960 transmission in a 940

HiSPL said:

Don't forget that Mercedes markets to a different tax bracket than ford, nissan, and toyota. Having that Kompressor badge on the back of the car let's them look down their noses at "simple turbos" and that appeals to the average Merc buyer. Plus they typically wouldn't care about MPG except for having to meet cafe standards.


I am serious though. Go get a junkyard blower and stick it on a redblock and show us how it do.


If you really want to hammer the point home go get a single Mitsubishi TD03 at maybe 5psi and put that on a redblock too. Let's see which one makes more down low and gets better mpg. You don't really need an intercooler for this either. As long as you drive it like a grampa.

Click to expand...

I gotta challenge that. If they didn't care about mileage why didn't they keep the gearing low like Volvo, and end up breaking 1/4 mile speed records? Like they say "The proof is in the pudding". I'll guess I'll boil up some pudding. Interesting note: The Eaton supercharge that Mercedes used is like no other supercharger out there. It was designed for them to be quieter than most others, to maintain their luxury image.

moetheshmoe said:

"Why do you suppose they did that?"
Your complete lack of understanding of modern drive trains begs for an answer. So hear it is. They couldn't do that with 4 speed transmissions. At that time you had to make a choice - performance or gas mileage. And driveability had to be decent with either choice. Today, with 6, 8, 10 and even 12 speed transmissions they can achieve both. Early gears for performance and later gears for mileage. To put it simply, in olden days if a car was geared for gas mileage it's turbo wasn't spinning in it's power range which pretty much made it useless. I never said the supercharger was more efficient. I said it's power and torque came on much sooner(which is one of your proven laws of physics). And torque is what determines gear ratios, which determines gas mileage. Your example of the AMG GTR is a TERRIBLE choice. You're trying to compare a modern high performance sports car(which could care less about gas mileage) with a 25 year old daily driver. And by the way, you may want to ask the Jaguar engineers why they chose a supercharger instead of a turbo on their V8's. Couldn't they find a turbo sitting around? When are you going to get off this apples and oranges trip you're on?

Click to expand...

Hey genius, why don?t you share with us what your background is? Just as with all your assumptions about this project, you are making assumptions about the people in this thread. So far, you have been dead wrong with almost every assumption/statement you have made. You are consistent, I?ll give you that much.

2manyturbos said:

Hey genius, why don?t you share with us what your background is? Just as with all your assumptions about this project, you are making assumptions about the people in this thread. So far, you have been dead wrong with almost every assumption/statement you have made. You are consistent, I?ll give you that much.

Click to expand...

I guess you follow the old Roman adage of "Ignore the message and kill the messenger". I've made no attempt to make this personal until YOU claimed that I knew nothing about this subject and didn't understand what I was talking about. In a way that didn't surprise me. It happens on these public forums. What did surprise me is it came from a Moderator. I guess the definition of Moderator has changed. If you can get off your high horse for a minute and look at my postings, what I said falls under 2 categories - what the German engineers did - and why did they do it? If what you're claiming is due to my lack of knowledge then WHY did these engineers do EXACTLY what they did and agree with me? I'm the middle man. Take up your beef with the engineers.

Sometimes the truth hurts. You really don?t understand what you?re talking about. Whether I?m moderator or not, it doesn?t change that fact. What Mercedes did isn?t the point. What you?re suggesting doing with a Volvo, a redblock engine, a supercharger and an AW30?40 transmission is the point. It?s not going to match what Mercedes did no matter how much you want to imagine that it is going to. I have an AW30?40 transmission sitting in storage that you can have if you would put it to use and actually attempt what you?re talking about. Like I said, there?s only one way to learn. That?s by trial and failure or success.

2manyturbos said:

Sometimes the truth hurts. You really don?t understand what you?re talking about. Whether I?m moderator or not, it doesn?t change that fact. What Mercedes did isn?t the point. What you?re suggesting doing with a Volvo, a redblock engine, a supercharger and an AW30?40 transmission is the point. It?s not going to match what Mercedes did no matter how much you want to imagine that it is going to. I have an AW30?40 transmission sitting in storage that you can have if you would put it to use and actually attempt what you?re talking about. Like I said, there?s only one way to learn. That?s by trial and failure or success.

