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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
60 degree Mopar V6 for homebuilt?
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
60 degree Mopar V6 for homebuilt?
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
60 degree Mopar V6 for homebuilt?
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
60 degree Mopar V6 for homebuilt?
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
60 degree Mopar V6 for homebuilt?
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
60 degree Mopar V6 for homebuilt?
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
60 degree Mopar V6 for homebuilt?
("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 |
|
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 |