A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Chrysler
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sludge



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 2nd 05, 06:27 AM
Joe Pfeiffer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Daniel J. Stern" > writes:
>
> Halfassed information from Glenn "Maxpower" Beasley, as usual. Federal
> laws, which trump any contradictory state laws, say that engines with
> emissions systems may be swapped as long as the replacement engine system
> are of the same or newer model year as the original.


Also, since the question related to swapping a 3.2 or 3.5 in place of a
2.7, if the manufacturer had certified the new configuration (which it
had in this case).
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
skype: jjpfeifferjr
Ads
  #12  
Old June 2nd 05, 06:20 PM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

maxpower wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>Just had my 2.7 Intrepid die to the good sludge which seems to ails
>>these engines. My body and Interior are in great shape so a rebuild or
>>swap might be worth it. Finding a 2.7 is a quest however I see alot of
>>3.2 and 3.5 from 300M available @ lower price tags. Does anyone know
>>how difficult the swap from the 2.7 to the 3.2 or 3.5 is, and if any
>>other mods are needed for this swap? Not to thrilled about swaping
>>another 2.7 only to have same problem down the line again...can anyone
>>adivse?
>>

>
> If the state you live in has an emission test for your car, you may want to
> look into what could happen if it fails the test, That would be considered
> tampering with emissions if you swap out the engine and controller.
> Glenn Beasley
> Chrysler Tech
>
>


Since this is replacing one drivetrain with another drivetrain that was
optionally offered in the car, that isn't a problem.
  #13  
Old June 2nd 05, 07:38 PM
maxpower
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > maxpower wrote:

>
> > > If the state you live in has an emission test for your car, you may
> > > want to look into what could happen if it fails the test, That would
> > > be considered tampering with emissions if you swap out the engine and
> > > controller.

>
> > If that's what the law says, then, as the saying goes, the law is an
> > ass.

>
> Halfassed information from Glenn "Maxpower" Beasley, as usual. Federal
> laws, which trump any contradictory state laws, say that engines with
> emissions systems may be swapped as long as the replacement engine system
> are of the same or newer model year as the original.
>
> DS

As I stated in my state that is what we are told Lite Bulb.... The Op may
still want to look into it.......now run and hide


  #14  
Old June 2nd 05, 07:55 PM
maxpower
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > maxpower wrote:

>
> > > If the state you live in has an emission test for your car, you may
> > > want to look into what could happen if it fails the test, That would
> > > be considered tampering with emissions if you swap out the engine and
> > > controller.

>
> > If that's what the law says, then, as the saying goes, the law is an
> > ass.

>
> Halfassed information from Glenn "Maxpower" Beasley, as usual. Federal
> laws, which trump any contradictory state laws, say that engines with
> emissions systems may be swapped as long as the replacement engine system
> are of the same or newer model year as the original.
>
> DS

So Mr lite bulb, if the OP was to have put a 98 engine in a 2000 vehicle he
would be considered tampering, so by me suggesting that he looks into it
first would be wrong?? And by looking into it first your saying is not the
proper thing to do?? Are you on the bottle again?


  #15  
Old June 2nd 05, 09:45 PM
Robert Meyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The 2.7 L sludge issue may be a non-issue. FWIW, the reported failure rate
is something like 650 complaints out of a possible 750,000 engines. See the
ongoing discussion on allpar.com:

http://www.allpar.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=59368

I'm going to change my oil and not worry about it!

SpongeBob

"Bob Shuman" > wrote in message
...
> Could you provide a bit more info? Specifically: What year? Were you the
> original owner? How many miles when it died? What was the maintenance
> history, especially regarding oil changes? What type & supplier of oil
> and
> filter was used? Were there any early symptoms of pending failure and if
> so, what were they?
>
> Thanks in advance since there are lots of us out here with the 2.7 and we
> would like to learn what works (and more importantly what doesn't which is
> where you come in). Sorry to hear of your problems. I also own an older
> 3.5L Intrepid and it is a nice engine if you decide to go that route.
> Good
> luck with the swap.
>
> Bob
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Just had my 2.7 Intrepid die to the good sludge which seems to ails
>> these engines. My body and Interior are in great shape so a rebuild or
>> swap might be worth it. Finding a 2.7 is a quest however I see alot of
>> 3.2 and 3.5 from 300M available @ lower price tags. Does anyone know
>> how difficult the swap from the 2.7 to the 3.2 or 3.5 is, and if any
>> other mods are needed for this swap? Not to thrilled about swaping
>> another 2.7 only to have same problem down the line again...can anyone
>> adivse?
>>

>
>



  #16  
Old June 2nd 05, 10:54 PM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Right, and the GM 3.1/3.4 engines don't blow their intake gaskets and
fill the crankcase with Dex-Cool, either.

