Chat with Irv Gordon - Page 3
Username
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
    Results 71 to 103 of 103
    1. #71

      Re: Re: (I. Gordon)

      Sorry to be too negative here, but I don't think Volvo of 2009 has much in common to Volvo of the 60's. The industry is much more competitive now, and profit margins are critical. Back in the sixties, volvo relied upon consumer that appreciated a well built car, and was willing to pay more for it. There are very few of them any more. Back in the 60's, volvo kept the body style the same for many years, so that they can save the tooling cost to increase quality. I am not sure they can do that any more, given the competition. Also, the modern car is much more heavily regulated, which drives the production cost up. I don't think any modern volvo has the steel sheet metal thickness anywhere near of what it was in the 60's, for example. In fact, you can see the cheapening trend in many ways within the amazon series between the early and late 60''s (even though there were many mechanical improvements). And the 140's had a lot more of the modern car's disposable elements. The 240's even more.

      So, in short, I do not think the modern volvo has anything in common to the 60's volvos except for the name. Modern technology allows them to run better when new, but they won't stay new long. Modern cars are designed to be disposeable, and if you try to run them with lubricants available in the 60's, they would be all worn out at 50,000 miles.


    2. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    3. #72
      Senior Member
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Location
      Temple, Texas, USA
      Posts
      19,952

      Re: Re: (I. Gordon)

      Quote, originally posted by I. Gordon »
      Hi George,
      How did you know I was washing both my Volvos from top to bottom (and underneath) to get all the salt off the cars as we have had a bit of ice and snow these past two weeks. The roads are white with the stuff and salt is in every crevice of my cars as a result of being on the road with them. You must be a mind reader. Hope things are better in your part of the world.
      Irv

      https://forums.swedespeed.com/zerothread?id=132854

      George Dill


    4. #73
      Junior Member I. Gordon's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Posts
      46

      Re: Re: (Dimitri)

      Hi Dimitri,
      Right you are regarding changes in manufacturing these days but then again, you wouldn't purchase a glass screen 25 inch TV today when you could have a 60 inch flat screen HD TV these days for the same money.
      The sheet metal on the new Volvo may be a bit thinner but they didn't have air bags, Boron Steel , ultra-high strength steel or the high strength steel found in the new model Volvo's. Which model Volvo would you rather be in when hitting a solid object these days.....your 1800 or a C30? With federal guidelines on fuel economy, lighter is the way all cars have to go...but in a high tech manner. The new cars are safer, more durable (when was the last time you saw an 850 or later model rusting away?) and certainly more comfortable. I disagree that the new cars are disposable. I have put hundreds of thousands of miles on my newer Volvo's over the years including the cars my family drove and all were trouble free...some had over 400,000 miles on them. I wonder how many on Swedespeed can make the claim that they had that many miles on their cars so that they can compare experiences with me. Then again, all machinery requires a bit of maintenance which many ignore and then blame the machine for their own failure to treat their cars properly.
      One of these days there will be some sort of electric car in everyone's driveway...and the same old lament will be heard, "They just don't build them like they used to." Technology keeps improving in all facets of life....automobiles are certainly one of them. I love driving my 1800 but if I could, I would love to take my newer C70 across the country as well. I love having AC, power everything, great economy (33 mpg), comfort, a wonderful sound system, etc. I enjoy all the creature comforts that modern technology has to offer and wish my 1800 had some of them, especially when in Arizona, Texas, New Mexico....in the middle of summer.
      OK, so the older cars were more simple to work on, but like you say, those days are gone. However, I wouldn't trade any of my Volvo's as each has it's own endearing qualities. My 2002 Volvo now has almost 80,000 miles on it and it yet has to have any repairs done to it other than just routine maintenance. It seems to have the same pedigree as my 1800 had when new. Today, with computer generated designs, manufacturing techniques and peoples want for 'new' I doubt long life cycles (body styles) are going to come back. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

    5. Remove Advertisements
      SwedeSpeed.com
      Advertisements
       

    6. #74

      Re: Re: (I. Gordon)

      Hellow Mr. Gordon.

      On a very severe high speed accident, when comparing a modern 2500-3,000 lb modern car (any modern car) and a volvo 122, I think we are much better off on the older volvo (assuming you are wearing seatbelts, without seatbelts the modern airbags can be critical). Modern car safety engineering has many compromises in it, including cost of production (I doubt they have 5,000 welds in it for example). Remember, at the end of the day, they need to make a profit, and they need do compete with Hyundais built with much lower labor cost. Also, these modern high strength steels are not necessarily better in absorbing energy. Their yeild strength is higher, but their ductility is lower (i.e., once they start bending, they offer less resistance) and of course, they cannot be repaired. Modern steels are good for meeting the normal suspension loads with much less metal (i.e., save money). In the case of the 122 structural design, there were fewer compromises. For example, pedestrian survivability, or survivability of a much smaller car that collided with you was not an issue. Profit margin was not as critical, because Volvo, through its reputation and keeping the same body style for 14 years, could afford the extra cost of building the car stronger, and of course there were no Asian competitors (Japan was still trying to catch up back then, and there was no Korea or China).

