Sludge

Just had my 2.7 Intrepid die to the good sludge which seems to ails these engines. My body and Interior are in great shape so a rebuild or swap might be worth it. Finding a 2.7 is a quest however I see alot of

3.2 and 3.5 from 300M available @ lower price tags. Does anyone know how difficult the swap from the 2.7 to the 3.2 or 3.5 is, and if any other mods are needed for this swap? Not to thrilled about swaping another 2.7 only to have same problem down the line again...can anyone adivse?
Reply to
dj_richardv
Loading thread data ...

Seems that someone out there thinks that replacing the 2.7 with a 3.2 is not only good, but that they can make a profit at supporting it:

formatting link
FWIW, the 3.5 is externally identical to a 3.2, so if you want the added power you can go that route pretty easily.

Reply to
Steve

Definitely possible.

This guy sells swap kits:

formatting link
And these guys are talking about it:
formatting link
DS

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

If the state you live in has an emission test for your car, you may want to look into what could happen if it fails the test, That would be considered tampering with emissions if you swap out the engine and controller. Glenn Beasley Chrysler Tech

Reply to
maxpower

If that's what the law says, then, as the saying goes, the law is an ass. What's magic about surrounding a given engine and control computer with a given body? Answer: nothing. IOW, if the engine/computer combo has trouble passing emissions in a green Intrepid body, then it would have had trouble passing emissions in a pink donor 300M body.

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

Reply to
Bill Putney

Could you provide a bit more info? Specifically: What year? Were you the original owner? How many miles when it died? What was the maintenance history, especially regarding oil changes? What type & supplier of oil and filter was used? Were there any early symptoms of pending failure and if so, what were they?

Thanks in advance since there are lots of us out here with the 2.7 and we would like to learn what works (and more importantly what doesn't which is where you come in). Sorry to hear of your problems. I also own an older

3.5L Intrepid and it is a nice engine if you decide to go that route. Good luck with the swap.

Bob

Reply to
Bob Shuman

Absolutely - almost constantly. You can find everything you need to know about it there, including what years of what computers will work with what years of what engines and vehicles, all parts needed, sources, etc. Use their search function and the How To section.

Also, you may also be glad to know that the 2.7L engine core value is a few hundred dollars due to demand (i.e., failure rate).

When you finish the swap, you will have a cherished combination: A larger engine with the higher gear ratio that came with the 2.7L engine (at the cost of lower fuel mileage). People paid extra money for that combination in the 300M Special.

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

Reply to
Bill Putney

In the state I live in if the Vehicle emissions label does not meet what the car is equipped with it automatically fails, if the sticker says it has an EGR and another engine was installed without an EGR it fails. If a 2.7 litre engine fails a test and the label states it is a 2.7 and a 3.2 was installed in its place, we are told that it fails. I don't write the laws and regulations im just suggesting the original OP checks into it.......I agree with you Bill But when it comes to politics. WE loose!!! Send that to your congressman

Reply to
maxpower

Halfassed information from Glenn "Maxpower" Beasley, as usual. Federal laws, which trump any contradictory state laws, say that engines with emissions systems may be swapped as long as the replacement engine system are of the same or newer model year as the original.

DS

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

As long as the engine was available in that car that year you can safely do it with NO repercussions - as long as you change everything. You will need to let the inspection station know - but if you don't and the 3.2 / 3.5 passes the 2.7 spec, no foul.

Reply to
nospam.clare.nce

Also, since the question related to swapping a 3.2 or 3.5 in place of a

2.7, if the manufacturer had certified the new configuration (which it had in this case).
Reply to
Joe Pfeiffer

Since this is replacing one drivetrain with another drivetrain that was optionally offered in the car, that isn't a problem.

Reply to
Steve

As I stated in my state that is what we are told Lite Bulb.... The Op may still want to look into it.......now run and hide

Reply to
maxpower

So Mr lite bulb, if the OP was to have put a 98 engine in a 2000 vehicle he would be considered tampering, so by me suggesting that he looks into it first would be wrong?? And by looking into it first your saying is not the proper thing to do?? Are you on the bottle again?

Reply to
maxpower

The 2.7 L sludge issue may be a non-issue. FWIW, the reported failure rate is something like 650 complaints out of a possible 750,000 engines. See the ongoing discussion on allpar.com:

formatting link
I'm going to change my oil and not worry about it!

SpongeBob

Reply to
Robert Meyer

Right, and the GM 3.1/3.4 engines don't blow their intake gaskets and fill the crankcase with Dex-Cool, either.

Much as I like Chrysler, I have to say that you can get a decent feel for when a problem is real and when it isn't by watching the number of failures among people you know with the vehicles. I remember seeing a

2.7 engine ripped open in a local dealer within a year of the engine's introduction, and I thought at the time "oooh, that aint RIGHT!" And now enough complaints are showing up in discussion forums that I think its pretty clear that its a weakling of an engine design.

Does that mean the numbers warrant a full-out recall? Maybe not. GM still hasn't recalled their 3100/3400 family, and those things fail a LOT more than the 2.7 does. But then that's GM, I expect nothing else.

Robert Meyer wrote:

Reply to
Steve

You just made a sh**load of assumptions there as to it being a non-issue. Are you assuming that 100% of owners of failed engines filed a formal complaint? That would not be a wise assumption. What if only

1 out of 50 owners of failed engines complained? That would represent almost a 5% failure rate.

You would have to look at percent of owners of other engines (known not to have a design problem that would lead to failure) who filed complaints (that wouldn't be scientific either, but a better inidcator than just looking at raw percent of compliants). IOW, if engine X (known to have no design problems) had a failure complaint rate of

0.87%, comparing that to the failure complaint rate indicates that the 2.7L is of similar good design. HOWEVER, if the engine of known good design has a failure complaint rate of only 0.02%, then it could be a reasonable conclusion that the 2.7L has a problem. As it is, you don't have enough data to go on.

Not saying that the alleged 2.7L problems are real or imagined, but I certainly am not prepared to lean towards there not being a problem based on "only" 650 complaints out of 750k owners. And I say that as an owner of a 2.7L with 140+kmiles on it that runs as good as the day it left the factory.

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

Reply to
Bill Putney

Daniel J. Stern wrote: (snip)

State code can be more stringent than Fed code but never less stringent.

Reply to
« Paul »

I wonder what the failure rate is for properly maintained 2.7 litre engines?

Reply to
High Sierra

We have done a couple in the dealer, the ones that had problems were not our regular customers. Yet the funny thing is.....they claimed they changed their oil or a regular basis but were not able to show receipts, we didn't buy it and neither did Chrysler. I own a 2.7 and I think it is a good engine

Reply to
maxpower

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.