Digital BW, The Print

I'm up to speed now on the R1800 approach thanks to Paul and others.

However, I found out I can get an r2400 for $425 after rebate.  I'm
uncertain whether the 1800 or 2400 would be better for my needs.  I
understand that the B&W prints I'd get using the 1800 with Paul's
approach would be more stable over time than the 2400 since they would
have no color in them.  But as an amateur who is not selling prints
and has no plans to, I wonder if I need the "highest standard" of
archival quality.

I guess my question is whether the 2400 has any significant advantages
over the 1800 (when using Paul's approach)?  I've done a lot of
research, and most say the 2400 is better for B&W and printing on
matte papers.  But of course they're not taking the "100% carbon"
approach into consideration.

From what I gather, the 1800 with the 100% carbon approach seems even
better than the 2400 because, 1) it's 100% carbon, 2) I can still get
color glossy prints that match or surpass the 2400, 3) I can get matte
B&W prints that match the 2400 (except in smoothness?), 4) the printer
(and ink?) are cheaper.

I'm not sure about that last point, though, since I'd have to buy $30
of K ink cartridges and the $50 QTR to use the 100% carbon approach,
so that makes the 1800 about the same cost as the 2400.  If anyone has
any feedback on which would be better for my needs I'd be grateful.

Thanks again.