Chrysler finally admits the new "World Engines" have issues

I was wondering about this. The new Avenger comes with the "2.4 world" engine for the base model. How does it compare to the 2.4 that it replaces. They got most of the problems worked out of the old 2.4, so I couldn't understand why they would want to use something new and unknown.

-KM

Although the new 2.4L engine is mentioned for it's cold roughness, most of the article is on aspects of the the Sebring and Nitro which customers don't like, such as "both knocked for their interiors".

I looked at the Sebring when it first came out and since I was mainly interested in the V6 this wouldn't have been a problem for me. However I rejected the Sebring in 5 minutes because:

-Can't store a full size spare. (a critical need for me)

-Impractical hood channels in a snowy climate.

-Poor interior.

Note that the poor interior is third on my list of concerns, no mention of the first two which are more important to me, in fact the first (full sized spare) is a firm need for my outside of urban driving. I have no idea how it drives, because it doesn't interest me. I certainly wouldn't trade our 2001 V6 Sebring on it!

Oh yes the Nitro. It was there to and the salesman insisted I sit in it. Sitting in it turned me off even more than looking at it. The only thing I could see attractive about the Nitro is the low price. IMO it's just a large Honda Element; two boxes on wheels.

The only thing I saw is complaints about NVH when cold. That doesn't sound like much of an issue, but I'm glad to see them "re-thinking" the Sebring and Nitro. How about "re thinking" them right out of production and get a midsize sedan of a build quality to match the Magnum and Charger?

As for the "world engine," yes I was highly suspicious the moment I found out that Mitsubishi was involved in the design. Now there's a company that can't build a decent engine no matter how hard they try....

The fixes they are talking about - improving quality while cutting costs

- will *only* work if it is managed with extreme ethics - very hard to do in today's business world. I saw the failures of that when working for a supplier to Ford and Delphi (GM) in the 90's - I've posted some war stories about that here.

If the combination of cutting costs and upping quality is done like it usually is in U.S. automotive, it will amount to making bricks without straw, the mandated quality documentation will get faked (much as in communist countries with their unachievable but required goals) in spite of "documentation" requirements, and will utterly fail. BTDT.

Maybe they will succeed at it.

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

You simply cannot improve quality and cut costs on a car engine design unless it is an established design, with history behind it. If it is a new design, your going to have teething pains and those are going to cost money and reduce perceived quality. Remember an engine is complex with a lot of parts - and you can have 99.9% of the parts of a superior quality and better design, but all it takes is 1 substandard part to tank the entire thing.

We saw Ford do this when they went to plastic intake manifolds. A mistake in the selection of the type of plastic produced manifolds that grew brittle and cracked, and this was an established engine design.

Ted

Though this thread was titled for the engine itself, the article had very lttle to do with the engine problem(s), and more to do with overall automitve design philosophy and quality in general. My comment was about the more general context.

But if I read correctly, the only complaint on the engine is its cold running properties. As you indicate, that may be due to one component or at least one aspect of the controls algorithm, and the solution may or may not be easy to retrofit - probably not too difficult to incorporate into new builds. But the damage to the reputation of the engine may be irreparable even if the engine itself is fixed.

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

I think I'd fire me a salesperson if I was a dealer and one of my salespeople was (basically) telling a potential customer to not buy a particular car . . . especially a car with a low sales commission. Be that as it may. He might have felt he was doing you a "service" by telling you abou the pitfalls of buying that car, but he also did some other things to. It's a sure bet that he made more on that used car than he was going to make on that new Calibre.

Timing belts are common on USA and import brands. If the engine is an "interference" engine, the salesperson was accurate in what would happen if the belt might break . . . nothing new there. BUT you won't need to change the belt until something like 75K miles anyway.

Throttle sensitivity and steering sensitivity an be subjective and 'point of reference' issues. Once you get used to these things, it's no big deal.

EVERY potential car buyer does not read Consumer Reports. There are other (and better) car magazines out there which have road tests, too. To me, if anybody reads just one road test about a vehicle and then does not drive that vehicle, they're not fully investigating what they are getting ready to spend their money on, vehicle-wise.

With all of the "quality gates" that DC put in place after "The Merger" (which were somewhat similar to what the Viper plant already had!), all of these missteps and design short-cuts seem somewhat unusual. Having to get a consultant group involved to get things back on schedule might be a result of the "go to" people being bought out of their contracts and replaced with "warm bodies"? I would think a "world engine" would be "world class" rather than just being designed to be produced anywhere DC wanted to produce it.

If they perceive the Sebring is "bouyant" on the highway, those testers probably didn't test a '97 Buick LeSabre on the same highway (when it was new). Again, a point of reference issue, but one which an older buyer that wants "an easy ride" might desire. Even Camrys can feel that way (bouyant) too!

Considering that they probably designed some of these new cars for what was "on the ground" by other makers back then, they could well have underestimated where things would end up 3-4 years later, but still felt they were doing a credible job for what their instructions might have been.

Chassis calibrations are easily fixable and cheap to do. Electronic throttle control sensitivities are easy to reprogram too, as steering sensitivities are similar. Cold engine noise might be a little more challenging, though, but might just need a few component tweaks (depending upon what the noise source is). Interior issues can take a little longer to change, though, but that can be done too at the next model change. I have no doubt they will all be attended to very soon, if not before. Those alleged "mountains" can be nothing more than a sand pile with the right touch.

Just some thoughts . . .

C-BODY