Yes, a number of times. Had to be careful where you put your feet and traveled gravel roads in fear.Have you ever been in a car where you can see the road passing underneath you through the rusty floorboard?
Flintstone brakes.Yes, a number of times. Had to be careful where you put your feet and traveled gravel roads in fear.
The darn car is cold in winter, even with the heater at full hot. You'd need to bundle in open sleeping bags to keep from freezing on long trips.Yes, a number of times. Had to be careful where you put your feet and traveled gravel roads in fear.
Wasn't the US performance like 125BHP?A good story of corporate and government fail. Due to changes in regulations for emissions and collision protection, then cost cutting to hit their pricing target, the initial wicked cool performance estimates became pretty mediocre. I appreciate the designer's vision, but the bitchslap of reality had other plans.
Break in and seat new disc rotors and pads. Or you won't get much life out of them.When they say break in, I think that they mean more than just the engine. I like to baby the entire drivetrain for the first 1000 miles so I can better hear and feel things that might not seem right. And it's definitely better for the brake system. Although I love to experience performance, I just can't get myself to drive a brand-new vehicle like I stole it. I can wait 1000 miles to do that.
Unfortunately, that phrase fits many new vehicle buyers today. They beat their new vehicle and/or don't maintain it correctly and can't understand how something could possibly go wrong. Stupid phrase or stupid people?"Driving like you stole it" means to me that you didn't pay for it or its maintainance and damage. A stupid phrase.

Originally north of 150 in a car that weighed 300 if not 400lbs heavier than designedWasn't the US performance like 125BHP?
I'm not really a hard driver, so I'm not really impacted by that. I'll put 1000 miles on before I tow anything of any heft. I put miles on cars, so I play the long gameWhen they say break in, I think that they mean more than just the engine. I like to baby the entire drivetrain for the first 1000 miles so I can better hear and feel things that might not seem right. And it's definitely better for the brake system. Although I love to experience performance, I just can't get myself to drive a brand-new vehicle like I stole it. I can wait 1000 miles to do that.
MerCruiser did this with a marine 4 cylinder. Ford 460 iron head on an aluminum block with 4 460 pistons in it. Amazingly they didn't blow up that often but they were about as smooth as a dryer full of shoes.The crazy Chevy engine for the Vega was an aluminum block and a cast iron head. I have never seen that combination in any other engine.
Or bricks and bowling balls.MerCruiser did this with a marine 4 cylinder. Ford 460 iron head on an aluminum block with 4 460 pistons in it. Amazingly they didn't blow up that often but they were about as smooth as a dryer full of shoes.
The kitty’s on top of the service getting it done !I use mobile oil 1 5w50 or liqui moly 5w50 in the OM 606 engine.View attachment 3299637View attachment 3299638I change the oil at a maximum of 10,000 km or annually if I don't do enough kmView attachment 3299641
Or bricks and bowling balls.
4.3 ltr in my express work van with a 8 speed auto does really well 285 hp at 70 mph it’s at 1700 rpm just like the 6 ltr with the 6 speed auto ! Only difference is the 6 ltr had more midrange tourqe , but all in all still plenty of power for normal driving .Also would apply. I was never a big fan. Several hp versions of it, I think the biggest was 190 or so. The problem is it didn't make a lot of torque down low, but with those big pistons and long stroke it didn't rev very well either. They ended up with a prop and gearing setup that made it climb on plane very slowly in order to prevent it from over-revving. If you've ever driven a car thats slower 0-60 than it is 60-120, thats how these felt.
The intent was an engine with power output between the 2.5 Iron Duke and a 305 V8. That was originally filled by the 250 Chevy I6 and the 4 cylinder 3.0L variant which was basically a 250 short a pair of cylinders. This thing came about between the time those were discontinued and the 4.3 V6 was introduced.
My 91 gmc Sonoma had a 2.8 ltr 5 speed Manuel with cruise control nice truck and I used it to pull my railbuggy with a towbar it towed ok not as powerful as a 4.3 but ok for a 2 wheel drive 5 speed s-15 it got great gas mileage and with the stick was fun to drive !I'm meaning the older 4.3, the one that was basically a 350 Chevy less a pair of cylinders. The S10 I drove for 20 years had one and it was all the power you can really make effective use of in one of those. They got put in full size stuff and IMO they are underpowered there. The S10 is just under 2 tons and the old 4.3 made about 175 hp. I think the last ones made like 220? Somewhere in there. Not really up to the job of hauling a 2.5 ton vehicle around with any sort of enthusiasm, especially if you have any intentions on towing.
The new one is derived from the LS family V8, makes about 100hp more than the old one. I've driven a full size truck with one, it goes pretty good. Its essentially the same power as the 4.8 V8 in my Silverado but burns less fuel to do it.
)
I'm meaning the older 4.3, the one that was basically a 350 Chevy less a pair of cylinders.

Was a tire burner in my buddy’s S-10’! But not in a big truckMy buddy had that 4.3 w/manual transmission in a Chevy half-ton pickup. The only way to describe it was "agricultural". I've driven old farm tractors that coulda beat that thing in a drag race![]()