Subject Clue No Clue More 200/700 "missing" radiator hole OHC motor into a 140? Trying to tighten-up steering 122 VIN location? Rear disks for a PV 245 dies right after starting Lower control arm bolt stuck 264 surges when tank drops to half Adding limited slip differential Swapping E head onto B20F Lots more information will be found in the Archive!

Please E-mail us your questions for consideration by our editors. Our panelists are (in alphabetical order): Lee Holman David A. Hueppchen Cameron Lovre Phil Singher PV Consultant: Jim McDonald 164, PRV, LH-Jet: Tim Takahashi Ten or fifteen recent questions (depending on length) will be carried on this page, which is updated continuously. This is to permit in-depth discussion of topics as necessary. As questions "fall off the bottom" of the menu, they will be Archived, sorted by subject. As always, we welcome comments and elaboration from other knowledgeable Volvo enthusiasts, to be listed under More in the menu table. Back to the Menu 200/700 "missing" radiator hole I have an '88 740 GLE and just recently replaced the radiator. Everything is hooked up and ready to go except the new radiator I got seems to be missing a part. There is a hole in the top right corner in which, on my old radiator, has what looks like two electrical prongs poking out of it. My question is what are those wires that connect to it used for and what is the part that goes into that hole. I have tried all the automotive places around me and unfortunately, without a working car to take the old radiator in for them to look, at they have been unable to help me. Stephen E. Halvorson shalvor@hubcap.clemson.edu Tim says: The famous radiator plug problem. Beginning in 1979, Volvo began to fit many of their vehicles with a supplemental electrical cooling fan (in addition to the engine-driven mechanical fan). You may find this fan in front of the air conditioning condensor, just behind the grille. In the first design iteration, the fan was controlled by a thermostatic sensor located in the radiator. This is your mysterious plug with two prongs. In the second design iteration (apparently beginning with 1991 model year 240s) the electrical fan was also controlled by a pressure sensor in the refrigerant accumulator of the air conditioner. The radiator part numbers have been superceeded a number of times over the years. My latest copy of the Volvo Fast Moving Parts Catalogue indicates the proper part number for a non-turbo US model 740 GLE as 8601907-2. A common part, shared with 240 series cars. There is the following note: If installing in a vehicle without a/c require 1-pcs 1378860-0 bushing and 1-pcs 1274052-8 plug. If installing in a vehicle with a/c require 1-pc 1378869-0 bushing and 1-pcs 1274962-8 thermo contact. In the event that a replacement radiator lacks the hole for the thermo contact, one can be installed in the lower radiator hose by ordering the following parts : 1-pcs 1276187-0 connecting pipe, 1-pcs 949668-8 clamp, 1 pcs 1378504-3 thermo contact, 1-pcs 18671-8 gasket. Back to the Menu OHC motor into a 140? I would like to ask you a few question on my Volvo 144B (4 doors), 1974 model. I am planning to change the engine to a B21 engine (Volvo 240, 1984 model). Is this possible? Will the mounting fit? I also plan to fit the gearbox of the same model which comes with overdrive to my car and also the drive shaft. My question is: will all this fit my car? If so, what should I do to make it possible? Is it possible to fit the power steering of that model to my car? Currently I am using a power steering of Volvo 164 model... Kishan kishan@amanahb.po.my Tim says: The 240/260 and 140/160 are pretty similar cars from the firewall aft, although differences depend upon the model year in question. For example, a 1975 164 is virtually identical to a 1975 240 aft of the dashboard, but is an entirely different beast in front structure, front suspension and power plant. An extremely difficult procedure is contemplated. In order to fit a 1976 or later OHC Volvo motor into the earlier car requires a choice between two options. to fit the OHC motor and transmission as a unit from the later car into the earlier car. (this is a difficult task in a LHD 140, virtual impossibility in a RHD 140). to un-tilt the OHC motor, and use with an early transmission (the common method for a B23 in an 1800). Some of the issues regarding option #1: Clearance between the intake manifold of the later B21/23 motor and the brake booster and steering mechanism of the early vehicle. The B21/23 motor has a cross-flow cylinder head with the intake mounted on the opposite side as a B18/20. Clearance between the exhaust manifold of the B21/23 motor and the unit body. The 240 unit body has a considerably wider engine bay than the 140. Clearances are pretty tight with my 164; the 15-degree tilt of the B21/23 motor moves the exhaust further outboard. I am familiar with an 1800 fitted with a B23E (K-jetronic fuel injection) that has the motor in the leaning over configuration. In order to mount the motor, an unusual custom exhaust manifold was fabricated. The spatial relationship between the old and new transmission shifter should be considered. For MY 1972 and later vehicles, with floor shift auto or manual... the hole is in the right location; though it