Rob
Done..... Go for it..... :)
PaddlerEd
1.9d with the 115bhp are also good fun, so much in gear torque...
I ran V40s for a couple of years which were good in the UK Sport spec with 17" wheels...
Rob
Do you reckon the rear muffler delete achieves anything?
Spac
Short reply:
Yes.
Long reply because I've been thinking about it, and you've given me the opportunity to put those random thoughts into a coherent stream:
I'm not claiming it adds 50hp, but it has that eagerness to spool up and the lack of wheeziness that you get from a free-er flowing exhaust.
Comparing Silver to my newly purchased '97 Green T4, there is no comparison in performance - Silver beats Green by a comfortable margin. Butt dyno says that Silver has about 10% more grunt across the entire power curve - and more like 20% extra around the point where it's coming onto boost.
Obviously the lack of VVT on Green will be part of it, but I doesn't feel like all of it.
It also gives the car a surprisingly "throbby" exhaust note, if that matters. It sounds like it will be obnoxious at higher revs, and/or droney at cruise, but it is OK.
The noise from the Nankang rear tyres is far more intrusive than the exhaust, whenever you're above 60km/h.
Once Green has passed a RWC and is in my name, I want to try Silver's muffler delete pipe and see what happens.
Once I decide which will be the fun car and which will be the daily, the fun car will get a 3" system from the turbo back. I expect the usual performance gains and usual hassles with drone...
PaddlerEd
IIRC the earlier T4 is more desirable than a later one (or is it the other way round?)
Surely as its a whiteblock the ideas for a T5 should translate into it as its 80% of that engine or 2/3rds of a T6... The idea behind the whiteblock being a modular engine that could be had from a 1800cc to 3000cc in 4,5 or 6 cylinder configuration. I'm not sure if the 1600cc was a Volvo or Renault engine...
Spac
We didn't get the 1600s here, so no idea on that one.
The early T4s were 1855cc, and were literally 80% of a T5.
Later ones were 19xx cc. They didn't make any more peak power, but they had a broader power curve, apparently.
For BIG power, the early block's smaller bores and consequent thicker cylinder walls is preferred, but like so many things Volvo, the more time passes, the more power the later block is shown to be able to handle.
One of the most frustrating things is the lack of reliable info on these things... Even the generally good UK VOC stuff is wobbly - A lot of changes are incorrectly attributed to the Phase1 to Phase2 change over, when they actually happened a lot earlier (bigger brakes on all models, VVT, etc).
It is now at the point where I am questioning whether the later dash is really a "Phase2.5" thing that happened later than the core of the P1 to P2 changes.
I have been wanting to start an x40 discussion thread, partly to help figure this stuff out, but it seems that the rarely-sighted NickM and myself are the only x40 owners on here - so there seems little point...
Rob
I love these little things. Which Mitsubishi do they platform share with?
Spac
CC Lancer. It's all win really - Lancer brake & suspension upgrades are an easy fit, while you get a whiteblock and M56 along with Volvo's improvements to the bodyshell & safety.
It feels a lot more like a small x70 than a tweaked Lancer to drive.
PaddlerEd
Mitsubishi Carmisma (or un-Charismatic) is what they were built alongside at NedCar.
Rob
This discussion was created from comments split from: Spac's S40 T4..
Spac
Been doing a bit of experimenting with x40 vs Mitsubishi stuff over the last few days.
(When I say "Cyborg", I'm talking about a CE Mirage Cup car).
1. Confirmed that the struts are interchangable with CE Mirage, Cyborg and Evo6. Mounting ears are 22mm apart, and the bolt holes are 70mm between centres. Same strut top spacing and orientation.
Sway bar mounting may be an issue (Volvo mounts to strut body, Mirage mounts to control arm). Interestingly, the Ralliart Cyborg struts have the sway bar mounting points on the strut body.
2. Control arms and uprights are interchangable with CE, including ball joint taper, tie rod end taper, caliper bolt spacing (128mm).
3. A Cyborg (basically Evo4 with a 4-stud hub) control arm and upright (aka "knuckle") will bolt in. These uprights have 140mm caliper bolt spacing.
4. Rear control arm is visually identical to a Cyborg one. Rear rotor is IDENTICAL. Caliper is slightly different due to handbrake cable routing, but it looks like either method would work on either car.
5. Rear shocks interchange with CE & Cyborg (and presumably Evo1-3).
6. The S40 half shafts have the same splines in the hub as the Cyborg and CE (and CB GSR and Hyundai Excel).
This is using NA S40 half shafts, I don't know if turbo ones are different, but I believe so.
7. There's a common Mitsu twin spot non-opposed front caliper (Evo1-3, some Magna/Verada) that's intended for a 276mm brake rotor. It shares the 128mm bolt spacing with the S40, so it MIGHT be a worthwhile upgrade if it fits over the S40's 281mm rotor.
What does this all mean?
Most important to me is #3, because it means I can use the Cyborg control arm and upright to fit my Evo6 Brembos to my S40. Any Evo4-6 parts would also do the same job, but you'd have to drill the hub to convert the hubs from 5x114.3 to 4x114.3.
I haven't done it yet, because the Cyborg uprights don't have any place to mount an ABS sensor. I'll get on the phone tomorrow to see if I can buy the ABS-compatible uprights.
Of lesser importance to people on this forum, but very useful to me, is that I can use S40 bits to convert my Mirage rally car to 4x114.3 stud pattern (instead of 4x100) AND massively upgrade the brakes at the same time.
Vee_Que
When did you get a mirage rally car?
Spac
Last year. I'll start a thread in the Garage section.
Spac
Philia_Bear
easy enough to mill off outer 5mm of rotor....
Vee_Que
A guy on one of the volvo fb groups runs them.
