60 degree Mopar V6 for homebuilt?

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.

"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

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

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.

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.

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

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.