60 degree Mopar V6 for homebuilt?

[RapidRonnie]

Instead of the Javelin Ford, which appears totally dead, or the Chevy
V6 that is 3/4 a small block has nayone thought about flying the
pushrod Chrysler V6? They are becoming available pretty cheap.

[Morgans]

"RapidRonnie" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Instead of the Javelin Ford, which appears totally dead, or the Chevy
> V6 that is 3/4 a small block has nayone thought about flying the
> pushrod Chrysler V6? They are becoming available pretty cheap.
>
From my experience in cars, they are pretty cheap because they are crap, or
next to it.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Dohm]

> > Instead of the Javelin Ford, which appears totally dead, or the Chevy
> > V6 that is 3/4 a small block has nayone thought about flying the
> > pushrod Chrysler V6? They are becoming available pretty cheap.
> >
> From my experience in cars, they are pretty cheap because they are crap,
> or next to it.
> --
I have heard that enough times to wonder it there might be some basis;
OTOH, back when they were still current production, my local Chrysler dealer
believed they were sufficiently reliable that a 100,000 standard factory
waranty was imminent.

I don't recall whether they were bimetal or aluminum block engines, but
adiquate and consistent cooling is *very* important with aluminum heads on
an iron block.

Also, some of the newer designs may be lighter, although I don't know the
weight of either.

BTW, Ford had a 3.0L and GM had a similar engine that may have been the
3.4L, which were both just about as compact as the Chrysler 3.0L and 3.3L
engines.

Peter

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Peter Dohm wrote:>> --
> I have heard that enough times to wonder it there might be some basis;
> OTOH, back when they were still current production, my local Chrysler
> dealer believed they were sufficiently reliable that a 100,000
> standard factory waranty was imminent.
>
> Peter

Of course that could be because at the time word was bad enough about them
that a long waranty was the only way they were going to sell them.

[cavedweller]

On Feb 7, 12:40 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > > Instead of the Javelin Ford, which appears totally dead, or the Chevy
> > > V6 that is 3/4 a small block has nayone thought about flying the
> > > pushrod Chrysler V6? They are becoming available pretty cheap.
>
> > From my experience in cars, they are pretty cheap because they are crap,
> > or next to it.
> > --
>
> I have heard that enough times to wonder it there might be some basis;
> OTOH, back when they were still current production, my local Chrysler dealer
> believed they were sufficiently reliable that a 100,000 standard factory
> waranty was imminent.
>
> I don't recall whether they were bimetal or aluminum block engines, but
> adiquate and consistent cooling is *very* important with aluminum heads on
> an iron block.
>
> Also, some of the newer designs may be lighter, although I don't know the
> weight of either.
>
> BTW, Ford had a 3.0L and GM had a similar engine that may have been the
> 3.4L, which were both just about as compact as the Chrysler 3.0L and 3.3L
> engines.
>
> Peter

The 3.0L Chrysler engine of recent times is not a push rod engine. It
was a Mitsubishi design and had its share of problems, particularly
with valve guides and cam and crank seals. The 3.3L pushrod engine
(and its variants) is of US design and manufacture.
Search rec.autos.makers.chrysler.

[Peter Dohm]

> > > > Instead of the Javelin Ford, which appears totally dead, or the
Chevy
> > > > V6 that is 3/4 a small block has nayone thought about flying the
> > > > pushrod Chrysler V6? They are becoming available pretty cheap.
> >
> > > From my experience in cars, they are pretty cheap because they are
crap,
> > > or next to it.
> > > --
> >
> > I have heard that enough times to wonder it there might be some basis;
> > OTOH, back when they were still current production, my local Chrysler
dealer
> > believed they were sufficiently reliable that a 100,000 standard factory
> > waranty was imminent.
> >
> > I don't recall whether they were bimetal or aluminum block engines, but
> > adiquate and consistent cooling is *very* important with aluminum heads
on
> > an iron block.
> >
> > Also, some of the newer designs may be lighter, although I don't know
the
> > weight of either.
> >
> > BTW, Ford had a 3.0L and GM had a similar engine that may have been the
> > 3.4L, which were both just about as compact as the Chrysler 3.0L and
3.3L
> > engines.
> >
> > Peter
>
> The 3.0L Chrysler engine of recent times is not a push rod engine. It
> was a Mitsubishi design and had its share of problems, particularly
> with valve guides and cam and crank seals. The 3.3L pushrod engine
> (and its variants) is of US design and manufacture.
> Search rec.autos.makers.chrysler.
>
Now that you mention it, I recall that the 3.0L was a Mitsubishi design, and
that the complaints that I heard were about it. Apparently, the 3.3L was
not a revision of the same engine, as I had supposed.

A quick look in the rec.autos.makers.chrysler group strongly suggests that
the 2.7L might also be a poor choice. It's obvoisly hard to guess how much
is simply poor maintenance, but an Intrepid is obviously a much lighter load
for an engine than an airplane...

Peter

[cavedweller]

On Feb 7, 11:32 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > > > > Instead of the Javelin Ford, which appears totally dead, or the
> Chevy
> > > > > V6 that is 3/4 a small block has nayone thought about flying the
> > > > > pushrod Chrysler V6? They are becoming available pretty cheap.
>
> > > > From my experience in cars, they are pretty cheap because they are
> crap,
> > > > or next to it.
> > > > --
>
> > > I have heard that enough times to wonder it there might be some basis;
> > > OTOH, back when they were still current production, my local Chrysler
> dealer
> > > believed they were sufficiently reliable that a 100,000 standard factory
> > > waranty was imminent.
>
> > > I don't recall whether they were bimetal or aluminum block engines, but
> > > adiquate and consistent cooling is *very* important with aluminum heads
> on
> > > an iron block.
>
> > > Also, some of the newer designs may be lighter, although I don't know
> the
> > > weight of either.
>
> > > BTW, Ford had a 3.0L and GM had a similar engine that may have been the
> > > 3.4L, which were both just about as compact as the Chrysler 3.0L and
> 3.3L
> > > engines.
>
> > > Peter
>
> > The 3.0L Chrysler engine of recent times is not a push rod engine. It
> > was a Mitsubishi design and had its share of problems, particularly
> > with valve guides and cam and crank seals. The 3.3L pushrod engine
> > (and its variants) is of US design and manufacture.
> > Search rec.autos.makers.chrysler.
>
> Now that you mention it, I recall that the 3.0L was a Mitsubishi design, and
> that the complaints that I heard were about it. Apparently, the 3.3L was
> not a revision of the same engine, as I had supposed.
>
> A quick look in the rec.autos.makers.chrysler group strongly suggests that
> the 2.7L might also be a poor choice. It's obvoisly hard to guess how much
> is simply poor maintenance, but an Intrepid is obviously a much lighter load
> for an engine than an airplane...
>
> Peter

The 2.7 isn't part of the 3.3 family either and IT had its own
problems, many of which could be ameliorated by rigid maintenance.

I don't understand your specific reference to the "load" in an
Intrepid being the measure of suitability for the engine's application
in an airplane. The jump to aircraft use for any auto engine is a big
one no matter what vehicle it comes out of.

[Peter Dohm]

> > > The 3.0L Chrysler engine of recent times is not a push rod engine. It
> > > was a Mitsubishi design and had its share of problems, particularly
> > > with valve guides and cam and crank seals. The 3.3L pushrod engine
> > > (and its variants) is of US design and manufacture.
> > > Search rec.autos.makers.chrysler.
> >
> > Now that you mention it, I recall that the 3.0L was a Mitsubishi design,
and
> > that the complaints that I heard were about it. Apparently, the 3.3L
was
> > not a revision of the same engine, as I had supposed.
> >
> > A quick look in the rec.autos.makers.chrysler group strongly suggests
that
> > the 2.7L might also be a poor choice. It's obvoisly hard to guess how
much
> > is simply poor maintenance, but an Intrepid is obviously a much lighter
load
> > for an engine than an airplane...
> >
> > Peter
>
> The 2.7 isn't part of the 3.3 family either and IT had its own
> problems, many of which could be ameliorated by rigid maintenance.
>
> I don't understand your specific reference to the "load" in an
> Intrepid being the measure of suitability for the engine's application
> in an airplane. The jump to aircraft use for any auto engine is a big
> one no matter what vehicle it comes out of.
>
>
You're right that it is not part of the same engine family, and it
presumably differs considerably from the other overhead cam engines as well.
The reference may not really belong in the same posting.

I am not quite sure why, but rumors suggest that the _modern_ overhead cam
and multi-valve engines are far less tolerant of sloppy or deferred
maintenance than most older designs.

The load issue with the intrepid is slight, but that is a heavier car than
the Sebring and Stratus in which is was most commonly used. Aircraft use is
a lot more like pulling a trailer uphill at highway speed.

[cavedweller]

On Feb 8, 9:51 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > > > The 3.0L Chrysler engine of recent times is not a push rod engine. It
> > > > was a Mitsubishi design and had its share of problems, particularly
> > > > with valve guides and cam and crank seals. The 3.3L pushrod engine
> > > > (and its variants) is of US design and manufacture.
> > > > Search rec.autos.makers.chrysler.
>
> > > Now that you mention it, I recall that the 3.0L was a Mitsubishi design,
> and
> > > that the complaints that I heard were about it. Apparently, the 3.3L
> was
> > > not a revision of the same engine, as I had supposed.
>
> > > A quick look in the rec.autos.makers.chrysler group strongly suggests

> that
> > > the 2.7L might also be a poor choice. It's obvoisly hard to guess how
> much
> > > is simply poor maintenance, but an Intrepid is obviously a much lighter
> load
> > > for an engine than an airplane...
>
> > > Peter
>
> > The 2.7 isn't part of the 3.3 family either and IT had its own
> > problems, many of which could be ameliorated by rigid maintenance.
>
> > I don't understand your specific reference to the "load" in an
> > Intrepid being the measure of suitability for the engine's application
> > in an airplane. The jump to aircraft use for any auto engine is a big
> > one no matter what vehicle it comes out of.
>
> You're right that it is not part of the same engine family, and it
> presumably differs considerably from the other overhead cam engines as well.
> The reference may not really belong in the same posting.
>
> I am not quite sure why, but rumors suggest that the _modern_ overhead cam
> and multi-valve engines are far less tolerant of sloppy or deferred
> maintenance than most older designs.
>
Roger that.

> The load issue with the intrepid is slight, but that is a heavier car than
> the Sebring and Stratus in which is was most commonly used. Aircraft use is
> a lot more like pulling a trailer uphill at highway speed.

..... in first gear if a PSRU is used.

[Montblack]

("cavedweller" wrote)
>> Aircraft use is a lot more like pulling a trailer uphill at highway
>> speed.

> .... in first gear if a PSRU is used.


(Wikipedia)
"Airstream trailers are well recognized for their distinctive rounded
aluminum bodies, which originated in the 1930s from designs largely created
by Hawley Bowlus . Bowlus was the designer of Charles Lindbergh's aircraft,
the Spirit of St. Louis."

"Rec.Homebuilt" <g>
http://www.airstream.net/images/torpedo.jpg
"Dr. H.W. Holman and wife Thelma with the oldest existing Airstream. This
'torpedo trailer' was built from plans supplied by the Airstream company in
1935."

http://www.airstream.net/as_photos/photos.html
Photos of vintage Airstreams


Montblack

[Morgans]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> I am not quite sure why, but rumors suggest that the _modern_ overhead cam
> and multi-valve engines are far less tolerant of sloppy or deferred
> maintenance than most older designs.

If this is the engine I am thinking of, there has to be a special low coking
oil used, or the cam chain tensioner suddenly loses its ability to maintain
tension, and the whole thing flies apart, catastrophically for the further
running of the engine. Regular oil, even changed every 3K miles will not
cut it.

That does not sound like a normal tolerance for maintenance, but rather, a
design with poor engineering. I feel equal apprehension involving all of
Chrysler's engines, until proven otherwise.

I have know other people with major engine problems with engines that have
had regular oil changes, and all recommended maintenance. There are more
than isolated instances of engine failure, IMHO.

Ford and GM, and a few other manufacturers have had extensive experience
racing their engines. Weak links appear, and are corrected. Racing more
closely duplicates the types of abuse we subject our engines to, in
airplanes.

Until Chrysler starts racing more engine lines, I don't see my confidence
level in their engines changing very much.
--
Jim in NC

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:58:39 -0500, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>
>"Peter Dohm" > wrote
>
>> I am not quite sure why, but rumors suggest that the _modern_ overhead cam
>> and multi-valve engines are far less tolerant of sloppy or deferred
>> maintenance than most older designs.
>
>If this is the engine I am thinking of, there has to be a special low coking
>oil used, or the cam chain tensioner suddenly loses its ability to maintain
>tension, and the whole thing flies apart, catastrophically for the further
>running of the engine. Regular oil, even changed every 3K miles will not
>cut it.

From what the Chrysler mechanics (and independents) I've talked to
about this say, following the extreme driving schedule using either
top quality dino or synthetic oil solves the problem. On these engines
(2.7) there is NO driving that is not "extreme" as far as the oil is
concerned. They can, and will, go over 300,00km with proper care. Are
they fussy? without a doubt - but PROPERLY maintained, they CAN be
relatively reliable. Would I put one in a plane????? I'd have to think
long and hard on that one - I think there are too many other, better
alternatives.
>
>That does not sound like a normal tolerance for maintenance, but rather, a
>design with poor engineering. I feel equal apprehension involving all of
>Chrysler's engines, until proven otherwise.
>
>I have know other people with major engine problems with engines that have
>had regular oil changes, and all recommended maintenance. There are more
>than isolated instances of engine failure, IMHO.
>
>Ford and GM, and a few other manufacturers have had extensive experience
>racing their engines. Weak links appear, and are corrected. Racing more
>closely duplicates the types of abuse we subject our engines to, in
>airplanes.
>
>Until Chrysler starts racing more engine lines, I don't see my confidence
>level in their engines changing very much.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Peter Dohm]

> >> I am not quite sure why, but rumors suggest that the _modern_ overhead
cam
> >> and multi-valve engines are far less tolerant of sloppy or deferred
> >> maintenance than most older designs.
> >
> >If this is the engine I am thinking of, there has to be a special low
coking
> >oil used, or the cam chain tensioner suddenly loses its ability to
maintain
> >tension, and the whole thing flies apart, catastrophically for the
further
> >running of the engine. Regular oil, even changed every 3K miles will not
> >cut it.
>
> From what the Chrysler mechanics (and independents) I've talked to
> about this say, following the extreme driving schedule using either
> top quality dino or synthetic oil solves the problem. On these engines
> (2.7) there is NO driving that is not "extreme" as far as the oil is
> concerned. They can, and will, go over 300,00km with proper care. Are
> they fussy? without a doubt - but PROPERLY maintained, they CAN be
> relatively reliable. Would I put one in a plane????? I'd have to think
> long and hard on that one - I think there are too many other, better
> alternatives.
> >
Very interesting, and sounds a little unusual for a non-turbo engine. But
there are obviously too many good alternatives to waste much time on an
apparently marginal engine.

I have heard that the GM 90 degree V6 engines are essentially bulletproof,
but also quite heavy, and that the similar ford engines had (several years
ago) a weakness in the head gasket area, but have been popular conversions
for their overall combination of weight, strength, and power.

Have you heard any recommendations for or against the Chrysler 3.2L and
3.5L, the GM 3.4L, or the similar Ford engines. There is also a Chrysler
3.7L engine in the Jeep Liberty, which should have enough service history to
make an evaluation. It would seem that the 60 degree engines should have
been developed to the point of being at least as reliable as the 90 degree
engines--but much lighter.

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 20:39:19 -0500, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>
>Have you heard any recommendations for or against the Chrysler 3.2L and
>3.5L, the GM 3.4L,

Well, you most definitely do NOT want the 3.4 timebomb.

> or the similar Ford engines. There is also a Chrysler
>3.7L engine in the Jeep Liberty, which should have enough service history to
>make an evaluation.

The 3.7 is likely a future candidate. So far it's got a decent
reputation.
> It would seem that the 60 degree engines should have
>been developed to the point of being at least as reliable as the 90 degree
>engines--but much lighter.
>
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Peter Dohm]

>
> >
> >Have you heard any recommendations for or against the Chrysler 3.2L and
> >3.5L, the GM 3.4L,
>
> Well, you most definitely do NOT want the 3.4 timebomb.
>
> > or the similar Ford engines. There is also a Chrysler
> >3.7L engine in the Jeep Liberty, which should have enough service history
to
> >make an evaluation.
>
> The 3.7 is likely a future candidate. So far it's got a decent
> reputation.

Thanks, I'll keep watching as I get closer to actually undertaking the
project.

[Morgans]

<clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote >
> Well, you most definitely do NOT want the 3.4 timebomb.

What have you heard about the 3.4?

Also, aren't they (GM) making a 3.6 now? How about it?
--
Jim in NC

[cavedweller]

On Feb 8, 8:58 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > >Have you heard any recommendations for or against the Chrysler 3.2L and
> > >3.5L, the GM 3.4L,
>
> > Well, you most definitely do NOT want the 3.4 timebomb.
>
> > > or the similar Ford engines. There is also a Chrysler
> > >3.7L engine in the Jeep Liberty, which should have enough service history
> to
> > >make an evaluation.
>
> > The 3.7 is likely a future candidate. So far it's got a decent
> > reputation.
>
> Thanks, I'll keep watching as I get closer to actually undertaking the
> project.

Peter, check the Allpar site in the engines section to get straight
what the various Chrysler families are. The 3.3 pushrod begat a 3.5
and a 3.8. (These are Trenton, MI built)

The 2.7 begat a 3.2. There's also a V6 derived from a 318 cid V-8
(3.7?). And then there's the new stuff!

I've been out of touch for so long now I can't keep them straight.

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 22:10:28 -0500, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>
><clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote >
>> Well, you most definitely do NOT want the 3.4 timebomb.
>
>What have you heard about the 3.4?
>
>Also, aren't they (GM) making a 3.6 now? How about it?
Don't know about the 3.6, but if GM lives up to their reputation, they
won't have fixed the 3.4 problems in the 3.6
The 3.4 was a fragile engine. Head gaskets were the big issue, but
there was apparently other problems as well. The only thing it had
going for it was low fuel consumption.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com