Discussion in 'Mopar News' started by CDJSalesPro, Nov 7, 2019.
That sounds right. It has 370 horsepower and 395 lb-ft on the Charger and Challenger.
That sounds more familiar. Wonder why it's downtuned on 300. More low-end torque? Save $5?
EPA reports 19/30 mpg with 300 V6 RWD (it was 19/31 on ours, I think, but we reliably get 34 on long trips), 16/25 with the V8. That's a pretty hefty hit, albeit not so bad for 80 hp and around 120 lb-ft (from memory).
Charger, I'm showing the same 19/30 for the V6, the same 16/25 for the V8. But those were all 2019 numbers.
So I'm guessing either it's some sort of money saving thing or there's a fuel economy difference in fractions or they want the 300 to have more low-end torque and are willing to sacrifice some high-end numbers for that. The latter would hit them a bit on development and maybe parts, so it seems least likely.
BTW the 392 drops you down to 15/24, which is really pretty reasonable for another 115 hp and ~80 lb-ft; and Hellcat sinks to 13/22, which is pretty reasonable given the power levels. But you can see why there's no Hellcat Scat Pack.
I thought it was something to do with the exhaust system on the Charger and Challenger boosting the power. Grand Cherokee and Durango only have 360 horsepower with the 5.7.
That, and/or CAFE numbers.
In fairness to the 2.0T 4-cyl: in my many test drives it performed just as well as the 3.6 V6.
But for me it is a matter of personal preference: the 3.6 V6 has proved itself; the 2.0T still hasn’t. This is no insignificant difference, particularly with FCA.
BMW has built some problematic engines. Why should we expect FCA to be better than the folks in Munich?
Well thanks Pat .......but as of 15 minutes ago you still no longer can order a v8 on Dealer Connect. and there is no "C" model. So perhaps they will release them later in the year but as right now they dont exist.
Are you kidding? After all the myriad of issues EcoDiesels and 9-speed automatics have been giving FCA owners? And the two water pumps my Fiat Spider has gone through in 4,000 miles?
Either way. I am not sure what BMW's track record has to do with anything. I am buying FCA vehicles, not BMWs. That's for BMW owners to worry about.
It's called "perspective." Yeah, you're buying FCAs, not BMWs, or Toyotas, for that matter. Are water pumps a typical Spider problem, or did you just get a lemon? What actual percentage of EcoDiesels actual have failed, and was the cause a design problem, or an engine/transmission program parameter-induced failure caused by bean-counters trying to eke out the last 1/4 MPG, duty-cycle related, emission controls related, improper lubricant specs, or some combination? Was it unique to the Ram, or was it as common in the Grand Cherokee? Why was it an issue in the L630 and not the original A630? Why did the 9-speed have so many issues, and were they unique to FCA? Are they still an issue?
No, I'm not kidding.
Where are the FCA brands?
The 9 speed is still a pain in the neck. My 2018 Renegade decided it was going to start banging into gears (at 15k miles) just like my 2017 Cherokee did (at 18k miles). But yet the 2014 Cherokee was fine at 30k miles.
I don't care what other manufacturers had issues with the 9 speeds. All I can say is FCA's version still is a crap shoot.
I'll never buy another 9 speed equipped FCA product.
Quite honestly it makes NO DIFFERENCE if the root cause is ZF's basic design or FCA's modification. It is still FCA's problem. FCA picked the vendor apparently without either FCA or the vendor properly researching and testing the product.
There were few Grand Cherokee EcoDiesels sold.
Mid-2017 there were FCA documents circulating on the web showing average weekly demands for the 2016 Ram EcoDiesel long block assembly of 19 per week, that's just under 1000 annually (assuming that trend held). But it's also just the 2016 trucks, not other years. During the same time frame, the demand for the Cummins motor was 2 per week, again 2016 model year only.
It was a problematic design. The root-cause should only matter to those trying to prevent future failures. It should never be used to justify failures in the field.
340hp/390tq in the 1st gen 300's/Chargers...2005-2009?
Look at Honda's spot in the JP Power ranking..probably a result of them also using the ZF 9-speed which they too could not get right..thus they ended up building their own 10-speed to replace it.
I am convinced the JD Power results contains a certain dose of perception. I just can’t proof it.
And why is it people would have such perceptions? That's the problem - once you get a bad reputation it becomes harder and harder to change. And the longer you let that bad image sink into people's minds, the harder it is to change.I've said it before, but from the day I bought my first Chrysler product in 1981, I've had people tell me "nice car, but I won't ever own one" before launching into a tale of woe.
I've taken a few JD Power surveys and they really do try to eliminate bias in the surveys. I say "eliminate", but in reality is is more likely "reduce as much as possible".
I'll ask this specific question again: What is it about a JD Power survey that penalizes FCA brands while benefiting other brands?
How is Caddy so far under Chevy or Buick??? Could it be Caddy has the Q info system which has been troublesome more so than anything else?
How is Chrysler so much higher than Dodge? Which models are pulling Dodge down? That is the issue I have with JD Power, I want to know which models are troublesome and which are not.
TBF the problems are computer-related rather than the actual transmission. My Charger was holding gears when I would come to a stop and then bang into 1st. It was a computer issue and thankfully I had an extended warranty that covered the computer replacement and I've been good since (happened around 90k miles). BMWs with the ZF 8 speed have the same computer issues as my Charger. If I remember correctly, the 9 speeds had programming issues. My buddy has a Cherokee Trailhawk and he has had no issues for the past 3 years of ownership. I don't know how much it would cost to replace the computer off warranty but I'd think its a lot better than having to replace the whole transmission around 100k like was common years ago. My HVAC blower has been replaced twice since I've owned the car (6 years), and my radiator sprung a leak around 65k miles but it was replaced under the extended warranty (that everyone says not to buy...). FCA has some issues but I don't think it's too bad at all.
My buddy bought the new Honda Accord and within 3 months of ownership, the electrical system started to die and had to be replaced. So Honda's dip in JD Power reliability (whatever thats worth) could be more than a matter of Honda using ZF for a while.
If it's a software/computer issue they need to figure it out because it's embarrassing to have people riding in your car when it shifts so hard it feels like someone ran into your car. And as hard as it bangs gears, I suspect it isn't good for the transmission either. I've constantly checked to make sure these 9 speeds had the latest software. There is nothing newer for them, so I consider the flaw unfixable.
Like I said, I've had three 9 speeds. One was well behaved. The other two newer (and theoretically "better" programmed) ones were terrible. None outright failed, but failure isn't the only reason to consider a transmission poor quality.
Which would be hilarious, because buyers have BY FAR preferred the Pentastar in the Wrangler JL. In fact, the 2.0L models sold so poorly that at least for a while there was a special FCA rebate on them but it had to be used on a 2.0L model.
And, all one has to do is glance at real-world owners' data via Fuelly.com and you can see that the Pentastar is getting slightly better MPG than the 2.0L as well, so the idea that FCA would want to push the 2.0L for CAFE reasons is also laughable in the eyes of a consumer.
Bottom line is we're being force-fed powertrains we DO NOT want because of the government and it's not fair.