is preferred to swap a later 240 floor shift quadrant if converting to an AW-70 overdrive automatic. Regarding Option #2: What is needed to un-tilt a B21/23 is a B20 oil pump, B20 oil sump and B20 motor mounts (both the rubber mount and the castings which bolt onto the block). The engine block is essentially similar in external configuration. (Although the B21/23/230 is an OHC motor, it retains a layshaft in the location of the B18/20 camshaft to drive the oil pump, fuel pump (carburetted motors) and distributor (240 only). For instance, the same oil pan gasket P/N is shared between B18/20/21/230/230 from 1962 to 1995. If the motor is returned to an upright stance, there are clearance issues associated with the inlet manifold and the steering mechanism / brake booster and unit body. Perhaps, a later B21/23 with LH-jetronic injection (which has a much shorter inlet manifold than a K-jetronic B21/23) would be a simpler proposition. I presume the angle will adversely effect the operation of carburettors designed for operation in the normal orientation. If option #2 is explored, the early M40/41 transmission should be used. Regarding fitting 240 steering into a 140: The 240 has a steering rack. The 140 a worm-and-nut or recirculating- ball-bearing unit. They are utterly dissimilar. The crossmembers are also rather different... particularly in width. The 240 steering column input shaft is located in a position incompatible with the 140 unit body. A power steering box from a 1973-1974 140 (or possibly a 164, noting the difference in wheelbase between the 140/160) is a good one for a 140. Properly maintained, it offers moderate effort with minimal lash. (I admit the CAM-gear rack in my 240 offers better "feel" than the ZF box in my 164). The power steering pump is shared between 140 and 160 through MY 1974. 1975 164s have a different pump. Back to the Menu Trying to tighten-up steering I've been trying to "tighten-up" the steering on my '70 1800E (meaning to make the steering more responsive and remove free play, not increase the force required to turn the steering wheel). I've had the steering box adjusted (though I'm not sure it's enough), a new tie rod installed, and new suspension bushings placed. I basically don't know how tight the steering should be, but would like it tighter than it is. I'm worried that this might stress some other components. Any suggestions? RandyKP@aol.com Phil says: It's entirely possible (and desireable, in my opinion) to have no play in the steering without stressing anything. Potential sources of undesired play are: Steering coupler (in the middle of the shaft connecting the steering wheel to the gearbox). Outer tie rods and inner tie rod ends. Idler arm bushing. Wheel bearings. Steering gearbox itself. I would verify everything else thoroughly before concluding that the steering box is at fault. It may be necessary to tighten the steering box once every 150,000 miles or so. Simply rock the shaft that runs from steering wheel to box back and forth with you fingers and tighten until you just feel the play go out of it. This will not increase steering effort unless there are structural problems in the box. You can check a tightened box for wear by placing the car on stands with the front wheels off the ground. You should be able to turn the steering wheel lock to lock without feeling any points of increased resistance. If you do encounter binding, it's a possible indication of wear in the gears or bearings inside the box, which will have to be taken apart for a closer look. Replacing the bearings is no big deal (they're available only from Volvo, but they are available), but if there's wear to the gears themselves, due to a lack of lubrication or gross over-tightening in the past, you're better off finding another box. Binding steering (although this would not be a significant source of play) could also indicate worn ball joints. Back to the Menu 122 VIN location I bought a 122 wagon three years ago and didn't touch it for years. I now need to get rid of it, and can. However, the Vehicle ID number plate is missing. I am sure there is another on the car; where can I find it? Bill Bradley OH4my911@aol.com Phil says: The ID plate that's riveted on top of the pedal well under the hood indicates the car's type designation, paint color, upholstery codes and sometimes optional factory equipment, but it does not carry the VIN. The actual chassis number is stamped into the body between the battery and heater housing through '66; on later Amazons, it's centered directly above the heater housing. The first sequence repeats the type designation; the second is the serial number -- in most states, the VIN is comprised of both sets of numbers. There is also usually an additional plate on the left inner fender which is the body number, not ordinarily used on titles or registrations. Back to the Menu Rear disks for a PV Saw your article about putting rear disks in an Amazon. I am building up a trick '60 544 with a nicely built B20, 122 front disk brakes, M41 w/OD, later seats etc. Question is, how about rear disks in a 544? Are those torsion bar thingies important on the 544? I have never seen that on any newer models, so how would one adapt a newer rear end? Bill Bryant Outlander@outofhand.com Cameron says: Several East