Chrysler unlikely to last a year

"Percival P. Cassidy" > writes:

> On 01/10/09 03:03 pm Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>> We had a Stratus ES, which I suppose had substantially the same engine
>>> as in the 2.7L V6 Sebring. Despite having had the timing belt replaced
>>> at about 65K miles along with a water pump replacement, the thing blew
>>> up at 85K -- broken timing belt;...
>>
>> Can't be. The 2.7L has a timing *chain* - not something you'd normally
>> replace until the miles were really up there, and then only because the
>> water pump is driven off of it.
>
> I stand corrected then. I ASS+U+MEd that the 2.7 was simply a
> larger-capacity variant of the 2.5.

Ah. The 2.5 V6 was a Mitsubishi engine. That explains *everything*.

Possibly, wife has a 2004 Sebring Sedan Limited with the 2.7, done oil
changes at the dealer every 2 to 3K, so far nothing happened with it, knew
a girl who had a 2003 Sebring sedan with the 2.7, had 130K when she traded
it, she had no engine problems, either. Forgot to add, wifes Sebring has
66K on the speedo.

Rog


"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> Some O wrote:
>
>> ...The Sebring is the right size, but it has design problems, such as...a
>> short life 2.7L V6 engine,...
>
> Are the 2.7L's that come in the newer platforms giving problems. I
> thought its issues had pretty much been fixed.
>
> I can't imagine them designing it into the new cars if they hadn't been
> fixed. Could they be that stupid - umm - cancel that. But seriously -
> are the 2.7's that they put in now giving problems?
>
> --
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
> with the letter 'x')

I hope they are actually doing the oil changes. I caught our local
Chrysler dealer with their pants down when they charged my elderly
mother for the very first oil and filter change on her brand new
Concorde and didn't actually do it - oil was exactly same color and
level when she got it back, and - the real smoking gun - the flat black
factory filter with "ORIGINAL FACTORY FILTER" stamped on it was still on it.

That experience and another personal one with a chain oil change place
and the TV expose video on Jiffy Lube have caused me to question if some
of these problems with sludge were as much or more to do with not just
extended, but totally missed oil/filter changes than with sludge-prone
designs. However I also believe that certain engines are much more
sludge prone than others - just that the routine fraud going on with
paid-for oil changes makes it impossible to really assess that - I bet
even the manufacturers realize that they can't assess it for just that
reason - yet they aren't going to raise that issue publicly because it
clouds perception of their own dealers. The old "What the consumer
doesn't know won't hurt them" philosophy.

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


rdtaxted wrote:
> Possibly, wife has a 2004 Sebring Sedan Limited with the 2.7, done oil
> changes at the dealer every 2 to 3K, so far nothing happened with it, knew
> a girl who had a 2003 Sebring sedan with the 2.7, had 130K when she traded
> it, she had no engine problems, either. Forgot to add, wifes Sebring has
> 66K on the speedo.
>
> Rog
>
>
> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Some O wrote:
>>
>>> ...The Sebring is the right size, but it has design problems, such as...a
>>> short life 2.7L V6 engine,...
>> Are the 2.7L's that come in the newer platforms giving problems. I
>> thought its issues had pretty much been fixed.
>>
>> I can't imagine them designing it into the new cars if they hadn't been
>> fixed. Could they be that stupid - umm - cancel that. But seriously -
>> are the 2.7's that they put in now giving problems?
>>
>> --
>> Bill Putney
>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
>> with the letter 'x')
>
>

"Percival P. Cassidy" > wrote in
:

> On 01/10/09 03:03 pm Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>> We had a Stratus ES, which I suppose had substantially the same
>>> engine as in the 2.7L V6 Sebring. Despite having had the timing belt
>>> replaced at about 65K miles along with a water pump replacement, the
>>> thing blew up at 85K -- broken timing belt;...
>>
>> Can't be. The 2.7L has a timing *chain* - not something you'd
>> normally replace until the miles were really up there, and then only
>> because the water pump is driven off of it.
>
> I stand corrected then. I ASS+U+MEd that the 2.7 was simply a
> larger-capacity variant of the 2.5.
>
> Perce
>

Myself and another sales rep got Dodge Intrepid company cars in 2002.
Mine was the ES with a 3.5 and his was the SE with a 2.7. I put more
miles on mine than he did. At 73,000 miles, his engine fried and
required a rebuild. At 98,000, we traded mine in, they were afraid of
the same thing. After that, the company quit buying Chrysler products.

