Page 3 of 3

Posted: 22 Dec 2005 10:16 pm
by antiekeradio
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.

Posted: 23 Dec 2005 06:46 pm
by fidgad
Just how much better are the 440 carbs? If they're for a 1.7 why do the jets need changing?

Posted: 23 Dec 2005 08:24 pm
by 340cbr
The jets in the 440 ate a little bigger. I haven't changed mine

Posted: 23 Dec 2005 08:28 pm
by antiekeradio
If they're for a 1.7 why do the jets need changing?


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

Posted: 23 Dec 2005 11:45 pm
by 340cbr
The difference is more in the performance that in the fuel economy.

Because only tge second jet has a significant bigger size

Posted: 24 Dec 2005 12:13 pm
by fidgad
That seems to be ideal then. Economy on a light foot and some better zing on heavy pedal! Any downsides? :?

Posted: 24 Dec 2005 05:02 pm
by antiekeradio
8) its not original 8)



(but who gives a **** ?? :P )

Posted: 25 Dec 2005 12:56 am
by Chris_C
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)

Posted: 25 Dec 2005 11:19 am
by fidgad
They'd have to look very very closely then! sm14

Posted: 25 Dec 2005 01:07 pm
by antiekeradio
indeed :lol: it was meant as a smart-ass way of saying that there are no downsides to it :wink: