3.8l or 4.0l ? [Archive] - The Chrysler Minivan Fan Club Forums

: 3.8l or 4.0l ?



davhamm
04-18-2010, 01:55 PM
Seems there is little conversations here and there, but not a good thread on this.. or I missed it.

Seems like the pro for the 3.8 is a timing chain vs a Belt on the 4.0l (anyone know when Chrysler recomends changing the belt? )

A bit better fuel economy with the 4.0l plus more power.

But the 4.0l is harder to find and may require compromising on options.

Plus only newer ones are available so the sticker price is $250 more plus they may not offer the $500 reddot discount. So that $630 option becomes a $1380. I think I am leaning toward the 3.8 on price alone. No plans to tow and no big mountains in Michigan.

Any thought?
:ask_wsign

T&CFan
04-18-2010, 02:42 PM
Timing chain scheduled mtce is 102k miles.

Regarding price of 4.0, everything is negotiable.

01GCSE
04-18-2010, 02:43 PM
Timing chain scheduled mtce is 102k miles.

Regarding price of 4.0, everything is negotiable.


I think you mean Timing belt

sat22
04-18-2010, 02:53 PM
I'd definitely choose the 4.0L

AzTraveller
04-18-2010, 03:13 PM
Timing BELT change is every 100kmiles on MOST ALL engines that have timing BELTS. The chains can go 400kmiles, easy. :blink:
The 3.8L gets better MPG, and overall is a better, more reliable engine. :thumb:
Whichever engine you get, I STRONGLY recommend you get the 6speed tranny. It comes with a "Lifetime Warranty" ....... :headbange

andyg
04-18-2010, 03:19 PM
Timing BELT change is every 100kmiles on MOST ALL engines that have timing BELTS. The chains can go 400kmiles, easy. :blink:
The 3.8L gets better MPG, and overall is a better, more reliable engine. :thumb:
Whichever engine you get, I STRONGLY recommend you get the 6speed tranny. It comes with a "Lifetime Warranty" ....... :headbange

Actually the 4.0 gets better economy by 1mpg city and 2 highway. A much more advanced engine compared to the aging 3.3/3.8 engines.

Both the 3.8 and 4.0 get the 6 speed which is nice, but I would opt for the 4.0. Why? Because it gets better fuel economy with having an extra 50hp and more torque as well. The timing belt is something you know will have to be done so you can save up for the cost starting a few months in advance and not have it be such a hit on the wallet.

More power is always better if you can get it. :cool:

AzTraveller
04-18-2010, 03:27 PM
I can change belts myself, however, I'll still take a chain over a belt, any day ........ :thumb:

RC Mike
04-18-2010, 04:15 PM
Fuel economy is great, but a very tiny increase in it means nothing when compared to the costs of replacing the timing belt.

Drive both. See which you like better. I did, and ended up with the 3.8L.

jgbat
04-18-2010, 07:07 PM
I'd also opt for the 4.0. Better MPG, and timing belt replacement is not THAT expensive... And I drove a 6 speed at WOT for a little bit Friday. It's exceptional. The shifts only drop around 500 RPM so you stay in the torque band. And that was a 3.8.

However no 2010 van comes with a lifetime powertrain warranty, reguardless of transmission choice. 6 year 100K on the powertrain. The limited lifetime powertrain warranty ended in 2009.

JOEMAMA
04-18-2010, 07:15 PM
I'd personally just wait for the 3.6L Pentastar!:biggrin:

It'll be here for the 2011 model year hopefully. It has more horsepower and better fuel economy than the 4.0L

davhamm
04-18-2010, 08:02 PM
Yes both come with the 6 speed trans. (AZTraveller can you please post a link or something about the trans having a lifetime warranty, I can't find it anywhere).

The diff in EPA sticker fuel economy is really not significant EPA sticker barely relates to real life and the 1 MPG difference amounts to driving with 1 person in the car of 4 adults.

Ya the 4.0l is "newer" technology, but what does that mean. New technology implemented poorly is far worst then tried and true done right.

I think this has become a mute point for me as wife wants Auto-on lights so we know are looking at T&C Touring instead of GC SXT.

Still want to hear more about this trans warranty.

Jeepman
04-18-2010, 08:14 PM
2010 T&C: 3 year/36,000 mile basic warranty and 5 year/100,000 mile powertrain limited warranty per this site (http://www.chrysler.com/en/2010/town_country/performance/warranty/).

Gumby
04-18-2010, 08:23 PM
I have no experience with the 3.8L, but the 4.0L was a great engine. No problems for me on that one.

caravan and yaris
04-18-2010, 10:19 PM
the 3.8 is a bigger version of the 3.3. It is known to go forever as the 4.0 is new to the market and has not been around long enough to say weither it will have problems or not.

mmahamm
04-18-2010, 10:34 PM
If the 4.0L is going to cost you upwards of $1000 more and limit your selection, stick with the 3.8.

Personally, I would shop for the van that has the right mix of options you want, regardless of which engine it has. Either one is going to probably be durable and provide surprisingly good fuel mileage.

Jeepman
04-18-2010, 10:53 PM
3.8L has been there, done that, got the t-shirt. The 4.0L hasn't got the t-shirt yet. Lots of 3.8Ls out there if one ever needs a new engine. More availability than a 4.0L.
Is the 4.0L an interference engine, in other words does it self destruct (pistons hit valves) if the timing belt breaks (like some of the old Hondas)?

jgbat
04-19-2010, 12:17 AM
Yes both come with the 6 speed trans. (AZTraveller can you please post a link or something about the trans having a lifetime warranty, I can't find it anywhere).
Still want to hear more about this trans warranty.

As I post, the limited lifetime powertrain warranty ended in 2009. That's why you can't find anything about it, it no longer exists.

jgbat
04-19-2010, 12:22 AM
3.8L has been there, done that, got the t-shirt. The 4.0L hasn't got the t-shirt yet. Lots of 3.8Ls out there if one ever needs a new engine. More availability than a 4.0L.
Is the 4.0L an interference engine, in other words does it self destruct (pistons hit valves) if the timing belt breaks (like some of the old Hondas)?

I'm not sure if it is an interference engine or not. However the 4.0 V6 has been in the Pacifica for quite a few years now, so it's not that new to the market. Plus something is telling me it's a 3.5 V6 that is just bored and stroked, so if that's the case the 3.5 has been around since about 1996 in Intrepid/LHS vehicles. Now the Pentastar, that is really new...

phil hunter
04-19-2010, 03:31 PM
The 4.0 is the same engine as the 3.5 except that the stroke has been increased from 81mm to 91 mm to increase the displacement. The 3.5 has been around since 1994. The 4.0 since 1997. Here is a link:

http://www.search.com/reference/Chrysler_SOHC_V6_engine


Phil

shipo
04-19-2010, 04:26 PM
The 4.0 is the same engine as the 3.5 except that the stroke has been increased from 81mm to 91 mm to increase the displacement. The 3.5 has been around since 1994. The 4.0 since 1997. Here is a link:

http://www.search.com/reference/Chrysler_SOHC_V6_engine


Phil

I think you meant to say that the 4.0 liter engine has been around since 2007. Yes, no?

Jeepman
04-19-2010, 05:48 PM
I think you ment to say that the 4.0 liter engine has been around since 2007. Yes, no?

2007 ..... no t-shirt for that engine. :thumb:

Sunvanse
04-19-2010, 08:04 PM
[QUOTE=jgbat;164813]I'd also opt for the 4.0. Better MPG, and timing belt replacement is not THAT expensive... And I drove a 6 speed at WOT for a little bit Friday. It's exceptional. The shifts only drop around 500 RPM so you stay in the torque band. And that was a 3.8.

What does your dealership charge for T-belt replacement? If I had a choice it would be the low maintainence, bullet proof 3.8 with the six speed.

davhamm
04-19-2010, 08:21 PM
Well we have an '07 T&C just drove the '10 the wife didn't think the 3.8 had the same pep as before. Hated the clock (come on you bump the button and it advances a minute or two? ) So now back to the Dodge with a 4.0l if we can find one.

phil hunter
04-19-2010, 10:48 PM
Hi Shipo,

Yep ,you're right 2007. Fat fingered hat one.

Phil

jgbat
04-20-2010, 01:25 AM
What does your dealership charge for T-belt replacement? If I had a choice it would be the low maintainence, bullet proof 3.8 with the six speed.

I have no idea as we've not done one yet. On most vehicles it usually runs around $1000 for timing belt, timing belt tensioner, water pump, and gaskets that need to be replaced. While that is a chunk of money, water pump replacement on a 3.8 is around $400 or so... so that is a factor...

Sunvanse
04-20-2010, 01:03 PM
And that's in Tenn. where the dealer labor rate is most likely less than $100/Hr.

gn300
04-20-2010, 07:33 PM
4.0 is a big 3.5 is it not/

which means it's an interference engine.

if the timing belt goes or is not replaced on tine it bends valves etc.

not good for long term reliability compared to a chain driven 3.3 or 3.8

jgbat
04-20-2010, 07:46 PM
And that's in Tenn. where the dealer labor rate is most likely less than $100/Hr.

Yes. Less.

davhamm
04-27-2010, 10:11 PM
Finally drove a 4.0L ......

I bought the 4.0L I can't believe the amount of power this thing has... Easily brakes the tires free from a standing start.. And thats not even flooring it.

andyg
04-27-2010, 11:58 PM
I'd say getting the 4.0 was a good choice. More power=better.

KOG
04-29-2010, 07:39 PM
$400 for a water pump on a 3.8? $20 pump, about 1 hour labor if you're not too quick. I can put one on in my home shop in 30 minutes. Of course I do have a lift, just like the dealer, but it's still 30 minutes actual time there. I guess I don't have the overhead of a service writer for 30 minutes more to check the car in and out though.

I suspect the timing belt on the 4.0 will take a lot more time. The 3.0 used to take me about 4 hours with water pump and tensioner, about $150 of parts. You'll be getting the 100k spark plugs on the 4.0 along with the belt and I don't know what they cost. Maybe not $40 each like some cars now.

01GCSE
04-29-2010, 07:47 PM
Just looked up the book time in Alldata for water pump/timing belt on a 2008 4.0

2.9 hours, we charge $75/hour so $225 labor. I would think under $400 out the door. Not really that big a deal.

jgbat
04-29-2010, 11:52 PM
$400 for a water pump on a 3.8? $20 pump, about 1 hour labor if you're not too quick. I can put one on in my home shop in 30 minutes. Of course I do have a lift, just like the dealer, but it's still 30 minutes actual time there. I guess I don't have the overhead of a service writer for 30 minutes more to check the car in and out though.

I suspect the timing belt on the 4.0 will take a lot more time. The 3.0 used to take me about 4 hours with water pump and tensioner, about $150 of parts. You'll be getting the 100k spark plugs on the 4.0 along with the belt and I don't know what they cost. Maybe not $40 each like some cars now.

I have no idea where you are getting a pump for $20. They are at least twice that at a parts store. The OEM replacement part is higher. And 30 minutes to do a waterpump on a 4th generation van is extremely fast to say the least, especially seeing how Alldata gives 2.2 hours...

PTCarl
04-30-2010, 12:12 AM
Actually the 4.0 gets better economy by 1mpg city and 2 highway. A much more advanced engine compared to the aging 3.3/3.8 engines.

Both the 3.8 and 4.0 get the 6 speed which is nice, but I would opt for the 4.0. Why? Because it gets better fuel economy with having an extra 50hp and more torque as well. The timing belt is something you know will have to be done so you can save up for the cost starting a few months in advance and not have it be such a hit on the wallet.

More power is always better if you can get it. :cool:

Theoretically better - but too many vehicles have been designed just to fool the EPA testing method.

In real world driving, my 2009 GC SXT 3.8L had overall average of 24.0 MPG as of 5,624 miles. Who has a GC or T&C with 4.0L engine that has delivered better gas mileage? :ask_wsign

andyg
04-30-2010, 12:24 AM
my 2009 GC SXT 3.8L had overall average of 24.0 MPG

Is your driving 65mph constantly all the time? No van could touch that value if it is driven in the city for any period of time. My lighter (maybe even more aerodynamic) van can pull maybe 25-26mpg at 65mph if driven gently. I do real city driving, lots of stop and go and all that, and my average drops down to 14-18mpg depending on how much highway driving is thrown in.

RC Mike
04-30-2010, 12:42 AM
On my 2008 3.8L, I've got 18.5k miles. My overall MPG is 21.8mpg. On the highway, I get 25-26mpg if I'm doing between 70mph and 75mph, and 26-28mpg when doing 60-65mph. I'm very satisfied with that.

PTCarl
04-30-2010, 01:20 PM
Is your driving 65mph constantly all the time? No van could touch that value if it is driven in the city for any period of time. My lighter (maybe even more aerodynamic) van can pull maybe 25-26mpg at 65mph if driven gently. I do real city driving, lots of stop and go and all that, and my average drops down to 14-18mpg depending on how much highway driving is thrown in.

Cruise was set at 72 MPH for most of the 4,126 miles accumulated on 3 round trips but 55 MPH for approximately 60 miles driving I-15 thru the Virgin River Gorge of northwestern Arizona ( 10 miles each way for 3 trips). Between San Bernardino and Anaheim speeds were often closer to the prevailing California interstate speed of 80 MPH. We do not drive San Bernardino - Anaheim in rush hours when speeds would be much lower. :jpshakehe

Interstate/Freeway miles were approximately 73 % and city driving 27 % of total miles driven. During those 5624 miles, there were refills that had 17.9, 19.3, and 15.1 mpg city only driving which brought the overall average down to 24.0 MPG as of November 3, 2009.

Since November 3 in cold weather and many short city trips of less than 1 mile each, the average for the past 6 months is 16.6 MPG. This dropped the overall mileage at 6966 miles down to 21.9 MPG.

Jeepman
04-30-2010, 01:40 PM
Any 3.8L "flex fuels" out there or are they all 3.3Ls? Do the 4.0Ls have "flex fuel" capability? I don't think so.

RC Mike
04-30-2010, 01:47 PM
It's just the 3.3Ls that are corn-compatible.

Jeepman
04-30-2010, 02:01 PM
It's just the 3.3Ls that are corn-compatible.

:lol: There you go, if you can't get a hybrid, atleast get a van that's corn-compatible. :lol:

andyg
04-30-2010, 06:36 PM
Interstate/Freeway miles were approximately 73 % and city driving 27 % of total miles driven. During those 5624 miles, there were refills that had 17.9, 19.3, and 15.1 mpg city only driving which brought the overall average down to 24.0 MPG as of November 3, 2009.



Dang, I want a 6 speed lol. Those extra gears seem to help a lot.

jgbat
04-30-2010, 07:24 PM
Andy you'd love a six speed. Foot to the floor, the RPM's only drop about 500 RPM between gear changes so you stay in the torque band. I was very happy first time I drove one at WOT. That 'boom boom boom' shift is excellent.

Having said that I'm almost positive the high gear ratio for the six speed is the same (or almost the same) as the 4 speed. So no real reduction in RPM's there, so no saveing fuel at highway speed.

Marlowe
05-03-2010, 11:01 AM
I don't know how this compares with others but I did some highway long driving other the weekend. I am 10.6 Litres per 100 kms on just on highway driving.

Edit: I have 4.0 litre engine.

Hokiefyd
05-03-2010, 11:50 AM
I rented a Journey with the 3.5L and 61TE. The shifting was bang-bang-bang. Seemed like it was always shifting no matter what you were doing. Personally, I thought 6 speeds was one too many. I think 5 speeds is the sweet spot. Maybe it just takes getting used to it (though the 900 miles I drove wasn't enough).

Here's exactly what I thought about the powertrain. Maybe the 4.0/61TE is a better match in the vans.

I'm still not impressed with either the engine or the transmission. Six speeds are too many forward gears...at least how they're set up in this transmission. It's hard to drive smooth because the transmission is always shifting. It's always either upshifting when you don't want it to, or downshifting when you don't want it to. Maybe it just takes more practice, but I wasn't able to drive it very smooth around town.

http://forum.chryslerminivan.net/showthread.php?t=8848&highlight=dodge+journey

andyg
05-03-2010, 12:56 PM
That's what autostick is for! Keep it where you want it haha. I've never noticed shift busyness though in 5-6 speed transmissions.

mmahamm
05-03-2010, 05:33 PM
...I thought 6 speeds was one too many. I think 5 speeds is the sweet spot...

I would go further to say, why even go to 5 speeds? What's the big advantage of more speeds? I have found the 4-speed on our 4th gens to be much smoother, and just as fuel efficient as the 5-speed I had on my Nissan Quest. I never felt like I needed another speed when driving a 4 speed Chrysler minivan.

Gumby
05-03-2010, 06:38 PM
I wonder why they (Chrysler) never opted for a CVT.

We are currently driving a 2009 Altima 2.5 (4 cyl) with a CVT (until our Twin Turbo Flex comes in - Yea long story).

Lemme tell you. I was impressed....The thing just revs up to like 3k rpms sits there until you get to your speed and then drops down. It's a really weird feeling. Like you are waiting for a gear change that never comes.

andyg
05-03-2010, 06:40 PM
I would go further to say, why even go to 5 speeds? What's the big advantage of more speeds? I have found the 4-speed on our 4th gens to be much smoother, and just as fuel efficient as the 5-speed I had on my Nissan Quest. I never felt like I needed another speed when driving a 4 speed Chrysler minivan.

It helps meet fuel economy standards more easily. You can keep the engine on its sweet spot most of the time with more gears to increase economy, or performance. My van could use the extra gears when I'm running it hard. The shift into overdrive kills engine power immensely at WOT.

jgbat
05-03-2010, 06:50 PM
I would think the 62TE transmission would 'learn' how to shift more to suit the driver just like the 41TE does. A rental would shift like crap because it is driven like crap. If you had one for a while and it could 'learn' you, I would think that would make for a more enjoyable driving experience.

drvmywifecrzy
05-04-2010, 09:24 AM
I would think the 62TE transmission would 'learn' how to shift more to suit the driver just like the 41TE does. A rental would shift like crap because it is driven like crap. If you had one for a while and it could 'learn' you, I would think that would make for a more enjoyable driving experience.

Is that why when I test drove a 2010 3.8 it shifted so harshly? It had not learned my driving pattern.

Hokiefyd
05-04-2010, 10:34 AM
Perhaps. We have an '06 GC SE at work with the 41TE, which is also adaptive. The van is in a shared motor pool, and all sorts of folks use it. It shifts well.

andyg
05-04-2010, 12:38 PM
Is that why when I test drove a 2010 3.8 it shifted so harshly? It had not learned my driving pattern.

When they are new, or being driven by different people constantly, they will shift "funny". I know I can notice when my mom has driven my van for even less than 2-3 miles to the store and back. It wants to shift earlier and softer.

jgbat
05-04-2010, 01:46 PM
Is that why when I test drove a 2010 3.8 it shifted so harshly? It had not learned my driving pattern.

Between that and normal break-in, I'd say yes.

jgbat
05-18-2010, 10:30 PM
I was looking around DealerConnect and found some interesting things reguarding the 3.8 vs. the 4.0. I put this on another thread, but wanted to post it here as well.

Under fuel it says 3.3 and 3.8, 87 octane. Then it says 4.0, 87 octane acceptable, 89 octane recommended. I had no idea.

