96-97 3.2L sohc Rodeo's prone to rod failure???

Ramblin Fever · 07-25-2007, 10:12 AM

Inquiring about whether or not any other owners/members have heard of this issue.

From a well respected member on the planet - whom himself has owned 2 '96 Rodeo's - has, on both occasions, had his 3.2L sohc self destruct in the way that the '98 Rodeo's were/are common for. With the #2 cylinder, I believe he stated, not getting enough oil, thus causing, overtime, the engine to throw a rod, even with adequate oil in the sump.

He did mention that both of these Rodeo's had been previously used by someone else, but, was amazed to have the same problem happen on both of them, from previously different owners, different history's.

He went on to tell me that this is a very widespread problem among the 96-97 3.2L's, but in the 10yrs I've owned mine, and the 5yrs I've been on Isuzu boards, this is the first I've heard about this - in relation to the '96-97 yrs.

I've heard numerous issues about the 98+yrs and rods being thrown; but only very rarely hearing it on the older Rodeo's, and mainly due to the owner not being mindful of the oil level.

This gentlemen went on to say that only the 93-95 3.2L Rodeo's were workhorses, and the 96-97's very rarely made it over the 200k mark without throwing a rod.

My intent on this post is to NOT bash or have negative comments about the informatent himself, but to hear if others have heard of this as being a very widespread issue on the 96-97 Rodeo's themselves, and what, if anything, can be done to prevent it from happening.

Needless to say, this information does worry me, as I never once thought that my lower engine block on my '97 3.2L sohc had anything to do with the engine block of the '98 Rodeo's - in relation to how the oil pump is set up in the deliverence of oil.

I ALWAYS thought the lower block on my truck was nearly identical, if not identical to the lower blocks of the 93-95yrs.

surferfletch · 07-25-2007, 05:56 PM

Hate to think my block is going to kick before the auto tranny. Wouldn't that be ironic.

Ramblin Fever · 07-25-2007, 08:26 PM

From the Planet & JLEMOND himself regarding this concern:

ABSOLUTELY NOT , THE PROBLEM IS WHEN THEY DO RUN LOW ON OIL
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

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD