What! Another 142 Project Car? - Page 6
Username
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
    Results 176 to 210 of 358
    1. #176
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2013
      Location
      Saskatchewan, Canada
      Posts
      2,178
      The OEM Volvo mono post jack that came with the 142 had long ago disappeared and I had for years kept a small bottle jack in the back which kind of clunked around in the trunk (and leaked oil) when I hit bumps or went around corners quickly. The small base and pad on the piston also made using the jack a little dicey on anything less than a flat paved surface. After seeing the small scissors jack in my son's RSX and the foam holder it was in, I decided that a scissors jack lifted from some foreign car might make a suitable addition for the 142 to deal with flat tires. I believe that some of the Acura's or Lexus models also had a scissors jack made from aluminum which would be a nice touch. To this end I headed off to the local pick and pull which currently has about 100 imports on its lot. They turn cars over fairly quickly. A car stays on the lot for about 6 months and after that, what remains heads over to the steel mill conveniently located next door.

      I started working through the rows of cars. I did not find jacks in any of the cars that I could get the trunk open on (or that did not have the trunks already open), which I though odd. I headed back to the yard office and asked the guy behind the desk what was up with the jacks. He said they remove them when the cars come in and normally they put them on the shelf in the office for sale; but, currently they were all sold out. I am missing something. Is there a collector market for scissors jacks someplace, or do people forget them on the side of the road when they do a flat fix or do they break them when they try doing something silly with them? Of all the salvage items that would be in demand off of wrecked cars, the scissors jack was not what I would expect. I thought most of the jacks would just end up going with the car over to the steel mill.

      Clearly I will have to revise my search process for a suitable jack. Maybe troll the highways looking for jacks abandoned on the side of the road?
      Last edited by 142 Guy; 06-30-2016 at 12:54 AM.

    2. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    3. #177
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Nov 2011
      Location
      The Netherlands
      Posts
      217
      The Volvo 240 serie had such a scissors jack, I used them for my 144/142 and the fitt very well.
      http://www.ebay.com/itm/Volvo-240-24...570792&vxp=mtr
      http://www.ebay.com/itm/Volvo-Genuin...ZTuZ~F&vxp=mtr

      Regards,

      Mathieu.
      Last edited by rixt; 06-30-2016 at 03:52 AM.

    4. #178
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Jun 2016
      Posts
      2
      I checked the whole build thread of your car, it's really impressive. Red engine block is something that caught my eye and definitely the gauges.
      I'm more than sure that you have used tempirature proof paint. I have some experience with VJT flame proof and it's can actually withstand up to 650°F (343°C) You can check it on this page https://www.carid.com/vht/vht-high-h...g-4014649.html
      Last edited by CARiD; 07-01-2016 at 07:44 AM.

    5. Remove Advertisements
      SwedeSpeed.com
      Advertisements
       

    6. #179
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2013
      Location
      Saskatchewan, Canada
      Posts
      2,178
      Quote Originally Posted by rixt View Post
      The Volvo 240 serie had such a scissors jack, I used them for my 144/142 and the fitt very well.
      http://www.ebay.com/itm/Volvo-240-24...570792&vxp=mtr
      http://www.ebay.com/itm/Volvo-Genuin...ZTuZ~F&vxp=mtr

      Regards,

      Mathieu.
      Yes indeed! I have owned both a 242 GT and a 745 turbo with identical scissors jacks and finding one of those would have been a treat. Both of those jacks that you linked would be great, except by the time they arrive on my doorstep the cost is over $100 Cdn. When I headed off to the pick and pull, the price range I had in my head was $5 - $10. After all, I only paid $5 for a perfectly good Bosch PWM air valve which sort of set my expectations for price.

      I still want to know where all these recycled jacks are going.

    7. #180
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2013
      Location
      Saskatchewan, Canada
      Posts
      2,178
      Quote Originally Posted by CARiD View Post
      I checked the whole build thread of your car, it's really impressive. Red engine block is something that caught my eye and definitely the gauges.
      Thanks. With all the wrenching on the car the engine block is starting to show a little wear. I am going to have to get the touch up paint out - or stand further back when I take photos.

    8. #181
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2013
      Location
      Saskatchewan, Canada
      Posts
      2,178
      Continuing activity!

      I finally got around to dealing with the installation of the rear set of fender liners that I purchased last year (post 147 ). The first irritation was that whoever assembled and packaged them, cut them symmetrically and then bent them symmetrically, meaning that one of the liners was inside out. The liners are not marked as to the inside and outside, only left versus right. However, based upon the left versus right marking and the profile of the liner at what would be the rear, you can work out the 'intended' fitment. Not a disaster; but, it would not have materially altered the packaging if they had bent both liners properly so that inside versus outside would have been clear.






      You will note that one side of the liner is silver and the other is white. I think Craig300 raised a question with respect to silver versus white liners. Well, the Scandcar liners are both.

      The fitment aggravations associated with the rears were not quite as bad as the fronts. Once figuring out what was in and out, I had to cut the length about 1.5 cm in front and about 4 cm in the back. I also had to trim about 1 cm tapering to 0 off the inside edge at the back to get them to fit how I thought they should fit (which I am not sure is how the designer thought they should fit). The supplied brackets were too large to fit in the only location that I could see where they might go, so once again I fabricated my own brackets from some 1/8" x 1.25" aluminum. Just like the fronts, I finished off the inside surface of the liners with black rubberized rocker guard so they would not look so obvious.

      The 140 has two notorious rear wheel well rust spots that I am aware of, around the reenforcement plate for the seat belt anchor and around the reenforcement plate for the shock mount. The liners provide no protection for the shock mount and only partial protection for the seat belt mount. They will prevent rock damage to the paint on the inner fender if that is an issue. The other rust location is along the seam on the wheel lip. The liners do not prevent the accumulation of mud on the inside along the top side of that lip which is one of the prime rust locations on 140s. In summary, although the front liners were a hassle, I believe that they will be effective at protecting the front fenders and body from the accumulation of mud in the trouble spots which leads to rusting. After installation, I am not convinced that the rear fender liners will be particularly useful at dealing with the rear wheel well rust trouble spots on the 140. I would not recommend them and suggest that if you are considering rear liners try the Lokari plastic fender liners. I would be interested in hearing the opinion on the protection offered by the Lokari liners from anybody who has installed them. I might be convinced to ditch the Scandcar liners if there is good feedback on the Lokari liners.

      My car has the aftermarket ATS wheels that Volvo offered as an option in the early 70s. I noticed that VP Auto and I think CVI were offering a reproduction of that wheel so I decided to pick one up from VP for a spare while I was ordering some other parts.

      The wheel is a good copy of the original ATS wheel.







      On closer inspection, the obvious differences are that the reproduction has AT8 rather than ATS cast on one spoke and has just IMPORT rather than VOLVO IMPORT cast on one of the other spokes. I suspect trademark issues. The 8 is close to looking like an S without being an S. There is also a small ridge around the outside lip of the repro wheel that is not present on the original wheel and the edges on the detail in the center of the wheel on the original are sharper, being rather rounded off on the repro wheel. The center cap on the repro wheel is also about 1 cm deeper than the original center caps. However, all in all not a bad repro and on casual inspection you won't notice the detail differences.












      As I noted, this is my new spare wheel. The spare was mounted on an original Volvo steel rim. Those original steel rims are unbelievably heavy. With my 165/78 spare (you can't fit anything wider than a 165 in the existing spare location on the 140) mounted on the rim, my uncertified bathroom scale said the steel rim and tire weighed in at 42 - 43 lbs. That didn't surprise me as having pulling the spare out of its storage area has always been a hassle. With the new wheel, the combined weight is about 35 lbs. which does not seem like a lot; but, when your reaching over the trunk edge trying to leaver the wheel out it does make life noticeably easier. I think that the repro wheel may be a little bit heavier than the original ATS wheels, just based on the sense I get when I pulled the rear wheels off to install the rear fender liners. However, I recognize that the Michelin 185/65s that I have on the car will have a different weight than the 165/78 and I am not lifting them over a trunk edge which alters that subjective assessment.

      I had the original steel rim abrasive blasted and painted before I had the spare mounted on it. These are one heavy duty rim and I can see why they were popular with the rally dudes that did not have big $ in support teams if they bent or broke a wheel. If anybody is interested in a shiny steel Volvo OEM rim, let me know. However, I expect the cost of shipping this boat anchor anywhere will not be cheap.

      When I was arranging for the rim change on my spare, I noticed that I was still accumulating water in the low spots in my trunk. I thought I had dealt with this (post # 104), having replaced the sealant around the collector box at the base of the rear glass. I thoroughly dried out the trunk and then to check for leaks in the box I got out my garden hose and shoved the hose nozzle right into the openings on the extraction vent and let water flow. Lots of water poured down the two drain hoses from the collector box; but, nothing was entering the trunk from the seam on the collector box. Mystified, I applied a thin layer of silicone grease to the base of the trunk lid gasket, closed the trunk and then opened it. I had a relatively consistent smear of grease on the metal lip around the trunk opening indicating that the gasket was making full contact with the lip. I closed the trunk lid and then ran a heavy stream of water over the back window and along the front edge of the trunk lid for about 3 - 4 minutes. I then opened the trunk and discovered water in the bottom of the wells behind the rear wheels. However, the water was coming from the back of the car in the area around the tailights. In fact the inside of the trunk lip above the tailights was wet and the retaining screws for that aluminum trim on the back edge of the trunk showed evidence of water dripping off of them. When I installed the aluminum trim on the back edge of the trunk, I ran a thin bead of butyl sealant around it perimeter and put little plugs of butyl in each of the mounting holes to prevent this problem. In the photo below, you can see a little of the butyl that has squeezed out from under the edge of the trim.



      With the trunk open, I ran water down the outside edge of the trunk lip. The water appears to be following the red line in the photo, running along the outside of the gasket and then into the little gap between the edge of the trim and the body. As far as I can determine, this gap allows the water to slip under the gasket and then drip down the back of the trunk. I have applied a little dam of exterior hybrid caulking in the area marked in blue in the photo in an attempt to prevent this from happening.

      The photo below shows the left rear corner of the trunk. In this case the trim plate overlaps the body; however, I was still getting water entering from the left rear corner of the trunk so I installed a dam of caulk in the similar location.



      I noticed that there was a gap between the buckets for the tailights and the back panel of the body (red arrow in the photo). I don't think that water was entering at this location; but, to be safe I thinned some of my hybrid caulk and used a microbrush to force it into the gap.

      So far my fix seems to be working (I think I said that before). If it does look like the fix is the solution, I will touch up the caulk with some body color paint. If the little dam is ineffective, I can remove it which is the reason I used a hybrid caulk rather than the more typical urethane caulk used for modern automotive applications.

      The area where I park the car is probably slightly lower at the front, particularly if we have been parking our SUV there which does a much better job of packing the crushed rock down than the 142. This probably contributes to the drainage problem in the area identified. If the car is parked on a driveway with the front end higher, this problem might not occur.
      Last edited by 142 Guy; 10-08-2016 at 12:13 PM.

    9. #182
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2013
      Location
      Saskatchewan, Canada
      Posts
      2,178
      I had mentioned some time ago that my original Bosch aux air valve was getting a little arthritic. I know that there are replacement thermostatic elements for the valves; however, fitting these replacement elements seems to be a little hit and miss success wise. There also seems to some contradicting opinions as to whether the thermostatic element of the particular valve on the B20E can be replaced at all. As a result, I decided to investigate the use of the same Bosch PWM idle air valve that I had on my old 745 turbo. That valve was working just fine when I sold my car after 25 years of use so from my perspective it has a track record of reliable operation. What sealed the deal for me was that I was able to obtain one along with its rubber mounting for $5 off of a wrecked 940 at the local pick and pull.

      In its as-designed implementation, the MS2 EFI controller is set up with a fast idle control circuit consisting of a digital output driving a small transistor for an on / off style idle air valve which is controlled by a relay, so the transistor is only rated for the typical 50 ma associated with an automotive relay coil. The digital output is easily software configured to provide the pulse width type control that the Bosch valve needs; but, the output transistor needs to be replaced with a higher current transistor capable of handling the current of the Bosch PWM valve. I replaced the existing ztx450 idle air valve transistor with a TIP122 darlington pair transistor mounted on the heat sink in the Q16 position (old ignition driver position) along with a 1N4001 re-circulation diode to handle the idle air valve switching duties.

      The Bosch idle air valve I am using is the 2 wire version with an internal return spring. The 3 wire version has no internal spring and requires the application of a constant voltage on one of the windings to restrain the valve. The 2 wire valve has as interesting characteristic. It is a rotary valve mechanism and when de energized the valve is open allowing air flow. As voltage is applied to the valve the mechanism rotates causing the valve to close. Increasing the voltage causes further rotation and the valve goes open again. Bench testing the valve connected to the MS2 showed that with a supply voltage of 12.8 volts the valve reached the closed position at a 35% PWM duty, rotated to the start of opening at 40% PWM duty and reached full open at 74% PWM duty. I think this characteristic initially messes some people up because they try and operate the valve between the 0 % and 35% duty cycle position which gives a reverse characteristic. The better way to operate the valve is between 40% duty as closed and 74% as fully open. This mean that when the valve is closed after complete warm up it still has voltage applied to it. The operation does seem a bit odd; but, I think Bosch might have done this to force a more complete rotation of the valve mechanism on each cold start to scrape / wipe off any material that might collect on the valve mechanism and reduce accumulations that might impede operation. It also means that if the valve winding ever fails open, you are going to living with a really high idle speed.

      MS Extra allows a whole bunch of different switching frequencies for PWM operation of the valve. Since I no longer had access to my 745 to take some measurements of the actual switching frequency that Bosch uses I had to go from the results posted on various forums. The common number cited was around 90 hertz so I used the 92 hertz option in MSExtra. I tested the valve with the 92 hertz switching frequency on the bench by connecting it up to the MS2 controller and running the valve at the 40 % duty cycle position (the most common position for operation) for a little over 1 hour with a supply voltage of 12.8 volts. At the end of the test the valve body was barely warm to the touch. 92 hertz may or may not be the design switching frequency for the valve; but, it seems to work just fine at that frequency.

      The valve position changes with the duty cycle of the applied PWM signal; but, also changes with the value of the DC voltage that is being modulated by the PWM signal. With a DC supply voltage of 12.8 volts my valve reaches fully open at a duty cycle of 74%. With a DC supply voltage of 13.3 volts the valve reaches fully open at a duty cycle of 71%. No surprise here, the valve is reaching full open at an average DC voltage of around 9.45 volts in both cases (12.8 x .74 = 9.47 volts, 13.3 x .71 = 9.44 volts). This means that the valve has a PWM to supply voltage sensitivity of 6%/volt which can be programmed into the MS2 controller. This allows for consistent positioning of the valve as the car DC voltage changes from cranking (low voltage) to fast idle (high voltage). Very similar to the voltage compensation that should be programmed in when entering dwell times for ignition coils.

      Fitting the idle air valve and connecting it to existing ports on the manifold was a bit of a challenge. I ended up hanging it from an L bracket under the manifold using one of the existing manifold support bracket points.



      The connections from the valve to the ports are courtesy of some fittings from under the kitchen sink. I think I will probably get them powder coated silver some this winter to try and make them look a little more like an automotive part as opposed to something from the domestic plumbing section at Home Depot. I also intend to get some better quality banded clamps to replace the cheese grater hose clamps that I used for mock up and testing purposes.



      I have an acquaintance with an 1800E who was interested in my old Djet parts so I pulled out the aux air valve and fashioned this blanking plate out of a piece of aluminum.



      The valve has been in operation for 4 months now so I feel fairly comfortable about posting the results now. I have only been able to test down to around 10 C operation on start-up so these results are not final. I have the valve set to open to around 47% duty cycle during cranking to admit additional air to facilitate quick start up. Data logs show that with a coolant temperature of around 8 C I am typically taking 3 - 4 rotations of the crankshaft to achieve successful operation. That is not bad considering that depending on the starting location for the cam position window in the cam sensor you may require 2 full crank revolutions before you get sync up and start firing spark plugs. Once running the valve position is set by coolant temperature, 52 % duty cycle at 0 C tapering to 37% (closed) at 65 C. The 52% duty cycle gives me an idle speed around 1300 RPM on a cold engine. Initial operation was interesting. As the engine started to warm the idle speed started dropping (as expected); however, after a few seconds the idle speed started to increase rising to about 1700 RPM and sitting there for a minute or two before dropping . Checking the valve PWM values and supply voltage indicated that the valve was actually slowly closing while this was happening, which was mystifying. Reducing the PWM settings during the warm up had minimal effect on this elevated idle speed. Long story, short version, after doing some logs I discovered that when I did the switch from MS2 to MS2 Extra, I screwed up my after start enrichment taper entry by a factor of 10. The idle was dropping only after the ASE tapered off. Drastically shortening my ASE taper eliminated the speed rise as the engine warmed up. Now my idle starts out at around 1300 RPM and gradually tapers to a little less than 900 RPM on a hot engine. With cold weather approaching I expect to be able to do some further refinement of the cold start settings.

      Note that I am running straight open loop idle control with this valve. I have done a fair amount of work on improving the idle on my car; but, it is still a little erratic and variable and I am not inclined to try any closed loop control unless I get that addressed.
      Last edited by 142 Guy; 10-03-2016 at 03:15 PM.

    10. #183
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2013
      Location
      Saskatchewan, Canada
      Posts
      2,178
      The original rubber mat for my trunk was in really bad shape. It was torn in a couple of spots and had some pieces missing. The pressed board trunk linings were also in pretty bad shape, having suffered from exposure to moisture at some time in the past. I had gone looking for some replacement trunk mats, preferably something that would run up over the back axle housing (complicated a bit by the need to trim the mat to accommodate my battery which resides directly over the back axle). However, the need to trim turned out to be a non-issue because there are no replacement mats made for the 140. Using the remains of the original rubber mat as a template I had cut a piece of indoor / outdoor carpet for use as a trunk mat. This was never really satisfactory as there are a lot of contours in the trunk area and cutting the mat to fit the contours (and stay in place) was not very successful with the result that the mat was always sliding around and bunching up. Also, my carpet trimming and taping skills are sub par with the result that it did not look very good, even when it wasn’t bunched up.

      After ruminating on the trunk problem for about a year, I came to the conclusion that, short of cutting and gluing carpet to the trunk floor contours, the best way to address the problem was to eliminate having to deal with the contours. To this end, I decided to close off / hide the whole area over the back axle and create a raised floor in the trunk high enough to cover most of the contours. After a little measuring, I decided that creating a raised floor about 2.25 “ higher than the existing cover over the tank would work well.

      For the modifications to the trunk floor, I used baltic birch plywood. This material is typically used by cabinet makers to create the boxes for drawers in custom kitchen cabinets. The individual plys are thinner than regular plywood with the result that there are more of them for the same thickness making it stronger and more stable than conventional softwood plywood. It also has a surface finish free of any blemishes. I had planned to construct the floor from 0.25” plywood; however, the lumberyard had 0.375” on sale for less than 0.25” so 0.375” it is. That makes it a little heavier; however, the floor is good and solid. I ripped some 2” strips of plywood and glued these into boxed beams to raise and support the trunk floor. These beams are screwed into the same holes as used for the old masonite cover for the gas tank.



      The front boxed beam extends from the edge of the spare tire well on the right to the far left edge of the trunk. However, the back boxed beam ends at the edge of the well behind the left rear wheel. I wanted to be able to access that area for storage of a jack and other stuff. I fabricated a plywood plate to fit to the end of the back beam which extends down into the well. This has two purposes. It supports the raised trunk floor along the edge of the opening for accessing this area and it will provide a surface to which I can mount a scissors jack (much like existed on my old 745) with a thumb screw so the jack is not rattling around in the back (if I ever find a jack!).



      I then got some relatively heavy cardboard and used it to create a template for the raised floor.



      With the floor template in place, I then cut a template for the cover for the area over the back axle. This cover is mounted along the back edge of the water collector box which is below the rear windshield. It is held in place with velcro strips mounted along the collector box with additional velcro strips on the brackets just below the trunk hinges. I cut the template so that it is sitting just above the new trunk floor. I added a vertical lip to the front of the trunk floor which backs the bottom edge of the cover so that it does not get pushed forward. I have additional velcro strips to hold it in place there.

      The top of the cover has a slight arch; but, more importantly follows the horizontal curve of the collector box. However, the bottom edge of the cover has no curve where it rests against the lip on the trunk floor. This means that the cover has to be flexible. The classic hot rod guys seem to like to use hardboard when doing these types of covers, in part because they can cover with upholstery and staple on the back edges as opposed to gluing the upholstery to the surface. Hardboard’s lack of flexibility was not going to work for me. I ended up using something called Hi-core which looks like heavy cardboard; but, is fabricated from plastic. It is quite flexible across the corrugations. Not very flexible along the corrugations (tends to kink rather than bend); but, with the application of a heat gun you can get it to bend along the corrugations and retain a permanent set. The surface of the Hi-core is not particularly pleasing so I covered it with black vinyl. The vinyl I sourced from the upholstery supply place was referred to as ‘snow’ vinyl. It is intended for recovering snowmobile seats so it is a heavier abrasion resistant vinyl which retains its flexibility at low temperatures. I glued it to the surface of the Hi-core using a latex type contact cement as I was not sure about the Hi-core’s resistance to solvent cements.

      I also used the Hi-core covered with vinyl to fabricate replacements for the pressboard trunk wall liners using the old liners as templates. These liners did require some modification along the back wall of the trunk because of my recessed license plate. Like the front cover, they are held in place with velcro strips mounted on the trunk wall. The heavy vinyl and the thickness of the Hi-core does provide some impact resistance which helps to prevent dents in the sheet metal appearing from stuff sliding around inside the trunk if something comes loose. The liners are also backed by some 1 “ foam blocks in places so they present an even surface on the inside.

      Below is my front cover with the vinyl glued in place.



      This shows the trunk floor in place with the front cover installed.



      In the photo below you can see the access hole for the storage area on the left. The strip along the outside edge of the access hole supports the access cover. You can also see a plywood tab that I added in the very back corner which supports the back edge of the floor in case a heavier object ends up in the back left corner.



      In the preceding photo with the floor and front cover in place, you can see that I still have some exposed sheet metal around the wheel wells. Its painted, so it looks OK; but, with stuff in the trunk the paint was already getting scuffed up. I elected to cover these areas with the same black ‘snow’ vinyl using latex contact cement to attach the pieces. The latex cement is not the best adhesive for use on this type of surface which is actually an advantage. If I decide that in the long term I do not like this surface finish, it will not be extraordinarily difficult to remove the vinyl without damaging the paint surface.



      The following photos show the close to finished product. The plywood floor is attached to the box beams with recessed stainless screws. I need to be able to access these screws to be able to remove the floor if I ever need access to the tank. The carpet is at present just resting on the trunk floor with no attachment. I am debating whether I should attach the carpet to the floor with some removable plastic rivets which would allow me to cover the screws with the carpet, or whether I should glue the carpet to the floor and run the screws through the carpet surface. The access cover for the storage area is also unfinished. Right now it is just resting in place with no retaining mechanism. I had thought about using some velcro to keep it in place with a simple fabric tab to allow me to pull it up. The problem with that is that the velcro causes the cover to sit higher than the rest of the carpet destroying the ‘finished’ look. The ideal solution might be some type of DZUS ¼ turn faster that is recessed. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find anything like that locally.





      In the photos you may notice that I added a couple of holes at the top of the front cover. These are finished off with some desk grommets (for running wires through desks). With all the velcro that I added to retain keep the front cover in place, it was getting really difficult to remove it. The holes provide a couple of finger grabs to assist in prying the cover off.

      The only thing that I am disappointed about is that where the floor follows the contours around the wheel wells I have a small gap at the top of the plywood. When I cut the template and transferred it to the plywood, I didn't allow for the fact that the plywood is .375 " thick; but, the cardboard was just a little of 0.125 " thick. As a result, the bottom of the floor fits flush around the wheel wells; but because of the slope of the sheet metal and the 90 deg cut on the plywood, there is a small gap at the top. Right now the carpet is cut flush to the top edge of the plywood exposing his small gap. I could hide this gap by cutting a new piece or carpet and rolling it over the edge and fastening along the bottom. However, this would then mean that I am dealing with carpet which is more or less permanently attached to the floor which would force a decision about exposing the screws that retain the floor to the beams. Perhaps next year as I have other things to attend to before the snow comes.
      Last edited by 142 Guy; 10-05-2016 at 02:47 PM.

    11. #184
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Jul 2014
      Location
      St. Louis, MO
      Posts
      83
      The trunk looks great.
      Here's an original jack on ebay (not mine).
      http://www.ebay.com/itm/VOLVO-142S-1...NV-Yui&vxp=mtr

    12. #185
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2013
      Location
      Saskatchewan, Canada
      Posts
      2,178
      Quote Originally Posted by 66Wildcat View Post
      The trunk looks great.
      Here's an original jack on ebay (not mine).
      http://www.ebay.com/itm/VOLVO-142S-1...NV-Yui&vxp=mtr
      Thanks for the comment on the trunk.

      Also, thanks for the link. I did have one of those mono post jacks which I got out of a 140 wrecker when I was originally planning a restoration, before it turned into a restomod. The dents in my car's oil pan, gas tank and various other parts suggested that the previous owner had some planned or unplanned trips off of paved surfaces. One of the things that got slightly bent was one of the jack points. Its just bent enough that it is no longer absolutely square which prevents the arm on the jack from fitting in and hooking on the little bar in the jack point. So, the mono post won't work on one corner of the car. The other thing I disliked about the monopost is that if you need to use it on ground that is not really solid, you need to bring along a chunk of 2x6 to put under the jacks foot.

      The bend in the one jack point would make using a later OEM Volvo scissor jack a problem; but, my recollection is that the top of the jack that hooks into that little bar was flat enough that you could use it under the bar to lift the car. The OEM scissors jack had a fairly large support base which made for a better choice on soft surfaces. The ideal jack would be the scissors jack from my son's RSX which has a nice flat surface that can work under a lot of the surfaces on the 140, including the stock jack points (I have done a test run). You would think that with the zillions of Acuras and Civics in the world, there would be lots of those used jacks available. If there are, they are well hidden from the prying eyes of Mr. Google!

    13. #186
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Jul 2014
      Location
      St. Louis, MO
      Posts
      83
      Ah, I should have read the post better, thought you were looking for a original jack.
      I bought a mini 2-1/2 ton floor jack from Walmart for my trunk. I still have the original, but am not a fan of the monopost either. The Walmart jack was like $50, and fits under my E90 330i also, which my 3-1/2 ton jack doesn't. It has a black ABS case, and breaks down easily. It's a perfect trunk jack.

    14. #187
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2013
      Location
      Saskatchewan, Canada
      Posts
      2,178
      While driving on the highway, I have always had a fair amount of wind noise which seemed to be originating from the top back corner of the driver's door. Originally I thought it was rubber channel for the glass that fits within the door frame. The glass was not fitting and sealing in the top back corner any more so I installed new rubber channel in the door frame this spring. It helped a little; but, clearly was not the primary problem.

      I smeared silicon grease on the door gasket proper and then closed the door. I then checked the smear mark on the body where the gasket contacts the body. I am getting marginal contact in the upper back corner. I am thinking about a way of bringing the top of the door frame closer to the body. Adjusting the door strike in would be the obvious candidate; but, the door skin lines up nicely with the rear quarter panel so I don't want to screw that up. The door frame bolts to the door with two bolts at the front and two bolts at the back of the door. I can't remember how much slop there is in the bolt holes; but, it seems like they would be a potential candidate to allow me to tilt the top of the door frame towards the body slightly so that I get better gasket contact. The service manual has absolutely nothing in it about adjusting the door other than mentioning the hinge mounting points and adjustment of the angle of the door strike.

      Has anybody done this before? I can't remember how the window regulator is set up. If I try and adjust the upper door frame does that have the potential to screw up the engagement of the glass as it enters the channel on the back of the door frame? Is there a better way to do this?

    15. #188
      Global Moderator tmtalpey's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2004
      Location
      Eastern MA
      Posts
      8,906
      Can you pull the striker in? The one on the rear door frame. This will pull the door tighter to the body and can close this kind of gap.

      Try slightly loosening the screws and using a punch to lightly tap the striker in the direction you want. You might find it needs to go slightly upward as well as in.
      2005 V50 T5 AWD 6MT w/Heico tune, Heico exhaust, Bell intercooler, IPD TCV, Viva Forge CBV, Elevate rear swaybar and torque mount, Snabb shift kit, etc.
      2016 XC60 T6 AWD
      1956 PV444 complete, running
      1956 PV444 very original, very rough

    16. #189
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2013
      Location
      Saskatchewan, Canada
      Posts
      2,178
      I believe that there is room in the adjustment of the striker to pull it in. I don't want to do that because right now, the outer skin of the door lines up pretty much perfectly with the rear 1/4 panel outer edge. If I pull the striker in, the door will no longer sit flush with the rest of the body. Also, right now I have very solid compression of the gasket with the body around the lower half of the door. In fact you have to be very deliberate about pushing the door closed or the latch will not completely engage. If I move the striker in, I may be getting to the point where I may have to slam the door.

