240 General: New (to me) 1980 Volvo 244

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Dippydog

Turning the radio up certainly "cures" a lot of problems! Can't recall what the X300 weighed I know my Omega[in Elite trim so heaviest of the range] tops a ton and threequarters but will return mid 30s on a gentle[60-70mph]long run and low 20s round town.

I was wrong about the aluminium body DD, that was the later X350 chassis - I've corrected the above. The X300 would have probably weighed about the same as the XJ40, but the later engine and a bit more electronic control would have given a bit better fuel consumption.

Alan

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Dippydog

The XJ I had was the straight six 3.2 AJ 16 engine-rather than the earlier AJ 6 as fitted to XJ40s.I used to average 27mpg with it. Average fuel consumption doesn't bother me per se[otherwise I wouldn't run the cars I do]but as others have said it can be a useful indicator of problems if it begins to vary fom the norm.Much like when I buy a new[to me] car I drive it about for a week without the radio on listening for the noises it makes,then I can detect even with the radio on if it starts making different noies which might warrant investigation.

The AJ6 and AJ16 engines are more or less identical mechanically with a few detail changes, the main differences are in the engine management systems. Think Japanese based EFi system using a MAP sensor for the early ones rather than the later ones that used a MAF sensor and are more akin to the Bosch Motronics in architecture and function.

The Wikipedia article saves me a lot of typing and explains in greater detail although some areas seem contradictory of others within the same article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_AJ6_engine

Count yourself lucky you didn't have the other baby of the bunch, the 2.9 - basically a destroked, debored 3.6 with a head from a V12 grafted on so only SOHC 12 valve instead of a 24 valve lump.

Skins, grannies, pull, toilets and rice puddings come to mind for the 2.9 version!

In whatever guise, the Jag straight 6 is not only a great piece of engineering but an amazing work of art Alan.

As for your trip to Norfolk for Bobs conjugal rights i think the RB would be a very good choice. He might relax more on the way there and on the way back, maybe there's an alternative route that is more single carriage A-roads than dual carriageway so you could get a good comparison of different economy on those two different styles of driving?

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

The AJ6 and AJ16 engines are more or less identical mechanically with a few detail changes, the main differences are in the engine management systems. Think Japanese based EFi system using a MAP sensor for the early ones rather than the later ones that used a MAF sensor and are more akin to the Bosch Motronics in architecture and function.

The Wikipedia article saves me a lot of typing and explains in greater detail although some areas seem contradictory of others within the same article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_AJ6_engine

Count yourself lucky you didn't have the other baby of the bunch, the 2.9 - basically a destroked, debored 3.6 with a head from a V12 grafted on so only SOHC 12 valve instead of a 24 valve lump.

Skins, grannies, pull, toilets and rice puddings come to mind for the 2.9 version!

In whatever guise, the Jag straight 6 is not only a great piece of engineering but an amazing work of art Alan.

As for your trip to Norfolk for Bobs conjugal rights i think the RB would be a very good choice. He might relax more on the way there and on the way back, maybe there's an alternative route that is more single carriage A-roads than dual carriageway so you could get a good comparison of different economy on those two different styles of driving?

Agreed Dave, the 24v straight 6 was a fine engine (I'm not sure why Jag bothered with the 2.9).

I sold the XJ40 to a mate - only because he wanted it (Jag enthusiast) after a couple of years. The car I had next had an equally impressive 24v straight 6: Toyota Supra - now what a car that was!

[loki_the_glt]

Originally Posted by Dippydog

Turning the radio up certainly "cures" a lot of problems!

This was the standard piece of advice proffered by garages to repmobile drivers when the engine started to get noisy - usually tappets, sometimes impending bearing failure was the culprit. Only when the radio was turned up to 11 would they do something about the underlying fault!

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

Agreed Dave, the 24v straight 6 was a fine engine (I'm not sure why Jag bothered with the 2.9).

I sold the XJ40 to a mate - only because he wanted it (Jag enthusiast) after a couple of years. The car I had next had an equally impressive 24v straight 6: Toyota Supra - now what a car that was!

The main reason for the 2.9 option was for company car users who had a choice of car below 3.0 and also for tax reasons, big tax breaks under 3.0 litres in many countries. It was also seen by many as more economical - total fallacy because it didn't have the grunt to pull the weight of the car so struggled and drank a lot more as a result.

The Toyota straight 6 was indeed another superb engine, i'm a bit hazy but wasn't that the 5MGE engine?

I had the older Celica, first of the pop-up headlamp models that spawned the Celica Supra, the forerunner of the one you had.


Celica Supra 2.8i ^^^^^ spawned from :


.... the 1982 Celica ^^^^^ near identical to mine except the handlebars are on the wrong side!

Only a 2.0 in mine but still a nice engine.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

The main reason for the 2.9 option was for company car users who had a choice of car below 3.0 and also for tax reasons, big tax breaks under 3.0 litres in many countries. It was also seen by many as more economical - total fallacy because it didn't have the grunt to pull the weight of the car so struggled and drank a lot more as a result.

The Toyota straight 6 was indeed another superb engine, i'm a bit hazy but wasn't that the 5MGE engine?

I had the older Celica, first of the pop-up headlamp models that spawned the Celica Supra, the forerunner of the one you had.

Celica Supra 2.8i ^^^^^ spawned from :

Only a 2.0 in mine but still a nice engine.

I think the other reason for the 2.9 was to have a base model so the 3.6 appeared to be more special, and so could command a large premium - so just marketing. I always wondered whether it would have been better to have had a much more similar 3 litre DOHC car that didn't need a different production line. Anyway, we agree the 2.9l SOHC engine was a dog and the 3.6 DOHC (later on the 4l) was excellent.

Thank you for that Toyota lineage. I can't remember the engine designation, but it was also a thing of great beauty.

Alan

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

I think the other reason for the 2.9 was to have a base model so the 3.6 appeared to be more special, and so could command a large premium - so just marketing. I always wondered whether it would have been better to have had a much more similar 3 litre DOHC car that didn't need a different production line. Anyway, we agree the 2.9l SOHC engine was a dog and the 3.6 DOHC (later on the 4l) was excellent.

Thank you for that Toyota lineage. I can't remember the engine designation, but it was also a thing of great beauty.

Alan

That could well be Alan but if memory serves, the 3.6 was the first model to be launched in 1986 and the 2.9 followed a bit later because they were losing out on sales due to not having a "tax-break" sub-3.0 engine.

The other thing was it used the XK block for the 2.9, basically a reworked XK 2.8 and i suspect they were left over from the Series I XJ 2.8s, another short-lived model with the 4.2 being the most popular.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

That could well be Alan but if memory serves, the 3.6 was the first model to be launched in 1986 and the 2.9 followed a bit later because they were losing out on sales due to not having a "tax-break" sub-3.0 engine.

The other thing was it used the XK block for the 2.9, basically a reworked XK 2.8 and i suspect they were left over from the Series I XJ 2.8s, another short-lived model with the 4.2 being the most popular.

You have an encyclopaedic knowledge of car matters Dave - well done (I can't remember such detail that far back).

Alan

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

The Toyota straight 6 was indeed another superb engine, i'm a bit hazy but wasn't that the 5MGE engine?

I had the older Celica, first of the pop-up headlamp models that spawned the Celica Supra, the forerunner of the one you had.

Celica Supra 2.8i ^^^^^ spawned from :

.... the 1982 Celica ^^^^^ near identical to mine except the handlebars are on the wrong side!

Only a 2.0 in mine but still a nice engine.

Now this is lovely Dave, I wonder what it will go for:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1989-TOYO...8AAOSw0X5fXRk0

... I'll watch it (no Satan, don't make me buy this car!).

PS. That is odd: no MoT history for that car (just the current one); I'm guessing it has been off the road for at least 10 years in that case.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

Now this is lovely Dave, I wonder what it will go for:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1989-TOYO...8AAOSw0X5fXRk0

... I'll watch it (no Satan, don't make me buy this car!).

PS. That is odd: no MoT history for that car (just the current one); I'm guessing it has been off the road for at least 10 years in that case.

It smells wrong from here Alan, i wouldn't touch it with a barge pole! Looking at his feedback, first thing i found was :

FEEDBACK FROM BUYER/PRICE WHEN
Car not described as it is faults left off and one engine fault that the seller

https://www.ebay.co.uk/fdbk/feedback...p2047675.l2560

In fairness that's his only negative feedback in the past year but how many 1988 Jaguar XK8s do you know of?