|
Post by enigmas on Aug 18, 2008 22:06:12 GMT
Hey Warwick, I was just thinking since you’ve got a car with a few oil leaks underneath that may need attending and it has all the components for the Volvo steering conversion, would it be a hard thing to unbolt the adaptor plate and remove it for measurement. Since it’s tapped and threaded, it shouldn’t be too difficult removing the bolts and sliding the plate out leaving the steering box in situ. Then the measurements would be simplified.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Nottingham on Aug 18, 2008 22:13:28 GMT
Looking at the diagram and the inlet/out unions it may be that the lid/cap can be repositioned? Unless it is artists licence as they are on top in the diagram compared to the drop arm but on the side in the photos and its difficult to tell wether the caseing is symetrical This would allow pipe disconnection without removal of the unit? The drawiing indicates that it is NOT a variable ratio but then The Hydramatic is variable ratio and although virtually identical in straight ahead on early boxes it was 16.1 on later ones (11.3:1 full lock) so the steering will feel different - I am surprised the ZF feels actually better I know my current P5B saloon the late type box and I thought the slightly heavier steering to my other P5B was due just to wear in the original 1969 box in this other P5B. Perhaps it was the improved design/higher ratio. Strange only one ratio was offered in the parts manual
|
|
|
Post by Warwick on Aug 19, 2008 0:11:33 GMT
Looking at the diagram and the inlet/out unions it may be that the lid/cap can be repositioned? Unless it is artists licence as they are on top in the diagram compared to the drop arm but on the side in the photos and its difficult to tell wether the caseing is symetrical This would allow pipe disconnection without removal of the unit? I think you could be right Phil. It would also make sense from a manufacturing point of view to make it more easily adapted to left or right-hand drive.
|
|
|
Post by Warwick on Aug 19, 2008 0:23:28 GMT
Hey Warwick, I was just thinking since you’ve got a car with a few oil leaks underneath that may need attending and it has all the components for the Volvo steering conversion, would it be a hard thing to unbolt the adaptor plate and remove it for measurement. Since it’s tapped and threaded, it shouldn’t be too difficult removing the bolts and sliding the plate out leaving the steering box in situ. Then the measurements would be simplified. The same thing occurred to me on Sunday, Vince. So I trapesed through the drizzle and long wet grass to the new shed - opened the bonnet - tried to get my hands near the bolts - got on my hands and knees on the dirt floor and had a look underneath - saw all the dry red dirt stuck all over my wet boots and pants - pulled the dipstick out and found the guide tube came with it - thought about it all for a few minutes - then went back inside by the fire and had a cuppa and a bit of a lie down. It's a job for the ramps on the concrete floor in the big shed, or on my mate's hoist. How soon are you considering doing it?
|
|
|
Post by enigmas on Aug 19, 2008 12:59:12 GMT
I thought you might arrive at that conclusion especially in winter...but it was worth a try. As far as doing it myself I tend to think it's a piece of cake with all the components in hand and especially if the 'kit' bolts straight in. Perhaps you could still provide the measurements and a close up pic of the modified universal coupling (in situ).
My cars a daily driver but I have been known through force of circumstances to rebuild things in a weekend when push comes to shove. Currently I need to rebuild my exhaust system from the gearbox back and want to build a twin system with a pipe exiting each side just within the rear guards.
As for fitting the volvo PSB once I have these components in hand I'll do it. It just takes longer if I have to extrapolate measurements.
|
|
|
Post by Warwick on Aug 20, 2008 0:09:09 GMT
I'll see if I can get the camera close enough to the coupling next weekend.
I'll see what I can do about measuring the plate in a couple of months once I've had time to get her running properly.
|
|
|
Post by enigmas on Aug 20, 2008 11:35:20 GMT
Adaptor plate: Volvo PSB to P5 Subframe.
According to a reliable source the adaptor plate is 110 mm square (but ideally could have been a little more, say 115mm sq).
Thickness of the plate is 16mm, trued in a milling machine to ensure accuracy.
Now folks the only thing required is the orientation and size of the tapped holes on the plate?
So who else out there in the ether has done this conversion?
|
|
|
Post by Warwick on Aug 21, 2008 0:18:49 GMT
Have you tried checking the Volvo forums Vince? Look for someone who has put a P5 steering box into a Volvo 164, then make a mirror image of the adaptor plate.
|
|
|
Post by enigmas on Aug 21, 2008 9:47:11 GMT
Very funny Warwick. That would be in the category of retro technology.
|
|
|
Post by dorsetflyer on Aug 21, 2008 14:46:26 GMT
Taken on face value it could be very true. If the 164's are few and far between, and there are more P5's around then it stands to reason a P5 box could be re-vamped to fit/replace the Volvo box.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Nottingham on Aug 21, 2008 15:31:44 GMT
Precisely when did you last see a Volvo 164 very very rare in the UK unlike the 140 and 240's.
The P5/ P5B also was produced longer although 164 ceased in September 1974. This ZF box appears unique to the 164 too
|
|
|
Post by Paul - P5B Coupe on Aug 21, 2008 22:53:25 GMT
Thanks to all for your info on the Volvo steering box box conversion - particularly Vince and Warwick. I have purchased a box from Voldat in Melbourne and will wait for a spec on the mounting plate and any other installation hints that may come to light before making arrangements to get it installed in my 71 P5B Coupe.
Regards, Paul.
|
|
|
Post by enigmas on Aug 22, 2008 14:45:10 GMT
Here are a couple of drawings that I managed to extrapolate from both steering boxes. The mount to the Rover sub-frame at the top right hand corner of the plate will require a spacer yet to be calculated. Other adapters referred to on this post obviously don't use this support? Measurements may vary slightly and the best bet would be to make an adapter from wood and trial it and then correct measurements where needed. Holes in the Volvo box are 10mm (3/8") and need to be tapped smaller for obvious reasons. Note: Most images restored but some may be missing with regard to text above.
|
|
|
Post by johnwp5bcoupe on Aug 22, 2008 20:36:25 GMT
Good info thanks Vince
|
|
|
Post by Warwick on Aug 23, 2008 2:39:10 GMT
Vince and Paul, as long as neither of you is in a screaming hurry, I can pull the plate out in a couple of months and measure it. Once the car is mobile again, I can even compare the relative positions of the 2 pitman arms on mine and a standard P5.
Then we will know once and for all, and have it recorded.
Vince, would you be able to ask the Voldat man if the ZF box is shared with any other Volvo?
|
|
|
Post by enigmas on Aug 23, 2008 4:54:50 GMT
I could, but I'm all done on this piece of research Warwick... My next phase is to mock up a trial adapter and check the hole locations.
As an added aside the friction within the volvo box is much less than the Rover unit. I'm certain that anyone who has driven the car and can compare one unit with the other will notice much improved steering response and caster return even with the negligible caster of the P5B.
ANY Rover P5 6 cyl owners...this conversion should also benefit your vehicles.
Disclaimer: These drawings are my 'working' extrapolations and are only intended as personal research information.
(Thanks John, I hope the info is of use to you.)
|
|
|
Post by Warwick on Aug 23, 2008 5:36:05 GMT
If you're getting stuck into it straightaway Vince, then I guess you're best left to it. If you are prepared to make mock-ups and identify exactly what dimensions the plate needs to be, then there's not really much point me removing mine.
If you produce an adaptor design of your own to the standards that you have applied to your brakes and rear-end, then whatever you come up with should be the design that gets recorded and passed on.
|
|
|
Post by enigmas on Aug 23, 2008 10:30:44 GMT
It's not that I need to do it straight away Warwick, but somehow on impulse I got the bit between my teeth and like a dog with a bone want to continue with it whilst the info is still fresh in my mind. I'll end up forgetting how I arrived at some measurements in a few weeks so I need to keep notes and develop drawings. I completed the drawings last night whilst partially watching a doco on King Henry the Eighth on foxtel. (7pm to 12.30 am). I plan to fit the unit during the next lot of school holidays...about 4 weeks or so away. So I need to have all the component parts in hand as the vehicle is my daily driver. It also forces me into some maintenance. Interesting Warwick, your unit may be held to the subframe by 2 bolts and not 3 unless there is something else up there that I'm unaware of. Could you provide me with the length of the 'modified coupling' (i.e. from the Volvo universal joint to the T fiitting that bolts to the rubber coupling as per drawing below). Thanks ~ Vince
|
|
theroveringmember
Rover Fanatic
P5B Saloon - P4 110 - P6B x2 - 2200TC - 2000TC (S1) 2000SC........How Many Is Too Many?
Posts: 446
|
Post by theroveringmember on Aug 23, 2008 15:17:03 GMT
I plan to fit the unit during the next lot of school holidays. Blimey Vince. You're a lot younger than I assumed you would be. The headmaster must be heaping gold stars on you for that work. ;D
|
|
|
Post by enigmas on Aug 24, 2008 0:43:47 GMT
Don't assume too much about my age I was born in the early 50's and my eldest baby is 25. This stuff has absolutely nothing to do with my teaching and is what keeps me sane!
|
|
|
Post by Warwick on Aug 24, 2008 5:35:14 GMT
Warwick, your unit may be held to the subframe by 2 bolts and not 3 unless there is something else up there that I'm unaware of. Could you provide me with the length of the 'modified coupling' (i.e. from the Volvo universal joint to the T fiitting that bolts to the rubber coupling as per drawing below). Thanks ~ Vince I've had a good look today Vince, short of crawling under the car. The plate is attached to the subframe at 3 points and the Volvo box is attached at all of its 4 points. The plate, as far as I can see, is rectangular with square corners and has been ground away in the area you indicated to accommodate a bulge in the ZF casting. The plate is 17mm thick and there may be a packing shim or two behind it. Difficult to say but it looks like there may be. There are 3 bolt-heads visible on the subframe inside the wheel well. However, under the bonnet on the ZF side the front 2 attaching points use bolts that are screwed into tapped holes in the plate, BUT the rear 2 points are held by Nyloc nuts. I can't see any reason to use tapped holes at the front and studs at the rear. Therefore, it seems likely to me that the previous owner's recollection that a couple of the mounting holes lined up is correct. If this is the case, and you have a 164 box, mine may be from a different model. But something doesn't add up. As for the couplings, they are hard up against each other as if one is fitted to the other - i.e. no adapter. The ZF has a small uni joint fitted to it and this is fully onto the spline to the point where the ZF's input shaft touches the cross of the UJ. All the movement takes place in the rubber disc of the Rover coupling. (Not sure if this is a good idea, or even intentional, but will investigate further later). The steel uni joint's upper yoke is hard up against the underside of the rubber coupling, and the Rover coupling is almost all the way up the spline of the steering shaft. I've taken some good photos but can't download the camera at home. The cable is at work. Will post tomorrow morning.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Nottingham on Aug 24, 2008 7:16:31 GMT
Surely the Volvo's universal joint is driver safety to allow the column to collapse in a front end crash which tyeh P5 has no provsion for - the rubber disk is only to minimise vibration and damage caused by holding on full lock.
The joint may also allow a different column rake
|
|
|
Post by johnwp5bcoupe on Aug 24, 2008 8:44:37 GMT
Would it not be easier to adapt the Volvo UJ straight on to the Rover splines?
|
|
|
Post by enigmas on Aug 24, 2008 9:14:23 GMT
As far as my reading of the adaptor and the box go this is what follows. 1. The splined shaft of the Volvo is smaller (in diameter) hence the (Volvo) universal joint only fits the splines on the Volvo box. 2. The Rover subframe is rubber mounted and 'moves' (not a good thing but this is Rover technology of the 50's). 3. This movement needs to be absorbed somewhere and this is the purpose of the rubber coupling. 4. The 2 shafts within each box are quite close when measured. 5. The 'coupling' most likely fits and is positioned at slightly downward angle as viewed from the driver's seat? 6. The universal coupling with its splined end is 'locked' to the Volvo box with a pinch bolt. 7. A side benefit of the Volvo universal joint coupling in tandem with the Rover rubber coupling would be to allow for slight movement and limit bind when the subframe flexes on its rubber mounts during vehicle movement.
Warwick, yeah the plate needs to be rectanglular to incorporate the top RH mounting. If you take a look at the dimensions on the Rover box (refer to p3) the distance from the extreme LH mounting hole and the mounting hole on the right would be 5 11/16" from centre to centre. For the plate to span the distance correctly it would have to be 170mm wide at a minimum, or 6 11/16".
By Adapter Warwick, I am refering to the modified Volvo Splined Universal fitting. The original Volvo unit has doubled ended universals...like a small tailshaft. (Refer to diagram on this page)
Ideally in Imperial measurement 4 1/4" x 6 11/16" and it would still require the spacer for the top rear mount...unless something else has been done?
* John..No. Refer to Point 1. (Easier to cut and MIG/TIG weld the rover fitting to the Volvo universal joint retaining one universal to fit the Volvo PSB and the Rover fitting to bolt to the Rover Rubber coupling on the steering shaft.
|
|
|
Post by Warwick on Aug 24, 2008 12:09:53 GMT
Surely the Volvo's universal joint is driver safety to allow the column to collapse in a front end crash which tyeh P5 has no provsion for - the rubber disk is only to minimise vibration and damage caused by holding on full lock. The joint may also allow a different column rake On the first point Phil, I think you're right. They would have been offset so that a force couldn't be transmitted straight up the Volvo's steering column. This car was from the era when Volvo's main marketing focus was on crash survival. However, on the second point, I think the rubber disc is there to provide compensation for minor misalignment, as well as subframe movement.
|
|