Verdict: 2.0 sohc's are pretty reliable

Chibits12 · Post by **Chibits12** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 8:10 pm

After 107k miles and driving the snot out of it, I can honestly say that the 2.0 SOHC engine's pretty reliable. I've tried to maintain it every 3000 miles and the engine hasn't given me trouble. I've had this thing for almost 4 years and still, not one major problem with the engine::knock on wood::

I'm saying this because people has always been saying Neons are crap, turd, unreliable piece of junk, yadda, yadda, yadda. It all really comes down to proper maintenance of the car. My mileage's 80% highway miles and run as high as 85mph during long trips but it's seen a good amount of stop and go traffic as well.

Post by **racer12306** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 8:56 pm

it is a pretty good engine, and i dont give a shit what any body says about it

fixitmattman · Post by **fixitmattman** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 9:13 pm

It's a fucking horrible engine. If I bought one new I'd be pissed. What kind of car did I just buy that sounds like a pile of fucking marbles in a tin can on every startup once it starts getting near freezing.

Other than that it's not bad. It's not the engine, it's how well you maintain it. If you regularily change the fluids per the maint interval any car will give you years of reliable service.

Nick Drake · Post by **Nick Drake** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:29 pm

I haven't had problems with it yet, but I think it's definitely an inefficient use of 2 liters. I mean Honda's 1.6 liter makes more than ours. And their type r 1.6 makes just shy of 200.

Midnight_Rider · Post by **Midnight_Rider** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:48 pm

Nick Drake wrote:I haven't had problems with it yet, but I think it's definitely an inefficient use of 2 liters. I mean Honda's 1.6 liter makes more than ours. And their type r 1.6 makes just shy of 200.

Yes, but ours are American-made and theirs aren't. That's good enough for me (yeah, I know that I have a Mexican-made engine in my SRT but that wasn't my choice).

03blackrt · Post by **03blackrt** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:11 am

the 2.0's are great engines, but I wouldn't expect anything less from being the decendet of the great chryco 2.2/2.5. plus our 2.0's produce better tq then the high reving jap motors.

Post by **racer12306** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:13 am

surew the type r makes almost 200hp but put the refine ment of that engine into the 2.0 and i bet it would make more.

you have to compare apples to apples here, that type r motor is definitly an orange.

kc2005ptgt · Post by **kc2005ptgt** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:16 am

w3rd. more tq=american

but seriously, I dunno about my engine, it makes too much noise! But I like the power it has compared to the other cars I have driven in its class (mitsu eclipse non-GT, Civic, Hyundai non-V6, as well as most chevy cavy's and cobalts non-SS). In comparison, the neon seemed much more responsive, more powerful, and much more fun to drive in the curves.

Chibits12 · Post by **Chibits12** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:58 am

This engine that we have now is considered outdated in terms of design since the engine was just a carryover from the very first neons that came out in 1994.

It may be loud as hell but it's bang for the buck for such an old and unrefined engine. Back in the days, 132 hp for a four banger is alot, considering civics, corollas, and escorts only manage up to 105-115 hp for the basic models.

No need for variable valve timing, just good ol' American design (gimme torque anytime)

03blackrt · Post by **03blackrt** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 1:07 am

Cricky1224 wrote:This engine that we have now is considered outdated in terms of design since the engine was just a carryover from the very first neons that came out in 1994.

thats why the new chyrco's have the world engines. but 12 years for an engine lifespan is not very long. if cyhrsler wasn't in such financial trouble the engine most likely would have be refreshed every few years and still in production

OB · Post by OB » Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:24 am

I dont see why everyone has to complain about the engine being noisy, when its really not nearly as bad as everyone makes it out to be. I mean, sure mine only has 24k ticks on the odometer, and it probably sounds better than it will in another 100k, but honestly, some ticking and a bit of tranny noise never killed anyone. Isnt this a forum for enthusiasts, not soccer mom commuters? I dont mean to be offensive or anything, I just think its a bit silly is all.

Personally, I think the 2.0 is a great motor. I also think it has more potential than many folks give it credit for. The solid tq is what sets our motor apart from the others in its class, not to mention the all around design. Have any of you guys read the shpeel on allpar about the design and specs of the 2.0? It really makes you feel good to own one.

Thunderstruck · Post by **Thunderstruck** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:25 am

torque, lol.

What's that?

At least the 2.0's I've owned have outlasted every 2.2L POS I ever owned. My 05's 30K miles far exceed all SIX of the MoPar 2.2's I've owned COMBINED!.

As for torque, whatever, if you think the 2.0 has torque I feel like crying for you.

Steve

OB · Post by OB » Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:43 am

^have you ever driven a standard stock civic or something similar? now that's worth crying over. haha

03blackrt · Post by **03blackrt** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 8:30 am

Thunderstruck wrote:torque, lol.

What's that?

At least the 2.0's I've owned have outlasted every 2.2L POS I ever owned. My 05's 30K miles far exceed all SIX of the MoPar 2.2's I've owned COMBINED!.

As for torque, whatever, if you think the 2.0 has torque I feel like crying for you.

Steve

You better start crying for me....

Chibits12 · Post by **Chibits12** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:28 am

I mean for such an old design and for a four cylinder, it's got a good amount of torque. Isn't it around 125 ft. lb. of torque?

We can't just compare these engines to V8 or the current 4 cylinder engines for that matter. It's never gonna pull boats or yachts, but It's like comparing apples and say, pineapples.

FTWNeon · Post by **FTWNeon** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:58 pm

My apple would kick your pineapple's ass any day of the week.

Post by **racer12306** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 1:05 pm

it does have a good bit of torque for its displacement, sure it doesnt compare to a 6 or 8 cyl engine, mmm v-8 torque, mmm diesel torque, sorry just got lost in thought for a sec.

were was i. o yeah, it is pretty good torque for a small motor, those civics cant even keep themselves from rolling back down a hill when its in drive. i drove one for my driver ed class, ick is all i gotta say.

Thunderstruck · Post by **Thunderstruck** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:45 pm

03blackrt wrote: You better start crying for me....

If I cried I would.

Steve

danman132x · Post by **danman132x** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:52 pm

I also agree that the 2.0 is a great motor. It has decent power, both regular and r/t models. I had a 99 dodge neon sohc before and the engine was great also (aside from headgasket). I personally think the weak point is the transmission, both mtx and atx alike

scneonchic · Post by **scneonchic** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:32 pm

kc2002acr wrote:w3rd. more tq=american and european (some)

but seriously, I dunno about my engine, it makes too much noise! But I like the power it has compared to the other cars I have driven in its class (mitsu eclipse non-GT, Civic, Hyundai non-V6, as well as most chevy cavy's and cobalts non-SS). In comparison, the neon seemed much more responsive, more powerful, and much more fun to drive in the curves.

I agree w/ that...and added something

my boyfriend's 95 civic cx nonvtec has a 1.5 w/ 70 HP

the hondas only get faster if you get the good engines.

MoxHair · Post by **MoxHair** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:51 pm

Cricky1224 wrote:After 107k miles and driving the snot out of it, I can honestly say that the 2.0 SOHC engine's pretty reliable. I've tried to maintain it every 3000 miles and the engine hasn't given me trouble. I've had this thing for almost 4 years and still, not one major problem with the engine::knock on wood::

I'm saying this because people has always been saying Neons are crap, turd, unreliable piece of junk, yadda, yadda, yadda. It all really comes down to proper maintenance of the car. My mileage's 80% highway miles and run as high as 85mph during long trips but it's seen a good amount of stop and go traffic as well.

Corgi's rule!

Post by **jonnymopar** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 9:22 pm

Thunderstruck wrote:At least the 2.0's I've owned have outlasted every 2.2L POS I ever owned. My 05's 30K miles far exceed all SIX of the MoPar 2.2's I've owned COMBINED!.

I don't know what you were doing to those motors, but the two 2.5L's that I've owned were retired at 160k and 229k. Hell, the 2.5L turbo that I pulled out of my project car had 140k miles on it and still ran perfect. Only reason I got rid of the engine was to convert to DOHC turbo.

I like the 2.0L. If you can't deal with the valve noise, buy a Corolla. As far as having "only" 132hp, from day 1, these cars have been built to be nothing more than econoboxes, other than ACR models. People that want an economy A-to-B car don't need VTEC or any fancy things, just something reliable and cheap. After Chrysler finally fixed the whole head gasket thing, that's exactly what this 2.0L became. I certainly don't mind driving one every day.

Post by **racer12306** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 9:26 pm

really when you put it into perspective 132 hp out of a 122 ci engine is pretty good for a street engine.

scale that hp/ci into a bigger engine like say a 346ci (5.7L) LS1 engine and you get 374 hp.

or maybe the 366ci (6.0L) LS engine and you get 396hp.

not too bad imo

04R/T · Post by **04R/T** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:28 pm

Nick Drake wrote:I haven't had problems with it yet, but I think it's definitely an inefficient use of 2 liters. I mean Honda's 1.6 liter makes more than ours. And their type r 1.6 makes just shy of 200.

Can you provide a link to said 1.6 liter honda that makes just shy of 200 horsepower? If this is the case why did honda bother to build a 2.0 liter HO that makes less than 200 horsepower?

Post by **racer12306** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:33 pm

wouldnt the type r be a japanese only motor

00element10 · Post by **00element10** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:44 am

no there were american type r's i believe

underway · Post by **underway** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:53 am

Nick Drake wrote:I haven't had problems with it yet, but I think it's definitely an inefficient use of 2 liters. I mean Honda's 1.6 liter makes more than ours. And their type r 1.6 makes just shy of 200.

wat about those coupes with like 96 whp... hondas are weak as hell if u ask me ONLY reason SOME hondas are relitively quick is because they weigh nothing

KIM HUMPHRIES · Post by **KIM HUMPHRIES** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:00 pm

2001 ACR - I'm the 3rd adult owner. All have taken care of the car for 107K hardcore miles. All have run the car in competition. I'm heading into my 3rd season of SOLO with it and have done multiple track days, Club Trials, Rally Cross and it's my daily driver. I go throgh tires but, that's about it. Front wheel bearings are the only major service that I've done on my watch.

Cbussilver01es · Post by **Cbussilver01es** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:45 pm

they do hold up pretty good IF you take good care of them. God knows Ive gone through 3 motors soo Ive learned a thing or two about how reliable the 2.0L is!

Chibits12 · Post by **Chibits12** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:57 pm

KIM HUMPHRIES wrote:2001 ACR - I'm the 3rd adult owner. All have taken care of the car for 107K hardcore miles. All have run the car in competition. I'm heading into my 3rd season of SOLO with it and have done multiple track days, Club Trials, Rally Cross and it's my daily driver.

Wow, that's far more activities than my car and for it to still be going strong is awesome.

2GN.ORG

Verdict: 2.0 sohc's are pretty reliable

Verdict: 2.0 sohc's are pretty reliable

Re: Verdict: 2.0 sohc's are pretty reliable