my first car* 1.4 1990 340 Carburettor Help Please!

A global place for general discussion (Volvo, V3M or non-Volvo related topics).
Please introduce yourself here, your Volvo 300 hobby...
NO technical support, parts requests or car advertisements here
Post Reply
User avatar
valman
Posts: 663
Joined: 07 Feb 2010 11:16 pm
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: my first car* 1.4 1990 340 a great rack inside

Post by valman » 18 Jun 2010 05:32 pm

right, did a small few things today - mainly cleaning the engine bay:
Image

and then I had a little play with the airbox. as I cant afford to spend 40 odd quid on a K&N bolt on filter I though I might aswell see what I can do with the current item. especially as the filter in there is new anyway.
this is what I did:
Image
I cut extra holes in the plasatic for increased airflow. but I also left a few bits of plastic on the surround so come winter time I can patch it up with ducttape and slap on the standard hot air feed etc.
this is it with the top on (which I also painted)
Image

Would be great to know your opinions on the airbox/pancake filter thing - would be good to know if what i did was stupid or not :lol:
ImageImage

User avatar
jtbo
Posts: 5805
Joined: 23 Jul 2004 03:50 am
Location: Finland, middle of nowhere
Contact:

Re: my first car* 1.4 1990 340 a great rack inside

Post by jtbo » 18 Jun 2010 06:57 pm

Pretty stupid, you will probably now face frozen carb, lowered MPG, some running problems and lack of power at times. When it is winter carb will more likely freeze and problems will be more pronounced than at summer. Sorry :mrgreen:

That is why there is intake air preheating in carburettor engines, even it can be rather restrictive it is better than tradeoff with better flowing airbox.

Even any theoretical performance benefit from such modification or K&N filter, is really minimal, sure one can maybe get such increase that can be perhaps felt, maybe even measured with clock if one tries enough hard, but there is no real benefit, even less now with those problems waiting.

Manifold matching, headwork, cam and rejetting carb would be methods to get some real benefits, also exhaust manifold and exhaust can make difference, loud exhaust does not equal more hp, however.

Sorry, you did ask what we think :mrgreen:

It is really bit of pain to get more go for 1.4, one is to have standard not customized motor to run as it was meant to from factory, there can be 5 to 10 hp missing just simply because of car needing good tune up, word tuning used to mean making car run correctly by setting ignition, fueling etc. correctly, but it is different today I guess.

Now probably we all have done things at beginning which have been more work than gain, also there is saying that if your tuning does not loose more than 20hp, then it is success :lol:

Oh one more thing, often increased sound gives false impression of improved performance, only clock will tell how it really is.

One of not so difficult and that has some real benefit is matching manifold to head, this is done so that intake port (hole in cylinder head where to air/fuel mixture from intake manifold enters to cylinder head and where from it enters to valve and there to cylinder when valve is opened) and hole in intake manifold are made to be exactly same size and at same location, so that there are no any 'step', I have heard this giving quite lot of improvement on some motors. Same is of course needed for exhaust manifold.

With carb cars there is then added challenge, when you make any change that affects airflow, let it be even cutting holes to airbox, K&N filter or matching manifolds, there is then need to do jetting for carb, so one can get maximum power out from changes, so all changes you make are just opening possibilities, but to use these possibilities fueling is needed to be adjusted by jetting the carb.

So when you open air filter box you increase air flow, but not the fueling, this means that you lean out air/fuel mixture which will decrease the power. Remember that 14.7:1 is optimal for fuel usage and power, also catalytic converters work best with this, 14.7 parts of air and 1 part of fuel, but if you would like to get more power, you should not lean out, but enrichen the mixture, in turbo applications I have heard that even 8:1 would be usable and would give best power, so you would set carb so that it is bit richer at full throttle than it is standard to get bit more power (again tuning, jetting carb), not leaner which opening air filter box has now done.

There is of course some shortcuts and cheap tricks, but doing those one will often end up motor that works well in one condition but will works much worse in every other condition, so it is not very good choice.

With fuel injection things are lot more pleasant as those are able to adapt and one can easily convert fuel injection to programmable, so that it will adapt to changes with few clicks of mouse, a lot easier than working with carbs where to make change to fueling you need to change parts, but do carb setup right and it is really nice to drive. Also with fuel injection you will not get that carb icing as there is no carb to freeze, so there more cool air will mean more power as most fuel injection systems compensate for more airflow pretty well. I had fuel injection and made kind of 'ram air' and I could see from laptop screen that it did increased pressure at intake manifold which means more air entered to engine as speed did increase, very small effect really.

I don't wish to turn you down, just to introduce some basic aspects that are needed to examine and learn to get some real benefit, it is true that there will be bit of work and some things are quite expensive too, however end result is really nice. Standard 1.4 had something like 70hp, I would think that 80hp is not going to need really a lot of work, maybe even matching manifolds and jetting carb would be enough, freeflowing exhaust and maybe tubular exhaust manifold (is there such for 1.4?) might help to get even few hp more, maybe even near to 90, with cam 100ish? Headwork and valves might be quite high, perhaps even too much for standard carb, there is only so much air that can go trough those barrels.

Just some thoughts there, but doing the hard work is going to be really worth it, at some point you can really feel engine to wake up and star to live, but it needs that long walk to make it really happen, that is at least what I have found out.
Volvo 360GL -88 -under restoration-
Volvo 343DL vario -81 -running- Image
Volvo 240 Diesel -83 -undecided-
Citroen ZX Dturbo -97 -daily- ImageImage

User avatar
valman
Posts: 663
Joined: 07 Feb 2010 11:16 pm
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: my first car* 1.4 1990 340 a great rack inside

Post by valman » 18 Jun 2010 07:19 pm

ahh sweet, that was a good read. thanks for taking the time to type that out. the reason i cut more holes is because the air intake hole was only the size of one barrel of the carb (well slightly bigger) so i presumed if i made it bigger there wouldn't be any harm.
what tools would i need to measure how much fuel/air mixture i need/have. as i would happily match intake to head with a dremel but how would i measure the jetting? or is it a bit hit and miss?
ill probably make a new manifold sometime soon once i find a job in order to buy the tubing.
but to be honest im only going to use this as transport rather than a doriftooo machine but a bit of poke would be good to have now and then.

cheers! :D
ImageImage

User avatar
jtbo
Posts: 5805
Joined: 23 Jul 2004 03:50 am
Location: Finland, middle of nowhere
Contact:

Re: my first car* 1.4 1990 340 a great rack inside

Post by jtbo » 18 Jun 2010 08:00 pm

valman wrote:ahh sweet, that was a good read. thanks for taking the time to type that out. the reason i cut more holes is because the air intake hole was only the size of one barrel of the carb (well slightly bigger) so i presumed if i made it bigger there wouldn't be any harm.
what tools would i need to measure how much fuel/air mixture i need/have. as i would happily match intake to head with a dremel but how would i measure the jetting? or is it a bit hit and miss?
ill probably make a new manifold sometime soon once i find a job in order to buy the tubing.
but to be honest im only going to use this as transport rather than a doriftooo machine but a bit of poke would be good to have now and then.

cheers! :D
Getting jetting right is propably only possible at rolling road, so after doing the matching you would probably need to find a place where they do Weber adjusting and have rolling road, I think 1.4 had Weber carb, experienced professionals can also spot easily if carb needs some other work, but of course that might cost some, so I would let jetting for them to worry about, also they probably can tell you some cool stuff about carbs etc while you are there, so money is investment really, not a expense :lol:

But if you like to see air/fuel ratio, then for example Innovative LM-1 was one air/fuel ratio meter, that is wideband unit, so it costs lot more than standard lambda sensor + gauge (from out of my memory LM1 was something like 250 and it needs wideband sensor too, narrowband sensor maybe 30 + 80 for meter, prices can be different for UK), but you need wideband for adjusting, standard lambda sensor can only show if mixture is rich or lean and it jumps constantly from one end to another as that is how it works, better than nothing, but useless for tuning to certain air/fuel ratio, also rolling road is needed to create different driving conditions that are easy to repeat and hold. However tuning with carbs I know bit less as I prefer fuel injection.

Get vacuum gauge, even some basic 52mm diameter vacuum gauge will do as long as it is mechanical, it is useful as you can measure if there is restriction in airflow, for example put hose in it and put other end of hose to airbox, when engine is running see if there is vacuum, any vacuum before throttle butterfly is restriction, you can measure even both sides of airfilter, however you probably need to customize air filter box a bit, also you can measure difference air filter box holes blocked and holes open, then you know if there is restrictions, you may need to drive and floor it to see any changes.

Also when you have vacuum gauge connected between throttle butterfly and intake valve (ie. somewhere to intake manifold), then when you accelerate with throttle floored trough revband, if there is increase in vacuum at higher revs, then there is restriction somewhere in carb, or before the carb. When tuning NA engine vacuum at full throttle at any part of intake side is going to loose some power.

Some basic diagnostics, but remember that limitation of carb engines, that you will get carb icing quite easily, so finding way to get more partly heated (reduced water content in air = less prone to icing) bit over +20C air into carb is best, getting cold raw air is not so good.

Now here is idea, if your measurements show that there is restriction to air flow before the air filter when you have air box holes blocked, get one another air box that has thermostat operated flap at intake 'nozzle', cut it out and attach to your current air box, connect preheated air hose to that, maybe making y-joint to heat collector or something like that, this way you get double times heated air into motor. This is for example done by General Motors in yank tanks, where standard model had only one snorkel, performance model had two, both had preheating etc. and some guys have been adding these nozzles/snorkels to standard models when modifying engine to make more power.

For manifold matching, there is sold some colour stuff, which helps you to see how much things are off as you apply colour stuff to gasket and put them together you see where gasket is touching and you make head and manifold to match the gasket, so that way both are same size and maximum possible airflow that gasket allows is made possible, also as you can see, if gasket has larger hole than manifold and head there will be small gap, which causes turbulence and turbulence is very bad for power, swirl is good, turbulence is bad, don't know if that makes any sense, but think how to make air to move into one direction towards intake valve and making it spin before intake valve like a tornado, any shape or feature that works against that is loosing power, simple? :mrgreen:

There are some ideas for you to work with, I guess :?

Also remember that I'm not always 100% correct, also my memory module seem to be faulty, but hopefully other will put some notes if I'm being senile again :lol:
Volvo 360GL -88 -under restoration-
Volvo 343DL vario -81 -running- Image
Volvo 240 Diesel -83 -undecided-
Citroen ZX Dturbo -97 -daily- ImageImage

volvosneverdie
*** V3M DONOR ***
Posts: 9143
Joined: 11 Nov 2008 04:22 pm
Location: Newcastle Upon Toon

Re: my first car* 1.4 1990 340 a great rack inside

Post by volvosneverdie » 18 Jun 2010 08:05 pm

I agree with everything that man said. :D
Image

User avatar
valman
Posts: 663
Joined: 07 Feb 2010 11:16 pm
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: my first car* 1.4 1990 340 a great rack inside

Post by valman » 18 Jun 2010 08:59 pm

well after reading that, getting excited then remembering this car only cost £400 i might put my wallet away, whats left of it anyway. to be honest that sounds like alot of work for not much improvement - there are other cars i'd rather use for performance :lol: :lol: and do the proper works on. reckon i should tape up the airbox and sit in the naughty corner? :( :(
:lol:
ImageImage

User avatar
jtbo
Posts: 5805
Joined: 23 Jul 2004 03:50 am
Location: Finland, middle of nowhere
Contact:

Re: my first car* 1.4 1990 340 a great rack inside

Post by jtbo » 18 Jun 2010 10:28 pm

Yeah, there are no really easy way out with NA motors and with 1.4 cam swap is also near car prize I believe as probably you need to order it as custom work.

