I think the 103 is one of the best engines ever produced. Long-lived, makes good power and torque and the only shortcoming was high-mileage oil consumption on early models before the valve guide problem was fixed.

If it appears that lots of people write for tech help on these 'problem' engines it's been my general observation that:
1) the majority of these folks have pre-1990 models and their concern is invariably oil consumption,
2) there's LOTS of them, and
3) they're becoming high-mileage cars at this point and EVERY car wears out.

Let's face it - you can't fault an engine when someone writes in that they're burning a quart every thousand miles and have "only" 200k miles on their car.

duh duh duh duh

The real question is, how many other manufacturers can be pointed to that build engines that go 200k without much more that a water pump (and I'd bet the majority of 300s in this country at 200k miles have NOT had a replacement installed)?????

My Ford took almost $8k in new parts to make it to 100 and it STILL runs like garbage. My dad's beemers are good - they make 150 before requiring about $5-8k in maintenance.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. I think the 103 is a well-engineered design and far outlasts (at much less cost) other gas-powered motors.