DodgeIntrepid.Net Forums banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,278 Posts
It has always been said that teh 2nd gen LHS was the quickest although I have never seen actual times to back it

To be honest outside of magazines there really isnt anyone testing 0-60 times, I have always used 1/4 mile times instead
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,806 Posts
I don't know what my 0-60 time is but my 1/4mile time is 16.1 with a 1g 3.5L. This spring i'll have about a 15.6 1/4mile time..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
I've never tested a 3.5 first gen but i do know my 3.3 first gen has a quicker 0 to 60 time than a 3.2 second gen. a buddy of mine and I ran them on the strip and kept track of who was quicker. I'll find the numbers and post em for ya.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,041 Posts
From Car & Driver:

0-60 / 1/4mile

3.5L 1993 Dodge Intrepid ES 8.8 16.5
3.3L 1994 Dodge Intrepid 10.3 17.5
3.2L 1998 Dodge Intrepid 8.9 16.7
3.5L 2000 Dodge Intrepid R/T 7.8 16.0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,279 Posts
I've never tested a 3.5 first gen but i do know my 3.3 first gen has a quicker 0 to 60 time than a 3.2 second gen. a buddy of mine and I ran them on the strip and kept track of who was quicker. I'll find the numbers and post em for ya.
Now wait a minute. I have a 96 3.3 and an 01 3.2. The 3.3 has a lot of low end grunt, and it might be quicker 0-30 if you just punch them from idle, but if you torque brake the 3.2, I think it would even win 0-30. 0-60 and 1/4 mile, no contest; the 3.2 is a lot faster. Someone had a sick 3.2 there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,041 Posts
No regular 2nd gen 3.5 info there. The R/T is HO
Just for your info:

Output from 2002-2004 for the standard output 3.5L is 234 hp (174 kW) at 6000 rpm with 241 ft·lbf (327 Nm) of torque at 4400 rpm.


For the 2000 R/T the 3.5L produced 242 hp (180 kW). In 2002, the R/T received an extra 2 hp (1.5 kW) from PCM programming changes which allowed it to have 244 hp (182 kW) on 89 octane fuel.
The R/T was discontinued in 2003 but a new SXT model kept the 3.5 liter High Output motor, increased to a 250 hp (186 kW) power rating.


For the 1st Gen in 1993, the 3.5L engine produced 214 hp (160 kW) and 221 ft·lbf (300 Nm).


So there is just 8 HP less horsepower in the standard 3.5L in 02 then in the R/T 3.5L HO of 2000. I can't find any track times for the standard 3.5L.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,041 Posts
To answer the first question in this post, if you go off of Car&Drivers times. The 1st Gen 3.5L is faster than the 2nd Gen's 3.2. But those numbers are for engine's that are new and in top running shape.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
917 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Thanks guys, very informative! Hopefully in a couple months when I have the cash someone will be looking to sell their R/T or SXT (I didn't even know the Intrepid had an SXT model)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
337 Posts
The R/T was discontinued in 2003 but a new SXT model kept the 3.5 liter High Output motor, increased to a 250 hp (186 kW) power rating

both won't run on 87
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,278 Posts
The R/T was discontinued in 2003 but a new SXT model kept the 3.5 liter High Output motor, increased to a 250 hp (186 kW) power rating

both won't run on 87
Incorrect, any of the motors will run safely on 87, they just cant guarantee the max power ratings

All LH motors from the base 2.7 all the way up to the special 3.5 can use 87 octane
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,036 Posts
The R/T was discontinued in 2003 but a new SXT model kept the 3.5 liter High Output motor, increased to a 250 hp (186 kW) power rating

both won't run on 87
It was actually mid 2002 that the SXT replaced the R/T. In 2002, only 1917 R/T were made. I run 87 octane gas on my 02 R/T without problem. The FSM 'recommends' 89 as per this 02 FSM excerpt:

Your engine is designed to meet all emissions regulations
and provide excellent fuel economy and performance
when using high quality unleaded gasoline
having an octane rating of 87. The uses of midgrade,
octane rating of 89, gasoline is recommended for the
3.5L H.O. engine. The use of premium gasoline is not
recommended. The use of premium gasoline will provide
no benefit over high quality regular gasoline,
and in some circumstances may result in poorer performance

