Volvo: Brickboard Best Posts

[OPINIONS] So, is that a compliment? -posted by- Bill Bretherton

Thu, 15 May 2008 12:16 GMT

Well I only seem to have offended two people, JG and one other I presume. I'm not "hard left" by the way. I'm more of a British liberal. I'm all in favour of private enterprise for production (of goods and services) so long as it's regulated enough to prevent out and out profiteering. You don't want to suppress innovation and improvement and, I guess, that needs healthy competition. But how does one man justifiably make millions of pounds / dollars? It doesn't seem right, to me. Sure, we all want a "nice" house and maybe an acre to go with it (well, not here, we don't have enough acres, but you do). But there must be a limit to one person's take of the world's riches, surely. Hell, I'm preaching to the converted here, aren't I. Although, I don't know what BB liberals really think of the concept of "nationalised" services. I think that public services are better nationalised i.e. public transport, health, energy supplies, water and sewage. Having said that, all of those have gradually been privatised here - Mrs. Thatcher's legacy. And not for the better IMO. Prices MAY have been kept lower due to the competition but I doubt it. Take our railways - used to be British Rail, now there's countless companies operating. All with lawyers fighting each other, compensation claims, blame avoidance etc. Doesn't work for me. But I can still go to the doctor's surgery tomorrow for free - that's got to be worth something. A developed society should be taking care of its people. I don't mind contributing to the pot if it keeps my neighbour alive. We'll never have equality under any political system, but I reckon I'm supporting the best compromise. Hey, I found this quote from "Wiki" while trying to educate myself on the "American Dream". I love it: "I arrived in America thinking the streets were paved with gold. I learned 3 things: 1. The streets were not paved with gold, 2. The streets were not paved at all, and 3. I was expected to pave them." - Unknown Italian Immigrant Regards (and give me a "thumbs up", damn it!) -- BillB

[OPINIONS] You win -posted by- alschnertz

Thu, 15 May 2008 00:31 GMT

It is too bad. I've been watching here for years with little input. And that is not what "Opinions" is supposed to be about in my opinion. Mostly because I seem to have a hard time stating my opinions in a coherent manner. What I hear in my head just never comes out the same when written. That makes for easy fodder for others who can give their opinion in what appears to be a better argument. What I have seen is that this forum goes through these stages every few years. Can only think of two people here whose opinions come across as elitist and I just cannot stomach. But for some reason I still read them. I shouldn't, they remind me too much of people I have to deal with on a daily basis. I find the other forums much more enjoyable and respectful too. -- Tom - '60 544, '68 220S, '70 145S, '86 745T, '06 Mazda MPV

[OPINIONS] Win what? -posted by- Bill Bretherton

Wed, 14 May 2008 13:30 GMT

Nobody ever wins, do they. Most people on here have liberal tendencies so why are you surprised or fed up with their reaction? As a Brit, I see US politics as follows - you have two parties, one is right wing and the other is Republican. I fully understand why others here have absolutely no time for the "GOP". How can anyone with a brain and on a comparatively low income possibly support them? Man, it doesn't make any sense, it just doesn't. Your GOP are all about big business, power of the dollar, winner takes all, being poor and ill is the person's fault etc. This "American dream" crap really is crap. Sure, anyone is entitled to "make it" but, if everyone did, then a beer would cost $100 so you'd all be poor or average again. Winners and losers - your political system thrives on that. Even the Democrats aren't much better as I see it. They wouldn't know a social care system (as we have in Europe) if it hit them in the teeth. I could go on but my point is that anything the GOP do is about money, money, money (did I mention money). Together with that goes corporate corruption. You're riddled with it over there. And they use religion as a means of controlling the way (some of) the population think. So how can you expect the liberals here to have even the slightest regard for the GOP and your views? I'm with them all the way. Regards. -- BillB