Click to expand...

It doesn't hurt at all, especially since it's not the truth. I didn't know that the purpose of this forum was to dissuade people from asking about starting a new project by telling them that they have no idea what they're talking about and insulting them with sarcastic terms like 'genius'. Especially when others have already completed various parts of that project. There's numerous youtube videos showing the redblock supercharged. The only thing missing is merging the two. It seems like the term 'genius' has been self appointed.

I'm curious as to why you keep comparing a 40 year old design (OHC redblock) to the relatively new-ish mercedes 4 cylinder.

Compare a 2000's era Volvo P2 to the Merc. Volvo had 300hp turbo 2.5 liter engines that returned up to 30mpg on the highway with 5 and 6 speed transmissions.

Honda and Toyota had cars that got 40 mpg with 2 liter NA motors.

Hell, chevy and ford had V8's that got equal or better MPG than a mid-80's volvo did.

You've set up a heck of a strawman argument here for no good reason that I can tell. Is your real name HK40 by chance?

moetheshmoe said:

I gotta challenge that. If they didn't care about mileage why didn't they keep the gearing low like Volvo, and end up breaking 1/4 mile speed records? Like they say "The proof is in the pudding". I'll guess I'll boil up some pudding. Interesting note: The Eaton supercharge that Mercedes used is like no other supercharger out there. It was designed for them to be quieter than most others, to maintain their luxury image.

Click to expand...

They didn't make fast cars because it's not their target demo. Their target demo was old folks who wanted something "peppy" and luxurious. Well they got it. It would jump with every movement of their big toe simply because it was supercharged. Speed was never the goal.

HiSPL said:

I'm curious as to why you keep comparing a 40 year old design (OHC redblock) to the relatively new-ish mercedes 4 cylinder.

Compare a 2000's era Volvo P2 to the Merc. Volvo had 300hp turbo 2.5 liter engines that returned up to 30mpg on the highway with 5 and 6 speed transmissions.

Honda and Toyota had cars that got 40 mpg with 2 liter NA motors.

Hell, chevy and ford had V8's that got equal or better MPG than a mid-80's volvo did.

You've set up a heck of a strawman argument here for no good reason that I can tell. Is your real name HK40 by chance?

Click to expand...

The last redblock was produced in 1995 and the last 740/940/960 chassis was produced in 1998. The first 4 cyl Mercedes to be supercharged was also in 1998. So they're not that far apart, especially since the displacement is almost the same. You got that right about gas. Turboed 4 cyl Volvos had the worse gas mileage of any turboed car ever built. Hell, it's worse than my 1963 VW bug. Like a lot of people I admire the old tractor/boat Redblocks. You can't deny that overall it's been the longest lasting engine in auto history. And it was in a car(the 940) that had great looks, I thought. Once Volvo went to aluminum blocks they couldn't make that claim no matter how much or how little power they put out. So my whole reasoning is 'Why not make a good thing better?' And there's still enough around to get parts and even whole cars fairly cheaply. And what makes the idea intriguing to me is the fact that there we're other makes during that period that we're similar in size, specs etc that had better performance, better mileage, etc. Now part of my project would be supercharging. Which has been done to 940's(go to youtube)and other makes at the time. That's very do-able. The tranny swap hasn't been done but researching the Aisin/Toyota archives it sounds like it could be done. And to me the most important thing is - they were put in the same chassis. Look at the gear shift and center console of a 740 and a 960 and you won't see much difference..
What's been surprising is you and a few other have said 'Go ahead and give it a shot'. Other have claimed it won't work and insulted my lack of knowledge for even asking. It's really amazing how those who have no experience doing something claim it can't be done. How do they know? They don't. They're just flapping their jaws. And jaw flappers get awfully old after a while.

moetheshmoe said:

It doesn't hurt at all, especially since it's not the truth. I didn't know that the purpose of this forum was to dissuade people from asking about starting a new project by telling them that they have no idea what they're talking about and insulting them with sarcastic terms like 'genius'. Especially when others have already completed various parts of that project. There's numerous youtube videos showing the redblock supercharged. The only thing missing is merging the two. It seems like the term 'genius' has been self appointed.

Click to expand...

You made the comment that I have no idea about modern drive trains. That?s so far from the truth. As I said, your assumptions are digging your own grave. The truth is, everything you say is just conjecture from something you read somewhere. There?s absolutely zero substance to anything you have said. I encourage you to build this project. That?s the only way you?re going to learn anything. I?ve been fixing, building, designing and manufacturing for many years. My background is automotive mechanic, automotive restoration facility owner, degreed mechanical design engineer, racing enthusiast, automobile racer etc. Drive trains of any sort, other than electric are right up my alley.

Nobody said a redblock can?t be supercharged. Nobody said an AW30-40 couldn?t be mated behind a redblock with enough machine time to create the adapters. What they are trying to tell you is you?re not going to obtain the kind of fuel mileage you think you are with this ridiculous combination. You never did answer the simple question, how much power do you think it takes to move a 940 70 mph on flat pavement? If you could even answer that question you might understand the ridiculousness of what you?re proposing. I?ll leave it at that because you didn?t even understand what I said above about power being a simple function of fuel burned in a set time. There?s no magic wand.

2manyturbos said:

You made the comment that I have no idea about modern drive trains. That?s so far from the truth. As I said, your assumptions are digging your own grave. The truth is, everything you say is just conjecture from something you read somewhere. There?s absolutely zero substance to anything you have said. I encourage you to build this project. That?s the only way you?re going to learn anything. I?ve been fixing, building, designing and manufacturing for many years. My background is automotive mechanic, automotive restoration facility owner, degreed mechanical design engineer, racing enthusiast, automobile racer etc. Drive trains of any sort, other than electric are right up my alley.

Nobody said a redblock can?t be supercharged. Nobody said an AW30-40 couldn?t be mated behind a redblock with enough machine time to create the adapters. What they are trying to tell you is you?re not going to obtain the kind of fuel mileage you think you are with this ridiculous combination. You never did answer the simple question, how much power do you think it takes to move a 940 70 mph on flat pavement? If you could even answer that question you might understand the ridiculousness of what you?re proposing. I?ll leave it at that because you didn?t even understand what I said above about power being a simple function of fuel burned in a set time. There?s no magic wand.

Click to expand...

The title of 'genius' has just been re-annoited. I could care less who you are or what you've done. Since you've never supercharged a redblock and never put a 960 tranny in a 940 you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO experience doing a project like this. I have put a 960 axle in my 940 Turbo wagon and dropped 70 mph flat surface cruising speed to 2500 rpms. And improved my gas mileage from 23 mpg to 26 mpg. With a lock up torque converter it would be no problem to drop 200 more rpm and gain 2 more mpg, which would match the Mercedes c230 exactly. The lesson here is The real world can tell you a lot more than data or books.

Lol. You are correct. I have enough knowledge, experience, and common sense not to bother with any of those. I have built several custom set ups for myself and other customers over the years. Not just swapped an axle that will bolt right in using the same fasteners. In other words, I?m not impressed that you were able to put a 960 axle in a 940. My son at 12 years could do that and actually did that kind of work for me. Try swapping an entire drivetrain from one make of vehicle into another and making it work. I?ve done that on multiple occasions. Now you?re switching gears because you?ve painted yourself into a corner. Your point of the supercharger was it was going to increase your fuel mileage due to higher torque. That?s flat out wrong. That?s basically saying you?re getting free energy from somewhere. You still can?t even answer the simple question about the amount of power it takes to move the vehicle.

2manyturbos said:

Lol. You are correct. I have enough knowledge, experience, and common sense not to bother with any of those. I have built several custom set ups for myself and other customers over the years. Not just swapped an axle that will bolt right in using the same fasteners. In other words, I?m not impressed that you were able to put a 960 axle in a 940. My son at 12 years could do that and actually did that kind of work for me. Try swapping an entire drivetrain from one make of vehicle into another and making it work. I?ve done that on multiple occasions. Now you?re switching gears because you?ve painted yourself into a corner. Your point of the supercharger was it was going to increase your fuel mileage due to higher torque. That?s flat out wrong. That?s basically saying you?re getting free energy from somewhere. You still can?t even answer the simple question about the amount of power it takes to move the vehicle.

Click to expand...

You sure know how to dodge your own bullets. You obviously missed the whole purpose of my last post. I'm not bragging that I did something a 12 yr old could do(although some others do). Your claim, with zero actual experience, that what Mercedes accomplished, I could not is rubbish. I could care less how much power it takes to cruise at 70 on a flat surface. There's no way of measuring that on the road and I doubt you have a dyno at home to do it. And people who are knowledgeable know it's actually a measurement of torque, which is then calculated into hp. What you missed completely is - just by changing my rear end gearing I'm only 2 mpg away from what Mercedes did. And by adding a lockup torque converter that's easily obtainable. How is that not obtainable. I don't mean to get personal but do you have memory problems? I ask because you seem to be distorting everything I've said. You're leaving out parts of what I said in my very first posts. It's not the added torque of a supercharger that will directly increase the mpg but it will allow a higher rear end ratio, which will. And the added torque will prevent the engine from bogging down at low rpms which demands more throttle to keep moving. If you're going to distort my posts talk to your 12 yr old about it. You can probably convince him.

moetheshmoe said:

The last redblock was produced in 1995 and the last 740/940/960 chassis was produced in 1998. The first 4 cyl Mercedes to be supercharged was also in 1998. So they're not that far apart, especially since the displacement is almost the same.

Click to expand...

The ohc version of the redblock was designed in The late 60?s. Yes, even the 1995 940 used 1960?s era technology under the hood. The only real difference was the fuel injection and ignitions got better over the years. It?s an old school, wheezy headed, over square tractor motor.

The merc engine you are comparing it to probably flows twice the cfm through the head. And it?s nearly a square bore/stroke. Thats a totally different beast even before you put any power-adder to it.


There?s just way too much ground to make up. The redblock will never equal a modern 2 liter class engine.


Thats not to say the redblock is bad. Nope, its number one redeeming quality is the sheer amount of abuse it will take from idiots boosting it to the moon. Thats why we love it so much.

There you go again. Torque is a measurement of resistance. Torque does nothing as far as moving the car down the road. I know that will fly right over your head. Power is a measurement of work over time. I.E. moving the car down the road. Pick your system of units, watts, horse power. You can?t even describe what you are attempting in proper terms. Yet, you maintain such a misplaced arrogant attitude. I?m done with your thread. Build it instead of wasting everyone?s time talking about it.

HiSPL said:

The ohc version of the redblock was designed in The late 60?s. Yes, even the 1995 940 used 1960?s era technology under the hood. The only real difference was the fuel injection and ignitions got better over the years. It?s an old school, wheezy headed, over square tractor motor.

The merc engine you are comparing it to probably flows twice the cfm through the head. And it?s nearly a square bore/stroke. Thats a totally different beast even before you put any power-adder to it.


There?s just way too much ground to make up. The redblock will never equal a modern 2 liter class engine.


Thats not to say the redblock is bad. Nope, its number one redeeming quality is the sheer amount of abuse it will take from idiots boosting it to the moon. Thats why we love it so much.

Click to expand...

I don't want it to match a modern 2 liter. I want it to match a 1998 2 liter. All you have to do is look at the specs of a 1997 C230 before it was boosted. And except for about 10 more hp it and the redblock are almost twins. With just gearing mods and no engine mods I'm only 2 mpg away from what the Mercedes got. With more torque(meaning more light throttle) and a lock up torque converter I think it's very possible to surpass the Merc.

2manyturbos said:

There you go again. Torque is a measurement of resistance. Torque does nothing as far as moving the car down the road. I know that will fly right over your head. Power is a measurement of work over time. I.E. moving the car down the road. Pick your system of units, watts, horse power. You can?t even describe what you are attempting in proper terms. Yet, you maintain such a misplaced arrogant attitude. I?m done with your thread. Build it instead of wasting everyone?s time talking about it.

Click to expand...

You're leaving? Thank God! Too bad for your 12 year old. He's getting you full time. It's been a pleasure!

moetheshmoe said:

I don't want it to match a modern 2 liter. I want it to match a 1998 2 liter. All you have to do is look at the specs of a 1997 C230 before it was boosted. And except for about 10 more hp it and the redblock are almost twins. With just gearing mods and no engine mods I'm only 2 mpg away from what the Mercedes got. With more torque(meaning more light throttle) and a lock up torque converter I think it's very possible to surpass the Merc.

Click to expand...

If you think the B230 is equal to the C230 you are a lost little babby in the woods. There's a lot more to them there motors than just displacement.


Pretty sure this thread is headed for the trash bin.


But please, please, please build something. I'd love to see it.



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RNcUnQ-oao4" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

LOL 2.16 square meter frontal area, noisy under car floor pan, .39-.40 Coefefficient of drag. That takes the HP it does to shove down the road/thru the air with the alignment settings it does to make it fly straight with the suspension it has for whatever rolling resistance that is.
No matter what powers it, it takes ~20HP just to go 60mph, the Honda insight takes 10-11hp. Increase the MPH over 75 & the power starts to get ugly/closer to 30-40HP/not likely lean burn cruise or out of boost on the 2.3L redblock with the chassis rolling resistance & aero drag/noisy under car parachute rear bumper.

+ tractor engine from 1961 with ever larger displacement but same stroke/crank/bearing journal dimensions carried over from the pushrod tractor, alum head & updated FI (tho it's been basically the same LH jet (ish) since 1981-1982 LH1.0 with a lot more ignition resolution for knock detection/off idle grunt in the LH2.4-3.1+ starting in 1989 or regina FI on the 7/9 49-state automatic cars...

As to the 960 (you swapped in the 3.31 rear axle in the 940 Turbo that originally had 3.73s with the AW-71? That must drive awesome. ), with stock sized tires, the 3.31 would be absolutely ridiculous/useless with a lock-up torque converter. The only reason the MPG is maybe any better at (75+?MPH?) is either selected cruising speed speed in the flat (absurdly high/highway mileage is likely to suck, anyway) or slippage/torque multiplication through the converter (though, lord knows how much heat or wear/tear that's creating or strain its putting on the engine to lug it like that).

With the .69 OD ratio & stock sized tires the AW71L w/4.10s cruises about the same RPM as the absurdly tall 8V N/A USA 2.3LEFI cars '83+ that have 3.31s with the manual & .80 OD ratio. They kept the RPMs low with real mild torque/grunty smogger cams compared to the B20E D-cam not so much for MPG as to keep from stirring up all that naughty naughty gross oil windage from the crankcase for unburned HCs or NOX burning at light load real lean for federal/CARB steady state flat ground 55mph cruise emissions tests standards sniffing the tailpipe. This was NO joke for tighter emissions #s by 1995 for the tractor redblock...they had to put a LOT more exteral bandaids on them 1994-1995 for CA-emissions steady state 55mph flat cruise standards as well as passing simulated dyno tests every other year in the strictest area (los angeles/valley smog).

This said, the D-jet super lean burning high compression '71 140E or 1800E uses about the same amount of fuel with same diameter (though skinny 165R15 tires, originally) w/4.10s & no OD/M40 or M41/M410 w/.79 OD ratio in good repair, even screaming along at 4000RPM. Less weight/fewer accessories or electronics to babysit too! Burns real lean, 2700lbs or less for a stripper 140, ~2500-2600 depending on options for an 1800E, motor can spin along at 70mph just fine, but won't pass 1975+ emissions or run that well without hardened valve seats/other upgrades to run on modern oil & fuel/lead free gas.

The brick shaped car with the over-stressed tractor engine originally conceived in ~1958 with some blower/supercharger (clutched or not) kludged onto it & lousy aerodynamics/noisy under-car isn't likely to sip fuel or drive all that well compared to modern, even with a programmable early electronic controlled 03-71LE from the N/A previa recombined with Volvo shafts/bellhousing for a bolt-in solution or even machining the only *slightly* newer tech 4-speed A340/AW4 family trans into it going to all that effort to install something that's still a dinosaur by modern standards...

If you want more torque & a little less aero drag, they did sell 3.0 facelift 960s with said A340 / AW30-40LE as Volvo calls it, though IIRC all 1995+ models are CA compliant & 1998-only models got the air pump + EGR for CA? if I remember well?
They're not much smoother underneath with actual air guides, nor are P80 850/70 series, but a little bit with the transverse leaf IRS instead of the solid rear axle.
Much that is electrical to fail, much interior plastic to fall apart, glass sunroofs (or any sunroofs I hate), power seats, fewer years interior parts interchange, smooth bumpers instead of black bumpers to bash around.

I stick to 145EFI manual window/no sunroof cars or 245 manual window no sunroof cars no airbag (tho I do like ABS brakes & LH3.1 last version of the FI & sound deadening 1989 stiffer chassis/better sound deadened/better rustproofed/less cabin or windshield water leak prone models , but old style ignition switch/manual windows still & single stage paint more common (white, 190 yellow, 213 blue etc still used -'89 & I like to delete the 3rd brake light (early hatch glass swap)/less in the hatch harness to fail on me/how cheap (that's frugal, to you!) can I be?).

They also sold AW71L N/A 940s here with a pretty strong trans that holds up to turbo power in stock form, but not with the 940T stall speed lockup torque converter & shift points like the Canadian 1993+ 940Turbos got to make it a little less terrible to drive with the super lazy N/A 940 shift points & slow stall speed torque converter...the 1993+ Canadian 940T in good repair with the AW71L & 4.10s was good for an honest 2mpg highway in 49-state lean burning form. Won't pass SoCal super tight NOX requirements as cleanly, especially the steady state 55mph cruise test, however. Torque converter & valve body for a USA N/A AW71L fits in a large flat rate box or can be picked up at the canadian border? IDK? BTDT? Nice junk drawer recombine to get a little better acceleration & MPG & less heat from the slipping non-lockup torque converter at light throttle cruise in OD for better longevity (tho more complexity/failure parts (torque converter clutch), but TCC seems to give long life if cared for on 03-71L & 03-71LE (I got 500,000 miles out of one in an N/A previa w/much towing in 3rd+locked converter).

The last of the redblock tractors N/A 940s for CA emissions had the turbo sized much larger cat converter (& volvo probably only wanted to use up the last of 1 type for a model they were phasing out in the USA market), pulse air injection & EGR to squeak them through emissions with their old bathtub combustion chambers & LH EFI engine management.
They sold redblocks rest of world up to 1998, but they weren't USA OBDII style emissions compliant...

moetheshmoe said:

You're leaving? Thank God! Too bad for your 12 year old. He's getting you full time. It's been a pleasure!

Click to expand...

One more comment like that and I'm closing your thread. Go ahead, try me.

2manyturbos said:

One more comment like that and I'm closing your thread. Go ahead, try me.

Click to expand...

Nice attitude the guy has toward someone offering him a free or cheap known good transmission he was initially asking about?


Maybe a 4.0EFI jeep or supra guy will take it off your hands for parts to recombine & be a less entitled little complaining Volvo dork & build something cool with realistic expectations instead of daydreaming or trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear?