Originally Posted By: Jim Spahr
So you liked the 3.8. I keep hearing on this forum that it was not economical and now they are saying it was an oil burner!
I personally did. I had two of the 3.3/3.8 V-6 engines and both were smooth and quiet. Fairly refined for OHV V-6 engines. They had a good meaty torque curve in the mid range. They weren't stump pullers, and they wouldn't scream to 6,000 rpm, but they were good engines for what they were. Some of the 3.8L engines did consume lots of oil. I've read on this forum that the Mexican engine plant installed piston rings upside down. Could be, I don't know.
Originally Posted By: Jim Spahr
So what do you say to those on the forum who didn't like the 3.8 V6 because it was slow and very thirsty?
Both the 3.8L and 3.7L are going to be slow and relatively thirsty compared with better engines (such as the Pentastar for instance). But the 3.7L offered no real benefit to the consumer over the 3.8L. But it was unrefined and thrashy. If Chrysler would have commonized their engines a little better, they might have been able to use the 3.8L with some of the RWD transmissions that the 3.7L was using and ditched that 3.7L V-6 engine. They eventually did this with the Wrangler I guess, because the 3.7L would have been an obvious choice, given they were using it in other RWD-based Jeeps.
So I don't know why they ended up using the 3.8L in the Wranglers, but I liked the move. It's all moot with the new Pentastar now, but it's an interesting discussion topic nonetheless.