thoughts on 2.3 performance....

[volvosneverdie]

Im really enjoying the way the 2.3 upgrade is spreading worldwide, like a swine flu full of extra cc goodness.
It keeps Volvo cars Volvo like tom says, and at a glance few would spot the change.
It's almost a steath swap.
Extra ninja horses.
Shhhhhh.
They're sneaking in everywhere.

[trabitom99]

I mean, just look at that engine bay:



It just looks so ... right. Except the air horns maybe

Tom

[SteveP]

That cam cover isn't original!

[Speedy88]

Extra ninja horses.

I HAVE to make that into a bonnet sticker

[Edcase 300]

Redblock Jekyll & Hydeness

[bodejodel]

That car looks NEW!

Read the thread (or watch the pics) and you'll see it almost is...

[Edcase 300]

From looking at the thread it must be satd...that the arch work is pretty amazing tbh! thts some real TLC (the original vehicle kind of proves tht anything is do-able with the right tools, people,work ethic etc)

[Ride_on]

Trouble is...times move on. Even my V70R isn't that quick. Outrunning modern 2.0 diesels (the quicker ones...320ds, 170bhp Golfs, etc) isn't trivial. You need 200+bhp in a 300 to put modern diesel metal in its place, never mind the petrol stuff.

cheers

James

Thats why I didn't buy a T5R, could not get the power onto the road, the 940 can though! I don't get many challenges I don't beat in the unmodified 940, surprised a mate on acceleration and cornering in the 940 when modified against his VW VR6. His car would beat me in a proper race, Volvo handling is not legendary but with some balls and extra boost the Volvo can hold its own. 360 needs turbo power though.

Forget Saxo's and crap like that, I used to eat those in my 85 360 at the lights unless they were prepared for fast take off.. I didn't need to be.

[bodejodel]

From looking at the thread it must be satd...that the arch work is pretty amazing tbh! thts some real TLC (the original vehicle kind of proves tht anything is do-able with the right tools, people,work ethic etc)

The first couple of pics is the scrap car that provided some of the sheetmetal. Not the car that they restored. Post # 44 is how the original car started off.

[Edcase 300]

haha that makes ense silly me! still an epic job though

[Ian Mac]

There is so much to be said for the 100% original rust-free car. Standing in front of a car which looks like it's come straight from the showroom, untouched by human hands has a certain magic to it. I get a lot more excited about these cars, than other people's projects, probably just like Ian.

But still, if I ever OWNED a "time warp" car, I'd probably feel the need to change something to it sooner or later. Some Volvo alloys here, a 5spd box there, some extra gauges, and hey presto, the original magic is gone.

Tom

I must be honest, a five speed transmission and an FM radio would be nice but I'd rather buy a car thats already got them than start messing around with mine.

As they say, a car can be restored and modified many times over but it will only be original once...

[foggyjames]

Thats why I didn't buy a T5R, could not get the power onto the road, the 940 can though!

I was talking about a higher speed roll - I was given a very hard time from 40 to...er...quite quickly, officer...recently by an Audi A3 2.0TDI. The average car has got SO much quicker in recent years. What was once unusually quick (I believe the original 850 T5 would outdrag a Ferrari F355 from 50-80, or something like that) is now being given a hard time by fairly mundane diesels!

The newer T5s (70-series onwards) run reduced boost in first gear, and mine (with the LSD) is surprisingly good at putting the power down...but...the reduced power in first gear means it's not quick at low speeds. Something like a 320d will match me nose-to-nose until I'm up to 30 and can get into boost in second, then I'm off! The 850s were pretty amusing (and not in a good way) in first gear though! The best bet would be that cracking engine (or a T6) in a 960...with the IRS instead of live axle. 300-350bhp comes a lot easier from a whiteblock than a redblock. I do love the RWD models...but a quick back to back comparison of a standard 940 Turbo against my (standard) V70R shows you have a LOT of work to do in every department except traction before the 940 is going to keep up, never mind surpass it. We're now there with Ryan's 740...but it's taken literally years of (on and off) work.

Moving on to the (utterly beautiful) 360 2.3 on LU-Jet...

I'm suspicious about how well an injector swap will work. If you get very lucky, (i.e. increase the injector flow by the exact same amount as the air demands increase by), you should be ok...but it's likely to be non-linear comparing idle with full-load. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's tricky. Ozzy's 940 with lambda control and a hot-wire AMM (more accurate than LE/LU's flappy paddle thing) had elevated fuel pressure for more boost. The lambda control sorted out the idle, and the fuel pressure was correct for full load...but hot restarts were tricky.

