So guys, been doing some thinking and have a couple of questions to ask to gauge others opinions.

the 340 seems to have a problem with cracking the bell housings. This is obviously due to many reasons i.e mis-alignment, worn mounts, too much power, clutch kicking etc etc. However the 360's bell housing is strong enough to be a main part in joining the 360 engine to the 360 transmission. I have never heard of a 360 bell housing cracking?

So here is my question, if you were to take the 360 bell housing out of the equation, and put the 340 bell housing in its place with a suitable engine on the front, do we think it'l simply crack the bell housing due to the stress, or do we think its strong enough to be a main part in the drivetrain and merely breaks in the 340 set-up due to problems that don't occur in a 360 drive train?

I understand the 340 bell housing is made from cast aluminium, is the 360 bell housing steel?

Do you think the fact the 360 is mounted on 4 mounts, and the 340 drivetrain on 8 mounts would have any effect? Do you think maybe the extra 2 mounts on the back of the engine that bolt to the 340 bell housing put extra stress through it, thus it cracking?

Come on guys - whats your thoughts? im sure you can all see what im getting up to here

Thomas.........................

Attack2001 wrote: I understand the 340 bell housing is made from cast aluminium, is the 360 bell housing steel?

Do you think the fact the 360 is mounted on 4 mounts, and the 340 drivetrain on 8 mounts would have any effect? Do you think maybe the extra 2 mounts on the back of the engine that bolt to the 340 bell housing put extra stress through it, thus it cracking?

The 360 belhousing is ali. The extra mounts i presume are to keep things as aligned as possible. The 360 is aligned fine due to the fact its bolted rigidly together. The mounts are there simply to hold it in place and reduce NVH as 'one unit' rather than 2 which need to be kept in alignment

I don't know the 340 drive train all that well but i'm sure its the rear engine mounts that sag over time to cause the mis-alignment?

Attack2001 wrote:the 340 seems to have a problem with cracking the bell housings.

Well they don't if they are maintained. Cracking of bellhousings appears to be a shagged mounting / misalignment issue. The other thing that gets knackered are bonded rubber prop couplings.

Attack2001 wrote:So here is my question, if you were to take the 360 bell housing out of the equation, and put the 340 bell housing in its place with a suitable engine on the front, do we think it'l simply crack the bell housing due to the stress, or do we think its strong enough to be a main part in the drivetrain and merely breaks in the 340 set-up due to problems that don't occur in a 360 drive train?

So you idea is to do away with the rubbery prop arrangement, forget about a solid prop arrangement and go straight for a torque tube set-up. Then the only thing you're likely to knacker is the link coupling between the end of the long driveline shaft and the gearbox. If you can gather up the parts then the idea has legs.

Attack2001 wrote:I understand the 340 bell housing is made from cast aluminium, is the 360 bell housing steel?

They are both aluminium.

Attack2001 wrote:im sure you can all see what im getting up to here

Err, nope

Looking at it, the 360 bell housing is much weaker as a casting. Not as much metal around the engine flange at least. However, it doesn't ness need it. There is no "point of rotation" caused by the rear mounts on a 1.7 on the 360 setup, all possibly movements are restricted (mainly by not having rubber "hinges" and 4ft links, which is all that propshaft ends up being) The only torque that gets transmitted back to the engine as a reaction in the 360 is that about the drive shafts, i.e trying to lift the engine out the bonnet. On the 1.7 you have that, as well as the reaction between the engine and gearbox, i.e. a lot more force, which equates to more movement. Just holding them together really does make a difference.

The 1.7 setup looks to be a compound problem, yes, the knackered mountings play a part (a huge part) but on the other hand, the massively increased power (even if the torque not so much) of the F7's compared does put extra strain through the system. My guessing is history went something like... When Volvo started putting in the B19, they decided the Daf system just wasn't able to take the massive power of the B19A (all 92bhp of it). So, they came up with the torque tube. Then, several years later the 1.7 needed to happen, so they looked at the numbers. Only 82bhp, 10% less than the B19 and the ali/rubber prop might just get away with it. Ali prop is lighter, much cheaper to make and install, it's a no brainer.

I've been of the same mind for a long time, I think the torque tube is the way forward. It may be the reason Fake isn't back on the road with just a new prop. Between myself and a couple of mates there has been a few months of pub talk and having things out on the drive being measured up etc.

Yes it's possible.

Your first choice, however, is whether to move the engine or the gearbox. Or neither. Second thing is spline dimensions on the end is different, but that's easy. Rear of the engines (redblock vs B172) is in a different place, meaning the TT's propshaft is the wrong length. Secondly leading from that is how do you get a clutch release bearing that works, it's bodge something (if you are up for bodging, why do the TT conversion in the first place) or design something.

