My Uncle had a 76 Volare' wagon new, and was in the military and actually took that car to Germany in the late 70's. He'd sent me this story some years ago., and it really shows the state of these cars back in the 70s. Long but fun interesting read. Enjoy! From my Uncle Lloyd: Hey Mike, I learned a lot about car repair with the 1976 Volare Station Wagon that we drove over there in Germany. That was in the middle of Chrysler's cheap shot at meeting emission requirements and their previously good running engines were suddenly low power and poor running. The worst, and down right dangerous characteristic, was when you pulled out into traffic from a stop sign. The car would surge away from the stop sign for about a half of a second, just enough to get you directly into oncoming traffic, then stall. After hesitating for 1 to 2 seconds, it would again rev up and be on it's way. Making the problem worse, the more you tried to accelerate, i.e.. the farther you initially pushed down on the accelerator, the worse and longer it would stall. I had a set of tune-up tools, left over from my Corvette racing in California, including timing light, dwell meter and vacuum gauge, and went to work on the Volare (bought it in Poplar Bluff, MO and shipped it to Germany with less than 1000 miles on it). Normally, you have vacuum distributor advance on a carburetor engine, which advances the timing as soon as the carb is off idle. The vacuum port hooked to the distributor has no vacuum at idle, but immediately has several inches of vacuum when the carb starts to open. This immediate advance in timing gives the engine an immediate power boost before the increase flow of air and gas through the carb can reach the cylinders. When I started watching the timing on the Volarie, I noticed that the timing actually retarded when you first opened the carb. I could not believe this at first so I hooked my vacuum gauge to the port on the carb where the distributor hose was attached and sure enough, there was actually vacuum at idle, which would immediately go to zero when the carb opened, but would then slowly recover over a 1-2 second period. So the factory configuration was to time the engine with vacuum present, which would then retard when you opened the throttle, which would not burn the fuel completely when the throttle first opened, but that reduced the initial surge of Nitrous Oxide gases on acceleration. And as a byproduct, the car would stall. Amazing and dangerous!! My solution was to try other, blocked off, ports on the carb and sure enough, I found one with no vacuum at idle, but immediately had a jump in vacuum when the carb butterflies were opened, and continued to increase in vacuum as the engine revved up. I'm sure this was the port used in the past before the pressures of emissions controls. So I rerouted my vacuum hose to the distributor and retimed the engine and all of a sudden I had a 318 that ran like a charm, with no hesitation. I made this same change for several other people who were afflicted with mid 70's Chrysler cars as this configuration was common on both their 6 and 8 cylinder engines. While I'm on a roll concerning the Volare, while in Germany, found that the car would not hold front end alignment in camber and caster. Turns out the upper A arms did not have the grooved surfaces that were common on front ends so no matter how tight you tightened the bolts on the camber/caster adjustment, after a few hundred miles, the front wheels would have negative camber and who knows where the caster would be. I could actually get factory warranty service on that car in Germany, but at the time there was no factory fix for this so the German mechanics, who laughed about the poorly built American cars, aligned the front end then tack welded it in place. It stayed this way until I returned to the states and the factory finally put out a recall. If you remember one of my other emails, this is the same car that would overheat when I got back to the US and started to pull my 20' boat, even after installation of an oil cooler and transmission cooler. About 2 years after we moved to GA, I was washing this car one evening and felt a lump behind the right front wheel down low on the fender. I thought it must be gum or something but got a flash light to look and found it was a big bubble under the paint. My Volare was rusting from the inside out!! This also turned out to be a recall item. The front fenders had pockets where dirt and moisture would collect but did not drain. So Chrysler put two new front fenders on the car. A few months later, I found similar bubbles under the paint behind the rear wheels. That's when I went down and ordered the deep blue Olds 98 Regency Sedan "mafia car". I think it was a 1982 but it looked like the one in your other email. Now THAT was a great car! That Volare was a real jewel. I believe there were 7 major recalls on that car while I owned it, and it was the last Chrysler product for my lifetime. Forgive the long message. LT
My parents bought the same station wagon brand new. Had it at the dealer so much my dad threatened them that he was going to paint a lemon on the side of his car and park it in front of the dealership.
I had 2 Plymouth Belvederes (a 1965 and a 1966) with the 273 CID V-8. Incredible engine, one of the best. I was a Rural Mail Carrier and these were perfect vehicles to deliver mail. My route was 85 miles long with close to 500 stops and I still managed 10 MPG, a VERY respectable figure for a mail route vehicle.
Haven't read all the comments, but one major problem with the 2.7 I've seen was casting flash inside the blocks. A lot of them had paper-thin tabs of aluminum casting inside the block that weren't addressed at the factory for some reason. When these eventually fall off, if a piece is small enough to make it through the oil pickup screen, it gets sucked in and sent directly to the main tensioner, which is oil-pressurized, and that bit of aluminum will slice through the sealing o-ring. Oil pressure drops, the tensioner collapses, the timing chain slips and, since it's an interference engine, valves slam into pistons and you're left with an expensive paperweight.
A water pump designed internally in the engine is just about the stupidest idea I can imagine. Steve Lehto had videos on his channel about some modern Ford engines with internal water pumps. That should be a crime.
Adam, i grew up with a buddy who lived up the street and taught me everything I know about car maintenance and repair. You remind me so much of him. He had your calm demeanor as well. He went on to be a top electrical engineer with JPL. This guy literally knew everything about cars, was generous with his knowledge, and worked his way through college maintaining seemingly all the cars in the neighborhood. He was particularly inventive in making carburetor and timing modifications that got more out of our cars' performance, and made them run soooo smoothly. Thanks so much for your entertaining and informative posts. Being a 70 something boomer, your segments also help jog my memory and test my powers of recall....hopefully delaying dementia!! :) Please keep the posts coming, and God Bless! And BTW, my first car for college was a used red '62 Valiant Signet coupe with the 225 Slant Six and 3 on the tree...GREAT, punchy engine...and great little car....zero issues. Dorky looking but very well made. I believe that the 225 was one of their best.
Same vintage human here. Back in the day my buddy had a '64 Valiant with the 225/3 speed on the column. We bolted a four speed to it because, as Ray taught me, "it needs an extra gear." One thing we should have done was rebuild the tranny first, as one of the synchronizers was bad. My car was a '52 Plymouth with the flat six. Both great cars and more stories than space here permits. Thanks for sharing!
My 2.2 turbo was retired at 400,000+ miles. Still worked super, good power, good economy, no oil consumption. Great engine tied to super solid 3 speed automatic. Never opened either one.
You have done your homework, Adam! Those FI 318 Imperials were so rare to begin with; compounded by the fact that many were simply retrofitted with carbs after it became an endemic issue. As a lifelong MOPAR fan, this list is spot-on and speaks to your wealth of knowledge and attentional to detail(s). 👍
Chrysler did the same thing in the late 1950s when they released a limited number of the first electronic fuel injection equipped engines. The problem was that the electronic controls were not shielded and driving by a large neon sign would cause them to malfunction. Chrysler recalled those vehicles and replaced the injection system with standard intake manifolds and carburetors. Seeing no future in EFI, they reportedly sold the patents and intellectual property to Germanys Robert Bosch. The rest is history.
@@donreinke5863 A few years ago, somebody got ahold of the only surviving FI DeSoto Adventurer that still had it's FI. He was an expert in electronics, so he was able to reverse-engineer it and fix it's shortcomings so that it worked the way it was supposed to. The car is fantastic.
My late Father traded a 1980's Mercedes for an 81 Imperial with 40,000 miles, unfortunately. I actually still has the fuel injection, unfortunately again. I had it running, but poorly, and am going to try to get it going to sell.
@@mako-g90 Why don't you just convert it to a carb? The EPA OKed that conversion. It will run far better. Also, if you do keep it, replace that ridiculously high rear-end gearing. It will have far better performance if you do.
@@michaelbenardo5695 I just don't have time or the patience right now. My Dad hoarded over 35 cars and trucks, most that have been sitting outdoors for years, and I picked his 95 caprice Arizona Highway Patrol car and a 1 ton Dodge Ram Diesel with 564,500 miles that runs great to keep. Had a scapper get half of the cars off the property and am sorting through the rest.
A MOPAR-nut friend of mine has backed up everything you've said when he has discussed his late-model Chrysler experience with me. My personal experience with the MOPAR world was pretty much limited to 1969 - 1972 383s. I hated tuning them up -- the location of those darn exhaust headers! -- but neither Dad nor I could destroy them. When I was 14, I bought a '56 New Yorker with a 354 Hemi, no brakes, and a completely passenger-sideswiped body for $65. It was a huge, frightening beast that ran like a top. The not-too-bright fellow who bought it from me was most impressed by the fact that the engine accessories were powered by "dual belts." That had to mean great engine power! When I was a pre-teen, my Dad had a 354 Hemi transplanted into his 1959 Dodge D100 "delivery" pickup. Straight pipes ran from the headers to the rear: the sound it made was commensurate with the speed it would travel. Dad, who at the time owned a music store, used to claim that nobody could deliver a piano faster than he could. 😀 Thanks for another excellent porch chat. Stay warm!
I knew a lot of guys back in the day that took off the lean burn and converted them to regular electronic ignition and carbs. Still passed emissions and performed so much better. I know people berates Chrysler for their quality, but they really made some good, reliable, solid performing engines.
I am a Chrysler lover, but they are like the little girl with the curl - when they are good, they are very VERY good, but when they are bad, they are horrid.
I've owned 170, 225, 318, 360, & 440. All were pre '72 and f'n amazing engines well into the 21st century. Currently running a 64 Fury with 318. Of course with a great grandmother being a Chrysler descendant, that's what I grew up on lol.
The 2.7 is always the engine I think of when I think of Chrysler's worst engine. They (as a company) really did not make a ton of bad engines, despite having cars that had plenty of other issues.
@@blumobean I could avoid the coolant leaking into the oil by checking the fluid levels at least once per week. But I've heard the 2.7 still has a tendency to sludge ,- like some Toyota engines did . I believe Chrysler enlarged the oil capacity in later years . Some if the later 2.7 are still on the road BMWs have plastic cooling system parts that you need to keep an eye on coolant levels - easy to prevent but many of these overheat and strip a head bolt . Good motor. bad choice of throw away plastic parts that are considered P/M
@@timothykeith1367 the last good BMW engine was the straight 6 with a cast iron/high nickel block. My son, who became a Master Tech with BMW, bought an old 535is from a BMW tech when he first started with BMW. The car was ragged out, but mechanically it was great. We never could figure out what he did to the engine other than the fuel pressure regulator was set high. Maybe the cam was a little hotter, but they came with a fairly high lift cam. It had a homemade exhaust system, but wasn't super loud. It would run like hell. Pull up to a traffic light beside a stock 5 liter Mustang and take his lunch money.
Agree with the older engines, 225, 318, 340, 360, 383, 413, 426, 440 all being tough and reliable. One of the newer ones which seems to last a long time is the Chrysler 3.3 V6. I have a 1993 Dodge Caravan ES, and with 480,000 on it, the 3.3 still runs perfect and has 1/3 scale oil pressure fully warmed up in drive. It is on the third A604 transmission. The first one failed when the differential gear pin came loose and scored the aluminum transmission case until the fluid was lost. The replacement got destroyed months later when the van was stolen, and the police assumed the thieves put the transmission into reverse while the van was moving forward at high speed, and bailed in the middle of an intersection with the transmission in pieces. Insurance put a new A604 in the van and it has the kit to prevent the differential pin from coming loose. Engine and transmission has been great since then. The only recurring 'nightmare' is the Bendix 10 ABS brake system which is Caravan 'ES' specific, so it is rare, but due to a class action lawsuit, Chrysler offers an unlimited mileage / unlimited age warranty for the entire ABS system, including labor. This has been changed three times through this TSB, and it would have been a 5,000 $ job each time. The 11,200 $ (new) van has cost Chrysler 15,000 $ in ABS brake system TSB repairs.
Agreed on the 3.3L. I had a '92 Dynasty on an improved version of the original trans as its second transmission. Only thing I ever had to do to the car under my ownership was replace the radiator. Old girl ran flawless up to 160k miles which was when I sold her. I love my 05 Scion, but there are times i still miss the old Dynasty.
@drippinglass , Yes!!! They were very good engines... Unlike the poorly designed 2.7 v-6, the water pumps on the 'B & RB' engines AND the earlier DPCD (Early-Hemi and Poly-spherical) V-8 engines were very easy to change-out... The LA series (Small-Block V-8's) , the slant-6 series, the flathead straight-6 , the 1980's Pushrod type cast- iron V-6's, and the 1960's Canadian made 318 'wide-block' (Poly-spherical) engines, were ALL very good designs, powerful & reliable , with very few problems... The early Torqueflite transmissions , the manual transmissions and transfer cases, all made by New Process were outstanding.. The drive-lines that Chrysler had were very good... Their 8.75" (Hotchkiss type) rear axles And removable differentials made by New Process, the Dana-44's the Dana 60's, the Dana 70's were all top quality...What really seemed to change the Chrysler products, is when they had that bad marriage with MB, then later they stopped making Plymouths (A HUGE MISTAKE) then later , Chrysler had a bad & costly divorce with MB (The Result- of SEVERAL bad decisions)... And now another marriage (If it's good or bad-I Don't Know, but honestly, who outside of the corporate board meetings - really knows about that?) with Fiat... It is why I prefer the Mopars from the 50's, 60's, 70's, and some of the 80's.. Those years were free of the bad mergers, bad decisions, bad designs, political boondoggleing, and little foresight... Now, what is called a 'Hemi' is NOT actually a HEMI-spherical combustion chamber, the later Chrysler products are hard to work on, excessively complex, temperamental, and tend to break-down fairly often, have expensive replacement parts, which is especially noticeable with the vehicles used in fleets... Very Few of the earlier Chrysler products had notorious problems with the engines , transmissions, drive systems, brakes, steering systems, suspension systems, Body and structural components, etc... Now they have trouble with loose valve seats, defective roller lifters and damaged camshafts , problems with engine electronics , bad transmissions, weak suspension designs, steering issues (bad rack/pinions) and quality control issues... Apparently, & sadly, it's not the same Mopar that was from the past... It is WHY the earlier cars & trucks have such a high demand these days... Of those earlier vehicles, the Chrysler Products (The REAL Chrysler products) are among the most sought-after vehicles of all of the older vehicles... It is no mystery WHY this has happened.
@@michaelmartinez1345 Yeah...only 4 water pump bolts on B and RB engines A note on the Torqueflite....the Simpson gearset (using two planetary sets on opposite sides of a common sun gear) was invented by an engineer who previously worked for Ford, and first used in the Torqueflite starting in 1960 Nearly all automatic transmissions used in domestic vehicles, GM Ford and Chrysler, would adopt the Simpson gearset in one form or another, although GM and Ford didnt use it until 1964, years after Chrysler adopted it. The notable exceptions.. The Borg Warner (at that time owned by Ford) designed Fordomatic, Cruiseomatic and FMX used a Ravagneaux type gearset (long and short planet pinions in a single carrier) continued in the Ford AOD overdrive transmission and its successors, the AOD-E and 4R70W, the latter being used into the 2000s The two speed Chevrolet Powerglide, discontinued at the end of the 1973 model year and now favored by some drag racers, also used a Ravagneaux gearset
@@michaelmartinez1345 While Chrysler was known for robust mechanicals, they often struggled with the rest of the car. Compared to the competition, they always seem to lag with ride quality, handling, comfort and especially build quality. Much of that was due to maintaining torsion bar/leaf spring suspensions longer than they should have and then going all K-based in the 80s. When someone buys a car, they are not just buying a machine, they are buying a finished product. Also in the rust belt, Chryslers were always the first rot away with many traps on the underside of their unibody and less than adequate body coatings. It is very popular to criticize the mergers, and they were not perfect, but...there would be no RWD LX platform if it were not for the tech transfer from M-B. Chrysler had no RWD pass car experience up to that point and would not have been able to design their own IRS based running gear/steering that really set the 300C and others apart from the competition. Likewise with FIAT, look at the success of Jeep and RAM. So while these newer products might be harder to work on, they are finally fully developed modern products that have kept the company afloat. Besides, what new vehicles are easy to work on - those days are long over...
Maybe you had the 1 good one out of a few million. Those engines are garbage. Blow rear main seals and dump about 3 quarts per mile. junk. That's why Chrysler had to sell to an overseas company
I had an 86 Chrysler Laser 2.2 Turbo that was a fantastic car. Other than a timing belt Never had any issues with it. Had 130k when I traded it in on a new Neon.
@@every-istand-ophobe6320 Most 2.2/2.5 engines with issues were owned by people who whould abuse and neglect them. I've seen far more reliable 2.2/2.5 engine than unreliable and that's by a vast margin.