      Comfort: Yes, there has been progress in this aspect. Creature comforts that you could only find in luxury cars in the 60's, are now in all cars. For highway trips, I have an airconditioned 1968 Imperial (7.2 l, 12.5 mpg, with old technology, you can't have everything in one car!).

      Times have changed, no question. And they have changed for the better, on average. Even though the 122 or P1800 are superior in many of the most critical respects to the modern cars, they only built 600,000's 122's in 14 years of production, and I am guessing 200,000 P1800's. Honda makes that many cars in probably a week! So, a lot more people nowadays have access to cars, and their pollution is much reduced. They are also safer, for the average driver (i.e., ABS, traction control etc are great for the general public, but if you know what you are doing, you don't really need it).

      This progress however, has brought degredation in other aspects (and to be fair with modern cars, we compare them with the volvo's which were the best in their class, there was a lot of junk built back then). All this complexity means that maintenance and repairs are far more difficult. Try replacing an alternator on a modern FWD car. So, it is natural, that when the components get old and the frequency of failures start increasing, it is uneconomical to maintain it. The engines themselves are much more complex, more difficult to rebuild, and the overall design is more biassed towards cost reduction rather than durability or rebuildability (you will be shocked if you knew how little money a modern engine costs to the OEM). In therms of engines, you will often see an aluminum head on an iron block. As you know, that combination tolerates very little overheating. I have overheated B18s and Chrysler 440's with no damage many times to a point that a modern engine would have failed. Another example is BMW engines with aluminum blocks have a Nikasel coating of about 0.001" thick (once that goes, the bore wear is very accelerated). I saw on a shop mannual that volvo bore does not have to be machined/rehonned even when bore wear is 0.005" deep (0.010 on diamter). Another good example is replacing ball joints in our old volvos. It can be done in 30 minutes, without even removing the control arm. Try doing that in a modern car. Another example is the front dual wishbone suspension on our volvos. Most cars of this price range will have McPherson struts (much cheaper, but don't work as well, and not as durable). The list goes on and on. And let's talk about crush worthiness. It seems to be that the modern cars are design so they cannot be repaired after an accident, so that you will have to buy another one. So, all these respects, moderns are disposable, by design.

      The trully substantial improvements in automotive engineering took place in lubricants and tires, which we can take advantage with the older cars too.

      So, in summary, the modern cars are, on average, better for the general public. But for the well informed enthusiast, a modern car cannot give you the driving pleasure combined with such low cost (low due to low initial cost and/or holding on to the car indefinately). When we talk about driving pleasure, please do not compare a 200 hp modern volvo with a 122 (there can be certain types of roads actually when the 122 will still be more fun to drive than a modern 200 hp volvo). The comparison will have to be betweem a 100 hp modern to a volvo 122, or a 200 hp modern to a 200 hp 60's car (i.e., Jaguar Mk II or Porche 911 or a highily modified 122/P1800 ...).


    7. #75
      I've watched the exchange with Irv and wanted to add my two Kroner.
      The idea that a 1966 three point seat belt is great technology is like saying an X-Ray compared to an MRI is just as good. At 35 mph into something really hard, a 180 pound person would weigh about 9,000 pounds +- few thousand for my bad math. Our original belt would probably work fine but would break couple of ribs and maybe some internal damage. Today's belt automatically takes out the slack, then spools the webbing back out to 'soften' the load acceleration.
      5,000 welds were needed to hold the body together. They created seams that sucked up water and caused rusting. Today we use laser welding. Today our engines produce little and in some cases zero emissions. The 122 in one tank of gas probably makes more than an 850 driven 200,000 miles.
      Suspensions are designed for traction in wide range of road conditions. Frankly, I've driven 122's, 544, 210, 140 that are a hoot to drive but not in the rain or quickly around wet corners.
      What you're saying is interesting, almost amusing. I agree that in classic car events, they are fun to drive, but they have absolutely no place in today's world. Volvo cars are expensive to make and, as maybe you've seen, not profitable for some years. We could have taking a Ford can rebadged it into something Volvo…like GM did to SAAB, for the profit, but we didn't. Protection of our buyers and concern for our environment are most important to us. Would be good to have as much profit as you speculate.

