What is your opinion on the following statement

[JP4RNR]

Please give me your feedback on a statement made to me. I feel this is opinion and not fact . I think the logic is flawed

see in blue text


I don't think a V8 with 300k on the clock is as admirable as a 4 cylinder with 300K.

300k on a 4 cylinder engine has basically worn all engine components more than a V8 engine, because it has the advantage to spread 300k with 4 more cylinders, the wear and tear is less severe. Therefore a V8 with 300k equals to a 150k 4 cylinder engine.

a 2UZ-FE V8 engine will need to achieve 600k miles to equally match a well worn 4Y-E (4 Cylinder)with 300k a 2UZ-FE V8 engine will need to achieve 600k miles to equally match a well worn 4Y-E with 300k

 

[ECMgarrett]

i do NOT agree with the statement
the motor doesnt know how many miles are on the chassis etc
i dont think thats how it works at all

 

[MikesToy]

Whoever made that statement to you has no I.Q. :lmao:

 

[CJ3Flyr]

I don't think a V8 with 300k on the clock is as admirable as a 4 cylinder with 300K.

300k on a 4 cylinder engine has basically worn all engine components more than a V8 engine, because it has the advantage to spread 300k with 4 more cylinders, the wear and tear is less severe. Therefore a V8 with 300k equals to a 150k 4 cylinder engine.

a 2UZ-FE V8 engine will need to achieve 600k miles to equally match a well worn 4Y-E (4 Cylinder)with 300k a 2UZ-FE V8 engine will need to achieve 600k miles to equally match a well worn 4Y-E with 300k

I vote for it before I vote against it.


You could make the arguement that 300k on the V8 isn't quite as impressive all other variables being equal. If a 4th gen T4R had a 2.7L 4cylinder option and a V8 option I wouldn't be surprised to see the V8's in better condition at 300k. Assuming our grandmothers drove both to 300k the V8 would be less worn. The 2.7L would have to work much harder to do the normal work of driving. The 2.7L would have to rev higher before being shifted due to the lack of torque and horsepower. At 300k on the 2.7L the # of feet the pistons had travelled would be higher than the V8. The number of valve cycles would be higher, the number of crank rotations would be higher etc. In no way would I expect the V8 to go 2x the distance though.

After the first sentence the logic/arguement, as presented, falls apart for me.

:cheers:

 

[RonMAIDEN]

The V8 is heavier and more moving parts so you could argue for the V8 but it's simply a dumb statement.

 

[shuly]

What a crazy comparison. It has nothing to do with miles. It has to do with rpms and the minutes each engine was running. If both engines were running at 2k/min then the wear and tear (assuming all else is equal) would be the same. You could be wearing out 8 cyl vs 4 cyl. Doesn't matter how many you have, it is simply the number of strokes inside the piston.

[NOTE: I am making these numbers up for convenience!]
However, it would be plausible, that if a stock 4runner V8 is geared to optimize its power and say it runs around 2k/min, whereas a stock 4runner 4cyl, is optimized and it runs around 3k/min, then you might be able to say the wear and tear on the engine at 300k on the 4cyl might be equivalent to 200k on a V8. [ON AVERAGE]

All that said, for this to hold true, every other component would have to be the same. The transmission, the driveshaft, weights of all diffs, the xfer case...EVERYTHING! Oh yeah, and the fuel injection and compression ratios must be identical. This is NEVER the case and I don't know who ever thought to make such a weird statement, but it's BS!

:twak: