Late 2.0 vs late 2.3 in a 240 estate?

[Richard240]

I'm keen to become a 240 estate owner, looking for a long distance family load lugger. But want advice on whether to settle for a 2.0 manual or hold out for a 2.3 manual or auto. It's replacing my 1971 Austin 3 Litre (auto), so I'm not used to speed or fuel economy, but would whatever engine I'm confident the 240 will offer me better economy and reliability. All being well with the 240 which engine will be the most relaxed to drive and fuel efficient?
Thank you.

[Joe of Loath]

2.3. I don't think people get any better fuel economy out of the 2.0, because it's a weaker engine and it has to work harder. You might as well have the extra power of the 2.3 for steep hills and heavy loads.

I get about 28-30mpg (a little more on a run if I'm careful) out of my 2.3 in my 740, so should be a little more than you're used to!

[Prufrock]

Originally Posted by Richard240

I'm keen to become a 240 estate owner, looking for a long distance family load lugger. But want advice on whether to settle for a 2.0 manual or hold out for a 2.3 manual or auto. It's replacing my 1971 Austin 3 Litre (auto), so I'm not used to speed or fuel economy, but would whatever engine I'm confident the 240 will offer me better economy and reliability. All being well with the 240 which engine will be the most relaxed to drive and fuel efficient?
Thank you.

I would always recommend the 2.3 over the 2.0 although the 2.3 is rarer in 240s - the 2.0 is easier to find. I've not driven my 245 (2.3 manual 4 speed) enough to comment on economy but I can get near 40 mpg - if I try - on a run from my 745 (2.3 automatic).

Jon

[Richard240]

Thanks for the advice. You've confirmed my hunch. I was all set to get a 2.0 manual but see there's an auto 2.3 on the market at the moment. Does the auto box somewhat even the engines out, or perhaps more likely retains a little of that nice slow torquey strength I'm used to from my 3 litre auto? I wish I could take them for test drives, but it's not an option.

I briefly owned a 164 auto last year (bought as a replacement for the 3 litre) but fortunately returned it to the vendor for a refund after discovering a serious undeclared sill problem. Clearly very different to a late 240, but it was surprisingly trashy compared with the Austin.

[Stephen Edwin]

I would add that my 2.0 SE does all I need, but it is clear most forum members prefer the benefits of the 2.3 and that means if you buy a 2.3 it should keep a higher sale value for the future?

I had a 2.3 740 automatic estate and it served me well carrying heavy loads over long distances. Good cornering.

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.

[volvo always]

I have a 2.3 litre B230E, K jet Injected 240GLT and it's automatic. It can keep up with modern traffic and cruises well. The kick down is quite addictive. The gearbox is an Austin warner AW70/71.

I have never had a 2 litre so can't comment. The engine code is printed on the cam cover.

Rust is the 240's main issue. How come you can't test drive? You really need to and view the car.

James

[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.

[volvo always]

Originally Posted by Stephen Edwin

I would add that my 2.0 SE does all I need, but it is clear most forum members prefer the benefits of the 2.3 and that means if you buy a 2.3 it should keep a higher sale value for the future?

I had a 2.3 740 automatic estate and it served me well carrying heavy loads over long distances. Good cornering.

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.

That said the 70/30 folding rear split seats were much better than the 240 as that's either up or down.

I take it, it was a B230E?

James

[Stephen Edwin]

Ah yes the 740 split rear seats are good. It would be neat if one could fit that split rear seat to a 240. Cushti. I firmly believe both cars have their benefits.

It was Lambda so I guess it was an LH engine. I had it attended to by a well established garage, now well deservedly retired.

[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!