What's hot? Cars that last

"rcpm" wrote in news:6051B0B2180848BE8660DA48EE796884@DefaultPC:

I have a large banner hanging in my garage that reads "planned obsolescence is bullshit". My next door neighbor hates it since he works at one of the big 3. The NEWEST year of vehicle I have ever owned is 1974! Presently the years of cars I own are 1947, 1964 and 1966. I have owned the 1966 since 1984 with very little problem with reliability! I don't care... even if I'm a billionaire, I will NEVER buy new! Of course if I had that much money, I would have my own prototype built from scratch!

I don't believe that; some of the best vehicles I have ever owned have been completely destroyed by JD Power, Consumer Reports, et. al.

besides, three years old is still a new car. Probably newer than I'm likely to buy, anyway.

nate

THANK YOU! Definitive info at last!!!! The bore and stroke difference are certainly conclusive.

I've been meaning to look up the bore-center spacing. If its the same, then the block and crank of the current "world engine" are derivative of the first 2.2 and the 2.5 from way back in the 80s. The 2.0/2.4 shared a lot of 2.2 dimensions like that, and at least one complete assembly from the 2.5- the balance shaft module.

I skimmed the FSM on that when I first got it, and it looks like the timing belt on the PT can be changed without removing that engine mount. Lots of other stuff has to come out of the way, but not the main engine mount. The PT has 3 engine mounting components on the right side- the main mount that carries the weight of the engine (and which requires the engine to come out if you need to change it) and two torque struts that control engine rotation. I've already replaced the torque struts on our PT to cure a vibration at 25 mph under acceleration (which isn't completely gone, and I wonder if its because I used a Mopar upper strut and an aftermarket lower that had a different rubber bushing design...)