@@every-istand-ophobe6320 I changed a lot of those engines out for people. Many of them needed oil seals and also leaked all over the place. The other issue was the vibration never seemed to be able to reduced.
That 340 V8 was a screaming powerhouse!!!!! Damn! I had one in a 1971 Demon, and wow... without a doubt, was and still is, the most impressive small displacement V8 I've ever driven. Getting rid of that car was the stupidest thing I've ever done... and I've done a few doozies.
There's another huge problem with the 2.7L Chrysler that is related to oil, but it's the timing chain tensioner could slack the chain and cause the cams to jump time. Being an interference engine that usually spelled bent valves. This was an extremely common problem on those engines. Guys have made special blocks that could be installed on the tensioner to limit how far it could release, thus reducing the chance of this happening.
I think Chrysler could have made the 2.7L far better if they REALLY took the time to design it well. But this is the Daimler Chrysler era we're talking about here - rush, rush, rush, and make it as crappy with as many cheap interfering parts as possible! Lol
Or they could've given the idea to Mitsubishi and see what they could've done with it. Mitsu always came in clutch for Chrysler and it would always be a huge help for them.
Another amazing instructional video. I always liked Chrysler products and owned quite a few. They were never as refined as GM, either mechanically or structurally but had a definite vibe like no other cars of that time (60's-70's) and were well thought-out. The "lean-burn" was a true nightmare. Chrysler had neither the resources or money to correctly pull off such a concept at that particular moment in time and IMHO should have stuck with the basic strong engineering that had served them well up to that point. I still, to this day regret selling a 1974 New Yorker Brougham with the 440 CID. Most comfortable riding car I ever owned, and that includes several Cadillacs, Lincolns, and Mercedes.
My father bought a 1977 Royal Monaco station wagon for $125 In 1985. It had the 400, lean burn engine with worn cam lobes. He fixed the problem, by replacing the engine with a 360 from a rusty 1972 Chrysler New Yorker with points and condenser. 🤣
That might be because Chrysler was an Engineering company first. Always was one. It wasn't until the early 80's that Chrysler stopped doing the first class Engineering with their cars. That's why they are not as "refined" as GM or Ford. Engineers built them and so it was Function over Form.
My parents had a 90 Caravan that went through SEVEN of those transmissions under warranty. Conversely, they had a 2.2 Turbo I️ that went 250k miles with no issues.
I've owned a Dodge Lancer, '85 with a 2.2 and it was the "greatest" right up until > 70K miles, then "everything happened to it, the power steering hose exploded, the valve cover began leaking, the oil pan began to leak, and then, > the "TIMING BELT" > broke...fortunately it wasn't an interference engine! By that time, they stopped using "gaskets" it was just RTV that they used.... such "CRAP" everyone began to make.
@@toronado455 Yeah, ya know, I've always thought, to myself, > wow, if I were able to buy a new car, I should/would probably buy a Dodge/Chrysler, for that kind of Warrantee?
The most trouble prone car that I ever owned was a 1992 Chrysler Concorde. Found myself attracted to the styling and comfort of the car but soon discovered that the car was a mechanical lemon. The problems started with the transmission and rapidly progressed to a blown motor. Was still making payments when it was hauled off to the junkyard.
I had a 2.7 sebring. It was one of the best I’d had and had over 300,000 Kms on it when I traded it. I change oil incessantly and attribute that to why this engine lasted. I heard many horror stories about them I also had a 78 magnum with a 360 lean burn. I swapped that out immediately for a proper orange box electronic and that motor was awesome. Went through 3- 904 transmissions tho 😆 I agree about the 2.2 4 banger. I had one in a horizon that had 477,000 kms on it when it went to the wreckers. The body finally gave up trying. All id done to that was one rad and water pump, brakes, one muffler and tires. And again I spent a fair amount of time draining oil haha Great video
Mom had a 91 Acclaim went through 3 transmissions that was covered under power train warranty it had 3.0 V6. I currently have an 86 600 w/2.5 4cyl & 88 Aries w/2.2 4cyl as both engines & transmissions are bullet proof! - they always start never let me down.
I had a 93 dodge spirit and 3 speed auto and 2.5 liter 4. I took it to 260k miles and never ran into any trouble with either one. I ran out of nerve, and bought a newer car. I still miss the car though, as it was relatively roomy and comfortable. My Toyota Echo, and now my Corolla do not give near the ride comfort or interior room of the Spirit. But the toyotas are reliable and long lasting, too.
Adam, great review of Chrysler engines. One troublesome engine Chrysler offered, though not technically a Chrysler engine, was the 3.0 Mitsubishi V-6. I had two vehicles at the same time with those, an ‘88 front drive New Yorker, and a 1990 Plymouth Acclaim. The Acclaim had the double whammy of the V-6 and Ultra-Drive, which interestingly didn’t give me a problem for the 90,000 miles I owned it. The V-6’s drank oil however, to the tune of about 1 1/2 quarts between the 3,000 mile oil change intervals. Also want to mention that Chrysler made two very different 318 engines. The first, introduced in 1956 and produced through 1966, was the A block or poly spherical. In 1967 Chrysler introduced the LA 318, same displacement but with a traditional wedge type combustion chamber. Both were rated at 230 horsepower, and proved to be very durable engines. Chrysler tended to use very mild cam profiles on these engines, so they are very smooth running engines. To wake them up, a longer duration cam, freer breathing carb, intake manifold, and exhaust should net at least 30-40 more horsepower, if one was so inclined.
That Mitsubishi engine was garbage, like most foreign engines. I don't think 1 1/2 quarts in 3,000 miles is much, but mine drank way more than that, and blew blue smoke out the tail pipe, so I had to register it at my brother's house, where they don't require smog checks, as it wouldn't pass. Then, it finally died by freezing up. PS: The original 318 and the later one used the same rotating assembly until the mid 70s. I would love to put the earlier one in, say, a 74, which is smog exempt, and build it to 57 Fury specs - dual quads, hot cam, 290 horsepower at 5400 RPM!
@@stepheng3667 They were mixed. Chrysler couldn't build enough 3.3, so they bought 3.0 to make up for the shortage. Eventually, they were able to produce enough 3.3.
Not technically a Chrysler motor, but the 3.0 liter Mitsubishi motor that they put in so many cars - especially the minivans. As a kid, I remember seeing them in traffic and looking to see if it burned oil or not when they pulled away from the light. I had always heard that some of the small 4 cylinder motors made for the K cars were problematic but I don't know how true that really was.
Loved my old M body Mopar. It just ran and ran and ran. 265 lb feet torque at 1,600 rpm is forever in my memory bank as a benchmark for low-end power (for a small block) and no newer car I've owned has met that either.
thats so low that its not even useful. all that does it just makes the vehicle feel peppy on initial throttle tip-in. torque really needs to be around 2000-2500rpm to be useful in a passenger car that travels faster than 35mph.
@@OxBlitzkriegxO anyone who experienced it would have loved it ... and remember 55 mph speed limits were in place, so exceeding 75 was dangerous to one's license. Under those parameters and 'around town' it was awesome to just feather the throttle and sense the massive torque at 800 rpm over idle.
I had the dreaded Ultrdrive in my 94 G Voyager. It went into limp mode in the first thousand miles from new. After the rebuild it soldiered on to 145k when it was traded. The 3.8 ran flawlessly and was never touched.
I had a ‘95 Grand Caravan ES 3.8/4 speed. The 3.8 finally gave out at about 270k miles. The 4 speed was never touched other than regular service. The 3.8 was all original except starter and water pump. The 2.2 was a solid engine but it was prone to blowing head gaskets. Fortunately, the were easy to replace and most anybody with the tools and a little know how could do it.
I've got a 2010 Grand Caravan 3.3/4sp and it has 310K miles on the original engine and transmission, only things ever done were recalls and maintenance, I know some people who had/have 6 speed transmissions in their 2008-2020 Chrysler vans and they all have had at least one transmission rebuild or replacement every 100K miles. My 2010 SE has had a rough life, 3 moves, many trips to various states, and lots of building supplies loaded into the back yet that old Chrysler driveline just won't give up, rest of the van is falling apart, everything from electrical problems to extensive rust rot but it'll continue to be driven until something expensive breaks at which point it'll be replaced with another minivan that isn't a Dodge product, I don't like the feel of the 3.6, the vans I've driven weren't that old yet the engines make one hell of a racket and the transmissions shift weird, before I broke the flex pipe driving over a curb you could hardly hear the engine run sitting in the drivers seat, outside you could hear it due to the valvetrain rattle, piston slap, timing chain rattle and bottom end rap
whats funny is the opposite happened with our red 1997 Grand Caravan in our family with the 3.8 and the engine ran beautifully but the transmission failed, hard shifting and metal shavings on the magnet in the trans pan... only 147,000 miles. It was rarely dogged on or floored and driven normally by my mom.
Once the 2000s hit, the curse of the Ultradrive was mostly left behind. My family has had several Dodge Caravans that got driven into rust where the 3.3 and the transmission never needed a major service. HVAC, now, that is a particular pain on 4th-5th generation Chrysler minivans.
@@jessebrook1688 Surprisingly the HVAC system in my 2010 has lasted 12 years and 300K+ miles, now it has a substantial leak that isn't worth fixing or recharging
My daughter owned a 2004 dodge stratus former government fleet car. When I first brought the car home immediately change the oil and found sludge. For the next 5000 miles I change the oil every 1000 miles without using any type of cleaner. I only used Pennzoil platinum full synthetic oil in a factory filter. After that roughly 40,000 miles later, (I purchased a car with 26K and it now has 75K) i’m doing an oil change and I can see the coolant pooling at the top of the oil. I immediately found there was a TSB that came with a new water pump, different style timing chain, sprockets, tensioner‘s, the entire front of the engine had a redesign all the moving parts. When the front of the engine was torn apart I could see into the oil pan and it was perfectly clean as in like new not even stained!! The one fatal flaw for that engine was fixed with a technical service bulletin no one knew anything about! After the car had over 100,000 miles on it I sold it to a friend of the family. To this Day with almost 200,000 miles on it the car is still going. I can guarantee you it’s not getting it’s all changed every 3000 miles like it was for the first hundred thousand miles. Lord any knows what type of oil and filter are going in it for the second hundred thousand miles.. The pointers the fatal flaw that the engine had Chrysler solved. If they were like Toyota they would’ve recalled all those engines perform that work for the customers in the car wouldn’t of had a bad reputation. In the Stratus the 2.7 V6 made the car almost as fast as a Honda accord V6 at half the price. Using the 2.7 L V6 in the charger the magnum in the 300 was just flat out of a mistake! It could not get out of its own way.
excellent report everything you said was true . My first Chrysler engine was a 331 Hemi in a 1955 New Yorker Deluxe - that was high school - had no idea how good we had it !!!
I started driving in 1978. To this day, whenever I hear the word "electronic" in any context, images of stumbling engines, inexplicable and expensive breakdowns, and general vehicular mayhem flash through my mind. First impressions truly are lasting ones
Yup, and it's all because an internal combustion engine is extremely complicated compared to an electric motor. Someone is gonna come out with a car that is cheaper, faster and easier to repair than any ICE car on the market and everything about the driving experience will be better. Just think, no oil changes, no timing issues, no vibrations, an undercarriage that has ZERO transmission parts hanging around getting rusty, no catalytic converter to get stolen . . . It's all positive, besides the fact that every auto mechanic is gonna be replaced by a 20 year old kid with an electronics degree.
@@steezydan8543 Flipside: batteries. They lose some percentage of their storage capacities every time they're charged, and eventually will require replacement, which at this point, costs more than the car will be worth. Running accessories results in a diminution of range - this occurs with combustion engines but the effect is less pronounced. Also, any road accident has the potential to become a Superfund site due to toxic metals and electrolytes. And yes, at some point these problems will be solved. There's no need to hurry at it though - let the technology mature
My family and friends had excellent luck with Dodge, Chrysler, and Plymouth cars. I can't remember any serious problems with them, quality control issues and sloppy workmanship was always evident, but they all ended up being high mileage vehicles when traded. I had friends who drove mid-sixties Chrysler New Yorkers and they were great, but no so glamorous as the GM luxo cars. Friends returning from the war bought super Bees, Road Runners, Barracudas, Chargers, and Challengers and loved them. There were one or two Coronet 2drs driven by girls, and they were pretty nice, the cars that is. One friend had a wagon. Dodge vans and pickups from the that era were utilitarian, sold on contract to police, fire, and utility companies. They seemed to be reliable. Ugly, I can't think of one that was purchased out right by an individual. In the early 70's we had to replace carburetors and valve guides when leaded fuel was banished.
I’ve owned 9 Chrysler MiniVans & 1 Dodge Ram truck. I had extremely good luck with every one of the Vans although on 2 of my 3.3L V6s the Head Gaskets went. On one it caused the head to crack. I’ve only purchased one of the 9 new. The others were all used. The used ones were all purchased with over 100,000 miles on them. Most of them I drove to well over 200,000 miles before I sold them. On one, a 1986, I had over 200,000 miles on it when I bought it and drove it to over 300,000miles. It had that ‘awful’ Mitsubishi 2.6 (?) in it. I never had a lick of trouble and it, nor none of my others, have ever burned oil. I change my oil religiously on all of my vehicles at 2500 to 3K miles. As well as doing all of the other upkeep. The one Van we bought new was #7, in 2002. It’s a T & C Limited which we still own and is still a daily driver. It now has 280,000 miles. With it we had a Class 4 hitch installed and got the Tow pkg. & the Tow/Haul trans. We pulled a 3200# 30’ Camping trailer which I spent an entire year looking for one that the towing capacity of the Van could handle. It’s been a great vehicle and I’m going to lament the day it goes away but rust is finally taking its toll. My Dodge Ram 1500 4X4 Quad Cab 5.7L Hemi is incredible!! We got that when it was nearly a year old w/19K on it. It now has 256K miles on it and is my daily driver. We also got that w/Tow Pkg. & Trans. This truck engine has again been nearly completely trouble free. I’ve replaced the water pump, fuel pump and alternator once each. I’ve replaced every suspension component in the front end, the Power steering pump and the Rack & Pinion. I bought an ‘05 Florida truck w/a blown 318 for a parts truck. I have already replaced the bed because Chrysler in their infinite wisdom put Styrofoam inside the Rear Fender Wells to act as silencers or something. They retained water and rusted all the rear fenders out for a few years just above the wheel openings. Unfortunately my Rocker Panels are also now rusting so I will be changing those out as well shortly. I grew up with GM cars. My Dad was a Buick employee. So until the late ‘80s I drove Chevys, Buicks & Cadillacs with an errant VW & International thrown in. Those were some great cars and some dogs. Had a ‘76 Chevette w/small engine & automatic trans!! Barf performance but great mileage. I still have my ‘63 Sedan deVille 4 Window w/390 cid V-8 and the last year of Cadillac’s (and GM’s) first automatic trans, the original Hydramatic. Trans shops all said it was the most complex trans they ever worked on. My Grandfather, a Chevrolet/Buick/Olds Dealership Service Manager for 43 years used to say that the smoother they shifted the closer they were to failing. I bought that car in 1980 w/139,000 miles on it and no history other than it had been a Florida car. I’ve used it for pleasure driving and put it in local car shows. It’s not perfect because it’s all original. I’ve done nothing but service the car and had a little small rust repaired. It now has 164,000 miles. I’d like to say in closing that any engine, no matter how poor will give you much fewer problems if regularly maintained. Now let me tell you about my ‘73 Fleetwood….. Bwahahaha! Jk!! Have a great day!
I had two Dodge/Plymouth Neons with the 2.0-liter 4-cylinder engine. It was a peppy little powerplant when coupled to the 5-speed manual. The problem I had with this engine was it loved to blow head gaskets. I've read this was a common problem for the 2.0. It's a shame because otherwise, it was a fun car to drive. When you do the best Chrysler engines, you have to include the venerable Slant 6. That engine would run forever with very little fuss.
The head gasket issue was only on SOHC engines, and was caused by using the wrong head gasket. The part itself was recalled and replaced with a multilayer gasket
3:00 the real problem was when it would bust somewhere along the cooling system the aluminum head couldn't take being overheated. So more than likely if you overheated the engine you'd probably end up with a cracked head.
The early 2.2L trans 4 had head gasket issues, but later versions were dependable. The carbed versions had a tendency to stall. I still remember my grandmother’s ‘84 Reliant stalled every so often.
First shop I worked in, the boss showed me the deal on that. Pull the air filter lid off , shoot some carb cleaner in all the brass air bleeds you see, rev it up and hand choke it from high revs so the vacuum pulls the crap thru the bleeds. Voila ,it's good. Well, for a few weeks to a month or 2. That guy was always stoping in because it would stall from that.
2.2L was certainly better than the alternative engine option from Mitsubishi. The 2.6L equipped cars & those where the ones you always saw on the side of the road with their hoods up when new!
