Author Topic: 1999 Intrepid Engine Problems (Read 2988 times)

golfman1 · « **on:** April 12, 2005, 06:53:54 pm »

Is there anyone else out there with the same car who has had excessive oil consumption or oil burning problems. My problem started at 96,000km. Any comments would be appreciated.

articsteve · « **Reply #1 on:** April 12, 2005, 08:56:05 pm »

Do a google search. It is a well known industry problem. Your motor is shot most likely.

articsteve · « **Reply #2 on:** April 13, 2005, 01:14:24 am »

http://www.dontbuyone.org/messages.htm

saint_satan · « **Reply #3 on:** April 13, 2005, 07:52:53 am »

They should have left well enough alone. The basic pushrod 3.3 V6 that the 2.7 replaced in the Intrepid was a far superior engine.

Big boo to DC. This engine is a known piece of junk in the auto industry too.

barrie1 · « **Reply #4 on:** April 13, 2005, 12:19:16 pm »

One of my Kids has a 2000 Intrepid with the 3.3 engine and had one of the cams break under warranty. THe car was gone for a month but they were given a loaner and the warranty covered the repairs on this engine. She now has in excess of 100,000 miles on this car and its running fine. I am very glad she didn't buy the 2.7 engine as that is a nightmare to own.

saint_satan · « **Reply #5 on:** April 13, 2005, 03:04:57 pm »

Barrie:

They stopped putting the 3.3 in the Intrepid in 1997. If it was a 2000, it was the 3.2 (24 valve) engine. The 3.3 was a basic pushrod that they still put in the Caravans. It was a 30 year old design that worked just fine that should never have been changed. The 2.7 V6 was supposed to have 40 more hp but I don't believe it having driven both. The 3.3 definately has more torque down low and at mid range where it is needed the most...

articsteve · « **Reply #6 on:** April 13, 2005, 03:19:22 pm »

Saint; Just for my personal archive what year did the 2.7 cease to be used? Or, what years was the 2.7 used and was it a Mitsu design?

saint_satan · « **Reply #7 on:** April 13, 2005, 03:46:37 pm »

AS:

As far as I know, they are still using the 2.7 V6 in a number of their cars (e.g., Sebring) although I'm not sure if corrections have been made. www.allpar.com is a wicked resource for learning about the history of the various Chrysler engines. (Did you know that the 4.0l I6 in your Cherokee has 7 main bearings and is based on a 40 year old design?

)

Article on the "new v6's"
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/new6.html

The older 3.3 that was last seen in the Intrepid in 1997
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/33.html

articsteve · « **Reply #8 on:** April 13, 2005, 04:01:39 pm »

Ok, thanks for those links.

All I know is that a motor that hardly ever revs past 1800 rpm shouldn't wear out.

saint_satan · « **Reply #9 on:** April 13, 2005, 07:45:53 pm »

120 km/h = 2100 - 2200 RPM for me. At 90, it's only around 1500RPM

Most vehicles have 5 main bearings. The 7 main bearings supposedly distributes the wear much better. Coupled with low revs makes for a low stress environment...

maritime_storm · « **Reply #10 on:** April 14, 2005, 05:05:02 am »

Saint all straight 6's have 7 bearings, V-6 have 4, I-4 and V-8's have 5.

neil · « **Reply #11 on:** April 14, 2005, 05:06:47 pm »

saint, the 3.3 is still in use in the Caravan.

I never liked the 2.7, It was better in all aspects on paper only. Higher HP, but peak was at a much higher rpm than the pushrod 3.3.

Higher fuel economy number was erronious as well, as owners found themselves running at WOT all the time to hustle the heavy LH's around. Ive had many owners of pre 98's tell me they got well over 40 mpg on the hi-way.

I cannot believe DC saddles their excellent Magnum with this dog as the base engine.

saint_satan · « **Reply #12 on:** April 14, 2005, 06:38:02 pm »

I had a 1997 Intrepid before my Cherokee. On the highway I got a consistant 8-9l/100km. Pretty decent for a big car with 170K on the clock.