guess my wife felt so bad that I don't have a project car, that she decided to make one for me out of what we have on hand.
What do you guys think? Right now I'm thinking NOT to call the insurance company (run in by herself with a tree at the edge of our driveway while slipping on the ice trying to turn in from the road). There is no paint damage, but there are alot of bent/broken brackets. Which really infuriates me, by the way. Its a BUMPER!! Why the hell do the engineers decide to anchor the headlight, AC condensor, and even hood latch to the bumper?!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I call it a toss-up. The '80 looks to be in better shape, but the two-tone paint and chrome wheels are just wrong. What was that we were just saying about the fast and furious crowd?
Oh, and "needs new seat cover" = $1,000. The interior is what was killing me on my Alfa. You can throw $4k at just refreshing the inside of the car.
You can get the alternator rebuilt. Not sure of price, though.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Thanks ... doubt if I'll get to actually buy either one.... Mrs. Lokki doesn't have a case of Spider-bite fever, like I do.
Re your bumper pain.... You have my sympathy.... Mrs. Lokki had a close encounter with a Grand Marquis a couple months ago. Different accident, but based on the same fundamental failure to grasp the laws of physics. Fast left turn on a cobblestone street in a rain storm. Original heading due West - turning South - Hit the Marquis (which was facing North) in the driver's door. To this day she has no idea why it happened.
My recommendation on the bumper question is to go to a nice warm quiet room and then have two or three scotches before you go out and look at the car again. I hate to recommend drowning sorrows in good Scotch to anyone, but it's always worked for me.....
"Ouch. I was thinking you can just buy and attach the black piece onto the bumper cover but it seems like the bumper cover itself sustained damage.
This bumper cover sounds and looks fairly complicated. I'm guessing about $2k to replace/fix. "
I'm not sure, it looks like the cover may be in three pieces, and only the one side piece seems broken. Maybe it can be replaced separately, but even that with paint would be several hundred.
actually, the paint is all still good, as is the bumper cover. It just won't go back into place because she crushed the bumper support. And, yes, 3 parts is correct. They are the bumper cover, metal bumper support, and plastic bumper support. I've been doing research and it seems I'm looking at about $500-$600 in parts. I've tracked down most of it at saveswedish.com. My shopping cart is up to $380, but I'm still missing the foglight surround and foglight housing.
Here's the diagram:
I believe I'm looking at parts 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, and 16 for starters. But part 7 in this diagram is sans foglight.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
But I imagine all military hardware must remain more obsolete than if it were on the commercial marketplace. Can you imagine the lines of code you'd have to write for a space shuttle?
Believe me, you don't know the half of it. It takes a new military program 15-20 years to go from concept to being deployed and used by troops in the field (F-22 Raptor, for example). Many of parts designed in at the beginning are obsoleted before the product is fielded. That's one of the reasons why there's so much money to be made providing field support and upgrades for existing systems.
Oh, exactly what I've been saying (quite loudly) since this incident. It is ridiculous. They want to talk about insurance reform? Well, this would be something to look at. I don't mean to have a resurgence of the rubber bumper era. Manufacturers can still have these body-colored bumpers that blend in. But I'm just asking for some engineering thought be put into it where it can absorb some impact and not take out a thousand bucks of parts in collateral damage.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
But then, the impact was fully absorbed within the bumper structure, right? On the old style, that shock would have primarily gone right to the frame (and therefore to the passengers). My brother did something similar to what it sounds like your wife did, but he was in a '79 F150, and it ended up bending the frame, the bumper folded back and dinged the quarter-panel (and grille, due to the way those two were connected). It was not too big of a deal to fix most of it, but the frame problem was expensive....
There are trade-offs. Better occupant protection means more malleable parts surrounding them.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
The bumper structure absorbed the impact, yes. And I don't have a problem with that. The problem is that they saw fit to use that metal brace to support other pieces as well. Namely, the headlight support and hood latch release mechanism (among other things, but that is what I know to be affected at the moment). I mean, come on! The bumper support should be JUST that. For the bumper! But they decided to save space/money and mount other things to it besides the bumper.
Shifty- I could get the non-fog replacements, but I know my wife won't go for that.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
64 Healey -- well if it's a BJ8 and if it was restored by one of the "big names" in Healey restoration, with the ensuing great reputation for quality and accuracy, then yeah, around $85,000 is the going rate. Of course, it probably took $150K to get there, but still....
That '86 Dodge pickup is pretty tempting at that price. I guess being out on the left coast, it's a good bet that it's pretty rust-free?
I'm a little leery of something that big with only 90 hp. Probably adequate around town and taking trips to the local dump, but I imagine merging onto the highway could raise your heartbeat a bit!
"I'm a little leery of something that big with only 90 hp."
Was the horsepower that low, andre? Doesn't that truck have the 225 c.i. Slant Six, which continued to be installed in Dodge trucks after it was discontinued in cars?
The reason I'm wondering about your horsepower figure, which is probably correct, is that trucks had more liberal emissions standards than cars. Therefore, I'm thinking that the Slant Six engine that was installed in trucks could have been less chocked down than the Slant Six in the '80s M and R bodies. No?
Incidentally, Since I'm going by memory rather than by reference, please correct me if those body designations are incorrect.
Yeah, as far as I know, the hp was that bad, even in the trucks. The last really good year for the 225 slant six, IIRC, was 1972. It had 110 hp net, compared to 145 gross the year before. However, they didn't cut compression or anything on the engine, that 35 hp was just a paper loss. There was a California version though, that was choked down to 100 hp. There was also still a 198 CID version that put out 100 hp net. I think it had been 125 gross.
For 1973, the 225 was cut a bit to 105, and the 198, to 95 hp. Same for 1974. For 1975, the 198 was dropped, and the 225 was reduced to 95 hp. It recovered slightly to 100 hp for 1976.
For 1977-79, the 225 put out 100 hp. For 1978 though, my book lists a 90 hp version that was optional. I wonder if that was some attempt at an economy version? Also for 1977-79, a 2-bbl was offered, with 110 hp. The 2-bbl setup was standard on the Aspen/Volare (F-body) and LeBaron/Diplomat (M-body) wagons, as well as the Newport/St. Regis (R-body). The 1-bbl was standard in the F- and M-body sedans and coupes.
In 1980, the 2-bbl was dropped. The 1-bbl was cut to 90 hp, then a measly 85 for 1981! For 1982 it went back up to 90 hp, where it stayed through the end, which was 1983 in cars, and I want to say 1987 in pickups.
After the 2-bbl slant six was dropped, you were probably better off just upgrading to the 318, as the cars were too big and heavy, and the 1-bbl was just too weak and overburdened with emissions controls. In 1981, Chrysler started using a tall 2.26:1 axle in the V-8 cars, while the slant six was stuck with a 2.94:1 axle, so I wouldn't be surprised in the V-8 got better economy in most driving conditions.
When it comes to truck 6-cyl engines in those days, I guess the Ford 300 was about the best of the lot. I've heard that in terms of durability, it was to Ford what the slant six had been to Mopar. It was big enough that I'm sure it still had enough hp and torque to move a full-sized truck with some dignity. The 4.1 inline-6 that GM used only had 105-110 hp, so it wasn't much better than the slant six. I think the 4.3 that came out for 1985 was pretty good though.
300K? Lots of luck. It would be the rare and remarkable small pickup truck engine that goes 300K without an overhaul. In all my years of appraising, I've only validated a mere handful of 300K ++ engines that didn't have some work done on them beforehand. Most of these claims are simply not valid, as they don't come from original owners, or if they do, they have no supporting evidence.
300K is well beyond the life expectancy of an internal combustion engine. Maybe there's a claim out there that everyone in Ohio lives to be 105, but I say "prove it".
Even if 300K might be a bit optimistic, would it at least be a safe bet that the 300 straight six might last longer than a 225 slant six or a Chevy 250 inline, simply because the larger displacement would mean the engine didn't have to work as hard?
At 300 cubes, the thing is already pushing into base V-8 territory (301, 305, 318) for the timeframe. Heck, it's bigger than a lot of base truck V-8's today. At 4.9 liters, it's larger than the Ford 4.6, Toyota and Mopar 4.7's, and GM 4.8 V-8's.
Honestly I don't see the logic of why one type of engine should last any longer than another, based strictly on size of the engine I mean. If I had to put money on a race to 300K among a Slant Six, a Ford 300 or a Chevy 250, I'd take the Chevy 250. My gut feeling is that the Slant Six will sludge up before that, the Ford 300 will lose oil pressure but the Energizer 250 will keep on rolling.
Straight trade my 86 Carrera for his '95 M3. From the pictures, his car looks near perfect.
it has 78,900 miles. Recent work done in the last 6 months are = Dinan chip, Dinan throttle body, Dinan exhaust from the cat back(stainless steel), Dinan cold air intake (carbon fibre), cross drilled rotors/ceramic pads/stainless steel brake lines,all new polk audio speakers in original locations with original grills,new updated water pump, new belts with new upgraded pulleys, new fuel pump and complete service.(I work for BMW). things not working that i am aware of are the sunroof and the driver side heated seat ,most likely its the switches, i never bothered fixing it since i never use them. New Michelins.
