My 1992 240 sedan...

240 · 2015-09-14T12:17:29+00:00

Another question - my car doesn't have an electric antenna, but I may have the opportunity to get one. Will the wiring already be in place in my car (meaning...

240

No.

familyman

No help to you whatsoever, but...

Our 1976 (K-Jet) had similar symptoms, but I never did find out what it was. (The car was scrapped due to rust.) Early am, especially when cold - and if it had been raining, you could simply forget about getting it started. (That's when I stumbled on the fan-heater-under-the-bonnet-for-30-minutes trick. I knew it would start tomorrow when it was sunny. So made it happen myself with the fan heater.)

After a cold/rainy night you had to wait until the day warmed a bit. It got so bad, the only way it could be started cold was, to bump the key in reverse, with the clutch pedal out - just long enough to roll it off the flat pad of the driveway, to start it rolling backwards. Then with the clutch in, key on, in reverse - roll backwards down our sloped driveway - leave it till the last second (to get the most speed up), and clutch start it in reverse.

Often it just ran fine then. But after months of this, It would shake and splutter for a little while - had to bounce my foot on the accelerator in just the right way to keep it running long enough for the revs to climb over a flat spot, so it didn't stall. If it did stall, I'd have to 'key drive' it up the driveway again in first gear (hold the key and use the starter motor to move the car back up the driveway). A s-l-o-w process, believe me! - so I could roll backwards and try to clutch it again. (I knew I could do this three times max - before having to put the battery on the 10A charger for a couple of hours.)

But once it was running for a couple of minutes, the rest of the day the problem vanished - it would start perfectly fine with the key. Even if the day was cold/raining. Plain weird.

Then the 1985 (LH injection I think) started acting the same. I changed the leads, plugs, it ran better for a day or two - then suddenly became difficult to start, stalled several times before running... Same bounce on the accelerator required, only very different to previous car - a lot more difficult to do that. But just like the '76, once running, it would go all day. Stripped and scrapped that car too - so never found out what it's problem was either. But I did pull the new plugs once or twice and noticed 3 were nice and dry, but one was quite oily. I didn't change the dist. cap and rotor though.

Oh, and this is unlikely to be the culprit, but... I did find I'd snapped a spark plug somehow. Must've socketed it up on the wrong angle or something. I think the core was broken, but the white ceramic section hadn't cracked right through yet - so I didn't realise. It finally snapped off when I pulled a lead. Now I do NOT recommend this as a test method, because I think cars our vintage have many times more voltage - however - I 'felt' the sparkplug was broken before I ever 'saw' it... (I brushed its lead with my hand.) That's when I turned it off, pulled the lead (thinking I hadn't pushed it on properly), and found the broken plug.

Volvo426

Check out the fuel pump check valve could be stuck partly open letting fuel drain back to tank.

240

Sorry, but I don't have any idea how to do that to be honest, due to inexperience... is it straightforward?

familyman

http://snipurl.com/2aakbwx

familyman

Actually, that first video that comes up in those results... It's working on a fuel line. So remove the -ve from the battery FIRST - and THEN remove the +ve TOO.

Disconnecting: -ve first, then +ve
Reconnecting: +ve first, -ve last

Read here for why:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/how-to/a1454/4213127/

And hang that bracket with a coathanger - not by the fuel pump wires like that guy does, LOL! (So the wires are not being stretched at all.)

And of course fuel will come out. Have some rags/container handy.

Slowbrick

Ok lets go back a few steps. So you changed the oil and filter, the air filter and the spark plugs and then after doing these things you ended up with a car that is hard to start and wont idle without the accelerator.

Your car has what is called LH2.4. It is quite sensitive to vac leaks and any leak will cause it to run funny. Is it throwing any codes? Have you tried pulling any codes out of the diagnostic box on the passenger strut tower?

When you changed the air filter how careful were you? I ask this because you may have torn the accordion hose that goes to the throttle body. If this has a tear in it then air will get in after the AMM and it will throw the mix. Pull off the hose, slightly stretch it and see if you can see any holes in it.

You said you gapped the plugs. What gap did you use? They should be gapped to 0.28.

