In most cases, there is nothing inherently wrong with the starters that came on our classics. Like a noble workhorse, they step up and do their jobs over and over again. The problem is that many of these units have been doing that job for 40 or 50 years. Just like that workhorse, these starters need to be put out …
Given that the gear reduction starters tend to cost between double and 2.5 times what the original style did, one has to think a bit before going that way.
I own several cars that use BMC B series engines and the late style of pre-engaged starter has considerably more grunt than the original early starters did and because they pre-engage with the teeth before exerting torque, they are bolt in replacement for the early style despite the fact that the ring gear teeth are chamfered the opposite way. I run a stock late MGB starter on my race engine, which is 12:1 compression and is a fairly stiff challenge to a starter and the stock late style BMC unit performs just fine.
Given the possible misfitting issue that you mentioned and the large price differential, I tend not to bother fitting the gear reduction style.
Putting a modern gear reduction starter in my 1973 Alfa Romeo Spider in 2014 was the single best modification I've made to it in my 47 years of ownership. The difference in the speed with which it cranks the engine over is night and day compared to the origianl Bosch starter.
I use them in almost all the project cars I build and have never had a starter problem.
After doing a little research I discovered that Volvo used the same starter in the 1960's B18's (and probably even earlier in the B16's...) up through the 240 volvos in the 1980's. Then around the mid-late 80s they changed over to a gear reduction unit. Thus, while I have not yet confirmed personally, I'm strongly suspicious the later 240 gear reduction starters are a drop-in replacement for the heavy old starters in the B16/B18/B20 found in pV444, PV544, Amazons/ 122, 1800, and 140's.
As it happens I have a new gear reduction starter out of a 240, and plenty of b18's/ b20's to try it in...
I guess I'm lucky. I own a Datsun 240Z and a factory gear reduction starter from a later model 280ZX bolts right in. I've had this setup for several years now with no issues.
Adding the newer, smaller and lighter starter to my Datsun helps with room for the headers that will happen, in the furure.
Getting the original out of the car is no fun, but it happened. Taking a page from the Lotus play book, lightness has been added!
In reply to jr02518 :
Wow, what a difference.
I'd express a little concern here if switching from a "crash" or pull starter to the push type. Used to play with English Ford engines (Super 7) and we never switched types of starters without switching flywheels. The pull type starter had a flywheel with the ring gear applied from the back. The push type had a flywheel with the ring gear applied from the front. In both cases it seated against a lip with the starter pushing or pulling against that lip. I had heard (never experienced) horror stories of starters removing ring gears over time. Is this not the case when switching on other British cars?
I have a 99 Ford 7.3 litre diesel. Twin batteries of course.
OEM starter quit in my driveway [thank you].
I put in an aftermarket gear reduction. About double price.
Cranks faster than a little 4-banger now. Starts faster. Perhaps the batteries will last longer.
Well worth my money.
Oh, and the truck only weighs 5642 lbs now!
I have a 99 Ford 7.3 litre diesel. Twin batteries of course.
OEM starter quit in my driveway [thank you].
I put in an aftermarket gear reduction. About double price.
Cranks faster than a little 4-banger now. Starts faster. Perhaps the batteries will last longer.
Well worth my money.
Oh, and the truck only weighs 5642 lbs now!
Switched to a gear reduction starter on my 6volt Porsche 356. It helped solve a common "turns over very slowly when hot" starting issue on these cars. An Optima battery helped also...
I had good luck with these starters on MGB, but sb chevys trap heat around the starter with the exhaust then they need to cool. The newer delco starters weigh a little more but handle the heat. BTW I do live in Phoenix.
volvoclearinghouse said:After doing a little research I discovered that Volvo used the same starter in the 1960's B18's (and probably even earlier in the B16's...) up through the 240 volvos in the 1980's. Then around the mid-late 80s they changed over to a gear reduction unit. Thus, while I have not yet confirmed personally, I'm strongly suspicious the later 240 gear reduction starters are a drop-in replacement for the heavy old starters in the B16/B18/B20 found in pV444, PV544, Amazons/ 122, 1800, and 140's.
As it happens I have a new gear reduction starter out of a 240, and plenty of b18's/ b20's to try it in...
Hi there Volvoclearinghouse!
Firstly I hope I am not bothering anyone by bumping this post.
I am a new member here and signed up in order to ask of your progress on this theory you have, sir?
I too am a proud Classic Volvo enthusiast and I am currently trying to source parts or a new starter for my 1959 Volvo PV544. It has the early B16B motor and is becoming harder and harder to source parts for.
May I ask if you have validated this theory that the 240 starter may have interchangeable parts to the predecessor starter models (B16/18/20)?
Gladly, I found another forum post that said the grinding noise I'm experiencing on my B16 starter is the solenoid to fork distance, and so after I adjust that, I hope that I can continue to search for parts and attempt to rebuild the starter myself
Your comment on competent rebuilders struck a chord. I bought local rebuilts (not gear drive) and had them fail within weeks. Turns out in my case they replaced a scabby looking OEM phenolic insulator inside on the main contact with nylon. Under use, the main contact gets really hot under 150-or-so amps of starting current.
Phenolic is designed to take this; nylon is not and softens under heat. This allows the main contact to embed itself in the nylon, almost out of reach of the 2nd half of the sliding electrical connection. Result- no stable contact and failure-to-start, especially with a hot engine.
The poor-boy-fix was to remove the impervious OEM phenolic insulator from your core starter before turning it in. Then you get to tear apart a brand-new rebuild, swap insulators and go about your business without further trouble. Point is, we shouldn't have to!
And that's far from the only rookie mistake rebuilding shops perform. It took my neighbor THREE rebuilt starters for his Lambo Miura before he got one that worked twice in a row. National-debt-priced OEMs were not stocked on this side of the planet at the time. FWIW, Miura starters are R & R-ed by Braile- you can't even SEE two of the three mount bolts! Not fun....
In reply to Carl Heideman :
For Vintage racing they are a normal, no thought replacement. Lighter? Draws less currant? What's not to love?
However, original they are not.
Alternators are better in most regards than Generators. But they too will cost you a lot of originality points.
As we go down that improvement sloop it gets slippery.
In reply to GrizwoldsZ :
Even Jaguar went to gear reduction start starting in 1993. Unbolt the old is at least a 3 hour project and that's if the exhaust system will come apart.
The gear reduction drops in from the top and is barely a 1/2 hour job.
You'll need to log in to post.
