3.5L or Hemi

#21

camaroz396 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com writes:

Quote:

On May 15, 8:28 pm, "Vaughan" <bab... (AT) telus (DOT) net> wrote:
Which is more reliable?
3.5L has been around longer but not sure if the MDS in the Hemi will be
problematic.

Both are good motors. Common problem with the 3.5L is cylinder mis-
fire fault codes (service bulletin out on this
problem) and water pump failure (even tho engine is free running I
have seen some bent valves when the belt breaks)

If by "free-running" you mean non-interference, it is an interference
engine.

#22

In article <pan.2007.05.17.19.53.15 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com>,
General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

performance, not even cars that cost 20K more.
Negatives to fuel mileage:
Weight, wind resistance, AWD,
and particularly in city driving engine size.

The engine is a variable displacement engine so it's not nearly as
inefficient as it could be. I'm not sure about the aerodynamics, the
Concord certainly looked more aerodynamic then the 300 but the 300 is
fairly low so it might not be as bad a problem as it appears. AWD hurts a
little but it's an absolute necessity, I wouldn't even consider a car
without AWD. If you live in a sunny state then RWD is a good choice, but
I live in New England.

The hemi variable displacement is not effective in city driving.
The 300 obviously is not as aerodynamic as the Concorde and frontal area
is a big factor. Low ground clearance won't help.
Yes AWD is important if RWD is the other option.
I go everywhere with FWD, lots of winter driving to our western ski
hills.

#23

Steve <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> writes:

Quote:

Sharkman (AT) comcast (DOT) net wrote:

also, the hemi takes mid grade fuel.

So does the 3.5, as it has since its introduction in 1993 (maybe the
current non-HO 3.5 has been de-tuned for regular, now that I think
about it).

The version in the Intrepid was de-tuned for regular, the version in
the 300M was tuned for mid-grade.

#24

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

Quote:

camaroz396 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com writes:

On May 15, 8:28 pm, "Vaughan" <bab... (AT) telus (DOT) net> wrote:

Which is more reliable?
3.5L has been around longer but not sure if the MDS in the Hemi will be
problematic.

Both are good motors. Common problem with the 3.5L is cylinder mis-
fire fault codes (service bulletin out on this
problem) and water pump failure (even tho engine is free running I
have seen some bent valves when the belt breaks)

If by "free-running" you mean non-interference, it is an interference
engine.

Which would explain why he has seen the bent valves when the belt broke.
Bent valves - free-running: mutually exclusive.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

#25

On May 17, 4:05 pm, Steve <n... (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote:

Quote:

camaroz... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com wrote:
On May 16, 12:29 pm, Steve <n... (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote:

. All the other new engines introduceed since the mid 90s- the
4.7L v8, 3.7L v6- have been flawless.

4.7L Broken Valve springs,rockers poping off

Rockers? On an OVERHEAD CAM engine? Roller followers, yeah. Rockers that
can "pop off" like a ball-stud Chebby? Nah.

Sorry, that kinda casts the whole claim into doubt.

Its backyard mechanics like yourself Steve that keep me busy. The 4.7L
does have ROLLER ROCKERS part #53020742AC
and so please make sure you know what you are talking about before
your next post.

#26

On May 17, 6:15 pm, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif... (AT) cs (DOT) nmsu.edu> wrote:

Quote:

camaroz... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com writes:
On May 15, 8:28 pm, "Vaughan" <bab... (AT) telus (DOT) net> wrote:
Which is more reliable?
3.5L has been around longer but not sure if the MDS in the Hemi will be
problematic.

Both are good motors. Common problem with the 3.5L is cylinder mis-
fire fault codes (service bulletin out on this
problem) and water pump failure (even tho engine is free running I
have seen some bent valves when the belt breaks)

If by "free-running" you mean non-interference, it is an interference
engine.

You are correct the 3.5L is an interference engine. My apologies

#27

camaroz396 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com wrote:

Quote:

On May 17, 4:05 pm, Steve <n... (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote:

camaroz... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com wrote:

On May 16, 12:29 pm, Steve <n... (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote:

. All the other new engines introduceed since the mid 90s- the
4.7L v8, 3.7L v6- have been flawless.

4.7L Broken Valve springs,rockers poping off

Rockers? On an OVERHEAD CAM engine? Roller followers, yeah. Rockers that
can "pop off" like a ball-stud Chebby? Nah.

Sorry, that kinda casts the whole claim into doubt.

Its backyard mechanics like yourself Steve that keep me busy. The 4.7L
does have ROLLER ROCKERS part #53020742AC
and so please make sure you know what you are talking about before
your next post.

I took that to be his meaning too when I first read it, but, on
reflection, I think what he meant was that - yeah - it has rockers - but
not the type that can pop off. IOW - I don't think he was meaning that
it didn't have rockers.

Or it may be that he thinks what's there aren't technically rockers even
though they are *called* that.

Kind of like the point I've made before about valve lash adjusters being
mis-called "valve lifters" when technically they aren't since they
aren't directly in line with the valve stems and motion. The auotmotive
"culture" tends to use obsolete terminology for things that have changed
when the terminology no longer literally applies.

Another example: Steering knuckles. With front drive axles sticking
thru a hub/bearing assembly, the knuckle no longer itself contains a
"spindle", yet mechanics (and even technical manuals) to this day
continue to use the terms "steering knuckles" and "spindles"
interchangeably even though the latter term is technically incorrect for
the today's typical front wheel drive knuckle.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

#28

You should listen to a Toyota or Honda 6 cylinder engine.

"Steve" <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote

Quote:

Vaughan wrote:

Thanks guys for your opinions and advice.
Yes, Art that's what I have read in the reviews. It mentions that the
3.5L isn't as refined.

The 3.5 is perfectly "refined," (whatever that stupid, subjective,
non-engineering-based, I turn-the-key-and-it-goes car-magazine writer term
may mean to you) but they mate it to a transmission with one less forward
gear ratio than the Hemi gets, so it has to run up and down a wider RPM
range, which makes it a bit louder. Also, ALL v6 engines have a relatively
unpleasant exhaust note to start with. Nature of the beast.

#29

The 300 w/3.5L has a 5 speed. Early 06's had the old 4 speed.
It's probably not as quiet as the Hemi because it has to work harder moving
the 4000lb car.
I had 2 test drives with the 3.5L and on one occasion it made a couple of
extra click sounds immediately after starting.
Is this normal? It went up to 2000rpms during starting and settled down to
600rpm after a few minutes of driving.

"Steve" <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote

Quote:

Vaughan wrote:

Thanks guys for your opinions and advice.
Yes, Art that's what I have read in the reviews. It mentions that the
3.5L isn't as refined.

The 3.5 is perfectly "refined," (whatever that stupid, subjective,
non-engineering-based, I turn-the-key-and-it-goes car-magazine writer term
may mean to you) but they mate it to a transmission with one less forward
gear ratio than the Hemi gets, so it has to run up and down a wider RPM
range, which makes it a bit louder. Also, ALL v6 engines have a relatively
unpleasant exhaust note to start with. Nature of the beast.

#30

On Thu, 17 May 2007 20:12:59 UTC, Steve <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote:

Quote:

Count Floyd (AT) MonsterChillerHorrorTheater (DOT) com wrote:

The most reliable Chrysler engines were their famous flathead 6's and
8's. I know, I have a 1940 241.5c.i. flathead six, and have had
others in 48 Plymouths and a 49 Chrysler Windsor.

I LOVE the old flatheads (I have had a 218 flat 6 in a '49 Club Coupe
for 30 years) but sorry, reliability wise they weren't on a par with the
slant-6 and 318 v8. But then nothing else on the planet short of a
diesel is, either.
Steve, I have respectfully disagree with you. They were some of the

most reliable engines ever created! A head with no moving parts,
solid lifters that you could actually adjust, easy to work on,
relatively good mileage for their period of time(I get around 20
consistently). I had a 225 slant six in two cars: a 1970 and 1964
Dart, yes it was a great engine, but still, those old flatheads would
just keep running and going with regular maintenance. As you can see,
I am a little prejudiced! but I told my wife, I wish that her 2005 PT
Cruiser had a flathead engine, then it would really be a true
descedant of the Airflow! I also have had the 318, in a 67 Fury and
it was a great engine, but I have always been a big fan of the
straight engines. I had a gorgeous 52 Pontiac Chieftan with a
flathead six, so smooth you could not even hear it running! However,
Chrysler made its reputation on the flathead six and that engine
always outsold the eights. Look at the cars that were powered by it:
all Plymouth, Dodges, DeSotos and over 55 percent of Chryslers were
flat sixes. Guess I was born too late, would love to have a brand
new, straight from the showoom floor, 40-48 Chrysler with FluidDrive.
Since that won't happen short of a Twilight Zone episode, I will drive
my fully restored 40 Royal Coupe, even though it only has the
overdrive and not the FluidDrive. Still looking for one with
FluidDrive though!

--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

3.5L or Hemi

Chrysler Dodge, Plymouth, Jeep, Eagle, etc info/talk (rec.autos.makers.chrysler)

Re: 3.5L or Hemi - 05-17-2007 , 05:15 PM

Re: 3.5L or Hemi - 05-17-2007 , 05:16 PM

Re: 3.5L or Hemi - 05-17-2007 , 05:17 PM

Re: 3.5L or Hemi - 05-17-2007 , 05:30 PM

Re: 3.5L or Hemi - 05-17-2007 , 06:45 PM

Re: 3.5L or Hemi - 05-17-2007 , 07:14 PM

Re: 3.5L or Hemi - 05-17-2007 , 08:09 PM

Re: 3.5L or Hemi - 05-17-2007 , 08:18 PM

Re: 3.5L or Hemi - 05-17-2007 , 09:37 PM

Re: 3.5L or Hemi - 05-18-2007 , 03:33 AM