Are you familiar with where the idle valve lives? It may be worthwhile to pull it off and give it a good clean with throttle body cleaner. Make sure you let it dry before putting it back in. It might also be worthwhile cleaning the throttle when you have the accordion hose off too. When you attempt to start the car the first time after cleaning it might not go first go and may even backfire through the exhaust or intake, dont panic this is normal.

Another thing to try will be to make sure the tps is adjusted correctly. It is the little black trapezium looking box on the side of the throttle. It is held in with two allen head bolts. Make sure you are in a quiet area and ever so slightly turn the throttle spool. It should make a faint click just as you crack the throttle. If it doesnt then keep turning until you hear it. Then loosen the allen bolts and adjust the tps until its right.

Try those things and get back to us.

familyman

Oh - and in that first video, he mentions the pricey 'banjo fitting'. Some people manage to break/split it - so be careful.

Put penetrant on for a while before removing.

Because you have two moving parts to tighten - into an aluminium filter - it may not feel like it's tight enough, because both will still move with enough force applied. So you tighten the inner 'nut' into the filter first. Then prevent it from moving any more by holding a spanner on it, while you tighten the 'bolt' in the opposite direction against it. This way you're not allowing the 'nut' to move, tightening it a second time. If you allow it to tighten more, you're putting the stress of two moving parts on the banjo fitting 'ring' - which can crack it. (Hope that makes sense.)

I can't remember if you have to remove/replace two or four washers for this job. So just in case - take note in what order/orientation they come off.

e.g. I place the washers down in same order they come off - on a clean stainless steel tray. Not on a rag, or the ground. (Because if you grab the rag without thinking, or kick them, they'll fly everywhere.) I put the first washer off at the 'back' of the tray, and the side that faced the back of the car - upwards. The next washer off lies next the first, but closer to the front of the car, and again, the side that was closer to the rear of the car - upwards, etc. Why don't I just sit them on top of each other? Just over-cautious. Bump the tray and one can move off the other. I space them out too - so even if you do bump the tray - you usually glance at it at the same time - and can reposition them again, because you saw them move.

Two or four - not sure - but the thicker pair go to the rear of the filter. And the two narrower washers go towards the front of the filter. If you fit these in the wrong order the banjo fitting can leak, due to the washers not sealing correctly.

Whether you use the old ones, or new washers - when done, reconnect battery, start the engine and check for leaks. (Or do what this guy did at the fuse panel: http://cleanflametrap.com/fline.html)

I like to clean everything before refitting (e.g. old toothbrush, rag, fuel). Easier to tell if there's leaks with no grease around. Then lie under the car and force my finger right around (before and after) bolting the plate back up - because some leaks can be real slow. Overkill maybe - but at least I know it's done right. If you push your finger right in and 360 degrees around, and it comes out with any moisture, you know it's leaking.

The washers have to be crushed a little more each time, or again, it will leak. Because they are cheap it's a good idea to have new ones ready first if you can.

familyman

Slowbrick;61827 wroteWhen you changed the air filter how careful were you? I ask this because you may have torn the accordion hose that goes to the throttle body.

Ha - I thought of that too, but I discounted it, thinking - nah - it's only me that tears things like that...

I needed to move a car with an empty fuel tank. I thought, I wish I could just pour fuel down its throat like back in the carby days. I realised a quick/easy way to do that was to remove the air filter cover and pour some into the accordion hose. (K-Jet - so no AMM present.) Most of the fuel ran straight out the bottom! The hose had a tear underneath I never knew about. (Or one that I'd just made.)

jamesinc

familyman;61830 wroteThe hose had a tear underneath I never knew about. (Or one that I'd just made.)

Tears hiding on the bottom of hoses seem to be a thing. I remember when I first picked up my old 740T, all the hoses looked tip top, but as soon as I pulled one out, I discovered they all had tears on the underside! In the turbo it was caused by oil pooling up and softening the rubber.

240

Thanks for the tips and URL's familyman.

Slowbrick;61827 wroteHave you tried pulling any codes out of the diagnostic box on the passenger strut tower?

When you changed the air filter how careful were you? I ask this because you may have torn the accordion hose that goes to the throttle body. If this has a tear in it then air will get in after the AMM and it will throw the mix. Pull off the hose, slightly stretch it and see if you can see any holes in it.

