After viewing this video: This confirms that it is entirely possible to convert a Daytona to a 3.3L/3.8L. A few questions come to mind:

1. Can a later year 3.3L/3.8L be used (2001-2007)

2. Is the Daytona limited to the first gen A604, or can one of the later and more reliable versions of the 41TE be used? Could the 3.3L/3.8L be swapped in manual versions?

3. How much would just the engine conversion cost (yes I know it won't be cheap so please no "more than what the car is worth" I get that, I just want to know what it would hypothetically cost. And also, please no "if more power is what you want the 3.0L can be upgraded..." I also get that, it has less to do with power and more to do with the principal that a Chrysler product should have a Chrysler power plant not a Mitsubishi. Why am I so picky about this, we have been burned on more than one occasion with the 3.0L Mitsubishi years ago plus I don't like the power characteristics and have been very happy with our experiences with the 3.3L/3.8L family).

4. Although I know this would really be pushing it, could a Chrysler 3.5L V6 be dropped in?

 

In theory any of the above would work. My experience with 3.3s and 3.8s is they don't hold up to abuse like a 3.0. (Just my experience, killed 2 3.3s @80k, one 3.8 @ 60k, my 3.0 was still strong @205k, being abused it's whole life.) They are also harder to get extra power out of unless you're planning on running MS, the factory ecu can't adjust for much of anything. The 3.5 could also be dropped, more work IIRC, but the power gain would outweigh the extra work.

It can be used with an A543 manual IIRC.

What are you trying to do with the car is another question.

 

Thank you for your response. My experience between the 3.3L/3.8L vs. 3.0L had the opposite results which is largely why I would prefer to use a 3.3L/3.8L as opposed to the 3.0L Mitsubishi. My dad had a Dynasty with the 3.0L and it was trouble. It leaked oil, the starter went out on it, it refused to start once due to a computer problem, etc. Most of the people I know who had the 3.0L Mitsubishi had to have the engine rebuilt around 120K. Everyone I know whom has had a 3.3L/3.8L has reached at least 200K without major problems.

The purpose of the car is for a cheap extra car for normal FWD car usage that is to feature a Chrysler V6 engine and only two doors to prove a point. I've always wanted have a coupe and being a Dodge/Chrysler fan, I want one that features a Chrysler V6 engine.

So you are saying that the Chrysler 3.5L while it would naturally take a bit more work could work? Do you know if it would be more problematic to use a second gen 3.5L 250hp ~ version, and it would still match up with the A543? Would the manual be able to handle the level of hp and tq that this engine provides?

 

I've seen the 543 holding well over 300 on boosted 3.0 builds. My current 3.0 is right around 3.5 numbers and my 543 is holding well.

 

Starters go out in everything, same with a comp issue. Only real issue they have is valve cover gaskets and that's cause most people can't read torque specs.

That being said I don't know what point you trying to prove, but if I was going to do the swap I'd shoot for the 3.5.

Well actually, I'd go 3.8 MIVEC from the new eclipse. Better motor then any your thinking of, fat torque, good power, reliable.

 

Thank you very much for the information. So the 543A manual should be able to mount to the Chrysler EGG 3.5L V6 or will some modifications be needed?

As for the point I am trying to prove, that this car should have featured an optional Chrysler V6 engine. My position on this has always been that if I want a Mitsubishi, I'll buy a Mitsubishi, if I want a Chrysler, I'll buy a Chrysler. I understand that in 87-89 that this engine was necessary as Chrysler didn't have a V6 of their own (save for the 3.9L which probably would not have fit), but frankly Chrysler no longer needed the 3.0 after this point (or the 2.5L V6 or the revised 3.0L for that matter). The engine is the biggest part of the experience and when it isn't even made by the company one is buying from, it is like ordering a wedding cake and when you go to have it cut you find that it is a fruit cake with frosting on it. On top of this, if you ever beat someone in a comparable Ford or GM, they'll throw back that it is not really a Chrysler victory or query on if Chrysler is so great why do they have to rely on Mitsubishi to supply the engine.

I know that some of these were small expense problems but the fact of the matter was this car with this engine was in the shop frequently and considering that the miles it had were highway miles and that this stuff broke on it in a matter of 4 years in comparison to our other Chrysler models that featured the K 2.5L I4, 3.3L V6, and 4 that have featured the 3.5Ls that were run with higher mileage were owned much longer and didn't have near the problems of the frequency of repairs. The people whom I know who have the 3.3Ls have either reach 200K or they traded it in for reasons other than the engine (transmission most often). The people I know whom have had the 3.0L Mitsubishi generally have had to have it rebuilt by 120K including minivan owners.

 

The trans bolts right up IIRC. The 3.5, a newer 3.8 (they made the most power),or even the 4.0 out of the newer vans, would give you the best performance.

Most people are not smart enough to know that the 3.0 is not a chrysler engine. Lol.
I do have to say shops not knowing how to work on them is common around here, that's why mine gets touched be no one but me.

To each their own. I hope to here more on the progress of your endeavor. Good Luck!!!!

 

I am planning the same kind of spot. This gives me hope I may not have to go RWD. I do plan on going with a turbo and a 3.5. The all aluminum block and four valve heads are just to good to pass up. I want to keep the car nimble. You might want to check out turbododge.com they may have some info on this.
Good luck with your project and keep it posted so I can copy you. LOL
Thanks, south bound pachaderm

 

Pretty sure you won't fit the 3.5 underhood, unless you're talking 3.5 mitsu (6g74).

 

Oh well, maybe I will have to go RWD. Kind of what I wanted. Just dread the down time in fabrication.
South bound pachaderm