i'm thinking about putting a GM 60 degree V6 engine in my wagon (66); but i'd like to keep the M40 w/ OD. does anyone know if there's a tranny bellhousing adapter?
thanx, and please i really don't want to hear the negative comments.

Stick with the 60deg V6. It only weighs 15lbs more than the B18/20, and has plenty more HP and torque. Edelbrock has a 4bbl manifold (Holley 390CFM, and Sanderson has headers for it. GM Performance Parts has a 3.4 crate version that puts out 160HP and 194Lbs of torque. Plenty of O.D. trannies available for cheap. To get anywhere near those numbers with a Volvo 4cyl, it would have to be squeezed pretty hard.

Why a V6 ?? Why not go all the way like this guy did http://videos.streetfire.net/video/9cd6869c-6501-4b46-b004-9884012931f3.htm

Brett
--
Brett Sutherland & the 1.5 million mile 122 CANADIAN --- WINDSOR, Nova Scotia the birthplace of HOCKEY www.ecvintagevolvo.com

ain't got the dough to do something like that.
would be a pretty cool sleeper though, can you imagine pulling away from a stoplight next to one of those guys with the hemi in their dodge truck? hoowee! would love to have a video of that!

A couple of better engine choices---later OHC Volvo (B23, B230) could use a Turbo if you want some serious HP. Bolts right up to the M40/M41 with minor modifications, and should clear the steering just fine. Buick/Rover 215 c.i./3.5L aluminum V8---not as straightforward a swap, but no heavier than the iron V6, almost as compact, and a lot more powerful. Plenty of speed parts for this one out of England and Australia. Best engine GM ever made, and they sold it to the Brits for a song after about four years in production.

I've never been a fan of the GM 2.8 V6, especially after having seen one with a casting flaw in one of the intake ports that reduced its cross section by about 20%---while still perfectly driveable, that engine could never have been as smooth as it should be, nor would it make full power. Volvo would have never let such an imperfection out the factory door, but GM does it all the time. Nearly all of their products of the last 30+ years have been 100% junk. (Vega, Chevette, Citation, Cimarron, Celebrity, Fiero, any Caddy with 4.1 aluminum V8, need I go on.....) They deserve to go out of business, especially after what they have done to Saab, but if I were trying to save the company, what I would do is reverse engineer a 55 or 57 Chevy replica, based on the Volvo 740 platform. Most of them would be four cylinder cars, two door, four door, wagon and convertible, with a limited number of V8 powered Bel Air SS hardtops and Nomads as an image booster. Make it as close to the original in size and appearance as the various safety regulations would allow. If you don't think retro is the way to go, consider this: the only American company to sell every unit they produce at list price or above, often with a waiting list to get one, is Harley Davidson. A far better plan to follow than the way they are going now, trying to play catch-up with the Asians.

um, thanx for the history on GM. my first car was a '57 chevy wagon, w/283 three on the tree. put the back seat down and head to the drive-in...
anyway about the B21 conversion w/ "minor mods"?
to keep my tranny/OD do i need to cut and weld my bell housing, take the pan and oil pump from the B20 to mount the 21 upright?
i know there's a million posts somewhere out there about this exchange, but i thought since you suggested it, you might be able to answer those couple questions.
thanx for the reply.

I have a 89 245dl ,I can do 90mph uphill on the Int.78 pass going through the little mountain there,just pull a good b230 or 230f out of a junker&it'll give you plenty of power/

The 57 Chevy wasn't on my junk list, nor were other early models such as Chevy II/Nova and the original Chevelle. Back then, they were still well made cars, sometimes with very attractive styling. (63 Riviera comes to mind) I will even let the Corvair slide as a bold but flawed attempt at innovation. The decline occurred some time in the early 70s, when GM started whining about being unable to meet the "impossibly tough" 75 emissions standards, which Volvo, Saab, Honda and others had no trouble dealing with, without even the need for a catalytic converter. Since that time, GM has not changed a bit, at present fighting tooth and nail against any increase in fuel mileage requirements (which Toyota has said it has no problem with) Oh, and did I mention the Aztek ?? (the Edsel for the 21st century)
To be fair, the big standard Buicks have done quite well in reliability surveys for the last decade or more, and even get decent gas mileage on the highway, though they are terribly mushy and boring to drive. The 3.8 V6, though inherently flawed by having the wrong angle between the cylinder blocks (90 degrees) due to being essentially nothing more than 3/4 of a small block V8, has proven to be quite durable, and in the Buick Grand National, capable of producing tremendous horsepower without excessively shortening engine life.

To install the OHC motor upright in the older Volvo no modification of the bell housing is required. You are correct about using the B18/B20 oil pan and pump. You may have to fabricate motor mount brackets.

I keep hearing about how the OHC makes no more power than the OHV. On the surface, this would appear to be true, but many people seem to have forgotten that the way horsepower is measured has changed over the years. Up until the mid 70s, the HP usually quoted was SAE gross, which was measured with no accessory load on the engine (not even the water pump) no air filter, and open exhaust. Later figures are SAE net, in which the engine is tested in the same configuration it has when installed in the car. The difference is usually 10-15% Another reason the OHC makes less power is that it has a much lower compression ratio than the 10.5:1 of the B20B and E. While this does reduce the power output, the other side of the coin is that the later engines are perfectly content with 87 octane gas.

What are you hoping to achieve with your engine swap? If you are looking for more power, why? The stump pulling 4.56:1 rear axle ratio of the 122 wagon makes it unnecessary in any normal situation. My 66 would wind out first gear by the far side of the crosswalk, and second was used up as I cleared the other side of the intersection. Even with the overdrive I installed, it revved way too high on the open road, and fuel economy suffered as a result. (plus it made it hard to hear the stereo) Unless you regularly tow with your car, or carry seriously heavy loads, changing to a 4.10 or even 3.90 rear end is a very worthwhile modification for today's driving conditions. Do that first, then think about more power if you still feel you need it. I once had a 72 145E with a 4.10 and overdrive. It had no problem getting underway with a full load, even uphill (and it weighed about 300lbs more than a 122)
If you are looking for improved reliability, you are simply not going to find it. The B18/B20 is one of the sturdiest engines there is, assuming, of course, that it is in good health to begin with. The only real advantage the OHC motors have is that their camshafts don't wear out, and the valves rarely if ever require adjustment. Once you understand them, SU carbs are as simple as can be, their only drawback is difficult cold starting below about 15-20 degrees F. Electronic ignition and an alternator to replace the generator are both good easy upgrades that boost reliability.

In any case, careful planning is essential for an engine swap, both in terms of what you are trying to accomplish, and in the technical aspects of fitting the new engine. Think it through completely first, and good luck with it.

"I keep hearing about how the OHC makes no more power than the OHV. On the surface, this would appear to be true, but many people seem to have forgotten that the way horsepower is measured has changed over the years. Up until the mid 70s, the HP usually quoted was SAE gross, which was measured with no accessory load on the engine (not even the water pump) no air filter, and open exhaust. Later figures are SAE net, in which the engine is tested in the same configuration it has when installed in the car. The difference is usually 10-15% Another reason the OHC makes less power is that it has a much lower compression ratio than the 10.5:1 of the B20B and E. While this does reduce the power output, the other side of the coin is that the later engines are perfectly content with 87 octane gas."
Actually, I beg to differ. I've seen(and produced) dyno sheets that say otherwise. A good condition b20E will outperform any stock, good condition b21F, b23F, or b230F sold in the united states. A b20B in good condition can match, or do better than a b21F sold in the US. Those aren't facts, but I definitely believe it.
--
Kyle - 142, 145, and 244! - Oregon Volvo Tuners?

B20 bell housing will bolt up to a B21 for an upright mounting to an M40/41.

The issue with a B21 though, is that unless you modify it, or turn up the boost on the turbo, it has no more power than a B20. Power on a non intercooled B21 turbo was 130HP.