No idea about the diagnostics codes because I don't have a reader or anything to obtain them with. Failing all else I probably could find someone, or a mechanic, who does though.
It didn't occur to me that the hose could be damaged, but I'll have a look in case it has been. If that was the case though, why would it only affect the car when it's cold? (The car runs perfectly after it gets going.)

Slowbrick;61827 wrote You said you gapped the plugs. What gap did you use? They should be gapped to 0.28.

The plugs I used (OEM Volvo) were preset but I double checked and that was what they were gapped at. So no issues there, I don't think.

Slowbrick;61827 wrote Are you familiar with where the idle valve lives? It may be worthwhile to pull it off and give it a good clean with throttle body cleaner

Another thing to try will be to make sure the tps is adjusted correctly.

No idea about these but if you think it's worthwhile, I'll look into these.

So at this stage, here's what I think I'll do:
1. Change fuel filter.
2. Check hose between air filter and throttle body for damage.
3. Clean idle valve, and throttle body too while I'm at it.
4. Failing that, I'll look into the TPS.
5. Hope the above steps have fixed it!

Regardless of what the problem is though - how important do you think this issue is? To be honest it doesn't really bother me all that much because the car funs perfectly when I'm actually driving it - but will there be any other bad results of the problem?
The fuel consumption hasn't actually been very good (probably roughly 450km per tank) so hopefully once this is sorted that will improve too (I imagine changing the fuel filter will affect that).

@Vee_Que mentioned something about the AMM settings - do I need to change these or something do you think? Assuming the hose is fine, perhaps it could be something to do with this - the old air filter was quite bad so perhaps the AMM hasn't 'adjusted' to the new one? (Sorry if that is completely illogical - to be honest, I don't really know what I'm talking about in this case.)

Thanks for all those who gave advice. I won't get around to doing those things for a couple of weeks at least but I'll report back.

Slowbrick

LH 2.4 doesnt require a reader to pull the codes. You press the button in the box and the LED will flash. Online there is documentation that tells you what the flashes mean.

Your fuel consumption indicates there is another problem hiding somewhere. LH 2.4 should quite easily get in excess of 500km out of a tank. My LH2.2 car can return 550km a tank in the city and its a turbo. Mike had an LH 2.4 240 and it would get as low as 7L/100km on the freeway so your 450km a tank is not quite right.

When you did the plugs did you do the cap and rotor on the dizzy as well as the leads? It might be an idea to do these that way the entire ignition system is refreshed.

You cant really adjust the AMM on an LH2.4 car without a CO2 meter. I've never really seen an AMM that has needed adjusting. Adjusting AMM's is more done to keep emissions in check.

Do your checks for vac leaks and then move on from there. An easy way is to start the car, get it idling and start spraying carb cleaner around the intake and listen for changes in the idle. Most notably spray around the intake manifold where it meets the head and around the injectors.

Report back.

familyman

Slowbrick;61869 wroteLH 2.4 doesnt require a reader to pull the codes. You press the button in the box and the LED will flash. Online there is documentation that tells you what the flashes mean.

http://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showthread.php?t=122391

LH 2.4 should quite easily get in excess of 500km out of a tank.

This is a real source of irritation for me. There's a local shopping area, but major shopping is 50/60km away. I think I checked the specs documentation and found our '78 had a 60L fuel tank - but the 91 has 50L. I'm so weary of how soon I have to fill the tank. Wish they'd left capacity at 60L.

... and start spraying carb cleaner around the intake and listen for changes in the idle.

Or water (cheapskate alert here), although you'd get a better coverage/mist from a can.

familyman

Regardless of what the problem is though - how important do you think this issue is?

Well as you've read in my case, both cars got more and more difficult to start. To the point I had to do the clutch-in-reverse-down-the-driveway thing. (And charging both batteries constantly to make sure I had enough juice to key-it up the driveway to do that - or crank the other car constantly when it stalled.) It's just better to get it right before it gets worse - or - it develops a second fault - then it won't start at all, and you're chasing two things at the same time.

lasercowboy

really stupid thing, but have you checked/emery papered the fuses, esp the fuel system ones? my old 240 used to be rough as guts when first started, then fine when warm. turned out that the fuel pump fuse was corroded...

240

lasercowboy;61883 wrotereally stupid thing, but have you checked/emery papered the fuses, esp the fuel system ones? my old 240 used to be rough as guts when first started, then fine when warm. turned out that the fuel pump fuse was corroded...

They appear to all be OK but maybe I should take them out and double check the quality of the connection.

Slowbrick;61869 wroteLH 2.4 doesnt require a reader to pull the codes. You press the button in the box and the LED will flash. Online there is documentation that tells you what the flashes mean.

Thanks for telling me that - I should have looked into it first before replying. If it's as simple as pressing a button, I might as well give it a go.

Your fuel consumption indicates there is another problem hiding somewhere. LH 2.4 should quite easily get in excess of 500km out of a tank.

Where should I start, with this? I will replace the fuel filter but where should I look next?

I will do some better tests though, because maybe I just wasn't keeping track of the km's properly - and the back tyres were a bit down too. (What's the best pressure for them? I read about one guy who did 40psi but I thought that seemed a bit high...)

I didn't at the time because they hadn't come in the mail yet, but I have them now - maybe I'll do that this weekend.

I'll try checking for vac leaks as you suggested.

Thanks for the help.

familyman;61881 wrote I checked the specs documentation and found our '78 had a 60L fuel tank - but the 91 has 50L.

That's interesting - I was thinking that my 92 would have a 60L tank. That's what the 1986 model has at least, and I thought 86 and 92 were similar in most regards. Maybe I should double check in the manual though.

familyman

I checked the tank capacity and I *think* what I said above is correct. (I can't put my hand on the Volvo book atm to check. It's packed away somewhere.)

With tyres, I think each car make/model recommends different tyre pressures. And tyres themselves will have a max/recommended pressure. I read some years ago 32psi was (generally) best for most passenger cars... But I ran that for quite some time, and the steering on the '78 244 (no power steering) felt too heavy and I'm sure I felt more drag from the entire car.

Then I read about hypermiling. This is where people extremely overinflate their tyres. The idea being, the least amount of tyre as possible touches the road, the less friction that creates = better mileage. This OVERinflating of tyres has been debunked. HOWEVER - in the next/previous breath they still admit UNDERinflating tyres DECREASES fuel economy. Therefore in the real world it kind of turns the logic of what a lot of them try to say, upside down again. i.e. If you tell people overinflating has no benefit, most people will go back to not checking their tyre pressures. So it's still generally true that it's better (for fuel economy, not necessarily tyre wear) to have overinflated tyres than it is to have underinflated ones.

Anyway, that said... I did run 32psi for a few years, but the drag was irritating. I inflate when tyres are cold. And I too now run about 40psi. Before I had power steering, I could genuinely feel the steering go lighter when I went from 32 to 40.

Edit: See this info at link below.

Control, 35psi (manufacturer recomendation)
tyres at 10psi = 3.7% increase in consumption
tyres at 30psi = 1.2% increase in consumption
tyres at 40psi = 6.2% decrease in consumption
tyres at 60psi = 7.6% decrease in consumption

http://snipurl.com/2aaoy44

Another site I just read said at 45 the tyres were too rigid - which caused jarring vibrations in the car cabin.

240

I had a look in the owner's manual at the specifications section but it didn't say anything about the fuel tank capacity. Might need to do some Googling then, unless someone here definitely knows the answer.

Do you find that there are any drawbacks to running at 40psi? It makes sense that the tyres could be too rigid at 45 but I guess 40 is probably not too bad.

familyman

Nope. It lightened the steering. And if you fill the tyres when they're cold, then drive - heat expands things anyway - which must reduce the pressure. So it probably drops to, I don't know - 35, maybe lower - anyway(?). When our '76 (no power steering) badly needed a wheel alignment, and I ran 32psi, I struggled to turn the steering wheel. I filled to 42psi and all that effort was gone.

familyman

I thought I'd read the tank capacities in the Haynes manual. (Because I've probably only looked in the owners manual 2, maybe 3 times, since we got our first 244 in 1993.) I know when I filled the '78, I was nearly always putting in about 51L. With this car though it's become more like 42L. Although this could just be a difference in where the gauge registers. It certainly feels like I'm going through fuel quicker. Sites online are saying 15.8 gallons for all models though, which is just under 60L. So now I don't know where I've got it from.

« Previous Page Next Page »