S-L-O-W 1993 240 Classic wagon

[swedishiron.com]

Originally Posted by dmg4

OK, I'm new to this. I had nightmarish visions of trying to solder that centipede-like EPROM in place after, and perhaps worse, "unsoldering" the OEM EPROM from it's socket. My question was perhaps naive: it appears that the chip is pushed into the socket, and not soldered. Have I got it right now?

Yes. Use a small flat-bladed screwdriver to remove the chip and pry it up slowly. There's a U-shaped cutout on short edge/end of the chip - make note of its location.

Press the new chip in place and align the U-shaped cutout with its new location.

[dmg4]

Achemedes might had a misplaced faith in what he might accomplish with a lever. At least that's what I think after removing the 30-yr-old head bolts. Jeeze, I don't know what those Swede assembly-line workers eat for breakfast, but you'd think that 45 ft/lbs plus 90 degrees would not result in those damnable things being so hard to break loose. There was also some kind of black crusty stuff on the center of the threaded section. Is that some kind of Lutefisk-Loctite?

But I digress. It's done now. I have a question on cam timing: Having shaved 0.040" off the head, I am now 4 degrees retarded (some might say more, but we're really talking about the cam, not me). I have an adjustable camshaft gear installed, and so if I advance 4 degrees, then I am back to "normal". Now, what would you suggest as a good starting point for cam timing? To review: I have a B230F, IPD-VX cam, 2.5" exhaust from the 2:1 collector back, NA, shaved 0.040" cylinder head, and now have the chip set from Redblockpowered installed. This car is not a racer. It's going to be a daily driver, mostly highway, with a bit more umpf. Advance, retard, or leave as is, and why?

[culberro]

Most (all?) cam gears for redblocks have the degrees marked for the camshaft, not the crank. So you’ll want to adv it 2° as marked/indicated for it be “straight up”.

The VX3 already has 3° of adv ground into it, so adding more probably isn’t the best idea. Good news is, that changing cam timing takes all of about 10-20min at garage pace.

[esmth]

I've snapped some 3/8 extensions at the junkyards trying to pull heads, they definitely are in there good.

About cam timing, i'm not sure where the math puts it retarded, but I suggest to try to play with it yourself. At least for me it was pretty clear where straight up is/was/should be and the engine is the happiest with a factory cam if u fiddle with it a bit. (yes vx is a factory cam)

[dmg4]

Originally Posted by culberro

The VX3 already has 3° of adv ground into it, so adding more probably isn’t the best idea. Good news is, that changing cam timing takes all of about 10-20min at garage pace.

I have the VX cam (for NA) not the VX3 (for turbo). Do you know if there is also advance ground into the VX?

[culberro]

Originally Posted by dmg4

I have the “VX” cam (for NA) not the VX3 (for turbo). Do you know if there is also advance ground into the VX?

If you bought a new or used VX cam from IPD, it’ll be the VX3. I don’t think IPD ever sold a standard VX cam.
The IPD turbo cam is a different lobe profile and LSA altogether.

If it’s an old OEM cam, then it’s the standard VX.

[dmg4]

Originally Posted by culberro

If you bought a new or used VX cam from IPD, it’ll be the VX3. I don’t think IPD ever sold a standard VX cam.
The IPD turbo cam is a different lobe profile and LSA altogether.

I stand corrected. I purchased what IPD refers to as their VX cam for NA engines in 2021. In my defense, we've covered most of the alphabet on cams after 8 pages. I am not on familiar ground.

One more time for the dummy here (me): shaving 0.040" off the head retards crank timing by roughly 4 degrees, and so I should advance cam timing by 2 degrees to compensate, correct?

And, the hive mind buzz is that I should neither advance nor retard cam timing further than described above at this time, also correct?

[culberro]

That is correct wrt the cam/crank degrees, and generally the cams like to be “straight up” . You might find some gains left or right from center, and it’s very easy to change around once installed. Best to verify with a dyno or stop watch when making those changes.

