[goodnightjohnwayne]

eekamouse, on Dec 30 2008, 05:22 PM, said:

Actually, I know several people who had terrible problems with the 3.3-3.8 engines. Granted they were high miles, near 200,000 miles, but the aluminum heads, and iron block strike again. I don't know what it was with Chrysler's choice in aluminum back then, but pourous transaxle cases, and lots of heat expansion and cooling, caused a lot of warp on the heads resulting in blown head gaskets.

I've always wondered why there were so many headgasket failures? The transaxle case issue is no surprise, but other manufacturers have gotten away with pushing the technological envelope for iron block, aluminum head engines, with BMW and VW coming to mind, and surprisingly, those makes simply don't have major headgasket issues.

[jerseyjoe]

I think its simply lack of high quality head gaskets and the way heads are fastened to blocks. Seems my 1998 Neon has the right stuff. Toyota, GM, Ford, Chrysler, and Mitsubishi all had Aluminum head gasket issues to one extent or another.

[ShadowRider]

jerseyjoe, on Dec 31 2008, 03:33 AM, said:

I think its simply lack of high quality head gaskets and the way heads are fastened to blocks. Seems my 1998 Neon has the right stuff. Toyota, GM, Ford, Chrysler, and Mitsubishi all had Aluminum head gasket issues to one extent or another.

I worked in a dealership in the mid 70's that sold Toyota's and I remember all the silent recalls they had for head gasket and cylinder head problems so it's not just unique to 200,000 mile mopars. Every single day there were cars being serviced for these problems. I also had an early Honda Accord That had too soft of metal used to make the valve guides so when you started up the car for the first time each day it emitted a cloud like and old diesel. This was on a vehicle in the 30k mileage range and Honda would not even admit to a problem until most of these cars were already off the road.

[vipergg]

BR Miller, on 26 December 2008 - 07:30 PM, said:

There's a rumor at AprilFools.com that the Phoenix is being canceled in favor of a turbocharged version of the 2.4. The 3.3 will be revived and will become the standard high-end engine. :lol:

Love the 3.3 and that blazing 175 hp !!!! For the vans they should just can everything but the 4.0 .

[KOG]

We've had 8 3.3s in the fleet so far, still got 5 of them, three over 200K. They've been like /6s only they seem to last longer and run better with less service. The one 4.0 we have only has about 3500 miles and it likes about 20% more gas than the 3.3s in spite of having a 10% higher EPA rating. As far as power from the 3.3, most of ours are the 150HP version. They have no difficulty keeping up with traffic and then some. Sure, I always like more power, but I have to admit that the 3.3 is adequate in the minivans for anything short of heavy towing.

[dana44]

KOG, on 04 November 2009 - 05:04 PM, said:

We've had 8 3.3s in the fleet so far, still got 5 of them, three over 200K. They've been like /6s only they seem to last longer and run better with less service. The one 4.0 we have only has about 3500 miles and it likes about 20% more gas than the 3.3s in spite of having a 10% higher EPA rating. As far as power from the 3.3, most of ours are the 150HP version. They have no difficulty keeping up with traffic and then some. Sure, I always like more power, but I have to admit that the 3.3 is adequate in the minivans for anything short of heavy towing.

And didn't they just put a cradle under the 3.8 for the Wrangler two years ago? It should also fit the 3.3 (nobody ever mentioned it was done to that block also), which means it could be pumped up for power without worries. Heck, if they can push over 1000hp on the 2.4 cradle bottomed turbo boosted engine, the 3.3/3.8 should be able to handle a little extra if they wanted.

3.3s are all over the salvage yards, have yet to find a 3.8, which I want for the TR-4. 1750lbs and run on rails....what else could a person ask for? Oh, and the 3.8 and the 2138 4cylinder engine is within 20lbs of each other, so that will be sweet!!!

[MoparNorm]

dana44, on 04 November 2009 - 07:55 PM, said:

And didn't they just put a cradle under the 3.8 for the Wrangler two years ago? It should also fit the 3.3 (nobody ever mentioned it was done to that block also), which means it could be pumped up for power without worries. Heck, if they can push over 1000hp on the 2.4 cradle bottomed turbo boosted engine, the 3.3/3.8 should be able to handle a little extra if they wanted.

3.3s are all over the salvage yards, have yet to find a 3.8, which I want for the TR-4. 1750lbs and run on rails....what else could a person ask for? Oh, and the 3.8 and the 2138 4cylinder engine is within 20lbs of each other, so that will be sweet!!!

The 3.8 might even become harder to find as the Plan eliminates ALL current V-6's in favor of the Pentastars. However many Wrangler owners are looking to dump that thing so you may find a nice low mileage "takeout motor".

[Bearhawke]

superduckie5000, on 26 December 2008 - 06:43 PM, said:

Have You got Any Idea How OLD Much of the Tooling is for the 3.3L & 3.8L Is ??????????????

And How Long It Was Run 24/7 for Years On End !

In a Couple Years I WILL Be at the END of It's Useful Life !