But do that double snorkel thing as you already have opening there, adding one snorkel more is not lot of work (bolt, weld, bodge), also some metal t-piece to existing preheating hose and putting that to 'new' snorkel, it will cost next to nothing and if there is any gain, there is at least no problems with icing.

It might run then bit lean at full throttle, but not necessarily, should be so tiny change really, also you could adjust float level so that there is more fuel in float chamber, it tends to enrichen mixture, however it is not proper way to do things and it will lower the MPG a tiny bit, also needs setting of idle mixture most likely, but easiest trick which does not upset too much of any other things.

But 1.4 is really made for urban use, to get groceries to home without braking eggs, I don't think that designers really intended it as a highway car, even it is surprisingly good there.

Think about new Citroen C1, one guy that I know bought one new, it is possible to drive it on highway, but just about everything is wrong, motor is too weak, thing is too noisy and windy conditions are adventure, however around town it works as any other vehicle.

Twin carbs, full headwork with big valves, nice exhaust manifold, hot cam, 1.4 would fly with all those, also so would the wallet, it would be so thin that even tiniest wind would blew it away, but it would be some pretty nice classic modded NA 'monster' :lol:
Volvo 360GL -88 -under restoration-
Volvo 343DL vario -81 -running- Image
Volvo 240 Diesel -83 -undecided-
Citroen ZX Dturbo -97 -daily- ImageImage

User avatar
valman
Posts: 663
Joined: 07 Feb 2010 11:16 pm
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: my first car* 1.4 1990 340 a great rack inside

Post by valman » 21 Jun 2010 04:49 pm

yeah i think tht is just too much to do on a 1.4 volvo,

anyway here is another mini update:
right today I got my "lowering block"
Image
so I'm pondering about going to 4 inch blocks but obviously safety is a big concern.
But a bigger problem is matching the front to the back - if I was to cut 4 inches off the coils on the front - ill have half an inch of space between tire and wheel tub.
what to do guys? it needs to be as low as possible really :D
ImageImage

volvosneverdie
*** V3M DONOR ***
Posts: 9143
Joined: 11 Nov 2008 04:22 pm
Location: Newcastle Upon Toon

Re: my first car* 1.4 1990 340 a great rack inside

Post by volvosneverdie » 21 Jun 2010 04:52 pm

Extra scene points for getting a shoe in the shot there man. :lol:

I think its pretty much accepted here that -3 in the lowest usable drop without major work but im ready for you to prove me wrong man. :wink:
Image

User avatar
valman
Posts: 663
Joined: 07 Feb 2010 11:16 pm
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: my first car* 1.4 1990 340 a great rack inside

Post by valman » 21 Jun 2010 05:16 pm

volvosneverdie wrote:Extra scene points for getting a shoe in the shot there man. :lol:

I think its pretty much accepted here that -3 in the lowest usable drop without major work but im ready for you to prove me wrong man. :wink:

dont think 4" on the back is an issue as such as there is still a bit of clearance. its just the front needs tubbing if i want usable 4" of drop. then again i do have alot of sheet and the inner wings are on the way out.... maybe some tubs should be made :twisted:
but i'd only do that if i get insured on my mums car as a second car so i still have something to use while its off the road :lol:
ImageImage

volvosneverdie
*** V3M DONOR ***
Posts: 9143
Joined: 11 Nov 2008 04:22 pm
Location: Newcastle Upon Toon

Re: my first car* 1.4 1990 340 a great rack inside

Post by volvosneverdie » 21 Jun 2010 05:31 pm

Think even if you tubbed the front, the sump'd catch at that level?
Though I might be wrong dude.
Image

User avatar
jtbo
Posts: 5805
Joined: 23 Jul 2004 03:50 am
Location: Finland, middle of nowhere
Contact:

Re: my first car* 1.4 1990 340 a great rack inside

Post by jtbo » 21 Jun 2010 06:49 pm

Front shock has motion range of 156mm from my memory, you are going to lower car over 100mm so there is 56mm motion range left, well there would, as it is not like suspension would be sitting at highest point all the time, with default springs it is more like half way compressed already and if you lower it 156/2=78mm it is certainly going to bottom out.

