• 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!

960 transmission in a 940

Status
Not open for further replies.
Broke4speed said:
As someone who has done the 71L conversion on a redblock turbo engine...you will hate life unless you run the proper rear end. I used a 3.73 and it was constantly going in and out of lock at below highway speeds. A 4.10 is the standard lockup rear, and with good reason. It lugged soooooooooooo bad it was just awful to drive. An automatic 4-cyl at 1700 RPM at cruising speeds is the worst to drive.
Click to expand...

I'll repeat - imagine a redblock with a supercharger. It would be a totally different animal, with enough torque and horsepower to control the transmission. Not the other way around.
 
At 80kph (I live in Canada), the lockup converter was full lock, which brought the rpms down to below 2000. This was with a 3.73. If you went with a 3.31, you'd have lockup kicking in and out at 60 kph. It doesn't matter what is forcing air into the engine when you're trying to drive a car that's barely above idle RPM at speed. No amount of engine can overcome the transmission when it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do. The factory stall speed of the converter is ~2200-ish, so when your engine is below this, all it does is make a lot of noise and goes nowhere.

You're absolutely free to build whatever you want, but it helps to know exactly how something is going to function before slapping it all together and hating it. I'd build it with a shorter rear end first, and then swap in the 3.31 so you can see the difference. If you are fine with it, then stick with it.
 
moetheshmoe said:
I'll repeat - imagine a redblock with a supercharger. It would be a totally different animal, with enough torque and horsepower to control the transmission. Not the other way around.
Click to expand...

That still won?t fix the fact that your final drive ratios are wrong, nor the fact that the input shaft is incompatible.
 
moetheshmoe said:
I'll repeat - imagine a redblock with a supercharger. It would be a totally different animal, with enough torque and horsepower to control the transmission. Not the other way around.
Click to expand...

It's obvious you don't understand. How much power do you think it actually takes to keep a Volvo cruising 70 mph on level ground?
 
I cruise at 80+ with my completely stock M cam NA with an M47. It doesn't take a lot of chooch to go 80. What you want is to get there faster than the other guy. That's where mechanical advantage comes in to play. If you had a 6 speed trans with double overdrive you could go with a 3.83 or even a 4.10 gear in the rear end and have lots of gears to get you up to speed and that nice double OD to keep your MPG's low.


BTW, a higher revving engine doesn't mean it's using a lot of gas. Fuel usage is dependant on load, not RPM. If you gear your car really high and keep those RPM's way down, it will actually use MORE gas because it's working too hard to maintain speed.
 
It?ll never spool.

thats-not-how-this-works.gif
 
Last edited:
moetheshmoe said:
I'll repeat - imagine a redblock with a supercharger. It would be a totally different animal, with enough torque and horsepower to control the transmission. Not the other way around.
Click to expand...

It won't be. Lot of trouble to run a supercharger with very little benefit.
 
It seems like everyone here who is against this idea is basing their opinion on how a turbo'ed redblock would respond to the 960 transmission shift points, ratios and rear end. So I'll repeat - my idea is to pull the turbo, throw it in the trash and install a supercharger. If you can't imagine that then test drive a Mercedes 4 cylinder supercharged car and you'll be amazed. It feels and drives like a small v8. Yet the displacement is equal to a redblock. The boost is just slightly more than a turbo but the gas mileage increase is huge - both in town and highway. And the zero to 60 time is 7.5 seconds.
 
HiSPL said:
I cruise at 80+ with my completely stock M cam NA with an M47. It doesn't take a lot of chooch to go 80. What you want is to get there faster than the other guy. That's where mechanical advantage comes in to play. If you had a 6 speed trans with double overdrive you could go with a 3.83 or even a 4.10 gear in the rear end and have lots of gears to get you up to speed and that nice double OD to keep your MPG's low.


BTW, a higher revving engine doesn't mean it's using a lot of gas. Fuel usage is dependant on load, not RPM. If you gear your car really high and keep those RPM's way down, it will actually use MORE gas because it's working too hard to maintain speed.
Click to expand...

Unless your engine has a lot more low end torque so it can handle the gearing. Hence the supercharger. And why 960's had better mpg's than 940's.
 
Last edited:
Redwood Chair said:
That still won?t fix the fact that your final drive ratios are wrong, nor the fact that the input shaft is incompatible.
Click to expand...

You know this for a fact? If that we're true then all cars(especially Toyotas) that use this basic transmission would have different input shafts. Not so. The engines and input bearing are designed to adapt to the input shaft, not the other way around.
 
Rock out with your block out then.

Build it and prove to all of us that we were wrong.


14psi of boost at 2000 on a skinny rod motor, full throttle at 1300 rpm pulls. It'll run exactly like a mercedes that's 30 years newer for sure!.
 
moetheshmoe said:
You know this for a fact? If that we're true then all cars(especially Toyotas) that use this basic transmission would have different input shafts. Not so. The engines and input bearing are designed to adapt to the input shaft, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

It's a different engine and transmission family so very likely different.

That said what?choo gonna do about a bell housing or adapter for said swap?
 
Silk purse outta a sows ear for .17?/hr * ? hrs much?

Look up coefficient of drag + frontal area for the brick.
Look underneath it to see how 'noisy' it is and that the rear bumper & muffler is basically a parachute half deployed at all times.
It's a far cry from a 0-drag shallow water canoe or fan boat down there..or even up top, tho contrary to popular belief it's what's under the car that's MUCH more the issue than the brick shaped car with the panoramic window or the flat hatch (makes the hole in the air noisier/doesn't come to a tidy point in the back like an airplane fuselage sans the wings + some wheels & wheel covers/landing gear always deployed & down force (or at least neutral & less drag if one must compromise?) desired over lift... ideally...

Calculate rolling resistance with *vaguely tolerable* / near stock safe alignment settings & workable near stock or stock sized tires & pressures..

The speedometers tend to be a bit optimistic in these cars with factory tires.

That benzo is a lot slipperier thru the air & has a LOT more programming time to get that much more modern engine to cruise just-so & multiply the torque thru a modern automatic to make it feel like a V8 & return decent economy.

Benzo is 'too ugly' :lol:...ya...brick volvos are 'stylish' they were thought of as plain jane/'boxy but good' & 'it adds class to the econobox (that's the polite way of saying it)' when they were new. :lol:

Your tractor brick Volvo you're trying to shove thru the air is a far cry from that & no modern engine is going to integrate into the Volvo chassis perfectly seamlessly without a lot of effort, time, money &/or expertise?

The A340/AW4 family are decent/certainly no worse than a TH350 POS (TH400 are decently stronger than the weak 350s that are no stronger than the AW-71 or AW4 in stock form IMO). The updated A340/AW4 splits 1st to 2nd & is a 5 speed but they're weaker and not *really* that much more impressive. Toyota did that on some of them just to offer another gear I guess?

If you drove like a responsible adult in a D24 car and only drove 55 or had the slipperiest of the aero nose lightest weight face lift 7/9s (like the 95+ 960s)...I know even on the old sealed beam headlight diesel Volvos with manual trans if you drove exactly 55 flat sea level 38-40mpg was possible. & kinda 30mpg in good repair no matter what you did otherwise....

Too much work. With stock tires install the 03-71LE or L & 4.10 axle but that's about it for anything with a redblock bellhousing.
But no way is your redblock tractor going to get amazing mileage & feel like a new benz or modern V8 car without basically reinventing the whole thing to the point it's no longer really a 'volvo'.

That said the Buchka fake race car tube frame thing is still awesome :-P
 
Redwood Chair said:
It's a different engine and transmission family so very likely different.

That said what?choo gonna do about a bell housing or adapter for said swap?
Click to expand...

Different engine but same transmission family:

A43DE

Four speed automatic with lockup torque converter and electronic controls. Based on A43D.

Applications (calendar years):

1982?1987 Toyota Cressida
1995-2002 Toyota Granvia
1983?1986 Toyota Celica Supra
1992-up Suzuki Sidekick (4L30E)
1995?1998 Volvo 960/S90/V90 (AW30-43LE)

A43D

Four speed automatic without lockup torque converter.

This transmission model is not electronically controlled. It is instead controlled by throttle position and also by a governor.

Manufacturer designation: Aisin Warner 03-71

Applications (calendar years):

1981 Toyota Celica Supra
1982?1985 Toyota Celica XX 2000G/S turbo
1996-2001 Toyota Chaser/Mark II/Cresta (LX100)
1982?1985 Volvo 240 2.1L Turbo I4 (AW71)
1985?1991 Volvo 740 2.3L Turbo I4 (AW71)
1985?1990 Volvo 760 2.3L Turbo I4 (AW71)
1985?1990 Volvo 760 2.8L V6 (AW71)
1988?1991 Volvo 780 2.3L Turbo I4 (AW71)
1987?1990 Volvo 780 2.8L V6 (AW71)
1991 Volvo 960 2.8L V6 (AW71 ? Australia only)
1991?1995 Volvo 940 2.3L Turbo I4 (AW71)
1981 Toyota Pickup 2WD 2.4L I4 22R (California emissions only, Federal emissions used A43)
1982?1995 Toyota Pickup 2WD 2.4L I4 22R/RE
1982?1995 Toyota Cab/Chassis 2.4L I4 22R/RE (flatbed, cube, motorhome)
1995?2000 Toyota Tacoma 2WD 2.4L I4 2RZ
1982 Toyota Crown Royal 2.8L I6 5MG
1995-2007 Toyota Comfort/Crown Comfort (LXS/YXS)

So, same family of transmissions going into the same basic chassis. And both transmission codes identify them as 'removable bell housings'. So, how could they not fit? I got this info from - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_A_transmission#A30
 
Kjets On a Plane said:
Look up coefficient of drag + frontal area for the brick.
Look underneath it to see how 'noisy' it is and that the rear bumper & muffler is basically a parachute half deployed at all times.
It's a far cry from a 0-drag shallow water canoe or fan boat down there..or even up top, tho contrary to popular belief it's what's under the car that's MUCH more the issue than the brick shaped car with the panoramic window or the flat hatch (makes the hole in the air noisier/doesn't come to a tidy point in the back like an airplane fuselage sans the wings + some wheels & wheel covers/landing gear always deployed & down force (or at least neutral & less drag if one must compromise?) desired over lift... ideally...

Calculate rolling resistance with *vaguely tolerable* / near stock safe alignment settings & workable near stock or stock sized tires & pressures..

The speedometers tend to be a bit optimistic in these cars with factory tires.

That benzo is a lot slipperier thru the air & has a LOT more programming time to get that much more modern engine to cruise just-so & multiply the torque thru a modern automatic to make it feel like a V8 & return decent economy.

Benzo is 'too ugly' :lol:...ya...brick volvos are 'stylish' they were thought of as plain jane/'boxy but good' & 'it adds class to the econobox (that's the polite way of saying it)' when they were new. :lol:

Your tractor brick Volvo you're trying to shove thru the air is a far cry from that & no modern engine is going to integrate into the Volvo chassis perfectly seamlessly without a lot of effort, time, money &/or expertise?

The A340/AW4 family are decent/certainly no worse than a TH350 POS (TH400 are decently stronger than the weak 350s that are no stronger than the AW-71 or AW4 in stock form IMO). The updated A340/AW4 splits 1st to 2nd & is a 5 speed but they're weaker and not *really* that much more impressive. Toyota did that on some of them just to offer another gear I guess?

If you drove like a responsible adult in a D24 car and only drove 55 or had the slipperiest of the aero nose lightest weight face lift 7/9s (like the 95+ 960s)...I know even on the old sealed beam headlight diesel Volvos with manual trans if you drove exactly 55 flat sea level 38-40mpg was possible. & kinda 30mpg in good repair no matter what you did otherwise....

Too much work. With stock tires install the 03-71LE or L & 4.10 axle but that's about it for anything with a redblock bellhousing.
But no way is your redblock tractor going to get amazing mileage & feel like a new benz or modern V8 car without basically reinventing the whole thing to the point it's no longer really a 'volvo'.

That said the Buchka fake race car tube frame thing is still awesome :-P
Click to expand...

Ok, first of all I think the 940's we're the best looking cars Volvo ever designed(not talking about 240's). And granted, at highway speeds, the Benzo's had slightly smoother aerodynamics. But look at engine speeds(meaning rear diff ratios) and THAT more than anything determines cruising gas consumption. The real "proof in the pudding' is around town, stop n go, real world driveability and aerodynamics have no effect on that. Mercedes was able to use higher diff ratios because of the added torque of their engines. You can't have driveability without both. Around town(meaning - not reving to redline) the Benzos we're faster and used less gas than Volvo's. I believe Volvo's big downfall was trying to copy Saab and their 'turbos'. Saab's had more power yet better mpg's. Most people agree it was due to Volvo's cheapness and not wanting to use Saab's engine management system. What's interesting is why Mercedes decided to go with superchargers. The turboed Swedes had been in production for a few years when the Germans decided to boost their 4 cylinders. I'm sure they considered all options but avoided turbo's because of the poor mpg's due to requiring lower diff ratios to keep the turbo spinning. Good choice. In summation, your Honor, a cast iron 4 cyl redblock will not perform as well as a Mercedes 4 cyl, dual overhead cam engine BUT, with higher gearing and higher torque I think it will be close. And 'close' in this case will be a big improvement. I rest my case.
 
Not sure why you're still talking about it instead of building this mpg queen. Obviously none of us know sht from shinola..

Build it and show us the error of our ways!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top