|
|
|
I just bought a 245 wagon in very good shape for $1000. Automatic. BUT- after driving it for a month, I've concluded that I get about the same mileage as my 1966 Lincoln that I recently sold. Sheesh. It burns no oil and blows no smoke. I plan to first change the air filter and then check all the vacuum hoses. Does anyone have any other tips for improving shocking MPG?
|
|
-
|
|
At first I was thinking the Lincoln in disguise might be related to Lucy in De Skies. I just couldn't help making the connection.
Anyway,
As others have suggested, make sure you do an accurate calculation of mpgs.
Anyway, if good calculations show less than about 22 mpg, you should have cause for concern.
Is your overdrive working?? The small button on the shift lever should kick the OD in and out if cruising at or above 50 mpg. You should feel the change in rpms if there's no tach. On my late model ones, the OD activates around 40 or so if cruising. If you can't feel 4th kick in and out then it's likely not ever going into 4th (OD).
Definitely do a tuneup and check vacuum hoses as others have suggested. Small vacuum leaks will lean out the mixture (more air for same amount of fuel) and so won't kill your mpg - but there is still cause for concern there. I don't know exactly how the '79 engine is set up, but it's a safe bet that some of the fuel mixture control apparatus is vacuum controlled.
Go over the flame trap system, which is Volvo's answer to the need for crankcase ventilation. It's often neglected. The result is a buildup of crud in the system. The worst fallout from that is oil leaks due to pressure buildup in the ventilation system, but as it's tied to the manifold vacuum you should clean it up. Including a reaming out of the small brass nipple at the center of the intake manifold branches (at least that's how my 3 bricks are configured).
I think the '79 doesn't have a fuel pressure regulator. It does have a fuel accumulator, whatever that is. Acording to http://www.fcpgroton.com/volvo240fuelpump.htm
Anyway, see if you can learn what controls fuel line pressure and make sure it's working right, and not leaking fuel into the vacuum. The later model's fuel pressure regulater is powered by engine vacuum; when the fpr goes bad it leaks fuel into the vacuum line and causes a very rich mixture.
Good luck!
--
Sven: '89 245, IPD sways, electric rad. fan conversion, e-codes, 28+ mpg - auto tranny. 850 mi/week commute. '89 245 #2 (wifemobile). '90 244 (spare, runs).
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be stinkin' lincoln
on
Sat Apr 22 19:42 CST 2006 [ RELATED]
|
|
Think twice. I'm sure the lincoln has at least a 21 gallon tank while the Volvo has what? An 11 gallon tank, right? So the Volvo will consume its 11 gallons at the same rate (viz the gauge in the instrument cluster) as the humongous two-ton lincoln with its enormous unsophisticated V-8. It would appear that the volvo consumes as much fuel going from F to E on the gauge as the lincoln, when in fact it probably only consumes roughly half as much. I suggest meticulous record keeping of gallons to miles driven in order to get a solid empirical basis for engine tuning and future trouble shooting, other wise you're just guessing. That said, many people here seem dissapointed with their mileage. It is kind of on the low side compared to today's cars, but any 240 is at least 13 years old.
I'll take the sluggishness, safety, and sound construction any day as compared to any new car that could be had for the same $1000. Do a search here for MPG, there are many tricks to outsmart the gas pump and get the most from your car. But you have to set a baseline by calculating your mpg. Then go with a tune up, etc... you are bound see some gratifying improvement in economy and performance. For further help include your engine designation and optional equipment as well as mileage accrued whenever you post here. This way folks can get a better picture of your situation. More often then not, there a handful of friendly folks here who drive the same model, year, engine and tranny as your 245, along with lesson learned and problems surmounted, maybe even thing you'd never imagine! Post often!
P.S. Post some pictures of your car (rust, dust, dents, and all).
|
|
-
|
|
|
Yeah I thought the $1000 was well spent at the end of the day.
Nice to know I'm not the only crazy who gets a kick out of driving a car around that gets 8 mpg downhill (c o n t i n e n t a l).
Thanks for your posting advice.
My 245GL wagon in question has 285,000 kms.
My wife had a baby and we wanted something solid. I looked at a few for more money, which I would have paid, and also I really wanted a manual. I went to have a look at this one purely to check out the light blue/beige colour scheme, because a guy had one on the internet in a distant town in that colour that was manual and supposedly in perfect condition with 185k. He wanted $2500 and I was set to buy it despite the hassle of pick up etc.. So when I went to look at the $1000 blue/beige auto with 285k, I really didn't expect to buy it. As luck would have it I couldn't find anything wrong with it so I just bought it. When I say nothing wrong, well all cars around Sydney where I got it are rusty and this one had only surface rust except for a spot about 6' long in the gutter. No rust (you could say) and the engine bay is very clean. Also the clock, cigarette lighter, and electric antenna all work. I usually will buy an old car if the clock works. Call me crazy....
The radio doesn't work however so maybe I'm a fool. I think it must just be a fuse but I haven't got to that yet.
Anyway there you have it...I'll let you know how I go with the mileage issue..I've got a good list of starting places now thanks to this site.
Kurt
|
|
-
|
|
|
I think about 24mpg would be normal for a '79 245. Some people get 28 (eg. Svens Maintainer).
--
1980 245 Canadian B21A with SU carb and M46 trans in Brampton, Ont.
|
|
-
|
|
|
I gotta admit I don't often get 28 mpg. That was last summer, hot weather, no mechanical fan but an electric instead, long-run trips of about 85 mi each way without stops.
Right now, in New England springtime with temps mostly around 50-60 ºF, I'm getting 23-25 with occasional use of the heater and occasional use of a lead foot on the gas pedal. And my trips aren't non-stop right now either.
--
Sven: '89 245, IPD sways, electric rad. fan conversion, e-codes, 28+ mpg - auto tranny. 850 mi/week commute. '89 245 #2 (wifemobile). '90 244 (spare, runs).
|
|
-
|
|
|
Well it was a 4 door Continental and it got about 8-10 mpg (462 motor) so I may have been exaggerating a bit. I would estimate without measuring that my 245 is getting around 15 mpg.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Yep, Same here. My '73 Mark IV got 6.25-8mpg w/the 460. My 10mpg 122 and 17mpg 142 are substantial improvements! Then again, the 122 loses oil faster than I can pour it in...
As much as I love the volvos - I miss the lincoln. It's easy to save on gas when you have cars that don't usually run.
Save the Whales,
-Sean
PS: how are the other gauges for accurracy? Could be the voltage stabilizer in dash is reading pessimistically. Of course it all comes clear at the pump...
--
1966 122s; 1970 142s
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be hardknocks1
on
Sat Apr 22 01:40 CST 2006 [ RELATED]
|
|
hi there.
how can you tell the gas mileage just by estimating?
|
|
-
|
|
|
That's a good question. I spent several years as a professional driver, so I've always got one eye on the odometer and one on the road, or something like that. Having said that, I probably should do a more accurate check.
When I compared the MPG of the '79 245 with my '66 Lincoln, I was searching for a way to describe the feeling you get when you can watch the gauge needle start to move down as soon as you pull away from the service station!
|
|
-
|
|
|
Neh. A '79 245 has a non-overdrive automatic and a 3.91 axle.
The EPA only gave a "combined" rating in '79. It was 18mpg for Cali cars, and 19mpg for 49-state cars.
--
'73 142, '75 242, '75 245, '80 245, '86 244, '87 745T
|
|
-
|
|
|
So if the combined MPG was 19, would that mean you'd get say 22 on the highway and 16 around town? I still don't think I'd be anywhere near that, although I do at least notice the highway mpg is better.
|
|
-
|
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, the EPA's "combined" mileage number was a weighted average. They figured in the city mileage twice and the highway once, then divided by 3.
So it's like:
(16 + 16 + 24) / 3 = 18.7
Just one of the weird things the NHTSA did in the 70s and 80s, along with those retarded 85mph speedometers.
