4 cyl 6 cyl longevity

[dave]

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.

 

[Jim Stewart]

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.

All I can say is that the 6 is quieter
and doesn't seem to have any of the
valve and piston slap silliness of the
4. It will never break a timing belt
and grenade the engine.

 

[isquat]

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.

h4 vs h6 reliability should not be a factor in your decision. And even
if
it was a was you'd get junk answers anyway just like the ones you got
from the toyota morons. Those people don't have a fucking clue
as evidenced by the cars they bought.

 

[Edward Hayes]

Not enough statistics on the F6 yet. Given the same engineering effort
on the mechanicals then the 6 has more parts but, in a modern engine
system it's usually the electronic pieces that cause the problem. I
think in general it is the companies reputation over the years that
determines reliability and Subaru is one of if not the best.

 

[dave]

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).

 

[M.J.]

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?

The 4cyl 2.5L engine has been plagued by headgasket probems,
so I'd say the 6 cylinder has got to be the better one. 4cyl 2.2L
and 1.8L were nearly bulletproof engines. Subaru built its longevity
reputation around these.

M.J.

 

[isquat]

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.
Why would you ever want an american car with a 4 pot engine?
It's the jap cup of tea. Detrua irons never cared about efficiency,
low weight, high hp-per-cubic-inch and any sort of sporting character
in their creations. And why should they? Plenty of people want boats
with torquey anchors. You could argue that corvette and the viper
are very capable cars indeed and not just in the steam engine
department.

 

[bgd]

The 4cyl 2.5L engine has been plagued by headgasket probems,
so I'd say the 6 cylinder has got to be the better one. 4cyl 2.2L
and 1.8L were nearly bulletproof engines. Subaru built its longevity
reputation around these.

M.J.

The true reliability is extinct, the smallest ej series up to 2.2 in a
fabulous environment run a long time. I learned not to like any.
The flat 6 is as crazy as a 60 degree, and the 2.5 four cyl sucks. Not much
for choices, but I can say, never ride subarus past reputation for the
engines now. I would even call it a different name in comparison to the
past. Hell an american made is looking better all the time (most likely part
of the closed door billion dollar plan). Anyone want to tell me waht in hell
happened to Subaru? I think its competition and thier ability to annhilate
it- that is not allowable is it...
To answer question, don't count on reliability, and go for the flat 6.

 

[nobody >]

All I can say is that the 6 is quieter
and doesn't seem to have any of the
valve and piston slap silliness of the
4. It will never break a timing belt
and grenade the engine.

They don't have the head-gasket problems of the 2.5L four either.

As for Toyota fours, the older 22R in a '82 pickup I owned was still
strong as hell at 250K miles and never had the head or the front cover
off. 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)

 

[nobody >]

Where is news exactly? 6 pot boat anchors has been the signature of
Detrua boat makers since the dawn of time.
Why would you ever want an american car with a 4 pot engine?
It's the jap cup of tea. Detrua irons never cared about efficiency,
low weight, high hp-per-cubic-inch and any sort of sporting character
in their creations. And why should they? Plenty of people want boats
with torquey anchors. You could argue that corvette and the viper
are very capable cars indeed and not just in the steam engine
department.

Kill file time.....

 

[who]

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.

 

[who]

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!

 

[who]

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?

 

[David]

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?

 

[nobody >]

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.

 

[Ray]

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...

Ray

 

[isquat]

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.

 

[Ray]

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_information/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.

Ray

 

[isquat]

X-Archive-Yes: no

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_information/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.

 

[AS]

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.