Quote:
Originally Posted by Two340'sman
I think I mentioned that I got 55 MPG on a long run in the 1.7. I really thought that the petrol gauge had got stuck! The drivers handbook shows that the 1.7 is more economical than the 1.4 on a long run.
I do have the tyre pressures slightly higher than standard, but not quite as high as 36 PSI.
Suppose that I have owned 340's for around 20 years, needed virtually no spares, brake pads seem almost everlasting.
The sills have had an extra injection of wax by me.
When I said heavy body, I was comparing with my Classic Mini that has an engine not that much smaller than a 1.4, it's a bored out 1275.
I was expecting the car to be bad in snow, having been used to Minis, 1100's and Metros, however as you say the 50:50 weight distribution makes the 340 quite good.
My mechanic working on the 1.7 340 about 10 years ago
 DSCF7249 by A60man, on Flickr
From the handbook
 340 Fuel consumption by A60man, on Flickr |
yes the 1.7 was a much more modern engine design and certainly more economical than the B14 and went very well (105 mph) despite only 8 bhp more than the B14 . It was a detuned Renault unit ...
you mentioned brake pads , when I said my two had never needed parts brake pads were changed of course BUT both have their original rear shoes and cylinders ..and the 1988 still has Its original Volvo coolant .