A VOLVO diesel engine?

Everyone knows the six cylinder VW supplied diesel in the RWD Volvos stunk on ice and most are now junked or repowered. Isn't there a Volvo built small heavy diesel that would go in there?

Reply to
Bret Ludwig
Loading thread data ...

How did they stunk on ice any more than the 240 with the underpowered 4 cylinder motor. Traction with RWD is a problem inherent with the drive wheel placement, not to the power plant. Starting in a higher gear can sometimes help. I drove one for over 200,000 miles and it drove like I expected a diesel would drive.

Where specifically would you like the small heavy diesel to go. And why would you want it to be necessarily heavy. And why would you like to be made by Volvo.

Reply to
hjsjms

Most of them failed young. Actually the younger after warranty it failed the better because the car was in good shape and would be picked by someone wanting to do small block Chevy swap. The alternative usually was death by parting out.

"Stinks on ice" is a phrase meaning "stinks very badly" or "is a very bad thing". It was a very poor engine that died a young death characteristically.

By "heavy diesel" I meant an engine intended for industrial, ag or truck use. And the Volvo part is called "brand loyalty" though there are several Mits or Isuzu engines that might well be a better selection.

Reply to
Bret Ludwig

They did??? Not in my experience. The only reason that motor should fail would be from infrequent oil changes and not keeping up with maintenance.

???? That's a new one... Don't understand the connection to ice at all.

Actually the 6 cylinder diesel was used for many years in europe. Couldn't have been that bad. I suspect most of the problem was from owners not knowing frequent oil and filter changes could not be skimped on, fuel filters had to be attended to, and injector/glow plug problems needed to be attended to and the all important cam belt had to be changed.. The unfortunate myth about diesels being low maintenance may have caused some owners to ignore required work. But taken care of it was a decent if underpowered motor.

Why would you want to put an diesel engine designed for industrial or commercial use into a passenger car. You would be paying a lot for an overbuilt design that in all likelihood would not be designed to power a lightweight car well at all. Most industrial diesels are constant speed power plants and not designed for rapid acceleration demanded in automotive applications. And to refer back to the original comment it would be heavy as the dickens. You would have to redo the suspension or live with driving downhill all the time.

Whether the motor or other part is machined and assembled in a Volvo plant is pretty much irrelevant these days. Parts and components come from many sources.

Reply to
hjsjms

Most died by blowing out all the coolant through the exhaust. This did put an end to the racket though ;) I finally gave up and bought an Opel which had the BMW engine Volvo should have sourced

-
Reply to
M-gineering

It's been a few years, but I seem to remember a maintenance requirement to retorque the head somewhere in the duty cycle of that motor?

I have yet to find a diesel that did not announce it's presence by a combination of noise and excessive pollution. Including the BMW diesel.

Interesting comment...maybe you should seek employment with Volvo in their powerplant design section. :)

Reply to
hjsjms

Most in the US died young.

formatting link
240 Volvo

We purchased a diesel Volvo with the sole interest of installing a V-8 for this conversion manual.

Our goal was to do an engine swap that was repeatable, and functional. The parts for the swap had to be easy to make and/or readily available. And we didn't want to change the feel of the car.

This Volvo originally had a diesel engine and an automatic transmission. It had about 110,000 miles and the engine was worn out and would not start in cold weather. The Volvo diesel engine was actually built by Volkswagen and was never noted for its durability.

The nice part about this car is that it is complete, and it is unmodified. The diesel Volvo has the advantages of coming with suspension and brake components that are compatible with the V-8 because the diesel engine is fairly heavy. The disadvantages of the diesel car are that the fuel system, and the exhaust system (heat shields) have to be changed for the gas engine. The electrical system is also a bit more work to hook up, compared to a gas car.

As you can see in the above photo, the V-8 installation looks nearly stock. The engine is a 305 throttle-body-injected V-8 from a 1991 Camaro. Almost all of the parts are available from Volvo or Chevrolet. This is what makes the engine swap so repeatable, and so stock looking.

In this photo, the battery had been relocated to the passenger's side to improve balance, and to allow using the battery cables that came with the 1991 Camaro engine. Later, the battery was moved to the trunk to improve front/rear weight distribution. The windshield washer reservoir and the coolant recovery tank were relocated to where they fit best. The air conditioning hoses were also re-routed. The firewall required no hammering, but the transmission tunnel needed lots of hammering to accommodate the 700-R4 transmission.

The V-8 added weight to the car. With all options (air conditioning, power windows, sunroof), 700-R4 automatic transmission, heavy duty trailer hitch (about 35 lbs), full tank of gas, rear mounted battery, IPD swaybars (about 15 lbs heavier than stock), and 2-1/2" exhaust; the car weighs about 3325 lbs and the weight distribution is 56/44 (front/rear). The published curb weight for the Volvo is listed at about 3120 lbs, so taking into account that the sway bars and trailer hitch added about 50 lbs, the V-8 added about 150 lbs. The weight distribution is close to stock, and it is much better than the late-model V-8 Mustangs and Camaros which typically have a weight distribution of 58/42.

The car has a heavier feel than a 4-cylinder car, but it does not feel much different than a diesel car or a V6 car. It doesn't even feel very fast, although it accelerates quite well. That phenomenon is referred to as refinement. A quiet, smooth car typically feels slower than it really is. Conversely, a noisy, vibrating car often feels faster than it really is.

Improved Merging Power!

With the standard 3.31 gears, 195/70-14 tires, a 700-R4 transmission, and the stock Volvo 2 inch diesel exhaust, the car would do 0-60 mph in

8.1 seconds. The 1/4 mile took about 16.3 seconds with a trap speed of 84 mph. Changing to a 2-1/2" exhaust improved the 0-60 time to 7.7 seconds. The 1/4 mile took 16.1 seconds with a trap speed of 86 mph. These are real numbers, not hyped up numbers used for magazine articles or advertising purposes. In overdrive (.70:1), engine speed was 1900 rpm at 60 mph. Driven conservatively, gas mileage averaged about 18 mpg with either exhaust, trip mileage (freeway travel at 65-70 mph) was about 22 mpg.

A Borg-Warner 5-speed transmission with a .63:1 overdrive was then installed. A lightweight flywheel (16 lbs) from a TPI Camaro was installed to reduce weight, the car weighed about 70 lbs less than with the automatic transmission. Although the car felt much quicker, 0-60 mph takes 4/10 seconds longer (about 8.1 seconds) because it takes about 1/2 second to shift from one gear to another, and two gear changes are required to get to 60 mph. The quarter mile takes 16.2 seconds with a trap speed of 87 mph. In fifth gear (.63:1), engine speed is 1700 rpm at 60 mph. Driven conservatively, gas mileage averages about 19 mpg, and trip mileage is about 24 mpg, which is not surprising considering this same engine and transmission in a 1991 Camaro is EPA rated at about 17 mpg city and 26 mpg highway, although the Camaro has taller tires (26" diameter) and a taller rear axle ratio (2.73). Depending upon which magazines you believe, the performance and fuel mileage is comparable or superior to a Turbo-Intercooled 240 Volvo.

We installed an NOS (Nitrous Oxide Systems) throttle-body nitrous system to see how the car would hold up with some real power. The car has run a best quarter mile in 14.8 seconds at 95 mph with no mechanical problems. These times are very close to that of the 1994 Camaro Z28 with the 275 horsepower LT1 engine. It would be very expensive to get a Volvo engine to put out that kind of power.

The Volvo that is used in some Land Rover swaps appears to be an inline four with a redline of somewhere around 3000 rpm and weighing around 600 lbs, which is SB Chev territory. It is not like putting a Cummins or a 53 series Detroit in there. I think this engine is common to small construction and genset use. I don't know its model nomenclature. Figured you Volvo types would.

The Mercedes five cylinder OM 617 is the best and most available old diesel in the US but it has a front bag sump that presents clearance problems. Isuzu, Mits and Nissan make good diesels of this size range too but they are only available in industrial or lift truck trim here so you would need to do a fair amount of swapping over of accessories, brackets, etc.

I have driven pickups and Blazers with Detroit Diesels. They are a lot of fun but the blower noise gets old in a while.

Reply to
Bret Ludwig

Sounds like a fun project.

That would be quite a challenge, given that you are substituting a V-8 gas engine for an iline 6 cylinder diesel.

The automatic was a poor idea. The four speed manual with electric overdrive gave a lot better acceleration. It could at least have hope of keeping up with a VW bus.

Mine had the Audi logo.

Well, the 240 cars no matter which engine was installed were not exactly light and the suspension was not exactly sporty, so acceleration was ponderous at best.

Better acceleration, but at the cost of milage. The diesel would get

35mpg on the road and the gas engine could easily top 28mpg.

Not sure I understand the purpose behind trying to make a boxy heavy sedan with suspension that tends to pitch side to side into a performance vehicle. I would think there are better platforms to work from.

Well, diesel motors as a group are in my opinion not worth the hassle for passenger cars. They are noisy, and the polluting smelly exhaust eventually works its way into every crevice of the car, no matter the make. Air vents develop a fine blackish coating, etc. The big 8 cylinder diesels used in USA vehicles are obnoxiously loud and polluting in my experience. They are so noisy that I have to think the engineers purposely designed them that way so the driver could feel like he was piloting a "real truck".

Reply to
hjsjms

The problem with the 240 diesel (plain diesel with 85 bhp) was the lack of understanding of car diesel useage in the USA. The later versions (700 series with turbo) had 109 bhp and were certainly long-lived if regular maintenance was carried out. The later 760 series added an intercooler and gave 122 bhp. The post 1993 version had swirl chamber modifications, hydraulic tappets and a tensioner for the cambelt which avoided water pump problems caused when tensioning the cambelt. My own gives out 185 bhp (still

40 bhp less than top available) has over 170,000 miles and runs on 100% Biodiesel (from used chip oil). This is cheaper than mineral diesel and when I produce my own will cost less than 50cents/Litre (32P/Litre, UK). It has more power, is smoother and has benefits for pump lubrication over the ULSD (Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel) manufactured in Europe/UK.

Americans should get to know the great benefits of Biodiesel for their environment and fuel costs, not because Dubya says they should but for their own sakes. Biodiesel is a far cleaner, greener and more efficient fuel than gasoline (petrol, essence) could ever hope to be.

As far as Volvo diesel engines are concerned look for the D5 in two power ratings, 163 bhp and 184 bhp. This engine should open your eyes to just how good diesels have got. The other good diesel is the Honda which will show you just how quiet a diesel can be. They learnt from the Southampton (UK) University trials in the 60s using a Ford Costcutter diesel engine. For truck engines cnsider the Volvo FH16. Arguably the most powerful diesel engine found in a truck, it is a V16 with four turbos producing nearly 2 tons of torque!! at 650 bhp.

All the best, Peter.

700/900/90 Register Keeper, Volvo Owners Club (UK).
Reply to
Peter K L Milnes

I don't believe Volvo ever made a diesel engine on it's own which is suitable for automotive use. In fact, Volvo's range of engine production has always been limited. They went with a GM based marine engine, used VW/Audi for diesels and the lovely :( joint venture with Peugeot and Renault which produced a very forgettable V-6. Volvo Cars has only manufactured two families of engines for automobiles itself, the "red block" series of 4 cylinder B___ engines and the modern "white block" family of 4, 5 and 6 cylinder inline engines.

Hopefully Volvo will emerge unscathed from Ford's latest troubles!

John

Reply to
John Horner

Certainly the VW/Audi diesel engine was less robust in use than was the Volvo gasoline engine of it's time. Volvo marketed it's vehicles as robust, long lived vehicles. Remember the drive it like you hate it advertisements?

John

Reply to
John Horner

They're notorious for eating camshafts and other issues. In 15 years since I learned of their existence I've seen two that still ran, half a dozen or so in junkyards, and several that have been converted to V8s.

The Diesel badge on the back has long been a good way to drop the resale value of a 200 or 700 to around scrap value, the gasoline models held their value very well for a long time.

Plenty of excellent Diesel motors out there, the particular one Volvo used has a long history of being a turd.

Reply to
James Sweet

It's really quite straightforward, though I'm no fan of domestic V8s. Most of the conversions I've seen used carbureted engines, it's a simple enough setup, though not something I'd personally bother with.

Poor or not, it's what probably 90% of the US market cars had. I don't like automatics but I've come to accept the fact that most people do.

