Learning to love Volvos
  • Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    318

    Default Learning to love Volvos

    Yes the subject line is true.

    This all happened with the dreaded K light & ECU code 34. This means 'canister purge valve' problems. In my case, it was completely RS - terminals rotted green with corrosion & not repairable. After choking on the new price from Citroen, Peugeot & Bosch, I applied some lateral thinking. Surely other cars must use this part.

    Well, starting with downloading this from Bosch:

    http://www.bosch.com.au/productcatal...plications.pdf

    I found a whole treasure trove of parts possibilities, and guess what Volvos have a lot of EFI components in common. So do Porsches & Rolls Royces, but they aren't available smashed up the way Volvos are. Down to my local euro parts wrecker I went, and some $15 later had a part from a sad looking Volvo 740 which had a particularly bad T bone coming out of the car park type smash.

    Advertisement


    So, there is some good to be had from all those Volvos out there - cheap EFI spares. And, isn't it great they get smashed but keep their occupants safe so they go and buy another one and repeat. I just can't look at a Volvo any more without wondering what parts I can get from it. Love 'em.

    Barry.

  2. #2
    Banned orestes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sunshine Coast
    Posts
    4,520

    Default

    volvos have a lot of good parts includeing the PRV V6. i don't know why but volvo has a habit of shareing parts with french cars

  3. #3
    nJm
    nJm is offline
    Guru nJm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,930

    Default

    Yes, well don't forget the relationship between Volvo and Renault in the early 90s. You could buy R19's from Volvo dealers around here

    Now Volvo have moved on and sell Aston Martins in their showrooms


    I still find it funny when everyone on here talks about the PRV V6 in such a positive way. I've hung out on Volvo forums and they HATE the engine. I actually know of a Volvo mechanic down the road who actually refuses to service Volvo 264 and 760 cars as he hates the engine so much. However, when you look at the engines Volvo came out with later, it isn't surprising. Their inline 5 is a great piece of work. I wonder if that will fit in a Pug?
    Nick
    1983 Peugeot 505 GR


    "All of its cars from the 1.1 litre 205 through the ugly duckling 309 to the 2.2 litre 505 GTi had a rightness and a righteousness about them that turned every humdrum drive into a journey. Someone, I once wrote, in the bowels of Peugeot understands handling and how a chassis should feel." - Jeremy Clarkson

  4. #4
    Fellow Frogger! Saru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    138

    Default

    The Volvo-Aston thing is because of PAG, Ford's Prestige Auto Group - but I'm sure most people here knew that.

    I've got a mate who's into Mazdas and Volvos. He gives me good natured ribbing about Froggy cars but he did once state, when I said I'd like a V6'd 504, that Frog fans like the PRV engine that was because "Peugeot people have no forking idea"

    By all reports, if you read the Volvo enthusiast websites, 100 series cars are cool, bullet proof and can be made to handle with some basic stiffening. There's even a company/guy in the states who makes superchargers for the B20 engines in 'em.

    I always think, though, that I'd rather have a car that started out handling "properly" than having to modify a car to make it handle. (whatever "handling" means to you )

    If I had to chose between a 144 (or 142, or 164) and a 504, I'd take the Pug, but if I had space, I'd have both.
    '94 405 Mi16

  5. #5
    1000+ Posts Warwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    2,664

    Default

    In any experience I have had Nick, the PRV V6 is a nassssty thing.
    Rubbish.
    Though Bill hamilton and his twin turbo car would be evidence to the contrary. I think Bill is the exception, rather than the motor though.

  6. #6
    VIP Sponsor
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    9,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Warwick
    In any experience I have had Nick, the PRV V6 is a nassssty thing.
    Rubbish.
    Though Bill hamilton and his twin turbo car would be evidence to the contrary. I think Bill is the exception, rather than the motor though.

    Certainly nowhere near as good as the Holden V6 in standard form at least.

    Graham Wallis

  7. #7
    Budding Architect ???? pugrambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Parkes - N.S.W - Australia - Earth
    Posts
    12,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Warwick
    In any experience I have had Nick, the PRV V6 is a nassssty thing.
    Rubbish.
    Though Bill hamilton and his twin turbo car would be evidence to the contrary. I think Bill is the exception, rather than the motor though.

    don't forget that volvo had 20k service intervals where as pug had 10k services and as such people stuck to these and the volvo engines suffered more so as any engine would

    if volvo had them serviced at 10k they wouldn't be complaining any where near the amount they are now

    also remember that it was basically the same engine in the ren F1

    these engines are pretty much bullet proof IF they are serviced properly

    graham

    the holden V6 (buick) is a good engine but also remember they are also a larger engine to start with

    a well tuned PRV engine is a magic thing and for it's day had plenty of get up and go and as they are very under stressed in original form they tend to just keep on going strongly and there is a lot that can be done to them to extract more from them

    the bottom ends in them are indestructable unless they run out of oil of course

    volvo's major problem with them was the camshafts wearing on the LH head which is linked to both lack of service and an inadequate oil supply both of which are very easy to rectify
    3 x '78 604 SL

    1 x '98 306 GTi6

    1 x secret project

    1 x '98 406 STDT troop carrier and i don't care if it stinks, i don't sniff it's arse Death by wank tank

    1 x '99 406SV 5spd wagon, time to burn more fuel

    1 x 1994 605 SV3.0


    WTD long range fuel tank for 605

  8. #8
    1000+ Posts Haakon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    canberra...
    Posts
    8,752

    Default

    Hey Pugrambo - is your Personal Messaging working?
    I tried to drown my sorrows in alcohol, but the bastards learnt how to swim

  9. #9
    VIP Sponsor
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    9,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pugrambo
    don't forget that volvo had 20k service intervals where as pug had 10k services and as such people stuck to these and the volvo engines suffered more so as any engine would

    if volvo had them serviced at 10k they wouldn't be complaining any where near the amount they are now

    also remember that it was basically the same engine in the ren F1

    these engines are pretty much bullet proof IF they are serviced properly

    graham

    the holden V6 (buick) is a good engine but also remember they are also a larger engine to start with

    a well tuned PRV engine is a magic thing and for it's day had plenty of get up and go and as they are very under stressed in original form they tend to just keep on going strongly and there is a lot that can be done to them to extract more from them

    the bottom ends in them are indestructable unless they run out of oil of course

    volvo's major problem with them was the camshafts wearing on the LH head which is linked to both lack of service and an inadequate oil supply both of which are very easy to rectify

    However, the Holden engines deliver much better economy as well.

    Graham Wallis

  10. #10
    Budding Architect ???? pugrambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Parkes - N.S.W - Australia - Earth
    Posts
    12,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haakon
    Hey Pugrambo - is your Personal Messaging working?

    you have a PM
    3 x '78 604 SL

    1 x '98 306 GTi6

    1 x secret project

    1 x '98 406 STDT troop carrier and i don't care if it stinks, i don't sniff it's arse Death by wank tank

    1 x '99 406SV 5spd wagon, time to burn more fuel

    1 x 1994 605 SV3.0


    WTD long range fuel tank for 605

  11. #11
    Budding Architect ???? pugrambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Parkes - N.S.W - Australia - Earth
    Posts
    12,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GRAHAM WALLIS
    However, the Holden engines deliver much better economy as well.

    Graham Wallis

    they do i agree but they are also a heavier engine

    but they are cheap and plentiful

    if i was going to stick a buick engine into a pug i'd go for the 3.5L alloy V8 (rover)
    3 x '78 604 SL

    1 x '98 306 GTi6

    1 x secret project

    1 x '98 406 STDT troop carrier and i don't care if it stinks, i don't sniff it's arse Death by wank tank

    1 x '99 406SV 5spd wagon, time to burn more fuel

    1 x 1994 605 SV3.0


    WTD long range fuel tank for 605

  12. #12
    Sense Pug307's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,355

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pugrambo
    don't forget that volvo had 20k service intervals where as pug had 10k services and as such people stuck to these and the volvo engines suffered more so as any engine would
    That's news to me - current Volvos downunder aren't even on 20k service intervals, they're on 15k intervals.

    Our 240 was on 10k service intervals, as was our neighbours PRV powered 2.8 760. The 200 Series only hit 15k service intervals in some markets in 1990.

    Volvo was the first to dump the PRV and I don't think anyone misses it

    Peugeot 307 XS 1.6
    Aussiefrogged in MEL, PER, SYD, BNE & ADL.
    Rendezvous Adelaide 2005

  13. #13
    Budding Architect ???? pugrambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Parkes - N.S.W - Australia - Earth
    Posts
    12,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pug307
    That's news to me - current Volvos downunder aren't even on 20k service intervals, they're on 15k intervals.

    Our 240 was on 10k service intervals, as was our neighbours PRV powered 2.8 760. The 200 Series only hit 15k service intervals in some markets in 1990.

    Volvo was the first to dump the PRV and I don't think anyone misses it

    that was th info i was given a few years ago for the 264 volvo

    the PRV likes to be serviced and i have never in the 7 604's i have owned and the other PRV engines from pugs i have had ever had a camshaft problem in any of them yet i hear about regarding the volvo version quite often
    3 x '78 604 SL

    1 x '98 306 GTi6

    1 x secret project

    1 x '98 406 STDT troop carrier and i don't care if it stinks, i don't sniff it's arse Death by wank tank

    1 x '99 406SV 5spd wagon, time to burn more fuel

    1 x 1994 605 SV3.0


    WTD long range fuel tank for 605

  14. #14
    VIP Sponsor
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    9,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pugrambo
    that was th info i was given a few years ago for the 264 volvo

    the PRV likes to be serviced and i have never in the 7 604's i have owned and the other PRV engines from pugs i have had ever had a camshaft problem in any of them yet i hear about regarding the volvo version quite often
    The first engine I used in my 505 rally car was from an original 1975 model 604, never been touched in 27 years. So the reliablity seems OK but the performance and economy is what I think is lacking in engines as supplied to the public.
    I believe the 4 cylinder 7 series cars were just as quick as the V6s.
    Graham Wallis

  15. #15
    Sense Pug307's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,355

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GRAHAM WALLIS
    The first engine I used in my 505 rally car was from an original 1975 model 604, never been touched in 27 years. So the reliablity seems OK but the performance and economy is what I think is lacking in engines as supplied to the public.
    Economy for sure - Renault's factory city fuel consumption figures on the Laguna V6 were scary, in the V8 league. 14.5l/100!!!!

    Just remember, factory figures - the ones that you add 15% to for the city cycle, and 34% to the highway cycle to get real life figures (the government's own figures).

    Quote Originally Posted by GRAHAM WALLIS
    I believe the 4 cylinder 7 series cars were just as quick as the V6s.
    Some of the 760s that weren't PRV V6s had a 4 cylinder turbo.

    During 1989, they introduced a 2.3 16V 4 cylinder with balancer shafts - 114kW, vs the 108kW of the 760s 2.8 12V V6 - the argument for the 760 vs the 740 GLE at the time was "well, the V6 is smoother".

    Peugeot 307 XS 1.6
    Aussiefrogged in MEL, PER, SYD, BNE & ADL.
    Rendezvous Adelaide 2005

  16. #16
    1000+ Posts REN TIN TIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Brisbane/Australia
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pug307
    Some of the 760s that weren't PRV V6s had a 4 cylinder turbo.

    During 1989, they introduced a 2.3 16V 4 cylinder with balancer shafts - 114kW, vs the 108kW of the 760s 2.8 12V V6 - the argument for the 760 vs the 740 GLE at the time was "well, the V6 is smoother".
    These were the 740 Turbo and yes, they had more power than the 760.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o:p></o:p>

    You can squeeze more power out of practically any stock motor. <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas:contacts" /><st1:Sn>Renault</st1:Sn> was getting 160BHP from a R12 Gordini (more than the stock PRV V6). No doubt that, with a few tuning bits, itís possible to get more out of the PRV V6 if you want to.
    However, there don't appear to be too many tuning bits around for some reason.

    Ren
    "I cannot help but notice that there is no problem between us that cannot be solved by your departure. Mark Twain"

  17. #17
    VIP Sponsor
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    9,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by REN TIN TIN
    These were the 740 Turbo and yes, they had more power than the 760.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o:p></o:p>

    You can squeeze more power out of practically any stock motor. <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas:contacts" /><st1:Sn>Renault</st1:Sn> was getting 160BHP from a R12 Gordini (more than the stock PRV V6). No doubt that, with a few tuning bits, itís possible to get more out of the PRV V6 if you want to.
    However, there don't appear to be too many tuning bits around for some reason.

    Ren

    For some reason the first turbo 4 cylinder cars were called 760 turbos!
    As Justin stated the last non turbo 4s had more power than the V6.

    Graham Wallis

  18. #18
    Fellow Frogger! OddFireV6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    152

    Default

    As below I have a little experience with these motors, I first fitted one to a Peugeot in 1988 and have done many since.

    Graeme the comparison with a Holden (Buick) V6 is unfair and irritating, different technology, era, transmisions and importantly the Holden V6 is as coarse as your country cousin after a facefull of grog. They also have their problems corroding welsh plugs etc.

    I accept the Volvo owners poor view of the engine, a range of specific problems existed with the Volvo installation, too long service intervals, block corrosion from inacessibility of the block drain taps. On many of these engines the front sleeves were silted with corrossion halfway up the sleeve.

    Volvo tried various valve lift levels and those referred to as the type 2 camshaft failed quite early in life because the lift was too high with inadequate oil supply.

    Its also true that they are not very powerfull in standard form. The twin turbo car mentioned earlier with a bog standard motor on LP gas with standard cams held station with a 300Kw Commodore the length of the mainstraight of Philip Island racetrack this is serious power from a 2850cc V6. The bottom end of these engines is indestructable. Some work and expense is required to get power without turbos, my engine as in the photo is an example, the IDA webers are the most expensive component.

    The B280, as in Volvo 760 is the best option for a PRV, they do not have the cam problem they will bolt into any spot where a Peugeot PRV was. I am now a good customer of the local Volvo wrecker.

    After the first few months of the Volvo 960 in 1991 the straight six Volvo replaced the PRV V6, the new Volvo straight 6 motor was 150 kw, this may be another reason why they were glad to see the back of the V6.
    OddfireV6
    504 V6 24V, 203

  19. #19
    VIP Sponsor
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    9,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OddFireV6
    As below I have a little experience with these motors, I first fitted one to a Peugeot in 1988 and have done many since.

    Graeme the comparison with a Holden (Buick) V6 is unfair and irritating, different technology, era, transmisions and importantly the Holden V6 is as coarse as your country cousin after a facefull of grog. They also have their problems corroding welsh plugs etc.

    I accept the Volvo owners poor view of the engine, a range of specific problems existed with the Volvo installation, too long service intervals, block corrosion from inacessibility of the block drain taps. On many of these engines the front sleeves were silted with corrossion halfway up the sleeve.

    Volvo tried various valve lift levels and those referred to as the type 2 camshaft failed quite early in life because the lift was too high with inadequate oil supply.

    Its also true that they are not very powerfull in standard form. The twin turbo car mentioned earlier with a bog standard motor on LP gas with standard cams held station with a 300Kw Commodore the length of the mainstraight of Philip Island racetrack this is serious power from a 2850cc V6. The bottom end of these engines is indestructable. Some work and expense is required to get power without turbos, my engine as in the photo is an example, the IDA webers are the most expensive component.

    The B280, as in Volvo 760 is the best option for a PRV, they do not have the cam problem they will bolt into any spot where a Peugeot PRV was. I am now a good customer of the local Volvo wrecker.

    After the first few months of the Volvo 960 in 1991 the straight six Volvo replaced the PRV V6, the new Volvo straight 6 motor was 150 kw, this may be another reason why they were glad to see the back of the V6.


    I spent many years driving these Holden V6s (fleet cars) and while the VNs were a little gruff the Ecotech cars were fine. The engines are actually very smooth, place your hand on the engine whilst giving it a rev- no vibration at all, even on the early motors. Maybe it is the installation which is at fault?
    I admit I have since driven some second hand cars which left a bit to be desired.
    Still like to try one in a 505 though!
    The even fire B280 is nice and smooth when driving but has a llitle uneveness just off idle due, I believe to the absence of the balance shaft as fitted to the ZN3J Peugeot version.
    Actually I prefer the XU5 in my 205 (with only 850kg to pull!) to any of these engines.
    Graham Wallis

  20. #20
    Budding Architect ???? pugrambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Parkes - N.S.W - Australia - Earth
    Posts
    12,256

    Default

    the 2664cc engine in the 604 is smooth to drive but isd lumpy on idle but that is due to the odd fire arrangement

    i actually like the semi lumpy idle and the exhaust note that comes with these engines

    the other thing though is i believe all PRV powered cars should have a LSD in them

    i tried getting out of the drive tonight after all the rain we have been having and i droppped a wheel off the side of the drive and all it wanted to do was sit and spin

    i got it out though after much perseverance but in a simple situation like this i have found a 4cyl 504 to not spin as readily due to the lower torque output
    3 x '78 604 SL

    1 x '98 306 GTi6

    1 x secret project

    1 x '98 406 STDT troop carrier and i don't care if it stinks, i don't sniff it's arse Death by wank tank

    1 x '99 406SV 5spd wagon, time to burn more fuel

    1 x 1994 605 SV3.0


    WTD long range fuel tank for 605

  21. #21
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    318

    Default

    Good to see lots of people with good uses for (smashed) Volvos.

    Just want to be sure everyone got my message, as we're a bit off topic.

    It's worth downloading the doco from Bosch, and finding what other cars you have to choose parts from. Shop around, don't pay the $200-300 that Peugeot want for a crank angle sensor if you can buy a Volvo or Saab part for (much?) less, or even get a good second hand one from the smashed up ones.

    As to PRV V6's, aren't we being a little unfair here? This is a late 70's/early 80's engine, which in Oz meant ADR27A. I can remember the Holdens & Fords of that era getting well under 20mpg, or 14-15l/100km, and even 1100kg Datsun 200B's were lucky to do better than 24mpg. Pre ADR27A Fuegos, with the 2000 SOHC douvrin engine, went really hard, and were economical as well. Even P504s suffered really badly with ADR27A, the last 505 SLi wagons being both particularly slow & very thirsty. Then came unleaded, making things even worse.

    The 90's PSA engines are pretty good though - the V6 in the 406SV & Xantia/C5 is as good as you get for a production engine. I reckon a PRV V6, with modern engine management & cat, would be pretty reasonable. Look at what Holden did with that boat anchor buick V6.

    Barry.

  22. #22
    Budding Architect ???? pugrambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Parkes - N.S.W - Australia - Earth
    Posts
    12,256

    Default

    the thing about the 604 was that road tests on the car had even stated that even at a cruising speed of 180km/h the car would still return 20mpg

    now that i would like to see a holden V6 do or most any other car

    the tests are out there all that needs doing is searching them out

    i might even have an original copy of one or 2 lying around here that states the same thing

    BTW do you realise that you save 45lbs in weight by removing most of the pollustion gear from a 604 engine ?
    3 x '78 604 SL

    1 x '98 306 GTi6

    1 x secret project

    1 x '98 406 STDT troop carrier and i don't care if it stinks, i don't sniff it's arse Death by wank tank

    1 x '99 406SV 5spd wagon, time to burn more fuel

    1 x 1994 605 SV3.0


    WTD long range fuel tank for 605

  23. #23
    VIP Sponsor
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    9,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by barryg
    Good to see lots of people with good uses for (smashed) Volvos.

    Just want to be sure everyone got my message, as we're a bit off topic.

    It's worth downloading the doco from Bosch, and finding what other cars you have to choose parts from. Shop around, don't pay the $200-300 that Peugeot want for a crank angle sensor if you can buy a Volvo or Saab part for (much?) less, or even get a good second hand one from the smashed up ones.

    As to PRV V6's, aren't we being a little unfair here? This is a late 70's/early 80's engine, which in Oz meant ADR27A. I can remember the Holdens & Fords of that era getting well under 20mpg, or 14-15l/100km, and even 1100kg Datsun 200B's were lucky to do better than 24mpg. Pre ADR27A Fuegos, with the 2000 SOHC douvrin engine, went really hard, and were economical as well. Even P504s suffered really badly with ADR27A, the last 505 SLi wagons being both particularly slow & very thirsty. Then came unleaded, making things even worse.

    The 90's PSA engines are pretty good though - the V6 in the 406SV & Xantia/C5 is as good as you get for a production engine. I reckon a PRV V6, with modern engine management & cat, would be pretty reasonable. Look at what Holden did with that boat anchor buick V6.

    Barry.

    The last of the PRV engines had all of the good gear but were still none too impressive in terms of fuel economy.
    Don't forget the Holden V6 started life in the early 60s, a more humble beginning than the PRV engine.
    The strong point of the PRV seems to be in its sheer strength, this makes it ideal for turbo charging. I recall that the PRV engined WM special scored fastest top speed at Le Mans one year against all of the cars with specialised racing engines.

    Graham Wallis

    Graham Wallis

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •