Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So, I have owned and been working on the 16V engine for about 9 years now. I have owned and driven 1 other 16V TC, but not very far, and I have never ridden in or driven any other 16V TC. The irony is that I love these engines and the cars, but I never got to EXPERIENCE one...until yesterday! I got the brakes sorted and it was running well, so I took it for a short blast.

 

There is only 1 word you need to know when talking about the 16V experience: SMOOTH. From the time you start the engine, the way the clutch takes up, and the power...it's *SMOOTH*. When I got on it I didn't know what to expect. What I got was a rush of acceleration that just kept coming! No, it's not light speed, so we aren't burning rubber and setting the world on fire, but it's relentless...like an electric motor (oh the irony of that, too!) Unlike any other Turbo Mopar I have ever driven, it pulls from the time you hit the gas until you lift off the gas! None of the "unrefined" boost lag of the SOHC or even the R/T. I do know that part of this is the very small turbo, but it is matched VERY well for this purpose.

 

That's as much as I have driven the car so far. I am going to replace the valve cover gasket today as it's leaking pretty horribly. I am hoping to be driving it around this weekend!

 

I will say that this transmission has something wrong with it as 3/4 have to be utterly babied to go in without grinding. I have a good unit I will be swapping in, but again, a totally different feel than the New Process transmissions. Bulky isn't really the word, but you get this sense that it is not in a big hurry to do its job, if that makes any sense. You get the feeling it wouldn't be happy if you tried to start jamming gears. I can imagine it saying "you will have your gear when I am finished" in a thick German accent! LOL

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was interesting reading your description of your first impression of driving your 16V. 
Having owned a 16V myself as well as the 8V that I still have, I must agree with your “electric motor” feel of the 16V engine. Smoooothe is a good description.

The biggest downside of the 8V is the ‘too large’ turbocharger, which exaggerates the turbo lag. As it stands, my 8V with the New Process 5 speed trans has some, but not as noticeable, turbo lag. With a stick shift, you can rev the engine a little as you Get ready pull out. 
I built a 2.5L out of a 2.2 common block TC engine and used the smaller Mitsubishi turbo that was the Garrett replacement. With this combination + pistons for a normally aspirated engine, the performance was very close to the 16V engine with absolutely NO turbo lag.

I personally didn’t like owning a 16V engined TC, because I would be absolutely up the creek if it would have any type of engine problems on a cross country trip.

Enjoy your TC they have an impressive looking 16V engine. 34B18639-5236-4092-BAB0-10353CFC077B.jpeg.fb6125175d4bcaf06698afad31c24dea.jpeg

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hemi Dude said:

It was interesting reading your description of your first impression of driving your 16V. 
Having owned a 16V myself as well as the 8V that I still have, I must agree with your “electric motor” feel of the 16V engine. Smoooothe is a good description.

The biggest downside of the 8V is the ‘too large’ turbocharger, which exaggerates the turbo lag. As it stands, my 8V with the New Process 5 speed trans has some, but not as noticeable, turbo lag. With a stick shift, you can rev the engine a little as you Get ready pull out. 
I built a 2.5L out of a 2.2 common block TC engine and used the smaller Mitsubishi turbo that was the Garrett replacement. With this combination + pistons for a normally aspirated engine, the performance was very close to the 16V engine with absolutely NO turbo lag.

I personally didn’t like owning a 16V engined TC, because I would be absolutely up the creek if it would have any type of engine problems on a cross country trip.

Enjoy your TC they have an impressive looking 16V engine. 34B18639-5236-4092-BAB0-10353CFC077B.jpeg.fb6125175d4bcaf06698afad31c24dea.jpeg

 

 

One of the reasons I got into the Maserati DOHC engine was because of its use in racing, and firsthand accounts of its reliability. Mike Stimac told me that with these engines, you invest once and you go have fun. Of course this one isn't in a race car and I don't intend to wring it out, so it's just regular maintenance, and as you are well aware, these really aren't all that finicky. As we have mulled over in the past, the rod bearings are the "worst" part (aside from the exhaust valves and guides).

 

I found it interesting that you liked a high compression 2.5 with a Mitsu over a Garrett. I always found Mitsu turbo'd cars to just run out of breath up top, but you are correct that the Garrett on the 2.2 for the stock power level they achieved is a bit large. The head flow is what really makes the 8V act the way it does, though. It just is not a very rev-happy head in stock form and was designed at the peak of the emissions era. For around town cruising...it doesn't really matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Reaper1 said:

 

One of the reasons I got into the Maserati DOHC engine was because of its use in racing, and firsthand accounts of its reliability. Mike Stimac told me that with these engines, you invest once and you go have fun. Of course this one isn't in a race car and I don't intend to wring it out, so it's just regular maintenance, and as you are well aware, these really aren't all that finicky. As we have mulled over in the past, the rod bearings are the "worst" part (aside from the exhaust valves and guides).

 

I found it interesting that you liked a high compression 2.5 with a Mitsu over a Garrett. I always found Mitsu turbo'd cars to just run out of breath up top, but you are correct that the Garrett on the 2.2 for the stock power level they achieved is a bit large. The head flow is what really makes the 8V act the way it does, though. It just is not a very rev-happy head in stock form and was designed at the peak of the emissions era. For around town cruising...it doesn't really matter.

You have described my use of my TC from the time I purchased it. I actually bought my first and current one because of the bad reputation the car had. I quickly found out what a dog it was on hills and mountain roads at high altitude. That was the moment I decided to get rid of the 3 speed automatic, on my first trip to TC National in ‘95.  It was much later that I scrapped the Teves ABS system, before I had trouble with it. 
I did enjoy the performance of my 2.2L 16V TC I owned. I replaced the crankshaft & connecting rods with ones from an 8V. That way it had rod bearings from any parts house. Those are the 2 cars you see on the AACA Pages under Chrysler TC.

You are right about the 2.5L engine running out of breath at higher RPM, but the torque I got out of that 2.5 is what I was looking for. Street performance (within limits) is where I wanted the performance.6846528A-75A1-42B1-8A9C-2A7397ED334C.jpeg.42f0517ac363038672b0cfb0b6ea4fed.jpeg 
If I wanted 725HP out of a 511CI HEMI, I would drive this car.

Which I had the privilege of maintaining and driving often.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...