My car is bust

I'm gutted. I came home at lunch time and I didn't think my car was going to make it. It was misfiring like crazy. It was fine this morning. Came home early to see if I can fix it. It seems 'modern' cars don't have engines any more, they have the starship Enterprise under the bonnet. I found where I think the spark plugs are hiding, but I couldn't figure out how to get to them.

I've gave it more juice, some Redex (other nasty toxic engine cleaning additives are available), and I've reseated some wires under the bonnet, and it seems to be running a tiny bit better, but still rough.

I want an old car. I could do basic maintenance on old cars. Its MOT day tomorrow. Part of me hopes it fails horribly so I can justify scrapping the big pile of junk and getting something else, but that would totally smash all my spending plans for the next few months.

 

Oh blast!!!

(Do they still do Hayes manuals? Or is an engineering degree required these days? )

 

You need a 2CV, they're made of meccano, if a bit breaks you just unbolt it & put another bit on.

 

I've got one for it somewhere. I've never needed to refer to one before for such basic tasks as removing and inspecting spark plugs. Its normally a case of just pull the fat rubber plugs off to expose the spark plug underneath, then whip it out with the socket set. Not these days it seems.

What I need is another old Volvo estate. I had one before that hadn't been looked after at all. I rebuilt all the ignition and cleaned out all the air and fuel and fixed a nasty oil leak all by myself, at a cost of around £50 in parts. When I found the back brakes were not great I sorted that myself in half an hour, and when the wipers failed, I took the whole front of the car apart, replaced the faulty wiper mechanism, and stuck in all back together again in a couple of hours. That was a proper lego car. You could get to everything with ease, and no special tools or Haynes manuals required.

 

We have only ever bought second-hand cars since we left America in 1977. Let someone else deal with the 'get it on the road' problems. I currently drive a 1997 Peugeot 3.6 Cabriolet and t'other half a 1998 Ford Escort Station Wagon. Both pass their IPOs (MoTs) every year and cost us little to run. But, then again, we are pensioners and don't have to have the 'top of the line' motor to impress anyone with.

 

Me neither. When I refer to my motor as 'modern', what I mean is modern compared to what I usually choose, in that my current car was built this century.

 

These big older cars which you like are going to become harder & harder to get hold of,
people just don't "tinker under the bonnet" anymore the cars have computers inside them. I used to like wind down windows but everything is electric supposedly for maximum efficiency and low emissions. in the end you are forced to go the way of the manufacturers!!

Val

 

Mines fairly old, design wise.
I really need to get a newer designed motor.
Fuel economy is much better these days.
The older ones just drink the stuff.

 

Our vehicles may be 1997/98 but they are all 'electric', ie, windows, roof down, a/c, computer locking/security systems ... they are not from the dark ages. Both are 1.6 and get about 33mpg so we don't complain.

 

I used to have one of these:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1994-VOLVO-940-S-2-0-/230917673542?pt=Automobiles_UK&hash=item35c3c41246

Except mine was the 2.3 litre one.

Now I have one of these (mine is a bit newer - 2001 reg):

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classif...0/quicksearch/true/postcode/ts105lj?logcode=p

So, there's the Volvo, at just under 2000kg, 2.3 litre engine, as aerodynamic as a brick, and built in 1993.

Then there's the Renault, at 1675kg, 1.6 litres engine, much more aerodynamic and built 8 years later.

On a motorway run, with me and the wife and a car full of luggage, 38 mpg for the Volvo at 70+ mph. On a motorway run with me alone and no luggage in the Renault, 42 mpg at around 60mph. In the town, Volvo, shockingly poor approx 25 mpg. Renault, about 30 mpg.

The little Renault is definitely more efficient about town but that's where it ends. Once the car is moving, the old Volvo tank actually did better. That shouldn't be as surprising as it seems at face value. That big engine in the Volvo (as is the case with many big old cars) was not built for performance. It was built to plod along indefinitely. My current 1.6 litre engine has 16 valves and is is optimised for getting maximum fuel flow possible through the smaller engine when the throttle is open. It achieves this by having wider ports than the old Volvo engine and a much shorter piston travel allowing it to rev much higher. The result is that both engines have comparable power output in terms of horse power, but the old Volvo engine with its longer piston travel achieves much greater torque because the exploded fuel/air mix has more room to expand before the exhaust valve has to let it go.

When working out how much fuel a car will need, you have to consider the energy required to accelerate it up to speed (a lot), and then the energy needed to keep it there (much less). Once moving, it all comes down to how efficient the engine is at the revs that you're at once you're at that speed. 70mph in the old Volvo happens in 5th gear at around 3000rpm, which happens to be about the point where most engines achieve most torque and the most efficient burn (momentum of gas flow through the engine and all that). In the smaller Renault engine it happens at 4000rpm, which is about 30% greater than the optimum point, so the engine is actually having to do work (consume fuel) simply in order to keep the fuel and air coming in fast enough to maintain the revs, and that's before it even delivers any output.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that there was an obligation to read all of that.