Is It Easy to Work on 36l Pentastar

PowerDork
5/16/13 8:10 a.m.

Been looking for a used/ new to me DD. Kinda was set on '05-'10 Mustang GT, Challengers have however caught my eye and grown on me. The 3.5L woulda been OK but the 2011s and up get the 3.6L w/ 305 hp/ 268 ft/ lbs torque w/ cylinder deactivation and variable valve timing. 18 mpg city/ 27 mpg highway. I can deal w/ that, don't really need a Hemi in a DD anyway. Mustang GTs are advertised w/ 300 hp and 23 mpg highway. Really considering a 3.6 Challenger at this time, best of both worlds kinda thing.

Geezus, they are using this engine in everything from trucks, SUVs, sedans. Maybe it's still too early to tell but are there any known issues w/ the 3.6L Pentastar engine, any reason not to go for it? ... or any issues w/ a base Challenger for that matter.

TIA

I only know the older 3.5, but that things was strong and reliable in my experience. The 3.6 sounds even better.

Only things wrong with the LX/LC platform is its German design heritage with American bean counters running the show. The outer tie rods get play in under 25k. Unless you get versed in Chrysler-ese, taking it in to be fixed normally ends in frustration, lots of money spent, and the problem still isn't fixed. EGR valves, the rubber in EVAP lines, front brakes can be troublesome (see first sentence), and unless they changed it, the trans connector leaks.

All that being said, I'd own one in half a heartbeat.

Pat Reader
5/16/13 8:22 a.m.

So far, I have only heard good things. A friend who is a tech at a dealer has told me he hasnt seen any common issues yet.

pinchvalve wrote: I only know the older 3.5, but that things was strong and reliable in my experience. The 3.6 sounds even better.

Only big problem with the 3.5 was if it broke the roll pins retaining the rocker arm shafts. It would then make noise against the valve cover and then a complaint. Everything external on a 3.5 is what breaks, never internal.

tuna55 PowerDork
5/16/13 8:24 a.m.

I love the Pentastar in the minivan - it's got more power than needed.

That Challenger weighs a lot more than a Mustang. The V6 ones are not exactly what I would call "quick."

If you want a car that's fun to drive, you'll probably prefer the torque of the 4.6L Mustang GT.

A buddy bought a 3.6 Challenger last year. He loves it. Quick enough, and gets better mileage than his '00 Neon was knocking down.

No manual trans for the V6 Challenger

Sky_Render wrote: That Challenger weighs a lot more than a Mustang. The V6 ones are not exactly what I would call "quick." If you want a car that's fun to drive, you'll probably prefer the torque of the 4.6L Mustang GT.

Really? 100# is a lot of weight? Published weights, from MT, are 3834# for a 2012 SXT (V6) Challenger and 3750# for the same year V6 Mustang. Before you hate on the Challenger, go drive one and yes, a V6 model. They need some work, (don't they all?) namely a revised TCM and converter, but it is far from tortoise slow.

Gearheadotaku wrote: No manual trans for the V6 Challenger

actually looking for an auto in GT or Challenger... bad left knee

tuna55 wrote: I love the Pentastar in the minivan - it's got more power than needed.

x2

I could spin the tires coming out of a cloverleafs in buddies a Caravan (with him encouraging me).

I'd love to swap this motor into a much lighter 1st or 2nd gen minivan.

Ranger50 wrote:

Sky_Render wrote: That Challenger weighs a lot more than a Mustang. The V6 ones are not exactly what I would call "quick." If you want a car that's fun to drive, you'll probably prefer the torque of the 4.6L Mustang GT.

Really? 100# is a lot of weight? Published weights, from MT, are 3834# for a 2012 SXT (V6) Challenger and 3750# for the same year V6 Mustang. Before you hate on the Challenger, go drive one and yes, a V6 model. They need some work, (don't they all?) namely a revised TCM and converter, but it is far from tortoise slow.

