If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
60 degree Mopar V6 for homebuilt?
"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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
60 degree Mopar V6 for homebuilt?
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
60 degree Mopar V6 for homebuilt?
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
60 degree Mopar V6 for homebuilt?
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
60 degree Mopar V6 for homebuilt?
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
60 degree Mopar V6 for homebuilt?
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
60 degree Mopar V6 for homebuilt?
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
60 degree Mopar V6 for homebuilt?
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
37 Degree Single vs Double Flared Tubing | Craig Foster | Home Built | 1 | July 21st 04 03:24 PM |
90 Degree turn while slipping | ISoar | Soaring | 40 | February 14th 04 10:49 AM |
37 degree flare, 1/8" stainless | Richard Riley | Home Built | 8 | August 29th 03 04:21 AM |