camaroz396 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com wrote:

And exactly how do roller followers "pop off?" Stud mounted Chevy-style
rockers popping off, I can see (and pulling out studs, and all sorts of
other nasty things typical of Chevies.) OHC roller rockers BREAKING, I
can see. Valve springs breaking, I can see too. But not OHC roller
followers "popping off".

Art wrote:


I have. Exhaust-wise, they sound exactly like a Chrysler 3.5 and every
other 60-degree v6- blathery unless heavly muffled. Like I said, nature
of the beast, its inescapable. Usually Japanese v6s have more valve
train racket than the 3.5, although the best sounding (and arguably one
of the best, period) is the the Nissan v6.

Bill Putney wrote:

Exactly. I'd love to know exactly how a roller follower ("rocker" if you
will- and I'm well acquainted with them as the 3.5 also has them) can
"pop off."

Vaughan wrote:

quieter, and yet it can seem louder to most people depending on the type
of noise. The Hemi has a pleasant 'burbly" v8 exhaust note, but all v6s
have a rasp that most people find grating. The 6.2 liter Hemi in the
SRT-8 has a deliberately LOUDER exhaust system, yet I find it the most
pleasing-sounding of the 3. The 5.7 is a bit too muffled, the 3.5 is,
well, a v6.

Not very descriptive- what kind of "click" sounds? On some Chrysler
products, you can hear the evaporative emission control solenoids
clicking around doing their job after startup. And on most, you can hear
the variable duty cycle solenoids in the transmission working when you
select a gear.

It should settle out within about 20-30 seconds of startup, just like
every other modern computer-contrlled EFI engine does.

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

As the Geico commercial says, "its kinda like the queen asking if you
want to have dinner at the palace or at the castle. Either way, you're
having filet mignon." I can't disagree TOO much with you, because the
flatheads are certainly rugged. And I love the fact that they're as
smooth as an electric motor in the way they pump out the torque. There's
a 50's vintage "cherry picker" crane in the materials yard at the lab
where I work, powered by Chrysler industrial flathead and fluid drive.
Still in regular use any time its needed. There are also still a lot of
airport tugs running around with them.

But on the other hand, the slant-6 and 318 do have some longevity
advantages. Not the least of those is a full-flow oil filtration system
which the flatheads lack (flathead Chryslers are often fitted with
full-flow filters, but only a portion of the oil pump's output passes
through the filter on each cycle through the engine). The later engines
also have stronger crankshafts (particularly the 318, which is both
shorter and stronger). And just empirically, my experience is that you
see more 300,000 mile plus 318s and slants than you do flatheads.
Finally I respectfully disagree that solid lifters are a longevity
advantage, I think hydraulics have the advantage there because you never
get burned valves from a valve clearance that was either set to tight or
became too tight due to valve stem stretch.

On Fri, 18 May 2007 17:19:52 UTC, Steve <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote:

Yes, we have much more in agreement than we do in disagreement. I am
just sick that Chrysler might disappear in this crappy deal, a great
marque going or gone. Chrysler engines and transmissions were known
as being "bulletproof" and I would think we agree on that point. My
mother put a lot of miles on her 67 Plymouth with a 318 and my stepdad
had a 61 Dart Phoenix, the one with the weird curved back upon itself
fins. It had a 318 also, and he loved that car! My grandfather would
never buy any car other than a Dodge six going back to the early
forties. He loved FluidDrive because he hated to shift, but liked to
use the SafetyClutch as a footrest! My 49 Windsor with a 265 c.i. six
and FluidDrive was smooth as glass, I drove it down from Ontario to
South Florida, it took 5 days! but it was a great trip on the
backroads of America. Vent windows in the front and rear doors, comfy
seats and a split windshield really brought back great memories.


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

Thank you Steve.
You are very knowledgeable.
I will choose the 3.5L because of high gas prices and the cheaper cost.
How is the 5 speed automatic? I have read that it is more reliable than the
4 speed.




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

The 300C is one of the best cars on the market for the price especially
since it comes fully loaded and you get autostick Mercedes transmission,
steering and suspension components. It really is comparable to cars selling
for $20K more. Especially suitable for lower mileage drivers who appreciates
a quality ride with all the options.


"Some O" <SO (AT) nospam (DOT) net> wrote

In article <464fca87$1 (AT) news (DOT) sentex.net>, "Dave" <monte (AT) sentex (DOT) net>
wrote:

It is a good value car of it's type, but not what the consumers want in
adequate volume now with the increasing gas prices.

Poor Chrysler is still trying to sell new 2006 large vehicles here at
about 30% off list: Pacifica, 300, 300C and large engined large trucks.
It will soon be time for the 2008 models and those 2006 models are
looking stuck in the dealers hands.
I hope the write off of these models doesn't have to be done again at a
lower value.
The prices are low enough for me, but they are not the vehicle I want.

To clarify - my statement was based on the 30% off of the list price that I
paid for a new 2005 300C fully loaded for $32K. - heated leather,
navigation, sunroof, memory powered seats/steering/peddles/mirrors, backup
sensors, Boston sound, 350 HP, mds for hwy economy..
Fine for me since I only drive about 12000 KM a year. The money saved at the
front end more than pays for extra fuel consumption over the next 5 years as
compared to an import with all those features. To top it off it doesn't
require premium fuel. I also increased warranty to 5 yrs B/B and 7 yrs p/t
for very little extra cost. Seems like a no brainer at that price. What am I
missing here ?

"Some O" <SO (AT) nospam (DOT) net> wrote