I, too have both the 2000 and 1600... and I prefer the 1600! After
personally experiencing the timing chain problems of the 2000 TWICE, I'd
take that stout little 1600 engine every time! Both are great cars,
but... when the Death Rattle comes aknockin', get out the checkbook, raid
the bank account, sell a kidney... IMHO of course!
Eric
WyCROC
'68 2000
'67 1600
2 '68 1600s
'68-'69 1600
----- Original Message -----
From: John F Sandhoff <sandhoff@csus.edu>
To: <datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 12:36 PM
Subject: 1600 vs 2000 (was: I'm sold!)
> 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
|