'94 Acclaim stops running suddenly.......

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:20:12 -0700, NewMan >
wrote:

>Oh horse hockey! If it has a distributor it is the 3.0 litre engine
>which is an INFERIOR Mitsubishi Engine. <snip>

I have NEVER seen an "It's-A-****ty" engine pass 50-60K miles for
durability, nor have I ever seen one that ran properly for any length
of time. DC was quite wise in dumping their "It's-A-****ty" holdings,
another one of Iacocca's gaffes, along with misreading the quality of
Honda products, which kicked his lousy Omni/Horizon subcompacts in the
teeth.

DESERTBOB (not its real name) is a TROLL.
It regularly frequents at least twenty news groups,
including many rabid/sex/racist/gay/disabled/unemployed groups.
Normally, it starts off with reasonable, even witty lines,
but rapidly drifts into lies, abuse and stupidity.
Check its details at this URL:

http://groups.google.com/groups/prof...n7nbF1Te82ZIng

It is a sad creatures, deserving of pity, not anger.
Any direct response simply feeds it,
but it will go away if you ignore it.
Other names it has used includes "OLDECHRYSLER"
Now you are seeing a reply above, by the real "DeserTBob"

DeserTBoB wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:20:12 -0700, NewMan >
> wrote:
>
> >Oh horse hockey! If it has a distributor it is the 3.0 litre engine
> >which is an INFERIOR Mitsubishi Engine. <snip>
>
> I have NEVER seen an "It's-A-****ty" engine pass 50-60K miles for
> durability, nor have I ever seen one that ran properly for any length
> of time. DC was quite wise in dumping their "It's-A-****ty" holdings,
> another one of Iacocca's gaffes, along with misreading the quality of
> Honda products, which kicked his lousy Omni/Horizon subcompacts in the
> teeth.


whoa- there he goes folks, DeserTBob has just cranked up his
troll-o-meter again !!

In article
. com>,
"duty-honor-country" > wrote:

> aarcuda69062 wrote:
> > In article
> > . com>,
> > "duty-honor-country" > wrote:
> >
> > > aarcuda69062 wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > .com>,
> > > > "duty-honor-country" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ron wrote:
> > > > > > My '94 Acclaim (2.5 w/ auto tranny; 60 k miles) suddenly died while
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > was driving it home today and will not restart (turns over fine). I
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > don't hear the 2 second electric fuel pump noise when I switch the
> > > > > > key
> > > > > > to the run position.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It has stored a number 11 code. I believe the distributor pick-up
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > died. Am I on the right track here ?
> > > > > > Is there any test I can do to prove a bad pick-up ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks in advance for any advice.
> > > > >
> > > > > does that vehicle use a crank sensor or cam position sensor ?
> > > >
> > > > Technically, it would be a crankshaft position sensor.
> > > > The turbo engines used a dual pick-up that read both crankshaft
> > > > position and camshaft position.
> > >
> > >
> > > If that crank/cam sensor is bad, then he will get no spark.
> >
> > Yes, and?
> >
> > > I can't believe that engine still has a distributor- GM cars that year
> > > already had crank sensors and coil packs.
> >
> > Superior Chrysler engineering means that they don't have to
> > resort to such things.
> >
> > Do you think the code 11 came from something other than a failed
> > distributor pick-up or its associated wiring?
>
>
> Are you suggesting that all new Chryslers still use distributors ?

A 1994 Plymouth Acclaim is not a "new Chrysler."

> And are you suggesting that every code yields the exact diagnosis that
> code stands for ?

In this case, yes.

> 24 years experience wrenching as a hobby and business, tells me
> different.

36 years, many of them in a Chrysler-Plymouth dealership and the
fact that the distributor pick-up is a common failure part tells
me that is probably what is needed, not that I offered a
diagnosis to begin with. Your reply was to my statement that the
pick-up was technically just a crankshaft position sensor...

In article >,
DeserTBoB > wrote:

> On 31 Aug 2006 09:01:33 -0700, "duty-honor-country"
> > wrote:
>
> >24 years experience wrenching as a hobby and business, tells me
> >different. <snip>
>
> Ask him why his shop business in the Drums, PA area failed.

I really don't care.

