2.7 engine

Did he give any reasons for his opinion?

I would be curious as to why that opinion. I do know about the sludging problems...but oil changes at the proper intervals and/or using synthetic oil solves that issue.

They have had to fix a lot of sludged up engines. Assuming that 2.7 owners are no more likely to miss an oil change then 3.5 engine owners, the engine is prone to sludge so why bother with an engine when you are likely to end up with some ticked off customers.

Keep in mind that dealers ONLY see the engines with problems. He also may be annoyed with the poor acceleration figures in the 300 and Magnum (who knows how it works out in real life, though). Yes, the sludge issue has reared up. Using synthetic is good cheap insurance.

has info on the 2.7 for what it's worth. The 2.7 is a quick engine in lighter cars with 200 horsepower, but it's a bit rough on it to pull around a 4,000+ lb LX. Would've been considered pretty quick a couple of years ago even there!

"Chains" referring to the timing chain? Then all they need to do is put it's replacement on a schedule at, say, 80K miles. So, synthetic oil for the sludging problem and timing chain on a maintenance replacement schedule and we're all set. Anything else?

I don't know, James. New chain and tensioner, and the obligatory water pump while you're in there - how many multiple hundreds of dollars are we talking about for all that?

BTW - my 2.7 has 120k miles on it and is running great. I think I've decided to keep going with the original chain (I think my engine has proven not to have the problem that appears to have plagued so many, possibly due to the combination of 80 miles a day of highway driving and regular maintenance.). Those that fail appear to do so between 60 and

80 k. Time will tell - reality can be a *itch Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Someone in the know who wrote me privately had the following to say. Obviously he did not want his id posted:

"The dealer is misinformed. The 2.7 engine is a great design, but it requires strict adherence to published maintenance intervals. A vast majority of complaints and early failures have been due to less than optimum maintenance. Long term engineering tests have determined that oil temperature staying too LOW is the primary cause of the sludging that affects the timing components and the accumulators in the cylinder heads that feed steady oil pressure to the lifters. With documented timely maintenance according to severe duty schedules, there have been virtually NO failures. The definition of the "A" versus "B" maintenance schedules is the main issue. Newer versions of the engine require a different oil to ensure adequate temps are met on short trips to combat the sludge issue."

I'd be very surprised that a different oil could significantly change the operating temperature of the engine (without causing extreme wear at the same time). I'd like to know how this magic works! :-)

Matt

How can the 2.7 engine be a great design if you have to be constantly worried about following the "proper maintenence" scehdules? It is obvious with this engine (from reading numerous posts on this ng) that there is no room for flexibility when following that schedule in the book. Now don't get me wrong, I also believe in regular maintenence. I try to keep my car maintained and up to date but I don't constantly stare at the odometer and worry about going 1 mile over the "reccomended" maintenece interval(or having to worry about going X miles over 3K miles for an oil change). I just can't justify studying the owners manual and following EVERY little detail to the letter.

I mean, think about it. The 2.7 engine goes in the cheaper models of cars. These models, such as a base Intrepid, are typically (but not always)owned by young families who probably can't afford to follow those strict maintenece schedules.

In my opinion, the 3.5 should be considered a "great design" because it is more flexible in it's maintenence. I have the 3.5 in my Vision and I try to keep the oil changed regularly, but there have been times when it has gone 4K miles without a change. I have used several types of oil (all 10W30) and the car still runs smooth and quiet like the day I bought it. The 3.5 is also proven to go well over 100K miles with little or no trouble. Sure, the 2.7's have the capability to do that too, but with twice the maintenence and a whole lot more time/commitment/money.

I think there's some truth in what you said, but it may be overstated. My 2.7 is doing great at 120k miles, but I would not say with a "whole lot more time/commitment/money". My goal has been 3000 mile oil and filter changes, but like you with your 3.5, I went to 4000 or maybe a little over every once in a while when life got particularly hectic.

The biggest factor, IMO, is at least an awareness by the owner that there is a potential problem. For any owner with half a brain or more, this means that he isn't going to routinely be changing the oil at 6000 to 11,000 miles that you can get away with on most other engines.

In my case, I think it was a combination of my 80 mile daily highway commute in semi-rural areas, attempted 3000 mile oil and filter changes (filter gets changed with every oil change) with actual averages probably around 3500 to 3700 miles, and use of 1/4 qt. of Marvel Mystery Oil in the crankcase at all times (the alternative to use of synthetic - not that I equate MMO to synthetic at all - totally different purpose).

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

I thought about that statement too, Matt. But you could look at the statement in two ways. It could be true if some oils have a much lower temperature threshold for sludging (i.e., have much less tendency to sludge up at lower temperatures), such as synthetics. If that's the meaning, then it could have been written less ambiguously, or perhaps the person that Art quoted did not understand the full implication of what he was trying to say.

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

So say you're Chrysler. You have the 2.7, the 3.2, and the 3.5 engines in production in mostly overlapping applications (except the JA cars where the 2.7 is the only v6). The 2.7 has the least power, is the most sensitive to abuse (doesn't take it, in fact) while the 3.2 and 3.5 are damn near slant-six or 318 reliable. And the 3.2 gets maybe 2% poorer fuel economy than the trouble-plagued 2.7... and you stop production of which engine? Why, the 3.2, of course!

And people wonder why many of us think the German takover has brought in a bunch of inept knuckle-dragging bean-counters to screw up the engineering department.

Uh, that's not the implication I read into the statement. I take it to mean that an oil that is TOLERANT of the actual temperature range is needed. Its poorly worded, but fairly obvious.

es, but I would not say with a "whole

My wife's 1993 3.5 has been allowed to go to on a number of oil changes. I lose track of how many miles "Moms Taxi Service" racks up in a given time- that's my only defense :-p Anyway, when I had the valve covers off for new gaskets at 212,000 miles, it looked brand new under there. Not just "clean," but NEW clean. How they can go from that to the 2.7 that chews itself up as bad as a Toyota engine in so few years is a mystery to me.

I agree with you and Bill. That has to be what he meant.

Great post. We use a term at work sometimes to describe breaking things: Foreseeable abuse. If a design cannot withstand foreseeable abuse, then it's a poor design. You can blame/defend whomever you want, but you can't say it's a good design, let alone a "great" design as Art related from the mystery emailer. For designers to just pretend abuse is not going to happen is crazy (let that sink in if you need to). Much better to design robustly.

So, to clarify; the 2.7 is a poor design. However, some users have made it work. If it had some great features, it can move up from poor design to merely "finicky". But is it good at anything particularly? I'd own one, but I'd be careful, and I sure wouldn't want to pay for a new car with one.

With the 7-year 100,00 mile engine warranty on the models now, that doesn't sound too smart...unless they've fixed some of the problems lately.