Allpar Forums banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Okay, I've got to ask something that's been bugging me for the last 30 years. I'm going to break it down into a several questions:

1. Why did Chrysler not use 3.3 l v6 in any of the coupes like the Daytona or the LeBaron coupe or convertible instead of the 3.0 l Mitsubishi v6?

2. Why did Chrysler use the 2.5 l Mitsubishi v6 in both the avenger / Sebring and the cloud cars instead of either a smaller version of the 3.5 used in the LH platform?

3. After it was discovered that the 2.7 l v6 was very unreliable due to oil sludging problems, why didn't Chrysler just go back to using the 3.3 l v6 as the entry level engine for the LH platform?

4. Why didn't Chrysler put in some other engine in the second gen cloud cars after the 2.7 was discovered to be very unreliable?

5. Why did Chrysler use the 2.7 again in the LX platform instead of just either using the 3.5 as the base engine or the 3.3 if they wanted a cheaper engine?

6. Why didn't Chrysler use the 3.5 in the Stratus coupe/sebring?

7. Why do Chrysler use the 2.7 in the '08 through '10 avengers / Sebring?

8. Though this may be a bit redundant, why did Chrysler keep buying engines from Mitsubishi when they were clearly just as competent (if not more competent than Mitsubishi in this capacity) and instead chose to purchase transmissions from a third-party company like Aisin-warner once it was obvious that the ultradrive transmission was going to require a ton of long term investment in r&d to get it to a tolerable level and would be known for not being either as efficient or as bulletproof as some of their competition?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,642 Posts
You’d have to ask the retired guys from Product Planning!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,348 Posts
Okay, I've got to ask something that's been bugging me for the last 30 years. I'm going to break it down into a several questions:

1. Why did Chrysler not use 3.3 l v6 in any of the coupes like the Daytona or the LeBaron coupe or convertible instead of the 3.0 l Mitsubishi v6?

2. Why did Chrysler use the 2.5 l Mitsubishi v6 in both the avenger / Sebring and the cloud cars instead of either a smaller version of the 3.5 used in the LH platform?

3. After it was discovered that the 2.7 l v6 was very unreliable due to oil sludging problems, why didn't Chrysler just go back to using the 3.3 l v6 as the entry level engine for the LH platform?

4. Why didn't Chrysler put in some other engine in the second gen cloud cars after the 2.7 was discovered to be very unreliable?

5. Why did Chrysler use the 2.7 again in the LX platform instead of just either using the 3.5 as the base engine or the 3.3 if they wanted a cheaper engine?

6. Why didn't Chrysler use the 3.5 in the Stratus coupe/sebring?

7. Why do Chrysler use the 2.7 in the '08 through '10 avengers / Sebring?

8. Though this may be a bit redundant, why did Chrysler keep buying engines from Mitsubishi when they were clearly just as competent (if not more competent than Mitsubishi in this capacity) and instead chose to purchase transmissions from a third-party company like Aisin-warner once it was obvious that the ultradrive transmission was going to require a ton of long term investment in r&d to get it to a tolerable level and would be known for not being either as efficient or as bulletproof as some of their competition?
1. 3.3 V6 was a pushrod engine, they probably wanted better fuel economy of the 3.0, weight was probably a factor with the nose heavy short wheelbase cars.
2. 3.2 and 2.7 didn't come out until 1998. 2.5 lighter and better fuel economy.
3. 2.7 lighter and better fuel economy.
4. They put the 2.4T in for Mexico. Chrysler marketing in the US was addicted to V6 engines, they really hurt the brand long term.
5, 6, 7 Lighter weight, better fuel economy. (notice a trend here?)
8. Prior to 1998 they didn't have anything as small as the 3.0. After 1998 they found out their 2.7 wasn't a good engine, so Mitsubishi was still more competent from 3 liters and under.
8b They thought the could fix the ultradrive, they finally did, it ran for 32 years, it was troublesome for the first decade. I guess they thought it would be cheaper than buying Japanese transmissions. I wonder if it was, all things considered.
 

·
Valued Member
Joined
·
2,429 Posts
Okay, I've got to ask something that's been bugging me for the last 30 years. I'm going to break it down into a several questions:

1. Why did Chrysler not use 3.3 l v6 in any of the coupes like the Daytona or the LeBaron coupe or convertible instead of the 3.0 l Mitsubishi v6?

2. Why did Chrysler use the 2.5 l Mitsubishi v6 in both the avenger / Sebring and the cloud cars instead of either a smaller version of the 3.5 used in the LH platform?

3. After it was discovered that the 2.7 l v6 was very unreliable due to oil sludging problems, why didn't Chrysler just go back to using the 3.3 l v6 as the entry level engine for the LH platform?

4. Why didn't Chrysler put in some other engine in the second gen cloud cars after the 2.7 was discovered to be very unreliable?

5. Why did Chrysler use the 2.7 again in the LX platform instead of just either using the 3.5 as the base engine or the 3.3 if they wanted a cheaper engine?

6. Why didn't Chrysler use the 3.5 in the Stratus coupe/sebring?

7. Why do Chrysler use the 2.7 in the '08 through '10 avengers / Sebring?

8. Though this may be a bit redundant, why did Chrysler keep buying engines from Mitsubishi when they were clearly just as competent (if not more competent than Mitsubishi in this capacity) and instead chose to purchase transmissions from a third-party company like Aisin-warner once it was obvious that the ultradrive transmission was going to require a ton of long term investment in r&d to get it to a tolerable level and would be known for not being either as efficient or as bulletproof as some of their competition?
When Chrysler started phasing out the Mitsubishi engines Mitsubishi wanted guaranteed contracts for the last few years to keep plants at capacity..............I believe the number was 300,000.

The 2.7L engine was designed as a premium engine and there was no way that engine was going to be abandoned. Once the sludging problem was corrected it proved to be a pretty reliable engine. I worked at the Tech Center back then and our offices were next to the production engine people and they busted their butt to fix all the problems.

My son had a new 1998 Avenger ES with the 2.5L engine and that was a great car with excellent reliability.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,647 Posts
In order to keep the low hood on the cloud cars, the 2.5L V6 (with a low-rise intake) met the necessary height dimensions.
The old-tech, cast iron 3.3L/3.8L had a 60° Vee/stroked/skirted which made it too tall for the low-hood clouds.
The Mitsubishi Cyclone 6G7 2.5L V6 was used in the domestic JA/JX until the domestic 2.7L was ready.
The ST Sebring, Status and Eclipse (DiamondStar) coupes used the 3.0L
Th early 2.7L may have had some teething problems, like water pump seals and PCV systems, but it was an industry benchmark engine that Chrysler was committed to getting right. I would have no qualms against owning one with the improved hardware. The head gaskets and bottom-ends held up well.
I remember seeing (coolant) heated PCV systems on Canadian and cold climate cars to prevent PCV icing. The water pump went through a number of revisions, including a weep hole to dump coolant outside the engine, instead of into it. By 2003, it was a fine engine as it was intended to be. I can't help but think that the Daimler cutbacks hurt and delayed the fixes that many of our cars and trucks would have needed to lead in class quality.
Despite some head and oil filter adapter (a small percentage can fail), the 3.2L/3.6L Pentastars have been a critical success for Chrysler.
 

·
Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
·
384 Posts
Despite some head and oil filter adapter (a small percentage can fail), the 3.2L/3.6L Pentastars have been a critical success for Chrysler.
Sorry to point just this out, but the 2014-2016 or so 3.6's with the 68105583AF part numbers have quite the intergalactic backorder right now.
Not comparable to the probably 1-2 million of them on the roads right now, but there's still quite a few of them.
 

·
Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
·
384 Posts
Anyways, I've always wondered why between like 1996/1997 to 2007, Chrysler had (including diesels) a whole 14 different 6's. 2.5, 2.7, 3.0, 3.0, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 4.0, 4.0, 5.9, 6.7.
I do where most of them come into their own (the two 4 liters are different, one was used for like 5 years only in the last TJ's, the other was used in the vans, Pacifica, and for some reason, Nitro. The two 3 liters, one's a diesel in the Grand Cherokee, the other was a Mitsubishi engine for like Stratus's and the lot, and the two big boys were diesels for the Ram HD's.)
I'm just of the idea that the 3.5 would've easily solved some problems for where the 3.7 was (or the 4L V6), in terms of both fuel economy or power, and some consolidation would've been nicer then the brain scramble the engine line ups were.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
37,764 Posts
Anyways, I've always wondered why between like 1996/1997 to 2007, Chrysler had (including diesels) a whole 14 different V6's. 2.5, 2.7, 3.0, 3.0, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 4.0, 4.0, 5.9, 6.7.
I do where most of them come into their own (the two 4 liters are different, one was used for like 5 years only in the last TJ's, the other was used in the vans, Pacifica, and for some reason, Nitro. The two 3 liters, one's a diesel in the Grand Cherokee, the other was a Mitsubishi engine for like Stratus's and the lot, and the two big boys were diesels for the Ram HD's.)
I'm just of the idea that the 3.5 would've easily solved some problems for where the 3.7 was (or the 4L V6), in terms of both fuel economy or power, and some consolidation would've been nicer then the brain scramble the engine line ups were.
I think you mean "a whole 14 different six cylinder engines" not "a whole 14 different V6's" as I believe the list is composed of a few "straight" 6 designs while the majority are "v" 6 designs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tlc

·
Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
·
384 Posts
I think you mean "a whole 14 different six cylinder engines" not "a whole 14 different V6's" as I believe the list is composed of a few "straight" 6 designs while the majority are "v" 6 designs.
Yeeeeaaaaahhhh.........
Typo. Big ol' typo haha
She's fixed 😂
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
When Chrysler started phasing out the Mitsubishi engines Mitsubishi wanted guaranteed contracts for the last few years to keep plants at capacity..............I believe the number was 300,000.

The 2.7L engine was designed as a premium engine and there was no way that engine was going to be abandoned. Once the sludging problem was corrected it proved to be a pretty reliable engine. I worked at the Tech Center back then and our offices were next to the production engine people and they busted their butt to fix all the problems.

My son had a new 1998 Avenger ES with the 2.5L engine and that was a great car with excellent reliability.
I know there were mods on the 2.7 engine. I had a 98 Intrepid with one and a 2002 Concorde as well. Never a problem for us. Had 110k on the Concorde when it was totaled. Now not withstanding that I wouldn't buy a used one but for us that big old car got great gas mileage and I never had anything but routine maintenance. The 98 I didn't have that long (replaced it with an Intrepid R/T).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Okay, lots of interesting information in here. Thank you for everyone who contributed. I do have some follow-up questions and/or thoughts on some of the answers. Using a smartphone, quoting directly is more of a challenge so I will try to answer without quoting.


If Chrysler was under contract for large quantity of engines I can understand the need for fulfilling the contract. What I don't understand is why Chrysler insisted to make such a tiny engine bay on the Stratus in the first place. It really limited their capabilities on the vehicle.

There are some points that are made that seem to be all focused on weight savings and fuel economy, which I can understand; however, what I don't understand is it seems that Chrysler strategy was to use smaller, More complex, lighter engines and the result was they got worse fuel economy, slow acceleration, and lower reliability then what some of their competition. The 2.5 v6 and 2.7 v6 in the Stratus, the 2.7 in the intrepid after 98, got about 28 miles per gallon on the highway with one or two years of getting 29 in the case of the 2.5 and one year for the intrepid before it got adjusted down to 28. The 3.3 got about the same gas mileage in the intrepid as what the 2.7 ended up getting in the end. Why was it possible for general motors to get 30 miles per gallon on the big Buick LeSabre with a cast iron, pushrod 3.8 v6 and outrun any of these car variants from Chrysler with these engines? My theory has long been that it's all about having tall gearing on a large torquey engine.

I get the idea that the 3.5 in the LH cars only got about 26-27 miles per gallon depending on the packaging in the year; however, the Nissan Altima with their 3.5 VQ in the early 2000s got about the same mileage until they put in a five-speed transmission which then got about 30 miles per gallon. Would it not have been possible in the case of the Stratus sedan or coupe (and I understand we're talking about two different platforms sharing the same name) to have just put the 3.5 in them and put in a 5 speed transmission, that they would have likely had to buy, and gearing it according to fuel economy and gotten similar results? I guess along those lines, if Chrysler would have put the same gearing in they did with the 200 / avenger with 3.6 in the 3.5 versions of the Sebring / avenger could they have gotten roughly about 30 under the 2007 and older standards.

While I acknowledge that the 2.7 did become better after some changes, the engine wasn't completely cured of the sludge problems as you will still find in forums people wanting to swap from a sludged to 2.7 to a 3.5 in the first gen LX vehicles and you will find examples of avengers / sebrings with sludging up 2.7's on YouTube. That's why I would never consider buying one.

Concerning the size issue, can you clarify that the 2.7 was on its own block? I originally thought it was on the same block as the 3.5; however, it seems that there are more differences besides the DOHC versus SOHC, the timing chain versus timing belt, and the person who swapped a 3.5 into a 01 through 06 Sebring convertible had to modify the hood to make it fit. If it's the same block, what was it that made the 2.7 taller? Traditionally, DOHC tends to take up more space than SOHC. Would it not have been possible to swap parts from the 2.7 to make a 3.5 or did the two really share nothing other than just Bell housing?
 

·
Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
·
384 Posts
Would it not have been possible in the case of the Stratus sedan or coupe (and I understand we're talking about two different platforms sharing the same name) to have just put the 3.5 in them and put in a 5 speed transmission, that they would have likely had to buy, and gearing it according to fuel economy and gotten similar results?
Buy a 5 speed from who, Nissan? Toyota?
It would've made more sense to do a 6 speed instead of just finding another transmission with one extra gear. Too much R&D for little benefits.
Also: from what I remember from an old Allpar article (so I could be wrong here), the V6's starting from the 3.3 on were all based on one another, but without commonality of parts. After OHV, they added a SOHC cylinder head to make the 3.5 & 3.2, then added 2 cams to make the 2.7 (all, obviously, with modifying displacement accordingly), and then increased the displacement from the 3.5 to make the 4 liter (I do get confused if all 4 liter V6's were DOHC, SOHC, or if there was two different versions).
They were all designed for different duties but were can be traced back to the original OHV V6's. But because they ended up being so different, parts won't line up with one another, so nothing would be an easy swap, if possible at all.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
36,011 Posts
Buy a 5 speed from who, Nissan? Toyota?
It would've made more sense to do a 6 speed instead of just finding another transmission with one extra gear. Too much R&D for little benefits.
Also: from what I remember from an old Allpar article (so I could be wrong here), the V6's starting from the 3.3 on were all based on one another, but without commonality of parts. After OHV, they added a SOHC cylinder head to make the 3.5 & 3.2, then added 2 cams to make the 2.7 (all, obviously, with modifying displacement accordingly), and then increased the displacement from the 3.5 to make the 4 liter (I do get confused if all 4 liter V6's were DOHC, SOHC, or if there was two different versions).
They were all designed for different duties but were can be traced back to the original OHV V6's. But because they ended up being so different, parts won't line up with one another, so nothing would be an easy swap, if possible at all.
Right, that was largely based on Bob Sheaves' statements. They had two basic series of V6 engines, in different displacements. 3.5, 3.2, 2.7, 4.0 was one; 3.3 and 3.8 was the other. Then there was the Mitsubishi 3.0 which later became the Mitsubishi 2.5. The Cummins six cylinder was only used in heavy duty trucks only - as it is today. There were two diesels, the expensive Mercedes, and VM, used because first they were ownd by Mercedes and next they were owned by VM's owner, Fiat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
I wish Chrysler had developed and refined the 3.3 and 3.8 OHV V6's the way Buick developed the 3800. I have read these were very reliable engines. If this had been done, the 2.7, 3.2, 3.5, and 4.0 might not have been needed. Amazing how Chrysler went from no V6's prior to the Mitsubishi V6 to such an abundance of V6's later. I like how the Pentastar now meets all of Chrysler's V6 needs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
World 14, my point wasn't as much that they needed a 5-speed transmission, my point/ question was looking at what Nissan did with the Altima where they went from roughly 26 miles per gallon to roughly 30 all due to a 5-speed transmission that was geared for economy if it was possible that Chrysler could do the same thing if the only priority was fuel economy. I understand the relevance of the five-speed transmission was a very short window hence why they didn't do it. The reasoning behind this is I think Chrysler along with Ford had a tendency to get caught up in ways of doing things that sounded good on paper but didn't really work. My point, if I understand things correctly, Chrysler could have gotten similar fuel economy if not better fuel economy on the highway (maybe less in the city) by using a larger engine like the 3.5 SOHC or their 3.8 OHV using more economy gearing to offset the displacement and had better reliability and better acceleration. I understand this would cost more on the 3.5, hence why you would want to have an intermediate engine like the 3.3 (or perhaps such an offering would have been the perfect place in the market for Plymouth to have offered such a powertrain option while Dodge and Chrysler would feature the higher-tech larger engine)

Dave z, was the displacement seriously what caused the 2.7 to fit in the cloud car versus the 3.5? I think that the article had claimed, if I remember correctly, that the 2.7 had a shorter deck. Was The shorter deck what caused the ventilation issues that can help contribute to the sludging issues? Was it possible for Chrysler to have modified the 3.5 to having a shorter deck, granted with lower power, so it would fit in a Stratus?


Ehaas, That's more or less my thoughts. Most mechanics swear by the Buick 3.8 v6 and Ford 4.6 v8s. Out of all the engines that Chrysler has made in my lifetime, the push rod 3.3 out of all of them seems to be the most bulletproof. That is why you see so many Chrysler minivans with well over 200,000 mi some are 400,000 mi without a rebuild. To me it's a tragedy, that Chrysler made this engine which is bulletproof, more bulletproof from my experience than the Buick v6, and they acted embarrassed of it and barely used it. The 2.7 they were so proud of it that they used in everything despite the fact that it has damage their reputation considerably and still was never bulletproof and wasn't that fuel efficient when compared to their competitors who used larger, heavier, faster engines. In my view, if Chrysler wanted to use high tech engines for marketing purposes to compete against the Japanese, Koreans, Germans I get that but if you're going to do that, use equal or larger size engines you want to give them more for their money not less.
In my opinion, I think the answer for Plymouth, was to keep Plymouth focused on general motors and aiming their product directly at their strategy utilizing their pushrod engines. Because there's no question that the 3.3 was hands down superior to the GM 3.1 and 3.4 as those were plagued with intake gasket and head gasket issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Ehaas, That's more or less my thoughts. Most mechanics swear by the Buick 3.8 v6 and Ford 4.6 v8s. Out of all the engines that Chrysler has made in my lifetime, the push rod 3.3 out of all of them seems to be the most bulletproof. That is why you see so many Chrysler minivans with well over 200,000 mi some are 400,000 mi without a rebuild. To me it's a tragedy, that Chrysler made this engine which is bulletproof, more bulletproof from my experience than the Buick v6, and they acted embarrassed of it and barely used it. The 2.7 they were so proud of it that they used in everything despite the fact that it has damage their reputation considerably and still was never bulletproof and wasn't that fuel efficient when compared to their competitors who used larger, heavier, faster engines. In my view, if Chrysler wanted to use high tech engines for marketing purposes to compete against the Japanese, Koreans, Germans I get that but if you're going to do that, use equal or larger size engines you want to give them more for their money not less.
In my opinion, I think the answer for Plymouth, was to keep Plymouth focused on general motors and aiming their product directly at their strategy utilizing their pushrod engines. Because there's no question that the 3.3 was hands down superior to the GM 3.1 and 3.4 as those were plagued with intake gasket and head gasket issues.
I wonder if the fact that it was a pushrod design made Chysler not want to push the 3.3l much? You still find plenty of people denigrating the Chevy small blocks and the Hemi because of their pushrod designs, calling them "outdated", even though OHC engines were around damn near the same time as OHV ones were developed.

My brother ended up with an old Chrysler Fifth Avenue that, despite having him drive it for awhile, the 3.3l kept going until around 340,000 miles. The ECM failed and he sent it to a bone yard, but that 3.3l just kept going and going and going. Not bad for a free car that didn't have an oil change in a decade.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
I wonder if the fact that it was a pushrod design made Chysler not want to push the 3.3l much? You still find plenty of people denigrating the Chevy small blocks and the Hemi because of their pushrod designs, calling them "outdated", even though OHC engines were around damn near the same time as OHV ones were developed.
I have read it is easier to get overhead cam engines to comply with emission control standards than OHV. DOHC engines were more hip and cool, as the Europeans and Asians use them, which may be why Chrysler wanted them for the LH sedans. But I think the reliable 3.3 and 3.8 could have been used instead of the supposedly less reliable 2.7, 3.2, 3.5, and 4.0 until the Pentastar debuted. Maybe the 3.3 and 3.8 could have been used instead of the 3.7 in the trucks and Jeeps also. Just as GM had turbo and supercharged versions of the 3800, Chrysler could have developed one for the high performance LH sedans instead of the 3.5.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
37,764 Posts
I have read it is easier to get overhead cam engines to comply with emission control standards than OHV. DOHC engines were more hip and cool, as the Europeans and Asians use them, which may be why Chrysler wanted them for the LH sedans. But I think the reliable 3.3 and 3.8 could have been used instead of the supposedly less reliable 2.7, 3.2, 3.5, and 4.0 until the Pentastar debuted. Maybe the 3.3 and 3.8 could have been used instead of the 3.7 in the trucks and Jeeps also. Just as GM had turbo and supercharged versions of the 3800, Chrysler could have developed one for the high performance LH sedans instead of the 3.5.
The 3.8 was used in Wrangler. What was a good minivan engine wasn’t a good Jeep engine.

Even with the Pentastar, it doesn’t really deliver the power where a Jeep needs it, but is better than the 3.8. The Pentastar is far more rewarding in an L car than a Wrangler/Gladiator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Erik Latranyi

·
Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
·
384 Posts
Just as GM had turbo and supercharged versions of the 3800, Chrysler could have developed one for the high performance LH sedans instead of the 3.5.
I don't think we had an automatic back then that could handle the power 😂
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top