I remember Grama and Grampa's Horizon, they bought it new in 78 or 79. It was kind of a shit pile :/ In a few years Chrysler had the bugs worked out of those cars though.
I owned a 1986 Chrysler Laser 2.2 Turbo 5 speed & it was a quite reliable engine & fun to drive. The systems monitoring system that actually spoke to you got old really quick though "Please check your washer fluid" & the mute button was totally annihilated by end of my ownership.
I had an 87 Maxima that had that annoying voice..."key is in the ignition...BEEP...key is in the ignition...BEEP ...all day long if you didn't close the door. Amazing how some of these things are cutting edge technology, and a few years later, laughable.
Lean Burn carburetion was horrible. Had a '76 Royal Monaco with the 400 motor/2 barrel Lean Burn carb. Had a '73 Fury III with a 360 2 barrel at the same time. The Fury left the Royal Monaco in the dust as far as power.
Royal Monaco! Remember it well, mostly for its habit of stalling off the line, then roaring to life with a backfire through the exhaust and intake. My date was not impressed……
I had a 77 Plymouty Suburban Wagon with a 400cid Lean Burn fortunately the one problem that I had was the module hanging off the air cleaner, the grounding was poor and when the dealer could not find the problem I ran a separate wire directly to battery (-) and it was fixed. Your are correct Chrysler had some solid engines but they where plagued with various EPA bandaid of the time.
Nicely done! I've had an 81 Imperial with fuel injection the whole time (not good), almost all the Lean Burns where a few I converted (and mom had a 2.2 Turbo that she put 300,000 miles on with zero failures and then the car suffered an unfortunate accident that racked the frame). Enjoyed your video!!
I remember selling Dodge RAM trucks in 1994. The 318 did run very lean. Alot vibration at idle when it was cold but the 360 was very good idle when at a cold start.
I was in school when they came out with the lean burn engine. They sent a Chrysler techie to show us how to use a scope on those. I think only a couple of guys understood wtf it was and did. It was a short time period of charging people 50 bucks to knock all the stuffing out of converters.
In the late 70s early 80s I was young and always played with the mixture and timing on cars I bought. The best one was a 69 Tempest with the Overhead Cam six cylinder and 3epeed manual, in auto shop at school (Remember when schools offered that) I used the Sun Test machine and easily adjusted everything to get 27-28mpg highway. That was a cool car maybe one day you could find one do a video on. Highschool shop classes were great back then, I upholstered the whole car with a very tasteful cloth and Naga hide. I was able to repaint the car Canary Yellow. I then put Goodrich Lifesaver Radials on it. I wish I had not lost my pictures of it, it was pretty popular, one of my dad's airforce pilot friends offered twice as much as I paid for it and I let it go. Of course, I have regretted it ever since.
Great video as always, I love these talks. I would say you could have added that 4 cylinder that was in Stratus and Sebrings in the early 2000s. Everyone I knew with one of those motors blew up 🤦🏾♂️
Best thing I did was to ditch the lean bum system and carburetor, and swap in a distributor from a 1973 Plymouth Scamp and a Holley 2bbl carb. The catalytic converters "fell off" and the EGR valve was closed off by simply taking it off and rotating it 180 degrees, effectively blocking it off. Gas mileage improved significantly, and it was really fun to drive.
ELB in Australia was a brilliant device (specially in the local Hemi 6) thanks to the talent Chrysler Australia Engineers! But had the same poor mounting problems close to the exhaust manifold and thermal paste drying up after a few years like in the US cars!
I have also ran into problems with the timing chains of the 3.9 V-6 in 90's pick ups. The engine was based on the venerable 318, but they obviously did little testing on the 3.9 version of the engine. There is an update timing chain, but it would have been great if the factory would have caught the issue in testing. The 4 speed auto trans would barely last 100,000 miles. We did SK update kits on all these these transmissions we encountered and then they lasted great... Just lousy engineering and testing. Too many short cuts Another modern Chrysler boner is the 4.7 V-8. For some silly reason, they painted the interior of the oil pan. In a few years, the paint clogs the oil pump then killing the engine. Stay clear of the 4.7 !!
Interesting info. I live just a few miles from you in Clinton Twp. Love seeing your collection of land yachts and all the detailed info. My gradfather used to flip classice cars of that era when i was a teenager. I wanted his 69 Bonneville convertible w/ 428 so bad but he sold it before I could get the money. It was 2000$ running and driving with very little rust back then ( late 80s). He ususally had about 4 or 5 cars he was working with. 66 new yorker 383, 76 Eldorado 425, 77 continental, 55 ford 3/tree, 77 LTD, vw bus, etc. i drove all of them as a 15 year old on the farm. Boy the 2.7 design...If thats not a "designed to fail" for service revenue example I dont know what is. Its a shame that manufacturers do this when they certainly could design a decent drivetrain that lasts.
My 318 dart motor was incredibly durable. Our 383 Fury leaked out radiator fluid and the block still didn't fry. Terrific engine. Then I bought a used 2.2 1985 Chrysler. Burned oil at 60,000 miles. Nothing but problems. Blew a head gasket at 90,000 and I had enough. Never bought Chrysler since. I'm that bitter. I would buy anything Chrysler up to 1975 though when they were tough cars.
I agree. The 3.7 is garbage too. The 4.7 had issues as well. My rule of thumb is to stay away from any of the engines ending with .7 when dealing with Chrysler.
In my experience the 3.7 and 4.7 are pretty decent motors. Not the most powerful but they tend to last pretty well when maintained. The 3.7 is a bit loud, a little gutless, and a bit rough, the 4.7 doesn’t make a ton of hp and they also had pcv issues on the early ones, the entire family except for I believe 08+ 4.7’s are very very sensitive to overheating. They’ll drop a valve seat and blow a head gasket pretty quick, but change the oil, and don’t overheat it and they do fine, solid workhorses. A bonus is that they’re pretty easy to work on and simple.
I've found that a 4.7 is either a 90k mile or 350k engine. The problem is you never know which you'll get. They all have the leaky exhaust manifold gasket, especially the driver's side.
Got a 05 3.7L goin on 200k. Doesnt burn a drop of oil. Only had to replace the radiator and water pump. Have a neighbor that has one with over 300k. He says he'll drive it till it dies or he dies. Not sure about the 4.7 but the 3.7l is definitely not "garbage."
My daughter's Jeep Commander w/4.7L lasted well past 300k miles, when she traded it in on a new Grand Cherokee. She never had a lick of trouble with the engine, & running gear. In fact, the only problem she ever had was the Rt rear electric window switch wore out.
Though I had a 99 Intrepid w/2.7L, which failed catastrophically(like you described), I otherwise really liked that engine. I got better than 29mpg freeway. And it was the quietest engine I've ever heard. Inside, I could only tell for sure that it was running by looking at the tach. Outside, I could be standing right next to it and I couldn't tell if it was running. It was pretty peppy, too, especially for only 2.7L displacement.
I used to work for Chrysler. Part of the problem with the Chrysler electronic ignition originally, was the fact that the Big frame gear reduction starter did not turn the engine over fast enough for the reluctor to pick up a signal and start the engine. They fixed that eventually after they figured that out by redesigning the starter gear ratio. The worst engine in my estimation was the 360 which would misfire cylinder number one on purpose in order to warm the engine up more quickly. We were told to never give a cold 360 to a customer. The consequence of this system, was that it would literally fracture the spark plug in cylinder number one and then the pieces of the spark plug would get dragged into the cylinder and pulverized
I’m surprised I haven’t seen a mention of the 2.0 in the first gen Neon. From my understanding the engineers specked a MLS head gasket, however the Daimler overlords killed that. As such the head gaskets failed on these engines A LOT.
The first gen neon predates the Daimler merger by four years, and it remainder the one car Daimler never touched. The head gasket issue was only one first year production SOHC motors, as a single layer gasket was installed by mistake. The issue resulted in a recall and the free replacement of gaskets with a multilayered gasket. The engines themselves are great, with examples running up over 500,000 miles with basic maintenance
Fwiw, the early minivans had the 2.6 Mitsubishi. Timing chain tensioner fails from low oil level, chain drags on timing cover. Repaired like a million of them. Thanks for the video.
You point out - Chrysler engine history is much better than GM, and I’ve had a bunch of them from flat head 6s from the forties and fifties , slant 6s, V8s both A (318s and 360,) and B ( 383/400) , front wheel drive V6s - 2.5/3.3,/3.8/3.6) all bullet proof and all over 200,000 miles. You are right about the 2.7l, but with that I have just been lucky- 20 years on a Sebring convertible - 187000 miles no engine problems. I always said Chrysler would never have survived if they put out the dog engines GM did.
Great episode! I would've liked to hear more about the 2.7's problems though. There was timing chain tensioner issues and I believe oil pump issues. I will say that a full-size Chrysler with a 2.7 sure was fantastic on fuel though
I recently discovered your channel and I've been enjoying your videos. The problem with the 2.7 V6 is interesting. While researching used cars I've heard the same internal water pump issue with some Ford V6s (specifically the 3.5). Curious if this is a common problem.
I honestly can never get over the mindset of the engineer who decides to put the water pump internally on an engine. It’s got to be the or one of the dumbest ideas I could think of and really shows some of these engineers are literal dweebs who just were good at school and have no hands on/real life experience.
Chrysler's major failure points the thermoquad 4-barrel plastic and aluminum Contracting and expanding at two different rates. Lean burn on small block, when I got 1 it was on an 87 5th Avenue. I took the distributor out throw it in the box took the lane burnout in the same box. I ran a points distributor ran a wire from the positive side of the battery cool switch under the dash then the other side of the switch Iran to the positive side of the coil a wire from the negative side of the coil to the distributor. Then I got one with that garbage 400 big block I beat the carburetor with a sledgehammer literally I really did through a Holley 4-barrel on it pulled the distributor out the lean burnout threw it in the garbage since a 400 was a low block I took a 383 distributor dual-point did the same thing and then I put a Holley 650 4-barrel on it
Here's some notables, cam chain and tensioners on 2.6L fours, Valve guides dropping and stem seals on 3.0L V-6s, head gasket failures on 2.2 - 2.5 L fours (fixable but chronic) Virtually every head gasket failed on 2.0-2.4L fours. Nothing terminal but significant failures. My 2002 3.8 V-6 approaching 200k is happy as a clam, trans failure at 160K but not unexpected for a 41TE
Thanks for your prolific work, Adam. You're cranking them out at an amazing pace. I had a '79 Aspen with a slant 6. A wagon. It never ran smoothly and had lots of drivability issues. And, it showed a lot of wear at a shockingly low milage. Seats coming apart at the seams at 25K miles? It did handle and brake well by the standards of the day, but the engine was terrible and the interior quality was not good - as it was on other Chrysler products that come to mind - same issue with 1970 Barracuda interior seats and trim pieces. But the pre-smog 318 was a peppy engine. Maybe not as smooth as a 302 from the same period, but no slouch in the power department.
I bought a new 77 Aspen with Slant six ...same thing. Ran like crap at idle. Couldn't make it idle smooth no matter what I did. The Dodge dealership couldn't fix it either. Finally I replaced the defective Holley carburetor with a new one....ran like a clock from that point on. Must have had a bad bunch of Holley carburetors.
@@arevee9429 never noticed the noise I guess. I don't have the Aspen and longer but I still have a 66 D100 Sweptline pickup with Slant Six and four speed. Needs a major clean up and most likely an overhaul. Looking forward to working on it!
As to the Ultradrive 4 speed transmissions....the problem that was changing the fluid with other then ATF 4 which would cause all the problems. I have and own a 92 New Yorker, and have no problems at all thru the years. By the by, he didn't mention the 3.3, and for good reason, a terrific motor that will give you several hundred thousand miles.
The fluid is a really underrated problem. GM and Ford can interchange fluid (hence Dex/Merc), but Chrysler fluid is its own thing. In fact, Chrysler got so fed up with fluid issues, they made the ATF+4 standard extremely strict. In order to put ATF+4 on the bottle, the formulation has to be exact, down to whom you get which chemicals from. Theoretically this means that any off-brand gas station Chrysler fluid will be identical to the most expensive brand. Jiffy Lube alone had probably killed a million Chrysler transmissions just by treating ATF as interchangeable "red stuff".
Agree on the fluid. Years ago had 3.8 caravan that my wife decided to take in to a jiffy lube for an oil change. They convinced her to do a trans fluid change. I called and asked what type of fluid they used a d they assured me that they used an additive that made it equivalent to atf+3. I contacted their head office in Vancouver Canada with my concern, and after being told they stood behind the additive, and would "warranty" my transmission if it failed, I had them fax me the documentation proving the additive was mopar atf certified. Upon receiving them, I contacted mopar legal in the US, and forwarded them the documents. They informed me that the additive had not been approved, contacted Jiffy Lube hq, who then paid for a complete trans flush and fill at a local dealer. I never had a problem with that transmission, but this I am sure is the cause of many failures.
@@spaceghost8995 on two vehicles? I think low end vehicles often get a bad rap because many are poorly maintained and fail/have issues as a result. Regular Oil changes are absolutely vital for the 2.7.
I feel you're quite fair in your observations. My '79 360 burned all the exhaust valves but taking it back to a '74 ignition system smartened it right up. The 7 1\4 rear end behind a slant 6 was fine. I never heard of any problems unless it was used for a wrong application.
Australian Chryslers in the late 70s adopted the Lean Burn feedback carburettor system firstly on the 318 Valiants in 1977 but when they were fitted to the 245 and 265 Australian inline sixes known as the hemi six (though not true hemispherical combustion chambers), similar to the 4.0 litre six in the Jeeps, the fuel economy achieved had motoring journalists taking notice. 20 mpg was achievable around town and 25-27 mpg was achieved in mainly open road driving from both sixes. I read the analogue ECU was only designed to last 20 years. There is a guy called Ray Cook in Queensland who specialises in working on and tuning and reconditioning these Chrysler lean burn set ups known as ELB -Electronic Lean Burn on the Australian built Chryslers which ceased production in August of 81.
I really like to have my cars as stock as possible, however I could not bear the lean burn system on my 79 New Yorker. I ended up just putting an edelbrock and going to points ignition. The thing is, if I ever want to go to stock it's a 30 minute job to swap back to the lean burn system.
My buddy had an 04 Sebring with the 2.7, Chrysler actually replaced the engine under a recall notice with an external water pump version because of that issue.
Nope there is NO External water pump version of the 2.7. There is also NO recall that addresses a 2.7 complete engine replacement. That is Incorrect. It may have been relplaced under warranty,but not because of a recall. And only w/the same internal water pump 2.7 because it is the only version they offered.
The problem with the Imperial 318 F.I. engine was the routing of the alternator wiring harness. Re-routing of the harness solved the problem. That is why so many can be found with the original engines today. Around here, before they discovered the real cause of the problems, the dealers re-powered the cars with a 360 V8, to retain the same level of power that the 318 F.I. engine had. We didn't get the same "Lean-Burn" systems in California as the other 49 States. The main problem we had was that the vacuum advance unit would go bad. At the time, the entire "Lean-Burn" computer had to be replaced to get a new advance diaphragm.
This is really an interesting video. I mean they all are, I'm always getting answers to questions I didn't know I had. I knew about the 2.7l sludge issue, but never knew why it was an issue until today.
After seeing the problems Chrysler had with the troublesome 2.7, Ford stupidly proceeded to make engines with internal water pumps as well with the same result.
The ultra drive mostly suffered from that external solenoid pack failing. I got a ton of miles out of 2 ultraglides, 1 in a umc aeromate step van actually hauling tools, another in a 96 intrepid. I found keeping that sol pack and the connector clean and dry helps the lifespan. Regular Chrysler +4 fluid changes and ALWAYS coming to a complete stop prior to moving the shift lever. I had one absolutely internally grenade after my ex drove it for a week with the habit of shifting from reverse to drive before it fully stopped. If you maintain them well and drive them properly they can last with a solenoid pack change eventually. However, after searching a salvage yard for a good replacement, I pulled 16 pans til I found one that wasn't cooked or grenaded. The biggest annoyance was most owners and shops had absolutely no clue that using any other trans fluid than Chrysler +3/+4 would 100% guarantee clutch failure.
Was for me very sad to see listed in N. 1 worst engine, that 2.7 liter V6 engine, fitted in that gorgeous Intrepid 1998/2004 line up because is very attractive and advanced body design one as well. Thanks God, here in my country, Colombia, the 361, 360, 413, 318 and 225 slant six units did not have any issue, due to the old school mechanics, carburated, manual chokes and no starting engine issues at all. The 361, and 360, for medium heavy trucks operated with Holley carbs, and the others, with Carter carburators, early 70 and late 70's references as well. Less electronics devices, more reliable engines, and as I told you above, Colmotores, the assembly plant, didn`t folled around testing any pollution devices, because our enviromental rules in those years, did not exist here at all. And let me tell you some interesting rear end mumbers: Because Colombia is very rough country, high hills and plans, the Andes Mountain System, 4.5 to 1 gear ratios in the trucks and 3.95 to 1 rear end ratios in the automobiles, Dart, Diplomat, Coronet and Aspen models, was a must in order to get a nice open roads performances. Eaton 16221 and 17221 models fitted in D700/600 medium trucks, Dana 70 rear ends for D/300 P/300 models and Dana 44 fitted on passenger cars listed above. Thanks for your videos and the technical data you share here.
Almost a year later, and watching this again, I would like to say that the Chrysler 318 has become one of my favorite Chrysler small block V8 engines. A good friend of mine has a 1986 Dodge Ramcharger 4x4, 4 speed manual, lifted and riding on Super Swampers wrapped around 15 inch wheels, and I have been helping him with working on it. That engine has taken more abuse than ANY OTHER engine I have seen in person. When he bought it, it ran like garbage, it idled like it had a big cam, it took forever to start hot or cold, it struggled to get going in 1st (granny) gear, and it could barely do 50 MHP on the highway. It was bad, I thought the engine was toast. And he drove it home 6 hours running like this! However, the list of issues I found from the previous owner, is extensive. The short list: Vacuum leaks at the carburetor base, at the unneeded carburetor adapter, intake manifold to the head and engine block (Edelbrock intake manifold), at the miss routed brake booster hose, and all the plugs in the manifold. The carburetor (Edelbrock 1406) was so badly adjusted, the primary butterflies had the transition holes completely uncovered and then some, and it was so nasty inside the carburetor one of the jets turned to dust on the secondary side when I tried to take it out. Last, but certainly not least, it some how would run, with the initial timing retarded about 10 degrees! It was THE perfect storm of wrong, to somehow run. Even when the temps here dropped to -14*F, his truck started and ran when his roommate's 2020 Silverado 1500 wouldn't. My friend reinstalled his intake manifold properly, I went through and tracked down EVERY vacuum leak and fixed them with fresh hose, a gasoline safe sealant on the intake plugs, cleaned the carburetor and replaced the one jet, set the float bowls correctly, set fuel pressure to the recommended spec for the carb, and we got to work on starting it. All that work, setting the initial timing to 8 to 10 degrees BTDC, cold you pump the throttle twice, turn the key, the engine fires in maybe one full revolution to two. Hot, same thing without the throttle pump. The engine runs like NOTHING ever happened. The truck will do 70 MPH even with the big tires (35 inch, I think) GPS confirmed, though it does slow to 50 on long, or steep hills he has to downshift to 3rd to maintain 45 MPH. That said, soon his Ramcharger will have a rebuilt and fuel injected 440 big block in it, and shorter gearing for the axles along with a full drive line rebuild. That little beast 318 may get rebuilt and put in a 4 speed Duster after the truck is done.
I think sometimes....the extended oil change intervals pushes a fairly reliable engine into a total pile of junk. My Chrysler experience....Dodge Dakota 3.9 LA V6...a 318 minus two cylinders....and the son of lean burn emissions controls since the 87s had the 2bbl carb. Hard to keep tuned properly,...not a powerhouse and a bit thrashy at idle. As the engine ages the timing chain starts to loosen so you get some chain slap at idle. Chrysler PT Cruiser 2.4 four cylinder. Not as refined as a Toyota or Honda but decent power and economy. This is a situation of staying on top of maintenance to keep it reliable.
The 2.7 v6 was a good engine. We put 125k miles on ours with no problems. A Chrysler tech told me to simply keep the oil changed. I have also owned 273, 318, 225, 360. 3.5 and 4.0 Mopar engines. All were good motors.
I get a participation trophy for guessing the 2.7L! It’s really a shame because I really liked the style of the Sebring convertibles, but if you wanted any reasonable performance you were forced into that horrible V-6. Thanks for this video, Adam! 👍👍👍
I'm shocked at how many old man Sebring convertibles I see that look mint and have low mileage around here. Not sure if it's because they are always broken or it's a boring car 🤣
Sir your right on point with the 2.7 V6. Those engines were for the most part not bad, they ran good and were fairly smooth. There was a small weep hole machined in the block to allow coolant to leak out when the water pump was starting to fail. That is if only the internal seal failed. Thus not allowing coolant to enter internally into the engine. Depending where the vehicle was driven, those weep holes would get plugged up not allowing the coolant to drain out. If a bearing failed in the pump, besides the noise it made coolant would enter the engine and by the the time the owner was aware the damage was done. To replace the water pump was to say the least, was very timely and expensive. Based on the mileage usually the timing chain components also needed replacing. The resale of those vehicles equiped with that engine at the time were very weak so sometimes it wasnt cost effective to repair. So allot were scrapped, mechanically totaled. If I remember in the early years of production of that engine (I think it was from `98 -`02 maybe later) they had oiling problems with the crankshafts, the oil passages were under drilled or something to that affect. Later engines had the improved oiling systems along with the remanufactured units. The 3.5 V6 was by far a better engine it got about the same mileage but much more power and far more reliable. With those it was timing belts, water pumps and plug wires. As for the earlier engines, besides the 3.0 Mitsubishi V6, they also used a 2.6 Mitsubishi l4 in the '80s which was a decent engine but expensive to repair. Overall Chrysler never really build a totally bad engine, GM owns the trophy on that one, many to say the least.
Yo weepholes that constantly get plugged up make that a BAD engine. Besides that, if someone noticed coolant leaking they probably wouldn't be alarmed, they might assume it's a hose or whatever and they might just add coolant and would have no idea that coolant is in the block. Who would guess that? Also, it was not just the water pump stupidity. Those engines failed all the time even without a coolant leak.
I worked part time for an independent garage in my late teens when there were lots of Lean Burn Mopars on the road, and recall performing what we referred to as a "sex change " on several of them, with conventional carburetors and distributors.
My mother had a 1980 Chrysler Lebaron with the slant six engine. It was a two door and gorgeous with wire wheel covers and opera lamps, but when cold, you couldn't back out of the garage without it stalling at least once. Once warm, it was great and had plenty of power, even though today it would be laughable.
The 3.0L v6 Mitsubishi leaked oil from the cam shaft seals, made an absolute mess of the front of the engine. And then the water pump would fail, making your take the whole front of the motor off to change the pump (and the timing belt driving it)
@@ltsradio I can't stand that setup - rubber timing chain, water pump driven by it, and water pump inside the timing cover. We here in North America obsoleted that concept of driving the water pump with the timing chain for obvious reasons, yet the Japanese brought it back with no objection from the stupid public. They also have brought back the Panel Delivery, which we replaced with the Van. Strange how they can pretend long obsolete concepts are something new and innovative.
I had a 92 Chrysler 5th avenue New Yorker. Beautiful car, but it had the electronic 4speed overdrive tranny that klunked if you didn't come to a complete stop before you started off. Another thing we learned about it is you cannot use 92 octane or above in a Mopar motor that doesn't require it. We had the big Mopar V6. The motor got a bad carbon build up on the head, fortunately our dealer's mechanic knew how to get it off without removing the head. At 75,000 miles the light switch for the glove box broke and "fried" the alternator, both O2 sensors went out, and the belt tensioner went "night night". The 92 acclaim and lebaron also gave me a lot of trouble as well as the Chrysler Town and Country Minivan tranny.
Hmm...2.7l v6 huh? Looks in garage....OH NO!! LOL Either I'm lucky...or just lucky....and hope to stay lucky. Haha. Bought my 2001 Chrysler Sebring Convertible Limited on Halloween 2001...scary huh? Haha. Over 20 years of ownership...engine continues to run great at 120k miles. I'll admit, it has not been my daily driver on a regular basis since 2003...which seems weird, but at the time I wanted to "keep the miles off"...well that went out the window with a few job changes all over the US, Maine, California, Texas...and while I loved ALL those trips...the miles racked up. Plus...been taking it to the Chrysler Nationals in Carlisle, PA...that's 1400 miles from here, each way. But...again, yes, I'm very lucky...and you're right on the water pump quote. My trusted shop said it was about $1500, before tax..lol. Did I mention I've been lucky?
I remember renting some of the Chrysler 300s and Dodge vehicles back then. The first one I rented had a 3.6L V6 and performed adequately. The next one I rented had that 2.7L you mentioned. It would be easy to understand how that engine would get beat to crap quickly, it was just too small for those full sized vehicles, constantly downshifting and breathing hard just to maintain highway speeds.
I rented an 05 Chrysler 300 Touring with the 3.5 V6 and it performed well. It had plenty of power on steep grades. I also rented an 06 Dodge Magnum with the 2.7 V6 and it felt strained on any hill. It seemed underpowered with a full load of passengers.
The best thing to do with a lean burn cars to remove all of that as well as exhaust recirculation pump. Convert it to a four barrel, dual exhaust, headers as well. Get rid of the cat as well. Did that with my 80's Ram 4x4 truck and the 318 is shall we say "woke"! Lol Could care less about emissions and all that global warming nonsense. Plate C
I disagree with the lean burn system being bad. Having been an owner of a 1984 Fifth Avenue with the 318 lean burn that I bought when it was 5 years old with 80k miles, I had zero issues with it. I kept that car longer than any car I have ever had because I loved it so. It made numerous trips from VA Beach to upstate NY and took me an hour to work for several years and never let me down. As far as being sluggish...give me a break. By 80's standards that car moved. At 241k miles the timing chain finally went. Not knowing if there was internal damage, my mechanic bought it from me, fixed the chain, and gave it to his wife to drive. I know she had it for at least another year.
You probably had good maintenance and all the planets aligned. I'm a big Chrysler fan and the engineering always has been on the forefront but lack of money at any given point caused there failures and Lean burn was one of them.
We had a 77 Monaco 318cid with the worst carburetor ever. it replaced a 72 Coronet after it was rearended. Virtually the same car/motor combination but lightyears apart from a driveabilty standpoint. Our familyonly bought Toyota's after that.
Noted comment about the very tall axle ratios. Not to forget, cars so equipped also received the A999 with the low first gear, which, with a mildly tuned 318, or, even better, a 360, were a nice package. Another great package was the F-bodies was a 318 and four speed A833 overdrive.
Early in my auto parts career, a guy came in looking for Dodge parts. He had just bought a used Charger with the 2.7 engine sold to him by a buy-here pay-here car lot where they finance weekly payments for forever. This customer needed some coolant, radiator hoses and leak stop. Hearing all that, I had to resist gasping. The 2.7 sent us a LOT of customers with Chargers, 300s, etc. All very popular cars in that area. The guy was beaming proud of himself. The Charger was THE hot car to have and he got one cheap. He thought he had almost won a lottery. I asked him what he knew about the 2.7 engine and he didn't know anything or care. He was not a car guy. All he knew was he got a Charger! He was the man of the hour. It just had a coolant issue and was running hot. I did not have the heart to tell him what was about to happen to his beloved Charger. It was not my place to shatter his happiness.
We - unfortunately - had a 1978 Le Baron with a 360 and the lean burn system. The module was mounted on the air cleaner. between the heat and the vibration they always burned out. Dad changed the distributor and cut the wires to the module. and changed the carb a bit. Ran great after that.
At the Amoco Garage I worked at in the 1990's we used to convert these over to HEI Direct ignition. Auto Zone used to sell a kit back then for 178.99 you got a Holley 4 Barrel Carb a GM Delco K 1500 Series Voltage Regulator from 1987-1996 and it came with a Distributor from a pre emissions 318 1974 on down. Or you could get these used for 10.00 back then. We did these conversions for 399.49 parts and labor. I remember it was 4.5 hours labor at 49.00 an hour
My dad had a Lean Burn 318 equipped Le Baron. It ran horribly, It was a big step backwards from the 318 ‘72 Fury he had previously. Loving the porch chats!
These engine chats are very enjoyable, I am old enough that I am familiar with all of the engines and platforms you discuss and get quite a chuckle when we are in violent agreement! I'm eager to move into the Ford phase of these discussions...
He's right on the money for the 2.7L ... I had a 2000 Intrepid with that engine, and it started to puff blue smoke at 40k miles in spite of meticulous maintenance and oil changes. The oil pressure light also started flickering at stoplights. One of the many reasons you see very few of these on the road anymore.
Yep I had an 03 Sebring and the oil light flickering started around then too. Surprisingly it made it to about 150k miles before the girl I sold it to told me the tranny blew.
@@DaDaDo661 Very surprising that engine could make it to 150k on low oil pressure. Once I saw the blue smoke and the oil pressure light, we traded ours in immediately.
@@Chevroldsmobuiac the oil flickering is the oil pressure sending unit, I just had this fixed on my 2001 Sebring. Around 65,000 miles on it now. Mine was leaking so bad it was doing the blue smoke out the exhaust as well. Fixed it, no more blue smoke or weird oil smell in my vents . Full synthetic, and changing it early is key to the 2.7
@@RC-uu3qz Had the oil pressure sending unit replaced, no joy. With the other symptoms I concluded that the engine had the dreaded sludging problem and I got rid of it. And yes, the oil was changed regularly and earlier than the manual recommended. Some of these 2.7l engines are destined to self-destruct regardless of what the owner does.
My Uncle had a 76 Volare' wagon new, and was in the military and actually took that car to Germany in the late 70's. He'd sent me this story some years ago., and it really shows the state of these cars back in the 70s. Long but fun interesting read. Enjoy!
From my Uncle Lloyd:
Hey Mike,
I learned a lot about car repair with the 1976 Volare Station Wagon that we drove over there in Germany. That was in the middle of Chrysler's cheap shot at meeting emission requirements and their previously good running engines were suddenly low power and poor running. The worst, and down right dangerous characteristic, was when you pulled out into traffic from a stop sign. The car would surge away from the stop sign for about a half of a second, just enough to get you directly into oncoming traffic, then stall. After hesitating for 1 to 2 seconds, it would again rev up and be on it's way. Making the problem worse, the more you tried to accelerate, i.e.. the farther you initially pushed down on the accelerator, the worse and longer it would stall.
I had a set of tune-up tools, left over from my Corvette racing in California, including timing light, dwell meter and vacuum gauge, and went to work on the Volare (bought it in Poplar Bluff, MO and shipped it to Germany with less than 1000 miles on it). Normally, you have vacuum distributor advance on a carburetor engine, which advances the timing as soon as the carb is off idle. The vacuum port hooked to the distributor has no vacuum at idle, but immediately has several inches of vacuum when the carb starts to open. This immediate advance in timing gives the engine an immediate power boost before the increase flow of air and gas through the carb can reach the cylinders. When I started watching the timing on the Volarie, I noticed that the timing actually retarded when you first opened the carb. I could not believe this at first so I hooked my vacuum gauge to the port on the carb where the distributor hose was attached and sure enough, there was actually vacuum at idle, which would immediately go to zero when the carb opened, but would then slowly recover over a 1-2 second period. So the factory configuration was to time the engine with vacuum present, which would then retard when you opened the throttle, which would not burn the fuel completely when the throttle first opened, but that reduced the initial surge of Nitrous Oxide gases on acceleration. And as a byproduct, the car would stall. Amazing and dangerous!!
My solution was to try other, blocked off, ports on the carb and sure enough, I found one with no vacuum at idle, but immediately had a jump in vacuum when the carb butterflies were opened, and continued to increase in vacuum as the engine revved up. I'm sure this was the port used in the past before the pressures of emissions controls. So I rerouted my vacuum hose to the distributor and retimed the engine and all of a sudden I had a 318 that ran like a charm, with no hesitation. I made this same change for several other people who were afflicted with mid 70's Chrysler cars as this configuration was common on both their 6 and 8 cylinder engines.
While I'm on a roll concerning the Volare, while in Germany, found that the car would not hold front end alignment in camber and caster. Turns out the upper A arms did not have the grooved surfaces that were common on front ends so no matter how tight you tightened the bolts on the camber/caster adjustment, after a few hundred miles, the front wheels would have negative camber and who knows where the caster would be. I could actually get factory warranty service on that car in Germany, but at the time there was no factory fix for this so the German mechanics, who laughed about the poorly built American cars, aligned the front end then tack welded it in place. It stayed this way until I returned to the states and the factory finally put out a recall.
If you remember one of my other emails, this is the same car that would overheat when I got back to the US and started to pull my 20' boat, even after installation of an oil cooler and transmission cooler.
About 2 years after we moved to GA, I was washing this car one evening and felt a lump behind the right front wheel down low on the fender. I thought it must be gum or something but got a flash light to look and found it was a big bubble under the paint. My Volare was rusting from the inside out!! This also turned out to be a recall item. The front fenders had pockets where dirt and moisture would collect but did not drain. So Chrysler put two new front fenders on the car. A few months later, I found similar bubbles under the paint behind the rear wheels. That's when I went down and ordered the deep blue Olds 98 Regency Sedan "mafia car". I think it was a 1982 but it looked like the one in your other email. Now THAT was a great car!
