Didn’t Woody Guthrie write a song about Hyundai pistons called “This Land is Your Land”?
“The funny thing about the Chrysler 3.5L is that is had relatively few problems although it is related in design to the 2.7L. The only failures I ever saw or heard about with this one were related to owner neglect and one case of outright ABUSE.”
They were related. Both were in Chrysler/Dodge cars and both were six cylinder 16v DOHC internal combustion engines. I owned Intrepids and drove them hundreds of thousands of miles and one had a 2.7L and the other a 3.5L
I don’t consider them very similar. Working from memory, one had 3 timing chains and the other a single belt. One had a single throttle body and the other, two. The biggest difference besides the chain vs. belt driven water pump design was the engine blocks. If my memory serves me, one was aluminum and the other iron.
By the way, I replaced the timing belt, tensioner, water pump, front seal, and thermostat on the 3.5L in my driveway and found it to be fairly straight-forward. I did special order one tool and made one or two to make it easy. The engine installation is not transverse. I removed the fan shroud to access the front of the engine. It was not a big deal.
For whatever you find difficult to service on these engines, you’ll find other things that are easier than normal.
That 3.5L never used oil and I kept it beyond 250,000 miles. It was one of the sweetest engines I’ve ever met.
CSA
Interesting. I had to change the thermostat on one with just a basic set of tools on a Sunday when everything was closed. This made it a little bigger job than I am sure it would have been under more ideal conditions. Still, I was expecting it to be right under the hood. I guess that is a thing of the past with other engines and not just this one from what you are saying.
I think they made the 3.5L in both aluminum and iron block versions if I remember. I guess the relation to the 2.7L was loose at best although they are considered to be variants of each other. Both of them perform well if you ask me. It just seems that the 2.7 had a few too many design compromises.
I am sure you see this with all makes but certain engines have their little flaws. It seems a lot of the GM V6s liked to eat intake gaskets for a while. That Ford Split Port engine was about as bad as the 2.7 in reliability when it ate the valve seats. Anyway, I guess they all have their good and bads.
I don’t buy the bit about sand being a factor because the plant was located next to rail lines.
The now defunct GM plant in OK City had the bulk of their parts and finished vehicles brought in and shipped out by rail and there’s no shortage of grit here in OK; a.k.a. the Dust Bowl.
The plant was probably the cleanest place those cars ever rolled a wheel in or on.
That fairy tail could be enhanced by saying that the freight train passed through the middle of the transmission factory.
I take it the opinion is that the dirt contamination is a bunk of crap. My work doesn’t take me to many large manufacturing facilities so I wouldn’t know firsthand. Does that seem normal to suggest changing the fluids besides oil in the first 500 miles?
It looks like there are MANY suggestions to change the gear lube in the differentials between 500-3000 miles to remove break in metals across all makers.
I wonder how many people actually do this. I did at 500 and after another time I had the rear end submerged in water and figured it was a good idea.
@cwatkin I think you should start a new thread if you want to discuss transmission maintenance of the 1940’s.
“Does that seem normal to suggest changing the fluids besides oil in the first 500 miles?”
This is strictly a WAG, but could it be that engineering decided on a different “break-in lube” than that of the regular stuff that is specified for the long haul?
CSA
Gotcha! So grit contamination is a pretty rare thing during modern manufacturing? Rare enough that it isn’t something to consider during the break in process. Obviously it still does happen such as the situation with Hyundai and the more limited number of Chrysler 3.5Ls in the past.
I have taken apart several engines run without air filters or severely bypassing air filters. All but a couple of these were small engines, mainly from push mowers. The pistons and cylinder walls had deep vertical gashes/scoring from the abrasive debris. These engines still ran but had such a loss of compression and large amount of oil burning that keeping them running for long before the plug fouled was impossible. I didn’t bother to look at the rod bearings. They just went in the scrap heap to get disposed of properly as they were well beyond economic repair.
Gotcha?
I believe the Hyundai contamination problem that you’re referring to was caused by a certain U.S. factory and their machining and insufficient cleaning of debris practices, not by environmental contamination caused by dusty conditions or running sans filters.
Also, were you considering which small engines had aluminum, iron, and sleeved cylinders? That’s why I pointed out a difference in block materials when pointing out that some engines aren’t as similar as they first appear to be. Tell me that the cylinder wall material made no difference.
CSAI understand but contamination from improper cleaning after machining or dirt contamination from lack of filtration can do the same thing.
The small engines were either all aluminum or aluminum with sleeves. The ones with sleeves of course seem to hold up better overall. One of them was purchased new and run without an air filter. They forgot to install it at the factory. Sure, the user should have checked but you wouldn’t think this is something that would be missing from the get go. I wouldn’t expect to drive a new car off the lot and have it missing the air filter.
Of course the other issue with the small engines is the lack of an oil filter so any dirt that gets in just gets re-circulated or re-splashed over and over until it is changed. That being said, I am still amazed at how much abuse these little engines can withstand before giving it up.