According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_S40 her S40 would have to be a 2004.5 or newer.polskamafia mjl wrote:The first gen s40's were from 95 to 2004. I have a friend w/ a 2.4 NA s40 and she is in the United States.
Airbox thermostat failure...
This topic is in the MVS Volvo Repair Database »
Airbox Thermostat Cleaning = Better Performance, MPG on Non-turbo's
-
matthew1
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14472
- Joined: 14 September 2002
- Year and Model: 850 T5, 1997
- Location: Denver, Colorado, US
- Has thanked: 2652 times
- Been thanked: 1245 times
- Contact:
Re: Airbox thermostat failure...
Help keep MVS on the web -> click sponsors' links here on MVS when you buy from them.
Also -> Amazon link. Click that when you go to buy something on Amazon and MVS gets a cut!
1998 V70, no dash lights on
1997 850 T5 [gone] w/ MSD ignition coil, Hallman manual boost controller, injectors, R bumper, OMP strut brace
2004 V70 R [gone]
How to Thank someone for their post
Also -> Amazon link. Click that when you go to buy something on Amazon and MVS gets a cut!
1998 V70, no dash lights on
1997 850 T5 [gone] w/ MSD ignition coil, Hallman manual boost controller, injectors, R bumper, OMP strut brace
2004 V70 R [gone]
How to Thank someone for their post
-
tjts1
- Posts: 673
- Joined: 13 November 2007
- Year and Model: 96 855 NA 5 speed
- Location:
- Been thanked: 4 times
Not in the US. First year was 2000.polskamafia mjl wrote:The first gen s40's were from 95 to 2004.
The 2.4 was the second gen S40 which doesn't have the thermostatic intake regardless of turbo or non turbo. Its a non issue. All first gen cars in the US (2000-2004) had a 1.9 liter low pressure turbo.polskamafia mjl wrote:I have a friend w/ a 2.4 NA s40 and she is in the United States.
Ambitious but rubbish
-
polskamafia mjl
- Posts: 2640
- Joined: 1 April 2009
- Year and Model: 1995 Volvo 854 T-5R
- Location: Hershey, PA
- Has thanked: 19 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
Matt, wikipedia isn't entirely correct as another friend of mine has an 01 s40 2.3 turbo which isn't even listed by wikipedia as an option.matthew1 wrote:According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_S40 her S40 would have to be a 2004.5 or newer.polskamafia mjl wrote:The first gen s40's were from 95 to 2004. I have a friend w/ a 2.4 NA s40 and she is in the United States.
'All my money is gone and I have an old Volvo.' - Bamse's Turbo Underpants
Current: 1995 Volvo 850 T-5R Manual - Bringing it back from the brink of death
Previous: 1996 Volvo 850 GLT - Totaled
Current: 1995 Volvo 850 T-5R Manual - Bringing it back from the brink of death
Previous: 1996 Volvo 850 GLT - Totaled
-
tjts1
- Posts: 673
- Joined: 13 November 2007
- Year and Model: 96 855 NA 5 speed
- Location:
- Been thanked: 4 times
In this situation Wikipedia is right. If its a 2001 he probably has a S60. All first gen S40s had the 1.9 liter LPT 4 cylinder in the US.polskamafia mjl wrote: Matt, wikipedia isn't entirely correct as another friend of mine has an 01 s40 2.3 turbo which isn't even listed by wikipedia as an option.
Ambitious but rubbish
-
polskamafia mjl
- Posts: 2640
- Joined: 1 April 2009
- Year and Model: 1995 Volvo 854 T-5R
- Location: Hershey, PA
- Has thanked: 19 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
No, it's an s40.
'All my money is gone and I have an old Volvo.' - Bamse's Turbo Underpants
Current: 1995 Volvo 850 T-5R Manual - Bringing it back from the brink of death
Previous: 1996 Volvo 850 GLT - Totaled
Current: 1995 Volvo 850 T-5R Manual - Bringing it back from the brink of death
Previous: 1996 Volvo 850 GLT - Totaled
-
ADent
- Posts: 42
- Joined: 8 July 2009
- Year and Model: 2001 V70 T5M
- Location: Denver, CO
- Been thanked: 5 times
I just did this on my 96 854. The housing for the flapper is different, snapped together and not screwed. The hot air opening is round and seals with a round thing on a long stem.
Anyways I gutted it and epoxied the round side closed - looks like a lot more area to flow now.
Anyways I gutted it and epoxied the round side closed - looks like a lot more area to flow now.
2001 V70 T5M
1988 740 GLE 5.0
1988 740 GLE 5.0
-
ADent
- Posts: 42
- Joined: 8 July 2009
- Year and Model: 2001 V70 T5M
- Location: Denver, CO
- Been thanked: 5 times
The 2001 S40 was not available with anything other than the 1.9L turbo in the US market. See http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/press/volvo ... 0_v40.html . The only engine listed is the B4204T3, which is the 1.9L turbo.
Looking at a Canadian site, same for them as of 2000.
I don't see a 2.3T - unless it was a swapped motor or some one off Volvo thing? A grey market import? (Even though the top of of the line T4 was still a 2.0L)
Looking at a Canadian site, same for them as of 2000.
