Well I just have to chime in here as I own one of each.
The valve guide problem wasn't lethal to the motor, just annoying. The
guides would slip and allow oil into the exhaust manifold. The change was
made in late '92. I also have the A604 which is known to be temperamental
if they are abused but a nice tranny to drive none the less.
Both engines are great in my opinion. The 3.0 gets good fuel mileage
(~28 mpg highway), develops a good amount of low-end torque and is a fairly
strong motor. The disadvantages are that there is almost no aftermarket for
performance though we're slowly growing one. The motor is very reliable and
well designed with most stuff easy to get to, it's ideal for underdrive
pulleys as the water pump is driven by the timing belt so you can turn the
accessories slower and still maintain perfect cooling in any temp. Not to
mention the fact this is the same block, crank, and rods as used in the twin
turbo Stealth making 300hp so we know the motor has serious potential.
On the other hand there's my 3.9. That engine has a great history, is
near bullet-proof and does quite well for itself. I can't attest to the
Magnum engines but the stats on my 87 aren't much better than my 3.0 stock.
I think there's an extra few hp and lb-ft. but nothing major for the
difference in displacement.
Damien Civiello
Penn State Engineering
1993 Shadow ES 3.0
1987 Dodge Dakota 3.9 V6
1950 Chrysler Windsor Flathead 6
1961 Desoto 418 V8
Common sense says "if it's not broke don't fix it."
Engineers say "if it's not broke we didn't make it complex enough."
----- Original Message -----
From: "DML Digest" <owner-dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET>
To: <dakota-truck-digest@buffnet4.buffnet.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 10:57 PM
Subject: DML Digest V4 #3250
> DML Digest Wednesday, February 7 2001 Volume 04 : Number
3250
>
>
>
> Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:39:29 -0800 (PST)
> From: Scott Drega <sdrega@yahoo.com>
> Subject: DML: 3.0 V6 vs 3.9V6
>
> I could not resist adding my $0.02 on this thread as I
> am pretty involved with FWD mopars as well.
>
> The 3.0 V6 is well known for the fact that its valve
> guides tend to drop, causing a great deal of smoking.
> The early ones are especially problematic. I believe
> they remedied this problem around 94 or so, but not
> certain on the year they made changes.
>
> My family's own 3.0V6 91 Daytona ES lost the engine at
> around 131k. This car was driven easy and regularly
> maintained. The A604 trans also went around 110k and
> those transmissions are known to be problematic. In
> my opinion the 3.0V6/A604 ultradrive combo is probably
> the least desirable drivetrain you could get in an
> 89-95 FWD mopar.
>
> As for the 3.9, my understanding is that this engine
> is basically a 5.2 (318) with two less cylinders. The
> 318 has proven to be a great engine, I would think the
> same holds for the 3.9 since it is based on the 318
> design. I almost bought a new 96 Dakota Sport 3.9 5
> speed in 1996 when I decided to buy my Shelby Dakota.
>
> Scott
> 89 Shelby Dakota #894 (For Sale)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:59:11 EDT