A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Technology
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Easy to service vehicles?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 18th 05, 03:16 AM
SQ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Easy to service vehicles?

I am looking for a vehicle with a 4-cyl engine and a
5-speed tranny. My main criterion is ease of service,
meaning easily accessible engine bay for spark plugs, fuel
filter, timing belts, misc. sensor replacements.

I am interested in 1996-1997 models, not older than 10 years.

Thus far I have narrowed down my choices to Subaru Legacy
or Impreza with 2.2L/MTX and also Honda Civic.

The Subaru has a conventionally-mounted engine, not
transversally mounted like in almost all FWD cars. It
seems more or less accessible. I don't really care for AWD though.

Civic has a smaller 4-cyl engine which seems even more
accessible for routine maintenance.

I know early 90's Volvos are fairly easy to service, but is
anything that's 10 years old still easy to service, or
are they all FWD now and you have to take remove lots of
parts to get to what you want, as is often the case nowadays?

Any other choices for the shade-tree mechanic?

Ads
  #2  
Old July 18th 05, 03:58 AM
Don Bruder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com>,
"SQ" > wrote:

> I am looking for a vehicle with a 4-cyl engine and a
> 5-speed tranny. My main criterion is ease of service,
> meaning easily accessible engine bay for spark plugs, fuel
> filter, timing belts, misc. sensor replacements.


I'm real fond of my '82 Mazda 626 for ease of service and reliability -
I get in and turn the key, and if it isn't out of gas, it starts and
takes me where I want to go every time. I drive mine hard as a delivery
vehicle, so it *HAS* to be both reliable, and fast to put back on the
road on the rare occasions when it craps out. I do *ALL* of my own
wrenching other than smog testing, with very little trouble doing so.
Just rolled over 170K miles on it last week, and it's showing no sign of
giving up anytime soon. I *DO* need to get the rear seat re-upholstered
- one of these days...

Yeah, I know you said 10 years or younger, but it fits *EVERY* other
criteria you list - In-line 4 with single OHC, 5 speed (can be had with
automatic, but I've only ever seen two of those), RWD, plenty of room
under the hood, the most common parts are decently cheap (even moreso in
my case, since I'm scavenging from two wrecks, one mine, one bought for
the purpose), timing CHAIN, not belt, no sensors to dink around with
(pure vacuum emission control system) plugs practically jump out into
your hand once you've lifted the air-cleaner out of the way (if you
don't lift it, 1 and 4 can be gotten to with the same 3 inch extension
you need anyway, and 2 and 3 only need another 6 inches of extension on
top of the of 3 you'll already have on the ratchet), fuel filter swap is
a two minute task once you've got the rear end up on stands, front brake
pads are a "jack it up, pull the tire, 1 bolt and 5 minutes per side,
replace tire, drop it" job, rears are drum, so of course more pain in
the butt than the front, but still not a major headache.

Basically, it's a "you can't kill it, and if you somehow manage to, it's
easy enough to fix it unless you literally blow it up" ride. For a
shade-tree type, it's probably one of the nicest fairly recent cars
going.

Only downside I've ever heard about them: In the snow-belt or on the
edge of the ocean, the salt makes them die of cancer in no time flat.

Post-1983, they got "complicated", though...

--
Don Bruder - - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the
subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
See <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html> for full details.
  #3  
Old July 18th 05, 08:24 PM
Al Bundy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Don Bruder wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "SQ" > wrote:
>
> > I am looking for a vehicle with a 4-cyl engine and a
> > 5-speed tranny. My main criterion is ease of service,
> > meaning easily accessible engine bay for spark plugs, fuel
> > filter, timing belts, misc. sensor replacements.

>
> I'm real fond of my '82 Mazda 626 for ease of service and reliability -
> I get in and turn the key, and if it isn't out of gas, it starts and
> takes me where I want to go every time. I drive mine hard as a delivery
> vehicle, so it *HAS* to be both reliable, and fast to put back on the
> road on the rare occasions when it craps out. I do *ALL* of my own
> wrenching other than smog testing, with very little trouble doing so.
> Just rolled over 170K miles on it last week, and it's showing no sign of
> giving up anytime soon. I *DO* need to get the rear seat re-upholstered
> - one of these days...
>
> Yeah, I know you said 10 years or younger, but it fits *EVERY* other
> criteria you list - In-line 4 with single OHC, 5 speed (can be had with
> automatic, but I've only ever seen two of those), RWD, plenty of room
> under the hood, the most common parts are decently cheap (even moreso in
> my case, since I'm scavenging from two wrecks, one mine, one bought for
> the purpose), timing CHAIN, not belt, no sensors to dink around with
> (pure vacuum emission control system) plugs practically jump out into
> your hand once you've lifted the air-cleaner out of the way (if you
> don't lift it, 1 and 4 can be gotten to with the same 3 inch extension
> you need anyway, and 2 and 3 only need another 6 inches of extension on
> top of the of 3 you'll already have on the ratchet), fuel filter swap is
> a two minute task once you've got the rear end up on stands, front brake
> pads are a "jack it up, pull the tire, 1 bolt and 5 minutes per side,
> replace tire, drop it" job, rears are drum, so of course more pain in
> the butt than the front, but still not a major headache.
>
> Basically, it's a "you can't kill it, and if you somehow manage to, it's
> easy enough to fix it unless you literally blow it up" ride. For a
> shade-tree type, it's probably one of the nicest fairly recent cars
> going.
>
> Only downside I've ever heard about them: In the snow-belt or on the
> edge of the ocean, the salt makes them die of cancer in no time flat.
>
> Post-1983, they got "complicated", though...
>
> --
> Don Bruder - - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
> Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the
> subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
> See <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html> for full details.



