AF: 2.7L V6, New direction or, just bust a move? | Allpar Forums
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

2.7L V6, New direction or, just bust a move?

Discussion in 'Rumors and General Chrysler Discussion' started by aerofan, Feb 6, 2019.

  1. aerofan

    aerofan New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    4
    Likes:
    1
    I am sure Mr. Castaing thought he was developing a "new direction" with this engine, but as we in the trade have seen, it was not what was hoped for. I test drove a new Intrepid in 1998 with this engine, and my impression was, man, this is a sick engine! I passed it off as being an anomaly, and thought no more of it. The next model year, I drove another Intrepid with the same engine. I got the same feeling, and my mind said, "Bring back the 3.3 liter, NOW! I know you cannot build the same engine forever, but when we have our version of the Ford Escort 1.6L, then it is time for some serious soul-searching. When you build the same basic engine for almost 40 years, i.e. the vaunted 5.2l v8, albeit with some improvements. To build an engine that is such a disappointment. it cries out for a quicker replacement. Thankfully, the 3.6lL Pentastar came along to salvage the damage that had been done. Although, the sludgemaster 2.7L had left a bad taste in many mouths. I recall a similar situation with the A604 trans. too. Need more testing folks, not letting the customer do it like The General does!
     
    tomit likes this.
  2. voiceofstl

    voiceofstl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    2,368
    Likes:
    1,203
    I thought all the problems with the 2.7 wa fixed by the eraly 2000's
     
  3. 68RT

    68RT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    5,987
    Likes:
    721
    I always thought that the 2.7 had some really forward looking ideas. Execution wasn't perfect.
     
  4. GLHS60

    GLHS60 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,969
    Likes:
    671
    The 2.7 is one of my favorite Engines!!

    Peppy, economical and fuel efficient.

    My 2001 has well over 300 K and still purrs, and starts easily in this crazy cold weather.

    The vast majority of 2.7 issues were caused by the water pump plate gasket leaking coolant into the oil.

    The updated water pump and gasket solved these issues.

    For some reason Chrysler failed to notify folks and let many Engines fail.

    Thanks
    Randy
     
  5. AC TC

    AC TC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,880
    Likes:
    568
    It was a nice Engine that was downsized but arrived at the wrong moment so nobody liked it, ie they Went for a Hemi or a 3.5
    since gas wasent all that expensive.
    - today its sadly but totally obsolete with small 4 cyls up in the 300 hp region and getting better fuel econ combined with a much torqier Power curve making this kind of highrevver useless in all but a few nische cars.
     
  6. AmbassadorSST

    AmbassadorSST Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    629
    Likes:
    1,090
    That engine doomed the Intrepid/Concorde from getting another generation. Of course it worked out for the better, because the Intrepid/Concorde woes spawned the birth of the 300/Charger/Challenger. :)
     
  7. valiant67

    valiant67 ...

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    36,665
    Likes:
    19,407
    But the 2.7 continued in the 300/Charger/Magnum.
     
    gforce2002 likes this.
  8. ImperialCrown

    ImperialCrown Moderator
    Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    21,189
    Likes:
    4,389
    Dave Z and AC TC like this.
  9. AmbassadorSST

    AmbassadorSST Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    629
    Likes:
    1,090
    That was after they fixed the issues with the 2.7...the Intrepid and it's siblings had a wounded reputation with those early 2.7 sludge issues.
    Once a car or a brand gets a bad reputation, it's hard to shake off.
     
    Adventurer55 and voiceofstl like this.
  10. Christopher

    Christopher Socially Unacceptable
    Staff Member Level 2 Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    5,643
    Likes:
    2,131
    I put over 235K on my 2.7L with no problem. I was religious about oil changes. I really liked the performance of the car and thought it was fine.

    Despite that, I would never recommend a vehicle with that engine, regardless of what MY it was. In fact, I tell people to avoid it.
     
    HoboChangba and Tin Man 2 like this.
  11. andybuzz2u

    andybuzz2u Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Messages:
    56
    Likes:
    7
    The 2.7 that Mr. Castaing and team came up with was different from what was made. V6 power with 4-cylinder economy. I never understood that. The first batch of engines on the dynos was great, then the refining and cost-cutting really pulled the quality of the engine down. The still unexplainable rod bearing issues that just seem to rotate the bearing for no apparent reason, sludge, plastic impeller water pumps, oiling issues, and the fact that the engines high temps kill coils and injectors, usually before 60,000 miles. There was only one person I know of who was vocal about that engine saying it had inherent design problems, that was Bob Lutz. My mom's 2009 Sebring Limited convertible just hit 119,456 miles and she was greeted with a clattering sound that slowly went away the other day. I told her she has two choices, a new or newer car or let me pull it and send the engine to the machine shop before it self destructs. She told me she would think about it and I told her not to drive it while she was thinking about it. I have rebuilt three different 2.7 from a '99 Concord, 2004 300 and 2005 300. I sold the Concord to a friend who has racked up over 110,000 with zero issues. The person I sold the 2004 300 to hit a tree branch laying on the road, knocked a hole in the oil pan and killed it trying to drive home. I still own the 2005 300 and have had zero issues with it since the rebuild I have put 34,000 miles on it. But as the other post stated, I could never recommend a car with this engine in it.
     
    ScramFan likes this.
  12. HoboChangba

    HoboChangba Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2014
    Messages:
    154
    Likes:
    179
    I had two LH cars with the 2.7. A 98 Intrepid and also a 2002 Concorde. Never gave me a bit of trouble and got 110k on the Concorde (accident) that totaled it) but it ran great and was a free revver and also got great gas mileage. Now like most of the rest of us I wouldn't recommend one because of all the previous problems. Both of mine were purchased new by the way.
     
  13. voiceofstl

    voiceofstl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    2,368
    Likes:
    1,203
    GM is famious for making some stinkers of engines.For chrysler I think from 1960 on the 2.7 has the worst repuation.
    The /6,A and LA small blocks and the big blocks all have great durabilty. Even the 2.2 and the 2.5 4 cyl were good.
     
  14. superduckie5000

    superduckie5000 THE MAD DUCK
    Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,371
    Likes:
    1,454
    We got 110K Miles on a 2001 Chrysler Sebring, then the In-Laws put another 49K Miles on it.
    It Died when Someone some how Cut the Wires to the Electric Fan and Blew a Head Gasket When it over heated.
    The Biggest Things it ever Needed was a Starter (That one was a Lot of Fun) and a Resistor Pack for the Heater Fan.
     
    Dave Z likes this.
  15. Gerry G

    Gerry G Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,164
    Likes:
    188
    Have an '04 Sebring convertible with over 200K miles and counting. Needed alternator, water pump and bleeder housing. The sludging issue was with the PCV system more so than the water pump but the pump was a problem. Most issues were resolved by the 2004 model year.

    Note Honda had a sludge issue with their 3.5l that affected more motors than the 2.7l issue did.
     
  16. Hemidakota

    Hemidakota Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,196
    Likes:
    812
    So has the 3.8ltr has left some BAD TASTE...
     
  17. Hemidakota

    Hemidakota Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,196
    Likes:
    812
    Now, I have to love 3.6ltr engine. Approaching 200K and the only problem was not following up the recall with the diode issue (alternator).
     

Share This Page

Loading...
 We are not affiliated with FCA. We make no claims regarding validity or accuracy of information or advice. Copyright © VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.