home register FAQ memberlist calendar

Go Back   Turbobricks Forums > General > article composition

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-08-2009, 08:22 AM   #126
foggyjames
Ryan's spanner monkey
 
foggyjames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lincoln, UK
Default

Vadis doesn't list the L2 against the FT...only FK. What with that and the 4dr/5dr thing, I guess Vadis can't be trusted on this subject. I guess there were too many combinations...

I'm hoping to count output shaft rotations on my box a bit later...

cheers

James
__________________
'05 V70 D5
'88 360 Turbo Intercooler
'84 360 GLT
'81 343 GLS R-Sport
'80 343 DL
'69 164

PM me if you're looking for Euro parts!
foggyjames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 01:20 PM   #127
frpe82
Guest
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foggyjames View Post
Vadis doesn't list the L2 against the FT...only FK. What with that and the 4dr/5dr thing, I guess Vadis can't be trusted on this subject. I guess there were too many combinations...

I'm hoping to count output shaft rotations on my box a bit later...

cheers

James
The number of combinations is not an issue here.

What matters is where it actually came stock. I can definitely say that all the 940 Classic wagons wit an FK engine had the L2 box. And that is what they came with stock.

The other ones were options (and very rare cars as well).

There are many car types in VADIS that doesn't have the optional engine/gearbox/rear-end choice listed since that is not something that they had stock in production. It is something the customer or dealer has requested specifically. You have no idea how many of tose cars are rolling around here (not just 940's, but Volvos with strange configurations).

And counting input/output revolutions is easy enough to settle what gearbox it is.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 08:23 PM   #128
foggyjames
Ryan's spanner monkey
 
foggyjames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lincoln, UK
Default

...so by implication, you can't assume that a late saloon will have an L2, but a late estate should, right?

I still haven't counted the rotations

cheers

James
foggyjames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 09:07 PM   #129
frpe82
Guest
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foggyjames View Post
...so by implication, you can't assume that a late saloon will have an L2, but a late estate should, right?
Yes. Correct.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 09:30 PM   #130
foggyjames
Ryan's spanner monkey
 
foggyjames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lincoln, UK
Default

Cool...thanks for the clarification

cheers

James
foggyjames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 07:48 PM   #131
Fivehundred
.
 
Fivehundred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Default

Why are people wittering on about the L2 being some kind of holy grail? As far as I can see all the '97 on M90 boxes were the upgraded version and the only difference the L2 has is a different top gear ratio. A ratio whose desirability is at best debatable.

Even the earlier versions are pretty good, the one in my own car is whisper quiet at 500K miles, with nothing other than fairly regular oil changes.
Fivehundred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 09:40 PM   #132
foggyjames
Ryan's spanner monkey
 
foggyjames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lincoln, UK
Default

The reason I'm enquiring is that someone is specifically asking me for an L2...and they're not at all easy to find...or more to the point, positively identify. I, too, am highly dubious of the benefits of an L2 over all others. Of course if someone wants a specific box, I'll do what I can to source it...but it's proving to be a little tricky. (Says the man who still hasn't got around to putting the box in the garage in 5th then counting output shaft rotations )

Once you have a healthy amount of torque (250+lbft) the only thing I'm interested in in terms of gear ratios is making sure I can achieve my intended VMax without running out of RPM. Ryan's 740 has that problem...it hits the 6200rpm limiter in 5th at around 160mph. Based on that, it must have the shorter 5th gear ratio. An L2 gives gearing for 185mph with his diff For the 360 turbo, I'm putting the tallest diff I can find in (all gear ratios are the same for the M47R-II) so it will cruise at 100mph without sounding horribly noisy. The torque will take care of the rest.

Ryan's 740 is putting 300lbft (at the 20psi it ran on the dyno...and 27psi has been run on the road prior to injector problems) through a 1995 M90-I-have-no-idea-what with 300k miles on the clock, and it's just as good as all the others I know of. I didn't even know there were different versions (other than the bellhousings) until about 6 months ago

cheers

James
foggyjames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 10:24 PM   #133
Fivehundred
.
 
