User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
NC, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 8:03:36 AM EDT
[#1]
So the workhorse Ford 300L inline 6 producing 220 RWHP has been replaced by Ford for the 2.7L V6 producing 300 RWHP
Half the weight, half the fuel consumption. 35% increase in HP. It's also apparently very very reliable, even solving the oil starvation issues turbo engines suffer from after oil changes. Interesting times. |
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 8:04:25 AM EDT
[#2]
I don't really agree. It sounds like you just haven't bought the right engines in the past. Some manufacturers were still using dated technology 20 years ago, but most of the good options were available.
In the early 2000's Honda had the J30 which is one of the best engines they've produced. Plenty of power, great reliability, and great gas mileage. They haven't had anything close since imo. GM also had the LS series engines which were a game changer. Mopar started offering the Hemi's. Pretty much all of the good platforms were available back then. What you didn't have is the poor reliability many of these engines face today. You also didn't have the low tension rings that cause significant oil burning issues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 8:14:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: TurtlesAlltheWayDown]
[#3]
Every once in a while I get the urge to buy a classic car. Then I remember how much they suck.
"back in the day every man knew how to work on his car"- yes because you had to. Today if a vehicle need maintenance inside of 100k miles outside of brakes/oil I consider it a pile of shit. |
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 8:22:42 AM EDT
[#4]
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 8:32:07 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TurtlesAlltheWayDown: Every once in a while I get the urge to buy a classic car. Then I remember how much they suck. "back in the day every man knew how to work on his car"- yes because you had to. Today if a vehicle need maintenance inside of 100k miles outside of brakes/oil I consider it a pile of shit. They were also easier to work on. I also hate modern diesel engines, a semi is supposed to be easy to work on. My current one is but I had a D13 previously with leaking time cover. Had to drop the transmission to fix the leak. I have a 60 series detroit now, same leak would be up front so no need to drop up front. And the camshaft is easier to replace if needed, there's a tool that holds the camshaft gear in place so you can pop the camshaft out up top and don't need to retime your gears or adjust backlash. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 8:45:13 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PhuzzyGnu: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/69748/1000009521_jpg-3198179.JPG It burned at least a gallon of gas when you took that picture. 2011 Tundra owner here 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 8:47:34 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Positronic: That's just silly-talk. Gasoline Engine technology PEAKED, utterly Dominated with the LQ9, 6.0 liter LS around 2003 with 10.0 compression. that motor, totally STOCK can stand 20 pounds of boost, will push 900 horsepower until you run out of money for TIRES.  Op clearly stated that he wasn’t comparing his Jeep to any type of performance engine. But you sure showed him. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 8:47:44 AM EDT
[#8]
The increases in reliability over what we had 20-30 years ago seem to be leaps and bounds ahead. That being said, my last several cars have been Japanese...
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 8:54:38 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Rebel31: CX-5 is legit. We had 2017 that we loved but was totaled in a not at fault accident when my wife was driving. Replaced it with a 2021 GT CX-5 that is a model refresh year. Even better than the 2017 we had. There is NO WAY I'd want an older vehicle. 2 years into a 2021 lease. It really is an amazing car. Except, right now it's at the dealer because all the emergency dash warnings are going apeshit. I am thinking I really don't need this bullshit in a SHTF vehicle 
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 9:22:31 AM EDT
[#10]
The engineering is amazing.