That Volare was a real jewel. I believe there were 7 major recalls on that car while I owned it, and it was the last Chrysler product for my lifetime.
Forgive the long message.
LT
My parents bought the same station wagon brand new. Had it at the dealer so much my dad threatened them that he was going to paint a lemon on the side of his car and park it in front of the dealership.
Thank goodness I never was familiar with these engines. The 3 I know best never gave me a problem. The slant 6, 273 V8 and the 318. All were great!
I'm running a 64 318 right now and love it. I had a 61 Slant Six which finally died over 600k.
@@bellendcottage8820 : Is your 318 a "A"series or "LA" series engine? Just curious, I like both.
I had 2 Plymouth Belvederes (a 1965 and a 1966) with the 273 CID V-8. Incredible engine, one of the best. I was a Rural Mail Carrier and these were perfect vehicles to deliver mail. My route was 85 miles long with close to 500 stops and I still managed 10 MPG, a VERY respectable figure for a mail route vehicle.
@@rogergoodman8665 they was an A series engine then in 67 they evolved into the LA engine and then the magnum in 92
@@bellendcottage8820 600k miles is incredible! One for the history books 😊
Haven't read all the comments, but one major problem with the 2.7 I've seen was casting flash inside the blocks. A lot of them had paper-thin tabs of aluminum casting inside the block that weren't addressed at the factory for some reason. When these eventually fall off, if a piece is small enough to make it through the oil pickup screen, it gets sucked in and sent directly to the main tensioner, which is oil-pressurized, and that bit of aluminum will slice through the sealing o-ring. Oil pressure drops, the tensioner collapses, the timing chain slips and, since it's an interference engine, valves slam into pistons and you're left with an expensive paperweight.
Sounds like something Kia/Hyundai would do
This guy needs a Podcast. His voice has even cadence and easy on the ears.
I agree, very good speaking voice and manner.
Check out Tony Heller on Telegram
I agree!
I was a bit upset about the occasional wind noise.
He should also look into lasik because he has a face worthy of being on TV
No matter if you have dud engine, he calms you down. The valium of engine reviews.
A water pump designed internally in the engine is just about the stupidest idea I can imagine. Steve Lehto had videos on his channel about some modern Ford engines with internal water pumps. That should be a crime.
Adam, i grew up with a buddy who lived up the street and taught me everything I know about car maintenance and repair. You remind me so much of him. He had your calm demeanor as well. He went on to be a top electrical engineer with JPL. This guy literally knew everything about cars, was generous with his knowledge, and worked his way through college maintaining seemingly all the cars in the neighborhood. He was particularly inventive in making carburetor and timing modifications that got more out of our cars' performance, and made them run soooo smoothly. Thanks so much for your entertaining and informative posts. Being a 70 something boomer, your segments also help jog my memory and test my powers of recall....hopefully delaying dementia!! :) Please keep the posts coming, and God Bless! And BTW, my first car for college was a used red '62 Valiant Signet coupe with the 225 Slant Six and 3 on the tree...GREAT, punchy engine...and great little car....zero issues. Dorky looking but very well made. I believe that the 225 was one of their best.
Same vintage human here. Back in the day my buddy had a '64 Valiant with the 225/3 speed on the column. We bolted a four speed to it because, as Ray taught me, "it needs an extra gear." One thing we should have done was rebuild the tranny first, as one of the synchronizers was bad. My car was a '52 Plymouth with the flat six. Both great cars and more stories than space here permits. Thanks for sharing!
@@mdogg1604 Yep the slant 6 was the only engine that could compare to the Chevy Small block
My 2.2 turbo was retired at 400,000+ miles. Still worked super, good power, good economy, no oil consumption. Great engine tied to super solid 3 speed automatic. Never opened either one.
You have done your homework, Adam! Those FI 318 Imperials were so rare to begin with; compounded by the fact that many were simply retrofitted with carbs after it became an endemic issue. As a lifelong MOPAR fan, this list is spot-on and speaks to your wealth of knowledge and attentional to detail(s). 👍
Chrysler did the same thing in the late 1950s when they released a limited number of the first electronic fuel injection equipped engines.
The problem was that the electronic controls were not shielded and driving by a large neon sign would cause them to malfunction.
Chrysler recalled those vehicles and replaced the injection system with standard intake manifolds and carburetors.
Seeing no future in EFI, they reportedly sold the patents and intellectual property to Germanys Robert Bosch.
The rest is history.
@@donreinke5863 A few years ago, somebody got ahold of the only surviving FI DeSoto Adventurer that still had it's FI. He was an expert in electronics, so he was able to reverse-engineer it and fix it's shortcomings so that it worked the way it was supposed to. The car is fantastic.
My late Father traded a 1980's Mercedes for an 81 Imperial with 40,000 miles, unfortunately. I actually still has the fuel injection, unfortunately again. I had it running, but poorly, and am going to try to get it going to sell.
@@mako-g90 Why don't you just convert it to a carb? The EPA OKed that conversion. It will run far better. Also, if you do keep it, replace that ridiculously high rear-end gearing. It will have far better performance if you do.
@@michaelbenardo5695 I just don't have time or the patience right now. My Dad hoarded over 35 cars and trucks, most that have been sitting outdoors for years, and I picked his 95 caprice Arizona Highway Patrol car and a 1 ton Dodge Ram Diesel with 564,500 miles that runs great to keep. Had a scapper get half of the cars off the property and am sorting through the rest.
A MOPAR-nut friend of mine has backed up everything you've said when he has discussed his late-model Chrysler experience with me. My personal experience with the MOPAR world was pretty much limited to 1969 - 1972 383s. I hated tuning them up -- the location of those darn exhaust headers! -- but neither Dad nor I could destroy them.
When I was 14, I bought a '56 New Yorker with a 354 Hemi, no brakes, and a completely passenger-sideswiped body for $65. It was a huge, frightening beast that ran like a top. The not-too-bright fellow who bought it from me was most impressed by the fact that the engine accessories were powered by "dual belts." That had to mean great engine power!
When I was a pre-teen, my Dad had a 354 Hemi transplanted into his 1959 Dodge D100 "delivery" pickup. Straight pipes ran from the headers to the rear: the sound it made was commensurate with the speed it would travel. Dad, who at the time owned a music store, used to claim that nobody could deliver a piano faster than he could. 😀
Thanks for another excellent porch chat. Stay warm!
I knew a lot of guys back in the day that took off the lean burn and converted them to regular electronic ignition and carbs. Still passed emissions and performed so much better. I know people berates Chrysler for their quality, but they really made some good, reliable, solid performing engines.
I am a Chrysler lover, but they are like the little girl with the curl - when they are good, they are very VERY good, but when they are bad, they are horrid.
@@michaelbenardo5695 you got that right! They can be pretty finiky too.
When an engine is engineered with a carb. It controls the entire fuel delivery system and spark advance.
but somewhere in the 80s and beyond, they forgot how to build transmissions
@@adotintheshark4848 They started putting electronics in them, and the inside of a trans is a hostile environment for electronic devices.
I've owned 170, 225, 318, 360, & 440. All were pre '72 and f'n amazing engines well into the 21st century. Currently running a 64 Fury with 318.
Of course with a great grandmother being a Chrysler descendant, that's what I grew up on lol.
The 2.7 is always the engine I think of when I think of Chrysler's worst engine. They (as a company) really did not make a ton of bad engines, despite having cars that had plenty of other issues.
2.7 Chrysler was terrible. I know my granddaughter was given one by her other grandfather. Total POS.
@@blumobean I could avoid the coolant leaking into the oil by checking the fluid levels at least once per week. But I've heard the 2.7 still has a tendency to sludge ,- like some Toyota engines did . I believe Chrysler enlarged the oil capacity in later years . Some if the later 2.7 are still on the road
BMWs have plastic cooling system parts that you need to keep an eye on coolant levels - easy to prevent but many of these overheat and strip a head bolt . Good motor. bad choice of throw away plastic parts that are considered P/M
@@timothykeith1367 the last good BMW engine was the straight 6 with a cast iron/high nickel block. My son, who became a Master Tech with BMW, bought an old 535is from a BMW tech when he first started with BMW. The car was ragged out, but mechanically it was great. We never could figure out what he did to the engine other than the fuel pressure regulator was set high. Maybe the cam was a little hotter, but they came with a fairly high lift cam. It had a homemade exhaust system, but wasn't super loud. It would run like hell. Pull up to a traffic light beside a stock 5 liter Mustang and take his lunch money.
Cash for clunkers wouldn't even take them.
@@blumobean Why did they plague this world with them from 1998 to 2010.
Agree with the older engines, 225, 318, 340, 360, 383, 413, 426, 440 all being tough and reliable.
One of the newer ones which seems to last a long time is the Chrysler 3.3 V6. I have a 1993 Dodge Caravan ES, and with 480,000 on it, the 3.3 still runs perfect and has 1/3 scale oil pressure fully warmed up in drive. It is on the third A604 transmission. The first one failed when the differential gear pin came loose and scored the aluminum transmission case until the fluid was lost. The replacement got destroyed months later when the van was stolen, and the police assumed the thieves put the transmission into reverse while the van was moving forward at high speed, and bailed in the middle of an intersection with the transmission in pieces. Insurance put a new A604 in the van and it has the kit to prevent the differential pin from coming loose. Engine and transmission has been great since then. The only recurring 'nightmare' is the Bendix 10 ABS brake system which is Caravan 'ES' specific, so it is rare, but due to a class action lawsuit, Chrysler offers an unlimited mileage / unlimited age warranty for the entire ABS system, including labor. This has been changed three times through this TSB, and it would have been a 5,000 $ job each time. The 11,200 $ (new) van has cost Chrysler 15,000 $ in ABS brake system TSB repairs.
3.3/3.8 will run a long time if properly maintained.
Agreed on the 3.3L. I had a '92 Dynasty on an improved version of the original trans as its second transmission. Only thing I ever had to do to the car under my ownership was replace the radiator. Old girl ran flawless up to 160k miles which was when I sold her. I love my 05 Scion, but there are times i still miss the old Dynasty.
The B, RB engines that Chrysler manufactured from ‘58-‘78 are the most robust and reliable engines they made.
Or anyone else at the time, although they changed to thin wall castings in the early 70s and discontinued the forged crank in 440s
Slant Six!
@drippinglass , Yes!!! They were very good engines... Unlike the poorly designed 2.7 v-6, the water pumps on the 'B & RB' engines AND the earlier DPCD (Early-Hemi and Poly-spherical) V-8 engines were very easy to change-out... The LA series (Small-Block V-8's) , the slant-6 series, the flathead straight-6 , the 1980's Pushrod type cast- iron V-6's, and the 1960's Canadian made 318 'wide-block' (Poly-spherical) engines, were ALL very good designs, powerful & reliable , with very few problems... The early Torqueflite transmissions , the manual transmissions and transfer cases, all made by New Process were outstanding.. The drive-lines that Chrysler had were very good... Their 8.75" (Hotchkiss type) rear axles And removable differentials made by New Process, the Dana-44's the Dana 60's, the Dana 70's were all top quality...What really seemed to change the Chrysler products, is when they had that bad marriage with MB, then later they stopped making Plymouths (A HUGE MISTAKE) then later , Chrysler had a bad & costly divorce with MB (The Result- of SEVERAL bad decisions)... And now another marriage (If it's good or bad-I Don't Know, but honestly, who outside of the corporate board meetings - really knows about that?) with Fiat... It is why I prefer the Mopars from the 50's, 60's, 70's, and some of the 80's.. Those years were free of the bad mergers, bad decisions, bad designs, political boondoggleing, and little foresight... Now, what is called a 'Hemi' is NOT actually a HEMI-spherical combustion chamber, the later Chrysler products are hard to work on, excessively complex, temperamental, and tend to break-down fairly often, have expensive replacement parts, which is especially noticeable with the vehicles used in fleets... Very Few of the earlier Chrysler products had notorious problems with the engines , transmissions, drive systems, brakes, steering systems, suspension systems, Body and structural components, etc... Now they have trouble with loose valve seats, defective roller lifters and damaged camshafts , problems with engine electronics , bad transmissions, weak suspension designs, steering issues (bad rack/pinions) and quality control issues... Apparently, & sadly, it's not the same Mopar that was from the past... It is WHY the earlier cars & trucks have such a high demand these days... Of those earlier vehicles, the Chrysler Products (The REAL Chrysler products) are among the most sought-after vehicles of all of the older vehicles... It is no mystery WHY this has happened.
@@michaelmartinez1345 Yeah...only 4 water pump bolts on B and RB engines
A note on the Torqueflite....the Simpson gearset (using two planetary sets on opposite sides of a common sun gear) was invented by an engineer who previously worked for Ford, and first used in the Torqueflite starting in 1960
Nearly all automatic transmissions used in domestic vehicles, GM Ford and Chrysler, would adopt the Simpson gearset in one form or another, although GM and Ford didnt use it until 1964, years after Chrysler adopted it.
The notable exceptions..
The Borg Warner (at that time owned by Ford) designed
Fordomatic, Cruiseomatic and FMX used a Ravagneaux type gearset (long and short planet pinions in a single carrier) continued in the Ford AOD overdrive transmission and its successors, the AOD-E and 4R70W, the latter being used into the 2000s
The two speed Chevrolet Powerglide, discontinued at the end of the 1973 model year and now favored by some drag racers, also used a Ravagneaux gearset
@@michaelmartinez1345 While Chrysler was known for robust mechanicals, they often struggled with the rest of the car. Compared to the competition, they always seem to lag with ride quality, handling, comfort and especially build quality. Much of that was due to maintaining torsion bar/leaf spring suspensions longer than they should have and then going all K-based in the 80s. When someone buys a car, they are not just buying a machine, they are buying a finished product. Also in the rust belt, Chryslers were always the first rot away with many traps on the underside of their unibody and less than adequate body coatings.
It is very popular to criticize the mergers, and they were not perfect, but...there would be no RWD LX platform if it were not for the tech transfer from M-B. Chrysler had no RWD pass car experience up to that point and would not have been able to design their own IRS based running gear/steering that really set the 300C and others apart from the competition. Likewise with FIAT, look at the success of Jeep and RAM. So while these newer products might be harder to work on, they are finally fully developed modern products that have kept the company afloat. Besides, what new vehicles are easy to work on - those days are long over...
Love the durability of the 2.2/2.5 engines. Non-interference to boot!
Maybe you had the 1 good one out of a few million. Those engines are garbage. Blow rear main seals and dump about 3 quarts per mile. junk. That's why Chrysler had to sell to an overseas company
@@every-istand-ophobe6320 you don’t know shit! What have you made so we can pick it apart?
I had an 86 Chrysler Laser 2.2 Turbo that was a fantastic car. Other than a timing belt Never had any issues with it. Had 130k when I traded it in on a new Neon.
@@every-istand-ophobe6320 Most 2.2/2.5 engines with issues were owned by people who whould abuse and neglect them. I've seen far more reliable 2.2/2.5 engine than unreliable and that's by a vast margin.
@@every-istand-ophobe6320 I changed a lot of those engines out for people. Many of them needed oil seals and also leaked all over the place. The other issue was the vibration never seemed to be able to reduced.
That 340 V8 was a screaming powerhouse!!!!! Damn! I had one in a 1971 Demon, and wow... without a doubt, was and still is, the most impressive small displacement V8 I've ever driven. Getting rid of that car was the stupidest thing I've ever done... and I've done a few doozies.
I agree, previous to that I had a gm 327 that was good, but the 340 4bbl I had in a 70 swinger would take most anything off the line
My buddy has my '70 Challenger T/A. original T/A heads. That thing hauls ass.
The 340 is a real zinger because the long rods, short stroke, large bore, long dwell time, and likely one of the best factory small block heads.
@@TheLionAndTheLamb777 Agreed!
The 340 punched above it's weight.
There's another huge problem with the 2.7L Chrysler that is related to oil, but it's the timing chain tensioner could slack the chain and cause the cams to jump time. Being an interference engine that usually spelled bent valves. This was an extremely common problem on those engines. Guys have made special blocks that could be installed on the tensioner to limit how far it could release, thus reducing the chance of this happening.
Interesting aftermarket upgrade
I think Chrysler could have made the 2.7L far better if they REALLY took the time to design it well. But this is the Daimler Chrysler era we're talking about here - rush, rush, rush, and make it as crappy with as many cheap interfering parts as possible! Lol
Or they could've given the idea to Mitsubishi and see what they could've done with it. Mitsu always came in clutch for Chrysler and it would always be a huge help for them.
Another amazing instructional video. I always liked Chrysler products and owned quite a few. They were never as refined as GM, either mechanically or structurally but had a definite vibe like no other cars of that time (60's-70's) and were well thought-out. The "lean-burn" was a true nightmare. Chrysler had neither the resources or money to correctly pull off such a concept at that particular moment in time and IMHO should have stuck with the basic strong engineering that had served them well up to that point. I still, to this day regret selling a 1974 New Yorker Brougham with the 440 CID. Most comfortable riding car I ever owned, and that includes several Cadillacs, Lincolns, and Mercedes.