John
v-performance.com

thanx for the information..
truth be told, i'm looking for a cheap replacement for my real tired B20.
in the minneapolis area there just isn't too many b20s to be had. rebuilders want atleast a grand to build mine, and i can pickup rusted out 200-700 series cars for a song.
so i guess i'm really trying to get my wagon running decent on the cheap, she's starting to burn some oil, the compression dry is 165,125,125,125 (not sure about wet) so i'm really not sure which direction to go. but summers coming and i want to drive my wagon as a daily driver.
i've done the brakes, recent tune-up, and she's still kind of doggy when i punch it.
she has the weber DGV conversion, 1800 centrifical advance dizzy, dual down pipe exhaust manifold.
i've tried 2 or 3 different timing settings(10BTC,22BTC,25BTC), adjusted the fuel/air mix from lean to rich, and she still bogs if i punch it.
i'm just real confused as to how to get a better response from the throttle.
thank-you for taking the time to reply.
i probably need to save a few more pennies and haul this old girl to glascow automotive in st paul and have mike look at it.

I run a B21 in my '65 122 since 2003. Worked out great! No modification to the body except some bolt holes to mount stuff.

Running with a B21F/M41 with a J-type OD tranny/Megasquirt EFI unit running the fuel injection equipment. Engine is stock, and I have gotten it up to 95mph on a flat highway, without flooring the pedal. Plenty of power!

Paul

nice pic.
i bet she's alot quieter at 95 than the B18 was huh?
so were you able to get by with the b20 oil pump/pan?
i'd like to be able to do this swap just to keep the old girl running while the b20 is on the engine stand,
since i do have the set of SUs, i could adapt my DGV setup to the B21....
or would the SUs work on the B21?
i know FI is more effecient and all that but the megasqirt system is a little out of my price range.

The engine runs very quiet compared to the B18/B20s. No oil consumption at all.

Big thing I notice with this engine and fuel injection setup is that the throttle response is very quick from using the potentiometer throttle switch.

I pretty much used Volvo parts. It has parts from a 242GT, 240turbo, 850, 960, 940. The oil pump/pan is from a B20.

Before the fuel injection, I had it running with a SU from a B21A. The SU had bearings in it, which I found interesting. A little different than the older SUs. I had to modify the intake because of mounting the B21 upright. I still have the SU setup. There is a couple of pictures of it on here:

http://volvoadventures.com/122SB21M41.html

Let me know if you have any questions.

Paul

i have your page book-marked,
it's what sparked the idea of replacing my engine rather than rebuilding it.
the reason i considered the V6 was simply theres tons of them (and i thought it would look pretty cool when i popped the hood), but there's tons of B21s out there too (and they look pretty cool sittin upright as well).
what was it you didn't like about the SU setup? would a different carb have helped?

The SUs worked out fine. My plan was always to install fuel injection. The SUs were a interim stage to get the car on the road. Which was the best thing because it allowed me to do some research on Megasquirt. I was first trying to get K-jet to fit, but the size of the engine compartment in a 122 wasn't that friendly to the idea.

Paul

would you be willing to part with SU setup?

I was planning on putting the SU setup on ebay. I have about $200 in it, so that's pretty much what I want for it. I used a 240 gas pedal, and ran the cable through the hole for the armoured coil, and made a box for the cable to mount to.

The big thing I had problems with the carb setup was the fuel pump would vapor lock all the time. I fixed it when I installed my 122 gas tank that was modified for fuel injection-> it had a return line.

I'm going out of town tomorrow, but if you're interested, I'll send you a list of everything I have.

email me at malloy1@prodigy.net

Paul

i can be reached at
redpepperswings@yahoo.com
thanx so much, i'm real interested.

ok, i'm real interested.
i'll contact you next week?

Charlie-

Are still interested in the carb setup? I emailed you on Thursday, and haven't heard back from you.

Paul

I have some 140 splitters
Ken
--
69-145-S ; 71-145-S ; 72-145-E ; 72-1800-ES ; 87-245-DL

You should do another compression check, and this time add a wet check. Maybe your rings are ok and a cheap valve job or a better used head will buy you some time to start assembling the parts needed to build a fresh engine next winter.

