4 cyl 6 cyl longevity

#11

In article <yZNxh.60$RJ1.42 (AT) newsfe19 (DOT) lga>, "dave" <dave (AT) noemail (DOT) net>
wrote:

Quote:

You'd have a hard time
saying the same for a 4-cyl GM, Ford, or Chrysler (skuse me,
Daimler -Chrysler).
My Chrysler (before Daimler) 4 cyl 2.2L '81 and 2.5L '87 were still in

excellent condition at over 140k kms.
Chryslers engines are very reliable and long lived if properly
maintained.
It's not the number of cylinders but the design and quality metal.

#12

In article <08Oxh.16051$zH1.7014 (AT) newssvr29 (DOT) news.prodigy.net>,
"M.J." <M.J. (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

The 4cyl 2.5L engine has been plagued by headgasket probems,

It sure has. My friend had the problem on a '98 at about 60k kms, he's
now sold it to a relative and has a new '07.
We'll see!

#13

In article <eq8lmv0a9q (AT) news4 (DOT) newsguy.com>,
"nobody >" <invalid (AT) email (DOT) death.by.spam> wrote:

Quote:

Did have to replace pan and valve cover gaskets and had to
reinstall about everything bolted to the engine at least once! (even
shook a spark plug out and scared the crap out of me)

You call that reliable?

#14

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:43:46 GMT, who <i (AT) notaspammer (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:

In article <yZNxh.60$RJ1.42 (AT) newsfe19 (DOT) lga>, "dave" <dave (AT) noemail (DOT) net
wrote:

You'd have a hard time
saying the same for a 4-cyl GM, Ford, or Chrysler (skuse me,
Daimler -Chrysler).
My Chrysler (before Daimler) 4 cyl 2.2L '81 and 2.5L '87 were still in
excellent condition at over 140k kms.
Chryslers engines are very reliable and long lived if properly
maintained.
It's not the number of cylinders but the design and quality metal.
Aren't those Mitsubishi motors?

#15

who wrote:

Quote:

In article <eq8lmv0a9q (AT) news4 (DOT) newsguy.com>,
"nobody >" <invalid (AT) email (DOT) death.by.spam> wrote:

Did have to replace pan and valve cover gaskets and had to
reinstall about everything bolted to the engine at least once! (even
shook a spark plug out and scared the crap out of me)

You call that reliable?

Considering the treatment that truck got, definitely! I'll have to admit
I'm comparing it to the previous truck, a '74 Ford that had a timing
chain that got so loose (at 20K miles!!) that it was slapping the sides
of the front housing. I could go on about the '74 for two pages.

#16

On Feb 14, 10:07 am, Ray <r... (AT) nospam (DOT) example.com> wrote:

Quote:

isq... (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:
On Feb 5, 2:12 pm, "dave" <d... (AT) noemail (DOT) net> wrote:
Now, now, let's not get personal.

I'm not part of either cult, but there are plenty of Toyota owners who've
gotten a tons of miles out of some little 4 banger. You'd have a hard time
saying the same for a 4-cyl GM, Ford, or Chrysler (skuse me,
Daimler -Chrysler).

Where is news exactly? 6 pot boat anchors has been the signature of
Detrua boat makers since the dawn of time.

uh huh... guess the wife's 90 Beretta is a figment of my imagination.
It's the car that won't die. 150,000 miles. Never left me stranded.
Still driving it in the winter (the wife now drives the Legacy we bought
because baby seats + 2 door = PITA.)

the 3.1 V6 in the Beretta is a nice design (not) from the 70's... but I
can't kill it. My Jimmy had the same engine and made it close to 200k
before the body rotted, and my buddy had a Celebrity that made it over
200k before it rotted away too...

My point exactly. 6 pot engines are the bread and butter of

American automakers.

