Carbs or Injection?

[volvo164]

Hi all!
Just registered with the forum!
I am a proud owner of a US spec 1974 164E, for 10 years now.
We got it in 1989 and had it fully restored.
Its original configuration was gold with black seats, B30F engine and automatic transmission.
Due to the heavy Greek tax system, she started her new life with a B20 engine with twin SU's and "C" camshaft, manual with OverDrive gearbox.
She did about 80.000 miles with this engine which, for me is one of the most, respectable engines. 100% reliable and excellent performance for her weight.
In 2006 I found a 1972 Volvo 164 in Italy with 120.000 miles on the clock which I imported and used it as a donor car to restore mine to its original condition.
My current configuration is a B30A engine with twin Strombergs and manual with Overdrive gearbox.
I've done 15000 miles since I installed the B30A with no problems at all.
I just found someone who is breaking a 1974 164E and I am getting a complete fuel injection system for mine.
My question is if it is worth the conversion back to the D-Jet,
am I going to see any real improvements in fuel consumption and performance, is it going to be as reliable as with the carbs
and finally if I also need to change the compression ratio or anything else to my engine as well (remember it is a B30A)

[Brock05]

Can't comment on the reliability of D-jet as i've not run a car with it, in terms of engine changes the B30A head won't have the holes for the injectors, or a couple of the sensors so it would be easiest if you have donor car to swap the head, and I think the later head has bigger valves.

[Clan]

The B30E was 175 bhp as opposed to the 140 bhp of the B30A and went very well as you would expect , however today the D jetronic system is a bit out dated , for simplicity and reliability i would stick with the twin carbs . OR fit the marine 3 stromberg manifold and possibly head and camshaft and get the same 175 bhp .

The ultimate would be B30E with modern injectors and sensors and Programmable ECU ( about £500 ) and get the best of all worlds .

The B30E had a high compression ratio so you need it's head .

[volvo164]

Originally Posted by Clan

The B30E was 175 bhp as opposed to the 140 bhp of the B30A and went very well as you would expect , however today the D jetronic system is a bit out dated , for simplicity and reliability i would stick with the twin carbs . OR fit the marine 3 stromberg manifold and possibly head and camshaft and get the same 175 bhp .

The ultimate would be B30E with modern injectors and sensors and Programmable ECU ( about £500 ) and get the best of all worlds .

The B30E had a high compression ratio so you need it's head .

I thought the 1974 model (mine and the donor car) had the B30F engine with 138 bhp??!

[Clan]

Having worked on them when they were new i have only seen
the High compression B30E in the UK .. B30F for USA ?

I know there was a B20E used in the 140 GL and the 145E had the B20F over here though .

[volvo164]

Originally Posted by Clan

Having worked on them when they were new i have only seen
the High compression B30E in the UK .. B30F for USA ?

I know there was a B20E used in the 140 GL and the 145E had the B20F over here though .

Mine should be an F being a USA/Canada spec car.
The donor car is a UK car so according to you it should be a B30E then, which is even better!

I guess I can tell from the cylinder head number (see below) can I also tell from the ECU part no. or anything else?

Any experience on the fuel consumption between the twin carbs and the D-Jet?


Cylinder heads
430104 B30A
430105 B30A
461340 B30A
461537 B30A
461003 1972 B30E (could also be marked with only "E" instead of "461003")
461342 1973 B30E
461539 1974 B30E
461344 1972-1973 B30F
461541 1974 B30F
461288 1975 B30F hardened seat rings at exhaust valves

[Clan]

That explains things if one is a USA spec car !
Fuel consumption , The B30E would do 16 mpg around town and driving hard lucky to better 20 mpg but the B30A would do about 25mpg usualy ..

You might be able to tell by the ecu part number if you had a parts list book ..

[john h]

Hi, welcome! Nice to see another good 164 on here.

I've owned both. In my experience both b30A and b30E give 17-20 mpg driven moderate-to-hard, with manual + OD gearbox. But the E is quite a bit faster, so I guess I had the carb car flat-out more of the time!

Personally, I had more reliability problems with the carb car; no issues with two 164Es. But I know others have had the opposite experience!

I'll be doing mappable injection and ignition for mine in due course, but not at that stage yet.

Cheers

John

[volvo164]

Hi!
Thank you for your nice words!
Update:
Today I arranged to get the cylinder head as well so I will have the complete system to convert it back to injection.
The person who is giving it away told me that the has even included the crimps that hold the harness to the chassis so hopefully I'll have everything!
My only worry now is that the donor car has been sitting for a long time outdoors and maybe some of the bits and pieces may not work after all this time.
I am also thinking, since I am changing the cylinder head, to make it suitable for unleaded fuel.
The days that I drove her hard are over. Now 80 miles on the motorway are enough so I don't think I'll see much of a difference in consumption comparing to the carbs...

[Mike B]

Originally Posted by volvo164

Hi!
I am also thinking, since I am changing the cylinder head, to make it suitable for unleaded fuel.
The days that I drove her hard are over. Now 80 miles on the motorway are enough so I don't think I'll see much of a difference in consumption comparing to the carbs...

Hi
I have a 164E [ on LPG ] I it is ok on unleaded , not the carb , unless the valves are done .
Regards
Mike B