3.5L or Hemi

Which is more reliable?
3.5L has been around longer but not sure if the MDS in the Hemi will be
problematic.

 

Both are good motors. Common problem with the 3.5L is cylinder mis-
fire fault codes (service bulletin out on this
problem) and water pump failure (even tho engine is free running I
have seen some bent valves when the belt breaks)
The common problem with the 5.7L is fault code P0404 EGR Valve
Failure. Note is important to use the good grade
motor oil in thses 5.7L engines because of the MDS. If you don't the
MDS will malfunction and turn on the check
engine lamp. Don't laugh I didn't believe it till I read the shop
manual.

 

Ummm - those two things (free running *AND* valves bent when belt broke)
are, by definition, mutually exclusive.

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

 

They're both Chrysler engines, they'll likely be highly reliable (well,
the 3.5 IS already proven very reliable). Think about it, which Chrysler
engines since 1930 have had ANY reliability problems? I can think of
two: the 2.7L v6 coking its own oil, and 2.0/2.4 4-cylinder head
gaskets. All the other new engines introduceed since the mid 90s- the
4.7L v8, 3.7L v6- have been flawless.

 

4.7L Broken Valve springs,rockers poping off (causing mis-fire),
water pump and sludge
3.7L Same as above

 

4.7L Broken Valve spring,rockers popping off (mis-fire),water pump,oil
sludge and melted piston #7 cylinder
3.7L Broken Valve spring,rockers popping off (mis-fire),water pump,oil
sludge and noisy chains

 

If you are considering a 300 versus a 300C Consumer reports says the 300C is
much less reliable. If it isn't the engine it has to be all of the extra
doodads.

 

My experience with the 3.5's has been great (I've had 4). For me, they get
better gas mileage than the EPA ratings. Certainly got enough power. The
only downside is the timing belt combined with an interference
piston-to-valve setup. If you think you might need the Hemi to compensate
for some sort of inadequacy, just remember that gas is over $3. It's higher
than it was after hurricane Katrina. $4 by this summer?

 

The appeal of the hemi isn't just the power.... it is much smoother and
quieter inside the 300C then the V6 3.5l 300.

 

Thanks guys for your opinions and advice.
Yes, Art that's what I have read in the reviews. It mentions that the 3.5L
isn't as refined.

 

The most reliable Chrysler engines were their famous flathead 6's and
8's. I know, I have a 1940 241.5c.i. flathead six, and have had
others in 48 Plymouths and a 49 Chrysler Windsor.

 

It's not the size of the engine, its the weight of the car that
determines the fuel economy. There is only 1 mpg difference between the
300 and the 300C. I had a 94 Concord with a 3.5 (which needed a head
gasket at 50K miles, as did my 85 LeBaron GTS with a 2.? Turbo). I
currently have a 300C AWD. The Hemi is an awesome engine, it has
incredible acceleration and its very smooth. The 300 has awful mileage
compared to the Concord, I averages 22 MPG, 29 on long trips, with the
Concorde, I average 19, 22 on long trips, with the 300C, so if you can't
afford the gas don't buy a 300 in any flavor. I don't commute, I have a
home office, so I can live with the gas costs. The Hemi was the reason
that I bought the 300C, without it it's just a car with bad visibility.
Nothing else that I test drove had anything like the 300Cs performance,
not even cars that cost 20K more.

 

also, the hemi takes mid grade fuel.

--

 

Sharkman,
My flatheads take unleaded regular and still get over 20mpg! Thank
you to Walter P. Chrysler for putting hardened valve seats in the
flathead allowing for unleaded gas.

 

Negatives to fuel mileage:
Weight, wind resistance, AWD,
and particularly in city driving engine size.

 

performance, not even cars that cost 20K more.

The engine is a variable displacement engine so it's not nearly as
inefficient as it could be. I'm not sure about the aerodynamics, the
Concord certainly looked more aerodynamic then the 300 but the 300 is
fairly low so it might not be as bad a problem as it appears. AWD hurts a
little but it's an absolute necessity, I wouldn't even consider a car
without AWD. If you live in a sunny state then RWD is a good choice, but
I live in New England.

 

Rockers? On an OVERHEAD CAM engine? Roller followers, yeah. Rockers that
can "pop off" like a ball-stud Chebby? Nah.

Sorry, that kinda casts the whole claim into doubt.

 

The 3.5 is perfectly "refined," (whatever that stupid, subjective,
non-engineering-based, I turn-the-key-and-it-goes car-magazine writer
term may mean to you) but they mate it to a transmission with one less
forward gear ratio than the Hemi gets, so it has to run up and down a
wider RPM range, which makes it a bit louder. Also, ALL v6 engines have
a relatively unpleasant exhaust note to start with. Nature of the beast.

 

I LOVE the old flatheads (I have had a 218 flat 6 in a '49 Club Coupe
for 30 years) but sorry, reliability wise they weren't on a par with the
slant-6 and 318 v8. But then nothing else on the planet short of a
diesel is, either.

 

So does the 3.5, as it has since its introduction in 1993 (maybe the
current non-HO 3.5 has been de-tuned for regular, now that I think about
it).