My father bought a 1977 Royal Monaco station wagon for $125 In 1985. It had the 400, lean burn engine with worn cam lobes. He fixed the problem, by replacing the engine with a 360 from a rusty 1972 Chrysler New Yorker with points and condenser. 🤣
That might be because Chrysler was an Engineering company first. Always was one. It wasn't until the early 80's that Chrysler stopped doing the first class Engineering with their cars. That's why they are not as "refined" as GM or Ford. Engineers built them and so it was Function over Form.
My parents had a 90 Caravan that went through SEVEN of those transmissions under warranty. Conversely, they had a 2.2 Turbo I️ that went 250k miles with no issues.
I had a regular 2.2L in my Dodge Omni that lasted 375K miles I got it's oil changes done perfectly etc...
my 89 Caravan only went through 3 transmissions so I must have been lucky!
I've owned a Dodge Lancer, '85 with a 2.2 and it was the "greatest" right up until > 70K miles, then "everything happened to it, the power steering hose exploded, the valve cover began leaking, the oil pan began to leak, and then, > the "TIMING BELT" > broke...fortunately it wasn't an interference engine! By that time, they stopped using "gaskets" it was just RTV that they used.... such "CRAP" everyone began to make.
@@29madmangaud29 Must be a reason Chrysler had that 7/70 warranty 😂
@@toronado455 Yeah, ya know, I've always thought, to myself, > wow, if I were able to buy a new car, I should/would probably buy a Dodge/Chrysler, for that kind of Warrantee?
The most trouble prone car that I ever owned was a 1992 Chrysler Concorde. Found myself attracted to the styling and comfort of the car but soon discovered that the car was a mechanical lemon. The problems started with the transmission and rapidly progressed to a blown motor. Was still making payments when it was hauled off to the junkyard.
They knocked it out of the park with that design. I wanted the Eagle version as a kid. It's a real shame they stuck crap powertrains in them
1992 Concorde? One of none built.
I had a 2.7 sebring. It was one of the best I’d had and had over 300,000 Kms on it when I traded it. I change oil incessantly and attribute that to why this engine lasted. I heard many horror stories about them
I also had a 78 magnum with a 360 lean burn. I swapped that out immediately for a proper orange box electronic and that motor was awesome. Went through 3- 904 transmissions tho 😆
I agree about the 2.2 4 banger. I had one in a horizon that had 477,000 kms on it when it went to the wreckers. The body finally gave up trying. All id done to that was one rad and water pump, brakes, one muffler and tires. And again I spent a fair amount of time draining oil haha
Great video
Mom had a 91 Acclaim went through 3 transmissions that was covered under power train warranty it had 3.0 V6. I currently have an 86 600 w/2.5 4cyl & 88 Aries w/2.2 4cyl as both engines & transmissions are bullet proof! - they always start never let me down.
I had a 93 dodge spirit and 3 speed auto and 2.5 liter 4. I took it to 260k miles and never ran into any trouble with either one. I ran out of nerve, and bought a newer car. I still miss the car though, as it was relatively roomy and comfortable. My Toyota Echo, and now my Corolla do not give near the ride comfort or interior room of the Spirit. But the toyotas are reliable and long lasting, too.
@@bartlevenson7851 I would much rather have the spirit. I dislike tiny cars.
Adam, great review of Chrysler engines. One troublesome engine Chrysler offered, though not technically a Chrysler engine, was the 3.0 Mitsubishi V-6. I had two vehicles at the same time with those, an ‘88 front drive New Yorker, and a 1990 Plymouth Acclaim. The Acclaim had the double whammy of the V-6 and Ultra-Drive, which interestingly didn’t give me a problem for the 90,000 miles I owned it. The V-6’s drank oil however, to the tune of about 1 1/2 quarts between the 3,000 mile oil change intervals.
Also want to mention that Chrysler made two very different 318 engines. The first, introduced in 1956 and produced through 1966, was the A block or poly spherical. In 1967 Chrysler introduced the LA 318, same displacement but with a traditional wedge type combustion chamber. Both were rated at 230 horsepower, and proved to be very durable engines. Chrysler tended to use very mild cam profiles on these engines, so they are very smooth running engines. To wake them up, a longer duration cam, freer breathing carb, intake manifold, and exhaust should net at least 30-40 more horsepower, if one was so inclined.
I had a 93 Caravan with the 3.0. it was a great engine. Kept that van for 10 years with no issues.
That Mitsubishi engine was garbage, like most foreign engines. I don't think 1 1/2 quarts in 3,000 miles is much, but mine drank way more than that, and blew blue smoke out the tail pipe, so I had to register it at my brother's house, where they don't require smog checks, as it wouldn't pass. Then, it finally died by freezing up. PS: The original 318 and the later one used the same rotating assembly until the mid 70s. I would love to put the earlier one in, say, a 74, which is smog exempt, and build it to 57 Fury specs - dual quads, hot cam, 290 horsepower at 5400 RPM!
@@stepheng3667 Sure you didn't have the Chrysler built 3.3 engine? It was a much better engine than the 3.0.
@@michaelbenardo5695 Positive. Pretty sure the 3.3 came on higher trims and Grand Caravan.
@@stepheng3667 They were mixed. Chrysler couldn't build enough 3.3, so they bought 3.0 to make up for the shortage. Eventually, they were able to produce enough 3.3.
Not technically a Chrysler motor, but the 3.0 liter Mitsubishi motor that they put in so many cars - especially the minivans. As a kid, I remember seeing them in traffic and looking to see if it burned oil or not when they pulled away from the light.
I had always heard that some of the small 4 cylinder motors made for the K cars were problematic but I don't know how true that really was.
The K car 4 cyls were OK. The early carbed ones weren't great.
Loved my old M body Mopar. It just ran and ran and ran. 265 lb feet torque at 1,600 rpm is forever in my memory bank as a benchmark for low-end power (for a small block) and no newer car I've owned has met that either.
thats so low that its not even useful. all that does it just makes the vehicle feel peppy on initial throttle tip-in. torque really needs to be around 2000-2500rpm to be useful in a passenger car that travels faster than 35mph.
@@OxBlitzkriegxO anyone who experienced it would have loved it ... and remember 55 mph speed limits were in place, so exceeding 75 was dangerous to one's license. Under those parameters and 'around town' it was awesome to just feather the throttle and sense the massive torque at 800 rpm over idle.
A lot of modern turbo cars make a lot of low end torque.
My 2008 SAAB 9³ 2.8T V6 makes 285lb/ft from 1600-4000rpm and peaks at 295lb/ft at 2000rpm.
I had the dreaded Ultrdrive in my 94 G Voyager. It went into limp mode in the first thousand miles from new. After the rebuild it soldiered on to 145k when it was traded. The 3.8 ran flawlessly and was never touched.
I had a ‘95 Grand Caravan ES 3.8/4 speed. The 3.8 finally gave out at about 270k miles. The 4 speed was never touched other than regular service. The 3.8 was all original except starter and water pump.
The 2.2 was a solid engine but it was prone to blowing head gaskets. Fortunately, the were easy to replace and most anybody with the tools and a little know how could do it.
The new Felpro gasket set with new bolts was the fix for all 2.2/2.5's with head gasket issues.
I've got a 2010 Grand Caravan 3.3/4sp and it has 310K miles on the original engine and transmission, only things ever done were recalls and maintenance, I know some people who had/have 6 speed transmissions in their 2008-2020 Chrysler vans and they all have had at least one transmission rebuild or replacement every 100K miles. My 2010 SE has had a rough life, 3 moves, many trips to various states, and lots of building supplies loaded into the back yet that old Chrysler driveline just won't give up, rest of the van is falling apart, everything from electrical problems to extensive rust rot but it'll continue to be driven until something expensive breaks at which point it'll be replaced with another minivan that isn't a Dodge product, I don't like the feel of the 3.6, the vans I've driven weren't that old yet the engines make one hell of a racket and the transmissions shift weird, before I broke the flex pipe driving over a curb you could hardly hear the engine run sitting in the drivers seat, outside you could hear it due to the valvetrain rattle, piston slap, timing chain rattle and bottom end rap
whats funny is the opposite happened with our red 1997 Grand Caravan in our family with the 3.8 and the engine ran beautifully but the transmission failed, hard shifting and metal shavings on the magnet in the trans pan... only 147,000 miles. It was rarely dogged on or floored and driven normally by my mom.
Once the 2000s hit, the curse of the Ultradrive was mostly left behind. My family has had several Dodge Caravans that got driven into rust where the 3.3 and the transmission never needed a major service. HVAC, now, that is a particular pain on 4th-5th generation Chrysler minivans.
@@jessebrook1688 Surprisingly the HVAC system in my 2010 has lasted 12 years and 300K+ miles, now it has a substantial leak that isn't worth fixing or recharging
My daughter owned a 2004 dodge stratus former government fleet car.
When I first brought the car home immediately change the oil and found sludge. For the next 5000 miles I change the oil every 1000 miles without using any type of cleaner. I only used Pennzoil platinum full synthetic oil in a factory filter.
After that roughly 40,000 miles later, (I purchased a car with 26K and it now has 75K) i’m doing an oil change and I can see the coolant pooling at the top of the oil.
I immediately found there was a TSB that came with a new water pump, different style timing chain, sprockets, tensioner‘s, the entire front of the engine had a redesign all the moving parts. When the front of the engine was torn apart I could see into the oil pan and it was perfectly clean as in like new not even stained!!
The one fatal flaw for that engine was fixed with a technical service bulletin no one knew anything about!
After the car had over 100,000 miles on it I sold it to a friend of the family.
To this Day with almost 200,000 miles on it the car is still going.
I can guarantee you it’s not getting it’s all changed every 3000 miles like it was for the first hundred thousand miles.
Lord any knows what type of oil and filter are going in it for the second hundred thousand miles..
The pointers the fatal flaw that the engine had Chrysler solved. If they were like Toyota they would’ve recalled all those engines perform that work for the customers in the car wouldn’t of had a bad reputation.
In the Stratus the 2.7 V6 made the car almost as fast as a Honda accord V6 at half the price.
Using the 2.7 L V6 in the charger the magnum in the 300 was just flat out of a mistake!
It could not get out of its own way.
excellent report everything you said was true . My first Chrysler engine was a 331 Hemi in a 1955 New Yorker Deluxe - that was high school - had no idea how good we had it !!!
Yeah, the 55-59 mopars had beautiful styling too. :))
@@crankychris2 yes they did - Virgil Exner to the rescue !!
I started driving in 1978. To this day, whenever I hear the word "electronic" in any context, images of stumbling engines, inexplicable and expensive breakdowns, and general vehicular mayhem flash through my mind. First impressions truly are lasting ones
Yup, and it's all because an internal combustion engine is extremely complicated compared to an electric motor. Someone is gonna come out with a car that is cheaper, faster and easier to repair than any ICE car on the market and everything about the driving experience will be better.
Just think, no oil changes, no timing issues, no vibrations, an undercarriage that has ZERO transmission parts hanging around getting rusty, no catalytic converter to get stolen . . .
It's all positive, besides the fact that every auto mechanic is gonna be replaced by a 20 year old kid with an electronics degree.
@@steezydan8543 Flipside: batteries. They lose some percentage of their storage capacities every time they're charged, and eventually will require replacement, which at this point, costs more than the car will be worth. Running accessories results in a diminution of range - this occurs with combustion engines but the effect is less pronounced. Also, any road accident has the potential to become a Superfund site due to toxic metals and electrolytes.
And yes, at some point these problems will be solved. There's no need to hurry at it though - let the technology mature
My family and friends had excellent luck with Dodge, Chrysler, and Plymouth cars. I can't remember any serious problems with them, quality control issues and sloppy workmanship was always evident, but they all ended up being high mileage vehicles when traded. I had friends who drove mid-sixties Chrysler New Yorkers and they were great, but no so glamorous as the GM luxo cars. Friends returning from the war bought super Bees, Road Runners, Barracudas, Chargers, and Challengers and loved them. There were one or two Coronet 2drs driven by girls, and they were pretty nice, the cars that is. One friend had a wagon. Dodge vans and pickups from the that era were utilitarian, sold on contract to police, fire, and utility companies. They seemed to be reliable. Ugly, I can't think of one that was purchased out right by an individual. In the early 70's we had to replace carburetors and valve guides when leaded fuel was banished.
That is because Chrysler was still a company led by Engineers. Function over form EVERY time. Which is why I have always been a MOPAR fan.
I’ve owned 9 Chrysler MiniVans & 1 Dodge Ram truck. I had extremely good luck with every one of the Vans although on 2 of my 3.3L V6s the Head Gaskets went. On one it caused the head to crack. I’ve only purchased one of the 9 new. The others were all used. The used ones were all purchased with over 100,000 miles on them. Most of them I drove to well over 200,000 miles before I sold them.
On one, a 1986, I had over 200,000 miles on it when I bought it and drove it to over 300,000miles. It had that ‘awful’ Mitsubishi 2.6 (?) in it. I never had a lick of trouble and it, nor none of my others, have ever burned oil. I change my oil religiously on all of my vehicles at 2500 to 3K miles. As well as doing all of the other upkeep.
The one Van we bought new was #7, in 2002. It’s a T & C Limited which we still own and is still a daily driver. It now has 280,000 miles. With it we had a Class 4 hitch installed and got the Tow pkg. & the Tow/Haul trans. We pulled a 3200# 30’ Camping trailer which I spent an entire year looking for one that the towing capacity of the Van could handle. It’s been a great vehicle and I’m going to lament the day it goes away but rust is finally taking its toll.
My Dodge Ram 1500 4X4 Quad Cab 5.7L Hemi is incredible!! We got that when it was nearly a year old w/19K on it. It now has 256K miles on it and is my daily driver. We also got that w/Tow Pkg. & Trans. This truck engine has again been nearly completely trouble free. I’ve replaced the water pump, fuel pump and alternator once each. I’ve replaced every suspension component in the front end, the Power steering pump and the Rack & Pinion. I bought an ‘05 Florida truck w/a blown 318 for a parts truck. I have already replaced the bed because Chrysler in their infinite wisdom put Styrofoam inside the Rear Fender Wells to act as silencers or something. They retained water and rusted all the rear fenders out for a few years just above the wheel openings.
Unfortunately my Rocker Panels are also now rusting so I will be changing those out as well shortly.
I grew up with GM cars. My Dad was a Buick employee. So until the late ‘80s I drove Chevys, Buicks & Cadillacs with an errant VW & International thrown in. Those were some great cars and some dogs. Had a ‘76 Chevette w/small engine & automatic trans!! Barf performance but great mileage.
I still have my ‘63 Sedan deVille 4 Window w/390 cid V-8 and the last year of Cadillac’s (and GM’s) first automatic trans, the original Hydramatic. Trans shops all said it was the most complex trans they ever worked on. My Grandfather, a Chevrolet/Buick/Olds Dealership Service Manager for 43 years used to say that the smoother they shifted the closer they were to failing. I bought that car in 1980 w/139,000 miles on it and no history other than it had been a Florida car. I’ve used it for pleasure driving and put it in local car shows. It’s not perfect because it’s all original. I’ve done nothing but service the car and had a little small rust repaired. It now has 164,000 miles.
I’d like to say in closing that any engine, no matter how poor will give you much fewer problems if regularly maintained.
Now let me tell you about my ‘73 Fleetwood….. Bwahahaha! Jk!! Have a great day!
I had two Dodge/Plymouth Neons with the 2.0-liter 4-cylinder engine. It was a peppy little powerplant when coupled to the 5-speed manual. The problem I had with this engine was it loved to blow head gaskets. I've read this was a common problem for the 2.0. It's a shame because otherwise, it was a fun car to drive. When you do the best Chrysler engines, you have to include the venerable Slant 6. That engine would run forever with very little fuss.
The head gasket issue was only on SOHC engines, and was caused by using the wrong head gasket. The part itself was recalled and replaced with a multilayer gasket
3:00 the real problem was when it would bust somewhere along the cooling system the aluminum head couldn't take being overheated. So more than likely if you overheated the engine you'd probably end up with a cracked head.
The early 2.2L trans 4 had head gasket issues, but later versions were dependable.
The carbed versions had a tendency to stall. I still remember my grandmother’s ‘84 Reliant stalled every so often.
First shop I worked in, the boss showed me the deal on that.
Pull the air filter lid off , shoot some carb cleaner in all the brass air bleeds you see, rev it up and hand choke it from high revs so the vacuum pulls the crap thru the bleeds.
Voila ,it's good.
Well, for a few weeks to a month or 2.
That guy was always stoping in because it would stall from that.
