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.

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.

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.

("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