Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Dodge Intrepid



  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,593
    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.
  • fljoslinfljoslin Posts: 237
    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.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,593
    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! :shades:
  • 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
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,593
    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.
  • fljoslinfljoslin Posts: 237
    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.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,593
    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.
  • fljoslinfljoslin Posts: 237
    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.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,593
    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!
  • fljoslinfljoslin Posts: 237
    I am sure that you are correct about few cars getting the 2.7L engine. However, the cars that you see advertised with low prices do have that engine. If you want one of the bigger engines, you have to pony up a lot more.
    I would like to see what numbers these cars really get for mileage. My wife's Pacifica with the 3.5L gets something like 15/22 mpg which is close to EPA. Of course, it weighs more has AWD and a 4 speed auto.
  • I bought a 97' Intrepid at a gov't auction. Good deal, has been running fine. Recently all guages stop working, fuel, odometer, temp speed, tack etc. After engine cools down, appox. 15 minutes, all guages work again. Anything serious?
  • It is soon time for me to replace my 1997 Intrepid. I have always like the way the car has handled (3.5 engine/Auto)and wonder what current models may drive similarly. Honestly, i have been looking at (no test drives yet) Acura TL, Avalon, Volvo 60, Accord, Camry, etc.
    Any thoughts??
  • tkfitztkfitz Posts: 95
    are not that hard if what I have read is true. Search in Dodge,you will find step by step directions and even parts lists from people who have made the swap.
    I have not had a problem with the 2.7 in my car. It gives a level of performance and economy hard to beat in a car in this price range. I can easily get 30 mpg on the highway.
    I have been looking for a replacement for the Intrepid. There is not much out there with the same room,comfort or economy. This car is still a great value. I would buy a new one if I could.
  • smithedsmithed Posts: 444
    Are you looking to buy a new car? From what you have said, it looks like you are interested in a front driver rather than sticking with Chrysler and going with Charger or 300. I looked at several of those on your list. Here are my thoughts: The TL is a great car to drive, small trunk, small back seat compared to Intrepid. The Avalon is nice, in a Buick kind of way. (You might consider a LaCrosse--the hotter version--I drove one and it seemed very nice, again the back seat pales in comparison to the Intrepid). You can't go wrong with a V6 Accord or Camry, the former more fun to drive, the latter roomier. I can't say anything about the Volvo. For sheer room--look at Ford Five Hundred, the 3.0 liter is only adequate, however. What did I do?--Kept the Intrepid (now 104,000 miles) for use by my son who is nearly 17 and as a second car. Bought a 2006 300C. :shades:
  • fljoslinfljoslin Posts: 237
    What about a used newer model Intrepid. I have a 1999 ES (3.2/autostick) purchased new and love the way it drives and looks. It has been very reliable. They started putting the 3.5 L in Intrepids the following year. While you are at it what about a used 300M or LHS. They are both pretty nice cars.
  • Thanks. I rather go new since I usually hold the cars for 10 years
  • smithedsmithed Posts: 444
    To all of my electronically introduced friends here:

    Thank you for the entertainment, thoughts and replies through the year.

    Merry Christmas to all!! Enjoy the season, remembering the real reason for this.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,593
    but my 2000 Intrepid slipped over the 113,000 mile mark yesterday afternoon. Still alive and kicking, and no unusual squeaks, noises, or other signs of impending doom! :shades:

    Hope everyone had a Merry Christmas!
  • Jason5Jason5 Posts: 440
    Happy Holidays all.... My 2000 ES just turned over 130,000 miles and doing well. Had the struts replaced (first time) and the left front wheel bearing. Hope all is well.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,593
    how much did the strut replacement cost? Have you noticed much of an improvement in the ride/handling? I'm thinking that with the mileage I have on mine, that I might be due soon, although it still seems to handle and ride just fine.
Sign In or Register to comment.