• 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!

Differential Gear I.D.

A is real nice; that's what comes in the '83 canadian B23E w/3.54s (or maybe those have 3.73s I forget...I'd have to dig out the Canadian '83 green-book), M46 & K-jets (with appropriate ignition dist & advance curve on the Bosch Beakerless ignition) IIRC :e-shrug:

A plays ok with the advance curve on the OE Volvo-USA updated mopar ignition box, tho not as good a match as the T, that way, for max em-pee-gees on (so called/touted by the oil corporations/powers that be) '87 octane' ethanol / 'emissions blend' piss :pee: 'gasoline' to really squeeze the copper outta the pennies for longevity & economy...
...it's an old slow primitive car, I want to pull stumps & idle smooth with the T & want the GF/significant other/'better half' to be willing to ride in it or drive it easily & want to be able to burn lousy ubiquitous 87octane pump gas no fuss/special considerations.

Canada got the B23E K-cam GLTs '81-'82, tho they had air-injection with the K-cam (oxidation cataylst only, no platinum ceramic honeycomb), but they didn't get 240Turbos until '83 model-year. They had 3.91s or 3.73s w/manual trans same as the B-cam B21F cars IIRC?
Just more power of the 2.3/405 head/K-cam.
Turbo cars had to be special ordered in Canada thru a USA dealer network, they got big bumpers -'85 on all 240s there & metric speedometers, of course.

'83 B23E has A-cam, no more 405 head (with the dreaded pulse air injection for the oxidizer downstream) & 3.54s or 3.73s w/M46 IIRC & is more of a stump puller, no more dreaded air injection in '83 & comes with 398/160 head, still flat top pistons IIRC.

We never got the no-emissions/no air injection H-cam B23E in north america (tho it still has K-jet which is by definition emissions junk with the air plate strangling it vs. D-jet or a Kugelfischer / no intake restrictions). The K-jets are also more adaptable to engine wear (namely valve wear after leaded gas goes away & the scramble to figure out how to deal with its absence in valve/valve seat/head metallurgy was on for reasonable longevity/emissions and as emissions & federal implied warranty & lemon laws got a LOT stricter here) / changing conditions/extreme cold compared to the D-jet or kugelfischer.

No easy task to have drive-able cruising economy (CAFE), longevity (federal lemon/warranty laws), emissions (Federal + no alternate low production volume finnicky/costly parts/models for CA-only), & usable power w/minimal mechanical complexity with right of repair by the owner/operator (artisanal 1-man-band scale (w/ communal shared 'knowledge' / experience) that works in all environments/jurisdictions with fewest possible special parts for given environments/jurisdiction...
...cars kinda suck?

Burning/refining oil/toxic crap to move ~3000lbs of proprietary painted fashionable consumption planed obsolescence steel atop inflatable rubber tires that mostly sits around for 21+ of 24 hours most days?
Is that intelligent, efficient or good asset utilization? It's 'murrrrrika & whats for dinner/the (by far predominant) choice on offer, tho...:e-shrug:

Fundamentally, at this point in history, we're asking/trying (throwing a LOT of resources at) to get the machine (automobile or trucking) to do things on the current outdated & decaying infrastructure / traffic that it cannot *really* deliver @ reasonable cost flexibly in changing or adverse conditions to the owner/operator or societally or environmentally.

Buy a '71-'72 (spec) 140 new, the 'un-car' (if you will) & laugh all the way to the bank for 50+ years if you took care of it like our 90+ year old neighbor in the early turn-of-the-century street-car suburb compared to the american cars of the time for safety, economy, longevity (& space efficiency if its a wagoon)? :lol:
 
Last edited:
Given that the 3.54 gears are rare bear, I'll do a WTB at some point, but I am not going to let the manual swap get hung up on it.

I really don't know that going from 3.91 to 3.73 is worth it, seeing as how that's only a 4.6% change. From what I've been told, usually a gear change is only worth it if you do a ~10% change.
 
Kjets On a Plane said:
A is real nice; that's what comes in the '83 canadian B23E w/3.54s (or maybe those have 3.73s I forget...I'd have to dig out the Canadian '83 green-book), M46 & K-jets (with appropriate ignition dist & advance curve on the Bosch Beakerless ignition) IIRC :e-shrug:

A plays ok with the advance curve on the OE Volvo-USA updated mopar ignition box, tho not as good a match as the T, that way, for max em-pee-gees on (so called/touted by the oil corporations/powers that be) '87 octane' ethanol / 'emissions blend' piss :pee: 'gasoline' to really squeeze the copper outta the pennies for longevity & economy...
...it's an old slow primitive car, I want to pull stumps & idle smooth with the T & want the GF/significant other/'better half' to be willing to ride in it or drive it easily & want to be able to burn lousy ubiquitous 87octane pump gas no fuss/special considerations.

