LH 2.2+EZK or Stick to LH 2.0

I'll be replacing the engine harness before daily driving the 242. It's an 83 with LH 2.0. I noticed Dave B. has an original replacement or I could go to the 2.2 with EZK. Since they're about the same price, is there any reason to go for one over the other?

Um, idk?
Ezk is maybe ‘better’ in some sense than mopar in for running @ altitude tho the updated ‘88+ mopar ‘lean burn’ box I *think* may have baro correction for altitude & works pretty reliably?

2.0 002 AMM/MAF sensors are a little rarer I guess?
But those are around/not *that* expensive or difficult to find in usable condition used, just don’t pay for some sketchy rebuild python or fuel injection corp thing or chinesium / ‘get bit by the snake’ (python’s logo (maybe their other rebuilt offerings are better than for the Bosch MAFs used on the Swedish cars?)?
the 2.0 ecu from the factory burns a little leaner?

I guess I’d want the original updated OE LH2.0 engine harness as it’s what is correct for the year & has the wires in it to power the ignition coil on the ‘83-‘84 2.0 cars?

If you get in a bind you can always re-pin the amm connector with the terminal tool & use the 007 AMM & LH2.2 fuel brain w/updated OE factory fit ‘83-‘84 updated LH2.0 harness?
The 2.2 fuel brain seems to work acceptably/reliably taking the RPM signal off the coil -/1 terminal, coil discharge flyback, notwithstanding despite the slightly different arrangement there between the 2.0 & 2.2 240s?

So, restore it to stock/ socks Volvo TSB updated parts?
That said, If you’re cheap you can power the coil w/a separate wire from the firewall connector there on the 2.0 ‘83 car just fine & just install a decent condition used updated GXL no rot wire 2.2 used OE harness effectively too? I got those/BTDT?

Need a little jumper from bullet to spade for the oil pressure switch & might need to fix a couple terminals that get cooked by the alt, no big deal using the 2.2 used updated OE harness In the ‘83-‘84 LH2.0 240s…
You also need to note where all the brackets go, run the updated oil separator box & the 2.2 & later models w/a/c the harnesses tuck sort of thru the alloy accessory block bracket instead of around the ignition dist/timing cover & might need to use the intake manifold support & idle motor brackets from the 2.2 B230 as the harness might chafe on the 2.0 idle motor bracket & possibly start a fire w/improper fit w/the un-fused 8? 10ga? Fat red wire from the alt to starter there…
…pay very close attention to how all that’s supposed to be bracketed & fit in there?

Maybe not quite as original, &, eventually the ‘85-‘88 (& ‘89 700 turbo) 2.2 parts are going to be about equally rare, too?

That’s what I’ve done to deal with rotten harness 83-84 cars…depends on the situation…
…I tend to like oe / updated oe parts,but don’t shun quakity aftermarket parts entirely/not all of them are worse than factory, necessarily?
Or factory recombines a mechanic can follow that aren’t a total hackjob/basket case.

I certainly don't mind keeping LH 2.0, just wanted to know if one option outweighed the other. I already have an extra ecu and AMM for Lh 2.0, so I'm set to go, at least for a while.

I'd opt for 2.2. At least it gives you the option of turbo-ing the car later on if you decide to do so.

I have a hard time finding distributor Hall sensors for '83-'84 cars, except for the occasional very overpriced ones on eBay when someone uncovers an NOS collection. So far, it seems there are still sources for the '86-'88 version.
Dave

white855T said:

I'd opt for 2.2. At least it gives you the option of turbo-ing the car later on if you decide to do so.

Click to expand...

This is true. Didn't think about that. It would be a few years before that would be an option, but an option, nonetheless.

dbarton said:

I have a hard time finding distributor Hall sensors for '83-'84 cars, except for the occasional very overpriced ones on eBay when someone uncovers an NOS collection. So far, it seems there are still sources for the '86-'88 version.
Dave

Click to expand...

Yes, I have one of the hall sensors with the circle plugs. The strain relief bit is all messed up from heat, and I did my best to zip tie it up. I think that is a weak point in my current system.

That, and the ignition wiring doesn't look fantastic. It's not crumbling or anything, but just weathered and sad.

The EZK lives inside the car, instead of where the Chrysler unit lives, is that correct? So maybe just from a standpoint of daily reliability, the swap would make it worth it.

white855T said:

I'd opt for 2.2. At least it gives you the option of turbo-ing the car later on if you decide to do so.

Click to expand...

Turbo a car 'later' w/$5-10 gas & bunch of worn out engines that need rebuilds & parts you can't get anymore?
Surely, you jest?
Swapping & re-pinning or moving the AMM w/a sub-harness extender & adding the 700Turbo EZK to the existing 240 fuel harness cleanly will be the least of your concerns IMO or shouldn't be that big of a stumbling block, either way?

That, & everyone threw out the awesome B21FTs (of the choices of SOHC Volvo Turbo engines, anyway?) & installed the sub-standard core-shift prone/worn bores B23FTs &/or B230s, which are junk.

The guys in Sweden know what's up/they run B21Ts if recombining the OE 'all junkyard' junkpile to boost the crap out of them.
Thick liner narrow knock resistant bores, stick a thin HG on it to get the compression closer to low 8s or custom mirror dish forged pistons & SCP 405 head, boost the crap out of it!


To OP, I guess I'm biased toward originality if at all possible & only junkyard/used/NOS OEM parts recombine & only convert away from original as needed, but I'm not an originality purist, but refuse to buy any new chinesium or craptermarket if at all possible?
(this isn't to disparage Dave's harnesses which have been good quality to install if I couldn't source an OE used replacement/updated harness or EZK or a turbo engine install was desired, for whatever reason?).

As to the round plug updated Bosch dist for '81-'83...IIRC the mopar box works w/any of the '81-'88 dists & you can make a sub-harness for that as needed or swap the ignition harness to the '84+ style w/the later dist plug?
The EZK only works w/1 or 2 types of 240 dist, however IIRC or the '84 760T block mounted dist?

Many of the -'85 dists are worn out junk/timing wobbles around w/wobbly shafts & neglected oil wick on the mopar ignition cars.
That said, if oiled, they last ok?
The '86-'88 small shaft rotor/no oil wick (wicks it up from the gear/has a thrust washer IIRC?) don't seem to suffer this problem & timing seems more stable w/updated mopar box & harness & map sensor doesn't seem to fail on those...

Rotors are difficult to source for the '81-'83 white cap dist, but the Bosch retrofit dists w/round plug exist in usable not too loose condition used & last fine if you remember to oil the wick for the '81-'83 mopar ignition cars.
Or maybe they only exist in mine and a few other dork's parts hoards IDK?

It's not so much the hall sensor itself that goes bad as the tiny wires or connector that breaks?
I've had better luck with original hall sensors or those purchased when the cars were still in production?
Some other cars use that sensor for the 'cam position reference' up into the late 1990s? or so...they're 'around' ?

Yeah, as I said, I'm not interested in a turbo for now. Whichever system is the easiest to get parts for and repair in a weekend. I certainly want to avoid messing around with multiple harnesses and trying to make my own. Already have to do that for my Camaro LS swap, and one is enough for me

I'd just install the correct drop-in/plug-in LH2.0 updated harness & keep a mint 007 AMM, 2.2 ECU (as well as the inevitable spare 2.0 ECU & 002 AMM of course) & terminal tool just in case to repin the AMM & swap to 2.2 in a pinch if possible for a DD, but that's just me?

But I'm not trying to drink the kool aid?

Updated harness / '88+ mopar boxes in the correct # for a high compression manual trans '83 are a bit rare these days, but if your mopar box works, they don't go bad in this climate that often (moreso on hot weather cars).

It's possible to replace the map sensor on them if you know what you're doing with microsoldering electronics.
& there are the sleeves for the pins Volvo installed/they had problems with that plug early on in the '81-'87 mopar 'lean burn' ignition 200 series cars...

If I had a free/scrap price '88 parts car fall in my lap & .17?/hr & more time than $, I'd install the 2.2 harness & bits from that I suppose as a possible option? I probably have most of that stuff used?
Tho, if I'm honest, i prefer the 2.5bar FPR used up to 1987 model year in the 240s (fails less often, less stress on the fuel pump, fuel pumps last longer in hot weather).

Yeah, I may hunt for an additional ICU eventually. More importantly try and find an additional distributor, at least the hall sensor portion

I have both spare LH2.0 & LH2.2 distributors, whatever route you decide to go.

^'84-'85 takes the same dist on the N/A 240s IIRC?
Different # mopar box & mopar & LH harness fit the B230 vs. B23 '83-'84 USA 240s per Volvo IIRC?

Shouldn't be a bid deal either way?

I remember all I had were '84+ dists & I just made a jumper harness w/proper tools to fix an '81-'83 mopar ignition car?
Worked fine/no fuss?
Not as elegant as using the correct drop-in round plug dist in tight/good condition, but it's what I had & car ran the same/fine?

swedishiron.com said:

I have both spare LH2.0 & LH2.2 distributors, whatever route you decide to go.

