Page 2 of 6

Re: thoughts on 2.3 performance....

Posted: 16 Apr 2010 01:26 pm
by pyro
SteveP wrote:Oh also you'll have to modify the bellhousing for the LH 2.4 timing sensor
what must be done to modify the timing sensor?
im doing exactly the same swap in the next 10 days or so. ive managed to find a b230f for 100 quid.
edcase: have you looked into a wiring harness yet? ive managed to find the jetronic 'instruction' manual if you want it, but any wiring diagrams, connnections etc youve found would be good!

Ben

Re: thoughts on 2.3 performance....

Posted: 16 Apr 2010 01:29 pm
by foggyjames
Probably just adapting the bracket / hole.

cheers

James

Re: thoughts on 2.3 performance....

Posted: 16 Apr 2010 04:05 pm
by Ride_on
Before you do all that, you could try a high compression 360 or fixing your current Engine. The low compression one are quite revy, and the high compression ones a real kick in the arse for torque. Still a bit of an Engine change, but more straight forward, or you could just get an older car. I have an 87 Engine here high comp carb, swapping out for a B230FT, I was going to put an A cam in it (more revy) but opted for the turbo instead. Location won't be much use to you though.

All the Engines get a bit rough with age (940 included), you need new bearings, rings and maybe grind in valves every 100K or so to keep them quiet / new sounding.

Re: thoughts on 2.3 performance....

Posted: 16 Apr 2010 04:17 pm
by foggyjames
Trouble is...times move on. Even my V70R isn't that quick. Outrunning modern 2.0 diesels (the quicker ones...320ds, 170bhp Golfs, etc) isn't trivial. You need 200+bhp in a 300 to put modern diesel metal in its place, never mind the petrol stuff.

cheers

James

Re: thoughts on 2.3 performance....

Posted: 16 Apr 2010 06:32 pm
by pyro
foggyjames wrote:Trouble is...times move on. Even my V70R isn't that quick. Outrunning modern 2.0 diesels (the quicker ones...320ds, 170bhp Golfs, etc) isn't trivial. You need 200+bhp in a 300 to put modern diesel metal in its place, never mind the petrol stuff.

cheers

James
to be honest im not to fussed about that. i can out pace bad boy or fat boy corsas and saxos (what ever they are) as it is. (well i could :oops: )
to be honest, ive not got the time or the money to rebuild an engine. i can drop an engine in in a day, for less than the price of new pistonrings and shells. let alone anything else it will need.

Ben

Re: thoughts on 2.3 performance....

Posted: 16 Apr 2010 07:21 pm
by Edcase 300
hey Pyro I havent even looked into wiring harness :lol:

I'll be honest... i dont mind modern turbodiesels having driven a few.... mind you ... you cant beat the sound of a good old redblock! (Just wish it didnt drink like a V6!)

Plus I think (even in the case of my mk3 GLT) you drive the 300 series.. its no idiot mobile- one mistake and thats it (any prat can make countless mistakes in thier modern mould mobiles eh :wink: ) theres nothing better then driving your car sm4 (just my 2 cents)

Re: thoughts on 2.3 performance....

Posted: 16 Apr 2010 08:33 pm
by pyro
Edcase 300 wrote:hey Pyro I havent even looked into wiring harness :lol:

I'll be honest... i dont mind modern turbodiesels having driven a few....
well i believe if its pulled from a 240 its easy as its not integrated into the main harness, however on a 940 its a big of a job apparently

yep, i dont mind them either, they may be quick efficient and cheap. but hey hell are the boring! no soul, no life, no feel, and no little quirky bits we all come to love in older cars!
like having to have the heater set on 3 to start the engine (my old landrover)
having to move the auto gearstick lever into D then back to P before you start the engine etc!

Ben

Re: thoughts on 2.3 performance....

Posted: 16 Apr 2010 09:15 pm
by Edcase 300
hehe too right! sm4
(Ive even developed a soft spot for my mums 1.0 AX :oops: Even if its revving its nuts off @ 65 mph in 4th (top gear) it shames bigger cars at parking with its miniscule dimesions) :lol:

Re: thoughts on 2.3 performance....

Posted: 17 Apr 2010 12:25 am
by Chris_C
foggyjames wrote:Trouble is...times move on. Even my V70R isn't that quick. Outrunning modern 2.0 diesels (the quicker ones...320ds, 170bhp Golfs, etc) isn't trivial. You need 200+bhp in a 300 to put modern diesel metal in its place, never mind the petrol stuff.
B*llocks :lol: They are so heavy they really dont move that quick. Focus RS's etc are different, but they miss the point completely you might as well have a chipped V70

Re: thoughts on 2.3 performance....

Posted: 17 Apr 2010 01:19 am
by jtbo
pyro wrote: yep, i dont mind them either, they may be quick efficient and cheap. but hey hell are the boring! no soul, no life, no feel, and no little quirky bits we all come to love in older cars!
like having to have the heater set on 3 to start the engine (my old landrover)
having to move the auto gearstick lever into D then back to P before you start the engine etc!

Ben
Those are no quirks, them are clearly immobilizer units which only activate when car becomes to age where it is big deal if stolen, nobody cares if new car get's stolen, you can get new one from shop, not so easy with these oldies :lol:

240 turbo had something like 155hp, but check those performance numbers, GLT don't need a lot to keep up with it to 1/4mile or 0-65, even 0-1000m was quite close I think. Modern cars with lot more weight than 240 and 140hp baseline motors are not much faster really. Putting little extra to 360 makes it shift lot differently than these modern cars, especially fueling and cam are really bad in performance way, good cam and match fueling to cam and motor comes alive.

Re: thoughts on 2.3 performance....

Posted: 17 Apr 2010 09:20 am
by bodejodel
Did'nt the early 940's come with the B230FB engines in the UK? Those are the best 8V N/A redblocks with 135 Hp and 190 Nm. I have driven one with an automatic transmission and it did feel quite good. Not paricularly fast in a 940, but I know someone who put it in a 360 ant that was just as fast off the line as a Focus RS. (on a vary very short track though...)

http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm19 ... I_0039.flv


Image

I have owned a 740 GLE 16V ant that engine would be magical in a 360. 155 hp and 205 Nm...

Re: thoughts on 2.3 performance....

Posted: 17 Apr 2010 11:36 am
by Edcase 300
FWD =(Wrong Wheel Numpty Drive).... (understeery + many who drive the rep mobiles seem to brake on corners!) :shock:

Focus RS mk2 ..... (I swear its got a Volvo 5 cyclinder? :wink: ) ....

Teal Green (whats the colour?looks good) Volvo 360 (Pretty awesome... so jealous..is that leather inside it? sm1 ) Kicks Butt sm4

Re: thoughts on 2.3 performance....

Posted: 18 Apr 2010 12:22 pm
by foggyjames
Chris_C wrote:B*llocks :lol: They are so heavy they really dont move that quick.
I knew I'd need to clarify...! I meant to spank one. You can outrun them with ~150bhp in a 300, but just edging ahead with the thing screaming its head off isn't dignified. It's like when I had a little tussle with Fabia VRS in the 360...I won, but it was a pretty hollow (and laboured) victory!

240 LH2.4 looms aren't completely independent of the main car loom, but they're much better that way then 940s. I think there are 4-5 wires which need to be extractred from the car loom...not too bad!

cheers

James

Re: thoughts on 2.3 performance....

Posted: 18 Apr 2010 12:26 pm
by volvosneverdie
This thread rules.
2.3 rules.

Cheers everyone involved for such helpfull and easy to follow info. :D

Re: thoughts on 2.3 performance....

Posted: 18 Apr 2010 07:30 pm
by bodejodel
Edcase 300 wrote:Volvo 360 (Pretty awesome... so jealous..is that leather inside it? sm1 ) Kicks Butt sm4
The B23FB in that 360 still uses the 360 ignition system, so there is even more power to be gained. It has leather inside indeed. I had leather in my previous 360, but if you drive it a lot, the cloth interiors are more comfortable. Leather is very cold in winter and screaming hot in summer and it takes a bit more maintainance to keep it looking pretty.