|
|
|
Had a fun volvo unclub meetup this past weekend. Some good volvos including a shiny 62 PV544 used in "The Nutty Professor" movie.
Joel from NC was there with his 71 142E. He says this is a model with the 10.5:1 135hp B20E. Superclean car.
On the way home I tailed Joel in my 74 164E down a long 2 lane with stoplights and we did several WOT pulls from stoplight to stoplight. Fun. Both cars are standard and I was shifting at about 6000rpm. It was interesting because the cars were repeatedly dead even in acceleration through at least the first 3 gears (4th would have been too hairy). Mine would pull slightly closer in the low part of the band but he would make it up close to the shift point - neither of us was pulling away from the other by any net noticeable amount. He has 4.10 final gears with an M41- I think mine are the same or in the neighborhood with an M410.
Joel's 142 motor is in good shape with an electric fan, some chrome (5hp+), and an isky cam being the only modifications. My 120k mile Djet B30 is bone stock with good compression in all cylinders, no smoking and strong stock ignition. I was surprised that the 164 didn't have at least some advantage.
Can anyone out there dig up the rated hp/torque of these 2 motors and the curb weight of the cars? I have no literature on these models and I still haven't figured out if my B30 is the high CR version.
We are planning a dyno day in Charlotte in July if anyone is interested. The more people who come, the cheaper we can do it.
sberry
|
|
-
|
|
|
OK Guys,
Time to hear from the 142E guy here. Steve hit on the main reason this 142E only matched the 164E during speeds of 10 to 45 mph acceleration.
When my car was new I had a 4.30 from the factory to give it a lot of "low speed" acceleration. That was a lot of fun around town and for autocrossing.
Now days I run mostly on highspeed highways and elected for my recent rearend to go with the 4.10 gear set. So around town low end speed is compromized for more desirable high speed performance characteristics of the 4.10.
The stock 71 142E (4.30) would have pulled away from the 164E under the same speed range scenario.
It was a lot of fun going down the road with Steve's beutiful 164E daily driver. Really looking forward to my first dyno with the group in July.
Joel
|
|
-
|
|
According to R&T road tests done during the period:
71 142E curb weight was 2695, engine was 130 bhp, 133 lb-ft.
73 164E curb weight was 3040, engine was 138 bhp, 154 lb-ft
As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the hp and torque numbers for the '74 164E were the same as the '73. But the weight of the '74 is definitely NOT the same as a '73; the bumpers alone would probably account for 50 pounds.
I'm with KLR142... I'm surprised you didn't get your butt beat. I would hazard a guess that if you stop the clock at 1980 (pre-turbo), the '71 142E was the fastest accelerating stock Volvo sedan ever imported to the US.
Gary
|
|
-
|
|
|
I'm with KLR142... I'm surprised you didn't get your butt beat. I would hazard a guess that if you stop the clock at 1980 (pre-turbo), the '71 142E was the fastest accelerating stock Volvo sedan ever imported to the US.
Note that the 142E is running an Isky "performance" cam... that probably accounts for a lot of why not.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
8^)
|
|
-
|
|
At only 2250 lbs they always had to be very careful with the engine specs to keep the PV slower than the rest of the more expensive Volvos!
--
I'm JohnMc, and I approved this message.
|
|
-
|
|
|
When I read your post my first thought was because of the weight difference in the two vehicles. The 164E had a longer bonnet to accommodate the 6 cylinder motor.
I looked at the door tag inside the drivers door, and it states that the GVW of my 1975 164E is 4260 lbs! When I had this car shipped from Iowa to Tucson, the carrier made a comment on the weight of the vehicle and how it just glided down the road on his trailer. I guess that is why they hold up so well in an accident.
Kevin
--
1975 Volvo 164E
|
|
-
|
|
|
GVW means with a maximum allowable cargo load - in typically loaded form it will weigh much less.
