03-25-2015, 10:52 AM | #11 |
Ride Like an Asshole
Join Date: Feb 2008
Moto: nothing...
Posts: 11,254
|
|
03-26-2015, 09:50 AM | #12 |
SFL Expatriate #2
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Moto: CBR1000
Posts: 2,043
|
|
03-31-2015, 08:26 AM | #13 |
Pug Queen
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Moto: DR200, SV650
Posts: 2,486
|
|
04-08-2015, 02:45 PM | #14 | ||
uncomfortably numb
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: JOH-JAH!
Moto: WR250R & Bonneville
Posts: 409
|
Quote:
The 3.1L family was plagued with intake manifold gasket failures from (I think) 94-on, but aside from that the engines were pretty bulletproof. I've owned several, but I prefer the 4-cylinder. So much easier to repair/maintain. Lifting a 3.1L off its mounts just to replace the inboard spark plugs is a bitch. Quote:
A-body 4-cylinders were all paired with non-OD, 3-speed transmissions, while all V6 models of which I am aware received overdrive 4-speeds. Fuel economy between the two is therefore almost identical. |
||
04-15-2015, 04:04 PM | #15 |
Trip's Assistant
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Imported from Detroit
Moto: 2009 HD Street Classic
Posts: 12,149
|
Yeah my V-6 with 4 speed (OD) got great milage for being a mid size four door. Even when it had 270k on the clock. The motor or trans had never been opened short of basic maintenance.
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|