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