Seriously?

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

I'd forgotten the EcoTech series, gutless wonders which is probably why i forgot them!

Took a 130bhp 2.0 8 valve and reduced it to a smidge over 100bhp with allegedly more torque low down but wouldn't pull your granny off the toilet.

The original Family II 1.6 carb engine (in 1981/2/3) was 90bhp, by the time they'd added injection and Ecotech is was struggling to 82bhp and was again, gutless.
They started faffing about with them from about 84 onwards until they'd destroyed the free-revving nature of the engine by about 1988.

I suppose we have emissions regulations to thank for those developments Dave, the 1980s was a time when electronics allowed us to control the combustion process somewhat better, and governments used that to insist what came out of the tailpipe was less dangerous (and there was less of it) rather than increasing power.

Technology has come on a bit in 40 years and today we have the ability to produce much higher specific power outputs at the same time as much less harmful emissions and better fuel economy - the downside is the electronics are hardly ever worth fixing only a decade after leaving the factory, so otherwise serviceable vehicles are being scrapped because of a failed computer. This more frequent cycle of building and scrapping uses more energy of course - so the whole system is not as efficient as it might appear to the end user.

This thread has strayed quite far from 'Volvo 200 Series Sales' - but has developed into quite an interesting thread. I quite enjoy reading about 1980s GM cars.

Time for Bob's first walk.

:-)

[biggbn]

Originally Posted by Dippydog

You could well be right about the Calibra/Cavalier engines although I think they all came under the Ecotec banner.The later 2.6/3.2 V6s used in the Omega were I believe tuned for more bottom end torque than the 2.5/3.0 and the 2.6/3.2 were "drive by wire" rather than cable operated throttle of the 2.5/3.0.

Owned a brace of 2.5 v6 omega and a v6 calibra which was lovely. One of my old saabs also had a lightly blown 2.8 v6 gm engine, absolute cracking car with a 6 speed manual box.

[loki_the_glt]

Back in the 1970s Honda came out with the CVCC (Controlled Vortex Combustion Chamber) engine for the North American markets, Canada having less restrictive emissions rules than the Colonials, that used lean-burn to control undesirable emissions instead of a catalytic perverter. At the same time Chrysler had a version of their 318 cu. in. engine that did something similar by using a high-compression head.

Both companies were engineering-led, and Honda still are, so applied thought to the matter.

GM-Opel's Family One and Family Two SOHC fours, as used in Cavalier Mark 2/Ascona and some late Mantas, was described as the "Low End Torque" engine despite it producing less torque in a more peaky fashion than the older Vauxhall Slant-4 or the even older Opel Cam-in-Head lump. They also had a 40-50,000 mile lifespan, at which point the cylinder bores usually went oval or the head warped. The only saving grace of the design was that a FWD clutch could be changed, in situ, in 15 minutes or so.

As the late Patrick Hutber's Law states: "improvement means deterioration".

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by loki_the_glt

Back in the 1970s Honda came out with the CVCC (Controlled Vortex Combustion Chamber) engine for the North American markets, Canada having less restrictive emissions rules than the Colonials, that used lean-burn to control undesirable emissions instead of a catalytic perverter. At the same time Chrysler had a version of their 318 cu. in. engine that did something similar by using a high-compression head.

Both companies were engineering-led, and Honda still are, so applied thought to the matter.

GM-Opel's Family One and Family Two SOHC fours, as used in Cavalier Mark 2/Ascona and some late Mantas, was described as the "Low End Torque" engine despite it producing less torque in a more peaky fashion than the older Vauxhall Slant-4 or the even older Opel Cam-in-Head lump. They also had a 40-50,000 mile lifespan, at which point the cylinder bores usually went oval or the head warped. The only saving grace of the design was that a FWD clutch could be changed, in situ, in 15 minutes or so.

As the late Patrick Hutber's Law states: "improvement means deterioration".

Allelujah to all of that! There were many engines around the world that used lean-burn technology to achieve the correct emissions without the need for a paralytic perverter and even the Family I & II OHC GM lumps achieved good emissions on carbs when correctly set up.

The bug-bear was that horrible mixing bucket known as the GM Varajet II carb.

Good instrument providing it had zero wear and no Meddlesome Matty Fingers had been trying to adjust the idle without any knowledge of how it worked, which could result in an absolutely flat engine all the way up to the redline with horrendous emissions, pinking and/or retarded ignition and still a poor idle.

I resorted to building a water manometer to set mine up correctly to produce the ~8" water depression on the advance stub @ idle and after that it was fine until it got worn and started throwing fuel in like it was trying to feed a 12 litre instead of a 2 litre.

Cue one 32/36DGAV Weber conversion, later replaced with a 38 DGAS and the Varajet-II was polished up and served its only useful purpose of adorning the mantlepiece. i binned it really!

The Family I & II engines were primarily designed for "rep-mobiles" and as such were happiest being thrashed on the motorway all day long and tended to go on forever if so, if they were treated as we'd always been taught to treat engines before that, they did indeed go pear-shaped at ~50k miles.

[biggbn]

I loved the manta, had the older 2.0 and I also really rated the mk2 cavalier. The 1.8i and 2.0i in 8v and 16v forms were fliers.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by biggbn

I loved the manta, had the older 2.0 and I also really rated the mk2 cavalier. The 1.8i and 2.0i in 8v and 16v forms were fliers.

I had the Mk1 Cavalier Coupe 2.0 GLS (twice) George plus a couple of other Mk1 Cavs and a 3.0i Royale Coupe (aka Monza 3.0E) plus a few Mk2 Cavs and a Mk3, also had a few Astras (Mk2s including a 1.8 SRi company car and a couple of Mk3s inc a 2.0 SRi, slower than the Mk2 1.8SRi), a Mk1 Carlton (2.0 CIH, same as the Mk1 Cav) - all good cars but as the engines got newer the cowshed confetti about power output increased while the power decreased.

The early Mk2 Cavs were better than the later ones and the Mk3 Cav was a bit of a pale imitation of the Mk2. Also owned a Daewoo Espero (2.0 CDX, 8v Family II engine) and a Leganza (2.0 16v Daewoo/Holden version of the Ecotec) which were in simple terms Korean Cav Mk3 and Vectra Mk1 respectively but the Leganza had Lotus-tuned suspension so handled and rode really nicely, shame Lotus weren't allowed under the bonnet though!

I had other Vauxhalls too but those are the ones relvant for this bit of conversation.

[Othen]

Good morn chaps,

I have just noticed this one on eBay:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Volvo-244...0AAOSwCU9fZkTo

I suppose everything has a value, but are we serious about a non-running MoT failure being worth £1695 just because it is nearly 40 years old?

The seller says he doesn't know why the cam has been removed, I checked the last photo and it really has been taken off (along with the belt and cover). I suspect the garage that tried to fix the oil leak decided it wasn't worth trying. The MoT history is very patchy (the last MoT didn't just run out in June, it failed with some serious faults) - generally they alternate pass/fail over the past few years so the car has been a bit unloved. It has rust in all the usual places...

I have no axe to grind over this particular sale, I suspect the seller got it for nothing from the garage that decided it was not worth fixing and is just chancing his arm, but surely it can't be healthy for something like this to be worth the asking price only because it is nearly 40 years old - when the owner could legitimately run it on the road with no MoT test?

I can't help thinking this one is £60 at the scrap yard after a £100 tow to get there.

Alan

[Laird Scooby]

He forgot the decimal point between the "£16" and the "95" Alan!

I've seen worse but can't remember when or what!

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

He forgot the decimal point between the "£16" and the "95" Alan!

I've seen worse but can't remember when or what!

... I think you are right there Dave. It seems to be a thing of this age: that everything remotely old must be worth a lot, regardless of whether it is rubbish or not.

[Triple-S]

That car is totally rusted out crap! If I remember from a long time ago the seller is a banger-racer, and perhaps the lockdown won't allow him his corrupt "pleasure" of destroying it for pleasure. Therefore just looking for a sucker.

P