Strategy for new-to-me 2000 Intrepid 2.7 w/31k?

[va3ux]

ACEWIZA

quote:

---

The Chrysler 2.7 saga seems unfortunately, another great example of how Internet myths are built. To read some of the hoopla I seen bantied about I'd be worried about making it home from the showroom.

Define "faulty design." The 2.7 is an very efficient, smooth-running engine. Considering all I've read about it like va3ux, along my personal ownership experience, I'd characterize the motor in this context as "intolerant to abuse." It is hard to say who did what, when to whom regarding a sludged motor. Knowing the way some people treat machinery as I do, I'd be inclined to believe plenty of negligent owners played their full part in this story.

---

There's no "internet myth" here as you suggest. The problem with 2.7L is well known. I first learned about it FROM THE CHRYSLER DEALER in the town where I live about a year ago. I went in to buy an EGR valve and I casually asked about the 2 used motors sitting on little wooden skids outside the door. The answer : Siezed 2.7L V6's. When I said that's what I have in my Intrepid, the Service Manager looked at me over top of his glasses, pointed his pen at me and said, "you change that oil and filter every 3K miles like clockwork, and your's won't end up like those ones. We do 8 or 10 a year of those." And this is in a town of 20K people with perhaps another 20K in the outlying areas. He then told me to find the page in the owner's manual that describes "Normal Driving Conditions" for the 5K mile OCI, and then tear it out and forget everything that's on it. Didn't matter in my case because I always have done 3K mile OCI.

Internet myth - my arse.

You have 60K on yours running synthetic - good for you. You're doing everything right. But not having your engine in 60K miles is no bonus in my books. They're not supposed to sieze. I have 135K on mine with no trouble so far.

It's a fabulous little engine. Like your's, mine too runs as smooth as silk and gets incredible gas mileage. But any engine that cooks oil as easily as this one does, and can then plug it's own undersized oil galleries with the heat generated sludge - all within relatively low miles - clearly has a Fault in it's Design. The whole design is not faulty, but that particular aspect certainly is.

And, this past August I saw yet 2 more siezed 2.7's - again sitting on little wooden skids - at the Chrylser dealer in Hamilton, Ont. I went in to get a price on transmission oil/filter, and there they were sitting just outside the entrance to the Service Dept.

I've seen all the real evidence that I need to see.

Phil

 

[acewiza]

It IS a myth that these engines are faulty. They have a higher than normal failure due mostly to careless owners. They are designed to run hot and are hard on oil. Anyone that is not using synthetic and/or does not change it often enough will suffer the consequences.

Enough long term testing would have borne that out and probably resulted in changes to the recommended oils and service schedules. But that costs money and Chrysler was not going to delay introduction of the motor in this highly competitive market.

You said it yourself - there are many thousands of these engines on the road today. Unfortunately, some larger than normal number of them have suffered an early demise at the hands of somebody who for whatever reason did not take care of it well enough.

Defective NO. Myth YES, or arse, whatever...

 

[fred0803]

I too have a 2.7 Intrepid 2002. 102,000 miles and putting on 3000 per month. Oil changes every 3000 miles no exceptions. I have used Mobil 1 for half the life, the rest I have now used Trop artic semi or M/C semi 5/30. I do think a lot of the trouble is with people trying to extend OCI's on this engine. They redesigned the oil ports and internals to get more flow into the engine to resist sludging. This change was in 01 so most of the sludge prone engines are pre 01. I did an Auto RX at around 80,000 miles. The rinse phase didn't show much (yes I used havoline for the clean and rinse). I believe the engine is pretty clean. I get 29 MPG at 70MPH. It's been a good car for me.