      The well informed enthusiast daily driver is a car that doesn't pollute, safe for himself and passengers and has value over many years of ownership.

      Given a case of brain cancer, I'll take an MRI.


      Daniel Johnston
      Product Communications Manager
      Volvo Cars of North America
      http://www.volvocars-pr.com
      http://www.thecarthatstopsitself.com


    8. #76

      Re: (djohn)

      Mr. Johnson, thank you for your input.

      A load adjusting seatbelt would be great to save a couple of ribs. But if the car shell collapses around you, and your body gets smashed, reducing the damage from the seatbelt would be of no consequence. The cost reduction of modern cars, using thinner sheet metal, is a safety compromise (at least compared to the volvo structure, there were many cars in the 60's that were no good either). Probably a well calculated compromise (as most of the traffic accidents occur at low speeds, and the need to make a profit in the most competitive modern world), but a compromise nevertheless. The safety offered by the rigid body of the old volvo thanks to the thick mild steel with a curved roof and small windows on a serious crash will likely give better protection (note the word likely, it is probably impossible to predict exactly how things turn out). You might get a few broken ribs and some nusty broozes, but your body is less likely to get smashed by the collapsing body work.

      Most modern production techiques are biased towards reducing production cost rather than body strength. Again, these are the compromises necessary when you build 10 (may be 100) times more cars per week than they did in the 60's. Compromise nevertheless.

      Modern cars are actually very similar compared to the diversity in the 60's. For many reasons, probably related to manufacturing, all modern cars have converged to a certain type of design. That design seems to apply to all aspects, engines, transmissions, and body design. It appears that the best quality nowadays comes from Japan (I don't like their cars, but I respect them). I had the unfortunate experience of running into a (much larger than the volvo) Honda Accord a few years ago, at about 25-30 mph. The damage in the volvo was only front clip replacement (I did it myselft), and may be if we lived a few decades ago, some skilled body repair shop could have straghtened the body pannels. The modern Accord, despite modern side impact regulations, had substantial passenger space intrussion (may be 3 inches). Had the speed been higher (or had I been driving one of my big Chryslers), the passengers would have been hurt, or even killed. I bet that Honda was beyond repair. I remember many years back, our Volvo 122 waggon was hit on the side by a commercial size truck carrying several tons of potatoes (back in Athens). This was highway speed, and the impact velocity was at least similar. The passenger compartment was not compromized at all, and the car was repaired. So, there you go, srtuctural integrity of modern vs. old.

      Yes, the emissions conrtol demands are necessary nowadays, given the huge number of cars. And yes, for the average driver, the modern cars have better road manners than the older cars (if you are an experienced driver, the benefit of the modern car is actually negligible). So, I agree that the old cars are not well suited for the general public. But the old cars do have a place in the modern world. For people that know how to drive them, and appreciate their strengths and limitations, can be a source of fun combined with super low cost safe transportation.

      Mr. Johnson, given your position as a Volvo representative, your opinions are well justified. Unfortunately, for the car enthusiast, all modern cars are essentially alike (not a bad thing when you treat your car as an appliance, but the enthusiasts expect more). The name brand on the car is now more related to fashion than to different design approach or philosophy. The mass production of modern vehicles has resulted in compromises in terms of durability, serviceability. and in some cases, safety, that are probably unavoidable. The only thing in common between Mr. Gordon's 2.7 million volvo and modern volvos is ... the name.


      Modified by Dimitri at 10:08 AM 1-18-2010


    9. #77
      Senior Member
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Location
      Temple, Texas, USA
      Posts
      19,952

      Re: (Dimitri)

      Holy Jacob - a Swedespeed discussion with no name-calling - not many of those lately.

      Bonding with an inanimate object may require a goodly amount of personality imbalance and I have plenty to share.

      BTAIM, I have finally weaned myself of all 27 Volvos and now drive a zero-problem '09 Forester and my wife has a z-p '08 Outback.

      As to the '94 F150 junker...

      I enjoyed the 42+ years of B18 twin-SU life and still lust after a perfect 1800ES but wife says...

      For Volvo to continue making and selling cars worldwide it must soon reach profitability regardless of ownership.

      Show me an all-new, problem-free 2011 V50 AWD with 6-speed auto, 150hp/250lb-ft 4-cylinder diesel (40mpg average), under 3,000lb and under $30,000 USD and my Forester will be history.

      George Dill


    10. #78
      Junior Member I. Gordon's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Posts
      46

      Re: (gdill2)


      Ah Demetri,

      I understand exactly how you feel and how you are thinking regarding the safety and durability of new vs. old. I have had this discussion a hundred times with people from all over during my travels. It really seems to come down to personal feelings about (for some) not being able to service, fix or repair the newer model cars (Volvo not excepted). The resentment manifests itself in the philosophy that they just don't make them like they used to. With this kind of thinking and philosophy, the Model T was the ultimate car (according to Henry Ford who resisted changing and improving on his car till people stopped buying them and he started to lose money....1925-1927....thus the introduction to the Model A). Rotary phones never broke down but digital phones did...therefore, let's bring back rotary phones...or better yet...party lines (how many remember those?). Let's bring back solid steel typewriters instead of word processors and computers as they almost never broke down and were mechanical in nature....easier to fix.

      You are obviously not aware of the money spent by Volvo (and now in use by Ford, Mercedes, etc) on crash research and development. Volvo's entire philosophy and reputation is based on such research and the laws of physics apply over and over again. A simple concept known as "crumple zones" have saved countless lives. The insurance institute in Sweden which has been monitoring crashes for years and years, analyzing the results of those crashes has helped to give Volvo it's reputation for being on of the safest cars in the world.....thin sheet metal and all.

      Just because you can not fix one of the newer cars yourself doesn't mean there is something wrong with the technology....which is why there is such things as training schools and manuals. This is why the manufacturers hold training schools for technicians and others willing to pay for the tuition to attend such schools. This goes for the repair and replacement of body panels and the ability to repair and replace the various types of steel now used in the newer Volvo's which save lives every day. Volvo has engineers who crash new car bodies all the time, take them apart and design methods to put the cars back to the same specs and condition they were in when new so that their strength and "crumple zones" will do what they did the first time should the car be involved in another accident...including the repair, replacement and welding of the Boron Steel used in the A-pillars and the "ring of steel" and elsewhere. Body shops all over the USA send their people to special schools to learn these new techniques and if you have attended the SEMA show as I have these past 25 + years in Las Vegas and elsewhere around the country, you would have met the engineers and teachers who cater to the needs of body shops everywhere...regarding such techniques.

      Just because you cannot fix a new car without such training and special tools does not make the new cars inferior. Having a hood you can roller-skate on will not save you life. Just the opposite.... as in a front end accident, being as strong as it is, it will come through the windshield and decapitate the occupants. Better that it is made to fold in the middle and stay in front of the windshield to protect the occupants. Same with engine mounts that allow the engine to drop below the fire wall in such a calamity rather than break the legs of those sitting in the front seat when it comes through the fire wall. The "Ring of Steel" which surrounds the rear of the C70 to protect in case of a rear end collision....the ROPES system to protect in case of a roll over in a C70 convertible..same for the self sealing gas filler pipes, The Boron Steel A-pillar which can support the entire car in case of landing upside down...so as not to crush the occupants heads......do I really need to go on.

      Should you ever be in an accident, I hope it will not be in your 1800 or 122 which was fine in it's day...but in no way compares to the strength, durability and safety of today's Volvo. You really need to do a bit more reading on the subject and attend more Volvo meets where such things are explained by the factory representatives like Dan Johnston who gives his time and energy to explain the new technologies to all those who will listen and not prejudice themselves against modern technology that they have no control over.Of course this covers mechanical improvements and repairs as well....making cars more green for the environment. Remember the Lamda-Sond emission program back in the 70's...way ahead of it time to protect the environment.

      So much for my ranting. My apologies if I hurt anyone feelings but a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. More knowledge is much more comforting. I love all my Volvo's for what they are and love driving them. I love my 1800...even after almost 2.8 million miles. There is almost nothing I don't know about it...strength and weaknesses. I would still rather have my C70 around me to protect me in case of an accident. I can't fix it as I can my 1800....but I still love all it's creature comforts, performance, and durability. I will not burden this website with any further comments or rebuttals as I have heard it all before and for some who will not listen, learn or understand...becomes a waste of time for all. Let's end this thread right now.

      Drive Safely....so you don't have to find out any more about this topic for yourselves.
      Irv

    11. #79
      Member
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Location
      Bartlesville, Oklahoma
      Posts
      1,393

      Re: (I. Gordon)

      VERY well put, Irv!
      And if you are willing to bite the bullet for the VADIS/VIDA program for your laptop and the VCT2000 to hook it to your car you can fix most minor stuff pretty easily.

    12. #80

      Re: (I. Gordon)

      Mr. Gordon, thank you for your input.

      With this kind of thinking and philosophy, the Model T was the ultimate car ...

      As I said, everything is about compromise. This is the key term to the discussion. Compromise means that in some areas you win, in some you lose. In the case of the "T" example, you lose in many more areas than you win.

      Just because you can not fix one of the newer cars yourself doesn't mean there is something wrong with the technology....which is why there is such things as training schools and manuals.

      Again, back to the term "compromise". Yes, they can be fixed, but at what cost? When the repair cost exceeds the value of the vehicle, the insurance does not pay for the repair. When the car is still new, in many cases you will be able to have it repaired, but when it depreciates after a few years, due to the complexity of the repair tequniques, the cost will be excessive, the car will be "totalled", and thus the term "disposeable cars".

      A simple concept known as "crumple zones"

      Crumble zones existed in the 122 design as well. Again, its about compromise. You can choose a low stifness of your crumble zone, and will protect you better on a low speed impact (also, cheaper to manufacture). Or you choose a higher stiffness (i.e., volvo 122), and at the expence of higher retardation and seatbelt loads at low speed impacts, it will protect the passengers better at a most severe crush. Simple Physics, and typical compromises in engineering. You can't have it all. Research has shown that most crushes occur at low speed, and the modern approach may be a good compromise for the average driver. Enthusiasts are more likely to drive faster, and thus for a small number of us, the old compromise is likely to be better. But again, you have to understand the term "compromise".

      You are obviously not aware of the money spent by Volvo (and now in use by Ford, Mercedes, etc) on crash research and development. Volvo's entire philosophy and reputation is based on such research and the laws of physics apply over and over again.

      Volvo in the 50's and 60's was indeed uncompromised safety. Not any more. The corporate mentality has clearly diverged from safety by introducing SUV's. As you know, an SUV is a fundamental compromise in safety for the sake of easy profit. I am aware of the research on crush worthiness. But I have not made myself clear. The crush research is in terms of: " how can we maintain a reasonable structure, while in the same time minimize production cost". I understand that in the modern competitive world, this is the only way you can be competitive. That is the advantage of the older cars. They were made at a different erra, when these compromises were not necessary.

      as in a front end accident, being as strong as it is, it will come through the windshield and decapitate the occupants.

      We know that the A-pillar structure and the hinge structure is much too strong for that. As said in my prior post, the crush with the Honda accord I had established that experimentally I have a hard copy of a document published by volvo in the 60's (got in through the internet by accident a few years back) showing a large number of crushes involving 122's where this clearly does not happened. There are pictures of barrier crushes of 122 done in 1964 time frame (look at Strapff crush conference, I think published in 1965, any Engineering library should have it). A friend was actually recently involved in a severe crush in his 4 door 122, where had he been in a modern car (Volvo or whatever) he would have been severely hurt. If you pay attention to the structure of the 122, you will notice that there are very few cars in this size range that get even close to body strength. Just count all the cross members and box sections under the car. Modern cars have none of that.

      Finally, we have to understand that in order for car manufacturers to sell cars, they first have to discredit the old ones. This is the business they are in, which is now super competitive. They have to convince you to part with a lot of your money, and part of the process is to give convincing evidence of safety. And there is no question that they are doing a great job given the compromises they have to face. Don't get me wrong. I realize that you cannot build a car like the 122 in the modern world and still be competitive. As far as manufacturing is concerned, these cars belong to the past. But we can still enjoy the benefits of those that are still in existence.

      And here is a bit of humor. They don't build like they used to. Thank God!


    13. #81
      Senior Member
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Location
      Temple, Texas, USA
      Posts
      19,952

      Re: (I. Gordon)

      Quote, originally posted by I. Gordon »
      ...I will not burden this website with any further comments or rebuttals as I have heard it all before and for some who will not listen, learn or understand...becomes a waste of time for all. Let's end this thread right now.

      Irv

      This is Irv's "Chat" site on Swedespeed - let us honor his request, please.

      Thanks.

      George Dill


    14. #82
      Junior Member nadanutcase's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2009
      Location
      Marshalltown, Iowa
      Posts
      58

      Re: This dialog

      First of all, as a relatively new and infrequent user of this forum, I want to say to Mr. Gordon that it's a pleasure to "meet" you, even if it is virtually.

      Regarding the above dialog on old versus new design, I have to say that as an engineer (albeit electrical not mechanical) I can see good points on both sides. I really love my 1970 1800E and admire its design and useability and extreme serviceable as well of ahead of its time in some ways . And I appreciate that it was designed to be worked on much as I admire and appreciate the designs in my other serious hobby - antique (vacuum tube) radios. Just as with early cars, pre-war consumer electronic products were designed to be serviced so that, like Mr. Gordons' famous 1800, they could last for a very, very long time. That said, I ALSO appreciate the design work and incredible advances in manufacturing that make products like my iPod and iPhone possible. And driving an average car off of the lot with the expectation that it will last at LEAST 100,000 miles with minimal, routine maintainence, just flat didn't happen in the '60s. Volvo's founding philosophy clearly did give them an advantage in durability in that era but what I think we see today is more a matter of the rest of the world catching up rather than them slacking off as they continued to work on body, suspension and restraining systems designs.

      I wish I completely shared Mr. Gordons' confidence that any new owner will recognize how foolish it would be to squander Volvos' reputation. International corporations have done dummer things - you don't need to look further than GM for examples.

      FINALLY I want to echo the sentiment that it is very nice to view an exchange of clearly deeply felt and opposing viewpoints that was civil and polite. The almost complete loss of such thoughtful civility in todays' wired world is something that is definately NOT better today than in days past.


    15. #83
      Junior Member I. Gordon's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Posts
      46
      Thanks for the kind words. Now if only I had a copy of tomorrow's newspaper to see where all this is going.

    16. #84
      Member
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Location
      Bartlesville, Oklahoma
      Posts
      1,393

      Re: Tomorrow's newspaper (I. Gordon)

      I think the Lord doesn't give it to us for very good reason - what He specifically wants us to know, He provides.
      "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof...."
      Meanwhile we do what we can and enjoy most of it!

    17. #85
      Member
      Join Date
      Oct 2007
      Location
      Eastern Ontario, Canada
      Posts
      2,732

      Re: Re: (I. Gordon)

      Quote, originally posted by I. Gordon »

      Who ever buys Volvo isn't buying them to take them apart or destroy a very valuable brand.

      Then how would you feel about a Jakob/Crown consortium bidding on Volvo and continuing a joint venture with Changan OR Volvo setting up manufacturing in North America? I don't know if you know this but Norway is about to build an electric car in the US.



    18. #86
      Senior Member Warpedcow's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2004
      Location
      Apple Valley, MN
      Posts
      11,924

      Re: Re: (stev vanveit)

      Well, we know modern Chevys are way better than old ones in a crash:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

      My money is on the same being true with Volvos.

      2002 S60 T5 5M (SOLD) - ECU, intake, exhaust || 2006 S60R 6M Sonic Blue (Saved My Life), 2:03.5 at BIR long course, 2:00 at BIR short course, My HD Trackday Videos, Loud enough for ya? || 2007 S80 V8 (SOLD), 35% tint, Sport Package (4C), Heated and Cooled Seats, IPD Rear Sway Bar || 2011 XC70 T6, 35% tint, IPD Rear Sway Bar, IPD Photo Contest Winner in 2015 and 2016, Dragon Slayer || 2015.5 XC70 T6 Polestar Tuned || 2015.5 V60 P* #46/80

    19. #87

      Re: Re: (Warpedcow)

      Wouldn't bet on it. Not all old cars are created equal.

      By the late 60's, there were many safety regulations on all cars in the USA in regard to door latch construction, seatbelts, etc.

      The volvos were among the strongest cars on their size. On large cars, the Chrysler C body was the strongest. Had that been a C-body on that chevy crush test, the situation would have likely been the reverse.


    20. #88
      Senior Member
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Location
      Temple, Texas, USA
      Posts
      19,952

      Re: (gdill2)

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Quote, originally posted by I. Gordon...

      ...I will not burden this website with any further comments or rebuttals as I have heard it all before and for some who will not listen, learn or understand...becomes a waste of time for all. Let's end this thread right now.

      Irv
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Quote, originally posted by gdill2 »

      This is Irv's "Chat" site on Swedespeed - let us honor his request, please.

      Thanks.

      George Dill

      This topic is "Chat with Irv Gordon" - please start another topic if you wish to discuss non-Irv matters.

      Thanks.

      George Dill


    21. #89
      Junior Member nadanutcase's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2009
      Location
      Marshalltown, Iowa
      Posts
      58

      On to another topic

      I do have a question (or maybe I should call it a request for clarification) about one of your maintainence practices and a couple other related questions: About a year ago I bought the second 1800 I've owned; a 1970 1800E and while its outwardly a good looking car (aren't they all ) I've been working through it fixing or correcting a number of issues. One thing I noticed the first time I drove it was a noisey input shaft bearing in the transmission. As soon as I could I checked it and found that someone had filled it with ATF. I changed back to SAE 30W immediately and it quieted down a bit but was still audible. The transmission and overdrive worked fine but I had visions of that bearing disintegrating and circulating through the trani and somewhat fragile Laycock overdirve. So I pulled the transmission and have it at a local shop this winter to have them at least replace the bearing as well as inspecting the whole thing and to try to reduce the seemingly inevitable leaks as they reassemble it. I recall the overdrive in my '71 1800E chronically leaking and I've seen several references to this being a common problem.

      That leads to my first general question: Gaskets have gotten better over the years, but I still am wondering if you (or your long time mechanic) have tried some of the RTV silicone sealants that are used on conjuction with gaskets to reduce the leakage often seen around the overdrive? It seems like using them would fall into the "it can't hurt" catagory, but if you (or anyone) have contrary information, I'd like to know.

      Next, the main reason for this post, I'd like you to clarify something for me - or set me straight as needed - I am pretty sure I've read that you use regular gear oil (80 -90 W) in the transmission in your car. And I've seen some discussion / arguments back and forth regarding 30 W versus 90 W in the 1800s' transmission. Digging into it a bit, I found that the service manual various years 1800s seem to say use 90W in a plain M40 but use 30W for the M41 (with overdrive) AND the Laycock overdrive service manual is VERY specific that you should NOT use "extreme pressure gear oils" by which I assume they mean heavy weight lube. But it also goes one to kind of quaintly advise the use of mineral oil. So my question comes down to this: does your car have the plain M40 4 speed trani and no overdrive or have you actually been running 90W gear lube in a Laycock overdrive all these years and miles which would seem to be contrary to the Laycock manuals' advice

      AND FINALLY While I understand that additives, such as teflon, are NOT recommended for use in the overdrive, do you have an opinion, or experience, regarding synthetic oil in a transmission? While I'm confident that you'd say that nothing replaces regular maintainence, this (synthetic oil) in a transmission would seem to also fall into the, "can't hurt" catagory.

      Thanks very much for your time; I've enjoyed reading your posts and about you all over the web since I jumped back into being an 1800 owner /enthusiast.

      Dave


    22. #90

      Re: (Dimitri)

      AND the Laycock overdrive service manual is VERY specific that you should NOT use "extreme pressure gear oils" by which I assume they mean heavy weight lube.

      Dave, even though I am not Irv Gordon, I can tell you that the "extreme pressure" refers to the additives, not the viscocity. These additives affect the oil chemically, and have no impact in the viscocity. Gears have typically very high contact pressure (unlike for example main bearings that operate without any metal-to-metal contact), and these extreme pressure additives react with the ferous surfaces and create wear resistant coatings. I am sure volvo had a reason to specify no such additives for the M41.

      But that's as far as my knowledge takes me, I have no clue for all the other issues.


    23. #91
      Junior Member I. Gordon's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Posts
      46

      Re: (Dimitri)

      Dave,
      Again I have to state that not being any kind of engineer I have just followed the book...including my transmission service every 25,000 miles. My book calls for multi-grade gear oil in the tranny and that is what I have used since new except for once, when the Volvo dealer put in automatic transmission fluid recommended for the 24O models. I drove less than a 1/2 mile with the new Type F Automatic Tranny Fluid and heard noises I never heard from my transmission including the whine of gears at all speeds. I brought the car back and had them put the usual gear oil into the tranny. The bulletin regarding using 30W motor oil in the transmission was to quiet the folks down that were complaining that their over-drive did not engage when the engine and transmssion fluids were in very cold temperatures. Since I run my engine and warm it up on cold days, I have never had this experience. When cold the overdrive would not engage until the gear oil was thoroughly warmed up. I have been using 85-90 multi-grade gear oil in my transmission for the past 44 years with no problems and no failures. I have had the front and rear tranny seals replaced one time and still have no leaks. Again, I have seen all the arguments about what to do, what to use, how to seal the transmission (never use any glues or sealers according to the technician I have used for many years) and if synthetic is better than old fashioned gear oil. Which would cause leaks, lack of lubrication, etc. Again, the engineers at Volvo seemed to know their stuff and built everything to last if treated properly. Somebody had to know what they were doing with their recommendations as the proof is in the mileage....almost 3 million miles and still going strong. I hope this answers your questions. No reason to re-invent the wheel no matter who is the physics major out there. You know what they say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!"

    24. #92
      Junior Member nadanutcase's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2009
      Location
      Marshalltown, Iowa
      Posts
      58

      Thanks so much for your reply

      Thanks so much for your reply, I imagine it could get a bit tiresome answering similar questions all the time. For what it's worth when I bought my '71 1800E back in '73 I was a young sailor on the sub base in New London Conneticut just up the road and a ferry ride from where you live. The winters there were certainly piercing due to the relatively high humidity, but not near what they can be in the midwest. I fancied myself as something of a mechanic, although I'd have to say I was more of the mid-western farm boy, shade tree type than someone formally trained in the art. Because all of my previous experience with manual transmissions (including a '57 Chevy I owned that had a rather uncommon overdrive transmission) had me conditioned to think that 80-90W lube was the correct thing to use. I'm sure that I did start using heavier oil in that car and I never had any operational problem with the transmission OR the overdrive, even after I moved back to Iowa with our colder winters. My dilemma now (such as it is) is that your excellent example of the result of doing it "by the book" would have me using 30W IF I referred only to the service manual for the '70 and later E models. BUT I found the transition from recommending 80-90W to recommending 30 W as I read service manuals for the 60's "S" series 1800s then the later "E' series, and that resulted in my wondering just what motivated it.

      My '71E was an every day driver, and a good one, but the ravanges of our winters was one factor in my deciding to sell it. However my "new" '70E will be a fair weather (read WARM weather) only car, so cold will not be a factor. You answered my question, thanks so much for the help and happy driving.

      Dave

      Dave


    25. #93
      Junior Member nadanutcase's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2009
      Location
      Marshalltown, Iowa
      Posts
      58

      Re: (Dimitri)

      That is an interesting distinction. I wondered about that wording and thought, maybe it was an example of British "english" versus American "english". The benefit for any transmission gear interface is pretty clear. I can only guess that the reason Laycock would specifically exclude something like this would have to do with it interferring with the operation of the clutch in the overdrive. But that is a guess.

    26. #94
      Junior Member I. Gordon's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Posts
      46
      Dave,
      Glad to be of what ever help I can be. Good luck with your 70E. Right you are about the midwest winters! Brrrr! I remember leaving the Detroit Auto Show late at night in -17 degress F many years ago....and had to drive the car 20 minutes before the overdrive (gear oil) finally warmed up enough to engage. The roads were sheer ice and I had blizzard condtions to the middle of Pennsylvania. Once the fluid was warmed thoroughly, I had no problems with engaging the overdrive.

    27. #95
      Member
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      Location
      Sarsfield, ON
      Posts
      3,126

      Re: (I. Gordon)

      Gord,

      Your name came up in a Volvo discussion post by Michael Currie on the Canadian Motor Sport History Group http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/cmshg/ . I'm just wondering if you visit this site as they occasionaly have some good discussions on Volvo racing history in Canada, especially in Ontario.

      '88 244 auto (parts car), '89 244 5 spd. (daily driver), '92 245 5 spd. (my car) '80 Holiday Rambler/Ford E350 (tow vehicle and track crash pad), '95 GMC K2500 (local hauler/back-up tow vehicle), '83 Mazda RX7 (race car when I have the funds), '99 Miska 20' car hauler.

      The man's prayer: "I'm a man, but I can change, ... if I have to, ... I guess."

    28. #96
      Junior Member I. Gordon's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Posts
      46

      Re: (John2x240)

      I am not aware of this particular discussion group but tried to find the comments you refer to without any luck. One can only wonder what my name came up in relation to. If they have any questions it is just as easy to ask me rather than to speculate. Perhaps you can advise them. Thanks for the head's up!!

    29. #97
      Member
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      Location
      Sarsfield, ON
      Posts
      3,126

      Re: (I. Gordon)

      IIRC it was along the lines of the number of really nice 140s and 240s still running around in the Portland area, but when I get a chance I'll try to find the thread for you.
      '88 244 auto (parts car), '89 244 5 spd. (daily driver), '92 245 5 spd. (my car) '80 Holiday Rambler/Ford E350 (tow vehicle and track crash pad), '95 GMC K2500 (local hauler/back-up tow vehicle), '83 Mazda RX7 (race car when I have the funds), '99 Miska 20' car hauler.

      The man's prayer: "I'm a man, but I can change, ... if I have to, ... I guess."

    30. #98
      Junior Member swimmer240's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2008
      Location
      Herndon, Va
      Posts
      708
      Irv,
      Just wanted to check in and see how the 1800 is going. I am a big Volvo fan, and I brag about Volvo durability all the time and reference you and your P1800 all the time. Most of the people I talk to drop their jaws when I say I have over 300,000 on my odometer, and so I drop your name and say I am still getting started.

    31. #99
      Member
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Location
      Bartlesville, Oklahoma
      Posts
      1,393
      HAPPY 70th BIRTHDAY, IRV!
      We'll really miss you at the Gilmore. (Maybe you could have them fly to Chicago and we could pick them up for you.....)
      Best regards, from experience I can tell you that it gets better after adulthood sets in!!

    32. #100
      Senior Member
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Location
      Temple, Texas, USA
      Posts
      19,952
      Update July 10, 2012 - keep 'em rollin', Irv!

      http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/ret...icle-1.1110752


      George Dill

    33. #101
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2014
      Location
      Phoenix, AZ
      Posts
      56
      RIP Irv. Hope you continue your journey and hit 4 million in heaven.

    34. #102
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2016
      Posts
      331
      Maybe time to lock this thread?

    35. #103
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2016
      Posts
      331
      Seriously, out of respect for IRV, it's time to close this thread, and change the title...

    36. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3