LocostUSA.com
http://www.locostusa.com/forums/

Chrysler 3.5 V6 and trans - yay or nay?
http://www.locostusa.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12186		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  cheapracer [ April 9, 2011, 8:05 am ]
Post subject:  Chrysler 3.5 V6 and trans - yay or nay?
Sorry but except for your famous V8's which have their rep all around the world and the GM Buick 3.8 V6 series that we have had in Australia for sometime other American motors tend to be exclusive to America/Canada.

I have been looking at the Chrysler 3.5 V6 that on paper actually looks very impressive and has been made for over 15 years.

3.5, SOHC, 4 valves per cyl, 250+hp for the later ones, revvy (6500rpm), all aluminium (not all), four bolt center main caps, steel crank...

Seems to quite a nice package and an awesome gearbox for mid engined use yet I hear very little about it for conversions or hotting up etc - what gives?

Is it generally ok? I see people using Japanese V6's in conversions and kit cars but this seems to have it over them in most every area or does it?

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/V6/35.html

Egoman's build used a 3.5 (early 215hp I think) and this is his engine, looks cluttered but they are actually quite small just with a lot of removable or re-positional junk hanging off them...

Image

Egoman's build ..

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=7995

3.5 into VW Samba

http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewto ... ght=middie
Author:  Driven5 [ April 9, 2011, 10:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chrysler 3.5 V6 and trans - yay or nay?
My $0.02:

There is an inherent problem to marketing any Chrysler drivetrain...You have to get most people to look past the fact that it's a Chrysler drivetrain. I think how it looks on paper has actually caused a number of us to, albeit briefly, contemplate this option over the years. But to the best of my knowledge this platform has very limited performance aftermarket support. It is a 'neat' and somewhat 'intriguing' drivetrain for middy use, but rarely gets looked at past that due to the above (late model) Mopar aversion of the performance enthusiast masses, and the fact that most people building cars like this seem to want manual transmissions (partial cause for the said late model Mopar aversion?). If it had the kind of performance aftermarket support enjoyed by the GM 3800/4T65E crowd, then I could see you maybe convincing a few more people to go this route. Otherwise the only real thing of note, that makes this transmission better than any other generic non-performance FWD automatic transaxle, seems to be that it allows you to place the engine in the more visually appealing longitudinal layout. So, IF you can convince people that the automatic transaxle is actually enjoyable enough to drive for the typical maual transmission biased enthusiast, then you might just have a fighting chance with this drivetrain...But that's a pretty darned big 'if' for this target market.
Author:  MYTF [ April 9, 2011, 11:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chrysler 3.5 V6 and trans - yay or nay?
Some of the Chrysler 3.5's were made by Mitsubishi (cast iron block?).I am in the final stages of putting the 3.8 variant back in my wifes montero after rebuilding everything but the heads. Other then blowing out two spark plugs at different times in the last four months and having an Idiot for a driver* ( see below) I would say they are good engines 170,000miles. Sorry I didn't take any picture of the engine when it was out.

*The first plug to blow out was on the right side cyl. no.1 and it pushed the boot out made lots of noise my wife stopped and got towed home. The second time was on the left side cyl. no.2 that one was covered by the coilpack very little noise, the engine just started to miss. This happened as I was taking the wife to see our new granddaughter, I pressed on (IDIOT). The plug ground up the rubber/plastic/metal piece under the coil and the sealing ring below the valve cover, the pieces went into the engine, one stuck open the oil pressure relief valve and the engine spun a bearing.
This could have been avoided if I would have stopped and had the car towed home to install a insert.
Author:  cheapracer [ April 9, 2011, 11:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chrysler 3.5 V6 and trans - yay or nay?
Driven 5, I don't think anyone could have analyzed it better, well played Sir.

The engine doesn't need performance backup as it has 250+hp already (more with few simple mods) in a small package. The Chev V6's struggle to get past 200hp N/A and the Chrslers must be around for like $500 over there in junkyards I'm sure?

I get a lot of "Dodge are [PooPoo]" comebacks since I posed this question to a few people around the place, reputation before actual facts apparently.
Author:  Off Road SHO [ April 9, 2011, 1:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chrysler 3.5 V6 and trans - yay or nay?
That engine was the engine da jur for about 2 weeks in the offroad world, mainly because they were cheap to pick up out of wrecking yards. The auto transaxles grenaded after about 4 minutes of deep sand under load. Mated to the VW/Porsche/Mendeola 4 and 5 speeds, they became just another heavy V-6 with so-so power that didn't have a tuner following.

If you're hell bent on V-6's, I still think the Yamaha V-6 out of the 89-95 Ford Taurus SHO's is the way to go. Cheap to buy. Bullet proof and guys supercharge (me) and turbo charge them (me also) and routinely put the hurtin on much more "powerfull" cars. ( Me again) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG16m2e4O6I&feature=fvw

It is what I am putting in my Locost, though I wont have to force any air into it like I did in The Other Woman.

