Javelin MegaDork
April 2, 2013 2:52 p.m.

Good friend of the family needs some help with his car, it's a 98 Sebring Jxi with the 2.5 V6. We got the oil changed, air filter, PCV valve, and topped everything off. I found a loose trans cooler fitting and tightened that. The only issue is it seems to be burning a little oil. A quick check down the front plugs shows a bad valve cover gasket.

So how hard is it to do the rear plugs? I'm assuming an UIM gasket set at the least? And what about the valve covers?

Money is very tight, so I'm trying to keep him on the road as opposed to the best of everything. No external oil leakage at all (it's actually a pretty clean car).

BTW, the main problem was a raft of electrical issues and a dead battery. Turns out it had a top and side poster shoved in there (the battery lives in front of the left front wheel, down in the wheelwell) that was touching the body over bumps. A new correct side-post only battery magically solved every issue!

Bobzilla UltraDork
April 2, 2013 2:53 p.m.

light it on fire and collect the insurance money.

April 2, 2013 3:06 p.m.

Sure it's not a 2.7 V6?

Mmadness
Mmadness Reader
April 2, 2013 3:19 p.m.
Bobzilla wrote: light it on fire and collect the insurance money.

I think that's probably the best way to help them.

Bobzilla UltraDork
April 2, 2013 3:24 p.m.

yEAH, I was actually not kidding.

crazycanadian
crazycanadian Reader
April 2, 2013 3:25 p.m.
SilverFleet wrote: Sure it's not a 2.7 V6?

Second that... these motors are notoriously bad for coolant leak getting into the engine, messing up rod bearings.. Low oil pressure problems.. timing chain problems.. sell the car while you can get a few bucks out of it and get something else..

16vCorey PowerDork
April 2, 2013 3:27 p.m.
SilverFleet wrote: Sure it's not a 2.7 V6?

No, the '98 has the mitsu-derived 2.5L. The Sebring didn't get the giant turd 2.7L until 2001.

They're not bad engines, and I don't remember the rear plugs or rear VC gasket being terrible, but I believe the plenum has to come off.

16vCorey PowerDork
April 2, 2013 3:29 p.m.
crazycanadian wrote:
SilverFleet wrote: Sure it's not a 2.7 V6?

Second that... these motors are notoriously bad for coolant leak getting into the engine, messing up rod bearings.. Low oil pressure problems.. timing chain problems.. sell the car while you can get a few bucks out of it and get something else..

That's the 2.7L. The 2.5L is a totally different (and much better) engine.

16vCorey PowerDork
April 2, 2013 3:32 p.m.

Oh, one more thing, they are interference engines, so check the timing belt while you're in there!

April 2, 2013 3:40 p.m.
16vCorey wrote:
SilverFleet wrote: Sure it's not a 2.7 V6?

No, the '98 has the mitsu-derived 2.5L. The Sebring didn't get the giant turd 2.7L until 2001.

They're not bad engines, and I don't remember the rear plugs or rear VC gasket being terrible, but I believe the plenum has to come off.

Good to know... Oh, this is the 2-door version that's pretty much an Eclipse, right? Or did those come later? All I remember is my dad brought one home for a test drive once and I made him bring it right back.

Lesley PowerDork
April 2, 2013 3:42 p.m.

One of my colleagues once described it as a decent powertrain – wrapped in a turd.

Javelin MegaDork
April 2, 2013 3:42 p.m.

Yes, definitely the 2.5. This is the basically an Eclipse car. It only has 98k miles and everything works and well.

16vCorey PowerDork
April 2, 2013 4:32 p.m.
Javelin wrote: Yes, definitely the 2.5. This is the basically an Eclipse car. It only has 98k miles and everything works and well.

Not really. That generation of Sebring convertible is based on the Stratus/Cirrus/Breeze sedan chassis. The Sebring coupe and Avenger also had the 2.5L, but were based on the Eclipse chassis. And since you said "JXi" instead of "LXi", it's got to be a convertible. The convertible shares pretty much nothing from the Eclipse.

16vCorey PowerDork
April 2, 2013 4:35 p.m.
SilverFleet wrote: Good to know... Oh, this is the 2-door version that's pretty much an Eclipse, right? Or did those come later? All I remember is my dad brought one home for a test drive once and I made him bring it right back.

The coupe, yes. The convertible no. Although that generation of coupes shared the Eclipse chassis, the Eclipse never got the 2.5L V6. The later (2001 and newer) Sebring/Stratus coupe were pretty much the same as the Eclipse. Same engine options and everything.

Beer Baron UltimaDork
April 2, 2013 4:37 p.m.

Ugh. I had a Cirrus.

I'm betting almost all the motor mounts on that thing are broken and shaking every conceivable part loose.

Javelin MegaDork
April 2, 2013 7:27 p.m.

Really? No help at all?

mndsm PowerDork
April 2, 2013 7:32 p.m.

Only thing I can tell you about them is that chassis was available in Mexico with the turbo motor that later came stateside in the SRT4 cars. Beyond that, I know squat. I quit paying attention after the 99 Eclipse GSX.

Beer Baron UltimaDork
April 2, 2013 8:29 p.m.

I am 100% serious about the motor mounts. You can keep chasing new leaks but that is probably the source of them.

asetech New Reader
April 2, 2013 8:51 p.m.

You will have to remove the upper intake plenum to get to the rear plugs...it looks worse than it is. I can have one off in less then 10 minutes. As long as you are doing the plugs, change the cap and rotor, they're buried under the intake and easier to get with it off. The gaskets will be baked into the grooves on the valve covers, it'll take longer to get them off the valve cover than it took to get the valve cover itself off. The engines aren't horrible...but the transmissions are.

Vigo UltraDork
April 4, 2013 3:52 p.m.

Cant believe this thread got this far with 99% talk , 1% walk to answer a simple question like "do you have to take off the plenum to do rear plugs/valve cover..

ASEtech (recertifying two of mine tomorrow, as it happens, out of 8) covered it.. finally.

One of my colleagues once described it as a decent powertrain – wrapped in a turd.

Decent is about as much as i'd give it. I had a 2.5L 6g73 car at one point. The motor is a very good one other than the fact that it is a 2.5L bottom end under a 3.5L top end. The port CSAs are gigantic for the displacement and RPM range and the tiny plenum and too-long runners and weak cams that are on it. With proper manifolds and cams a 2.5L could probably make power to 8k with stock heads, but as delivered that engine is a horrible mish-mash design that makes crap power considering the headflow it has. The best driveability/power mod you can do to a 2.5L v6 chrysler is a drop-in 3.0L shortblock.

16vCorey PowerDork
April 5, 2013 8:15 a.m.
Vigo wrote: Cant believe this thread got this far with 99% talk , 1% walk to answer a simple question like "do you have to take off the plenum to do rear plugs/valve cover.. ASEtech (recertifying two of mine tomorrow, as it happens, out of 8) covered it.. finally.

Except I actually answered it 11 posts earlier:

16vCorey wrote: They're not bad engines, and I don't remember the rear plugs or rear VC gasket being terrible, but I believe the plenum has to come off.

Not to mention clearing up a bunch of mis-information. But I guess all of that was:

Javelin wrote: Really? No help at all?

Oh well.

clutchsmoke HalfDork
April 5, 2013 8:59 a.m.

In reply to 16vCorey:

Well I read and appreciated the answer to the OP. Reading is hard for some people

Vigo UltraDork
April 5, 2013 9:55 a.m.

Good point, i guess i skimmed over that since it looked like yall were busy talking about engines that werent actually in the car.

Javelin MegaDork
April 5, 2013 10:50 a.m.

In reply to 16vCorey:

Sorry Corey, I totally used your advice. I got a plenum gasket and popped it off and did all 6 plugs. Funnily enough, my friend now has the world's only 2.5 Sebring polished upper intake plenum. I didn't change the wires, rotor, or cap as they all looked like new. I'm not entirely sure the plug hole gaskets are bad because it was a quart overfull and the PO had 2 quarts riding shotgun (with no drips from the engine at all). With the proper oil level in it now it doesn't seem to have any issues.

Javelin MegaDork
April 5, 2013 10:52 a.m.
16vCorey wrote:
Javelin wrote: Yes, definitely the 2.5. This is the basically an Eclipse car. It only has 98k miles and everything works and well.

Not really. That generation of Sebring convertible is based on the Stratus/Cirrus/Breeze sedan chassis. The Sebring coupe and Avenger also had the 2.5L, but were based on the Eclipse chassis. And since you said "JXi" instead of "LXi", it's got to be a convertible. The convertible shares pretty much nothing from the Eclipse.

As I have now found out after three junkyards, the convertible shares nothing with the coupe. The interiors are completely different. WTF Chrysler?!?!

1 2

You'll need to log in to post.

Also on Grassroots Motorsports

2014 Solo National Championship Finally Here

13 hours ago in News

Competition starts tomorrow for the 2014 Solo National Championship.

Delivery, but Not From a Dealer

3 days ago in Project Cars

We pick up our new M235i straight from BMW.

Join Us at NASA Nationals

3 days ago in News

We'll be at Road Atlanta for NASA Nationals today. Come on by.

Come to the Solo Nationals Talent Show

4 days ago in News

We're bringing back the talent show at SCCA Solo Nationals with "Tacos and Talent."

Learn How to Attack Tracks Like a Pro

5 days ago in News

Mazdaspeed wants to teach you how to drive the best tracks in North America Like a pro.

Join Us at Watkins Glen and Lime Rock

6 days ago in News

We'll be traveling north for a couple vintage events over the coming weeks. Come say hello.

Last Week for our Classic Motorsports Half-Price Deal

6 days ago in News

August is drawing to a close, and so is our discount offer for our sister magazine.

OUR SPONSORS

Grassroots Motorsports Magazine

Subscribe Today

Also get your instant access to the digital edition of Grassroots Motorsports Magazine!

Learn More