V6 vs. V4 reliability..

[quadraphonic]

Power and fun aside.. which off the engines is a better buy reliability-wise? I'm getting pretty close to buying an mx-3, but I want to make sure I buy the better quality model.<P>Will

[pelado]

This is easy. Since there's no such animal as a V-4 Mazda, the V-6 version is better.

[quadraphonic]

Oops.. let me amend that.. V6 vs. 4 Cyl..

[Rick Johnson]

IMO: The 4 cyl <b series> is better, for reliability reasons. The mazda 4 cyl's have been around for a while and from my experience are damn near bulletproof. And if you want BIG power 300+ the 1.8BPTurbo bolts right in and you can buy them for $750US.<P>The V6 from what i've read and heard, reading probtalk and talking to my mechanic friend. Aren't that great overall..just a lot of problems ie: timing belt breaking, coils going, head gaskets. And the v6's are a pain in the a-- to work on. <P>Anyways i just bought a 92 v6 mx-3 like 6 days ago. The reason i got the v6 was the car was fully loaded exactly what i wanted at a good price. I'm going to do the 2.5kl motor swap. My reason being overall driveability then maybe if $$ permits turbo it. Because that would be the ultimate IMO.<P>Just my 2 cents.

[pelado]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mazstyle:<BR><STRONG>Anyways i just bought a 92 v6 mx-3 like 6 days ago. The reason i got the v6 was the car was fully loaded exactly what i wanted at a good price. I'm going to do the 2.5kl motor swap. </STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>GS models usually have more options, that's why I would pick one.

[voltaire]

The Service Dept. manager (for 15 years) at my local Mazda dealer has told me that 1.8L V6 is far superior in general reliability to the I-4's. He called the 4-cylinder engines "anemic" and said that they get worked a lot harder, thus resulting in faster wear and tear.<P>When I mentioned that I assumed the V6 was more difficult to work on, he said that he preferred it to the 4 cyl., although I'm not sure why he thinks so.<P>BTW, I've never driven in a 4 cyl. MX-3, so I can't attest to it's "anemic" status one way or the other.

[lazzyie]

I4 cylinder is bulletproof, v6 is a pain in the a-- mazda guy is wrong<p>[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: lazzyie ]

[Sonicxtacy02]

they are both pretty reliable engines, but in terms of repair cost i'd give the advantage to the 4 cyl. However i've had the V6 for 3 years now and have had NO problems what-so-ever with the engine with the exception of the valve cover gaskets which are a pretty simple fix. My car has cost me $.06/mile including all scheduled maintence. Course that doesnt include the gas i'm guzzling..lol

[voltaire]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sonicxtacy02:<BR><STRONG>they are both pretty reliable engines, but in terms of repair cost i'd give the advantage to the 4 cyl. However i've had the V6 for 3 years now and have had NO problems what-so-ever with the engine with the exception of the valve cover gaskets which are a pretty simple fix. My car has cost me $.06/mile including all scheduled maintence. Course that doesnt include the gas i'm guzzling..lol</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I don't want to start a flame war or anything, but after browsing through the 4cyl. forum and the V6 forum I get the distinct impression that the 4 cyl. models are generally having more serious problems. But then again, that might be because there are more people with 4's than 6's. Does anyone know the ratio of engine types among the posters here? <P>From a random sampling of the posts I've read, there have been several people I've seen who have said that they've never had a serious problem with their V6. I just haven't seen much of that in the 4 cyl. forum. It could just be me.<P>I know that the V6 is more expensive to maintain and service, and parts are more expensive, but that's because they are less common, so parts are less readily available. Also, you sometimes need more or bigger parts, for exanple spark plugs or spark plug wires.<P>I'll also agree that V6's are a general pain in the a-- to work on. That's mostly because of the way everything is shoe-horned under the hood. But it's also due to the same as above. Which one would you rather have to do a valve adjustment on?<P>Again, I don't want to start a pissing war (hey I didn't start the thread), but it just seems to me after reading more posts here that the V6's don't have as many instances of serious problems as the 4 cyl. models do.

[Sonicxtacy02]

i would estimate that 1 in every 5 mx-3's on the road is a 4 cyl. So they are definitely in majority

[natural born honda killer]

well i had the 4 cyl dohc engine in mine and i never had a problem with it other than the ticking lifters but i ragged on that quite a bit and it didnt even blink. so id say form my expierience that they are very reliable. i just wanted some serious power so i swapped motors. but the dohc at least is potent enough to me reliability wise.

[OsoSlo z28]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sonicxtacy02:<BR><STRONG>i would estimate that 1 in every 5 mx-3's on the road is a 4 cyl. So they are definitely in majority</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>ya lost me bro. 1:5 ratio for mx3 4cyls...how does that put them in the majority? but i agree, most are the 4cyl, mainly because they were produced for more years than the gs. i'd venture to say about 3.43284302192 out of 5 is a 4cyl. :p

[lazzyie]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cre8v mx3:<BR><STRONG><BR>i'd venture to say about 3.43284302192 out of 5 is a 4cyl. :p</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>well that is rather mind numbing