What did you do to your P2 Volvo today?

[P80GLT]

On October I posted that I had cured my ABS-0136 Brake Pressure Sensor fault and it's been working fine until last week. The code came back and this time it was reluctant to reset, I eventually managed to clear it but on Tuesday it appeared again and wouldn't turn off so I managed to find someone local who is breaking a car and bought two sensors from him after speaking to Volvo Parts and getting quoted £300 + VAT for each sensor.

My live data showed sensor 1 was 4.56, sensor 2 was -0.91 and my scanner told me sensor 1 was at fault. I unplugged sensor 1 and connected it to the replacement sensor and went back to live data which showed both sensors were reading similar to each other and within the parameters allowed so I decided to swap sensor 1 over today.

Before starting I primed the sensor with a few drops of fresh brake fluid, I removed the cross brace, I placed a piece of Cling Film on the reservoir and used an elastic band to hold it tightly in place, a 27mm long socket removed the sensor and the replacement was screwed in and torqued to 25NM. Wire harness attached and live data checked and everything is once again working as it should.

Brake Pressure Sensors.jpg (168.2 KiB) Viewed 4700 times

Live data reading for good sensors



EDIT:
Interestingly I decided as the failed sensor was broken then I had nothing to loose by flushing it out with brake cleaner. Once flushed I left it to dry in the sunshine and plugged it into the car and to my amazement the reading has come down from 4.56 to -0.48. Whether it works correctly or not when back on the car I don't know but if you have a faulty sensor it's worth cleaning it and possibly save yourself a wad of cash

0.48.jpg (93.38 KiB) Viewed 4693 times

[scot850]

This is all fake news! "I left it in the sunshine to dry..."!!

Neil.

[P80GLT]

Not fake news, Thursday the 2nd May was Scotlands summer day, it's all downhill from here until next year

[dikidera]

Not physically but I spent all day in Engine analyzer pro trying to simulate the b5244s engine and overall engine dynamics and it revealed that no matter what change I attempted, the NA power would not increase unless I changed the camshaft properties. Well the camshaft model is not accurate since there is no information on the b5244s cams, but I got close enough I think.

Not even spark advance gave me power. If anything adding more than what the ecu is using seems to decrease it. It's all simulation but very discouraged by the results.

[scot850]

What car are you working on? Your profile says 05 S60. I know the S60's used a B5244S motor as we were looking at on in an 03 as a candidate for a friends 00 S70 NA which destroyed a piston. The correct engine turned up in a yard (and is now being installed).

On -98 engines if I recall, one of the things owners used to do was swap the throttle body from a 960 onto an NA for more power. Can't recall if that is done on a turbo as well.

Neil.

[dikidera]

What car are you working on? Your profile says 05 S60. I know the S60's used a B5244S motor as we were looking at on in an 03 as a candidate for a friends 00 S70 NA which destroyed a piston. The correct engine turned up in a yard (and is now being installed).

On -98 engines if I recall, one of the things owners used to do was swap the throttle body from a 960 onto an NA for more power. Can't recall if that is done on a turbo as well.

Neil.

Exactly, a 05 S60 . I want to experiment with the old 94 VIS manifold. It actually cannot be installed as-is, simply because of the bolt holes not aligning with the Magnetti Marelli TB, though with some welding this can be taken care of. Also recall that the NA manifolds have a slant to accomodate the TB, whereas this one does not. I am not sure if it would be an issue.

The issue was figuring out where it's bottleneck is, for more power up top and more power down low. So I ran at least a hundred(real) simulations using Engine Analyzer Pro. And the only improvement that can happen if it is ported to enhance it's diameter. No flow simulations as I have not constructed a 3D model yet that captures the essence of the manifold.

I also ran simulations to see how spark advance(additional) would benefit the engine, and whilst I did not enter very accurate data, the simulations concluded that the engine is running maximum timing already and even a degree more would produce no more HP. Contrary to BSR claims of course.

How accurate the simulations are, I cannot tell without a dyno.

[scot850]

There is a guy in Scotland if I recall that builds racing engines for P80's. You would have to hunt him down. There is also a company in Sweden that also tunes older Volvos that may be able to help.

Neil.

[dikidera]

Unfortunately, I could not find the Swedish Volvo communities. I know for a fact they've likely done more mods to their T5s and NA engines than we know of here.

I had several manifold designs in mind. The 2.9 NA engines had two versions of their manifolds, they were of the dual type, consisting of two pieces and towering over the cam cover. One where the magnetti marelli was underneath the manifold, and one where it was on the right side, towards the air filter box. Now I know what you would say, but they are 6 cylinders. Indeed they are but you can always chop of the 6th and just weld a piece of aluminum to close off the holes. I think it was very simple. But as far as performance goes, I really cannot say. I would imagine they are great down low and in the mid range if we consider the torque graphs, though it is a 6 cylinder and I cannot accurately predict anything.

Then after studying these manifolds I came across the 94 vis manifold and that is when I hatched my plan. Of course then I was pointed to the FCP Euro videos of where they used this same VIS manifold on an RN engine with ported heads and sporty cams and they made no additional power. They assumed that the manifold was holding them back, and indeed it likely is.

I posited that if I used the same manifold, with VVT, I can get much of my torque even earlier at around 3000-3100 rpm or earlier, then I taper off the vvt to 0 after this, getting the max torque at 3600 rpm , then at 4100 rpm or so, I open the short channel and ride the rest of the torque curve. This creates a less peaky engine and more flatter curve, maybe not on par as the turbo but almost similar.

Still, the problem lies in the upper RPM range. We got our torque down low enough, which is nice. But imagine a scenario where you wish to overtake a car, the automatic transmission shifts to 2nd, all of a sudden you are at 5000 rpm and are moving away from the useable torque.

This manifold does not solve this, so I am running some simulations to see if it can be improved just a little bit.

My simulations were based off these assumed camshaft parameters. Some are borrowed from the Volvo 1991 paper on the engines, but they used 8.45 lift. Duration at lifts is more important and this was pure guesswork on my part to get the torque curves right.



Afterwards things get tricky. The variable runner manifold has the separated runners at 40mm width and 20mm height when you measure at the separator. If you measure at the head opening, the diameter is around 42mm. If I use the opening at the head, the 42mm measurement I get more correct results, but if I use the diameter calculated for each runner which comes out to 30mm, the engine is choking according to EAP.

I simulated the engine as-is now, with the normal NA manifold




The hp is more or less correct.



For instance I had to reduce the length of the NA manifold to 450mm to get the regular readings of the B5244S engine. This may not be correct, I do think the collector length is higher, but I have not measured my own regular NA manifold.

Next I tried to simulate the VIS manifold's long runner using the measurements at the separator, not diameter of the opening at the head. Notice I measured around 560mm of length.



This yielded results not compatible with any engine



But if we change it to the diameter of the opening to the head, we get results similar to the dyno of the FCP car(minus the drivetrain losses of around 20-30 hp)



And if we try to simulate just the short channel we get



This is wrong as we can tell that the original 850 glt and the FCP car, got stock power of around 168hp. There are several possible reasons here.

In the high rpm range, both short and long channels are open at the same time. This will likely create complex interactions between air and pressure waves. Secondly only the long channel has the injector opening, perhaps there is less fuel mixing than before.
Thirdly, with the short channel open we have the flap itself in the way, causing some effects perhaps.

The only way to know for sure is CFD simulation of the VIS manifold in its entirety.

[P80GLT]

No more faults with the brake pressure sensors so today I gave Kära a wash today.

Clean 1.jpg (243.23 KiB) Viewed 4080 times

Clean 2.jpg (235.4 KiB) Viewed 4080 times

Clean 3.jpg (230.64 KiB) Viewed 4080 times

Clean 4.jpg (237.34 KiB) Viewed 4080 times

Clean 5.jpg (229.01 KiB) Viewed 4080 times

[dikidera]

I have not done much these days, but datalog my car and just noticing how it pulls timing. I have noticed that Cyl 1 has overall less timing being pulled, sometimes 0, 4th cylinder having the most events and the highest timing being pulled as well as 5th. I have two brand new injectors to install on either 3rd and 4th or 4th and 5th.

4th cylinder might have an explanation though, the previous owner had a spark plug drop and score the cylinder. That alters the shape of the cylinder slightly possibly causing hot spots on the groove.
Because there are instances of only Cyl 4 pulling timing whereas the rest are at 0. But the knocking of one cylinder affects all of them.

I have planned the following changes/attempts at repair: 2 new injectors, a fuel additive to clean the combustion chambers from carbon. If this does nothing, I also plan to remove the exhaust manifold AND replace it with one without a catalytic converter. If mine is clogged it can cause more hot exhaust gasses to enter the combustion chamber during camshaft overlap.

Maybe the car simply runs like this, maybe this is normal behaviour. Or maybe I also have a skipped exhaust camshaft tooth.