Volvo 260 Series: which version to buy (1974–1982)
The Volvo 260 Series to buy, if the catalogue numbers are the only filter, is 2.8 MT at 155 hp (114 kW): it is the peak of the 12-version, one-generation range (1974-01-01 to 1982-12-31), Sedan 2-doors, RWD, Gasoline, 6 cylinders Inline, boost No, Carburetor. It is 30 hp above the weakest 2.7 MT / 2.7 AT at 125 hp (92 kW) and 26 hp above the milder 2.8 AT / 2.8 MT at 129 hp (95 kW).
The Volvo 260 Series to buy, if the catalogue numbers are the only filter, is 2.8 MT at 155 hp (114 kW): it is the peak of the 12-version, one-generation range (1974-01-01 to 1982-12-31), Sedan 2-doors, RWD, Gasoline, 6 cylinders Inline, boost No, Carburetor. It is 30 hp above the weakest 2.7 MT / 2.7 AT at 125 hp (92 kW) and 26 hp above the milder 2.8 AT / 2.8 MT at 129 hp (95 kW). The same 155 hp exists as 2.8 AT (4-speed Automatic) if a Manual is not required. There is no second generation to step up to: pokoleniy = 1. 0–100, top speed, mpg, torque, kerb weight and tank size are not measured on every version, so the ranking is power, displacement, gearbox type and gears — not acceleration or economy.
Which generation to buy
There is only 1 generation of the Volvo 260 Series in this catalogue (generation key 6125), sold as Sedan 2-doors from 1974-01-01 to 1982-12-31, with 12 versions. No later generation changed body, drive or layout. Ground clearance is 140 mm on all 12. Front suspension is Independent, spring on all 12. Front brakes are Disc on all 12. Rear suspension, rear brakes, wheels, kerb weight, gross weight and tank are not measured on all 12. Choosing a “later generation” is not an option here; the choice is only among the 12 rows inside this one generation.
Specs table: all 12 versions (distinguish same names by hp)
| Version | hp | kW | rpm | Nm | cc | Fuel type | Cyl. | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Gears | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.7 AT 140 hp | 140 | 103 | 4000 | not measured | 2700 | Gasoline | 6 | Inline | No | Automatic | 4 | RWD |
| 2.7 AT 148 hp | 148 | 109 | 4200 | not measured | 2700 | Gasoline | 6 | Inline | No | Automatic | 4 | RWD |
| 2.7 AT 125 hp | 125 | 92 | 4000 | not measured | 2700 | Gasoline | 6 | Inline | No | Automatic | 4 | RWD |
| 2.7 MT 140 hp | 140 | 103 | 4000 | not measured | 2700 | Gasoline | 6 | Inline | No | Manual | 5 | RWD |
| 2.7 MT 148 hp | 148 | 109 | 4200 | not measured | 2700 | Gasoline | 6 | Inline | No | Manual | 5 | RWD |
| 2.7 MT 125 hp (4 gears) | 125 | 92 | 4000 | not measured | 2700 | Gasoline | 6 | Inline | No | Manual | 4 | RWD |
| 2.7 MT 125 hp (5 gears) | 125 | 92 | 4000 | not measured | 2700 | Gasoline | 6 | Inline | No | Manual | 5 | RWD |
| 2.8 AT 129 hp | 129 | 95 | not measured | not measured | 2800 | Gasoline | 6 | Inline | No | Automatic | 4 | RWD |
| 2.8 AT 155 hp | 155 | 114 | not measured | not measured | 2800 | Gasoline | 6 | Inline | No | Automatic | 4 | RWD |
| 2.8 MT 129 hp | 129 | 95 | not measured | not measured | 2800 | Gasoline | 6 | Inline | No | Manual | 5 | RWD |
| 2.8 MT 155 hp | 155 | 114 | not measured | not measured | 2800 | Gasoline | 6 | Inline | No | Manual | 5 | RWD |
| 2.8 MT 155 hp (second catalogue row) | 155 | 114 | not measured | not measured | 2800 | Gasoline | 6 | Inline | No | Manual | 5 | RWD |
All 12: Carburetor, boost No, RWD, Sedan 2-doors, 1974–1982. Fuel grade 92 is listed on the 140 / 148 / 129 / 155 hp rows; on all three 125 hp rows fuel grade is not measured. Engine placement Front, longitudinal is listed only on the 125 hp 2.7 AT and both 125 hp 2.7 MT rows; on the other nine rows engine placement is not measured.
Engine: 2.7 vs 2.8, and why hp is not the same as displacement
The extra 100 cc on the 2800 engines versus the 2700 engines does not automatically mean more power. 2.8 AT 129 hp and 2.8 MT 129 hp sit only 4 hp above 2.7 AT / 2.7 MT 125 hp, and they sit 11 hp below 2.7 AT / 2.7 MT 140 hp and 19 hp below 2.7 AT / 2.7 MT 148 hp. Buying “the 2.8” without reading the hp figure can put you in a weaker car than a 2.7 AT 148 hp.
Power per litre (hp ÷ displacement in litres):
- 2.7 AT / 2.7 MT 125 hp: 125 ÷ 2.7 = 46.3 hp/l
- 2.8 AT / 2.8 MT 129 hp: 129 ÷ 2.8 = 46.1 hp/l (lowest specific output)
- 2.7 AT / 2.7 MT 140 hp: 140 ÷ 2.7 = 51.9 hp/l
- 2.7 AT / 2.7 MT 148 hp: 148 ÷ 2.7 = 54.8 hp/l
- 2.8 AT / 2.8 MT 155 hp: 155 ÷ 2.8 = 55.4 hp/l (highest)
The 2.8 129 hp pair is the least efficient use of displacement in this list. The 2.8 155 hp pair is the most. The 2.7 148 hp pair is only 0.6 hp/l behind the 155 hp 2.8, with 8 hp less than 155 and 8 hp more than 140 (148 − 140 = 8; 155 − 148 = 7).
Peak rpm, where measured: 4000 on 125 hp and 140 hp 2.7 rows; 4200 on 148 hp 2.7 rows (200 rpm higher). On both 2.8 AT and both 2.8 MT power-rpm is not measured.
Automatic vs Manual: what the extra gears buy
Every Automatic in the Volvo 260 Series is 4 gears. Manuals are 5 gears except one row: 2.7 MT 125 hp with 4 gears.
Paired Automatic / Manual at the same hp:
- 2.7 AT 140 hp vs 2.7 MT 140 hp: same 140 hp / 103 kW @ 4000, same 2700 cc, Gasoline, 6 Inline, Carburetor, 92, RWD. Difference: Automatic 4 vs Manual 5.
- 2.7 AT 148 hp vs 2.7 MT 148 hp: same 148 hp / 109 kW @ 4200. Difference: Automatic 4 vs Manual 5.
- 2.7 AT 125 hp vs 2.7 MT 125 hp (5 gears): same 125 hp / 92 kW @ 4000, Front, longitudinal. Difference: Automatic 4 vs Manual 5.
- 2.7 AT 125 hp vs 2.7 MT 125 hp (4 gears): same 125 hp, but both have 4 gears — here the Manual does not add a fifth ratio.
- 2.8 AT 129 hp vs 2.8 MT 129 hp: same 129 hp / 95 kW, 2800 cc. Automatic 4 vs Manual 5.
- 2.8 AT 155 hp vs 2.8 MT 155 hp: same 155 hp / 114 kW, 2800 cc. Automatic 4 vs Manual 5.
If the goal is more gears, do not pick 2.7 MT 125 hp with 4 gears: it matches the Automatic’s gear count. Pick any other 2.7 MT or 2.8 MT (all 5 gears).
Weight per horsepower cannot be calculated: kerb weight is not measured on all 12, so a 155 hp car is not proven lighter or heavier per hp than a 125 hp car.