If and when gas goes down to 1.50 per gallon for 89, I might run 89 for a couple of my long drives to MI and back, just to see what the fuel economy does with the higher rating..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,177 Posts
Thanks for the input. Someone must have a 3.5 and 3.2 to compare
Forget theories, mag road tests, horsepower ratings. I've done this.
One night after we were out with my 94 LHS 3.5, another with a 00 Taurus 3.0 Duratec and a 2nd gen Intrepid ES 3.2. Playing around we found the cars to be a dead even run. From a dead stop, roll on, slow roll. There was speeds the Taurus would not kickdown and lose a roll on and same for my LHS, like from 120km/hr, it would not kickdown to 2nd and the Ford would walk away. Who ever left the line 1st in a drag, was the winner. It was a cold night, I seemed to have to most issues with traction. Since we are a competitive group we knew we would need the clocks at the track to establish a pecking order.

Track day comes I leave my spare and jack at home and pump up all the tires to 40 psi. Leave the tank low on fuel and prepare to battle. As far as I know the Taurus comes as driven but the Intrepid is ready for war. He ditched his rear muffler, no floor mats, no antenae, wiper arms, spare and jack. What was funny is this was his wife's car and we didn't notice until later that the wipers were missing.

Now before you call no fair. The results we saw on the street looked exactly the same. So I doubt the "mods" added up to anything worthwhile. The cars were still within a car length every run. Even ones with the red light lit up.

The LHS and the Taurus. Off the line I was having no problems with traction like on the street. This gave me about a fender lead and I'd hold it all the way down the track.

The Intrepid and I. The LHS seemed to even leave harder against the 3.2. Still within a car length with me in front. I'd see the gap closing but the big black Chrysler got to the stripe first.

At the end of the day our best times were 15.8 at 88 for the LHS. 16.1 @ 88 for the Taurus and 16.0 @ 89 for the Intrepid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,806 Posts
At the end of the day our best times were 15.8 at 88 for the LHS. 16.1 @ 88 for the Taurus and 16.0 @ 89 for the Intrepid.
What all is done to your lhs jfsram?

Times and mph are showing the 3.2 is prob a bit fast at a roll. The lhs good god i'd love to see that thing launch!

Clayton
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,177 Posts
Track day comes I leave my spare and jack at home and pump up all the tires to 40 psi. Leave the tank low on fuel and prepare to battle.
I installed a K&N drop in filter which seems to do nothing for power and mileage. Also installed Bosch plugs which I've been told are ****. Mobil One 5 w 30 and the above mentioned diet program is all.

There was alot of bite at the track that day. I'm pretty sure that was about a tenth right there. On the street I can usually rip the tires. On that track day my plan was to pump my aged, worn to the wear bars Eagle GA's to 40 psi and lower it until it was producing the best 60' times but as it was it just grabbed and left. Against the Taurus on the street I have to slowly roll into the throttle to stay beside him. At the track it would not spin and I'd come out of the gate about a fender ahead and hold it all the way down the track.

Basically all 3 cars are the same. A fender here, a fender there. I've been in the other 2 cars and they all do feel different. The 3.0 Taurus is not as torquey but the top of 2nd it sure feels like it would kick my ass. Same for the Intrepid. Felt strong up top but it's dead even with me in a roll race. My LHS is torquier but usually that just equals wheel spin.

So my conclusion is this. Even though the feel different. The clocks prove they are not. All claims of one is actually faster by feel I seriously doubt.

Another car which is close but feel dead up top in the revs is my Father's 00 LeSabre. It's a 3.8L. Torquey, lots of power even at partial throttle. Makes good jam under 3000rpm. Same storey. Feels so opposite again yet it's I've had it fender to fender beside that 16.0 sec Taurus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
From Car & Driver:

0-60 / 1/4mile

3.5L 1993 Dodge Intrepid ES 8.8 16.5
3.3L 1994 Dodge Intrepid 10.3 17.5
3.2L 1998 Dodge Intrepid 8.9 16.7
3.5L 2000 Dodge Intrepid R/T 7.8 16.0
What if we threw the interceptor into the mix? How would it compare to the R/T although its the same motor would the PCM have a difference in speeds?
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top