carb v fuel injection

I have a 1988 240GLT with the mechanical (CI) fuel injection. It is more economical then my old 245gl which had the 2127 engine with carb. Having read the Haynes on the mechanical injection, and read any posts on here, it seems to be a very simple sytem, with few major problems. Most problems can be fairly easily and cheaply resolved (injector to head seals harden and leak sensors sometimes fail, all parts availble). No black boxes to fail and cost hundreds, no emissions rating, and you can even adjust the mixture.

Yep i'd agree. Carbs are cool if you like tweaking and adjusting EVERYTHING but they are complex mechanical instruments that need respect and care. CI cars are very simple in design. I really get peaved with carbs sometimes though as with some weaker designs you just need to sneeze on them and they are out of adjustment! The Stromberg CD175 carb on my 244 is a relitively simple instrument but you still need to service it with new diaphragms etc. Fuel injection is certainly more "maintainance free"

Many thanks for your quick replies. I'm grateful. james

I agree, injection is best. With Volvo quality, no need to fear the electronic injection either. Even if an ECU goes wrong (pretty rare, in reality, it's fear that makes people wary) there are specialists nowadays who can fix them inexpensively. John

For me there is one thing that is more reliable - an open loop lpg system and none of the petrol problems. Just a tank at the rear, the vapouriser, a mechanical adjuster and the mixer on the throttle body and throw away the petrol system! Seriously though for practical purposes the mechanical injection is the most user friendly system. Mike

Hi Jesse, Funnily enough the most economical Volvo I ever owned,(and I'm on my 12th), was a 2.3 240 saloon with a Stromberg carb , getting 33 mpg. It also had a Broquet fuel catalyst (so called!) in the fuel tank. But thats one subject I don't want to go over again!.