What did you do to your P2 Volvo today?

[MoVolvos]

.
2002 V70 XC

1) Rotated tires - front are now 8/32, rear 5/32 with outer edge wear from under inflation. Car is much more stable and ride smoother.
2) Checked front and rear brakes. Looks to be brand new rotors and pads front and back. One le$$ job!
3) Adjust Alignment - 1/8" Toe In now. Will adjust and recenter again after removing steering wheel to reposition.
4) Oil & filter change a week ago.
5) 2 new hood struts a week ago.
6) New 6.5" door speakers a week ago. Factory speaker had huge magnet and was full range so matches better with the OE tweeters. 22 years old with surround foam disintegrated still sounded better than new speakers. Discovered you can re-foam the surround.
.

02 V70 XC Door Speakers 1.jpg (149.59 KiB) Viewed 4830 times

02 V70 XC Door Speakers 2.jpg (140.19 KiB) Viewed 4830 times

.

.

[yanga001]

Had a leak in the tire that led to a flat in about 24 hours. Seems it took a 1.5cm long by .5 cm wide rock into the tread. Looks to be a lot bigger than a nail. Planning to swap to summer tires tomorrow time permitting.

[yanga001]

Unfortunately, I could not find the Swedish Volvo communities. I know for a fact they've likely done more mods to their T5s and NA engines than we know of here.

I had several manifold designs in mind. The 2.9 NA engines had two versions of their manifolds, they were of the dual type, consisting of two pieces and towering over the cam cover. One where the magnetti marelli was underneath the manifold, and one where it was on the right side, towards the air filter box. Now I know what you would say, but they are 6 cylinders. Indeed they are but you can always chop of the 6th and just weld a piece of aluminum to close off the holes. I think it was very simple. But as far as performance goes, I really cannot say. I would imagine they are great down low and in the mid range if we consider the torque graphs, though it is a 6 cylinder and I cannot accurately predict anything.

Then after studying these manifolds I came across the 94 vis manifold and that is when I hatched my plan. Of course then I was pointed to the FCP Euro videos of where they used this same VIS manifold on an RN engine with ported heads and sporty cams and they made no additional power. They assumed that the manifold was holding them back, and indeed it likely is.

I posited that if I used the same manifold, with VVT, I can get much of my torque even earlier at around 3000-3100 rpm or earlier, then I taper off the vvt to 0 after this, getting the max torque at 3600 rpm , then at 4100 rpm or so, I open the short channel and ride the rest of the torque curve. This creates a less peaky engine and more flatter curve, maybe not on par as the turbo but almost similar.

Still, the problem lies in the upper RPM range. We got our torque down low enough, which is nice. But imagine a scenario where you wish to overtake a car, the automatic transmission shifts to 2nd, all of a sudden you are at 5000 rpm and are moving away from the useable torque.

This manifold does not solve this, so I am running some simulations to see if it can be improved just a little bit.

My simulations were based off these assumed camshaft parameters. Some are borrowed from the Volvo 1991 paper on the engines, but they used 8.45 lift. Duration at lifts is more important and this was pure guesswork on my part to get the torque curves right.



Afterwards things get tricky. The variable runner manifold has the separated runners at 40mm width and 20mm height when you measure at the separator. If you measure at the head opening, the diameter is around 42mm. If I use the opening at the head, the 42mm measurement I get more correct results, but if I use the diameter calculated for each runner which comes out to 30mm, the engine is choking according to EAP.

I simulated the engine as-is now, with the normal NA manifold




The hp is more or less correct.



For instance I had to reduce the length of the NA manifold to 450mm to get the regular readings of the B5244S engine. This may not be correct, I do think the collector length is higher, but I have not measured my own regular NA manifold.

Next I tried to simulate the VIS manifold's long runner using the measurements at the separator, not diameter of the opening at the head. Notice I measured around 560mm of length.



This yielded results not compatible with any engine



But if we change it to the diameter of the opening to the head, we get results similar to the dyno of the FCP car(minus the drivetrain losses of around 20-30 hp)



And if we try to simulate just the short channel we get



This is wrong as we can tell that the original 850 glt and the FCP car, got stock power of around 168hp. There are several possible reasons here.

In the high rpm range, both short and long channels are open at the same time. This will likely create complex interactions between air and pressure waves. Secondly only the long channel has the injector opening, perhaps there is less fuel mixing than before.
Thirdly, with the short channel open we have the flap itself in the way, causing some effects perhaps.

The only way to know for sure is CFD simulation of the VIS manifold in its entirety.

I love seeing stuff like this in the community.

[dikidera]

Thanks, yes, some would consider this a waste of time, but it gives me something to do, something interesting and I learn more things.

As for the VIS manifold , I have to modify it. As it currently is, I cannot attach the TB to it, the bolt holes do not align. I bought some aluminum electrodes but unfortunately it is very very difficult to stick weld aluminum, it requires very specific setups, alternating current, preheating etc. I personally failed to weld it and may have to commission someone else to do it. A MIG/TIG welder would make for an easy weld.

[P80GLT]

I’ve just completed 430 motorway miles using cruise control. I reset the OBC when I fuelled up and when I arrived the OBC said my fuel consumption was 32.3mpg, however a manual calculation plus the Fuelly App confirms that the fuel consumption was actually 34.2mpg. I was always under the impression the OBC over estimated the fuel consumption.

OBC estimated reading

4B942738-A643-460A-AE3C-6EE00336748D.jpeg (13.83 KiB) Viewed 4618 times

Actual calculated reading

026A1B25-7ECB-4886-9C22-854B75B8A017.jpeg (15.02 KiB) Viewed 4618 times

[02V70]

What speed do you drive to get this mpg?

[P80GLT]

Cruise control set and speedo showing 77mph

[02V70]

My v70XC get about 26 on the freeway. I think the engine is pretty similar to the one in your 2.5T v70. Does this indicate anything wrong, or does the all wheel drive system reduce it?

[P80GLT]

UK vs US gallons 34.2mpg UK is equal to 28.5mpg US

[02V70]

Ah, I didn't know there was a difference.