This engine is in my 1990 Montero. Recently, I replaced the oxygen sensor as the service engine light kept staying on and the code in the computer was for the oxygen sensor, plus the car was sucking lots of gas. After replacing the sensor, the fuel economy went back up, but the service engine light goes on and off, and it's the same code for the oxygen sensor. Any ideas?
Yes, If the code is for the Oxygen sensor, that does not mean it is just the Oxygen sensor. It is for the circuit, and also the other sensor's that contribute to the Oxygen sensor readings. Could be a map sensor or other things that control what is being read by the Oxygen sensor. Join a mitsubishi group also. They will be more helpful then a Chrysler group.
Oh yeah, the 3.0 Mitsubishi...
Didn't you know that code stands for "Replace Crappy Eng>This engine is in my 1990 Montero. Recently, I replaced the oxygen
The 3.0 mitsu with 110,000 miles in my 88 New Yorker gets 34 mpg highway. Alot better than some of the current stuff out there.
My 94 Acclaim, before I got rid of it, had less than 130,000 km. It ran rough, and puked oil like a seive - all the seals were thrashed. No amount of gas mileage is worth the super high maintenance required by a poor design. An engine design must address the Total Cost of Ownership - not just good gas mileage.
Based on 16000 miles per year and 34 MPG, your consumption is about
470.58 Gallons. At $2.65 per gallon, that is about $1247.At 25 MPG that is 640 gallons. At $2.65 per gallon that is $1696.
A difference of about $448 per year.
So, if you buy the car new, and you put the $448 per year into a maintnenace fund, then you can afford to do the maintenance to keep fixing the unreliable 3.0 litre engine.
If you buy the car used, then you have not had a chance to enjoy the savings, all you get to enjoy the costs of maintaining a badly designed engine. Add that to the A604, and you have a loser to be sure. Sorry. I just don't like the engine.
It is the same old story, pay at the pump, or pay at the shop. I LOVE my 3.3 litre engine. It is very hardy and reliable. So what if it uses a little more gas. At least it is not puking oil into the streets. It has lots of power and, should you need to work on it, it is easy to work on as well.
Hmmm...94 and 95 Caravans with 171K and 190K miles respectively and never had any problems. Guess you just failed to take proper care of yours or read the Service Bulletins to keep them maintained properly.
I believe if you had kept up with the TSB's for your vehicle, you would be aware it was the vavlve seats. Your sdealer should have caught this as well when it was brought in for scheduled maintnance.
No, not really. I "inherited" this car with my (now) wife. I had nothing to do with its maintenance of this vehicle in its early days - and even she purchased the car used.
I have a 94 Caravan with 180,000 km that I purchased at about 128,000 km. The vehcile is properly maintained, and it has never let me down (touch wood). I still prefer the 3.3 and 3.8 design. It is very robust. And my experience with mitsubishi and other foreign engines has not been good over the last 15 or so years.
Just my experience I guess.
your post is sub-morinc comment and those that follow aren't much better.....
your post is sub-moronic and those that follow aren't much better.....
It was meant as tonge-in-cheak as my experience with this engine has not been good. Sorry if it appeared "sub-morinc".
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.