The beancounters still suck. Whoever thought plastic oil pans should be a thing is a moron. Whoever thought having the entire display be in a tablet and if that tablet goes down, everything goes down is a moron. Whoever thought turbo engines don't need catch cans is a moron. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By slowr1der: In the early 2000's Honda had the J30 which is one of the best engines they've produced. Plenty of power, great reliability, and great gas mileage. They haven't had anything close since imo. Honda changed the game. H22A1 comes out in 1993 and the Japanese spec engine basically makes the same power as Ford's 302. N/A 2.2 liter vs N/A 5.0 liter both making 220hp The reliability of the B/H/F/K series is well-known . . . it's what the Big 3 SHOULD have been doing all along given DOHC/small displacement/4 cylinder/high HP has existed since Miller/Offenhauser in the 1920s and the 1960s showed so much promise with the SOHC display engines. |
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 9:40:00 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mudholestomper: Op clearly stated that he wasn’t comparing his Jeep to any type of performance engine. But you sure showed him. Uhh, it's a truck engine that came in their pick up trucks and SUV's of that era. Hardly a "performance" engine. It just outperforms most of the competition. |
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 9:42:07 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bikedamon: The increases in reliability over what we had 20-30 years ago seem to be leaps and bounds ahead. That being said, my last several cars have been Japanese... Reliability in general is down significantly from what we saw from many engines 20 and even 30 years ago. Now if we're comparing the reliability to engines of the 70's, it would be a different story. However, 20-30 years ago was pretty much the peak of reliability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 9:53:40 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By countryflatlander: It burned at least a gallon of gas when you took that picture. 2011 Tundra owner here  Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 10:21:23 AM EDT
[#14]
Amazing performance?
Sure. Also amazing spyware built into them these days. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 10:24:43 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rb889: Also amazing spyware built into them these days. Yup.  Attached File |
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 10:29:22 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lou_Daks: I agree with OP. A modern Honda Accord could beat most "performance" cars of the past, esp. handling and braking. Fuel injection and VVT were game changers. Time moves on. I’m a longtime Honda fan (yeah, username checks out), I daily an ‘08 Civic Si and have an original Integra Type R track rat. My wife’s 2020 Passport bone stock is remarkably faster in most situations than my Si, and probably faster in most than the track car. The new K20C accords are just silly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 10:35:39 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Szilagyi-hpg: Yes and no. GDI was a terrible move for automakers. They are somewhat better today with dual port injection, but you will likely have to change your injectors every 60-100k miles to maintain performance and gas mileage. Deposit formation or some other mechanism? Specific applications? I've never seen anything indicating as early as 60k. Flow or pattern issues? I get the charge/environment homogenization issues (rich center/lean outer), the problems with lack of mechanical cleaning on intake valves, and how a number of these issues and use (idle and partial throttle compounds) continuity to LSPI, but wasn't aware of any sub 100k injector failures. Interested. Early GM and Korea Motors designed were extra special shit shows, so def interested in brand/engineered commonalities. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 10:39:55 AM EDT
[#18]
I'm old enough to have driven a few slugs from back in the day.
The 3.6L Pentastar in my 2021 Gladiator was pretty darn good. I always worried about the valve train though. The latest generation 3.5L EB in my F-150 was great with 400 hp and 500 lb ft of torque. This is the engine in my 2023 ZR2. 2.7L TurboMax. 310 hp, 430 lb ft torque on regular fuel. Amazing what they are doing.  Attached File |
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 10:44:16 AM EDT
[#19]
My wife has an explorer st. I love that thing
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 10:54:36 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tweek218: I like watching old Motor Week episodes where he talks about muscle/sports cars having like 190 hp  No doubt. Prior to 1990, You had very few sub 5.0 sec 0-100 kph vehicles. Fewer in the US and really none sub 4. All were pretty exotic - the GM 3 - ZR-1, GNX, Turbo Trans Am not so much but still spendy. Soon after the Cyclone/Typhoon, but to get sub 4 in the 90s it was mostly euro and dear, tho Dodge stuck its head in. Recent you'll exhaust at least an hundred examples before you get to 3 secs. Most of the fastest are still, but I can think of two dozen sub $25k ways to under 5 secs today - used and stock. Bit of work and that evaporates quickly. It's stunning we don't have more peeps who exceed the envelope balling up hard, often. Very work the craft, tho many stroke the check. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 11:07:21 AM EDT
[#21]
I disagree.
