Car makers noticeably absent : Kia, Hyundai , Mitsubishi......
Engines with legendary reliability.
- Thread starter stchman
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Car makers noticeably absent : Kia, Hyundai , Mitsubishi......
I have a '99 Hyundai forklift at work that shows over 13,000 hours, And the "Hobbs" hour meter hasn't worked in years, Has the original engine.
Car makers noticeably absent : Kia, Hyundai , Mitsubishi......
I have a '99 Hyundai forklift at work that shows over 13,000 hours, And the "Hobbs" hour meter hasn't worked in years, Has the original engine.
Hyundai has built plenty of good engines, but a lot of times, they weren't put in cars that would hold together for insane mileage.
Ive known a couple people with the Hyundai 3.3 v6 and I gotta tell you, seeing the odometers on both those Santa Fes with over 200,000 miles is what began my slow process of looking at Hyundai reliability favorably. One had closer to 300,000 miles no rebuilds just maintenance and was originally a rental veh. He recently replaced the starter before trading it in on a 2012 focus.
I'll put my bid in for the Toyota 4A and 7A family engines. Found in Corollas and other offerings since the 1980s until the early 2000s.
81mm bore with strokes to provide 1.6L or 1.8L displacement.
81mm bore with strokes to provide 1.6L or 1.8L displacement.
Jaguar's XK. One of the few car engines that has replaceable cylinder liners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XK6_engine
Had a 43 year run.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XK6_engine
Had a 43 year run.
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: Pontual
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Ford 3.0 Vulcans go many miles if the camshaft the sensors don't go out. You can beat the tar out of them because they HP/Liter is low they can't easily hurt themselves. About 155 HP depending on the model.
Agree.
I drove mine an entire summer with the thermostat stuck shut. No head gasket problems or head problems.
Stuck thermostat???? Doubtful...
Originally Posted By: Pontual
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Ford 3.0 Vulcans go many miles if the camshaft the sensors don't go out. You can beat the tar out of them because they HP/Liter is low they can't easily hurt themselves. About 155 HP depending on the model.
Agree.
I drove mine an entire summer with the thermostat stuck shut. No head gasket problems or head problems.
Stuck thermostat???? Doubtful...
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Ifixyawata
Came here to make sure the Ford 300 I6 was here... Noticed it was in first post. Now leaving satisfied.
I made sure it was mentioned.
Came here to make sure the Ford 300 I6 was here... Noticed it was in first post. Now leaving satisfied.
I made sure it was mentioned.
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Car makers noticeably absent : Kia, Hyundai , Mitsubishi......
I think Hyundai/Kia will eventually have some engines that are thought of as "legendarily reliable," but Mitsubishi hasn't been able to keep oil out of the combustion chambers for 40 years now. I don't see that ever changing.
Car makers noticeably absent : Kia, Hyundai , Mitsubishi......
I think Hyundai/Kia will eventually have some engines that are thought of as "legendarily reliable," but Mitsubishi hasn't been able to keep oil out of the combustion chambers for 40 years now. I don't see that ever changing.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: rslifkin
In theory, the best combo of factory parts would be the 2000+ block/crank/rods, one of the later TUPY 0331 heads that doesn't crack (they flow a little better than the early heads), 2000+ intake and the early HO pistons.
The 0331 heads actually flow the worst out of all the 4.0 cylinder heads. They have much smaller exhaust ports in order to heat up the exhaust gases and cat converters faster for emissions. The 0331 head design and it's horsepower robbing exhaust ports was actually the reason Chrysler added the "equal length runner" intake manifold on the 99+ engines. The '99 Cherokee and Wrangler 4.0s kept the 0630 head that year while the '99 Grand Cherokee 4.0s got the new 0331 head and coil rail ignition. The Wranglers and Cherokees wouldn't get the 0331 until 2000. This is why 1999 is a favorite year for the Cherokee. It has the upgraded intake manifold without the crack prone head.
There is a guy on the Jeep Strokers forum who has built a few 4.6L turbo stroker engines. He favors the older Renix blocks (87-90) along with the 7120 heads ('91-'95 I believe?) and the 0630 heads (96-99).
In theory, the best combo of factory parts would be the 2000+ block/crank/rods, one of the later TUPY 0331 heads that doesn't crack (they flow a little better than the early heads), 2000+ intake and the early HO pistons.
The 0331 heads actually flow the worst out of all the 4.0 cylinder heads. They have much smaller exhaust ports in order to heat up the exhaust gases and cat converters faster for emissions. The 0331 head design and it's horsepower robbing exhaust ports was actually the reason Chrysler added the "equal length runner" intake manifold on the 99+ engines. The '99 Cherokee and Wrangler 4.0s kept the 0630 head that year while the '99 Grand Cherokee 4.0s got the new 0331 head and coil rail ignition. The Wranglers and Cherokees wouldn't get the 0331 until 2000. This is why 1999 is a favorite year for the Cherokee. It has the upgraded intake manifold without the crack prone head.
There is a guy on the Jeep Strokers forum who has built a few 4.6L turbo stroker engines. He favors the older Renix blocks (87-90) along with the 7120 heads ('91-'95 I believe?) and the 0630 heads (96-99).
kia fixed the oil burning issue with the mistsi 3.5 in the early kia like mine but the rest of the engine has plenty of faults.
Originally Posted By: pitzel
Jaguar's XK. One of the few car engines that has replaceable cylinder liners.
Are you sure?. I don't recall ever seeing one. Certainly some versions had sleeved liners, but nor wet liners as in the Peugeot and Renault engines of the 1960's.
I don't think they would rack up mega miles either, simply because the build quality was poor.
Peugeot/Citroen XU diesels often rack up half million milages in taxi use over here.
I wonder how many miles locomotive diesels put in between overhauls?.
Claud.
Jaguar's XK. One of the few car engines that has replaceable cylinder liners.
Are you sure?. I don't recall ever seeing one. Certainly some versions had sleeved liners, but nor wet liners as in the Peugeot and Renault engines of the 1960's.
I don't think they would rack up mega miles either, simply because the build quality was poor.
Peugeot/Citroen XU diesels often rack up half million milages in taxi use over here.
I wonder how many miles locomotive diesels put in between overhauls?.
Claud.
Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
Originally Posted By: rslifkin
In theory, the best combo of factory parts would be the 2000+ block/crank/rods, one of the later TUPY 0331 heads that doesn't crack (they flow a little better than the early heads), 2000+ intake and the early HO pistons.
The 0331 heads actually flow the worst out of all the 4.0 cylinder heads. They have much smaller exhaust ports in order to heat up the exhaust gases and cat converters faster for emissions. The 0331 head design and it's horsepower robbing exhaust ports was actually the reason Chrysler added the "equal length runner" intake manifold on the 99+ engines. The '99 Cherokee and Wrangler 4.0s kept the 0630 head that year while the '99 Grand Cherokee 4.0s got the new 0331 head and coil rail ignition. The Wranglers and Cherokees wouldn't get the 0331 until 2000. This is why 1999 is a favorite year for the Cherokee. It has the upgraded intake manifold without the crack prone head.
There is a guy on the Jeep Strokers forum who has built a few 4.6L turbo stroker engines. He favors the older Renix blocks (87-90) along with the 7120 heads ('91-'95 I believe?) and the 0630 heads (96-99).
The exhaust ports are smaller, but I don't remember the actual flow numbers being significantly worse. The intake side is better, IIRC. And the aftermarket replacement 0331 heads typically flow a little better than the OEM ones.
Originally Posted By: rslifkin
In theory, the best combo of factory parts would be the 2000+ block/crank/rods, one of the later TUPY 0331 heads that doesn't crack (they flow a little better than the early heads), 2000+ intake and the early HO pistons.
The 0331 heads actually flow the worst out of all the 4.0 cylinder heads. They have much smaller exhaust ports in order to heat up the exhaust gases and cat converters faster for emissions. The 0331 head design and it's horsepower robbing exhaust ports was actually the reason Chrysler added the "equal length runner" intake manifold on the 99+ engines. The '99 Cherokee and Wrangler 4.0s kept the 0630 head that year while the '99 Grand Cherokee 4.0s got the new 0331 head and coil rail ignition. The Wranglers and Cherokees wouldn't get the 0331 until 2000. This is why 1999 is a favorite year for the Cherokee. It has the upgraded intake manifold without the crack prone head.
There is a guy on the Jeep Strokers forum who has built a few 4.6L turbo stroker engines. He favors the older Renix blocks (87-90) along with the 7120 heads ('91-'95 I believe?) and the 0630 heads (96-99).
The exhaust ports are smaller, but I don't remember the actual flow numbers being significantly worse. The intake side is better, IIRC. And the aftermarket replacement 0331 heads typically flow a little better than the OEM ones.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Car makers noticeably absent : Kia, Hyundai , Mitsubishi......
I think Hyundai/Kia will eventually have some engines that are thought of as "legendarily reliable," but Mitsubishi hasn't been able to keep oil out of the combustion chambers for 40 years now. I don't see that ever changing.
Mitsu ought to be able to fix that, but they have not so far. It's a wonder Chrysler bought so many engines from them.
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Car makers noticeably absent : Kia, Hyundai , Mitsubishi......
I think Hyundai/Kia will eventually have some engines that are thought of as "legendarily reliable," but Mitsubishi hasn't been able to keep oil out of the combustion chambers for 40 years now. I don't see that ever changing.
Mitsu ought to be able to fix that, but they have not so far. It's a wonder Chrysler bought so many engines from them.
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Car makers noticeably absent : Kia, Hyundai , Mitsubishi......
I think Hyundai/Kia will eventually have some engines that are thought of as "legendarily reliable," but Mitsubishi hasn't been able to keep oil out of the combustion chambers for 40 years now. I don't see that ever changing.
Mitsu ought to be able to fix that, but they have not so far. It's a wonder Chrysler bought so many engines from them.
Its a wonder Chrysler didn't go in and FIX the problem since they had an ownership stake in Mitsu all thru the 80s and 90s, and never had anything close to that kind of chronic mechanical design problem with any of their own engines. I guess the ownership didn't extend to dictating engineering changes, but Chrysler sure wound up spending a lot of money (and more importantly credibility) cleaning up the cylinder head debacle with the Mitsu 2.6 inline 4 and the oil burning / valve guide dropping debacle with the Mitsu 3.0 v6.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Car makers noticeably absent : Kia, Hyundai , Mitsubishi......
I think Hyundai/Kia will eventually have some engines that are thought of as "legendarily reliable," but Mitsubishi hasn't been able to keep oil out of the combustion chambers for 40 years now. I don't see that ever changing.
Mitsu ought to be able to fix that, but they have not so far. It's a wonder Chrysler bought so many engines from them.
Its a wonder Chrysler didn't go in and FIX the problem since they had an ownership stake in Mitsu all thru the 80s and 90s, and never had anything close to that kind of chronic mechanical design problem with any of their own engines. I guess the ownership didn't extend to dictating engineering changes, but Chrysler sure wound up spending a lot of money (and more importantly credibility) cleaning up the cylinder head debacle with the Mitsu 2.6 inline 4 and the oil burning / valve guide dropping debacle with the Mitsu 3.0 v6.
JHZR2
Staff member
Most of these engines listed are scrapped or destroyed long before their time.
Id propose the OM616/617 MB diesel as the only true legendary longevity/reliability engine out there which truly is readily seen on the road in old incarnations. Go anywhere in the country/world and you can still see mid 70-80s cars running these engines. Not many mid 70s - mid 80s cars of other types sporting the other engines on these lists out there the world over, IMO.
Id argue that the Toyota 4 cyl engine is the other one that can still be seen in old vehicles still driving, but I don't know enough about them to say if the design and approach was truly consistent the way they were on the MB diesels.
Id propose the OM616/617 MB diesel as the only true legendary longevity/reliability engine out there which truly is readily seen on the road in old incarnations. Go anywhere in the country/world and you can still see mid 70-80s cars running these engines. Not many mid 70s - mid 80s cars of other types sporting the other engines on these lists out there the world over, IMO.
Id argue that the Toyota 4 cyl engine is the other one that can still be seen in old vehicles still driving, but I don't know enough about them to say if the design and approach was truly consistent the way they were on the MB diesels.
- Status
