340 cvt idle speed?

[spike4073]

ive finaly got my rev counter fitted today so i figure its a good time to check the idle speed.

once choke is taken compleatly off and engine is idleing the rev counter reads between 5 and 10 on the dial..

is this about right or do i need to start adjusting stuff?


any input apreciated

[Chris_C]

1.4's should idle rock steady, so you should be able to see where between 5 and 10 on the dial it is Green book value I believe is 850.

[spike4073]

its pretty much bang on 8.....

so if anything it could stand to be a tad higher?

hmm

[Chris_C]

I always set mine around 750-800, I felt 850 was a tad high. You shouldn't have any issues, they idle lovely a little lower than book so I'd leave alone!

[spike4073]

yeah i think ill leave it where it is got mot coming up so am trying to get everything as perfect as possible as iv had some rite bull from mot guys in the past

[volvodspec]

ideally you want a CVT to run close to the clutch engaging point, this makes a light touch on the pedal enough to get the car moving benefit of this is that you make sure that the clutch slips less at taking off extending it's life

but, i'm a fan of low silent idling B14's myself, at 650/700rpm i sometimes wonder if it's still running while standing still for a pair of traffic lights slowly increasing the revs on take-off helps to get the car moving without overslipping clutch so the same effect as a slightly higher idle

[spike4073]

yeah i did have it idleing closer to bit point in the past but its actualy failed mot before for idle speed being too high!? ..... that was a new one for me to hear ?:S

[Chris_C]

I've failed on the same.

Shame the garage couldn't reproduce the fault when I was there. Turned out the f*ckwit had left the choke out in the end.

[spike4073]

lol.... typical... guess no one understands manual chokes these days i prefer them myself...

what annoyed me most when it last failed was that the brakes failed cas they measured 44% when 50 is needed for a pass.... it had been stood for 12 month "which he knew about" now im sure he could have let that go knowing full well that after driving for a couple of miles the braking would improve when the surface rust was worn off ... guess he was just determind to fail me

[macplaxton]

what annoyed me most when it last failed was that the brakes failed cas they measured 44% when 50 is needed for a pass.... it had been stood for 12 month "which he knew about" now im sure he could have let that go knowing full well that after driving for a couple of miles the braking would improve when the surface rust was worn off ... guess he was just determind to fail me

I guess he was just doing his job properly

Surely if it had stood for 12 months, you yourself could have made sure the brakes were up to scratch before presenting the car for test

44% efficiency is dreadful, and a Tapley will tend to read higher than a roller brake tester anyway.

It's one thing grumbling about MOT testers that don't know how to do the test correctly, it's another thing grumbling about those just doing it correctly.