      Since the part Volvo refers to as the door frame is separate from the door, I was thinking that in-out adjustment of the frame was feasible. My primary concern with trying to adjust the top of the frame and screwing up the operation of the window regulator and the way that the window enters the track at the back of the door frame as it rises.

    17. #190
      Global Moderator tmtalpey's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2004
      Location
      Eastern MA
      Posts
      8,906
      Well, the other alternative is to bend the door. It's not really that drastic, body shops do it all the time. You have to bend just the window section, and it's best to lower the glass and work carefully but forcefully. Just crank it from the top rear corner.
      2005 V50 T5 AWD 6MT w/Heico tune, Heico exhaust, Bell intercooler, IPD TCV, Viva Forge CBV, Elevate rear swaybar and torque mount, Snabb shift kit, etc.
      2016 XC60 T6 AWD
      1956 PV444 complete, running
      1956 PV444 very original, very rough

    18. #191
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2013
      Location
      Saskatchewan, Canada
      Posts
      2,178
      Are you thinking of the later 240 style door (I believe the 240 had them and certainly the door on my 745T was like that) where the upper frame around the glass is integral with the body of the door? On the 140 the upper portion of the door frame around the glass is an aluminum frame which bolts to the lower steel section of the door. If I want to move the upper portion in, I don't think bending is necessary.

      If you look at the pictures of the doors installed in the car in post #10

      https://forums.swedespeed.com/showthr...42-Project-Car

      you can see that at this point the upper portion of the door is completely absent. The fact that the upper portion of the door is bolt on, suggests to me that I should be able to adjust it in- out. The only thing I find odd is that the service manual is totally silent on this. However, in retrospect the service manual has some pretty big gaps in it in other places so perhaps this was to trivial for their attention.
      Last edited by 142 Guy; 10-25-2016 at 03:05 PM.

    19. #192
      Global Moderator tmtalpey's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2004
      Location
      Eastern MA
      Posts
      8,906
      I was thinking of the 140 door but now you mention it I guess you could unbolt it. You could still try bending. It's aluminum??
      2005 V50 T5 AWD 6MT w/Heico tune, Heico exhaust, Bell intercooler, IPD TCV, Viva Forge CBV, Elevate rear swaybar and torque mount, Snabb shift kit, etc.
      2016 XC60 T6 AWD
      1956 PV444 complete, running
      1956 PV444 very original, very rough

    20. #193
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2013
      Location
      Saskatchewan, Canada
      Posts
      2,178
      Yes - aluminum. Not the most forgiving material when it comes to bending. Plus, the frame is a fairly thick U section so bending may not even be an option.

    21. #194
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2013
      Location
      Saskatchewan, Canada
      Posts
      2,178
      In the absence of knowing anything better, I loosened the two bolts at the back of the door that retain the doorframe to the door proper. The clearance in the mounting holes allows for, perhaps 3/16" of horizontal movement at the top of the doorframe. I moved the top of the door frame in as far as it would go. This makes the door a little harder to close - you have to give a firm push; but, it appears to have addressed the obvious wind noise issue from the top corner of the door.

    22. #195
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2013
      Location
      Saskatchewan, Canada
      Posts
      2,178
      As I have gradually eliminated most of the 'unnatural' major car noises, I am now left with one persistent sound that I cannot diagnose. It seems to be originating from underneath the floor pan in the OD area or perhaps farther back. The noise occurs when the car is in gear and accelerating between approximately 1600 - 2400 RPM.

      The noise sounds exactly like what I would expect from the knocking of the exhaust system on the body. However, when I grab the cold exhaust system parts and shake them there is no banging. Visual inspection doesn't show any contact points and in general there is lots of clearance between the exhaust components and the body.

      I initially thought perhaps some kind of clutch engagement issue, so I did a test drive, sped the car up in second gear, let it coast down in second until the engine speed was about 1600 RPM and then reaccelerated. The noise was present so it is not related to the engagement of the clutch.

      The noise is present in 1st, 2nd and 3rd gear at the same RPM so I don't think it is a drivetrain noise.

      The rubber engine and transmission mounts are intact.

      I am at a bit of a loss - any suggestions?

    23. #196
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Nov 2009
      Location
      Ypsilanti, MI
      Posts
      153
      How does your driveshaft support bearing look?
      Lesky
      '58 PV444
      '73 164E

    24. #197
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2013
      Location
      Saskatchewan, Canada
      Posts
      2,178
      The bearing and its rubber mount were both replaced when I rebuilt the car, so they 'look' OK. Of course, that does not mean that they are OK. Any thoughts on what I should be looking for specifically? Temperatures here are forecast to get much warmer on the weekend so I have plans to get under the car and examine the driveshaft bearing support and perhaps take a closer look at some of the couplings on the exhaust system.

    25. #198
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Nov 2016
      Posts
      8
      Do you have a support bracket between your downpipe and the transmission? I have a similar vibration and replacing all driveshaft u-joints and center support bearing and mount made no difference. I have been told the missing support bracket can cause vibration problems as the exhaust hits a resonance. I have yet to install a bracket, but I'm hoping it will help my 1800 with its similar problem. It is speed independent, only RPM and happens as you pass through the range by any means.

    26. #199
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2013
      Location
      Saskatchewan, Canada
      Posts
      2,178
      Yes and no to the bracket. I have the bracket; but, because I have an IPD header the tailpiece from the header sits about 1 - 2 " below the bracket, so I can't use the normal U bolt to tie the pipe to the bracket. I have one of those clamps with a rubber strap / hanger on it and the strap is bolted to the bracket. So I have a little more movement in my system which is probably contributing to the problem below.

      I think that I may have figured out the source of the noise. I have about a 12" long tail piece bolted on to the header flange. The tailpiece has a 2" OD. The pipe on my Simons exhaust system has a flare that is 2 1/4" OD. The tailpiece butts up (no overlap) against the Simons exhaust pipe and the two are joined by a stepped band clamp. When the engine shakes a bit, the coupling allows a little rocking in the tailpiece allowing it to tap the exhaust pipe which acts as a nice sounding board. I think I need either a flex coupling or an overlapping coupling of some kind.

      When I did the shake test on the exhaust system, I grabbed the whole pipe and shook it and as a result there was no rocking motion and no noise.

    27. #200
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Nov 2009
      Location
      Ypsilanti, MI
      Posts
      153
      Quote Originally Posted by 142 Guy View Post
      The bearing and its rubber mount were both replaced when I rebuilt the car, so they 'look' OK. Of course, that does not mean that they are OK. Any thoughts on what I should be looking for specifically? Temperatures here are forecast to get much warmer on the weekend so I have plans to get under the car and examine the driveshaft bearing support and perhaps take a closer look at some of the couplings on the exhaust system.
      Just anything abnormal looking. The bearing typically doesn't make noise. So if it had been the bearing, there would likely be some sort of visible defect. However, after rereading and thinking about the noise, the bearing doesn't make sense.
      Last edited by Lesky; 11-05-2016 at 11:10 PM.
      Lesky
      '58 PV444
      '73 164E

    28. #201
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Nov 2009
      Location
      Ypsilanti, MI
      Posts
      153
      Quote Originally Posted by 142 Guy View Post
      Yes and no to the bracket. I have the bracket; but, because I have an IPD header the tailpiece from the header sits about 1 - 2 " below the bracket, so I can't use the normal U bolt to tie the pipe to the bracket. I have one of those clamps with a rubber strap / hanger on it and the strap is bolted to the bracket. So I have a little more movement in my system which is probably contributing to the problem below.

