• Hello Guest, welcome to the initial stages of our new platform!
    You can find some additional information about where we are in the process of migrating the board and setting up our new software here

    Thank you for being a part of our community!

difference 142 and 242

D

dhen

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
I know this has been asked before, but I'm new and haven't been able to find clear answers. I read that the 142 is about 500 lbs lighter than the 242. Where do the weight savings come from? Is the engine bay much smaller?

Thanks
 
Not that it hasn't been done..

<a href="http://s255.photobucket.com/user/redwoodchair/media/Volzilla/vozilla01.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh136/redwoodchair/Volzilla/vozilla01.jpg" border="0" alt="volzilla 1 photo vozilla01.jpg"/></a>

<a href="http://s255.photobucket.com/user/redwoodchair/media/Volzilla/Volzilla7.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh136/redwoodchair/Volzilla/Volzilla7.jpg" border="0" alt="Volzilla 7 photo Volzilla7.jpg"/></a>
 
dhen said:
I know this has been asked before, but I'm new and haven't been able to find clear answers. I read that the 142 is about 500 lbs lighter than the 242. Where do the weight savings come from? Is the engine bay much smaller?

Thanks
Click to expand...

Bear in mind that enthusiasts for various cars often have trouble with units of measurement.
2 seconds search says a 144s was Kerb weight (pounds) 2624 lb in 1966...

a 240 is not 500lbs heavier than that.

I see 2490lbs for a "saloon" version meaning UK market 144

I see 2831 for some 4 door 244 GL


Bear in mind that EVERY car jumped in weight from among other things:


In 1971, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the country's first regulation applicable to passenger car bumpers. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215 (FMVSS 215), "Exterior Protection," took effect on 1 September 1972 ? when most automakers would begin producing their model year 1973 vehicles. The standard prohibited functional damage to specified safety-related components such as headlamps and fuel system components when the vehicle is subjected to barrier crash tests at 5 miles per hour (8 km/h) for front and 2.5 mph (4 km/h) for rear bumper systems.[1

The size and additional mounting and the reinforcing of the mounting points added a LOT to every car.. 240s being post '73 all suffer from that, while for cars like the 140- produced BEFORE were only affected AFTER 1J an 73.....and today , long after, in imagination or memory ALL 140s are allegedly "500 Lbs lighter" (much like all the Saab pervs say "99 Saabs are 450 lbs lighter than a 900" Hooey!)
 
John V said:
Bear in mind that enthusiasts for various cars often have trouble with units of measurement.
2 seconds search says a 144s was Kerb weight (pounds) 2624 lb in 1966...

a 240 is not 500lbs heavier than that.

I see 2490lbs for a "saloon" version meaning UK market 144

I see 2831 for some 4 door 244 GL


Bear in mind that EVERY car jumped in weight from among other things:


In 1971, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the country's first regulation applicable to passenger car bumpers. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215 (FMVSS 215), "Exterior Protection," took effect on 1 September 1972 ? when most automakers would begin producing their model year 1973 vehicles. The standard prohibited functional damage to specified safety-related components such as headlamps and fuel system components when the vehicle is subjected to barrier crash tests at 5 miles per hour (8 km/h) for front and 2.5 mph (4 km/h) for rear bumper systems.[1

The size and additional mounting and the reinforcing of the mounting points added a LOT to every car.. 240s being post '73 all suffer from that, while for cars like the 140- produced BEFORE were only affected AFTER 1J an 73.....and today , long after, in imagination or memory ALL 140s are allegedly "500 Lbs lighter" (much like all the Saab pervs say "99 Saabs are 450 lbs lighter than a 900" Hooey!)
Click to expand...

You couldn't see a 93 classic or an 85 244turbo with all the bells and whistles not being 500 heaver than an early, Spartan 142?
 
Lord_Athlon said:
You couldn't see a 93 classic or an 85 244turbo with all the bells and whistles not being 500 heaver than an early, Spartan 142?
Click to expand...

That's what I was getting at, John's right though a couple hundred pounds at the time of the changes for a similarly equipped car is a safe number to go with in my opinion.

The turbo stuff and power window crap add considerable weight, as my 82 245 turbo is heavier then the gold 245 pictured below.

Generally the Volvos got 150# to 200# heavier with each model change until the 200 to 700 change after which Volvo finally gave up, lost their way and went WWD.

60 pound rack and 25 pound bicycle in the back.

87 245 AW 70 fuel level unknown.

<a href="http://s255.photobucket.com/user/redwoodchair/media/245%20Volvo/87-245CurbWeight17.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh136/redwoodchair/245%20Volvo/87-245CurbWeight17.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo 87-245CurbWeight17.jpg"/></a>
 
Last edited:
Lord_Athlon said:
You couldn't see a 93 classic or an 85 244turbo with all the bells and whistles not being 500 heaver than an early, Spartan 142?
Click to expand...

Obviously...

But its silly in the extreme to say as a flat claim as if it applied to all models..

A late post 73 140 with USA crash bumpers and electric windows and AC and PS blah blah vs a base 240---difference; who cares.
Why?
Racing in a 1lb per cc class?

I'm puzzle where the increase came from but whatever, its there but it is not important...
 
John V said:
Obviously...

But its silly in the extreme to say as a flat claim as if it applied to all models..

A late post 73 140 with USA crash bumpers and electric windows and AC and PS blah blah vs a base 240---difference; who cares.
Why?
Racing in a 1lb per cc class?

I'm puzzle where the increase came from but whatever, its there but it is not important...
Click to expand...

Precisely the 74 245 GL with PS, AT & all the luxo crap and factory PS would very likely be heavier than a stripper 75 242 DL M45 even they shared the same B20 engine and K-jet fuel injection.
 
Last edited:
Redwood Chair said:
Yes the double wishbone suspension makes fitting anything bigger than a 289 a lot of work.
Click to expand...

The 142 engine bay is also shorter. Haven't measured it yet to get exact figures, but it's pretty clear from dead reckoning. I'll have to deal with the sway bar placement (it may interfere with the crank pulley), and possibly use the shorter 480 water pump to make the B230FT clear the radiator/intercooler.

Transmission tunnel is also quite a bit smaller, unless you get an autotragic version of the 140.
 
NChoy said:
The 142 engine bay is also shorter. Haven't measured it yet to get exact figures, but it's pretty clear from dead reckoning. I'll have to deal with the sway bar placement (it may interfere with the crank pulley), and possibly use the shorter 480 water pump to make the B230FT clear the radiator/intercooler.
Click to expand...

:nod:

The nose is shorter except on the 164.

NChoy said:
Transmission tunnel is also quite a bit smaller, unless you get an autotragic version of the 140.
Click to expand...

I believe that was a 122 thing with the smaller stick shift tunnel.

I'm pretty sure the 140 transmission tunnels are the same except for the 164's and of course the shifter bulb detail 72+ for the short shifter.
 
Last edited:
My '73 dead stock (aside from 16" alloys), GL trim, no sunroof, leather, m41 car weighed at 2630. One would think that would be the heaviest, bar the 74's.
 
John V said:
goddam. so what is the significance of a few miserable pounds on a stock car way back 40 years ago?

What does it all mean?

And in before
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!
Click to expand...

It means that back in the day starting somewhere around the time of the mother of all modern cars, the 122 the Volvo engineers were judiciously using the minimum amount of steel to make the strongest possible automobile chassis.

That their children's children may enjoy the fruits of their labor going on into the 21'st century and possibly beyond.

:cool:
 
iadr said:
142. No p/s, no A/c

Occasion was provincially operated tire recycling facility. They weighed in and out, and since I was the only person there at that time, I got out stepped off the scale, and watched the scale flicker between 1190 and 1200 kg. I figure due to being a gov't agency with a fairly high resolution scale, it was likely fairly accurate. Within 5, 10, 25 kg, I suppose I don't know.
My Dad still has his 1982 245 with A/c P/s, cloth interior- to compare to, but that scale is gone.
Click to expand...

Figures, the 74 green book was listing ~ 2600 lbs for the 142.

I should get a picture of the 82 245 turbo car and the 71 145 on the lumberyard scales for reference as well.

That scale is calibrated and inspected by the state so it should be right in the ballpark too.
 
Redwood Chair said:
It means that back in the day starting somewhere around the time of the mother of all modern cars, the 122 the Volvo engineers were judiciously using the minimum amount of steel to make the strongest possible automobile chassis.

That their children's children may enjoy the fruits of their labor going on into the 21'st century and possibly beyond.

:cool:
Click to expand...

Actually Ken I spent a nice 24hoour ferry ride way back in I dunno some point in the early 70s on the boat from G?teborg to Harwich or Ipswich much of it talking with a young Englishman whop had been doing contract work at Volvo redesigning and he said "trying to rationally simplify so many things in the front of this car that are inexplicably heavier, clumsily and expensively designed---for no describable reason" especially in the front of the car (a pillar forward)...
At times he was sputtering trying to describe how and why things were done, others giggling..


And if you want to see a car judiciously using the minimum amount of steel to make the strongest possible automobile chassis, look at the products from slightly North of G?teborg.

A 1972 Saab 96 is about 1945 lbs wet with spare...

And it is far far stronger car than a 140, miles ahead of a 120...
(Their weight works against them, Ken and the effect of weight is not linear---everything goes up big steps, like squares.. so its a lot harder to---using same materials----same stamping grade steel---to make something stronger...especially using conventional designs, and the volvos are quite conventional really--that's not bad.
 
John V said:
Actually Ken I spent a nice 24hoour ferry ride way back in I dunno some point in the early 70s on the boat from G?teborg to Harwich or Ipswich much of it talking with a young Englishman whop had been doing contract work at Volvo redesigning and he said "trying to rationally simplify so many things in the front of this car that are inexplicably heavier, clumsily and expensively designed---for no describable reason" especially in the front of the car (a pillar forward)...
At times he was sputtering trying to describe how and why things were done, others giggling..
Click to expand...

Correct they go on endlessly about the robustness of the cars in the green books, and in their advertisements of the day.

I would say they have withstood the test of time fairly well as well.

John V said:
And if you want to see a car judiciously using the minimum amount of steel to make the strongest possible automobile chassis, look at the products from slightly North of G?teborg.

A 1972 Saab 96 is about 1945 lbs wet with spare...

And it is far far stronger car than a 140, miles ahead of a 120...
(Their weight works against them, Ken and the effect of weight is not linear---everything goes up big steps, like squares.. so its a lot harder to---using same materials----same stamping grade steel---to make something stronger...especially using conventional designs, and the volvos are quite conventional really--that's not bad.
Click to expand...

The Saabs & BMW 1600's /2002's were smaller lighter cars than the 140's.

It's not like any of them had english oak filled floor pan frames like the two liter Rovers of the day either, you'll have to admit the English coachwork was as robust as any.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top