Fivehundred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Default

I know, I'm getting to the point I don't answer PMs for gearboxes from the US any longer. There is all this L2 bull going on from people who have never actually seen the friggin box, it's dull.

It would appear the L2 box was geared for economy, little or nothing to do with strength. The late saloons I've looked at recently were geared down by altering the axle ratio. I don't think they could have pulled the gearing had they had an L2 box. As for strength my 940 actually runs an early M90 out of a 2 litre car. I bought it cheap because it had 350K miles on it, and I've put on a further 150K. Third gear has never been welded. It tows 2 tonne car trailers and is still quiet at 500K miles. The car will easily hit 120mph on the autobahn.
Fivehundred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 10:42 PM   #134
foggyjames
Ryan's spanner monkey
 
foggyjames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lincoln, UK
Default

It's a bit like a 531. I can totally understand it from a novelty value point of view, and if I had both sat side by side, I'd fit the 531 every time...but purely as a performance mod, I'd not pay $300+ to get hold of a standard junkyard 531 head which probably has at least 150k on it...unless I was going to go on and spend big money turning it into something special...something which supposedly can't be done to a 530. As they lie, though, there's almost nothing in it.

I'm happy to ship out M90s...and I don't mind the odd special request...but I have noticed a side-effect of this thread is that people are now specifically asking for L2s...which can be a fiddle, and I'm just not convinced of the virtue...

As for strength...Ozzy has broken two...IIRC...one in a standard car, and one in a 940T with chips, boost, and a few other go faster goodies (~250bhp?). Ryan's high mileage and 'weak' early box is still going strong with more like 350bhp behind it. I think their weakness is rushed or violent shifts, not power. I think 400lbft is probably a fairly safe rating in a 940 for 'fast road' use. If it's going to see more abuse (or torque) than that...I'd start to question how it'll cope.

Some people here (in the UK) even think they're weaker than M46s...but they usually a bit Norfolk, if you know what I'm saying

cheers

James
foggyjames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 02:18 PM   #135
frpe82
Guest
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foggyjames View Post
I'm happy to ship out M90s...and I don't mind the odd special request...but I have noticed a side-effect of this thread is that people are now specifically asking for L2s...which can be a fiddle, and I'm just not convinced of the virtue...
Ony reason people should want the L2 is because of one of the following reasons:

1: If it is an L2 box, then you know 100% for sure that it is newer than 1997 and the stongest box. (An M90L or M90H can be one of the weaker since the year is hard to prove).

2: The gearing. I would never trade the gearing of the L2 for the L or H with the rear end ratio I have. (If I swapped the differential, then it would be another thing though, and the only thing I would then care about is if it is the newer stronger one. Then it would not really matter if it was an L box).

It can also be debated whether or not the L2 is stronger because of the different gear and tooth count. But that is hard to prove in either direction.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 05:01 PM   #136
JW240
Your current user title
 
JW240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Netherlands, Europe
Default

yeah, i wondered the super special qualities of the L2 too. I find it hard to believe that volvo would make the L2 much much better than the rest of the 1997-1998 boxes.
the top gear ratio is nice for people who have an automatic rear axle ratio, otherwise it is probably even a tad too low.

the M90(H) i have has done 230K km now, it came from a car from December 1994, one of the very first 940's to have an M90. Still looks brand new inside with very little shavings on the magnet and the synchro's that i looked at were like new.
Fresh oil, seals, shifter linkage and a welded 3rd gear synchrotron (thats what my speling cheker makes of synchro lol), fit and forget, thats the plan.
__________________
240 | 1991 | 316 KKm | B230F+T | Cossie T3 60/63 | M90 | Toyo R1R/Polaris
Amazon/121 | 1968 | finished 2020+?
760 | 1984 | B6284T swap | 2x13T | finished 201?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwood Chair View Post
Don't forget about properly seasoning it on HF jackstands for a couple years whilst dreaming about big powah 'goals'.
JW240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 05:20 PM   #137
Fivehundred
.
 
