88 Cameo

[It's just a six]

Re: 88 Cameo

:dunno: I don't know why people keep saying this. Sure, it lacks the power of the 4.3, but for grocery getting and hauling light loads, 2.8 does just fine. It seems bulletproof and gets decent gas mileage. :2cents:

They keep saying this because it is pathetic. For the most part, these engines do not last long,, they cannot get out of it's own way.

BTW, what do you get mileage wise? Under 20 on the freeway? Weak & bad gas mileage, what more would you want?

These trucks were only somewhat handy for gardeners hauling there crap house to house, even those guys did not really like them, they bought them because they were used & cheap & all the people I know who had them, did not have anything good to say about them., just got them from point A to point B & none went over 150,000 miles before they needed an overhaul. They really should have been rebuilt @ 90,000, but some milked them for all they could.

BTW,,, I definitely never heard anyone say those 2.8 were bullet proof. I went to Pierce college for engine recycling course & they had many 2.8 S-10 engines given to them because there were a lot of recalls from GM, even the instructor had nothing good to say about them.

You had to beat on them to get them to move & doing that made them really unreliable & not last long.:2cents:

But hey if you have one of the very few decent 2.8's, good for you.

 

[budmann2002]

Re: 88 Cameo

They keep saying this because it is pathetic. For the most part, these engines do not last long,, they cannot get out of it's own way.

BTW, what do you get mileage wise? Under 20 on the freeway? Weak & bad gas mileage, what more would you want?

These trucks were only somewhat handy for gardeners hauling there crap house to house, even those guys did not really like them, they bought them because they were used & cheap & all the people I know who had them, did not have anything good to say about them., just got them from point A to point B & none went over 150,000 miles before they needed an overhaul. They really should have been rebuilt @ 90,000, but some milked them for all they could.

BTW,,, I definitely never heard anyone say those 2.8 were bullet proof. I went to Pierce college for engine recycling course & they had many 2.8 S-10 engines given to them because there were a lot of recalls from GM, even the instructor had nothing good to say about them.

You had to beat on them to get them to move & doing that made them really unreliable & not last long.:2cents:

But hey if you have one of the very few decent 2.8's, good for you.

i have a 85 with the 1.9l and it has around 325,000 and it still hasnt given up. gas mileage is pretty good, although it does leak oil a bit. not a lot of power going up a hill but still the one truck i can get into and know that it will take me where i need to go. oh yeah and i have at times beat the crap out of it just trying to get it to go up a hill and did the one wheel burn out until the tire blew. that was fun

 

[It's just a six]

Re: 88 Cameo

i have a 85 with the 1.9l and it has around 325,000 and it still hasnt given up. gas mileage is pretty good, although it does leak oil a bit. not a lot of power going up a hill but still the one truck i can get into and know that it will take me where i need to go. oh yeah and i have at times beat the crap out of it just trying to get it to go up a hill and did the one wheel burn out until the tire blew. that was fun

Yeh, when you have a really weak engine that does not any significant power, those engines last forever, they don't make any power, that's the secret. They cannot make enough power to hurt themselves.

I believe the 1.9 was a better, more reliable engine then the 2.8 V-6? Yes, no?

 

[budmann2002]

Re: 88 Cameo

way better in my opinion. but then again its just a 4banger. that is why i bought my ty. so that i could leave the idiots behind and run up on some more.

 

[Icarus-54]

Re: 88 Cameo

I had an 88 4wd 2.8,put over 250k on it and never had a problem

 

[Jimmy]

Re: 88 Cameo

Word on the street was the 2.8 was poo.

That might be because the 4.3 and 2.5 were known and proven engines,but I've always heard the 2.8 is crap.

Fun fact:The 2.5 was 1/2 of the Pontiac 301 V8 and was built by Pontiac from 1977 to 1993..

This 2.5 was also used by American Motors (AMC) starting in 1980, as the base engine option in the RWD Spirit and Concord, and continuing in both cars through 1982. The AWD (4x4) Eagle carried the 2.5 as standard equipment for 1981, and carried it midway through the 1983 model year. It was also available (as the Hurricane) in economy model Jeep CJs.

Wikipedia says.

 

[budmann2002]

Re: 88 Cameo

Word on the street was the 2.8 was poo.

That might be because the 4.3 and 2.5 were known and proven engines,but I've always heard the 2.8 is crap.

Fun fact:The 2.5 was 1/2 of the Pontiac 301 V8 and was built by Pontiac from 1977 to 1993..

This 2.5 was also used by American Motors (AMC) starting in 1980, as the base engine option in the RWD Spirit and Concord, and continuing in both cars through 1982. The AWD (4x4) Eagle carried the 2.5 as standard equipment for 1981, and carried it midway through the 1983 model year. It was also available (as the Hurricane) in economy model Jeep CJs.

Wikipedia says.

very interesting