BrickBoard Archives
The files contained in this listing have been automatically archived from the active forums. Because the vast majority of posts are now in one place, this archive is considered legacy. You should use the SEARCH feature OR choose your topic and select date tabs within the forum you choose.
240 vs. 260[ALL/1998] posted by Owen Woodland on
Thursday, 25 September 1997, at 12:48 a.m.
Does anyone who has driven/owned/worked on 240's and 260's have anything to
say about the differences, especially with regard to longetivity and expense,
of the goodies in the 260 as opposed to the 240 (we're talking pre-1984 here
Also, power-wise, acceleration, etc, how does your average 260 outperform
a similar 240? (Say b27e vs b21e).
And what about fuel economy between the two?
Any thoughts?
Owen in Australia
Re: 240 vs. 260[ALL/1998] posted by George Wietor on
Thursday, 25 September 1997, at 6:18 a.m.
I will defer to experts on this, but here are my experiences.
The first Volvo we owned was an used '77 264 with automatic
transmission, leather, air, electric windows. Compared to
similar cars, a tape deck, cruise control, etc. should have been
standard, I feel.
The car drove well and looked great. Gas mileage was maybe 13-15
miles per U.S. gallon, compared to 20-25 mpg for my 4 cylider 245.
The overhead cams started to rattle after a while- poor oil circulation
in some (all?) models. The engine was a real jewel-lots of aluminum
castings. But working on it was a nuisance. Replacing the distributor
cap was difficult. Changing oil was impossible. My car had a recessed
square on the sump drain, I had to grind down a 3/8ths square drive to fit. I still have it btw. The oil filter was accesible only from the bottom of the
car- I think the plastic belly pan needed to be removed prior to changing the filter. Space is tight- I usually used a special filter wrench which looks
like a coil spring made out of a ribbon of flat steel in order to grip the
filter securely.
Some of the accesories are bolted to the valve covers. Removing this stuff adds to the time it takes to adjust valves. The water pump is a pretty little thing
bolted in the valley. I had a disastrous leak in a soft plug on the pump
which I patched with a goober of boatbuilder epoxy and fillers ( my favorite
car fix).
Won't even talk about the heater fan-common to all 240's, I guess.
I occasionally see one on the market here in Michigan. I guess they can be
kept running. IMHO the 240 series offers less nuisance and somewhat more
peace of mind. Good luck. Anyone else?
Re: 240 vs. 260[ALL/1998] posted by Bret on
Thursday, 25 September 1997, at 9:59 p.m.
From the sound of your last message, the 260 is a pain in the @##. I am a new volvophile, but I have done alot of work to my '75 242. Including the projects that you described in your message, and I've had little or no difficulty(Knock On Wood!!) In fact its easier than most domestic vehicles I've worked on. This is my first volvo and I love it. I bought it from a guy for $300. It had been sanded down and mostly primered, so I spent $150 at NAPA for paint and it looks GREAT. Bad thing is, it needs a little motor work. But I think I'm getting them figured out as well. Well I'm rambling, e mail me if you want to B.S.
Bret
Re: 240 vs. 260[ALL/1998] posted by Keith Hyndes on
Thursday, 25 September 1997, at 5:29 p.m.
I would concur with George's fuel consumption, I have a 245GL with B21E and M46 man + OD gearbox and 408 000km on the clock. It runs 10km/l, a friend has a 264 which gets 6.5-7 km/l. Powerwise, B21E 123hp, B23E 140hp, B27 160hp, B21A (carburetted) 95hp.
As far as being easy to work on, the 4 cyl. is a dream, everything is easy to get to. I've racked up 83 000km with very few problems. My advice would be a B21E or B23E powered beast. The power is quite adequate.
In that 83 000 km, I have spent $1067 in parts, servicing, repairs (not incl. tyres). That is cheap motoring.
.
Re: 240 vs. 260[ALL/1998] posted by ZOOMER on
Sunday, 28 September 1997, at 1:21 a.m.
I READ WITH GREAT INTEREST THE DIFFERENCES AND PROBLEMS WITH THE 260
VOLVOS, ,,,,,, having owned a few different models, 544, p-1800es, 264GL, the last one, the 264 is a 1977 with everything that could be had when new, air,cruise, leather power windows, sunroof, and that famous Renault motor!! The v-6 power that they put in was not a great one for several years as problems did exist in camshaft and rocker arm oiling.
Looking over the original owners paperwork I found the motor had been apart twice before to replace cams and rockers and was done at 20,000miles and at 40,000miles, at extreamly
high parts and labor costs!! Well the car is at 60,000 plus and runs on only 5 cyls. right now,
it s a shame too as the car is a beauty, and fun to drive, SO I think its time to do a heart transplant, so after a little figureing and measuring, I find that the perfect motor will be the
Chevy V-6, either the earlier 229c.i. 3.8 motor or the 4.3 liter V-6, both the same physical size and will fit in much better than the Chevy V-8 motor people put in these cars. The 3.8 liter Chevy V-6 is just a Chevy V-8 with two cyls. cut out of the middle, and are still fairly plentiful in the junk yards, the 4.3 liter being of the same design but just more displacement.
I have a 544 with a 3.8 V-6 in it and the fit was rather tight as the engine bay is alot smaller, but I've had a good time doing it and, it definately is quite a conversational piece!
As with projects as such , there is alot of fabrication and fitting work to do, so if you are not of the experienced type, leave it to someone with more time than brains,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,have fun!!