[WXman]

Hopefully going to an I-6 means we can have our torque back, which was taken away from us with this new crop of V-6s.

 

[Erik Latranyi]

Question was:
Was there any engine family shared between Chrysler and Mercedes except for specialty model(s)?

So you can simply answer with yes or no and if it's yes than say which engine it is because Pentastar is not the one.

No, I do not know of any actual engines being shared, but the Mercedes M276 is based on the Pentastar design, like so many Daimler parts are based on Chrysler technology, but changed to hide the fact it came from American engineering instead of German engineering.......somewhat similar to the Penastar being used as the basis for Maserati, but being denied emphatically.

 

[Dave Z]

The design was so promising that it survived the sale by Daimler to Cerberus and came to fruition with the 2011 Grand Cherokee.

There's a back story to that, and it wasn't as simple as it sounds...

So you can simply answer with yes or no and if it's yes than say which engine it is because Pentastar is not the one.

You think?

and yet this new engine is supposed to be an I6? can't help but scratch my noggin a little!

I was referring to the 90° Ferrari V6, not the upcoming straight-six

but the Mercedes M276 is based on the Pentastar design, like so many Daimler parts are based on Chrysler technology, but changed to hide the fact it came from American engineering instead of German engineering.......somewhat similar to the Penastar being used as the basis for Maserati, but being denied emphatically.

Yes.

Mercedes used a LOT of Chrysler stuff but — just like today with Alfa Romeo and Dodge — will never admit it. Okay, maybe that's understandable.

 

[90243]

Great info, thank you! Now, could somebody who please post a picture/drawing of the block or cylinder layout to help those of us who are less mechanically inclined understand what this "2 separate 3 cylinder" engine would look like? Especially to make the overall packaging smaller than a "normal" inline 6?

Well a fanta-engine could take inspiration from this inline 8 cylinders one, but 3+3 and not 4+4.
It is the Alfa Romeo of 8C road cars and race cars of the '20-'30.
One piece cast crankcase, two blocks of 4 cylinders in line with its heads.
The crankshaft is splitted in two, at the center there are two gears, one driving Roots-type supercharger and the other the DOHC system.
Hemispheric chamber and center plug.

For new version put an electric motor on one side, electric actuated compressor(/s), one or two turbocompressor.

8C2300

 

[T_690]

Hopefully going to an I-6 means we can have our torque back, which was taken away from us with this new crop of V-6s.

GME has 84 mm bore and 90 mm stroke.

No, I do not know of any actual engines being shared, but the Mercedes M276 is based on the Pentastar design, like so many Daimler parts are based on Chrysler technology, but changed to hide the fact it came from American engineering instead of German engineering.......somewhat similar to the Penastar being used as the basis for Maserati, but being denied emphatically.

M276 has usual Mercedes Silitec alloy block which is linerless. But basic design is almost the same as M278. Also bore and stroke are more or less the same as previous generation Mercedes engines. Even if one is 90°and the other 60° they are built at the same line.

But today that does't matter because Mercedes is in process of phasing out of that engines. 3.0 Inline 6 and 4.0 V8 will replace them.

You think?

Maybe the story is similar as for aluminium 3.5 V6 from Chrysler and Mercedes V6 back then. And that's it.

 

[adaptabl]

Does anyone think there's a chance that the "HEMI" name will be lent to an engine with less than 8 cylinders eventually?

It did back in the day with the 2.6 4cyl.

Plymouth Reliant - Wikipedia (at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Reliant )

"all 1981 models equipped with it featured "HEMI" badges on the front fenders"

 

[freshforged]

I've been thinking--one of the key characteristics of the Hurricane is the offset crank. We're told that the I6 would be based in part off of the Hurricane. might we see a double-offset staggered six? This would differ from the narrow angle V in that the V has the crank centered between the two banks, were-as the staggered double offset 6 would have both banks offset on the same side so as to keep the rods vertical on the power stroke. Would this make any sense?

 

[RobbieAG]

I just bought a 2016 300 with the Pentastar and really like it, but am glad to hear that inline sixes are making a comeback. They have many advantages such as inherent smoothness, fewer parts, great torque, durability etc. Disadvantages include packaging issues and propensity to blow head gaskets on some models due to the length of the head. If I could find the right car for the right price, I’d love to buy a BMW because it has the perfect combination of inline six with rear wheel drive. It would be great if that wasn’t the only option.

 

[Stéphane Dumas]

It did back in the day with the 2.6 4cyl.

Plymouth Reliant - Wikipedia (at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Reliant )

"all 1981 models equipped with it featured "HEMI" badges on the front fenders"

And in Australia, with their local versions of the Valiant, Charger, Pacer equipped with the Hemi 6-pack. A inline 6 Hemi originally developped for trucks but found a way in Australia.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htHgs10AHXU


Just imagine what if that Hemi-6 pack had come in North America under the hood of A/B/C-bodies..?

 

[68RT]

And in Australia, with their local versions of the Valiant, Charger, Pacer equipped with the Hemi 6-pack. A inline 6 Hemi originally developped for trucks but found a way in Australia.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htHgs10AHXU


Just imagine what if that Hemi-6 pack had come in North America under the hood of A/B/C-bodies..?

To tall for original Valiant/Lancer. Not bad for a truck engine though.

 

[68RT]

Offset crank was tested early on the 4.7 if I remember right and perhaps works better on an in-line.

For those that think that an in-line has more torque inherently never has driven a 144 cu. in. Falcon or 1600 Pinto. many more factors goes into that and variable intakes has changed that considerably.

 

[Stéphane Dumas]

To tall for original Valiant/Lancer. Not bad for a truck engine though.

But it would had fit for the 3rd-gen Valiant/Dart/2nd-gen Barracuda. And a Hemi-6 Coronet/Belvedere could had attracted some Pontiac Tempest/LeMans and Firebird buyers who eyed the Pontiac OHC 6.

 

[AC TC]

Hopefully going to an I-6 means we can have our torque back, which was taken away from us with this new crop of V-6s.

Im pretty sure that the pentastar v6 have more torque than the slant six at any given rpm and that it matches the amc 4 liter engien at any rpm.
- thing is that the pentastar keeps pulling long after the old inliners have given up and therefore are belivied to be low rpm tq Engines.
Cylinder configuration have very Little to do with Engine Power carcteristics but yes the inline 6 does have a mechanical problem with its long crank that makes it more difficult to
rev high, the long block is also diffucult to make stiff enough without getting Heavy.

 

[Mr. Fusion]

The design was so promising that it survived the sale by Daimler to Cerberus and came to fruition with the 2011 Grand Cherokee.

There's a back story to that, and it wasn't as simple as it sounds...

I was thinking the same thing. I distinctly remember the Phoenix engine program being cancelled or suspended at one point. Wasn't it cancelled by Cerberus and resurrected by Chrysler Group LLC, who named it Pentastar? I just remember thinking it was pretty insane to cancel that project, since it had to be really far along at that point.

 

[GasAxe]

I think the program was on hold for a time. During bankruptcy? The name change was due to a trademark infringement.

 

[adaptabl]

I was thinking the same thing. I distinctly remember the Phoenix engine program being cancelled or suspended at one point. Wasn't it cancelled by Cerberus and resurrected by Chrysler Group LLC, who named it Pentastar? I just remember thinking it was pretty insane to cancel that project, since it had to be really far along at that point.

Didn't Daimler engineers fix some major issues with the project that the American engineers couldn't solve to get it back on track. I think I read that in the German newspapers somewhere.

 

[Mike V.]

Im pretty sure that the pentastar v6 have more torque than the slant six at any given rpm and that it matches the amc 4 liter engien at any rpm.
- thing is that the pentastar keeps pulling long after the old inliners have given up and therefore are belivied to be low rpm tq Engines.
Cylinder configuration have very Little to do with Engine Power carcteristics but yes the inline 6 does have a mechanical problem with its long crank that makes it more difficult to
rev high, the long block is also diffucult to make stiff enough without getting Heavy.

However a slant six is old technology and will have zero relation to a potential future Inline six other than being Inline and having six cylinders.

Mike

 

[AC TC]

Didn't Daimler engineers fix some major issues with the project that the American engineers couldn't solve to get it back on track. I think I read that in the German newspapers somewhere.

I seriously doubt it since the germans Always whanted mother to use yesterdays parts and Tech. The only mercedes tech i belive is the camphasers used in the pentastar and that could have been sourced elswere.

 

[Mike V.]

I seriously doubt it since the germans Always whanted mother to use yesterdays parts and Tech. The only mercedes tech i belive is the camphasers used in the pentastar and that could have been sourced elswere.

And has been an issue for the Pentastar.

Mik

 

[AC TC]

However a slant six is old technology and will have zero relation to a potential future Inline six other than being Inline and having six cylinders.

Mike

You are correc but i was answering Another post that said that straigh 6 was having better low rpm tq behaviour.
- but still..a long crank flexes and a long block isnt as rigid as a shorter one.
I can only se two reasons for going to a straigh 6.
- plumbing nightmare for the v6 when used with turbos, it gets wide...
- nvh.
And ok one more.
- marketing, a straigh one may be more "classy"