Does anyone know what the weight distribution ratio would be on a stock 1973 145?
--

'67-'69 140's have a wheelbase that is 20mm shorter than '70 & upwards.

I would have a SWAG that all the 145's carry slighty more weight on the rear tyres but it would be close to 50-50.

Thje weight distribution front to rear changed three times for the 140 series. The '67-68 with short wheelbase had a very equal front to rear weight dist, wagon or sedan, due to a smaler drive train including the B18B and short shaft and lighter rear differential. Both the wagon or sedan weighed in several hundred pounds less than the next generation '69-72 140's which had a 6 inch longer wheelbase, all being from behind the rear doors to the rear axle, having longer rear quarters, trailing arms and torque rods, larger & heavier rear differential. This made the weight distribution more like 40/60 and the wagon being more than the sedan. The next generation from 73-75 (there was a crossover for the 240 series in 74-75) had nearly the same geometry and wheelbase as the 240 series. The wheelbase was another 3 inches longer, but retained the wider track witdth (larger rear axle and undercarriage) in the rear that was never shared with the 240 series, and was a heavy weighted rear end vehicle, especially compared with the early 140 series. Mostly a 74 and later 140 was the same as a 240, which was also a shared chassis, rear end wise, with the 164 of those years.
Hope this helps. Pete
--
'89 245 Sportwagon, '04 V70 2.5T Sportwagon

It's good to know that htese cars have nearly 50/50 weight balance.

Yeah I'd have to think that the 145 is almost a perfect 50/50 since it does have a couple hundred pounds more on it and a lot of that weight is gonna be rear end.
--

I doubt it's a couple hundred pounds... Basically just the rear side windows... the roof and back window don't count, as they just replace the sedan back window and trunk lid. But the bias is all behind the rear tires... so yea, I'd expect about 50/50
--
-Matt '70 145s, '65 1800s, '66 122s wagon, others inc. '53 XK120 FHC

I'm with JohnMc on this one... I think you've been misinformed. I've also done drivetrain swaps from and to an variety of 140s.

Road and Track road test for a '67 144 (April '67) lists the wheelbase at 102.4". Weight distribution f/r: 51/49

'71 142e (March '71) shows wheelbase at 103.1. f/r: 52/48

'74 142gl (April '74) shows wheelbase at 103.0. f/r 52/48

Weight distribution measured with driver.

Those figures could be off a little if using different measureing methods, but at most, the wheelbase changed a bit over 1/2 inch. Minor changes in suspension would account for htat.

Keep in mind, those are for sedans. The wagon wheelbase will be the same, but there is gonna be more weight at the rear. Probably damn near 50/50 I would guess.

For the record, a 122s auto wheelbase at 102.5, f/r 52/48. Very similar, though 100lbs lighter. Sorta explains John's mention of swapping drivetrains from one to the other.

-Matt
--
-Matt '70 145s, '65 1800s, '66 122s wagon, others inc. '53 XK120 FHC

The wheelbase grew 9 inches from '67 to '73?

The 164 was longer for sure, but AFAIK all the rest kept the same wheelbase. I stuck a complete '71 142E drivetrain (motor, trans, driveshaft, rear axle) in a '63 122S one time, and I sure would have noticed a 6 inch difference.
--
I'm JohnMc, and I approved this message.

Along with a 68 144s, I've had several 71' 144's and a '72 142E, which have wider rear doors, greater distance from the rear door to the rear wheel wells, longer trailing arms, and track rods than the '68. The drive shafts are the same though until '74 I think.
--
'89 245 Sportwagon, '04 V70 2.5T Sportwagon

I remain skeptical, sorry. You are saying that 9 inches was added between the early and late 140's. That just doesn't sound right to me. All the literature I've ever seen lists the wheelbase of the PV, 120, and 140 series cars (including all coupe, sedan, and wagon variants thereof) at 2.6 meter, or around 102 inches. The 1800's were shorter at 2.45m/96.5 inches, and the 164's were longer at 106.3 inches. But even though the 164 is only around 4 inches longer than a 144, the difference is easy to spot with the naked eye. But I don't see any difference between an early 145 and a late one.

1966 144:

1974 144:


Even a 164 - where only 4 inches seems readily apparent to the eye:

--
I'm JohnMc, and I approved this message.

For what it's worth... my 164e takes up more room in the garage than my V70! Must be all those electronic parts! :)

Klaus

--
98 V70Rawd(101Kmi), 95 854T(85K mi), 75 164E(173K mi)

I agree, I don't think I ever saw two different sized 140's. I don't think it would've made sense for Volvo to alter them. The 444/544, the 120, and the 240 series styles all ran so much longer and those weren't altered. If the 140 was "elongated" it would've recieved some sort of new model designation.

I don't understand it... Maybe it's just the bumpers...? I didn't think they were that long though. Volvo has this website that you can enter in the year and it will give you the specifications!!!!!!! Someone over on Turbobricks posted it, and wow is it awesome. Check out the stats for the 1968 140 sedan and the 1974 140 sedan. I don't get it. It's height is more too??? EDIT:Just looked at the stats for a 1971 140, and it's wheelbase is .1" longer than the 74's at 103.1" while the earlier 68's wheelbase is 102.4". The 68 and 71's overall length are 182.7" and the 74's length is 188"!

And Jonny(greenteagod) here is the page for your 1973 145...
--
Kyle - '68 142? - Oregon Volvo Tuners?

It makes more sense that the total length of the cars changed - mostly du to the big bumper-car bumpers on the late cars. The height too - just a modest change in spring height, not a re-do on the sheetmetal.
--
I'm JohnMc, and I approved this message.

I may be more correct in the total length, as it does look like the wheelbase was not streched like the body was.
I know that when my brother had a '74 144, and side- by-side to my 68 144 were different. He was hit along the passenger rear quarter and rear door and needed door and q-panel. The 68 rear doors were shorter ( he could only use dors from late 73-74), as well as the quarter panels. I found the rear quarters were an exact match to a '75-78 240, and the chassis was nearly the same using the later 240 exhaust and gas tank arrangement. The strech for the 74 had very close relations to the 240.
--
'89 245 Sportwagon, '04 V70 2.5T Sportwagon

Not yet, but I can find out for you soon(well, within a couple months or so). I'll have my 145 and I can swing by a weigh station and figure it out. With and without me in the car, and I'll take note of the level of gas in the tank as well. Depending on how much money I make soon and how much work the thing wants will determine when I weigh it. It's a 72, and yeah.
--

142 Details