 

[lata]

First post

I have a 2001 Sebring Vert with the 2.7 too. I had it since new. the dealer said to me that factory fill was 5w-30 valveline. I did conventional for 5K till 20K, then switched to Valveline Synthetic 5w-30 for 10K OCI. No filter change. Oil is nice and darker tan color. I now have 62K miles on it. The car runs like new getting 23.5-24mpg city 27 at 83mph, cruised. As for sludging, dont have any. I guess it also depends on the way a driver is and the quality. I tend to blow out the carbons from time to time. It was seen over 35K of highway driving from CA to OH.
I hesitated to use Valveline in this car since all my other got Mobil1 ranging from 0-20 to 15-50 depending in wat the condition i was going to put the car to. as far as this goes, at the end of the day I do need to get a UOA to verify
This one for the Satisfied Owner

but i have electrical issues like a Jaguar, it never seems to end

 

[2windy]

I lurk around here a lot, but I couldn't let this one go by. My sister just lost the 2.7L motor in her '98 Concorde with 101K miles due to sludge. Oil changes at 3-5K intervals with quality oil and filters, no carelessness involved. It's not particularly "sludgy" looking from the filler hole either.

No flame is meant here, but I wanted to comment. It's NO MYTH that these engines are sludge-prone and WILL seize, even using the factory recommeded OCIs.

quote:

---

ACEWIZA - It IS a myth that these engines are faulty. They have a higher than normal failure due mostly to careless owners. They are designed to run hot and are hard on oil. Anyone that is not using synthetic and/or does not change it often enough will suffer the consequences.

---

"...designed to run hot and are hard on oil."
Who would "design" an engine to run hot, then not provide the proper service recommendations? You say the engine is hard on oil, and I definitely agree, but why then weren't owners notified and the service schedule updated?

These engines CAN sludge up, even when using Chrysler's recommended OCIs, oil and filters. So, it's not just "careless" owners. Perhaps the engines aren't "faulty" in the strictest sense of the word, but there is certainly fault on Chrysler's part. At best, it's a poor design that utilizes an undersized sump, resulting in a higher-than-normal rate of failure in the field.

quote:

---

ACEWIZA - Enough long term testing would have borne that out and probably resulted in changes to the recommended oils and service schedules. But that costs money and Chrysler was not going to delay introduction of the motor in this highly competitive market...

...Defective NO. Myth YES, or arse, whatever...

---

So, owners were left to do the testing, eh? Now the test results are in, and the verdict is that these engines have cooling/lubrication issues that can only be addressed by a stricter service schedule? Wish I'd known that 50K miles sooner!

As mentioned, Chrysler dealers have been doing some good business on replacing these 2.7L engines for a while now, so it's a known problem, NOT a myth.

Has Chrysler updated the design to prevent the issues? Not that I can find. I'd appreciate info in that area if anyone has it.

Anyway, best of luck to everyone with one of these engines. Change the oil religiously, try synthetics, go for an Auto-RX flush.

Anyone interested in a '98 Concorde with a blown engine? It's worth less than the cost of a replacement engine and it's still sitting in my sister's driveway. At least it's paid for...

- Scott

 

[va3ux]

ACEWIZA

The earth is flat.

 

[acewiza]

Well 2windy, I'm sorry to hear that, but unfortunately I just don't believe you. I think You're description of the sad saga belies what really went down. Let me elaborate:

You said it is your sister's car. No sexist predjudice meant here, but women are well known for the abuse they tend to subject automobiles to. You went on to suggest in not so many words, that the regular oil changes were done at the iffy lube. Am I on the right track here?

And I'd also suggest that there probably was at least once that it ran low (for whatever reason, maybe twice?) probably unnoticed by said owner.

Sorry, don't buy it.

Yes thay are designed to run hotter than some other contemporary motors. That is one reason why they are so efficient. Excellent design, IMHO.

 

[acewiza]

Further to the sad saga of the horrible 2.7...

How then, do you explain the vast majority of these motors happily racking up hundreds of thousands of miles? What is the one factor, that one common denominator the differentiates the sludge monster from the well-running motor?

Duh, the owner! And of course, their maintenance practices, driving habits etc.

I will certainly admit that Chrysler might have known better than to allow dino on a normal ("not" severe) service schedule - a schedule that for all practical purposes does not exist in reality for all but a very small percentage of drivers.

Hindsight is 20/20. Motors on the road is money in Chrysler's accounts. I take it this one failed outside the warranty period? Too bad.

 

[Sid]

Go search the internet and their are hundreds of people having the same problem with this car and I'm sure at least half of those people change their oil on time and maintain the car to the best of their abilities. This is not to mention the others hundreds of people who don't post on the internet. Seems like the Ford Taurus/Sable situation. Company makes something faulty in a highly sold vehicle that is expensive to fix so they never issue a recall. Go ask any mechanic about this engine and see what he says. And why should people use synthetic? It was never required by Chrysler and every other car does fine on dino oil.

And I will say that I don't think women abuse their vehicles anymore then lazy *** men. Just because 99% of the people you meet or talk to on the internet are men who seem anal about their vehicles their are always the others who don't give a crap about their vehicles. I've seen women get dicked by places like Firestone or Iffy Lube. But for the most part all the women I know, go regularly for an oil change.

 

[acewiza]

Sid, if you want to base your understanding of this matter on what you read from the Internet, by all means feel free. This forum is just another one of those sources, anyway. If want to base it on reality do the numbers, and ask the simple questions as I have above.

A higher than normal failure rate starts getting discussed in places like this and before you know it another myth is born of it's own Self-fulfilling prophecy.

So did you take a poll of mechanics in your state/region? Every other car does fine on dino? Are you just making this stuff up?

 

[Sid]

Listen I'm not saying the car or the engine is complete crap but it seems that it had a fault from the factory and people are being affected by it years later as mileage goes up. NO MYTH here. Ford Taurus with a bad transmission, 3.8 Taurus Essex engine with head gasket problems, Dodge Neon with bad head gaskets, Ford Focus with a bad Fuel Pump and Igntion. They're all problems out of the factory. Flaws in design. It happens but don't deny it. When I say other cars run fine on dino oil I mean most cars can use dino oil without it sludging up and ruining things at a very early stage. I've heard that synthetic oil could've possible help prevent the problem from happening but that's not something Dodge specified from the factory.

And people aren't freakin idiots. They don't have reason to make stuff up. If a 1000 people on the net have stated their transmission went out or their car stalls on a hard right turn because of a bad fuel pump then you might wanna start thinking about a problem with the vehicle.

 

[kc8adu]

I noticed when I changed the PCV valve, the rubber hose (about 4-5" long) has some nasty crud in it, and the hose seems to be deteriorated to the point where vacuum would collapse it. I'm going to replace this hose soon.

wasnt pcv issues implicated in the toyota sludgers?

 

[acewiza]

I just don't understand why people are so surprised when cars have mechanical problems. Really bad ones like lube related failures are most often easily addressed by proper or better maintenance BEFORE the damage is done. The way I see alot of cars treated, it is amazing to to me and a testament to the excellent quality of many automobiles being produced today, that the failure rates are not higher.

So 1,000 people had the same problem - SO WHAT? 100,000 didn't have the problem. and they didn't log on to a freakin' web forum to whine and complain about it after their warranty claim was denied because they screwed up. Or after the warranty expired, it is a miracle they made it through the warranty period anyway after the abuse they subjected the car to. Those are the ones you hear about.

 

[mrjlube]

Well,Well,Well Easy guys!! LOL

 

[va3ux]

One thing I will say *only slightly* in defense of Chrysler with this 2.7 L thing, is that if you read the section in Owner's Manual where it defines the difference between Severe Service (3000 Mi OCI) and Normal Service (5000 Mi OCI) - and I mean *really read* it until it's fully understood, there probably isn't 1% of these engines out there that would truly qualify for Normal Service (5000 m OCI). Essentially, virtually all of them should have 3000 mi OCI. Under Chrysler's definition of Normal Service, you would be hard pressed to find an average car owner that would truly qualify for it.

As with most products, most owners do not read the manual. Even for those that do read the manual, I can still easily understand how an average owner could quickly rate their own usage as Normal rather than Severe.

Phil

 

[va3ux]

ACEWIZA,

Do you work for Chrysler ?

Phil

 

[acewiza]

No Phil, I don't. But I have been a satisfied customer and driver of their vehicles for over thirty years.

Nor do I believe I am an obsessively anal wrencher doing arguably unnecessary preventative maintenance including things like short OCIs, pre-filling filters and excessive levels of additive/cleaning mumbo jumbo either. In fact, quite the opposite - just looking for ways to do things smarter, better.

I think the vast majority of the motoring public is quite inept and careless about routine vehicle maintenance. The carmakers love us for it - keeps those assembly lines rolling. Warrantys are as much to protect the manufacturer as they are the buyer in this respect.