240 General: New (to me) 1980 Volvo 244

[Othen]

Originally Posted by loki_the_glt

UND endlich -die Photographen...

Vielen danke.

[Othen]

I got round to cleaning the old head up a bit this morn, half an hour with some Screwfix degreaser, hot water and a stiff brush revealed:



... which doesn't look too bad, I think the gasket had just failed on the old item and I might well have got away with just changing that. It is nowhere near as tidy as the new re-manufactured head of course, and I think I would probably have had it pressure tested (£45 + VAT) before putting it back on the Royal Barge. It might well have needed skimming as well (another £50) so the re-manufactured head looks quite good value at £99.

The other side looks okay as well:



I was toying with the idea of having this head pressure tested and renovated now, but when I think about it that makes little sense. I'll just wrap it in an oily rag and store it in case I (or someone else) ever needs it, then it can be sorted out as required.

Stay alert.

Alan

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

I was thinking about this one Dave (I do my best thinking early in the morns, that is why I get up at 05:30).

You are right, the throttle butterfly should be nearly closed at tick-over and the slow running by-pass circuit on the manifold allowed to control things. If you have a look at the set-up procedure in the Autodata book (quite good in this respect) you will see the only other variable is the tab that serves to fix the start point for the butterfly:



... and the only way of adjusting it is to bend it a bit. I think that is just too hit and miss, if I went down that route I could spend forever chasing around a variable based on how far I have (or have not) bent a metal tab that is quite difficult to access.

I suspect that at the moment the tab is just a little too high, and so allowing the butterfly to be open a fraction too far at its start point, the manifestation being that the slow running adjuster (on the manifold) operates at the lower part of its range. It does still work though, I can control the tick-over speed with it - the only issue is it the screw is only 1/2 turn from the bottom of its range with the engine at 900RPM.

I think this is a bit of 'so what... so nothing'. I could chase this around for ages bending the tab with a pair of long nosed pliers - risk breaking something and maybe never get it any better than it is now, all for the sake of getting the slow running adjuster in the middle of its range (and I don't even know what that range is - maybe 1/2 turn is normal).

I think you are right: this is just a niggle I learn to live with, it runs fine.

Stay alert,

Alan

You've answered your own query with the Autodata extract Alan. It would bear checking out as a minimum. To paraphrase Autodata, get the engine up to operating temperature, remove the vacuum advance from the distributor and plug it, turn the slow running screw all the way in (count the turns in just in case) then turn it 4 complete turns out and start the engine. This should give an idle speed between 10-1200rpm.

If so, unplug the vac line and reconnect it to the dizzy then turn the slow running screw back in to achieve the 900rpm idle speed.

If not, bend the tab to bring the idle speed to within 10-1200rpm (i'd aim for the mid-point of 1100rpm) and then follow the step above.

You're probably wondering why i'm viewing this as important. Many moons ago i ran a Mk1 Cavalier 2.0 which had a Varajet-II carb. This had a similar system of setting the throttle butterfly to a specific point and then adjusting the idle speed by means of the idle air bypass/slow-running screw.
On that carb, the slow-running screw had to be turned all the way in then with the distributor vacuum hose disconnected from the carb, a water manometer connected onto the vacuum advance stub on the carb and the idle speed adjusted to 8" of water vacuum in the water manometer. This was the mid-point of the acceptable range, i don't recall the entire range now but it made a huge difference to how the car ran overall including performance, economy and lack of flat spots.
Looking at the information on the Pierburg carb, not just above but also what limited information i found online, i would conclude there is a similar arrangement on yours - obviously without the need for a water manometer to set it correctly and with a tab to bend instead of a screw to adjust the idle speed.

It may be after checking it you conclude the idle speed is correct with the slow-running/air idle bypass screw turned just 1/2 turn out but until then i would say it is suspect, given all the previous misguided fiddling that seems to have happened over the years. Don't forget the tab is designed to be bent a few times at least so i wouldn't worry about breaking it.

Up to you of course but for peace of mind, i'd check it out.

Originally Posted by Othen

Here is the stainless tubular manifold I saw advertised Dave:

https://www.classicswede.co.uk/240_s...4_8177351.aspx

... a thing of great beauty and a good match for the twin choke Weber/4 speed auto package :-)

Stay safe,

Alan

Is that the same one as you saw for sale secondhand?

Originally Posted by Othen

I got round to cleaning the old head up a bit this morn, half an hour with some Screwfix degreaser, hot water and a stiff brush revealed:



... which doesn't look too bad, I think the gasket had just failed on the old item and I might well have got away with just changing that. It is nowhere near as tidy as the new re-manufactured head of course, and I think I would probably have had it pressure tested (£45 + VAT) before putting it back on the Royal Barge. It might well have needed skimming as well (another £50) so the re-manufactured head looks quite good value at £99.

The other side looks okay as well:



I was toying with the idea of having this head pressure tested and renovated now, but when I think about it that makes little sense. I'll just wrap it in an oily rag and store it in case I (or someone else) ever needs it, then it can be sorted out as required.

Stay alert.

Alan

That head needs skimming Alan. Look at the witness mark of the head gasket around #1 (on the left) combustion chamber. Near the inlet valve (smaller of the two) is a waterway, look very closely at the surface of the head between that waterway and the witness mark, also run your index fingertip over it - you should be able to feel a slight variation in the surface. It will only be slight but it's enough.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

You've answered your own query with the Autodata extract Alan. It would bear checking out as a minimum. To paraphrase Autodata, get the engine up to operating temperature, remove the vacuum advance from the distributor and plug it, turn the slow running screw all the way in (count the turns in just in case) then turn it 4 complete turns out and start the engine. This should give an idle speed between 10-1200rpm.

If so, unplug the vac line and reconnect it to the dizzy then turn the slow running screw back in to achieve the 900rpm idle speed.

If not, bend the tab to bring the idle speed to within 10-1200rpm (i'd aim for the mid-point of 1100rpm) and then follow the step above.

You're probably wondering why i'm viewing this as important. Many moons ago i ran a Mk1 Cavalier 2.0 which had a Varajet-II carb. This had a similar system of setting the throttle butterfly to a specific point and then adjusting the idle speed by means of the idle air bypass/slow-running screw.
On that carb, the slow-running screw had to be turned all the way in then with the distributor vacuum hose disconnected from the carb, a water manometer connected onto the vacuum advance stub on the carb and the idle speed adjusted to 8" of water vacuum in the water manometer. This was the mid-point of the acceptable range, i don't recall the entire range now but it made a huge difference to how the car ran overall including performance, economy and lack of flat spots.
Looking at the information on the Pierburg carb, not just above but also what limited information i found online, i would conclude there is a similar arrangement on yours - obviously without the need for a water manometer to set it correctly and with a tab to bend instead of a screw to adjust the idle speed.

It may be after checking it you conclude the idle speed is correct with the slow-running/air idle bypass screw turned just 1/2 turn out but until then i would say it is suspect, given all the previous misguided fiddling that seems to have happened over the years. Don't forget the tab is designed to be bent a few times at least so i wouldn't worry about breaking it.

Up to you of course but for peace of mind, i'd check it out. :thumbs_up

Three answers for the price of one Dave! I'll have to respond one at a time though, otherwise I'll loose my train of thought :-)

The procedure for the Pierburg is straightforward - but really fiddly. The tab it talks of is hidden below the carburettor between it and the firewall. I suspect it will take a bit of trial and error to get it right, but once it is done it shouldn't need to be touched again in my lifetime. I'll get on with it in the next few days.

I've just done another ATF part change and taken the RB round to Morrisons to fill up so I have a good start point to measure the consumption. It took just 3 gallons (13.5L) and had covered 72 miles, I make that 24 MPG, but about half of that was before I adjusted the timing (including lots of warm-ups whilst I adjusted things). I'll fill up when I get to half a tank and see whether there has been an improvement.

Stay alert,

Alan

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

Is that the same one as you saw for sale secondhand?

Perhaps I was a bit ambiguous about the tubular manifold: I hadn't seen one second hand - this is the one I saw advertised. I thought the new price was pretty reasonable for what it is - and just what would be needed to round off the twin choke Weber/AW71 package.

I was just thinking about project costs, perhaps for next year (very round numbers):

Inlet manifold: £200
Weber DGV: £200
Second hand AW70/71 auto box: £200
Tubular exhaust manifold: £400
Other bits (prop shaft? speedo drive?): £200
Service parts (I might aw well change the crank seal and transmission mount while it is apart): £100

Total around £1300 - that sounds like a pretty good investment to make the RB quite a bit more modern without it showing.

I checked my spreadsheet (sad man that I am) the other day and could see all the parts the RB so far have cost me £499 (including service parts like tyres and oil), so we are well within the budget I had in my mind's eye (maybe a couple of grand spread over a 2-4 years).

Stay alert.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

That head needs skimming Alan. Look at the witness mark of the head gasket around #1 (on the left) combustion chamber. Near the inlet valve (smaller of the two) is a waterway, look very closely at the surface of the head between that waterway and the witness mark, also run your index fingertip over it - you should be able to feel a slight variation in the surface. It will only be slight but it's enough.

That confirms my suspicion that the old head would need more remedial work than is worthwhile at the moment, at the very least £95 (+ VAT) for a pressure test and skim, and the chances are some of the valve seats would need some attention as well. The bill might well be over £200 for something I may never use, but could fairly quickly have re-manufactured if ever I did. In the meantime it won't eat anything wrapped up in the motorbike garage.

I did notice there was broken off bolt - probably from when someone changed the timing belt some time in the past. It is nothing important, just one of the bolts that hold the plastic cam belt cover:



There is a little bit of the bolt still sticking out, but not enough to get some mole grips or a stud extractor on to it. I was thinking I could put a M6 nut on as far as it will go then weld the remains of the bolt to it - the heat of the weld might also loosen the bolt - what do you think?

If it goes wrong I have not lost much - I could still grind it off square and drill it out with a left handed 4mm bit (needs a steady hand and good eyesight - maybe get Dan to do that?).

Stay alert.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

Perhaps I was a bit ambiguous about the tubular manifold: I hadn't seen one second hand - this is the one I saw advertised. I thought the new price was pretty reasonable for what it is - and just what would be needed to round off the twin choke Weber/AW71 package.

I was just thinking about project costs, perhaps for next year (very round numbers):

Inlet manifold: £200
Weber DGV: £200
Second hand AW70/71 auto box: £200
Tubular exhaust manifold: £400
Other bits (prop shaft? speedo drive?): £200
Service parts (I might aw well change the crank seal and transmission mount while it is apart): £100

Total around £1300 - that sounds like a pretty good investment to make the RB quite a bit more modern without it showing.

I checked my spreadsheet (sad man that I am) the other day and could see all the parts the RB so far have cost me £499 (including service parts like tyres and oil), so we are well within the budget I had in my mind's eye (maybe a couple of grand spread over a 2-4 years).

Stay alert.

Probably about right there Alan on costs, i'd also allow for doing at least 3 part-changes on the gearbox after the initial fill, no knowing how it was previously treated or what contaminants may be in it.

Also i think i'd try and find a manifold with more consistent primary pipe lengths and even secondary pipe lengths. May be tricky to track down because RHD manifolds have to take into account the fact the steering column is in the way but i would think it's possible.

Propshaft i would guess a 7/940 prop from the same car as the box comes from would be about right but that would need double-checking after careful measurement of the length of the current BW65 box and propshaft. If for example the AW70/71 box is 6" longer and the propshaft is 6" shorter then it's probably a safe bet - the centre bearing position might also have a bit of influence.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

Probably about right there Alan on costs, i'd also allow for doing at least 3 part-changes on the gearbox after the initial fill, no knowing how it was previously treated or what contaminants may be in it.

Also i think i'd try and find a manifold with more consistent primary pipe lengths and even secondary pipe lengths. May be tricky to track down because RHD manifolds have to take into account the fact the steering column is in the way but i would think it's possible.

Propshaft i would guess a 7/940 prop from the same car as the box comes from would be about right but that would need double-checking after careful measurement of the length of the current BW65 box and propshaft. If for example the AW70/71 box is 6" longer and the propshaft is 6" shorter then it's probably a safe bet - the centre bearing position might also have a bit of influence.

That was the third part change Dave - I got about 2.7L out, so again about half. The ATF is that came out is still a bit browner than I would like, so I'll do at least one more part change yet this year

Stay alert,

Alan.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

That was the third part change Dave - I got about 2.7L out, so again about half. The ATF is that came out is still a bit browner than I would like, so I'll do at least one more part change yet this year

Stay alert,

Alan.

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

i'd also allow for doing at least 3 part-changes on the gearbox after the initial fill, no knowing how it was previously treated or what contaminants may be in it.

I think you missed the point of what i was saying Alan - i meant after the initial fill on the new box!

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

I think you missed the point of what i was saying Alan - i meant after the initial fill on the new box!

Am I being a bit slow here? So you mean 4 partial changes total - the one I did when I first got the car plus three more - is that right? If that is the case then that is where I'm heading, I've just done #3 (of 4 that I'm planning on this year), it is much redder that the Worcester sauce I started with in February, but not quite cherryade yet.

Stay safe,

Alan