Practically it would be easier to remove springs and shocks, then replace them with blocks of steel, handling and comfort would be as much good/shite :mrgreen:

Hitting pothole would hit bodyshell quite badly, after little a while something is going to fail.

Usually forgotten issue with lowering is that higher spring rate is making more stress to bodywork, in old car there is probably rust somewhere, maybe hidden so it can't be seen, but it will make stress more of issue. Besides, your internal organs are about to swap places at every seam of asphalt.

If you plan to use car as a daily, how much you prefer to see bicyclers and grannies overtake you at speed bumps while you are trying to get over one without loosing half of your exhaust?

During winter lowered car is even more cr*p at hills than standard, stuck in snow all the time. Last two winters have given you snow, isn't that so? If forecasts are correct there is more to come next winter.

Measure gap from center of your wheel and wheel arch, then jack your car up so that tire barely touches ground and measure again, there you get number that is already used travel of front shock, now take that 4" and add it to number you got, then compare if it is more than you have available in shock, that 156mm.

I'm really skeptic that anything more than 2" will do any good and for that you will already need good smooth track, every time suspension bottoms out tire's grip is lost and I don't like you ending up into ditch at rain after hitting small bump.

For track and for road there are different goals when tuning suspension, surely some do it only for looks, but can't really see point in pretty cake that is horse cr*p from inside.

One more thing, if you cut your springs so much, when you jack car up, spring will not stay on place and you fail the MOT, sure you can attach spring to spring cup with clips, but I don't really think that is very good solution.

If you like to fill arches, then change arches to be smaller, with some lowering, that way you could still drive without destroying spine at every bump.

Just my thoughts, feel free to ignore senile old man, but don't say that I did not warn you :lol:

edit: Those clio conversions are popular because it is lot improvement for amount of work and especially £/hp ratio is really good compared to working with stock motor.

edit2: Can't remember how much Ali did lower his car, but I remember him once writing that it wass practically riding on bump stops.
Volvo 360GL -88 -under restoration-
Volvo 343DL vario -81 -running- Image
Volvo 240 Diesel -83 -undecided-
Citroen ZX Dturbo -97 -daily- ImageImage

User avatar
valman
Posts: 663
Joined: 07 Feb 2010 11:16 pm
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: my first car* 1.4 1990 340 a great rack inside

Post by valman » 22 Jun 2010 07:23 pm

yeah i sort of checked the sump, it would be off the ground but not by much :shock: will all need better examination. which brings me to the next point - thanks again for the info jtbo, really helpful and points alot of things i didnt give much thought. i will do the checks you suggested to see what will be "doable" will probably get it on stands tomorrow after my driving lesson.

argh test on friday too shitting it quite frankly :lol: dont want to do anything stupid
ImageImage

User avatar
valman
Posts: 663
Joined: 07 Feb 2010 11:16 pm
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: my first car* 1.4 1990 340 Driving test haha

Post by valman » 24 Jun 2010 11:05 am

passed my mock test today.... got 7 minors:
- hand brake left on twice ( pug 306... always do it as it never goes down properly like on most cars)
- stalled :mrgreen:
- speeding :lol:
- didnt check blind spot when turning in the road

so the real thing is tomorrow and i can't wait so to pass the time im going to go measure up the car and see how much low is possible :D
ImageImage

User avatar
valman
Posts: 663
Joined: 07 Feb 2010 11:16 pm
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: my first car* 1.4 1990 340 Driving test haha

Post by valman » 24 Jun 2010 11:50 am

ok measured up...
and if i did that correctly i can take 3.5 inches off the back and 2.5 off the front (if anyone here who HAS taken 3 inches off the front - please let me know what its like comfort wise)

as the car has a rake of one inch (mine does) it should be ok to take an inch more from the back?

thanks all
ImageImage

Post Reply