DodgeIntrepid.Net Forums banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What the heck happened.. look at these numbers..

Engines
dohc V6 sohc V6 ohv V8 ohv V8




Size, liters/cu. in. 2.7 /167 3.5 /215 5.7 /345 6.1 /370




Horsepower @ rpm. 178 @ 5500 250 @ 6400 340 @ 5000 425 @ 6000




Torque (lb-ft) @ rpm. 190 @ 4000 250 @ 3800 390 @ 4000 420 @ 4800

look at all that loss of horsepower.. yeah I now about the increased torque at lower rpm range.. but it doesn't warrent a loss off 18+HP.. jesus.. what happened here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,488 Posts
When the 2.7 V6 was developed for the LX platform the intake manifold was changed from a short runner equal length 'low rumble' high flow design, to a longer runner unequal length one. (with a variable resonance intake manifold standart)
see mid-page
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/new6.html

The power from the LH2 [email protected], [email protected], was changed to [email protected], [email protected]

Chrysler just didn't have anyone to fix the typos, [email protected] was complete BS. That 6400 was for the dual length runner 3.5 V6.
I still think 178hp is a typo (it should be 188hp) see the Dodge Journey 186hp, (before the 2.7 was dropped) or Dodge Avenger 189hp, 191ft-lbs, Dodge Charger (should be 188hp), 190ft-lbs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,960 Posts
It's ok, NOBODY should be buying that car with anything less than the 5.7L anyways!
 

·
Farticcus of Plenticcus
Joined
·
17,030 Posts
It's ok, NOBODY should be buying that car with anything less than the 5.7L anyways!

I test drove a 300 Toruing with the 3.5 HO, and I was surprised with the power. It felt confident. I would take one...but I would prefer the 5.7!!
There is no way in hell I would run a 2.7 in these 4000+ lb cars!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,488 Posts
What if it had MB's 7g-tronic?
or ZF 8 speed automatic?

none of this obsolete 4 speed automatic BS, or 5 speed crap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,651 Posts
It's ok, NOBODY should be buying that car with anything less than the 5.7L anyways!
Say What?

The intake on the 2.7 in the LX was reworked to get more torque at a lower rpm. This was to try to compensate for the added weight when the car is accelerating from a stop. The downside was that it lost horsepower and is slower than the Intrepid SE anyways.

I never feel underpowered with the 3.5 ...I still toast most full size Pickups and SUV's with larger V8's. Guy at work has a late 90's Dodge Ram SLT with a 360. I was behind him and he was trying to show me how fast it was. Well surprise surprise, my Magnum SXT was staying right with him easily.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,488 Posts
It's ok, NOBODY should be buying that car with anything less than the 5.7L anyways!
Replace 5.7 with W5a580 5 speed automatic.
2.82 axle ratio for rear drive 5.7
3.07 axle ratio for 4matic 5.7
3.64 axle for 3.5 V6
3.90 axle for 2.7

The problem is that the 2.7 has the 3.9 axle but was only the craptastic 4 speed automatic. (and Cerberus no longer couples the 3.5 to the W5a580, so much for improving the product over time)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,177 Posts
Gearing does not affect horsepower.

As for power rating on a 2.7L. Seriously. If I was in the market for a LX and for some odd reason, maybe mileage or something. The loss of power would not bother me. Think about it. Anyone concerned with power should be taking Avenger's advice. 5.7 or 6.1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,960 Posts
I'd like to argue that the 5.7L is more fuel efficient on the highway than the 3.5L as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
979 Posts
It's ok, NOBODY should be buying that car with anything less than the 5.7L anyways!
When it's costing $100 to fill your tank - which isn't far away - you'll me more interested in a small fuel efficient engine (ie. the 2.7) rather than a gas guzzling 5.7 that you can't afford to run.

It already costs $65 to fill my Intrepid in Southern Ontario.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top