BrickBoard Archives
The files contained in this listing have been automatically archived from the active forums. Because the vast majority of posts are now in one place, this archive is considered legacy. You should use the SEARCH feature OR choose your topic and select date tabs within the forum you choose.
262 rear end[ALL/1998] posted by matt on
Saturday, 14 June 1997, at 10:49 p.m.
i am driving a 262c that has had a B21F transplanted for the 6 cyl. boat anchor that came with the car from the factory. This car runs fine, but isn't fast enought to get out of it's own way. It has been suggested that the 260 series differential may not be geared appropriately for the B21 engine. What to do? Which diff would be best for a little more poop off the line?
Re: 262 rear end[ALL/1998] posted by matt on
Sunday, 15 June 1997, at 12:16 p.m.
A bit more info will probably help in defining my problem-- I am running a 4sp w/ od and the rear end is original for the 262c--for a six cylinder and automatic.
Re: 262 rear end[ALL/1998] posted by Jim Ells on
Sunday, 15 June 1997, at 3:59 p.m.
Matt:You may want to consider swapping the B21F for more appropriate power. The 262 pumpkin is desirably stout and will accept sudden, high tourqe applications without gradually becoming tired. The 75' 350 Olds/'85 Cad 4 spd in my 262 performs excellent w/the original pumpkin. Was told that the 262 center section was "akin to", or "the same as" comparable years(s) GMC. The 'genius??' from whom I bought my 262 actually said that the ring and pinions were interchangable. I question this, but since it's not my problem, I've not gotten way into it. The intention is to eventually increase the ratio to a higher one as there's so much left over power & tourqe. Maybe someone out there will read this and set the record straight.
You could mess w/different ratios (wagon, [delivery van - Europe only] if ambitious)but This can be a hassle. A late model V6/V8- before too much computer stuff-would be preferred and not all that difficult. Late 80's/early 90's buick, Olds, Pontiac. Go with matching tranny for easy driveline matching. Don't know your personal feelings re:PURE VOLVO etc., so won't push it any more. Contact me if you wish to pursue this idea any further. Good Luck-Jim Ells
Re: 262 rear end[ALL/1998] posted by Frank Plumley on
Sunday, 22 June 1997, at 12:20 p.m.
The original message seems to have evloved into an entirely different subject, so I guess it is ok for me to put in my 2 cents worth. Ultimately, no matter how low the ratio (bigger the number, example: 3.54:1 is higher than 4.11:1), the performance for the 262 menitioned will only be incrementally increased as lower ratio gears are installed.
The response that mentions installinf a small block GM V6 or V8 offers quite a different outcome. Personally, I drive a 1982 242DL with a 1992 Ford Mustang 5.0 H.O with a Ford T5 World Class 5speed manual coupled to the stock Volvo differential with 3.54:1 gears. This really does offer "a little more poop off the line!"
I don't think the heritage of the V8 is all that important other than meeting personal preferences, but I have been led to believe that the V6 option is little, if any less expensive (in terms of the completed conversion) than the V8 opption. Also, the guys at JTR.com say that the performance increase for the GM V6 swap is not worth the cost.
I did my conversion myself, using a conversion kit from Converse Engineering. Converse provides turn key cars and kits for 200, 700 and 900 series cars, 1975 to present. Check out the Optional Link URL for more information if you are interested.
Also, I would be happy to provide additional information on this project.
Volvo V8 Conversions by Converse Engineering