940 Volvo fuel comsumption

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

On highway driving in moderate speeds (80-100 km/h) it tends to consume

9 litres per 100 km or a little less. It averages about 10 litres per 100 km. This is unleaded 95 octanes (European).

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

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

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

is your friend. According to the unit conversion button on Calc98

100 Km = 62.1371192237 Imperial miles 10 litres = 2.1996935378 Imperial gallons 62.1371192237 / 2.1996935378 = 28.2480800875 mpg.

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

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

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

While we're at it then, any *nix users (or savvy Windows users with cygwin) can always rely on "units"

eg:

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

i.e. 28.25 mpg (British)

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

Cheers,

AJ

A couple of things... if you have a Palm OS PDA, then there's an excellent program called MegaCalc:

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

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

Mark

Cheers !!! 28 mpg seems pretty reasonable, my 2.0 745 automatic does

25mpg. I'm hoping to squeeze a bit more when I do my throttle body and set the throttle switch. It doesn't click when it should. I used to get 34 mpg out of my 745 2.3 manual with M46+o/d, but I reckon the engine didn't have to work as hard as the 2 litre does. I do miss the acceleration tho. sometimes.

Stuart

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

Cheers,

AJ

Thanks Gunnar for ur answer.

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

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

Thanks again.

Vincent from Paris snipped-for-privacy@wanadoo.fr

Gunnar Eikman a écrit:

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

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

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

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

Tim..

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

Cheers, Peter.

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

Mark

Only 850 diesel had 2.5 Litre engine.

Cheers, Peter.

Right. The non-turbo 5 cylinder is 2435cc for all model years. For the

850, it was usually called 2.5l, and 70 series 2.4l. According to my Haynes manual, the name change was due to some EC requirement in the late 1990s. This engine came in 10V and 20V versions.

Also, in spite of the 850/S70 being slightly smaller, it is pretty much the same weight as the 940.