What I don't get is with all the extra costs of R&D, tooling, manufacturing, and stocking extra parts etc etc, why didn't Chrysler just go with two engines, the 3.0 and the 3.6 instead of incurring the additional costs for three engine sizes within about 35 cu in of each other? On one hand they keep saying there's no money for this or that (such as two mini vans etc), but there is plenty of money for three engines within such a small size difference. The 3.0 and 3.2 are about 12 cu in different in size. Nuts....
During the 90s, we were swimming in a sea of V6s. for awhile, we had a 2.7L V6, a 3.2L V6, and a 3.5L V6 all from the same family. At the very same time, we also had a 3.3L V6 and a 3.8L V6. At least we are downsizing a little bit.
3.6 is the original, relatively low-tech (for this series) engine, should be good for torque and truck use.
3.2 is optimized for higher gas mileage.
3.0 is optimized for Europe: costs more (if I'm right), but falls under the 3+ liter tax, and is more suited to a region where the V6 gas engine is an upscale unit and fuel is very pricey.
Applications are exclusive. You cannot optimize one design for all purposes. The more highly tuned, the narrower the operating range (note I am NOT saying rpm or power or torque-this is far more detailed than I am willing to spend time explaining now) and the less flexible the resulting engine is. There are "things" done to an economy engine that will cause MASSIVE warranty claims in a truck.
No one at Chrysler Engineering is that stupid to misapply an engine with that kind of issue.
No no. I've been here way too long to make that kind of assumption . And that is what is so fascinating about this kind of stuff! What makes little sense to a lay person makes all the sense in the world to an engineer. I have no doubt in my mind that Chrysler needs a 3.0l and a 3.2l. the reasons go beyond my current understanding and (I can admit that). That said, I have some reading to do...
but how far off is engine development from that anecdote? obvious, the original guys who designed the LA series of engines probably did not intend for a V10 derivative...but did the engineers design/develop the 3.6l knowing that there would be a 3.2l and a 3.0l eventually?
...or does some guy high in the ranks give the engineers the completed 3.6l pentastar and tell them, "figure out how to make a Euro version of this"?
Quote from Allpar's page on the 2.7L:
The 2.7 liter engine originally had a tendency to generate sludge which caused engine failure. Similar problems have been appearing on Toyota and Volkswagen engines. We were told that, shortly after the first reported cases, Chrysler isolated the problem to the crankcase ventilation system; hydrocarbons were entering the oil and breaking down the additives. This problem was solved (around 2002-2004), and the number of engine failures appears to be small.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Allpar Forums
757.1K posts
47.9K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Chrysler, AMC owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!