What do you guys think? I didn't think E36 M3s were worth all that much.
What kind of a ride are you looking for? It's not a high-speed express like the Porsche. Maybe it used to be but he's sharpened up all the edges. It sounds to me like he's created what I call a 'dirt-bike' ride vs a 'street-bike' - that is:
Great for a quick Sunday morning scream through the mountains, but will beat you up if you try to use it every day. Outruns and outhandles 94% of the vehicles you encounter, even in the mountains on Sunday Mornings. Quick throttle response, quick brake response, high revs, high noise, stiff ride.
In summary, lots and lots of fun, but your wife is going to hate it unless SHE gets to drive it on Sunday mornings someplace with lots of tight turns.
This, of course, is just my humble opinion..... and perhaps not worth much since I've owned neither an M3 nor a Porsche.
Doesn't seem like a fair trade for you, and besides, you'd be trading an appreciating asset for a depreciating one, especially with the mods he has on it.
That is kinda what I thought. I just like validation from the experts. I originally thought he meant to trade the car plus cash, but he corrected me on that.
At best he's holding.....what....$8K--$9K in his poker hand? And it'll be less next year. Modded cars are hard to sell. Everyone thinks they've been thrashed.
If it were a stock, pristine 1998 M3, well that's closer to it.
The problem is that this guy (like most people who mod their cars) thinks he has a pristine M3 worth $10K or so and he has "improved" it by a few thousand $.
At that point, it really comes down to the size of the bearings, number of rings, valve train, etc. I'd guess a late stovebolt 302 would put them all under the table and the GMC V6 would outlast the stovebolt, but it's not an I6. :P
I just have 86k to go on my Tacoma 3.4 DOHC V6. The way I used to drive, I would do that in 2-1/2 years, but since I'm now semi-retired, it could take a long, long time.
It's had a fairly easy life. The majority of the miles that I have put on it were up and down I-5 (at 65-75 mph). It's geared pretty tall, so the RPMs stay reasonably low.
I think my Mom & stepdad are up to around 278,000 miles on their 1999 Altima, which I think has a 2.4. Can't remember if it's SOHC or DOHC. They commute in to work together, and probably do around 110-120 miles per day, a good deal of it highway, but even the non-highway parts I'd still classify as "semi-highway"...4-lane road with a 50-55 mph speed limit, and relatively few traffic lights.
You will see high mileages on engine but often they have had the head off, new head gasket, etc. or its been opened up for some other reason.
One reason you don't see many 300K engines is that statistically, the car itself is likely to fall prey to some other malady or misfortune and thus won't make it to 300K because it'll be scrapped before that.
One reason you don't see many 300K engines is that statistically, the car itself is likely to fall prey to some other malady or misfortune and thus won't make it to 300K because it'll be scrapped before that.
Definitely true. Now as far as I know, my Mom & stepdad's Altima has never had the engine opened up. But it did eat the first transmission, under warranty, at 35,000 miles. And also when it was fairly new, my stepdad was in a rear-ender with it. He said he barely felt the impact, but it was enough to deploy the airbags. I think the total bill, airbags included, was around $3,000.
Simply because of that long commute, they also got fairly high mileage out of some other cars. First was a 1984 Tempo that made it to around 160,000. The other was a 1986 Monte Carlo that had 179,000 on it when they gave it to me in 1998. I delivered pizzas back then, and managed to rack up another 13,000 in just three months! At 192,000 miles, I got t-boned while taking off on a delivery, and that was it for the car. Shame too, because I would have liked to have seen how far that Monte would go. It was starting to smoke just a bit when warming up, and under hard acceleration you could see it sometimes. Not blue, black, or white smoke, just sort of a dirty gray.
My 2000 Intrepid is sitting on around 144,000 miles now, but because of my short commute and other cars I drive, chances are it'll never see 300K. I think it went about 6,000 miles last year, so at the rate things are going, 300K is another 26 years off!
It would be amazing to see my Park Ave hit 300K, but I have a rather short commute and will probably retire before it sees that kind of mileage unless I start taking cross-country trips with it. Most likely, it will be a victim of an accident before it gets that far. I had a 1979 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight Regency that made it to 148K before being destroyed by a box truck. My 1989 Cadillac Brougham only survives to this day as I rarely drive it anymore. I'm more nervous than a canary at a cat show when I drive it as I always fear the hypothetical guy in a $25 Nova and no insurance!
True, I cannot swear that the engine has never been apart, since I bought it with 80k on it. But that seems unlikely, as the 3.4 Toyota truck engine was the highest rated engine for reliability in one source that I read, prior to purchase. No, I don't remember where I read that.
There were head-gasket issues with early 3.4s, but I believe they were confined to the 1995 vehicles.
The engine still runs strong, requires no oil between changes, and the truck is in nice shape. Barring an accident, I fully expect it to go 300k without engine work. :shades:
Hmmm, pretty interesting. You need to have a lot of room to buy all those cars. I guess a barn would be sufficient. I'm no expert on the value of old muscle like the ones listed, but it seems like a decent deal if all of them are running.
Man oh man, with 3 or 4 exceptions he's going to have a hard time selling any of that collection. What a hodge-podge! Looks like he bought whatever popped into his view finder.
Comments
$4500
Needs an alternator, he says.... About $100 to fix he says.....
Hate those 70's bumpers and not crazy about the luggage rack.
I like this one better... prettier bumpers and no rack and already has a working alternator but more miles and less info.
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/993543700.html
What do you guys think? Right now I'm thinking NOT to call the insurance company (run in by herself with a tree at the edge of our driveway while slipping on the ice trying to turn in from the road). There is no paint damage, but there are alot of bent/broken brackets. Which really infuriates me, by the way. Its a BUMPER!! Why the hell do the engineers decide to anchor the headlight, AC condensor, and even hood latch to the bumper?!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Oh, and "needs new seat cover" = $1,000. The interior is what was killing me on my Alfa. You can throw $4k at just refreshing the inside of the car.
You can get the alternator rebuilt. Not sure of price, though.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Re your bumper pain.... You have my sympathy.... Mrs. Lokki had a close encounter with a Grand Marquis a couple months ago. Different accident, but based on the same fundamental failure to grasp the laws of physics. Fast left turn on a cobblestone street in a rain storm. Original heading due West - turning South - Hit the Marquis (which was facing North) in the driver's door. To this day she has no idea why it happened.
My recommendation on the bumper question is to go to a nice warm quiet room and then have two or three scotches before you go out and look at the car again. I hate to recommend drowning sorrows in good Scotch to anyone, but it's always worked for me.....
I'm not all that fond of SPICA fuel injection. If you get a 1982 on up you get Bosch injection. Doesn't rev quite as nicely but far more reliable.
This bumper cover sounds and looks fairly complicated. I'm guessing about $2k to replace/fix.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
I saw a passing reference to the equipment upgrade in the book "Comm Check", about the Columbia disaster.
This bumper cover sounds and looks fairly complicated. I'm guessing about $2k to replace/fix. "
I'm not sure, it looks like the cover may be in three pieces, and only the one side piece seems broken. Maybe it can be replaced separately, but even that with paint would be several hundred.
Here's the diagram:
I believe I'm looking at parts 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, and 16 for starters. But part 7 in this diagram is sans foglight.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Yes, you're right.
Believe me, you don't know the half of it. It takes a new military program 15-20 years to go from concept to being deployed and used by troops in the field (F-22 Raptor, for example). Many of parts designed in at the beginning are obsoleted before the product is fielded. That's one of the reasons why there's so much money to be made providing field support and upgrades for existing systems.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
There are trade-offs. Better occupant protection means more malleable parts surrounding them.
Shifty- I could get the non-fog replacements, but I know my wife won't go for that.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The most beautiful one I've ever seen, but still...
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I guess a Volvo 940 isn't a classic?
It's a rare one, it runs!
Tempting
Shoot, the WHEEL is worth that!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I'm a little leery of something that big with only 90 hp. Probably adequate around town and taking trips to the local dump, but I imagine merging onto the highway could raise your heartbeat a bit!
Was the horsepower that low, andre? Doesn't that truck have the 225 c.i. Slant Six, which continued to be installed in Dodge trucks after it was discontinued in cars?
The reason I'm wondering about your horsepower figure, which is probably correct, is that trucks had more liberal emissions standards than cars. Therefore, I'm thinking that the Slant Six engine that was installed in trucks could have been less chocked down than the Slant Six in the '80s M and R bodies. No?
Incidentally, Since I'm going by memory rather than by reference, please correct me if those body designations are incorrect.
For 1973, the 225 was cut a bit to 105, and the 198, to 95 hp. Same for 1974. For 1975, the 198 was dropped, and the 225 was reduced to 95 hp. It recovered slightly to 100 hp for 1976.
For 1977-79, the 225 put out 100 hp. For 1978 though, my book lists a 90 hp version that was optional. I wonder if that was some attempt at an economy version? Also for 1977-79, a 2-bbl was offered, with 110 hp. The 2-bbl setup was standard on the Aspen/Volare (F-body) and LeBaron/Diplomat (M-body) wagons, as well as the Newport/St. Regis (R-body). The 1-bbl was standard in the F- and M-body sedans and coupes.
In 1980, the 2-bbl was dropped. The 1-bbl was cut to 90 hp, then a measly 85 for 1981! For 1982 it went back up to 90 hp, where it stayed through the end, which was 1983 in cars, and I want to say 1987 in pickups.
After the 2-bbl slant six was dropped, you were probably better off just upgrading to the 318, as the cars were too big and heavy, and the 1-bbl was just too weak and overburdened with emissions controls. In 1981, Chrysler started using a tall 2.26:1 axle in the V-8 cars, while the slant six was stuck with a 2.94:1 axle, so I wouldn't be surprised in the V-8 got better economy in most driving conditions.
When it comes to truck 6-cyl engines in those days, I guess the Ford 300 was about the best of the lot. I've heard that in terms of durability, it was to Ford what the slant six had been to Mopar. It was big enough that I'm sure it still had enough hp and torque to move a full-sized truck with some dignity. The 4.1 inline-6 that GM used only had 105-110 hp, so it wasn't much better than the slant six. I think the 4.3 that came out for 1985 was pretty good though.
300K is well beyond the life expectancy of an internal combustion engine. Maybe there's a claim out there that everyone in Ohio lives to be 105, but I say "prove it".
At 300 cubes, the thing is already pushing into base V-8 territory (301, 305, 318) for the timeframe. Heck, it's bigger than a lot of base truck V-8's today. At 4.9 liters, it's larger than the Ford 4.6, Toyota and Mopar 4.7's, and GM 4.8 V-8's.
it has 78,900 miles.
Recent work done in the last 6 months are = Dinan chip, Dinan throttle body, Dinan exhaust from the cat back(stainless steel), Dinan cold air intake (carbon fibre), cross drilled rotors/ceramic pads/stainless steel brake lines,all new polk audio speakers in original locations with original grills,new updated water pump, new belts with new upgraded pulleys, new fuel pump and complete service.(I work for BMW).
things not working that i am aware of are the sunroof and the driver side heated seat ,most likely its the switches, i never bothered fixing it since i never use them. New Michelins.
What do you guys think? I didn't think E36 M3s were worth all that much.
Great for a quick Sunday morning scream through the mountains, but will beat you up if you try to use it every day. Outruns and outhandles 94% of the vehicles you encounter, even in the mountains on Sunday Mornings. Quick throttle response, quick brake response, high revs, high noise, stiff ride.
In summary, lots and lots of fun, but your wife is going to hate it unless SHE gets to drive it on Sunday mornings someplace with lots of tight turns.
This, of course, is just my humble opinion..... and perhaps not worth much since I've owned neither an M3 nor a Porsche.
If it were a stock, pristine 1998 M3, well that's closer to it.
It's had a fairly easy life. The majority of the miles that I have put on it were up and down I-5 (at 65-75 mph). It's geared pretty tall, so the RPMs stay reasonably low.
One reason you don't see many 300K engines is that statistically, the car itself is likely to fall prey to some other malady or misfortune and thus won't make it to 300K because it'll be scrapped before that.
Definitely true. Now as far as I know, my Mom & stepdad's Altima has never had the engine opened up. But it did eat the first transmission, under warranty, at 35,000 miles. And also when it was fairly new, my stepdad was in a rear-ender with it. He said he barely felt the impact, but it was enough to deploy the airbags. I think the total bill, airbags included, was around $3,000.
Simply because of that long commute, they also got fairly high mileage out of some other cars. First was a 1984 Tempo that made it to around 160,000. The other was a 1986 Monte Carlo that had 179,000 on it when they gave it to me in 1998. I delivered pizzas back then, and managed to rack up another 13,000 in just three months! At 192,000 miles, I got t-boned while taking off on a delivery, and that was it for the car. Shame too, because I would have liked to have seen how far that Monte would go. It was starting to smoke just a bit when warming up, and under hard acceleration you could see it sometimes. Not blue, black, or white smoke, just sort of a dirty gray.
My 2000 Intrepid is sitting on around 144,000 miles now, but because of my short commute and other cars I drive, chances are it'll never see 300K. I think it went about 6,000 miles last year, so at the rate things are going, 300K is another 26 years off!
There were head-gasket issues with early 3.4s, but I believe they were confined to the 1995 vehicles.
The engine still runs strong, requires no oil between changes, and the truck is in nice shape. Barring an accident, I fully expect it to go 300k without engine work. :shades:
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/1001685557.html
28 Cars for $210,000 !
:confuse: A bargain? :confuse:
$210000 / 28 cars = $7500/car.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX