2000 T&C w/3.8, Are the 3.8's goo reliable motors?

Aug 17, 2005 7 Replies

Hi All, I may be buying a 2000 T&C Limited w/a 3.8 motor w/ 57k on it. Was wondering if these are considered good & reliable motors? It seems more ChryCo minivans have the 3.3 motors, including my '92 Caravan and it's been pretty reliable. What type of routine maintenance is recommended when the odometer reaches 60k? This van was converted for wheelchair entry(dropped floor, auto ramp) by Braun, asking price is $27k, anyone know if that's a fair price? The van is loaded and clean. Thanks.



Dan



Dan snipped-for-privacy@NOSPAMoptonline.net Remove NOSPAM from address when replying


Yes, the Chrysler 3.3 and 3.8 (the latter being a slight variant of the former) are very sturdy and durable engines.

2000 was the last of that series and some people still report transmission issues. The 3.8 series motors I have owned have been relatively trouble free. Some thermostate issues.

That price seems high to me also. At 60,000 miles you might need new plugs and wires (dual plat is recommended). Also transmission filter and +4 fluid. Other than the air filter there is not much else to attend to. OK perhaps the fuel filter. I would look for a 2002 model or newer since much transmission progress seems to have be reached during that period.

Richard.

I do not know if it applies to this engine, but our Dodge Grand Caravan needed to have a timing chain replaced at 50K. If it is not replaced and it goes, the damage is very expensive to repair.

Maybe... if you overlook the well-known tendency for multiple failures of serpentine belt tensioners, with less frequent collateral damage to water pump shaft seal, and then there is that pesky failing rear-V head gasket...

But these are nothing new, and have been debated here ad nauseum.

Your information is garberated; you're making it sound as if the timing chain is a scheduled-maintenance item, which it certainly is not. Timing

*BELTS* on engines so equipped are scheduled-maintenance items, but not timing *chains*.

thanks for the clarification.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required