Another thing I found odd. 41TE (4 speed) transmission service fill 4 quarts, overhaul fill 9.7 quarts. 62TE (6 speed) transmission service fill 5.5 quarts, overhaul fill 9.0 quarts. Interesting indeed.

andyg
05-19-2010, 09:06 PM
I wonder if the 4.0 has a deeper pan that may be beneficial to the older 4 speeds. More fluid means cooler fluid and trans temps.

KOG
05-19-2010, 10:55 PM
The regular gas deal on the 4.0 is that it makes advertised HP on mid grade and will probably lose about 5 HP on regular. This is a common advertising trick. I ran mid grade for about 2000 miles of break in just to be easy on it and have run regular since with no noticeable difference in power or mileage.

jgbat
05-20-2010, 07:16 PM
I wonder if the 4.0 has a deeper pan that may be beneficial to the older 4 speeds. More fluid means cooler fluid and trans temps.

The pans look different. So I don't believe the 62TE transmission pan would fit the 41TE. I'd say just the converter is smaller, if I had to guess...

jgbat
05-20-2010, 07:17 PM
The regular gas deal on the 4.0 is that it makes advertised HP on mid grade and will probably lose about 5 HP on regular. This is a common advertising trick. I ran mid grade for about 2000 miles of break in just to be easy on it and have run regular since with no noticeable difference in power or mileage.

I have no doubt you are correct.

PTCarl
05-21-2010, 03:30 PM
.....
Under fuel it says 3.3 and 3.8, 87 octane. Then it says 4.0, 87 octane acceptable, 89 octane recommended. I had no idea.....

We have burned 85 octane unleaded sub-regular all the time in our 2009 GC SXT 3.8L and every vehicle we have owned....except when at lower altitude of southern Nevada and California where we use 87 octane unleaded regular. I fill up with 91 octane unleaded premium in St. George, UT to bring the average up to 87 octane enroute to Anaheim.

Our GM vehicle Owner's Manuals had a footnote that 85 octane is satisfactory at higher altitudes. We are at 4,300 feet and frequently encounter 6,000 + feet driving in the adjacent mountains but were at 7,200 feet when we lived in Laramie, Wyoming. :thumb:

shipo
05-21-2010, 04:59 PM
We have burned 85 octane unleaded sub-regular all the time in our 2009 GC SXT 3.8L and every vehicle we have owned....except when at lower altitude of southern Nevada and California where we use 87 octane unleaded regular. I fill up with 91 octane unleaded premium in St. George, UT to bring the average up to 87 octane enroute to Anaheim.

Our GM vehicle Owner's Manuals had a footnote that 85 octane is satisfactory at higher altitudes. We are at 4,300 feet and frequently encounter 6,000 + feet driving in the adjacent mountains but were at 7,200 feet when we lived in Laramie, Wyoming. :thumb:

Higher altitude is in effect its own Octane enhancer as the higher you go the lower the AKI rating of the fuel you need to prevent detonation. If you live at moderately high altitudes (say 4,000' MSL or higher) 85 AKI fuel should be perfectly acceptable for all cars that recommend "Regular-87". The only exception to this would be for engines with forced induction as they don't typically reach "Critical Altitude" (the highest altitude at which they are able to sustain air density equivilant to a "Standard Day" at Sea-Level) until nine or ten-thousand feet MSL.

PTCarl
08-31-2010, 03:11 PM
When they are new, or being driven by different people constantly, they will shift "funny". I know I can notice when my mom has driven my van for even less than 2-3 miles to the store and back. It wants to shift earlier and softer.

Our 2009 GC SXT w/3.8L and 62TE does not down shift as smoothly on occasion as did the 41TE in our 1999 GC SE w/3.3L or 2002 T&C eL w/3.3L but always shifts into a higher gear smoothly. :thumb:

Jeepman
08-31-2010, 05:17 PM
When they are new, or being driven by different people constantly, they will shift "funny". I know I can notice when my mom has driven my van for even less than 2-3 miles to the store and back. It wants to shift earlier and softer.

So one wonders why their transmission starts shifting roughly all of a sudden after their teenager has had a go at impresing his/her friends with the van. It has adjusted to a new driver's habits. Poor transmission, better off not being so smart. :lol: