home register FAQ memberlist calendar

Go Back   Turbobricks Forums > General > website & board

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-26-2014, 11:12 PM   #176
mbolton1990
Board Member
 
mbolton1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: 32348
Default

this is all true stuff

i know cruising at 60mph @ under 2000 rpms (1500-1700 ideally) is how cars have historically gotten really good mpg/fe.

if this isn't possible with the stock rear-end / trans couldn't the rear end be swapped to be able to achieve this?i remember someone on ecomodder/fuelly achieved 40+mpg hwy out of a volvo 240..ill see if i can't located the thread,getting 40mpg out of a 240 would be the best of both worlds in my opinion.
mbolton1990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2014, 11:24 PM   #177
mbolton1990
Board Member
 
mbolton1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: 32348
Default

can't find the thread i was looking for but stumbled across this
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...mbi-22856.html

good tips from volvo owners

also a mpguino would help a lot in getting the best mpg,btw does anyone know if 240's have dfco(deceleration fuel cut-off?[engine braking kills injectors])

Last edited by mbolton1990; 05-26-2014 at 11:32 PM..
mbolton1990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2014, 01:45 AM   #178
240240
I crush everything!
 
240240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Southern California Über Alles
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by klr142 View Post
No need to advance it. I don't think anyone has ever said to advance the T cam. I ran it retarded 4 degrees and it was a good mix for me.
this ...the idea is to get right before peak torque for max mpg..retarding a mellow cam is great for mpg on the highway
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 240240 View Post
Any thread about cut springs, & or +T on a college students budget shall be sent to OT, flogged for 24 hours, participants in said thread shall point the OP in the correct thread link while simultaneously shaming them
I know what I have, and you can buy it here
240240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2014, 01:52 AM   #179
240240
I crush everything!
 
240240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Southern California Über Alles
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbolton1990 View Post
this is all true stuff

i know cruising at 60mph @ under 2000 rpms (1500-1700 ideally) is how cars have historically gotten really good mpg/fe.

if this isn't possible with the stock rear-end / trans couldn't the rear end be swapped to be able to achieve this?i remember someone on ecomodder/fuelly achieved 40+mpg hwy out of a volvo 240..ill see if i can't located the thread,getting 40mpg out of a 240 would be the best of both worlds in my opinion.
use a 331 rear end on a locker auto I think gets you around 2k rpm at 70...but youd have to live on flat terrain for that....run the stock L or M cam.....2.0 or 2.2lh tend to run lean....also kjet can be tweeked to run super lean.. then theres aftermarket stuff

I think a high comp ohc redblock with no ps pulley and only an alternator on the pulley on a switch to turn it off wwhen it isn't used can get into 35mpg consistently being lowered and at that gear setting above....some guys take out the alternator altoghether and just charge the car at home to gain like 2-5% mpg
240240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2014, 10:48 PM   #180
Mylesofsmyles
Board Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 240240 View Post
use a 331 rear end on a locker auto I think gets you around 2k rpm at 70...but youd have to live on flat terrain for that....run the stock L or M cam.....2.0 or 2.2lh tend to run lean....also kjet can be tweeked to run super lean.. then theres aftermarket stuff

I think a high comp ohc redblock with no ps pulley and only an alternator on the pulley on a switch to turn it off wwhen it isn't used can get into 35mpg consistently being lowered and at that gear setting above....some guys take out the alternator altoghether and just charge the car at home to gain like 2-5% mpg
Yeah dude...it's like a Plug-In Volvo 240....

You can probably park in those 'special spots'
Mylesofsmyles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2014, 01:02 AM   #181
84B23F
Board Member
 
84B23F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kansas, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 240240 View Post
...but youd have to live on flat terrain for that....
Unless one drives highway miles mostly, spending bucks for a few extra mpg is much ado about nothing.

Those driving on flat terrain can get the most mpg, but when vehicle is going up/down hills, I really doubt there will be much difference if vehicle was peaked for mpg, when compare to a normal vehicle.

If a 1800cc B18 engine was converted to EFI, with a pinch higher compression, and with taller gearing (or Ford's T5), I suspect it would give the best fuel economy. PV544s were getting around 25-30 mpg in the 1960s, with just points and SUs.

I rather suspect those who have gotten 35 mpg were on flat ground, with the wind to their backside.
84B23F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2014, 12:53 PM   #182
122power
dude
 
122power's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Where have all the quad squares gone? VV,Ca
Default

I got 30-34mpg in my 89 245 M47 (lh2.4) car stock on the highway doing about 65-70 2,400-2,500 rpm on 205 60R16. That was going across the U.S. and th car had 256k on it. It got about the same on the trip back but with some crap in it. This was from California to Michigan via Yellowstone.

I dont think a B23 will get past the mpg's that a B230 can put out due to the internal friction of the engine.

Last edited by 122power; 05-28-2014 at 12:58 PM..
122power is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2014, 01:28 PM   #183
240240
I crush everything!
 
240240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Southern California Über Alles
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mylesofsmyles View Post
Yeah dude...it's like a Plug-In Volvo 240....

You can probably park in those 'special spots'
Handicap? For being slow for taking the alternator out?

I've seen morons with normal ecomodder cars with a 100ft extension cord with the cars out in the parking lots charging. I suspect the alternator mod when I see the grill duct taped off with cardboard....
240240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2014, 01:31 PM   #184
240240
I crush everything!
 
240240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Southern California Über Alles
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 122power View Post
I got 30-34mpg in my 89 245 M47 (lh2.4) car stock on the highway doing about 65-70 2,400-2,500 rpm on 205 60R16. That was going across the U.S. and th car had 256k on it. It got about the same on the trip back but with some crap in it. This was from California to Michigan via Yellowstone.

I dont think a B23 will get past the mpg's that a B230 can put out due to the internal friction of the engine.
Once the engine is moving at higher speeds is it really that much with friction?... Those crown vics that have all those cylinders are rolling along at high 20s mpg.
240240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2014, 02:29 PM   #185
84B23F
Board Member
 
84B23F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kansas, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 122power View Post
I dont think a B23 will get past the mpg's that a B230 can put out due to the internal friction of the engine.
27 mpg in 1993 940 (auto-4) was original fuel economy with regular gasoline at around 55 mph driving cycle, with no AC running.

I run around 25-27 mpg in modest hilly terrain around 55 mph, with a small pinch of city driving; but I am using 89 Octane, with 10% ethanol. Ethanol blend reduces fuel economy a pinch.

So, my overhauled 1984-B23F installed in a 1993-940 with Rex-I/Regina is right on spec with original OEM fuel mileage, but I am running in hilly terrain, and with E10 fuel.

On flat land, it would do better...
84B23F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2014, 06:16 PM   #186
mbolton1990
Board Member
 
mbolton1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: 32348
Default

interesting..

+juan for the switch on the alternator...
i saw where deleting the alternator gets some cars 10% increase in fe,that's no small taters willis..
you really dont need it on 24/7 if just cruising on the highway with no a/c etc etc
just have a in car voltage gauge..

no mention of warm air intakes?
and no word on dfco?
idk if bosch would've done such a thing
mbolton1990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2014, 08:55 PM   #187
84B23F
Board Member
 
84B23F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kansas, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbolton1990 View Post
i saw where deleting the alternator gets some cars 10% increase in fe,that's no small taters willis..
10% for 27 mpg = 29.7mpg Needless to say, your battery life is shorten, plus cost of charging it, including cost of battery charger...is it worth it, NO.

How much energy does an alternator use?
84B23F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2014, 02:04 AM   #188
122power
dude
 
122power's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Where have all the quad squares gone? VV,Ca
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 240240 View Post
Once the engine is moving at higher speeds is it really that much with friction?... Those crown vics that have all those cylinders are rolling along at high 20s mpg.
And yes once its rolling it doesnt take much to keep it going, its the initial power to get it up there.

That 4.6l is more advanced than the B230 of 85-93ish. Plus its only 280 cu, in. That motor is not bad for what it puts out. Think the b230 went super low friction in 85' but then they made the rod or mains bigger again in 89 or 90' I believe.
Anyway smaller bearing diameters, thinner piston rings, shorter piston skirts all add up to more mpg's. Plus lower rpm's while letting the engines last longer.

