthread.php?t=173001
Interesting read, and clearly fully researched.
But I still find this a car to respect, rather than like
I would think the “ultimate” Volvo from this period would be a 16 valve, turbo wagon….with a manual transmission.
For the folks who find the all black interior a bit somber (?), VW was often lambasted in this time period for it’s very black interiors. My guess is that M-B had a wider array of interior colors because of their use (in the smaller sized sedans) as taxi cabs.
Do not know if we got that engine here in cars, but Volvo-Penta did offer a marine engine version of the 16 valve red block for a brief time.
The camshafts for that Penta 16v are very desirable in the B234F community.
I have heard about the Penta crankshafts being very much sought after, not the camshafts. That’s news to me, but I haven’t been active in that community for years now, so…
My sister had a 1986 740 GLE, white with red leather interior, that she drove for almost 12 years. She didn’t take the best care of that car, in fact I remember her saying she forgot to change the oil and it eventually led to its demise – over 50k miles without an oil change!!! However, she loved that car and was sad to see it go. I can still remember her cranking the huge sunroof open, and the distinct smell that car had in it. It was a leathery plastic smell that all Volvos like hers had. It rode great, and was safe for her children. If there were any negatives, you had to leave it parked in the bad weather. Any bit of snow or sleet and it turned into a total sled. And the anemic 4-cylinder wasn’t the greatest on gas. But a memorable car it is. Who can forget Dudley Moore’s comment in the 1990 movie Crazy People – “Volvos – boxy but good!”
Sweet looking car. I remember when I first saw the Volvo 740. I remember thinking “finally! Something to supplant the Volvo 240 series, if not outright replace the 240.” At the time, I found the styling refreshing, and attractive. There’s nothing wrong with the 240 series, but the 740 series was something new that Volvo desperately needed.
I had a 1990 twincam 16 valve 740 and now have a turbo 745 wagon; both automatics. The 16 valver was torquey even with the slushbox. Wish my wagon had this set up. What a hoot that would be!
The B234F in the GLE was mated to an AW72, not the typical AW71. The AW72 had adjusted gear ratios to match the output of the B234F. Timing belt changes were a must, as this was an interference engine, a first for Volvo. It caught many owners by surprise. Parts are difficult to come by as the engine was only used two years and had enough differences with a B230F to make it maddening.
This was also the era that they experimented using the ZF automatics. They had a horrid fault in that the pump was on the rear of the transmission. If they were revved in neutral, such as during an emissions test in many US locales, the transmission was starved for fluid and would cease to function. BMWs of the era used the same transmission with the same result. Many test stations would refuse to test all BMWs and Volvos as a result due the the liability. They can be identified by having a “4” on the shifter instead of a lockout gearknob side-switch.
Seems unfortunate that this engine was limited to certain markets, but considering the B230FT (8v “redblock” turbo) made similar power by late in its run, it was an artifact of the tax structures in Europe. Fantastic-looking 740, also! I’ve always thought the Hydra alloys suit it best.
AFAIK, the 16V engine was only sold in NA form in the US. We did not get the turbo version. There are many posts in the Volvo forums on how to turbocharge a 16V engine. I love my 1986 760 turbo wish the A/C was as competent as the rest of the car.
Great article!
I recall that the non-turbo version of the 16-valve was a fairly decent performer when it was introduced here in the U.S. But years later the 16v has a nasty reputation for broken timing belts among other issues. Volvo was better at taking lumps (like the dull as dishwater 114hp Red Block and turbocharging the bejesus out of them)!
I even enjoyed the turbo lag that so many turbocharged cars were/are criticized for. But the ultimate car to get the full effect of turbo lag is the 850 Turbo (c. 1994 or 1995). Floor it, the transmission responded almost instantly with a one or two-gear downshift and then count quickly in your head 1,2,thr…..and hold on like you’re riding a bull for 8-seconds! It was a hoot! Now turbochargers kick in and shut down so seamlessly that you never even know they’re under the hood…..
Not to change the subject, but Chrysler turbos were the true champs when it came to turbo lag and delayed responses! Part of it was the 3-speed automatic transmission attached, which balked at downshifting under any circumstances. You could floor it, you might hear the turbo spool up but the engine rpm would only increase by about 500 or so as the lockup torque converter disengaged. Then, eventually, if you were going under 75mph or so, it would slam down into 2nd gear, the rush of acceleration would only be overshadowed by the engine noise and vibration coming thru the steering wheel. At that point, you would recoil in fear and let it upshift and the fun was over.
Ey, yo tuve uno de esos, concretamente un 940 gle 16 válvulas con ese motor, del año 91; es una lástima que se fuera al desgüace con menos de 120.000 kms hechos. Gran coche y,como bien dices una mezcla entre lo nuevo y lo viejo
Volvo 740, the car for people who find the Dodge Dynasty too curvaceous…
Hey, now, let’s be fair; it’s got slightly curved side glass. And, um, the muffler is round.
And Volvo’s engineers hadn’t perfected the square wheel.
The other member of the styled-with-a-T-square troika of the late ’80s along with the 740/760 and Dynasty was the Buick Electra, the most European-looking of the GM C/H bodies of the time, especially when dressed in T Type trim. Unlike the standard Electra or Park Avenue, it was equipped with rear seat head restraints and amber rear turn signals, because
safetyit gave it that trendy Euro-chic look. It also had one of the first useful cupholders when it first appeared in mid-1984 – but just one. In any case, this car rivaled the Volvo for huge glass area, low beltline, great outward sightlines, and super-easy ingress & egress from the tall, wide door openings without the modern rakish windshield that wants off with your head upon entering.I dimly (in both senses) recall these cars had front-hinged hoods and Consumer Reports said that idea worked well on some imports, but not as implemented on the GM cars.
The C-pillar design reminds me of the Spirit-Acclaim cars I drove for many years.
The hoods on these open pretty much like a Saab 900, ‘cept they open just a little further to an almost vertical position. It’s a little weird the first time or two, then it just becomes second nature. Probably weirded out a few gas station attendants who didn’t expect to encounter such a setup on an American car.
Source: A close family member is still driving one of these daily, by choice… it just pulled out of the driveway as I was typing this =).
I think that ranking might tilt in the Volvo’s favour if turning circle is considered. The RWD Volvos could almost spin about their vertical axis!
I remember thinking that the body looked like a *drawing* of a car: flat as a pancake ! And, Volvo had finally set itself up to add a wagon using the sedan rear doors, with no styling compromise . . .