which engine--minivan?

| > | >
| > >
| > > | > >
| > >> That is correct. The 2.5 was last used in 1995, and replaced with the
| > >> 2.4 in 1996. The 2.4 in my Stratus is satisfactory. I wonder how it
| > >> performs in a van.
| > >
| > > Stratus weighs 3290lbs, Caravan weighs 4060.
| > >
| > > Take your Stratus, put 770 lbs worth of weight in it (5 passangers and
| > > some cargo should do), and you know how the van will perform EMPTY.
| >
| >
| > People usually don't throw a minivan around like they would a Stratus,
| > so a 2.4 liter minivan might not feel like such a slug as you'd think.
| > A minivan, being more top heavy, is usually driven more conservatively.
| > Also, the Caravan's probably geared a lot lower to get more torque out
| > of that 2.4. I drove a nice mint green 1999 2.4 Caravan (empty) last
| > week. It felt powerful enough. Ain't no sports car though. I'd be
| > happy with one, especially since I don't tow stuff with my minivan.
|
| I would expect it to be much better than my 1986 Caravan with the 2.6
| Mitsubishi. It was really sluggish climbing hills. The 2.2 was also
| offered at the time. I regretted not waiting to get a 1987 when the V6
| was first offered.
|
| -Kirk Matheson

We had the 87 Grand with the 3.0 V6...what a improvement in power for the time.
Ran that puppy for ten years and sold it to a friend that ran it another 3-4
years.

 

| (Fredisg) wrote in message
| > Hi,
| >
| > If I were to purchase a used 2002 or 2003 town and country or caravan,
which
| > engine is the most reliable? 3.3? 3.8? any others?
|
| I have been amazed that my 97 3.8 Caravan gets 27-28 miles per gallon
| and my 3.3 '92 Caravan got only 23-25 on the highway. In fact I
| (three peple plus luggage) just completed a 5000 mle round trip to
| Alaska in the '97 and got over 30 mpg average because we were obliged
| to drive at less than 62 mph.

Best I've gotten on my 97 3.3 was 28 highway... Never got 30.

 

I note that the early 4-bangers were turbo charged and that several aficionados
(spelling??) use them in Voyagers for "hot rods". I have read about their
escapades on their particular web sites.

If those 2.2 and 2.5 engines can make those Voyagers move at such death defying
speeds and accelerations, could the newer 2.4 be used for the same purposes?

I know nothing about the 2.4 except what I have read on web sites and this ng.
Is there a turbo version? If so, can it be used for "hot rodding"? Can it use a
manual tranny or a 3-speed automatic? As stated know nothing about the 2.4!
Perhaps the bell housing of a manual or 3-speed won't match the bolt holes of a
2.4. No matter, there is always the adapter plate route for those adamant enough
to mesh the "unmeshable".

Just wondering. I would never spend the money diddling with such a hot rod build
up as my priorities involve educating and feeding a couple of teem age boys. But
there are lots of folks who are real willing to do so - and they obviously enjoy
every minute of the process, never mind the "12-point-something" seconds they
spend racing down the track

 

I have the 3.8 in my 99 T&C and wouldn't want less for acceleration.

 

GEEZ what do you do drive downhill with the wind at no more than 50?! My
vans have always given "real world" avgs. of 15-17 (in town) and 20-22
highway if not pulling boat. If pulling than only about 17-18. Reason for
range is winter to summer. Now I know I can look at the trip computer at
various times and see as much as 28-30 but that's not "real" mileage. I'm
talking averages. Recently replaced my 93 (3.3 T&C) with a 4wd 1/2 ton
suburban with a 350 and don't find it too much different than the 99 T&C. 13
in town and 18 on road.
Larry

 

I would have to look at the specs, but willing to bet the Caravan and
Acclaim are geared different.

 

About the same here: best ever was 27 on a trip down 95 to FL. A lot of
variables enter into MPG though. I once got 46 with my Honda Accord.
However, that was in the midwest, heading east with, and I'm not
kidding, a 50 MPH tailwind right down the interstate. You literally
could open the windows at 55 MPH and feel almost no wind at all. It was
spooky. Also, if you only check one tank, you can easily be off 2-3 MPG
just on fill error alone.


Matt

 

purposes?

Not all the 2.2 and 2.5 engines were turbocharged, and in fact very few were
fitted in the minivans, and are considered collector's items by some. The
original voyager / Caravan had a non turbo 2.2L giving a death defying
100hp.

 

Exactly. Gearing makes a huge difference. Consider that Dodge for
years (60's to 70's) had its slant 6 as the base engine in its trucks,
even the big medium duty trucks with like a 15,000 GVW rating. Of
course the slant 6 has bigger connecting rods and thus more torque than
the engines in question.

Out of curiosity, why'd you use your 4 banger K-car to tow a trailer and
haul 5 people? No one else had a beefier vehicle? Also with a set-up
like that, why on Earth would you expect to pass other cars at 75 going
up a grade? Just curious. I'd be afraid of burning out the tranny.

 

Guess my first post got lost,, yes the mini van has a little steeper gear
than the Acclaim did.. voyager is a 3.10.. I haven't got a clue what was in
the Acclaim. I would suspect somewhere around a 2.70 or so.. All other
things being equal though the Voyager does have 50 more hp.

And yes gearing makes a BIG difference.... multiply the same amount of
torque by 3.25 instead of 2.5 and you have 30% more power at the wheels... a
lot of people seem to forget that.

Ted

 

Ye gods. There's almost nothing correct about this. The \6 and 2.2/2.5
connecting rods are of very similar length (and the bore is almost
identical). The \6 has more torque than the engines in question because it
has 2 more cylinders.

-Stern

 

No, the final version of the nonturbo 2.5 gave 100hp.

The original Caravan/Voyager had a nonturbo 2.2 giving a death-defying
*83* horsepower.

-Stern

 

They are, slightly (3.2:1 final drive in the automatic minivan, 3.0:1 in
the Acclaim), but the nonturbo 2.5 still works *very* hard to haul a
minivan around. It is tolerable with the 5-speed.

-Stern

 

Well, no. The 2.5 turbo was offered in the minivan in '88-'90, and was the
only factory turbo minivan offered in North America.

2.2 was never offered in the minivans in a turbocharged configuration.

Could -- there's a turbocharged version of the 2.4 in the Stratus R/T
(Mexico) and in the PT Cruiser. But, it's not factory offered in the
minivans.

There's no 3-speed auto for the 2.4. A 5-speed stick is available in the
PT Cruiser.

-Stern

 

Actually, the power is the same, only the torque is multiplied.


Matt

 

But longer connecting rods give more torque? But these K-car engines have
similarly sized connecting rods? I find that hard to believe, but you'd
know more about it than me.

 

But you got to admit, there's a lot of variation in people's driving
habits. What I mean is, if you gave someone a minivan with 200HP they
might be so easy on the throttle that they don't drive any faster or
accelerate any faster than a minivan with 83hp. Someone who is a more
spirited driver will feel the difference in HP, but a person simply
cruising around the neighborhood dropping the kids off at soccer or
going to the bakery might not care that their van has 83HP.

 

Relative to the engine rpm, yes. Relative to the vehicle (axles,
wheels) speed, no.

HP is a product of torque and rpm's, so *for* *a* *given* *wheel*
(vehicle) *speed*, since the engine is turning higher rpm's, the math
works out that you get higher HP and greater acceleration (until the
engine starts running out of revs at the higher speeds).

Looking at it at the engine end, you have the same amount of torque
being produced but at higher rpm's => more HP (at a given vehicle
speed). At the other end (axles and wheels), you have higher torque at
the same speed = > more HP (at a given vehicle speed). The HP in both
cases is equal and greater than with taller gearing for a given vehicle
speed (again, until you hit the higher speeds where the curves start
falling off).

But yes - you are correct if you only look at the engine and its rpm.
This all is illustrated if you graph horsepower as a function of engine
rpm, then as a function of vehicle speed (for the two gearing setups).

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

 

Longer connecting rods in and of themselves do not give more torque.
Longer stroke (larger crankshaft throws) gives more torque.

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

 

Yeah, they do. A longer connecting rod causes greater piston dwell at TDC,
which results in greater combustion chamber pressure buildup prior to the
piston's initial descent, which results in greater force on the piston
when it does begin its descent. Furthermore, the longer rod gives
advantageous rod/crank geometry during the power stroke -- a greater
percentage of the piston's force goes into pushing the crank throw "down"
rather than forcing it sideways -- and this, in turn, reduces sideloading
between the piston and the cylinder, which means even more available
force-->torque. Go ahead and work out the geometry on a piece of paper for
yourself and see. This is to do with what is called the rod/stroke ratio
of an engine, commonly called the "rod ratio". High rod ratios are better
than low rod ratios.

Slant-6ers prize a certain conrod that is 7.006" long rather than the
standard 225 conrod length of 6.699". The longer rod -- wih an appropriate
piston and with no change in crank stroke -- gives appreciably higher
torque.

That too.

-Stern