AF: Details Regarding New Engines | Page 4 | Allpar Forums
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Details Regarding New Engines

Discussion in 'Rumors and General Chrysler Discussion' started by Jerry Simcik, Dec 19, 2019.

  1. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,804
    Likes:
    20,331
    Most of the mainstream turbo cars these days take regular but premium provides higher performance. Nothing different from my old Spirit R/T, really.
     
    Tony K and mrkovash like this.
  2. mrkovash

    mrkovash Active Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2016
    Messages:
    112
    Likes:
    92
    To be honest I would much rather have the Spirit R/T then anything new
     
    Dave Z likes this.
  3. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,804
    Likes:
    20,331
    A fun, fast car but not something for a long trip to a rural area (or through a bad city).

    One of the fastest cars I've driven that could get 30 mpg and hold five people, but a Challenger SRT would be better for highways and durability...
     
    Tony K likes this.
  4. Jerry Simcik

    Jerry Simcik Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,643
    Likes:
    1,180
    My 2010 Ram (which has VVT) idles smoother and get's 1 - 1.5 MPG better on the good stuff. The SoP sensor doesn't detect much power difference, but the difference in the idle can be felt and the MPGs improvement can be seen/measured.
     
  5. GuidoFL

    GuidoFL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Messages:
    240
    Likes:
    96
    Straight six's gave way to the V6 which was/is more a more compact package. Now it's back to the straight six, hmmm ? Might work out in smaller lighter vehicles but in heavier vehicles you would have your foot in it way too much. And that would kill gas mileage !
     
    James A likes this.
  6. mopar22

    mopar22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    2,754
    Likes:
    2,101
    If your foot it gonna be in it anyway you're getting low mpg no matter what
     
  7. James A

    James A Active Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2016
    Messages:
    764
    Likes:
    550
    Very true IMO. To further your point, if the motor is in a performance car, specifically an R/T, everyone's foot is gonna be in it and when they see the MPG they'll probably wish they had a Hemi instead (even if it's just for the aesthetic). That's my take.
     
    Jerry Simcik likes this.
  8. mopar22

    mopar22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    2,754
    Likes:
    2,101
    Everyone has their own opinion about what makes an engine so great. Yeah a v8 has great sound but when comparing a na v8 to a turbo i(even twin)v6 I will always pick the turbos due to the tuneability and to be able to make more horsepower easily when I feel the time has come
     
    Ryan, Mopar392 and James A like this.
  9. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,804
    Likes:
    20,331
    How much time do engines spend idling? How much time on highways droning along at 75-80 mph? I suspect the straight six will have a real life advantage as well as an EPA one.

    Any time we can stop FCA from paying Tesla, I'm happy...
     
    Tony K, xjgary, Chebby7 and 9 others like this.
  10. sickboy

    sickboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    895
    Likes:
    888
    Fca sells a turbo in-line six in one of its heaviest products.
    and it has 1000 ft-lbs of torque
     
    xjgary, Chebby7, brewdad and 4 others like this.
  11. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,804
    Likes:
    20,331
    Fact is, things come and go and come back...

    1) Convertibles: dead, till Lido brought 'em back.
    2) Crossovers (tall wagons) - the default car style till the 1940s!
    3) Straight-six engines
    4) Four-cylinders: really hot in the 1910s-1930s, pretty dead from the 1940s to the 1970s, hot in the 1980s...
     
    xjgary, Tony K, Jerry Simcik and 4 others like this.
  12. Adventurer55

    Adventurer55 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2015
    Messages:
    3,193
    Likes:
    4,088
    Number three makes a good truck or Jeep engine. Limited use in cars and crossovers. V6s are more economical to build as you can spread them out and use in any drive configuration for car and crossovers. Just my opinion.
     
    James A likes this.
  13. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,804
    Likes:
    20,331
    With well over a half-million Rams sold last year, a dedicated truck engine is not a crazy idea.
     
  14. Jerry Simcik

    Jerry Simcik Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,643
    Likes:
    1,180
    The notion that ANYONE has to PAY anyone else for producing something that public very, very clearly wants is problematic.

    From what I've seen, turbos don't like to be "lugged". That doesn't bode well for highway cruising at low RPMs, unless this thing is built with an undersquare design and is higher in "natural," low-RPM torque (which isn't likely if it's also a "screamer")... That would likely mean the rear diff would be raised to keep the RPMs up, or the transmission would be tuned to downshift or come out of lock-up more easily. Neither of these would help with fuel usage...

    While I understand what you are saying here (it's really easy to add a bit more boost!), FCA (and others) is making it harder and harder and harder to retune anything anymore...
     
  15. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,804
    Likes:
    20,331
    It's a conservative free-market idea, replacing the old “if you miss the numbers you pay the government” system. Personally I like the latter better. When it's enforced.

    These are not issues on modern turbo engines. Don't use the Fiat 1.4 as an example, though. And very-wide-range automatics resolve these problems well. The new Toyota eight-speed has a considerably wider range than the ZF eight-speed used by Dodge/Jeep/Ram, too. (As I recall the GM/Ford ten-speed doesn't). Modern autos help.

    I deliberately lugged a Civic Si to see what would happen and it handled it remarkably well. Variable valve timing may help. I don't know how they do it. Nothing is like my 2.2 Turbo III. Then again, even the earlier Turbo II was far better in that regard...

    Everyone is.

    Someone posted this link here and I followed it and found it interesting - I've said for a while I thought maybe car regulations should go on hold and we should look at commercial trucks for a while:

    California moving from car emissions to a bigger problem—big trucks

    Side note, every time they tighten emissions rules on big trucks, there's a rush to buy the current ones before the new regs take hold. The lighter side is that the very old, most polluting trucks tend to get junked in that process. (Though I am all for a bunch of them being kept by collectors, very few collectors drive 40,000 miles per year.)
     
    Tony K and page2171 like this.
  16. willy4110

    willy4110 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    645
    Likes:
    257
    I've often wondered about a V6 engine with a 30 degree bank for saving space in the engine bay. I know VW had a V6 engine with a 15 degree bank, but I've never seen one, or even heard one running. The firing interval would be uneven, however the firing interval is also uneven in a V6 with a 90 degree bank, and Chrysler Corp used one of those for years in light trucks. Any thoughts??
     
  17. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,804
    Likes:
    20,331
    The only reason for having the 3.9 V6 with its 90° bank was desperation. It was tolerable in the day with an automatic. Today it would not be acceptable.
     
    superduckie5000 likes this.
  18. 77 Monaco Brougham

    77 Monaco Brougham Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2017
    Messages:
    2,106
    Likes:
    3,238
    Exactly. Desperation in the R & D budget. If I remember correctly, the 3.9 Litre V6 was really just a 318 after a trip to the Butcher Shop...with 2 cylinders hacked off with a cleaver.:D
     
    Tony K and Chase300 like this.
  19. sickboy

    sickboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    895
    Likes:
    888
    It’s something jaguar is doing to this day.
     
  20. sickboy

    sickboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    895
    Likes:
    888
    If I recall, the elimination of a crank driven accessory drive would allow enough room for transverse applications (same length as the v6 it replaces). Remember that bmw and now Mercedes are using i6 in their car applications. If an i6 could completely replace the v6, then I’d say the i6 is more economical to build
     
    Tony K likes this.

Share This Page

Loading...
 We are not affiliated with FCA. We make no claims regarding validity or accuracy of information or advice. Copyright © VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.