[dmg4]

Here's where we are today. The new cylinder head, shaved 0.040" is installed, and the IPD-VX cam has been swapped into it, with cam clearance all set to 0.012" intake and exhaust. New ignition and fuel chips from Redblockpowered installed. Full tank of fuel and about 100 lbs of crap in the back.

And...(drum roll): 0-60 in 12.5 sec. Even more fun from 40 to 80. Times might improve as the system "learns" the new chips.

2.5" exhaust from the collector back goes on later this week, so this might get better still.

I started at 0-60 in 15.4, and I still have the monster truck tires on the wagon. This is progress.

[dmg4]

It's getting better! Drove the car 80 miles in a combination of stop+go and 75 mph on the interstate, and then returned for two more 0-60 runs. This time: 12.1 and 12.0 seconds. I only need to shave off 1.8 seconds and I can catch that Prius.

One must dream.

[hessam69]

What service have you carried out on the transmission?

You could do a couple of things, accumulator mod for faster shifts and less slip and while you're there add a bottle of lucas oil trans fix (gives the clutches better bite for less slip and longer life)

[dmg4]

Whoops. Duplicated a post and now can't delete it.

[dmg4]

Originally Posted by hessam69

What service have you carried out on the transmission

Flushed the transmission and changed the fluid and filter about 500 miles ago. Nothing more yet. I could fuss with the transmission now, but the premier issue was that there was really not much to transmit.

On a 0-60 run it only shifts once: 1st to 2nd. It will stay in 2nd well past 70 mph.

Let's see what the next step produces (2.5" exhaust) and see where we are. That happens on Monday.

[Otto Mattik]

Originally Posted by dmg4

Flushed the transmission and changed the fluid and filter about 500 miles ago. Nothing more yet. I could fuss with the transmission now, but the premier issue was that there was really not much to transmit.

On a 0-60 run it only shifts once: 1st to 2nd. It will stay in 2nd well past 70 mph.

Let's see what the next step produces (2.5" exhaust) and see where we are. That happens on Monday.

My 240/AW70 will go into 3rd around 25mph under normal driving conditions.

My suggestion is to flush the tranny again(I've done 4 flushes never done filter). I'm running a type of full synthetic Dex, the car shifts perfect unless it's overheated in city traffic, but if I let up on the pedal it does what it's supposed to do.

[VB242]

Originally Posted by Otto Mattik

My 240/AW70 will go into 3rd around 25mph under normal driving conditions.

My suggestion is to flush the tranny again(I've done 4 flushes never done filter). I'm running a type of full synthetic Dex, the car shifts perfect unless it's overheated in city traffic, but if I let up on the pedal it does what it's supposed to do.

I think he was bragging that the car holds the gears longer at wide open throttle.

[dmg4]

Originally Posted by VB242

I think he was bragging that the car holds the gears longer at wide open throttle.

Bragging about the speed of a 240 that would still struggle to catch a Prius?

Nope. Just questioning the logic of multiple flushes to address a problem that (to me) does not exist on this car. Fluid looked good when I got the car: clean and didn't smell burnt. Shifts were clean and tight. I flushed it just so I'd have a zero point for the mileage on the fluid. The filter is easy to change and cheap, so why not do that too? The flushing was through the transmission coolant lines, so it wasn't just a drain and refill.

My original point was that: (i) there's only one shift between 0 and 60: 1st to second, so there's just that one very slim chance of improvement from fussing with the transmission; and (ii) the main issue in this car was piddly power from the engine, not inefficiency in transfer of the piddly power.

[OldCarNewTricks]

Are you trying to suggest that his transmission is slipping excessively, or something?

[dmg4]

Originally Posted by OldCarNewTricks

Are you trying to suggest that his transmission is slipping excessively, or something?

The transmission is fine. It's not slipping.

