-
Hi Guest!
You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
Alternate "basic" transportation...
- Thread starter Nunyas
- Start date
Share this page
OP
Nunyas
Yoda
Offline
I was just reading a bit more about the new engine they're putting in the 2008 Lancers. The thing is running 10:1 compression and only needs 87 octane petrol. 1998cc cranking out 152HP@6000RPM; power is down to 145HP@6kRPM for the PZEV versions that will be sold in Cali though. A Powertrain Warranty of 10yr/100,000 miles seems pretty darn good; California adds on top of that a 15yr/150,000 mile warranty on the emissions equipment, which is necessary for Mitsubishi to meet CA's PZEV rating.
The fuel economy ratings weren't ever impressive to me (29HWY/21City - 24 Combined), and even appeared to be a bit below 'average' for its class, IMO. However, I read more into that too, and found out the fuel economy claims are based on the EPA's ~new~ 2008 rating methodologies, which are supposed to be more 'realistic' representations of what people can expect from the car in normal use. If the economy ratings of the car followed 2007 methodologies, the car would have 31HWY/25City.
Seems this engine is a development of "GEMA" (Global Engine Manufacturing Alliance). GEMA is an alliance of automotive companies: DaimlerChrysler, Mitsubishi Motors, and Hyundai Motor Company.
there's a lot of stuff in that engine that's interesting. All aluminum design, cast iron cylinder sleeves (sounds kind of odd to me to use cast iron instead of hardened steal) that can be changed out for different displacements, "siamese" cylinder bore design, and variable valve timing... it all sounds really neat, but I don't think I'd wanna tinker with it beyond oil changes and the like. Then again, I guess that's the point of having alternate "basic" transportation, eh?
The fuel economy ratings weren't ever impressive to me (29HWY/21City - 24 Combined), and even appeared to be a bit below 'average' for its class, IMO. However, I read more into that too, and found out the fuel economy claims are based on the EPA's ~new~ 2008 rating methodologies, which are supposed to be more 'realistic' representations of what people can expect from the car in normal use. If the economy ratings of the car followed 2007 methodologies, the car would have 31HWY/25City.
Seems this engine is a development of "GEMA" (Global Engine Manufacturing Alliance). GEMA is an alliance of automotive companies: DaimlerChrysler, Mitsubishi Motors, and Hyundai Motor Company.
there's a lot of stuff in that engine that's interesting. All aluminum design, cast iron cylinder sleeves (sounds kind of odd to me to use cast iron instead of hardened steal) that can be changed out for different displacements, "siamese" cylinder bore design, and variable valve timing... it all sounds really neat, but I don't think I'd wanna tinker with it beyond oil changes and the like. Then again, I guess that's the point of having alternate "basic" transportation, eh?
Nunyas said:
So whats wrong with "iron cylinder liners"?? Rockettes Capri has an iron block,
with 396K miles on it, and it still runs, my '86 F150 has 294K miles on it, and its
still running as well...
Neither one of them have ever been rebuilt... Maybe they're using iron liners because
they work...
SteveL
OP
Nunyas
Yoda
Offline
I guess I just figured steel to be a stronger material, and that they'd go with that instead. But hey, I'm no mechanical or materials engineer. If it works it works.
I'm not sure why it struck me as odd at the time, but it just did. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
I'm not sure why it struck me as odd at the time, but it just did. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
My DD is a GT6, & I went through this search 1.5 years ago to replace my 2nd car (a.k.a. "the car w/the trunk"). I did a lot of research. This was when gas prices were spiking, so fuel economy was a consideration also. What I came up with just keeps getting better.
You want a 1996-1999 Dodge or Plymouth Neon, DOHC, manual transmission. They came in SOHC & DOHC varieties, either is really sprightly around town, but the DOHC is more tuneable if you want to get motorhead with it & has more funhouse transmission gearing.
The 1995 is the 1st year of production for the car, & as such, it has some parts which appear only in that year. It's fine, & sort of cool (factory oil separator!), but later models are soooo easy & interchangeable.
There was a major styling & manufacturing change for the 2000+ years, which aren't as successful as the 95-99 cars.
The Neon was a failure of marketing. They were mfd in SOHC & DOHC, mtx or atx, 2-door or 4-door versions. The main marketing thrust was at what was perceived as the largest buying segment: inexpensive grocery-getters, thus most have experience with the rather uninspiring atx version.
