Volvo P1800ES...kinda

Ian F wrote: In reply to simon_C: Because that is essentially the exact same thing as the 8-stack system his son just yanked out, with all of the same issues. I still say the easy button for this particular car is Ford OEM EFI from a Rustang 5.0. It won't be flashy, but assuming the engine you've installed is fairly close to stock, it'll just work. No computer tuning. No B.S. with jets and accelerator pumps. Just plug in the sensors and drive.

As you know, that was the original plan. Even had all the parts before they went away to become beercans or refrigerators. However, word on my street is that the factory stuff will not play well with the heads or the e-cam and is not tuneable.

Picture of the Eleanor with new analog fuel leaker

Bet the crap that came off will fetch three-fiddy for scrap!

It's all pretty straightforward. If you wanna run aftermarket EFI, there's a learning curve --- there's no way around that. If you're not willing to deal with the learning curve....make another choice. After exploring the aftermarket alternatives with my latest swap, I elected to avoid the aftermarket -- I was unwilling to tackle the learning curve. Others have made different choices. Makes the world go 'round.

If you wanna run a carb(s) - then run a carb. Sure, it's old school, but it'll get the car down the road.

If you want EFI without much of a learning curve - go OEM. My LS3 swap with a PSI custom harness (4 wire hookup for the ECU - ground, constant 12V+, 12V+ switched under 'start' and 'run') and a stock 08 Corvette ECU started on the first try. Settled right into a 650 rpm idle with 20" of vacuum. First three tanks with 430HP in a 3000 lb. car around town have been 19.9, 20.1 and 20.3 mpg - 25-28 highway will be easy to achieve. The OEM EFI 5.0L Ford in the car for 19 years before it managed 18/26 mpg and about 110 less HP. I've never had a laptop or handheld programmer hooked up on either set up.

Looking back, who woulda thunk the body was going to be the easy bit?

Nah, just kidding! As the Minion will attest, my path to anything or anywhere is not what you would call linear. Makes for a more interesting journey.

In reply to MichaelYount:

That OEM solution with a harness sounds fantastic!!

well it's reassuring that someone here has stubbed a toe already for those of us contemplating the big LEAP....gotta love the HIVE

FWIW - the E cam lasted 10 days in my 5.0L. It's horribly mismatched for a stock block's 9:1 CR. A good tune helps, but the mismatch is fundamental - the E's valve events are crying out for higher static CR - 11:1 or so. Comp Cam's XE258 light years better for a nice street car like you're building for your wife. It will outpeak the E powerwise in a low compression application and have even more torque down low than the stock HO cam with efi. The custom from Buddy Rawls I had in mine had very similar valve events to the XE258. The running joke on the Stang boards is that there's only 1 E cam - everyone tries it and then sells it to someone else. Can't remember what you're doing - but without a higher stall torque converter, the E is a pig below 2500 rpm where most street time is spent, especially with an automatic. FWIW....

this motor has around 9.5:1 compression,stock converter and 3.73 gears.ive used maybe 15 e cams over the years,mostly on automatics and theyre excellent on a mild streeter with an automatic.cam snobs hate the B and E cams but for 95% of the market theyre just what you need.if youre a dyno queen then another custom ground ed Curtis cam MIGHT give you another 10 hp,but jeezus for $100 its a hell of an improvement over stock.PLUS---AODs are a far greater killer of HP torque and souls than any cam could be.

and factory efi is fine.on a stock engine,and with a like new,unmolested wiring harness and a mint EEC box,like an A9L/P (with automatic).this is Canada,so by the time the car is ten years old the green goblins have taken hold,and the backyard idiots have tried all the tricks in the magazines(pre interweb era)and just hacked em all to shiit.im involved in 3 EFI to carb conversions RIGHT NOW.go ahead and throw parts at it,the EEC-4 is a moron as far as "readin the codes" goes,so it comes down to bad wires,bad grounds,bad resistors in the EEC box...yeah put a damn carb on it and drive the thing,isnt that the important part?

I thought the important part was the beer?

petey wrote: and factory efi is fine.on a stock engine,and with a like new,unmolested wiring harness and a mint EEC box...

How well I know!

Fact is -- a lot of us struggle with the aftermarket learning curve, and most who do are beyond a certain age (me included). There are a ton of 20-something's out there who have just as much facility firing up Megasquirt and getting it working as others have bolting on a carb. They're ripping out the OEM efi bits and replacing them with aftermarket --- and to them it's 'easypeasy'.

I guess I tend to subscribe to the KISS theory as much as possible.

And for the intended use of the car (comfortable cruiser for Mrs. NOHOME), a 100% stock 5.0 would have been the route to take.

OK - forget a Mustang that kids have berked with for 20 years. Yank it out of a retired cop car or something. You'll get the AOD transmission to boot. A bone stock V8 will put out more power than the tires you'll be able to fit under that car can handle anyway. Put this hopped up engine in something more appropriate for it.

cop motor would be a real disappointment. 140 hp is a joke on something with 8 spark plugs.stock would be fine,and torquey,but for the cost of getting a 100 hp boost its silly not to do it.

Except that more often than not, part of the cost of that additional 100hp at peak is the loss of 50-80 lb-ft down low where most of the driving is done. Gotta watch what happens over the whole rev range....the dyno time on mine before and after all those years ago confirmed the disappointed seat of my pants. Camshaft/spring/rocker design came light years in the 15 years after the E and B were on the design board (2000's).

I must give credit though Petey - I'm used to the easy availability of stuff that hasn't had to live through decades of winters up there. I can see where that can lead to different choices. Nonetheless - it's a matter of fact that there are MUCH better and less compromising cam choices that wake up a proper collection of parts all across the tach.

Couple of friends/family that used stock Explorer/Mountaineer motors - 200HP/300 lb-ft all below 4200 rpm. A blast on the street in 3300 lb Volvo sedans, and they won't rev high enough to hurt themselves.

petey wrote: cop motor would be a real disappointment. 140 hp is a joke on something with 8 spark plugs.stock would be fine,and torquey,but for the cost of getting a 100 hp boost its silly not to do it.

Were you building a race car or something with more performance aspirations, I'd agree with you - except how much effort and expense are you going through for those "cheap" 100HP?

If anything, put all that money into upgraded brakes. With the changes your father has done to this car, it's going to need them. Desperately.

Back from fishing. Great day.

Caught a limit of Jumbo perch.

3 hours of work latter. Almost 15 lbs of Perch fillets. Next time I quit at half a limit.

Reward time. Changed my mind about the half limit; I love perch!

Back to the car. I feel like I am having a Gate three pre-release meeting for one of my projects at work[ always a bit of a knife fight. If you can keep your ego and emotions at bay, it is actually an interesting stage in any project because a lot of reality will have come to light during the project, and a lot of insight and opinion that was not available at the start will be put on the table.

What is important to keep in mind is that we are not at the final product stage. We are not out of time or budget. The "Client" Mrs NOHOME will be the final say on if I did or did not meet the requirements. If the 302 fires up without issue, leaves the driveway without half an hour of foreplay and the transmission shifts without being annoying in its habits, I am pretty sure that the "Get up and go" requirement will have been met. Truth is Mrs NOHOME would have been happy with the Miata engine. So, if this does not launch like a rocket,but runs smoothly, she wont be filing a complaint. If the car feels like E36 M3 to to me, then I will revisit and re-season the recipe.

Brakes are to be evaluated. They do look puny. Based on past experience with classic cars, (mostly brit E36 M3 and American muscle cars of the 60s and 70's) I am of the opinion that the Miata brakes are going to be better than the primitive Volvo brakes. Just a matter of technology having advanced over 35 years. If initial testing proves this to be otherwise, then FM has easy solutions on the shelf.

Radiator fans, Alternators and induction all fall under the same heading.What is there is there so that I can fire the prototype up and then see what NEEDS to be changed, then i can make measured decisions on what SHOULD be changed, with WHAT I WANT TO CHANGE based on what I now know, (I call this engineering disease) being last on the list.

Let's see if I can get the new radiator in there today. Cause "Radiator attached to engine" is a requirement

Man dem fish look good! And you're right -- they're never done, there's always something to piddle with. So move ahead and if you aren't satisfied with something, change it later.

Volvo was way ahead of their time when it came to brakes in the early 70's. Vacuum power assist. 4-piston, dual circuit front calipers. 2-piston rear calipers with integrated emergency drum back-up/parking brake. Did you even look at them before you ripped them out?

Needless to say, I disagree with you on the Volvo brakes. They are some of the most powerful disc brakes I've ever experienced - including the modern cars I own. Their only downside is a lack of anti-lock (and even there, Volvo tried), which would be the only reason I'd go with the Miata brakes. So powerful Volvo added a pressure-reducing system to the rear to help reduce lock-up (an early analog attempt at ABS). The Miata brakes are great for a Miata. The car you have built will end up no small amount heavier, so yes - a call to FM will be in order.

What bait do you use...artificial or shiners?

In reply to Ian F:

The Amazon had cast iron THREE piston unassisted brakes. They worked great, but were incredibly heavy and you really couldn't buy any good pads for them. Our switch to two piston Mustang aluminum sliders was a good one, even if only for pads.

What brakes did this thing have?

759NRNG wrote: What bait do you use...artificial or shiners?

Emerald shiners would be the bait d'jour.

Funny because as we were reeling them in, a boat next to us motored over and asked what we were doing cause they had not had a nibble in 4 hours.

Sunday was a good day in the shop except for the end

Got the rad hoses sorted out Got the rad mounts (new rad) figured out Converted the Mustang speedometer cable to work on the Miata Got the oil filter location worked out Got the spiffy new throttle cable installed and working slick as greased ice.

Then I asked Momma NOHOME to bask in the glory that was her new throttle pedal. So she hops in the driver's seat and hits the pedal

Don't ya just hate when your knob comes off in front of some chick you are trying to impress!? Gotta love Chinese quality.

Assuming they clear everything, I think I am going to switch to the stock valve covers. Much better chance of getting the heater hose hooked up and once cleaned, I think I like them better than the fabricated tall-boys. I also have a set of "Powered By Ford" covers that I might audition.

tuna55 wrote: In reply to Ian F: The Amazon had cast iron THREE piston unassisted brakes. They worked great, but were incredibly heavy and you really couldn't buy any good pads for them. Our switch to two piston Mustang aluminum sliders was a good one, even if only for pads. What brakes did this thing have?

The brakes on the P1800 ES were "Interesting". Robust for sure, but parts were rare and $$$. They got gobbled up for stupid money when I sold them. Who buys used rotors?

NOHOME wrote:

tuna55 wrote: In reply to Ian F: The Amazon had cast iron THREE piston unassisted brakes. They worked great, but were incredibly heavy and you really couldn't buy any good pads for them. Our switch to two piston Mustang aluminum sliders was a good one, even if only for pads. What brakes did this thing have?

The brakes on the P1800 ES were "Interesting". Robust for sure, but parts were rare and $$$. They got gobbled up for stupid money when I sold them. Who buys used rotors?

Oops, I forgot about the rotors, yeah they were close to NLA on the Amazon also. We ended up turning down the hubs and using 240SX rotors.

In reply to NOHOME:

Yeah... I'll give you that. The rear rotors are oddly cheap and easily available (Rockauto sells them), but the fronts have to be bought from specialist vendors as the normal vendors (like Rockauto) often mistake them for 140 rotors, which look similar but are just different enough not to work (a common discussion in 1800 groups).

Ian F wrote: Did you even look at them before you ripped them out? So powerful Volvo added a pressure-reducing system to the rear to help reduce lock-up (an early analog attempt at ABS).

Have you read the thread? He's basically dropping an 1800ES body OVER a Miata unibody....all suspension, brakes, etc. are Miata. He didn't "rip" Volvo brakes out - he "ripped" the Miata body off. I think the Miata brakes will be more than sufficient for what's being built here. Especially if he doesn't go crazy on wheel/tire selection. After all - the brakes don't stop the car -- the TIRES do.

While the Volvo's dual diagonal circuit was unique in its time, there's nothing special about the brakes. Heavy cast iron calipers and rotors that weren't overly large until the later FWD R's came out with the really big rotors. I went from the stock 10.25" rotors and heavy stock calipers to a 12" rotor and an aluminum Wilwood caliper - knocked about 4 lbs. off of each front wheel.

As for this Volvo state of the art "pressure reducing system....ABS...." at the rear -- almost all rear wheel drive and front wheel drive cars have had bias adjusters to reduce pressure to the rear brakes for a long, long time. Under braking, a front engine/rwd vehicle has about 80% of it's weight on the front tires -- meaning that's where the vast majority of the braking force gets applied. The rear tires do very little braking -- which is why you have to bias the pressure. When you take that much weight off the rear end under braking, you need very little braking force back there to keep from locking up the rears. Of course -- all that rendered unnecessary with the advent of ABS.