Chrysler minivan engines

Considering a minivan. Which would be the best engine to get?

 

Not the MitsuShitty 3.0.
To be fair, there is 240,000 Km on mine now, and it's only needed 2
sets of cyl heads and a water pump, as well as a new harmonic balancer
pulley (that chewed up the crank a bit when it came off).
In a 1988 New Yorker.
Still better than the old 2.6 Mitsu Hemi 4.

 

Both of my Grands have the 3.3L and this is fine for normal driving,
even in the hill country of northcentral PA. However, if I was buying
new, I'd probably get the 3.8L just to have the extra margin. I don't
tow with my vans, but if I planned to do that, I'd say the 3.8L would
then be a must have.


Matt

 

3.8 if you are thing a chrysler the 4 cylinder is under powered and has
some issues and the 3.0 is a high maintence engine

 

The only V6's available anymore are the 3.3/3.8 duo. Either one is a very
good low maintenance engine. The 3.3 would be fine in a short wheelbase but
if you're going long my bet would be with the 3.8. I would also get the
towing group (even if you don't) just for the extra cooling system margins.
Larry

 

When I was looking for a generation 4 Grand, I looked for a 3.3. More
durable and lower maintenance than the 3.0, less thirsty than a 3.8,
adequate power for my needs. Found one and am very happy with it.

 

message
| Considering a minivan. Which would be the best engine to
get?
|
|

I have the 3.3 in a 1997 Grand. It's not a race car, but is
more than adequate power and will pull a good grade at
highway speeds just fine. I get 23-25MPG highway and about
18-20 around town. Great vehicle...not a lick of trouble
from it so far. I understand that the 3.3 today has about
20 more horsepower, so it should be better. IF you're the
type that likes more reserve power, test drive the 3.8.

 

Wish that some of you guys would get away from mentioning the 3.0 as
an available engine. It hasn't been available in the Chrysler/Dodge
minivans in years.

Of course I'm talking new.
If you're looking for a used van, it's often pretty hard to be
selective about what engine you get....

I've got a short wheelbase 2002 Caravan with the 2.4L 4 cyl.
Except for driving in mountainous areas or pulling trailers, it has
adequate power. I've cruised at 80 MPH for hours with it.

What issues exist for the 2.4L?
It's been used in the PT Cruiser with high reliability ratings.
The headgasket situation was improved back in 1999.
Plus they gave me a 100,000 mile warranty on it, although I think
they've recently retrenched on that warranty, of all of their products
drivelines, to a 7 year/70,000 mile warranty..

I've driven both the 3.3 L and the 2.4 L.
There's not a big difference in acceleration between the two.
Since the 2.4L is a twin overhead cam design versus the pushrod
configuration of the 6 cylinder's, the 4 cyl isn't as gutless as you
might think.

The horsepower figures for the three available engines in the USA are
approximately:

2.4 L 4 cyl = 150 H.P.
3.3 L 6 cyl = 180 HP.
3.8 L 6 cyl = 200 HP.

Doug

 

Well, 30 HP is noticeable. I'd definitely want the 3.3L in a Grand.
The bigger issue in normal driving is torque, not horsepower. Do you
have the torque figures handy?


Matt

 

Doug wrote:

Horsepower doesn't mean squat when it comes to hauling a heavy minivan.
Its torque and where the torque peak occurs that make the 2.4 unsuitable
for most people's needs in a minivan. The 3.8 is by far the best
performing engine in the minivans, and I'd consider it almost a
necessity for the long-wheelbase minivans, but the 3.3 is certainly
acceptable

I can't believe they even offer the 2.4, really. A high-winding 4-valve
engine really isn't suited for hauling heavy loads at low RPM.

 

FWIW, from a consumer not an automotive expert, and as a minivan
owner....

By choosing a large minivan, one has made the choice not to make fuel
economy a top priority. I make no value judgment on this decision
As a consumer and driver, I feel that there is no substitute for power
and torque. For me, this makes the 3.8 the obvious optimum choice. I
can think of a specific instance, carrying a full load (7 passengers) up
steep hills, where I was glad for every foot/pound that was available.