      I think that I may have figured out the source of the noise. I have about a 12" long tail piece bolted on to the header flange. The tailpiece has a 2" OD. The pipe on my Simons exhaust system has a flare that is 2 1/4" OD. The tailpiece butts up (no overlap) against the Simons exhaust pipe and the two are joined by a stepped band clamp. When the engine shakes a bit, the coupling allows a little rocking in the tailpiece allowing it to tap the exhaust pipe which acts as a nice sounding board. I think I need either a flex coupling or an overlapping coupling of some kind.

      When I did the shake test on the exhaust system, I grabbed the whole pipe and shook it and as a result there was no rocking motion and no noise.
      If you have enough room to play with, you could open up the dividing gap between the header and 12" pipe inside the stepped band clamp. That would be an easy test for your possible root cause.
      Lesky
      '58 PV444
      '73 164E

    29. #202
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2013
      Location
      Saskatchewan, Canada
      Posts
      2,178
      Falling in the category of things that drive me crazy!

      In the fall of 2014, I was encountering a problem with the engine running slightly rich after a hot restart. I eventually tracked it down to what I believe was an air temperature difference between what the stock D jet air temperature sensor located in the front cowl was measuring and the actual air temperature in the manifold which was quite a bit higher than the air temperature up front. The ECU using the cooler air temperature up front would add more fuel than was required based upon the actual temperature in the intake manifold.

      To fix this problem, I disconnected the original D jet air temperature sensor and installed a GM open element style sensor directly in the intake manifold in the old cold start injector location



      The relocation of the air temperature sensor to the intake manifold, which is the more common location for modern normally aspirated engines seemed to address the problem.

      Fast forward to summer 2016.

      During the previous winter, I had reconfigured the Megasquirt ECU hardware to allow me to run the MS2Extra firmware with full sequential fuel injection and coil on plug ignition with spark timing control via the ECU. When running batch fire fuel injection, its typically necessary to tune the AFRs to something in the mid 13s to achieve smooth operation. With sequential fuel injection, it is typical to run the idle AFRs right around 14.7 and you can still have smooth operation. The switch to MS2Extra with the higher idle AFRs worked just fine for a normal start-up; but, for hot restarts I was seeing the opposite effect of what I had experienced previously. The engine was now running lean following a hot restart. The AFRs following start-up were swinging above 17 and when my exhaust gas correction went active it was maxing out to bring the AFRs back to 14.7. This problem did not occur for a cold start so it was not a question of adjusting the fuel map.

      After doing some initial investigation, I attributed the problem to heat soak of the manifold air temperature sensor when the engine was shut off hot. My initial assumption was that the manifold air and the sensor was heating up while the engine stopped. Once the engine started up, the air temperature would start to drop; but, I theorized that the sensor temperature was failing to drop as quickly with the result that it was reading an artificially high temperature which would cause a lean condition. The MS2Extra firmware has a feature called MAT air density table which essentially allows you to alter the Ideal Gas Law. I set the table up so that there was no further change to the air density used in the fuel equation when the air temperature was above 45 C. This change helped a bit; but, did not resolve the problem. I did some further testing on manifold air temperatures after a hot restart using a thermocouple probe to compare air temperatures to what was being measured by the GM sensor. I discovered that my theory that the GM sensor was heat soaking and not dropping as fast as the actual air temperature was in error. The GM sensor temperature was tracking closely with the probe temperature. So much for manifold temperature sensor heat soak causing the sensor to read artificially high temperatures. Thomas Huxley complained about a beautiful hypothesis being slayed by an ugly fact.


      I was starting to think that Volvo / Bosch might have known something when they placed the air temp sensor outside of the manifold on the original D jet installation. Perhaps the radiant energy from the manifold walls makes consistent tuning too difficult, being further complicated by the nice toaster oven effect from the exhaust manifold directly below the intake. I switched back to the original Bosch IAT mounted in the front cowl and reconfigured the MS2Extra with the air density correction so that it continues to follow the ideal gas law at temperatures above 45 C.

      Well guess what. The run lean on hot restart condition persists with the sensor mounted up in the cowl. My initial reaction was that this wasn't possible so I stuck a thermocouple probe up into the air inlet to see if the IAT was getting some kind of heat soak off of the radiator. The probe and the IAT were reading within 1 C of one another so there was no apparent heat soak in the sensor. In fact, I watched the IAT reading following the hot restart and it actually climbed 1 or 2 degrees as the engine went from running lean to returning to its typical AFRs. The IAT were staying relatively steady and the AFRs were dropping so I think the run lean on hot restart problem is something more fundamental. Heat soak on a manifold mounted sensor might make the problem worse; but, on my B20E it does not appear to be the primary cause of the problem.

      I noticed that on a hot restart, the IAT sensor reading on the lap top was remaining pretty steady and yet the idle AFRs are changing from around 17 to 14.7 or lower all on their own. I pulled the IAT sensor out of its cowl location, hung it in the air so that it is pretty much unaffected by engine operation, did a restart and same thing. During the restart, the sensor temperature only changed by 1 C and yet the AFRs dropped from the 17s down to around 14.7. Clearly, the change in the AFR values was not being driven by the air temperature measurement. I started to wonder whether the MS2Extra firmware was doing strange things with the fuel pulse widths so I used my laptop to record the engine data following a hot restart.

      The capture below shows the data log at 504 seconds close to the start of a hot restart. The yellow bottom trace is AFR (16.0) and the top purple trace is fuel pulse width (2.03 msec). The top yellow trace is the intake air temp (18.1 C).



      The next capture shows the data log at 618 seconds. The AFR has dropped to 13.9. However, strange stuff, the fuel pulse width has dropped to 1.97 msec and the IAT has dropped to 15.6 C. The slight drop in fuel pulse width should conspire to increase the AFR relative to the first log; however, the AFR has actually dropped significantly.




      The two data captures are not 100% comparable. The engine RPM has risen slightly from 956 RPM in the first log to a 1017 RPM in the second and the corresponding manifold pressures are slightly different. However, the operating conditions are close enough that the comparison is reasonable. The Megasquirt is commanding roughly the same fuel Pulse width in both conditions, yet the AFRs are significantly different.

      Time for a new theory.

      I was aware that Volvo had retrofitted the B20E and B20F injector holder hold down bolts with phenolic insulating washers on the top of the injector holder and between the injector holder and the top of the head. These washers provide a thermal break between the head and the injector holder. The washers were a retrofit that supposed to address hard starting problems when the engine was hot. Common wisdom was that this was a vapour lock problem which I find highly doubtful. The high fuel pressure in the fuel system combined with the return type system that the D jet uses means that any vapour that might form should be quickly flushed when the fuel system is primed at start up. I am thinking that the flow characteristics of the injector may become altered as the injector body temperature increases. I took some temperature measurements during a hot restart with a thermocouple probe stuck to the body of the #1 injector. I watched the AFR on my laptop and the AFR seems to have a very strong correlation to the injector body temperature. Once the engine is running the injector body temperature starts dropping as fuel flows through it. This correlates well with my experience that if you start driving the car (higher fuel flow through the injectors and more cooling) the lean condition resolves faster than it does if you just let it sit and idle.

