Just wondering how the 1800 stacked up against other 'sports cars' back in the mid-60's. I was talking to my neighbor (just turned 80) who is the original owner of a beautiful 1964 Porsche 356 Super 90. He told me that it is only 75 hp. It occurred to me later (days later) than an 1800S with dual carbs was good for 115 hp when new. But, with the car being larger and heavier, I doubt that it was actually faster than a 356 - or was it?

I know that the 544 won several competitions back in the day. Same motor and drivetrain, if I am not mistaken.

Was the Volvo a serious performance contender? In a word, no.

The Porsche is substantially lighter. Yes, it really did only have 75 horses, and that was quite enough.

The Volvo had a good strong motor and outran "most" of the early 4-cylinder cars in a straight line. Not that that's saying much -- those cars would easily be dusted by a modern minivan.

Then there were the 6-cylinder sports cars. A TR6 would easily outrun a P1800 in any quarter mile contest, provided it could be kept running for the entire quarter mile. The Triumph's acceleration numbers depended largely on how many people were pushing it. The Volvo was advertised not as a particularly fast sports car, but as a sports car that would actually start when you turned the key. This was its selling point.

Cornering, well, not so much. You didn't even need an elite sports car to out-corner the 1800. Any MG would run circles around it, no problem. As would the various Porsches, Triumphs, Alfas, Fiats...

and yes, cornering stats were collected back in the day. The best skidpad performance you could buy (at any price) was the lowly MG Midget. It was shockingly cheap yet at low speeds it would out-corner a Ferrari. At high speeds, well, the Midget wouldn't do high speeds.

When Porsche came out with the 911 (and yes, even the 914) there was no longer much discussion of the Volvo being a serious performance car. Really, the 1800 was not a purpose-built sports car but a 122 chassis with a sexy sports car body on it. Sturdy, practical, cute, and reasonably quick. Quick enough to win a race or two, sure, particularly in rallies and other races where sturdiness is an advantage. But if you're going for all-out performance, well, why not use a purpose-built sports car.

So it wasn't faster than a Porsche or a Lotus, but it was faster than a Valiant or a VW or even a Vauxhall. It was the fastest car that started with V, hands down.

There is something one has to keep in mind when comparing horsepower numbers for pre-1972 vehicles... are we talking US (SAE gross) horsepower, or German (DIN) horsepower? The 75 hp Porsche your friend references was most likely a DIN rating, which was observed horsepower as installed in the car... with all cooling and charging systems installed and working, using the production exhaust system. At the other end of the spectrum, pre-1972 SAE hp ratings followed no real standards. Typically for instance, the SAE gross hp numbers were observed with the engine on a test stand, with no charging system, water pump, or fan; never mind muffler and tailpipe.

In the case of the Volvo for instance, the advertised 108 hp (SAE gross) B18B of the mid-60's was rated at only 96 hp DIN as installed in the 1800S. And there were even larger SAE vs DIN differences with other variants of the B18/B20 series, some as much as 12 or 13% IIRC.

In 1972 Volvo, along with all other US market autos, switched to "SAE net" hp rating standards. Like the DIN equivalent, these hp ratings were "as installed". In fact, these ratings are actually slightly more conservative than DIN (typically about 1.5%) for a given engine installation.
--

Gary L - 142E ITB race car, 73 1800ES
BlueBrick Racing Website
YouTube Racing Videos

Most of the blame got heaped on the F version of the B20 that accompanied that rating change. And it probably lost some pep due to the lower compression F head. But like you said, a lot of the change was just in the testing methodology used as well.

In a similar vein, the advertised octane numbers changed as well. In the mid 70's they moved from the 'RON' octane number that was previously advertised and specified, to a (RON + MON) / 2 number that averaged results from two different tests, the newer test supposedly being a bit more realistic, and producing lower numbers. So even if your owners manual for that old car says it needs '99' octane fuel, modern day 93 octane is pretty much the same stuff.
--
'63 PV544 rat rod, '93 Classic #1141 245 (now w/16V turbo)

Agreed on the B20E vs B20F perception, at least for US market engines. Apples to apples, it was an approximate 6 hp decrease (118 vs 112 SAE Net).

The ultimate Volvo example of why you have to be careful with pre-1972 SAE numbers though, would be the "type 3" B18B as installed in the later 120/140/1800S. The advertised (gross) SAE hp for all three vehicles was 115, but the "as installed" DIN numbers were 96, 100, and 103 (approximately 94, 98, and 102 SAE net), respectively. Those DIN numbers are straight from the Volvo green book, BTW. The green book actually makes note of the fact that those differences are the result of "...different exhaust emission control systems". I'm not sure what that means *exactly*, but I'd bet some of it was due to differences in the exhaust system proper - meaning simply mufflers and pipes.
--

Gary L - 142E ITB race car, 73 1800ES
BlueBrick Racing Website
YouTube Racing Videos

I looked for my old Road & Track annuals but then realized they're really buried but MattB pretty much has it right. An AH3000 or Lotus Elan could do sub 10 second 0-60's and a TR3 or 4 would be close but MG's, Volvos, Fiats, Alpines, 190SL's, etc were mostly in the 12-14 second range. I think typical of the time for import sedans was my $50 1959 MB190 (84hp-4 speed on the tree) which I took to New York National Speedway, a sanctioned 1/4 mile track, in 1966---was put into X Stock and lost my race to a 1950 Ford flathead V8 by three feet at 21 seconds flat--62.02 mph. I found that pounding on the steering wheel didn't make it go faster. A '53 Chevy beat a Jeep--the Ford beat the Chevy. -- Dave

Per R&T road tests:

Feb 1961 road test P1800: 100Bhp@5500rpm, 0-60 13.6 sec
Feb 1970 road test 1800E: 130Bhp@6000rpm, 0-60 10.1 sec

They didn't do handling stats back then, but those are the extremes of the 1800 series. 1800s in mid '60s fell in the middle with 115hp, but 0-60 slower at 13.9 sec, and later 1800ES at 112hp and 11.3 sec.

--
-Matt I ♥ my ♂

One little factoid I always have in mind when thinking back to when the 1800's had to claw their way out of the dealership showrooms and into willing buyers hands is that the Jaguar XKE only cost a little bit more. And the XKE was quite a car.

1800's sure look the part, but with normal sedan drivetrains and suspension, they're hardly any quicker or faster. They don't weigh any less. They just have less frontal area and a bit lower CG.

544's were successful in racing because they weighed a lot less. 250 - 300 lbs less than the 122 and 1800. They just *feel* lighter to drive around. And however much HP your motor makes, it will feel that much zippier in a PV.
--
'63 PV544 rat rod, '93 Classic #1141 245 (now w/16V turbo)

In my opinion, 1800 is more of a touring car than a sports car. No doubt with a bit of work, they can be made to be quite quick and nimble, but if I were building a vintage Volvo made for true sportiness, I'd start with a 544 or a 142 or a 122. In that order of preference...

Most of these small sports cars of the '60s (Porsche, MG, Triumph), you're talking 0-60 times in the 9-12 second range. Where they excel is handling. The stock 1800s pretty much does neither very well... Enter the 1800E with 130hp, you're getting there. But it's just a damn heavy car.

Then you get into the really serious purpose built sports cars (thinking Lotus Seven type stuff) blow 'em all away in stock form.
--
-Matt I ♥ my ♂