240 General: New (to me) 1980 Volvo 244

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

I liked my XJ40 a lot as well, nice cars but very expensive on parts. I know of one part common to "classic" Minis, Rover 800s and Jag XJ40s. For a Mini, "a fiver mate", for the 800, "That's 6 pounds to you" and for the Jag, "That will be £16 please sir, is that American Excess?"

Same part but produced in different colours, Mini is black, Rover is natural and Jag is red if memory serves. Out of those three, the Mini version is best because the dark pigment makes the material denser and therefore stronger/more durable. The Jag version is next best but no way am i paying £11 over odds for it!

Ford had their finger in the Jaguar pie for quite a while, building up their shares and bought them with Land-Rover from BMW in about 1997/8, hence the X-Type was launched soon after, based on a Mondeo chassis with AWD added and the Mazda-derived 2.5 V6 also used in the Probe 24v aka Mazda MX-6.

I suspect your PAS pipe needed a special Jaguar spanner simply for access, the oil pressure switch needed an "S" shaped open end spanner to remove and refit it.

How right you are about the cost of Jag parts Dave; as soon as it was put into the dark green box the price doubled.

The XJ 40 was a pretty good car, and I enjoyed owning and driving it, warts and all. It was much nicer than the BMW I had bought new previously - I never really got on with that car (320 touring - old shape).

I think you are right about the special tool, I seem to remember it was a sort of box spanner with an extremely cranked handle. The garage said it had tried everything over the years but there was no alternative to buying this special Jag tool (I suspect that cost quite a bit).

:-)

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

How right you are about the cost of Jag parts Dave; as soon as it was put into the dark green box the price doubled.

The XJ 40 was a pretty good car, and I enjoyed owning and driving it, warts and all. It was much nicer than the BMW I had bought new previously - I never really got on with that car (320 touring - old shape).

I think you are right about the special tool, I seem to remember it was a sort of box spanner with an extremely cranked handle. The garage said it had tried everything over the years but there was no alternative to buying this special Jag tool (I suspect that cost quite a bit).

:-)

To be honest Alan, it was the parts prices that heavily influenced my decision to get rid of my Jag and not have another unless Camelot is extremely benevolent!

That and the sheer weight of them, 1760kg kerb weight if memory serves on the XJ40 and similar on my previous Series III. Many moons ago a car fell of the jacks and the 2" section angle iron that was the towbar bracket hit me between the eyes, pinning me to the ground.

I "bench-pressed" it off me (pure adrenaline, couldn't shift it more than 1/4" a few days later, this time with the wheels on! ) but as i've got older i've come to realise that i couldn't do that now, even with adrenaline helping!

As such i've limited myself to nothing heavier than 1500kg unless i can crawl under it with the wheels still on!

Obviously i still don't stand much chance with 1500kg but it's easier to ensure the lifting gear won't fail.

The other reason is i discovered the Rover 827 which does everything the Jags did but quicker, more economically (both at the pumps and parts dept) and now, more exclusively although the reasons for that exclusivity are somewhat dubious!

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

To be honest Alan, it was the parts prices that heavily influenced my decision to get rid of my Jag and not have another unless Camelot is extremely benevolent!

That and the sheer weight of them, 1760kg kerb weight if memory serves on the XJ40 and similar on my previous Series III. Many moons ago a car fell of the jacks and the 2" section angle iron that was the towbar bracket hit me between the eyes, pinning me to the ground.

I "bench-pressed" it off me (pure adrenaline, couldn't shift it more than 1/4" a few days later, this time with the wheels on! ) but as i've got older i've come to realise that i couldn't do that now, even with adrenaline helping!

As such i've limited myself to nothing heavier than 1500kg unless i can crawl under it with the wheels still on!

Obviously i still don't stand much chance with 1500kg but it's easier to ensure the lifting gear won't fail.

The other reason is i discovered the Rover 827 which does everything the Jags did but quicker, more economically (both at the pumps and parts dept) and now, more exclusively although the reasons for that exclusivity are somewhat dubious!

Gosh Dave, that is quite a story - it must have been very scary at the time (hence enough adrenaline to bench press one end of a car weighing nearly 2 tons - Geoff Capes would have been proud of that)!

I'm with you on the cost of running the Jag - I remember it had a (quite primitive for these days) digital fuel consumption gauge that would show 7 MPG if one accelerated up a hill! Parts and servicing were expensive as well, I recall a few service bills being over a grand (remember this is 25 years ago). I suppose the costs of running a similar BMW or MB would have been the same - and that is why larger cars like that sell for almost nothing. Some of my neighbours (two lads in their twenties) run two BMW 6 series - both about 05 models, still nice looking cars and they only paid about 5 grand each for them. A lot of car for the money, but... .

I'd quite like to run a XJ40 now, but for the same reasons as you with your Rover 827 the RB is such a better solution. I have a drive big enough for 8 cars, but the XJ would fill it so I couldn't pass with another car, it would be very difficult to lift, hard to work on, far more complex and parts prices would be crippling. It would even make the RB's fuel consumption (25 MPG) seem quite economical.

The XJ40 does remain one of my favourite cars though - and like you I'd buy another Jag if I won the lotto.

Alan

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

Gosh Dave, that is quite a story - it must have been very scary at the time (hence enough adrenaline to bench press one end of a car weighing nearly 2 tons - Geoff Capes would have been proud of that)!

I'm with you on the cost of running the Jag - I remember it had a (quite primitive for these days) digital fuel consumption gauge that would show 7 MPG if one accelerated up a hill! Parts and servicing were expensive as well, I recall a few service bills being over a grand (remember this is 25 years ago). I suppose the costs of running a similar BMW or MB would have been the same - and that is why larger cars like that sell for almost nothing. Some of my neighbours (two lads in their twenties) run two BMW 6 series - both about 05 models, still nice looking cars and they only paid about 5 grand each for them. A lot of car for the money, but... .

I'd quite like to run a XJ40 now, but for the same reasons as you with your Rover 827 the RB is such a better solution. I have a drive big enough for 8 cars, but the XJ would fill it so I couldn't pass with another car, it would be very difficult to lift, hard to work on, far more complex and parts prices would be crippling. It would even make the RB's fuel consumption (25 MPG) seem quite economical.

The XJ40 does remain one of my favourite cars though - and like you I'd buy another Jag if I won the lotto.

Alan

Just to clarify Alan, it wasn't a Jag that fell on me, it was a Vauxhall VX2300, still a fairly weighty beast but a lot lighter than the Jag!

The Instantaneous Consumption display on the Jag fuel computer could be quite frightening at times. That said, if i kept it out of town (difficult as a lived in a concrete jungle at the time) i could usually see between 24-27mpg average although i did get the instant down to 5mpg once (and even 2mpg after resetting it and moving straight into barely moving traffic!) and town driving usually averaged 16-19mpg.

The only vehicle i've owned with a more voracious (consistent) thirst was a Mk2 1100 Escrot van, the vehicle that coined the "Escrot" change. I was lucky to see 12mpg on a good day out of that thing!

About 5 grand for a 15 year old car is still a lot of money, back in our day a 15 year old car was generally only fit for the knackers yard although as we moved into the 90s, 15 year old cars were becoming more common as good older cars.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

Just to clarify Alan, it wasn't a Jag that fell on me, it was a Vauxhall VX2300, still a fairly weighty beast but a lot lighter than the Jag!

The Instantaneous Consumption display on the Jag fuel computer could be quite frightening at times. That said, if i kept it out of town (difficult as a lived in a concrete jungle at the time) i could usually see between 24-27mpg average although i did get the instant down to 5mpg once (and even 2mpg after resetting it and moving straight into barely moving traffic!) and town driving usually averaged 16-19mpg.

The only vehicle i've owned with a more voracious (consistent) thirst was a Mk2 1100 Escrot van, the vehicle that coined the "Escrot" change. I was lucky to see 12mpg on a good day out of that thing!

About 5 grand for a 15 year old car is still a lot of money, back in our day a 15 year old car was generally only fit for the knackers yard although as we moved into the 90s, 15 year old cars were becoming more common as good older cars.

Bench pressing half a Vauxhall is still impressive Dave!

That computer on the XJ40 was a bit too candid I think Dave. It was still quite novel for the day (it must have been about a 1992 car, I bought it second hand when I was posted back from Germany in about 1994 - to replace that new BMW I never really got on with). The instantaneous consumption was a bit too instantaneous, I always though Jag would have been better off damping it a bit (maybe an average over a minute) so as not to scare the horses too much.

Did that Escrot have a hole in the tank?

A slight correction on those two Beemer 600s, they are 2007 and 2008 cars respectively (so a little younger than I thought, but I take your point), both cost just about £65,000 new and are worth around £4,000 each now. The two lads enjoy driving them around, and they are both pretty impressive cars for the money, but I suspect they are both sitting on ticking bombs when it comes to an inevitable large repair (particularly on the convertible one). I think I'm better off with the RB.

Alan

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

Bench pressing half a Vauxhall is still impressive Dave!

That computer on the XJ40 was a bit too candid I think Dave. It was still quite novel for the day (it must have been about a 1992 car, I bought it second hand when I was posted back from Germany in about 1994 - to replace that new BMW I never really got on with). The instantaneous consumption was a bit too instantaneous, I always though Jag would have been better off damping it a bit (maybe an average over a minute) so as not to scare the horses too much.

Did that Escrot have a hole in the tank?

A slight correction on those two Beemer 600s, they are 2007 and 2008 cars respectively (so a little younger than I thought, but I take your point), both cost just about £65,000 new and are worth around £4,000 each now. The two lads enjoy driving them around, and they are both pretty impressive cars for the money, but I suspect they are both sitting on ticking bombs when it comes to an inevitable large repair (particularly on the convertible one). I think I'm better off with the RB.

Alan

One of those times when the mythical "super-human strength" happens Alan, i'm still impressed about it but also know that it was a one-off and even at the time, only really half-remembered doing it.

Oddly your suggestion of a small amount of damping on the Jags instantaneous readout could have had the opposite effect to what you're thinking. Consider the scenario of being sat at the traffic lights for 5 minutes waiting for them to change. Instantaneous consumption would be zero mpg, only to be expected. The lights change and 30 seconds later it updates. By that point, you've only traveled 1/4 mile but were idling and used 1/4 gallon at the lights followed by another 1/4 gallon accelerating in the first 1/4 mile after the lights - that's half a gallon used and 1/4 mile traveled = 0.5mpg.

Now look at from the point you started moving as purely instantaneous, 1/4 mile, 1/4 gallon = 1mpg, much less scary than 0.5mpg.

Granted those figures were plucked out of the air to make the maths easy but illustrate the point nicely.

The overall average will reflect idling time as well as driving time and be slower to increase, i know when i filled mine up and zeroed the trip computer (fuel etc) as i exited theg arage forecourt it would creep up from 1 to 2mpg average and would take a while before it got nearer to showing the actual average consumption.

As for the Escrot, the tank was about the only place that didn't have a hole in it! The van struggled to reach 40mph (by which point ear defenders were mandatory) and 45mph was only possible downhill with the wind behind it!

Strangely i had a similar conversation with the MoT tester yesterday, he was saying that in 10, 20, 30 years time there won't be classics as we now know them, few if any cars from about 2000 on will have survived as some part of their complex electronics systems will have failed and the cost will exceed the value of the car for replacement so the car will be scrapped. Given how ugly "modern" cars are in general, that's probably a good thing but it's also a sad indictment of the disposable nature of life today.

[Dippydog]

Didn't have an XJ40 but had the follow on X300 which at £1250 was the most expensive[in terms of purchase price]car I've ever bought.Scared me silly to spend so much for a car! Apart from servicing[which I did myself]it cost me two tyres and two exhaust back boxes over 9yrs of ownership.Had to sell it as my late partner who was disabled at time couldn't get in/out of it because of its low ride height.My eldest brother owned a 7 series BMW back in the mid '80s which had the swinging needle fuel consumption indicator.I borrowed it once and cruising along at about 50mph it was showing somewhere round about 40mpg at a roundabout on tickover it showed about 8mpg and as I set off again[not nailing it]the needle disappeared off the bottom of the scale!

[john.wigley]

Gentlemen, why the fascination with instantaneous fuel consumption? It only tells you what the car is achieving at that precise point in time, often, as in 'L.S.'s example, when it is working hard under less than optimum conditions.

Of far more interest, I feel, is a car's average consumption. The fact that Alan's Royal Barge is achieving 25MPG is to both his and the car's credit. Alan's, because he is obviously driving it sympathetically, and the car's (which is also increasingly down to Alan's custodianship) because it is maintained to optimum efficiency. I, and I suspect most 240 owners, would have in period considered 25 more than reasonable, especially with a non-O/D auto car. Does it matter that it was only doing 8 immediately after starting from cold on full choke?

In period, without OBC, we weren't aware of instantaneous consumption so didn't worry about it - I sometimes think that it is possible to have too much information! For instance, I know that my present V70 has returned 29.1745 MPG over 12342 miles (the OBC says 29.7). I also know from a simple spreadsheet, latterly without the benefit even of a working fuel gauge, that my previous 745 did 27.3148 over 62746 miles. Those figures tell me that the cars were in a reasonable state of tune with no untoward problems (slightly binding brake, for example).

Having said all of that, it is still possible to be surprised. Our '81 244 averaged a consistent 23 - 25 MPG under normal operating conditions at home. The first time that we took it to Sweden, when we drove across the country (500KM) at an almost constant 90K/h, it exceeded 30 by some margin!!

There are so many variables associated with fuel consumption that I feel that an average figure, measured over as long a distance as possible, is the only reliable guide to a car's performance. Even then, another driver may achieve as much as +/- 10% variation in the same car driven under similar conditions, simply due to differences in driving style.

Stop fretting over the R.B.'s thirst, Alan - it really is quite a moderate drinker! We have been spoiled by the high fuel efficiency (not without cost) of modern engines and instantly available read-outs. As you recognise, it is a product from an earlier, much simpler age. Enjoy it in that spirit; the odd MPG either way is not going to make much difference in an annual mileage of a few thousand miles!

Regards, John.

[Stephen Edwin]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

...... Many moons ago a car fell of the jacks and the 2" section angle iron that was the towbar bracket hit me between the eyes, pinning me to the ground.....

OUCH !!!! David. OUCH !!!!



.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

Gentlemen, why the fascination with instantaneous fuel consumption? It only tells you what the car is achieving at that precise point in time, often, as in 'L.S.'s example, when it is working hard under less than optimum conditions.

Of far more interest, I feel, is a car's average consumption. The fact that Alan's Royal Barge is achieving 25MPG is to both his and the car's credit. Alan's, because he is obviously driving it sympathetically, and the car's (which is also increasingly down to Alan's custodianship) because it is maintained to optimum efficiency. I, and I suspect most 240 owners, would have in period considered 25 more than reasonable, especially with a non-O/D auto car. Does it matter that it was only doing 8 immediately after starting from cold on full choke?

In period, without OBC, we weren't aware of instantaneous consumption so didn't worry about it - I sometimes think that it is possible to have too much information! For instance, I know that my present V70 has returned 29.1745 MPG over 12342 miles (the OBC says 29.7). I also know from a simple spreadsheet, latterly without the benefit even of a working fuel gauge, that my previous 745 did 27.3148 over 62746 miles. Those figures tell me that the cars were in a reasonable state of tune with no untoward problems (slightly binding brake, for example).

Having said all of that, it is still possible to be surprised. Our '81 244 averaged a consistent 23 - 25 MPG under normal operating conditions at home. The first time that we took it to Sweden, when we drove across the country (500KM) at an almost constant 90K/h, it exceeded 30 by some margin!!

There are so many variables associated with fuel consumption that I feel that an average figure, measured over as long a distance as possible, is the only reliable guide to a car's performance. Even then, another driver may achieve as much as +/- 10% variation in the same car driven under similar conditions, simply due to differences in driving style.

Stop fretting over the R.B.'s thirst, Alan - it really is quite a moderate drinker! We have been spoiled by the high fuel efficiency (not without cost) of modern engines and instantly available read-outs. As you recognise, it is a product from an earlier, much simpler age. Enjoy it in that spirit; the odd MPG either way is not going to make much difference in an annual mileage of a few thousand miles!

Regards, John.

Playing "Devils Advocate" John, your figures are still wrong! Usually the speedos in our beasts read anything up to 10% fast and so do the odometers so the chances are in real terms, whatever you averaged in your 244 was really 21-23mpg.

After that tongue-in-cheek pedantry, fuel economy is still really only a guide as to what the engine is doing at any given time. I always think it's more about the consistency with a datum point, rather than specific instances of extreme (good or bad) economy.

The "fascination with instantaneous consumption" came from the fact the XJ40 (which both Alan and i have owned) had a trip computer as standard which not only showed fuel economy but distance (two separate trip meters built in if memory serves), speed, fuel used, range and so on - can't remember all the functions but there were quite a few.
Being a near-2T car with a 226bhp 3.6L engine (or 240bhp 4.0L engine depending on age), it could achieve some seriously scary instantaneous figures!
Almost any car will get down to single figures under acceleration, particularly when cold. It's simply the fact that we don't normally see this and therefore aren't aware that it isn't more widely discussed.