[RWD] [200] [1986] Breather Box Oil Leak (again) -posted by- Paul Driver of Inga

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30 GMT

Hello, Passing along an oil leak fix (finally)on the breather box. Started a degrease campaign on the engine compartment a few months back and been tracking down and fixing small oil leaks. The area under the hood was a real oily mess after 22 years, a legendary clogged flame trap leak, and a poor job putting a valve cover on. One thing about changing over too and and running full synthetic motor oil is when it does leak makes cleaning that area a snap. Had what I thought was a rear seal leak for some time now and the valve cover had a couple of leaks for sure. Got a new cork seal for the valve cover and did the red RTV thing, and those leaks are a thing of the past. After more cleaning and degreasing found that another oil leak was in fact coming from the breather box. This is a 1986 245DL 233K by the way (AKA Inga). This was a new box installed over a year ago. Pulled it off and changed the oring and reinstalled the box. It seemed to get worse actually. This weekend I pulled the throttle body and replaced all those seals and cleaned it all over. Did that so I could see the breather box that was just a good time to do all that. Cleaning the throttle body, found a small leak in where the idle control knob adjustment meets up with the throttle body. Flame trap oil was working its way out and dripping down the knob. The paper seal was saturated, but not the cause of the bigger leak. Pulled the breather box out and checked the surfaces on the block for pitting and the oring for any bad spots, found nothing. Made sure that the other seal was still firmly in place and not pushed down into the block, and it was all good. Pulled out another new oring, put it on the breather box making sure nothing was pinched, and declared victory Sunday night. But.... still had a small leak after my 72 mile commute to work and back Monday night. And yesterday afternoon it was working its way back up to the old leak levels. I was starting to get frustrated, this could not be that hard. Then got to thinking about the new breather box purchased from a dealer last year and wondered if that might be the problem. They did mention that the part number had changed on later year 240's and that was all they could get. But they looked like the same part and bolted right on. They said they had sold several with no reported problems. Pulled the old box out of the parts stash (had cleaned it out and stored it) and pulled the newer one off the car. Put the two side by side and started looking for any differences. The oring on the box was covered all over in oil by the way when removed. Looking at the two boxes all the plastic molded parts were identical in size and shape. But the new breather box had longer metal sleeves in the plastic where the two 13mm nuts go into the block that stuck out the bottom of the plastic. The old box had ones were flush on the top and bottom of the box. When you installed the 13mm bolts the longer sleeves on the new one caused the bottom of the box not to compress oring enough and that lets oil under the oring and out the sides of the box. At least that was what seemed to be the root cause. Installed the last new oring (good thing I bought two extra) and this time put it on the old box and bolted it back on. Took it down to the carwash and did a good cleaning one more time. Just checked it at lunch today and it is dry and oil free. And there does not seem to be any new oil dots on the ground also, and that is a first in long time. Still will check it for a couple of weeks but that seems to have been the problem. So if you get one of those new dealer breather boxes on a older car, grind those silly sleeves flush with the plastic before you install it. Regards, Paul

