What years was lh2.4 used in the 240?

B-dub · 11-05-2009, 06:43 PM

I'm looking at getting a late model 240 but I want it to be lh2.4 what year did they start using I in 240's?

thebornotaku · 11-05-2009, 06:53 PM

What's wrong with 2.2?

That's right; nothing.

Though iirc it was 89+. Don't quote me on that.

dl242gt · 11-05-2009, 07:02 PM

Yes, 1989-1993 the majority but not all 240s sent to the US are LH2.4. There are a small number of LH3.1 cars which seem to be only manual trans during those years as well. Although I have a manual trans 1993 wagon which is LH2.4. I highly recommend finding a manual trans car if you can. They get slightly better mileage and are manual.

leftyblind · 11-05-2009, 08:48 PM

mine was built in 88 and sold in 88... and has Lh2.4.

but its registered as 89, so idk, food for thought.

dl242gt · 11-05-2009, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leftyblind

mine was built in 88 and sold in 88... and has Lh2.4.

but its registered as 89, so idk, food for thought.

As is half the 89 model year cars. With most vehicle manufacturers and Volvo was no different. The 89 model year cars started being delivered in Sept of 88 and were sold till around May or June of 89.

stumanarama · 11-06-2009, 02:34 AM

I keep hearing lh2.2 and k-jet and lh2.4 being thrown around here. I know that k-jet is an older bosch injection system but what are the other two? And how can I tell what my 87 240 has?

Sorry if I threadjacked a little but I don't think I'm the only one with this question.

moxy123 · 11-06-2009, 02:55 AM

K-jet uses very little electronics, just an O2 sensor to change the mixture a bit. The fuel is distributed mechanically by a fuel distributor to mechanical injectors.

The newer versions are typical of most injection systems in use now with electrically controlled injectors. The change over is the last few years of the 240 but I do not know exactly, someone will chime in I am sure.

2manyturbos · 11-06-2009, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stumanarama

I keep hearing lh2.2 and k-jet and lh2.4 being thrown around here. I know that k-jet is an older bosch injection system but what are the other two? And how can I tell what my 87 240 has?

Sorry if I threadjacked a little but I don't think I'm the only one with this question.

D-Jet, LH 2.0, LH 2.2, LH 2.4 and LH 3.1. Your 87 has LH 2.2.

stumanarama · 11-06-2009, 06:13 AM

Ahhh, I see (said the blind man to the deaf dog) What differences are there between the 2.2 and the 2.4 as they appear to be the more common ones?
And thanks for the answers guys, I have much to learn.

andysbeta · 11-06-2009, 11:27 AM

LH2.4 has better driveability, adaptive fuel mapping, smoother throttle response. Better MPG for turbo compared to LH2.2 . For example, any LH2.2 740T I've had, with AW71 I been lucky to get 22MPG highway out of. 3 of my 90+ 740T, 940T's would get up to 27MPG highway , but typically 25MPG with the same AW71 and LH2.4. I'd say that's a major difference and far better effiency. In town MPG usually is about 18-21 with LH2.4.. LH2.2 about 14-18.

As simple to diagnose (maybe even more so) than LH2.2. Passes stringent smog test alot easier than LH2.2 . I'm a fan of LH2.4.

The main differences LH2.2 vs LH2.4 (On a 240):

LH2.4 has EZK ignition, LH2.2 has that Chrysler lean burn ignition .
LH2.4 has OBD I self diagnostics with code retrieval on car. LH2.2 doesn't.
LH2.4 has crank flywheel sensor, LH2.2 uses hall effect sensor in distributor. Timing not adjustable on LH2.4 (but there are ways to get around that).

Aside from those fundamental differences, the systems use the same injectors, are configured essentially the same when it comes to the fuel injection hardware itself on the motor. AMM/Coolant sensors/IAC are different between the two.

thebornotaku · 11-06-2009, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2manyturbos

D-Jet, LH 2.0, LH 2.2, LH 2.4 and LH 3.1. Your 87 has LH 2.2.

Don't forget K-jet, and I'm also pretty sure there was LH1.0 in there for some time?

K-Jet, 2.2 and 2.4 are the most common, however. Just for the OP's reference.

2manyturbos · 11-06-2009, 02:18 PM

[QUOTE=thebornotaku;2752740]Don't forget K-jet, and I'm also pretty sure there was LH1.0 in there for some time?

Thanks. He said other than K-jet. I omitted K-jet purposely. I don't know if there really was an LH 1.0. I hear the term, yet, I've never seen it used in any literature or manuals.

My favorite system of those mentioned is LH 2.4 for the above stated reasons. It runs the best and the self diagnostics really helps when problems arise.

andysbeta · 11-06-2009, 02:40 PM

Yeah, late 1982 240's (california market I believe) had LH1.0

I have a 1982 245 w/ it. Well no longer.. I ripped it out, and it is now LH2.2. LH1.0 is a weird animal. It uses a KJet Idle Control System , Cold Start Injector From KJet. So the cylinder head has two computer temperature sensors, and one thermal time switch for the cold start injector. No TPS, instead LH1.0 relied on a ported vacuum switch for the idle control / timing advance to the chrysler box.