We're headed down a rabbit hole here. The car was slow. Now it's much faster, but "fast" is a relative thing. The mods to improve speed were a VX3 cam, planing the head 0.040, and new EZK and ECU chips.

On Monday it gets a 2.5" exhaust upgrade, and once I can run some more 0-60 times, I'll let folks know what happened. But, essentially the news is this: each one of the above mods, all taken in sequence from the sticky on performance mods for NA redblocks, produced a quantifiable decrease in 0-60 times.

[dmg4]

The 2.5" exhaust is on the car, and I've driven it about 100 miles.

As for speed, the best three 0-60 times were 11.79, 11.76. and 11.52. So, adding the 2.5" exhaust dropped about 0.5 seconds off the best times yet.

Overall, I'm VERY happy with the outcome. I've implemented just about every suggestion under the sticky on Improving Performance for NA cars. We're well into 8 pages since this started, so to review the bidding to date:

1993 Volvo 240 Classic wagon, B230F engine, Automatic transmission.

1. Tires are 205/70/14 (yes, I know....too big. This is a dead horse).
2. Started with stock M cam
3. All stage 0 maintenance done
4. Repeated 0-60 times averaged 15.4 seconds
5. Installed IPD VX (AKA VX3) camshaft, average 0-60 times dropped to 13.5 sec. Surprising, but that's what happened.
6. Installed rebuilt cylinder head with 0.040" shaved, OEM headgasket, plus EZK and ECU chips from Redblockpowered, and 0-60 times dropped to 12.5 sec.
7. Drove it another 80 miles (it learns) and the 0-60 times dropped to 12.1 sec.
8. Added the 2.5" exhaust, drove it about 100 miles, and the 0-60 times dropped to about 11.6 sec. That's where we are today.

So, if these results are typical, now you know approximately what to expect for each of the modifications in the above-mentioned sticky on a plain-Jane stock 240 B230F with a 4 sp AT. Basically, I found that all the changes are significant and noticeable in 0-60 times. I'm not sure the absolute contributions would fall out the same way if the mods were done in a different order, but that really does not matter to me, as I was committed to doing them all anyway. I just wanted to keep tabs on how the car improved in each step.

I'll report on the gas mileage to see if it has changed at all. I should be able to take it out for about a 800 mile trip on I-90 in a few weeks.

Someday I might swap the VX cam for the IPD turbo cam. Anybody want to buy the IPD VX cam (less than 500 miles) to make my decision easier? Some have criticized this cam as not an optimal choice, but it yielded the largest drop in 0-60 times of all the mods (1.9 sec). It was certainly superior to the M cam with respect to acceleration and throttle response in my car.

[dmg4]

Another update: Someday arrived early. I bought and installed an IPD turbo cam. Checked the valve clearances after installation and all were between 0.012 and 0.013". Sold the VX cam on eBay today in about 30 minutes. Finally got around to running another compression check after the new shaved head was installed, cold engine: 185 to 190 psi on all 4 cylinders. I don't feel a difference in the new camshaft yet. I'll give it a few hundred miles and then run some more 0-60 times.

[klr142]

Dang, I missed a party!!! I LOVE how you read the NA performance thread and actually went through the steps, INCLUDING adding compression. That's like adding a turbo! Ok, not really, but it helps... And you did it all in a matter of a few months! Sweet.

Most of what I was going to say as I read through the full thread just now, (oops, I was supposed to be doing something else, and going to bed!!!), has already been said. I'll still throw in some notes.

530 vs. 531: The 531 is better for ultimate performance. In a near stock build, on a street car, with a relatively small camshaft, the 530 COULD perform better because it's intake ports are smaller. The 531 will probably have higher peak hp in the exact same scenario, but not necessarily more torque and very likely not more low end.

I agree that larger valves are not necessary. They may be beneficial and can help a smaller camshaft act larger, but it's likely not worth the expense.