[RWD] A long list of advantages and disadvantages -posted by- Blue Horse

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:00 GMT

With the exception of the P1800, I have owned at least one example of each of the RWD models. I find your evaluation of them to be well thought out, though biased in favor of the earlier cars. Here are my comments, based on actual experience: 122--You are mostly right on with this one. However, the rubber floor mats are a big minus as they trap moisture and make the floor rot out. With the exception of the 68 (and later, not imported to the US) models, these cars lack important safety features such as dual circuit brakes, headrests, collapsible steering column. Wagons get poor mileage, due to an absurdly short rear axle ratio (difficult to change to a more sensible one) Also avoid automatics, as they are difficult to convert to manual transmission, due to the tunnel being the wrong shape. 140--Wonderful cars, but very rare now. Most of them were used up and thrown away. Good survivors are hard to find. The second generation cars (71-72) are the best, particularly if they have fuel injection. Early ones with the B18 are underpowered and have smaller brakes and suspension components, later cars have an ugly dashboard (similar to an early 240, but less attractive) and are more complex and difficult to work on. This is particularly true of 74 models. 240--These are starting to be considered classics now, and prices are on the increase, particularly for clean late models. There are several generations of the 240, each with its own quirks. 75s still have the old B20 engine. 76-79 have a B21 with CIS fuel injection, which is not electronic, and is very durable and reliable, though expensive to fix if it does go wrong. 80-85 cars have four square headlights and various different types of fuel injection and ignition systems. The bad news is that the original wiring harnesses are prone to deterioration, particularly under the hood, which sent many otherwise perfectly good cars to the junkyard before their time. 86 and up are the definitive 240. The first couple years also have wiring problems, which can be fixed by replacing the harness---a big job, but by no means impossible. 88 is considered by many to be the best year of all. If you want an air bag, 90 and later models have them, and ABS became available in 91. For the most part, later 240s are quite straightforward and easy to work on (though not necessarily to diagnose) with the heater fan being the main exception. 740--roomier, more comfortable, better ride and handling than the 240, but much less appealing to look at. I would hardly call them modern in appearance any more--their severe, architectural lines (especially on the original type) contrast sharply with all the new jellybean shapes out there. Nobody seems to want these cars, and, like with 140s 20 years ago, they are being used up and thrown away. This is where you are likely to find the best value for your money, as really nice low mileage examples can still occasionally be found, usually for next to nothing. Early (up to mid 87) cars have the same wiring problems as 240s of that era, later models are a better choice. The 740 is one of the easiest cars there is to work on, except for the heater core, which is an absolute nightmare to replace. Though the interior trim and electrical system are a lot more elaborate, the mechanical components are identical to those of a 240 of the same year, and most repairs can be done with everyday hand tools. Again, you have a choice of air bag and/or ABS, depending if you want them or not. I have seen cars with neither, one or the other, and both. The headliners on the 7 series cars are prone to falling down. There is no good way to fix this, the only cure is replacement, which is a big job, especially if the car has a sunroof. The 940 is basically a continuation of the 740, with revised rear body styling on the sedans, and very few changes on the wagons. Now, for a brief overview of some of the components of these cars: Engines--all models up to and including 1975 have either a B18 (up to 68) or a B20 (69+) These engines are pretty much interchangeable, at least if you are putting a newer engine in an older car. They are very sturdy, but do have a couple of issues. Pre-74 examples did not have hardened valve seats, which are required for prolonged operation on unleaded gas. A machine shop can install them for $200-300. They are also prone to rapid cam/lifter wear, particularly on later B20s with big valves. Modern motor oil with reduced levels of zinc additives further contribute to this problem. SU carbs are simple and straightforward (though often found with worn out throttle shafts, which makes them impossible to tune properly) Strombergs are troublesome, D-jetronic fuel injection (71-73) can be finnicky but is the best of all when its working right, CIS (74-75) is very reliable but expensive to fix if it does develop problems. Starting in 1976, Volvo went to an OHC engine with a timing belt. This is not a reason for concern, as US models are not an interference design, meaning that if the belt breaks, no damage occurs. Put a new belt on and it works again. Also, there is enough room under the hood, so changing the belt is only a couple hours work---you don't even have to remove the radiator. There are three types of OHC engine---B21, B23, and B230. They are all very similar, and all extremely durable. From 85 to mid-88, the B230 was a "low-friction" design, with a reduced size crankshaft. These don't last as long as earlier and later engines---they are good for "only" 250-300K miles before they need a rebuild. The fuel injection systems used on these engines are, as such things go, quite simple and straightforward. Apart from having a catalytic converter and a carbon canister, there aren't any "emission controls" to speak of, with the exception of a few late models that have EGR. Turbos--Starting in 1981, Volvos were available with a turbo. For the most part, they do not represent a reliability issue, though they do benefit from frequent oil changes. There is, of course, a tradeoff between the added power and decreased gas mileage, so unless you really want to go fast, you should probably stick with a standard engine. Engines to avoid--The only 4 cylinder engine you should stay away from is the B234F, which is found in some 89-90 740s and 91-92 940s. This is a 16 valve version of the B230, which requires frequent timing belt changes to avoid self-destruction, as it is an interference design. You also don't want any of the V6s. Though the last version (B280F--89 and up) is much improved, the older ones are truly awful. Nor do you want a 960, as these have the same timing belt issues as the B234F, among other problems. Transmissions---There were three choices on the early models: M40 4 speed, M41 4 speed + OD, and BW35 3 speed automatic. Of these, the M41 is the one to have, as the extra gear really helps with gas mileage, and keeping the noise level down at highway speeds. The overdrive unit itself is nothing to be afraid of---they rarely give trouble. The BW35 is fairly durable, but that is about the only good thing about it---it is sluggish and no fun to drive, and cuts into gas mileage fairly badly. In 1976, with the OHC engine, came two new manual transmissions, the M45 4 speed, and the M46, with OD. Again, the OD is the one to have. At some point in the early 80s, the BW35 was replaced by the AW70 series of automatic transmissions. These are a big improvement, due to having an additional gear. They are still not exactly what you would call sporty to drive, nor do they get great gas mileage, but they are just about indestructible, the only issues being the solenoid for 4th (OD) gear and tailshaft bushing wear at high mileages. Some early 740s had a ZF 4HP22 4 speed automatic, which is much nicer to drive but can be ruined by simply revving the engine in neutral. As you might imagine, these are pretty rare now. Finally, there is the M47, a true 5 speed. You might think that this is the ultimate choice, but that is not the case. The M46 is stronger and more durable, which is why it remained in production for many years after the introduction of the M47, which was inadequate for use with the more powerful turbo engines. This is not to imply that the M47 is no good---they will do just fine if you don't abuse them and make sure to keep them full of oil. Note that, if you want a manual transmission, they are a lot easier to find in a 240. They were less than 10% of 740 production. It is possible to convert one, but it's a lot of work. Air conditioning---The earliest models you are likely to find with functional A/C are 240s. Of these, only the latest ones, which were designed for R134a, are really good. The R12 systems are marginal when converted, particularly in wagons. The 740 A/C is somewhat better. Sunroof---In my opinion, these are best avoided. They add weight, rarely work all that well, and are prone to leaking. 122s and 140s with sunroofs are extremely rare. 240 sedans sometimes had them, but no wagons did, as original equipment. Most 740s have a sunroof---one without is a rare treasure. On the 740, the roof can be either hand cranked or electric. These are identical except for the drive mechanism, which is interchangeable. Rust---All the early cars rust, severely in some cases. In the mid to late 80s, major improvements were made in the rustproofing of the 240 series, making them almost as good as the 7s, which don't seem to rust at all, unless you live in the far north. Gas mileage---Almost any 4 cylinder non turbo Volvo with a manual transmission should get between 25 and 30 MPG if it is in good condition and you drive reasonably. Automatics and Turbos will be somewhere in the low 20s, and automatic Turbos can go as low as the high teens, particularly if you like to put your right foot down. To sum up, if you really want a 122 or 140, they are still suitable as daily drivers, but only if you are prepared to do just about all of the repairs (which they will need more frequently than newer models) yourself, and don't mind having to track down parts, which are generally available, but not always easy to find. The biggest thing to watch out for on these cars is rust---anything else can be fixed fairly easily, though interior trim can be very hard to come by. A 240, particularly a later one, is a better choice, as they are extremely reliable, once you've caught up with all of the deferred maintenance and neglect that most of them seem to have suffered, and not that much more difficult to work on than the 122/140. If you do all of your own work on one of these, it can have perhaps the lowest operating cost of any car on the road. Much the same is true of the 740. The choice between these two is more a matter of personal preference than that one is clearly "better" than the other. Make sure to drive at least one of each before you decide. Either one is an excellent vehicle, assuming you get a good example to start with.

