DodgeIntrepid.Net Forums banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What hare-brained German made this decision? What am I talking about? I'm talking about the World Engine program.

The ONLY engine that Chrysler has used to any really good success that wasn't thier design... Is the Cummins diesel.

What lamebrained half-wit came up with the notion of putting HYUNDAI designed engines into Mopar products? Every Japanese designed motor stuck into a chrysler product has turned out to be second-rate, when compared to a REAL chrysler engine.

So, come on guys... get past this "world engines" nonsense and build some REAL Mopar engines... Or maybe we'll just buy a Hyundai and get the engine cheaper.

I know, I know, you're supposed to "save" money. I don't fricken care if you can save 50 bucks a motor, or maybe it's 150. Chrysler engineering is worth a heck of a lot more than 150 bucks a motor. So I'm shopping for a car recently... I will NOT buy a Caravan with a 3.0 Mitsu. I won't buy a Stratus with the 2.5 V6. Get the point? People aren't stupid. If you want the real thing, that REALLY lasts longer, runs better, and IS better... STart giving us REAL Mopar engines, not some rehashed Asian garbage...

I know American car guys would never do this... It's gotta be the Euro-dummies Daimler put in place, who are clueless today as the day they bought Chrysler. Heck, if brains had prevailed, the THEN Chrysler management should have taken over Daimler, and then Daimler would rule the world... Instead of endlessly making stupid decisions... like "world engines".

Gawd save us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,041 Posts
What about the 3.2L, 3.3 L, and the 3.5 L. I thought they where built by Chrysler. I think they are pretty good engine's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
The 2.7 was a Chrysler designed nightmare engine. The 2.0 and 2.4 were not that much better. The 3.0 has a good bottom end. The problem is the Chrysler designed heads. Then those powertrain people that did the Ultradrive are no better. DC is smart to outsource its engine design and buy CVT's from Nissan. These are the best parts af the Caliber.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
439 Posts
adaptabl said:
The 2.7 was a Chrysler designed nightmare engine. The 2.0 and 2.4 were not that much better. The 3.0 has a good bottom end. The problem is the Chrysler designed heads. Then those powertrain people that did the Ultradrive are no better. DC is smart to outsource its engine design and buy CVT's from Nissan. These are the best parts af the Caliber.
hahaha, i'm agreeing with adaptabl, crazy
i wouldn't buy chrysler again after seeing my moms 2.7 die at 60k miles... plus the transmissions are ridiculously parasitic
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,230 Posts
Yeah I am jumping on the wagon here. Adaptable is right here. Plus if the people who were running Chrysler were doing such a stellar job why did they end up in the predicament they were in? The rejuvination they are experiencing now came after those "hair brained germans" came into the picture! I would say that the germans intervention is the only thing really seperating Chrysler from the other two-thirds of the big three!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,823 Posts
The outsourced engines were OK, but I'll take my Mopar!

On one hand, it's kinda sad to see Chrysler outsource engines again, but the new world engine isn't all that bad. I owned a Caravan with a Mitsu 3.0... underpowerd pig is all I can say!

The Chrysler version of the World Engine has the most power..... Dual VVT! Chrysler is tuning these engines for their own use much like they did with the Mitsubishi engines.

The basic block and heads look wonderful, I am fairly confident in it's design, after all, look at the Caliber SRT-4 specs! I PRAY that it is more durable than the Mitsu designed turbo 4 cylinder engines...

Only time will tell how the new World Engine comes out, they need to hit 100K before I'll pass judgement.


Now if only we could get dual VVT on the big V6 engines....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
adaptabl said:
The 2.7 was a Chrysler designed nightmare engine. The 2.0 and 2.4 were not that much better. The 3.0 has a good bottom end. The problem is the Chrysler designed heads. Then those powertrain people that did the Ultradrive are no better. DC is smart to outsource its engine design and buy CVT's from Nissan. These are the best parts af the Caliber.

No, it's NOT smart to outsource...

The 2.7 is not a nightmare. I've spent weeks reading up on trying to figure out what, exactly, is it's "weakness" and the only thing I can figure out, is issues with oil contamination, and a strange decision to use a chain instead of belt for timing drive.

The 3.0 is only so-so, the 2.6 was a nightmare, and I have yet to see any particularly unusual problem with either the 2.0 or 2.4 engines.

