Wanted VOLVO 480 Celebration or 1.7 turbo or 1.7 auto

Big Brother · Post by **Big Brother** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:32 pm

Hi everyone. Iâ€™m after either a celebration, 1.7 turbo manual or 1.7 auto (non turbo) Must be â€˜Lâ€™ reg or later as I want to transfer my private number plate to it.

Mechanically and electrically I need it to be sound because I just want something that works. I can part ex my own â€˜Lâ€™ Volvo 480 S 1.7i manual 87,000 miles, metallic black. Need a couple of teething problems sorting

. Anyone interested leave a reply.

Cheers

Ad

Big Brother · Post by **Big Brother** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:52 pm

I'm not actually a guest, just forgot to log in. Anyone can PM me

dragon · Post by **dragon** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 7:58 pm

This any good for you?:

http://volvo480.northernscum.org.uk/for ... php?t=4135

chris1roll · Post by **chris1roll** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:52 pm

Just asking:

If you are intersted in a Turbo manual, Why would you also be interested in a N/A Auto???
They are at completely opposite ends of the 480 performance scale!

That said my sister had a N/A auto, wasn't that bad but i bet it would feel underpowered to me now!!

Big Brother · Post by **Big Brother** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:55 pm

A turbo automatic would be to heavy on fuel for my liken

chris1roll · Post by **chris1roll** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 9:05 pm

ok, but by the same token a N/A manual would be better than a N/A auto....

Still if you want it go for it!

Ben Harris · Post by **Ben Harris** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 9:10 pm

If fuel econonmy's an issue for you, have you considered a 2-litre? I've found that my 2-litre is more economical than my 1.7-litre. I get 34MPG on average from the 2-litre, whereas I only get 30MPG from the 1.7-litre, and that's an average over several weeks, driving exactly the same route, a mixture of village roads, motorway and sitting in traffic.

The 2-litre has slightly less miles on the clock though, and is 4 years newer, which may account for it a bit. The performance of the two feel pretty much the same, but that's probably because there's only 1HP difference between them (or at least between my two!). I believe later 1.7's have less HP than earlier one's like mine, due a different cam shaft, and the addition of a catalytic converter.

Ben.

Murf · Post by **Murf** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 9:27 pm

my 1.7 turbo seems to be far more efficient than my N/A 1.7. i always presumed that the turbo made it more efficient cos i tried (and usually failed) to keep it in the white zone on the turbo gauge

Big Brother · Post by **Big Brother** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 7:03 am

Iâ€™m already looking at a 2 litre Ben, Gazâ€™s (AKA dragonâ€™s) 480, celebration to be exact.

martinholmesuk · Post by **martinholmesuk** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 4:26 pm

I don't think my 1700i / 1700i turbo had much diff in mpg (both automatics)