106 replies to this topic

[cheapracer]

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 Oz 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, 250hp, revvy (6500rpm), all aluminium, four bolt center main caps, steel crank...

Seems to quite a nice package 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 every area or does it?

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

[Canuck]

We are obsessed with and surrounded by V8 engines if you're a Big Three fan. There's been some ground gained in the youth market with the advent of their entries into the hot compact market, but that's forced-induction 4-cylinders for the most part. When V8, RWD cars started to disappear and everything was transitioning to transverse 6 FWD platforms, we bought pick-up trucks with...well yes - V8 RWD platforms
I owned nothing but V8s until the arrival of my E12 and our little Passat wagon. I could be wrong but immof the opinion I wouldn't own anything the Dodge V6 comes in ;)

[cheapracer]

I owned nothing but V8s until the arrival of my V12.

I could be wrong but immof the opinion I wouldn't own anything the Dodge V6 comes in ;)

I fixed that first line for you a bit.

Do you know if they are dodgy? What do you know that makes you Dodge them? Of what Caliber are they? Do they Challenge you? You don't want to be the Avenger for them? Be a bit of a Diplomat rather than a Viper.

[Canuck]

Nicely done :-)
I did own a Dodge but it was a V8. Anemic, gas-guzzling, lame.
Generalization (prejudice?) bred of history: small-engined North American cars are "cheap", built for those that can't afford to buy either the upmarket V8 they want or the European sedan they desire. As a result of being cheaply built they are as inspiring as beige with a resale value rivaled only by spoiled fruit.

Granted I'm thinking of the late 80's and 90's proliferation of Oldsmobile, Buick, Pontiac and Chevrolet FWD sedans that came to dominate domestic sedan production. Current offerings available today have become more enticing, the Camaro V6 is interesting, Dodge sells what are at least visually appealing sedans with their 6 and 8 cylinder options. The domestic market of today is more interesting than it has been in a long time.

V12...I was briefly inspired to build a V12 E12 but the available 12 cylinder options don't make the Time/Labour investment worthwhile.

[Lee Nicolle]

I may well be wrong but I think that V6 has some Mitsubishi influence?
Totally off topic. When did Chrysler stop making slant 6s?

[cheapracer]

I may well be wrong but I think that V6 has some Mitsubishi influence?
Totally off topic. When did Chrysler stop making slant 6s?

No it was a clean sheet and I think it annoys them when people mention that by the look of this text .. http://www.allpar.com/mopar/V6/35.html

I tried a brand new program called Goggle (or something similar sounding) and it says Slants went till 2000.

Ironically I was just looking at Toyota's Slant 4 (75 degrees), 2.4 150hp that comes in the later Tarago/Previas.

[GrpB]

The US-specific Ford Cyclone 3.5 V6 has been used for some time by Ginetta in the UK to good effect. There is a small market of Ginetta specific go-fast parts (Jenvey makes a very nice looking cross ram ITB setup). Same architecture as the LMP2 motors that Roush is now working on. It lacked the requisite letter/number engine designation for US appeal until turbos were added to it.

[ray b]

the only performance version of the Chrysler 3.5 V6 was the retro hot rod prowler
they all were RWD with a auto box
is there even a stick trans used with any Chrysler 3.5 V6 ??

GM has two DOHC 4v V6's the iron block 3.4 and the alloy 3.5 shortstar in the USA
and saab had a 2.8 turbo version


fords new v6 with direct injection makes more power

[cheapracer]

the only performance version of the Chrysler 3.5 V6 was the retro hot rod prowler
they all were RWD with a auto box
is there even a stick trans used with any Chrysler 3.5 V6 ??

GM has two DOHC 4v V6's the iron block 3.4 and the alloy 3.5 shortstar in the USA
and saab had a 2.8 turbo version


fords new v6 with direct injection makes more power

The 1999 onwards all aluminium 3.5 Chrysler puts out 255hp stock and is dirt cheap to get your hands on. The 2004 > Chev 3.6 puts out the same but with 2 more cams, a higher price tag and I don't know if non interference or not - the Chrysler is non interference (if the cam belt breaks the pistons and valves do not touch). The Prowler had the same engines as the sedans (pre '99 215hp).

I looked at both the GM V6 today out and sitting on the dirt, older 3.8 (Pontiac Trans Port) and 3.6 DOHC (Holden Caprice), and they are gigantic in comparison to the Chrysler.

No manual trans ever I believe.

The reason I am making enquiry's is for a mid engine kit car and the transmission on the Chrysler FWD's sitting behind the 3.5's is pretty awesome for the purpose and what a clever design it is running the diff back up alongside the box. The box, even though basically unchanged over 20 years, is now well developed and problems well known. I will grab one of the boxes in the short future (theres a surprising number of them here) and see what can be done with it along the lines of manumatic. Wouldn't even be such a bad base to try and engineer a manual box into.

Edited by cheapracer, 11 April 2011 - 19:26.

[Canuck]

Ironically I was just looking at Toyota's Slant 4 (75 degrees), 2.4 150hp that comes in the later Tarago/Previas.

That engine gets my vote for "Sexiest OEM Tube Header on a Minivan". Not a very broad category I admit...

[Tony Matthews]

That is neat!

[cheapracer]

That is neat!

It's like the bird you imagine you will meet at the pub and the bird you actually go home with ...





...that is the reality at the end of the day and don't anyone dare think thats my work! It is merely a sample picture from someone elses "thing"to get a size perspective of the package and what a darn neat package it is.

And if you think having the radiators full of boiling water next to you isn't the brightest idea it's balanced by having the fuel tank on the other side

Edited by cheapracer, 12 April 2011 - 03:29.

[packapoo]

It's like the bird you imagine you will meet at the pub and the bird you actually go home with ...





...that is the reality at the end of the day and don't anyone dare think thats my work! It is merely a sample picture from someone elses "thing"to get a size perspective of the package and what a darn neat package it is.

And if you think having the radiators full of boiling water next to you isn't the brightest idea it's balanced by having the fuel tank on the other side

Wouldn't mind one of those to beat around the local roads on. Then I'd look just like a local.

[Engineguy]

I will grab one of the boxes in the short future (theres a surprising number of them here) and see what can be done with it along the lines of manumatic. Wouldn't even be such a bad base to try and engineer a manual box into.

There was a manumatic version of the piece of **** (I've earned the right to call it that... by my estimation, I spent a total of 242 hours of my life waiting for an Intrepid to move after putting it into reverse... would've been more but my driveway sloped enough to just let it roll backwards down to the street... YMMV). The Eagle Vision version of the LH platform had it, called Autostick... sort of a paddle shift... smack the floorshift to the right upshifted, smack it to the left downshifted. The Prowler also had the Autostick.

[Tony Matthews]

When are you getting your piece of ****, cheapie?

[cheapracer]

There was a manumatic version of the piece of ****

Ahh but not a true manumatic, it would change up itself near redline and downchange when slow enough and other things in the interest of safety. Manumatic to me means the box does as it's told.

I'm just going to get a box to play with Tony so just a nugget.

[thummmper]

Here I am after a search. I have a 3.5 repower project you might be interested in. theres a company in the american midwest that uses this kit in motorhomes. theres another in new jersey that builds a street legal formuls one style car with the ho 3.5 e/t as well. egoman encouraged me very much when he got his running, which was a month before I started my project in april 2010.
Its called Vanagon LHS, and as you may have guessed, I have a 94 eagle vision e/t under the back seat. I have grafted 87 bmw 7 series rear brake hubs to the vanagon trail arms. I am using 76-87 jaguar front rotors and calipers on the front of the van too. the entire story is here
http://www.thesamba....ighlight=middie

[cheapracer]

Hi Thummmper.

Yeah I have seen your build blog since I became interested in the Chrysler donk.

Is your vehicle actually up and running?

[mariner]

Cheapracer, one point about the Chrysler V-6 that I expect you have thought about - the ECU and electronics.

