4 cyl 6 cyl longevity

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by dave, Feb 5, 2007.

  1. dave

    dave Guest

    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.
     
    dave, Feb 5, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. dave

    Jim Stewart Guest

    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.
     
    Jim Stewart, Feb 5, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. dave

    isquat Guest

    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.
     
    isquat, Feb 5, 2007
    #3
  4. dave

    Edward Hayes Guest

    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.
     
    Edward Hayes, Feb 5, 2007
    #4
  5. dave

    dave Guest

    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).
     
    dave, Feb 5, 2007
    #5
  6. dave

    M.J. Guest


    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.
     
    M.J., Feb 5, 2007
    #6
  7. dave

    isquat Guest

    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.
     
    isquat, Feb 5, 2007
    #7
  8. dave

    bgd Guest

    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.
     
    bgd, Feb 6, 2007
    #8
  9. dave

    nobody > Guest

    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 >, Feb 6, 2007
    #9
  10. dave

    nobody > Guest

    Kill file time.....
     
    nobody >, Feb 6, 2007
    #10
  11. dave

    who Guest

    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, Feb 13, 2007
    #11
  12. dave

    who Guest

    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, Feb 13, 2007
    #12
  13. dave

    who Guest

    You call that reliable?
     
    who, Feb 13, 2007
    #13
  14. dave

    David Guest

    Aren't those Mitsubishi motors?
     
    David, Feb 13, 2007
    #14
  15. dave

    nobody > Guest

    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.
     
    nobody >, Feb 14, 2007
    #15
  16. dave

    Ray Guest

    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
     
    Ray, Feb 14, 2007
    #16
  17. dave

    isquat Guest

    My point exactly. 6 pot engines are the bread and butter of
    American automakers.
     
    isquat, Feb 16, 2007
    #17
  18. dave

    Ray Guest

    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
     
    Ray, Feb 16, 2007
    #18
  19. dave

    isquat Guest

    X-Archive-Yes: no

    You're right. I know nothing about bots and pots
    and would like to retract my first post.
     
    isquat, Feb 17, 2007
    #19
  20. dave

    AS Guest

    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.
     
    AS, Feb 18, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.