Before you went to the lengths of having something custom made up, I was going to suggest a Simons exhaust system. They're decent quality with good pipe bends and perforated core, straight through mufflers. At least, the Simons Sport System on my 142 was, and I am pretty certain that the rest of their kits bear the same good features. Adding in that larger chunk of pipe where the factory downpipe goes from 2-1 helps a good bit in its own right, too.

Originally Posted by dmg4

Ah, but who's to say I can't have a toy that is reliable?
[...]
I think this is reasonable. I am pretty much in line with recommendations made in the sticky post on that topic leading this forum section (see: https://forums.turbobricks.com/showthread.php?t=354499), a great read, BTW. It will still be very reliable. It is also, for me, more fun. At the very worst, I'll keep you all posted and you can learn from me as a negative example.

YES YES YES! Nothing you've done has reduced the reliability of the car. You have increased it's power and if you were to drive it as slow as it used to be, you likely increased it's gas mileage, too.

Originally Posted by dmg4

Ran another test, "wet" this time. Added 2 ml of 10-30 oil to each cylinder, warm engine, throttle wide open, cranked until pressure stabilized (about 5 crank revolutions) with all plugs removed.

1= 150 psi
2= 150 psi
3= 170 psi
4= 165 psi

Are these numbers with just 5 compression strokes before stopping the cranking to check the numbers? I would assume they would have continued higher if you did a couple more revolutions. That being said, the first few pumps do give you a good idea of how well things really are sealing. I am also curious, have you done anything to help make sure that the piston rings aren't plugged up with carbon? I assume they're not bad considering the lack of oil consumption, but it wouldn't hurt to soak the cylinders with Marvel Mystery Oil or Seafoam, or a similar top end cleaner of sorts overnight at your next oil change.

Originally Posted by dmg4

To keep things going, let's hear some informed opinions on how close one can set camshaft clearances on the intake and exhaust sides. Over on the thread on NA performance mods, a figure of 0.012" or less is given. How much less? How low can you go? Your answer would be most useful if you shared why you chose a certain clearance.

I always remember the late, great, Thomas Fritz/StealthFTI's posts and recommendations. He was an enthusiast and builder with a great eye and mind for reliability/longevity. His website is still up for our reading pleasure and it is a good read. He didn't like to run real tight valve clearances because then the valves are off the seats longer, and the longer they're off the seats, the more they get hot and can't transfer that heat back to the head. Well, there is truth to that, but a burnt valve on a redblock engine in the current day and age is pretty rare. Also, if you put a very large camshaft in the engine, it's going to have those valves open a lot longer than stock anyway... That being said, with Thomas' words in my head, I ran .012" on the intake and .013" on the exhaust when I was trying to get more out of my camshafts in a street car. I went from a 17.6 second 1/4 mile time with my automatic, '86 244 that was STOCK aside from playing with valve clearances, ignition timing, cam timing and fuel to a 17.3 second 1/4 mile time with a T cam instead of the M cam. I had both cams shimmed to these numbers to make the measly camshafts larger. That car was a hoot around town with the T cam. Those are pretty respectable numbers!

Originally Posted by dmg4

In discussions with the folks at Clearwater Cylinder Head, the techs there said they normally set the clearances at 007-.010 on the intake and .010 to .013 on the exhaust if it's a completely rebuilt B230f head with new valves, guides, and springs.
[...]
The VX cam in the car now does not seem to lack bottom end grunt compared to the M cam that was removed, and the idle is also as it was before the swap. Granted, the car never did exactly leap off the line, but it has never stalled or farted either. I might try running it up to 7000 rpm someday, but since I got my Covid booster, I piss in my pants whenever the tach goes past 6000 from the electromagnetic field.

I'm amazed they set the cams up that tight! It must not be a problem, and as Culberro said, he ran .008" with his K cam in a rally situation that didn't have a problem. The factory recommended clearances are .016-.018"! The tighter lash would definitely pep up an M cam car a bit, though. One more thing to keep in mind with tight valve lash, is idle quality and EMISSIONS. The tighter they are, the worse your idle quality, idle vacuum and emissions. With a tiny camshaft, this isn't too much of an issue, but even on a stock (old and tired) car I had trouble passing emissions testing until I put the clearances closer to stock.

