Discussion in 'Rumors and Speculation' started by Jerry Simcik, Dec 19, 2019.
Which new engines? Both GSE and GME will receive new variants in the near future.
Certainly not the first time, GM put the 4.2 liter straight six into the Trailblazer line only. That is a great engine , have a 150000 on mine and it still burns zero oil between changes .
Dad noted the same thing with farm tractors. Back in the 80s, he told me not to lug the engine, an IHC DT4665, which is a valid point below a certain RPM regardless, because you can do all sorts of nastiness to an engine. Breaking wrist pins on a piston connecting rod comes to mind. That said, he recently took back his admonition to keep tractor engine RPMs at or above rated RPMs under heavy load. Dad has always kept up on new developments, and he noted that as long as you weren't dangerously or at any rate too deeply lugging the engine, lowering the RPM had been proven to reduce fuel consumption, and he had seen considerable reductions in his tractor (1990 CIH 7140 - Case-Cummins 8.3L) during planting season by doing so.
Or farmers. Many farmers don't drive their trucks a total of 10,000 miles/year in the Midwest. We're running a mid-90s Pete with a 3176 CAT as the primary, and an old 76 IHC tandem farm dump. Add to that the fact that fuel, and therefore emissions, is cleaner these days with low sulfur fuel, and farmers can ill-afford newer transport machinery to do "commute mileage" local delivery work, which is going to sit quite a bit.
GM made this work just fine, by adding a balance shaft to the 4.3 V6 which was a 90* engine built off the 5.7 V8 (same bore and stroke, different crank and con rods). The upgraded version of this engine is still in use in GM trucks and earlier versions have powered thousands of boats, forklift trucks and stationary generators. I have an 'unbalanced' 1988 4.3 in our old boat and because of the soft mounts boats can use and fiberglass/wood composite construction, you can't feel the roughness as much.
Having said that, I like the idea of a dedicated inline 6 for trucks a lot. For one thing they are in perfect primary and secondary balance to start with and for another, they have a 7 main bearing crankshaft vs 4 for a V6. They also make certain service jobs easier, only have one head casting, can use a single cat converter, instead of having one on each cyl bank, and seem naturally suited to put out good low speed torque. An ancient but good example is the Jeep 4.0 which was originally designed by AMC and later refined by Chrysler. They were never developed as far as they could have but the basic design was excellent for long life and ease of repair. I always felt that Chrysler was foolish not to develop this engine further, for example a cross flow 4 valve per cyl head, would have increased top end power, which was lacking due to the old style induction system. A modernized 4.0 straight six, to me would have been preferable to the Pentastar in the Wrangler and other applications. Simpler, built to be maintained, you don't have modern absurdities like having to spend 3 hrs to replace 6 spark plugs because the intake manifold is folded over itself (and has to be removed just to replace 3 of the plugs) nor do you have a plastic oil filter assembly that can crack, cause leaks and necessitate the same amount of work (removing the intake)! Please, please give us some "rational" designs, like Chrysler and AMC used to be good at.
I read somewhere that the shop machinery was very old and needed replacement.
You probably read that here. Bob Sheaves said it. They could either reinvest in that engine or do something new; and Francois Castaing, among many others, wanted something new, which ended up being the 4.7 liter V8 (the real replacement for the 4.0, according to Bob) and the 3.7 liter V6.
A four-valve-per-cylinder head would probably have lost the traits the 4.0 was best known for, but VVT would have helped. FCA did not have VVT technology of its own. Personally, I think they could have kept on wtih the 4.0 — and would have been better off using VVT on the Neon engine instead of moving to the Hyundai-based ones they are now phasing out.
I got about 180k out of the 3.7L V6 in my Liberty...it had cylinder issues at 153k, was rebuilt, and kept on going. In the end, it was rust & corrosion that did the vehicle in, but the engine was still chugging along.
Almost 126k on our 2009 Journey with the 2.4L. Hope to drive it past 200k....
Our now gone 2010 Journey SXT 3.5L had 157K miles when the wife totaled it in December 2018. My '06 Ram 1500 Hemi is still chugging along just fine with 266K miles.
I hope it doesn't sound like an ecoboost not a fan of that sound at all.
The truth is that most modern engines will go past 200K if properly maintained. I have owned a Dodge Caravan, Plymouth Voyager and a Honda CRV in the last 20 years that have lasted past 200k without a major overhaul when I sold or traded them. I currently have a 2017 CRV with 41k, only 160k plus miles to go.
Friend had a aluminum slant 6 1961 Dodge Phoenix, took a lot of abuse including 10 minute drive in traffic with blown heater hose. Took 60 miles back home after a fix and refill with cold water! He had it a few more months delevering pizza to et a replacement clunker. We bought cars every few months, all under $100!
2006 T&C with the 3.3 is at 240K and still kickin.
Indeed. I have a 2006 Dodge Ram 1500 Hemi with nearly 267K miles. Also had three EEK's that had over 200K miles each ('86 GTS - 273K miles, '92 Acclaim - 302K miles and '90 Acclaim - 240K miles.) Except for the GTS, each one was still running when I got rid of them. The GTS has a headgasket failure. Wife's former ride ('10 Journey SXT) had 157K miles when she totaled it. Prior to that the '00 T&C Ltd AWD we had was at 161K miles at trade in. Also had a '93 Aerostar that had 203K miles when I traded it for the T&C.
Our 2002 DGC with the 3.3 had 300k miles and was still running good when it got totalled.
Yeah, my 09 R/T, a 6 speed Track Pack package (ergo no MDS), is rated for high octane, but will run completely okay on 87. It does derate noticeably on 87, but not so much on say 89, though the corresponding fuel economy is noticeable. On 87, the RPMs are somewhat limited from what I've noticed. 09 MDS engines on the Challenger called for 89, but 87 was fully acceptable.
Power, IDK, but max RPMs on my 09 (6 speed manual, 5.7 no MDS) are reduced with 87. It calls for 91 (Preferred) and MDS engines call for 87-89 on the 09 5.7s
I assume that elimination implies electric driven accessories, which makes perfect sense in so many ways, especially in the age of computer-driven everything, where the engine pretty much isn't going to work without clean electricity anyway. This would allow for much better utilization of space in the car for accessories and possibly remove some of them from the hot engine compartment. We've seen the improvement in battery life from having them removed from the heating-cooling cycle into the trunk. My 09 Challenger only just last year got it's first replacement battery.