|
> > > 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
>
> The 2.7 is not part of the 3.3 family either and IT had its own
> problems, many of which could be ameliorated by rigid maintenance.
>
> I do not understand your specific reference to the "load" in an
> Intrepid being the measure of suitability for the engine's application
> in an airplane. The jump to aircraft use for any auto engine is a big
> one no matter what vehicle it comes out of.
>
>
You're right that it isn't part of the same engine family, and it
presumably differs considerably from the other overhead cam engines as well.
The reference may not really belong in the same posting.
I'm not quite sure why, but rumors suggest that the _modern_ overhead cam
and multi-valve engines are far less tolerant of sloppy or deferred
maintenance than most older designs.
The load issue with the intrepid is slight, but that is a heavier car than
the Sebring and Stratus in which is was most commonly used. Aircraft use is
a lot more like pulling a trailer uphill at highway speed.
|
|
Re: 60 degree Mopar V6 for homebuilt?