Many of these modern engines are not going to last as long as the engines from 15-20 years ago and if they do its going to take some money repairing them to get to 200-300k miles. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 11:14:03 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DriftPunch: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/3561/Screenshot_20230720_144231_Firefox-2892517.jpg It's all good, until it isn't! (AFAIK, this is the back of the engine) 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 11:20:04 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 57fairlane: The engineering is amazing. The beancounters still suck. Whoever thought plastic oil pans should be a thing is a moron. Whoever thought having the entire display be in a tablet and if that tablet goes down, everything goes down is a moron. Whoever thought turbo engines don't need catch cans is a moron. Honda changed the game. H22A1 comes out in 1993 and the Japanese spec engine basically makes the same power as Ford's 302. N/A 2.2 liter vs N/A 5.0 liter both making 220hp The reliability of the B/H/F/K series is well-known . . . it's what the Big 3 SHOULD have been doing all along given DOHC/small displacement/4 cylinder/high HP has existed since Miller/Offenhauser in the 1920s and the 1960s showed so much promise with the SOHC display engines. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 11:30:09 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Garik: They were also easier to work on. I also hate modern diesel engines, a semi is supposed to be easy to work on. My current one is but I had a D13 previously with leaking time cover. Had to drop the transmission to fix the leak. I have a 60 series detroit now, same leak would be up front so no need to drop up front. And the camshaft is easier to replace if needed, there's a tool that holds the camshaft gear in place so you can pop the camshaft out up top and don't need to retime your gears or adjust backlash. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Garik: Originally Posted By TurtlesAlltheWayDown: Every once in a while I get the urge to buy a classic car. Then I remember how much they suck. "back in the day every man knew how to work on his car"- yes because you had to. Today if a vehicle need maintenance inside of 100k miles outside of brakes/oil I consider it a pile of shit. They were also easier to work on. I also hate modern diesel engines, a semi is supposed to be easy to work on. My current one is but I had a D13 previously with leaking time cover. Had to drop the transmission to fix the leak. I have a 60 series detroit now, same leak would be up front so no need to drop up front. And the camshaft is easier to replace if needed, there's a tool that holds the camshaft gear in place so you can pop the camshaft out up top and don't need to retime your gears or adjust backlash. 90s was peak diesel. Early 90s you had eternal, ignorant simple lumps. Late 90s those lumps had just enough electronics to be easy to live with but were still strong dumb lumps underneath. Now everything is wrung tight for numbers and crippled by complexity. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 11:31:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Burnsy]
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MilHouse-556: I disagree. Many of these modern engines are not going to last as long as the engines from 15-20 years ago and if they do its going to take some money repairing them to get to 200-300k miles. I think it's a lot more likely that 200K miles was a hell of a good run and 300K...that seems fantasy land for the vast majority of gasoline vehicles from 2 decades ago. I am sure some internet sites or news articles feature exceptional vehicles that age that did it...but I am also sure those sites and articles feature them for a reason. |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 11:48:43 AM EDT
[#26]
My mind wandered into a numbers game recently when thinking about my truck engine. It's a 5.0 in an F-150 with almost 130K miles on it. I started figuring in my head how many revolutions the engine has completed, I didn't get far before I ran out of fingers and toes. It is a testament to modern lubrication as well as engine design that one can run for millions and millions of revolutions without failing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 11:50:49 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TurtlesAlltheWayDown: Every once in a while I get the urge to buy a classic car. Then I remember how much they suck. "back in the day every man knew how to work on his car"- yes because you had to. Today if a vehicle need maintenance inside of 100k miles outside of brakes/oil I consider it a pile of shit. The difference is, while they may go a lot farther without needing something, when they DO, it costs a small fortune. And it will be most likely beyond any average owner's ability to do themselves. It's a wash since most Americans bought into the "perpetual car payment" way of life and sell/trade them in in a few years. |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 12:01:17 PM EDT
[#28]
It'd be nice if there was a kit to build an inline-6 block that mounts spliced LS heads , uses chevy 230,250,292 crank and camshaft . Like a Pete Aardema sheetmetal block ...though you could sandwich layers of aluminum between steel crankcase and deck , toss in some iron bores . Carbed and distributor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 12:15:30 PM EDT
[#29]
You have to give as much credit to the transmission, as the engine. The 8-speed helps better keep the engine at optimal RPMs during "brisk" acceleration.
