|
|
|
No, I don't mean JLo or Kim Kardashian (perhaps in a later thread? :)). I'm talking Volvo rears. Specifically PV rear ends (I guess). My '59 445 rear end is tagged "50-11". Thanks to news-groupers who responded to a post I made in 2008 I understand this means it has 50 ring gear teeth and 11 pinion gear teeth, and Dana/Spicers use a 41-9 to achieve a 4:56 ratio. And that means it's geared for better off-the-line pick-up, but creates a lot of noise & I guess limits my top end (I can attest to the noise & limited top end!).
My rear has developed a rattling noise. When changing the gear fluid in the rear I noticed some metal in the gear oil. So, I've been thinking that perhaps instead of just repairing my rear that perhaps this might be a good time to try & find a rear end that's more highway friendly that will bolt up to my B16 (I'm hoping the dual SU's will mitigate some of the off-the-line-torque loss through a higher-geared rear end (or is that a lower-geared read end? Not sure which it is).
So,in summary, what rear ends, which have better cruising speeds did Volvo make that would bolt on to a B16? Anyone have one laying around that they would be willing to part with, or, know where I might locate one?
Your thoughts would be gratefully appreciated by this mechanically-challenged PV enthusiast.
Jim Pascale
|
|
-
|
|
|
BTW, without doing the math.....I imagine the one you speak of 50-11 is a 4.10 to 1 from a B18
. I am surprised that your B16 is even slightly happy with the ratio.
Once again, Enjoy your classic and don't let any of us try to sway your way of thinking. That's how new innovations are developed.
Enjoy!!!!!
|
|
-
|
|
|
Zoneman, 50 divided by 11 equals 4.56 rear, right?
Is there a rear available that will bolt on to a B-16 which will produce a higher top end?
|
|
-
|
|
|
Both of those ratios are in the 4.55 range. The reason for the lower top speed is because the B16 does not have the power (in stock form) to pull a ratio any steeper. In all probability your fuel mileage would drop too because the engine would always be working harder than necessary just to maintain a "legal" road speed. Sorry I didn't do the math last evening, but as you can see it is a mute point. If you want more out of the car you should be looking for a bigger engine because at this point in time you would spend a small fortune trying to bring your B16 up to the standards of a stock B18 let alone a B20.
Have fun!!!
Zoneman
|
|
-
|
|
|
Thanks Zoneman. I'm going to leave my rear stock.
Thanks to all for your input.
Jim P.
|
|
-
|
|
|
I had a '60 PV with a 4.10 and a B16A (single carb). It was ordered in Denmark and immediately exported to Kenya. It came back to the UK. I was surprised about it having a 4.10 but after checking the parts book found that several blocks of chassis numbers had this ratio. Sadly never got to drive it as it was stolen from the garage, probably for scrap metal! Certainly never seen again.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Pretty bad about the stolen car, but you're right. Several B16 cars were fitted with 4,1 axles, mostly depending on where the car was exported to. Mine was a B16B and has a 4,1 rear end. The parts list from Volvo will tell you which ratio was used originally. I would change to 4,1 to calm down the noise a bit, I even have a M41 installed to reduce noise even more, top speed is no matter anymore to me ;=)
Regards Michael
|
|
-
|
|
|
You're correct... 50/11 means a 4.55:1 rear end ratio, stock gears for the B16 powered 444/544 series.
The B18 powered 544's had a higher (numerically lower) ratio, at 4.10:1. Swapping to that ratio would obviously give you about 10% lower RPM at any given cruising speed, but at a cost of slightly slower acceleration. And incidentally, I'd wager you would also end up with a couple of mph lower top speed. But the latter is probably not a real issue, now is it? :)
And BTW, I'm pretty sure you can't simply take the gears out of a later 544 and put them in your earlier housing... I believe they're entirely different rear axle assemblies.
--
Gary L - 142E ITB race car, 73 1800ES
YouTube Racing Videos
|
|
-
|
|
|
Hello Gary,
A swap to a B18 rear axle assembly on a B16-powered PV would result in a LOWER top speed? I'm certainly not looking for that....
|
|
-
|
|
|
"A swap to a B18 rear axle assembly on a B16-powered PV would result in a LOWER top speed? I'm certainly not looking for that...."
According to period road tests, the 4.55 ratio 85 hp B16 544 was a mph or two faster than the 4.10 ratio 90 hp B18 in the same car. FWIW, according to the same road tests, under acceleration the two cars were dead nuts even all the way to 80 mph.
I have personal experience to back up that last fact. Back in the day (1966-ish), I had a '62 B18, my brother had a '61 B16. It took dozens of 1/4 mile drag races :) to finally come to the conclusion they were perfectly matched cars, so far as acceleration was concerned. I don't think we ever ran them against each other on the open road (top end), so I can't confirm the first road test fact.
--
Gary L - 142E ITB race car, 73 1800ES
YouTube Racing Videos
|
|
-
|
|
|
To amplify your point a little: Lower top speed because the engine won't have the power to push the car as fast working through the taller gearing.
The PV may have gobs of neat vintage aero 'styling', but they aren't aerodynamic at all. They're really pretty bad. As the speeds climb they need to push *lots* of air around.
Only solution is to add more HP, of course. I've been able to hit 6500 rpm in OD in mine before (ahem,'closed course') which is right around 130 mph, given the ratios and my tire size. FWIW the PV actually felt more stable at that speed than either of my 1800E's ever did (they couldn't even go that fast, but their steering got eerily, scarily light north of 100 mph)
--
'63 PV544 rat rod, '93 Classic #1141 245 (now w/16V turbo)
|
|
-
|
|
|
130! Dang. So you've got something in the 225-240 horsepower range.
Does it run on pump gas?
How long did it take to reach this speed?
Could you share some of the specifics on the engine?
Thanks,
Cameron
Rose City
|
|
-
|
|
|
I have read about his car a number of times on turbobricks. http://www.forums.turbobricks.com/showthread.php?t=294594
2.1L B20, R-Sport Stage III head, Weber 40s, Isky W-81 cam, mallory distributor with MSD. I guess it is slow from a stop, but pulls strong from 3000-7500 RPM. His estimate is 150 WHP.
Cameron, your supercharged B20 should be nearly as strong right?
|
|
-
|
|
|
Sounds like a fun car, for sure. I wouldn't have expected that DCOE 40s would provide enough fuel for such speed but I'm not a Weber expert. Then again, I have a single DCOE 45, and my Volvo goes pretty well with it.
I don't rev mine to 7500, ever. It has stock rods. Peened and polished, but still stock.
A number of people have asserted that their NA Volvos are faster than my 122 but none has ever proven so. Ten years ago, that mattered to me. Today, not so much.
I've never known its top speed and dynoed it only when running a low - 4psi - boost level, while it also had a leaking manifold gasket. Still pretty good numbers, I thought.
My interest in a 130mph capable PV that's streetable and runs on pump gas is based on my current 444 rework project. I have what I think is a pretty solid plan for each of the two engines for it but am always interested in input from others.
Thanks,
Cameron
Rose City
|
|
-
|
|
|
I took it to a track once, the 15.7@87 hp calculates out to around 150 - 160 rwhp, based on the weight.
The DCOE 40's do have 36mm chokes, they aren't really quite the total determining factor in how much air goes in, but those are larger than typically setup on a pair of 40's. I got my 40's set up for a B18, they had 32mm chokes.
I did the 'top speed run' on a level piece of road. It took a modest amount of time to get up to speed, and by the time it kissed 6500 on the tach (the speedometer is wildly inaccurate, it was pegged past 70 mph anyhow) in OD it wasn't accelerating very quickly any more.
Wind noise was epic in nature, but really, the PV felt very stable, the steering was calm, the car wasn't wandering, it just felt hunkered down. All the windows were shut, and my PV has no rear view mirrors.
It might have gradually gotten a bit higher, but traffic that had previously been *way* ahead was approaching, and I sure wasn't going to fly by anyone at such a speed, so I lifted.
I think I had a Volvo 'R' cam in it then, now it has an Isky VV81 (one step peppier than the VV71 IPD sells as their Street Perf cam). I'm not sure if it has less power or not now, it sort of feels like it.
--
'63 PV544 rat rod, '93 Classic #1141 245 (now w/16V turbo)
|
|
-
|
|
|
John - IIRC, you are running 205-50-15's? If that's correct, my calc's say 124 mph at 6500. I've run that exact same gearing (M41/4.56) and tire size on my race car, and 130 didn't sound right. I checked it out with my spreadsheet... it spits out 123.8 mph at 6500.
--
Gary L - 142E ITB race car, 73 1800ES
YouTube Racing Videos
|
|
-
|
|
|
That is the tire size, but it has a 4.1 rear axle, it was a B18 engined car to begin with.
And that refreshed my memory, it wasn't 6500 rpm, but 6000. I had 6500 rpm on my mind because of something I was doing more recently with the wagon, but that was going up a long hill on an interstate to keep it slowed down so I could get a longer tuning pull.
--
'63 PV544 rat rod, '93 Classic #1141 245 (now w/16V turbo)
|
|
-
|
|
|
"That is the tire size, but it has a 4.1 rear axle"
Got it... my spreadsheet shows 127.1 at 6 grand in that case.
"...going up a long hill on an interstate to keep it slowed down so I could get a longer tuning pull."
Let me guess. I44 west of town? :)
--
Gary L - 142E ITB race car, 73 1800ES
YouTube Racing Videos
|
|
-
|
|
|
Hey John,
130 mph in a pv? I hope your life ins. premium payments were current at the time. :)
My b16 gives me maybe 50-60 mph. I'm afraid to go any faster! :)
Be well.
|
|
-
|
|
|
The much loved B16B is rather low on torque. If you have the OEM 4.56 rear gears my advice would be to keep them. Your existing unit may need some work, but Sven and Olaf along with Eric were right on the number with the 4.56 to 1 ratio.
Enjoy your classic!!!
Zoneman
|
|
-
|
|
|
I agree with Zoneman. Slapping a 4.10 on a B16 would probably make the car very sluggish off the line, and those little motors need whatever they can get to help them move along.
If you're that concerned with highway cruising and higher tops speeds, you might want to consider an M40 (with overdrive), for which you'd need to modify your trans tunnel. Then again, I don't think that would bolt up to a B16, so forget I said anything :P
--
Tony - 1958 Volvo PV444, 2012 Volvo XC70 T6 Polestar
|
|
-
|
|
|
Give this a read: http://www.sure-vent.com/M40Trans.htm
If you still have the M4 gearbox, you should have a fairly low 1st gear, which might work with the 4.10. If you went to the M40 gearbox, you would have a slightly higher first and it might work best with the 4.56.
I had a M40 gearbox for the B16 with the different bolt pattern. The bellhousing can easily be modified. Sold it all to another guy.
|
|
|
|
|
