Chrysler 300 forum banner
1 - 2 of 14 Posts
Hi gang. I currently have a car, but thinking of getting a second (fun) car.
I was thinking of a hemi 300c for the fun-factor. I did also consider the 3.5 engine but wanted to know how this performs? Is it decent or a slouch?
Which of the two are more reliable over the long run (with proper maintenance of course)?
My hesitation on the 3.5 is the timing belt factor.
As well, how good are the trannies on these cars?
(Thinking of 2005-2010).
I could consider 3.6 as well.
Any info would be great thanks.
North American 300 powertrains don't necessarily fit in a particular order in terms of reliability, but there are a few things to keep in mind.

You didn't ask about the 2.7, but that engine has serious design flaws that often lead to catastrophic failure, and it should be avoided like the plague.

The 3.5 is a decent design with reasonable reliability, but it's an Iaccoca-era engine and lags pretty far behind current designs. It's an interference engine with a timing belt, and in my opinion, it struggles to pull the two-ton-plus Charger or 300 around, especially if, God forbid, you get stuck with one that has a 42RLE 4-speed transmission.

The 3.6 Pentastar is a modern, DOHC design, much better suited to a heavy car like the LX/LD platform. It's substantially more powerful with a flatter torque curve, and as you pointed out, timing chains in place of belts.

The first generation 5.7 is a good design but suffers from a flaw that can leap to dropped valve seats. If you're interested in a Hemi, I'd suggest looking for a 2009-up, which would be the improved Eagle engine.

I definitely wouldn't choose a 3.5 over any Hemi because of spark plugs. While it's true that early Hemis use copper plugs that require replacement every 30,000 miles or so, you can just put platinum or iridium plugs in if you want. That's what the Eagle uses, and plenty of folks use them in the earlier engines without issue.
 
1 - 2 of 14 Posts