Uneven (odd) idol rate

Website · Post by **antiekeradio** » 22 Dec 2005 10:16 pm

yours was the last of the 1.7 line; the B172 was kicked out as soon as the 440 started to sell.

so; all 340 1.7 are the flimsy ones.

[edit]

@pettaw; OK at least you convinced me that the manifold is prone to warping as well. thats a good thing to note.

I know the volvo dealers in Holland had the option to fit a very special soft insulation flange, wich would form itself to any way the carb and/or manifold had been warping, and still seal off good.
This 'super-gasket' was very expensive, but not as expensive as getting a new carb.....

BTW I think one might be able to cure the manifold warping with the same method I described for carb base flattening.

Post by **fidgad** » 23 Dec 2005 06:46 pm

Just how much better are the 440 carbs? If they're for a 1.7 why do the jets need changing?

Post by **340cbr** » 23 Dec 2005 08:24 pm

The jets in the 440 ate a little bigger. I haven't changed mine

Website · Post by **antiekeradio** » 23 Dec 2005 08:28 pm

If they're for a 1.7 why do the jets need changing?

---> fuel economy. it _does_ make a difference.

Post by **340cbr** » 23 Dec 2005 11:45 pm

The difference is more in the performance that in the fuel economy.

Because only tge second jet has a significant bigger size

Post by **fidgad** » 24 Dec 2005 12:13 pm

That seems to be ideal then. Economy on a light foot and some better zing on heavy pedal! Any downsides?

Website · Post by **antiekeradio** » 24 Dec 2005 05:02 pm

its not original

(but who gives a **** ??

)

Post by **Chris_C** » 25 Dec 2005 12:56 am

Minus 10 points.... (for those that don't follow the point's thing, it's a random from (I think) John_360 and a non standard battery at a BKV comp)

Post by **fidgad** » 25 Dec 2005 11:19 am

They'd have to look very very closely then!

Website · Post by **antiekeradio** » 25 Dec 2005 01:07 pm

indeed

it was meant as a smart-ass way of saying that there are no downsides to it