Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
Your dream car sounds like a Tempo with a better automatic!  |
You know, you're right! As I look back to the high school days, my good friend inherited a '93 Tempo LX 4-door automatic that I drove a time or two. Plenty of low-end power, but wheezy at at the top (and the high highway revs in the auto). It was virtually indestructible until the unibody rusted and split down the middle. A welder bought it, fixed it up, and it's probably still on the road 9 years later. That got great mileage. He spent a
lot less money on gas than my Olds 350 V-8.
Of recent past with Ford, the "Vulcan" 3.0L V-6 in the 1000's (it seems) of Tauruses I've rented, offered similar low-end grunt and improved FE vs. the DOHC 3-liter model. 95% of them had the base OHV plant. It's now gone
The last GM OHV 4, the 2.2L, I recall from a ride in a Cavalier automatic. Being performance minded at the time, I was expecting more (I was a passenger responding to a volunteer fire/EMS call -- at WOT it felt like it shifted at 4000. It seemed we'd never make it to the firehouse!) The guy bragged that he got great mileage. I know now...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkp1187
I agree with you. Until very recently, I had a 2000 Impala with the Buick 3800 V6 engine. All you had to do was get the thing moving, and then it would loaf at low RPMs getting surprisingly decent mileage considering its size and weight. On the highways, it was no trouble at all to get in excess of 30 MPG. I always felt that if they could simply improve on that design, they would have a huge winner.
The only reason I could imagine that they didn't is because the typical chattering classes who write reviews of automobiles are always enamored of the "refinement" of the high-revving OHC engines, and so would always pan the "outdated" pushrod design, because it doesn't "sound" or "feel" good when you rev it to the redline. (This just begs the questions, though: unless you're doing an "Italian tune-up" why on earth are you running it to the redline when most of the torque is available at 2500 RPM? And the average American driver actually *doesn't* take advantage of a high-revving engine - they want high torque at a low RPM, which is exactly what this engine provided.)
And totally agree with you about the Quad-4 Beretta.... Had a '95 4-cyl, and it always seemed like something new would fall off every month. Head gasket, two transmissions, power steering, alternator, even the door handle and turn signal lever broke off....
|
I'll that admit that I'm guilty of snubbing the pushrod engine in the past (even the recent past). Influence of friends with import 4's, and some auto mags really gave it a bad rap. Over time, that has been argued with some success.
But you're exactly right -- most drivers are afraid of the gas pedal and rarely see redline. A gasser that acts like a Diesel makes sense if we want better FE. It's a mindset that may not recover.
Back to the Beretta -- I got a new '95 Level-II with the 3100 V-6 to replace a '77 Olds. I liked it, it was fun, and was efficient (if I kept my foot out of it). At 15K miles, the transmission developed a whine. I took it in and it turned out to be a faulty bearing from the factory. Full tear down and 2-weeks out. Then back to the shop for more warranty work later on my new car. I gave up on it just before warranty and found a '90 GTZ. After those miserable experiences, I bought a stripped-down Civic DX Coupe and loved it.
On a similar scale, the same 3100 in the later Buick Century really could pull down some serious FE numbers. I loaded one up with 6 people total and went to a family reunion. 200 miles of pulling hills on secondary rural roads, some city, and a little highway gained over 30 MPG. I couldn't believe it. Yet another argument for the design.
But, I'm afraid they're phasing-out this engine style at GM. Rumor has it that a DOHC direct-injection V-6 will replace the Imp's OHV.
RH77