How is longevity?
My main selling point on the 3.8 is mileage and longevity. It's nowhere near a smooth or quiet running engine, but I'm not metro....
V6 or 4 cylinder
- Thread starter Cyclone06
- Start date
How is longevity?
My main selling point on the 3.8 is mileage and longevity. It's nowhere near a smooth or quiet running engine, but I'm not metro....
Problem with that is, everything breaks. You can try to get around that by always owning a new car, and cars have improved over the years for longevity, but absent good maintenance and timely repairs, look forward to always having a significant amount of your money wrapped up in an automobile.
Myself, I like inexpensive used cars and doing my own maintenance, when I can. Cars will last a loooooong time.
With normal use, most good cars will seldom need an expensive part. The problem is, some cars are more problem-prone than others. You hear that, Ford? Escort????? Piece of junk.... grumble...
Ahh, the "Shortstar". That was a good engine that shouldn't have gone away. The new 3.6 is not related.
The 3.6 is the "High Feature" V6 is an Austrailian import. It is also a 60 degree engine.
After looking through those articles, I'm a bit confused. I'm sure the 60 degree I had was self balanced. Perhaps it's balanced well enough not to require a harmonic balancer?
Well, I have 125K on it now, no problems. Sometimes, not all the time I need to add 1 quart of oil after about 4K miles on a 6K change interval. It has done this since I bought it with 22K on it.
Composite mileage is 26-27, best highway I have got is 31. Its a Northstar with two cylinders lopped off, so I would guess it goes how they go.
The shortstar was 90 with a balancer.
A V6 with the offset crank GM likes to use, first used on the 2.8 V6, (I think) and used in pretty much all of their V6's makes them mimic an inline. Close, but not quite as smooth as an inline.
I remember it was slated to replace the 3.8 across the line, but GM Marketing decided not to because of customer loyalty and response to the axing of the 3.8, at least that is what the dealer told me.
Last edited:
Wooohoo, my car died again, 2nd time this year, and 4th time in 6 months. I guess I am officially in the market for a new one now, I cannot handle this anymore.
The WRX is a surprisingly heavy car for its size. The AWD components increase weight. My WRX has an all aluminium hood to try to cut weight some. STill a very heavy car given the size.
Fun as hell, though. I'm thinking about buying a 2009 but I'm not in love with the design.
The new WRX is sweet. Would you get the sedan or the 5 door? I just wish they would get rid of the hole in the hood. A nearly 40 year old guy can't drive around in a car with a hole in it's hood
. I guess it's not as bad as that 3 foot wing they put on the Sti. I went to the Omaha car show a couple weeks back and sat in an 09 WRX. The interior was just ok but that's pretty normal for a Subaru. The WRX is a lot of car for the $$$.
Last edited:
My car with a n/a 4 cylinder engine has 237hp and my truck with a v6 has 190hp. It isn't always the size...
The new WRX is sweet. Would you get the sedan or the 5 door? I just wish they would get rid of the hole in the hood. A nearly 40 year old guy can't drive around in a car with a hole in it's hood
I think I would go for the hatch this time. I think the sedan has lost the aggressive styling I liked in the 2004 version I own. I don't like the giant spoilers either. I'm OK with a hood scoop.
Incidently, back in 05 or 06 they offered the STi Limited which had no spoiler, fog lamps, stereo, leather, and a sun roof but everything else an STi has. They only made 800 of them though. There are usually a couple for sale on Car.com.
Actually, in theory, the smaller the number of cylinders you have for displacement should equal more power. The problem is, the impulses become so large on less cylinders that they run rough as a cob and can even get to the size where the explosion cannot be reliably contained in the cylinder.
:wideeyed:
Take a look at some of the early Indy 500 race cars with 1000 cubic inch 4 cylinder engines.
For the car I would guess S2000, the truck.... S-10?
You bring up a point. Torque is the other really important thing that is always left out of discussions like this.
I know it's counter intuitve, especially in the wake of your example, but the two first model year cars I've had have actually faired better than some of the later model years. I'm sure I'm the exception in both cases. I guess I could pat myself on the back and say it must be the level of babying they have received, but it's probably just dumb luck. :goofy:
I'm a big fan of in-line engines. Of course, I do as much maintenance as I can myself, and convenience of maintenance is the big sell for me.
For most V-6 front-drive cars, the back spark plugs are mythical, because there is no way in heck you'll ever get to them.
As far as 4-banger trucks are concerned, I don't know anyone who has a brain that would call the Toyota 22RE a "joke". Likewise with the 4 cylinder jeeps and diesel engines.
Show me a car that is "underpowered" and I'll show you an incompetent driver. I spent 2 years in the Bavarian Jura mountains with a 70 hp Opel sedan, and I got along just fine. Of course, I'm a competent driver, and have the ability to think so that I can keep ahead of my car.
Phaedrus... Your a good guy... But after reading your post this exact image ran through my mind
