TeamSwift

Home of the Suzuki mini-compacts ! Your Home for all things Suzuki Swift, Geo Metro, Holden Barina, Chevy Sprint, Pontiac Firefly, and Suzuki Cultus. TeamSwift is a technical performance oriented community!
It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:21 pm

Underbody braces, turbos and more!

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 5:01 pm
Posts: 34
Location: Wilson Kansas
I picked up a 94 Metro 1.0 3 cyl for a daily driver (108 miles per day at 80mph) and I also picked up a 4 cyl 93 swift as a parts car.

I am still going through the legalities of getting a title and tag for these vehicles so I haven't been able to drive them on the highway yet.

In your opinion, which engine would be better for doing 80mph highway cruising? I'm worried that the 3 cyl will be struggling to hold 80mph and my gas mileage will suffer because of it. Is this a legitimate worry or am I underestimating the 3 cyl?

Would the 4 cyl be the better engine to use for this?

I plan to do a few mods to which ever engine I choose...advance the cam, up the timing, k&N, and maybe even port the head.

Which engine should I choose to use?

Stinger

_________________
www.Stinger-Performance.com <----No Metro Stuff...Yet


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:15 am 
Offline
Moderator & FAQ King
Moderator & FAQ King
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 6460
Location: Vancouver, BC
I used to have a MK1 Sprint (1L, 3 cylinder automatic) and the maximum speed I could push it to on the freeway was 135 kph (84 mph). It took a few minutes to get up to that speed as well. Merging required a bit of distance to get up to speed, but not really a big deal. The 3 bangers are not most efficient on the freeway. They'll be revving their little heads off when you're trying to sustain a good cruising speed. Even though they're out of their efficiency range, they will still get much better mileage than other vehicles (and will also be happy with low octane fuel).

I now drive a MK3 GTi (1.3L DOHC 4 cylinder, 5 speed) and it is a more pleasant vehicle for freeway driving. Merging, passing, high speed cruising all require less effort. The GTi is able get up to 150 kph (93 mph) rather quickly, and can go quite a bit higher with enough open road. Although the GTi has more pleasant road manners it will drink more fuel than a 3 banger, and it wants higher octane fuel.


The 3 banger is up to the task of freeway driving, it just requires a little effort from the engine. If I were to pick up another 3 cylinder vehicle again, I would probably consider installing a nitrous system to help with freeway merging/passing.

Once caveat about fuel economy and Suzukis... Even with frequent spirited driving with no though towards fuel economy, even modded GTis will still get better fuel economy that most other vehicles on the road.

_________________
jaguar,vettes&sprints wrote:
...can you inlighten me about lihtan's
( miracle pour hole)
maybe a picture Thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 1:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:55 pm
Posts: 1257
Location: So. Calif
I've got a 1992 1.0L, do 100miles a day round trip commute - 98% on the freeway.

My metro likes 75MPH, 80MPH is a bit of work but do-able and sustainable. Max I've had her at was 95MPH on a flat - not downhill and no tailwind if you can believe it. Anything above 80 is a lot of work.

Interestingly I seem to get better gas mileage the faster I go, though it may just be that I can go faster when I'm not gridlocked in traffic. I do NOT notice an appreciable drop in MPG if I do 75MPG on a tank vs 70MPH vs 80MPH - kind of weird.

All my other cars (see my signature) effortlessly cruise at 85+ with barely a cracked throttle so I would guess a 1.3L metro would be more enjoyable at 80MPH and give you some more headroom for passing or getting out of the way of some SUV about to merge into your lane.

_________________
1992 Geo metro, 1.0L 5spd, 511,000miles on original engine & trans
- First time engine work at 456K miles, bad headgasket. Rebuilt head, Felpro gasket installed.
- knuckles/hubs/brakes/13" wheels from a 2000 Metro, running 175 70R13
- New bearings and 1st/2nd synchros at 440.5K miles.
- MPGuino
- Averaging ~ 51MPG these days


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 2:20 pm 
Offline
Deadbeat
Deadbeat
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:43 am
Posts: 1185
Location: Dallas, Texas
my 16 valve sohc 1.3 can easilay cruise at 85, i have went 60 miles at 85 and no problems

_________________
1999 G13B Metro
lotta Mods
2002 Sentra SE-R
intake/header/exhaust/cams/pulley


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 5:01 pm
Posts: 34
Location: Wilson Kansas
Thanks for the info so far.

My goal is to keep the MPG over 40...my Turbo Mustang will pull 25 or so down the highway so it needs to be significantly better than that or I'll just drive the fun car.

