That was one of the complaints I had about the Chrysler 3.5L. The thermostat is on the BOTTOM of the engine. I seem to recall having to unbolt a motor mount and jack up the engine a little to access it. I remember it taking a while to do this job. I see thermostats as something like changing the oil. It is usually all right there. One of the front tires had to be removed to access the battery. I seem to recall the Intrepid 2.7L being this way too.
The first generation 3.5 had the thermostat at the upper radiator hose. But later versions moved the thermostat to the lower (inlet) side. This is becoming the norm for most cars as it provides more consistent engine temperature control. But thermostats are replaced at failure, not normally a maintenance item. Especially on cars where it’s a 4 hour job.
Yup, batteries on those cars are accessed by removing the wheel and fender liner. Not doing that by the side of the road.
I see on the thermostats. I did get the feeling that this part was installed before the engine was installed in the car. It looked like it would be a real easy job if the engine was out of the car. Are some of the others on the inlet hose a little easier to access? I seem to recall the reason I jacked up the engine was to get clearance around the front subframe or suspension.
Of course. All the parts are installed in the engine before it is installed in the car. Ease of future service doesn’t really factor in to the assembly process. If it did we wouldn’t have heater cores that require windshield removal to replace.
I couldn’t hardly even see mine so I just had it replaced at the same time my hoses and coolant was. I don’t know how the guy did it. I didn’t ask and he didn’t tell. Maybe up from the bottom is easiest, but I know it was “difficult”.
Remember what the scholarly looking guy on the old mopar commercials said"200 HP,from a mere 2.7 litres of displacement".I just wonder how long this company is going to remain viable?
At one time 200HP was a lot from a big V8. I don’t think I would fault them for this. Lots of engines with similar or larger displacement had relatively limited power at this time in history. I have driven these cars when they are running well and thought the engine was smooth and powerful.
I would fault them for designing an engine with so many ways for so many things to go wrong.
What I dont like about the small displacement engines(naturally aspirated)is the general lack of low end torque,case in point the Ford Taurus,3.8 engine vs the 3.0 litre,the 3.0 rated at more HP,but the 3.8 would hand the smaller engine its lunch,the old 3.8 would readily break traction on the the tarmac and really go,but the 3.0 litre didnt have near the get up and go it seems(now thats seat of the pants-not ideal condition factory tests)IMO,no replacement for displacement especially on smaller engines.Around here the cheap base engines get the same or worse fuel economy then the decent mid range engines(with a lot less power)
" A rose by any other name"
Interior displacement is a silly way to determine “bigness” of an engine, anyways.
Look at a Ford 4.6 “mod” V8 alongside a 5.0 “Windsor” V8: the “smaller” 4.6 dwarfs the 5.0. And again…looking at curb weights/payload ratings, the 3.5 “Ecoboost” V6 apparently weighs a few dozen pounds MORE than the 5.0 (a different one) that it replaces.
So…a 4.6 “bigger” than a 5.0, and a 3.5 “bigger” (or at least heavier) than all three!
That’s one reason the SBC is so popular with builder - nice and compact.
Given the many different architectures of engines today, neither interior displacement nor exterior dimensions mean that much anymore. The Cadillac 4.6 L Northstar DOHC V8 made 300 HP but was physically similar in exterior dimensions to a 8.1 L Chevy big block making about the same HP. But the Chevy made MUCH more torque and drank WAY more gas and weighed more.
The GM 3800 V6 was a very small exterior package producing similar HP to larger exterior DOHC 3.0 l V6’s but had more torque with similar economy.
Throw in direct injection, cylinder deactivation and variable valve timing and comparing just displacement becomes silly. Just not enough information. Better to compare performance car-to-car.