940 Volvo fuel comsumption

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vincent
  • Start date Start date
V

Vincent

Hi Gunnar!

I read u have a 940. So have i, a 940 Sedan with a 2,0 liters 16 valves
motor.
unfortunately i had the timing belt unchanged by former owner, which
resulted into the worst : break while driving => went to Volvo
dealership in Paris , France, got a 500 Euros bill for an engine swap
and now drove about 5000 kilometers on the new engine.

On the old engine (about 140 000 km) I was on an average 11 liters mixed
fuel consuption. I now feel I am much higher now, fearing bad workshop
engie tuning .

What are ur consuption (I run on unleaded fuel ).

Thanks in advance .

Vincent : [email protected]
 
Our 940 has an 8 valve 2.3 liter engine. The variety is called "B230FB".
It has a 5-speed manual transmission (M47 gearbox).

On highway driving in moderate speeds (80-100 km/h) it tends to consume
9 litres per 100 km or a little less. It averages about 10 litres per
100 km. This is unleaded 95 octanes (European).

On trips on the European continent I have tried 91 octanes with hardly
any noticeable difference in consumption.

500 Euros for an engine swap sounds cheap. Was it based on parts from a
junk yard? I guess they replaced the cylinder head. A quick and cheap
check is to run a compression test.


--
Gunnar

240 Turbo Wagon '84 200 K Miles
940 Wagon '92 150 K Miles
on Swedish roads
 
Gunnar Eikman said:
Our 940 has an 8 valve 2.3 liter engine. The variety is called "B230FB".
It has a 5-speed manual transmission (M47 gearbox).

On highway driving in moderate speeds (80-100 km/h) it tends to consume
9 litres per 100 km or a little less. It averages about 10 litres per
100 km. This is unleaded 95 octanes (European).

On trips on the European continent I have tried 91 octanes with hardly
any noticeable difference in consumption.

500 Euros for an engine swap sounds cheap. Was it based on parts from a
junk yard? I guess they replaced the cylinder head. A quick and cheap
check is to run a compression test.


--
Gunnar

240 Turbo Wagon '84 200 K Miles
940 Wagon '92 150 K Miles
on Swedish roads
Click to expand...

Anyone know how 10 litres per 100 kms converts to british mpg? I can't
figure it out - but I did fail maths 3 times and gave up. :(
 
Anyone know how 10 litres per 100 kms converts to british mpg? I can't
figure it out - but I did fail maths 3 times and gave up. :(
Click to expand...


http://www.calculator.org/ is your friend.

According to the unit conversion button on Calc98

100 Km = 62.1371192237 Imperial miles
10 litres = 2.1996935378 Imperial gallons

62.1371192237 / 2.1996935378 = 28.2480800875 mpg.

Interestingly (in a minor sort of way) Calc98 has an extremely
comprehensive archive of units that it can convert between. We all
know that there is a difference between a US gallon and a UK gallon;
so too there is a difference between our respective bushels, firkins,
fl.oz., gills, and minims.

And I didn't know that there were Irish miles (0.786 x standard mile),
Old Scottish miles (0.89 x st. mile), Roman miles (1.088 x st. mile),
nor that while the US nautical mile is listed as being the same as the
International nautical mile, it is only 0.999 of a British naut. mile.

I guess a lot of this is archaic stuff. Or maybe it explains why
Americans think 100 years is a long time, and Britons think 100 miles
is a long way.


--

Stewart Hargrave

I run on beans - laser beans


For email, replace 'SpamOnlyToHere' with my name
 
A couple of things... if you have a Palm OS PDA, then there's an
excellent program called MegaCalc:
http://www.megasoft2000.com/palm_division/megacalc.htm It's got an
excellent calculator, as well as one of the most comprehensive unit
conversion calculators I've seen... well worth a play IMO.
Click to expand...

While we're at it then, any *nix users (or savvy Windows users with
cygwin) can always rely on "units"
(http://www.gnu.org/software/units/units.html)

eg:

You have: 10 litres/ 100 km
You want: miles/brgallon
reciprocal conversion
* 28.248094
/ 0.035400619

i.e. 28.25 mpg (British)

I can't say if this is good or not for a 940; my 2l 20v 850 (saloon)
generally gets between 30 and 34 mpg (British) but is currently struggling
to get just under 30 - needs new filters I suspect, plus flame trap.

Cheers,

AJ
 
Anyone know how 10 litres per 100 kms converts to british mpg? I can't
http://www.calculator.org/ is your friend.

According to the unit conversion button on Calc98

100 Km = 62.1371192237 Imperial miles
10 litres = 2.1996935378 Imperial gallons

62.1371192237 / 2.1996935378 = 28.2480800875 mpg.
Click to expand...

A couple of things... if you have a Palm OS PDA, then there's an excellent
program called MegaCalc:
http://www.megasoft2000.com/palm_division/megacalc.htm

It's got an excellent calculator, as well as one of the most comprehensive
unit conversion calculators I've seen... well worth a play IMO.

Also, 28mpg seems pretty decent - my 740 was getting around 22mpg (2.3L
B230E Auto Estate) - is that a lot worse than i should have expected? I was
very impressed yesterday getting 34mpg in my V40 (on a 250 mile motorway
journey, with a light right foot).

Mark
 
Stewart Hargrave said:
http://www.calculator.org/ is your friend.

According to the unit conversion button on Calc98

100 Km = 62.1371192237 Imperial miles
10 litres = 2.1996935378 Imperial gallons

62.1371192237 / 2.1996935378 = 28.2480800875 mpg.

Interestingly (in a minor sort of way) Calc98 has an extremely
comprehensive archive of units that it can convert between. We all
know that there is a difference between a US gallon and a UK gallon;
so too there is a difference between our respective bushels, firkins,
fl.oz., gills, and minims.