Regarding 7000rpm, there's no need with your setup. The factory cut-out is around 6200rpm (unless redblockpowered bumped them up in both computers for you) and your powerband will be falling off pretty hard after that anyway. It probably would pull ok to 6500rpm, but definitely no reason to go to 7k.

Originally Posted by shoestring

The head off the race car is at R&L Engines now getting flow tested. Well, getting tested when he has time. 530 with 44/38 valves and port work. I'll let you know what the numbers end up being. I sent it with an F intake manifold and throttle body also, so we can get head numbers and then complete intake tract numbers.

I can't wait! Now, if only you had someone provide you with the K-jet manifold to have flowed at the same time... WHY DIDN'T YOU?!?

Originally Posted by dl242gt

I had the intake tested when I had my 531 head done a few years ago. It may be in Garys spreadsheet. Not sure but I can tell you the efi intake was a big restriction on head flow total. My guy ported it a little for me to help.

Erland Cox suggests the largest restriction on the EFI/B230F manifold is how much it chokes down around the injector ports. That being said, they're still not great even when that situation is helped and they have very little plenum volume.

Originally Posted by swedishiron.com

The "pink label" EZK units as found on the first year of NA LH2.4 240s (which is 1989) are chippable.

The -561 computers you speak of. I had one in my 1991 240 when I got it for some reason and I did like it. It did not have the aggressive lean situation on initial tip in that the newer, -951 computer had from the factory. The replacement white label -561s are the ones to get if you can, assuming the programming was the same. The pink label ones tend to fail more often.

Originally Posted by dmg4

The 2.5" exhaust is on the car, and I've driven it about 100 miles.

As for speed, the best three 0-60 times were 11.79, 11.76. and 11.52. So, adding the 2.5" exhaust dropped about 0.5 seconds off the best times yet.

Overall, I'm VERY happy with the outcome. I've implemented just about every suggestion under the sticky on Improving Performance for NA cars. We're well into 8 pages since this started, so to review the bidding to date:

1993 Volvo 240 Classic wagon, B230F engine, Automatic transmission.

1. Tires are 205/70/14 (yes, I know....too big. This is a dead horse).
2. Started with stock M cam
3. All stage 0 maintenance done
4. Repeated 0-60 times averaged 15.4 seconds
5. Installed IPD VX (AKA VX3) camshaft, average 0-60 times dropped to 13.5 sec. Surprising, but that's what happened.
6. Installed rebuilt cylinder head with 0.040" shaved, OEM headgasket, plus EZK and ECU chips from Redblockpowered, and 0-60 times dropped to 12.5 sec.
7. Drove it another 80 miles (it learns) and the 0-60 times dropped to 12.1 sec.
8. Added the 2.5" exhaust, drove it about 100 miles, and the 0-60 times dropped to about 11.6 sec. That's where we are today.

So, if these results are typical, now you know approximately what to expect for each of the modifications in the above-mentioned sticky on a plain-Jane stock 240 B230F with a 4 sp AT. Basically, I found that all the changes are significant and noticeable in 0-60 times. I'm not sure the absolute contributions would fall out the same way if the mods were done in a different order, but that really does not matter to me, as I was committed to doing them all anyway. I just wanted to keep tabs on how the car improved in each step.

I'll report on the gas mileage to see if it has changed at all. I should be able to take it out for about a 800 mile trip on I-90 in a few weeks.

Someday I might swap the VX cam for the IPD turbo cam. Anybody want to buy the IPD VX cam (less than 500 miles) to make my decision easier? Some have criticized this cam as not an optimal choice, but it yielded the largest drop in 0-60 times of all the mods (1.9 sec). It was certainly superior to the M cam with respect to acceleration and throttle response in my car.

That is all just awesome. You will probably drop another half a second or more if you put smaller tires on it... There's no need to rush that, just use up what you have! You'll want to have the odometer swapped out to match the smaller diameter tires.

Originally Posted by dmg4

Another update: Someday arrived early. I bought and installed an IPD turbo cam. Checked the valve clearances after installation and all were between 0.012 and 0.013". Sold the VX cam on eBay today in about 30 minutes. Finally got around to running another compression check after the new shaved head was installed, cold engine: 185 to 190 psi on all 4 cylinders. I don't feel a difference in the new camshaft yet. I'll give it a few hundred miles and then run some more 0-60 times.

Dang. I tried the IPD Turbo cam in my car back in the day as well. It also left me less than impressed because it performed basically the same as the A cam for me with dyno pulls to back it up. They weren't exactly back to back comparisons with maybe different ECU tuning, but it was close enough to not a big change. The wider lobe separation angle just doesn't give you great mid-range torque, and it didn't even seem to make much more power. I expected it to, considering it had another 1.5mm of lift! Maybe there was more going on, it's hard to say.

Those compression numbers are much better, though! If you have too much more than that, you may need special ignition tuning that is actually less advanced than factory. That usually comes into play when you have even more off the cylinder head, high ambient temperatures, a hot thermostat and a thinner headgasket.

If you want to try something for a little more in the future, I'd slap a thinner heagasket in it. You'll gain torque/power and efficiency. I don't know what Redblockpowered's chip tuning is for the ignition, but there's a possibility it could be too much. He does have a good idea of what these engines like, though, and has been on the dyno to tweak it.

I'm also curious, what did you set your valve clearances at before you found us here?

The cheapest way to more power than you currently have would be to get another airbox for the warmer months and remove the flapper mechanism completely, then use BOTH sides of the airbox for cold air (like you had it before, but without the flapper in there at all). This provides better flow at higher rpm and a noticeable increase in high rpm pull. You could even go "crazy" and cut out the front of that airbox a bit, but know that it'll get your filter dirty faster in the rain and also allow hot air if you use your a/c. It sounds better, though.

Lastly, this was a fun read and will be going into the sticky'd thread at the top.

[dmg4]

Originally Posted by klr142

it wouldn't hurt to soak the cylinders with Marvel Mystery Oil or Seafoam, or a similar top end cleaner of sorts overnight at your next oil change.

The top end looked squeaky-clean when I had the head off. I'll give Seafoam a try. I'm just waiting for the next full moon to maximize it's benefits.


You will probably drop another half a second or more if you put smaller tires on it... There's no need to rush that, just use up what you have! You'll want to have the odometer swapped out to match the smaller diameter tires.

I doubt I will ever make that change. There's a limit to what I'll do to catch that Prius. Possibly it will run out of battery before the 240 is out of fuel, and I'll beat the sanctimonious little bugger on the home stretch

I'm also curious, what did you set your valve clearances at before you found us here?

I didn't. I checked them if I replaced a cam cover gasket, and if they weren't more than 25% out of spec, or rattling like BBs in a beer can, I left them alone.

The cheapest way to more power than you currently have would be to get another airbox for the warmer months and remove the flapper mechanism completely, then use BOTH sides of the airbox for cold air (like you had it before, but without the flapper in there at all).

I did exactly that. The car is a garage-queen during the winter, and it warms up FAST even when it is freezing outside (up to operating temp in about 1.5 miles from go).

Lastly, this was a fun read and will be going into the sticky'd thread at the top.

Thank you. It was fun writing as well, and I appreciate all of the advice and expert knowledge of the forum Jedi.

[klr142]

[dmg4]

Now that hot weather has finally arrived, does anyone have any data on how much HP is robbed by the AC system in these cars? I was thinking of running some times comparing the system on vs off.

[hessam69]

Some say 5-10hp

Probably half a second or a full second difference

Not enough that you won't be able to beat the Prius on the highway on ramp