Re: 2.7 V6 What goes wrong with them?
[Re: 340Scamp]
#66911
06/02/08 09:46 PM
06/02/08 09:46 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,826 las vegas
70AARcuda
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,826
las vegas
|
if it is junk how did it ever get to 140K miles?
Tony
70 AARCuda Vitamin C 71 Dart Swinger 360 10.318 @ 128.22(10-04-14 Bakersfield) 71 Demon 360 10.666 @122.41 (01-29-17 @ Las Vegas) 71 Duster 408 (10.29 @ 127.86 3/16/19 Las Vegas)
|
|
|
Re: 2.7 V6 What goes wrong with them?
[Re: 340Scamp]
#66913
06/02/08 10:35 PM
06/02/08 10:35 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 872 Charlotte NC
DCI
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 872
Charlotte NC
|
http://www.dontbuyone.com/My 1999 died at 51k with the famous oil sludge problem. Battled Chrysler for over a year since all service was done by them every 3000K miles. Loved the way it drove. Has to be one of the best driving cars I have ever had. Finally donated it to the kidney foundation to get rid of it.
"Turbo will be easiest, and at the HP level will also be easiest on parts. Spend the money to do it right, and you can build a 500 HP street motor that will live a long and happy life, and probably with a very basic short block."
Those words must have left a bad taste in his mouth!
|
|
|
Re: 2.7 V6 What goes wrong with them?
[Re: DCI]
#66915
06/04/08 09:58 AM
06/04/08 09:58 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,423 Kalispell Mt.
HotRodDave
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,423
Kalispell Mt.
|
I used to work at a dodge dealer when they were younger and they were terible back then. Most of them were blowing smoke before 100,000. Many of them simply blew rods out the side at low miles. Lots of timing chains broke and took out the front of the motor and I saw two that had busted cams. The dealer I worked at kept smokeless oil on hand just for the 2.7s when someone traded them in so they could sell them 140,000 is not high miles for most modern engines but it is very high for a 2.7.
I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!
|
|
|
Re: 2.7 V6 What goes wrong with them?
[Re: HotRodDave]
#66916
06/04/08 02:25 PM
06/04/08 02:25 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,415 Connecticut
Ron_M
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,415
Connecticut
|
Will any other Chrysler motor bolt in (even if tranny swapped too)? Just wondering...
Common sense is a flower that does not grow in everybody's garden
|
|
|
Re: 2.7 V6 What goes wrong with them?
[Re: AARCONV]
#66918
06/04/08 10:59 PM
06/04/08 10:59 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,928 A tad North of Indy
Blown71X
super gas
|
super gas
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,928
A tad North of Indy
|
The better title for this thread would really be: 2.7 V6 What DOSEN`T go wrong with them? In reality anything after `02 has for the most part, been ok...But in the case of this engine, ALWAYS check maintence history before plunking down coin. just about everything on this disaster design is expensive to repair and typically over the head of the average "driveway mechanic" As with any 2.7...Your mileage may vary Rick
Blown71X V2.0 under construction
71 Cuda 383 4-SPD (maybe for sale)
2010 Challenger B5 Classic
|
|
|
Re: 2.7 V6 What goes wrong with them?
[Re: 340Scamp]
#66919
06/04/08 11:00 PM
06/04/08 11:00 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,665 Milwaukee, WI
Prince_Valiant
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,665
Milwaukee, WI
|
keep the pcv system clean and working, and that should alleviate the risk of sludging.
1979 Dodge Lil' Red Express - 360 rwhp, 13.2 @ 103mph 1968 Coronet: 318, 2.76, 15.2 @ 92mph! (SOLD) 1976 Valiant: 360, 3.90, 12.90 @ 106 (SOLD) 1989 Shelby CSX #500/500
|
|
|
Re: 2.7 V6 What goes wrong with them?
[Re: Ron_M]
#66921
06/06/08 01:00 PM
06/06/08 01:00 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,175 Duloc
The Shadow
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,175
Duloc
|
Quote:
Will any other Chrysler motor bolt in (even if tranny swapped too)? Just wondering...
The 3.2 and 3.5 swap into them. They must be from around the same years for wiring harness compatibility. Pretty straight forward swap but you need a COMPLETE engine and accessories. I did a 2.7-3.2 swap in my 99 without any real hassles. Tranny bolts right up.
|
|
|
Re: 2.7 V6 What goes wrong with them?
[Re: The Shadow]
#66922
06/06/08 03:49 PM
06/06/08 03:49 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,415 Connecticut
Ron_M
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,415
Connecticut
|
Thanks! Thats good to know. I would suppose alot of (non Mopar) people would give up on a 2.7 vehicle and dump their cars (cheap). 3.5 has been around long to pick-up inexpensive and is a good motor.
Been thinking about trying this...
Common sense is a flower that does not grow in everybody's garden
|
|
|
Re: 2.7 V6 What goes wrong with them?
[Re: dogdays]
#66925
06/06/08 05:23 PM
06/06/08 05:23 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,415 Connecticut
Ron_M
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,415
Connecticut
|
I'm really itching to try the 3.5 HO route in one of these...
Common sense is a flower that does not grow in everybody's garden
|
|
|
Re: 2.7 V6 What goes wrong with them?
[Re: Ron_M]
#66926
06/06/08 06:37 PM
06/06/08 06:37 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,175 Duloc
The Shadow
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,175
Duloc
|
From what I understand you will need the H.O ecu for a H.O application. The stock 2.7 ecu will lean out on the H.O 3.5. Lots of info here http://www.dodgeintrepid.net/
|
|
|
Re: 2.7 V6 What goes wrong with them?
[Re: Ron_M]
#66928
06/07/08 11:33 AM
06/07/08 11:33 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,160 Cruising!
QuickDodge
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,160
Cruising!
|
The early 2.7 were trouble prone and gave the engine a bad name. I think there were a few changes made in 2001. There were a number of improvements made in 2002. The oil pressure was increased, oil coolers were added, some oil passages were enlarged, and improved timing chain & tensioner were added, etc. So the newer 2.7s are considerably improved.
The 2.7 has a forged crank and rods and 4 or 6 bolts on the main bearing caps. Some (maybe all) had a girdle on the main bearing caps. These engines were assembled with some good parts. Unfortunately, the early models had sludge problems combined with weak oiling and timing systems.
I'm not sure how true it is, but from what I've read, the 2.7 sludge problems were caused by excessive oil temperatures. I'd definitely make sure a 2.7 has an oil cooler.
I have a 2002 Intrepid with a 2.7 engine. It's got over 130,000 miles and has been trouble free. Last fall I decided to pull the oil pan to look for sludge and found a VERY clean, sludge free, engine. My wife and I have driven this car since it was new and we are particular about oil change intervals. (Ignore the absurd recommendation in the owners manual and change it every 3,000)
My cars recieve better than average care. This year I'm planning on changing the water pump and timing chains on the Intrepid. I habitually change timing chains at 130-150 thousand miles. I'm also going to touch up any chips in the paint on the floor pans, change the brake fluid, transmission and differential fluids, etc.
My Intrepid will consistantly get 30 mpg on flat interstates with the cruise control set at 70+ mph. (This is better than the EPA estimate) In the hills it will typically drop back to 28 mpg. It's a decent size car, economical, reliable, a great daily driver!
A few things to consider. The 2.7s do not have much power at lower RPMs. Drivers in a hurry will have to rev the engine to get ANY power which at the minimum is irritating and at worst may shorten engine life. Secondly, the front wheel well interfers with leg room in the front seats. The brakes overheat to easily. And lastly, parts for 2.7 are a bit pricy as has already been mentioned.
Because of the bad reputation, 2.7 cars can sometimes be bought cheap. IF it's been well maintained, these cars can be a good value. If the car can be bought cheap enough, it will either be a great deal or a good deal after swapping in a 3.5 engine in the worst case senario.
Last edited by QuickDodge; 06/07/08 12:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
|