Blown Engine in '99 300M

Looking for opinions here...
Hi folks. Looking for opinions...
I've got a '99 300M that died hard last week. Mechanic hasn't torn it down
yet for a precise diagnosis, but it won't turn over at all, leading us to suspect that the engine's going to need replacement. I'm pretty sick over this since it's got less than 70K miles and should have had a lot of life left in it.
The dealer's telling the mechanic a replacement engine is $6000, which after the work's done means something on the order of a $9000 repair. This, of course, gets close to the value of the vehicle itself.
I'm looking for opinions on 1) What a dealer or the company might be willing and able to do about the cost of the repair; and 2) What alternate parts sources might exist.
Any thoughts welcome.
Thanks,
DJV
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It's been my experience that when a car won't turn over most people suspect a dead battery, DOA computer etc..... is there something else you're forgetting to tell us? Like maybe you forgot to have the oil changed for the past 40k miles, or were drag racing when the engine died?
If you were just a normal driver doing routine maintenance, I would call the Chrysler 800 number and talk to them. They might help cover at least some of the costs. What have you got to lose?
Good luck;
SRG

down
after
willing
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You're right, I should have been more complete. A driver who shall remain nameless did not know how to use the autostick, pulled it into low, and drove at 55mph for awhile. After about 10 minutes the engine complained loudly and smokily. Now the starter motor engages when you turn the key, but the engine won't rotate.
Oil changes, by the way, were at regular 3000 mile intervals. Thanks for asking. ;-)

to
over
life
of
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'd look for a low-mileage junkyard engine, as Dan Stern (I believe) suggested.
And don't let nameless drivers hold the engine at no-load redline for 10 minutes anymore, OK? :-)
David Vancina wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
She won't.

parts
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
cheapest engine for 99 300M is $250 located at NE, accourding to www.car-part.com. it looks like you will get a used one for less than 1000. good luck.
PS: there might be some other sides sellimg much cheaper parts.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, David Vancina wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, ulas cosar coskun wrote:

It's people like you who contribute to Americans' impression that people who cannot speak English are stupid.
DS
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, David Vancina wrote:

Whoof. Yeah, that'll do it, especially if "awhile" was actually a *long* while, and if "55mph" is kind of a guess that might be just a smidge on the low side.
So the engine didn't *die*, exactly. It was *killed*. I'm not certain why you're "disappointed"; machines tend to die when they are severely abused. That's just...what happens!
DS
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

remain
I suspect a troll here. The autostick will force an upshift if you redline the engine. The 3.5 in the 300m will do 6000rpm all day long if it's well maintained.
Just for fun, I tried to force my 99 300m to do what the original poster claimed. At about 6500rpm it shifts into 2nd.
That aside, Dan is right. You can't protect a machine from complete idiocy. If someone drives a *street* car along for 10 minutes at 6000-7000rpm and then has the audacity to complain, ummmm.....fook 'em. They're not designed for that purpose.
C
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris Mauritz wrote:

According to the '99 FSM, the overall drive train ratio in 1st gear is 2.84 (tranny) x 3.66 (final drive) = 10.3944 engine revs/tire rev.
Factory size tires are 83.7" circumference.
Forced 1-2 shift is at 6300 rpm for 3.2L, 6600 rpm for 3.5L.
If you do the math (forced shift speed in mph = 1mi/5280ft x 1 ft/12" x engine speed at forced shift in rev/min. x 83.7" vehicle travel/1 tire rev x 60 min./hr. x 1 tire rev/10.3944 engine revs), the shift would be forced at 50.33 mph for the 3.5L, or 48.04 mph for the 3.2L.
Conclusion #1: 55 mph in 1st gear is not possible - perhaps OP exaggerated the speed - 50 mph could be done with 3.5L, but not 55 mph.
Draw your own conclusions about whether the engine could survive 6600 rpm indefinitely (questions: What was it's condition? How much oil was in the sump?)
Conclusion #2: I have too much time on my hands. 8^)
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

I doubt a stock engine of any make (except maybe a VTEC which is built fly-weight to start with, and I'll slap the first person that says "Wankel :-) could handle it for 10 full minutes.

Can I borrow some?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I don't think I actually complained, Chris. I did ask solicit ideas from folks who probably know more about this stuff than I do. If you're one of them, I thank you for your time.
Best regards,
DJV

and
complained
why
abused.
redline
idiocy.
then
for
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Vancina wrote:

This doesn't make sense. Autostick will upshift before the engine crosses the redline.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Johnson wrote:

True. It can, however, be held at close to red line at 50 mph (see my other post). Sustained high engine speed can cause much higher than normal oil consumption (thru rings, valve seals, or the crankcase vent system - for example, there's a vent tube *not* connected to the PCV tube that ports right into the intake tube between the air filter and the throttle body - oil gets sucked thru that tube at high speed open throttle situations because the ability of the PCV system is exceeded). You may have noticed a sudden drop in oil level when checking the level after a WOT high speed passing situation even in an engine in good shape - this is not unusual on many engines - and that's just for a few seconds of abuse.
I can believe that the oil would be steadily depleted at sustained high speed operation, say at 6000-6500 rpm operation. The oil level could drop to dangerously low levels within minutes - especially if the oil level was towards the low side at the start of the episode.
Just a theory - but I think oil starvation is a possible or likely failure mechanism even for a good engine in this sustained very high speed operation.
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yours sounds like as good a theory as I've heard so far, Bill. Thanks for taking the time.
I too was curious as to why the computer didn't force an upshift. As I wasn't in the vehicle at the time I can't say with certainty what the speed or duration was, but the estimates I gave were based on the road traveled and distance from the origin. It could easily have been running 5-10 mph below the posted, 55mph speed limit.
The engine had plenty of oil in it to start, but the depletion scenario you described matches up with the likely conditions at time of death. I'm learning a lot...tuition's been expensive though.
Again, thanks for your time.
Best regards,
DJV

remain
and
crosses the

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

I've never seen this before.

I can't believe this. Airplane engines run at WOT pulling 70-80% of full power for hour on end. And they are air cooled with looser tolerances than modern cars by far. They typically burn only a quart every 5-10 hours. I can't imagine a scenario where an auto engine would consume oil at the rate of multiple quarts per hour (the rate required to consume enough in a few minutes to trash the engine). I just don't believe this is possible.

I agree that oil starvation might be the cause, but not oil exhaustion. One of the biggest problems with high rpm operation is aeration of the oil causing the oil pump to "lose prime" and be unable to maintain sufficient flow and thus pressure. Racing engines typically take steps to prevent this, things such as windage trays (I think that is the right terminology) or dry sump oil systems. I'd sooner think this as a likely cause.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

That's, um, nice, MW, but we're not talking about airplane engines here, and "looser tolerances" have nothing to do with the elements of the PCV system accurately described in a passage you apparently don't believe.

If that were the mechanism in this case, the engine would probably have stalled for lack of oil pressure to the hydraulic lifters long before it seized.
It seized.
DS
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Daniel J. Stern wrote:

That's right, I don't believe it. If Chrysler designed a PVC system so poorly that it can pull liquid oil into the intake, then my opinion of Chrysler engineering will drop dramatically. And you couldn't pull enough vaporized oil through a hose the size of a typical PVC hose fast enough to pull 2-3 quarts of oil out of the engine "within minutes." Are you claiming that you can pull a couple of quarts through the PVC system "within minutes?" Can you provide even a single reference from a credible industry source (person, technical article, etc.) that describes this phenomenon?

Why would lose of oil pressure due to aeration cause a stall due to lifter collapse when lose of oil pressure due to no oil at all in the sump not cause this?
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

You can also run an airp[lane engine inverted. I doubt you could do that with a Chrysler LH engine. There are differences in the crankcase venting, as I pointed out. Believe it or not, oil does get pulled thru the intake thru a valve cover vent tube when the PCV gets overloaded.
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

Only if you have a special engine designed for inverted flight. Most aircraft engines will stall very quickly in 0 or negative G flight.
Unless the tube is in liquid oil, how can it pull oil from valve cover? I can see it pulling air with atomized oil in it, but you'd have to pull a LOT of such air to get even a quart of liquid oil. And most cars will run at least one quart low and probably 2-3 low before seizure.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.