The only thing the ECU for LH1.0 does is fuel system management - injectors, AMM, and o2 sensor only. It has a dual batch fire system - that is two injector banks fire , instead of the single batch fire of the later LH2.0-2.4 systems. It ran okay, but the funky fuel rail with its own specific injectors worried me (like if one went bad how would I finda another), and the combination of KJet parts would create some driveability problems, mainly associated with idle control - it wouldn't respond quickly enough to the fuel ECU. And if the cold start injector doesn't spray on a cold start forget about it starting at all.

I won't miss LH1.0, that's for sure. It's a pretty complicated system .

[QUOTE=2manyturbos;2753010]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thebornotaku

Don't forget K-jet, and I'm also pretty sure there was LH1.0 in there for some time?

Thanks. He said other than K-jet. I omitted K-jet purposely. I don't know if there really was an LH 1.0. I hear the term, yet, I've never seen it used in any literature or manuals.

My favorite system of those mentioned is LH 2.4 for the above stated reasons. It runs the best and the self diagnostics really helps when problems arise.

2manyturbos · 11-06-2009, 03:55 PM

[QUOTE=andysbeta;2753064]Yeah, late 1982 240's (california market I believe) had LH1.0

I have a 1982 245 w/ it. Well no longer.. I ripped it out, and it is now LH2.2. LH1.0 is a weird animal. It uses a KJet Idle Control System , Cold Start Injector From KJet. So the cylinder head has two computer temperature sensors, and one thermal time switch for the cold start injector. No TPS, instead LH1.0 relied on a ported vacuum switch for the idle control / timing advance to the chrysler box.

The only thing the ECU for LH1.0 does is fuel system management - injectors, AMM, and o2 sensor only. It has a dual batch fire system - that is two injector banks fire , instead of the single batch fire of the later LH2.0-2.4 systems. It ran okay, but the funky fuel rail with its own specific injectors worried me (like if one went bad how would I finda another), and the combination of KJet parts would create some driveability problems, mainly associated with idle control - it wouldn't respond quickly enough to the fuel ECU. And if the cold start injector doesn't spray on a cold start forget about it starting at all.

I won't miss LH1.0, that's for sure. It's a pretty complicated system .

Wow, strange system. It's no wonder it was a 1 year deal. I have never encountered one.

945ti · 11-06-2009, 04:26 PM

Hm, I seem to have hit edit and had everything go away...oh well.

stumanarama · 11-07-2009, 04:42 AM

With the general consensus(on this thread at least) being that 2.4 is significantly better than 2.2, would it be worthwhile, to switch? I am going to turbo sometime in the future and the self diagnostic thing sounds pretty nice, along with the mileage increase.

dl242gt · 11-07-2009, 04:58 AM

In order to switch you are going to have to possibly drill the block and mount the engine speed sensor. That also means cutting out the bell housing so the bracket will fit in the location. Not a rocket science job or anything. But not something you want to do with the engine in the car either. I would just go LH2.2 turbo and be sure to include wiring in the turbo EZK ignition box. It'll still run very well. LH2.2 is good. It's just that LH2.4 is better.

If you do want to upgrade to it. When you go to a turbo engine that would be the time to remove the engine to add the engine speed sensor. You could check your engine to see if the holes are already drilled and tapped for the sensor. That would help a lot but it's not definite that they are. So having the engine out so it's easy to do is key to the upgrade. Of course if you swap the engine for a 1990 or newer 700/900 turbo engine it'll be all setup for it.

11-05-2009, 06:43 PM	#1
B-dub Boooyashika Join Date: May 2004 Location: Seattle/Phinney	What years was lh2.4 used in the 240? I'm looking at getting a late model 240 but I want it to be lh2.4 what year did they start using I in 240's? __________________ "Some times all you need is one cool hand."

11-05-2009, 07:02 PM	#3
dl242gt Can play the blues Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: S NJ, a suburb of Phila.	Yes, 1989-1993 the majority but not all 240s sent to the US are LH2.4. There are a small number of LH3.1 cars which seem to be only manual trans during those years as well. Although I have a manual trans 1993 wagon which is LH2.4. I highly recommend finding a manual trans car if you can. They get slightly better mileage and are manual. __________________ Dave, 1982 242 turbo. 318k miles. A few changes for the better. 1993 245 Classic, 280k miles. Now with enem V15.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-05-2009, 08:48 PM	#4
leftyblind Board Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cali	mine was built in 88 and sold in 88... and has Lh2.4. but its registered as 89, so idk, food for thought.

11-06-2009, 02:34 AM	#6
stumanarama Board Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: San Jose	I keep hearing lh2.2 and k-jet and lh2.4 being thrown around here. I know that k-jet is an older bosch injection system but what are the other two? And how can I tell what my 87 240 has? Sorry if I threadjacked a little but I don't think I'm the only one with this question.

