Volvo 164

Which Volvo 164 version to buy: 2.9 MT 131 hp vs 2.9 MT 160 hp vs 3.0 MT

If you are choosing a Volvo 164, you are not choosing between generations. The catalogue lists 1 generation (1968–1974), body Sedan, and 3 versions, all named 2.9 MT, 2.9 MT, and 3.0 MT. The real decision is which of those three drivetrains to live with. The two cars that share the name 2.9 MT must be split by power: 131 hp versus 160 hp. The third is 3.0 MT at 156 hp.

Which Volvo 164 version to buy: 2.9 MT 131 hp vs 2.9 MT 160 hp vs 3.0 MT

If you are choosing a Volvo 164, you are not choosing between generations. The catalogue lists 1 generation (1968–1974), body Sedan, and 3 versions, all named 2.9 MT, 2.9 MT, and 3.0 MT. The real decision is which of those three drivetrains to live with. The two cars that share the name 2.9 MT must be split by power: 131 hp versus 160 hp. The third is 3.0 MT at 156 hp. Production years, body, gearbox type, drive, boost, and cylinder count do not separate them. Arithmetic on the measured figures does.

Volvo 164 specs by version: what actually differs

All three versions run 1968-01-01 to 1974-12-31, Gasoline, 6 cylinders Inline, boost No, Carburetor, Manual with 4 gears, RWD, ground clearance 180 mm, front suspension Independent, spring, front brakes Disc. None of those fields is a buying filter. The filters that remain are power, displacement, engine placement, fuel grade, torque (measured on one version only), tank, kerb weight, and rear brakes.

Engine placement is Front, longitudinal on 2.9 MT 131 hp and Central on 2.9 MT 160 hp and on 3.0 MT. That is a catalogue difference, not a third generation.

Engine and power: 29 hp between the two 2.9 MT cars, 4 hp between 160 and 156

2.9 MT 160 hp is 29 hp above 2.9 MT 131 hp (160 − 131). In kilowatts the gap is 22 kW (118 − 96). Displacement is the same 2900 cc, so the extra output is not extra cubic centimetres. Power per litre:

• 2.9 MT 131 hp: 131 / 2.9 ≈ 45.2 hp per litre
• 2.9 MT 160 hp: 160 / 2.9 ≈ 55.2 hp per litre
• 3.0 MT: 156 / 2.978 ≈ 52.4 hp per litre

The 160 hp 2.9 MT is the densest of the three by about 10 hp per litre versus the 131 hp twin (55.2 − 45.2) and about 2.8 hp per litre versus 3.0 MT (55.2 − 52.4).

3.0 MT is 78 cc larger than either 2.9 MT (2978 − 2900) and 25 hp above the 131 hp car (156 − 131), but 4 hp below the 160 hp 2.9 MT (160 − 156). In kW: 114 versus 96 (+18 kW over the 131) and 114 versus 118 (−4 kW versus the 160). If the shopping question is “which engine makes the most horsepower,” the answer is 2.9 MT 160 hp, not the 3.0 MT.

Torque is measured only on 3.0 MT: 241 Nm at 2500 rpm. For both 2.9 MT versions torque is not measured. You cannot rank pulling power among the three with a complete Nm table; you can only say 3.0 MT is the one version with a published figure.

Fuel grade: both 2.9 MT versions are listed as 80; 3.0 MT is 92. That is a running-cost and availability difference, not a power ranking.

Performance and mpg: 0-100, top speed, and consumption are not measured

For 2.9 MT 131 hp, 2.9 MT 160 hp, and 3.0 MT:

• 0–100: not measured
• top speed: not measured
• city consumption: not measured
• highway consumption: not measured
• mixed consumption: not measured
• CO2: not measured
• eco class: not measured

Do not infer that the 29 hp gap or the 78 cc gap changes sprint time or mpg. Those deltas are engine-sheet arithmetic, not timed or tank-tested results. If a listing quotes 0–100, top speed, or mpg for a Volvo 164, it is not from this dataset.