VW/Audi/Porche is the same company, you'll find a mixture of logos on various parts.

Drive a 240 Turbo sometime, particularly a modified one. They're really not much heavier than many other sports sedans, in many cases they're actually lighter. A 242 is something around 2900 lbs, that's relatively light compared to many modern cars of the same class. With some Bilstiens and IPD swaybars they handle quite well.

Well with Diesel fuel currently about 35% more expensive than gasoline in my area that small percentage of mileage drop is not such a big deal. Don't forget we need to compare apples to apples here, to get those mileages you'd need a manual transmission, I don't know what the converted car would get with a manual.

Depends on how you define "better". There's an appeal to the solid, no-nonsense Volvo design. Comfort, safety, big roomy interior, and an exterior that doesn't tend to attract unwanted attention. A stock 240DL handles like crap, but add a few upgrades and it can be quite competetive. For a number of years 240s were rather popular and successful in ralley and SCCA racing in Europe.

There's also the classic answer of "because they can", the same reason we have the hotrod Yugo, various gas turbine powered lawnmowers, and other oddball vehicles.

Reply to
James Sweet

There is the 4 cylinder series of Penta gasoline marine engines which was essentially just a B2xx series engine, that block was easily their most successful design.

Reply to
James Sweet

Hi Peter,

I am looking at the D5 here in UK at the moment - I didn't realise there were / are two power output versions available. can you tell me what models they appear in and is there much difference or is it just a chip change ?

Thanks,

Nick

Reply to
Nick

B was for bensin or gasoline, D for diesel. Volvo once sold their car spark ignition engines for marine use and they were offered in low compression kerosene versions too. Diesels burn kero a lot better than SI engines (if the pump can handle it or you add oil) but in some markets kero was cheap then. Kero is always higher than car gas in the US.

I think the smaller Volvo built truck/industrial engines may well have been suitable for the heavy Volvo car if they had really wanted though.

If brand loyalty is taken out of the equation the small block Chevy V8 is "the best engine for all cars" because there has been so much economic development of it and high quality aftermarket parts are disgustingly cheap. When anyone with sense rebulids a Gen I or II Chev SB in the States they pull the engine and after removing the accessories they summarily throw out everything but the heads, block, crank, and rods. New pistons, rings, and pins, rod and main bearings, an oil pump, and a cam and valve kit-valves, springs, retainers, keys, pushrods, lifters, cam, timing chain and gears cost less new than the camshaft on a OM617 Benz or a single cylinder kit on a FL913 Deutz. (Ask how I know!) And it's all top stuff, better than the manufacturer made originally.

Reply to
Bret Ludwig

Hopefully Ford will have to sell Volvo back to the Swedes. Ford hasn't been good for any European marque it's bought (Aston Martins with Taurus blocks? Jags on Lincoln frames??) .

Reply to
Bret Ludwig

Most of the conversions are TPI or LS-1s now. More are slushboxes but a 5 speed is very doable.

I know of one with a carbed Ford 289 as well.

In US bumper to bumper daily commuting they are the only way to go, but for a hobby car or for highway cruising they leave much to be desired. I drove a Mopar with the aftermarket B&M ClutchFlite once. Great idea, poor execution. I also had a VW with ASS (Automatic Stick Shift) but only drove it once-home-and the ASS wound up in a dumpster the next day. I got the car cheap because "you can't fix them" and the shop told this owner they couldn't be converted. Couldn't took me a week of evenings.

Reply to
Bret Ludwig

snipped-for-privacy@cs.com wrote

formatting link
A more successful effort.

formatting link
Some people really like diesel!

Reply to
Bret Ludwig

I wonder if anyone has ever put a D5 into a 200 or 700 series car?

There's some really good Diesel engines out there, it's just unfortunate that the selection of them available here is so tiny aside from big trucks.

The thing that gets me lately though is that Diesel is so substantially more expensive than gasoline at the moment that it offsets the savings in most cases. For a while it was $3.50/gallon which I know is dirt cheap compared to Europe but this is in comparison to $2.70 gasoline which lately has continued to fall while Diesel is still up there. Regardless of what gasoline costs, Diesel really ought to be cheaper.

Reply to
James Sweet

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.