2000 Concorde Life Expectancy

How many miles can I expect to get from my 2000 Concorde (2.7) before
I begin to encounter pricey repairs? And if I make these repairs,
then how long before it dies on me? All you hear is a
Honda/Toyota/Nissan is good for 300,000 worry free miles. Have not
been able to locate any stats/guidelines for Chrysler Concorde.
Currently have 99,500 behind me. Any assistance is much appreciated.

 

Sheese............. my 2000 Concorde (3.2) has only 44,000, guess it's got a
long future ahead, I dun-no? LOL

 

It depends a lot on how you drive it and how you maintain it. Drive it
hard and never change the oil and you can ruin the engine in less than
50,000 miles. Maintain it according to the book, or even better, drive
it reasonably and it should last 200,000 easily. I believe the 2.7 has
some sludge build-up issues (as does at least one Toyota engine, BTW),
so you may need to make more frequent oil and filter changes and might
want to consider using synthetic oil. My 3.3L GV has 150,000 miles and
is still going strong on the original engine AND original 4 speed tranny.

If you really believe that a H/T/N will run 300,000 miles with no work,
then I have some desert land to sell you in south Florida. The only car
I've ever owned that didn't make 100,000 miles on the engine was an 84
Honda Accord that I bought new. The cam and rocker arms self destructed
at ~72,000 miles which filled the engine full of metal. Had it repaired
and then shortly after traded for an 89 Acclaim which was probably the
most bullet proof car I've ever owned. Unfortunately, after 10 years
and 143,000 miles, my wife totaled it hitting an whitetail....


Matt

 

KC - here is the response that I e-mailed you:

You have a similar commute to what I have - 38 miles each way on rural
and semi-rural roads. I also saw from your post on r.a.m.c. that you
have the 2.7L engine - which I also have, and which is an important part
of the equation, as someone else pointed out on the news group.

First off - this is where the 2.7L engine comes in. As was pointed out
on r.a.m.c., the 2.7L engine has sludging problems. BUT I think the
type of driving that you and I do prevents the sludge from building up.
I have 120k on mine, and it runs great. The failures that I have read
about on the internet generally come in the 60 to 80k mile range. So I
think we won't have that problem.

How often have you had the oil and filter changed? Besides the type of
driving, that is also a factor in the sludging.

You mentioned a timing belt. The 2.7L engine does not have a timing
belt. It has a timing chain (metal vs. rubber). The timing chain does
not have a change interval on it (i.e., it is not listed in the
maintenance schedules). I do not know how long to trust it. Maybe it
can go 200k or 300k miles? I just don't know. I can tell you that in
general, whereas timing belts need to be changed every 60 to 105k miles
(depending on the engine), timing belts are generally considered to last
the life of the vehicle - though they can fail.

Be aware of the following:
(1) If your timing chain does let loose, because the 2.7L engine is
what's called an "interference" engine, there will very likely be
expensive damage to the valve area.
(2) The water pump is behind the front cover of the engine, and, unlike
most cars, is driven by the timing chain. If the timing chain is ever
replaced as a preventative measure, the water pump would need to be
replaced at the same time because if the water pump fails, it can take
out the timing chain and therefore also cause the valve damage at the
same time.

Hmmm - you sure about that? I though they all had ABS - I know mine has
it and it is an LX. Maybe they stopped doing that in later years
(mine's a '99)? You may be correct, but I'm surprised if that's true.

Not a bad philosophy these days, especially for someone who does not do
their own work on their car. It's unfortunate that it's like that, but
I totally understand.

Here's my advice: Figure on trading it in over the next year. You
appear to have some anxiety, and that is very understandable, and I
can't do anything to alleviate that, and I realize that what I've
already said may add to it. You could go for three more years and not
have any problems, but I think there is enough risk that you, in your
situation, would sleep better at night with something newer and with
lower mileage. Of course there is a cost involved in trading up, but it
is in some ways insurance and peace of mind.

No need to apologize - in case you haven't noticed, I tend to lay down a
lot of words myself.

It's all based on risk and peace of mind - oh - and money. I expect to
get 250 or 300k out of mine, but I'm a guy who works on my own cars and
understands what is going on before a mechanic tells me, and I tend to
keep a car until it is ready for the junk yard. IOW, I'm willing to
take some risks that you are not, and should not, be ready to take.
That makes a big difference in the decision.

Thanks - you too.

Let me know if you need further clarification or have any other
questions, being that we have essentially the same car with the same
engine.

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

 

The 2.7 is an iffy engine and has had some problems, but apparently if
you feed it synthetic oil and change the oil very conservatively, its
fine. My wife's 93 Vision (previous generation of the same vehicle) with
a 3.5 is still running great at 211,000 miles, and I see no sign that
the end is near. First really pricey repair was a tranny overhaul at
150,000, but that was a heck of a lot cheaper than new car payments.

ROTFL!! I've never been able to nurse an import past 120k or so without
sudden massive simultaneous organ failure. They're designed to be
PERFECLY reliable to 100k or thereabout (and they usually are), and then
everything wears out at once. And I mean EVERYTHING. Bic disposable
cars. The only exception seems to be Toyota small trucks (the T-100 and
Tundra are jokes).

 

With proper maintenace, I would almost assure many years of life.
..
Consider cost of repairs, against a new car payment. You almost rationalize
even the more expensive repairs. I know a guy that traded in a perfectly good
(Paid for) Dodge Ram pickup, "Because it was going to need tires and a battery
soon!.. geez!

I also recommend an "Engine Flush" since these engines can have a sludging
problem. Have it done professionally by a mechanic that has the right
equipment, to do a power flush. I had one done on my 93 intrepid with a 3.3
engine. My fuel mileage even increased 2-3 mpg.

I think the timing belt on a 2.7 does not create a danger to the valves if it
were to break. I do not have proof , though I heard the head is designed with
valves seats much higher. Of course an ounce of prevention= a pound of cure.

Bottom line... American, Foreign, doesn't matter. It all comes down to proper
maintenance.

 

A crankcase flush increasing gas mileage? How? Power flush of
crankcase? Never heard of that. Transmission, yes, but engine, no (and
I don't recommend power flushes of the tranny).

Wrong on both counts. The 2.7L engine does not have a timing belt. It
has a timing chain.

And it **is** absolutely an interference engine. IOW, if the timing
chain breaks, you will have expensive valve damage. And if the timing
chain-driven water pump fails in certain ways, it can take out the
timing chain and the valves.

Proper maintenance decreases your chances of expensive failures, but is
no guarantee. Some very expensive problems can crop up even with good
maintenance.

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

 

Hey Bill,

Thanks for the Intrepid Link..gonna check it out. As per the engine flush, I
believe the increase in performance may stem from cleaner oil returns, meaning
less crankcase gases..= Better breathing PCV system??.. I wouldn;t say I am a
mileage calulating fanatic, but I do it in my head at least when I fill up most
everytime. There was a definate increase in mileage, and overall performance,
after the engine flush. I have had three oil changes since, and no doubt, the
oil wasn't as dirty throughout the cycle between changes, as prior to the
flush. for 166K miles, this engine has plenty of life left.

As for the 2.7 engine using the chain. I think I may have it confused with the
2.2L engine,,that used a belt, and there was little concern of valve damage if
the belt broke. Big difference between 2.2 and 2.6!

 

2-3 mpg from an engine flush? That's the best one I've heard today.

Matt

 

Well, maybe your idea of an engine flush is different from the one I had done
professionally. There was an absolute increase in performance and mileage.

You mean to tell me that a better breathing engine, with lower crankcase
pressure(gases) , would not yield at least a slight increase of performance?.
2-3 mpg I think can be a significant increase. I do lot of highway driving
too. Stop and go driving may not be so noticeable.

 

There was no such decrease in "crankcase pressure(gases)".

It is, and you didn't get any such an increase from having your engine
"flushed".

But don't feel as though you're alone -- people fool themselves into
believing they get magical mileage and performance increases from all
kinds of nonsensical potions, plugs and procedures so they don't have to
face the reality of having wasted money. It's human nature. I call it the
"Slick-50 Effect".

DS

 

Placebo effect?

Lower crankcase pressure would indeed yield a slight increase in
performance. But an "engine flush" shouldn't lower crankcase pressure,
unless the engine were on its last legs and packed with varnish and sludge.

A well cared-for engine should NEVER need an oiling system flush, and
should never BE flushed. I recently replaced valve cover gaskets on my
wife's 1993 3.5 v6, 211,000 miles. There was not so much as a flake of
varnish, sludge, or anything foreign under the valve covers. Its never
been flushed, nor will it be- just regular oil and filter changes (and
not even excessively frequent- I've let it run up to 9000 miles between
changes a couple of times). Its had a strict diet of Mobil-1 10w30 since
20,000 miles, Valvoline 10w30 before that, and Purolator or Wix oil filters.

 

Well - he is talking about the 2.7L here! 8^)

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

 

Oops - that was the OP with the 2.7L - not that guy.

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

 

How would an engine flush make the engine breath better? The crankcase
isn't connected to the induction system last I knen. You would only
have lower crankcase pressures if the flush cleaned out the PCV system,
which is very unlikely. Even so, crankcase pressure won't make much
different on a multi-cylinder engine as while one piston is coming down
another is going up so the net affect of any pressure is a wash.

You are dreaming about the mileage increase, at least about it being
related to the engine flush. Now if you did a complete tune-up along
with the flush, then it is possible that other things increased the mileage.


Matt

 

How?

Matt

 

It wouldn't except, as Steve has already pointed out, in the case of a
*severely* sludged-up engine near the end of its useful life.

You're saying your knowledge is current as of 1960. The crankcase has been
connected to the induction system in California since '61, New York since
'62, and all of the US since '63.

DS

 

Well, as I said it would take a miracle. The passages that allow blow-by
gasses to get to the PCV system would have to be SO blocked with sludge
that the gasses couldn't get by.

As for a mileage increase, believe it or not the small change in air
*density* inside the crankcase and the increased drag on the crank due
to air resistance do make a measurable (on the dyno) difference in
engine output and efficiency. Now, its pretty small at speeds below
~5000 RPM(*), but not so tiny that it can't be detected. It would be
hard to imagine you could detect it "seat of the pants" or in terms of
fuel economy, but I'm allowing as to how it might not be "impossible."


(*)- it can be surprisingly large at speeds above that, too. I was
recently reading an article about an engine build-up and dyno test, and
the builder made the first few dyno pulls with the crankcase
ventilation system capped. Un-corking the vents (not PCV, just venting
to the atmosphere!) gave an instant 10-HP increase at 6000 RPM. And this
was on an engine that already had knife-edged crank counterweights- it
would be even more noticeable with stock square-fronted counterweights.

 

I still don't see it. Breathing better implies that you have relieved
"congestion" in the intake or exhaust system. Since a crankcase flush
isn't going to clean the intake or exhaust valves, air passages in the
cylinder head, inside of the intake manifold, or the FI system, I don't
see how it is going to remove any sludge that is causing restriction to
either the intake or exhaust system.

How is the PCV system going to make the engine breathe better?


Matt

 

2-3 MPG would be 10-15% increase in fuel efficiency on most vehicles.
No way that is going to happen by reducing the air drag on the crank
throws or counterweights.

What article? 10 HP on a base of what HP? And how many street engines
spend any significant time at 6,000 RPM?


Matt