|
Yes - I've lived extensively with both SU and D-Jet FI Volvos and have to say the FI is less trouble over the long haul. It just takes a different set of skills to keep it in proper tune. Instead of tinkering with the carbs you have to get good with a multimeter to chase down minor problems before they get larger. I think disregarding the engine internals (you can always put carbs on a B20E engine - like the one in my 544) the FI has a slight performance advantage (the long un-obstructed runners and large resonant chamber) and tuning advantage (just adjust mixture over the entire range by changing the fuel pressure slightly).
Often they get a bad reputation because the wiring goes down hill or a sensor fails and if you don't identify the real problem you can end up adjusting around it and the car will run very poorly. However, I've found that a multimeter and a little pertinent technical info goes a long way towards keeping it running perfectly.
http://www.icbm.org/erkson/ttt/engine/fuel_injection/d-jet.html
As for years and models - they made very few of them (I guess around 3,000 a year on average) and really didn't change much over the years. Compared, for example, to a 1965 Mustang vs. a 1966 Mustang. The engines and transmissions are by and large the same the whole way through - the B20 is just a larger bored version of a B18. Minor changes in exterior trim and interior styling occurred here and there.
I'd guess the largest change occurred with the 1800E as much of the drivetrain switched to a more 140 series like configuration, specifically the 4 wheel power disc brakes with double redundant dual circuit brakes (each circuit brakes both front wheels and one rear wheel). Specifically - my favorite years are 1970 and 1971 - these are the mechanically updated cars but still retained a few nicer interior features with the older cars - specifically the door arm rests which are the older more integrated style. 1972 saw the introduction of the 1800ES and the E shared its new cheaper interior with screw-on 140 series arm rests and (to me at least) clunkier one piece seat backs. They did get retractable seat belts for the front, but in large pods thar clutter up the rear floorboards. The new rear set also has a superfulous (in the coupe) latching mechanism that prevents the front seats from reclining too far. The late model coupes (1800E's) also feature flow through ventilation with extraction vents by the rear window leading to louvers on the rear fenders and a side mounted fuel filler which doesn't tend to leak water into the tank like the upward facing ones on earlier models. For some reason, however, the E's tend to be worth a slight bit less than an older one in comparable condition. Slightly better car, though.
Although by now they are all pushing at least 30 years of age. By far the most important factor is RUST. Can't be overstated. The body structure is complex and all intricately welded together. Body shops either charge you an arm and a leg to repair it or do a terrible job, often both at the same time. Restoring a rusty car will cost far in excess what an unrusted one would cost to buy. Sad but true. Although the rust can progress quite far before it actually interferes with roadworthiness - if you just want a daily driver/beater don't be alarmed by rusty sills and floors - just don't be tempted to try to restore a cheap 'project' car. So no wrecked or rusty cars.
|