What DCP didn't flog in the advertising (probably so as not to scare off the grocery-getter mom buyers) is that when it was introduced, the mtx versions of the Neon were for 4 consecutive years SCCA Showroom Stock Class C Solo national champions until the SCCA changed the rules to allow trunk kits under pressure from other carmakers to make things "competitive" again. These boogers are what you always wanted a little Lotus to be, only very dependable, inexpensive, surprisingly roomy, fuel efficient, & w/good AC. These things fling like a barrel of fun. And they can be found in good condition, inexpensively.
Known issues:
1. 100k mile timing belt replacement (check odometer, if it's near or over 100k, put on a new timing belt).
2. Head gasket failure: Originally shipped with a cost-saving construction head gasket that often failed. Superceded & replaced via recall w/a standard, dependable headgasket. If you get one, replace the headgasket, you'll get the new, good, type.
3. Shifter bushings: the shifter cables have rubber bushings which deteriorate. Replace w/ $20 replacement aftermarket polyurethane set, & love the feel.
They made several trim levels: Base, ACR, R/T, Sport, Highline, Style, etc. Basically, though, they're all pretty similar as long as they've got the mtx vs. atx, or SOHC vs. DOHC, etc. The ACR came with lowest trim (lightweight), stiffest suspension & Koni struts, very lightweight, originally only sold to SCCA members; the R/T & early Sport came w/next stiffest suspension. The Base & Highline could have atx or mtx, but the Style seemed to have atx only.
There were also 3 variations in the mtx transmissions:
The ACR, R/T, & early Sport had manuals with the zippiest 5th gear (an OD gear at 1:0.81), but the same final drive as the mtx transmissions in all the other 1996-1999 DOHC mtx models (which had a .72 5th). Basically, as it's 5th & an OD gear, the .72 makes more sense: you'd downshift anyway for any serious acceleration, & the .72 gets better highway mileage. The SOHC mtx cars got a final drive that was not as acceleration-oriented, but still very useful.
I enjoy mine the longer I have it. It's been easy & a whole lot of fun. I put a lot of miles on it because I often need a trunk for some trips. I think the styling is really aging well. Plus Mopar has always made go-fast goodies for their cars: one for the Neon is a replacement, smog-approved computer with more aggressive advance etc. Still gets VG mileage: $50 driving from Mobile, AL to Tampa, FL.
It's one of those cars that really change character with different colors, & they were offered in colors ranging from staid to a resurrection of the wild 60s DCP "high-impact" colors.
Typical 95-99 Neon:
Neon R/T, distinguished by its factory rally stripes:
https://www.geocities.com/Baja/7866/cars/neon-rt.jpg
There's quite a tight enthusiast base for the cars, too, not unexpected as they're really addictive, & the enthusiast bas e really happily includes racers & people who just have them as economical cars. If you get one, it will of course be used, so by the best-treated example you can find (& it will be inexpensive anyway).
I'm picky, practically a car snob, & I'm keeping this one. Trust me.
1996-1999 Dodge or Plymouth Neon
DOHC
Manual transmission
https://www.autoblog.com/2005/10/07/looking-back-dodge-neon/
Or you can go for the final incarnation of the Neon, the SRT-4. 0-60 in 5.8. No other car to touch it for less than about $30,000! Handling not as good & fun as the '95-99 models though.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]GT6's are neat-looking, but not much for cargo room. Or for passenger room for that matter![/QUOTE]
It's easy to get lots of passengers in a GT6. Like all things, it's a matter of correct method. Pick up the first passenger, then drive to pick up the 2nd passenger. By that time the 1st passenger will have melted & can be decanted into an empty 1 gal. plastic milk jug & placed behind the seats. Continue with each additional passenger.
You want a 1996-1999 Dodge or Plymouth Neon, DOHC, manual transmission. They came in SOHC & DOHC varieties, either is really sprightly around town, but the DOHC is more tuneable if you want to get motorhead with it & has more funhouse transmission gearing.
The 1995 is the 1st year of production for the car, & as such, it has some parts which appear only in that year. It's fine, & sort of cool (factory oil separator!), but later models are soooo easy & interchangeable.
There was a major styling & manufacturing change for the 2000+ years, which aren't as successful as the 95-99 cars.
The Neon was a failure of marketing. They were mfd in SOHC & DOHC, mtx or atx, 2-door or 4-door versions. The main marketing thrust was at what was perceived as the largest buying segment: inexpensive grocery-getters, thus most have experience with the rather uninspiring atx version.
What DCP didn't flog in the advertising (probably so as not to scare off the grocery-getter mom buyers) is that when it was introduced, the mtx versions of the Neon were for 4 consecutive years SCCA Showroom Stock Class C Solo national champions until the SCCA changed the rules to allow trunk kits under pressure from other carmakers to make things "competitive" again. These boogers are what you always wanted a little Lotus to be, only very dependable, inexpensive, surprisingly roomy, fuel efficient, & w/good AC. These things fling like a barrel of fun. And they can be found in good condition, inexpensively.