Performance and mpg
For every version — 2.7 AT 140 / 148 / 125 hp, 2.7 MT 140 / 148 / 125 hp (4 and 5 gears), 2.8 AT 129 / 155 hp, 2.8 MT 129 / 155 hp (both catalogue rows):
- 0–100: not measured
- top speed: not measured
- city / highway / mixed consumption: not measured
- CO2: not measured
- eco class: not measured
- torque Nm and torque rpm: not measured
You cannot rank these versions by sprint, top speed or mpg from this catalogue. The only measured performance-related figure is output (hp/kW) and, on the 2.7 rows, the rpm at which that output is quoted.
Dimensions and weight (same on every version that lists them)
- Ground clearance: 140 mm on all 12.
- Kerb weight: not measured.
- Gross weight: not measured.
- Tank: not measured.
- Wheels: not measured.
- Body: Sedan 2-doors on the one generation.
A buyer is not choosing a roomier or heavier 260 Series by picking 2.8 MT over 2.7 AT; those dimensions are not in the data.
Reliability and problems: what the data actually shares
Every version uses Carburetor and boost No. There is no injected or boosted row to prefer on paper. Drive is RWD throughout — no AWD option. Fuel 92 is specified on 140, 148, 129 and 155 hp rows; the 125 hp trio does not list a grade (not measured). Front brakes Disc and Independent, spring front suspension do not differ by version. Rear brakes and rear suspension are not measured, so a “better chassis” version cannot be named. Compression ratio, bore and stroke, valves per cylinder: not measured. Problems and reliability in the sense of failure rates are not in this dataset; the mechanical split that is in the data is Carburetor + RWD + 6 Inline + Gasoline on all 12.
Which version to choose — by job
Most power: 2.8 MT 155 hp (114 kW) or 2.8 AT 155 hp. Same peak; Manual 5 vs Automatic 4. The catalogue lists 2.8 MT 155 hp twice (one row quotes power rpm as not measured). That is the top of the range: +30 hp vs 125, +26 hp vs 129, +15 hp vs 140, +7 hp vs 148.
Most power without stepping to 2800 cc: 2.7 MT 148 hp or 2.7 AT 148 hp (109 kW @ 4200). Versus the 140 hp 2.7 pair that is +8 hp and +200 rpm on the power peak. Versus 125 hp that is +23 hp (148 − 125). Specific output 54.8 hp/l is second only to the 155 hp 2.8 (55.4 hp/l).
Avoid if the goal is power: 2.8 AT 129 hp and 2.8 MT 129 hp. Extra 100 cc versus 2700, but 11 hp less than 2.7 AT / 2.7 MT 140 hp and 19 hp less than the 148 hp 2.7 pair. Specific output 46.1 hp/l is the floor of the table.
Lowest output, documented Front, longitudinal placement: 2.7 AT 125 hp, 2.7 MT 125 hp (4 gears), 2.7 MT 125 hp (5 gears). All 125 hp / 92 kW @ 4000. If a 4-speed Manual is acceptable, that 4-gear 2.7 MT 125 hp is the only Manual that does not add a fifth ratio over the Automatic.
Automatic only: choose among 2.7 AT 125 / 140 / 148 hp and 2.8 AT 129 / 155 hp, all 4 gears. Ranked by hp: 155 > 148 > 140 > 129 > 125.
Manual only: 2.7 MT 125 (4 or 5 gears) / 140 / 148 hp and 2.8 MT 129 / 155 hp. Ranked by hp: 155 > 148 > 140 > 129 > 125. Prefer 5 gears unless you specifically want the 4-gear 2.7 MT 125 hp.
What “extra displacement” buys: 2800 vs 2700 is +100 cc. It buys +30 hp only if you take the 155 hp 2.8, not the 129 hp 2.8. It does not buy a different body, drive, clearance (still 140 mm), or a measured weight or mpg figure.
There is no price in this catalogue, so “what the extra money buys” cannot be stated in currency — only in horsepower, litres and gears as above.
Short pick: buy 2.8 MT 155 hp for the highest listed output and 5 Manual gears; buy 2.8 AT 155 hp for the same output with 4 Automatic gears; buy 2.7 MT 148 hp if you want to stay on 2700 cc and still sit only 7 hp below the range peak; do not treat 2.8 AT / 2.8 MT 129 hp as an upgrade over a 2.7 140 or 148 hp car.