Canada got the B23E K-cam GLTs '81-'82, tho they had air-injection with the K-cam (oxidation cataylst only, no platinum ceramic honeycomb), but they didn't get 240Turbos until '83 model-year. They had 3.91s or 3.73s w/manual trans same as the B-cam B21F cars IIRC?
Just more power of the 2.3/405 head/K-cam.
Turbo cars had to be special ordered in Canada thru a USA dealer network, they got big bumpers -'85 on all 240s there & metric speedometers, of course.

'83 B23E has A-cam, no more 405 head (with the dreaded pulse air injection for the oxidizer downstream) & 3.54s or 3.73s w/M46 IIRC & is more of a stump puller, no more dreaded air injection in '83 & comes with 398/160 head, still flat top pistons IIRC.

We never got the no-emissions/no air injection H-cam B23E in north america (tho it still has K-jet which is by definition emissions junk with the air plate strangling it vs. D-jet or a Kugelfischer / no intake restrictions). The K-jets are also more adaptable to engine wear (namely valve wear after leaded gas goes away & the scramble to figure out how to deal with its absence in valve/valve seat/head metallurgy was on for reasonable longevity/emissions and as emissions & federal implied warranty & lemon laws got a LOT stricter here) / changing conditions/extreme cold compared to the D-jet or kugelfischer.

No easy task to have drive-able cruising economy (CAFE), longevity (federal lemon/warranty laws), emissions (Federal + no alternate low production volume finnicky/costly parts/models for CA-only), & usable power w/minimal mechanical complexity with right of repair by the owner/operator (artisanal 1-man-band scale (w/ communal shared 'knowledge' / experience) that works in all environments/jurisdictions with fewest possible special parts for given environments/jurisdiction...
...cars kinda suck?

Burning/refining oil/toxic crap to move ~3000lbs of proprietary painted fashionable consumption planed obsolescence steel atop inflatable rubber tires that mostly sits around for 21+ of 24 hours most days?
Is that intelligent, efficient or good asset utilization? It's 'murrrrrika & whats for dinner/the (by far predominant) choice on offer, tho...:e-shrug:

Fundamentally, at this point in history, we're asking/trying (throwing a LOT of resources at) to get the machine (automobile or trucking) to do things on the current outdated & decaying infrastructure / traffic that it cannot *really* deliver @ reasonable cost flexibly in changing or adverse conditions to the owner/operator or societally or environmentally.

Buy a '71-'72 (spec) 140 new, the 'un-car' (if you will) & laugh all the way to the bank for 50+ years if you took care of it like our 90+ year old neighbor in the early turn-of-the-century street-car suburb compared to the american cars of the time for safety, economy, longevity (& space efficiency if its a wagoon)? :lol:
Click to expand...

A cam runs pretty good in my car. I may retard it two degrees from my current setting if I end up using a short (≥ 3.73) differential gear.

There are so many compromises in cars, which can make them fun, or very frustrating.
 
OldCarNewTricks said:
Given that the 3.54 gears are rare bear, I'll do a WTB at some point, but I am not going to let the manual swap get hung up on it.

I really don't know that going from 3.91 to 3.73 is worth it, seeing as how that's only a 4.6% change. From what I've been told, usually a gear change is only worth it if you do a ~10% change.
Click to expand...

True enough, 185-70-14 sedan tires to OG 185 R 14 wagon size tires is almost 4%.

Which is why I put smallish for a 245 195-70-14s @24.75" ? tires on the 86 245 to tone down the 3.31's a bit.
Had some junkyard 205-70-15s on the back for a while and it was definitely too much wheel.

picture.php
 
Last edited:
Redwood Chair said:
True enough, 186-70-14 sedan tires to OG 185R 14 wagon size tires is almost 4%.

Which is why I put smallish for a 245 195-70-14s @24.75" ? tires on the 86 245 to tone down the 3.31's a bit.

Had some junkyard 205-70-15s on the back for a while and it was definitely too much wheel.

picture.php
Click to expand...

Tires are always a good way to help (or worsen) gearing. I do have 205/60R15 tires on my car, instead of the 195/60R15. According to this: https://tiresize.com/gear-ratio-calculator/ that effectively makes the 3.91 into a 3.84, which is close enough to 3.73 for me. :e-shrug:
 
OldCarNewTricks said:
Tires are always a good way to help (or worsen) gearing. I do have 205/60R15 tires on my car, instead of the 195/60R15. According to this: https://tiresize.com/gear-ratio-calculator/ that effectively makes the 3.91 into a 3.84, which is close enough to 3.73 for me. :e-shrug:
Click to expand...

