340 1.4 rough ans slow idling

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Two340'sman

Well, even the Aldi trip in the 340 was a success, car ran fine. Gave a lift to a neighbour who used to run a BMW model ?

He thought the 340 was running very smooth and quiet. One doesn't really get any gearbox noise, it being sort of behind the rear seat.

Given that it didn't like going to Aldi, i'd call that a win!

[Clan]

Originally Posted by Two340'sman

Well, even the Aldi trip in the 340 was a success, car ran fine. Gave a lift to a neighbour who used to run a BMW model ?

He thought the 340 was running very smooth and quiet. One doesn't really get any gearbox noise, it being sort of behind the rear seat.

The gearbox itself doesn't make any noise , I would be worried if it did :-) Its straight out of a 240 by the way laying on it's side , even has the 240 ratios in it .. is yours a 5 speed?

[Two340'sman]

Originally Posted by Clan

The gearbox itself doesn't make any noise , I would be worried if it did :-) Its straight out of a 240 by the way laying on it's side , even has the 240 ratios in it .. is yours a 5 speed?

Yes, it's the five speed. (all slow!). Only joking, it's amazing how well it goes for a 1.4 in a heavy body. My 1.7 is better on a long run, higher final drive ration giving less engine revs for a given speed.

[Clan]

Originally Posted by Two340'sman

Yes, it's the five speed. (all slow!). Only joking, it's amazing how well it goes for a 1.4 in a heavy body. My 1.7 is better on a long run, higher final drive ration giving less engine revs for a given speed.

Indeed the later 1.4 with 2 extra bhp is more than capable with keeping up unless you have 3 passengers .. don't forget to use the whole rev range to get going ... not drive it like a diesel . Actually it is not a heavy car its 950 kg ...
the interior is cavernous for passengers and loads able to take loads even a V60 cant ...
if you are worried about roundabouts get classicswede's 1 inch lowering springs and dampers , roundabouts are no longer a problem and with only a small loss of ride comfort .
You really need premium tyres on these and keep them inflated to at least 36 psi . you will then experience the true porsche 924 handling capabilities with perfect 50-50 weight distribution and steering is not heavy at all ( due to 36psi tyre pressures ) . I use 175/60x14 Vreidstein snowtrac all year round , superb tyres .
I have the 1.7 transaxle in mine and it works well I changed all the oils for synthetic and can get over 45 mpg on runs and about 35 in general use .

The 300 series was a highly under rated car and still drives like a modern one despite being on the drawing board 50 years ago ! It was in the UK top 10 selling cars in the 90's when it was at it's peak of development .

340's never wear out or break down either ..... both my 250,000 mile 1979 and 1988 70,000 mile cars have never broken down or needed ANY parts ...
Just keep on top of any rust , I would advise taking the front wings off and sorting out any rust there before it gets bad . the only place they rust is where the factory rust proofing wax has missed so get the sills re-done , the wax injection holes have black grommets in them .

[Two340'sman]

Originally Posted by Clan

Indeed the later 1.4 with 2 extra bhp is more than capable with keeping up unless you have 3 passengers .. don't forget to use the whole rev range to get going ... not drive it like a diesel . Actually it is not a heavy car its 950 kg ...
the interior is cavernous for passengers and loads able to take loads even a V60 cant ...
if you are worried about roundabouts get classicswede's 1 inch lowering springs and dampers , roundabouts are no longer a problem and with only a small loss of ride comfort .
You really need premium tyres on these and keep them inflated to at least 36 psi . you will then experience the true porsche 924 handling capabilities with perfect 50-50 weight distribution and steering is not heavy at all ( due to 36psi tyre pressures ) . I use 175/60x14 Vreidstein snowtrac all year round , superb tyres .
I have the 1.7 transaxle in mine and it works well I changed all the oils for synthetic and can get over 45 mpg on runs and about 35 in general use .

The 300 series was a highly under rated car and still drives like a modern one despite being on the drawing board 50 years ago ! It was in the UK top 10 selling cars in the 90's when it was at it's peak of development .

340's never wear out or break down either ..... both my 250,000 mile 1979 and 1988 70,000 mile cars have never broken down or needed ANY parts ...
Just keep on top of any rust , I would advise taking the front wings off and sorting out any rust there before it gets bad . the only place they rust is where the factory rust proofing wax has missed so get the sills re-done , the wax injection holes have black grommets in them .

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

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Two340'sman

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.

It's a fallacy that FWD is better in snow and ice, propogated and perpetuated by the media to help sell FWD cars. It wasn't until Ford had a big interest in Volvo they produced a FWD car and let's face it, there's plenty of snow and ice in Sweden in the winter!

It's simple physics and weight transfer that makes RWD cars better in snow, as you accelerate, weight is transferred to the back of the car, when you brake it goes to the front.