If you intend to run an aftermarket one the know-how for the Chrysler V-6 may be less than for some better known V-6's. If you plan to use the original ECU harness etc. is that easily available with the engine where you are?

Just a thought.

BTW the neat Chrysler auto transaxle looks not too different to the OldsTtoronado unit of long ago which transmitted the torque of a 427 C.I. engine via the same Morse chain to a cross mounted diff. I think the Olds diff wasa planetary one.

[cheapracer]

Cheapracer, one point about the Chrysler V-6 that I expect you have thought about - the ECU and electronics.

If you intend to run an aftermarket one the know-how for the Chrysler V-6 may be less than for some better known V-6's. If you plan to use the original ECU harness etc. is that easily available with the engine where you are?

Just a thought.

BTW the neat Chrysler auto transaxle looks not too different to the OldsTtoronado unit of long ago which transmitted the torque of a 427 C.I. engine via the same Morse chain to a cross mounted diff. I think the Olds diff wasa planetary one.

The Chrysler packs more power in the first instance and most of the aftermarket service ECU's don't actually care what engine they are on. I'm quite confident theres a number of aftermarket stuff for them, obviously no where near the extent of Ford or Chev.

There's a number of good running cars in a few wrecking yards here, sedans and vans.

I'm not intimate with Chev stuff but the Olds architecture seems is same as all the later front wheel drive GM products to this day, they cleverly and cheaply change the chain and sprocket ratios to suit different applications rather than a different diff ratio each time and still have the planetary diff.

I love the Chev FWD boxes btw, very clever the drop chain and the way the diff/drive output runs under the engine, kind of packaging you would expect to see in a mid engined Italian Supercar not a mass production "Chev", kudos to GM.

Edited by cheapracer, 10 November 2011 - 15:41.

[thummmper]

this spring she will awaken. I almost have everything in place. the hubs are close. the halfshafts are next. then the filler tube/fuel and the wiring,

[cheapracer]

this spring she will awaken. I almost have everything in place. the hubs are close. the halfshafts are next. then the filler tube/fuel and the wiring,

Please keep us infprmed, thanks

[thummmper]

Please keep us infprmed, thanks

http://autos.groups....up/v6abduction/

[ferruccio]

Just discovered this thread. The Chrysler V6 also called Pentastar is a good engine and well rated but probably remains relatively unknown to the masses for various reasons. Maybe because it's American and not a V8 Will be having some first hand experience with the 3.5/3.6 V6 next year. Most bread and butter engines (including european, Japanese V6 etc) these days are really physically made in Korea by HMC.

[cheapracer]

The Chrysler V6 also called Pentastar is a good engine and well rated but probably remains relatively unknown to the masses for various reasons.

I can only imagine the amount of kits and limited volume cars around the world that would have been clients for the package had it come with a manual transmission.

[Engineguy]

Just discovered this thread. The Chrysler V6 also called Pentastar is a good engine and well rated but probably remains relatively unknown to the masses for various reasons. Maybe because it's American and not a V8 Will be having some first hand experience with the 3.5/3.6 V6 next year. Most bread and butter engines (including european, Japanese V6 etc) these days are really physically made in Korea by HMC.

Let's not lump the 1993-2010 "LH" 3.5L V6 this thread referred to, and the 2011 3.6L "Pentastar" V6. The Pentastar has is an all new design with a diecast aluminum block, DOHC vs SOHC heads, timing chains vs. belt. The 3.6L is 44lbs lighter and 283-305 hp vs 214-255 hp for the old 3.5L.

The disasterous 1998-2010 2.7L V6, although often referred to as a derivitive of the 3.5L LH engine, shares nothing with it, or the new Pentastar engine.

[cheapracer]

Allpar have the best writeups .. worth the read

http://www.allpar.co...ix-engines.html

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

[mariner]

Thanks , Cheapy.

All this coverage of the new Chrysler 3.6 litre V-6 and the wide use of the GM 3.6 litre V-6 in Camaro's , Caddies etc, plus the Nissan V -6 used by Renault as well, brings a question to mind.

As the "volume producers" GM, Nissan, Chrysler etc. and a "quality producer" i.e MB all have similar 3.6 litre V-6 engines with roughly similar bhp and high spec ( VVT, DI ) is there any substantive quality or technology advantage held by MB or BMW on petrol engines any more?

I don't mean diesels were I can see BMW is way ahead of say GM but once upon a time only MB and Jag and BMW had such high spec. engines. Emissions anf fuel economy have driven the volume OEMs to make high tech engines so, in practical terms, are the MB or Audi or BMW " quality " engines actually any better in performance ( I think probably not) or quality/durabilty ( I do not have any idea)?

Edited by mariner, 18 December 2011 - 15:40.

[saudoso]

Thanks , cheapy.

Al this coverage of the new Chrysler 3.6 litre V-6 and the wide use of the GM 3.6 litre V-6 in Camaro's , caddies etc. plus the Nisan V -6 used by Renault as well brings a question to mind.

As the "volume producers" GM, Nissan, Chrysler etc. and a "quality producer" i.e MB all have similar 3.6 litre V-6 engines with roughly simialr bhp and high spec ( VVT, DI ) is there any substantive quality or technology advantage helsd by MB or BMW on petrol engines any more?

I don't mean diesels were I can see BMW is way ahead of say GM but once upon a time only MB and Jag and BMW had such high spec engines. Emissions anf fuel economy have driven the volume OEMs to make high tech engines so, in practical terms, are the MB or Audi or BMW " quality " engines actually any beter in performance ( I think probably not) or quatlity/durabilty ( I do not have any idea)?

If we still had PII with us I'm sure the answer would be "there is nothing BMW or MB could produce that would be better than a LS engine"

Edited by saudoso, 18 December 2011 - 12:45.

[kikiturbo2]

and I believe he would be right..

[Canuck]

Define "better"?

[Magoo]

Allpar have the best writeups .. worth the read

http://www.allpar.co...ix-engines.html

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

They do indeed do a great job with Mopar lore, don't they? I know one of the guys there -- Marc Rozman, former dyno tech at Chrysler who recently retired after many years at Highland Park and then Auburn Hills. There can't be much about Mopars he doesn't know.

[kikiturbo2]

Define "better"?

well it all depends on the application..

I have been a long time fan of small turbocharged engines.. however, I did some preliminary work on two projects that need something in the region of 500 bhp (a time attack car and a drift car..) and an LS3 woth a hot cam or an LS7 (with a hot cam for 600..) just make most sense.. and I am talking about brand new crate engines..

AS a general rule of thumb, whatever you can get out of a stock engine + small mods, like remap/cams/exhaust, is best bang for the buck.. As an example, the last 4G63T, out of a evo 9, will give you 400 bhp with almost free mods. However, getting to reliable 500 is at least 5000 USD on top of the stock engine.. so factor in a used engine which are not cheap, and 7000 for a brand new ls doesn't look to bad..
ok, if you allready have everything else for a particular engine (like trans etc..) then yes, go with what you have, but for a clean sheet build, it is hard to beat GM crate engines..

BMW V8's are quite popular over here, because they are relatively plentifull, but are not that cheap to get hold of on the used market, and I hate to think how much they cost brand new.. It's similar story with BMW/Audi sixes..

[Lee Nicolle]

looking at the pics for the 3.6 it has a timing chain!! A bit antiquated.And after 20000km that great big long chain will be stretched to balazes and the cam timing will be out 5 degrees.
Belts never suffer that type of change and if serviced properly are near bulletproof.

Having played with old school V8s they all have that problem, and it is a little short chain. Modern race engines generally use a belt on most of those engines.
It solves the valvetrain harmonics that gears [though the most accurate] create.
Quoting Smokey Yunick a chain does the hootchy hootchy koo and there. And ids usually not where you put it 10 min after start up.

[ferruccio]

looking at the pics for the 3.6 it has a timing chain!! A bit antiquated.And after 20000km that great big long chain will be stretched to balazes and the cam timing will be out 5 degrees.
Belts never suffer that type of change and if serviced properly are near bulletproof.