      I did a little Google enabled research on hot injector problems. Turns out the Jeep 4 and 6 l engines have a similar hot restart problem. These in-line engines are similar to the B20E having the exhaust manifold strategically located underneath the intake manifold to heat things up.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7GndDgl0yI

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1dFiwlwxSs

      The first link discusses the problem and the repair of the existing heat shield on the 6 l variant (which includes a heat shield around a single injector which is problematic. The second link talks about a patch using insulated spark plug boots around the injector bodies.

      Discussion with some other individuals on the MS support forum revealed that Rovers with early electronic fuel injection systems also had a hot restart problem. Rover’s retrofit consisted of a shut off valve in the fuel return line controlled by a coolant thermo switch. The valve closed during cranking when the engine was hot causing the fuel pressure to spike high giving a blast of fuel to help with the lean condition on restart.

      The trolling also yielded some other interesting information. I came across a FORD patent covering injector and fuel temperature and pressure measurements. This was in the context of a returnless fuel system. What was interesting was that in the section of the patent that is called State of the Art (or something like that) the patent referenced something called ad hoc HICOMP systems (Hot Injector Compensation) primarily for the purpose of explaining that the patent proposal was not for a new type of HICOMP system. I draw from this the conclusion that the OEMs might be a little more aware of this issue with hot injectors than seems to be visible on the internet. Clearly Volvo was aware of the issue on the B20E/F back in the early seventies when they installed their washer retrofit, Rover had to implement an ad hoc fix and JEEP knew that they had a problem on their inline 4 and 6 engines.

      The B20E problem sounds very similar to the Jeep problem and I was inclined to explore some similar approaches.

      I fabricated an experimental heat shield from some 0.025 aluminum sheet. The material is on the thin side; but, it was all I could get locally (Home Depot) unless I wanted to buy a really big piece. Plus, it had the up side that it was easy to cut with shears.








      After installing the heat shield I did the usual test. Drive the car around for about 15 minutes to get things up to operating temperature and then let it sit for 10 minutes before doing a restart. The results were encouraging; but, inconclusive. The first observation is that it has not eliminated the problem. The engine is still running lean after a hot restart; however, my perception is that the AFRs are typically in the 16 range. Previously, the AFRs were 17 - 18 + with the odd excursion higher. To set this in context, my target AFRs at idle are 14.7. I generally get these AFRs once the engine has warmed following a cold start.

      The heat shield as installed buzzed mercilessly at certain engine RPMs. Since the preceding photos were taken, I have added some reenforcements to the heat shield with alumiunum strips which have greatly reduced; but, not totally eliminated the buzzing.

      My positive comments are tempered by the fact that the ambient temperatures here are about 20 - 25 C lower than they were in mid summer when I was getting some nasty AFRs following a hot restart. Testing with higher ambient temperatures may show that the effects I am observing are due to the benefit of faster cooling of components due to lower ambient temperatures rather than the benefits of the heat shield.

      The heat shield does have a perceptible effect on the injector body temperatures. Without the heat shield the injector retaining ring is uncomfortably hot (69 C from a previous test). I didn't have my temperature probe with me; but, with the heat shield in place I can rest my fingers on the retaining rings. They are hot; but, I have no trouble leaving my fingers in place. Touch the heat shield and the heat shield is definitely much hotter than the base of the injectors.

      Looking at the injectors in the picture, so little of the injector is exposed above the retaining ring that I don't think there is going to be much benefit from trying to put an insulator around the injector body like the JEEP retrofit involves. I might try some type of thermal blanket over the header pipes which might have the added side benefit of reducing heating of the intake manifold. Even though I have Volvo's washer retrofit, I expect that now the majority of the heating effect is via conduction through the injector holder. I think the next step would be some kind of thicker thermal spacer between the base of the injector holder and the head. Of course, that would change the location of the injector pintle in the head which could mess up other things. The option might be to find some salvaged injector holders, machine 0.25” or so off the base and then make up a 0.25” phenolic spacer which would provide some additional thermal insulation while keeping the pintle at the same height.

    30. #203
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Nov 2016
      Posts
      8
      Did you have any luck with the exhaust vibration issue?

      I have also noticed the similar lean condition on a short stop restart. I think it would have to be accounted for in the afterstart or warmup settings or some consideration of both a manifold temp and an air temp so you can tell it is a hot restart. Otherwise I just can't see how it can know enough about the condition. If you just compare the two situations if the manifold hadn't heat soaked and if it had, but the exact same air intake temp and coolant temp, how is the Megasquirt supposed to tell the difference? It will get different amounts of air. To some degree, it really isn't at a super critical time period since running lean right after restart isn't a very dangerous condition. I even noticed the same situation with the D-jet when I was running spark control only with MS as I started that way. It always ran a bit crappy and lean after getting coffee as I then left the shopping center in the mornings on my work commute. I still wanted to solve the problem as well but haven't yet. I was still working on my injector dead time recently so I haven't tested the hot restart situation in a while. i have even had issues on cold mornings where the intake temp stays pretty low but the manifold still heat soaks. I also see very high water temps immediately after a hot restart until it circulates briefly. Do you also see that?

      I guess the weird part is, if it is really getting less air due to the heated manifold, but the air temp is requiring more fuel, why does it run lean?

      I'm running batch fire on a B20 with EDIS but want to go sequential as well. I was hoping it would help me run higher pulsewidths to get away from the transition flow region since it would be opening half as often with twice the flow.

      John
      Last edited by cactus1800; 11-24-2016 at 12:08 AM.

    31. #204
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2013
      Location
      Saskatchewan, Canada
      Posts
      2,178
      Yes, sort-of to the exhaust problem. You are correct about the importance of that front hanger at the transmission.

      I got an adapter to transition from the 2" OD header tail piece to the 2 1/8 ID flare on the exhaust system front pipe. With some good band clamps that dealt with most of the noise. Close inspection while doing that work showed that the rubber strap style exhaust hanger that I had installed from the header tail piece to the transmission mounted hanger bracket had deteriorated and torn. I ditched that hanger and went to a very long U bolt along with a strap to clamp the pipe. I put a chunk of exhaust hanger rubber between the U bolt and the pipe just to allow a little flex. That part was a mistake as despite being meant for an exhaust hanger, the rubber is not high temp rubber and has been emitting a nasty smell ever since. The rubber is clearly deteriorating as it has also allowed the hanger to loosen with a return of some of the noise. I have to come up with a more effective hanger mount. The fact that the IPD header sits about 30 mm below the bracket really complicates the options for hangers.

      With the MS2Extra firmware, you have more options with after start enrichment. You can set ASE % and taper as a function of coolant temperature. At a coolant temp of 55 C I have very little ASE and a taper around 200 cycles. If the coolant temperature is above 60 C I use that as an indicator that this is a hot restart and have extended the ASE taper above that temperature. I am using over 400 cycles above 80 C and increase the ASE % also above 60 C. As I recall, that is not an option that you have with the non Extra firmware. I also enable fast operation of the EGO correction on a hot restart. The combination of the heat management, ASE and EGO are moderately effective at controlling the AFR to target following a hot restart.