How many 3.3's are purring still at 200K or 300K miles or more? What I find interesting, is that the 2.7 makes what is considered to be a relatively high horsepower per cubic inch number, and yet people think that such an engine can be ignored.

As far as the auto transmissions go... It's the management in place that's not demanding or allowing higher reliability. I don't know anyone who can turn out a better product with less cost than Mopar's engineering, over the last few decades.

I'd love to see comparisons between the 2.7 and several of Mitsubishi's, Mazda's and Toyota's seriously BAD engines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
hardwareguy said:
On one hand, it's kinda sad to see Chrysler outsource engines again, but the new world engine isn't all that bad. I owned a Caravan with a Mitsu 3.0... underpowerd pig is all I can say!

The Chrysler version of the World Engine has the most power..... Dual VVT! Chrysler is tuning these engines for their own use much like they did with the Mitsubishi engines.

The basic block and heads look wonderful, I am fairly confident in it's design, after all, look at the Caliber SRT-4 specs! I PRAY that it is more durable than the Mitsu designed turbo 4 cylinder engines...

Only time will tell how the new World Engine comes out, they need to hit 100K before I'll pass judgement.


Now if only we could get dual VVT on the big V6 engines....
I predict that they may be the death of Chrysler.

Just from marketing alone, since when do I want a Chrysler with a Hyundai engine? Come on, people... :hmm:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
Power Wagon said:
I predict that they may be the death of Chrysler.

Just from marketing alone, since when do I want a Chrysler with a Hyundai engine? Come on, people... :hmm:
The death of Chysler would be to use it's own second rate powertrain design team. Outsorcing is there best bet to have higher reliabiliy.

Hyundai builds some good stuff these days. Add the world leader in CVT Nissan transmission and the have a big improvement over anything they could do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,488 Posts
Nissan, leader of CVTs, hardly. Try Audi.

The 'problem' with the 2.7 was Chrysler. No standard oil cooler. The plastic 'welds' failed on the coolant outlet. The air filter housing plastic was wrong, both clips became hard and broke. The connecting rod bearing material was suspect. The connecting rods are small (fine if you don't turbo or supercharge it). There wasn't variable resonance, even though there was a spot for it (it got it for a whole 2 years) The engine idle was so low (a good thing) 500 rpm, that the engine could overheat standing still because the coolant sensor wasn't accurately measuring temperature. The engine suffers from vapor lock issues. The powertrain wasn't smart enough to compensate for a clogged IAC pathway, the engine stalls at 400rpm. There was only one dynamic belt tensioner (glad it got two serpentine belts versus 1 and 1 Vee belt of the 3.2/3.5) The alternator was located under the power steering pump, and when the power steering pump leaks, it takes out the alternator.

The world engines are gimmicky, 1.8 and 2.0 are nicely sized, where is the 2.2? The 2.4 is a big jump. I see that they want to use it in their next mid sized car.
The 1.8 doesn't have balance shafts, and both the 1.8 & 2.0 have weak bottom end power. There isn't a dual length intake manifold, only the 'flow control ramps'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
MikeW said:
Nissan, leader of CVTs, hardly. Try Audi.

The 'problem' with the 2.7 was Chrysler. No standard oil cooler. The plastic 'welds' failed on the coolant outlet. The air filter housing plastic was wrong, both clips became hard and broke. The connecting rod bearing material was suspect. The connecting rods are small (fine if you don't turbo or supercharge it). There wasn't variable resonance, even though there was a spot for it (it got it for a whole 2 years) The engine idle was so low (a good thing) 500 rpm, that the engine could overheat standing still because the coolant sensor wasn't accurately measuring temperature. The engine suffers from vapor lock issues. The powertrain wasn't smart enough to compensate for a clogged IAC pathway, the engine stalls at 400rpm. There was only one dynamic belt tensioner (glad it got two serpentine belts versus 1 and 1 Vee belt of the 3.2/3.5) The alternator was located under the power steering pump, and when the power steering pump leaks, it takes out the alternator.
I other words a piece of crap.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
439 Posts
Warlord187 said:
That's like saying you'd never date a girl again because your friend's girl turned out to be a *****.