11-06-2009, 02:55 AM	#7
moxy123 Board Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Phoenix, AZ USA	K-jet uses very little electronics, just an O2 sensor to change the mixture a bit. The fuel is distributed mechanically by a fuel distributor to mechanical injectors. The newer versions are typical of most injection systems in use now with electrically controlled injectors. The change over is the last few years of the 240 but I do not know exactly, someone will chime in I am sure.

11-06-2009, 06:13 AM	#9
stumanarama Board Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: San Jose	Ahhh, I see (said the blind man to the deaf dog) What differences are there between the 2.2 and the 2.4 as they appear to be the more common ones? And thanks for the answers guys, I have much to learn.

11-06-2009, 11:27 AM	#10
andysbeta Board Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Central Cali	LH2.4 has better driveability, adaptive fuel mapping, smoother throttle response. Better MPG for turbo compared to LH2.2 . For example, any LH2.2 740T I've had, with AW71 I been lucky to get 22MPG highway out of. 3 of my 90+ 740T, 940T's would get up to 27MPG highway , but typically 25MPG with the same AW71 and LH2.4. I'd say that's a major difference and far better effiency. In town MPG usually is about 18-21 with LH2.4.. LH2.2 about 14-18. As simple to diagnose (maybe even more so) than LH2.2. Passes stringent smog test alot easier than LH2.2 . I'm a fan of LH2.4. The main differences LH2.2 vs LH2.4 (On a 240): LH2.4 has EZK ignition, LH2.2 has that Chrysler lean burn ignition . LH2.4 has OBD I self diagnostics with code retrieval on car. LH2.2 doesn't. LH2.4 has crank flywheel sensor, LH2.2 uses hall effect sensor in distributor. Timing not adjustable on LH2.4 (but there are ways to get around that). Aside from those fundamental differences, the systems use the same injectors, are configured essentially the same when it comes to the fuel injection hardware itself on the motor. AMM/Coolant sensors/IAC are different between the two.

11-06-2009, 02:18 PM	#12
2manyturbos Board Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Monroe, OR USA	[QUOTE=thebornotaku;2752740]Don't forget K-jet, and I'm also pretty sure there was LH1.0 in there for some time? Thanks. He said other than K-jet. I omitted K-jet purposely. I don't know if there really was an LH 1.0. I hear the term, yet, I've never seen it used in any literature or manuals. My favorite system of those mentioned is LH 2.4 for the above stated reasons. It runs the best and the self diagnostics really helps when problems arise.

11-06-2009, 03:55 PM	#14
2manyturbos Board Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Monroe, OR USA	[QUOTE=andysbeta;2753064]Yeah, late 1982 240's (california market I believe) had LH1.0 I have a 1982 245 w/ it. Well no longer.. I ripped it out, and it is now LH2.2. LH1.0 is a weird animal. It uses a KJet Idle Control System , Cold Start Injector From KJet. So the cylinder head has two computer temperature sensors, and one thermal time switch for the cold start injector. No TPS, instead LH1.0 relied on a ported vacuum switch for the idle control / timing advance to the chrysler box. The only thing the ECU for LH1.0 does is fuel system management - injectors, AMM, and o2 sensor only. It has a dual batch fire system - that is two injector banks fire , instead of the single batch fire of the later LH2.0-2.4 systems. It ran okay, but the funky fuel rail with its own specific injectors worried me (like if one went bad how would I finda another), and the combination of KJet parts would create some driveability problems, mainly associated with idle control - it wouldn't respond quickly enough to the fuel ECU. And if the cold start injector doesn't spray on a cold start forget about it starting at all. I won't miss LH1.0, that's for sure. It's a pretty complicated system . Wow, strange system. It's no wonder it was a 1 year deal. I have never encountered one.

11-07-2009, 04:42 AM	#16
stumanarama Board Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: San Jose	With the general consensus(on this thread at least) being that 2.4 is significantly better than 2.2, would it be worthwhile, to switch? I am going to turbo sometime in the future and the self diagnostic thing sounds pretty nice, along with the mileage increase.

11-07-2009, 04:58 AM	#17
dl242gt Can play the blues Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: S NJ, a suburb of Phila.	In order to switch you are going to have to possibly drill the block and mount the engine speed sensor. That also means cutting out the bell housing so the bracket will fit in the location. Not a rocket science job or anything. But not something you want to do with the engine in the car either. I would just go LH2.2 turbo and be sure to include wiring in the turbo EZK ignition box. It'll still run very well. LH2.2 is good. It's just that LH2.4 is better. If you do want to upgrade to it. When you go to a turbo engine that would be the time to remove the engine to add the engine speed sensor. You could check your engine to see if the holes are already drilled and tapped for the sensor. That would help a lot but it's not definite that they are. So having the engine out so it's easy to do is key to the upgrade. Of course if you swap the engine for a 1990 or newer 700/900 turbo engine it'll be all setup for it.