rustytoolss
Well-Known Member
Are the Chrysler 3.5 V6 engines any good. Like the ones in the 2010 dodge chargers? Do they have a bad reputation as far as durability, failure, or other concerns ?
chrysler 3.5 V6 ??
- Thread starter rustytoolss
- Start date
-
I know nothing about em but think it'd be awesome to swap a 3.5 and an 8 speed into an A-body, if the Chargers can get 31 highway mpg with that combo I'd say an A-body could do better
I guess the one I'm thinkin about is the 3.6? The one that comes in the 2011-? Chargers with the 8 speed...
I guess the one I'm thinkin about is the 3.6? The one that comes in the 2011-? Chargers with the 8 speed...
TrailBeast
AKA Mopars4us on Youtube
Hope they aren't the same motor as the Intrepids had in them.
You should see how they cast the rod journals in one peice and then stap the end off to put bearings in them.
Then they use the rough snapped off cap and rod surfaces as a guide for reassembly.
Point is they had narrow rod bearings as well as timing chain issue's.
You should see how they cast the rod journals in one peice and then stap the end off to put bearings in them.
Then they use the rough snapped off cap and rod surfaces as a guide for reassembly.
Point is they had narrow rod bearings as well as timing chain issue's.
BadAss71
Let's Go Brandon
The 3.5 is an awesome motor. Worked for Chrysler back when these first came out in 1993. We had no real issues, except cam sensor leaks. The rods are meant to be a one use piece, and all of the neon 2.0 liters were the same. Also, these engines are belt, not chain. As long as regular timing belt maintenance is done, they go forever.
rmchrgr
Skate And Destroy
They suck. Useless. Underpowered gas hogs. Stupid design. SOHC with a giant timing belt that has to come off to do the water pump. Basically doing any job on those is a hassle. Takes up a ton of room. They did not fare well with less than religious maintenance.
The newer 3.6 is much better but it's a totally different design. Even the 3.7s were better too as well as any pushrod V6 produced in the last 25 years.
They had timing belts - dual overhead cam. Even the factory had issues clocking the cams and belt properly.
The Intrepid motor was built in Trenton. The engineering supervisor for that line was an idiot. They ended up loosing that engine to Kenosha who built it better in the later years (post 2000 give or take a few years). Back then the rods and caps were machined.
rmchrgr
Skate And Destroy
Nooho. On what planet?
I was a Chrysler tech myself until recently. I never had any love for those things or the 4.0s that came in the Pacificas.
BadAss71
Let's Go Brandon
If it was such a bad motor why was it around for so long? It wasn't until the 3.6 came around that they dropped it. Ive owned and worked on several cars with the 3.5 and never had any real issues. Timing belts are stupid simple, and changing plugs a monkey could do. And they had nice power for what it is. The transmissions on the other hand were and still are junk. The 4.0 Benz motor is a gigantic piece of garbage. What is it that you hate so much about them?
BadAss71
Let's Go Brandon
You guys need to do a little reading on these before slamming them. They were single cam, not dual.
rmchrgr
Skate And Destroy
THAT timing belt is not simple. Ever done one? I've done a few. Hyundais are simple, that one is not with the two cams and the tensioner. It's not like the ones where you crack the tensioner loose, slip the belt off and back on and you're done. You have to align it, clip the belt on to one cam, align the next one and hold that, then set the tensioner, rotate it a bunch of times... at least 2 hours with all the accessories and the cover. I'm sure there were guys that could do it faster but you can't rush timing that thing, you'll bend all the valves. I remember the last one I did, it was a cam code, Px116 I think it was? Water pump blew up, coolant everywhere, (inside the cover) timing belt was soaked and jumped. No typical outward signs of coolant leakage either, just the code.
Plugs on those were a ***** actually. And there was that stupid two piece plenum. And trust me, doing ANYTHING on a Pacifica with a 4.0 (same as the 3.5 just larger) was difficult. I've done many jobs on those things from engine mounts, engine rebuilds, transfer cases, etc. The engine was always the problem, it was in the way of everything because of it's size.
Really, are they THAT bad? I think that they are. For all the complexity it's performance is really pedestrian. I don't know if they had a bad reputation but I guess for me, I just thought they were poorly executed. Why did they keep it around for so long? Because they invested zillions in development and tooling, then zillions more trying to improve it because they knew it sucked. Eventually they threw in the towel and retired that design. The 3.6 went to a timing chain which was no simple thing either until you do them a lot but they were more robust than the 3.5 for sure.