Coast racers who run 544s have 4-wheel disk brakes on their cars, and there's one that I know of here in Portland. There are probably hundreds in the states that have disks up front. Rears are more difficult, primarily because the rear suspension on the PV is so completely different than any of the models that were fitted with disk rears from the factory. Earliest car fitted as such was the 144 in '66, followed by the 1800 in '69. The panhard rod is reversed, the axle diameter is different, the track width is different. It'd be just as easy to fit the thing with the rear axle from a Dodge. (But not nearly as cool). That being said, it has been done. One approach is to modify the underside of the PV so that it will accept the 140 or 1800 rear suspension components. From the "function is most important" standpoint, this is likely the best choice, as it will make use of the later -- and likely "better" -- suspension design. My impression is that this is the most common approach. Another method would be to modify the "new" axle to accept the suspension components native to the PV. Handling would not improve as much as with the first method, but the fragile halfshafts and drum brakes would no longer be an issue. Regardless of which method you decide to try, you'll have to modify the rear fenders to accept a 2" increase in track width. Or have the axles shortened an inch on each side. The plans for this conversion to my own PV have been changing frequently and at the rate I'm going on this project, it won't be finished anytime in the next year. Back to the Menu 245 dies right after starting I have a 1976 245 wagon. When I start the car, it fires at first, then it dies. I can hear the fuel pump run and the filters are not clogged. The car dies as soon as you let go of the key. It runs about a second. It was warm when it started this; I have not been able to start it since. Do you have any suggestions? S C Kinney sck_1@webtv.net Lee says: This is the classic symptom of a faulty ballast resistor. The ballast resistor limits voltage during low speed running and keeps coil current from being too high. Higher voltage is supplied during starter operation, thus the car seems to start fine and then quit when you let off the starter. The ballast resistor is a ceramic cylinder with male spade terminals mounted to the inner fender that is wired into the coil circuit. It should be shown in any good manual. You can test it for resistance -- it should be 0.9 ohms (+/- 0.1). Disconnect leads before testing. Back to the Menu Lower control arm bolt stuck The archive article on replacing bushings and ball joints is very helpful as a step by step guild to taking things apart on the front end of my 1968 122S. I ran into a problem, however. I could not budge the long bolt which goes through the two ends of the wish bone. I put the nut back on and did some serious tapping. This was following some number of months of periodically saturating the area with all the fancy rust breakers and lubricants, etc. Of course, I don't want to get too serious with my tapping as I don't have an extra bolt hanging around and the 122 in question is my transportation. As I am going to take it all apart again soon I wanted to write you to solicit your advice on this particular problem. Stanley LUTRC@aol.com David says: We use and sell RostOff; it works better for us than anything we've tried. The bolts could be rusted to the bushings! The way to tell is if the bolt rotates when the control arm is moved. If a lot of force is used to try to push the bolt out, if it is rusted to the bushing by the bolt head, IT'S POSSIBLE TO BEND THE CONTROL ARM. With nut on the end of the bolt, use an impact hammer on the bolt (if possible, while someone else is turning the bolt -- or trying to turn the bolt) with an impact wrench. Now you are down to heat or voodoo! Before applying heat, determine where the bolt is rusted tight: bushing or tube in the crossmember. Place something disposable and nonflammable under the bushings before heating (melted / burning rubber stinks and sticks to stuff). Heat it where it's stuck or as close as possible. We coat the bolts with antiseize before reinstalling, so as to not have this problem again. Back to the Menu 264 surges when tank drops to half I recently purchased a 1978 Volvo 264GL. My wife and I love it! Our problem is this, when the car has a full tank of fuel it runs very well. No problems whatsoever. However, once it gets to about a half tank the vehicle begins surging, especially upon upon accleration from a stop and uphill climbs. Other than this the vehicle drives like a dream. I believe this should be a fuel pump issue, is it? Can I replace the pump myself? Jay Randolph otterpoint@mindspring.com Phil says: What you are experiencing is one of the classic problems for a fuel-injected Volvo of the era. There's a "pre-pump" inside the bottom of the gas tank which supplies the main fuel pump just outside the tank. The feed is through the sending unit in the top of the tank, and the pre-pump is connected to it by a rubber hose. The hose can deteriorate with age and crack, in which case the main pump will draw air when the level of fuel drops below the crack -- such as when accelerating, climbing hills or cornering. You can see a Tech Tip about this on the RPR web site. Remove the sending unit and replace the connecting hose. Be extremely careful about flame, sparks, or any other potential ignition source -- fuel vapors in the tank are highly flammable. Lee says: There are three pipes on the sending unit. One is the intake. The ones I have seen have a slightly larger diameter where the hose fits to attach the pump. The others are: The longest one, with a diagonal cut end -- this is the fuel return. The small one, with nothing attached to it is the tank vent. The vent should have a hose on the outside that leads to a valve on the body and above the tank. This keeps it from seeping fuel in the event of a roll over. This goes forward to the emissions control charcoal canister at the front of the car. If the in-tank pump is not working at all, be sure to check the wires for 12 volts. Remember too, that 12 volts in is useless without a good ground. The power has to have somewhere to go. It is not out of the question to suppose that the pre-pump itself may be dead after 21 years. Phil's suggestion of the RPR website is a good one. They suggest pulling the fuse to the pump to check for operation, listening for a change in the sound of the main pump. Also, you can sometimes hear the in-tank pump from the filler cap. Back to the Menu Adding limited slip differential I am seriously considering a limited slip differential for my 1966 122. Whats involved; is it adding or is it changing components or installing a different rear end? What is the ball park figure for such a project? How do you do it? Can they be found at the local junk yard; if so, what do you look for? I am also inquiring about rear end ratios. What models / years did they differ? Or is this a totally a aftermarket project? Chris Hunter mricotti@worldnet.att.net Cameron says: A limited slip differential will offer a nice improvement to the driveability of the car overall. This isn't a terribly common modification, as it falls into the "pretty neat but not necessary" category. Traditionally, there have been two kinds of limited slips: "friction" type units (PosiTraction, Pow-R-Lok) are those that use clutch packs to transfer force to the wheel with traction, while "ratchet" units (Detroit Locker) use devices more along the lines of locking gears. Of the two, the friction version is the better choice for a street-driven car. Installation of either variety is a fairly involved process that is much easier if the axle has been removed from the car first. Depending on your skill level and collection of tools, this may or may not be something you'd like to try yourself. I'm all in favor of doing as much of one's own labor as possible, but since this will provide a good opportunity to have new bearings, seals, etc. installed, you may prefer to leave the axle with a competent rebuilder. There is another, newer, variety of limited slip which I know little about: this is also a ratchet variety which, as it's been explained to me, can be installed without removing or disassembling the axle. The first thing to do is to determine what rear end your car already has: this is something we've tried to find the logic for. According to the factory books, a '66 sedan should have either a Type 30 or a Type 27 differential (wagons are different). Necessary parts for either variety are (fairly) easily available. If you have a wagon model, all of this information may well be irrelevant for you. We've recently had a Type 30 rear axle rebuilt and fitted with a Pow-R-Lok limited slip. This was a complete rebuild that was delivered with the instructions: "Replace any component that shows any indication of wear." Final cost, parts and labor, came to $1065. Of course, this does not include installing the axle into the car. When you proceed, the final drive ratio is up to you: these are available in a variety of ratios which will easily approximate the ratio you desire. The sources I'm aware of include The Works, (541) 341-1316 and OJ Rallye. Good luck on your project; and please let us know what your results are! Back to the Menu Swapping E head onto B20F I have a stock '72 1800E with a B20F (low compression) engine. I have obtained (free of charge!) a good condition 1971 B20E (high compression) head complete with valves and springs. I am interested in swapping the B20E head for the B20F to gain a bit more power. Is this a straight remove and replace operation? Do I need to change timing, injectors, fuel rail pressure etc.? Is this a common swap or is it more trouble than it is worth? Thanks for your help. Dave aitken@echelon.ca David says: The "E" head fits in place of the "F" head. But, you are going from an 8.7:1 compression ratio to a 10.5:1, so you'll need more fuel. Without it, you may burn pistons from lean mixture. Volvo achieved this with a different control unit and manifold pressure sensor. Installing these parts with the head is the easiest. I don't know how the control units differ! The pressure sensor could be modified. We run over 11:1 in our 1800E racecar. We raise the fuel pressure; I suspect this would not be good for MPG on the street. The timing specs are the same "E" or "F." You should use at least one heat range colder spark plugs -- for example, NGK BP7HS instead of BP6HS. For mostly wide-open throttle driving, go to 8s. Back to the Menu