home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!decwrl!cache.crc.ricoh.com!chilton
- From: chilton@crc.ricoh.com (Jeff Chilton)
- Newsgroups: rec.autos
- Subject: Re: engine size
- Message-ID: <1992Jul27.210724.3636@crc.ricoh.com>
- Date: 27 Jul 92 21:07:24 GMT
- References: <151n86INNneh@agate.berkeley.edu>
- Organization: RICOH California Research Center
- Lines: 24
-
- shyguy@ocf.berkeley.edu (David S. Shy) writes:
- > I am currently shopping for a car. This car will basically serve
- > as my mode of transportation going home during vacations from Northern
- > California to Southern California. I am looking for something like a
- > sports car (GT's); however, my father has the notion that engines in those
- > cars (~2.0L, 4 cyl.) will not last the 400+ miles of traveling at 80+ MPH over
- > a long period of time (as in the life span of the engine) due to excessive
- > wear.
- >
- > He believes in getting something somewhat bigger, such as a 4.0L V6. SUV's
- > come to mind right away. Although they are great cars and can handle the
- > luggage, I believe that the GT's will do fine. (He doesn't even think that
- > the 1.6L engine from Mitsubishi and the new engine (V6) in the Ford Probe will
- > have a long life span).
- >
- > So does anyone out there have any opinions about this I remember that there
- > was a discussion about this, but there wasn't a real general concesus about
- > the results. (the one about bigger engines outlasting smaller engines.)
-
-
- With all due respect, I think your father's information is grossly out
- of date. Many 2.0 litre "GT" engines would just love that kind of work out.
- A lot has changed in the past few years, and even if it hadn't, there are
- lots of old japanese 1.6s with 150k miles still around (Celicas galore).
-