My car ADD is honing in on a couple of buying prospects, both are Swedish (a Saab and a Volvo). Lets say you have two different makes you are considering, condition is very similar, as are model years. And both are on my want list.
Basically, all other things being equal, would you choose the non-turbo manual transmission one, or the turbo autotragic one?
Depends on the era, but I'd say NA manual one. 80's Volvo's were the same engine NA/Trubo so you can bolt the turbo bits on the side easy. NA Saab has a better chance of the trans still being good as well. 80's ear 3 speed auto's are the reason auto's got the reputation of sucking donkey balls and should be avoided until the torques number starts with a 3 at least.
Rear wheel drive. Trick question.
Why not both? 
I don't know Saabs well.
My personal experience is that the RWD Volvos had very agrarian manual transmissions available. The one I used to drive had a 4-speed plus OD (M46) trans, and it was pretty difficult to drive quickly. The auto isn't bad to drive, and from what I've read online the manuals are a little less robust than the auto. If I was shopping a Brick-era Volvo, I'd be fine with Turbo+auto. The N/A models are pretty darn slow.
The two I'm looking at are both front wheel drive (from what I've read).
RossD wrote: Rear wheel drive. Trick question.
Volvo won't be front wheel drive until 94 (93?) with the 850 models.
If it is an 850 I would go with the Saab for sure.
You sir are reading my mind!
But I can't find both within a reasonable distance. Maybe I'm not looking into the right crystal ball?
EvanB wrote: Why not both?
Ok, the years are farther apart than I stated. I was oversimplifying the question.
The Saab is a 91 non-turbo 4 door five speed. The Volvo is the auto, it's a turbo 2000 Volvo S70 GLT SE. From what I gather the Volvo is FWD.
I don't care about bells and whistles like butt warmers and stereos. I'm thinking more of driving fun, like rally cross.
EDIT: they both have the same asking price.
You will never regret buying a Classic 900 with a manual transmission.
Saab did FWD better than Volvo. Volvo obviously made better RWD cars.
I quite enjoyed my Volvo 850 (auto, turbo, wagon predecessor to your S70) but I think the Saab would be better in Rallycross. Saabs + Rally go together.
Now that there are a bit more facts to the conversation, I think Powar hit it on the head.
I had a feeling I already knew the answer. But I was trying to pose the question as it had been rolling around in my head: "Manual/non turbo or auto/turbo?".
I'm going to look at the Saab tomorrow...
You should have already bought that C900 
.
/thread
Actually we need details on each to decide properly. I'd probably get both if I had money and someplace to put them.
Michigan? Winter? FWD 900.
I'd say the Saab but I have a feeling the s70 would be the better buy. EXPECIALLY if you decide to turn up the wick with a different turbo and tune.
That said a manual makes any car at least 9x more fun but considering two different cars, is 100hp more fun than 200 turbo hp? You'll have to decide that for yourself.
Given the choices at hand, I'd go Saab (and I've owned two FWD Volvos.) The 900 is simply a classic, iconic, somewhat cool and quirky car in a way that a FWD Volvo will never be. That being said, I know jack about Saabs and the Volvos are still pleasant cars, so I'll vote both as well 
If you're going to get a turbo Volvo, you don't want the GLT, go for the T5 (or simply "Turbo", the nomenclature was not consistent accross all years of 850/S70.) GLT, aside from having a smaller turbo (Mitsu 13g maybe??, vs a 15g/16t in the high pressure turbo depending on year) also has some internal differences and higher compression that makes cranking up the boost less doable. Turbo/manual is also an either/or thing on the 850, couldn't get both in the US market. S70 I think had a stick available with the turbo some years, but don't quote me on that, and would be rare if it does exist.
Having owned both an NA/manual 850 and a turbo/auto one, turbo/manual is the way to go . Tranny swap has been done and documented and the M56 is stouter than the auto anyways. Here's your tranny donor:
http://harrisburg.craigslist.org/cto/5409522398.html
In reply to Furious_E:
I wouldn't be worried about swapping turbos, it's really easy to make a glt more powerful than a measly t5, that and a 13g (I think it's a 13t to be honest) vs a tiny 15g/16g isn't enough strain to worry. Hell I have a 850 t5r turbo (15g) on a non turbo (9.8:1) redblock and it's fine, but that baby turbo is getting tossed for a man sized t3.
If it were me I'd throw R injectors and ecu in with a 19t and enjoy a nice daily that's hellacious on the highway.
I've had lot's of turbo Volvos and of that vintage they get expensive to make fast. (And they still aren't "fast")
My experience with Volvos is:
First car- 93 850 GLT, NA 2.4, Holset turbo, Haltech E6k, auto. Fast but HARD to drive when boost kicked in. Torque steer, and transmission started making squishy sounds under hard shifts. 11.9 at 116 on MT slicks on Ford (Focus?) wheels. (2002-2003)
94 850 turbo wagon- Upsolute tune (dating myself here) auto, quickish for what it was.
2002 V70 75- stock, smooth, Weird rough startup issue, ate CV axles
I never did the manual trans swap because I was spending my money trying to make more power. If you want a nice daily driver , I'd pick the Volvo and leave it alone. If you want a FUN car to tinker with I'd say the SAAB so you can row your own gears without having to do anything.If you want a fast Volvo, I would hold out for a manual trans 740/760 turbo and not worry about making a fwd turbo automatic car fast.
I say both
https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/open-classifieds/2000-volvo-s70-t5-m-3900/110290/page1/
Without knowing anything else, I would choose the NA manual though.
nokincy wrote: I say both
Nice car! These were always SO hard to find when I was into Volvo's. After 1993, turbo MT Volvos were so rare. I always wanted a C70 coupe HPT with a stick but alas they made like 4 of those. Haha!
I wish I could have by now! Lol! EvanB helped me out a ton by providing a new home to a Midget with a hopeless owner. Then I had to wait for the man to cough up a check.
Ok, here are the two listings I was comparing- bearing in mind I'm only interested in the butt dyno effect. And these are in my price range if I can talk them down a few hundred bucks:
I read somewhere only architects and weirdos drive Saabs, and I'm not an architect
But, the Volvo has a turbo!
I've been trying to stay relatively local to cut down on transport costs/time commitments.
XLR99 wrote: You should have already bought that C900
Hmmm... I did see one with a t5 turbo, but it has a "steering leak". That's the reason it fell off my list.
Furious_E wrote: Given the choices at hand, I'd go Saab (and I've owned two FWD Volvos.) The 900 is simply a classic, iconic, somewhat cool and quirky car in a way that a FWD Volvo will never be. That being said, I know jack about Saabs and the Volvos are still pleasant cars, so I'll vote both as well
That is affirmative! But I plan to do my best to keep it out of the salt.
914Driver wrote: Michigan? Winter? FWD 900.
I wanted to add something here about Saabs and Volvos as per Weary Microbe's recent problems with driving classics daily. As the Swedish mindset has made both of these cars extremely safe in their day, they are quite capable of surviving today's traffic expectations
You'll need to log in to post.
