Last post on Oct 08, 2012 at 4:35 PM
You are in the Dodge Intrepid
What is this discussion about?
Dodge Intrepid, Sedan
#2923 of 3457 2000 intrepid 2.7 junk
Nov 28, 2005 (4:35 pm)
im glad someone has had good luck with their intrepids, not here. mine has 62000 miles on it and ive had loads of trouble with it i fix one problem and then another one rises up. right now its been sitting quietly in my garage for about 3 months because the timing chain slipped and bent all the vaves , the garage says 3000.00 will fix it. but i think it would be a great boat anchor, i am a true dodge man but i do have my limits on how much i can spend on it, i think i could have bought a new hummer
#2924 of 3457 Re: 2000 intrepid 2.7 junk [96dodge]
Nov 29, 2005 (5:43 am)
I wonder how much it would cost to have the 2.7 pulled out and a 3.2 or even a 3.5 put in there? When I was at the Mopar Nationals in Carlisle PA this past summer, there was a '99 Intrepid on the field with its hood up. I remember looking under there and seeing the stickers that said "2.7" on the radiator support. But looking at the engine bay, it looked different from mine. Then in the windshield, I noticed there was a sign stating that it had been converted to a 3.2.
Now if something happened to my '00 Intrepid, which has around 112,000 miles on it, I don't think I'd be willing to sink $3,000 or more into it. But at 62,000 miles, if the body and interior still look good, I might be tempted.
From what I've heard, the 2.7 is a very expensive engine to work on. Also expensive to have rebuilt, and even used ones in the junkyard are expensive. If putting in a 3.2 or 3.5 doesn't end up costing much more than the valve job on the 2.7, it might be worth it.
But if you're getting to the point that you hate the car, it might be best for your peace of mind to just get rid of it and not sink any more money into it.
#2925 of 3457 Re: 2000 intrepid 2.7 junk [96dodge]
Nov 29, 2005 (11:21 am)
Sorry to hear your bad news. I would not put $3000 into a 2000 Intrepid. If you cannot fix it yourself, I would sell it as is. Might be worth $1000 to someone. I do not understand why DC went with the 2.7 L engine in the first place and why they continue to use it in their new cars. If every Intrepid had come with at least the 3.2 L engine, they would have sold many more cars and would have had a much more satisfied consumer. I cannot believe that the 2.7 L engine, especially with a DOHC setup, costs much less than the 3.2 L engine.
#2926 of 3457 I'm a bit confused...
Nov 29, 2005 (12:31 pm)
about the 2.7 myself. It seemed like a great idea when it came out in 1998. A 2.7 V-6 with DOHC and 200 hp sounded pretty awesome back in 1998, especially when you compared it to the Taurus, which was putting out around 150 hp with its standard 3.0 Vulcan, and the Lumina, which had a standard 3.1 only put out 160 hp.
However, the 2.7 is more complicated and expensive to build than the 3.2/3.5 SOHC. You'd almost think that Chrysler would've just taken the 3.2/3.5 block and de-bored or de-stroked it if they needed a smaller base engine.
Maybe Chrysler had greater plans for the 2.7, and they just never materialized once the Benz takeover went into effect? Supposedly you can modify it to get 250 hp at the wheels (stock it only gets around 150 at the wheels on an Intrepid).
About the only real advantage I can think of for the 2.7 is that it got slightly better EPA ratings than the 3.2. Something like 20/29 versus 19/28. And despite the bulk associated with DOHC, overall it's a bit smaller physically than the 3.2/3.5 SOHC, so it's possible that the 3.2/3.5 wouldn't have been a useable engine for the Sebring/Stratus.
Looking back, though, it does almost seem like an answer to a question nobody asked. Very expensive to build, work on, and replace, and a milder or smaller-displacement version of the 3.2/3.5 probably would have done just as well.
Now I can't complain about my particular 2.7, as it has served me well. But if I had it to do over again, knowing what I know now, I might have been swayed into a 3.2. One thing I'm still glad about, though, is that I bought the Intrepid over the Impala and Malibu I looked at on that same day!
#2927 of 3457 Re: 2000 intrepid 2.7 junk [andre1969]
Nov 29, 2005 (6:49 pm)
i was wondering if a 3.2 would fit in my intrepid, would it bolt up ok ? dont get me wrong i love the car and its in excelent shape, ive heard alot of bad vibes on the 2.7 sence ive been having problems, maybe 3.2 is my answer
#2928 of 3457 I'm pretty sure...
Nov 30, 2005 (7:48 am)
that they all use the same housing for the transmission, so the 3.2/3.5 would probably bolt right up. Some accessory-type things like the a/c compressor, alternator, starter, power steering pump, smog pump, manifolds, etc might be different though, or have different brackets/hoses/wiring and so forth.
One thing I noticed about the '99 Intrepid at Carlisle that had the swap done was that it looked like the radiator support had been removed. You could tell by the way the paint was chipped around the bolts. I'm guessing that to swap the engine they took off the front fascia, radiator, support, etc?
If you go to Google and type in "Intrepid 2.7 3.2 conversion", you'll get a few hits that might put you in the right direction.
#2929 of 3457 Re: I'm a bit confused... [andre1969]
Dec 01, 2005 (11:12 am)
I think that much of the reason for the 2.7L in the base models and the 3.2L in the upgrades was short sighted marketing. In 1999 you had to buy an ES to get the 3.2L engine. This was about a $3000 option which came with ABS, autostick and some internal stuff.
For the marketing side of it, even if the 2.7L engine is more expensive than the 3.2L engine, the 3.2L is obviously better in every respect so should cost more.
#2930 of 3457 Funny thing nowadays...
Dec 01, 2005 (1:39 pm)
is that in the 300, the Hemi is actually a dirt-cheap engine to build! The cylinder deactivation might add a bit to it, though. But anyway, the Hemi is cheaper to build than the 3.2, which is cheaper than the 2.7.
If it weren't for the EPA regs and CAFE fines, Chrysler could probably get off really cheap if they just went ahead and made the 300 V-8 only, and just de-tune the cheaper models.
#2931 of 3457 Re: Funny thing nowadays... [andre1969]
Dec 02, 2005 (10:06 am)
The 2.7 L engine is the base engine in the Dodge Magnum and in the Chrysler 300. I laugh when I see these cars that look so tough but have an engine that I refused to buy six years ago because I felt that it was underpowered for the lighter Intrepid. How many feet does Chrysler have to shoot themselves in?
I am sure that if they did more with the gearing they could improve the mileage of the V-8's. I would be happy to see the 3.5 L engine as base in these cars as it was for the 300M and the LHS.
#2932 of 3457 If it's any consolation...
Dec 02, 2005 (12:18 pm)
the 2.7 goes in relatively few 300's and Magnums. There's also a rental/fleet-only version of the Charger that's not available to the general public that uses the 2.7. In contrast though, the majority of Intrepids, and even Concordes, were 2.7 models.
And I don't know if they could do much with the gearing of the V-8. The 345 Hemi uses a fairly tall 2.82:1 axle ratio. Couple that with the overdrive gear of the tranny, and I'm sure it's loafing along at highway speeds. Gear it much taller and you might lug the engine. Besides, for something that weighs 4,000 pounds, has 340 horsepower, and can do 0-60 in about 6 seconds, 17 city/25 highway IS good fuel economy!