Dimensions, weight, tank, and brakes: only 3.0 MT has a full kerb and tank line

Ground clearance is 180 mm on all three. Wheel size is not measured on all three. Gross weight is not measured on all three. Rear suspension is not measured on all three.

Kerb weight is 1360 kg on 3.0 MT and not measured on both 2.9 MT versions. Tank is 60 litres on 3.0 MT and not measured on both 2.9 MT versions. You cannot compute range or power-to-weight for the 2.9 MT cars. For 3.0 MT only:

• 1360 / 156 ≈ 8.72 kg per hp
• 241 / 1360 ≈ 0.177 Nm per kg (using the one measured torque)

Front brakes are Disc on all three. Rear brakes are Disc on 3.0 MT and not measured on both 2.9 MT versions. If four-wheel disc specification in the sheet matters to you, 3.0 MT is the only version where rear Disc is recorded. That is not proof the other two lack rear discs; it is proof the catalogue did not measure them.

Generations: nothing later to “step up” into

There is 1 generation, 1968–1974, Sedan, 3 versions. There is no restyling listed as a separate generation and no second generation to buy for a newer platform. Comparing “which generation changed what” collapses to: none of them did. Every version shares the same start and stop dates. Buying a later year inside 1968–1974 is not a generation change in this data.

Which version to choose

Choose 2.9 MT 131 hp if you want the same 2900 cc Gasoline 6 Inline Carburetor Manual 4 RWD package with the lowest listed output: 131 hp / 96 kW, fuel 80, engine Front, longitudinal. You give up 29 hp and 22 kW versus the other 2.9 MT, and 25 hp / 18 kW versus 3.0 MT. Torque, 0–100, top speed, consumption, tank, kerb, wheels, rear suspension, and rear brakes are not measured. This is the low-output twin of the 160 hp car, not a different gearbox or drive.

Choose 2.9 MT 160 hp if the goal is maximum listed horsepower in this model. 160 hp / 118 kW is the peak of the three, ≈ 55.2 hp per litre, same 2900 cc and fuel 80 as the 131 hp 2.9 MT, engine placement Central. Versus 3.0 MT you gain 4 hp and 4 kW while using 78 cc less and fuel 80 instead of 92. Versus the 131 hp 2.9 MT you gain 29 hp on identical displacement. Torque, 0–100, top speed, consumption, tank, kerb, wheels, rear suspension, and rear brakes remain not measured. The extra output is not a larger engine in cubic centimetres.

Choose 3.0 MT if you want the only version with measured torque (241 Nm at 2500 rpm), the only measured tank (60 litres), the only measured kerb (1360 kg), and rear brakes listed as Disc. Power is 156 hp / 114 kW — 25 hp above 2.9 MT 131 hp and 4 hp below 2.9 MT 160 hp. Displacement is 2978 cc. Fuel is 92, not 80. Engine placement is Central, same label as 2.9 MT 160 hp. Power-to-weight can be stated only here: ≈ 8.72 kg/hp. 0–100, top speed, consumption, CO2, eco class, gross weight, and wheels are still not measured.

What extra money cannot be scored here. There are no prices in the data, so “what the extra money buys” is only what the spec sheet adds: 29 hp if you move from 2.9 MT 131 hp to 2.9 MT 160 hp; 78 cc, 92 fuel, 241 Nm, 60 litre tank, 1360 kg kerb, and listed rear Disc if you move to 3.0 MT; and 4 hp less than the 160 hp 2.9 MT if that move is from the peak-power car. Boost stays No, gearbox stays Manual 4, drive stays RWD, clearance stays 180 mm. There is no automatic, no extra gear, and no generation jump to buy.

Short ranking by the numbers that exist. Most hp: 2.9 MT 160 hp. Most displacement and the only Nm/tank/kerb/rear-brake line: 3.0 MT. Lowest hp, longitudinal front engine, same 2900 cc as the 160: 2.9 MT 131 hp. Same years, same Sedan, same 1 generation. Reliability and typical problems are not measured in this dataset; do not treat silence as a fault list.