240
Hopefully this thread can be of benefit to others in the future.
My 92 240 (B230FX, AW70) seems to be using more petrol than it should (around 450km per tank I reckon, although I haven't done any proper calculations).
Since I bought it, I've changed the oil/filter, air filter, spark plugs and leads, and distributor cap & rotor.
I have a new fuel filter that I'll install but I doubt it will make all that much difference - the current one can't be that bad because the car does run pretty nicely.
Where should I go next?
Thanks.
carnut1100
Sounds like it is running a bit too much juice...i have only really got experience with older k jet ones but i used to average around 11 litres per hundred.
The best i got was 10 and the worst was 14 towing a trailer.
60 litre tank.
paul0075
450 per tank was my average for all my 240s (including my 92 with B230FX) doing city / town work, I'd max out to 500 on the highway.
BradC
My B230F/AW70L (740) does about 500. I fill up at about 460 as a rule and the gauge is banging on empty at that point. Usually put 55L in. Sounds about right for LH2.4.
I've had as low as 9.8L/100 with premium on a single straight country run at 120, and as high as 18L/100 on a single straight country run towing a van, WOT in 3rd at 80Kph.
Average across 131 tanks is 12L/100, but there is enough towing in there to make it look worse than it is. 11.2 is probably closer to the mark.
Ex850R
My old 245 , K Jet , well , I was disappointed with the consumption. It is an old motor design......
Use 98 all the time I reckon.
Or get gas , higher octane at least.
240
Maybe I'll try 98 then to see if it makes enough difference to justify the extra cost.
So you don't reckon there's actually anything wrong with anything on the car?
@carnut1100 - when you say you think it's running too much juice - forgive my ignorance, but how do I change this?
I hadn't really considered this previously because the car does run pretty well but I guess it's a possibility.
Ex850R
98 costs a few dollars a tank.....
morgan
450 average in my 240
BradC
240;62673 wroteMaybe I'll try 98 then to see if it makes enough difference to justify the extra cost.
So you don't reckon there's actually anything wrong with anything on the car?
Probably not. They're not exactly aerodynamic. Additionally, LH2.4 spends an inordinate amount of time at 14.7:1 and tries very hard not to lean out under any circumstances. This results in a fairly even, but relatively heavy fuel consumption. My observations over the years appear to indicate that people who get better consumption are either on LH2.2 or Regina in the US.
I found about a 1-1.5L/100km difference with 98 in the country but not enough to justify in the city. I use more fuel with 91 but it's considerably cheaper.
There is no easy way to alter the fueling on an LH2.4 system. It runs closed loop and will fight like mad to overcome any modification you might make.
familyman
What's that... 7.5km per litre? My '78 (with K-Jet) used to get high 8s to low 9 km/L in city stop-go driving. And about 11 on the highway.
Can you smell fuel when it's running? Read up on mixture anyway. e.g.
https://www.volvoclub.org.uk/faq/EngineFuelinjection.html#SettingBaseIdle
Vee_Que
Try 98, its literally only a few bucks more a tank and it will run more timing because of the fuel, same story with the 16v motor, they made more power and gain fuel economy. So I disagree witty brad that it won't make a difference around town.
BradC
I'm not saying it wont, I'm just laying out my own experience based on detailed logging of the last 131 tanks of fuel I put into the car. You do whatever works for you, I just found that dollar for dollar it's cheaper for me to run 91 on a cents per kilometer basis in *this* car.
98 here is often 10-15% more expensive, and it buys me 5-7% more distance around town and up to 10% in the country. The sums don't add up *for me*.
paul0075
I never run 91 octane in my Volvo's because the fuel doesn't last as long as 95 or 98 and the engine and fuel system doesn't like it. Too much engine pinging and low power.
240
Do you find much difference between 95 and 98? In other words, if 98 is worth the extra cost over 91, is it still worth the extra cost over 95?
I guess the only way to actually figure it out for my car is to test it myself. But reading anecdotes is still interesting.
GingerNinja
My wagon with B230F and W55 manual gearbox was getting 8L/100km on the highway and 10L/100km in the city on 95 RON. The wagon with B230FT and M46 manual gets 10L/100km on the highway and 11.5L/100km in the city on 98 RON.
240
That's pretty good. Does the second wagon use more because it is a B230FT, or because of the M46 as opposed to W55? Or is it just because it's a different car?
GingerNinja
Both are 1988 models with LH2.2 but different cars. I plant the boot into the turbo wagon every chance too.
paul0075
240;62736 wroteDo you find much difference between 95 and 98? In other words, if 98 is worth the extra cost over 91, is it still worth the extra cost over 95?
I guess the only way to actually figure it out for my car is to test it myself. But reading anecdotes is still interesting.
When I had the 240s, I went with whatever I could get, 95 or more. United was selling 100 octane for a while and the 240 used to love it.
With the 144, it's 98 with Valvemaster.
Nosi
hi, best tip I can give ( for the later B230 ) is to ensure the MAF is clean. use maf cleaner or electronic cleaner. this will give better power and better fuel consumption, particularly if the maf was really dirty to start with. Second tip, for both engines, is to ensure the hot air intake to the air box, is either disabled completely or working properly ( your choice depending on local climate ).
for comparison purposes, our auto cars do about 10l per 100 on highway and the manuals do about 9. we always use 95 or better fuel.
240
Is the MAF different to the AMM?
What do you mean by making sure it is clean? Should I remove it and clean anything I can get to?
Can you add to what you said about the hot air intake? Sadly I'm not quite sure what you mean.
