240 General: New (to me) 1980 Volvo 244

[Laird Scooby]

If you're doing any vinyl on the roof Alan, i'd extend your 4" idea to line up with the B posts, that way it would tie in with the tinted rear widows and look more like it's meant to be.

Either that or do the whole roof or nothing, just sort the paintwork.

Milliput is amazing stuff, i first used it errrr......... years ago during my apprenticeship. I call it "plasticine for Grown-ups" as once you've moulded it into shape, it stays there and sets hard. It's not great at "thin layer adhesive" but does stick well when used thickly. Repaired the mounting holes on my under-dash panel with it :


Before ^^^^^


After ^^^^^

First time i'd used it for years, not perfect but very close to the original shape and is still doing well.

You've alreday made vast improvements to many areas of the car, no need to panic over getting everything done and dusted quickly although it's nice to see the enthusiasm!

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

... I can't help thinking the headlamps in this picture look just like the ones on the Royal Barge:



:-)

Nothing like them at all Alan! Those are on the post 82/83 240 series and having seen that manual now, it's NOT a Haynes!

Useful for keeping in the bathroom though!

Just noticed not one, but TWO glaring errors on the front cover of that Autodata book! The engine capacities, should be 2127cc and 2316cc - they managed to get the 1986cc correct so why get the others wrong?

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

If you're doing any vinyl on the roof Alan, i'd extend your 4" idea to line up with the B posts, that way it would tie in with the tinted rear widows and look more like it's meant to be.

Either that or do the whole roof or nothing, just sort the paintwork.

Milliput is amazing stuff, i first used it errrr......... years ago during my apprenticeship. I call it "plasticine for Grown-ups" as once you've moulded it into shape, it stays there and sets hard. It's not great at "thin layer adhesive" but does stick well when used thickly. Repaired the mounting holes on my under-dash panel with it :

First time i'd used it for years, not perfect but very close to the original shape and is still doing well.

You've alreday made vast improvements to many areas of the car, no need to panic over getting everything done and dusted quickly although it's nice to see the enthusiasm!

Good point about the roof Dave, I'm thinking I might get someone to wrap the whole roof in black - and re-cover the the topmost stripes on the wings at the same time. I think the car would look really good with a black roof, and that it would suit the rest of the car well. Do you think the sunroof would be okay covered in vinyl? This would be a longer term project - maybe after the gearbox upgrade.

The Milliput job on your panel looks first class - I'll order some anyway, I can think of many jobs it would have been useful for if I'd known about it.

I'm enjoying the small improvements I've been able to make in the Royal Barge, it was far too good a car to allow to die in a ditch.

Alan

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

Nothing like them at all Alan! Those are on the post 82/83 240 series and having seen that manual now, it's NOT a Haynes!

Useful for keeping in the bathroom though!

Just noticed not one, but TWO glaring errors on the front cover of that Autodata book! The engine capacities, should be 2127cc and 2316cc - they managed to get the 1986cc correct so why get the others wrong?

... that just shows how little I know Dave!

Re: the manual - I saw it advertised in eBay for a fiver before I even bought the car, it is useful to know what one is looking at when buying and I'd planned to see a few more (in the end I thought the Royal Barge was just fine for me).

I'm guessing from what you are saying that I should have bought the Haynes manual - so I'll order one today.

One learns something new every day (... well, maybe not every day).

:-) Alan

PS. I've just ordered the Haynes book from eBay (second hand).

[john.wigley]

I'm thinking that the 2130 and 2320 are not errors as such, 'L.S.', but 'roundings' of 2127 and 2316 respectively. That doesn't explain the 1986 though, which should be 1990 to be consistent!

Regards, John.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

I'm thinking that the 2130 and 2320 are not errors as such, 'L.S.', but 'roundings' of 2127 and 2316 respectively. That doesn't explain the 1986 though, which should be 1990 to be consistent!

Regards, John.

That thought crossed my mind too John but the fact they got the 1986cc bit right implies they were either too lazy to find the correct figures or really just didn't care. Either way it implies a slip-shod attitude to the whole book and how many more mistakes are contained, potentially much more important mistakes?

I have an Autodata database that covers all makes/models for tuning, timing belt replacement and a few other tasks likely to be needed in a garage, a useful point of reference but for anything really important, i always double-check. I know there are many mistakes in that as well, some of which could be very costly!

While Haynes make the occasional mistake, it is the exception rather than the rule and usually due to either printing errors or someone has supplied them duff information. However they do generally point out the reader should verify the information given.

[loki_the_glt]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

Nothing like them at all Alan! Those are on the post 82/83 240 series and having seen that manual now, it's NOT a Haynes!

Useful for keeping in the bathroom though!

Just noticed not one, but TWO glaring errors on the front cover of that Autodata book! The engine capacities, should be 2127cc and 2316cc - they managed to get the 1986cc correct so why get the others wrong?

A 240GLT with an egg-crate grille! And the car's an RHD one - doubly desirable, to me at least. Permission to drool?

[Othen]

You chaps just know so much about 200 series cars!
Alan

[loki_the_glt]

Originally Posted by loki_the_glt

A 240GLT with an egg-crate grille! And the car's an RHD one - doubly desirable, to me at least. Permission to drool?

I've just noticed it's got internally-adjustable mirrors rather than electric ones. So not quite so desirable... But I'd still like the grille.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

That might be the right gearbox Alan, however the pics are a tad blurry and no close up of the ID label to know for sure. I don't suppose you happen to know what box you have at the moment?
If you have a look at this thread, i know Luke (360beast) has a few autoboxes available :

https://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showthread.php?t=287440

I doubt they'll sell quickly and i suspect he may have more in the future so worth making contact.

As a general rule of thumb, updating one autobox for another is easier than doing a manual conversion. It's not just the gearbox you have to change, the flywheel, clutch, sometimes the starter motor, pedal box (to gain a clutch pedal), centre console, gearlever (obviously! ) and a few other bits i'm sure i've forgotten.
It's not impossible but the other thing to consider is the character of the car - does it suit an auto box? Do you do much town driving? If the answer is yes to both of those then i'd suggest updating the auto - if you don't do much town driving and you feel as if the character of the car would suit a manual as well as an auto, then go for a manual conversion.

Here is the close up of the auto gearbox's ID plate Dave:



Alan