Known issues:
1. 100k mile timing belt replacement (check odometer, if it's near or over 100k, put on a new timing belt).
2. Head gasket failure: Originally shipped with a cost-saving construction head gasket that often failed. Superceded & replaced via recall w/a standard, dependable headgasket. If you get one, replace the headgasket, you'll get the new, good, type.
3. Shifter bushings: the shifter cables have rubber bushings which deteriorate. Replace w/ $20 replacement aftermarket polyurethane set, & love the feel.
They made several trim levels: Base, ACR, R/T, Sport, Highline, Style, etc. Basically, though, they're all pretty similar as long as they've got the mtx vs. atx, or SOHC vs. DOHC, etc. The ACR came with lowest trim (lightweight), stiffest suspension & Koni struts, very lightweight, originally only sold to SCCA members; the R/T & early Sport came w/next stiffest suspension. The Base & Highline could have atx or mtx, but the Style seemed to have atx only.
There were also 3 variations in the mtx transmissions:
The ACR, R/T, & early Sport had manuals with the zippiest 5th gear (an OD gear at 1:0.81), but the same final drive as the mtx transmissions in all the other 1996-1999 DOHC mtx models (which had a .72 5th). Basically, as it's 5th & an OD gear, the .72 makes more sense: you'd downshift anyway for any serious acceleration, & the .72 gets better highway mileage. The SOHC mtx cars got a final drive that was not as acceleration-oriented, but still very useful.
I enjoy mine the longer I have it. It's been easy & a whole lot of fun. I put a lot of miles on it because I often need a trunk for some trips. I think the styling is really aging well. Plus Mopar has always made go-fast goodies for their cars: one for the Neon is a replacement, smog-approved computer with more aggressive advance etc. Still gets VG mileage: $50 driving from Mobile, AL to Tampa, FL.
It's one of those cars that really change character with different colors, & they were offered in colors ranging from staid to a resurrection of the wild 60s DCP "high-impact" colors.
Typical 95-99 Neon:
Neon R/T, distinguished by its factory rally stripes:
https://www.geocities.com/Baja/7866/cars/neon-rt.jpg
There's quite a tight enthusiast base for the cars, too, not unexpected as they're really addictive, & the enthusiast bas e really happily includes racers & people who just have them as economical cars. If you get one, it will of course be used, so by the best-treated example you can find (& it will be inexpensive anyway).
I'm picky, practically a car snob, & I'm keeping this one. Trust me.
1996-1999 Dodge or Plymouth Neon
DOHC
Manual transmission
https://www.autoblog.com/2005/10/07/looking-back-dodge-neon/
Or you can go for the final incarnation of the Neon, the SRT-4. 0-60 in 5.8. No other car to touch it for less than about $30,000! Handling not as good & fun as the '95-99 models though.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]GT6's are neat-looking, but not much for cargo room. Or for passenger room for that matter![/QUOTE]
It's easy to get lots of passengers in a GT6. Like all things, it's a matter of correct method. Pick up the first passenger, then drive to pick up the 2nd passenger. By that time the 1st passenger will have melted & can be decanted into an empty 1 gal. plastic milk jug & placed behind the seats. Continue with each additional passenger.
V
vagt6
Guest
Guest
Offline
I second rotoflexes opinion on the Plymouth/Dodge Neons. My parents have one and it's a great little car. Not necessarily the sexiest car out there but it does all the right things very well. It's also fairly easy to maintain and operate. Best of all, prices are ridiculously low for such a good car.
Rotoflex, your philosophy on multiple passengers in a GT6 got a good laugh from me!! How true. Only an experienced GT6 driver would know . . .
Rotoflex, your philosophy on multiple passengers in a GT6 got a good laugh from me!! How true. Only an experienced GT6 driver would know . . .
Nunyas said:
DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER
I really should by one. I'm old enough to be able to see that the SRT-4 in about 15 years will join Now-Rare & Desirable Legendary Muscle Cars Of The Past that everyone should have gotten when they had the chance, like the original Challenger, Charger, etc.
You can put an unobtrusive Hidden Hitch receiver hitch on Neons that will handle 200 lb. tongue weight, 2000 lb. gross weight for pulling a small utility trailer, usually to take your tires to the track, but also good for bringing engines, differentials, transmissions, etc. back from the junkyard, machine shop, etc.