I currently have about $300.00 into everything I need to build a .030 over 8 bolt engine, including the complete 75 engine and all new parts. All from ebay and craigs list. Now all I have to do is have the machine work done and assemble it. Cost for that will depend on what I decide to do with the head. At this point I am leaning towards just a basic gasket match port job, nothing wild since fuel economy means more to me than power.

The other thing to consider is your Weber. The only thing that makes them more valuable than a boat anchor is their percieved value on ebay. If you know a mechanic with a high level of weber "voodoo" knowledge you can end up with something mediocre after spending a wad on it, or you can swap them for SU's and see a noticable improvement in throttle response. It's not your timing or idle mixture.
--
Lee 75 244 (80k original miles) 79 242 65 220 project

I'm with Lee, can't hurt to see where the old B20 is ailing.
Despite impressive blowby, low & uneven compression the thing that took my '66 of the road was a rear main seal.

Barely ran when I got it but ignition, tuning & carburettor work, clutch adj and head swap really got some life out of it... until so much oil would come out of the rear main that it got on the clutch. Oy the smell.

Personally I think that until you drop to about 100-110 psi they should still be ticking OK. Buy oil in cases of 12 & install a pressure gauge!

But my idea of a daily driver is something less than universally acceptable.
--
1966 122s, 1970 142s, 1974 142e... Blue is beautiful

Single 2bbl. Webers beat SUs on two counts only---Much better starting when it's really cold out, due to having a real choke, as opposed to a "mixture enrichment device", and a smoother, more consistent idle. In terms of drivabilty and throttle response, a properly set up pair of SUs (either HSs or HIFs) are clearly superior. That said, there is plenty that can go wrong with the SUs---start by making sure there is no play in the throttle shafts, that the needles and jets are not worn, and that the jets move up and down freely in response to the "choke" control. Many SU problems can be traced to the linkage that connects them---play here causes uneven throttle opening, resulting in pairs of cylinders receiving different amounts of fuel---not the recipe for smooth running.

Now that I better understand your situation, my recommendation is to get a good B18 or B20, by whatever means, and a set of SUs that are not worn out. Ideally you want the early type aluminum intake manifold, and a separate cast iron double downpipe exhaust manifold. The one piece iron manifold with extra throttles in it is best avoided. I will second Lee's opinion that your current engine should be evaluated more thoroughly before being condemned. Redoing the head might well be sufficient. In any case, you will want to have hardened valve seats installed. 74 and 75 heads had them from the factory, earlier heads require them for use with unleaded gas. In fact, valve seat recession could be part of your problem. To check for this, remove the rocker arm shaft and lay a straightedge across the tops of the valve stems. They should all line up. If one or more of them (nearly always an exhaust) protrude, you have eroded valve seats. While it's apart, turn the engine over by hand and measure how much each pushrod rises. These should also all be the same. If one (or more) come up short, you have camshaft wear---the one weak point of the B18/B20 design.

The OHC alternative requires a lot more figuring and minor fabrication than rebuilding an OHV engine, especially where the fuel system is concerned. You would either have to install a complete fuel injection system or head up to Canada for a single Stromberg manifold and carb for the OHC. Then you would have to come up with a linkage and rework the exhaust downpipe, among other things.

BH;

I don't really dissagree with your posting, but there are a couple of statements you made that kinda bugged me (and give the wrong impression) when I read them:

1. What's wrong with a "mixture enrichment device"...whereas most carbs actually choke the airflow down, hence the name, an SU does it while still keeping the cross sectional area of the airflow unchanged...enrichened is enrichened...its just that there is better atomization in the conventional way so starting may be a bit easier...but I personaly am not that concerned with "throttle response" before the temp needle is off the peg...and at that point, I'm off the choke anyway...

2. SU problems...worn needles and jets and nonworking chokes are all a function of adjustment, not of any inherent design deficiency...and don't equate wear caused play in the throttleshafts with mal adjustment...you can still adjust throttles to do the same thing if they're worn...they maybe won't idle so good, but will run like gangbusters off idle!

3. I totally agree with your take on inspecting the valveseats and lift, but dissagree that the worn lobes were an engine "weak point" ...it's a pretty well accepted fact that soft cams were the issue...

I feel much better now...
Cheers

Pretty sure there is no ready-made adapter on the market.

I'm no purist and I've also been attracted to this particular swap, but concluded that it doesn't make sense from a performance standpoint. We can get way more HP and torque out of a streetable B20 than any of the stock GM 60-degree V6s. The DOHC 3.4L could go pretty well if you can get it to fit gracefully.

Contact John Parker at Vintage Performance Developments. If anyone knows, it will be him.

'though why not just switch over to a T-5 transmission - that's reasonably common and there are adapters out there - though probably not for that particular engine.

i like the 60 degree GM because i'm hoping the block will allow clearance for the steering w/o going to 3 or 4 u-joints like i saw on a 544 conversion. that steering setup looked pretty scary to me.
as far as the T5 goes, i like my OD's 24% reduction.
i guess i'd still like some decent mileage.

I agree with Phil. Basically a lot of work to put in the V6 and normally end up with a used engine with no more power than a good B20.

GM V6's came with T5 transmissions, so there is no adaptation problem as long as you use the T5 that originally came with a V6. Also, most if not all T5s for GM V6s ( at least in cars ) have the same bolt pattern as the more common T5s that came in Mustangs.

As to the overdrive - The M41 OD ratio is normally .79. T5s all have "overdrive"
5th gears with ratios of .79, .73, .68, .63.

The problem with a T5 in a 122 is that the trans tunnel is usually too narrow
(unless the 122 originally came with an automatic ).

John
V-performance.com

I agree with Phil. Basically a lot of work to put in the V6 and normally end up with a used engine with no more power than a good B20.

GM V6's came with T5 transmissions, so there is no adaptation problem as long as you use the T5 that originally came with a V6. Also, most if not all T5s for GM V6s ( at least in cars ) have the same bolt pattern as the more common T5s that came in Mustangs.

As to the overdrive - The M41 OD ratio is normally .79. T5s all have "overdrive"
5th gears with ratios of .79, .73, .68, .63.

The problem with a T5 in a 122 is that the trans tunnel is usually too narrow
(unless the 122 originally came with an automatic ).

John
V-performance.com

well you're the man when it comes to T5 conversions without a doubt; cutting and patching the tunnel doesn't bother me too much. but going through the swap to losing HP does, but i can't afford one of your engines no-way. wish i could though, thanx for the reply.

One of the issues here, is that when you do a swap, unless you are copying a swap that has already been done with full info from those previous swaps, you have to deal with various unknowns that could easily throw off any cost to benefit analysis that has been done to justify the swap. It's one thing if the swap is being done as a hobby project with virtually unlimited time, and no cost being assigned to the time spent. Its another if your time is worth something and the basis for the swap is a cost effective way to increase power.

You don't need to have one of our engines to get good power from a B20.
You do need an engine that's in good condition. You do need a modern cam design, designed specifically to enhance the characteristics desired, given the restrictions in the original engine design. You do need to cure some poor port flow issues. You should have a tight squish area ( piston to head distance ) to promote turbulence needed for good combustion and so you can increase or maintan a reasonably high compression ratio. You do need a better flowing exhaust system.You do need a distributor that's not worn out and that will allow you to have proper ignition timing.

Put some time and effort into these areas and you can easily have a 150 HP B20.

John
V-performance.com

Someone out here stuffed a Ford 302 in a 122 2dr; not sure what trans he used, said 3sp w/ OD.

it actually looked very clean, I forgot how small those things were.

email me offline, can put you in touch.
--
1966 122s, 1970 142s, 1974 142e... Blue is beautiful

since we're roughly in the same area we're likely thinking of the same car...

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/car/297234763.html

his most recent ad doesn't include the pictures unlike his previous postings, but you're right, it looked like a very clean installation, IMO.

I was tempted to drive out to Napa just to check the thing out (Napa's only a 20 minute drive for me).