What’s it worth ?

[Existential Crisis]

I'd have thought with a bit of basic head work, maybe a different cam, better breathing manifold and exhaust and maybe different injectors a glt would fly for what it is? With regards the golf gti comment, I've covered tens of thousands of miles in many mk2 gti and never had a single issue, cracking cars, cracking performance and economy. Putting one on carbs for me is a backward step.

OK, a set of lairy twin 40s or the like is a relatively easy way to get power but to the detriment of mpg and driveability. Set ups like that are usually for cars that will be driven hard over shorter distances, not daily driven. Each, however, to their own.

[Existential Crisis]

Originally Posted by 360beast

Good riddance to the K Jet, should have gone for twin 40s rather than a single carb

I will never understand the anti modified car attitude, if you can improve them which a Weber will as the K jet parts are hard to come by and it isn't the best of injection systems when around 40 years old (head on over to the mk2 golf forum and see all the issues they have) then why not? I know I'm the odd one out but the carb conversion does nothing to the value for me. If I was in the market for a 240 this would be one I would go for and stick twin Weber's on it or convert it to lh2.4 and drop in a B230FK.

Good luck with the sale, car looks cracking.

Hey man, I'm not anti molded cars in any way, shape or form, the carb just seems like a retrograde step to me and if I was paying say 5k for a glt, I'd want it 'right', but that's just my opinion. A glt with a 2.3 16v and a turbo bolted on would be my idea of a modification!!

[S60D5-185]

I currently have 6 motorcycles and amongst that lot, 2 are Moto Guzzi big block twins.

One is a 1997 Fuel Injected and the other a 1992 Carb version ( Dell'Orto's ).

Give me Fuel injection every time. Overall it is a far far simpler concept and generally speaking ECU's are very reliable so ultimately less to go wrong.

That said, there is no way that I would try to retrofit that Kjetronic system to the GLT if the car is currently running fine with a carb.

[360beast]

I've driven (and fitted) webers and never had an issue with them, easy to set up, easy to maintain and they gain performance. Parts are readily available as everything is still being made and if set up right they shouldn't affect the mpg to the extent you think oh dear I shouldn't have fitted that.

I had a mk2 golf and converted it to a 2.0 16v from a mk3 GTi, I ended up parting it out before getting over the headache of converting the CE1 car to run the CE2 loom but I was sorely tempted to convert it to twin webers as plenty have done. But hey that's life and family came first.

My issue is that the K-jet system is getting increasingly harder to maintain and service as the parts dry up so why not convert it to gain performance, reliability (a new Weber will invariably be more reliable than a 40 year old K-jet system) and ease of maintenance. If MPG is something you worry about then you shouldn't be looking at buying a 40 year old Volvo, I get on average 22mpg out of my 940 and on a decent run can get mid 30's but then mpg isn't an issue for me.

The ultimate upgrade wouldn't have been a carb in the first place it would have been converting it to LH2.4 or even better (but very expensive) an aftermarket system.

Correct auto choke is junk, that's why webers use a simple cable choke.

As you can probably tell I like webers haha but turbo and injection is more my thing.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by S60D5-185

I currently have 6 motorcycles and amongst that lot, 2 are Moto Guzzi big block twins.

One is a 1997 Fuel Injected and the other a 1992 Carb version ( Dell'Orto's ).

Give me Fuel injection every time. Overall it is a far far simpler concept and generally speaking ECU's are very reliable so ultimately less to go wrong.

That said, there is no way that I would try to retrofit that Kjetronic system to the GLT if the car is currently running fine with a carb.

Good point and a very good comparison.

Of my two current bikes one has carburettors, the other FI. The Triumph (2006 Scrambler) was the last of the carburettor engines, Triumph changed to FI the next year - there was no difference in performance as a result, the change was entirely to meet emissions regulations. My Royal Enfield (2018 Pegasus) was one of the first FI bikes the company produced, again entirely to meet emissions regulations, there was no improvement in performance between it and the previous C500 model.

In practice the only difference is the Triumph has a manual choke which one must remember to turn off. Carburettors suit bikes particularly well because they are small (and space is at a premium on a bike) and simple (in particular they generally don't need a fuel pump, and certainly not a high pressure one).

Maintenance is very simple on both the Triumph's CV carburettors and the Enfield's FI - the only additional job I have with the Triumph is balancing the two instruments, but I recall having to do exactly the same on my previous Suzuki SV650 (and the adjustment of the throttle bodies and various sensors being rather more tricky).

That was a long winded way of saying that in practice there is little difference between two properly designed systems. I certainly wouldn't consider changing either and think it barking mad that a carburettor kit is quite a popular modification for the FI RE C500 (although I think primarily amongst hipsters who like the look).

When it comes to motor cars (like the Volvo at the centre of this discussion) space is not at a premium, so carburettors have no advantages over the manufacturer's well designed FI system. Whoever modified this motor to run with a carburettor was barking mad and has probably knocked a grand off its value.

Just my thoughts (as a biker more than a car bloke at heart).

:-)

[S60D5-185]

Originally Posted by Othen

Good point and a very good comparison.


Just my thoughts (as a biker more than a car bloke at heart).:-)

Snap.😊.

I've had a few Hinckley Triumphs and have always thought of them as being very well put together.

I bought a brand new Yellow & Black Thunderbird Sport in 1999 and the fuelling via carbs on that was perfect. I sold it to buy a Honda X11 ( naked Blackbird ) and that was FI. It was nowhere near as smooth at low revs.

I love the simplicity of the Guzzis and both the FI and Carb models that I have perform very well to the point that the fuelling is excellent on both.

When I bought the Carb Guzzi it had been standing and wasn't running sweetly. I removed the carbs and stripped them before putting them in the Ultrasonic Cleaner. I had forgotten how many parts were in a complex pumper carb. Fi has far less to go wrong.

The SV650 that you mention is another hugely underated bike that just does everything so well. 👍

[Othen]

Originally Posted by S60D5-185

Snap.😊.

I've had a few Hinckley Triumphs and have always thought of them as being very well put together.

I bought a brand new Yellow & Black Thunderbird Sport in 1999 and the fuelling via carbs on that was perfect. I sold it to buy a Honda X11 ( naked Blackbird ) and that was FI. It was nowhere near as smooth at low revs.

I love the simplicity of the Guzzis and both the FI and Carb models that I have perform very well to the point that the fuelling is excellent on both.

When I bought the Carb Guzzi it had been standing and wasn't running sweetly. I removed the carbs and stripped them before putting them in the Ultrasonic Cleaner. I had forgotten how many parts were in a complex pumper carb. Fi has far less to go wrong.

The SV650 that you mention is another hugely underated bike that just does everything so well. 👍

Now this is dangerous - two bikers chatting about their favourite subject - this fairly interesting thread about a rather nondescript 40 year old motor car may be off on a tangent!

I like Hinkley Triumphs, this is my fourth one, some water cooled triples (all very good) and more recently two air cooled twins. I think they are just about everything a motorcycle should be, but not one iota more: about 60HP, about 400lbs, simple and with no equipment that isn't absolutely necessary. I'm a dyed in the wool Triumph man.

I bought the Enfield because it was a special edition in Airborne Forces livery, and for no other reason. I've come to really like it, the motorcycle is far better than I'd expected, and will probably be the one I can still ride in my dotage.



I agree about the SV650 - what a huge amount of motorcycle for the money. I bought my first one new when living in Germany 18 years ago (just before Dan was born as I remember). It was first class. The second one was a project bike I bought for nostalgia about 3 years ago and sold last year (having completed the project). They are as tough as old boots, really easy to maintain and huge fun to ride.

:-)

[S60D5-185]

Nice bikes you have there..................

I should never have sold the Thunderbird Sport ( early one with two reverse cone megas on right hand side )

Later I had a 955i and after that a Trophy 1200 all of which performed brilliantly. I've never been without a bike since I was 12 and was lucky enough to do my Police Advanced Class1 bike Course in 1975 when I was 22. Happy days.

Prior to Covid I was away nearly every summer on my ST1300 Honda in the Alps but sold that last year as it was getting too heavy. As for the Guzzis, they put a smile on my face every time I ride them ( had quite a few ) and have way more charm than the Honda ever could.

One marque that I found latterly to be hugely overated and overpriced was BMW. Seriously unimpressed.

Anyway good to chat and keep up the good work. World Superbikes on ITV4 at 8pm tonight. far better than the F1 procession.

Take care regards Darryl

PS Apologies to OP for derailing this thread with bloody motorbikes. I shall refrain.



My California 1100i




Crossing Lake Como with my ST1300

[foggyjames]

Originally Posted by 360beast

Good riddance to the K Jet, should have gone for twin 40s rather than a single carb

I will never understand the anti modified car attitude, if you can improve them which a Weber will as the K jet parts are hard to come by and it isn't the best of injection systems when around 40 years old (head on over to the mk2 golf forum and see all the issues they have) then why not? I know I'm the odd one out but the carb conversion does nothing to the value for me. If I was in the market for a 240 this would be one I would go for and stick twin Weber's on it or convert it to lh2.4 and drop in a B230FK.

Now (as I'm sure you know) I have Solex's version of DCOEs on my 343, and have been planning a B230FK swap into my 360 for a very long time, so I'm far from anti-modified...

...but...I think there's is something nice about keeping a relatively rare car in-tact. Those early GLTs had the particularly hot B23E in them (with either an H- or K- cam), and the K-Jet inlet manifold is well known to flow better than the EFI manifold. Hard to know the spec of that Weber, but I'd be surprised if it flows as well as the K-Jet setup. DCOEs (etc) would fix that...but then it could be any 2.3 240 with a hot cam and a set of carbs slapped on it.

Given that the engine is arguably the defining attraction of an early GLT, I'd want to keep one of those original.

cheers

James

[ITSv40]

Getting the thread back on track. Folks who buy old cars generally fall into one of two groups - those who value originality and would only consider a car still in factory spec and those who quite happily modify cars to varying degrees and don't place any value on originality. Both groups are valid and there is nothing wrong with either.

With the op's car the value may not be affected as if it appeals to the modded buyer it could still sell for the same price as if original. What will affect the sale is a high proportion of the originality group will just walk by and look for something unmolested, or chip the price to allow for getting it back to factory spec.