Hi all. I previously owned a '74 144 and I'm thinking about buying another old Volvo. I want it to be a long-term daily driver. I like the older ones, but if I do get another one I want to maximize the practical.

For this reason I'm thinking 140 series, b20e or b20f, so I don't have to deal with synchronizing carbs or with a retrofit Weber (my 144 had one, and it was not a positive experience). I'm also hoping for better mileage. What kind of mileage do these get? I recall getting somewhere in the mid-20's with my Weber-equipped 144 B20B. Does anyone have personal experience with the fuel injection? Thanks for any help!

Others have said the SUs are betterand I agree, a properly set up set is almost bullet-proof. They have to have good throttle plate spindle bushings or you can never get them right. The Weber carbs have often been slagged on this and other sites, I've never run them, but the fact that they get worse mileage than the SUs is enough for me. I know you asked about injection, but really in a 25+year old system you are asking for some headscratching. You should be able to have the SUs rebuilt for aprox.$150.00 and not have to worry about them for at least 5 yrs. When new the SUs are not hard to tune, When worn they are IMPOSSIBLE.

Here's another thought -- availability of used parts.

I was at my local pick-n-pull yesterday when a D-jet equipped 144 was brought in. While I was pulling parts off several 240s, an 1800 guy appeared within 15 minutes and starting pulling the D-jet system parts off. "You can't get these anymore", "These are hard to find", "You've got to rebuild these cause you can't buy them.", etc. is what he was sharing with me. In the mean time, there were three complete K-jet 240 systems sitting there untouched, but I've *never* seen a 140 or 1800 at this yard before. The scarcity of pick-n-pull replacements for the D-jet in my neck of the woods would coerce me to think about the K-jet equipped 140 instead.

Rob

Try a 1973 145E. Pretty reliable, as long as the valves are adjusted correctly, good power, and fairly fuel efficient, especially if you equip it with a M41. I'm expecting about 24-26 mpg out of the current tank in my '72 142E, which will be donating its B20F/M41 to the 145, while receiving the somewhat worn out B20F and M40 from the 145.

-J

I'd have to say that a dual SU setup is the most

likely to be reliable. No electrical stuff beyond

the coil to go bad, no relays, and a simple mechanical

fuel pump that you can change on the side of the

road in the dark with a crescent wrench. I'm sure

the others can be just as reliable, but they have

sensors and relays and electric fuel pumps and other

wacky things that simply can't be as reliable as an

SU carb. Also, at least in california, the cars

with the k-jet (the system I'd say is the more

reliable of the two fuel injection systems) have

lots of other weird crap on them for emissions reasons

and those would also make it harder to work on the

car -- my 144 and 164 both have enough space under

the hood to stand inside while working on the mill.

Of course, it is also likely that the SUs will never

exactly be in tune, but that's the trade-off.

I'd also go with an M40 if you are worried about

reliablity.

chris

I would have to say that the K-jet system is the most reliable - no 28 year old computers to deal with.

As for milage, it greatly depends on the tranny. Mine's with the BW35 gets approximately 20 city; ain't sure of highway, as I'm not so fond of running it at such high rpms. 'tis just a guess, since the odometer barely works ... just like the fuel gauge. :)

I'm pondering a differential swap, though ... sure, I'll lose whatever little acceleration I had already because of the tranny, but I'll gain a few miles too, so.

-- Kane ... but if there's anything about a Volvo, is that people expect you to drive slow anyways, so it ain't a big deal for me.

I had a '73 142 that was reliable. As testimony for just how forgiving D-Jet is - - I was the umpteenth owner of the car, I learned "wrench turning" on it, NEVER replaced any injection parts and still it started strong, everyday, all year long. It ran well (enough) and the gas mileage was in line with my punishing habits. That auto tranny was a total gear skipping pig, tho' - never again! Anyways, by the time the car had run its last errand, I'd learned the D-Jet system. It wasn't horrible.

Now it's a '71 144 with SU's. No mysterious electrical gremlins to contend with.... just good old fashion mechanical failure. Starts and runs as strong as the D-Jet. Better, actually. And without all that injection crap under the hood, work gets done comfortably. (I switched out the alternator without getting greasy.) Gas mileage is fine.

I think if you compare injection systems you might find that

CIS/K-jet as furnished on 1974 140s to be a bit more trouble-free.

(can something be MORE trouble-free? Maybe it either is or isn't!)

Anyhow you don't have a computer and you have a LOT less wiring,

EUROPEAN wiring, known for developing the invisible nonconductive

film on most connectors. All things being equal I think I would

prefer the CIS over D-jet, but both are really good.

Some say that the D-jet has a very slight edge on horsepower.

I don't have much experience with either and certainly none that

would be comparable between them. I do have a CIS system that I

may someday put on my 122 though. Then maybe I can compare it with

the D-jet on my 145.

For many years I drove a 72 144, and for a couple years a 73 142. Both were B20F, D-jet, 4 speeds, but neither had O.D. Both cars returned anywhere from about 18 mpg (stop and go city) to about 26 mpg (highway) - that's all. But man, if the RPM's were kept up on the pipe, those cars would climb a mountain grade with the best of them.