"'Volvo'and 'performance' are incompatible no more"

'Volvo'and 'performance' are incompatible no more
Simply transporting passengers safely from Point A to Point B isn't
enough for Volvo any more. Providing a bit of excitement in the driving
experience has become a priority.
at http://www.washtimes.com/autoweekend/20060112-125857-5972r.htm

 

Have been for some time. Some of us have done engine conversions on
older Volvos.

 

Even without an engine conversion, a 240 Turbo with a bit of extra boost
can be an impressive performer, especially for a 22+ year old car.

 

My 91 740 is around 250hp which is small fry compared to what some Swedes
have done.



Regards,

Boris Mohar

Got Knock? - see:
Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs (among other things) http://www.viatrack.ca

void _-void-_ in the obvious place

 

Yes, but how does that compare to an alloy headed 350 chev with about
11.5:1 compression, etc.? (That's the new engine I'm getting parts
together for ATM - the old engine is still okay but is only about 300HP.)

 

IMHO there's just something sacrilegious about jamming a pushrod V8 into
a Volvo, it just seems such caveman technology. Can't be great for the
fuel economy or serviceability and what's the extra hundred pounds or so
under the hood do to the handling?

Now an interesting engine swap would be the S80T6 motor, smooth refined
all aluminum DOHC twin turbo producing about 300HP stock. It's gotta be
good for 400 HP with some tweaking, anything more than that will likely
exceed the traction abilities of any streetable tires.

 

A high compression engine with cold air induction, good exhaust, decent
gearing, etc. running on straight LPG is quite a cheap thing to run,
particularly relative to its performance. I considered running
less compression and a pair of turbos but the economy wouldn't be as
good!

The 264 with all cast iron 350 weighed in at 1440kg, which is equal to
the weight of the equivalent 265, being 50kg more than the standard
264. The front of the engine is further back in the engine bay than
the front of the V6, with the back of the gearbox _far_ further back,
so the weight distribution has actually improved!

I fitted the engine and gearbox without changing the front suspension
and it sat very slightly lower but handled fine. I later went to a
pair of '78 front coils, because the wire diameter was larger than the
later ones, fitted bilsteins front and rear (rears specifically because
the ford 9" is heavier than the dana 30 and the extra weight
theoretically needs better damping), urethane bushes in the bottom of
the front end, lower chassis braces (again from '78 parts car) as well
as the original top strut braces.

The new swaybars and adjustable strut top bearings are sitting in the
garage waiting to go on but aren't essential... One of these days,
I'll also pull the large-bush rear upper control arms out of the '88
parts car and fit them, too.

Of course, the new engine will have alloy heads, manifold and water
pump and new extractors (headers), so will be lighter than the current
one. That will be offset by the heavier gearbox (change from 3-speed
to overdrive 4-speed auto). The weight distribution will shift even
further back.

I'd be curious to know how the weight of the 6cyl diesel 2-series
compares...

Traction like that is only an issue from a standing start. Aside from
having a detroit locker (major traction advantage off the line), I'm
more interested in how the thing performs at highway speeds. We have
a _lot_ of 2-lane roads around here and being able to overtake quickly
is important.