      I semi agree about how critical or non critical the lean AFR on hot restart can be. If the engine is just idling, the high AFRs are unlikely to result in engine damage. The lean condition on hot restart never made the car really hard to start (unlike some reports with the D jet); however, when the weather was fairly hot I was seeing AFR spikes up in the 17 - 18 range and if I started driving the car I endured a period of poor operation ( a lot of surging) for about 1-2 km. The latter was a problem because I live in an urban area and I only get to drive about 100 - 200 m before I need to merge with traffic that can on occasion be heavy. A car that takes 1-2 km to get its head sorted out is not an option for me. I will note that with my ad hoc HICOMP strategies and correct setting of my PW idle valve, the engine now has much faster hot starts than it ever did with the Djet. From the time I get sync up on the tach and cam signal until the engine transitions from cranking to run (600 RPM) is in the order of 0.35 seconds.

      Which water temperature are you talking about spiking? The front of block (old D jet sensor) or the back of block (dash sensor)? I don't ever recall seeing a spike in temperature on the front sensor following a start up. The back of block sensor is all over the place. I have an electronic temperature gauge which has very little lag and has a pretty linear response. In the summer time, I find that the water temp at the front sensor location will be running at around 87 - 88 C and I can have 97 - 99 C at the back location if I get stuck in slow traffic at a long traffic light on a hot summer day. Turn on the interior heater and the back temperature gauge plummets down to around 89 C or if the engine speed increases because you are driving you get the same effect. At idle there is a definite lack of water flow through the head. The front temp remains steady so it is not a problem due to lack of radiator or fan cooling. I have thought about putting some kind of bypass arrangement in the heater circuit to allow continuous flow in that circuit during the summer driving conditions. Right now, its cold here and the heater valve is always open so I never see temperature excursions on the dash gauge.

      Are you still running the Bosch 036 injectors and at what fuel pressure? I am running the Bosch 036 (actually the B-A replacement for the 036) with a base fuel pressure of 36 psi (Nissan 280 ZX FPR). With sequential injection I am running at a pulse width of around 1.9 msec at idle which is well in the linear operation range of the 036 injector at 36 psi. However, idle is not the lowest pulse width condition. During low throttle opening de acceleration / trailing throttle conditions; but no fuel cut, I run MAPs down to 30 kPa or lower and the fuel PW drops down to around 1 msec. 1 msec is into the non linear operating range of the 036 injector and it definitely shows up in the AFRs which are really erratic under those conditions. Its really hard to fix the problem by adjusting the Ve values because a small change in the injector pulse width in the 1 msec range causes really dramatic changes in fuel flow.

      The Bosch 036 injector is really grossly oversized for the B20E engine. Bosch made a number of other injectors just like the 036 with barb style connections; however, the 036 is the only one that seems to be commonly available or available at less than nose bleed prices. I have seen pictures of the injectors that Nissan used on the 280 ZX and they look to be physically identical to the 036 injector and from what I have been able to find have a lower flow rate. I have been tempted to see if I can find one for a reasonable price to see if it is a drop in fit and perhaps do some flow testing. If it fits and the flow rates are lower it might provide for smoother operation on the B20E.

      Some others have speculated that the lean condition on hot restart might be due to increases in the injector off-set (opening time) at high injector temperatures. An increase in the off-set would reduce the time that the injector is actually open and as such provides a viable explanation for why the engine is running lean on a hot restart. This off-set 'drift' would be most noticeable at low pulse widths and less significant with larger pulse widths. If this is the case, then going to a lower flow rate injector which operates at a higher pulse width could help resolve the lean run condition. A hypothetical drift of 0.25 msec in offset would have a much smaller % effect on an injector running at 4 msec than it would on an injector running at 2 msec. Its pretty hard to test this out. It would be nice to be able to do a flow test on an injector with the injector body at different controlled temperatures (which would require heating the test fluid to match the injector body). Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to do this that does not risk burning the house down.

      As a matter of curiosity, are you still running a B20E with the original D cam? If so, what are your idle MAP values like? At 900 RPM, I have never been able to get my MAP values below 59 -60 kPa (they will drop if I speed the idle up). I was curious as to whether this is a characteristic of the B20E with the D cam or whether I have some mechanical issues with my engine.
      Last edited by 142 Guy; 11-24-2016 at 12:54 PM.

    32. #205
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Nov 2016
      Posts
      8
      I was only noting that the water temp at the front D-jet location rises a lot after a shutdown without the water flow and it soaks up the hot spots. If you came in at operating temp of 180 or so I could see over 200 immediately after a restart until it moved some water around again. I don't recall how long that took but it was much faster than it takes to correct the afterstart lean condition.

      The gauge reading from the back sensor shows the trends but I don't know the values or monitor it as well or as easily as looking at the MS datalogs later.

      John

    33. #206
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Nov 2016
      Posts
      8
      I am running the stock 036 injectors and stock fuel pressure regulator at 30 psi just as was with D-jet. I agree with the pulsewidth at idle and at decel conditions. I was actually tuning the dead time under decel conditions. If I can't get it from being too lean, I raised the dead time and once I couldn't get it from being too rich (by auto tune dropping the VE), I shortened it. At least that is where I last was. I just got to the point where it just went from too lean and couldn't auto tune to where it can't pull fuel to get away from being super rich. My next drive will drop the dead time by half my previous .050 interval increase. (.025 ms)

      At least it has been making sense and running better as I got closer. At 30 psi my next dead time test will be at 1.025 ms.

      John

    34. #207
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Nov 2016
      Posts
      8
      Again, I'm hoping to get some better help from the PW increase when not running batch fire. You have already been taking advantage of this greatness! I have the B20F and presumably stock cam. I also can't get the idle MAP any lower than that range but wondered if it was due to a tired engine that I haven't wanted to truly accept and verify. I played for a while with more idle advance which improved the smoothness and brought the MAP down. I had made lots of changes since then but had dropped my idle timing back to the 10 range. It seemed to idle really nice though nearer to 20 BTDC.

    35. #208
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Nov 2016
      Posts
      8
      For simple injector type swapping, I thought about machining some adapters to fit the standard type injector top that seal with o-rings and just have a barb on the other end. Simple for our application without redoing the manifold. I may redo a manifold some day but it wasn't a high priority.

      The temp related dead time change is an interesting concept.

      John

    36. #209
      Member
      Join Date
      May 2013
      Location
      Saskatchewan, Canada
      Posts
      2,178
      Quote Originally Posted by cactus1800 View Post
      I was only noting that the water temp at the front D-jet location rises a lot after a shutdown without the water flow and it soaks up the hot spots. If you came in at operating temp of 180 or so I could see over 200 immediately after a restart until it moved some water around again. I don't recall how long that took but it was much faster than it takes to correct the afterstart lean condition.

      The gauge reading from the back sensor shows the trends but I don't know the values or monitor it as well or as easily as looking at the MS datalogs later.

      John
      No, I don't recall anything like that. I cleaned out most of my really old logs of hot starts from last summer; but, I found a hot restart from early October on a day that was unusually warm for here - about 25 C. The coolant temperature prior to start was sitting at 88.1 C (190 F) and climbed briefly (3 seconds) to about 88.5 C and then started dropping because my electric cooling fan cuts in at 84 C. It bottomed out around 80 -81 C (176 F) after a minute of idling.

    37. #210
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Nov 2016
      Posts
      8
      Does your electric fan run with the car off if it sees the temp climb? A secondary boost of cooling after shutdown would hide the issue I have with a belt/water pump driven fan. Even without the water pump running the thermal gradient flow could easily drop my early hot condition.

      John

    38. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast