True -- though that same daughter did have a '95 Neon for a while
(similar though not the same, in spite of some who make the claim,
platform) and it was the single easiest vehicle to work on I've ever
owned, including my '66 Charger.
Unfortunately, part of her disenchantment with it stemmed from the
fact that it was as easy for stereo thieves to work on as it was for
My daughter had a '89 Neon - was broken into 3 times and stolen once -
But working on it - even being a twin cam was a veritable CINCH
compared to the PR. There isn't room for a flee to move under the
confines of a PT hood - those big fenders, narrow grill, oldfashioned
look really puts a damper on things. Would be easier with the engine
Did the PT ever get switched over to the World Engine? I've never been
clear on that. If so, it must have been in the last 3 years, the 06 we
looked at before buying the 05 still had the 2.4. Interesting, I just
did some googling around and I can only find references to the TURBO
motor being switched to the "world engine" platform in 07, but I have to
assume that the NA version was also switched.
Chrysler/Hyundai/Mitsubishi. Hopefully the Chrysler participation
prevented too much oil burning and head cracking from the Mitsu side of
Hyundai and Kia are the same parent company now, I think.
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:58:43 -0400, email@example.com wrote:
Ever seen one? Can you tell the difference?
09 PT Cruiser 2.4L SMPI & 2.4L turbo:
Specs from Chrysler service information:
Displacement 2.4 Liters 148 cu. in.
Bore 87.5 mm 3.445 in.
Stroke 101.0 mm 3.976 in.
09 Sebring/Avenger/Caliber/Patriot/Compass/Journey 2.4L dVVT "World
Specs from Chrysler service information:
Displacement 2.4 Liters 146.5 cu. in.
Bore 88 mm 3.465 in.
Stroke 97 mm 3.819 in.
I was wrong. The PT Cruiser appears to be the one holdout for the old
Neon 2.0 based 2.4
I've been wrong before - and likely will be sometime again!!
There was RUMOR that the PT was to get the World Engine, but
apparently it did not happen.
Mine is a 2002
THANK YOU! Definitive info at last!!!!
The bore and stroke difference are certainly conclusive.
I've been meaning to look up the bore-center spacing. If its the same,
then the block and crank of the current "world engine" are derivative of
the first 2.2 and the 2.5 from way back in the 80s. The 2.0/2.4 shared a
lot of 2.2 dimensions like that, and at least one complete assembly from
the 2.5- the balance shaft module.
They are a complex engine jammed tightly into a cramped hood.
Extremely difficult to work on. I was mistaken. the bolts to not go
down to the bearing girdle - but they DO pull out tlike the headbolts
on the Magnesium block VW pancakes (1500 and 1600 "suitcase" engines
in particular) and the same type of "TymeSert" threaded bushing needs
to be installed. I believe ARP has a different solutionusing larger
head bolts as well. The originals IIRC are 11mm - a non-standard
I have no problem imagining it the way everything has to be so
integrated on modern cars for compactness and weight - between consumer
and government demands and regulations, to even hope to be competitive,
the manufacturers have to cram 30 pounds of crap into the proverbial 5
pound bag. The consumer and the governments have gotten what they asked
for/demanded along with all of the unintended consequences that create
maintenance nightmares and multiple thousand dollar routine maintenance
issues for the consumer. Welcome to the modern world.
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
The majority of the book time is because you can't do the job with
the engine in the car and you can't pull the engine from the top...
you have to drop the entire cradle out the bottom. Here's a step by
step guide http://cadillacforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t090
If you want to learn more about the problem visit
There are a couple of really good NorthStar "stickys" at the top with
a great discussion of the problem complete with pictures.
Perhaps I see them a bit more since I live in the land of the Blue
Hairs but the pick and pull is overrun with these cars down here.
Particularly revealing to me was the survey of gasket/bolt failures at:
Which clearly reveals that there was a rash of failures between 1997 and
1999, trailing off with none reported in their survey after MY 2003 (and
only 2 in 2003).
Granted the sample size is small, but that's an AWFULLY clear trend!
Yes, the whole comment pretty much fails the sanity check test. Of
course so does the fact that I, whose very blood cells are shaped like
little Chrysler pentastars, am defending GM. :-)
Where's the guy who went by "VioletLightning" when you need him to
comment on Northstar service procedures? I guess he might still respond
if this were in .tech, but I actually haven't seen a post from him in a
You've missed my point. What JD Power is saying is that the IQS numbers
predict very well what the Vehicle Durability Study numbers three years down
the road will look like. That is not worthless.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.