Volvo RWD 200 Forum

INDEX FOR 1/2026(CURRENT) INDEX FOR 12/2005 200 INDEX

[<<]  [>>]


 VIEW    REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE Replies to this message will be emailed.    PRINT   SAVE 

On second thought... 200 1986

I would go with the 3.73 over a 3.54. 240T with M46 used them without any problems. Someone with one should be able to check the Volvo owner's book and tell you what the rpm would be at 60 mph. It will be slightly higher, and your fuel economy slightly lower. Just make sure the donor axle has decent emergency brakes, axle bearings (not uncommon for them to go around 200k), and the pickup for your electronic speedo).

I would go for a 3.91 over a 3.73, because I like performance. The 3.91 was auto trans spec in later years. A friend put a 3.91 in his 240T with M46 and noticed the difference in performance. But that would make 1st gear pretty short and mileage worse.

You could always look for a 90-95 Turbo to replace your car.

Philip Bradley






THREADED THREADED EXPANDED FLAT PRINT ALL
MESSAGES IN THIS THREAD

New Seriously considering changing final drive ratio [200][1986]
posted by  JimG  on Sat Jan 5 21:19 CST 2002 >


<< < > >>



©Jarrod Stenberg 1997-2022. All material except where indicated.


All participants agree to these terms.

Brickboard.com is not affiliated with nor sponsored by AB Volvo, Volvo Car Corporation, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc. or Ford Motor Company. Brickboard.com is a Volvo owner/enthusiast site, similar to a club, and does not intend to pose as an official Volvo site. The official Volvo site can be found here.