Chrysler 2.5s don't make 300,000? Oil blowback.

[K-CAR_WAGON]

With 20" of vacum at idle, I wouldn't say the car's worn out. I'd buy the car for the old lady since she drives like granny anyhow

With 20 in vacuum I would not say the engine is worn out either, but from how Guy has described the rest of the car (need new struts, maybe needs new balls joints, suspected vacuum booster, needs new rack and pinion, original fuel pump still in car, original transmission, probably original rubber fuel lines, rear stabilizer bar broken, probably many rubber suspension bushing worn out, A/C inoperative, ......) maybe the car is worn out. I just think he would be better off in the long run finding a low mileage replacement (even if its another identical K-car).

[89ARIES]

Well, I have kept up on transmission maintenance. The fuel pump was replaced four years ago. The struts and suspension have had things replaced
a couple times since 2003. I don't know if the brake booster is really bad just because I can hear air. It still brakes okay. The rear stabalizer bar broke in 2007. I didn't pick up on it until this year. I also notice oddly enough that if I do a sharp U-turn, sometime the right tire will rub on something. Other than that, I think the car has many useful miles yet. It will take me getting on the ball now and addressing these issues. Also, the undercarriage is still rustfree.

[89ARIES]

I want to drive this car to 500,000. Probably a bit unrealistic.

[capev86]

no 2 engines give up the fight at the same time. proper maintenance and optimal driving habits contribute much to long life. but even a good design can have poorer examples. all it takes is a small flaw to muck things up.

actually, a steady 75-80mph is better than putting around town all the time, start-stop, etc. long distance highway driving (at reasonable speeds/rpms) means the engine has time to warm up properly and it sees a lot more use between cold starts.

check over on the turbo-dodge and turbo-mopar forums. much larger group of guys so a much larger collective knowledge basis for turbo 2.2/2.5 engines.

if you rebuild a carb or tbi motor, do yourself a favor and use the piston rings for a turbo engine. like a mopar performance gasket or the clutch disc off a turbo car, on an N/A app it will last just about forever!

[K-CAR_WAGON]

I want to drive this car to 500,000. Probably a bit unrealistic.

Well ,somebody on Allpar made to to 486K + with an 82 Aries.

75-80 mph highway speed might be better than stop and go, but 75-80 is kind of pushing it for a 2.5 4 cylinder. At little lower and it will probably last a lot longer.

[MyDodgeDip]

55-65 seems to be a sweet spot. anything over that and the gas mileage starts to drop because the motor is reving so high. They like to be kept in the lower RPMs. The easier I go on the station wagon, the better on gas it is. Drive it like and old lady and it's over 30 MPG. Drive it like a normal person and it's down to 27 or 28.

[Pete in NH]

55 to 65 MPH makes sense. Keep in mind the context of the K’s development. We had gone through two Arab oil embargoes in the 70’s. ( Any one remember waiting in long lines for your 5 gallon or whatever, ration of gas.) This lead the Carter administration to put in effect a new national 55 MPH speed limit and corporate fuel economy standards for car companies. The K’s were intended to be the first generation of family cars from Chrysler to meet the new requirements. They were intended to be driven around the new 55 MPH speed limit. The little 2.2 was about half the displacement of the smallest V8 Chrysler had built in the 60’s , the 273 Cu In., it was also smaller than the smallest slant six, the 170 Cu In. The 2.2 and 2.5 were never meant to be high speed highway cruisers.

These cars were a radical departure from the cars of the 70’s that had large V8’s and lots of power. If you remember sitting in those gas lines and wondering how you were going to get to your job, you were happy to see the K’s on the market.

[89ARIES]

No wonder it didn't do better than 27 to Sacramento at 70mph. Hhm, something to think about.

[K-CAR_WAGON]

I rarely ever got better than 27MPG on my 92 Acclaim with TBI and auto trans (I think it is essentially the same drive train as in your 89 Aries) and I not think it ever exceeded 30MPG. I can consitently get better MPG with the 83 2.2 carb version and auto trans under equivalent driving conditions, but it has less power. With the 2.5 l TBI and manual trans. cars, I can generally get a couple of MPG better.

[89ARIES]

They said early Ks got better gas mileage. 35-40mpg.