I think, this weekend, I came up with a way of making it fit. It's going to require a ninja machinist though

macplaxton wrote:So you idea is to do away with the rubbery prop arrangement, forget about a solid prop arrangement and go straight for a torque tube set-up. Then the only thing you're likely to knacker is the link coupling between the end of the long driveline shaft and the gearbox. If you can gather up the parts then the idea has legs.

Yup, that's the next problem. I think I have a plan which is easier than the main fitting of it all. If anyone has pictures of broken ones so I can see the failure mode I'd be really grateful

The main problem with valver/1.7 related upgrades is the prop arrangement, so im looking into connecting the F7 engines to the torque tube so it can take the power, as the most powerful f7 based volvos i know of are sub 200hp, and the torque tube being able to take up to 300ft/lbs of torque, it should be a doddle

So the 1700 bellhousing attached to the torque tube should be ok with regards to the stresses and strains?

Does anyone know the size of the 1.7 clutch, and the size of the 360 clutch? My idea would simply be to get a clutch centre plate made up the same size as the 1.7 clutch but with the 360 splines in the middle, or if it can be done use a 360 centre plate in a 1.7 clutch?

With regards to where the engine would sit, it would be a case of putting the engine on the end of the driveshaft in the torque tube. Once that fits with the correct clutch centre plate and spigot bearing. The 1.7 bell housing looks longer than the 360 one, so i think it would be a case of cutting the flange off the end of the torque tube and shortening the outer casing, so the 1.7 bell housing can bolt to it with the adaptor and the drive shaft will sit nicely in the spigot bearing. Once this is done then its just a case of doing the engine mounts.

Do you think using just the front mounts of a 340, on the front x-member would be good enough to hold up the torque tube and engine? Or do we think it would need the 360 style engine mounts and then new mounts would have to made up to take the mounting from the front of the engine back to the middle? Do you think the 1.7's sump would be strong enough to hold up the whole drivetrain with its engine mount attached to the sump?

Obviously it would be a case of getting the engine and drive train all bolted together and then sorting out things like the clutch operation, plumbing, wiring etc which is the easy bit once its bolted in. If this could be done, then it would solve all the problems were having with breaking the prop shafts on the 340's, and could an affordable upgrade for most. The reason i'm looking into is because i want to go 1.7turbo, but i dont want a standard one, with its meesly 120bhp, apparently they were designed up around 180bhp but were de-tuned for torque-steer and lifespan reasons. So i want to run it up at 180bhp, but with 150bhp f7r's breaking props with just N/A power, imagine the torque from a 180bhp turbo going through it? no chance... haha. Not forgetting with the 180bhp it'l be running through 215/45/15 tyres, so the forces are going to snap it like a twig.

I like to be different, and simply this has got my attention Plus, with respect to gear ratios, my understanding is the 360's have better ratios for cruising with its 14/15inch wheels and more powerful engine. My little 1.4 with tiny little 13's is at 5k rpm doing 100mph, which just drinks the fuel, so i want better than that, and the 360 ratios seem to be good for this too

My understanding is the 360 transmission simply bolts into a 340? all i need to do is bolt the required mountings to the car? I.e. the two rear gearbox mounts to the chassis rails?

Thomas....................

I don't know enough about the 1.7's to advise on mounts and clutches - but why get rid of engine mounts even with the torque tube? more the merrier i thought?

Atchi (miniswift) has cut a torque tube up, There are bearings down it's length but can't remember how close they get to the end. Personally I'd look to make a new bellhousing rather then cut the Tube up.

the Gearbox (excluding front cover) is just an M47R and the diff is just an MT5 - both found on 340's i think. The difference is the diff and pinion - they make up the final drive ratio. The 360 GLT is 3.64:, the LSD Atchi had made was of the 3.82:1 ratio

3.91:1
3.82:1
3.64:1
3.45:1
3.36:1

Pinions AND crown wheel are made to this ratio, treat pinions and crown in pairs as a single part. So to swap yours to say the GLT diff now, you can simply change pinion shaft and the diff unit. I found using the same bearing in the same bearing carrier on the side of the diff regardless of what diff seems to work.

The front cover plate of the gearbox is different for the torque tube to bolt into. The mounting for a 360 is a x-member which has two mounts bolted to it that are bolted into the sides of the diff.

Nimminz wrote:but why get rid of engine mounts even with the torque tube? more the merrier i thought?

My worry is the TT is designed to hold everything in line. If, as you tighten up the middle and end mounts, something is just slightly the wrong size, you end up putting a load on the bearings by creating a mild bananaing.

Attack2001 wrote:So the 1700 bellhousing attached to the torque tube should be ok with regards to the stresses and strains?

Maybe. I think it'd still break the bell housing just as we are doing now, but more readily but obviously this is unproven.

Attack2001 wrote:Do you think using just the front mounts of a 340, on the front x-member would be good enough to hold up the torque tube and engine? Or do we think it would need the 360 style engine mounts and then new mounts would have to made up to take the mounting from the front of the engine back to the middle? Do you think the 1.7's sump would be strong enough to hold up the whole drivetrain with its engine mount attached to the sump?

See above reply to Matt

Attack2001 wrote:If this could be done, then it would solve all the problems were having with breaking the prop shafts on the 340's, and could an affordable upgrade for most. The reason i'm looking into is because i want to go 1.7turbo, but i dont want a standard one, with its meesly 120bhp, apparently they were designed up around 180bhp but were de-tuned for torque-steer and lifespan reasons. So i want to run it up at 180bhp, but with 150bhp f7r's breaking props with just N/A power, imagine the torque from a 180bhp turbo going through it? no chance... haha. Not forgetting with the 180bhp it'l be running through 215/45/15 tyres, so the forces are going to snap it like a twig.

Same, the reason I've stopped work on my turbo is this and why everything I build for Fake has jigs built for it so I can reproduce the parts for the turbo.

Attack2001 wrote:My understanding is the 360 transmission simply bolts into a 340? all i need to do is bolt the required mountings to the car? I.e. the two rear gearbox mounts to the chassis rails?

I've not seen if the captive nuts (I think thats correct) for the 360 gearbox member are present yet. The only difference between the boxes is the front casting, Foggy has fitted a 340 box with this front casting from a 360 in the past.

I'm deliberately not putting much in about my thoughts, not because I'm trying to be awkward, but I don't want to influence your thoughts on how to go about doing it. I have a plan as to how I'm going to fit everything into Fake, however another viewpoint on how to go about it is always interesting and more likely better than my plan. You can probably now see why I wanted a non working 1.7 block a couple of weeks back...

I think if i were to do this, i would have extra bracing welded onto the bell housing to make it even stronger. I wouldnt trust a standard bell housing too. I think rather than using the front engine mounts it would be better to bolt in a 360 front x member and then make up some custom mounts for the engine, as this is how volvo originally designed it in the first place.

From my brief look over of a torque tube, i dont think the front bearing of the driveshaft is right in the front, so i think theres space to chop it up and shorten it.

I understand about all the gear ratios, but i cant be bothered to start swapping ratios etc, never have the time so it would end up being a rushed job, I'm one of those "oh, my exhaust is falling off, might aswell put in a faster engine and get a custom one made" kind of people

I think this is very do-able, so im going to start gathering bits. I think the obvious bit is going to be a complete 360 torquetube with mounts and front engine x-member. That should be a good start If i make custom front engine mounts that also means it doesnt matter where the engine ends up after its connected to the torque tube also.

Need a 1.7turbo, 15inch wheels and 6 link rear suspension to go with it starting to get expensive haha

Thomas....................

Attack2001 wrote:From my brief look over of a torque tube, i dont think the front bearing of the driveshaft is right in the front, so i think theres space to chop it up and shorten it.

The bearings are rubber mounted into the tube, so mind the heat. First bearing from the front is ~12" from the flange.

Chris_C wrote:

Attack2001 wrote:From my brief look over of a torque tube, i dont think the front bearing of the driveshaft is right in the front, so i think theres space to chop it up and shorten it.

The bearings are rubber mounted into the tube, so mind the heat. First bearing from the front is ~12" from the flange.

Aha now thats good to know So shortening the tube it is! Ok so its rubber mounted, how easy is it to remove the bearings?

Thomas..................

I havn't tried, but from what I can see there is no seat for them to face against, i.e. you'd need a drift of known length to put them in the correct distance. The orientation of them is interesting too, or at least the carrier. It's a really tiny sketch in the Haynes, but confirmed on mine, they all face in a single direction. No idea if that's due to assembly protocol or for an engineering reason however.

When I say rubber mounted, there is about 7mm rubber around the bearing carrier (pressed metal of some kind) and it's rubber bonded into the TT

Chris_C wrote:I havn't tried, but from what I can see there is no seat for them to face against, i.e. you'd need a drift of known length to put them in the correct distance. The orientation of them is interesting too, or at least the carrier. It's a really tiny sketch in the Haynes, but confirmed on mine, they all face in a single direction. No idea if that's due to assembly protocol or for an engineering reason however.

When I say rubber mounted, there is about 7mm rubber around the bearing carrier (pressed metal of some kind) and it's rubber bonded into the TT

Hmmm, make me wonder whether if you filled the tube with water and then kept spraying water on the outside of the tube whether you could keep it cool enough to stop damage Doesn't sound like a particularly easy job to take the bearing out.

Thomas..................

Atchi chopped his up ok and could probably tell you the exact locations of the bearings

Intresting ideas coming out here for the 340 prop problems.

I will be watching this thread with intrest.

classicswede wrote:Intresting ideas coming out here for the 340 prop problems.

I will be watching this thread with intrest.

I want to attempt it, as it'l help all the other guys out there running valvers, but is also much better than running 200hp through the standard prop arrangement. It'l only be temporary for me, as the Porsche conversion is the final outcome for me. I also know how it was done and have pictures of the conversion being done which should help

Thomas....................