Allpar Forums banner

AN: New Pentastar engines: 3.0, DI, MA2?

13K views 52 replies 29 participants last post by  MoparNorm 
willy said:
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.

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/V6/35.html



DaveAdmin said:
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.
If i was king during that decision, i would have just done a 3.0L (optimized for Europe and higher gas mileage) and a 3.6L truck engine.



ps: just remembered the mitsu V6s :blink:
 
Bob_Sheaves said:
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.
i can understand that logic, especially when it comes to the 3.6L.

Nonetheless, i still have a question:
What does the 3.2L V6 accomplish that the 3.0L V6 can't accomplish?

i know the old saying, "there is no replacement for displacement." But can .2L make that much of a difference to a given application?
 
Bob_Sheaves said:
Do you honestly think displacement is the only distinguishing feature?
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...
 
Very funny way of putting it, Dave :)

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"?
 
Moparian said:
It was a terrible engine. Not sure what team it was but they did not do a good job.
well, i wouldn't exactly go that far. from my understanding, 9 times of 10 the problems come from the penny-counters [Ex: 2.0l head gaskets].

that said, i don't really know the reasons for the 2.7l oil sludge problem.
 
SouthPawXJ said:
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.

Original is at The Chrysler 2.7 liter V6 engines http://www.allpar.com/mopar/V6/27.html#ixzz2Jg1oOrKI
Follow us: @allparcom on Twitter | allparcom on Facebook
dangit you beat me to it :)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top