I have a 2017 300C with the 3.6 and 8-speed. It replaced a 2006 300C with the Hemi v8 and 6-speed. The 8-speed is definitely quicker. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 12:21:34 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lou_Daks: Lemme guess - it's German. That has VW/Audi written all over it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 12:22:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Alacrity]
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DC2FA5: I'm a longtime Honda fan (yeah, username checks out), I daily an '08 Civic Si and have an original Integra Type R track rat. My wife's 2020 Passport bone stock is remarkably faster in most situations than my Si, and probably faster in most than the track car. The new K20C accords are just silly Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DC2FA5: Originally Posted By Lou_Daks: I agree with OP. A modern Honda Accord could beat most "performance" cars of the past, esp. handling and braking. Fuel injection and VVT were game changers. Time moves on. I'm a longtime Honda fan (yeah, username checks out), I daily an '08 Civic Si and have an original Integra Type R track rat. My wife's 2020 Passport bone stock is remarkably faster in most situations than my Si, and probably faster in most than the track car. The new K20C accords are just silly  Attached FileAbsolute power has given way to serious power per displacement. The Toyota G16E-GTS make 190 hp/L in top trim tune. In the States you can access that in a GR Corolla for less than $40k, if you work at it. Prolly not the way you want it, but it can be done. FWIW there's a few guys running 500-750hp on stock internals.  The new MB 133 (GLA / A 45 AMG) was 188 hp/L but the new M139 AMG is 208hp/L. The A 45 AMG is a hand full - breathed on. . . Traditionally this kind of power density came due to racing orgs using displacement (and forced induction calcs) as a means to limit on circuit speed. Peeps love to talk about the crazy Group B, no holds barred (there were very much regs, but relatively few), too much POWAH to live, class 12 cars. But until near the end you didn't see much more than 350hp from even E1 entries consistently. Think about that. Pro drivers, on closed course, driving similar power cars where it was deemed too dangerous to continue. The real issues involved weight saving measures impacting on board safety, poor race control compromising crowd safety, and the FISA/FOCA bullshit.  Attached FileRegardless, tho with better intercessories (when people choose not to defeat them) stroke a check and you - YOU - sitting wherever you are reading this, can have quicker cars, with better power delivery, more effective traction application and faster switch gear than almost any Group B full on works car. The 205 T16 above, E1 included Get this didn't start as a primarily performance thread, but when you put the access in perspective, it's stunning. |
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 12:24:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: thorshammerblow]
[#32]
I agree. I took a 1970 400 SBC that was totally seized up. Stripped it down, magnafluxed for cracks, then honed it, planed the head and block, opened up the valve to 2.02, polished and balanced the crank, hypereutectic pistons, 350 connecting rods (to get a bit more stroke), a 1968 corvette carburetor, a Z28 aluminum intake, 3" exhaust manifold, and a pretty salty roller cam. I put it in my 73 corvette and since the only external difference between the 350 and 400 is that the 400 has one more freeze plug it looks totally stock. It puts out a bit under 500 HP and it is naturally aspirated and it is a reliable motor (my brother has one with almost the exact same setup except it has a cast iron intake and a quadrajet carburetor and it had 150k miles on it in his 72 one ton truck). I would not have been able to get that kind of performance out of that engine with parts made 20-30 years ago.
