Allpar Forums banner
21 - 33 of 33 Posts

Registered
Joined
383 Posts
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.
Short term profits.
 

Registered
Meep Meep
Joined
14 Posts

Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
726 Posts
Did you know...

In the early 90's, Chrysler had also developed a turbo V6 using the 3.0L Mitsu engine. Never made it into any test mules that I'm aware of but 3 of them snuck out the back door at some point.
Why though?
Mitsubishi already had a turbo V6, and a decently powerful one (albeit it wasn't notoriously strong, as far as I know) at that.
 

Registered
Joined
38 Posts
The cost and complexity, and lack of reliability on SOHC & DOHC engines doesn't compare with a standard pushrod engine. In exotics, like a Ferrari or Lambo, yeah, they are cool, but those cars aren't driven 100s of thousands of miles like normal street vehicles, and as for the exorbitant cost of repairs, that's not an issue for their owners with deep pockets.

My son had a 2003 Dodge Stratus R/T, which is basically a Mitsubishi. Mitsu 3.0 V6, and even all of the body panels had the Mitsubishi name and part numbers stamped all over it. It was one of the biggest PITAs to work on! Just doing plugs and new valve cover gaskets took a buddy and I an entire Saturday! And, he's a pro lift truck mechanic, and I've wrenched for over 50 years and even owned my own shop for a while, so not beginners by any means. The auto trans went out on it after about a year (it was maybe 5 years old), as did the A/C compressor. Just an expensive POS.

I found it interesting that a recent review of a 2021 Durango with the 3.6 V6 stated that the "engine seemed old". HUH? WTF does that even mean? Toyota uses an AGED 3.5 V6 in their Highlander, as does GM with their 3.6 V6. Never read any comments like that when they review those... As for the OLD pushrod Hemis, I only drove one daily for 15+ years and 125K+ miles, with NO engine issues! And, I didn't drive like a little old lady either.
 

Registered
Meep Meep
Joined
14 Posts
And sold it with a Dodge Stealth nameplate.
Why though?
Mitsubishi already had a turbo V6, and a decently powerful one (albeit it wasn't notoriously strong, as far as I know) at that.
Yeah, weird, I know! I was much more active with the FWD/SDAC Mopar community back in the 90's but there was a great guy named Robert Hassler who was a big supporter of the 3.0L and had two of the factory turbo 3.0L mules, one was running in his car at the Mopar Nats around 1999, the other he had in his garage. I'll see if I can dig up a picture or two I took.

I think Ma Mopar at the time was trying to develop a single turbo 3.0L vs. the dual turbo setup on the Stealth/3000GT cars. Who knows though, not a whole lot of history exists about them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: World14

Registered
Joined
62 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. Those cars (Daytona/LeBaron coupes) were originally designed for Chrysler 4cyl engines. They only added the V6 option later to help "use up" the Mitsubishi contract.
2. the 2.5L fit the emissions requiresments well at that time, plus it was being put into the DSM (Diamond Star Motors) cars built by Mitsubishi in Normal, IL (the two doors). Since the 2 doors would use the 2.5L, they used 'em in 4 drs for that same time period. When they updated to the 3.0 in later 2 door DSMs, the 4drs then updated to the 2.7L, and both were rated at 200hp, so marketing advertised things like "Dodge Stratus, available with 2 or 4 doors and both available with a 200 hp V6".
3. by that time, the 3.3 was not as high tech nor as rated as well at emissions. Safety ratings had also changed by this time, so to crash test a new car with a 2.7L V6 and get a safety rating would require all new testing to replace the 2.7 with a 3.3 (might have crashed differently), which is very expensive to test. Also emissions would be re-certified as well (again, expensive to change).
4. they tried (and succeeded) in fixing the 2.7
5. again, the 3.3 was on it's way out by this time, the 2.7 was used across the board and the 3.5 had a reputation for power and was advertised as "high tech" for the time
6. the coupes were built by Mitsubishi, hence the Mitsubishi engine (same reason for the Crossfire using the Mercedes engine, Mercedes built the car in Germany, and it was deemed to expensive to re-crash test and re-emissions certify the Crossfire for an American 3.5 when the German 3.2 was deemed "good enough")
7. mid-level engine (2.4, 2.7, 3.5) made the 3.5 look like a premium engine, and to give middle of the road shoppers a cheaper V6 upgrade from the 2.4 at that time
8. again, Mitsubishi demanded a high contract to keep the factory running to produce those engines, so Chrysler signed at a time when they needed V6s and didn't have many. Times changed.

JS
 

Registered
Joined
77 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
Okay I have a new series of questions, I don't want to clutter up the forum so I figure I'll just reuse this thread since the covers a lot of the same kind of decisions. Note: thank you to everyone who answered all my questions.

1. I read that there were V8 rear wheel drive test mules of the LH platform back in the days. I've heard of both the a999 torqueflite and a ZF 5 speed that were tested. Do you know which one they would have used if they had done this and roughly what the axle ratio would have been?

2. The V8 was rumored to be the 360. I know reading through some of the early test mules of the viper that they had a 360 V8 test mule that generated about 300 hp and I think about 350 ft lbs of torque. Do you know if anything close to that would have even been possible in the LH cars because I know the trucks only generated about 245 to 250 hp back then with 335 to 345 ft lbs of torque?

3. Was there any way Chrysler could have made a V8 out of the 3.5 similar to how Ford made the admittedly ill-fated 3.4 V8 SHO out of the 2.5 V6? (I know this would be an odd firing V8 with the 60掳 versus 90掳 design and the displacement of this I would guess would be somewhere around 4.6 to 4.8 range.)

4. For them to have done something like this, would the whole LH program have to be exclusively rear wheel drive, or would they do a combination like V6 models are front wheel drive and the V8 models are rear wheel drive. Or would they have made decisions like the intrepid, Concorde, New Yorker are front wheel drive. And the vision / 300M and LHS are rear wheel drive?

5. On an interior question, I was puzzled on how GM had dual zone climate control even in Pontiacs from the '90s on basic models like the Grand Prix but the LH car is only had one zone. Looking at some photos of old 2nd gen Grand Cherokees and old Town & country's in the same era they listed driver and passenger for zones. Was that meant as a passenger side or the rear passengers? If it was the passenger side, then why didn't Chrysler carry over this technology to their flagship vehicles?
 

Registered
Joined
62 Posts
Okay I have a new series of questions, I don't want to clutter up the forum so I figure I'll just reuse this thread since the covers a lot of the same kind of decisions. Note: thank you to everyone who answered all my questions.

1. I read that there were V8 rear wheel drive test mules of the LH platform back in the days. I've heard of both the a999 torqueflite and a ZF 5 speed that were tested. Do you know which one they would have used if they had done this and roughly what the axle ratio would have been?

2. The V8 was rumored to be the 360. I know reading through some of the early test mules of the viper that they had a 360 V8 test mule that generated about 300 hp and I think about 350 ft lbs of torque. Do you know if anything close to that would have even been possible in the LH cars because I know the trucks only generated about 245 to 250 hp back then with 335 to 345 ft lbs of torque?

3. Was there any way Chrysler could have made a V8 out of the 3.5 similar to how Ford made the admittedly ill-fated 3.4 V8 SHO out of the 2.5 V6? (I know this would be an odd firing V8 with the 60掳 versus 90掳 design and the displacement of this I would guess would be somewhere around 4.6 to 4.8 range.)

4. For them to have done something like this, would the whole LH program have to be exclusively rear wheel drive, or would they do a combination like V6 models are front wheel drive and the V8 models are rear wheel drive. Or would they have made decisions like the intrepid, Concorde, New Yorker are front wheel drive. And the vision / 300M and LHS are rear wheel drive?

5. On an interior question, I was puzzled on how GM had dual zone climate control even in Pontiacs from the '90s on basic models like the Grand Prix but the LH car is only had one zone. Looking at some photos of old 2nd gen Grand Cherokees and old Town & country's in the same era they listed driver and passenger for zones. Was that meant as a passenger side or the rear passengers? If it was the passenger side, then why didn't Chrysler carry over this technology to their flagship vehicles?
Great questions!

1) there were V8/RWD test mules of the LH platform. As most of us know, the LH was heavily based upon the AMC/Eagle Premier. When AMC was designing the Premier, it was to be their new, big sedan, with modern V6 and FWD, but they also planned on a coupe, and a wagon version, in addition to the sedan. Rumor has it that they intended to offer FWD, RWD and AWD across these models, with the 2 dr being RWD and used as their NASCAR entry. Of course, these plans were scrapped when AMC was sold to Chrysler. Some LH test mules came from these experiments when they were developing the LH for Chrysler, Dodge and Eagle. Once the cars started selling, it was determined that the sales were high enough on the FWD cars that the RWD/AWD variants were not necessary. I don't know what gear ratios or tranmissions they would have ended up with had they continued that project.

2) the 360 may have been certified for emissions at that time, but most likely it would have been the 318 or they may have developed the 4.7L a little sooner, as well. Original design of the 4.7L SOHC V8 began at AMC.

3) I don't think that the design of the 3.5 would have translated into a V8 very well, and I don't think that was ever considered (never heard of it, anyway)

4) the original plans for the LH were to offer FWD and AWD, and have a high performance variant (Dodge?) in RWD as well. The platform was setup to support the differnt drive wheels, so they could have done them all

5) marketing didn't deem it necessary, that's all.

JS
 

Registered
Joined
38 Posts
Chicago Auto Show - circa 1999 I believe... There was a preview of concept car - a 4 door Dodge Charger, sporting a supercharged 4.7 RWD running on CNG, rated at 325HP, still built on an LH platform. Dodge wanted to showcase a 2 door Charger, but remember, this was back in the days right after the German "merger" (takeover)! The Germans, producing tons of 2 door sport cars (like SLs) told Chrysler that there was no market for an American 2 door muscle/sport car in America! Anyone remember the 1998 Chrysler Chronos V10 concept??? Again, the damn Germans didn't want the competition. How dare those damn Americans make faster, better, cooler cars than us, and FOR LESS $$$ WTF! If you Google the Charger concept, it looks a lot like the LH cars they were already building. Fast forward to 2005, and Chrysler was finally "allowed" to make the 300 and Magnum (in 4 doors ONLY), but the Charger lagged another year until 2006 release. Just look back to the early 90s, when kind of as a lark, and kind of to showcase their engineering and stimulate marketing interest in Dodge, they showed up at the Auto Shows with a ... V10 Viper! I remember that year going to the Chicago Auto Show and seeing and hearing people PLEAD with Chrysler execs, willing to open their checkbooks and write deposits on the spot to get them to build them. No Germans, no Cerubus, no FCA, no Stellantis to answer to. Viper would have never been built with outside interference.

It wasn't until Chrysler got rid of the Germans that they came out with the 2 door Challenger, but because of pending bankruptcy, they basically cut down a 4 door heavy Charger/300 platform and plopped the slightly shorter but still very heavy Challenger body onto it. At that time, the blood-suckers from Cerubus were bleeding Chrysler dry, so no real development $. Then, a couple years later, in comes Fiat, and now... Stellantis. Still, a lot of the coolest stuff Mopar has done recently has been on the sly, with groups like SRT. There was no "business reason" for ever producing the Hellcats, but those of us who are real car people "know better". You can't always allow bean counters to make marketing decisions. Execs need to get out to Auto Shows and car events and TALK TO THE PEOPLE. Yes, you need to build grocery-getter granny cars for the masses, but... Dodge is not a grocery-getter brand the way they market it.
 

Registered
Joined
2,335 Posts
Chicago Auto Show - circa 1999 I believe... There was a preview of concept car - a 4 door Dodge Charger, sporting a supercharged 4.7 RWD running on CNG, rated at 325HP, still built on an LH platform. Dodge wanted to showcase a 2 door Charger, but remember, this was back in the days right after the German "merger" (takeover)! The Germans, producing tons of 2 door sport cars (like SLs) told Chrysler that there was no market for an American 2 door muscle/sport car in America! Anyone remember the 1998 Chrysler Chronos V10 concept??? Again, the damn Germans didn't want the competition. How dare those damn Americans make faster, better, cooler cars than us, and FOR LESS $$$ WTF! If you Google the Charger concept, it looks a lot like the LH cars they were already building. Fast forward to 2005, and Chrysler was finally "allowed" to make the 300 and Magnum (in 4 doors ONLY), but the Charger lagged another year until 2006 release. Just look back to the early 90s, when kind of as a lark, and kind of to showcase their engineering and stimulate marketing interest in Dodge, they showed up at the Auto Shows with a ... V10 Viper! I remember that year going to the Chicago Auto Show and seeing and hearing people PLEAD with Chrysler execs, willing to open their checkbooks and write deposits on the spot to get them to build them. No Germans, no Cerubus, no FCA, no Stellantis to answer to. Viper would have never been built with outside interference.

It wasn't until Chrysler got rid of the Germans that they came out with the 2 door Challenger, but because of pending bankruptcy, they basically cut down a 4 door heavy Charger/300 platform and plopped the slightly shorter but still very heavy Challenger body onto it. At that time, the blood-suckers from Cerubus were bleeding Chrysler dry, so no real development $. Then, a couple years later, in comes Fiat, and now... Stellantis. Still, a lot of the coolest stuff Mopar has done recently has been on the sly, with groups like SRT. There was no "business reason" for ever producing the Hellcats, but those of us who are real car people "know better". You can't always allow bean counters to make marketing decisions. Execs need to get out to Auto Shows and car events and TALK TO THE PEOPLE. Yes, you need to build grocery-getter granny cars for the masses, but... Dodge is not a grocery-getter brand the way they market it.
Then they need to get rid of the FCA marketing plan.
 

Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
37,450 Posts
I think the real reason they didn't do a V8 LH was (a) they didn't have to - the FWD V6 series were selling extremely well; and (b) Eaton was too cheep to invest in it. They did intend to make FWD and RWD versions for LX. Only RWD made it past either Eaton or Daimler, and you know the outcome. I am pretty sure Challenger was done before the Germans left. Ah, here we go -

2008. Cars are not made in a year. The 2008 Challenger was launched, I think, in 2007, anyway.
 
21 - 33 of 33 Posts
Top