A friend of mine drag races in super stock class and to get all the power he can, he only runs the top piston ring and low tension oil ring.
122power is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2014, 07:02 PM   #189
240240
I crush everything!
 
240240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Southern California Über Alles
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 122power View Post
And yes once its rolling it doesnt take much to keep it going, its the initial power to get it up there.

That 4.6l is more advanced than the B230 of 85-93ish. Plus its only 280 cu, in. That motor is not bad for what it puts out. Think the b230 went super low friction in 85' but then they made the rod or mains bigger again in 89 or 90' I believe.
Anyway smaller bearing diameters, thinner piston rings, shorter piston skirts all add up to more mpg's. Plus lower rpm's while letting the engines last longer.

A friend of mine drag races in super stock class and to get all the power he can, he only runs the top piston ring and low tension oil ring.
for mpg its stupid to decrease engine life to get better mpg, its like the morons who use wvo %100 on their diesels....all that stuff breaks down the engine over time....ive used plenty of the skinny rod cars and I had an auto 745 in perfect tune that would consistently give me 27mpg wich is awesome for hilly terrain and auto transmission
240240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2014, 01:03 AM   #190
122power
dude
 
122power's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Where have all the quad squares gone? VV,Ca
Default

How do those things decrease engine life? It's about efficiency. They last just as long too.
122power is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2014, 01:13 PM   #191
84B23F
Board Member
 
84B23F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kansas, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 122power View Post
It's about efficiency
OEMs, will do various mods/designs, with end result being in tenths and more in mpg savings.

B23F > B230F > Why?

1983 B23F — 10.3:1 compression
1985–1986 B230F — 9.8:1 compression

Higher compression engines get better fuel economy, right? "By increasing the compression ratio from 8:1 to 9:1, for example, you can improve fuel economy by about 5 to 6 percent."

Too much compression for aluminum/steel head/block setup...???

Wait a minute, Volvo took a hit on fuel economy with B230F engine....WTF...
84B23F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2014, 01:25 PM   #192
84B23F
Board Member
 
84B23F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kansas, USA
Default

Chevrolet Cruze Eco

NA: Compression ratio: 10.5:1 Fuel: 25 / 36 (manual)

Turbo: Compression ratio: 9.5:1 Fuel: 28 / 42 (Eco manual)
84B23F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2014, 02:17 PM   #193
klr142
Turbo, what?
 
klr142's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: OR
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 84B23F View Post
OEMs, will do various mods/designs, with end result being in tenths and more in mpg savings.

B23F > B230F > Why?

1983 B23F — 10.3:1 compression
1985–1986 B230F — 9.8:1 compression

Higher compression engines get better fuel economy, right? "By increasing the compression ratio from 8:1 to 9:1, for example, you can improve fuel economy by about 5 to 6 percent."

Too much compression for aluminum/steel head/block setup...???

Wait a minute, Volvo took a hit on fuel economy with B230F engine....WTF...
Prove your statements.
klr142 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2014, 04:14 PM   #194
baggins798
Board Member
 
baggins798's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK, Staffordshire
Default

I'll just leave this here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop View Post
I know that the B23 engines are very sort after by many, but recently when reading both a review of a 84 760 Turbo and then of a 85 760 Turbo done by the same mag here in Australia, I noticed some interesting diffrences when comparing the engines performance vs their fuel consumption.

The 84 ran the B23ET, the 85 a B230ET.
Power and torque were listed as the same for both engines (127kW/5700rpm, 250Nm/3500rpm), and both ran a manual trans.
Their performance tests are always done with 2 people in the car, and the best and worst figures are from during the road and performance testing, with the 83 test loop always done at the end to see what is actually possible if you drive carefully.
Also, 400m is quarter mile times, we are metric here you know.

