3.6L Chrysler PentaStar V6 Assembly Part 2 Video

[StevieC]

Please no comments on this thread.

 

[StevieC]

 

[PimTac]

No need to watch the videos then.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Does this mean Chrysler no longer makes 2-strokes? Because it seems like almost everything they made in the 90s and early 2000s were, and that people used a higher oil-to-gas ratio than recommended.

 

[dlundblad]

Shame on those who caused the previous thread to get locked. Holy smokes guys. It an engine assembly thread! *Also, to those of you who don't understand simple manufacturing, assembly can be a slow paced task.

 

[StevieC]

I figured there would be comments but I was trying to steer clear of this one getting locked as well. As for oil burners, yeah tell me about it. If it wasn't that it was heads/head-gaskets or puking transmissions. I think Mercedes was the best thing that happened to them because the stuff out now is largely influenced by them. They still have a long way to go though.

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: StevieC

I figured there would be comments but I was trying to steer clear of this one getting locked as well. As for oil burners, yeah tell me about it. If it wasn't that it was heads/head-gaskets or puking transmissions. I think Mercedes was the best thing that happened to them because the stuff out now is largely influenced by them. They still have a long way to go though.

'Twas the Germans who ran them into the ground. Can't say I agree with you there Steve.

 

[4WD]

One of FCA’s best products is a HD Ram with a Cummins … didn’t MB look at changing that engine and then elected not to …?

 

[StevieC]

I'm talking about the technology not the way the company is run.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted By: 4WD

One of FCA’s best products is a HD Ram with a Cummins … didn’t MB look at changing that engine and then elected not to …?

The Mechanical injection Cummins engine in the 90's YES absolutely, everything else has been so/so.

 

[OVERKILL]

Weren't most of the Chrysler oil burners made by Mitsubishi? I'm thinking specifically of the notorious V6 in the Caravan/Grand Caravan/Voyager....etc. My buddy owned a few of them that were foggers.

 

[StevieC]

Some were the Mitsu's but you also had some of the Chrysler engines as well. Then there was the sludger 2.7L's

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: StevieC

Some were the Mitsu's but you also had some of the Chrysler engines as well. Then there was the sludger 2.7L's

I honestly don't remember any of the Chrysler-branded ones being bad for oil burning But yes, there was that sludge beauty of a 2.7L! The minivans with the dying tranmissions and smoking Mitsubishi 3.0L's in them were a nightmare combo that definitely gave those vans a reputation!

 

[dishdude]

The 2.7 was the only bad Mopar engine I can think of, their trannys were solid too until the 4 speed was launched. The Mitsu 3.0 was the only oil burner I can think of, but of course it was available in almost everything, along with the 4 speed!

 

[Silverado12]

Yes, the Mitsubishi 3.0 and 2.6 were junk. With the exception of the 2.7 (which had a weird internal water pump) Chrysler's own engines were decent. The 3.9 six and 318 are probably the most durable gas engines in existence.

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: StevieC

I'm talking about the technology not the way the company is run.

If that's what you mean, credit needs to go to AMC with the Renix 4.0.

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: dishdude

The 2.7 was the only bad Mopar engine I can think of, their trannys were solid too until the 4 speed was launched. The Mitsu 3.0 was the only oil burner I can think of, but of course it was available in almost everything, along with the 4 speed!

You're forgetting the 3.8 found in many vans and early Jeep JK's.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

Weren't most of the Chrysler oil burners made by Mitsubishi? I'm thinking specifically of the notorious V6 in the Caravan/Grand Caravan/Voyager....etc. My buddy owned a few of them that were foggers.

My BIL had a couple of them, all were Mitsubishi powered. He kept buying them because he was able to get them cheap in the used market.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: dlundblad

Originally Posted By: dishdude

The 2.7 was the only bad Mopar engine I can think of, their trannys were solid too until the 4 speed was launched. The Mitsu 3.0 was the only oil burner I can think of, but of course it was available in almost everything, along with the 4 speed!

You're forgetting the 3.8 found in many vans and early Jeep JK's.

Was that the 3.8L that was supposedly assembled in Mexico with the piston rings installed upside down?

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

Originally Posted By: StevieC

Some were the Mitsu's but you also had some of the Chrysler engines as well. Then there was the sludger 2.7L's

I honestly don't remember any of the Chrysler-branded ones being bad for oil burning But yes, there was that sludge beauty of a 2.7L! The minivans with the dying tranmissions and smoking Mitsubishi 3.0L's in them were a nightmare combo that definitely gave those vans a reputation!

Although it says Chrysler it's actually a Mitsu. It would have been a great engine if Chrysler listened to Mitsubishi and went with proper valve seals. They had this same engine variation in Mitsu branded cars with proper valve seals and it didn't burn oil.