1800: 1972 pv1800es

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

If memory serves, the P1800E was considered pretty lively in its time, these days probably sluggish in comparison to modern machinery but nobody can deny those timeless looks.

In context Delores Rocket is probably on a par with MGBs and Ford Capris of the era - and it has better brakes than both and is far prettier :-)

[john.wigley]

Originally Posted by Othen

In context Delores Rocket is probably on a par with MGBs and Ford Capris of the era - and it has better brakes than both and is far prettier :-)

That, and a much better place to be if you were unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident, Alan. J.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

Our first Volvo, a 12 y o 145E, was no slouch and that engine would certainly imbue the lighter P1800ES with a useful performance increase. I was unaware that Volvo offered the 2.0 motor in the P1800ES; was it an extra cost option in period? I don't think there was ever a P2000ES listed, and would Volvo understate their capacity? One of the few manufacturers to do this to my knowledge was Morris, later Minor 1000s having1098 cc engines. But then, they already had the Morris 1100!

The B30E was my wishfull thinking; the 164 had a much longer nose than the 144, and it is unlikely that the reengineering required on the much lower volume P1800ES would have been economical. One of the reasons that Volvo went over to a V6 for the larger engined variants of 2 series cars, rather than the straight six of earlier cars.

I was also unaware of the Aston conversion; that sounds like a very useful improvement!

Regards, John.

They never listed it as a P2000ES John because the model name was P1800 but from 1972, the P1800ES had the B20E engine fitted, although from about 1973, they used a thicker head gasket to detune it :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_P1800

Remember the P1900? That used a B14 and later a B16 engine!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_P1900

Also when you consider the B27 V6 PRV engine was meant to be a V8 of ~3.5L capacity, Volvo were heading in the right direction for a bigger engine in the 200 series. Thanks to the oil crisis of the early 70s, the chopped 2 cylinders of it and made it a V6, hence the early oddfire crankshaft and firing order, thankfully sorted by the time they made the B280E which i have in mine. Both my Volvo and my Rover have 90deg V6s, no idea if Honda ever intended to make the C27 as a V8 originally (which would have been probably a C34 - letter denotes engine series, numbers the size in dL) but they are an anomaly in the world of 60deg V6s.

Originally Posted by Othen

In context Delores Rocket is probably on a par with MGBs and Ford Capris of the era - and it has better brakes than both and is far prettier :-)

The Delores (or Freyas) Rocket should have 135bhp Alan so should be livelier than an MGB with ~96bhp, even the 3.0L Capris of the time only had 135bhp although towards the end of the Mk1s (facelift so 1973 on) they squeezed them up to 138bhp so performance should be on a par or at least close to the 3.0L Capri.

Definitely better looking than either of those too!

[john.wigley]

Thanks, 'L.S.', I stand corrected. I was aware of the background to the wide-angle V6; a 3.5 V8 would have been obvious competition for the Rover SD1, but even that would have been small by US standards, an important market for Volvo.

Regards, John.

[c1800]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

Our first Volvo, a 12 y o 145E, was no slouch and that engine would certainly imbue the lighter P1800ES with a useful performance increase. I was unaware that Volvo offered the 2.0 motor in the P1800ES; was it an extra cost option in period? I don't think there was ever a P2000ES listed, and would Volvo understate their capacity? One of the few manufacturers to do this to my knowledge was Morris, later Minor 1000s having1098 cc engines. But then, they already had the Morris 1100!

The B30E was my wishfull thinking; the 164 had a much longer nose than the 144, and it is unlikely that the reengineering required on the much lower volume P1800ES would have been economical. One of the reasons that Volvo went over to a V6 for the larger engined variants of 2 series cars, rather than the straight six of earlier cars.

I was also unaware of the Aston conversion; that sounds like a very useful improvement!

Regards, John.

Hi John, your 145E had the same engine as in the 1800ES. The B20, which replaced the B18 in 1969 as a B20B, with carbs. The B20 was the only engine available from 69 on in 1800’s. The B20E was introduced in 1970. As stated the B20E was replaced by the B20F in 1972 to comply with emission regs in North America , not sure if that happened in the UK or not. By the way, the P1800 was the first name, the P was then dropped and changed to 1800S when production moved to Sweden, and to 1800E and ES with the introduction of fuel injection.

Cheers

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

a 3.5 V8 would have been obvious competition for the Rover SD1, but even that would have been small by US standards, an important market for Volvo.

Regards, John.

Let's not forget where the engine in the SD1 came from John, it was a development of the same unit used in the P6 and P5 Rovers, originally fitted in the late 60s when Rover bought the rights to use the "POB" (Pontiac/Oldsmobile/Buick) 215ci engine from Buick in the same state of tune as used in the 1963 Buick Special so although small, the USA was already used to the size of the engine. Also the Triumph Stag was only a 3.0 V8 but was still successful in the USA.

I think the fact it would have been a V8 would have counted more than it's displacement stateside and to be honest, i suspect it would have been more economical.

[john.wigley]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

Let's not forget where the engine in the SD1 came from John, it was a development of the same unit used in the P6 and P5 Rovers, originally fitted in the late 60s when Rover bought the rights to use the "POB" (Pontiac/Oldsmobile/Buick) 215ci engine from Buick in the same state of tune as used in the 1963 Buick Special so although small, the USA was already used to the size of the engine. Also the Triumph Stag was only a 3.0 V8 but was still successful in the USA.

I think the fact it would have been a V8 would have counted more than it's displacement stateside and to be honest, i suspect it would have been more economical.

Isn't there an (apocryphal(?)) tale about an executive from the UK on business in the States, who, on seeing that same 'small block' Buick engine outside on a pallet due to be scrapped, said "that is just what we need back home" and did precisely as you say, 'L.S.'? The rest, as they say, is history!

Regards, John.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

Isn't there an (apocryphal(?)) tale about an executive from the UK on business in the States, who, on seeing that same 'small block' Buick engine outside on a pallet due to be scrapped, said "that is just what we need back home" and did precisely as you say, 'L.S.'? The rest, as they say, is history!

Regards, John.

I don't know John, i've not heard that anecdote but i can imagine it being true. The better power and torque figures from the Buick engine improved not only performance but economy in the P5 and P6 and the most economical SD1 in town was the 3.5 auto.

I really think Volvo missed a trick not devloping the PRV V6 as a V8, i think it would have been more economical and would have made the 264 a serious contender to the V8 SD1 but instead they kept going with an idea they'd already changed and given themsleves many headaches.

It's got me wondering though, if a B280E could be retrofitted in a P1800, a poor mans Alpine A-610 in effect.

[cassell]

Originally Posted by Othen

Thank you for that. I think I was searching for a non-problem.

Alan

The fuel pump should be mounted to it's plate with rubber mountings (BL Mini exhaust bobbins are ideal), if it has ever been simply bolted to the mounting bracket the noise is very noticeable and is a common mistake made by many, in fact my own ES had been fitted with a genuine new Bosch pump over 20 years ago and it drove me mad until I remounted it with Mini bobbins!

[Othen]

Originally Posted by cassell

The fuel pump should be mounted to it's plate with rubber mountings (BL Mini exhaust bobbins are ideal), if it has ever been simply bolted to the mounting bracket the noise is very noticeable and is a common mistake made by many, in fact my own ES had been fitted with a genuine new Bosch pump over 20 years ago and it drove me mad until I remounted it with Mini bobbins!

Many thanks - I'll check.
Alan