960 transmission in a 940

[Redwood Chair]

Originally Posted by 2manyturbos

It's obvious you don't understand. How much power do you think it actually takes to keep a Volvo cruising 70 mph on level ground?

2650rpm & ~ 6psi of vacuum on my rig, nowhere near boosting levels of power demand.

[HiSPL]

I cruise at 80+ with my completely stock M cam NA with an M47. It doesn't take a lot of chooch to go 80. What you want is to get there faster than the other guy. That's where mechanical advantage comes in to play. If you had a 6 speed trans with double overdrive you could go with a 3.83 or even a 4.10 gear in the rear end and have lots of gears to get you up to speed and that nice double OD to keep your MPG's low.


BTW, a higher revving engine doesn't mean it's using a lot of gas. Fuel usage is dependant on load, not RPM. If you gear your car really high and keep those RPM's way down, it will actually use MORE gas because it's working too hard to maintain speed.

[Redwood Chair]

It?ll never spool.

[white855T]

Originally Posted by moetheshmoe

I'll repeat - imagine a redblock with a supercharger. It would be a totally different animal, with enough torque and horsepower to control the transmission. Not the other way around.

It won't be. Lot of trouble to run a supercharger with very little benefit.

[moetheshmoe]

It seems like everyone here who is against this idea is basing their opinion on how a turbo'ed redblock would respond to the 960 transmission shift points, ratios and rear end. So I'll repeat - my idea is to pull the turbo, throw it in the trash and install a supercharger. If you can't imagine that then test drive a Mercedes 4 cylinder supercharged car and you'll be amazed. It feels and drives like a small v8. Yet the displacement is equal to a redblock. The boost is just slightly more than a turbo but the gas mileage increase is huge - both in town and highway. And the zero to 60 time is 7.5 seconds.

[moetheshmoe]

Originally Posted by HiSPL

I cruise at 80+ with my completely stock M cam NA with an M47. It doesn't take a lot of chooch to go 80. What you want is to get there faster than the other guy. That's where mechanical advantage comes in to play. If you had a 6 speed trans with double overdrive you could go with a 3.83 or even a 4.10 gear in the rear end and have lots of gears to get you up to speed and that nice double OD to keep your MPG's low.


BTW, a higher revving engine doesn't mean it's using a lot of gas. Fuel usage is dependant on load, not RPM. If you gear your car really high and keep those RPM's way down, it will actually use MORE gas because it's working too hard to maintain speed.

Unless your engine has a lot more low end torque so it can handle the gearing. Hence the supercharger. And why 960's had better mpg's than 940's.

[moetheshmoe]

Originally Posted by ZVOLV

Location: California

It won't be smog legal. (Insert crusher pic here)

Unless I register it in Nevada, every 2 years.

[moetheshmoe]

Originally Posted by Redwood Chair

That still won?t fix the fact that your final drive ratios are wrong, nor the fact that the input shaft is incompatible.

You know this for a fact? If that we're true then all cars(especially Toyotas) that use this basic transmission would have different input shafts. Not so. The engines and input bearing are designed to adapt to the input shaft, not the other way around.

[moetheshmoe]

Originally Posted by Redwood Chair

It?ll never spool.

You're right. A turbo would never spool. But a supercharger starts spooling right above idle.

[HiSPL]

Rock out with your block out then.

Build it and prove to all of us that we were wrong.


14psi of boost at 2000 on a skinny rod motor, full throttle at 1300 rpm pulls. It'll run exactly like a mercedes that's 30 years newer for sure!.

[Redwood Chair]

Originally Posted by moetheshmoe

You know this for a fact? If that we're true then all cars(especially Toyotas) that use this basic transmission would have different input shafts. Not so. The engines and input bearing are designed to adapt to the input shaft, not the other way around.

It's a different engine and transmission family so very likely different.

That said what?choo gonna do about a bell housing or adapter for said swap?

[Kjets On a Plane]

Look up coefficient of drag + frontal area for the brick.
Look underneath it to see how 'noisy' it is and that the rear bumper & muffler is basically a parachute half deployed at all times.
It's a far cry from a 0-drag shallow water canoe or fan boat down there..or even up top, tho contrary to popular belief it's what's under the car that's MUCH more the issue than the brick shaped car with the panoramic window or the flat hatch (makes the hole in the air noisier/doesn't come to a tidy point in the back like an airplane fuselage sans the wings + some wheels & wheel covers/landing gear always deployed & down force (or at least neutral & less drag if one must compromise?) desired over lift... ideally...