In article >,
NewMan > wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:24:40 GMT, aarcuda69062
> > wrote:
>
> >In article
> .com>,
> > "duty-honor-country" > wrote:
> >
> >> aarcuda69062 wrote:
> >> > In article
> >> > .com>,
> >> > "duty-honor-country" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Ron wrote:
> >> > > > My '94 Acclaim (2.5 w/ auto tranny; 60 k miles) suddenly died while
> >> > > > I
> >> > > > was driving it home today and will not restart (turns over fine). I
> >> > > > also
> >> > > > don't hear the 2 second electric fuel pump noise when I switch the
> >> > > > key
> >> > > > to the run position.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It has stored a number 11 code. I believe the distributor pick-up
> >> > > > has
> >> > > > died. Am I on the right track here ?
> >> > > > Is there any test I can do to prove a bad pick-up ?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thanks in advance for any advice.
> >> > >
> >> > > does that vehicle use a crank sensor or cam position sensor ?
> >> >
> >> > Technically, it would be a crankshaft position sensor.
> >> > The turbo engines used a dual pick-up that read both crankshaft
> >> > position and camshaft position.
> >>
> >>
> >> If that crank/cam sensor is bad, then he will get no spark.
> >
> >Yes, and?
> >
> >> I can't believe that engine still has a distributor- GM cars that year
> >> already had crank sensors and coil packs.
> >
>
> I'm with ya!
>
> >Superior Chrysler engineering means that they don't have to
> >resort to such things.
> >
>
> Oh horse hockey! If it has a distributor it is the 3.0 litre engine
> which is an INFERIOR Mitsubishi Engine. I had a 1994 Acclaim with one
> in it. It NEVER ran properly - escpecially during moist weather. It
> also PUKED oil everywhere. That engine, IMHO, is a Piece of CRAP.
>
> I had a 1994 Grand Caravan with the 3.3 litre engine - FAR SUPERIOR
> design to the 3.0 mitsubishi! No "timing belt" to try and fuss with.
> No clunky distributor - an electronically controlled coil pack (just
> like GM). My 3.3 purred like a kitten - and it NEVER, I REPEAT NEVER
> let me down or left me stranded! EVER. It never ran "rough" - even
> when the O2 sensor went it still ran OK (just the occassional
> spit-back).
>
> I also used to own a 1987 Cutlass Cruiser. That was the year GM
> introduced the electronics. That was a 2.8 litre MFI engine with a
> coil-pack. I was, quite frankly, SHOCKED when I opened the hood of the
> 1994 Acclaim, some seven years later, to find a F&cking distributor!
> Combine the 3.0 engine with the A604 - and you have a perfect recipe
> for disaster! (one of the reasons I sold the dman thing!)

Step off the soap box, read the part near the top where the
original poster mentions that the engine is a 2.5 liter.

That is NOT a 3.0 Mitsubishi engine.
(believe it or not)

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:59:53 GMT, aarcuda69062
> wrote:

>36 years, many of them in a Chrysler-Plymouth dealership and the
>fact that the distributor pick-up is a common failure part tells
>me that is probably what is needed, not that I offered a
>diagnosis to begin with. Your reply was to my statement that the
>pick-up was technically just a crankshaft position sensor... <snip>

Welll, Charlie Nudo (aka Cholly Noodlez)'s brain problem is
self-evident.

Was the pickup in the older ESC I and II systems which used the old
distributor on the 318 a big failure item? I was debating changing
mine out, given its age, but I've never heard of one fail on these.

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:20:12 -0700, NewMan >
wrote:

>I also used to own a 1987 Cutlass Cruiser. <snip>

Ick.

>That was the year GM
>introduced the electronics. That was a 2.8 litre MFI engine with a
>coil-pack. I was, quite frankly, SHOCKED when I opened the hood of the
>1994 Acclaim, some seven years later, to find a F&cking distributor! <snip>

My wife's '92 Camaro 3.1 60° V6 had a distributor...and your point is?
The 3.1 was a bore-stroke job on the 2.8.

Ron wrote:
I believe the distributor pick-up has
> died. Am I on the right track here ?
> Is there any test I can do to prove a bad pick-up ?

Ron

I had two Chrysler products that lost the distributor pickup. The first
one I replaced based on the code and the second I put an ohmeter on the
leads to the distributor and wiggled the wire to the distributor. It
jumped open sometimes when I wiggled the wire/cable. Replaced the
pickup and no firther problems.

Bob AZ

But why the leap backwards??? I have owned many cars over the years.
Only ONE of them had a relatively "trouble free" distributor - my 1979
Malibu Classic with a 305 V8. I believe it was the High Energy
Ignition. Worked like a tank, and the only thing I ever had to do was
replace the distributor cap - ONCE. 5 min job.

All other distributors I had direct experience with were problematic
at best! The bottom line is that they damn things wear out, and they
are not easy to replace and not cheap either!

Coil packs have no physical moving parts, and so no wear! And the ECM
can control PRECISELY when the engine fires! Acceleration is MUCH
better since there is no lag like with the vacuum advance. No hoses to
leak either! I bet emmissions are lower as well.

When you KNOW that something is vastly superior, then why not ditch
the old distributor for good and use the coil pack???

I'm tellin ya right now, if I went to buy a new car off the lot and I
saw a distributor on the engine, I would walk away. It's that simple.

I had a 1995 Corsica with the 3.1 - and it had a coil pack. The main
improvement there was that the coil pack was on the TOP of the engine
- easy to replace if need be. The 87 Cutlass was onthe BOTTOM of the
engine, and was a BITCH to replace.

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:16:18 -0700, DeserTBoB >
wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:20:12 -0700, NewMan >
>wrote:
>
>>I also used to own a 1987 Cutlass Cruiser. <snip>
>
>Ick.
>
>>That was the year GM
>>introduced the electronics. That was a 2.8 litre MFI engine with a
>>coil-pack. I was, quite frankly, SHOCKED when I opened the hood of the
>>1994 Acclaim, some seven years later, to find a F&cking distributor! <snip>
>
>My wife's '92 Camaro 3.1 60° V6 had a distributor...and your point is?
>The 3.1 was a bore-stroke job on the 2.8.