360 carb fuel consumption..

Post by **5lab** » 18 Dec 2004 02:05 pm

well it is the wost enine for economy that was available..

Post by **Duvel78** » 18 Dec 2004 02:42 pm

5lab wrote:well it is the wost enine for economy that was available..

Can you show me where you read that?

Post by **5lab** » 18 Dec 2004 04:06 pm

well its an e, which is bad, plus it has to work extra hard to push all the exhaust thru the cat. think about it, if it has 3% less power, then that means that the engine will *always* have to use 3% more fuel to get the same amount more power, i think..

Post by **Carl** » 18 Dec 2004 05:46 pm

16 only happened once, and it was driven rather hard!
I have been known to get <15mpg from a 1.4. And ~25 from a 1.8TD (not volvos though)

Never really paid much attention to what my old 340 did.

Post by **Azurael** » 18 Dec 2004 10:15 pm

My owners manual claims an '80 spec 1.4 343/5 will only do 28.3mpg at a constant 56mph... Eeek! My dad's old 2 litre turbo Saab did better than that! I'm guessing the newer ones (with electric fan rather than a constant belt driven one, such as my car has now

) are more fuel efficient than that.

Post by **jtbo** » 19 Dec 2004 01:26 pm

I can run about 450km/tank so that does makes 12l/100km which is 23mpg if my math is correct. I do have b200k.
50mpg sounds crazy, how to run so little ???

Of course it could be that I have some major problems in my car.

Best I have managed is 26mpg but only once.

Worst is 18mpg that was on track.

I can fill 55 litres at max, was when car stalled in to gas station, because out of fuel.

55 litres costs 62,37€ and that is 42.74£

Hum, so I'm planning to run 1900km trip soon and where I'm going (Northest border of Finland) is not very good network of gas stations, I think I better pack some extra fuel with me

Post by **Duvel78** » 19 Dec 2004 02:12 pm

Ah finally someone who uses kilometers

450 km for one tank? That's not good for a B200K, it's worse than my B200F. But you live in Finland > very cold starts yet and you drive on the snow maybe?

Post by **jtbo** » 19 Dec 2004 02:25 pm

Actually, those are numbers from summer, +20 degrees and so, it is bit worse at winter

Post by **SoLaMaNdA** » 19 Dec 2004 10:36 pm

My last tank averaged 31mpg, mostly long distance/country roads with heavy right foot. Pleasantly suprised

Post by **5lab** » 19 Dec 2004 11:51 pm

remember guys, this depends if you use a american or imperial gallon - over here we use imperial (but most on-line stuff is american)

Post by **jtbo** » 20 Dec 2004 05:14 pm

I calculated with these numbers, so it is UK gallons, I think. http://www.dropbears.com/u/utilities/fu ... iency.html

Another useful conversion site http://www.digitaldutch.com/unitconverter/

Post by **foggyjames** » 20 Dec 2004 06:44 pm

5lab wrote:well its an e, which is bad, plus it has to work extra hard to push all the exhaust thru the cat. think about it, if it has 3% less power, then that means that the engine will *always* have to use 3% more fuel to get the same amount more power, i think..

Oh Hugh....

That would be true if the engines were identical and controlled in the same way. However, the B200F uses an oxygen sensor, which enables a much more precise mixture (I have seen a graph of this somewhere - without an O2 sensor FI isn't much better than carbs). Beyond that, there are almost certainly other differences in the engine - from compression ratio to camshaft - I bet they're not identical. The peak power output is less from the B200F.

It's a common 'Max Power'-ism that the cat is a significant restriction, and should be removed at all costs. Most cat engines (e.g. B230ET vs FT) are down on power (182 vs ~170 bhp?), but this is due to a different configurations (in this case compression, head design, and cam), not the cat itself.

I'm 95% certain that the B200F *should* be more economical than the B200E....so maybe something is wrong Aymat....when was the last full service, including ignition system components?

cheers

James

Post by **Duvel78** » 20 Dec 2004 07:35 pm

foggyjames wrote:
5lab wrote:well its an e, which is bad, plus it has to work extra hard to push all the exhaust thru the cat. think about it, if it has 3% less power, then that means that the engine will *always* have to use 3% more fuel to get the same amount more power, i think..
Oh Hugh....

Ha ha! excellent!

I've realized that there is something wrong with my fuel gauge. When the contact is on (engine off), the indication is very low and wrong BUT when the engine is started & when the car has moved, the gauge is right

So when I said that my B200F wasn't really economical, that wasn't true. Furthermore the oil change is URGENT (not enough oil, really under the MIN)

Now, concerning the fuel consumption between the B200E and B200F, there is an interesting document available on the VOC website (a press information). They say that the average fuel consumption for the B200E (GLT sedan) is 8.4 l/100 km and 9.3 l/100 km for the B200F...... 1 liter more?

http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/press/pdf/3 ... elease.pdf

Post by **5lab** » 20 Dec 2004 08:04 pm

0.5 second slower to 100km/h too. time to get the hacksaw out

:)

Post by **Duvel78** » 20 Dec 2004 08:10 pm

Bah, it's the engine for the GLT with the most advanced technology

, that's my consolation

BOSCH LU JETRONIC Mmmhhhhhhh

LOL