2.2L was certainly better than the alternative engine option from Mitsubishi. The 2.6L equipped cars & those where the ones you always saw on the side of the road with their hoods up when new!
I remember Grama and Grampa's Horizon, they bought it new in 78 or 79. It was kind of a shit pile :/ In a few years Chrysler had the bugs worked out of those cars though.
@@johneckert1365 Those had the VW 1.7 as Chrysler didn’t have any engines suitable for the Omnirizon in North America at the time.
I owned a 1986 Chrysler Laser 2.2 Turbo 5 speed & it was a quite reliable engine & fun to drive. The systems monitoring system that actually spoke to you got old really quick though "Please check your washer fluid" & the mute button was totally annihilated by end of my ownership.
LOL, they were! " The door is a jar"... 😊
@@highwayman1218 I'd talk back to it.
The door is not a jar it's a door and it's open 😂
@@MrTheHillfolk Haha, same. 👍
I had an 87 Maxima that had that annoying voice..."key is in the ignition...BEEP...key is in the ignition...BEEP ...all day long if you didn't close the door. Amazing how some of these things are cutting edge technology, and a few years later, laughable.
My all time favorite "A door is a jar"
I always thought a door was a door.
86 Dodge Lancer 2.2l Turbo-1
Lean Burn carburetion was horrible. Had a '76 Royal Monaco with the 400 motor/2 barrel Lean Burn carb. Had a '73 Fury III with a 360 2 barrel at the same time. The Fury left the Royal Monaco in the dust as far as power.
Royal Monaco! Remember it well, mostly for its habit of stalling off the line, then roaring to life with a backfire through the exhaust and intake. My date was not impressed……
I had a 77 Plymouty Suburban Wagon with a 400cid Lean Burn fortunately the one problem that I had was the module hanging off the air cleaner, the grounding was poor and when the dealer could not find the problem I ran a separate wire directly to battery (-) and it was fixed. Your are correct Chrysler had some solid engines but they where plagued with various EPA bandaid of the time.
Nicely done! I've had an 81 Imperial with fuel injection the whole time (not good), almost all the Lean Burns where a few I converted (and mom had a 2.2 Turbo that she put 300,000 miles on with zero failures and then the car suffered an unfortunate accident that racked the frame). Enjoyed your video!!
I remember selling Dodge RAM trucks in 1994. The 318 did run very lean. Alot vibration at idle when it was cold but the 360 was very good idle when at a cold start.
I have a 98 Ram with 135K. The 318 is a good engine in my opinion.
I was in school when they came out with the lean burn engine. They sent a Chrysler techie to show us how to use a scope on those. I think only a couple of guys understood wtf it was and did. It was a short time period of charging people 50 bucks to knock all the stuffing out of converters.
In the late 70s early 80s I was young and always played with the mixture and timing on cars I bought. The best one was a 69 Tempest with the Overhead Cam six cylinder and 3epeed manual, in auto shop at school (Remember when schools offered that) I used the Sun Test machine and easily adjusted everything to get 27-28mpg highway. That was a cool car maybe one day you could find one do a video on. Highschool shop classes were great back then, I upholstered the whole car with a very tasteful cloth and Naga hide. I was able to repaint the car Canary Yellow. I then put Goodrich Lifesaver Radials on it. I wish I had not lost my pictures of it, it was pretty popular, one of my dad's airforce pilot friends offered twice as much as I paid for it and I let it go.
Of course, I have regretted it ever since.
Great video as always, I love these talks. I would say you could have added that 4 cylinder that was in Stratus and Sebrings in the early 2000s. Everyone I knew with one of those motors blew up 🤦🏾♂️
Best thing I did was to ditch the lean bum system and carburetor, and swap in a distributor from a 1973 Plymouth Scamp and a Holley 2bbl carb. The catalytic converters "fell off" and the EGR valve was closed off by simply taking it off and rotating it 180 degrees, effectively blocking it off. Gas mileage improved significantly, and it was really fun to drive.
ELB in Australia was a brilliant device (specially in the local Hemi 6) thanks to the talent Chrysler Australia Engineers!
But had the same poor mounting problems close to the exhaust manifold and thermal paste drying up after a few years like in the US cars!
I have also ran into problems with the timing chains of the 3.9 V-6 in 90's pick ups. The engine was based on the venerable 318, but they obviously did little testing on the 3.9 version of the engine. There is an update timing chain, but it would have been great if the factory would have caught the issue in testing. The 4 speed auto trans would barely last 100,000 miles. We did SK update kits on all these these transmissions we encountered and then they lasted great... Just lousy engineering and testing. Too many short cuts Another modern Chrysler boner is the 4.7 V-8. For some silly reason, they painted the interior of the oil pan. In a few years, the paint clogs the oil pump then killing the engine. Stay clear of the 4.7 !!
Interesting info. I live just a few miles from you in Clinton Twp. Love seeing your collection of land yachts and all the detailed info. My gradfather used to flip classice cars of that era when i was a teenager. I wanted his 69 Bonneville convertible w/ 428 so bad but he sold it before I could get the money. It was 2000$ running and driving with very little rust back then ( late 80s). He ususally had about 4 or 5 cars he was working with. 66 new yorker 383, 76 Eldorado 425, 77 continental, 55 ford 3/tree, 77 LTD, vw bus, etc. i drove all of them as a 15 year old on the farm.
Boy the 2.7 design...If thats not a "designed to fail" for service revenue example I dont know what is. Its a shame that manufacturers do this when they certainly could design a decent drivetrain that lasts.
My 318 dart motor was incredibly durable. Our 383 Fury leaked out radiator fluid and the block still didn't fry. Terrific engine. Then I bought a used 2.2 1985 Chrysler. Burned oil at 60,000 miles. Nothing but problems. Blew a head gasket at 90,000 and I had enough. Never bought Chrysler since. I'm that bitter. I would buy anything Chrysler up to 1975 though when they were tough cars.
I agree. The 3.7 is garbage too. The 4.7 had issues as well. My rule of thumb is to stay away from any of the engines ending with .7 when dealing with Chrysler.
In my experience the 3.7 and 4.7 are pretty decent motors. Not the most powerful but they tend to last pretty well when maintained. The 3.7 is a bit loud, a little gutless, and a bit rough, the 4.7 doesn’t make a ton of hp and they also had pcv issues on the early ones, the entire family except for I believe 08+ 4.7’s are very very sensitive to overheating. They’ll drop a valve seat and blow a head gasket pretty quick, but change the oil, and don’t overheat it and they do fine, solid workhorses. A bonus is that they’re pretty easy to work on and simple.
I've found that a 4.7 is either a 90k mile or 350k engine. The problem is you never know which you'll get. They all have the leaky exhaust manifold gasket, especially the driver's side.
Got a 05 3.7L goin on 200k. Doesnt burn a drop of oil. Only had to replace the radiator and water pump. Have a neighbor that has one with over 300k. He says he'll drive it till it dies or he dies. Not sure about the 4.7 but the 3.7l is definitely not "garbage."
My daughter's Jeep Commander w/4.7L lasted well past 300k miles, when she traded it in on a new Grand Cherokee. She never had a lick of trouble with the engine, & running gear. In fact, the only problem she ever had was the Rt rear electric window switch wore out.
Though I had a 99 Intrepid w/2.7L, which failed catastrophically(like you described), I otherwise really liked that engine. I got better than 29mpg freeway. And it was the quietest engine I've ever heard. Inside, I could only tell for sure that it was running by looking at the tach. Outside, I could be standing right next to it and I couldn't tell if it was running. It was pretty peppy, too, especially for only 2.7L displacement.
I used to work for Chrysler. Part of the problem with the Chrysler electronic ignition originally, was the fact that the Big frame gear reduction starter did not turn the engine over fast enough for the reluctor to pick up a signal and start the engine. They fixed that eventually after they figured that out by redesigning the starter gear ratio. The worst engine in my estimation was the 360 which would misfire cylinder number one on purpose in order to warm the engine up more quickly. We were told to never give a cold 360 to a customer. The consequence of this system, was that it would literally fracture the spark plug in cylinder number one and then the pieces of the spark plug would get dragged into the cylinder and pulverized
I’m surprised I haven’t seen a mention of the 2.0 in the first gen Neon. From my understanding the engineers specked a MLS head gasket, however the Daimler overlords killed that. As such the head gaskets failed on these engines A LOT.
The 2.2 turbocharged engines were garbage as well. Head gaskets failed more often than anything else.
@@cward1954 bs. Change the head gasket to a MLS and no problems.
Have owned over 6 2.2 turbos and all were reliable
@@Welcometofacsistube I got rid of that car years ago.
The first gen neon predates the Daimler merger by four years, and it remainder the one car Daimler never touched.
The head gasket issue was only one first year production SOHC motors, as a single layer gasket was installed by mistake. The issue resulted in a recall and the free replacement of gaskets with a multilayered gasket. The engines themselves are great, with examples running up over 500,000 miles with basic maintenance
Fwiw, the early minivans had the 2.6 Mitsubishi. Timing chain tensioner fails from low oil level, chain drags on timing cover. Repaired like a million of them. Thanks for the video.
You point out - Chrysler engine history is much better than GM, and I’ve had a bunch of them from flat head 6s from the forties and fifties , slant 6s, V8s both A (318s and 360,) and B ( 383/400) , front wheel drive V6s - 2.5/3.3,/3.8/3.6) all bullet proof and all over 200,000 miles. You are right about the 2.7l, but with that I have just been lucky- 20 years on a Sebring convertible - 187000 miles no engine problems.
I always said Chrysler would never have survived if they put out the dog engines GM did.
Great episode! I would've liked to hear more about the 2.7's problems though. There was timing chain tensioner issues and I believe oil pump issues.
I will say that a full-size Chrysler with a 2.7 sure was fantastic on fuel though
I recently discovered your channel and I've been enjoying your videos. The problem with the 2.7 V6 is interesting. While researching used cars I've heard the same internal water pump issue with some Ford V6s (specifically the 3.5). Curious if this is a common problem.
I honestly can never get over the mindset of the engineer who decides to put the water pump internally on an engine. It’s got to be the or one of the dumbest ideas I could think of and really shows some of these engineers are literal dweebs who just were good at school and have no hands on/real life experience.
The ford 3.5 with the internal water pump leaks externally when it goes bad if it’s not a catastrophic failure
It was common to have "internal" water pumps on v6 DOHC engine architecture.
I'm a Mopar man and a mechanic enjoyed your video very spot on knowledge thanks!!
Chrysler's major failure points the thermoquad 4-barrel plastic and aluminum Contracting and expanding at two different rates. Lean burn on small block, when I got 1 it was on an 87 5th Avenue. I took the distributor out throw it in the box took the lane burnout in the same box. I ran a points distributor ran a wire from the positive side of the battery cool switch under the dash then the other side of the switch Iran to the positive side of the coil a wire from the negative side of the coil to the distributor. Then I got one with that garbage 400 big block I beat the carburetor with a sledgehammer literally I really did through a Holley 4-barrel on it pulled the distributor out the lean burnout threw it in the garbage since a 400 was a low block I took a 383 distributor dual-point did the same thing and then I put a Holley 650 4-barrel on it
Here's some notables, cam chain and tensioners on 2.6L fours, Valve guides dropping and stem seals on 3.0L V-6s, head gasket failures on 2.2 - 2.5 L fours (fixable but chronic) Virtually every head gasket failed on 2.0-2.4L fours. Nothing terminal but significant failures. My 2002 3.8 V-6 approaching 200k is happy as a clam, trans failure at 160K but not unexpected for a 41TE
Thanks for your prolific work, Adam. You're cranking them out at an amazing pace.
I had a '79 Aspen with a slant 6. A wagon. It never ran smoothly and had lots of drivability issues. And, it showed a lot of wear at a shockingly low milage. Seats coming apart at the seams at 25K miles? It did handle and brake well by the standards of the day, but the engine was terrible and the interior quality was not good - as it was on other Chrysler products that come to mind - same issue with 1970 Barracuda interior seats and trim pieces. But the pre-smog 318 was a peppy engine. Maybe not as smooth as a 302 from the same period, but no slouch in the power department.
I bought a new 77 Aspen with Slant six ...same thing. Ran like crap at idle. Couldn't make it idle smooth no matter what I did. The Dodge dealership couldn't fix it either. Finally I replaced the defective Holley carburetor with a new one....ran like a clock from that point on. Must have had a bad bunch of Holley carburetors.
@@northdakotaham1752 The slant was a good engine (though not a quiet one).
@@arevee9429 never noticed the noise I guess. I don't have the Aspen and longer but I still have a 66 D100 Sweptline pickup with Slant Six and four speed. Needs a major clean up and most likely an overhaul. Looking forward to working on it!
Adam, Thanks for sharing. I love the porch chats!!
As to the Ultradrive 4 speed transmissions....the problem that was changing the fluid with other then ATF 4 which would cause all the problems. I have and own a 92 New Yorker, and have no problems at all thru the years. By the by, he didn't mention the 3.3, and for good reason, a terrific motor that will give you several hundred thousand miles.
The fluid is a really underrated problem. GM and Ford can interchange fluid (hence Dex/Merc), but Chrysler fluid is its own thing. In fact, Chrysler got so fed up with fluid issues, they made the ATF+4 standard extremely strict. In order to put ATF+4 on the bottle, the formulation has to be exact, down to whom you get which chemicals from. Theoretically this means that any off-brand gas station Chrysler fluid will be identical to the most expensive brand. Jiffy Lube alone had probably killed a million Chrysler transmissions just by treating ATF as interchangeable "red stuff".
Agree on the fluid. Years ago had 3.8 caravan that my wife decided to take in to a jiffy lube for an oil change. They convinced her to do a trans fluid change. I called and asked what type of fluid they used a d they assured me that they used an additive that made it equivalent to atf+3. I contacted their head office in Vancouver Canada with my concern, and after being told they stood behind the additive, and would "warranty" my transmission if it failed, I had them fax me the documentation proving the additive was mopar atf certified. Upon receiving them, I contacted mopar legal in the US, and forwarded them the documents. They informed me that the additive had not been approved, contacted Jiffy Lube hq, who then paid for a complete trans flush and fill at a local dealer. I never had a problem with that transmission, but this I am sure is the cause of many failures.
Excellent post, thanks. Ford/Mopar guy here.
Had two Sebrings with the 2.7 - put over 200k miles on both.
Strictly luck.
@@spaceghost8995 on two vehicles? I think low end vehicles often get a bad rap because many are poorly maintained and fail/have issues as a result. Regular Oil changes are absolutely vital for the 2.7.
@@gordtulk Yeah ok buddy. Thousands worldwide are all mistaken and thousands of mechanics are ALL mistaken. Only YOU oh wise one know the truth. Lol
I agree, change the oil regularly, it'll keep on going
I feel you're quite fair in your observations. My '79 360 burned all the exhaust valves but taking it back to a '74 ignition system smartened it right up. The 7 1\4 rear end behind a slant 6 was fine. I never heard of any problems unless it was used for a wrong application.
Now if only Adam can buy and review one of those carb-converted 318 Imperials!
Australian Chryslers in the late 70s adopted the Lean Burn feedback carburettor system firstly on the 318 Valiants in 1977 but when they were fitted to the 245 and 265 Australian inline sixes known as the hemi six (though not true hemispherical combustion chambers), similar to the 4.0 litre six in the Jeeps, the fuel economy achieved had motoring journalists taking notice. 20 mpg was achievable around town and 25-27 mpg was achieved in mainly open road driving from both sixes.
I read the analogue ECU was only designed to last 20 years. There is a guy called Ray Cook in Queensland who specialises in working on and tuning and reconditioning these Chrysler lean burn set ups known as ELB -Electronic Lean Burn on the Australian built Chryslers which ceased production in August of 81.
One of my buddies had a '60 Valiant with the Slant-6 and 3 speed automatic. That thing was unstoppable and a great little car.
The slant six was a jewel of engineering. I have seen those things rack up 300,000 miles (with only basic upkeep, that is) and keep on going.
@@xaenon
I wish I had an old Valiant or Dart with that engine.
I really like to have my cars as stock as possible, however I could not bear the lean burn system on my 79 New Yorker. I ended up just putting an edelbrock and going to points ignition. The thing is, if I ever want to go to stock it's a 30 minute job to swap back to the lean burn system.
My buddy had an 04 Sebring with the 2.7, Chrysler actually replaced the engine under a recall notice with an external water pump version because of that issue.
Nope there is NO External water pump version of the 2.7. There is also NO recall that addresses a 2.7 complete engine replacement. That is Incorrect. It may have been relplaced under warranty,but not because of a recall. And only w/the same internal water pump 2.7 because it is the only version they offered.
The problem with the Imperial 318 F.I. engine was the routing of the alternator wiring harness. Re-routing of the harness solved the problem. That is why so many can be found with the original engines today. Around here, before they discovered the real cause of the problems, the dealers re-powered the cars with a 360 V8, to retain the same level of power that the 318 F.I. engine had.
