Chrysler minivan engines

Not the MitsuShitty 3.0. To be fair, there is 240,000 Km on mine now, and it's only needed 2 sets of cyl heads and a water pump, as well as a new harmonic balancer pulley (that chewed up the crank a bit when it came off). In a 1988 New Yorker. Still better than the old 2.6 Mitsu Hemi 4.

Both of my Grands have the 3.3L and this is fine for normal driving, even in the hill country of northcentral PA. However, if I was buying new, I'd probably get the 3.8L just to have the extra margin. I don't tow with my vans, but if I planned to do that, I'd say the 3.8L would then be a must have.

Matt

When I was looking for a generation 4 Grand, I looked for a 3.3. More durable and lower maintenance than the 3.0, less thirsty than a 3.8, adequate power for my needs. Found one and am very happy with it.

I have the 3.3 in a 1997 Grand. It's not a race car, but is more than adequate power and will pull a good grade at highway speeds just fine. I get 23-25MPG highway and about

Wish that some of you guys would get away from mentioning the 3.0 as an available engine. It hasn't been available in the Chrysler/Dodge minivans in years.

Of course I'm talking new. If you're looking for a used van, it's often pretty hard to be selective about what engine you get....

I've got a short wheelbase 2002 Caravan with the 2.4L 4 cyl. Except for driving in mountainous areas or pulling trailers, it has adequate power. I've cruised at 80 MPH for hours with it.

What issues exist for the 2.4L? It's been used in the PT Cruiser with high reliability ratings. The headgasket situation was improved back in 1999. Plus they gave me a 100,000 mile warranty on it, although I think they've recently retrenched on that warranty, of all of their products drivelines, to a 7 year/70,000 mile warranty..

I've driven both the 3.3 L and the 2.4 L. There's not a big difference in acceleration between the two. Since the 2.4L is a twin overhead cam design versus the pushrod configuration of the 6 cylinder's, the 4 cyl isn't as gutless as you might think.

The horsepower figures for the three available engines in the USA are approximately:

Doug

Well, 30 HP is noticeable. I'd definitely want the 3.3L in a Grand. The bigger issue in normal driving is torque, not horsepower. Do you have the torque figures handy?

Matt

Horsepower doesn't mean squat when it comes to hauling a heavy minivan. Its torque and where the torque peak occurs that make the 2.4 unsuitable for most people's needs in a minivan. The 3.8 is by far the best performing engine in the minivans, and I'd consider it almost a necessity for the long-wheelbase minivans, but the 3.3 is certainly acceptable

I can't believe they even offer the 2.4, really. A high-winding 4-valve engine really isn't suited for hauling heavy loads at low RPM.

FWIW, from a consumer not an automotive expert, and as a minivan owner....

By choosing a large minivan, one has made the choice not to make fuel economy a top priority. I make no value judgment on this decision :) As a consumer and driver, I feel that there is no substitute for power and torque. For me, this makes the 3.8 the obvious optimum choice. I can think of a specific instance, carrying a full load (7 passengers) up steep hills, where I was glad for every foot/pound that was available.

Lisa

I consider choosing a minivan to indicate just the opposite. Very few other vehicles will haul 7 or 8 people and their luggage and get any better fuel economy. Can you name one or more? Maybe two hybrids hauling 4 people each would beat one minivan, but the capital cost would be a LOT higher.

Matt

Oh right! Like we're supposed to beleive that a woman could actually understand what torque is! (just kidding) 8^)

(BTW - it is ft-lb, not ft/lb - but - hey - even guys don't get that right. And officially, toruqe is supposed to be given as lb-ft, whereas the ft-lb is reserved for the unit of work, but the ft-lb is very commonly used for torque.) 8^)

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

Good point, and well taken. Fully loaded, or anywhere near that, I'd agree hard to find a better passenger mile/gallon ratio in a passenger vehicle. Maybe a VW van?

But I seldom see a minivan fully loaded, or anywhere near it.

Our "extra" car is a frugal Corolla, but I wonder just how it's mileage would compare to the minivan when fully loaded with my photo gear for a big shoot, with the Corolla being packed to the gills but the minivan filled only behind the rearmost seat :)

Lisa

Have you never had your arm twisted by your wife? :) Torque in practical application!

My main experience with measured torque was when I worked in spacecraft electronics, where we measured torque in inch ounces, or ounce inches, or something like that :)

Lisa

Mine has 5 people on most trips and we often have 7 in it with either set of grandparents or a friend or two of the kids. Even with 5, it does pretty well. Most cars that carry 5 as comfortably as the minivan get less than 30 MPG, which is only a handful more than the minivan. And with 7, few other vehicles touch it. Certainly much better than the SUVs or full-size vans that offer similar room and comfort.

I commute to work in warmer weather on my other Voyager (Kawasaki, that is) and get 50 MPG. Match that with your Corolla! :-)

Certainly, if you only carry 2-4 people, then a car like a Corolla is a much more fuel efficient solution. However, when you need to carry 7 and gear, I think a minivan really is a wise and fuel efficient choice.

And if you are going alone, you have no reason not to ride a motorcycle and get at least 50 MPG!

Matt

There's actually a terrific reason not to do so: I'd rather save my ass than save gas.

They don't call 'em "Donorcycles" for nothin'...

DS

In that case, you should drive nothing less than a Hummer, the real one, not the H2. Or better yet, a Kenworth or Peterbilt tractor.

True, lots of ignorant people call them that.

Matt

I commuted to work 10 miles for 5 years on a Kawasaki 650. And I didn't have no pussy fairing either. I rode in all weather, rain, cold, sun, hot, you name it. Only weather I would not ride in was snow.

Motorcycle safety is a lot different than auto safety, it has different tradeoffs. Cars allow a lot more sloppy driving, really poor drivers can generally keep a car on a road and keep it from smashing into things, most times. However, if you drive into a bad situation in a car, your options to evade a collision are generally extremely limited, you pretty much have to sit there and take it. The tradeoff though is your better protected in a car.

Motorcycles by contrast won't tolerate sloppy riders, if you want to ride a motorcycle your going to have to become far more cognizant of the road, and a far better driver. Riders that do it for a long time, as opposed to fair-weather riders who only ride on sunny days, are far more competent drivers and don't tend to get into situations where they are going to collide with something. And if something comes up unexpectedly they can easily evade the collision, most times. The tradeoff is that if a rider does get into a bad collision, they generally are going to get hurt more.

Unfortunately, the accident rates on motorcycles are greatly skewed because there's an enormous number of riders that run out, buy a motorcycle, don't know what the f*ck they are doing, ride it for the summer taking stupid risks, until they get into a serious accident, then get scared and sell the bike and never ride again.

Ted

Matt

I think the name came from ER physicians!?!?!?!

Dan