--
Rob Bareiss, New London CT ::: 87 244DL- 249K, B230F/M47, Turbo sways, Bilsteins, GT braces, Virgos, Turbo exhaust, Sumitomos, soon to be retired?
|
|
-
|
|
|
Yeah a non-overdrive 3 speed auto. A bit gutless but you can make her move in a pinch.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Recently my '89 245 was having some running problems and in my hackster approach to solving the problem I changed the plugs, wires, rotor, cap, FPR and fuel filter. None of those turned out to be the cause (O2 sensor) but the mileage is NOTICABLY better.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Thanks for that info. I guess I'll start with the o2 sensor. I believe you when you say NOTICEABLY better - if yours was doing what mine is then there must have been a lot of room for improvement.
|
|
-
|
|
|
As far as the gas gauge goes when you pull away from the pump, I can't speak for anyone else here but on my '84 245 I've noticed that the gauge is so non-linear it's not even funny. For instance, I deliver a newspaper route that is 90 miles a day with my car and when I fill up the tank and reset the tripmeter and then start delivering I can go about 10 miles before the needle on the gauge starts to move off of full. On the other end of the spectrum, I can be halfway through the red zone near empty anhd still go 100 miles or so before I'm empty. I suggest if you haven't already done so is to rest your tyripmeter and check your mileage. These gauges in my experience can be deceiving. Good Luck!
|
|
-
|
|
|
So if you fill your tank right up, and then drive it all the way to empty including the 100 ks or so travelled after the gauge is in the red, then you have used the exact amount of fuel that you're tank holds. Assuming you know how much this is, and how many miles you've travelled until it's all gone, you can work out the mileage. My question is : if I undertake this test, what happens when the tank runs dry? Do I have to have a can in the back and a funnel? Do 245's start ok after they're "outa gas"?
Kurt
|
|
-
|
|
|
i suggest do not run your tank out of gas = not good for fuel pumps.
#1 fill tank with gas and reset odometer.
#2 when near empty refill tank with gas.
#3 divide numbers of gallons used into miles driven = MPG.
this is my non professional method.
good luck
|
|
-
|
|
|
OK I won't run it out of gas. But what of the common scenario described whereby some cars go for another 50 miles or so when the gauge is half into the red? How for do you think I should go once it's in the red?
|
|
-
|
|
|
I try to fill up before it gets into the red.
I figure the engineers are trying to tell us something with that red paint.
I'm told the in-tank pump is cooled by the fuel it's sitting in. Dunno if that's true. Pump intake hose also - is maybe more likely to dry out and rot if not soaking in fuel. And if it is compromised (perforated) sucking up fuel will be like sucking soda through a straw with holes in it.
Anyway, there's not that much real benefit in nearly draining the tank just to get an mpg value. You can calculate on combined numbers from two or three consecutive fillups and that should be pretty good.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Apparently Volvo isn't that good at listing fluid capacity figures anyway. We ran a thread for about a week once, discussing how many quarts of oil are really needed when doing an oil change. I almost couldn't believe it, but Iwas guilty of participating. The book says four qt., but most of us seem to need about 4.3 qt. to get the oil to the top of the hash marks. Go figure. I figure that Volvo's 4 qts gets you to the middle of the marked range on the stick - maybe that's their target.
Then there's the five-speed standard tranny fluid amount. There's some word out there that says to tip the car and overfill by some amount, keeps the 5th gear better lubricated. I don't know, never drove one.
--
Sven: '89 245, IPD sways, electric rad. fan conversion, e-codes, 28+ mpg - auto tranny. 850 mi/week commute. '89 245 #2 (wifemobile). '90 244 (spare, runs).
|
|
-
|
|
|
assuming that the gauge in the Lincoln was actually accurate.
I found in my 1979 245DL (in Volvo Valhalla) that it took 9 to 10 gallons to fill 'er up when the needle said 1/2 full. With my normal driving, I could almost see the needle move.
Then, at the red end, "in the red" meant fill ASAP, but there was still another 50 miles or so to the bottom. We never let it run out.
Now I find that all my 240s have the same gas gauge quirks. So I plan accordingly.
Even so, my 1988 is not the same as my 1986. Red in the '86 means 20 miles to walking. Red in the 1988 means 80 miles. Forgot that once, the '86 left me to walk.
The odometer can be lying, too. Inside that mass of gears and shafts, there is one gear that loses its grip on its shaft and begins slipping. When I began distrusting my mileage, I used MapQuest for an exact distance for a 80 to 90 mile trip. The longer the trip, the better. Then check the mileage.
Good Luck,
Bob
:>)
|
|
-
|
|
|
Thanks Bob. Planning accordingly in my case has meant setting aside an extra $40 a week. The car I just got out of was an '86 Corona that was pretty well cooked but the darn thing used less than half as much fuel as the 245 for the same distances driven every week.
I'll let you know how I go with my diagnostics and all.
Kurt
|
|
|
|
|
