60 degree pushrod V6 Mopar engine

Can this engine be used in RWD swaps? Is it pretty reliable? What is
its weight? Does it have any known weak points?

Both the 3.8 V6 Ford 90 degree engine and the V6 Chevy have
successfully flown. Never heard of the Chrysler even being considered.

 

I presume you mean the 3.3 and 3.8 v6 engines from the minivans (and
formerly used in the New Yorker/Dynasty, and the first-generation
Concorde/Vision/Intrepid). I have no idea what the weight is, and no
there are no known weak points. Those engines are rocks of Gibraltar
when it comes to durability. On the down side, there are also few or no
performance upgrades so you're pretty well stuck with stock power
levels unless you roll-your-own engine management, intake, cams,
exhaust, etc.


I don't think the bellhousing bolt pattern on those is compatible with
any Mopar RWD transmission either, so you're on your own there too. The
Mopar 90-degree v6s (the old 3.9 and the current 3.7), like all
90-degree v6s other than the Buick 3800, are pretty doggy for their size
and weight, so most people would rather just use a v8.

 

The 3.8 liter Ford V6, which had almost zero aftermarket equipment
available, was relatively speaking very popular in experimental
aircraft. Maybe a hundred of them have flown, maybe two hundred.
Otherwise, no one wants them so they go to the crusher.

 

You would not want to do that. These engines are coupled to the Chrysler
41TE transmission, there was never a manual transmission option for them.
The 41TE, while a fine transmission for normal grocery-getter work, would
almost certainly start shearing gears and such if you put any real power
into it.

The 2.5L Turbo is what you want to soup up. There was also a manual
transmission for it and lots of hi-pro parts for it.

Ted

 

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

Isn't there a RWD application for this basic engine? Maybe for a
Locost or dune buggy it would be OK.

Dunno if I would fly one though.

 

Don't think you would want to bother.. since they quit putting them in the
Intrepid/Concord.. they don't have the mounts to put them in the normal
front back manner.. they are only used in the minivans now and are mounted
transverse style..add that to the fact of what Ted posted no trans..

 

How hard would making up a bellhousing be?

 

No. Not from the factory, anyway.

Conceptually simple. Easy enough for anyone with an NC mill and the
required skills. Kinda costly in materials, most likely. But where's the
payoff? Hot-rod/custom applications are all about power, and a v8 or the
turbo 4s are a better option for that than the v6. Yes, its a brutally
reliable indestructible minivan/sedan engine. But that doesn't translate
to any desirability in a custom application.

 

Actually, my real interest was for experimental aircraft, where what
is needed is a reduction gear. The V6 Ford was a success because you
could get them in the junkyard for nothing-since they lasted the
chassis life and were unwanted by hot rodders they were no-wantums.

My understanding is this V6 is also a no-wantum, therefore also cheap.

But there would be a potential auto aftermarket, albeit small, for
repowering Brit sports cars, kit cars, or Locosts. I want to build a
Locost-but not as bad as i want to build an airplane.

 

The 2.5 turbo -IS- a turbo 4!

Ted

 

Ah, I agree then. And for aircraft apps, I'd say this engine is about as
good as you can get. I'm kinda one of those people that thinks car
engines shouldn't fly. Different design constraits result in some fairly
fundamental differences, but then again they don't call them
"experimental" aircraft for nothing either.

But doesn't the "I coulda had a v8 for the same effort" factor apply
there too?

 

Uhh... yeah? So? He asked about the 60-degree V6 engines (3.3 and 3.8).

And by the way, live's easier with the turbo 4, because the 2.5 NA
4-banger WAS used in a rear-drive app: the early Dakota! So there are
RWD transmissions out there that bolt up to the 2.2/2.5, unlike the
60-degree v6 engines.