And I didn't know that there were Irish miles (0.786 x standard mile),
Old Scottish miles (0.89 x st. mile), Roman miles (1.088 x st. mile),
nor that while the US nautical mile is listed as being the same as the
International nautical mile, it is only 0.999 of a British naut. mile.

I guess a lot of this is archaic stuff. Or maybe it explains why
Americans think 100 years is a long time, and Britons think 100 miles
is a long way.


--

Stewart Hargrave

I run on beans - laser beans
Click to expand...
Cheers !!! 28 mpg seems pretty reasonable, my 2.0 745 automatic does
25mpg. I'm hoping to squeeze a bit more when I do my throttle body and set
the throttle switch. It doesn't click when it should. I used to get 34 mpg
out of my 745 2.3 manual with M46+o/d, but I reckon the engine didn't have
to work as hard as the 2 litre does. I do miss the acceleration tho.
sometimes.

Stuart
 
My 740 turbo update 90 series using 98 octane bp or shell as well as 5 -40
BP synthetic oil gets me 10.98 on a long run sticking to road limits .I dont
want to even know what it gets around the city but its not so good $$$$$$$$$
 
Haven't measured our 850 of late (same engine, same body, manual box) but at
a guess it averages around 30mpg doing shortish 12-20 mile trips. We have
found however that mpg is better if you dont use 5th below about 65-70mph
though.
Click to expand...

Mine's not doing all that badly then - I omitted to mention it's an auto!
It's definitely less efficient than it was though, with no change in
driving habits. I'm quite hopeful it just wants a few new filters and
some clean breathers...

Cheers,

AJ
 
Thanks Gunnar for ur answer.

As i wrote directly to ur email adress, my finger slipped on keyboard,
and engine replacement was 5 000 (five thousands) and not 500 !

Anyway, 10 liters / 100 km is about what used to be with former engine.
i guess i gotta go back to volvo workshop and ask for tuning the engine
to its factory specs.

Thanks again.

Vincent from Paris [email protected]

Gunnar Eikman a écrit:
 
If you now have a "brand new" engine, it may take a while before it gets
broken in.

When our 940 was brand new it consumed more fuel. On the other hand
everything was new, tyres, wheel bearings, transmission and engine. On
longer highway trips then it consumed about 9.5 litres per 100 km, where
it now may use 8.5 litres. It took quite a while before consumption came
down.

Our engine (B230FB) is rated at 130 horsepowers. In 1993 they went back
to the B230F (i think 116 hp), which previously had been used in the 740
model. It is slightly more economic I think. Yours is a 16 valve engine
right? More power = more fuel is the general rule, I guess.



--
Gunnar

240 Turbo Wagon '84 200 K Miles
940 Wagon '92 150 K Miles
on Swedish roads
 
AJ MacLeod said:
I can't say if this is good or not for a 940; my 2l 20v 850 (saloon)
generally gets between 30 and 34 mpg (British) but is currently struggling
to get just under 30 - needs new filters I suspect, plus flame trap.
Click to expand...

Haven't measured our 850 of late (same engine, same body, manual box) but at
a guess it averages around 30mpg doing shortish 12-20 mile trips. We have
found however that mpg is better if you dont use 5th below about 65-70mph
though.

Tim..
 
Just a small reminder, the 850 is definitely smaller than a 940 and is FWD not
RWD. It also has a five cylinder engine of either 2 Litres, 2.3 Litres or 2.4
Litres. You should always get better mileage in fifth gear as long as you don't
have lead in your shoes.

Cheers, Peter.

: On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:27:42 +0000, Tim (Remove NOSPAM. Registry
: corupted, reformated HD and lost alot of stuff :( wrote:
: > Haven't measured our 850 of late (same engine, same body, manual box) but at
: > a guess it averages around 30mpg doing shortish 12-20 mile trips. We have
: > found however that mpg is better if you dont use 5th below about 65-70mph
: > though.
:
: Mine's not doing all that badly then - I omitted to mention it's an auto!
: It's definitely less efficient than it was though, with no change in
: driving habits. I'm quite hopeful it just wants a few new filters and
: some clean breathers...
:
: Cheers,
:
: AJ
 
Peter Milnes said:
Just a small reminder, the 850 is definitely smaller than a 940 and is FWD not
RWD. It also has a five cylinder engine of either 2 Litres, 2.3 Litres or 2.4
Litres. You should always get better mileage in fifth gear as long as you don't
have lead in your shoes.
Click to expand...

....I believe the 850 had a 2.5L but no 2.4L (some V70's had the 2.4L I
think). They also had 10V and 20V variants, performance and mpg varying
also between these models.

Mark
 
Only 850 diesel had 2.5 Litre engine.

Cheers, Peter.

:
: : > Just a small reminder, the 850 is definitely smaller than a 940 and is FWD
: not
: > RWD. It also has a five cylinder engine of either 2 Litres, 2.3 Litres or
: 2.4
: > Litres. You should always get better mileage in fifth gear as long as you
: don't
: > have lead in your shoes.
:
: ...I believe the 850 had a 2.5L but no 2.4L (some V70's had the 2.4L I
: think). They also had 10V and 20V variants, performance and mpg varying
: also between these models.
:
: Mark
:
:
 
Right. The non-turbo 5 cylinder is 2435cc for all model years. For the
850, it was usually called 2.5l, and 70 series 2.4l. According to my Haynes
manual, the name change was due to some EC requirement in the late 1990s.
This engine came in 10V and 20V versions.

Also, in spite of the 850/S70 being slightly smaller, it is pretty much the
same weight as the 940.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top