#17

X-Archive-Yes: no

On Feb 16, 7:03 am, Ray <r... (AT) nospam (DOT) example.com> wrote:

Quote:

isq... (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:
My point exactly. 6 pot engines are the bread and butter of
American automakers.

ok, I misinterpreted your point.
And if that is your point, then I'd say you're still wrong.
Before 1980, most 'merican cars were V8 powered.
and after 1980, most 'merican cars became trucks. With V8 power.

http://www.gm.com/company/investor_i...on/sales_prod/

in 2006, Chevrolet sold a total of 798,221 cars. Some with V8s.
(Corvette, Impala, SSR.) They sold 693,145 full size pickup trucks,
most with V8s. Total truck sales were 1.6 MILLION units, probably 1/2
with V8 power, which means it's probably their most common engine.

You're right. I know nothing about bots and pots
and would like to retract my first post.

#18

The local subaru dealer mechanic, a friend of mine, swears for the
quality of the 6 cyl. engine. No noise valve lifters, no leaks, no
piston slap, no timing belt issues, no headgasket water leak, etc.

In principle, 6 making the same job of 4 would mean less work for each
one of the 6.

dave wrote:

Quote:

Never owned a Subaru.
In terms of reliability, is the 4 cyl better in the long run than the 6 cyl,
vice versa, or neither?

I once asked the same question of Toyota owners and was surprised to hear so
many state the 4 cyl would probably outlast the 6, as over time they seem to
have perfected that engine.

#19

On Feb 5, 11:31 am, "dave" <d... (AT) noemail (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:

Never owned a Subaru.
In terms of reliability, is the 4 cyl better in the long run than the 6 cyl,
vice versa, or neither?

I have no idea... But I know this:

I removed an EA81 1.8l 4 cylinder engine from an 83 subaru..

It had 350k on the odometer.

I opened up the case. The bearings were in excellent condition, and
had
not bee replaced. The crank hadn't been ground. 350k and it didn't
even
need a rebuild! I rebuilt it anyway (I had it open..)

None of the parts inside seemed to have any wear, besides the lobes
on the cam...

this engine is tiny (physical dimensions),

It sure did leak a hell of alot of oil though.. the subaru I pulled it
from
was caked in 1/4" oil/dust, the entire engine compartment.

Rich

#20

I loved that engine. Ours was an '86.

You're right that most of the "reliability" Subaru fans might just be
remembering those cars.

I don't know if I could go back to that level of power, though. ;-)

(what was it? 60 hp? Less?)

<aiiadict (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 5, 11:31 am, "dave" <d... (AT) noemail (DOT) net> wrote:
Never owned a Subaru.
In terms of reliability, is the 4 cyl better in the long run than the 6 cyl,
vice versa, or neither?

I have no idea... But I know this:

I removed an EA81 1.8l 4 cylinder engine from an 83 subaru..

It had 350k on the odometer.

I opened up the case. The bearings were in excellent condition, and
had
not bee replaced. The crank hadn't been ground. 350k and it didn't
even
need a rebuild! I rebuilt it anyway (I had it open..)

None of the parts inside seemed to have any wear, besides the lobes
on the cam...

this engine is tiny (physical dimensions),

It sure did leak a hell of alot of oil though.. the subaru I pulled it
from
was caked in 1/4" oil/dust, the entire engine compartment.

Rich

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

4 cyl 6 cyl longevity

Subaru Subaru vehicles (alt.autos.subaru)

Re: 4 cyl 6 cyl longevity - 02-13-2007 , 02:43 AM

Re: 4 cyl 6 cyl longevity - 02-13-2007 , 02:47 AM

Re: 4 cyl 6 cyl longevity - 02-13-2007 , 02:48 AM

Re: 4 cyl 6 cyl longevity - 02-13-2007 , 07:42 AM

Re: 4 cyl 6 cyl longevity - 02-13-2007 , 07:02 PM

Re: 4 cyl 6 cyl longevity - 02-15-2007 , 10:55 PM

Re: 4 cyl 6 cyl longevity - 02-17-2007 , 02:19 AM

Re: 4 cyl 6 cyl longevity - 02-17-2007 , 10:39 PM

Re: 4 cyl 6 cyl longevity - 02-19-2007 , 01:01 PM

Re: 4 cyl 6 cyl longevity - 02-20-2007 , 02:11 PM