How Many Miles...

[KD]

I am curious as to what kind of actual miles have been put on each of the prototypes? Assume that P4 has more than P3 and so on.

Thanks...

 

[Jambe]

Actually, very few miles since they are trailered from show to show.
Pictures of the odometer a year ago and now would be interesting to see.

 

[Anderson Howard]

It has been mentioned that the engines in P3 and P4 were tired Geo Metro engines so the probably weren't used much.

 

[Terrence]

Paul Elio said in a past Question and Answer session that the newly designed Elio engine will be capable of 200,000 miles.

 

[KD]

Nice. I was just wondering about the miles as I see P4 being driven on different "press" video's. I figured between those and testing of the suspension parts and whatnot, that it would have accumulated a fair amount by now.

Looking at the event video's, I got to believe they have the door latch and hinges down, with all the entry/exits it has done!

 

[McBrew]

Paul Elio said in a past Question and Answer session that the newly designed Elio engine will be capable of 200,000 miles.

Engines that can't get to 200,000 miles are few and far between. If a car doesn't make it to 200k, it is usually due to accident, rust, or some other expensive problem that a 2nd or 3rd owner doesn't want to pay for.

The ones that have a hard time racking up the miles are notorious for it... Like some of Ford's 3.0 liter pushrod V6 engines from the late 80s and early 90s. Saturn had some real POS 4-cylinders early on, too. Dodge Durangos had problems with oil sludging up and taking engines out. Still, those don't account for much in the scheme of things. Most modern engines can get beyond 300k pretty easily, but the rest of the car may not be in good enough shape for someone to WANT to keep it going... So a $500 or $1,000 problem will send the car to the junkyard.

 

[BaldGuy]

The ones that have a hard time racking up the miles are notorious for it... Like some of Ford's 3.0 liter pushrod V6 engines from the late 80s and early 90s. .

I bought the 94 ranger with the 4.0 V6 and had great luck with it. Close to the 200K now. There was a 3.0 option when I bought it. Is this the engine that had problems? I always assumed the 3.0 was the exact same engine as mine other then being a little smaller. Just curious. Thanks.

 

[McBrew]

I bought the 94 ranger with the 4.0 V6 and had great luck with it. Close to the 200K now. There was a 3.0 option when I bought it. Is this the engine that had problems? I always assumed the 3.0 was the exact same engine as mine other then being a little smaller. Just curious. Thanks.

Yes, not all of them died young... but a LOT of them did. It doesn't take that high of a percentage to make something notorious. Think of GM ignition switches or Takata airbags. The vast majority are fine.

 

[BaldGuy]

Yes, not all of them died young... but a LOT of them did. It doesn't take that high of a percentage to make something notorious. Think of GM ignition switches or Takata airbags. The vast majority are fine.

Is the problem in both the 3.0 and 4.0 engines? And what was it?

 

[McBrew]

Is the problem in both the 3.0 and 4.0 engines? And what was it?

I don't know much about the 4.0. I just remember hearing about a lot of the 3.0 engines going up around 100,000 miles.

I never owned one. The only Fords I have owned were tractors: a 1950 8N and a 1983 with a Perkins diesel. They last quite a long time... Just have to rebuild the distributor on the 8N almost every year (from the MD humidity, I am told) and the early versions of that diesel had single element fuel filters that could clog, rupture, and destroy the injection pump. Cost us about $3,000 to repair the pump on that one. Grrrrr!