You've had a good run with that Mazda, Don. I don't blame you for
sticking with it since you know where every bolt goes and can reach for
the right wrench without checking. But it's pretty hard to expect a man
to go hunting down a 23 year old vehicle to start with. What would you
buy if you had to update to something newer? You may not have even
considered it because of your unique situation. I'm driving a 23 year
old Chevy myself, but the frame rust will shortly end my run with it.
I've never been a Ford fan, but from what I see a 97-98 Ranger pickup
is almost bulletproof and fairly easy to work on. And the parts are
readily available not and for a long time. I'm partial to RWD and the
big three.

  #4  
Old July 18th 05, 08:51 PM
Don Bruder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com>,
"Al Bundy" > wrote:

> Don Bruder wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "SQ" > wrote:
> >
> > > I am looking for a vehicle with a 4-cyl engine and a
> > > 5-speed tranny. My main criterion is ease of service,
> > > meaning easily accessible engine bay for spark plugs, fuel
> > > filter, timing belts, misc. sensor replacements.

> >
> > I'm real fond of my '82 Mazda 626 for ease of service and reliability -
> > I get in and turn the key, and if it isn't out of gas, it starts and
> > takes me where I want to go every time. I drive mine hard as a delivery
> > vehicle, so it *HAS* to be both reliable, and fast to put back on the
> > road on the rare occasions when it craps out. I do *ALL* of my own
> > wrenching other than smog testing, with very little trouble doing so.
> > Just rolled over 170K miles on it last week, and it's showing no sign of
> > giving up anytime soon. I *DO* need to get the rear seat re-upholstered
> > - one of these days...
> >
> > Yeah, I know you said 10 years or younger, but it fits *EVERY* other
> > criteria you list - In-line 4 with single OHC, 5 speed (can be had with
> > automatic, but I've only ever seen two of those), RWD, plenty of room
> > under the hood, the most common parts are decently cheap (even moreso in
> > my case, since I'm scavenging from two wrecks, one mine, one bought for
> > the purpose), timing CHAIN, not belt, no sensors to dink around with
> > (pure vacuum emission control system) plugs practically jump out into
> > your hand once you've lifted the air-cleaner out of the way (if you
> > don't lift it, 1 and 4 can be gotten to with the same 3 inch extension
> > you need anyway, and 2 and 3 only need another 6 inches of extension on
> > top of the of 3 you'll already have on the ratchet), fuel filter swap is
> > a two minute task once you've got the rear end up on stands, front brake
> > pads are a "jack it up, pull the tire, 1 bolt and 5 minutes per side,
> > replace tire, drop it" job, rears are drum, so of course more pain in
> > the butt than the front, but still not a major headache.
> >
> > Basically, it's a "you can't kill it, and if you somehow manage to, it's
> > easy enough to fix it unless you literally blow it up" ride. For a
> > shade-tree type, it's probably one of the nicest fairly recent cars
> > going.
> >
> > Only downside I've ever heard about them: In the snow-belt or on the
> > edge of the ocean, the salt makes them die of cancer in no time flat.
> >
> > Post-1983, they got "complicated", though...
> >
> > --
> > Don Bruder - - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21,
> > 2004.
> > Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in
> > the
> > subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
> > See <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html> for full details.

>
>
> You've had a good run with that Mazda, Don.


Even moreso, considering my first one was a $300 "junker" that I put a
master cylinder and more than 40K on before it suddenly developed a
PT-cruiser shaped growth on the driver-side front quarter that put it
out of commission.

Current one is a $700 E-bay find. Exactly the same car other than paint
color (charcoal gray instead of white) and having AC and power steering
where the previous one lacked those amenities.

> I don't blame you for
> sticking with it since you know where every bolt goes and can reach for
> the right wrench without checking.


Yup... That pretty much sums it up. Anymore, I'm pretty much diagnosing
it's health by sound as it goes down the road

> But it's pretty hard to expect a man
> to go hunting down a 23 year old vehicle to start with. What would you
> buy if you had to update to something newer? You may not have even
> considered it because of your unique situation. I'm driving a 23 year
> old Chevy myself, but the frame rust will shortly end my run with it.
> I've never been a Ford fan, but from what I see a 97-98 Ranger pickup
> is almost bulletproof and fairly easy to work on. And the parts are
> readily available not and for a long time. I'm partial to RWD and the
> big three.
>


Well, nowdays, Mazda and Ford are, if not the same rolling stock,
assembled in the same plants, at least the same brand. In some cases,
Ford and Mazda are the exact same vehicle with the exception of the
badging (See also Ford Explorer/Mazda Navaho around '92 or Ford
Probe/Mazda 626 in (I think it was) '90-93)

But I do take your point - I've never even considered what I'd look at
for a "newer" vehicle - This thing I'm driving is so bulletproof (and
when it *DOES* take the occasional bullet, I've been a good enough
"surgeon" to cure it) that the idea just doesn't come up. Never mind
that it's ugly as a bucket full of ape assholes, so nobody in his right
mind is gonna steal it even if I leave it running at the curb while I
make a delivery

And RWD definitely - Take those damn front wheel drive things and stuff
'em in the cruncher - They just don't "feel" right... Having to go
backwards to do a decent brodie just plain sucks! Not that I care to
destroy tires that way anymore - those days are LONG behind me - but I
think you understand my point - When I do "X" with the gas/brake/wheel,
I expect "Y" from the way the car moves. In a FWD or AWD ride, I do "X"
and get "Z" - or maybe even "Q" - instead. That screws with my
reflexes/instincts in a big way - enough to be potentially dangerous,
even life-threatening, to both me and others in a "pressure" situation.

--
Don Bruder -
- New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the
subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
See <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html> for full details.
  #5  
Old July 18th 05, 09:02 PM
John S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



SQ wrote:
> I am looking for a vehicle with a 4-cyl engine and a
> 5-speed tranny. My main criterion is ease of service,
> meaning easily accessible engine bay for spark plugs, fuel
> filter, timing belts, misc. sensor replacements.
>
> I am interested in 1996-1997 models, not older than 10 years.
>
> Thus far I have narrowed down my choices to Subaru Legacy
> or Impreza with 2.2L/MTX and also Honda Civic.
>
> The Subaru has a conventionally-mounted engine, not
> transversally mounted like in almost all FWD cars. It
> seems more or less accessible. I don't really care for AWD though.
>
> Civic has a smaller 4-cyl engine which seems even more
> accessible for routine maintenance.
>
> I know early 90's Volvos are fairly easy to service, but is
> anything that's 10 years old still easy to service, or
> are they all FWD now and you have to take remove lots of
> parts to get to what you want, as is often the case nowadays?
>
> Any other choices for the shade-tree mechanic?


Unofortunately the engine compartment on most front wheel drive cars is
going to be at least a bit more crowded than that found on rear wheel
drive cars. Although my sons Camry isn't all that bad for access and
you don't change timing belts all that often.

Volvo produced their last rear wheel drive car in 1997 or 1998. The
960 was re-named the S-90 and used an inline 6 cylinder engine. In the
U.S. market it was offered only with a four speed, not a 5 speed, so I
don't know how important that is to you. The automatic trans is a good
one though. The last rwd with a manual transmission was the 240
offered in 1993.

The only other RWD cars I'm aware of would be BMW 3 series or the
Mercedes C series. - both good quality if somewhat pricier than a Honda
or Subaru.

  #6  
Old July 19th 05, 02:49 PM
Don Stauffer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I know this is going way back, but Ford used to advertise that their
Maverick 6-cyl. was designed with the home mechanic in mind. I never
owned one, but was impressed with the engine compartment. The
compartment was huge, with a little straight six in the middle.
Everything- plugs, oil filter, etc. was indeed readily reachable and
visible.
  #7  
Old July 19th 05, 04:56 PM
Comboverfish
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Don Bruder wrote:

> And RWD definitely - Take those damn
> front wheel drive things and stuff
> 'em in the cruncher


It's tough to even imagine the 626 in RWD format. You have the last of
that breed, Don.

Toyota MDT in MO

  #8  
Old July 19th 05, 06:48 PM
Don Bruder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com>,
"Comboverfish" > wrote:

> Don Bruder wrote:
>
> > And RWD definitely - Take those damn
> > front wheel drive things and stuff
> > 'em in the cruncher

>
> It's tough to even imagine the 626 in RWD format. You have the last of
> that breed, Don.
>
> Toyota MDT in MO
>


I know. The switchover from the '82 to the '83 model year was the break
point. Post '82, they're all FWD with shoehorned-in crosswise engine.

--
Don Bruder - - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the
subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
See <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html> for full details.
  #9  
Old July 20th 05, 04:01 AM
SQ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I don't want to turn this into a "old vs new" topic, it is abundantly
clear as it is that older RWD vehicles were easier to service than
modern FWD ones, especially if you have a V6 as I do. V6/FWD is not a
good combo.

But the issue remains unresolved. There is very little on the market
today which is easy to fix as stuff from the 70's or 80's, but you have
to cope if you want good fuel economy, fairly good condition, low
miles, working AC.

I am under impression that Subaru is a bit easier to service. Honda
Accord strikes me as hardest, along with domestics. Toyota Camry is a
bit easier, but not much. Mazda does not inspire me at all. I don't
know about much else. Volvo used to be pretty simple, circa '91, don't
know if that's still the case in late 90's. So you have to pick the
lesser evil.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Easy Money!!! Gator Dodge 1 April 26th 05 07:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.