2000 Concorde Life Expectancy

Discussion in 'Concorde' started by KC, May 23, 2004.

  1. KC

    KC Guest

    How many miles can I expect to get from my 2000 Concorde (2.7) before
    I begin to encounter pricey repairs? And if I make these repairs,
    then how long before it dies on me? All you hear is a
    Honda/Toyota/Nissan is good for 300,000 worry free miles. Have not
    been able to locate any stats/guidelines for Chrysler Concorde.
    Currently have 99,500 behind me. Any assistance is much appreciated.
    KC, May 23, 2004
  2. KC

    me-not-you Guest

    Sheese............. my 2000 Concorde (3.2) has only 44,000, guess it's got a
    long future ahead, I dun-no? LOL
    me-not-you, May 23, 2004
  3. KC

    Matt Whiting Guest

    It depends a lot on how you drive it and how you maintain it. Drive it
    hard and never change the oil and you can ruin the engine in less than
    50,000 miles. Maintain it according to the book, or even better, drive
    it reasonably and it should last 200,000 easily. I believe the 2.7 has
    some sludge build-up issues (as does at least one Toyota engine, BTW),
    so you may need to make more frequent oil and filter changes and might
    want to consider using synthetic oil. My 3.3L GV has 150,000 miles and
    is still going strong on the original engine AND original 4 speed tranny.

    If you really believe that a H/T/N will run 300,000 miles with no work,
    then I have some desert land to sell you in south Florida. The only car
    I've ever owned that didn't make 100,000 miles on the engine was an 84
    Honda Accord that I bought new. The cam and rocker arms self destructed
    at ~72,000 miles which filled the engine full of metal. Had it repaired
    and then shortly after traded for an 89 Acclaim which was probably the
    most bullet proof car I've ever owned. Unfortunately, after 10 years
    and 143,000 miles, my wife totaled it hitting an whitetail....

    Matt Whiting, May 23, 2004
  4. KC

    Bill Putney Guest

    KC - here is the response that I e-mailed you:
    You have a similar commute to what I have - 38 miles each way on rural
    and semi-rural roads. I also saw from your post on r.a.m.c. that you
    have the 2.7L engine - which I also have, and which is an important part
    of the equation, as someone else pointed out on the news group.
    First off - this is where the 2.7L engine comes in. As was pointed out
    on r.a.m.c., the 2.7L engine has sludging problems. BUT I think the
    type of driving that you and I do prevents the sludge from building up.
    I have 120k on mine, and it runs great. The failures that I have read
    about on the internet generally come in the 60 to 80k mile range. So I
    think we won't have that problem.

    How often have you had the oil and filter changed? Besides the type of
    driving, that is also a factor in the sludging.

    You mentioned a timing belt. The 2.7L engine does not have a timing
    belt. It has a timing chain (metal vs. rubber). The timing chain does
    not have a change interval on it (i.e., it is not listed in the
    maintenance schedules). I do not know how long to trust it. Maybe it
    can go 200k or 300k miles? I just don't know. I can tell you that in
    general, whereas timing belts need to be changed every 60 to 105k miles
    (depending on the engine), timing belts are generally considered to last
    the life of the vehicle - though they can fail.

    Be aware of the following:
    (1) If your timing chain does let loose, because the 2.7L engine is
    what's called an "interference" engine, there will very likely be
    expensive damage to the valve area.
    (2) The water pump is behind the front cover of the engine, and, unlike
    most cars, is driven by the timing chain. If the timing chain is ever
    replaced as a preventative measure, the water pump would need to be
    replaced at the same time because if the water pump fails, it can take
    out the timing chain and therefore also cause the valve damage at the
    same time.

    Hmmm - you sure about that? I though they all had ABS - I know mine has
    it and it is an LX. Maybe they stopped doing that in later years
    (mine's a '99)? You may be correct, but I'm surprised if that's true.
    Not a bad philosophy these days, especially for someone who does not do
    their own work on their car. It's unfortunate that it's like that, but
    I totally understand.
    Here's my advice: Figure on trading it in over the next year. You
    appear to have some anxiety, and that is very understandable, and I
    can't do anything to alleviate that, and I realize that what I've
    already said may add to it. You could go for three more years and not
    have any problems, but I think there is enough risk that you, in your
    situation, would sleep better at night with something newer and with
    lower mileage. Of course there is a cost involved in trading up, but it
    is in some ways insurance and peace of mind.
    No need to apologize - in case you haven't noticed, I tend to lay down a
    lot of words myself.
    It's all based on risk and peace of mind - oh - and money. I expect to
    get 250 or 300k out of mine, but I'm a guy who works on my own cars and
    understands what is going on before a mechanic tells me, and I tend to
    keep a car until it is ready for the junk yard. IOW, I'm willing to
    take some risks that you are not, and should not, be ready to take.
    That makes a big difference in the decision.
    Thanks - you too.

