Paul Berkebile's Letter to Mopar Now!


My name is Paul, and my family has had many 80-90's FWD Mopar's (Horizon, Daytona's, Caravan, etc.). So when I heard that there was going to be the Mopar Now Magazine, I had been waiting and looking. Mopar Action, etc. have been good about including some FWD stuff (mainly Neon's), but it is nice to have a dedicated magazine.

But it seems the magazine is already headed in a very narrow direction. For the last few days, all the Internet mailing lists and such have been livid about a letter from you to a 3.0L owner. There are some very obvious mistakes on your part about this engine and the cars it is in.

I have inclosed your reply to a James Dempsey, and have some corrections to what you have said:

"Sorry, but to us the 3.0L was a bad joke. No power, overweight, rusty cooling pipes, worst exhaust on the planet, dropped valve guides, crop duster exhaust. And we prefer our Mopar's to be all Mopar. No, we're not happy that DC just bought a controlling interest in Bitsumishi, either."

Why was the 3.0L a joke? Because Chrysler couldn't afford to engineer their own V6. Buying the technology was a great business move that helped them compete with the rest of the big boys. The public wanted a V6 option, and this gave it to them. Before this, Chrysler put a ~100 hp engine in cars, and slapped a turbo on anything that needed more power. Granted I like turbo's, but displacement and more cylinders is better suited towards certain demographics.

If you happened to read the power curves of the 3.0L vs. a Turbo I engine, they have pretty much the same peak power, with the 3.0L having a better torque curve. Hmmm...

What is overweight? Maybe some of the fully-optioned cars it was put in. But that is what they went with a high-torque motor over a turbo.

Rusty Cooling pipes? Since when does rubber rust?

Worst exhaust on the planet? Cat-back is identical to the turbo engines (2.25" mandrel bend back), and the manifold is geared towards low-end power.

Well, sorry to break it to you, but many Chryslers were made in Canada or Mexico. Plus, every car has parts made all over. I challenge you to find one 100% American made car. Since the 80's, Chrysler has owned a major portion of Mitsubishi, so they were effectively buying much needed resources.

"And the later (current) 2.5L is even worse. Less power than the Chrysler-built 2.4L I-4 and 200 pounds more weight. Great combination - for instant dog, that is!"

So your magazine is going to ban Sebrings (hardtop based off of a MITSUBISHI Galante), Avengers, any new Chryslers that will be using the new 205hp version of the 3.0L that is in the Eclipse also? Also you can't talk about Neons either then. Because their 2.0L was the same as the Mitsubishi Eclipse's 2.0L. Oops, you can't talk about all the turbo cars either (A lot of them use MITSUBISHI turbo's also).

"Sorry, but this is our opinion, one and all here. And all the Chrysler engineers we know concur wholeheartedly. We'll only run stories on Mitsu stuff over my cold, rigid body.

We consider this a GREAT attitude. Pro-Mopar to the max.


Well, I guess you are already dead, as you have Cliff Sebring's 3.0 Duster (runs ~14.7 1/4's) in your magazine, and you show an Eagle Talon which is practically all Mitsubishi.

If you want to alienate probably 1/4 of your target audience, I guess that is your decision to blow. But maybe you should do your homework next time first.

Personally, right now I own a 1990 Dodge Daytona 3.0L. Bought new, I have it serviced at a Chrysler dealer, buy parts from Chrysler, and have a Dodge emblem in front of my hood. That makes my car a Chrysler and I love to drive it.

Please check out the Mopar 3.0L Registry with over 300 members at:

There you will see a 12 second 3.0L, and many other cars worthy of being in your magazine.

Also, there is a turbo project being worked on for the 3.0L. When these are working, maybe you can redeem your magazine by covering them. Until then, you have a horrible word of mouth on the Internet and other Mopar circles already.

Paul Berkebile