Chrysler 3.8L ohv V6--Opinions?

[IndyFan]

I don't know much about max power out of mine yet, as I have not pushed it hard. However, it is very smooth, while cruising, or at idle. It is also very quiet. I have to watch the tach or listen carefully as I learn the shifting points for my driving style (manual tranny). It returned nearly 22 mpg in its first 175 miles, while bringing it home. I suspect it will do better when broken-in. Not bad for a machine with the aerodynamics of a barn door.

Has anyone done a UOA on this engine? I'm looking at running Pennzoil Platinum at the first oil change, which will be at 1000 miles.

I'm up to 230 miles now. When I get to 500 or so, I'm going to light it up and see what it has. So far, I'm very happy with it.

 

[va3ux]

Quote:

---

To clear some things up...

The 3.8 is a bored and stroked 3.3

It's an OHV design run by a timing chain

---

That doesn't clear things up. It's more confusion. The valve system is not chain driven. It's pushrod driven.

 

[JTK]

Quote:

---

..That doesn't clear things up. It's more confusion. The valve system is not chain driven. It's pushrod driven.

---

There is a short chain connecting the cam to the crankshaft that rotates the camshaft to actuate the hydraulic lifters > pushrods > rocker arms > valves. All cam-in-block engines like this 3.8L are either chain or gear driven.

Joel

 

[Aldaris]

Quote:

---

Aldaris, seems you got a bum engine. I got 27mpg on all highway @ 70-75mph on my last trip to OK City (about 450 miles). Van has plenty of get up and go for me.
Not sure what the mileage is in the JK though. Different gearing, weight and aerodynamics.

---

Actually, we had 3 different brand new minivans at 3 different stores and they all behaved identically - shuddering transmission and gutless, gas guzzling engine.

 

[FrozenPilot]

I never found the 3.3 version to be gutless. Plenty of low end torque, fairly flat powerband, and decent fuel economy. The minivans are just heavy, not an ideal chassis for any engine. As far as the transmissions, do fluid and filter changes. It made the old A604 in a '93 Dynasty practically run like new.

BTW, the 3.3 and 3.8 have a single chain-driven camshaft, with pushrod-actuated overhead valves. Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_3.3_engine
AND http://www.allpar.com/mopar/33.html

 

[jazztrumpet216]

Quote:

---

Absolute gutless piece of JUNK engineering that has no power and pathetic gas mileage in the 2007 Grand Caravan. It's WAY behind the others in all forms. Stay away. In our use, it won't get more than 22mpg all highway (EPA 25mpg rating), it won't get out of it's own way when you need it to, and it doesn't idle smoothly. And this isn't just one example, I'm going off of three examples that are all only several months old. A shame that they're using 20 year old technology in an age where minivans such as the Sienna have 260-ish horsepower standard.

Now I know that you want to know about the reliability of this engine and I apologize for going on this rant here. Like most engines, ti should see 150k before needing internal work when maintained.

---

Dude... you have to wind that Sienna up pretty high to get that power. The 266 HP is at 6200 RPM and the 245 lb/ft torque happens at 4700 RPM. How often are you going to wind a minivan up to 6200 RPM?

Besides, if you're going to compare it to the Sienna engine, I've never seen any Chrysler 3.8's sludge up. Maybe proven technology is a good thing?

 

[MrCritical]

I have an'02 Grand Caravan with the 3.8, 59k. Absolutely no problems. 20 mpg in mixed driving, 24.5 straight highway. Lots of power, zero oil usage, smooth idle.

If you buy an extended lenght minivan for fuel mileage you need your head examined. According to Car and Driver Chrysler still builds the best minivan.

 

[RFIRE]

But Chrysler could add direct fuel injection to the 3.8 and 4.0 giving us improved fuel economy and more power at the same time; but noooooooooo.

Richard

 

[MrCritical]

Compare the sale price of the Chrysler and the Sienna and Odyssey. Then take in consideration the Chrysler lifetime powertrain warranty. Hmm. I guess I'll do without the direct injection.

 

[JTK]

Quote:

---

I have an'02 Grand Caravan with the 3.8, 59k. Absolutely no problems. 20 mpg in mixed driving, 24.5 straight highway. Lots of power, zero oil usage, smooth idle.

If you buy an extended lenght minivan for fuel mileage you need your head examined. According to Car and Driver Chrysler still builds the best minivan.

---

My brother had the same experience. A 1997 Chrysler T&C with the 3.8L. Got ~140Kmi problem free Buffalo NY miles out of it with minimal maintenance. The A/C pooped out and it was getting rusty. They traded it in on a 2007 Camry LE since their kids are grown, but they still miss the size & power of the T&C. I'm another one who doesn't get people's expectations on power and fuel economy for this class of vehicle. It's a 7 passenger people & cargo hauler!

Joel

 

[artificialist]

The 3.8 in my Grandma's van seems like a good engine.

However, I'm sad to see the inline six being phased out. Inline sixes are way cooler, IMO, because of the simplicity of design, and smoothness WITHOUT balance shafts.

I have heard that the 3.8 has rollerized lifters, and installing those on the 4.0 I6 proved to be impractical. Due to the new low zinc oil, Chrysler figured that the cams and lifters in the 4.0 I-6 were doomed.

 

[Camu Mahubah]

I wish they had further developed the old inline-six. That motor was a tractor motor. Alas the 3.8 will suffice though the 3.3 would have been just a good with maybe 2 more miles to the gallon.

 

[tr4petty]

I had a 3.3L V6 in a 1992 Dodge Grand Caravan. When I traded it in 2001, it had 201,000 miles on it and still ran like new. It had to be pushed really hard to use 1/4 of a qt of oil between changes. We usually got about 23 mpg in mixed driving. I wish they made more engines as good as that 3.3 Dodge!

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: jazztrumpet216
...

Dude... you have to wind that Sienna up pretty high to get that power. The 266 HP is at 6200 RPM and the 245 lb/ft torque happens at 4700 RPM. How often are you going to wind a minivan up to 6200 RPM?

Besides, if you're going to compare it to the Sienna engine, I've never seen any Chrysler 3.8's sludge up. Maybe proven technology is a good thing?


Nothing against the Chrysler products, but:

1) The Toyota DOHC engines have had variable valve timing for 7-8 years now, a feature that's almost non-existent in the OHV engines (kudos to GM for making it work in theirs). With the VVT, you hardly have to wind the engine up to get that tq. It may still peak high, but with VVT, virtually all of it is available across almost all of the rpm range. And if you want that hp, it's there to have, but not in the OHV engine.

2) The sludge-prone Toyota engines (1MZ V-6) are long gone from production. The engine in the Sienna today (the 2GR-FE) isn't even a relative of the sludgers (it replaced the 3MZ a few years back). The 2GR 3.5L is a superb engine (we have one in the wife's Avalon). It has VVT, chain-driven cams, purrs like a kitten on valium, and pulls like an Ox on amphetamines.