2.7 engine

Was talking to the dealer service advisor who I've known for 10 years.
Indeed he said that engine sucked. (Not in so few words though.) Why stick
it in the new cars is beyond me.

 

Did he give any reasons for his opinion?

 

| Was talking to the dealer service advisor who I've known for 10 years.
| Indeed he said that engine sucked. (Not in so few words though.) Why stick
| it in the new cars is beyond me.
|
|

I would be curious as to why that opinion. I do know about the sludging
problems...but oil changes at the proper intervals and/or using synthetic oil
solves that issue.

 

They have had to fix a lot of sludged up engines. Assuming that 2.7 owners
are no more likely to miss an oil change then 3.5 engine owners, the engine
is prone to sludge so why bother with an engine when you are likely to end
up with some ticked off customers.

 

Keep in mind that dealers ONLY see the engines with problems. He also
may be annoyed with the poor acceleration figures in the 300 and Magnum
(who knows how it works out in real life, though). Yes, the sludge
issue has reared up. Using synthetic is good cheap insurance.

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/new6.html has info on the 2.7 for what it's worth.

The 2.7 is a quick engine in lighter cars with 200 horsepower, but it's
a bit rough on it to pull around a 4,000+ lb LX. Would've been
considered pretty quick a couple of years ago even there!

 

no it doesn't! the engine is of a poor design esp. when it comes to the chains

 

i work/wrench at a dealer and i also wrench part time in another shop and the
other shop replaces/does more 2.7 engines than we do at the dealer and most are
under 100k

 

| no it doesn't! the engine is of a poor design esp. when it comes to the
chains
|

"Chains" referring to the timing chain? Then all they need to do is put it's
replacement on a schedule at, say, 80K miles. So, synthetic oil for the
sludging problem and timing chain on a maintenance replacement schedule and
we're all set. Anything else?

 

I don't know, James. New chain and tensioner, and the obligatory water
pump while you're in there - how many multiple hundreds of dollars are
we talking about for all that?

BTW - my 2.7 has 120k miles on it and is running great. I think I've
decided to keep going with the original chain (I think my engine has
proven not to have the problem that appears to have plagued so many,
possibly due to the combination of 80 miles a day of highway driving and
regular maintenance.). Those that fail appear to do so between 60 and
80 k. Time will tell - reality can be a *itch

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Someone in the know who wrote me privately had the following to say.
Obviously he did not want his id posted:

"The dealer is misinformed. The 2.7 engine is a great design, but it
requires strict adherence to published maintenance intervals. A vast
majority of complaints and early failures have been due to less than optimum
maintenance.
Long term engineering tests have determined that oil temperature staying
too LOW is the primary cause of the sludging that affects the timing
components and the accumulators in the cylinder heads that feed steady oil
pressure to the lifters. With documented timely maintenance according to
severe duty schedules, there have been virtually NO failures.
The definition of the "A" versus "B" maintenance schedules is the main
issue. Newer versions of the engine require a different oil to ensure
adequate temps are met on short trips to combat the sludge issue."

 

I'd be very surprised that a different oil could significantly change
the operating temperature of the engine (without causing extreme wear at
the same time). I'd like to know how this magic works!

Matt

 

How can the 2.7 engine be a great design if you have to be constantly
worried about following the "proper maintenence" scehdules? It is
obvious with this engine (from reading numerous posts on this ng) that
there is no room for flexibility when following that schedule in the
book. Now don't get me wrong, I also believe in regular maintenence. I
try to keep my car maintained and up to date but I don't constantly
stare at the odometer and worry about going 1 mile over the
"reccomended" maintenece interval(or having to worry about going X miles
over 3K miles for an oil change). I just can't justify studying the
owners manual and following EVERY little detail to the letter.

I mean, think about it. The 2.7 engine goes in the cheaper models of
cars. These models, such as a base Intrepid, are typically (but not
always)owned by young families who probably can't afford to follow those
strict maintenece schedules.

In my opinion, the 3.5 should be considered a "great design" because it
is more flexible in it's maintenence. I have the 3.5 in my Vision and I
try to keep the oil changed regularly, but there have been times when it
has gone 4K miles without a change. I have used several types of oil
(all 10W30) and the car still runs smooth and quiet like the day I
bought it. The 3.5 is also proven to go well over 100K miles with little
or no trouble. Sure, the 2.7's have the capability to do that too, but
with twice the maintenence and a whole lot more time/commitment/money.

 

I think there's some truth in what you said, but it may be overstated.
My 2.7 is doing great at 120k miles, but I would not say with a "whole
lot more time/commitment/money". My goal has been 3000 mile oil and
filter changes, but like you with your 3.5, I went to 4000 or maybe a
little over every once in a while when life got particularly hectic.

The biggest factor, IMO, is at least an awareness by the owner that
there is a potential problem. For any owner with half a brain or more,
this means that he isn't going to routinely be changing the oil at 6000
to 11,000 miles that you can get away with on most other engines.

In my case, I think it was a combination of my 80 mile daily highway
commute in semi-rural areas, attempted 3000 mile oil and filter changes
(filter gets changed with every oil change) with actual averages
probably around 3500 to 3700 miles, and use of 1/4 qt. of Marvel Mystery
Oil in the crankcase at all times (the alternative to use of synthetic -
not that I equate MMO to synthetic at all - totally different purpose).

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

I thought about that statement too, Matt. But you could look at the
statement in two ways. It could be true if some oils have a much lower
temperature threshold for sludging (i.e., have much less tendency to
sludge up at lower temperatures), such as synthetics. If that's the
meaning, then it could have been written less ambiguously, or perhaps
the person that Art quoted did not understand the full implication of
what he was trying to say.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

So say you're Chrysler. You have the 2.7, the 3.2, and the 3.5 engines
in production in mostly overlapping applications (except the JA cars
where the 2.7 is the only v6). The 2.7 has the least power, is the most
sensitive to abuse (doesn't take it, in fact) while the 3.2 and 3.5 are
damn near slant-six or 318 reliable. And the 3.2 gets maybe 2% poorer
fuel economy than the trouble-plagued 2.7... and you stop production of
which engine? Why, the 3.2, of course!

And people wonder why many of us think the German takover has brought in
a bunch of inept knuckle-dragging bean-counters to screw up the
engineering department.

 

Uh, that's not the implication I read into the statement. I take it to
mean that an oil that is TOLERANT of the actual temperature range is
needed. Its poorly worded, but fairly obvious.

 

Bill Putney wrote:


es, but I would not say with a "whole

My wife's 1993 3.5 has been allowed to go to <choughemubleover9000miles>
on a number of oil changes. I lose track of how many miles "Moms Taxi
Service" racks up in a given time- that's my only defense Anyway,
when I had the valve covers off for new gaskets at 212,000 miles, it
looked brand new under there. Not just "clean," but NEW clean. How they
can go from that to the 2.7 that chews itself up as bad as a Toyota
engine in so few years is a mystery to me.

 

I agree with you and Bill. That has to be what he meant.

 

Great post. We use a term at work sometimes to describe breaking things:
Foreseeable abuse. If a design cannot withstand foreseeable abuse, then it's
a poor design. You can blame/defend whomever you want, but you can't say
it's a good design, let alone a "great" design as Art related from the
mystery emailer. For designers to just pretend abuse is not going to happen
is crazy (let that sink in if you need to). Much better to design robustly.

So, to clarify; the 2.7 is a poor design. However, some users have made it
work. If it had some great features, it can move up from poor design to
merely "finicky". But is it good at anything particularly? I'd own one, but
I'd be careful, and I sure wouldn't want to pay for a new car with one.

 

|
| So say you're Chrysler. You have the 2.7, the 3.2, and the 3.5 engines
| in production in mostly overlapping applications (except the JA cars
| where the 2.7 is the only v6). The 2.7 has the least power, is the most
| sensitive to abuse (doesn't take it, in fact) while the 3.2 and 3.5 are
| damn near slant-six or 318 reliable. And the 3.2 gets maybe 2% poorer
| fuel economy than the trouble-plagued 2.7... and you stop production of
| which engine? Why, the 3.2, of course!
|
| And people wonder why many of us think the German takover has brought in
| a bunch of inept knuckle-dragging bean-counters to screw up the
| engineering department.

With the 7-year 100,00 mile engine warranty on the models now, that doesn't
sound too smart...unless they've fixed some of the problems lately.