I know the 4 cyl cars are rated at 40-43 while the 3 cyl cars are 45-49mpg...does this sound about on par with what you guys see?

_________________
www.Stinger-Performance.com <----No Metro Stuff...Yet


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:55 pm
Posts: 1257
Location: So. Calif
Stinger wrote:
Thanks for the info so far.
I know the 4 cyl cars are rated at 40-43 while the 3 cyl cars are 45-49mpg...does this sound about on par with what you guys see?


I get 46MPG with my mostly 75 MPH freeway driving.

_________________
1992 Geo metro, 1.0L 5spd, 511,000miles on original engine & trans
- First time engine work at 456K miles, bad headgasket. Rebuilt head, Felpro gasket installed.
- knuckles/hubs/brakes/13" wheels from a 2000 Metro, running 175 70R13
- New bearings and 1st/2nd synchros at 440.5K miles.
- MPGuino
- Averaging ~ 51MPG these days


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 5:01 pm
Posts: 34
Location: Wilson Kansas
Did you +10 cam gear help your high speed mpg?

_________________
www.Stinger-Performance.com <----No Metro Stuff...Yet


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:55 pm
Posts: 1257
Location: So. Calif
Stinger wrote:
Did you +10 cam gear help your high speed mpg?


My gas mileage was pretty much unaffected - at least the logs don't show a change in MPG. I don't care much for the power loss up high though. Car feels zippy when you're lightly into the throttle, but really flat with too much throttle. I'm only running +8 degrees spark timing because I'm a cheap bastard and will only pay for regular unleaded.

I'll likely modify my stock sprocket for say +6 degrees and give that a try. Actually there's room on the sprocket for more than 1 timing advance 'dowel' hole so I'll probably have the stock hole, +4, +6 and +8 try them out.

Dave

_________________
1992 Geo metro, 1.0L 5spd, 511,000miles on original engine & trans
- First time engine work at 456K miles, bad headgasket. Rebuilt head, Felpro gasket installed.
- knuckles/hubs/brakes/13" wheels from a 2000 Metro, running 175 70R13
- New bearings and 1st/2nd synchros at 440.5K miles.
- MPGuino
- Averaging ~ 51MPG these days


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 2:37 pm
Posts: 88
Location: Columbia,MO
I've got a 93 1L and I drive 101miles/day at 65mph. I've noticed at 70mph I get 40mpg and at 65mph I get 43.5mpg. I'm not too worried about 3.5 mpg its just that the speed limit is only 55mph and I don't think I could haul the Red Rocket down fast enough to avoid a healthy fine by the local constable.
They say for every 5mph over 60mph you will loose 5% fuel economy. If your worried about fuel economy just leave for work earlier and drive slower.
Josh

_________________
"Always remember that in the equation for drag, velocity is squared."

1993 Geo Metro Hatchback
1996 Impala SS
1980 Yamaha Maxim 650


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 2:37 pm
Posts: 88
Location: Columbia,MO
I would be interested if anyone saw a fuel milage increase with a cam gear swap. I'm not too interested in peak power anyway, simply a little more midrange torque.
Josh

_________________
"Always remember that in the equation for drag, velocity is squared."

1993 Geo Metro Hatchback
1996 Impala SS
1980 Yamaha Maxim 650


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:16 am
Posts: 8033
Location: Ontario, Canada
JellyBeanDriver wrote:
Stinger wrote:
Did you +10 cam gear help your high speed mpg?


My gas mileage was pretty much unaffected - at least the logs don't show a change in MPG. I don't care much for the power loss up high though. Car feels zippy when you're lightly into the throttle, but really flat with too much throttle. I'm only running +8 degrees spark timing because I'm a cheap bastard and will only pay for regular unleaded.

I'll likely modify my stock sprocket for say +6 degrees and give that a try. Actually there's room on the sprocket for more than 1 timing advance 'dowel' hole so I'll probably have the stock hole, +4, +6 and +8 try them out.

Dave



I've had conflicting reports on the mileage results with the advanced timing sprocket. Some claim an increase, some do not, and as far as I know, there have been no decrease. I am still a little surprised to hear that you experience a 'flatness' at heavy throttle. I know you mentioned it before, but still you are the only one to experience this, and so far in my testing (although I admit to testing very little with the stock cam), I have not seen this.
Is you car an xfi?
You sound like you take this pretty seriously, and in support of your cheap bastardness, I would be happy to send you a +6 for testing, if that would be OK with you.
I would like to see your results, with regard to direct comparison. I have done this, but again, it has been on a fairly well built 93 Metro, with a pretty aggressive cam.
The difference between stock, +6, and +10 was very dramatic.
The long duration cam was pretty tough on low RPM power, as you would expect in a small 993cc motor, and the +10 sprocket fixed up the bottom end without (apparently) affecting the top end.