[RWD] [200] [1989] Please look at these Brembo rotors that FCPGroton shipped me. -posted by- R2

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:03 GMT

Don't panic. There isn't anything wrong with the 'crosshatch' type finish you show in the picture. A milling operation with no 'toe' on the mill leaves a pattern like you see. Use them - it will break in fine and you won't see any difference at your next pad change as all the pattern will be gone.

[RWD] [900] [1996] Is any Anti-Freeze other than Volvo Anti-Freeze acceptable? -posted by- Rludwick

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:55 GMT

The only one that you need to avoid like the plague is Dexcool. That's the nasty stuff that eats radiator solder, gaskets etc. Just about any of the others are fine I run Evans Waterless Coolant ( www.evanscooling.com )in all of my vehicles. Cheap insurance against overheats. Pretty much impossible to boil over on that stuff. It's saved two of my engines to date. -- -------Robert, '93 940t, '90 240 wagon, '84 240 diesel (she's sick) , '80 245 diesel, '86 740 GLE turbo diesel, '92 Ford F350 diesel dually

[RWD] [700] [1992] Anyone know how to reset Service Light?? -posted by- nate

Sun, 9 Mar 2008 20:55 GMT

When sitting in the driver's seat, look for the round rubber plug in the dashboard next to the "trip odometer reset" button. Dig out the plug, push the button behind it with something suitable (I use a paperclip or thin toothpick). Squish the plug back in.

[RWD] [120-130] 240 Disk Brake Rear End Installed. -posted by- 122_Canadian

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:17 GMT

As I was posing on my possible blown head gasket - I remembered that I hadn't posted the shots of the 240 rear end installed in the Canuck, so here it goes...
Back on the street for the first time since November! I wouldn't normally take that much time, but it was damn cold and there was a LOT of fabrication involved with my conversion.

I've kept the bolt spacing oringinal, which meant welding up the axles and a set of rotors and having them re-drilled to the right size. Then there was the whole ordeal of doing this conversion to a '66 with the odd torque rod instead of a '67 with a more conventional rear end set-up.

I've got with a black and blue theme for the rear with all the suspension bits being painted medium grey poly. I kept the limiting straps and yes, those are polished stainless button headed cap screws holding the diff with TrueTrac installed. The spedo is a little off given the gear ratio change from 4.11 to 3.73, but it isn't that bad. The TT is fun and the rear sway and Bilsteins make a world of difference in the handling.
I managed to keep the old style handbrake and adapted the 240 cables to work. Again, lots of fabricating to make all of this work, but it does work and looks stock - again, this is the theme of the Canuck.

Final shot. I used the rear section of the 240 drive line and connected it to the front section of the 122 drive line (same spline, just had to shorten the 240 section by 1") - works like a charm. I used the long bolts from the IPD reinforcement plates to hold up the extra parking brake cable. I've got a working parking brake for the first time in 3 years!!

[RWD] [200] [1993] Rough running, strong noxious/gassy smell, accel missing, trouble starting, rich fuel, engine light -posted by- Herb Goltz

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:36 GMT

Three grand?!? I think I would remind this mechanic that his fees are for competent diagnostics performed to industry standard as well as just randomly replacing parts, a fact that often stands in small claims court... Stop swapping parts and start measuring. Put in a new set of copper plugs gapped to spec (Bosch or NGK) so that it will run while you diagnose. Pull the OBD codes as others have suggested. There may be meaningful clues there. More often than not they provide clues rather than "smoking guns" in my experience... Measure fuel pressure at the rail. Pull the vacuum line at the front of the regulator and smell/look for fuel. I know the part is new, but not all new parts are good. See if you have fuel bypassing out to the return line (back of regulator). You have rich running symptoms (gassy, missing, hard start, black exhaust) that point to FPR, ECT sensor stuff. Get a noid light and see if you get consistent flashes at the injector harnesses. If you do, it is much less likely that need a new ECU. If the injector function is flaky you may have a problem with the power stage, although the classic failure mode is poor running/stalling/no-start when hot. Check spark on all 4 cylinders-- you can use a spark plug or a spark tester. If you get consistent bright spark your ignition system is OK (as is your RPM sensor). Inconsistent spark could be the RPM sensor, or the wires. If you need wires, buy Bougicord. Measure the output of your new coolant temp sensor at the ECU as per the 700/900FAQ. Did the mechanic replace the forward sensor (gauge) or the one between runners 3&4 on the intake that actually talks to the computer? Bad connections or a bad part here could cause the car to run really rich and foul the plugs in short order. Bad contacts in the ECT harness plugs are reported here from time to time. Pull the timing belt cover and verify the engine timing as per the 700/900FAQ. Bypass the fuel system relay and see if the car runs better-- search the archive for lucid's method of jumpering fuse 4 & 6. Or replace the relay to see if the running improves. If the car has been running rich for a long time the cat may well be toast. FCPgroton.com has them for about $130-- I had to put one on my '92 245 before I sold it-- it was a Canadian made Davico and it seemed like a good part. If you have been smelling a "rotten egg" smell, it is quite likely the cat is cooked. Just replacing it isn't going to fix anything, though-- you need to find out what made the car run rich and kill it or you will need one again by the next emissions test. Measure the output of the sensor line on your 02 sensor with a volt/ohm meter. I'll bet it is pegged on the rich side rather than fluctuating between .15 and .85VDC. I had a new Bosch sensor that was putting out 1.4V, which made the car run just terribly. Some have suggested that this can be caused by stray voltage from the heater circuit. Have a close look at the connector wiring for the AMM. Did you get a new or a rebuilt AMM? Which LH system does your car have? It is either LH2.4 or LH3.1, and this will determine what AMM you need. Does the car idle better with the AMM unplugged? The advice on setting up the throttle body is good too. Make sure the idle air motor and the throttle position switch harnesses weren't swapped. Check for vacuum leaks at the intake manifold, look for holes in the intake snorkel and check all the vacuum lines. Check which ECU you have-- if it is a pink label -561 (the last 3 digits of the part number), it is a known problem ECU. White label -561 or a -951 are better. The ignition computers (ICU) seem quite robust. The ECU usual failure is no grounding of the injectors, so no noid light flashing, so don't go buy one without checking injector function unless you have access to a used one cheap that you can prove is good. I am sorry to hear about your troubles-- report back on your measurements and you will get help from a lot of smart people here. I am continually amazed at how helpful brickboarders are! Good luck!

[OPINIONS] A few Statistics:March 2007 Basic Economy -posted by- Flab FC

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:18 GMT

I was starting to do some compiling, but it looks like some one is doing it routinely for me. The sources are the ones I would use, though one could say the compiler was 'partisian. A link to the document is at the bottom of this post. Therefor, those who disagree with these stats should demonstrate clearly why, and show alternative statistics and their appropriate cited sources, as well as the methodology to clearly demonstrate why. The is as of March 2007, when the housing market and economy were still...booming. Jobs and unemployment: Non-Farm Payroll Bush- up 4.9 million jobs 68,000 jobs per month 0.6 percent annual growth Clinton- up 22.7 million jobs 237,000 jobs per month 2.4 percent annual growth Unemployment Bush- up 0.3 percentage point from 4.2 percent to 4.5 Number of unemployed up 842,000 Clinton- down 3.1 percentage points from 7.3 percent to 4.2 percent Number of unemployed down 3.3 million Economic Growth and Investment Growth in Real GDP: Bush-2.6 percent per year Clinton-3.6 percent per year Growth in non-residential fixed assets: Bush-1 percent per year Clinton-9.4 percent per year (hmm...higher taxes but business was REALLY boomin!) Measures of Economic well being Real average wages hourly Bush- up 3.9 percent 0.6 percent annual growth Clinton- up 6.8 percent 0.8 percent annual growth Real Median Household Income Bush- down $1273 Clinton- up $5825 People in Poverty Bush- up 5.4 million Clinton- down 6.4 million Poverty Rate Bush- +1.3% Clinton -3.5% People without Health insurance Bush- +6.8 million - 1.4 million a year Clinton +1.2 million 145,000/yr Stock Market - this is a BIG un Neo-Con big business people! S&P 500 Bush- +8% ( in 6 years growth, um...pathetic) Clinton- +207% ( gee 11% annually, with higher taxes, and well, you know, no super duper trickle down economics being sold to us.) Federal Budget Cumultive Surplus Bush- Deficit of 1.3 trillion Clinton- Surplus of 62.9 Billion Change in public debt as % of GDP Bush- +4% from 33% to 37% Clinton- -16.4% from 49.4% to 33%. 49.9% to 33% Primary Source Document The data sources for this document are listed at the bottom of the document. These are the facts people. So, suck it up, and accept that hating Clinton and the conservative Democrats aka as progressives in this day and age, is simply cutting off your nose to spite your face. ROn Paul isn't going to get the GOP nomination, so you better actually do what is right for this country, even if you have to hold your nose doing it. Swallow the bitter pill, and the pill isn't John McCan't.

[OPINIONS] The End of theRoad........... -posted by- c. a.

Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:39 GMT

I am hopeful this chemo works. I will worry about to paying for it later. Steroids are once again my friends. I can type very slowly. I love my spell-check. Tim, where are you? Can't you handle seeing what "The Rubber Meets the Asphalt" really means to human beings? I think you are a coward and a blowhard. Along with your GOP buddies who get free health care, but don't care about millions of American who don't.

[RWD] [120-130] Valve Chatter, Head Swap and the Caliplary Tube -posted by- Volvo From Heck

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:26 GMT

In my other posting I meant to explain a simple method of adjusting the valves--but didn't--guess I got tired and faded away. This method will work for inline 4's or 6's -- or 8's for that matter. In the case of the 4 cylinder -- #1 piston and #4 work in tandem--#2 and #3 work in tandem -- when one piston is on it's compression stroke the mate is on it's exhuast stroke--You want to adjust each of the valves with the cylinder on the compression stroke. In order to keep track start with adjusting #1--then you follow the firing order 1-3-4-2. Take the plugs out so you can crank the motor by hand with the fan belt or with a wrench on the bottom pulley. To adjust #1--crank the motor slowly until you see the #4 exhaust valve has past fully open--continue cranking until the exhaust valve is nearly closed--at that point the intake of #4 will start to open--stop there at that point of the exhaust and intake "rocking" opposite each other. Now adjust the intake and exhaust of #1. The next up to adjust is cylinder #3 (firing order) so you will watch #2 cylinder exhaust valve going through its sequence--as before when #2 exhaust valve and #2 intake are "rocking" you can adjust intake and exhaust of #3 cylinder. Next up is #4--watch #1 valves for "rocking" -- and finally adjust #2 valves when #3 are "rocking". You will have turned the motor through 2 revolutions at that point. While there may be cam flex as another poster mentioned--it is not something you need worry about--you would need a dial indicator to measure the difference. Adjust each valve so they feel the same--there should be a light drag on the feeler gage--if you have to force it into the gap your too tight--if it passes through with no resistance you're too loose. Use a short (6 inch) wrench for the lock nuts so as to not overtighten them (B18/20 adjusters are soft). When your done with the valve adjustment take a compression test so you know where you stand on that basic indication of motor condition.

[OPINIONS] Well... -posted by- Snootfull

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:09 GMT

we could just look to the civilized nations of the world for example. -- "To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it."