|
> > > > Instead of the Javelin Ford, which appears totally dead, or the
Chevy
> > > > V6 that is 3/4 a small block has nayone thought about flying the
> > > > pushrod Chrysler V6? They are becoming available pretty cheap.
> >
> > > From my experience in cars, they are pretty cheap because they are
crap,
> > > or next to it.
> > > --
> >
> > I've heard that enough times to wonder it there might be some basis;
> > OTOH, back when they were still current production, my local Chrysler
dealer
> > believed they were sufficiently reliable that a 100,000 standard factory
> > waranty was imminent.
> >
> > I do not recall whether they were bimetal or aluminum block engines, but
> > adiquate and consistent cooling is *very* important with aluminum heads
on
> > an iron block.
> >
> > Also, some of the newer designs may be lighter, although I do not know
the
> > weight of either.
> >
> > BTW, Ford had a 3.0L and GM had a similar engine that may have been the
> > 3.4L, which were both just about as compact as the Chrysler 3.0L and
3.3L
> > engines.
> >
> > Peter
>
> The 3.0L Chrysler engine of recent times isn't a push rod engine. It
> was a Mitsubishi design and had its share of problems, particularly
> with valve guides and cam and crank seals. The 3.3L pushrod engine
> (and its variants) is of US design and manufacture.
> Search rec.autos.makers.chrysler.
>
Now that you mention it, I recall that the 3.0L was a Mitsubishi design, and
that the complaints that I heard were about it. Apparently, the 3.3L was
not a revision of the same engine, as I had supposed.
A quick look in the rec.autos.makers.chrysler group strongly suggests that
the 2.7L might also be a poor choice. It's obvoisly hard to guess how much
is simply poor maintenance, but an Intrepid is obviously a much lighter load
for an engine than an airplane...
Peter
|
|
Re: 60 degree Mopar V6 for homebuilt?