    Let me know if you need further clarification or have any other
    questions, being that we have essentially the same car with the same

    Bill Putney
    (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
    address with "x")
    Bill Putney, May 23, 2004
  5. KC

    Steve Guest

    The 2.7 is an iffy engine and has had some problems, but apparently if
    you feed it synthetic oil and change the oil very conservatively, its
    fine. My wife's 93 Vision (previous generation of the same vehicle) with
    a 3.5 is still running great at 211,000 miles, and I see no sign that
    the end is near. First really pricey repair was a tranny overhaul at
    150,000, but that was a heck of a lot cheaper than new car payments.
    ROTFL!! I've never been able to nurse an import past 120k or so without
    sudden massive simultaneous organ failure. They're designed to be
    PERFECLY reliable to 100k or thereabout (and they usually are), and then
    everything wears out at once. And I mean EVERYTHING. Bic disposable
    cars. The only exception seems to be Toyota small trucks (the T-100 and
    Tundra are jokes).
    Steve, May 24, 2004
  6. KC

    DSkalish Guest

    With proper maintenace, I would almost assure many years of life.
    Consider cost of repairs, against a new car payment. You almost rationalize
    even the more expensive repairs. I know a guy that traded in a perfectly good
    (Paid for) Dodge Ram pickup, "Because it was going to need tires and a battery
    soon!.. geez!

    I also recommend an "Engine Flush" since these engines can have a sludging
    problem. Have it done professionally by a mechanic that has the right
    equipment, to do a power flush. I had one done on my 93 intrepid with a 3.3
    engine. My fuel mileage even increased 2-3 mpg.

    I think the timing belt on a 2.7 does not create a danger to the valves if it
    were to break. I do not have proof , though I heard the head is designed with
    valves seats much higher. Of course an ounce of prevention= a pound of cure.

    Bottom line... American, Foreign, doesn't matter. It all comes down to proper
    DSkalish, May 24, 2004
  7. KC

    Bill Putney Guest

    A crankcase flush increasing gas mileage? How? Power flush of
    crankcase? Never heard of that. Transmission, yes, but engine, no (and
    I don't recommend power flushes of the tranny).
    Wrong on both counts. The 2.7L engine does not have a timing belt. It
    has a timing chain.

    And it **is** absolutely an interference engine. IOW, if the timing
    chain breaks, you will have expensive valve damage. And if the timing
    chain-driven water pump fails in certain ways, it can take out the
    timing chain and the valves.
    Proper maintenance decreases your chances of expensive failures, but is
    no guarantee. Some very expensive problems can crop up even with good

    Bill Putney
    (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
    address with "x")
    Bill Putney, May 24, 2004
  8. KC

    DSkalish Guest

    Hey Bill,

    Thanks for the Intrepid Link..gonna check it out. As per the engine flush, I
    believe the increase in performance may stem from cleaner oil returns, meaning
    less crankcase gases..= Better breathing PCV system??.. I wouldn;t say I am a
    mileage calulating fanatic, but I do it in my head at least when I fill up most
    everytime. There was a definate increase in mileage, and overall performance,
    after the engine flush. I have had three oil changes since, and no doubt, the
    oil wasn't as dirty throughout the cycle between changes, as prior to the
    flush. for 166K miles, this engine has plenty of life left.

    As for the 2.7 engine using the chain. I think I may have it confused with the
    2.2L engine,,that used a belt, and there was little concern of valve damage if
    the belt broke. Big difference between 2.2 and 2.6!
    DSkalish, May 24, 2004
  9. KC

    Matt Whiting Guest

    2-3 mpg from an engine flush? That's the best one I've heard today. :)

    Matt Whiting, May 25, 2004
  10. KC

    DSkalish Guest

    Well, maybe your idea of an engine flush is different from the one I had done
    professionally. There was an absolute increase in performance and mileage.

    You mean to tell me that a better breathing engine, with lower crankcase
    pressure(gases) , would not yield at least a slight increase of performance?.
    2-3 mpg I think can be a significant increase. I do lot of highway driving
    too. Stop and go driving may not be so noticeable.
    DSkalish, May 25, 2004
  11. There was no such decrease in "crankcase pressure(gases)".
    It is, and you didn't get any such an increase from having your engine

    But don't feel as though you're alone -- people fool themselves into
    believing they get magical mileage and performance increases from all
    kinds of nonsensical potions, plugs and procedures so they don't have to
    face the reality of having wasted money. It's human nature. I call it the
    "Slick-50 Effect".

    Daniel J. Stern, May 25, 2004
  12. KC

    Steve Guest

    Placebo effect?
    Lower crankcase pressure would indeed yield a slight increase in
    performance. But an "engine flush" shouldn't lower crankcase pressure,
    unless the engine were on its last legs and packed with varnish and sludge.

    A well cared-for engine should NEVER need an oiling system flush, and
    should never BE flushed. I recently replaced valve cover gaskets on my
    wife's 1993 3.5 v6, 211,000 miles. There was not so much as a flake of
    varnish, sludge, or anything foreign under the valve covers. Its never
    been flushed, nor will it be- just regular oil and filter changes (and
    not even excessively frequent- I've let it run up to 9000 miles between
    changes a couple of times). Its had a strict diet of Mobil-1 10w30 since
    20,000 miles, Valvoline 10w30 before that, and Purolator or Wix oil filters.
    Steve, May 25, 2004
  13. KC

    Bill Putney Guest

    Well - he is talking about the 2.7L here! 8^)

    Bill Putney
    (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
    address with "x")
    Bill Putney, May 26, 2004
  14. KC

    Bill Putney Guest

    Oops - that was the OP with the 2.7L - not that guy.

    Bill Putney
    (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
    address with "x")
    Bill Putney, May 26, 2004
  15. KC

    Matt Whiting Guest

    How would an engine flush make the engine breath better? The crankcase
    isn't connected to the induction system last I knen. You would only
    have lower crankcase pressures if the flush cleaned out the PCV system,
    which is very unlikely. Even so, crankcase pressure won't make much
    different on a multi-cylinder engine as while one piston is coming down
    another is going up so the net affect of any pressure is a wash.

    You are dreaming about the mileage increase, at least about it being
    related to the engine flush. Now if you did a complete tune-up along
    with the flush, then it is possible that other things increased the mileage.

    Matt Whiting, May 26, 2004
  16. KC

    Matt Whiting Guest


    Matt Whiting, May 26, 2004
  17. It wouldn't except, as Steve has already pointed out, in the case of a
    *severely* sludged-up engine near the end of its useful life.
    You're saying your knowledge is current as of 1960. The crankcase has been
    connected to the induction system in California since '61, New York since
    '62, and all of the US since '63.

    Daniel J. Stern, May 26, 2004
  18. KC

    Steve Guest

    Well, as I said it would take a miracle. The passages that allow blow-by
    gasses to get to the PCV system would have to be SO blocked with sludge
    that the gasses couldn't get by.

    As for a mileage increase, believe it or not the small change in air
    *density* inside the crankcase and the increased drag on the crank due
    to air resistance do make a measurable (on the dyno) difference in
    engine output and efficiency. Now, its pretty small at speeds below
    ~5000 RPM(*), but not so tiny that it can't be detected. It would be
    hard to imagine you could detect it "seat of the pants" or in terms of
    fuel economy, but I'm allowing as to how it might not be "impossible."

    (*)- it can be surprisingly large at speeds above that, too. I was
    recently reading an article about an engine build-up and dyno test, and
    the builder made the first few dyno pulls with the crankcase
    ventilation system capped. Un-corking the vents (not PCV, just venting
    to the atmosphere!) gave an instant 10-HP increase at 6000 RPM. And this
    was on an engine that already had knife-edged crank counterweights- it
    would be even more noticeable with stock square-fronted counterweights.
    Steve, May 26, 2004
  19. KC

    Matt Whiting Guest

    I still don't see it. Breathing better implies that you have relieved
    "congestion" in the intake or exhaust system. Since a crankcase flush
    isn't going to clean the intake or exhaust valves, air passages in the
    cylinder head, inside of the intake manifold, or the FI system, I don't
    see how it is going to remove any sludge that is causing restriction to
    either the intake or exhaust system.

    How is the PCV system going to make the engine breathe better?

    Matt Whiting, May 26, 2004
  20. KC

    Matt Whiting Guest

    2-3 MPG would be 10-15% increase in fuel efficiency on most vehicles.
    No way that is going to happen by reducing the air drag on the crank
    throws or counterweights.

    What article? 10 HP on a base of what HP? And how many street engines
    spend any significant time at 6,000 RPM?

    Matt Whiting, May 26, 2004
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.