I've only ever had 240s, and that's entirely because I love the shape. I've always thought they were design classics with a lovely sweeping line front to back, especially the estate. By comparison the 740 looks a bit crude and box-like.
But I know opinions differ.
Mine have always been daily drivers, before retiring I did about 30,000 miles a year.
My first was a 2.1 - very reliable after I replaced the carburettor, which are I think known for having a limited life.
I had a 2.3 carburettor with the awful Renix system and the coloured pipes and stuff, which was unreliable until I swapped the carburettor for an early Stromberg and all the ignition stuff for an early distributor with Lumenition. After that it was good, and is still on the road I note.
A 1993 2.0 Torslanda was very reliable. I bought it with over 200,000 miles, and it was running well at about 440,000 miles when it fell foul of the emission regulations. As it also needed welding as well as a new engine I scrapped it.
Then a 1992 2.3, converted by the previous owner to LPG. It was reliable and I did about 100,000 miles in it, but developed a knocking noise I couldn't trace without a major engine strip-down, I suspected possibly wrongly due to the LPG running. The gearbox became noisy. After someone smashed the front wing I sold it cheaply.
I've currently a 1991 2.3, which is the best of the lot. I really appreciate the 2.3 over 2.0 - it is more powerful, with more torque, which you don't at first notice because the gearing is higher. It only does 2000 rpm at 60 mph.
The 4-speed box feels limiting, and you pretty soon start wanting a 5-speed.
The 5-speed box doesn't last as long and starts to get whiney, so it would be worth doing regular oil changes and keeping it topped up.
Best of all is the 4-speed with overdrive. I needlessly swapped in an overdrive box into the Torslanda when I got the car, just because I love overdrives.
|