The most elegant solution is working out how to adjust the stock ECU maps yourself. Anything else is likely to be a compromise somehow.

cheers

James

[Ride_on]

Well I am probably comparing lower speeds that favour RWD and viewing with rose tints. I havn't really driven every day for a few years now.

I have no doubt that modern cars are more advanced on suspension but from my experiences with BMW petrol I had the opinion that engines where just going more revy and less torquey. Diesels of course have real torque from the high compression ratio so perhaps the top end have been improving. People talk about torque and that turbos increase torque, but it really depends on you reference, high compression NA 360s have significantly more low end torque than any turbo petrol car.

Why is a boosted 940 slower than a V70R? say were talking in a straight line from the lights? is it just less power and more weight?

[SteveP]

Why is a boosted 940 slower than a V70R? say were talking in a straight line from the lights? is it just less power and more weight?

About 60-90bhp difference! Although the V70's are pretty heavy, so it only really takes a turbo swap, chips and more boost to make a 940 just as fast in a straight line. It's quite funny seeing that some high powered S/V/C70's are still running 14sec quarter miles, when a 940 can do that with fairly modest modifications (referenced Steve on Turbobricks ran a 14.9 in a 940 turbo with a skimmed cylinder head, raised fuel pressure and about 15psi on a 16T turbo).

It's basically how Volvo set them up from the factory unfortunately when you come to suspension... although I have to say I was quite impressed with the increased stiffness the 940 sport seems to offer. Plus Griz's old 940 with bilsteins and ipd anti-roll bars was pretty ridiculous!

[foggyjames]

Yeah, it's just a difference in power/weight. The 70-series give away about 100kg in weight to a 940, but the R has 250bhp instead of 165/175bhp. To get a genuine 250bhp out of a B230 you need to enlarge the turbo (so it actually flows some air at higher RPMs) and run a ton more boost because the cylinder head flows so badly compared to the T5/R 20v head. Having said that, install a hotter cam, fit the same turbo (Mistubishi TD04-18T, in the case of the R), run about double the boost (20psi, against the T5/R 10psi), and you'll be roughly as quick. You can make the torque just by adding boost (and the redblock is strong enough to take lots of boost without complaining), but the high RPM end of things, where your peak horsepower figure is determined, is tricky because the 8v redblocks don't flow well up there by default. That makes 8v redblocks look weaker than their peak horsepower figure suggests - you're typically seeing 20% more torque for a given peak horsepower level than you'd expect from a turbo engine with a 4-valve head.

To give an example, I was kindly loaned a 940 LPT saloon by Ozzy a year ago with my S70 did its timing belt. It had a 15G turbo from an 850 T5, a K cam, and a rising rate fuel pressure regulator to fuel for the 17-18psi it was running...and it still got outrun by Ryan's C70 T5 auto (240bhp). It was quick, and hilarious fun to drive...but it illustrates that you've got quite a fit of "catch-up" to play before you hit standard T5 power. That's a pretty solid "stage one" upgrade setup, but you still need more.

A further example would be Ryan's 740. It's running a Garrett T3/T4 turbo, a K cam, Megasquirt for fuel/spark management with 630cc injectors, and (last year) 20psi of boost. At that level, it would comfortably spank a T5, and there's a lot more to come...a larger turbo, and more boost...but it took that much to beat a standard T5.

You're absolutely right - engines (both petrol and diesel) have changed so much in character in recent years. Back in the day, NA meant low down grunt, and turbo meant loads of lag then a ton of shove once the turbo finally spooled. Nowadays the opposite is true. A high-power NA engine will be revvy (Honda VTEC, BMW M-series, etc), while a turbo will give low-down grunt. The latest generation of 2.5L T5 engines (as found in the Focus ST), for example, give full torque from 1500rpm. The trade-off is peak power...and only making 225bhp from 2.5 litres with a turbo is pretty weak! In the case of the T5, it's that the turbo is tiny...and forms a bung in the exhaust.

On that front, it's a matter of efficiency. A B19E might push you in your seat from tickover, but it only makes 118bhp from 2 litres, when the current normally aspirated production car record is currently around double that (Honda S2000). Which one is preferable for your driving style is of course a matter of personal choice...but it's pretty hard to find engines like the B19E / high-comp B200E nowadays.

cheers

James