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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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