Best 4 Cyl Used car ?

"hls" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Vic Smith" > wrote in message
>>
>> The 2.2 Ecotec seemed good to me when I had a rental Malibu
>> equipped
>> with it. Been around a while and I've seen nothing bad about it.
>> Lots of them out there.
>> This is a tech group. Seems some here would have some opinions.
>> But without a GM mech posting, it's all hearsay.
>>
>> --Vic
>
> A GM tech posted on this a couple of years ago.. He thought they
> were
> good engines, basically.
>
> FIL has a little GM pickup with this engine, and it has stayed
> together okay, but is a piece of **** WRT economy. Gets less than
> 20 mpg.
> The pickup is a major POS.

I don't believe they use the Ecotec engines in pick-ups. The Colorado
and Canyon use 4 and 5 cylinder engines related to the in-line 6 that
GM originally offered in the Trailblazer. See
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en...10truck_us.htm .

The Ecotec 4 cylinders are used in the smaller SUVs. I had one in a
Vue back in the early 2000's. I thought it was a decent engine. I have
a friend with a 4 cylinder Colorado and a 5 cylinder Canyon. He's had
no engine complaints except he thinks they should get better mileage.

Ed

"Joe's Newsgroup" > wrote in message ...
I have to buy a used car for my daughter, I am an acomplished backyard mechanic, but I do not want to do a lot of repairs besides brakes etc..

What is a techs opinion?

What should be my choices?

American parts are cheaper?

Any help on the best choices would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Joe

I'm not a "tech", just a guy who has been around for a while and has owned quite a few cars. At this point in my life I only buy cars/trucks with OHV engines with timing chains or OHC engines (four cylinder) with timing chains. No timing belts. I want something that will last and require the least maintenance and repairs. I seem to get that with OHV mainly and have had very good luck with Ford engines, mostly 6 cyl but one V8 ('78 351 Modified). I bought an '04 Nissan Frontier with the 2.4L engine and it has held up quite well with 180K miles and two wrecks. The problem is the cheap, crappy screws that Nissan uses to bolt the whole thing together. Simply replacing a belt can be a huge project requiring modifications and creativity. The parking brake cable snapped off and as far as I can tell it's just because it was made of cheap crap. I got an abandoned '88 Mitsubishi Mighty Max with the 2.6L engine with 240K miles on it. The engine was frozen and the carburator valves could not be moved with a hammer. I managed to get the thing running rather well without spending ANY money on it, other than an oil change. This particular mini-truck has impressed me with the quality of construction and it's durability. This particular engine has a reputation for bad gas mileage but it also has a reputation for leaking fuel pumps which might be the reason for the poor mileage. I sure don't see many of them driving around so maybe they have trouble passing the smog test but my next small pickup will probably be a Mitsubishi.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:47:43 -0400, "C. E. White"
> wrote:

>
>"hls" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>> "Vic Smith" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> The 2.2 Ecotec seemed good to me when I had a rental Malibu
>>> equipped
>>> with it. Been around a while and I've seen nothing bad about it.
>>> Lots of them out there.
>>> This is a tech group. Seems some here would have some opinions.
>>> But without a GM mech posting, it's all hearsay.
>>>
>>> --Vic
>>
>> A GM tech posted on this a couple of years ago.. He thought they
>> were
>> good engines, basically.
>>
>> FIL has a little GM pickup with this engine, and it has stayed
>> together okay, but is a piece of **** WRT economy. Gets less than
>> 20 mpg.
>> The pickup is a major POS.
>
>I don't believe they use the Ecotec engines in pick-ups. The Colorado
>and Canyon use 4 and 5 cylinder engines related to the in-line 6 that
>GM originally offered in the Trailblazer. See
>http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en...10truck_us.htm .
>
>The Ecotec 4 cylinders are used in the smaller SUVs. I had one in a
>Vue back in the early 2000's. I thought it was a decent engine. I have
>a friend with a 4 cylinder Colorado and a 5 cylinder Canyon. He's had
>no engine complaints except he thinks they should get better mileage.
>
I think there's a point of vehicle weight where certain engines don't
cut the mustard, and mileage suffers.
The Malibu I rented got 34 mpg hiway and 32 mpg overall on a 3000 mile
vacation. Maybe 1/8 of those miles were "city."
But never bumper-to-bumper commuting type "city."
After all, I was on vacation.
That was a good sized car, just a bit smaller than my Lumina.
Apparently the Ecotec fits it well.
It was quick enough (thought it was a 6 when I picked it up) and had
no hesitation keeping cruise speed on the grades near Chattanooga.
Car had 5000 on the odo when I picked it up.
I check mileage on all long trips. My method is to fill to the brim
when I leave, jotting down the mileage. On the road I go up to an
even gallon number when the pump nozzle kicks off and jot down that
whole number and odo reading - rounding the tenths. And general
location
When I get back home I fill to the brim again.
Usually I do a quick calc after the second fill up to pin down hiway
miles. Pretty sure then how far I can get before stopping, even if
the tank gauge were to quit or go inaccurate.
Never has on the cars I use for trips, but has on my local cars.
Just got back from Florida and the results for my '97 Lumina 3.1 with
150k miles on the odo are
2827 total miles
29.1 entire trip
30.4 hiway, no big difference between 70 and 80-85 mph.
I usually don't bother with speed calcs, but since I was booking
coming home, it was easy to do. Lost about 1/4 mpg by doing 80-85
instead of 70.
Was down a quart of oil when I got home. Probably the 85-90 mph
stretches did that, as I normally don't burn oil between changes.
Or it could be the 3.1 is starting to wear.
Anyway, like I said, I haven't heard of any inherent problems with the
Ecotec, so that might be in my next car.
Odd thing is I was pricing 5-8 year old 3.4/3.5 Impalas and 2.2
Malibus and damned if the Malibus aren't higher priced used cars.
That was a pretty cursory price check, so I won't swear by it.
Might go for a 3.4 Impala. Not much difference in mileage.
Haven't looked hard yet, but my kid the mech and Chevy fanatic
(I wonder where he got that from?) says the 3.1 is the base of the
3.4. The 3.1 is a good engine, as was its daddy, the 2.8.
Mine were anyway. I haven't had the problems HLS talks about.
And I don't drive Buick, Olds, Pontiac or Cadillac.
Just Chevy. KISS.

--Vic





--

How about the later model 4 cylinder Jeeps? Aren't they good? That 4
wheel drive can come in handy in snow country.

I already own two 4 cylinder vehicles, but I don't drive them anywhere.A
1914 Ford Model T and a 1948 Willys Jeep.My Jeep needs to be completely
restored/rebuilt.

If I was looking for a later model 4 cylinder vehicle to drive, I would
definetly buy an American brand name made in America 4 cylinder vehicle.
cuhulin

On 10/22/09 10:57 AM, in article
, "
> wrote:

> How about the later model 4 cylinder Jeeps? Aren't they good? That 4
> wheel drive can come in handy in snow country.
>
> I already own two 4 cylinder vehicles, but I don't drive them anywhere.A
> 1914 Ford Model T and a 1948 Willys Jeep.My Jeep needs to be completely
> restored/rebuilt.
>
> If I was looking for a later model 4 cylinder vehicle to drive, I would
> definetly buy an American brand name made in America 4 cylinder vehicle.
> cuhulin
>

Is this because you're hoping for interchangeable parts for the '48 Willys
or because you have no experience with anything other than American?

I have owned three air cooled engines VWs before and one 1956 BMW Isetta
car.I much prefer American brand name American built vehicles.My 1976
made in Germany moped, I don't ride it either.The tires on it are very
dry rotted.Maybe I should sell it, but I don't want to.
cuhulin