240 General: New (to me) 1980 Volvo 244

[Othen]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

That does seem a sensible approach, if your ultimate goal is to improve and subtly upgrade the R.B.'s performance, Alan. It is also clear that it's recent outing to the TVS meeting has reawakened your enthusiasm for the car!

However, after reading your notes above carefully through several times, I can only see one passing but direct reference to the issue that has prompted this train of thought - where you say that the R.B. was 'clearly burning too much oil'.

May I ask how much was 'too much' in your view? I would reasonably expect any engine that had recently been worked on to the extent of the R.B.'s to consume at least a little oil - perhaps upwards of half a pint or 300 ml - on a journey of that length, especially on a hot day. As the engine beds in and carbon builds up again, I'm sure that it will almost certainly improve.

If this is the only reason that you are contemplating this course of action, I feel that you may be being a little hard on both the R.B. and yourself. I would be inclined to persevere with the present set up a little longer to see if it settles down and improves with use. Remember that you are dealing with an older engine that has been disturbed and reassembled, not a new, modern unit that was designed and built by a computer!

My approach, in the absence of any other major failings, would be to stick with it a while longer. After all, that would not negate your excellent, well thought out plans for the R.B., but give you more time to both finesse and ultimately undertake the project that you are now considering.

That would be my take, but, as always, it is your motor car and your decision. Whichever course you take - if it gives you pleasure and brings you satisfaction - is the right one for you,

Regards, John.

Hi John,

I've taken the RB out for about a 20 mile run, just to blow away the cobwebs - and you may well be right. The motor seems to have stopped smoking. I rather suspect that if I ran the RB in carefully for about 1,000 miles it would bed in and be okay.

Not to worry, I've bought a B230 motor and a 4 speed gearbox now - so I might as well improve the RB a bit more :-)

Alan

[john.wigley]

Originally Posted by Othen

Hi John,

I've taken the RB out for about a 20 mile run, just to blow away the cobwebs - and you may well be right. The motor seems to have stopped smoking. I rather suspect that if I ran the RB in carefully for about 1,000 miles it would bed in and be okay.

Not to worry, I've bought a B230 motor and a 4 speed gearbox now - so I might as well improve the RB a bit more :-)

Alan

Knowing your care and attention to detail regarding the operation, Alan, I would have been surprised if it did not. If you so wished, following successful conversion, I'm sure that a lightly overhauled 2.1 engine and 'box, in known working condition, would quickly find a ready buyer on the used parts market - always assuming that you did not wish to keep it as a spare yourself, against the unlikely event of some disaster befalling the B230 unit in future.

Regards, John.

[360beast]

Take the engine and gearbox out together Alan, I wouldn't be surprised if the locating dowels in the block are stuck inside the bellhousing sticking the gearbox and engine together. You will also have to undo the torque converter from the flexi plate which is not a nice job to do under the car. The gearbox usually needs a fair amount of man handling to remove it from the engine which isn't a nice thing to do under the car especially with a very heavy autotragic, an M90 gearbox is heavy enough to take on and off for a clutch change.

I did one engine out on its own and that was a 1995 940 B230FK with an AW71L gearbox, never again will I take an engine out without taking the gearbox out too.

When doing front oil seals I find refitting the old belt after fitting new seals, fitting the locking tool and pressing down on the longest run of the cambelt provides enough grip to allow you to torque the aux and camshaft sprockets back up, even then they usually slip a couple of teeth. I once had a stubborn one and had to refit the old tensioner then use a pry bar to add extra pressure on to the old belt. Then once it is all torqued up time it all back up and fit the new belt.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

Knowing your care and attention to detail regarding the operation, Alan, I would have been surprised if it did not. If you so wished, following successful conversion, I'm sure that a lightly overhauled 2.1 engine and 'box, in known working condition, would quickly find a ready buyer on the used parts market - always assuming that you did not wish to keep it as a spare yourself, against the unlikely event of some disaster befalling the B230 unit in future.

Regards, John.

I have certainly been a bit too harsh on both the B21a motor and my handiwork John. After taking the RB for a run I carried out a compression test and found all 4 cylinders to be at 125psi (plus or minus a gnats knacker each - negligible difference). Before I honed the bores and changed the rings they were at (front to back): 95 (115 wet)/125/120/125. So now all cylinders at 125psi = 8.5:1 compression ratio, which is pretty healthy for a 42 year old (the RB has 160 head, which should give 8.5:1).

I'd say that is pretty well sorted out now, and the smoking has sorted itself out. I've changed the ignition leads (for a new set that came with the RB 3 years ago); I was feeling a bit disappointed (with myself), but I'm happier now - and actually quite pleased with myself.

It puts a slightly different perspective on the B230/AW70 sub-project; no longer does it need to be maintenance job to save the RB in fairly short order, but it can be a quality upgrade that I can take my time over. Having come this far I still think it would be nice to enjoy the benefits of a 2.3 motor and a 4 speed transmission, I can just take a bit more time planning and executing it.

In the longer term you are right, a cleaned up B21a/BW55 in good working order will be just what someone needs - once I have the B230/AW70 issue sorted out of course.

Alan

[Othen]

Originally Posted by 360beast

Take the engine and gearbox out together Alan, I wouldn't be surprised if the locating dowels in the block are stuck inside the bellhousing sticking the gearbox and engine together. You will also have to undo the torque converter from the flexi plate which is not a nice job to do under the car. The gearbox usually needs a fair amount of man handling to remove it from the engine which isn't a nice thing to do under the car especially with a very heavy autotragic, an M90 gearbox is heavy enough to take on and off for a clutch change.

I did one engine out on its own and that was a 1995 940 B230FK with an AW71L gearbox, never again will I take an engine out without taking the gearbox out too.

When doing front oil seals I find refitting the old belt after fitting new seals, fitting the locking tool and pressing down on the longest run of the cambelt provides enough grip to allow you to torque the aux and camshaft sprockets back up, even then they usually slip a couple of teeth. I once had a stubborn one and had to refit the old tensioner then use a pry bar to add extra pressure on to the old belt. Then once it is all torqued up time it all back up and fit the new belt.

Thank you Luke, that is exactly the sort of first hand experience I was looking for., both on removing the engine/gearbox together and the cam belt sprockets.

Many thanks,

Alan

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

I have certainly been a bit too harsh on both the B21a motor and my handiwork John. After taking the RB for a run I carried out a compression test and found all 4 cylinders to be at 125psi (plus or minus a gnats knacker each - negligible difference). Before I honed the bores and changed the rings they were at (front to back): 95 (115 wet)/125/120/125. So now all cylinders at 125psi = 8.5:1 compression ratio, which is pretty healthy for a 42 year old (the RB has 160 head, which should give 8.5:1).

I'd say that is pretty well sorted out now, and the smoking has sorted itself out. I've changed the ignition leads (for a new set that came with the RB 3 years ago); I was feeling a bit disappointed (with myself), but I'm happier now - and actually quite pleased with myself.

It puts a slightly different perspective on the B230/AW70 sub-project; no longer does it need to be maintenance job to save the RB in fairly short order, but it can be a quality upgrade that I can take my time over. Having come this far I still think it would be nice to enjoy the benefits of a 2.3 motor and a 4 speed transmission, I can just take a bit more time planning and executing it.

In the longer term you are right, a cleaned up B21a/BW55 in good working order will be just what someone needs - once I have the B230/AW70 issue sorted out of course.

Alan

Glad to hear you've realised what was going on Alan, the B21A will be a good engine for someone when you have swapped the B230E and AW70 into the RB or a very good usable spare for yourself or even GAM. I know Volvo never fitted an OHC engine to the Amazon cars or even the 140 series but look at the likes of Vauxhall and Ford of a similar era - Vauxhall fitted an OHC (with belt drive cam) to the Viva HB and Victor FD models in the late 60s carrying it over into later versions of the models, Ford introduced their first belt drive OHC engine in 1972 with the Pinto/Mk3 Cortina engine which also found its way into the Mk1 Escort among others, another contemporary of the Amazon near enough.

[360beast]

Now you can save up for those twin Weber's

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

Glad to hear you've realised what was going on Alan, the B21A will be a good engine for someone when you have swapped the B230E and AW70 into the RB or a very good usable spare for yourself or even GAM. I know Volvo never fitted an OHC engine to the Amazon cars or even the 140 series but look at the likes of Vauxhall and Ford of a similar era - Vauxhall fitted an OHC (with belt drive cam) to the Viva HB and Victor FD models in the late 60s carrying it over into later versions of the models, Ford introduced their first belt drive OHC engine in 1972 with the Pinto/Mk3 Cortina engine which also found its way into the Mk1 Escort among others, another contemporary of the Amazon near enough.

Not GAM Dave, the original OHV motor is just right for the motor car.

I’m pleased the B21 came out well after all, I thought I’d lost my touch with engines until a good compression test proved me wrong today. I think a 2.3 motor and a 4 speed transmission will improve the RB no end, but someone will need an original 2.1 engine to save their 40-45 year old motor car. The same will be true of the BW55 I think.

Alan

[Othen]

I'm not going to start heavy lifting work on the B230/AW70 sub-project for a few weeks due to the school hols, but I've started to have a look at it and plan. One piece of good news is the distributor fitted to the B230 is identical to that on the RB:



... Bosch JHFUD4, so it will plug into the existing wiring with the same ignitor box.

Elsewhere there is mixed news. I put the RB up on some ramps and got a tape measure out: it looks like the AW70 is a bit longer (5cm overall) than the BW55, it is 70cm rather than 65cm including the rear extension. The rear extensions are the same length (15.8cm including the drive boss) and look like they will just swap over to provide a speedometer drive on the AW70.

This means 50mm has to be lost somewhere in the prop shaft or the rear axle, I'm in dialogue with the PO to find out where Mr Volvo cut out the metal and we should work that out by the weekend. The deal is that we both end up with a prop shaft, so there might be some swapping around. The shifter linkage rod will probably have to be shortened by 50mm (that is trivial) and the cooling lines will probably have to be extended by the same.

The transmission cooling lines that came with the B230 aren't much good as they are - they have been cut and re-joined (with hydraulic tube and jubilee clips, which seems to have worked, there is no sign of leakage) some time in the past (prior to the PO). I think those lines might still be useful though: they are 1.2 to 1.3m long, my plan is to use 90% or so of the RB's (pristine) lines from the radiator backwards, and about 10cm of each of the pipes from the B230 (from the gearbox forward) and connect them together close to the AW70's input and output threaded connectors so they can't be seen. It looks like fairly seamless 8mm OD steel pipe, so I'm wondering whether two brass compression joints like these would be suitable:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/153243500...r=453109952721

... there may be something more sophisticated than a plumbing joint that I could use.

The gearbox cross member may also sit 50mm further back, but it looks like the front holes on the bracket would fit into the rear holes on the chassis, so there would just be a need to drill two more holes further back and privide a thread - I'm thinking some steel rivnuts would be fine.

The einspritzen's components all look to be in good condition, such as this piece that claims to be an air flow sensor, and sells for around £200 second hand:



I'm thinking I should be able to recoup quite a bit from selling the CI system's components - maybe enough to fund an inlet manifold and the weber carburettors Luke encourages me to buy :-)

:-)

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

I'm not going to start heavy lifting work on the B230/AW70 sub-project for a few weeks due to the school hols, but I've started to have a look at it and plan. One piece of good news is the distributor fitted to the B230 is identical to that on the RB:



... Bosch JHFUD4, so it will plug into the existing wiring with the same ignitor box.

It looks like fairly seamless 8mm OD steel pipe, so I'm wondering whether two brass compression joints like these would be suitable:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/153243500...r=453109952721

... there may be something more sophisticated than a plumbing joint that I could use.

The gearbox cross member may also sit 50mm further back, but it looks like the front holes on the bracket would fit into the rear holes on the chassis, so there would just be a need to drill two more holes further back and privide a thread - I'm thinking some steel rivnuts would be fine.

The einspritzen's components all look to be in good condition, such as this piece that claims to be an air flow sensor, and sells for around £200 second hand:



I'm thinking I should be able to recoup quite a bit from selling the CI system's components - maybe enough to fund an inlet manifold and the weber carburettors Luke encourages me to buy :-)

:-)

If you look above the JHFU... you'll see 0 237 xxx yyy on both distributors Alan. It's the xxx yyy that will tell you if the distributors are indeed identical, not the main model designation (the JHFU bit).

Regarding the ATF cooling lines, there is little or no pressure in them so 8mm fuel hose and good quality (preferably stainless) Jubilee or fuel hose clips will be more than adequate.

As for the K-Jet system, yes you could sell it and get a pair of 40 DCOEs and their inlet manifold as Luke is suggesting, alternatively you could get the standard Webcon conversion or perhaps an inlet manifold from an AQ-151C with the twin SU carbs on that or perhaps make your own inlet manifold and stuff 4 Mikuni bike carbs on it. Seems you're open to ideas at the moment so there's a few there!

As for the propshaft, i was under the impression the engine and box came with the prop? If so, that would already be the perfect length to fit the B230/AW70 combo. Also i know from bitter experience measuring a gearbox in situ isn't as reliable as measuring on the floor of the garage so it would pay to recheck your measurements once the original engine and box are out.