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.