Talk:Volvo 164
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | |
[edit] D-Jetronic
Certainly D-Jetronic, like all other injection systems, can be tuned to run well, mistuned to run poorly or neglected to run very badly. However, poor fuel economy is a well-documented and fairly consistent characteristic of the system, just like less-than-dependable hot-engine restarts. A paragraph claiming that's all nonsense, and D-Jet gives perfectly excellent fuel economy if tuned correctly, would need excellent documentation to stand up to encyclopædic standards. --Scheinwerfermann 04:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I am no fan of D-Jetronic except for performance applications. But I owned an old '75 164E from 1984 to 1988. When I got it it had 95,000 miles (150,000+ km), and I put 350 mi / 600 km per week on it for a couple of years, mostly long-haul commuting inside Los Angeles, California. I am not sure what kind of mileage you expect from a 1.5+ ton car with a 3 liter motor and BW auto tranny. I consistently got 22 mpg in highway driving / 17-18 mpg in bad traffic. This compares to my later, gutless 240s, also auto trans that managed 25 mpg (no OD) and 26 mpg (with OD) highway, and 20-22 mpg in traffic. I suspect tuning matters a lot, based on similar experience with D-Jetronic equipped 911s and V914s.
That 164 was a rocket, particularly from 20 to 80 mph, with quite respectable acceleration all the way to redline at about 118 mph. I can remember cruising uphill at my usual steady 70 mph with four people and a huge trunk full of luggage all the way to the top of the Eisenhower tunnel (11,200 ft / 3,410 m AMSL) on I-70 in Colorado. The only car that overtook me going uphill was a Saab 900 turbo. I got 22 mpg on that trip (LA to Ft. Collins) as well.RandallC 08:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Your mileage with a 1975 automatic 164 is about 35 to 50 percent higher than was experienced by most every other tester or owner of such a vehicle. Perhaps your odometer was optimistic. --Scheinwerfermann 22:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification on rallying below. Re: the mileage, the odometer was correct -- it tallied to published point to point road mileage tables, and I have driven the same routes in other vehicles. I did consistently keep the tire pressures much higher than factory (36 psi+ all around) for performance reasons. I had a light right foot at low speeds / low rpm and kept as close to 55 mph as I could when commuting, since I was spending $200/mo. on gas driving 360+ miles per week. Also, tires and motor oils in the mid-80s were much better than the 70s originals. I also bought decent gas (Shell or Unocal premium) because the motor pinged and plugs tended to foul on anything cheaper. I expect tuning / maintenance may also be a big factor -- it was with old D-Jet 911s. Maybe the car was a freak (accidentally blueprinted?) but I measured the mileage consistently over many months. It started out a bit lower, but after making adjustments, I got those figures for over a year, except when hotrodding. RandallC 09:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Production Rally program
Sorry, I have no source, but I recall the 164 being developed to qualify for a production rally program. That was supposed to be the reason for both the monster motor and the huge, gushy suspension travel. Anyone know if there is truth to that? My stock 164 had too much body roll, compared to its superb acceleration and brakes. But it handled and rode comparatively well on unpaved roads at speed.RandallC 08:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- That idea is not supported by any of the material I have on the 164, and does not stand up well to logic, given the heavy engine and luxury-orientated specification to which the 164 was built. The 140s were extensively supported by the factory in numerous different classes of rallye activities, as were the Amazons, but while there was some R-sport upgrade equipment made for the 164, rather little of it was orientated towards rallyists' needs. There might have been some 164s campaigned in some rallyes (just because I'm not aware of them does not make them nonexistent!) but the lighter 140s were very much more popular. --Scheinwerfermann 21:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Volvo 165
I know there is a lot of speculation about the production of one or 2 165s but i know with 100% certainty of one having been built in australia as a test car for the australian market. this is not speculation as i i know who owns the car and have seen it quite frequently and it has a very easy chassis number to remember: 1651362W000001. the car is red and has been fitted with most of the volvo rallye equipment and has considerable rust due to being just a test car. i'd be interested to hear if anyone else around knows of any other legit 165s Lotsofmagnets 19:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)lotsofmagnets
Confirm that this red 165 existed in Australia but haven't seen it for a few years. I believe it had triple solex carbies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.10.110.6 (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
i think it´s back down to the double as the triple setup had the problem of catching fire (!) but yes, it did have the triple at one stage but probably not for 6 years now Lotsofmagnets (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
