phreak wrote:
> Technically, the 3.5HO *is* a 'hemi' engine.

Nope, its a pent-roof head, not a Hemi.

>
> Over on allpar some people are saying that DCX is planning to stroke
> the 3.5 One More Time before replacing it.

Stroke or bore? The 3.5 is (sorta) a bored 3.3. Same stroke, but lots of
other differences (deep skirt block like the B/RB v8 family,
cross-bolted main caps like the 426 Hemi, forged crank, slipper pistons)
and that was even before they re-cast it in aluminum.

>
>>From the after-market, we know that the 3.5 is easily capable of 300+
> HP with a good torque curve. The UltraDrive tranny is another question
> though. Without a significant uprating of the clutches and solenoid
> body I'd le leary of putting any more stress on one than the Pacifica
> already represents.
>

I don't know what version of the tranny the Pacifica has. The 42LE type
that was in the 300M/Concorde/Intrepid is quite a lot stronger than the
41TE that the minvans had, but I'm betting that the PAcifica has a 41TE
type since its still a transverse engine (TE instead of LE). I also
don't know the designation for the rear-drive version of the 42LE that
is used behind the 3.5 in the Magnum and 300, but its stronger still and
could conceivably be beefed to handle a Hemi. But why bother? the Ram
trucks already have a 42LE-cousin rear-drive transmission that is quite
capable of handling a Hemi. I never understood why Chrysler went with
the Daimler 5-speed over-complicated monstrosity behind the Hemi in the
300 and Magnum when the truck transmission is undoubtedly much stronger
and more reliable.