Using those weight transfers, it's easy to see that in a FWD car, you will begin to lose traction on the front wheels as you accelerate. Also if you brake and the front wheels lock, you lose all steering, can't use the gears to slow down as you've already lost traction on the driving wheels and also you can't put your foot down to flick the back end round like you can with a RWD car.

I remember in the late 70s/early 80s seeing a journalist on the local ITV news trying to prove FWD was better in snow and ice. She tried driving up a hill forwards. It didn't hapen, she got a few yards up and sat there with the wheels spinning. Then she announced the trick was to reverse up!

Turned her car round and reversed up with more or less no problems. However the basic fact was the driving wheels were now at the rear of the car propelling the car up the hill. This effectively made it RWD but she still tried insisting FWD was better, even if you had to reverse up hills!

There are many other reasons why RWD is much better in snow and ice so don't let anyone tell you otherwise!

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Two340'sman

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

Must be a CAT mechanic!

Those fuel economy figures are interesting and prove what i've told many people many times over the years that the smallest engine isn't always the most economical. Look at the constant 75mph figures - the 1.7 and 2.0 carb are the two highest achievers there. In fact, the 2.0 carb is the best of the lot at 75mph. At 56mph it's a similar but tighter story but with the positions of the 1.7 and 2.0 carb reversed, the 1.7 is now slightly more economical than the 2.0 carb.

All down to power and weight ratio.

[Two340'sman]

The first car that I owned was very good in the snow, got up Shore Lane in Sheffield when a Land Rover failed. An Isetta, no differential.

I sprayed it black, many coats of cellulose.

Isetta by A60man, on Flickr

[Two340'sman]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

It's a fallacy that FWD is better in snow and ice, propogated and perpetuated by the media to help sell FWD cars. It wasn't until Ford had a big interest in Volvo they produced a FWD car and let's face it, there's plenty of snow and ice in Sweden in the winter!

It's simple physics and weight transfer that makes RWD cars better in snow, as you accelerate, weight is transferred to the back of the car, when you brake it goes to the front.

Using those weight transfers, it's easy to see that in a FWD car, you will begin to lose traction on the front wheels as you accelerate. Also if you brake and the front wheels lock, you lose all steering, can't use the gears to slow down as you've already lost traction on the driving wheels and also you can't put your foot down to flick the back end round like you can with a RWD car.

I remember in the late 70s/early 80s seeing a journalist on the local ITV news trying to prove FWD was better in snow and ice. She tried driving up a hill forwards. It didn't hapen, she got a few yards up and sat there with the wheels spinning. Then she announced the trick was to reverse up!

Turned her car round and reversed up with more or less no problems. However the basic fact was the driving wheels were now at the rear of the car propelling the car up the hill. This effectively made it RWD but she still tried insisting FWD was better, even if you had to reverse up hills!

There are many other reasons why RWD is much better in snow and ice so don't let anyone tell you otherwise!

Well, at one stage I had a 2.0 Capri Laser as a company car, useless in the snow, on that day I drove it a few yards and had to change to the Mini which was much better.

And, I remember sitting behind a Police Rover 3500 that could not get up a hill in the snow, slowly drove past him in the Mini. They did not look pleased!

[Clan]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

It's a fallacy that FWD is better in snow and ice, propogated and perpetuated by the media to help sell FWD cars. It wasn't until Ford had a big interest in Volvo they produced a FWD car and let's face it, there's plenty of snow and ice in Sweden in the winter!

It's simple physics and weight transfer that makes RWD cars better in snow, as you accelerate, weight is transferred to the back of the car, when you brake it goes to the front.

Using those weight transfers, it's easy to see that in a FWD car, you will begin to lose traction on the front wheels as you accelerate. Also if you brake and the front wheels lock, you lose all steering, can't use the gears to slow down as you've already lost traction on the driving wheels and also you can't put your foot down to flick the back end round like you can with a RWD car.

I remember in the late 70s/early 80s seeing a journalist on the local ITV news trying to prove FWD was better in snow and ice. She tried driving up a hill forwards. It didn't hapen, she got a few yards up and sat there with the wheels spinning. Then she announced the trick was to reverse up!

Turned her car round and reversed up with more or less no problems. However the basic fact was the driving wheels were now at the rear of the car propelling the car up the hill. This effectively made it RWD but she still tried insisting FWD was better, even if you had to reverse up hills!

There are many other reasons why RWD is much better in snow and ice so don't let anyone tell you otherwise!

ohh indeed , I was never a fan of FWD much prefer rear engine rear wheel drive .. however the 850 handled FWD pretty well . The first FWD from volvo was the 480 in 1986 long long before ford came in 1999 . with the 850 coming and going in between too!