I don't see a 2.3T - unless it was a swapped motor or some one off Volvo thing? A grey market import? (Even though the top of of the line T4 was still a 2.0L)
2001 V70 T5M
1988 740 GLE 5.0
1988 740 GLE 5.0
-
tjts1
- Posts: 673
- Joined: 13 November 2007
- Year and Model: 96 855 NA 5 speed
- Location:
- Been thanked: 4 times
There was never a 5 cylinder first gen S40 so your friend is just plain wrong. The largest engine ever fitted to the first gen S40 was the 2.0 turbo and that was in Europe. End of story.
Ambitious but rubbish
-
jblackburn
- MVS Moderator
- Posts: 14043
- Joined: 8 June 2008
- Year and Model: 1998 S70 T5
- Location: Alexandria, VA
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 19 times
Confirmed...as you can see here by the engine designations (B4, D4), the only engines ever put in the S40 in ANY country were all 4-cylinder models < 2L. The 5-cyl did not appear until the 2004 1/2 model, where it was 2.4 or 2.5 L.
- Attachments
-
'98 S70 T5
2016 Chevy Cruze Premier
A learning experience is one of those things that says, "You know that thing you just did? Don't do that."
mercuic: Long live the tractor motor!
2016 Chevy Cruze Premier
A learning experience is one of those things that says, "You know that thing you just did? Don't do that."
mercuic: Long live the tractor motor!
-
Faheyk1981
- Posts: 81
- Joined: 13 February 2011
- Year and Model: Volvo V70 1999
- Location: Ireland
So driving a 99 v70, (1984cc N/A automatic with 147k miles) thats meant to go 0-60 from the factory in 12.1 secs. I was curious since i purchased the car 2yrs ago why it feels very slow on take off and felt under powered while overtaking. And from doing my own 0-60 tests i was only getting 0-60 in 15.5 seconds.
Other than this the car runs smooth and is 100%, no cels, regularly serviced, seafoamed etc and minded very well. And with UK MPG averaging 25mpg, thats driving highway 40% and town 60%, i felt thats not too bad. BUT i still always felt the car should be giving me more power.
So i found this post which suggests testing the Airbox thermostat. Because if it's broken and stuck all the time in the HOT air position, then your car will be sucking in just HOT air and feel like it's pulling a truck behind you. After inspecting the airbox thermostat i found it was indeed always in the HOT air position regardless of running temperature. To be certain I took it out of the car and stuck it in the freezer and then in front of a heater for a while but no movement what so ever going from hot to cold. So i knew it was broken.
Instead of replacing the thermostat, i decided to force open the flap in the COLD air position as others have done in this posting. I done this by using just 1 screw as shown below. I know i could of opened the air box thermostat housing and cut it out like other N/A drivers have done, in order to let more air flow through but i wanted to have the option to go back to the original factory format. Just in case something went wrong in the future. I also didn't bother inserting tin foil in the hot air part of the housing like some of you have done but the hot air pipe is still attached. Now the flap feels secure open in the cold air position.
So whats the verdict???
Well i re-done my 0-60 test and i'm now getting 0-60 in 14 seconds. Instead of the 15.5 seconds i was getting before i done this mod. Its still not the 12.1 seconds that the car should be getting since it was new but it is 14yrs old now and with nearly 150k miles. I'll see over time if i'll get any improvement in MPG. I certainly feel the car is now more zippy on start off and better on overtaking. It's still no rocket ship but it is a good improvement and it was worth doing.
And all thanks to this site!
Other than this the car runs smooth and is 100%, no cels, regularly serviced, seafoamed etc and minded very well. And with UK MPG averaging 25mpg, thats driving highway 40% and town 60%, i felt thats not too bad. BUT i still always felt the car should be giving me more power.
So i found this post which suggests testing the Airbox thermostat. Because if it's broken and stuck all the time in the HOT air position, then your car will be sucking in just HOT air and feel like it's pulling a truck behind you. After inspecting the airbox thermostat i found it was indeed always in the HOT air position regardless of running temperature. To be certain I took it out of the car and stuck it in the freezer and then in front of a heater for a while but no movement what so ever going from hot to cold. So i knew it was broken.
Instead of replacing the thermostat, i decided to force open the flap in the COLD air position as others have done in this posting. I done this by using just 1 screw as shown below. I know i could of opened the air box thermostat housing and cut it out like other N/A drivers have done, in order to let more air flow through but i wanted to have the option to go back to the original factory format. Just in case something went wrong in the future. I also didn't bother inserting tin foil in the hot air part of the housing like some of you have done but the hot air pipe is still attached. Now the flap feels secure open in the cold air position.
So whats the verdict???
Well i re-done my 0-60 test and i'm now getting 0-60 in 14 seconds. Instead of the 15.5 seconds i was getting before i done this mod. Its still not the 12.1 seconds that the car should be getting since it was new but it is 14yrs old now and with nearly 150k miles. I'll see over time if i'll get any improvement in MPG. I certainly feel the car is now more zippy on start off and better on overtaking. It's still no rocket ship but it is a good improvement and it was worth doing.
And all thanks to this site!
- Attachments
-
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post