Allpar Forums banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
when will they recall the 3.8 for oil consumption? everyone I know with one has a quart a k burned out of it and the dealer says its in tolerance......I wont buy any Jeeps any more .
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,969 Posts
My 09 3.8 does not burn oil at a rate of 1qt/1K miles.
 

·
Active Jeeper
Joined
·
31,129 Posts
when will they recall the 3.8 for oil consumption? everyone I know with one has a quart a k burned out of it and the dealer says its in tolerance......I wont buy any Jeeps any more .
Have you thought through that comment? It smacks of trolling.
Let's look at the facts:
ONLY Wrangler used the 3.8. That use stopped in 2012. Not buying any future Jeeps because they don't have a non-existent engine seems a bit odd. Think it through.

While I have extreme dislike for the 3.8 engine application in the Wrangler, my dislike has nothing to do with oil consumption, mine has no excessive, or ANY oil consumption, for that matter.
The 3.8 is no more prone to oil use than any other anemic V6. ;)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
36,941 Posts
The only time I've seen the 3.8 (in non-Jeep applications anyway) use oil it was because of the PCV system needing maintenance.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,365 Posts
It is the same 3.8L V6 used in the minivans. Based on the 3.3L, it is a proven engine.
Are you still within the 3/36 warranty or have documentation stating that you had a concern about it while still under the warranty?
The dealer should be able to do an oil consumption test at your request with an open repair order logging dipstick level measurements periodically and recording the results every 500 miles after an initial oil change. There can be no external leaks.
This step is necessary before Chrysler will even consider doing anything about it.
If the crankcase breather or PCV is consuming oil, that would be the first and easiest place to check. Rings would be the last resort.
Oil use isn't all bad, you want some upper cylinder and valve stem oiling.
 

·
Vaguely badass...
Joined
·
43,887 Posts
I might be wrong, but I'm not so sure the original poster HAS a 3.8-equipped Wrangler. He(she?) notes that "everyone I know with one has a quart a k burned out of it" - not that he(she) does.
 

·
Active Jeeper
Joined
·
31,129 Posts
I might be wrong, but I'm not so sure the original poster HAS a 3.8-equipped Wrangler. He(she?) notes that "everyone I know with one has a quart a k burned out of it" - not that he(she) does.
So, it could be 3rd party, here-say trolling? ;)

If so, then surely "they" will have a recall soon, based upon those "facts".....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,969 Posts
Wow! Norm defending the 3.8! I'm going to go watch some pigs fly tonight. LOL!
 

·
Active Jeeper
Joined
·
31,129 Posts
Wow! Norm defending the 3.8! I'm going to go watch some pigs fly tonight. LOL!
I defended the engine from here-say, I didn't defend the application in the Wrangler.
Now that the 3.8 is gone, it deserves a break. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
681 Posts
I'll defend the 3.8, I had one from 1998 to 2006, 130,000 trouble free miles, no apparent oil use, good ( 26 mpg hwy ) mileage. It was a workhorse in a vehicle probably the same weight as the Wrangler. What's not to like about an iron block pushrods engine? About as low tech as you can get these days. FWIW,The guy who developed it went on to become the chief engineer of the Viper program. I can't speak about any quality issues there may be now, but the design is solid. I am following this issue since I still have skin in the game, my son has an 2011 JK.
 

·
Radioactive
Joined
·
5,347 Posts
I have never had oil consumption issues with the very simmilar 3.3s in my vans 2005 (currently 291 000 km) and 1995 (~300 000 when I last owned it; 400 000 km when next owner retired it due to structural issues).
 

·
Active Jeeper
Joined
·
31,129 Posts
I'll defend the 3.8, I had one from 1998 to 2006, 130,000 trouble free miles, no apparent oil use, good ( 26 mpg hwy ) mileage. It was a workhorse in a vehicle probably the same weight as the Wrangler. What's not to like about an iron block pushrods engine? About as low tech as you can get these days. FWIW,The guy who developed it went on to become the chief engineer of the Viper program. I can't speak about any quality issues there may be now, but the design is solid. I am following this issue since I still have skin in the game, my son has an 2011 JK.
26? Wow, I'd be happy with 13! ha! ha!

Seriously, using the 3.8 in the JK Wrangler was a stopgap measure. It was a much better minivan engine, than Jeep engine and while it's use in the Wrangler was much maligned, mainly because it falls short in off road performance and low rpm torque when compared to the 4.0/4.2 six, it actually has better low rpm torque than the 3.6.

The 3.7 was the JTE engine they should have used in the Wrangler, but the 3.8 is all old history now and while I have my Jeep issues with the use of the 3.8, the design and reliability are not a part of any 3.8 problem.
It's application was the only issue I had with it.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,365 Posts
The 3.7L 90 deg Vee was too wide for the JK, so the 3.8L 60 deg Vee was the only other choice. It was no Hurricane.
I thought that with the right VVT and PCM software, the Pentastar could have a tractable, low-RPM torque band for Jeep/Truck applications. I do miss the old long stroke F-head feel.
My most disliked Wrangler engine of all time has to go to the whiny 2.4L DOHC which producing 150 horsepower at 5,100 rpm and 165 ft.-lb. of torque at 4,000 rpm. Maybe a fair highway motor, but definitely not for playing out in the woods.
 

·
Active Jeeper
Joined
·
31,129 Posts
Yeah, tires just killed the 2.4.
I'm surprised the 3.7 is too wide. The Liberty has it and seems less wide, than the Wrangler, but it is a tight fit in the Liberty engine bay.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
681 Posts
I was not on the wrangler program, but on the Ram we used a move macro program to put all three mounts through 2/3's rubber compression to guarantee powertrain, body and chassis components wouldn't touch. You have to provide enough clearance to protect components from swinging engines and bodies while decking them. You also need to get production tooling in there such as the brake evacuate / fill, battery install, front end alignment where applicable. Then before you can call it a day you have to crash it and have no fuel leakage and warranty your work for five years.

That being said, a good fabricator can put almost any engine in any vehicle, I'm sure most of you have seen some crazy combinations, one of my favorites was a Horizon with two engines and four wheel drive. Or was it Scott Harvey's Aspen Rally car with a modified Eldorado trans to give it AWD? Or the LA in a G-body Daytona? But I do enjoy seeing the recent wave of putting a HEMI in it.
 

·
Active Jeeper
Joined
·
31,129 Posts
I was not on the wrangler program, but on the Ram we used a move macro program to put all three mounts through 2/3's rubber compression to guarantee powertrain, body and chassis components wouldn't touch. You have to provide enough clearance to protect components from swinging engines and bodies while decking them. You also need to get production tooling in there such as the brake evacuate / fill, battery install, front end alignment where applicable. Then before you can call it a day you have to crash it and have no fuel leakage and warranty your work for five years.

That being said, a good fabricator can put almost any engine in any vehicle, I'm sure most of you have seen some crazy combinations, one of my favorites was a Horizon with two engines and four wheel drive. Or was it Scott Harvey's Aspen Rally car with a modified Eldorado trans to give it AWD? Or the LA in a G-body Daytona? But I do enjoy seeing the recent wave of putting a HEMI in it.
Ha! It would be nice to have "your" tooling clearances, on that we fail! ;)
Thankfully we don't (yet) have to crash test them.

 

·
Active Jeeper
Joined
·
31,129 Posts
Nice, you're a good fabricator, can't see enough to have an official packaging study though.
Thanks!
Let's just say, it was very, very, very, very tight. Did I mention it was tight? ;)



Taking this off made it a lot easier to work on.

 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top