84 760 B23ET
Performance (secs)
0-60kph = 3.9
0-100kph = 8.7
400m = 16.4
Fuel Consumption (mpg)
Best = 20.5
worst = 16.9
Overall on test = 18.5
83km test loop = 24.3

85 760 B230ET
Performance (secs)
0-60kph = 4.3
0-100kph = 9.2
400m = 16.3
Fuel Consumption (mpg)
Best = 21.7
Worst = 18.7
Overall on test = 20.8
83km test loop = 32.1

After I compared the results myself, I have to admit I'm no longer in any hurry to rush out and get a B23 block engine, Volvo certianly did know what they were doing when they changed the design, maybe not in terms of overall strength, but it's quite an impressive improvment in fuel consumption.
It may also interest some to know that they did in gear speed tests as well, and even though the B23 above is slightly faster 0-100, the B230 romps all over the B23 when putting your foot down in rolling starts at any speed.

And yes, I do have to much time on my hands, I just figured some may want to "see" the results of Volvos move to the "low friction" engine design.
*Both ET's run a 9.0 comp ratio.

Last edited by baggins798; 05-30-2014 at 04:28 PM..
baggins798 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2014, 04:42 PM   #195
84B23F
Board Member
 
84B23F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kansas, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by klr142 View Post
Prove your statements.
Compression ratio...higher the better...Chevrolet Cruze Eco
84B23F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2014, 11:07 PM   #196
122power
dude
 
122power's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Where have all the quad squares gone? VV,Ca
Default

Yes that's true. BUT, the hc b23 has more internal friction than a b230. That's where the difference is as I mentioned earlier.
122power is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2014, 01:20 AM   #197
240240
I crush everything!
 
240240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Southern California Über Alles
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 122power View Post
How do those things decrease engine life? It's about efficiency. They last just as long too.
I have yet to get over 500k on a skinny rod car due to the bearings wearing out.(from abuse from previous owners) ive owned 2 b21f that have gone over 600k miles. in all honesty a skinny rod engine is very stout as well...ive always sourced out 2.2lh cars for work abuse and they have all proven themselves....there is no major weak point in b21/b23 cars, and they usually will outlast the newer engines. I will go out on a limb and say Volvo redesigned the b230 for cost not for fuel efficiency,

theres crazy guys that run minimum amount of oil, thinner oils, pull the cooling fans out, take out alternators for weaker spark,etc, etc,....those are the things that decrease engine life in the name of mpg
240240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2014, 08:50 AM   #198
84B23F
Board Member
 
84B23F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kansas, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 122power View Post
Yes that's true. BUT, the hc b23 has more internal friction than a b230.
I'm not contesting the friction aspect...they dropped the compression ratio, which does reduce fuel efficiency.

Btw, in baggins798's post comparing...both engines needed to be tested on a test stand; with both engines having same ignition fuel systems.
84B23F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2014, 02:58 PM   #199
84B23F
Board Member
 
84B23F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kansas, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggins798 View Post
I'll just leave this here: *Both ET's run a 9.0 comp ratio.
In US, EPA maintains fuel economy database, but in earlier years, everything was called Turbo (screwup on their part). But since I had a 1984 with 300K+ miles, I know what fuel mileage it got.

Here's how it was listed (two pages): 1984 Volvo 240 DL/GL/Turbo

and if you click on individual vehicle, you get this. So, sifting thru this data on original fuel data for city and 55 mph test data for 4 speed auto:

1984: 21/25 city/hwy mpg

1985: 21/24 city/hwy mpg

1993: 245- 20/25 city/hwy mpg

Automobile-catalog.com says for Turbo:

1984: 0.4 l/100km / 27.3 mpg (imp.) / 22.8 mpg (U.S.) / 9.6 km/l

1985: 0.4 l/100km / 27.3 mpg (imp.) / 22.8 mpg (U.S.) / 9.6 km/l
84B23F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2014, 03:51 PM   #200
klr142
Turbo, what?
 
klr142's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: OR
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 84B23F View Post
Compression ratio...higher the better...Chevrolet Cruze Eco
That has NOTHING to do with a b23 vs b230. Nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 84B23F View Post
I'm not contesting the friction aspect...they dropped the compression ratio, which does reduce fuel efficiency.
And increased the internal efficiency of the motor, which does increase fuel efficiency.


So, are you making a general statement pulled out of your butt based on things you've read about fuel efficiency in general on the internet, or are you stating a fact that the 10.3:1 b23 will get better gas mileage than a 9.8:1 b230 with the exact same car/trans/engine management, etc.?
klr142 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.