Having played with old school V8s they all have that problem, and it is a little short chain. Modern race engines generally use a belt on most of those engines.
It solves the valvetrain harmonics that gears [though the most accurate] create.
Quoting Smokey Yunick a chain does the hootchy hootchy koo and there. And ids usually not where you put it 10 min after start up.

I'm not sure why you say its antiquated. The 3.6 is a modern production V6 with cam phasing/phase sensors and like any other production V6/V8 out there which all run mostly with chains. I doubt a manufacturer will allow their production engine to have a 5 deg phase deviation after just only 20000km.

[Lee Nicolle]

I'm not sure why you say its antiquated. The 3.6 is a modern production V6 with cam phasing/phase sensors and like any other production V6/V8 out there which all run mostly with chains. I doubt a manufacturer will allow their production engine to have a 5 deg phase deviation after just only 20000km.

But they do. Check them. Chains stretch, use large amounts of oil to keep lubricated, then to keep the oil in the engine and are the instrument of the devil. An DOHC V6 has 4 feet of chain stretching 1% = a lot of timing change. 2% = a thirsty gutless enviromental disaster gunker. Plus all the guides, idlers etc required
Everybody ooh aahs about variable cam timing a quad cam v6 [8] engines but with chains the power gooes away or at least the power curve moves significantly in a short period with chains.Tooth Belts require no oil, do not stretch much at all and if replaced when required are trouble free. The only broken belts I have seen have been old or oil contaminated.Usually both. So having valves that do not foul on pistons is very handy, but the same with chains really.
I have seen several broken chains in recent times, or gear failure. And for some reason they sometimes try to pull the gear off the cam too. [as do gear drives]
Gears will always be the most accurate, but are normally too hard to engineer in OHC engines yet alone DOHC engines. And for a road car need to be helical cut which is weaker and forces the gear off the cam.
That is why I contend that belts are the most practical and probably the cheapest to manufacture so Ireally dont know why a new engine would use a chain

[rory57]

[quote = Ireally dont know why a new engine would use a chain
[/quote]
Chains are narrower than belts, there are many reasons to minimise engine length.
Belt replacement can be very expensive and the threat of this cost has an effect upon re-sale values. This is particularly the case for the larger transverse engines such as V6s. There can be hours of labour involved. It seems likely that marketing depts. might be leaning on designers to address this in the interest of establishing a reputation for low maintenance costs.
I like the cam drives that separate the half-speed function from the distant-drive function such as the Honda S2000 or Ferrari V8

[Magoo]

Timing belts are so 20th century.

[ferruccio]

......so Ireally dont know why a new engine would use a chain

Do find out and tell us. All those bright engineers working on it can't be all wrong especially when the keyword everywhere these days is efficiency

[kikiturbo2]

guess what was the nr. 1 problem on BMW/PSA 1.6 litre 4 bangers?

[saudoso]

Define "better"?

Opposite to worse.

[desmo]

I'd take a chain timing drive over a belt any day. Particularly in an interference engine. Not all chains are the same.

[Magoo]

When/what was the last new production engine using a belt?

[cheapracer]

Quoting Smokey Yunick a chain does the hootchy hootchy koo and there. And ids usually not where you put it 10 min after start up.

Pretty sure that was a comparison against gears.

When/what was the last new production engine using a belt?

Presuming "new" means recent design then probably none but there is a number oif new cars still with belts - those engines have been around for a bit now or are updated versions of and old theme.


A few dedicated race engines still use belts, the Millington Diamond comes immediately to mind although one might argue that's a continuation on design of a Ford BDA from the 60's. .

[Lee Nicolle]

[quote name='rory57' post='5456505' date='Dec 21 2011, 12:39'][quote = Ireally dont know why a new engine would use a chain

Chains are narrower than belts, there are many reasons to minimise engine length.
Belt replacement can be very expensive and the threat of this cost has an effect upon re-sale values. This is particularly the case for the larger transverse engines such as V6s. There can be hours of labour involved. It seems likely that marketing depts. might be leaning on designers to address this in the interest of establishing a reputation for low maintenance costs.
I like the cam drives that separate the half-speed function from the distant-drive function such as the Honda S2000 or Ferrari V8[/quote]
What you may save 10mm!!
IF the car and engine are designed properly it is generally a couple of hours max to replace a belt. And double that for a chain.And that is on a harder to service for everything front drive car. Some however are harder as they did not take maintenance into account when they built the car. That is nornmally Euro cars ofcourse.

My quote of Smokey was in reference to chains.

And how many chain and drives break, more often than belts at a guess. In the last year or two I have seen 4. Ford Cleveland with a premium JWS chain at about 10000km, a 100k Nissan 4 and an old Magna 4 and a Commodore V6 [3.8 Buick] and that was a new chain too
Those also sieze oil pumps, seen several of those recently

[cheapracer]

Chain and belt change time entirely depends on the car, I can do any 'L' series Nissan chain in half an hour for example and a 4G32 Mitsubishi belt takes the same time.

Many chains break or stretch because cheap ass people buy cheap ass chains, same as motorcycles - stick with Renolds or most Japanese brand chains and you won't have many issues.

I am truly astounded by how long a belt can last but have seen my fair share of ones with stripped teeth.

[kikiturbo2]

Chain and belt change time entirely depends on the car, I can do any 'L' series Nissan chain in half an hour for example and a 4G32 Mitsubishi belt takes the same time.

Many chains break or stretch because cheap ass people buy cheap ass chains, same as motorcycles - stick with Renolds or most Japanese brand chains and you won't have many issues.

I am truly astounded by how long a belt can last but have seen my fair share of ones with stripped teeth.

I second that... I just did a belt service on my wifes POS daewoo kalos, at twice the interval (ok, I am a bad bad boy) and that one was stretched but ok.. that was a 1 hr job with no special tools..

on the other hand, cars with an additional balancer shaft belt (such as 4g63) are a real pain as you have to take the crank sprockets off..

on the other hand, the mini cooper S that we have in the magazine fleet, is constantly suffering from massive chain tensioner problems, just like many others like it..

[Lee Nicolle]

Chain and belt change time entirely depends on the car, I can do any 'L' series Nissan chain in half an hour for example and a 4G32 Mitsubishi belt takes the same time.

Many chains break or stretch because cheap ass people buy cheap ass chains, same as motorcycles - stick with Renolds or most Japanese brand chains and you won't have many issues.

I am truly astounded by how long a belt can last but have seen my fair share of ones with stripped teeth.

An L series chain in half hour? It takes that time to get the rocker cover off on a Bluebird, a 1600 maybe. And winding a chain through is really not doing the job properly as the gears and guides should also be checked and /or replaced. OK on used cars but not for long service.An L series is replace the chain every 100k or less.

Gears with belts usually last the service life of the enging unless fed rocks and gunk. Keep those ugly covers on.

A 4G32 is quite simple unlike the early version of that engine with a chain.

Thye only belts I have seen with stripped teeth have been oil soaked or miles past there use by date.

Reynolds chain is not advailable for a lot of engines. Good but really not the best. JWS IWS? is supposed to be the best though having had one break I hold severe reservations!! Most race true roller chains use that brand of chain but turning roller cams with large seat pressures gives them a very short life. Though my Ford was a premium chain set on a very mild cam and springs. And it damaged the gears too.

As for a Daepoo Chaos there is now 2 with new belts!! I did one last year. At the correct time.It was near perfect. But dont replace the front shocks. Near $700 for the inserts, and I do not think there is any more left in Oz as one came from Qld and the other Victoria.

[Magoo]

Pushrod V8 race engines use timing belt conversions to isolate crankshaft vibration from the crap valvetrain's harmonics, which are fussy beyond belief. This has no relevance at all to OHC production engines.

[Magoo]

I understand perfectly why mechanics and garage operators should proselytize in favor of timing belts. They're a guaranteed source of income.