2000 Concorde Life Expectancy

Sheese............. my 2000 Concorde (3.2) has only 44,000, guess it's got a long future ahead, I dun-no? LOL

It depends a lot on how you drive it and how you maintain it. Drive it hard and never change the oil and you can ruin the engine in less than

50,000 miles. Maintain it according to the book, or even better, drive it reasonably and it should last 200,000 easily. I believe the 2.7 has some sludge build-up issues (as does at least one Toyota engine, BTW), so you may need to make more frequent oil and filter changes and might want to consider using synthetic oil. My 3.3L GV has 150,000 miles and is still going strong on the original engine AND original 4 speed tranny.

If you really believe that a H/T/N will run 300,000 miles with no work, then I have some desert land to sell you in south Florida. The only car I've ever owned that didn't make 100,000 miles on the engine was an 84 Honda Accord that I bought new. The cam and rocker arms self destructed at ~72,000 miles which filled the engine full of metal. Had it repaired and then shortly after traded for an 89 Acclaim which was probably the most bullet proof car I've ever owned. Unfortunately, after 10 years and 143,000 miles, my wife totaled it hitting an whitetail....

Matt

KC - here is the response that I e-mailed you:

You have a similar commute to what I have - 38 miles each way on rural and semi-rural roads. I also saw from your post on r.a.m.c. that you have the 2.7L engine - which I also have, and which is an important part of the equation, as someone else pointed out on the news group.

First off - this is where the 2.7L engine comes in. As was pointed out on r.a.m.c., the 2.7L engine has sludging problems. BUT I think the type of driving that you and I do prevents the sludge from building up. I have 120k on mine, and it runs great. The failures that I have read about on the internet generally come in the 60 to 80k mile range. So I think we won't have that problem.

How often have you had the oil and filter changed? Besides the type of driving, that is also a factor in the sludging.

You mentioned a timing belt. The 2.7L engine does not have a timing belt. It has a timing chain (metal vs. rubber). The timing chain does not have a change interval on it (i.e., it is not listed in the maintenance schedules). I do not know how long to trust it. Maybe it can go 200k or 300k miles? I just don't know. I can tell you that in general, whereas timing belts need to be changed every 60 to 105k miles (depending on the engine), timing belts are generally considered to last the life of the vehicle - though they can fail.

Be aware of the following: (1) If your timing chain does let loose, because the 2.7L engine is what's called an "interference" engine, there will very likely be expensive damage to the valve area. (2) The water pump is behind the front cover of the engine, and, unlike most cars, is driven by the timing chain. If the timing chain is ever replaced as a preventative measure, the water pump would need to be replaced at the same time because if the water pump fails, it can take out the timing chain and therefore also cause the valve damage at the same time.

Hmmm - you sure about that? I though they all had ABS - I know mine has it and it is an LX. Maybe they stopped doing that in later years (mine's a '99)? You may be correct, but I'm surprised if that's true.

Not a bad philosophy these days, especially for someone who does not do their own work on their car. It's unfortunate that it's like that, but I totally understand.

Here's my advice: Figure on trading it in over the next year. You appear to have some anxiety, and that is very understandable, and I can't do anything to alleviate that, and I realize that what I've already said may add to it. You could go for three more years and not have any problems, but I think there is enough risk that you, in your situation, would sleep better at night with something newer and with lower mileage. Of course there is a cost involved in trading up, but it is in some ways insurance and peace of mind.

No need to apologize - in case you haven't noticed, I tend to lay down a lot of words myself.

It's all based on risk and peace of mind - oh - and money. I expect to get 250 or 300k out of mine, but I'm a guy who works on my own cars and understands what is going on before a mechanic tells me, and I tend to keep a car until it is ready for the junk yard. IOW, I'm willing to take some risks that you are not, and should not, be ready to take. That makes a big difference in the decision.

Thanks - you too.

Let me know if you need further clarification or have any other questions, being that we have essentially the same car with the same engine.

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

The 2.7 is an iffy engine and has had some problems, but apparently if you feed it synthetic oil and change the oil very conservatively, its fine. My wife's 93 Vision (previous generation of the same vehicle) with a 3.5 is still running great at 211,000 miles, and I see no sign that the end is near. First really pricey repair was a tranny overhaul at

150,000, but that was a heck of a lot cheaper than new car payments.

ROTFL!! I've never been able to nurse an import past 120k or so without sudden massive simultaneous organ failure. They're designed to be PERFECLY reliable to 100k or thereabout (and they usually are), and then everything wears out at once. And I mean EVERYTHING. Bic disposable cars. The only exception seems to be Toyota small trucks (the T-100 and Tundra are jokes).

With proper maintenace, I would almost assure many years of life. . Consider cost of repairs, against a new car payment. You almost rationalize even the more expensive repairs. I know a guy that traded in a perfectly good (Paid for) Dodge Ram pickup, "Because it was going to need tires and a battery soon!.. geez!

I also recommend an "Engine Flush" since these engines can have a sludging problem. Have it done professionally by a mechanic that has the right equipment, to do a power flush. I had one done on my 93 intrepid with a 3.3 engine. My fuel mileage even increased 2-3 mpg.

I think the timing belt on a 2.7 does not create a danger to the valves if it were to break. I do not have proof , though I heard the head is designed with valves seats much higher. Of course an ounce of prevention= a pound of cure.

Bottom line... American, Foreign, doesn't matter. It all comes down to proper maintenance.

A crankcase flush increasing gas mileage? How? Power flush of crankcase? Never heard of that. Transmission, yes, but engine, no (and I don't recommend power flushes of the tranny).

Wrong on both counts. The 2.7L engine does not have a timing belt. It has a timing chain.

And it **is** absolutely an interference engine. IOW, if the timing chain breaks, you will have expensive valve damage. And if the timing chain-driven water pump fails in certain ways, it can take out the timing chain and the valves.

Proper maintenance decreases your chances of expensive failures, but is no guarantee. Some very expensive problems can crop up even with good maintenance. Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Hey Bill,

Thanks for the Intrepid Link..gonna check it out. As per the engine flush, I believe the increase in performance may stem from cleaner oil returns, meaning less crankcase gases..= Better breathing PCV system??.. I wouldn;t say I am a mileage calulating fanatic, but I do it in my head at least when I fill up most everytime. There was a definate increase in mileage, and overall performance, after the engine flush. I have had three oil changes since, and no doubt, the oil wasn't as dirty throughout the cycle between changes, as prior to the flush. for 166K miles, this engine has plenty of life left.

As for the 2.7 engine using the chain. I think I may have it confused with the

2.2L engine,,that used a belt, and there was little concern of valve damage if the belt broke. Big difference between 2.2 and 2.6!

2-3 mpg from an engine flush? That's the best one I've heard today. :-)

Matt

Well, maybe your idea of an engine flush is different from the one I had done professionally. There was an absolute increase in performance and mileage.

You mean to tell me that a better breathing engine, with lower crankcase pressure(gases) , would not yield at least a slight increase of performance?.

2-3 mpg I think can be a significant increase. I do lot of highway driving too. Stop and go driving may not be so noticeable.

Horsepucky.

There was no such decrease in "crankcase pressure(gases)".

It is, and you didn't get any such an increase from having your engine "flushed".

But don't feel as though you're alone -- people fool themselves into believing they get magical mileage and performance increases from all kinds of nonsensical potions, plugs and procedures so they don't have to face the reality of having wasted money. It's human nature. I call it the "Slick-50 Effect".

DS

Placebo effect?

Lower crankcase pressure would indeed yield a slight increase in performance. But an "engine flush" shouldn't lower crankcase pressure, unless the engine were on its last legs and packed with varnish and sludge.

A well cared-for engine should NEVER need an oiling system flush, and should never BE flushed. I recently replaced valve cover gaskets on my wife's 1993 3.5 v6, 211,000 miles. There was not so much as a flake of varnish, sludge, or anything foreign under the valve covers. Its never been flushed, nor will it be- just regular oil and filter changes (and not even excessively frequent- I've let it run up to 9000 miles between changes a couple of times). Its had a strict diet of Mobil-1 10w30 since

20,000 miles, Valvoline 10w30 before that, and Purolator or Wix oil filters.

Well - he is talking about the 2.7L here! 8^)

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Oops - that was the OP with the 2.7L - not that guy.

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

How would an engine flush make the engine breath better? The crankcase isn't connected to the induction system last I knen. You would only have lower crankcase pressures if the flush cleaned out the PCV system, which is very unlikely. Even so, crankcase pressure won't make much different on a multi-cylinder engine as while one piston is coming down another is going up so the net affect of any pressure is a wash.

You are dreaming about the mileage increase, at least about it being related to the engine flush. Now if you did a complete tune-up along with the flush, then it is possible that other things increased the mileage.

Matt

How?

Matt

It wouldn't except, as Steve has already pointed out, in the case of a

*severely* sludged-up engine near the end of its useful life.

You're saying your knowledge is current as of 1960. The crankcase has been connected to the induction system in California since '61, New York since '62, and all of the US since '63.

DS

Well, as I said it would take a miracle. The passages that allow blow-by gasses to get to the PCV system would have to be SO blocked with sludge that the gasses couldn't get by.

As for a mileage increase, believe it or not the small change in air

*density* inside the crankcase and the increased drag on the crank due to air resistance do make a measurable (on the dyno) difference in engine output and efficiency. Now, its pretty small at speeds below ~5000 RPM(*), but not so tiny that it can't be detected. It would be hard to imagine you could detect it "seat of the pants" or in terms of fuel economy, but I'm allowing as to how it might not be "impossible."

(*)- it can be surprisingly large at speeds above that, too. I was recently reading an article about an engine build-up and dyno test, and the builder made the first few dyno pulls with the crankcase ventilation system capped. Un-corking the vents (not PCV, just venting to the atmosphere!) gave an instant 10-HP increase at 6000 RPM. And this was on an engine that already had knife-edged crank counterweights- it would be even more noticeable with stock square-fronted counterweights.

I still don't see it. Breathing better implies that you have relieved "congestion" in the intake or exhaust system. Since a crankcase flush isn't going to clean the intake or exhaust valves, air passages in the cylinder head, inside of the intake manifold, or the FI system, I don't see how it is going to remove any sludge that is causing restriction to either the intake or exhaust system.

How is the PCV system going to make the engine breathe better?

Matt

2-3 MPG would be 10-15% increase in fuel efficiency on most vehicles. No way that is going to happen by reducing the air drag on the crank throws or counterweights.

What article? 10 HP on a base of what HP? And how many street engines spend any significant time at 6,000 RPM?

Matt