Volvo 760 1990 (please don't laugh

[foggyjames]

Do you want to get a nice upgrade as easily as you can, or are you looking for an interesting project? If you want simplicity and bang-for-buck, forget the PRV, seriously. It can all be done, of course, but much like with the 960 straight six, there is no easy bolt-on, so I'd go down a different route. The only possible exception to this would be to drop in a complete R25 Turbo lump and EMS....if it fits.

Plan B:
Drop in a late 940 turbo engine, slap on a larger turbo, run the chips that Fred on Turbobricks sells, and make 250+bhp.

cheers

James

After checking out things visiting the experts and rally companies I have decided to go for either the 3.0 out of a 900 series or the 2.3 Turbo out of anything depends what I can get first.

It all got stupid when stand alone Fuel injection and ignition systems were mentioned to cope with the extra air necessary.

Then the Turbo charger oh and don't forget the pistons so all got a bit like rocket science. I could simply bolt a turbo on the v6 and listen for the all-mighty bang but this may not please the neighbours.

Charlotte

PS what the heck is a standalone fuel injection and ignition system never seen em never heard of them either.

[foggyjames]

It's a replacement engine management system which can be altered using a laptop.

I'd go for the 2.3 turbo, simply because it is easier to upgrade if the mood takes you at a later date. The 3.0 isn't that much faster than your PRV, but it will be a bit better on fuel. Having said that, buying a 760 Turbo as-is might be easier?

cheers

James

[Jonathan_angelo]

Admitedly i haven't read the entire post, however from my experience with the 760 Turbo (4pot) polishing etc makes very little difference as they're so well engineered in the first place. My Specialist was telling me that he once sent of a 760 T lump to be done and they sent it back saying that there was nothing beneficial they could do as it was engineered sowell in the first place.
This may well be different in the case of your V6 as this is a mixed bag design from Volvo, peugeot and citroen/renault i think so you may well be able to see some improvement. The other choice is to dump the the car entirely and get yourself a nice clean 760 Turbo ( like the one ive just sold). It was imacculate and i had had the timing advanced so it ran better - was abit more expensie to run but was noticibly faster.

Hope this helps in some way.

jono

[Rich 264]

Being sensible just this once (i'm sorry and i promise it WON'T happen EVER again!) I'd have to agree that the quickest easiest cheapest simplest way without doubt is the 4 pot turbo, no doubt the strongest too. But if you're still tempted by the PRV then i think i'd start with the 25 turbo, as this was used in the Renault Alpine GTA, you'd have the Renault & Alpine Renault clubs, specialists, enthusiasts to draw on for parts and advice. And i think theres lots of bolt on goodies and upgrades available within the Alpine GTA circles. And i have to admit i'd personally really like to see someone do it so i'm a bit (very) biased! I always thought of the PRV as a wasted opportunity, i wish Volvo had worked a little harder sorting it out, (as they started to with the B280) and had a lot more imagination. imagine if they'd marketed the 760 with the same powerplant as the rear engined Alpine GTA V6 turbo? The PRV was heavily developed by Citroen and Peugeot and still used until very recently (XM, 605 etc) even changing to a 60 degree V angle solving the odd fire/offset crank problem, but it was so reworked i suppose it wasn't really a PRV anymore! And I always had a soft spot for the Alpine Renaults, especially the GTA/A610 not that any of you can tell of course!!!
If you don't do it i suppose i'll have to with my 264 (if i ever have time to get near it) Incidentally the bhp figures on the Alpine owners club page is 250 for the A610 3.0 V6, 200 for the V6 turbo. Which i'm sure could be greatly beefed up with a few tweaks and bolt on goodies. Anyway thats enough of my fantasies.
Rich

I've tried to E-mail the delorian people and got a very cold response because it's a Volvo and not the Delorian.

Apparently they deal with the B28 engine and not the B280F engine, although I'm sure they're the same engine !

Charlotte

[foggyjames]

They are quite different. I'll leave a PRV boffin to fill in the details, but there are quite a number of upgrades. The 280 was the best version fitted to a Volvo, no question. The 28 shared the inlet manifold with the Delorean engine, so maybe they stick with it for that reason. Excuse me while I find it amusing that the Delorean crowd upgrade their engines to the 760 'low power' spec

I don't really understand why they'd be sniffy - it's not as if the Delorean was a runaway sucess story!

cheers

James

[TheJoyOfSix]

Originally Posted by foggyjames

The 28 shared the inlet manifold with the Delorean engine, so maybe they stick with it for that reason. Excuse me while I find it amusing that the Delorean crowd upgrade their engines to the 760 'low power' spec

The DeLorean crowd effectively have a detuned B28 giving only 130bhp, so they swap the exhaust to Volvo manifolds and a non cat custom system to aid the breathing, but the main change is to the Volvo ECU and the Volvo air metering unit as it is larger. They claim this gives about 160bhp compared to the 155bhp in the B28 (mainly due to the less restrictive exhaust).

The B280 shares the same basic block and heads as the B28, but has an offset crank to give an even fire (as opposed to the odd-fire in the Mk1 PRV's), cross bolted mains (block and grank good for over 600bhp given the right pistons and rods), enlarged oil feeds to the cams and a cast oil bath for the cams to sit in (cures the cam wear probs), different cams, relocated distributor and Bosch LH2.2 injection. The cat equipped B280F still gives 155bhp even with the cat asthis is mostly dueto the more efficient injection system. The B280E has 'hotter' cams than the B280F and thus gives 170bhp.

Huhh!!! can you say that in english ?

The cams are different in the B280E than the F?
The injection systems are different and the block is different is that how I understand it?

Ok would it be simple just to rebuild a E engine turbo that ?

I'm now back on the idea of turbo charging the current stock engine as the 2.3T engine looks like a nightmare to start with the battery is on the other side mass meter is also the other side not to say anything about the underside

So it's back to stage one


Do you know where I can obtain a better set of pistons (i know that bit) what kind do I need ? what do I ask for ? do they need to be 5mm shorter with modified con rods ?
Where can I obtain a non exchange Garrat T10 or whatever it was Turbo charger?

[foggyjames]

As I see it, you have three options here.

1) Drop in a complete R25 (etc) Turbo lump with wiring, and hope it all fits. Probably the best option.

2) "+T" the stock V6 (turbo the totally standard longblock), and accept that you're going to experience a period where, at best, the reliability of the car is very suspect, while you make an assessment of how the stock engine management system (EMS) can cope with boost. Budget for some serious diagnostic tools.

3) Alternatively, you could develop a 'turbo kit' for the V6, including low compression (and possibly forged) pistons, coating on critical parts (e.g. valves) to cope with the increased heat, and a fully programmable EMS to run the whole shebang.

Option three requires either the services of a professional (motorsport development?) engineer, or probably a couple of years of part-time study on your part, plus a load of help. Starting down the DIY route is opening one huuuge can of worms. Feel free to do this, but don't underestimate what you're starting. No matter what people say, "justing bolting on a turbo" is never that simple.

Option two is only suitable for a project car at best, and I'd avoid this route wherever possible - bodging is not the way forward. Option one seems like the most viable scheme to me - if it fits.

cheers

James