They all dyno pulled 20-30 HP less than advertised. I used to get the weekly dyno engine pulls from the engine plant. :evil3:
When they were advertised at 210, they usually pulled 180 HP. :finga:
When they increased to 240 advertised HP, they would only pull 210 on the dyno. :finga:
I drove a Prowler with one of those engines and couldn't get the tires to spin off the line in a straight line, I had to nail it around a corner to break them loose..... :finga: :violent1:
That is why they increased it to 4.0 L, because of many customer complaints about lacking horsepower.
rotest:
BadAss71
Let's Go Brandon
Guess I should have made it simpler to understand. SOHC. As in single over head cam. One cam per bank. DOHC means dual over head cam, as in two cams per bank. Because it has two cams, doesn't make it dual over head cam. Look at the 3.0 DOHC motors that came in the Steath\3000 GT. Now that would be a DOHC.
BadAss71
Let's Go Brandon
Good info. Again, the 4.0 was a Mercedes Benz engine, and nothing at all in common with the 3.5.They all dyno pulled 20-30 HP less than advertised. I used to get the weekly dyno engine pulls from the engine plant. :evil3:
When they were advertised at 210, they usually pulled 180 HP. :finga:
When they increased to 240 advertised HP, they would only pull 210 on the dyno. :finga:
I drove a Prowler with one of those engines and couldn't get the tires to spin off the line in a straight line, I had to nail it around a corner to break them loose..... :finga: :violent1:
That is why they increased it to 4.0 L, because of many customer complaints about lacking horsepower.
I get you. I kinda considered it dual overhead cams because of one cam in each head (therefore two), not two cams per head....
BadAss71
Let's Go Brandon
Ive done several belts on these, and many other engines. Foreign and domestic. These are one of the easiest to do. Ever do one on a twin turbo stealth? You don't know difficult until you do. The transverse setup makes it a real *****. The 3.5 being situated where you can access the belt from the front made it even easier.
TrailBeast
AKA Mopars4us on Youtube
So there were these two at the bar, and one says to the other... LOL
LOL
rustytoolss
Well-Known Member
well I guess that I started a small fire with this topic...sorry To add insult to injury . Are any of the modern Chrysler V6 engine say from 2006 to present day, any good ? I'm thinking of buying a used car (don't know year, or model yet) chances are that it may have a V6. For that matter what about the 5.7 hemi?
Also the automatic transmissions that were used on those engines...Like I said I've been out of the auto repair business for so long , that I have NO IDEA what is good/ and what is junk any more.
Also the automatic transmissions that were used on those engines...Like I said I've been out of the auto repair business for so long , that I have NO IDEA what is good/ and what is junk any more.
65-440
Well-Known Member
3.5 was a good motor. Super easy timing belts, spark plugs were easy ( maybe 30 min job ), the only real issue was rocker arm oiling issues. The rocker arm shafts would rotate and affect the oiling. Easy fix, replace shaft / rocker arm assy's .... As long as previous owner was on time with maintenance you should have no issues. 3.6, hmmm ... make sure the shitty heads were replaced already. When these first came out they were nothing but trouble. Good power but prone to misfires, until head replaced !
funwithfuel
Well-Known Member
I had a 01 Chrysler 300m with 3.5 . I loved it. Good power . Pulled like a mule. I miss it. When the trans blew, I was really close to pulling the engine and dropping it in my scamp. Too lazy. Coulda shoulda woulda.
BTW .... fractured rods are junk? I don't understand that at all.caps absolutely cannot walk or shift. Keeps together quite well at high rpm. Yeah, new (er) must be no good.
BTW .... fractured rods are junk? I don't understand that at all.caps absolutely cannot walk or shift. Keeps together quite well at high rpm. Yeah, new (er) must be no good.
ramenth
Gratis persona
I agree with this one.
After a few and using the lock down tools the belt is an hour's job, tops.
A helluva lot worse nightmares out there, like the 3.5L Hyundai DOHC. That was originally a 13 hour book time job, simply because a lot of techs were dropping the engine out of the car in order get to the belt. Then the time was adjusted to 7 hours after a few tricks were discovered. The worse part about it was one hidden bolt on a bracket that you had to feel. Most of the ones I've ever done had that bolt thrown on the bench to make it easier next time.
As far as the "weak points" like break away caps, a lot manufacturers have gone to that, so that's a wash compared to others.
And there's a lot of timing belt driven water pumps out there in the world today. Again, that's a wash with other manufacturers.
I consider the biggest nightmare is the 2.7L in Stratuses etc when it comes to water pumps. Timing chain driven. And I've never been successful at being able to just lash the chain to the opposite head like on Ford head pulls and still keeping it in time. Pretty much have to start from scratch. And forget about doing the complete job, like dumping all the coolant and changing the t-stat. The damned t-stat housing is located under the A/C pump.
I've never had to do the same job in the LH's, but figured it would a be a lot easier with the longitudinal engine and a helluva lot more room.
I will go on to say that I've had a few 3.5L Chrysler products. The first one jumped time when the water pump went bad. Skipped a few teeth. Put a new pump on, new belt, and the car ran strong. But then again, each of them has run strong. It's the rest of the car that was failing around the engine. Started to nickel and dime to the point that it wasn't worth it.
IIRC the 3.5 turned out to be a better motor than the 3.7 that was it's designated replacement.
That's why the 3.5 outlasted the 3.7.
I thought that whole 2.7, 3.7, 4.7, 5.7 schtick, was just that arbitrary schtick.
Two duds- the 4.7 and the 3.7, and a seemingly forced 350 CID synonymous with gm that left a bad taste in a lot of folk's mouths to usher in the return of the Hemi.
I would have much preferred a "357 magnum" theme, myself, or a 354.
That's why the 3.5 outlasted the 3.7.
I thought that whole 2.7, 3.7, 4.7, 5.7 schtick, was just that arbitrary schtick.
Two duds- the 4.7 and the 3.7, and a seemingly forced 350 CID synonymous with gm that left a bad taste in a lot of folk's mouths to usher in the return of the Hemi.
I would have much preferred a "357 magnum" theme, myself, or a 354.
rmchrgr
Skate And Destroy
You can't really compare the 3.5 to a 3.7, they are totally different from an architecture standpoint; 3.5 is SOHC with a timing belt and the 3.7 is pushrod/timing chain.
Regardless of my distaste for the 2.7/3.5/4.0 variants, ALL pass car engines are compromised designs. Each have their strong and weak points. They can all fell prey to careless owners and poor maintenance or prove themselves over time. Maybe some are more prone to sludge or overheating than others.
Hey, even some brand new engines have faults right off the showroom floor, like the 3.6. We were replacing cylinder heads on brand new cars - they had a misfire code and it was found that the coolant passages in the head were not efficient enough and the valves were getting cooked. Only did a few of those myself but it was surprising to see a fail like that.
Indeed, some problems associated with a particular engine have more to do with which vehicle they were in rather than the engine itself. However, particular designs do not lend themselves to easy service which in my mind was the 3.5. By contrast, the 3.7 is a pretty easy engine to work on and is fairly simple. That could just be my experience though. I worked on more Jeeps than Chryslers/Dodges since I worked at a Jeep dealership. But, I did my share of all of 'em, we serviced all Chrysler/MB/Fiat products.
I agree with the person who said the 4.7 was a dud as far as V8s go. Those things were underpowered gas hogs as well. I could never understand why Chrysler abandoned the Magnum platform in favor of the 4.7, just made no sense. How long did that engine last? Not long.
Things change I guess. Everything that comes out of the factories is designed with planned obsolescence. Some designs are remembered more fondly than others. 318s get no love but there were zillions of them produced for the better part of four decades.
Regardless of my distaste for the 2.7/3.5/4.0 variants, ALL pass car engines are compromised designs. Each have their strong and weak points. They can all fell prey to careless owners and poor maintenance or prove themselves over time. Maybe some are more prone to sludge or overheating than others.
Hey, even some brand new engines have faults right off the showroom floor, like the 3.6. We were replacing cylinder heads on brand new cars - they had a misfire code and it was found that the coolant passages in the head were not efficient enough and the valves were getting cooked. Only did a few of those myself but it was surprising to see a fail like that.
Indeed, some problems associated with a particular engine have more to do with which vehicle they were in rather than the engine itself. However, particular designs do not lend themselves to easy service which in my mind was the 3.5. By contrast, the 3.7 is a pretty easy engine to work on and is fairly simple. That could just be my experience though. I worked on more Jeeps than Chryslers/Dodges since I worked at a Jeep dealership. But, I did my share of all of 'em, we serviced all Chrysler/MB/Fiat products.
I agree with the person who said the 4.7 was a dud as far as V8s go. Those things were underpowered gas hogs as well. I could never understand why Chrysler abandoned the Magnum platform in favor of the 4.7, just made no sense. How long did that engine last? Not long.
Things change I guess. Everything that comes out of the factories is designed with planned obsolescence. Some designs are remembered more fondly than others. 318s get no love but there were zillions of them produced for the better part of four decades.
roughidle
Super Platinum Member
I've got two. One in a 2003 300m that I love ( high output model) and one in my wife's 2006 pacifica that I can't stand. Guzzled oil from day one (original owner). Techs say its what they do..... Car also has a tendency to randomly shut off when low speed turning....also another reason I hate that car....
-
