343 - B14.2E > B200'RS'

Post by **340GLT** » 22 May 2008 11:54 am

An easier fix foggy is have some threaded tubes made up with a small flange on them, and drill holes into the chassis legs and weld them in.
Adam

Post by **foggyjames** » 22 May 2008 07:02 pm

Aye, that's not a bad idea. I'll attempt to yank the engine tonight, and take the bolts to the machine shop down the road from work and see what they can come up with...

cheers

James

Post by **foggyjames** » 23 May 2008 01:26 am

I got everything bar the engine out last night...and the engine came out tonight. I've made a mental note of what the threaded tubes for the mounts look like, so I'll head off to the machine shop tomorrow, armed with the bolts. Little steps...

Pics to follow, probably tomorrow...

cheers

James

Post by **V6 Man** » 02 Jun 2008 09:05 pm

Does anyone actually know at what stage Volvo started to fit the relavent tappings/threaded holes to their chassis'?

Did any non B19 engined Mk1's ever get the tappings, or for that matter did any non B19 engined early Mk2's?

Post by **foggyjames** » 03 Jun 2008 01:14 am

Well this is the last of the mk1s...and 1981 cars did have B19s...so I think we can safely assume that no non-B19 mk1s had the tappings. Clitti said on Tbricks that a 1988/1989 car he converted to 2.0 power didn't have them either...

It looks like I'm going to use a 'nutsert' fitted into the chassis then secured with a single tack weld. It's like a huge pop rivet with a thread down the centre. There's been all sorts of debate regarding what is the best approach...but I'm reluctent to do anything too 'messy' (like welding in plates, etc). There's already a ~1/4" spreader plate under the mount.

I'm going to measure out the hole positions, fit the engine and check that the measurements agree...then pull the engine out again, drill the holes and fit the nutserts, then call it job done!

cheers

James

Post by **pistonpen paultje** » 03 Jun 2008 08:51 am

Make a picture for me when your ready with the gearboxmount!?

Thnx

Post by **shimon340** » 03 Jun 2008 10:00 am

hi there

In answer to Rupert I believe the 300 had a universal shell from model year 1984. before that, you had 340 or 360 specific body panels.

in theory a post 84 should be able to be converted from B14 to B200 etc and vice versa

however, James' point about an 88 car not having them is interesting.

maybe the UK shells didnt move to the universal one?

Post by **V6 Man** » 03 Jun 2008 05:53 pm

I doubt they made totally universal shells as the spare wheel well/fuel tank arrangements were different too.

Post by **volvorsport** » 03 Jun 2008 07:43 pm

lateral thinking .

epoxy adhesive for teh nutserts aswell , no need to weld then .

and i mean some proper liquid metal stuff , not super glue

Post by **foggyjames** » 03 Jun 2008 11:20 pm

Let me get this straight Dave....are you telling me to get all Turbobricks on it, and crack out the JB weld...?

That does sound appealing, as there are concerns re: paint / rust with weldling...but I can't help feeling that it's not going to be worth the effort...JB Weld isn't usually *that* strong...or is that because people do daft things with it like trying to fix on radiator hose unions (see Hugh and Nessy...

)?

Sorry I didn't respond to your text Shimon. It was a bit late by the time I got in from the garage.

PP...what exactly is it you want a picture of...the 340 mount...the 360 mount...the holes in the chassis?

As of tonight, there's a 360 box, prop and bellhousing in the 343 ready for temporary engine fitment tomorrow to mark out the locations for the holes. I have a friend with access to Nutserts and a fitting tool, so we're good to go. The box is currently mounted via the rear 340 mount. It'll be easy enough to swap to a 360 style mount later if I feel like it.

cheers

James

Post by **volvorsport** » 04 Jun 2008 12:08 am

who said JB weld ? thats like quik steel or somert .

i mean a proper epoxy adhesive that most high tech motors are bondeed together with if you were unduly sure about the nature of nutserts once youve put them in and wont need to take them out again .

Post by **volvorsport** » 04 Jun 2008 12:13 am

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Steel-Weld-Epoxy- ... 18Q2el1247

something like this ?

Post by **shimon340** » 04 Jun 2008 12:38 am

hi james,

thanks for the post, Im trying to source a mk 1 temp sender at the moment...dont want to drive to the VOC with no temp gauge. Was wondering if it was 1E engine you pulled from the 343 or at least one with the temp sender with two wire connections.

hi rupert, true boot panel is different ..tank holes in the same place for saddle and 340 tank? maybe the differences were reduced between the sheels ie the pressings used for the front end with different engine mount locations. I guess the rationale was to reduce the number of stamping templates?

I remember something about a more universal shell from 84..although from 84 onwards you cant convert a LHD to a RHD....

Post by **foggyjames** » 04 Jun 2008 02:06 am

Dave....fair play, that stuff does look a bit more manly. Ok...best to buy it from eBay, or locally?

Shimon...yes, the engine has the two contact type, and you can have it in exchange for the old one (bring it to the national) and a couple of quid for my trouble....and some information. Any idea on why there are two contacts? Is it a dual-output one (like one of the Motronic sensors), or is it isolated from ground, and one of the pins is a 'signal ground' which goes back to the panel to avoid noise? I need to mate the 343's wiring loom to the single-contact sensor on the B200. I figure that the wiring diagram I have will tell all...but if you happen to know the answer, that would be quicker.

Yes, I have Jay's number...I'll let you have it tomorrow...if you don't hear anything by 8pm or so, remind me.

cheers

James

Post by **shimon340** » 04 Jun 2008 12:20 pm

hi james

thanks for the message. ExCeLlEnT! you have a two pin sender. did the temp gauge work ok in this 343 before you pulled the engine out? The sender in mine has a permanently high resistance, should be 35 ot 45 ohms at 100 deg. Ive been told by the Daf club that any sender will work (Ive figured so long as the 100 deg value is 35-45 deg to guess the gauge to sit just below the middle when at normal operating temp). My option is to remove the one I have and get a local motor factors to source an equivalent. Once I do that I'll post the details of the replacement on V3M.

Ive too wondered the reason for two wires. Ive got the wiring diagrams for early 343s and late 340s. I believe the sender changed to a single contact type when the water pump design changed. Ive only got 1E and 4E engines so have the extremes of the range but dont know if it was 2E or 3E when the pump changed. Maybe maybe the two pin sender was also used on the new pumps till some point?

on the 343 you'l be matching a 343 smith's guage to a 360 two pin sender. As the temp gauges were the same in 340 and 360 mk 3 we can assume the temp sender output was the same too for mk3 B14 and B200, B17 etc? The main prob is therefore were the cars with Smith temp gauges fitted with different senders to the VDO gauge cars?

Ive got a 1984 constant CO carb, breaker ignition and smiths gauge car. I'll see if that has one or two pin sender unit. I suspect at the mo its the single wire one as the car has the later water pump

the old sender is broken and I was going to use it for matching a suitable aftermarket version and also matching the crusable washer.

even more cheeky... could it be posted as Im hoping to install it to have a working temp gauge in order to bring the 343 to the national. 66 is 98% finished but we're gonna leave bringing it till next year.

cheers

shimon