Lisa

 

I consider choosing a minivan to indicate just the opposite. Very few
other vehicles will haul 7 or 8 people and their luggage and get any
better fuel economy. Can you name one or more? Maybe two hybrids
hauling 4 people each would beat one minivan, but the capital cost would
be a LOT higher.


Matt

 

Oh right! Like we're supposed to beleive that a woman could actually
understand what torque is! (just kidding) 8^)

(BTW - it is ft-lb, not ft/lb - but - hey - even guys don't get that
right. And officially, toruqe is supposed to be given as lb-ft, whereas
the ft-lb is reserved for the unit of work, but the ft-lb is very
commonly used for torque.) 8^)

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

 

Good point, and well taken. Fully loaded, or anywhere near that, I'd
agree hard to find a better passenger mile/gallon ratio in a passenger
vehicle. Maybe a VW van?

But I seldom see a minivan fully loaded, or anywhere near it.

Our "extra" car is a frugal Corolla, but I wonder just how it's mileage
would compare to the minivan when fully loaded with my photo gear for a
big shoot, with the Corolla being packed to the gills but the minivan
filled only behind the rearmost seat

Lisa

 

Have you never had your arm twisted by your wife? Torque in
practical application!

My main experience with measured torque was when I worked in spacecraft
electronics, where we measured torque in inch ounces, or ounce inches,
or something like that

Lisa

 

Mine has 5 people on most trips and we often have 7 in it with either
set of grandparents or a friend or two of the kids. Even with 5, it
does pretty well. Most cars that carry 5 as comfortably as the minivan
get less than 30 MPG, which is only a handful more than the minivan.
And with 7, few other vehicles touch it. Certainly much better than the
SUVs or full-size vans that offer similar room and comfort.

I commute to work in warmer weather on my other Voyager (Kawasaki, that
is) and get 50 MPG. Match that with your Corolla!

Certainly, if you only carry 2-4 people, then a car like a Corolla is a
much more fuel efficient solution. However, when you need to carry 7
and gear, I think a minivan really is a wise and fuel efficient choice.

And if you are going alone, you have no reason not to ride a motorcycle
and get at least 50 MPG!

Matt

 

There's actually a terrific reason not to do so: I'd rather save my ass
than save gas.

They don't call 'em "Donorcycles" for nothin'...

DS

 

In that case, you should drive nothing less than a Hummer, the real one,
not the H2. Or better yet, a Kenworth or Peterbilt tractor.

True, lots of ignorant people call them that.


Matt

 

I commuted to work 10 miles for 5 years on a Kawasaki 650. And I didn't
have no
pussy fairing either. I rode in all weather, rain, cold, sun, hot, you name
it. Only weather
I would not ride in was snow.

Motorcycle safety is a lot different than auto safety, it has different
tradeoffs. Cars allow
a lot more sloppy driving, really poor drivers can generally keep a car on a
road and keep
it from smashing into things, most times. However, if you drive into
a bad situation in a car, your options to evade a collision are generally
extremely limited,
you pretty much have to sit there and take it. The tradeoff though is your
better protected
in a car.

Motorcycles by contrast won't tolerate sloppy riders, if you want to ride a
motorcycle
your going to have to become far more cognizant of the road, and a far
better driver.
Riders that do it for a long time, as opposed to fair-weather riders who
only ride on
sunny days, are far more competent drivers and don't tend to get into
situations where
they are going to collide with something. And if something comes up
unexpectedly they
can easily evade the collision, most times. The tradeoff is that if a rider
does get into
a bad collision, they generally are going to get hurt more.

Unfortunately, the accident rates on motorcycles are greatly skewed because
there's an
enormous number of riders that run out, buy a motorcycle, don't know what
the ****
they are doing, ride it for the summer taking stupid risks, until
they get into a serious accident, then get scared and sell the bike and
never ride again.

Ted

 

Matt

I think the name came from ER physicians!?!?!?!

Dan