Fivehundred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Default

Yes, but even early on in the production Volvo made M90L and M90H boxes, which in 1997 changed to M90L2 and M90H2 boxes. And for some bizarre reason people will pass up on an M90 out of a late 1997 car "cos it isn't an L2". But hey it must be right cos they read it on the interweb

I wonder what M90 boxes are worth weighed in for the aluminium? Be a damn sight easier

Quote:
Originally Posted by frpe82 View Post
Ony reason people should want the L2 is because of one of the following reasons:

1: If it is an L2 box, then you know 100% for sure that it is newer than 1997 and the stongest box. (An M90L or M90H can be one of the weaker since the year is hard to prove).

2: The gearing. I would never trade the gearing of the L2 for the L or H with the rear end ratio I have. (If I swapped the differential, then it would be another thing though, and the only thing I would then care about is if it is the newer stronger one. Then it would not really matter if it was an L box).

It can also be debated whether or not the L2 is stronger because of the different gear and tooth count. But that is hard to prove in either direction.
Fivehundred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 07:28 PM   #138
frpe82
Guest
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JW240 View Post
the top gear ratio is nice for people who have an automatic rear axle ratio, otherwise it is probably even a tad too low.
The L2 has the highest gear of the M90 boxes you know... 0.7 on the L2 instead of the H and L which has 0.81

I chose the L2 because it has a better spacing between gears, and therefore you can also choose a different rear end ratio to get you both acceleration and good economy.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 08:05 PM   #139
JW240
Your current user title
 
JW240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Netherlands, Europe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frpe82 View Post
The L2 has the highest gear of the M90 boxes you know... 0.7 on the L2 instead of the H and L which has 0.81

I chose the L2 because it has a better spacing between gears, and therefore you can also choose a different rear end ratio to get you both acceleration and good economy.
I know, just different way of saying. lowest ratio. lowest rpm while cruising.

a too low rpm while cruising wont do any good either. Im happy with the top gear ratio i'll get, its the same as on my m47 now, so 2600-ish rpm @ 120 km/h.
JW240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 08:46 PM   #140
RobSmith
Board Member
 
RobSmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Near Cambridge England
Default

Hi James,
I am knackered and there is far too much to read through. There has been a thread posting explosion over the last day or two.
PM me if you want me to look at part numbers.

My 940 is 1998 has an M90L2 box. It is the 'Celebration' model and is an estate with a B230FK engine and silly dual-munge flywheel.
It is great on motorways with the top gear but top is just too high to use much in the lanes around here.
I am not sure what axle ratio I have. From memory is about 2600rpm at 70mph

Rob
__________________
1981 / 245 DL / dung brown / B21A / M47 / 3.3:1 axle from auto (5th not used much) / Scrapped.
1982ish /240GLT Estate/silver/Scrapped
1994 / 940s Turbo Auto Estate / B230FT /metalic green / Scrapped
1993 / 940s Estate / B230FB / Blue / Scrapped
1992 / 940s Estate / B200? / White / Gone.probably scrapped.
1967 Amazon Estate (Sold)
Current Cars...
1998 940 Celebration /B230FK /M90L2/Galaxies (Blue)
1998 940 Celebration Standard (Red)
1998 940 Celebration Standard (Purple)
RobSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 08:59 PM   #141
Steve940Estate
Board Member
 
Steve940Estate's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hampshire, England
Default

I have just got the flywheel and diesel clutch to go on my car. The only things I forgot about are the flywheel to crank and clutch cover bolts.
The early flywheel has a thinner center on it so I guess I will need the bolts off an early car as well.

Part number for these is 946379.

This number is also listed for non turbo M90 cars, turbo ones should have 978271.

The clutch cover bolts are different as well, can anyone tell me what the differences are.

Thanks
Steve940Estate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 09:04 PM   #142
Asleeper
Board Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: NoVa
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frpe82 View Post
The L2 has the highest gear of the M90 boxes you know... 0.7 on the L2 instead of the H and L which has 0.81

I chose the L2 because it has a better spacing between gears, and therefore you can also choose a different rear end ratio to get you both acceleration and good economy.
I have to agree, especially for those of us in the states since suitable axle ratios are quite rare. While there are several ways around this, I'm going to focus on the most cost effective solution which is replacing the entire axle. If you have a 91+ 7/9 series it is nearly impossible to find a 3.31/3.54 1041 axle. A 3.54 1041 would have been in a 91 740 turbo manual(ubher rare, good luck finding one) or a 3.31 in a 93-94 960 wagon(also rare).

The L2 lets you run 3.73's and still get good mileage on the highway. I had been using 3.31's on my M90L but have since switched back to 3.73's since the 3.31's are dog off the line and give poor in gear acceleration. I like the 3.73's but highway rpm's are too high ~3100@70mph, ~3500@75mph.
__________________
91 740 Regina m47: slow but handles nice thanks to a full polyurethene bushing upgrade, bilstein HD's with diesel springs, IPD sways&chassis brace

95 945T: Gone but not forgotten
Asleeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 09:48 PM   #143
Steve940Estate
Board Member
 
Steve940Estate's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hampshire, England
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve940Estate View Post
I have just got the flywheel and diesel clutch to go on my car. The only things I forgot about are the flywheel to crank and clutch cover bolts.
The early flywheel has a thinner center on it so I guess I will need the bolts off an early car as well.

Part number for these is 946379.

This number is also listed for non turbo M90 cars, turbo ones should have 978271.

The clutch cover bolts are different as well, can anyone tell me what the differences are ?

Thanks
Just to add that I've got a 3.91 diff on my car and with the 195/55 16 tyres it shows an indicated 3000rpm at 70mph. It's a bit high but not that much different from when it was auto, and it doesn't change down a couple of gears every time you touch the accelerator !
Steve940Estate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 09:58 PM   #144
foggyjames
Ryan's spanner monkey
 
foggyjames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lincoln, UK
Default

Well that's a fair point...the advice for people in the US is likely to be different, what with it being harder to find axles with manual diffs. A 0.81 5th box is fine for most use if you have a manual (and non-B200) diff, but I accept that it sucks if you're stick with a diff from a slusher. In that case, the L2 is the preferable option. It's just a shame they're so damn hard to find...

Rob - I think we got the answer to the part number question from Steve...but many thanks for the offer.

cheers

James
foggyjames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2009, 06:45 AM   #145
Fivehundred
.
 
Fivehundred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asleeper View Post
I have to agree, especially for those of us in the states since suitable axle ratios are quite rare. While there are several ways around this, I'm going to focus on the most cost effective solution which is replacing the entire axle. If you have a 91+ 7/9 series it is nearly impossible to find a 3.31/3.54 1041 axle. A 3.54 1041 would have been in a 91 740 turbo manual(ubher rare, good luck finding one) or a 3.31 in a 93-94 960 wagon(also rare).

The L2 lets you run 3.73's and still get good mileage on the highway. I had been using 3.31's on my M90L but have since switched back to 3.73's since the 3.31's are dog off the line and give poor in gear acceleration. I like the 3.73's but highway rpm's are too high ~3100@70mph, ~3500@75mph.
The point though is that if we assume a 3.73 axle and 195/65/15 tyres, which are common on a turbo then using an L2 box, ie .71 5th gear ratio, means the car is geared for 168 MPH at 6000 rpm, with an H2, ie 0.81 5th gear, it is geared for 147MPH.

Given this is a performance forum I fail to see the point of theoretical gearing for a speed the car will never attain.

There have always been more than one ratio, it isn't simply a post '97 L2 thing.

Last edited by Fivehundred; 03-11-2009 at 07:23 AM..
Fivehundred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2009, 09:30 AM   #146
Steve940Estate
Board Member
 
Steve940Estate's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hampshire, England
Default

I have been investigating the flywheel and cluch cover bolts and I think these are the ones to use.

Flywheel Bolts - 946379 x8

Clutch Cover Bolts - 959220 x6

This isn't a problem if you are fitting an M90 to an early car with a solid flywheel as these are the standard bolts. I am converting a car fitted with a dual mass flywheel and the flywheel bolts (on the Turbo at least) are different.

From reading what others have done I understand it's necessary to space the pivot out. How do the pivots fit to the casing ? I haven't stripped the car down yet so haven't found out. Is there any advantage in making a proper spacer or are washers really good enough ?
Steve940Estate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2009, 10:13 AM   #147
Fivehundred
.
 
Fivehundred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Default

The pivot is on a stud, so you can pack washers underneath it. I didn't go that way because I decided it was pointless after having measured everything. That doesn't mean I'm right, but it is what I decided.

When I just put it all together the pedal bite was too near the floor, and the front of the slave cylinder piston poked out of its bore. I made it a longer pushrod to solve the problem works OK now. I think ideally it needs a taller release bearing. I have toyed with the idea if shimming the flywheel out slightly using the shim from an automatic flywheel, but I haven't tried it yet.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve940Estate View Post
I have been investigating the flywheel and cluch cover bolts and I think these are the ones to use.

Flywheel Bolts - 946379 x8

Clutch Cover Bolts - 959220 x6

This isn't a problem if you are fitting an M90 to an early car with a solid flywheel as these are the standard bolts. I am converting a car fitted with a dual mass flywheel and the flywheel bolts (on the Turbo at least) are different.

From reading what others have done I understand it's necessary to space the pivot out. How do the pivots fit to the casing ? I haven't stripped the car down yet so haven't found out. Is there any advantage in making a proper spacer or are washers really good enough ?
Fivehundred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2009, 12:41 PM   #148
Steve940Estate
Board Member
 
Steve940Estate's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hampshire, England
Default

Cheers for that. When you say stud is it threaded ?

I might try and make a few adjustable bits. I did wonder about the pivot stud but it's probably hardened, but might make adjustable pushrods so I can adjust the pedal height properly. I was thinking about the spacers instead of washers as they could be made a bit bigger diameter if needed to spread the load.
I'm guessing a bit as I haven't seen it. Just want to get things ready so I can swap it all over as quickly as possible.

Is there any problem with the clutch plate coming off the end of the splines or is there more than enough spare ?

Thinking about the shim you might have problems with the starter motor engaging properly.
Steve940Estate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2009, 01:56 PM   #149
SteveMD
Repent Walpurgis
 
SteveMD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: West of I-270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fivehundred View Post
The pivot is on a stud, so you can pack washers underneath it. I didn't go that way because I decided it was pointless after having measured everything. That doesn't mean I'm right, but it is what I decided.

When I just put it all together the pedal bite was too near the floor, and the front of the slave cylinder piston poked out of its bore. I made it a longer pushrod to solve the problem works OK now. I think ideally it needs a taller release bearing. I have toyed with the idea if shimming the flywheel out slightly using the shim from an automatic flywheel, but I haven't tried it yet.
The Lh2.4 crank position sensor might not like dealing with a shimmed out flywheel. Stealthfti and Fredrik have said LH is picky about where those damned holes in the flywheel are.

The reason I'm cussing is because I had a flywheel lightened and balnced. Even after I told the machine shop not to eff with the holes around the FW perimeter, they drilled 3 to a larger diameter when balancing it. Stealthfti and Fred said I would be playing with fire using it in that condition.
SteveMD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2009, 02:08 PM   #150
Steve940Estate
Board Member
 
Steve940Estate's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hampshire, England
Default

Yes I hadn't even thought of that. It might be possible to put a spacer behind the sensor.

The enlarged holes on your one might be a problem though. I wonder if it would be possible to glue something light weight into the hole to reduce it's size and not effect the balancing much. I was thinking nylon or alloy but there might be too much heat unless you got some really good adhesive.
Steve940Estate is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.