Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





1970's & '80s Volvos

124678

Comments

  • amazonamazon Posts: 293
    It's very possible to stick a SB Chevy in a Volvo 122.


    Click on Bilder
    click on the upper right picture in the bottom group.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,527
    Well, it is IN the car but I wonder if he ever got it hooked up? Looks like he did a bit of cutting. Must have been the Aqua Vit

    MODERATOR

  • Hi,

    My fifth gear (the button on the gearshift), has gradually begun to fail. ABout two months ago, the overdrive refused to engage when the button was clicked, but would eventually engage if given a second or third chance. Last week, it refused to acknowledge it was even being clicked- I have no more fifth gear. Themechanic suggested the wires in the gearshift, but I've checked and they seem to be in good shape. My next theory is the relay, but I don't know where it is. ANy suggestions? It's an 84 240 wagon. Thanks.
    Robert
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,527
    i would think the most likely cause of the difficulty might be where the wires connect to the actual overdrive solenoid in the tranmission case, as these are exposed to the elements. The overdrive relay is probably well-protected inside the car or engine compartment.

    MODERATOR

  • amazonamazon Posts: 293
    It's probably the solenoid. Those can die slowly.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,527
    Yep, connections or solenoid itself sounds like the more likely than relay or wiring in the switch.

    MODERATOR

  • lancerfixerlancerfixer Posts: 1,308
    If I remember correctly, OD relay failures on the M46 transmission are pretty common. I'd check at http://www.brickboard.com for for info if you haven't done so already.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,527
    I like to start a diagnosis either with the end of the system first, then work backwards, or the beginning of the system, and then work to the end.

    So, end first would be a) solenoid, b) wires to solenoid c) relay, gearshift switch..

    Or if you wish you can start from the front of the system a) switch, b) relay, c) wires to solenoid, d) solenoid.

    But don't start in the middle somewhere, with the relay. This isn't good diagnostic procedure and can trip you up. Just because you don't have current coming out of the relay doesn't mean it's bad.

    MODERATOR

  • lancerfixerlancerfixer Posts: 1,308
    "Just because you don't have current coming out of the relay doesn't mean it's bad."

    True, but if under those circumstances you can confirm current is going into the relay...and that shouldn't be hard to do. And it's not like relays are foolproof; I lost count of how many I changed during my time working on aircraft. In my experience, it was rarely the devices/wires going in and out of relays, but the relays themselves.
    (And yes, I know a military aircraft is a completely different thing that an old Volvo. A relay, however, is pretty much a relay anywhere you go. As well, I do specifically remember reading about high relay failure rates on the M46 transmission. I can't speak from personal experience, though, as my Volvo is equipped with the M47, which is set up like a conventional five speed.)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,527
    Yep, that's why I suggested starting at the front of the system, so you know current is going into the relay. If you just measure output from the relay, you still don't have the answer.

    Maybe he'll report back and let us know.

    MODERATOR

  • amazonamazon Posts: 293
    i'd take the M46 (4+1 speed) over the M47 (5 speed) any time. The M46 is a much stronger transmission than the M47.
  • lancerfixerlancerfixer Posts: 1,308
    ...but at 123,000 miles, I haven't had any trouble with mine (knock on wood.)
  • jrosasmcjrosasmc Posts: 1,704
    I was just wondering: anybody out there that owns a classic RWD Volvo, say, a 144, 240, 740 etc? How do your cars perform in the snow, good or bad?
  • lancerfixerlancerfixer Posts: 1,308
    The previous Michelins I had on the car were simply awful in the snow... I've now got a set of Bridgestone Turanzas on the car; we've only had one light snow so far this year, though. They seemed to go pretty well, but I'll have to report back when we get actual snowfall. Even with the awful tires which allowed a good deal of rear end slippage and oversteer if you weren't careful, it was never unpredictable or uncontrollable, at least at resonable and prudent speeds for snow driving. I find the brakes easy to modulate as well, even without ABS; I've really got to step on them firmly to lock 'em up on snow (all bets are off on ice, like with any car, however.) Overall, my 740 isn't too bad; I like having the manual transmission for second gear starts, as well (I know newer Volvos have this feature on their auto trannies, but I prefer a stick all the same.) A locking or limited slip differential would be nice, but at this point I can't justify the expense to install one.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,527
    I used to drive an old 140 wagon in the Colorado winters and with studded snows and a sensible driver it wasn't bad at all for most normal snow conditions. Better than most RWD cars, probably because being so gutless it had built-in traction control.

    MODERATOR

  • jrosasmcjrosasmc Posts: 1,704
    I can safely note that my 850 sedan, even without studded snows, performs very well in the Vermont winters. With its winter mode in the automatic transmission and a sensible driver- I drive really slow in the winter- it's very good.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,527
    Just saw an old 240 plowing through the snow up here in Aspen. Seemed to be chugging along okay, at least on the level.