Much as I like Chrysler, I have to say that you can get a decent feel
for when a problem is real and when it isn't by watching the number of
failures among people you know with the vehicles. I remember seeing a
2.7 engine ripped open in a local dealer within a year of the engine's
introduction, and I thought at the time "oooh, that aint RIGHT!" And now
enough complaints are showing up in discussion forums that I think its
pretty clear that its a weakling of an engine design.

Does that mean the numbers warrant a full-out recall? Maybe not. GM
still hasn't recalled their 3100/3400 family, and those things fail a
LOT more than the 2.7 does. But then that's GM, I expect nothing else.



Robert Meyer wrote:

> The 2.7 L sludge issue may be a non-issue. FWIW, the reported failure rate
> is something like 650 complaints out of a possible 750,000 engines. See the
> ongoing discussion on allpar.com:
>
> http://www.allpar.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=59368
>
> I'm going to change my oil and not worry about it!
>
> SpongeBob
>
> "Bob Shuman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Could you provide a bit more info? Specifically: What year? Were you the
>>original owner? How many miles when it died? What was the maintenance
>>history, especially regarding oil changes? What type & supplier of oil
>>and
>>filter was used? Were there any early symptoms of pending failure and if
>>so, what were they?
>>
>>Thanks in advance since there are lots of us out here with the 2.7 and we
>>would like to learn what works (and more importantly what doesn't which is
>>where you come in). Sorry to hear of your problems. I also own an older
>>3.5L Intrepid and it is a nice engine if you decide to go that route.
>>Good
>>luck with the swap.
>>
>> Bob
>>
> wrote in message
roups.com...
>>
>>>Just had my 2.7 Intrepid die to the good sludge which seems to ails
>>>these engines. My body and Interior are in great shape so a rebuild or
>>>swap might be worth it. Finding a 2.7 is a quest however I see alot of
>>>3.2 and 3.5 from 300M available @ lower price tags. Does anyone know
>>>how difficult the swap from the 2.7 to the 3.2 or 3.5 is, and if any
>>>other mods are needed for this swap? Not to thrilled about swaping
>>>another 2.7 only to have same problem down the line again...can anyone
>>>adivse?
>>>

>>
>>

>
>

  #17  
Old June 2nd 05, 11:27 PM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Robert Meyer wrote:

> The 2.7 L sludge issue may be a non-issue. FWIW, the reported failure rate
> is something like 650 complaints out of a possible 750,000 engines. See the
> ongoing discussion on allpar.com:
>
> http://www.allpar.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=59368
>
> I'm going to change my oil and not worry about it!
>
> SpongeBob


You just made a sh**load of assumptions there as to it being a
non-issue. Are you assuming that 100% of owners of failed engines filed
a formal complaint? That would not be a wise assumption. What if only
1 out of 50 owners of failed engines complained? That would represent
almost a 5% failure rate.

You would have to look at percent of owners of other engines (known not
to have a design problem that would lead to failure) who filed
complaints (that wouldn't be scientific either, but a better inidcator
than just looking at raw percent of compliants). IOW, if engine X
(known to have no design problems) had a failure complaint rate of
0.87%, comparing that to the failure complaint rate indicates that the
2.7L is of similar good design. HOWEVER, if the engine of known good
design has a failure complaint rate of only 0.02%, then it could be a
reasonable conclusion that the 2.7L has a problem. As it is, you don't
have enough data to go on.

