240 General: ideal level of technology

[DW42]

The 240 can be had from B20A in the early cars (one carb, no electronics) all the way to LH2.4 injection (two very simple computers, coolant temp sensor, crank position sensor, MAF, TPS, one oxygen sensor, ignition amplifier, plus a few key things I forgot). My 2006 Toyota has more than this: it has at least two oxygen sensors, a cam position sensor, and a more complex computer. More modern cars have more than this. Given this, what are your opinions on the ideal level of technology for a 10+ year old car, or for a 240 specifically? I had a B20A manual 144, and it was slow and loud on the motorway. I've had a k-jet 240 and now two LH2.4 cars. Fuel injected 240s are nicer to drive. K-jet was good once I sorted out every single damn vacuum leak. I carry a spare MAF, ignition amplifier, relays, CPS etc in my LH2.4 cars, but the only failures so far have been the coolant temp sensor (annoying, but you can still drive), and an oxygen sensor (same).

[Othen]

Good morn,

The youngest 240s are 27 years old - already ancient in the car market. I suppose that leads on to conclude there are two main types of 240 owner: those who want a cheap car to run as an everyday vehicle, and those who want a classic to use as an occasional motor car.

For the first group (who's numbers will inevitably dwindle as the supply of serviceable cars diminishes) would probably be best with the latest possible cars, and accept there are more electronic bits to go wrong (but a good supply of similar replacements from the 700 and 900 cars) but enjoy a more modern ownership experience.

For classic car owners - or those hoping to keep their 240s long enough for them to become classics - the requirement is rather different. My view (and the reason I bought the Royal Barge, a mere 40 years old, already MoT exempt and soon tax free) is that the 1980ish cars are the zenith. At that age they still more or less usable as everyday cars (notwithstanding the high fuel consumption) and are modern enough to have (for example) disc brakes all round, servo assistance, PAS, modern(ish) lights and good mechanical safety features. What they don't have (pre-about 1984) is any computers. I'm convinced that the majority of more modern cars will be scrapped not because the mechanical parts don't work but because the computer that controls the windscreen wipers (or something similar) becomes kaputt - meaning the whole car beyond economic repair when it is 9 years old.

So, my vote is for late 70s/early 80s cars: OHC engines, a carburettor, hydraulic PAS, no air conditioning, wind up windows and sunroof - the only electronics being the quartz clock. This doesn't mean anyone that tries to run a mere 20 year old car as a commuter is wrong, but there are so many more modern cars (5-10 year old) cars that will do everything better, cheaper and more reliably available for next to no money that I wonder if it makes sense.

Just my tuppence worth - time to walk Bob.

:-)

[DW42]

One thing the 240 has over my Toyota avensis verso, or almost any modern(ish) car, is forums such as this, with expertise on hand on how to diagnose and tackle any problem. The Toyota is reliable and practical, but there's very little online advice on how to repair it: few people do their own repairs or care -- they just drive 'till it dies.

Most 240 series cars here have aircon, but it's not as good (as big) as it is in most modern cars.

[Clifford Pope]

I've had every variation apart from K-jet, which I've heard is good, reliable and simple once it is set up correctly and well-maintained - air leaks etc.

A key cut-off point is July 1992. Before that date older emissions rules apply. After it, the cat-test rules are much more stringent. I had a 1993 that reached 440,000 miles. It ran perfectly, but had begun using a bit of oil. Nothing much compared with normal consumption in older traditional cars, but it poisoned the catalyst and it became impossible to make it pass the emissions test. I scrapped the car.
Everything else was in good condition (bit of chassis rust needing repair). The M46 overdrive gearbox which I'd swapped in from an older car years previously and must by then have done about 500,000 miles was working well. I've still got it, held against the day when my current car's M47 wears out.

My main reason for always having 240s is that I love the shape. They are beautiful design classics, which I recognised even when they were new. Also I love big estate cars, make full use of the carrying capacity, and intend to go on using as my everyday car. The engine details are less important, except that I have now got used to the greater power of the 2.3 engine, so might be reluctant to go back to a 2.1 carburettor engine.
What I'd really love is a 260 estate with carburettors, but I think they are very rare now.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by DW42

One thing the 240 has over my Toyota avensis verso, or almost any modern(ish) car, is forums such as this, with expertise on hand on how to diagnose and tackle any problem. The Toyota is reliable and practical, but there's very little online advice on how to repair it: few people do their own repairs or care -- they just drive 'till it dies.

Most 240 series cars here have aircon, but it's not as good (as big) as it is in most modern cars.

The online forum piece is just down to the type of car. My Skoda Superb estate is really well supported by the BRISKODA set up, just like here if one poses a question a middle aged man with a beard will provide an answer, and often it will be more or less correct.

I suppose many Toyota owners will not be very interested in maintaining their cars: just amortise the purchase and running costs until it becomes beyond economic repair.

Hardly any older cars have AC here, one would only need it in cold Blighty 4 or 5 days per year :-)

Interesting thread - it is nice to hear other folk’s opinions.

Alan

PS. Here in Blighty the key date is at 40 years old, then cars become MoT exempt, and the following April they are tax free, hence the attraction on 1980ish motor cars :-)

[loki_the_glt]

I'm not even convinced that a 240 actually NEEDS power-steering, at least with 14" rims, proper front-end alignment and correctly inflated tyres. Olaf the Volvo (my first 244) was a 1979 model with a manual rack and 175/80/14 tyres; on the test drive before buying it, my father was convinced it had PAS until we opened the bonnet to find only a water pump and alternator being driven and no PAS reservoir in sight.

Likewise my first estate was running 185/80/14s on a manual rack, and only the second and third estates had PAS and 14" rims, while SFSS had 185/65/15 rubber on its Virgo alloys.

Arguably with 15" rims and 70- or lower-profile tyres you might need PAS but I suspect that it wouldn't be essential.

Ventilation in modern cars, at least diesels, seems to require the A/C fan to be on at its 3rd or higher setting; 240s had foot-level vents and a heater that could double as an oven for cold days (of which there are, I believe , many in Scandinavia) or cool you to Arctic temperatures in summer months.

Electronics on the older cars include the radio and there are PCBs for lighting and instrument panels, but most failures can be diagnosed with a test lamp, a multi-meter and, of course, a selection of hammers to assess the severity of the failure.

My deep-store project has 175/80/13 tyres, no PAS, no air-con, wind-up windows all round, central locking of the one-handed remote type and externally adjustable mirrors that need to be de-iced with a scraper, CB points ignition and a single carburettor. That's about the level of automotive technology I'm comfortable with.

[volvo always]

For a 240 I liked my 1989 B230E engine linked to the AW70/1 auto.

In the 10 years I owned the car and the 76,000 miles I added, never had an issue with engine or the K jet mechanical fuel injection or electrics.

Good combination together. Rust was an issue. Outriggers mainly. Sold with 233,000 miles.

I wasn't using it and at the time had 3 cars.

2 years prior to selling my 240 I bought a 1996 940 SE LPT auto estate and it was so quiet compared to the 240 and had ABS and non working AC. Still has non working AC!

I was at the time concerned if the 940 would be reliable as the 240 as more electronics and turbo to fail. In the 4 years of ownership, so far very reliable. Now on 204,000

I have a 2015 Toyota Auris Hybrid. It has covered 26,800 miles when I bought it. On the 9th of August the AC stopped working.
Toyota dealer diagnosed the Condenser is leaking. Going to be fixed under warranty. Should of been done, 29th of August but cancelled until 28th of September! Part not in and AC machine broken!

I do like the economy of my hybrid and atm zero road tax, but no character. A car that gets you from A to B. Also car safety has moved on massively from 30 years ago.

James.

[john.wigley]

Yes, I agree; another vote for the 2 - series from me!

I also like Alan's descriptor of 'sweet spot', because that is really what it is; a car providing sufficient comfort and convenience without over complication. Later cars are arguably more efficient, but the 'electrickery' that enables that same efficiency can very quickly become it's Achilles' Heel.

Coming from a succession of 1 - series cars, our first 2 - series (a '75) felt more like an evolution than a completely new design. The (unassisted) R+P steering was much lighter than the earlier car, and I agree with 'loki' in questioning the need for it on the 2 - series; certainly our '81 car felt distinctly 'over-servoed'. In contrast, the later 7 - series with it's standard PS felt much more balanced.

I suspect cars are a bit like music - of one's era. I grew up with the Beatles and the Stones. They define me and I still enjoy their music today. I could probably discuss '70s music reasonably fluently, but ask me to name a group from the '90s and later and I'd struggle. We like and are comfortable with the things that influenced our formative years; I don't think cars are any different.

Rewind 50 years, and my dad bemoaned '60s cars, with their new-fangled monocoque construction (no chassis, for Heaven's sake!) over those that he had been familiar with in the '30s. Until quite recently, I occasionally drove a '30s car with ignition and mixture controls on the steering column and a 'crash' gearbox, but I'm not sure that I would have wanted to do so every day, Now, a nice 240 on the other hand .....

Plus ca change! Regards, John.

[loki_the_glt]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

Coming from a succession of 1 - series cars, our first 2 - series (a '75) felt more like an evolution than a completely new design. The (unassisted) R+P steering was much lighter than the earlier car, and I agree with 'loki' in questioning the need for it on the 2 - series; certainly our '81 car felt distinctly 'over-servoed'. In contrast, the later 7 - series with it's standard PS felt much more balanced.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who rates the manual rack over the PASfitted ones.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by loki_the_glt

Glad to see I'm not the only one who rates the manual rack over the PASfitted ones.

I’ve never driven a 240 without PAS Loki, so I can’t really give an opinion. I borrow a mate’s 1984 Capri (a marvellous car) with no PAS occasionally, it steers very nicely on the road but it really hard work to park. The RB is a big and heavy car, I was really pleased it had PAS when I reversed it into a spot outside the local Wetherspoons for my breakfast this morn (much easier than the Capri would have been).

Alan