Um, no. The V6 coupe weighs 3,350. The V8 weighs just under 3,500. And the Challenger V6 weighs just over 3,800, with the V8s weighing at just over TWO TONS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_(fifth_generation)

drainoil wrote: I'd love to swap this motor into a much lighter '64 or '65 Valiant.

Fixed that for you. Or at least that's what the voices in my head heard.

In reply to Sky_Render:

Um, no.

BASE CURB WEIGHT (pounds) (auto/manual)
Coupe 3,523 3,501
Convertible 3,652 3,630
Weight distribution (front/rear) 54/46 54/46

http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2013_Mustang_Specs.pdf

So, now you're saying the Mustang V6 weighs 3,500 instead of 3,750, which is still significantly lighter than the Challenger.

OK...?

Sky_Render wrote: So, now you're saying the Mustang V6 weighs 3,500 instead of 3,750, which is still significantly lighter than the Challenger. OK...?

And a Mustang is significantly smaller then a Challenger.

OK?

If any car is the porker in this argument, it is the Mustang.

No, the Mustang really isn't that much smaller. And I still don't see what this has to do with the Challenger V6 being under-powered.

Is it that time of the Month again, Ranger50?

I had a Pentastar in a 2012 Wrangler and loved it.

I dont know how much the Wrangler weighed. It was a two door soft top so somewhere between 1300 and 6000 pounds

I've heard really good things about the 3.6 in the Jeeps. More torque and better fuel economy than the older motors.

I find the Pentastar in my G. Caravan feels almost overpowered. It flat out hustles, without the suspension or handling to match...

Sky_Render wrote: I've heard really good things about the 3.6 in the Jeeps. More torque and better fuel economy than the older motors.

It was awesome. Ive had several 4.0s, 2.5s and currently own a 4.2 in various Jeeps. The Pentastar was hands down better to me than its predecessors. I never had any complaints about low end torque. But I have square head lights on my Wrangler so my Jeep opinions are usually wrong

Strizzo UberDork
5/16/13 10:32 a.m.

from what i've heard, the pentastar is a big improvement over the 3.8 that was previously in the wrangler, but it would be hard to make one worse than the old 3.8.

also, comparing the old GT to the new challenger isn't quite fair. the new v6 mustang has 305hp and gets 31mpg highway. had a rental convertible a couple years ago and was pretty impressed with it all around aside from the exhaust note being distinctly v6

Sky_Render wrote: No, the Mustang really isn't *that* much smaller. And I still don't see what this has to do with the Challenger V6 being under-powered. Is it that time of the Month again, Ranger50?

Seriously, you want to beat your dead horse some more?

Competitive comparison: Camaro, Challenger, and Mustang

Is the Challenger really too heavy, as some say?

2010 figures Weight(V6) Weight(V8) Wheelbase Length Width Passenger Volume Trunk Volume
Challenger (SE/SRT8) 3,720 4,132* 116 197.7 75.7 16.2 c.f.
Mustang 3,453 3,605 107 188 73.9 83.3 c.f. 13.4 c.f.
Camaro 3,780 3,849 112 190 75.5 91.5 c.f. 11.3 c.f.
2012 Lexus GS350 3,795 n/a 112 190.7 72.4
2012 Mercedes E350 3,825 ? 113 191.7 73.0

Specs from here: http://www.allpar.com/cars/dodge/challenger/specifications.html

Now go stick a 5-link IRS under your Mustang and see what it weighs. The(An) IRS weighs A LOT. The subframe is a good 130# by itself, then add in everything else to make it work. Dumping weight is free, if you want to make it your argument since you are trying not so valiantly to win the argument by changing the topic. Tuning will net about another 20hp. Chryslers are stupidly conservative on the factory tunes. So, on the old 250hp/250tq 3.5L combo, someone can still run with your V6 Mustang or are you going to pull a fast one and run the 305hp model against it?

burchbeent1992.blogspot.com

Source: https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/off-topic-discussion/36l-pentastar-engine/64420/page1/

Share this post