|
On Feb 8, 9:51 am, "Peter Dohm" <lefty...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > 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.
>
Roger that.
> 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.
.... in first gear if a PSRU is used.
|
|
Re: 60 degree Mopar V6 for homebuilt?