In article >,
Bill Putney > wrote:

> Some O wrote:
>
> > ...The Sebring is the right size, but it has design
> > problems, such as...a short life
> > 2.7L V6 engine,...
>
> Are the 2.7L's that come in the newer platforms giving problems. I
> thought its issues had pretty much been fixed.
>
> I can't imagine them designing it into the new cars if they hadn't been
> fixed. Could they be that stupid - umm - cancel that. But seriously -
> are the 2.7's that they put in now giving problems?

If the water pump is still inside the engine oil chamber
I would avoid it.

Some O wrote:
> In article >,
> Bill Putney > wrote:
>
>> Some O wrote:
>>
>>> ...The Sebring is the right size, but it has design
>>> problems, such as...a short life
>>> 2.7L V6 engine,...
>> Are the 2.7L's that come in the newer platforms giving problems. I
>> thought its issues had pretty much been fixed.
>>
>> I can't imagine them designing it into the new cars if they hadn't been
>> fixed. Could they be that stupid - umm - cancel that. But seriously -
>> are the 2.7's that they put in now giving problems?
>
> If the water pump is still inside the engine oil chamber
> I would avoid it.

That part is nothing unique to the 2.7 in Chrysler engines. That is
true also of the 3.2 and 3.5 - not sure about other engines they
presently use. Clearly a design point where initial cost and high level
of integration took a back seat to maintainability.

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

Bill Putney wrote:
> Some O wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Bill Putney > wrote:
>>
>>> Some O wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...The Sebring is the right size, but it has design problems, such
>>>> as...a short life 2.7L V6 engine,...
>>> Are the 2.7L's that come in the newer platforms giving problems. I
>>> thought its issues had pretty much been fixed.
>>>
>>> I can't imagine them designing it into the new cars if they hadn't
>>> been fixed. Could they be that stupid - umm - cancel that. But
>>> seriously - are the 2.7's that they put in now giving problems?
>>
>> If the water pump is still inside the engine oil chamber
>> I would avoid it.
>
> That part is nothing unique to the 2.7 in Chrysler engines. That is
> true also of the 3.2 and 3.5 - not sure about other engines they
> presently use. Clearly a design point where initial cost and high level
> of integration took a back seat to maintainability.

Oops - I said it backwards - "...maintainability took a back seat to
initial cost and high level of integration."

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

> Some O wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Bill Putney > wrote:
> >
> >> Some O wrote:
> >>
> >>> ...The Sebring is the right size, but it has design
> >>> problems, such as...a short life
> >>> 2.7L V6 engine,...
> >> Are the 2.7L's that come in the newer platforms giving problems. I
> >> thought its issues had pretty much been fixed.
> >>
> >> I can't imagine them designing it into the new cars if they hadn't been
> >> fixed. Could they be that stupid - umm - cancel that. But seriously -
> >> are the 2.7's that they put in now giving problems?
> >
> > If the water pump is still inside the engine oil chamber
> > I would avoid it.

> In article >,
> Bill Putney > wrote:>
> That part is nothing unique to the 2.7 in Chrysler engines. That is
> true also of the 3.2 and 3.5 - not sure about other engines they
> presently use. Clearly a design point where initial cost and high level
> of integration took a back seat to maintainability.

Bill, did you mean this instead?
Clearly a design point where maintainability took a back seat to initial
cost and high level of integration.

Some O wrote:
>> Some O wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Bill Putney > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some O wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ...The Sebring is the right size, but it has design
>>>>> problems, such as...a short life
>>>>> 2.7L V6 engine,...
>>>> Are the 2.7L's that come in the newer platforms giving problems. I
>>>> thought its issues had pretty much been fixed.
>>>>
>>>> I can't imagine them designing it into the new cars if they hadn't been
>>>> fixed. Could they be that stupid - umm - cancel that. But seriously -
>>>> are the 2.7's that they put in now giving problems?
>>> If the water pump is still inside the engine oil chamber
>>> I would avoid it.
>
>> In article >,
>> Bill Putney > wrote:>
>> That part is nothing unique to the 2.7 in Chrysler engines. That is
>> true also of the 3.2 and 3.5 - not sure about other engines they
>> presently use. Clearly a design point where initial cost and high level
>> of integration took a back seat to maintainability.
>
> Bill, did you mean this instead?
> Clearly a design point where maintainability took a back seat to initial
> cost and high level of integration.

Yep!

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