Kind'a Like a Car With 300K Miles with the Orginal Engine & Trans.

The Mad Duck

Tell that to the 318/360: the tooling for both of those motors was used for over 30 years (1971-03) :lol:

[dana44]

MoparNorm, on 04 November 2009 - 08:01 PM, said:

The 3.8 might even become harder to find as the Plan eliminates ALL current V-6's in favor of the Pentastars. However many Wrangler owners are looking to dump that thing so you may find a nice low mileage "takeout motor".

I think they "oversmogged" the 3.8 in the Jeeps, but at least it will take whatever I can put on top.

Has anyone figured out a swap for adjustable rockers on these heads? Kind of an important item when going with a custom cam, even if it is a roller cam.

[MoparNorm]

Bearhawke, on 05 November 2009 - 07:48 AM, said:

Tell that to the 318/360: the tooling for both of those motors was used for over 30 years (1971-03) :lol:

Since the LA was based upon the A, you could take that date back to 1959.... ;) 44 years and still unbeatable...

[redriderbob]

They said they are hoping to have all of the V6 engines changed over to the 3.6L V6 by the 2011 model year. With the discontinuation of the 4.7L V8, the 3.6L V6 would fill in those gaps left by the 3.7L and 4.7L in the Ram pickups.

redriderbob

[drew54]

I think it would be best to adopt the new V6 in everything ASAP as to get the mileage/performance boost sooner rather than later. :D

[johnb300m]

ShadowRider, on 31 December 2008 - 04:58 PM, said:

I worked in a dealership in the mid 70's that sold Toyota's and I remember all the silent recalls they had for head gasket and cylinder head problems so it's not just unique to 200,000 mile mopars. Every single day there were cars being serviced for these problems. I also had an early Honda Accord That had too soft of metal used to make the valve guides so when you started up the car for the first time each day it emitted a cloud like and old diesel. This was on a vehicle in the 30k mileage range and Honda would not even admit to a problem until most of these cars were already off the road.

See!
Why is this stuff kept so secret about the imports? But a puff of blue smoke comes out of a 93 Acclaim or 91 Tracer, it's on the 10pm news!?

[johnb300m]

KOG, on 05 November 2009 - 12:04 AM, said:

We've had 8 3.3s in the fleet so far, still got 5 of them, three over 200K. They've been like /6s only they seem to last longer and run better with less service. The one 4.0 we have only has about 3500 miles and it likes about 20% more gas than the 3.3s in spite of having a 10% higher EPA rating. As far as power from the 3.3, most of ours are the 150HP version. They have no difficulty keeping up with traffic and then some. Sure, I always like more power, but I have to admit that the 3.3 is adequate in the minivans for anything short of heavy towing.

I dearly miss the 3.3 in my old Dynasty. The low end torque was awesome. And when you floored it, it had a nice low growl to it, almost like a v8.
I can't count how many times I beat souped up ricers at intersections back in high school. Though, I freely admit after 50mph, the ricer would catch up. But the looks on their faces when the big square Dynasty pulled car lengths ahead of them off the line was the best consolation prize one could ask for.

:) good times....

As for old tooling, I'm pretty sure that stuff was maintained and replaced when parts were found to no longer be made in spec.

[Truth]

This could be outdated now, but last I had heard there was going to be a (Phoenix)Pentastar V-8.
from what I Heard, The Displacement was also going to be 4.7 Liters

[MoparNorm]

Truth, on 07 November 2009 - 02:47 AM, said:

This could be outdated now, but last I had heard there was going to be a (Phoenix)Pentastar V-8.
from what I Heard, The Displacement was also going to be 4.7 Liters

Looking at the Plan, you will see diminishing numbers of V-8's, bigger displacements all Hemi's and no 4.7.
However several aspects of the Pentastar could certainly find their way into the Hemi.

[DaveAdmin]

Plans change. The Pentastar was reportedly designed to be modular and convertible into a V8 but I think the world is moving quickly to adding turbochargers instead of cylinders. Among other things that means less weight and fewer variations -- and only one V8 family.

[drew54]

DaveAdmin, on 09 November 2009 - 08:08 AM, said:

Plans change. The Pentastar was reportedly designed to be modular and convertible into a V8 but I think the world is moving quickly to adding turbochargers instead of cylinders. Among other things that means less weight and fewer variations -- and only one V8 family.

I still do not understand why there isn't a 4 cylinder engine that is based off of the same head design as a company's V8 engine. I would think this would be the ultimate cost efficiency as then you could base your V6 off of that same design and all valve train parts would be practically interchangeable.

If there was to be a V8 Pentastar and then make the 4 cylinder version.

This post has been edited by drew54: 09 November 2009 - 10:28 AM

[SptFury]

Is M-B to still get some of the Pentastar V6 production?

[ShadowRider]

SptFury, on 09 November 2009 - 05:49 PM, said:

Is M-B to still get some of the Pentastar V6 production?

I think they will just build their own and give it a different name.