Thanks for all the advice guys. I think I'll invest getting her fixed.
Trying to see if DC will help out since this is a known issue. But I'm
not expecting too much help. But will post the results of my
conversations.

MP


On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 10:27:34 -0600, Steve > wrote:

>Bill Putney wrote:
>> Steve wrote:
>>
>>> ...The 2.4 4-cylinder and the 2.7 V6 are particularly Honda-esque. Or
>>> maybe the 2.7 is more Toyota-esque, since its problem is that it cooks
>>> its oil to sludge like Toyota engines do. Fortunately they got bit
>>> hard, and the newer engines like the 4.7, 3.7, and 5.7 seem very solid.
>>
>>
>> Steve - Having said that, why would DC design in the 2.7L as the
>> baseline engine in some of their new vehicles? Has the root cause of
>> the problems been fixed, or are they stupider than a box of rocks (or
>> believe that their customers are)? I've asked this before, but
>> apparetnly no-one is in the know on this - hopefully one of these times,
>> someone who knows for sure will post an answer.
>>
>
>I don't have a CLUE. You've obviously proved that the 2.7 isn't
>universally bad, it just has a bad tendency that can show up under
>certain conditions and maybe statistically they feel that it is
>"reliable enough." And they may well have gotten it fixed in later versions.
>
>But this isn't unique- look how long GM has held onto the 3.4L v6
>despite its numerous problems (and how many millions of cars it is in
>that have had NO problems). Ditto the whole Ford Modular v8 family- Ford
>has spent a ton of time effort and cash into upgrading them to get rid
>of high failure rates. And I'm not just slamming Toyota and Honda
>either- they've both kept very questionable designs in production for
>years and years at a stretch- particularly Honda. They were fixing head
>gaskets for free 5 of 10 years before Chrysler engines even started
>having an abnormal number of head gasket problems.