Here is a pic of me tightening down the rockers  Here is a pic of the engine right before we attached the transmission and put it in the car.  Here is a pic of the vette before I pushed it into the garage  And here it is all done and pretty (the pos range in the background is my daily driver )
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 12:29:02 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Burnsy: Did engines from 20 years ago regularly reach 200-300K miles? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Burnsy: Originally Posted By MilHouse-556: I disagree. Many of these modern engines are not going to last as long as the engines from 15-20 years ago and if they do its going to take some money repairing them to get to 200-300k miles. Yes
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 12:47:01 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Burnsy: Did engines from 20 years ago regularly reach 200-300K miles? I really doubt that that's actually true. I am sure some did, exceptions always exist but...they most certainly weren't without spendy repairs to get there too. I think it's a lot more likely that 200K miles was a hell of a good run and 300K...that seems fantasy land for the vast majority of gasoline vehicles from 2 decades ago. I am sure some internet sites or news articles feature exceptional vehicles that age that did it...but I am also sure those sites and articles feature them for a reason. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Burnsy: Originally Posted By MilHouse-556: I disagree. Many of these modern engines are not going to last as long as the engines from 15-20 years ago and if they do its going to take some money repairing them to get to 200-300k miles. I think it's a lot more likely that 200K miles was a hell of a good run and 300K...that seems fantasy land for the vast majority of gasoline vehicles from 2 decades ago. I am sure some internet sites or news articles feature exceptional vehicles that age that did it...but I am also sure those sites and articles feature them for a reason. Of course they did, plenty of them. I even have one that's at almost 260k miles right now in my driveway. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 12:59:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Alacrity]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Burnsy: Did engines from 20 years ago regularly reach 200-300K miles? I really doubt that that's actually true. I am sure some did, exceptions always exist but...they most certainly weren't without spendy repairs to get there too. I think it's a lot more likely that 200K miles was a hell of a good run and 300K...that seems fantasy land for the vast majority of gasoline vehicles from 2 decades ago. I am sure some internet sites or news articles feature exceptional vehicles that age that did it...but I am also sure those sites and articles feature them for a reason. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Burnsy: Originally Posted By MilHouse-556: I disagree. Many of these modern engines are not going to last as long as the engines from 15-20 years ago and if they do its going to take some money repairing them to get to 200-300k miles. I think it's a lot more likely that 200K miles was a hell of a good run and 300K...that seems fantasy land for the vast majority of gasoline vehicles from 2 decades ago. I am sure some internet sites or news articles feature exceptional vehicles that age that did it...but I am also sure those sites and articles feature them for a reason. Regardless, go look at near current crop of early GDI/T engines. There's a good selection of 200k plus examples transacting out there regularly. To an extent, they haven't been in production long enough for normal, average use owners to rack up those miles, so these are likely high use commuters with significant highway component. Still it's something If you look at 8AR (GDI/T) Lexus models , you see plenty near 200k in the 10 years since intro.  Attached Filehttps://www.dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Resources/Images/Over180k.png But no most of a models run, of even the most likely brands don't go 200k regularly. Tho some more than others. Small percentages and individual examples, sure. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 1:03:38 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DriftPunch: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/3561/Screenshot_20230720_144231_Firefox-2892517.jpg It's all good, until it isn't! (AFAIK, this is the back of the engine)  Attached File |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 1:22:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Burnsy]
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MilHouse-556: Of course they did, plenty of them. I even have one that's at almost 260k miles right now in my driveway. One example: https://www.iseecars.com/car-lifespan-study "iSeeCars analyzed over two million cars produced and sold for at least 10 of the past 20 model years, ranking each model by its highest mileage-achieving cars. All 20 models had at least 2.5 percent of the top-ranking 20 models clear 200,000 miles, and the top 1 percent of these vehicles delivered between 230,000 and 297,000 miles over the last two decades. For example, 1% of Toyota Sequoias on the road have at least 296,509 miles on the odometer." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 1:41:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Alacrity]
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Burnsy: I think it's a lot rarer than you think it is. A google search of several sites says that a gasoline powered consumer vehicle reaching 300K miles is generally less than 1% of it's model siblings. 200K miles is still in the single digit percentile. One example: https://www.iseecars.com/car-lifespan-study "iSeeCars analyzed over two million cars produced and sold for at least 10 of the past 20 model years, ranking each model by its highest mileage-achieving cars. All 20 models had at least 2.5 percent of the top-ranking 20 models clear 200,000 miles, and the top 1 percent of these vehicles delivered between 230,000 and 297,000 miles over the last two decades. For example, 1% of Toyota Sequoias on the road have at least 296,509 miles on the odometer." Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Burnsy: Originally Posted By MilHouse-556: Of course they did, plenty of them. I even have one that's at almost 260k miles right now in my driveway. One example: https://www.iseecars.com/car-lifespan-study "iSeeCars analyzed over two million cars produced and sold for at least 10 of the past 20 model years, ranking each model by its highest mileage-achieving cars. All 20 models had at least 2.5 percent of the top-ranking 20 models clear 200,000 miles, and the top 1 percent of these vehicles delivered between 230,000 and 297,000 miles over the last two decades. For example, 1% of Toyota Sequoias on the road have at least 296,509 miles on the odometer." Nick Laviere/Dashboard-light.com above track real time vehicle transactions through major auction houses. 10 years ago their data base was 1 and a half mil. Prolly a large enough sample size to give a reasonable reflection of actual big miles status, and it's been growing tho I don't know the current size. Tho methodology prolly works against high miles vehicles, less likely to trade through auctions and more private, I doubt it fails to capture half reality (meaning double the analysis is actual) Even if so if doubled for 200k you'd be somewhere 1/4 of total vehicles hit 200k. 300k, significantly less. Given, at bests, 3/4 of examples don't see 200k and a large portion of those are also not the original owner, it's uneconomic for mfg to engineer for massive miles when most won't be impacted. It's not a sought after characteristic. Swedes, Big 3, others often had lumps over-engineered for passenger use, by slotting in commercially developed series. MB significantly revised their engineering goals beginning in the early 1990s, due to uncompetitive pricing. The Japanese, esp TMC with the UZ and JZ engines, but others as well, spent excessively to ensure both would be excellent engines to establish Toyota as a quality paradigm. This was allowed by the Bubble at the time. Less likely today. Still normal and proper engineering allows for decent margins and with care many of run of the mill drivetrains will easily go 250k with good care and 400-500k before it becomes uneconomic. Just most people won't hold them that long or drive enough to warrant, most get tired or desire better experiences and shove off their 20 year old unit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 1:53:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MilHouse-556]
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Burnsy: I think it's a lot rarer than you think it is. A google search of several sites says that a gasoline powered consumer vehicle reaching 300K miles is generally less than 1% of it's model siblings. 200K miles is still in the single digit percentile. One example: https://www.iseecars.com/car-lifespan-study "iSeeCars analyzed over two million cars produced and sold for at least 10 of the past 20 model years, ranking each model by its highest mileage-achieving cars. All 20 models had at least 2.5 percent of the top-ranking 20 models clear 200,000 miles, and the top 1 percent of these vehicles delivered between 230,000 and 297,000 miles over the last two decades. For example, 1% of Toyota Sequoias on the road have at least 296,509 miles on the odometer." Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Burnsy: Originally Posted By MilHouse-556: Of course they did, plenty of them. I even have one that's at almost 260k miles right now in my driveway. One example: https://www.iseecars.com/car-lifespan-study "iSeeCars analyzed over two million cars produced and sold for at least 10 of the past 20 model years, ranking each model by its highest mileage-achieving cars. All 20 models had at least 2.5 percent of the top-ranking 20 models clear 200,000 miles, and the top 1 percent of these vehicles delivered between 230,000 and 297,000 miles over the last two decades. For example, 1% of Toyota Sequoias on the road have at least 296,509 miles on the odometer." Rust, lack of maintenance/dumb owners, accidents etc. There's no way a study like that can weed out all of that. I'm going off the vehicles I've owned and people I know. Lots of 200k+ drivetrains out there from 15-25 years ago. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 1:59:43 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MilHouse-556: Rust, lack of maintenance/dumb owners, accidents etc. There's no way a study like that can weed out all of that. I'm going off the vehicles I've owned and people I know. Lots of 200k+ drivetrains out there from 15-25 years ago. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MilHouse-556: Originally Posted By Burnsy: Originally Posted By MilHouse-556: Of course they did, plenty of them. I even have one that's at almost 260k miles right now in my driveway. One example: https://www.iseecars.com/car-lifespan-study "iSeeCars analyzed over two million cars produced and sold for at least 10 of the past 20 model years, ranking each model by its highest mileage-achieving cars. All 20 models had at least 2.5 percent of the top-ranking 20 models clear 200,000 miles, and the top 1 percent of these vehicles delivered between 230,000 and 297,000 miles over the last two decades. For example, 1% of Toyota Sequoias on the road have at least 296,509 miles on the odometer." Rust, lack of maintenance/dumb owners, accidents etc. There's no way a study like that can weed out all of that. I'm going off the vehicles I've owned and people I know. Lots of 200k+ drivetrains out there from 15-25 years ago. Which tho accessible, awful anecdotal. Regardless, there's little to indicate the last decade of much of the industry is any less capable. Look at all the 300k Korean Motor used advertised regularly. But more importantly, it's clearly not utilized by a vast majority. Personally I've driven a vehicle to 350k+ and the current owner is somewhere north of 550k. I've owned a number of 200k plus trucks, so I get your experience. It's just less important when viewing the data in total. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 2:06:23 PM EDT
[#41]
Ls engines are great I had 2 6.0s in 2500s go past 330k
One in a 3500 went 335 then oil pump failed but it was giving signs it was getting tires too this truck was heavier and carried a good load the 2500 I had had smaller bed and 330k when I left that company that truck was solid and imo was gonna push 400k My personal truck is an 04 2500hd 6.0 has 264k on it. Sure current v6 make great power but with turbos they will put more strain and gonna be hard to see some of these go 300k miles. Hard to beat a v8 especially a Chevy they know how to make ‘em. But won’t say same about their 4 bangers compared to the Japanese. I also have a sand rail I swapped from vw to Honda j35 and it’s impressive yet still simple power is great especially when buggy only weighs 1650 pounds. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 2:12:39 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nophun: https://www.otoguncel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/8FC_bmw_valvetronic.jpg  Valvetronic Actuator Motor failing on BMW F30 Sound. |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 2:13:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Burnsy]
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MilHouse-556: Rust, lack of maintenance/dumb owners, accidents etc. There's no way a study like that can weed out all of that. I'm going off the vehicles I've owned and people I know. Lots of 200k+ drivetrains out there from 15-25 years ago. You even as a member here likely suggests that you take care of your vehicles quite a lot better than the average city office worker or soccer mom who cares..a lot less about their vehicle than you do. The latter makes up the vast majority of car owners and you and I are the exceptions, not the average. By association, we are likely to be friends with like minded people. So their experience is likely similar. Clearly vehicles are capable of reaching these milestones, they obviously exist and I can't deny that they do. The actual data though equally makes it obvious that the average vehicle is lucky to see 200K miles. That the average vehicle never makes it anywhere near 300K. That the vehicles that do are not normal and are statistically quite exceptional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 3:19:21 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MilHouse-556: Rust, lack of maintenance/dumb owners, accidents etc. There's no way a study like that can weed out all of that. I'm going off the vehicles I've owned and people I know. Lots of 200k+ drivetrains out there from 15-25 years ago. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MilHouse-556: Originally Posted By Burnsy: Originally Posted By MilHouse-556: Of course they did, plenty of them. I even have one that's at almost 260k miles right now in my driveway. One example: https://www.iseecars.com/car-lifespan-study "iSeeCars analyzed over two million cars produced and sold for at least 10 of the past 20 model years, ranking each model by its highest mileage-achieving cars. All 20 models had at least 2.5 percent of the top-ranking 20 models clear 200,000 miles, and the top 1 percent of these vehicles delivered between 230,000 and 297,000 miles over the last two decades. For example, 1% of Toyota Sequoias on the road have at least 296,509 miles on the odometer." Rust, lack of maintenance/dumb owners, accidents etc. There's no way a study like that can weed out all of that. I'm going off the vehicles I've owned and people I know. Lots of 200k+ drivetrains out there from 15-25 years ago. Tons. I've owned several and I know plenty of people with 20-30 year old vehicles with 200k or better. It's not rare. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 3:59:44 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vaughn4380: What year Wrangler? Some of the recent Wrangler model years were programmed to have low torque at low rpm when they came with a manual. Something about the transmission or clutch not holding up, so Jeep cheaped out on the fix and just de-tuned the engine. Link? I gots ta know |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 4:02:09 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Burnsy: I am not doubting your experience, I am saying your experience is much less common than I think you think it is. The actual data that we have to go on supports this. You even as a member here likely suggests that you take care of your vehicles quite a lot better than the average city office worker or soccer mom who cares..a lot less about their vehicle than you do. The latter makes up the vast majority of car owners and you and I are the exceptions, not the average. By association, we are likely to be friends with like minded people. So their experience is likely similar. Clearly vehicles are capable of reaching these milestones, they obviously exist and I can't deny that they do. The actual data though equally makes it obvious that the average vehicle is lucky to see 200K miles. That the average vehicle never makes it anywhere near 300K. That the vehicles that do are not normal and are statistically quite exceptional. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Burnsy: Originally Posted By MilHouse-556: Rust, lack of maintenance/dumb owners, accidents etc. There's no way a study like that can weed out all of that. I'm going off the vehicles I've owned and people I know. Lots of 200k+ drivetrains out there from 15-25 years ago. You even as a member here likely suggests that you take care of your vehicles quite a lot better than the average city office worker or soccer mom who cares..a lot less about their vehicle than you do. The latter makes up the vast majority of car owners and you and I are the exceptions, not the average. By association, we are likely to be friends with like minded people. So their experience is likely similar. Clearly vehicles are capable of reaching these milestones, they obviously exist and I can't deny that they do. The actual data though equally makes it obvious that the average vehicle is lucky to see 200K miles. That the average vehicle never makes it anywhere near 300K. That the vehicles that do are not normal and are statistically quite exceptional. I gotcha. I don't doubt what you say. I was I guess speaking in the possibilities of 15-25 year old vehicles lasting 200-300k, not so much what ends up happening in reality when all the other factors come into play. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 4:07:32 PM EDT
[#47]
Modern ICE vehicles are amazing IMO. Truly state of the art. We are living in a golden time. Every day I'm blown away by the bells and whistles I continue to discover in our 23. Just the different driving modes and the all the performance parameters that are adjustable on ours is mind numbing and humbling to have at one's fingertips.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 4:14:32 PM EDT
[#48]
Its pretty awesome.
Who would have thought id ever own a Jeep w a hemi. Be interesting to see what the next motor is... twin turbo i bet...  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 4:14:55 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Burnsy: Did engines from 20 years ago regularly reach 200-300K miles? I really doubt that that's actually true. I am sure some did, exceptions always exist but...they most certainly weren't without spendy repairs to get there too. I think it's a lot more likely that 200K miles was a hell of a good run and 300K...that seems fantasy land for the vast majority of gasoline vehicles from 2 decades ago. I am sure some internet sites or news articles feature exceptional vehicles that age that did it...but I am also sure those sites and articles feature them for a reason. The early 2000s were a hood balance point between tech, ease of service, and long term reliability. Stuff from this era got good mileage and power compared to the past, and we’re still very user serviceable. The machining tech was such that they lasted 250k+ On the regular. 2000s was The era of dynamic multi port electronic fuel injection, CAD engineering, new tech in sealing, OHC and aluminum heads. Afterward came single or double variable valve timing, aluminum blocks, even better thermal management. All became normal 2010ish Now we’ve added turbo/superchargers with wazoo boost management to eliminate lag, direct injection, and variable valve lift. I’m surprised we don’t have more e85 optimization now that almost everything is boosted. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 4:23:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: anthem_of_the_mind]
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Burnsy: I am not doubting your experience, I am saying your experience is much less common than I think you think it is. The actual data that we have to go on supports this. You even as a member here likely suggests that you take care of your vehicles quite a lot better than the average city office worker or soccer mom who cares..a lot less about their vehicle than you do. The latter makes up the vast majority of car owners and you and I are the exceptions, not the average. By association, we are likely to be friends with like minded people. So their experience is likely similar. Clearly vehicles are capable of reaching these milestones, they obviously exist and I can't deny that they do. The actual data though equally makes it obvious that the average vehicle is lucky to see 200K miles. That the average vehicle never makes it anywhere near 300K. That the vehicles that do are not normal and are statistically quite exceptional. You are overthinking this and your data is flawed. Vehicles from 2000-2008ish are generally more likely to obtain high mileage than any other cars. They are peak reliability. Reliability is some that can be thought of in many different ways, but these cars, generally, more so than their predecessors or successors were built adequate to obtain high mileage and their ease (and relative cost) of serviceability means they will stay on the road longer. Repair cost relative to vehicle value ratio will remain lower as years go on compared to cars with more tech. Fewer cars will get junked because they are “not worth fixing”. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