Calculate rolling resistance with *vaguely tolerable* / near stock safe alignment settings & workable near stock or stock sized tires & pressures..

The speedometers tend to be a bit optimistic in these cars with factory tires.

That benzo is a lot slipperier thru the air & has a LOT more programming time to get that much more modern engine to cruise just-so & multiply the torque thru a modern automatic to make it feel like a V8 & return decent economy.

Benzo is 'too ugly' ...ya...brick volvos are 'stylish' they were thought of as plain jane/'boxy but good' & 'it adds class to the econobox (that's the polite way of saying it)' when they were new.

Your tractor brick Volvo you're trying to shove thru the air is a far cry from that & no modern engine is going to integrate into the Volvo chassis perfectly seamlessly without a lot of effort, time, money &/or expertise?

The A340/AW4 family are decent/certainly no worse than a TH350 POS (TH400 are decently stronger than the weak 350s that are no stronger than the AW-71 or AW4 in stock form IMO). The updated A340/AW4 splits 1st to 2nd & is a 5 speed but they're weaker and not *really* that much more impressive. Toyota did that on some of them just to offer another gear I guess?

If you drove like a responsible adult in a D24 car and only drove 55 or had the slipperiest of the aero nose lightest weight face lift 7/9s (like the 95+ 960s)...I know even on the old sealed beam headlight diesel Volvos with manual trans if you drove exactly 55 flat sea level 38-40mpg was possible. & kinda 30mpg in good repair no matter what you did otherwise....

Too much work. With stock tires install the 03-71LE or L & 4.10 axle but that's about it for anything with a redblock bellhousing.
But no way is your redblock tractor going to get amazing mileage & feel like a new benz or modern V8 car without basically reinventing the whole thing to the point it's no longer really a 'volvo'.

That said the Buchka fake race car tube frame thing is still awesome

[moetheshmoe]

Originally Posted by Redwood Chair

It's a different engine and transmission family so very likely different.

That said what?choo gonna do about a bell housing or adapter for said swap?

Different engine but same transmission family:

A43DE

Four speed automatic with lockup torque converter and electronic controls. Based on A43D.

Applications (calendar years):

1982–1987 Toyota Cressida
1995-2002 Toyota Granvia
1983–1986 Toyota Celica Supra
1992-up Suzuki Sidekick (4L30E)
1995–1998 Volvo 960/S90/V90 (AW30-43LE)

A43D

Four speed automatic without lockup torque converter.

This transmission model is not electronically controlled. It is instead controlled by throttle position and also by a governor.

Manufacturer designation: Aisin Warner 03-71

Applications (calendar years):

1981 Toyota Celica Supra
1982–1985 Toyota Celica XX 2000G/S turbo
1996-2001 Toyota Chaser/Mark II/Cresta (LX100)
1982–1985 Volvo 240 2.1L Turbo I4 (AW71)
1985–1991 Volvo 740 2.3L Turbo I4 (AW71)
1985–1990 Volvo 760 2.3L Turbo I4 (AW71)
1985–1990 Volvo 760 2.8L V6 (AW71)
1988–1991 Volvo 780 2.3L Turbo I4 (AW71)
1987–1990 Volvo 780 2.8L V6 (AW71)
1991 Volvo 960 2.8L V6 (AW71 – Australia only)
1991–1995 Volvo 940 2.3L Turbo I4 (AW71)
1981 Toyota Pickup 2WD 2.4L I4 22R (California emissions only, Federal emissions used A43)
1982–1995 Toyota Pickup 2WD 2.4L I4 22R/RE
1982–1995 Toyota Cab/Chassis 2.4L I4 22R/RE (flatbed, cube, motorhome)
1995–2000 Toyota Tacoma 2WD 2.4L I4 2RZ
1982 Toyota Crown Royal 2.8L I6 5MG
1995-2007 Toyota Comfort/Crown Comfort (LXS/YXS)

So, same family of transmissions going into the same basic chassis. And both transmission codes identify them as 'removable bell housings'. So, how could they not fit? I got this info from - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_A_transmission#A30

[moetheshmoe]

Originally Posted by Kjets On a Plane

Look up coefficient of drag + frontal area for the brick.
Look underneath it to see how 'noisy' it is and that the rear bumper & muffler is basically a parachute half deployed at all times.
It's a far cry from a 0-drag shallow water canoe or fan boat down there..or even up top, tho contrary to popular belief it's what's under the car that's MUCH more the issue than the brick shaped car with the panoramic window or the flat hatch (makes the hole in the air noisier/doesn't come to a tidy point in the back like an airplane fuselage sans the wings + some wheels & wheel covers/landing gear always deployed & down force (or at least neutral & less drag if one must compromise?) desired over lift... ideally...

Calculate rolling resistance with *vaguely tolerable* / near stock safe alignment settings & workable near stock or stock sized tires & pressures..

The speedometers tend to be a bit optimistic in these cars with factory tires.

That benzo is a lot slipperier thru the air & has a LOT more programming time to get that much more modern engine to cruise just-so & multiply the torque thru a modern automatic to make it feel like a V8 & return decent economy.

Benzo is 'too ugly' ...ya...brick volvos are 'stylish' they were thought of as plain jane/'boxy but good' & 'it adds class to the econobox (that's the polite way of saying it)' when they were new.

Your tractor brick Volvo you're trying to shove thru the air is a far cry from that & no modern engine is going to integrate into the Volvo chassis perfectly seamlessly without a lot of effort, time, money &/or expertise?

The A340/AW4 family are decent/certainly no worse than a TH350 POS (TH400 are decently stronger than the weak 350s that are no stronger than the AW-71 or AW4 in stock form IMO). The updated A340/AW4 splits 1st to 2nd & is a 5 speed but they're weaker and not *really* that much more impressive. Toyota did that on some of them just to offer another gear I guess?

If you drove like a responsible adult in a D24 car and only drove 55 or had the slipperiest of the aero nose lightest weight face lift 7/9s (like the 95+ 960s)...I know even on the old sealed beam headlight diesel Volvos with manual trans if you drove exactly 55 flat sea level 38-40mpg was possible. & kinda 30mpg in good repair no matter what you did otherwise....

Too much work. With stock tires install the 03-71LE or L & 4.10 axle but that's about it for anything with a redblock bellhousing.
But no way is your redblock tractor going to get amazing mileage & feel like a new benz or modern V8 car without basically reinventing the whole thing to the point it's no longer really a 'volvo'.

That said the Buchka fake race car tube frame thing is still awesome

Ok, first of all I think the 940's we're the best looking cars Volvo ever designed(not talking about 240's). And granted, at highway speeds, the Benzo's had slightly smoother aerodynamics. But look at engine speeds(meaning rear diff ratios) and THAT more than anything determines cruising gas consumption. The real "proof in the pudding' is around town, stop n go, real world driveability and aerodynamics have no effect on that. Mercedes was able to use higher diff ratios because of the added torque of their engines. You can't have driveability without both. Around town(meaning - not reving to redline) the Benzos we're faster and used less gas than Volvo's. I believe Volvo's big downfall was trying to copy Saab and their 'turbos'. Saab's had more power yet better mpg's. Most people agree it was due to Volvo's cheapness and not wanting to use Saab's engine management system. What's interesting is why Mercedes decided to go with superchargers. The turboed Swedes had been in production for a few years when the Germans decided to boost their 4 cylinders. I'm sure they considered all options but avoided turbo's because of the poor mpg's due to requiring lower diff ratios to keep the turbo spinning. Good choice. In summation, your Honor, a cast iron 4 cyl redblock will not perform as well as a Mercedes 4 cyl, dual overhead cam engine BUT, with higher gearing and higher torque I think it will be close. And 'close' in this case will be a big improvement. I rest my case.

[HiSPL]

Not sure why you're still talking about it instead of building this mpg queen. Obviously none of us know sht from shinola..

Build it and show us the error of our ways!

[2manyturbos]

Originally Posted by moetheshmoe

Ok, first of all I think the 940's we're the best looking cars Volvo ever designed(not talking about 240's). And granted, at highway speeds, the Benzo's had slightly smoother aerodynamics. But look at engine speeds(meaning rear diff ratios) and THAT more than anything determines cruising gas consumption. The real "proof in the pudding' is around town, stop n go, real world driveability and aerodynamics have no effect on that. Mercedes was able to use higher diff ratios because of the added torque of their engines. You can't have driveability without both. Around town(meaning - not reving to redline) the Benzos we're faster and used less gas than Volvo's. I believe Volvo's big downfall was trying to copy Saab and their 'turbos'. Saab's had more power yet better mpg's. Most people agree it was due to Volvo's cheapness and not wanting to use Saab's engine management system. What's interesting is why Mercedes decided to go with superchargers. The turboed Swedes had been in production for a few years when the Germans decided to boost their 4 cylinders. I'm sure they considered all options but avoided turbo's because of the poor mpg's due to requiring lower diff ratios to keep the turbo spinning. Good choice. In summation, your Honor, a cast iron 4 cyl redblock will not perform as well as a Mercedes 4 cyl, dual overhead cam engine BUT, with higher gearing and higher torque I think it will be close. And 'close' in this case will be a big improvement. I rest my case.

I encourage you to dream and build. That's the only way you are going to learn anything. Before you start acquiring parts and taking time to fabricate I encourage you to do a lot more research. I'll start with forced induction. Superchargers have much higher parasitic loss than a turbocharger does. That's why almost all high mileage cars run turbochargers. High mileage is all about minimizing losses. It is not the supercharger that is making the Mercedes get better fuel mileage than the Volvo.

Aerodynamics, lower viscosity lubricants, higher efficiency feed back fuel injection systems, variable cam timing, higher gear count lock up transmissions etc, etc are the things responsible for the much higher fuel mileage cars that are out there vs. the ancient technology of the 940. My BMW 335I twin turbo 3.0 with a six speed automatic transmission gets ~ 20+ mph in the city and as high as 34 mpg on the highway with the cruise set at 65 mph. It's no slug. 0-60 in 4.9 seconds and the quarter mile in 13.6 seconds at 105 mph. The automatics actually get better fuel mileage than the six speed manual trans cars because they utilize the power better than a human can shifting the car. I've seen the same thing with my Mustang GT. My 2019 GT with 10 speed automatic trans has actually pulled 31.5 mpg with the cruise set. My 2017 GT with a six speed manual trans did a best of 29.5 mpg at the same speed.

[moetheshmoe]

Originally Posted by HiSPL

Not sure why you're still talking about it instead of building this mpg queen. Obviously none of us know sht from shinola..

Build it and show us the error of our ways!

I plan to. But first I gotta save my money cuz I just bought a case of Shinola.

[moetheshmoe]

Originally Posted by 2manyturbos

I encourage you to dream and build. That's the only way you are going to learn anything. Before you start acquiring parts and taking time to fabricate I encourage you to do a lot more research. I'll start with forced induction. Superchargers have much higher parasitic loss than a turbocharger does. That's why almost all high mileage cars run turbochargers. High mileage is all about minimizing losses. It is not the supercharger that is making the Mercedes get better fuel mileage than the Volvo.

Of course not. But stand back and take in the whole concept instead of breaking it down into individual parts. The supercharger allowed Mercedes to do 2 very important things. 1 - it allowed higher gearing which gave the great gas mileage. And 2 - it gave the engine more power and torque earlier which allowed it to leave a Volvo turbo in it's dust and still get better mileage. And while you're at it, look at current turboed cars with high mpg's. They can only do that because of the advent of 8 and 10 speed transmissions. Another example of engine and tranny working together. In the year 2000 Mercedes's engineers took the best technology that was available and made it work. Made it work better than Volvo or Saab. If it's all about parasitic loss then why didn't the Volvo(which was slower) get better mileage?

[moetheshmoe]

Originally Posted by 2manyturbos

I encourage you to dream and build. That's the only way you are going to learn anything. Before you start acquiring parts and taking time to fabricate I encourage you to do a lot more research. I'll start with forced induction. Superchargers have much higher parasitic loss than a turbocharger does. That's why almost all high mileage cars run turbochargers. High mileage is all about minimizing losses. It is not the supercharger that is making the Mercedes get better fuel mileage than the Volvo.

