Chrysler 2.7L V-6 -- Rodney Dangerfield Engine?

[ekpolk]

Quote:

---

I think the current 2.7s have had a lot of the bugs worked out. Nevertheless, I still prefer the SOHC 3.2/3.5 V6s. The 2.7 and 3.2/3.5 were designed simultaneously by two different teams. I think the 3.2/3.5 team created the better engine.

---

From everything I've heard, I'd have to agree, but I have not tried one of the 3.2/3.5s. That said, it is almost beyond dispute (at least in my little world) that 350/350 vs 190/190 (hp/tq) makes the 3.5 a much more desirable engine, despite the 2.7s nice manners.

 

[ekpolk]

All this gets me wondering -- why on earth does DC have two separate V-6s in this fashion??? Seems pretty odd really for them to be supporting two separate systems that must be required to make two different designs. Why not simply take the 3.xL design and "destroke" and/or "debore" it to get a smaller "six" that could be made with the same tooling on the same assembly lines? It's certainly not a matter of the 2.7 being so much smaller that it can be "shoehorned" into places the bigger six can't. I didn't use a ruler or tape measure, but looking under this Charger's hood, I'm struck by how big the 2.7 is, compared to it's displacement. It is every bit as large as the 3.5 that was in my G35, at least by eyeballing. If external size is not a substantial advantage, why bother with a second separate design at all?

 

[G-MAN]

Quote:

---

All this gets me wondering -- why on earth does DC have two separate V-6s in this fashion???

---

The answer to your question goes all the way back to Chrysler's Ten Year plan in late 1995, long before the Mercedes take over. The 2.7 was designed to be used in BOTH transverse and longitudinal configurations, and would be used as the base engine in the Dodge Intrepid and Chrysler Concorde (longitudinal) as well as in the Sebring, Stratus, and Breeze (transverse). The 3.2/3.5 was designed solely for use longitudinally in the LH body cars, and then in the RWD LX that was to be based on the LH. Once Mercedes took over this plan went out the window and the LX was scrapped and a completely new LX design based on Mercedes architecture was put into development. This delayed the introduction of the LX body by almost three years and the result is the current 300, Magnum, and Charger. Why the current Chrysler mgt decided to keep the 2.7 as a base engine in these RWD cars is a mystery to me. I think they should have relegated the 2.7 to transverse FWD duty and kept the 3.2 SOHC as the base RWD engine with the 3.5HO as the next step up.

 

[Merkava_4]

Quote:

---

Why not simply take the 3.xL design and "destroke" and/or "debore" it to get a smaller "six" that could be made with the same tooling on the same assembly lines?

---

Wouldn't that be a somewhat GM'ish way of manufacturing a line of engines though?

 

[Cutehumor]

Quote:

---

It's very mellow and smooth, even at WOT, which ahem, I've tried a couple times.

---

WOT on a rental

 

[ekpolk]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's very mellow and smooth, even at WOT, which ahem, I've tried a couple times.

---

WOT on a rental

---

Now that you mention it, that does sound sort of silly. . .

 

[Cutehumor]

I just checked out consumer reports, they talked about the acceleration on this engine is sluggish. maybe stepping up from a prius to this V-6 did it.

 

[ekpolk]

Quote:

---

I just checked out consumer reports, they talked about the acceleration on this engine is sluggish. maybe stepping up from a prius to this V-6 did it.

---

The only problem with that is that I drive my wife's 07 Avalon fairly frequently, and that car (3.5L, ~270hp) is certainly not power-challenged. No, the Charger-plus-2.7 combo is certainly no rocket, but I don't find it "sluggish". You've just got to realize that using such terms inevitably introduces an element of subjectivity that there's no getting around. Or maybe the guy who characterized the 2.7 Charger as "sluggish" had just finished evaluating a Bugatti Veyron, or some other rocket-like ride.

Side note: Today, I'm on Long Island (yes, on the other side of the continent from yesterday...) driving a vanilla, white Taurus rental. Not bad, and probably a tad faster than the Charger, but I still like that rwd charger a lot better (and would probably like it a whole lot better if I had tried a 3.5L version).

 

[Merkava_4]

Quote:

---

Side note: Today, I'm on Long Island (yes, on the other side of the continent from yesterday...)

---

Man. . .

Is the MC providing you with a Lear Jet or something?

 

[ekpolk]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Side note: Today, I'm on Long Island (yes, on the other side of the continent from yesterday...)

---

Man. . .

Is the MC providing you with a Lear Jet or something?

---

Nope, no such luck. Try the 11 pm to 7 am, SeaTac to JFK "Redeye" on Delta. Hey, if I was in the Lear Jet league, you could bet I wouldn't be messing around with a Taurus or a Charger...