Late 2.0 vs late 2.3 in a 240 estate?

[Prufrock]

Originally Posted by Stephen Edwin

Digression: The 740 estate is not quite as a practical a load area as a 240 estate - I'm told it won't hold a harp but I won't har on about that - and not as much ground clearance as a 240.

I may have mentioned this as my 745 will not take my Daughter's harp, but the 245 will - a little academic really as she's now working in China but will take on the 245 once she returns and the car is restored.

Jon.

[Prufrock]

Originally Posted by stephend

My 740's a 2.0. I haven't driven a 2.3, so can't compare, but I would say that the 2.0 is by no means a bad engine. It's not the quickest off the mark, but it's smooth and it'll happily cruise at motorway speeds.

In light of Prufrock's comment about availability (and if anyone knows about that, it's Jon!) I'd say that if a minter of a 2.0 presented itself, it would be a good bet.

Good luck, whatever you decide!

Agree, the 2.0 isn't a bad engine and if were looking for either 245 or 745 I'd be buying on condition - the 2.0 litre was introduced for tax reasons.

Jon.

[Triple-S]

Richard - I have heard that the 2.0 engine could be susceptible to being damaged if the cambelt were to break, whereas the 2.3 isn't. Don't know why -
must be to do with valve timing.
I have a 2.3 240 manual estate which is a great "mobile shed" but not as nice a ride as my 2.3 engined 740 estate, so as you have experienced a degree of comfort in the Austin might be a tad disappointed with the 240. Also the auto box on a 240 predecessor was a sedate 3-speeder, not as nice as the 4-speeder in my 740.
Interesting your experience with a Volvo 164 - I use mine for classic car shows and always get pleasure of enjoying its ride and interior. As for thirst I get the upper 20s out of my manual+overdrive 164 whereas the autos are thirstier.
As they say - yer pays yer money an' takes yer pick!

Paul

[stephend]

Originally Posted by Stephen Edwin

Digression: The 740 estate is not quite as a practical a load area as a 240 estate - I'm told it won't hold a harp but I won't har on about that - and not as much ground clearance as a 240.

Originally Posted by Richard240

Thanks Stephen. Good point about values. As for harps, funny you mention that, my sole previous experience of a 240 was occasionally riding in a dark red A reg 240 of a school friend's parents. They regularly used it to lug a harp around Devon.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

I may have mentioned this as my 745 will not take my Daughter's harp, but the 245 will - a little academic really as she's now working in China but will take on the 245 once she returns and the car is restored.

I bow to greater experience on the harp front - but I can tell you the 745 will happily swallow a Yamaha Clavinova in its original transport crate.

Also, the seat bases are easily removable to give a few extra inches of length.

[Richard240]

My conundrum is between these two cars:

2.0 manual http://www.northampton-classic-cars....b-example.html (I've been to look at this). It appears cosmetically very tidy and solid but it appears to have had a repair. While the metal looks perfect, it's strange that the rear tail light has been left cracked and there's a small indentation in the bumper.

2.3 auto. Not seen. http://www.mathewsons.co.uk/vehicle-...-240-se-estate I can see that if it's a pre 1/8/92 car there's an advantage in ease of passing MOT.

[Prufrock]

Originally Posted by Triple-S

Richard - I have heard that the 2.0 engine could be susceptible to being damaged if the cambelt were to break, whereas the 2.3 isn't. Don't know why...Paul

I do.

The B230K is a non-interference engine...so if the belt breaks you don't grenade the engine.

Mind you, ignoring belt replacement is plain stupid, the job is simple and the belt is cheap (my last one - £8 from my Volvo dealer).

Jon.

[Prufrock]

Originally Posted by Richard240

My conundrum is between these two cars:

2.0 manual http://www.northampton-classic-cars....b-example.html (I've been to look at this). It appears cosmetically very tidy and solid but it appears to have had a repair. While the metal looks perfect, it's strange that the rear tail light has been left cracked and there's a small indentation in the bumper.

2.3 auto. Not seen. http://www.mathewsons.co.uk/vehicle-...-240-se-estate I can see that if it's a pre 1/8/92 car there's an advantage in ease of passing MOT.

Taking them at face value there's not much to choose between them...I would have thought that it's down to whether you want a manual or auto - or see (N.B) below.

Jon.

N.B surprised to see an SE with the 2.3 engine, if that's not a typo it would be my choice.

[stephend]

Originally Posted by Prufrock

The B230K is a non-interference engine...so if the belt breaks you don't grenade the engine.

Just to clarify, is that just the B230K, not all B230 engines? E.g. not B230E?

Thanks.

[Prufrock]

Originally Posted by stephend

Just to clarify, is that just the B230K, not all B230 engines? E.g. not B230E?

Thanks.

If I remember correctly it is only the B230k that's non-interference, the B200E and B230E have higher compression ratios and are therefore interference.

One of the reason I prefer the simplicity of the B230k.

Jon.

[Joe of Loath]

All B230 engines *except* the B230E are non-interference. All B200 engines are interference.

Also Prufrock, looks like I need to take a closer look at the state of my engine if you can get 40mpg out of an auto!