Click to expand...

Neat! I'll keep that in mind and reach out to you when I purchase a replacement harness.

The EZK boxes can be modified with chips, is that correct? Don't know if there is anything there for an NA 240?

Some of em can? Sbabbs does that locally?
Only some of the early 2.2 ezk boxes w/second chip iirc.

Volvo was real conservative w/the higher rpm spark timing on these for longevity & emissions on variable quality fuel.

There’s more knowledge base for 2.4 but that means using the flywheel crank angle sensor that your ‘83 B23 may not be setup for if recombining the stock Volvo junkpile on the cheap?

& the 30lb boat anchor/deadly flywheel if you drive it competitively if using factory parts as well…
…I like the larger swept area of the 228mm clutch vs. flat flywheel 218mm & lighter spring pressure clutch cover/pressure plate, but that flywheel is so dang heavy it’s downright awkward for me to drive unless you’re in San Francisco w/turbo engine, 3.54s, tall tires & trying to pull out of a crazy strep driveway/side street with the stump puller 1st gear w/minimal clutch slippage/limited traction smoothly w/2000lbs of lumber in/on the station wagon…then 30lb tractor flywheel FTW?
The twins/ STS machining sell a flat flywheel modified for 60-2 pattern sensor holes…

That said, finer resolution for the ignition for cam & crank angle isn’t s bad thing for isolating knock detection from uh…’other’ routine engine noises or crank positions where knock can’t really occur (only what, 5-10 degrees of crank angle after the spark plug fires on a specific hole when/where harmful ‘ignition-event’ knock can likely occur & timing can be backed off?)?

Only so much you can do w/2-4 gates on the dist hall sensor spinning @ 1/2 crankshaft speed on the early pre LH2.4 era EZK?

The 2.2 era EZKs still a lot more advanced than the mopar ignition that way (for knock detection/isolation) , but it is what it is / has its limitations & I suppose you can chip it for a different cam/spark curve (if that’s what you want?)?

That said, I prefer ‘82-‘88 manual window no options LH1.0-2.2 240s to beat the crap out of & rack up miles & don’t care for the extra electrical or adaptive memory of the 2.4 & later cars?
Change an engine harness & get a 2.2 & earlier car going tip top?

I like the galvanized body/stiffer chassis ‘89+ & anti-lock brakes (in a DD, when it works, despite the accumulator numbing the pedal a little on old Bosch ABS & increased complexity) , but don’t want the airbag, later ignition switch, LH2.4 adaptive memory/everything computer controlled or more electrical?

‘89 is kinda a good year that way; all galvanized/stiffer chassis, quiet, early ignition switch, swap to LH3.1 if 5 speed to burn lean if you have those rare/obscure parts (wouldn’t on an earlier or automatic car & the 2.4 can be almost as efficient & has easier to find parts/broader knowledge base), no airbag in the USA, last year in USA still available w/manual windows?

Clear as mud recombining the Volvo junkpile, right?

I already have a dog dish flywheel from Roy, which should perform well for my commute. I drive either 99E and up South End RD, or I-5 onto I-205 to get to school, so with the heavier flywheel, 3.91 rear end and A cam, it should match my driving fairly well. The heavier flywheel should be good since I still need practice driving manual cars, and I only have standard transmission experience with driving 1940's war era tractors.

I'll likely end up sticking with LH 2.0. I doubt there's enough benefit to switch over. Especially since the Chrysler box is matched to my engine/M46.

^Fair enough?
The dog dish was standard in ‘87+ N/a USA cars & all factory Turbo-intercooled models (I’ve seen 84.5 240Tic with the crazy stiff pressure plate flat flywheel, but only seen ‘85 240T w/dog dish like all the 7/9Turbo manual cars got.)

The dog dish is logical to get going w/less clutch slippage & taller gears/stump puller cam motors w/a car full of tall Lutherans going to church on a Sunday?

I have a hard time driving it it’s so heavy/has so much rotational inertia, & 1st might be kinda slow to rev up/over with in 3’ with it +3.91s, good lord!

The factory had it mostly right w/the 2.0 & lean burn ignition & super skinny 185/70-14 light weight Pizza cutters on sedans/coupes.

I’d put a T(orque) cam in there instead of the M for stump pulling & MPG if it doesn’t have to pass CA nox is all I guess?
Tho the As fairly mild / much like the T & used in B230ET too…idk if the spark box curve is quite right for the A…M to T seems fine?

I might have a factory updated 2.0 84-84 harness if Swedish iron doesn’t…
Good luck!