    MODERATOR

  • In response to jrosasmc's previous queries about 1975 240's, reliability of older volvos, and snow abilities I would like to state that I have a 1975 245 that I have owned for 4 years, and it is perhaps the most reliable, cheapest transportation I have ever heard of. I race it in rallyx on weekends, drive it flat out during the week (often shifting over 6000 rpm), and put a couple hundred a year into maintenance. I change the oil once a year with amsoil, and it just keeps on going. It will keep up with traffic pretty easy with the 4.3:1 rear diff and the bulletproof B20 (possibly the toughest motor ever made) doesn't mind 5000 rpm on the interstate for hours on end ;) The handling is pretty impressive with some minor mods incuding ipd springs. I have taken it snow camping several times and it starts instantly in sub zero temperatures, and can powersteer through deep snow drifts with ease. I have even trailered a 25 foot Bayliner Cabin Cruiser with it. I wouldn't even consider trading it for a FWD "folvo." I currently own about 7 RWD volvos, along with various german makes (porsche, BMW, etc.) and this car is by far my favorite. The Unique styling of old volvos can really grow on you (really they are less boxy than most cars of there time) ;) And to the person that said 240 parking brakes don't work- they need to be adjusted as the pads wear by turning a wheel inside the rear rotor/hub that can be accessed with the wheel off. On my car they can lock up the rear tires instantly at any speed, and kill the engine from full throttle near redline (if the clutch doesn't let loose). Best parking brake I have ever used....
  • amazonamazon Posts: 293
    A 240 with a stock B20 is a slug. Granted just about the only way you can kill one is with a sledge hammer or a torch, but a performance vehicle, it's not. Also-- I didn't know that they made the 245 with a B20. In Sweden, all 245s had the B21. Oh well.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,527
    They really are no fun to drive with a stock motor, that's true. The car is just too heavy for a basically anemic engine. But they are a LOT better car than the 140s, so they were progressing.

    The problem with the stock B20 motor is that the camshafts are no good and neither are the timing gears. Neither one stops the car (usually) but they contribute to the motors very sluggish performance and its annoying noise levels. But you swap out the cam, using a B20E head and the SU type carbs, and some better timing gears, and of course rebuild that distributor, and you have a totally different car. And yes, they can be made to "handle" very well, too. But not stock.

    The parking brake shoes are just too small. If I lived on a hill with a 240 and a stickshift, I'd recommend a wheel chock for sure. The parking brake is just poor engineering, plain and simple.

    MODERATOR

  • amazonamazon Posts: 293
    240s with B20 is the exception. Most came with the B21, which did help the performance. As we've discussed before, even those cars are no speed monsters, but for the mid to late 70's, they were allright. The OHC B21, and especially the B23 has some wicked performance potential compared to the pushrod B20 if you find someone who knows how to work these engines.
  • jrosasmcjrosasmc Posts: 1,704
    And how about the last breed of 240s (1990-93)? Do you think those had any improvement or were better-performing vehicles than their predecessors?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,527
    I suppose you can make anything go fast, but a B21 wouldn' t be my first choice. Still, being OHC, it was about time for Volvo to enter the 20th Century, that's true, and it was a good engine. Too bad they didn't have it ready sooner.

    MODERATOR

  • amazonamazon Posts: 293
    They did have more HP, but also had gotten heavier. Performance did improve, but by the 90's, the competition had run away from the 240.
  • amazonamazon Posts: 293
    "Still, being OHC, it was about time for Volvo to enter the 20th Century"

    Then GM is now using a two century old technology, right?
  • jrosasmcjrosasmc Posts: 1,704
    Don't forget the 940 as well. In a 1994 comparison test of family wagons, Consumer Reports clocked a NA 940 at a sluggish 12.7 seconds from 0-60. Heck, even my own Mercury Villager minivan could run rings around any 940 wagon.
  • amazonamazon Posts: 293
    Yes, the NA 940 was just about as much a slug as the 240. WHat would a base Taurus wagon do at the time? I view the base 940 as a basic work car. Pretty simple design, and robust and safe. Nothing fancy or fun about it at all.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,897
    ...for a base Taurus wagon was around 11.5 seconds. I forget the year though...somewhere between 1996 and now. That'd be with the 3.0 Vulcan V-6. I think that engine was actually a bit quicker in the '86-95 Tauruses.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,527
    Yep, GM is still lots of old tech, and it's hurting them image-wise, even if it works pretty well. This is why BMW beat up so badly on Volvo in the marketplace.

    MODERATOR

  • MY 1ST VOLVO {NEW} WAS A 1971 142S 2DR, LOST A CAM AT 14K.... LOVED THE 79 242GT, FUN TO DRIVE
    BUT THE ONE I LIKED BEST WAS THE 76 BERTONE.. ALTHOUGH THE V6 VPR ENGINE WITH THE OHC OIL SCREENS REQUIRED CONSTANT CLEANING UNLESS YOU WANTED TO R&R ENGINE. THE 85 244 WAS NO ROCKET, BUT, A GOOD COMMUTE CAR...
This discussion has been closed.