:nod:

Well then sit in your spider hole and wait for a stick shift diesel or 82 to show up in the junkyards and get one to plug and play.

:godlike:
 
Aero drag, burning lean @ cruise with sufficient RPM to pull grades in OD loaded or 4th towing without downshifting further/losing your momentum & rolling resistance is broadly the game with economy / no fuss versatile operation with some reserve for useful cargo capacity (on roof or trailer).

195-65-15 or 195-70-14 w/high compression B23F/T-cam isn't bad to pinch pennies / utility. :e-shrug:
The 3.31s are *tolerable* with the T-cam, but it won't pass CA emissions by the book & 3.31s is really kinda over-doin' it with the OE wagoon 185R14s.
165s or 185s are going to have less rolling resistance & aero drag than wider tires & more predictable break-away traction/less on-off.

165s aren't practical in modern traffic to stop safely in the rain,
185R14s are a bit rare (tho shared with the Vanagon), 185-70-14s are no good to carry weight/ground clearance using your wagon like an SUV/defacto work truck.
195-70-14 is/was the defective mini-truck size & still around & 195-65-15 are still around.
The '75 164 wheel/tire combo that bolts onto the 240 175R15 or 245/Vanagon 185R14s are almost touching the front spring perch, (less so with the latter).

The 245 185R14s on early bend-proof steelies have about the most sidewall that fits under the front spring perch to take a beating on our decaying infrastructure/potholes with sufficient ground clearance.

LH1.0 & LH3.1 are the leanest burning @ cruise of the OEM 240 gasoline EFI SOHC redblocks.
LH2.0 burns pretty lean too.
In '85 CA added the MUCH lower NOX standards.

Other car manufacturers often added various uh...airboxes & 'devices' (air pumps, EGR or lower compression engines or cams for the CA market only).

Instead of making an alternate CA only set of equipment for SOHC 240s '85-'88, Volvo went to LH2.2 that burned a little tiny bit richer w/slightly less spark advance at cruise & the slightly lower compression 'low friction' B230 engine (& cheaped out on the forged crank of the B21/23, tho the last of the 1984 B21/23 have a cast crank on some models except turbos from what I've seen?) as the compromise for cost, economy & new CA NOX emissions standards.

'79-'82 B21F manual trans cars (except Diseasel & Turbo) have slightly less terrible 3.71:1 1st gear.
Still not the close ratios of 3:1 1st like the M40/41/400/410s had, but whatever.
& not *that* much different, but some of the best condition M46s I've found have been behind grandmas low mileage gutless L-cam B21F strangled by k-jets '79-'82 244 & I'll take what I can get?
 
Last edited:
^Agreed. :nod:

The B21/23s don't lose compression & slap / have blow by nearly as badly as the B230s do & have heavier more robust pistons to distribute the heat over with the compression ring down a little lower somewhere more temp stable & are less 'tippy' in their way...

I don't think it's the skinny rods that's the problem, just the defective B230 pistons, engines more prone to using oil/running around with less & hotter more sheared & roofing-tar overheated oil in the pan/more blowby that they barely mitigated with some oil squirters at the last minute on the B2xx.

That said, if someone kept the oil topped & didn't drive them short trips/cared for them, some of the best runners I've had to abuse have been '86-'89 skinny rod 245s...
...you might want rear (360 degree) thrust bearing on the crankshaft if running a stiffer/factory flat flywheel pressure plate or manual trans if doing a hipermiler B230.
& the B230 does *technically* shear the oil less? :e-shrug:
So + & - trade-offs running what you've got for the most part & optimizing/maximizing recombining the common/high volume 245 & SOHC 4cylinder junk pile on a budget?

The later tall gear oil pump & transfer pipe (just keep it together with the pump so the seals fit right) is good for pre 90 SOHC engines with worn short gear oil pumps or pooched out transfer tube seals & maybe add the squirters (tho they do froth the oil, potentially)??

'88-'89 360? rear thrust bearing super tight condition skinny rodder B230 on LH3.1 with later oil pump (& add squirters?) as the deep-tweak hiper-miler penny pincher?
& some sort of smooth panel/skirt/skid plate from the rear axle/panhard mount to rear bumper to let the air escape from under the back of the thing on the highway?
Block the grill for cold weather, polycarbonate headlight covers for -85 cars, '83DL snub air-dam/no air pickup for more ground clearance/less drag in cool/cold weather running with the factory belly pan in place that seals securely mounted? :lol:
 
Last edited:
^True.
People hate the skinny rod engines here, but the B230 pistons are the same for each given version of engine (E, F, FT, ET, K) all years 85+.
It is more of a blowby/no oil squirter piston cooling -'92 + piston steered & worn 180? thrust bearings on '85-87 manual trans cars / defective first version of the oil pumps on the '85 B230s.

But the later engines the tooling/casting was questionable on some, so can't really win?

Consider yourself lucky 4-sho if you have a tight lower mile B21/23 as a starting point except maybe the '76-'78 B21s with earlier heads, oil pumps & hopeless 8.5:1 compression N/A to pass emissions in the late 70s / other horrific compromises/devices they made on/for engines '74-'77 struggling to comply with smog/early days of no leaded gas without 02 sensor feedback for fine cruising/idling emissions adjustment yet (optional starting in '78).
 
Last edited:
Kjets On a Plane said:
^True.
People hate the skinny rod engines here, but the B230 pistons are the same for each given version of engine (E, F, FT, ET, K) all years 85+.
It is more of a blowby/no oil squirter piston cooling -'92 + piston steered & worn 180? thrust bearings on '85-87 manual trans cars / defective first version of the oil pumps on the '85 B230s.

But the later engines the tooling/casting was questionable on some, so can't really win?

Consider yourself lucky if you have a tight B21/23 as a starting point...
Click to expand...

:nod:

The engine in my 82 245 Turbo has always been very strong as these things go.

Bought it at 212K and with 322K on it now it just passed CALISMOG™ with flying colors *evil* K-jet notwithstanding.

:oogle:
 
Anyway, solve the rolling resistance, moon discs/late wheel covers, lean-burn cruising, high compression engine, aero drag it should do fine on fuel if you can keep the speed under ~60-70mph.

Over 65-70MPH the fuel economy is going to nose dive, whatever rear axle ratio it has, likely, especially climbing with stuff on the roof/behind with the A/C blowing cold on a hot day.

The 145 on 10:1 compression/D-jet w/4.10s & D-cam could return 30-33mpg @ 65-70mph interstate speeds w/ the D-jet & B20 in good repair.

It's an NOX emissions from light load-higher RPM cruise & higher RPM stirring up windage from the crankcase dirty oily hydrocarbon (HC emissions) thing to install the 3.31s in there with super smogger stump puller cams (tho the D has usable torque in the B20E/lighter weight no electrical gadgets snub-nose flathood 145) & stump puller 1st gear for the Swiss market hill climbing from a dig/off idle w/3.31s regulation with the dog dish 12,000 Massey-Ferguson Gasoline-model tractor flywheel.

They also gave us the no-fresh-air oil separator box/no PCV valve on the valve cover-thru flow crankcase ventilation system like the japanese cars got without hot or cold spots that gets a head cold/sludges up if you don't use synthetic oil/change the oil, but doesn't mix hot oily air into the intake stream during higher RPM cruise; keep the RPMs lower, run a super smogger cam, keep the ick/HCs trapped in the ever larger baffled cold plastique oil separator box on the intake side of the engine to keep the hot HC/oily air out of the intake as much as possible @55mph steady state cruising federal emissions testing method was the strategy.

3.54s are good in the turbos, diesels etc with the T-cam shaped power curve or B21F-MPG-LH or B23F hipermilers w/T-cam added.
3.31s & M-cam is a bit drastic, but CA smog is/was no joke, either.

They didn't make the engines horrific for compression ratio on the flat top piston B23Fs (or B230s for that matter) or add a bunch of drilled pulse-air holes in the exhaust ports of the head/bunch of pipes to get in your way for service/rust out on the exhaust, air pumps &/or EGR mess or totally kill the ignition timing advance curve & they returned pretty good economy as delivered, on the bright side compared to other cars of the day? :e-shrug:

The SOHC engine the distributor lives farther forward & cap is more prone to corrosion or trapping condensation under it when parked over dirt at the Oregon country fair/similar near the cold/damp air near the front of the car compared to the B18/B20 with it in a nice oily cloud near the PCV box/near the back of the engine running off the oil pump drive gear...finnicky PITA... :grrr:

What are you gonna do? Aluminum head w/hardened inserts is good for emissions & knock resistance, x-flow head/manifold fits in the 240 engine bay, gotta move the dist somewhere & drive it off the aux shaft or camshaft spinning @1/2 crankshaft speed somehow?
700s they stick it on the back of the cam & save the $ of grinding the drive-gears, but the dist cap is expensive/more proprietary & if the hood seal leaks it'll strand you too & they're prone to leak a bunch of oil. :lol:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top