_________________
Contact 3tech: g10pro@rocketmail.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:55 pm
Posts: 1257
Location: So. Calif
suprf1y wrote:
I know you mentioned it before, but still you are the only one to experience this, and so far in my testing (although I admit to testing very little with the stock cam), I have not seen this.
Is you car an xfi?
You sound like you take this pretty seriously, and in support of your cheap bastardness, I would be happy to send you a +6 for testing, if that would be OK with you.
I would like to see your results, with regard to direct comparison. I have done this, but again, it has been on a fairly well built 93 Metro, with a pretty aggressive cam.


Hi Mike,
No, it's not an XFI, it's a bone stock 1992 California Geo Metro, stock exhaust, intake, 5spd manual, 3 door. Thanks for the offer but I don't want to put you out plus I have this perfectly good stock OEM sprocket that used to be in there that I can play with. I've got a buddy with a rotary table he can bring in so I can locate +6 degrees after zeroing on the stock dowel pin location on the Bridgeport. Haven't checked yet but I suspect the sprocket is hardened a bit so I might have a little bit of a problem there. Was also planning on making the new hole a hair smaller in diameter since I was also the one that had a bit of slop that resulting in what appeared to be +14degree cam advance after installing the +10 degree sprocket. Dowel pin doesn't look worn at all - just the normal radius on the end.

Dave

_________________
1992 Geo metro, 1.0L 5spd, 511,000miles on original engine & trans
- First time engine work at 456K miles, bad headgasket. Rebuilt head, Felpro gasket installed.
- knuckles/hubs/brakes/13" wheels from a 2000 Metro, running 175 70R13
- New bearings and 1st/2nd synchros at 440.5K miles.
- MPGuino
- Averaging ~ 51MPG these days


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 3:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 5:01 pm
Posts: 34
Location: Wilson Kansas
So is it still up in the air as to whether the 4 cyl would be better for my use?

Speed limit is 75mph so I don't want to drive below that...

Also, do the 4 cyl see the same gains with a cam gear swap?

_________________
www.Stinger-Performance.com <----No Metro Stuff...Yet


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 8:26 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:16 am
Posts: 8033
Location: Ontario, Canada
Quote:
Also, do the 4 cyl see the same gains with a cam gear swap


No.

_________________
Contact 3tech: g10pro@rocketmail.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:58 am 
Offline
Moderator & FAQ King
Moderator & FAQ King
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 6460
Location: Vancouver, BC
Stinger wrote:
So is it still up in the air as to whether the 4 cyl would be better for my use?

Speed limit is 75mph so I don't want to drive below that...

The 3 cylinder is capable of travelling in excess of 75 mph, although you may want the 4 cylinder for more convenience and driveability during merging, passing and hill climbing.

_________________
jaguar,vettes&sprints wrote:
...can you inlighten me about lihtan's
( miracle pour hole)
maybe a picture Thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:54 am
Posts: 5
Location: Massachusetts
My '86 Sprint with non-stock Weber carb does 80 MPH easily but with the jets I put in there for maximum power it gets a little less than 45 MPG at 80 MPH. I use a very steep hill on the highway as my "rolling dyno" and this car can maintain 97 MPH up the hill, without following another car.
My '91 metro with stock injection gets slightly less MPG at those speeds but does go over 100 MPH if I keep it floored long enough. Normal cruise speed for this car is 75 MPH and I usually get 42 to 47 MPG depending on how much time I spend stuck in the "BIG DIG" tunnel in Boston traffic. At 80 MPH the fuel economy does go down. This car can maintain 85 MPH up the "DYNO" hill.
Both of these 1.0 engines have had the compression raised to about 11.5:1 and the cam timing advanced by about 8 crankshaft degrees. Both modifications produced more power at all conditions of RPM, engine load and throttle opening and increased the fuel economy except at extreme throttle openings.
I don't believe the 4 cylinder will deliver the MPG that the 3 cylinder is capable of, not at 80 MPH. 90 or higher then yes, the larger displacement will be less taxed and probably get about the same MPG but have something left for passing etc. Due to the shape, (aerodynamics) and weight of the MK2 cars, 80 MPH is right on the line as far as MPG goes, I believe. Just so you don't misunderstand me, I don't have any 4-cylinder Suzuki experience. I am going by what I've read.
Yes, I use the highest octane I can buy in both cars, straight from the pump, nothing added. No octane boosters or anything like that. Yes the ignition timing has been slightly "tweaked". No, there are no shortcomings such as poor idle or low RPM/part throttle driveability problems. Yes I use "ZERO" 0W-15 "Mobil 1" fully synthetic oil and cannot find any trace of wear after many thousands of miles.
The fuel injected car does have the full throttle thing where it feels like there is no change in acceleration beyond about 2/3 of the way to wide open. I'm convinced after re-jetting the Sprint that re-mapping the ECU would provide better power at more throttle opening. Eventually I will get around to asking the right questions and getting a different (PROM) chip in there.
Feel free to contact me directly if you want to ask anything more about my cars.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 2:55 pm
Posts: 37
Location: Austin, Texas
JellyBeanDriver wrote:
..."I get 46MPG with my mostly 75 MPH freeway driving."


Seconded here with a 91 1.0L. Don't mention the wind/road/tire/passenger screams noise.

_________________
Dr. Frankenstein: "Who's brain is this?"
Igor: "Abby."
Dr. Frankenstiein: "Abby who?"
Igor: "Abby Normal."

1991 Geozuki Metro/Swift Conversion - 1.0L Asphalt-Ripping Terror
1984 Porsche 928S


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:22 pm 
Offline
Taking a time out.

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:45 pm
Posts: 79
Location: Northern VA
My 2 cents. I have owned my 93 1.0L 5 speed BONE STOCK for about 18 months. It does not have a tach so I go by ear.

Personally I've owned 5 mopeds/scooters, an 87 2.0L Honda Accord 5 speed, a 1988 1.6L Automatic, this car, a Kawasaki Ninja 250cc, 2 Honda CBR 600cc, 1 Yamaha FZR 600cc, 1 Suzuki GSX-R 1100cc...

Why am I mentioning all this? Simple. I've owned many small vehicles w/correspondingly small engines. All got great gas mileage. I think the key hear is not necessarily 1.0L vs 1.3L. Sure, if all variables are constant the 1.0L will be more miserly when it comes to gas. The key I believe is more about what RPM YOU'RE RUNNING AND FOR HOW LONG. The 5 speed Geo 1.0L not only walks the 3 speed Automatic in power but has a lower RPM on the hwy, Mph for mph. THAT I believe is the significant difference with respect to Fuel Economy. An automatic 3 cyl driving 80mph would probably be revving a lot more than the 5 speed. So it may be closer to a 5 speed 4 cylinder in terms of MPG. But, even though it's still singing a high note on they hwy a 5 speed 1.0L will always get better MPG than the 1.3 L 5 speed.

Another thing to keep in mind is the overall gearing of the vehicles in comparision. My big 1100 cc suzuki motorcycle would have a lower RPM on the hwy given the same speed than my slightly more high strung 600cc bikes. So even though the 1100 was almost 2x the size, the gas mileage was about the same because the engine wasn't as busy.

Why did I bring up the mopeds/scooters? Simple. Those bikes were slower than the Geo AND drivers had a harder time seeing me. Maintaining MOMENTUM, looking ahead, etc helped compensate for a lack of acceleration. Coming from owning extremely fast and extremely slow vehicles, I will tell you that although the 1.0L Geo is slow as balls, 2nd gear limiter hits at about 55mph indicated so passing is just a matter of TIMING and being in the right gear. Know your shift points when you need to pass, not being AFRAID to double downshift to 3rd @ 60 if need be is KEY (you ARE matching revs, right?!?!)

And for maxiumum MPGs I heard doing 55mph in 5th is the best. That's when I notice my fuel economy is best. The person who quoted 43.5 mpgs for 65mph and so on .... is about right in my opinion.

If you want the 1.3L, make sure your revs are lower PER MPH YOU ARE COMPARING vs the 1.0L otherwise you may be paying by having the larger displacement AND not having the proper gearing to make use of the larger displacement by offering longer gearing. Sorry so long, I'm a nut.

And for the record, I've topped out the GEO in 4th indicating about 100mph (off I'm sure since the speedo only shows 85)....shifting into 5th didn't really help much. So,the power is there, you're just asking the motor to work for ya, that's all. And if you do go the nitrous route, post some pics pls! Haha

Peace,

Ali

_________________
It's all fun till the cops show up...then it gets REAL fun!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:18 pm
Posts: 478
Location: greenfield aka greentucky, Indiana
suprf1y wrote:
I've had conflicting reports on the mileage results with the advanced timing sprocket. Some claim an increase, some do not, and as far as I know, there have been no decrease. I am still a little surprised to hear that you experience a 'flatness' at heavy throttle. I know you mentioned it before, but still you are the only one to experience this, and so far in my testing (although I admit to testing very little with the stock cam), I have not seen this.
Is you car an xfi?
You sound like you take this pretty seriously, and in support of your cheap bastardness, I would be happy to send you a +6 for testing, if that would be OK with you.
I would like to see your results, with regard to direct comparison. I have done this, but again, it has been on a fairly well built 93 Metro, with a pretty aggressive cam.
The difference between stock, +6, and +10 was very dramatic.
The long duration cam was pretty tough on low RPM power, as you would expect in a small 993cc motor, and the +10 sprocket fixed up the bottom end without (apparently) affecting the top end.



Still need a guinna pig for the 6deg cam sprocket?

_________________
-- Don --
The G10, Suzukis way of natural traction control.

This is my hooptie, there are many like it but this one is mine. With out my hooptie I am walking and without me my hooptie is broken down.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:20 am
Posts: 421
Location: Magalia, CA
Wow. So the fact that I got 41.9 MPG on my Swift's "madien" voyage is pretty good, eh? 109 miles from Colton to Thousand Oaks and it used 2.6 gallons of petrol. So that works out to 41.923 MPG... not to bad for a GTi that was going 75MPH with a few stretches of 90MPH! :twisted:

However, that being said, I'd still like to get me a nice little 1.3 16V Geo to put around in.

_________________
Land of the missing avatar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 8:28 am
Posts: 220
Location: Frankfurt Germany
Hi Stinger, take my word of experience. I've owned both, and drive around 50 000 km per year, mostly at around 130km/h on the autobahn. If you are looking for economy, comfort and reliability, at 75mph the standard SOHC 1.3 is far better than the 1.0 SOHC, and also better than the 1.6 SOHC and 1.3 DOHC as well! The little 1.0 SOHC is great in town, but once you get to 60mph or so, it does get loud and louder, and lacks the sort of performance you want on the highway.

Why?
A) The total ratio in fifth gear of the 1.0 SOHC is 3.107 to one, the 1.3 SOHC has 2.66 to one. The 1.3 therefore revs much lower. That makes it last much longer and less loud. The 1.3 is also very much smoother at higher revs as any 4 cylinder, no comparison to the little 1.0 SOHC. The 1.3 SOHC still has more than enough power for passing etc., and you can always shift down if you think you need more revs. Btw, the 1.3 DOHC (GTI) has a total ratio of 3.57, which makes it so much louder much less economical, and less durable. The DOHC is a really fast city sprinter, but no marathon runner. The 1.6 SOHC has a total ratio of 2.86 , but I would not buy it again because of various grave issues to do with the 1.6 block.
(Total ratio = result of top gear and differential together. A ratio of eg. 5.0 means the engine turns 5.0 times for one complete turn of the wheels.)

B) According to the official European rating (80/1268/EEC), the fuel consumption at steady 120km/h (at steady 90km/h) is as follows:
1.0 SOHC 5.8 liters (4.1) liters consumed for 100km driven;
1.3 SOHC 6.2 (4.7) liters for 100km;
1.3 DOHC 8.5 (!) (5.7) liters for 100km;
1.6 SOHC 6.8 (5.2) liters for 100km;
1.6 SOHC FWD 8.2 (6.1) liters for 100km driven.

I don't know how that works out in mpg, but it does give an accurate comparison. The above applies to manual shifts, I would never in my life ever think of getting an automatic for highway driving. The unnecessarily high revs would drive me deaf or crazy or both ...
Here in Europe with fuel about double the price per liter than champagne, or six times the price of good table wine, you know why we really like economical cars.
cheers,
Helmut.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: 3 or 4?
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:19 pm 
Offline
newbie

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:27 am
Posts: 102
Location: San Antonio
I run my 1.0l 130 miles round trip 5days a week, I've not had any issues with speed / keeping up / passing yet... car gets 35MPG without concern (it's an automatic not a 5spd). I've been changing the oil @ 4-5 weeks, figure it's got to be hard on it so why not.

Run the crap out of the 3cyl, rebuild the 4cyl and do it right in the meantime, plus it will give you time to do the things you want to it. Get everything you need for the swap and do the swap.

_________________
'91 Metro : $200
TTL in the po-dunk town I live in : $49
Average fill-up : $24

Watching the guy fill his gas-hog SUV : Priceless


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group