Tom
Author:  cheapracer [ April 9, 2011, 2:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chrysler 3.5 V6 and trans - yay or nay?
Off Road SHO wrote:
That engine was the engine da jur for about 2 weeks in the offroad world, mainly because they were cheap to pick up out of wrecking yards. The auto transaxles grenaded after about 4 minutes of deep sand under load.

If you're hell bent on V-6's, I still think the Yamaha V-6 out of the 89-95 Ford Taurus SHO's is the way to go.

Tom


Thanks for the input Tom.

Not being a stranger to the Off Road world we both know that it's extreme for transmissions and there lots that break including Porsche etc without, and often, serious modification so that doesn't make the Chrysler box bad for other circumstance just because it failed under those conditions.

The Ford has twice as many cams, is smaller in capacity but larger in size and is 30 hp down - but thats on paper, again we both know that real world stuff is different and you may well have the better option - it obviously has a manual gearbox option there as well.

Thanks again.
Author:  Warren Nethercote [ April 10, 2011, 7:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chrysler 3.5 V6 and trans - yay or nay?
The discussion here started off with middy applications, but what about conventional? Does this engine have the same bolt pattern as the old 3.9l pushrod V6 in my dakota? If so, it would fit up to a Dakota manual trans (albeit with a truck gearbox low first gear). Come to think of it, it might make a nice engine swap for a Dakota.
Author:  dodgedartgt [ April 10, 2011, 10:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chrysler 3.5 V6 and trans - yay or nay?
Hey Cheap (me too:-)

I have an 2001 Intrepid R/T, 252 hp I believe. I don't know the drive ratio, but it pulls a heavy car very nicely, very quick from 50 to 90! Mine also has the manual shift option (can't think of its name... pull the shifter all the way back then move it sideways to select up or down shifts). In a light weight ride, it will be a screamer! AND, listen to the sound of Egoman's car on his videos. I had no idea this engine could sound so good!

Hope this helps, Mikey B
Author:  RossD [ April 18, 2011, 8:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chrysler 3.5 V6 and trans - yay or nay?
http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/vanagonlhs/31448/page1/

A guy on GRM put one in the back of a Vanagon. It's pretty neat the way he did it too.
Author:  bremms [ April 18, 2011, 3:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chrysler 3.5 V6 and trans - yay or nay?
My only question is WHY????? WHY??? That's a ton of work for ???
To each his own. Cool but rather pointless.
Author:  Warren Nethercote [ April 18, 2011, 4:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chrysler 3.5 V6 and trans - yay or nay?
A friend had a stock Vanagon and he said there was a big sub-culture of re-engining them, 'cause they are so gutless. But most people either installed VW Diesels or Subaru engines.
Author:  Driven5 [ April 18, 2011, 8:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chrysler 3.5 V6 and trans - yay or nay?
bremms wrote:
My only question is WHY????? WHY??? That's a ton of work for ???
To each his own. Cool but rather pointless.
What differentiates their passionate, yet "pointless", endeavor from your own??


Warren Nethercote wrote:
A friend had a stock Vanagon and he said there was a big sub-culture of re-engining them, 'cause they are so gutless. But most people either installed VW Diesels or Subaru engines.
Don't forget the occasional Porsche conversion...And the elusive Porsche Turbo conversion. :shock:

But for a street Vanagon that manages to maintains most of its original practicality, I think that setup with the Chrysler drivetrain situated under the rear seat is certainly one of the more inventive solutions...And a neat use for this generally unloved Chrysler drivetrain.
Author:  thummmper [ June 16, 2012, 1:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chrysler 3.5 V6 and trans - yay or nay?
well, yaknow...the jy's around me [so calif] charge 250.00 for a 6 cyl and 150 for the trans. so there ya go-- i prefer to get a runner that i can drive and smog before the abduction--even if its in the teen$. there's so much in that rolling warehouse thats useable youlle just need a sawzall and a trash barrel in the end.
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/v6abduction/
Author:  egoman [ June 16, 2012, 3:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Chrysler 3.5 V6 and trans - yay or nay?
Mine has been a good runner and it doesnt burn oil..........pretty much all you could ask for from a swap candidate.
Seriously though it runs clean and does sound really nice. I dont know what the hop up potential is but it is strong enough for a seven as it is. Small motor too, so quite easy to package.
Author:  cheapracer [ June 17, 2012, 11:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Chrysler 3.5 V6 and trans - yay or nay?
egoman wrote:
Mine has been a good runner and it doesnt burn oil..........pretty much all you could ask for from a swap candidate.


I've spoken to a few Americans about this and other model engines since and gotta to say that the one eye views over there might be some of the worst I've come across.

Millions of a types of engine get sold and just because there is a higher percentage of incident with one type doesn't make it a bad engine for the average bulk of them. Those percentages are usually miniscule too and the Chrysler has .

The only thing of concern is if these Chrysler V6's have crank thrust suitable for a clutch or not or, easy to adapt a thrust as they were designed to be auto only.

250 hp middy power unit for $400, certainly Locost.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/