Not saying that the alleged 2.7L problems are real or imagined, but I
certainly am not prepared to lean towards there not being a problem
based on "only" 650 complaints out of 750k owners. And I say that as an
owner of a 2.7L with 140+kmiles on it that runs as good as the day it
left the factory.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')
  #18  
Old June 3rd 05, 03:46 AM
« Paul »
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
(snip)
> Federal
> laws, which trump any contradictory state laws, say that engines with
> emissions systems may be swapped as long as the replacement engine system
> are of the same or newer model year as the original.
>
> DS


State code can be more stringent than Fed code but never less stringent.
  #19  
Old June 3rd 05, 03:15 PM
High Sierra
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Putney wrote:
> Robert Meyer wrote:
>
>> The 2.7 L sludge issue may be a non-issue. FWIW, the reported failure
>> rate is something like 650 complaints out of a possible 750,000
>> engines. See the ongoing discussion on allpar.com:
>>
>> http://www.allpar.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=59368
>>
>> I'm going to change my oil and not worry about it!
>>
>> SpongeBob

>
>
> You just made a sh**load of assumptions there as to it being a
> non-issue. Are you assuming that 100% of owners of failed engines filed
> a formal complaint? That would not be a wise assumption. What if only
> 1 out of 50 owners of failed engines complained? That would represent
> almost a 5% failure rate.
>
> You would have to look at percent of owners of other engines (known not
> to have a design problem that would lead to failure) who filed
> complaints (that wouldn't be scientific either, but a better inidcator
> than just looking at raw percent of compliants). IOW, if engine X
> (known to have no design problems) had a failure complaint rate of
> 0.87%, comparing that to the failure complaint rate indicates that the
> 2.7L is of similar good design. HOWEVER, if the engine of known good
> design has a failure complaint rate of only 0.02%, then it could be a
> reasonable conclusion that the 2.7L has a problem. As it is, you don't
> have enough data to go on.
>
> Not saying that the alleged 2.7L problems are real or imagined, but I
> certainly am not prepared to lean towards there not being a problem
> based on "only" 650 complaints out of 750k owners. And I say that as an
> owner of a 2.7L with 140+kmiles on it that runs as good as the day it
> left the factory.
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')



I wonder what the failure rate is for properly maintained 2.7 litre engines?
  #20  
Old June 3rd 05, 06:15 PM
maxpower
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"High Sierra" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Putney wrote:
> > Robert Meyer wrote:
> >
> >> The 2.7 L sludge issue may be a non-issue. FWIW, the reported failure
> >> rate is something like 650 complaints out of a possible 750,000
> >> engines. See the ongoing discussion on allpar.com:
> >>
> >> http://www.allpar.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=59368
> >>
> >> I'm going to change my oil and not worry about it!
> >>
> >> SpongeBob

> >
> >
> > You just made a sh**load of assumptions there as to it being a
> > non-issue. Are you assuming that 100% of owners of failed engines filed
> > a formal complaint? That would not be a wise assumption. What if only
> > 1 out of 50 owners of failed engines complained? That would represent
> > almost a 5% failure rate.
> >
> > You would have to look at percent of owners of other engines (known not
> > to have a design problem that would lead to failure) who filed
> > complaints (that wouldn't be scientific either, but a better inidcator
> > than just looking at raw percent of compliants). IOW, if engine X
> > (known to have no design problems) had a failure complaint rate of
> > 0.87%, comparing that to the failure complaint rate indicates that the
> > 2.7L is of similar good design. HOWEVER, if the engine of known good
> > design has a failure complaint rate of only 0.02%, then it could be a
> > reasonable conclusion that the 2.7L has a problem. As it is, you don't
> > have enough data to go on.
> >
> > Not saying that the alleged 2.7L problems are real or imagined, but I
> > certainly am not prepared to lean towards there not being a problem
> > based on "only" 650 complaints out of 750k owners. And I say that as an
> > owner of a 2.7L with 140+kmiles on it that runs as good as the day it
> > left the factory.
> >
> > Bill Putney
> > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> > adddress with the letter 'x')

>
>
> I wonder what the failure rate is for properly maintained 2.7 litre

engines?

We have done a couple in the dealer, the ones that had problems were not our
regular customers. Yet the funny thing is.....they claimed they changed
their oil or a regular basis but were not able to show receipts, we didn't
buy it and neither did Chrysler. I own a 2.7 and I think it is a good engine


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sludge In Engines? [email protected] Technology 31 May 3rd 05 02:40 PM
Question about engine oil sludge Bill D Chrysler 42 January 7th 05 03:07 AM
Toyota Engine Oil Sludge Charlene Blake General 0 October 19th 04 04:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.