Richard,
You are very lucky. I have also had my 2000 for 30 years, but had two chain
failures (and a 5-speed failure). Once I left my 2000 at a shop to have new
tires mounted. With explicit instructions not to race the engine or abuse
the car. When I came back they said my engine wouldn't start. Popped the
hood only to find holes in the valve cover and the timing chain cover -
they were obviously playing with the roadster, drag-racing it around the
shop. Cost me a bundle to get it fixed, and the tire store refused my
claims for reimbursement. I was young and couldn't afford a lawyer. After
that experience I bring in rims/mags for new tires and mount them on the
car myself.
Maybe you can baby your car, but don't think anyone else will! And if a
2000 busts it costs so much more than a 1600.
I've got both 1600's and 2000's. I feel confident in using my 1600 in any
rough situation, knowing that it will take abuse and keep on ticking. I've
used the 1600 as a daily driver, and put many thousands of miles on it. Not
so with the 2000, it's a weekend driver only.
Fred - So.SF
_______________________ Reply Separator ________________________
Subject: Re: 1600 vs 2000 (was: I'm sold!)
Author: "Richard Rudden" <sequoia12@hotmail.com>
Date: 4/13/2001 12:28 PM
Ouch John...
I've had my 2000 for 31 years, 146,000 miles and the only reason it's down
now is due to really poor machine work causing a valve seat to part company
with the head... Maybe I've been lucky, I've not had a catastrophic chain
failure.
Actually you do make some very good points, pretty much sums up the
different character of the 2 cars. Both do require TLC, both are a whole lot
o' fun! I suppose it gets down to what you want out of the car and which
pleases the seat of your pants most.
Richard R
'69 2000
----Original Message Follows----
From: "John F Sandhoff" <sandhoff@csus.edu>
Reply-To: "John F Sandhoff" <sandhoff@csus.edu>
To: datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
Subject: 1600 vs 2000 (was: I'm sold!)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:36:17 -0700
It was written:
> My sentiments exactly! Both great cars, but the 2000's got it all!!
Including an engine that throws NLA timing chains thru the valve
cover :-)
Sorry, cheap shop..
Actually, I have both a 1600 and a 2000. I like them both. They each
have their niches. The 2000 with its 5 speed is a GREAT freeway
cruiser. It purrs a little above 3000 revs while the 1600 is churning
at 4000 to keep up. (yes, I drive conservatively). I don't like the
physical shifting on the 5 speed though.
The 1600 is great for in-town stop and go. I prefer its gearing for city
streets, and it zips around very nicely if you don't need the top end.
The engine, IMHO, is a more robust design. Hopefully I won't detonate
either, but finding parts to put a U20 back together is definitely getting
to be worrisome.
Of course, that 4-speed has the weak countershaft bearings. BTDT,
blew the cluster gear, awaiting a rebuild... OTOH, the 5-speed has the
press-fit 5th gear waiting to let go...
Bottom line: They're BOTH fine little automobiles! Either model performs
well within legal and safe driving limits.
(Flames off-list, please)
-- John
John F Sandhoff sandhoff@csus.edu Sacramento, CA
_________________________________________________________________
|