Re: Bloody Volvo Driver?.... Maybe not.

Dec 29, 2005 6 Replies


Seen some interesting cars, but I don't think this falls into the


> "Bloody Volvo Driver" category:
>
formatting link

I saw this a few months ago - IIRC, there was a previous thread about it in aus.cars. Can't remember if it was on eBay or somewhere else.


I looked at the photos and specifications and concluded that someone has wasted an enormous amount of money considering that a base model like that can be picked up for under $200. They didn't even add the centre gauge cluster or 6-panel tail lights.


It's dubious whether a blown 350 would be legal in Queensland. The only way that I could claim that a blown 350 would be legal in NSW is to use the weight of a 264TE (factory stretch limo) as the base weight. AFAIK, the 264TE never came to AU, so it's dubious whether the RTA would accept the use of its weight...


"fuellie conrods" - WTF? Nothing real special about the rods used in "fuellie" engines. In fact, there are many more modern rods that are far better. Of course, fuellie rods probably also means small journal.


No mention of what heads they are. Not even a casting number!


It's got a ford nine-inch diff, but no mention of whether they've retained the original Volvo brakes, etc., what sort of centre it has or the ratio.


The bonnet protrusions would certainly not be legal in NSW, so no chance of transferring it from QLD to NSW. The wanker wing on the back would also fail in NSW on the basis of the leading edges of the end plates presenting an unacceptably sharp protrusion. QLD seem to be far slacker on complying with the ADRs, so it might be acceptable there.


The aftermarket tacho is located such as to fail ADR 21 "Instrument Panels", which specifies requirements for the head impact zone on the dash left of the steering wheel.


The description block at the top claims that the car condition is "new". That is outright false advertising - it is a rebuilt 1982 car. No amount of rebuilding will ever make it "new". "As new", yes. "New", no.


All up, I'd say that I could build a car of comparable specs (but road legal in NSW) for well under the starting price, even if I didn't use any of the bits that I've already got!

How much hp is yours Athol?

Fraser

In current form, with cast exhaust manifolds, cast inlet manifold, no cold air inlet, etc. and more compression and a bigger cam than an HT 350 engine, I'd conservatively estimate that it'd match the 300HP of an HT 350.

Good fun on straight gas.

Fraser

The new motor is going to be a lot more fun. :-)

As with the current engine, it's a Canadian 010 2-bolt block and it'll be a

350. The similarities end about there. :-) Brownfield heads, performer RPM air-gap, around 11.5:1, cold air intake, extractors and a bigger exhaust system (probably twin 2.5" instead of current twin 2").

I've pretty much decided that the T350 auto will make way for a 4L60 at the same time. By making the decision not to build a turboed motor, the 4L60 will be up to the job...

Why no turbos?

Fraser

Several factors.

The existing LPG tank (and I'd expect the one on eBay to be about the same) is only good for 53L. Even with some drastic surgery to the boot floor for a 2nd tank, fuel capacity is going to be limited to about 115L unless I fit a tank so big that it makes the boot completely useless.

The car is primarily for long distance trips at decent speeds (including

100km/h+ on unsealed roads) and needs a decent range. With the engine as a N/A high compresion setup, I'll get a lot better economy than I'd get from a turboed engine with less compression.

If the current engine can get a slightly heavier, bigger car with worse aerodynamics to 250km/h, I don't see a lot of need for the extra power of the turbos - they'd really only be pose value and would mean I'd have to go for a bigger gearbox (4L80E instead of 4L60), which requires a computer to operate and doesn't have as wide a gear spread as the 4L60. It'd probably also require some serious work on the floor, which the smaller boxes avoid.

Aside from all of that, the RTA (rego authority for our foreign readers) think that the 264GLE's weight of 1390kg defines the maximum engine size permitted and might not like me trying to use the 264TE's weight to justify certifying a turboed 350 in a 264GLE, particularly since there were no 264TEs in AU.

Besides, I can get _way_ more power out of a high compression N/A engine than the one on eBay is getting with a blower. :-)

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required