Major Ledfoot I have always wanted a 240t. Yes unfortunately I will be killing off a good running 940T but they never came manual with a M90 in aus as far as I am aware. I am getting this car fairly cheap. Remaining parts/shell will be put up for sale for anyone interested as I don’t want to entirely waste the car.
940T (auto) Motor into 81 240 (manual)
Roinik it does. But I have always wanted a 240T and as far as I’m aware also the 940T never came manual in AUS which puts me off the 940 chassis. The car will unfortunately be stripped of its heart (motor) but the rest of the car will be offered up for parts or as a complete shell for anyone interested.
- Edited
SINGV240T I thought I could use the 940s loom, ecu, EZK, flywheel etc…
The 940's EFI loom is integrated into the engine bay's wiring harness. It is possible to pull one apart, but it's a lot of work to recover a 30+ year old harness - which will need to be patched in places anyway, and so reliability will then potentially become an issue - and doing so virtually makes the donor car completely useless. Short version: not worth the hassle; a new LH 2.4 harness from Dave Barton is virtually plug 'n' play and 100% more reliable. (It's what I'm using on my LH2.4 swap into a K-Jet 242GT).
The ECU and EZ-K modules can be pillaged from the donor.
The donor will have a flexplate and not a flywheel, and a flywheel is needed for a manual transmission. So you'll need to source a suitable flywheel - either by modifying one, or buying one that's been modified, or getting a new one from, say, TTV (not cheap). The factory LH 2.4 flywheels are rare in OZ and expensive for what they are.
Can I get your mobile number/facebook/instagram by chance to be able to communicate easier??
Send me a PM on here if you want. Farcebook is a script-laden, memory-hogging crock 'o' shit that I'm using less and less nowdays and I've never used instaScam.
A few posters brought up the thought of keeping the 940T going and developing it. This is a valid consideration. As I have both (non turbo on 940) I will comment.
The 244 is lighter and arguably looks better, but…
In the 940’s positives:
The 940 rwd has the best steering Volvo ever made.
It has ABS brakes, safer by far, the most comfortable seats, the quietest interior, no body flex, easy to do maintenance on, superior ride on trips. Engine bay has room for all mods, including a 16v head etc. Room for bigger wheels. Airbag might work (or not). Good heating and cooling. And can be manualised.
Far heavier than a 240 though.
Having driven both, the 940 dumps all over the 240. 240 suspension is designed in the 1970s and it shows. Luxobarge all the way and mod it over time. Also, having done a k-jet to 2.2 mod, it can be a PITA. I'd expect the 2.4 mod to be worse. On top of this, if your M46 doesn't have the turbo cluches, you're setting yourself up for a new OD unit and probably 3rd gear in the near future. At least the 940 will take a multitude of different gearbox options.
Roinik if your M46 doesn't have the turbo cluches, you're setting yourself up for a new OD unit and probably 3rd gear in the near future.
Were there many changes made to the J-type overdrive for turbo-engined cars? (IIRC the later turbos went from J-types to J/P types and then P types, but then again the J-types sat in B30E 164Es that had M410 boxes).
Truth be told, the 740/940 suspension was also designed in the 1970s too. 
Having owned and driven several 240s, 740s, and 940s - IMHO, the 240 is more solidly built, IMHO; plenty of metal where the 7/9s used plastic. The 940s are quieter and better built than the 740s; 940 has some ease of maintenance advantages over the 240s. Lots more sound deadening in the 940s than 240s which adds to weight, but makes the 9 nicer to drive long distance.
Preferred daily? The 940, but the 240 is still miles in front of any Korean rental turd I've been forced to endure. With that in mind (and I may be wrong about this) intact 940s, especially turbos, may appreciate in value as they become harder to find - the number that came to OZ wasn't that huge.
SINGV240T - What's your objective with the 1981 240 wagon build - a bit more go, or a lot more go?
Major Ledfoot At the moment, a Bit more go. Long term, A lot more. which i already understand the transmissions will not hold, rods, injectors, fuel pumps etc… Main goal at the moment is to have the motor, running in thhe 240. The 940.
Neither of these cars are intended on being Daily Driven. I have a Sensible Mazda 323 as a daily and a motorbike. This is just my fun project to slowly work on as i also have a mortgage to pay 
Major Ledfoot and doing so virtually makes the donor car completely useless
I understand this, my intention isnt to keep the 940. I only want the parts i need, The 940 i am getting is in rough shape anyway body wise… All remaining parts will be offered up around the place for people to collect and better their own cars before it will unfortunatley meet the scrapyard…
I wouldn’t worry about the internal strength of that B230FT … you mention “rods”, which is why I say this. Properly tuned so there’s not overwhelming pinging, the standard rods should be fine, even with embiggened boost.
Fuel pump you mentioned as a potential future change; IMHO make sure you’re running an EFI (not K-Jet) main/pressure pump in the first instance.
K-Jet to 2.4 is almost the same as 2.2.
The main issue you will face is the wiring harness. You can start with a 940 one and hack it up, but if you wanted a super clean install, you'd want to get the firewall plates and LH-2.4 loom from a later 240 that came with 2.4 from the factory.
You can use the same clutch but you will need a flywheel with notches for the crank trigger (or you can get your flywheel modified to add the notches). You will also need to notch the bellhousing so there's space for the crank trigger bracket. You can do this by hand with an angle grinder, it's not a precision fit. Probably will be much easier with the gearbox out of the car though.
The K-Jet fuel system you can run as-is, it will handle as much fuel as the stock 940T system.
5 days later
@"jamesinc" writes: <The K-Jet fuel system you can run as-is, it will handle as much fuel as the stock 940T system.>
Hmm, if your refering to the K-Jet 'fuel pump' system and its much higher pressure, well maybe but...
I think the EFI fuel pressure regulator will get a hard time regulating pressure down (K 75 - EFI 50= -25psi) for EFI injectors, but for a turbo with boost pressure rising and falling all the time the FPR will struggle. Also the turbo engine requires a higher fuel flow rate, (K-Jet is higher 'pressure' based with lower flow, than a turbo system).
For example, a small K-Jet era 'in-tank pump' does not supply enough fuel volume to the main pump then to the engine EFI injectors at mid boost levels upwards.
This is a fact (unless in-tank has been upgraded) and the resultant is a lean AFR, with symptoms, gee at 4,000 rpm the engine just doesn't want to rev anymore,,, a hesitant off-on situation. (Guys if at any point your feeling what I'm saying back off and arrange for bigger pumps and fit an AFR - airflow ratio meter well after the turbocharger).
@SINGV240T - Good news is the source components required are on the 940T.
- Edited
EFI pressure is more like 45psi (3 bar manifold referenced), not far from K-Jet's system pressure. But for what it's worth, I've run this setup for ten years and never had a single fuel issue.