Give me a break.
give you a break??? let's say for instance I wanted to buy an intrepid... an R/T... ooh wow! an R/T! that thing has 250 hp!! oh wait, that's before the rest of the car catches up to it....
http://www.dodgeintrepid.net/forums/showthread.php?t=65390&highlight=r/t+dyno
looks like I'd be expecting approx 175hp stock... (someone with intake and exaust had 186, wow :eek: )

meanwhile, my measly impala with a 3800 series II just makes a mere 200hp.... oh wait, the transmission doesn't suck up 30% of the power, and puts down nearly the same amount to the ground as that mighty 3.5...(high output... ha, should be called HPLO - high producer, low output)

so please tell me why i should buy the intrepid? i wasn't looking for a fast car when i bought the impala, but then again i wasn't looking for a lazy, inefficient car either...

if your car was worthless at 60k miles, would you run out and buy another?
my family has owned 3 intrepids and the 2.7 was the worst of the bunch by a long shot

there's plenty of other manufacturers to try the next time around, my brand name loyalty isn't high enough to risk another $22k disaster
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,207 Posts
But the bigger GM 3.8 is a mid 16 sec car. And the the smaller 3.5 is a high 15 sec car. The 2.7 is a sludgeamatic, a piss poor motor.
 

·
Mopar or No Car
Joined
·
7,869 Posts
gary680 said:
give you a break??? let's say for instance I wanted to buy an intrepid... an R/T... ooh wow! an R/T! that thing has 250 hp!! oh wait, that's before the rest of the car catches up to it....
http://www.dodgeintrepid.net/forums/showthread.php?t=65390
looks like I'd be expecting approx 175hp stock... (someone with intake and exaust had 186, wow :eek: )
Most RWD autos suck up ~25% - FWD is going to be even worse. I can understand you're hateful because of your loss but get real. :rolleyes:
SPOOK R/T said:
But the bigger GM 3.8 is a mid 16 sec car. And the the smaller 3.5 is a high 15 sec car. The 2.7 is a sludgeamatic, a piss poor motor.
Yeah - I just quake in my boots every time I see a 3.8L Impala. ;) I'd rather take my power losses in the tranny than in the engine ...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
439 Posts
SPOOK R/T said:
But the bigger GM 3.8 is a mid 16 sec car. And the the smaller 3.5 is a high 15 sec car. The 2.7 is a sludgeamatic, a piss poor motor.
i've never run my car at the track, but here's some people who have
Despite spotting the Intrepid 25 horses but only 23 pounds of mass, the Impala took top honors in acceleration, zipping 0-60 mph in 7.7 seconds and nailing the quarter mile in 15.9 ticks at 88.8 mph- performance that equals the best 396 V-8 Impala from the musclecar era! Also down 25 ponies, but nearly 150 pounds lighter, the Taurus was next quickest, logging 8.3/16.3/86.5-mph figures in the two sprints. Saddled with a SportShift system that insisted on changing gears at exactly the same rev points as when in full-auto mode, our Intrepid [3.2L] took 8.5 seconds to hit 60 mph and toured the quarter in 16.4 ticks at 85.9 mph. Still, better-than-decent times all.
from http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0108_family_sedan_comparison/engine_safety.html
d76g12 said:
Yeah - I just quake in my boots every time I see a 3.8L Impala. I'd rather take my power losses in the tranny than in the engine ...
thats like saying you'd rather spin your tires in a fast car than have good traction in a slower car, but still both cross the finish line at the same time

i'm not here to argue over which slow family sedan is faster... i didn't buy either my 3.3 intrepid or the impala because they were fast... but being inefficient and unreliable (2.7) is my real complaint... my impala is at 50k miles now, if the thing blew up in another year i'd be pretty pissed and probably would stay away from GM the next time around also
 

·
Mopar or No Car
Joined
·
7,869 Posts
gary680 said:
i'm not here to argue over which slow family sedan is faster... i didn't buy either my 3.3 intrepid or the impala because they were fast... but being inefficient and unreliable (2.7) is my real complaint... my impala is at 50k miles now, if the thing blew up in another year i'd be pretty pissed and probably would stay away from GM the next time around also
I agree the 2.7L had some real issues. What I'm not sure about is how Chrysler would have handled the problem had the merger not taken place ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,503 Posts
Gary680...do you really understand what you said, and what I said?

You said that you were not going to by Chrysler again (which makes many more models than just an Intrepid with a 2.7L engine) because you had ONE (that is ONE) bad experience with an Intrepid with a 2.7L engine.

So, like I said, give me a break.

Your comments about parasitic lose and all that, although may be valid, is AFTER I made my comment about yours.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top