--
I'm JohnMc, and I approved this message.
|
|
-
|
|
|
My door tag says the same thing. Hmmm, no wonder it gets 15mpg. It's funny there would be such a huge weight discrepancy when the cars are the same from the front pillars back.
Thanks for looking that up, Kyle. Maybe he was pulling ahead a bit :), there was no room to drag race side-by-side.
Was there maybe a change between 72 and 74 in the way engine ouput was measured?
I wasn't aware my B30 has a C cam grind, good to know - it does kind of wimp out in the high rpms. Too bad cracking open the 164's motor for performance enhancements is not on the menu for a while.
Thanks
|
|
-
|
|
|
Hiya Steve,
The '71 142E was indeed a "year only" motor, at least in the U.S. market. It's variously given as having 130 or 135 HP, depending on the source. Same setup as the '70-'71 1800E.
Rating methods were not changed in that time span. I believe the later B30s had lower compression than the earlier ones, just as the B20E was derated to the B20F for in '72. Or maybe there is more smog stuff on the later ones -- I'm not that familiar with the details.
B30s all used the C cam because it suits the RPM range the motor is designed to sustain. That long, long crank and cam are a lot more subject to flexing at high RPM than the B20 equivalents, so the whole motor is set up to make power at lower revs. Note that even though HP figures are similar, the B30 makes a lot more torque (which I'm sure you feel when driving it).
As for weight, a B20 is around 340 lbs., so figure about 45% more for a B30: 493 lbs., and increase of 153 lbs. right there. The M410 is also heavier than the M41. Then add the extra wheelbase/body length, bigger bumpers, more luxury stuff, etc. etc. that's not weighing down the 142...
|
|
-
|
|
Using engine information for the 1971 1800E and chassis information for the 1971 142s, the 142 has about 130hp(6000rpm) and 133trq(3500rpm), and weighs a little more than 2650 I'd say with the increased amenities that the 142e would have vs the 142s.
For the 74 164 it says you have 138hp(5500rpm) and 154trq(3500rpm). That page doesn't list a weight, but for the 73 164 it says it weighs about 3225. DAMN! I didn't know it was THAT heavy!
And I'm actually suprised the 142 wasn't noticeably faster than your 160...
And FWIW, for some reason, the 72 164 is listed as having 160hp(5800rpm) and 166trq(2500rpm?!) and only weighs 3051-3062lbs... And it's still listed as having the same compression ratio...?
All information coming from Volvo's website
--
Kyle - '68 142? - Oregon Volvo Tuners?
|
|
-
|
|
|
I think it was in '73 that Volvo added the door impact bars (and a roll bar?). I think the fuel tank also moved forward, and the simplest factory change would have been to add more brackets... And in '73 the cars were factory prepared for aircon, whatever that might mean. But it's still amazing that a 2L performs similar to a 3L with identical pistons and what not!
|
|
-
|
|
|
Kyle,
I too was surprised about the 1972 bhp until I thought it just might be due to all of the anti-smog junk in the newer years.
Klaus
--
98 V70Rawd(101Kmi), 95 854T(85K mi), 75 164E(173K mi)
|
|
-
|
|
|
The 164 has the cubic inches but the 142E has the CR and the D cam.
All stock B30s in the US have the C cam. A little judicious changing of
cams is worth its weight in gold!
--
George Downs Bartlesville, Heart of the USA!
|
|
-
|
|
|
Yeah, I'll bet that Isky cam has a lot to do with the 142 closing the gap in the upper end of the rpm range.
Sort of brings to mind the Jaguar XKe. When they went from a 6 cylinder to a 12 cylinder the cars didn't get any faster or quicker, they just doubled the fuel consumption and maintenance costs.
--
I'm JohnMc, and I approved this message.
|
|
-
|
|
|
I don't think the D cam is an Isky grind, but it is a lot the same
in performance. I do have an Isky street performance cam in my 164
and it would take a pretty good B20 to keep up with it, even with
3:31 gears in my 164.
--
George Downs Bartlesville, Heart of the USA!
|
|
|
|
|