We didn't get the same "Lean-Burn" systems in California as the other 49 States. The main problem we had was that the vacuum advance unit would go bad. At the time, the entire "Lean-Burn" computer had to be replaced to get a new advance diaphragm.
This is really an interesting video. I mean they all are, I'm always getting answers to questions I didn't know I had. I knew about the 2.7l sludge issue, but never knew why it was an issue until today.
After seeing the problems Chrysler had with the troublesome 2.7, Ford stupidly proceeded to make engines with internal water pumps as well with the same result.
The ultra drive mostly suffered from that external solenoid pack failing. I got a ton of miles out of 2 ultraglides, 1 in a umc aeromate step van actually hauling tools, another in a 96 intrepid. I found keeping that sol pack and the connector clean and dry helps the lifespan. Regular Chrysler +4 fluid changes and ALWAYS coming to a complete stop prior to moving the shift lever. I had one absolutely internally grenade after my ex drove it for a week with the habit of shifting from reverse to drive before it fully stopped. If you maintain them well and drive them properly they can last with a solenoid pack change eventually. However, after searching a salvage yard for a good replacement, I pulled 16 pans til I found one that wasn't cooked or grenaded. The biggest annoyance was most owners and shops had absolutely no clue that using any other trans fluid than Chrysler +3/+4 would 100% guarantee clutch failure.
Was for me very sad to see listed in N. 1 worst engine, that 2.7 liter V6 engine, fitted in that gorgeous Intrepid 1998/2004 line up because is very attractive and advanced body design one as well. Thanks God, here in my country, Colombia, the 361, 360, 413, 318 and 225 slant six units did not have any issue, due to the old school mechanics, carburated, manual chokes and no starting engine issues at all. The 361, and 360, for medium heavy trucks operated with Holley carbs, and the others, with Carter carburators, early 70 and late 70's references as well. Less electronics devices, more reliable engines, and as I told you above, Colmotores, the assembly plant, didn`t folled around testing any pollution devices, because our enviromental rules in those years, did not exist here at all. And let me tell you some interesting rear end mumbers: Because Colombia is very rough country, high hills and plans, the Andes Mountain System, 4.5 to 1 gear ratios in the trucks and 3.95 to 1 rear end ratios in the automobiles, Dart, Diplomat, Coronet and Aspen models, was a must in order to get a nice open roads performances. Eaton 16221 and 17221 models fitted in D700/600 medium trucks, Dana 70 rear ends for D/300 P/300 models and Dana 44 fitted on passenger cars listed above. Thanks for your videos and the technical data you share here.
Almost a year later, and watching this again, I would like to say that the Chrysler 318 has become one of my favorite Chrysler small block V8 engines. A good friend of mine has a 1986 Dodge Ramcharger 4x4, 4 speed manual, lifted and riding on Super Swampers wrapped around 15 inch wheels, and I have been helping him with working on it. That engine has taken more abuse than ANY OTHER engine I have seen in person. When he bought it, it ran like garbage, it idled like it had a big cam, it took forever to start hot or cold, it struggled to get going in 1st (granny) gear, and it could barely do 50 MHP on the highway. It was bad, I thought the engine was toast. And he drove it home 6 hours running like this! However, the list of issues I found from the previous owner, is extensive. The short list: Vacuum leaks at the carburetor base, at the unneeded carburetor adapter, intake manifold to the head and engine block (Edelbrock intake manifold), at the miss routed brake booster hose, and all the plugs in the manifold. The carburetor (Edelbrock 1406) was so badly adjusted, the primary butterflies had the transition holes completely uncovered and then some, and it was so nasty inside the carburetor one of the jets turned to dust on the secondary side when I tried to take it out. Last, but certainly not least, it some how would run, with the initial timing retarded about 10 degrees! It was THE perfect storm of wrong, to somehow run. Even when the temps here dropped to -14*F, his truck started and ran when his roommate's 2020 Silverado 1500 wouldn't. My friend reinstalled his intake manifold properly, I went through and tracked down EVERY vacuum leak and fixed them with fresh hose, a gasoline safe sealant on the intake plugs, cleaned the carburetor and replaced the one jet, set the float bowls correctly, set fuel pressure to the recommended spec for the carb, and we got to work on starting it. All that work, setting the initial timing to 8 to 10 degrees BTDC, cold you pump the throttle twice, turn the key, the engine fires in maybe one full revolution to two. Hot, same thing without the throttle pump. The engine runs like NOTHING ever happened. The truck will do 70 MPH even with the big tires (35 inch, I think) GPS confirmed, though it does slow to 50 on long, or steep hills he has to downshift to 3rd to maintain 45 MPH. That said, soon his Ramcharger will have a rebuilt and fuel injected 440 big block in it, and shorter gearing for the axles along with a full drive line rebuild. That little beast 318 may get rebuilt and put in a 4 speed Duster after the truck is done.
I think sometimes....the extended oil change intervals pushes a fairly reliable engine into a total pile of junk.
My Chrysler experience....Dodge Dakota 3.9 LA V6...a 318 minus two cylinders....and the son of lean burn emissions controls since the 87s had the 2bbl carb. Hard to keep tuned properly,...not a powerhouse and a bit thrashy at idle. As the engine ages the timing chain starts to loosen so you get some chain slap at idle.
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2.4 four cylinder. Not as refined as a Toyota or Honda but decent power and economy. This is a situation of staying on top of maintenance to keep it reliable.
Find a mechanic willing to do the timing belt/water pump on the Cruiser 2.4. Jimmy Hoffa riding a unicorn is an easier find.
The 2.7 v6 was a good engine. We put 125k miles on ours with no problems. A Chrysler tech told me to simply keep the oil changed. I have also owned 273, 318, 225, 360. 3.5 and 4.0 Mopar engines. All were good motors.
The Chrysler transmissions,problems misdiagnosed a lot.Have seen it a lot
I get a participation trophy for guessing the 2.7L! It’s really a shame because I really liked the style of the Sebring convertibles, but if you wanted any reasonable performance you were forced into that horrible V-6. Thanks for this video, Adam! 👍👍👍
I'm shocked at how many old man Sebring convertibles I see that look mint and have low mileage around here.
Not sure if it's because they are always broken or it's a boring car 🤣
Sir your right on point with the 2.7 V6. Those engines were for the most part not bad, they ran good and were fairly smooth. There was a small weep hole machined in the block to allow coolant to leak out when the water pump was starting to fail. That is if only the internal seal failed. Thus not allowing coolant to enter internally into the engine. Depending where the vehicle was driven, those weep holes would get plugged up not allowing the coolant to drain out. If a bearing failed in the pump, besides the noise it made coolant would enter the engine and by the the time the owner was aware the damage was done. To replace the water pump was to say the least, was very timely and expensive. Based on the mileage usually the timing chain components also needed replacing. The resale of those vehicles equiped with that engine at the time were very weak so sometimes it wasnt cost effective to repair. So allot were scrapped, mechanically totaled. If I remember in the early years of production of that engine (I think it was from `98 -`02 maybe later) they had oiling problems with the crankshafts, the oil passages were under drilled or something to that affect. Later engines had the improved oiling systems along with the remanufactured units. The 3.5 V6 was by far a better engine it got about the same mileage but much more power and far more reliable. With those it was timing belts, water pumps and plug wires. As for the earlier engines, besides the 3.0 Mitsubishi V6, they also used a 2.6 Mitsubishi l4 in the '80s which was a decent engine but expensive to repair. Overall Chrysler never really build a totally bad engine, GM owns the trophy on that one, many to say the least.
Yo weepholes that constantly get plugged up make that a BAD engine. Besides that, if someone noticed coolant leaking they probably wouldn't be alarmed, they might assume it's a hose or whatever and they might just add coolant and would have no idea that coolant is in the block. Who would guess that? Also, it was not just the water pump stupidity. Those engines failed all the time even without a coolant leak.
I worked part time for an independent garage in my late teens when there were lots of Lean Burn Mopars on the road, and recall performing what we referred to as a "sex change " on several of them, with conventional carburetors and distributors.
Chrysler was decent up into the late '90s once FIAT got their mitts into them they went to sh*t.
My mother had a 1980 Chrysler Lebaron with the slant six engine. It was a two door and gorgeous with wire wheel covers and opera lamps, but when cold, you couldn't back out of the garage without it stalling at least once. Once warm, it was great and had plenty of power, even though today it would be laughable.
I had a 1980 Dodge Diplomat wt the same engine. The Slant 6 was built to work for 20 years and the carburetor was built to work for 20 days.
You didn't mention "old Smokey" the 3.0L V6.... I know, I know, it's technically a Mitsubishi engine but it was used in tons of Chrysler vehicles.
And it was garbage. Nothing like a REAL Chrysler engine.
When I worked at a Chrysler Dodge dealer we call 3.0L v6 the 3 leaker because of how bad those leaked oil.
@@classicwefi It did everything bad - it leaked, it smoked, it drank (oil), it siezed.
The 3.0L v6 Mitsubishi leaked oil from the cam shaft seals,
made an absolute mess of the front of the engine.
And then the water pump would fail, making your take the whole front of the motor off to change the pump (and the timing belt driving it)
@@ltsradio I can't stand that setup - rubber timing chain, water pump driven by it, and water pump inside the timing cover. We here in North America obsoleted that concept of driving the water pump with the timing chain for obvious reasons, yet the Japanese brought it back with no objection from the stupid public. They also have brought back the Panel Delivery, which we replaced with the Van. Strange how they can pretend long obsolete concepts are something new and innovative.
I had a 92 Chrysler 5th avenue New Yorker. Beautiful car, but it had the electronic 4speed overdrive tranny that klunked if you didn't come to a complete stop before you started off. Another thing we learned about it is you cannot use 92 octane or above in a Mopar motor that doesn't require it. We had the big Mopar V6. The motor got a bad carbon build up on the head, fortunately our dealer's mechanic knew how to get it off without removing the head. At 75,000 miles the light switch for the glove box broke and "fried" the alternator, both O2 sensors went out, and the belt tensioner went "night night". The 92 acclaim and lebaron also gave me a lot of trouble as well as the Chrysler Town and Country Minivan tranny.
Hmm...2.7l v6 huh? Looks in garage....OH NO!! LOL Either I'm lucky...or just lucky....and hope to stay lucky. Haha. Bought my 2001 Chrysler Sebring Convertible Limited on Halloween 2001...scary huh? Haha. Over 20 years of ownership...engine continues to run great at 120k miles. I'll admit, it has not been my daily driver on a regular basis since 2003...which seems weird, but at the time I wanted to "keep the miles off"...well that went out the window with a few job changes all over the US, Maine, California, Texas...and while I loved ALL those trips...the miles racked up. Plus...been taking it to the Chrysler Nationals in Carlisle, PA...that's 1400 miles from here, each way. But...again, yes, I'm very lucky...and you're right on the water pump quote. My trusted shop said it was about $1500, before tax..lol. Did I mention I've been lucky?
I remember renting some of the Chrysler 300s and Dodge vehicles back then. The first one I rented had a 3.6L V6 and performed adequately. The next one I rented had that 2.7L you mentioned. It would be easy to understand how that engine would get beat to crap quickly, it was just too small for those full sized vehicles, constantly downshifting and breathing hard just to maintain highway speeds.
As far as I understand, the 2.7Ls were fine up until the water pump started leaking.
I rented an 05 Chrysler 300 Touring with the 3.5 V6 and it performed well. It had plenty of power on steep grades. I also rented an 06 Dodge Magnum with the 2.7 V6 and it felt strained on any hill. It seemed underpowered with a full load of passengers.
The best thing to do with a lean burn cars to remove all of that as well as exhaust recirculation pump. Convert it to a four barrel, dual exhaust, headers as well. Get rid of the cat as well. Did that with my 80's Ram 4x4 truck and the 318 is shall we say "woke"! Lol
Could care less about emissions and all that global warming nonsense.
Plate C
Global warming is a tax control scam
I disagree with the lean burn system being bad. Having been an owner of a 1984 Fifth Avenue with the 318 lean burn that I bought when it was 5 years old with 80k miles, I had zero issues with it. I kept that car longer than any car I have ever had because I loved it so. It made numerous trips from VA Beach to upstate NY and took me an hour to work for several years and never let me down. As far as being sluggish...give me a break. By 80's standards that car moved. At 241k miles the timing chain finally went. Not knowing if there was internal damage, my mechanic bought it from me, fixed the chain, and gave it to his wife to drive. I know she had it for at least another year.
That was a later lean burn system. The early ones were more troublesome.
You probably had good maintenance and all the planets aligned. I'm a big Chrysler fan and the engineering always has been on the forefront but lack of money at any given point caused there failures and Lean burn was one of them.
We had a 77 Monaco 318cid with the worst carburetor ever. it replaced a 72 Coronet after it was rearended. Virtually the same car/motor combination but lightyears apart from a driveabilty standpoint. Our familyonly bought Toyota's after that.
Noted comment about the very tall axle ratios. Not to forget, cars so equipped also received the A999 with the low first gear, which, with a mildly tuned 318, or, even better, a 360, were a nice package. Another great package was the F-bodies was a 318 and four speed A833 overdrive.
Adam, Anyone who walks into a Chrysler dealership and buys anything other than a Slant 6 is looking for trouble 🤩
Nah. Their old school V8s were pretty darn good.
383 and 318s were fine!
Hey Adam, thanks for sharing another informative porch chat!!!
Early in my auto parts career, a guy came in looking for Dodge parts. He had just bought a used Charger with the 2.7 engine sold to him by a buy-here pay-here car lot where they finance weekly payments for forever. This customer needed some coolant, radiator hoses and leak stop. Hearing all that, I had to resist gasping. The 2.7 sent us a LOT of customers with Chargers, 300s, etc. All very popular cars in that area. The guy was beaming proud of himself. The Charger was THE hot car to have and he got one cheap. He thought he had almost won a lottery. I asked him what he knew about the 2.7 engine and he didn't know anything or care. He was not a car guy. All he knew was he got a Charger! He was the man of the hour. It just had a coolant issue and was running hot. I did not have the heart to tell him what was about to happen to his beloved Charger. It was not my place to shatter his happiness.
We - unfortunately - had a 1978 Le Baron with a 360 and the lean burn system. The module was mounted on the air cleaner. between the heat and the vibration they always burned out.
Dad changed the distributor and cut the wires to the module. and changed the carb a bit. Ran great after that.
At the Amoco Garage I worked at in the 1990's we used to convert these over to HEI Direct ignition. Auto Zone used to sell a kit back then for 178.99 you got a Holley 4 Barrel Carb a GM Delco K 1500 Series Voltage Regulator from 1987-1996 and it came with a Distributor from a pre emissions 318 1974 on down. Or you could get these used for 10.00 back then. We did these conversions for 399.49 parts and labor. I remember it was 4.5 hours labor at 49.00 an hour
"... the Chrysler engineers who worked on Space Shuttle technology..."
Normal people: "Good!"
Space fans: "Oh... Oh no."
My dad had a Lean Burn 318 equipped Le Baron. It ran horribly, It was a big step backwards from the 318 ‘72 Fury he had previously. Loving the porch chats!
I work at a Chrysler dealer. I've done one water pump on a 2.7. I'd rather not do another ever again. Everything on that engine is a disaster.
These engine chats are very enjoyable, I am old enough that I am familiar with all of the engines and platforms you discuss and get quite a chuckle when we are in violent agreement! I'm eager to move into the Ford phase of these discussions...
He's right on the money for the 2.7L ... I had a 2000 Intrepid with that engine, and it started to puff blue smoke at 40k miles in spite of meticulous maintenance and oil changes. The oil pressure light also started flickering at stoplights. One of the many reasons you see very few of these on the road anymore.
Yep I had an 03 Sebring and the oil light flickering started around then too. Surprisingly it made it to about 150k miles before the girl I sold it to told me the tranny blew.
@@DaDaDo661 Very surprising that engine could make it to 150k on low oil pressure. Once I saw the blue smoke and the oil pressure light, we traded ours in immediately.
@@Chevroldsmobuiac i changed the oil every 5000. I started using synthetic at probably 60,000k maybe that helped?
@@Chevroldsmobuiac the oil flickering is the oil pressure sending unit, I just had this fixed on my 2001 Sebring. Around 65,000 miles on it now. Mine was leaking so bad it was doing the blue smoke out the exhaust as well. Fixed it, no more blue smoke or weird oil smell in my vents . Full synthetic, and changing it early is key to the 2.7
@@RC-uu3qz Had the oil pressure sending unit replaced, no joy. With the other symptoms I concluded that the engine had the dreaded sludging problem and I got rid of it. And yes, the oil was changed regularly and earlier than the manual recommended. Some of these 2.7l engines are destined to self-destruct regardless of what the owner does.