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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Head Gasket Leak? | maxpower | Chrysler | 4 | October 11th 04 03:00 PM |
Head Gasket Leak? | Mandrake | Chrysler | 0 | October 10th 04 10:16 PM |
Dodge 2.5L eats another head (and how long is the bottom end good for) | Bob Fourney | Dodge | 6 | August 28th 04 01:07 AM |
Head Gasket 98 Neon? | Simon Cooke | Dodge | 6 | July 29th 04 12:49 PM |