Aerodynamics, lower viscosity lubricants, higher efficiency feed back fuel injection systems, variable cam timing, higher gear count lock up transmissions etc, etc are the things responsible for the much higher fuel mileage cars that are out there vs. the ancient technology of the 940. My BMW 335I twin turbo 3.0 with a six speed automatic transmission gets ~ 20+ mph in the city and as high as 34 mpg on the highway with the cruise set at 65 mph. It's no slug. 0-60 in 4.9 seconds and the quarter mile in 13.6 seconds at 105 mph. The automatics actually get better fuel mileage than the six speed manual trans cars because they utilize the power better than a human can shifting the car. I've seen the same thing with my Mustang GT. My 2019 GT with 10 speed automatic trans has actually pulled 31.5 mpg with the cruise set. My 2017 GT with a six speed manual trans did a best of 29.5 mpg at the same speed.

Your examples confirm what I said. With all those extra gears modern engineering can do wonders in both power and mileage. I agree. Technology advancements over the years have vastly improved performance and efficiency. But comparing modern drive trains to 25 year old ones is like comparing apples and oranges. What I'm suggesting is taking the best of the available technologies(redblock, supercharging & 960 transmission) from the late 90's and combine them in a good looking, sturdy and reliable car(940). The improvement won't be able to compete with say, a modern BMW, but it will hold it's own and stand above any examples from it's own era. I'd be extremely happy with a redblock that could get to 60 in 7.5 secs and still get 30 mpg on the highway. That creature never existed but I think it can.

[Kjets On a Plane]

Ya no way some bathtub combustion chamber engine with same stroke since 1961 B18 & duct taped/band-aided to pull a heavier car than a 444/544 chassis & pass emissions to the bitter end of redblock in 1995 is going to compete with anything designed oh…let’s be generous with a 2000 benzo…30-35 years later with way more hours & computer simulation that didn’t even exist in 1961 vs. the redblock tractor with LH/ezk is going to return those numbers, turbo, supercharged or n/a shoving the .39c/d & super aero noisy underneath 940.

The Saabs were way more aerodynamic, lighter, FWD with less drivetrain drag & often had closer ratio manual trans options with that timing chain DOHC engine revised/designed with fuel injection from inception w/engines, turbos, knock control, & FI designed usually 5-10++ years ahead of the Volvo redblock! No comparison!

They barely even make manual trans cars anymore for safety/driver skill, CAFE Econ & tier 4-5 fed+ CARB emissions reasons! And they don’t even really sell alternate models for 49-state emissions as regulations are so tight at the Fed level & so much R&D went to complying with CA & Japan which has stricter emissions/economy requirements than really anywhere else & ~200million people between the worlds strictest emissions markets!

As to the clutched blower, there’s no magic to it! & when it’s running, it’s dragging on the engine waaaaay worse than a modern ball bearing variable nozzle light weight strong impellers or sequential or compound set of turbos.

And what it takes to get the combustion event to light off at perfect time & pass emissions in a modern engine, ecoboost or your benz thing doesn’t remotely resemble anything that’s happening in your bathtub combustion chamber redblock designed in 1961.
As well as modern 0w- emissions lubes, FI resolution & # of sensors…

Also, keep in mind, ~1995 when the last redblock was sold in the USA, they weren’t even factoring in less energy dense with E10 ethanol CA oxygenated emissions gas or how to optimize for it, much less sense its existence/proportions or temps in your fuel feed line in near live fine from fuel pump pickup to injector nozzle tip to spark plug tip to exhaust temp & content gas analysis or ion or knock sense & tailor the timing & fuel mix to very very small fine adjustments in live time…

&, of course a modern electronic control trans has to work with all of that in live time with however much programming time & life data that take to work together with that that millions of dollars go into for huge industrial production runs, not us TB hacks recombining used junk & making compromises/not passing modern emissions/adjusting our driving behavior constantly/optimally as well as expectations…

[HiSPL]

It'll never spool.......

[moetheshmoe]

Originally Posted by Kjets On a Plane

Ya no way some bathtub combustion chamber engine with same stroke since 1961 B18 & duct taped/band-aided to pull a heavier car than a 444/544 chassis & pass emissions to the bitter end of redblock in 1995 is going to compete with anything designed oh…let’s be generous with a 2000 benzo…30-35 years later with way more hours & computer simulation that didn’t even exist in 1961 vs. the redblock tractor with LH/ezk is going to return those numbers, turbo, supercharged or n/a shoving the .39c/d & super aero noisy underneath 940.

The Saabs were way more aerodynamic, lighter, FWD with less drivetrain drag & often had closer ratio manual trans options with that timing chain DOHC engine revised/designed with fuel injection from inception w/engines, turbos, knock control, & FI designed usually 5-10++ years ahead of the Volvo redblock! No comparison!

They barely even make manual trans cars anymore for safety/driver skill, CAFE Econ & tier 4-5 fed+ CARB emissions reasons! And they don’t even really sell alternate models for 49-state emissions as regulations are so tight at the Fed level & so much R&D went to complying with CA & Japan which has stricter emissions/economy requirements than really anywhere else & ~200million people between the worlds strictest emissions markets!

As to the clutched blower, there’s no magic to it! & when it’s running, it’s dragging on the engine waaaaay worse than a modern ball bearing variable nozzle light weight strong impellers or sequential or compound set of turbos.

And what it takes to get the combustion event to light off at perfect time & pass emissions in a modern engine, ecoboost or your benz thing doesn’t remotely resemble anything that’s happening in your bathtub combustion chamber redblock designed in 1961.
As well as modern 0w- emissions lubes, FI resolution & # of sensors…

It's interesting how you compare a 1961 redblock to a 2000 Mercedes or the last year that Saab was produced. If the 1995 940 had the 1961 redblock engine they never would have sold any. And by the way, redblocks had knock control and aluminum heads and overhead cams for quite a few years. Not to mention the same Bosch injection systems that all European cars used at that time. Not fair for you to cherry pick your examples. And PLEASE tell me how aerodynamics help when you're driving through town at 35 mph.

[moetheshmoe]

Originally Posted by HiSPL

It'll never spool.......

Here's some spooling..........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6F6WyXBrtk

[Kjets On a Plane]

Originally Posted by moetheshmoe

It's interesting how you compare a 1961 redblock to a 2000 Mercedes or the last year that Saab was produced. If the 1995 940 had the 1961 redblock engine they never would have sold any. And by the way, redblocks had knock control and aluminum heads and overhead cams for quite a few years. Not to mention the same Bosch injection systems that all European cars used at that time. Not fair for you to cherry pick your examples. And PLEASE tell me how aerodynamics help when you're driving through town at 35 mph.

Last year SAAB was produced?
Even the same year 9000s, C900s, & 99s 1968-1993ish vs. the 140 or 2/7/9s were almost always 5-15 years ahead in engine management & engine tech in a FWD more aerodynamic lighter/smaller (in the case of the stripper 99 & 900 especially) car with less drag.
SAAB basically appropriated a higher tech triumph engine & made it with swedish raw materials (or Essex english Ford van V6 missing two holes ) They basically didn't even design their engines in house hardly at all, but copied more modern engines than Volvo made in-house.

The late B20s use the same Bofors swacked out forged crankshaft as early B21s. Same stroke & everything as the old engine, just with alternate sprocket to drive a T-belt/fit the SOHC motor front seal housing.
Same basic bearing journals & dimensions for the most part as a 1961 B18 designed in 1950something (that's basically a Chevy V8 copy cut in half with the same size bearings, but only 4 holes! )!
They didn't make the crankshaft in house & Bofors was already getting competing juicy defense contracts & making giant industrial stuff, so your little personal automobile orders are probably less important to them?

That 1961 B18 was asked to push a 444/544 around with way different competitors, driver expectations, safety & emissions regulations!
That SOHC alum head is a measure to achieve usable torque with K-jet non-lambda/carbs, pass CARB emissions on unleaded modern fuel without completely band-aiding horrific vac line/air pumps on there & making the compression ratio even worse than 8.5:1 like the early B21Fs had with hardened valve seats (no more leaded gas) & hardened cams (less lead/zync in the oil) in a gas crisis.

The lighter weight 140 or 1800E w/1970-1971 D-jet B20E returned good drivability with the 3:1 1st gear close ratio trans & 4.10 rear axle on leaded gas & no cat.
Will it have a snowball's chance in hell of passing newly phased in 1975+ NOX, HCs & no heavy metals in fuel allowed emissions with that setup for the american market or CA market even more so? No.

Volvo revised/band-aided a design from the late 50s to deal with ever heavier cars, ever stricter emissions, lemon/warranty laws, unleaded fuel, safety, etc etc.

We love our volvos with so many years parts interchange/backwards compatibility, simple tractor engines & good raw materials & so much ahead of most many million vacuum line carbed, thin sheetmetal/lower grade metal badly rustproofed cars compared to what was around in the 70s-late 80s 'struggling to comply' emissions era & disposable cars from other brands sold then.

But give it up, man! Ford's owned Volvo since late 2000 & imposed the american business model (parts NLA way sooner, more models, more fashionable consumption/gimmicks, less backwards compatibility etc) & geely since 2010 bottom of the recession.

The competition has caught up a lot with waaaay larger budgets & market share, the features unique to the external drip rail Volvo wagon etc, some small swedish company with unfavorable exchange rate that at best had ~1% market share here & shrinking as a car brand, Volvo-cars is just a sort of off-shoot of a defense & heavy industrial/trucking company at the time w/ ever shrinking US market share with competitors with more money that caught up a lot from the 2000s on & I'd daresay sold 'better' products except maybe for more years parts interchange/longer model runs still at Volvo/only a couple models & the flat tailgate wagon with the huge cargo bay?

Might hurt to hear, but to me it's all over for Volvo/they're done after 1998 (except for whiteblock/engine parts fitting your -'98 model up to much later years FTW?).
Just buy something else, really?

Like try it, but also read up on all the emissions laws, gasoline formulations/changes & how Volvo as a company approached change (revision rather than revolution, backwards compatibility as much as possible/long model runs, keep parts around a long time, good raw materials, waaaaay ahead of competitors on safety, space efficiency on wagons etc).

They dun did good for an (obscure/ecclectic in the USA) euro car company from a country with only ~3-8 million people (if that in 1957-1998 golden years selling in the USA market, depending on exact year) being able to sell as many cars as they did here ~1957-1998 appropriating from other brands & only selling a couple models with long model runs with appropriation/revision over fashionable consumption/gimmicks, more models, shorter model runs, or innovation/cutting edge tech always recombinging/appropriating stuff other car makers with bigger market share/budgets already had & sourcing from outside as needed for A/C parts, auto trans parts, & FI from the germans who had jetronic come out after we forgave the german debt in 1958 & the 10 year Bendix patent expired on their electrojector (came out in 1958) that looks much like the Bosch D-jet (but revised & scaled up to be mass produced/better quality controlled as copy to be ready at patent expiration in 1968.

Sweden is about the size of CA & has about the population of OR...pretty industrious lot to have the 3rd largest air force in the world post WW2 after the US & soviets, sell a bunch of cars compatible with US roads/regulations 1957-1998 (& really, 1968-1998 being explicitly models that did real well in the USA) up there in that cold place near the pole etc....
They got good metals all that ice has been sitting on compressing out of the soil/rocks & oil nextdoor in Russia or Norway...
They've been lucky in the lottery for how the chips fell after WW2 (& not being destroyed like so much of the rest of europe) post nuclear bomb & their raw materials, but also been crazy industrious per capita...

[2manyturbos]

Originally Posted by moetheshmoe

Of course not. But stand back and take in the whole concept instead of breaking it down into individual parts. The supercharger allowed Mercedes to do 2 very important things. 1 - it allowed higher gearing which gave the great gas mileage. And 2 - it gave the engine more power and torque earlier which allowed it to leave a Volvo turbo in it's dust and still get better mileage. And while you're at it, look at current turboed cars with high mpg's. They can only do that because of the advent of 8 and 10 speed transmissions. Another example of engine and tranny working together. In the year 2000 Mercedes's engineers took the best technology that was available and made it work. Made it work better than Volvo or Saab. If it's all about parasitic loss then why didn't the Volvo(which was slower) get better mileage?

You are so full of assumptions and seemingly clueless about forced induction there is no point in taking the conversation any further. In your mind it is the Supercharger that made a difference. I suggest you spend your time digesting a few white papers on supercharging a reciprocating gasoline engine before you spend any further time on your folly. I'm going to sum this entire exercise up in one sentence. Power is a function of the amount of fuel burned in a set amount of time. The more efficient the pump/engine, the more power per unit of fuel. You can't wave a magic wand and get a vehicle to defy physics. In your mind you can. In reality, you can't.

Here is a very simple look at the 2 different ways of getting to the same goal, more power. If power is all you want and you want it right now, a mechanically driven supercharger is what you want. If efficiency is what you are after, the turbo wins hands down. Both will make low end power. What you completely missed is neither is required for city or highway driving. Perhaps, a super long, steep grade of road will require a supercharger or turbocharger to build boost.

https://www.carthrottle.com/post/eng...superchargers/