Exactly. Maybe a Maserati or Alfa version was planned, but AFAIK, Ram and maybe Wrangler were the USA targets.My understanding is that the original idea with the GME 6 was to better compete with Ford (and probably Toyota moving forward who is rumored to be moving to an all 6-cylinder lineup) on fuel economy in full size trucks.
Yes.Especially given it sounds like they were engineering it to be compact, which brings along its own compromises.
Amazing what a nearly unlimited budget can do.Or my twin turbo BMW six. Smooth as silk, as fast as my Hemi Charger was and better fuel economy.
I don't know why they stopped with the Mitsubishi balance shafts on the 4 cylinders. The 2.5 got them. That is the solution for smooth 4 cylinders.FCA has not demonstrated an ability to deliver a mass-market engine that is smooth and refined. Sure, high-end Alfas and Maseratis are fine, but the 1.3, 2.0 and 2.4 we have in North America are known for their noise, vibration and harshness.
Rumor was that the Inline 6 was delayed for this reason. It is not a truck engine. It was supposed to go into the next generation Charger/Challenger and offer turbocharged variants.
If they scaled it back to just truck applications, then it must be an awful motor.
A VR 6 is not inline as you can clearly see. This marketing language may be the reason their "I6" isn't as smooth as an I6 should be, since it is actually a V6.The concept of RAM adopting a VR6 style, short inline 6 block was intriguing. You could fit that engine in all sorts of vehicles, including trucks.
I assume it could get at least as good of horsepower and torque numbers as Ford's 2.7 ecoboost.
Because when you engineer "on the cheap" you get "cheap"Fiat's old Lampredi in line sixes (1800 - 2300) were very nice units. I see no reason why a GME6 cannot be smooth. Unlike many, I have no issues whatsoever with the NVH of the Fire or Firefly/GSE units. They are competitive and comparative with whatever else has to offer. Modern engines are generally harsher than their predecessors for the simple reason they generally produce a lot more power and thus run in a much higher state of tune or stress.
Your summary is actually not quite accurate.A VR 6 is not inline as you can clearly see. This marketing language may be the reason their "I6" isn't as smooth as an I6 should be, since it is actually a V6.
Your criticism is not accurateYour summary is actually not quite accurate.
A VR6 design is actually a very smooth design, as it has the same firing order as an inline 6. A V6 is different firing order.
A VR6 is almost inherently balanced like an I6.
It also is cheap, because it only has one cylinder head, and 2 camshafts.
The main advantage is packaging... you can fit it in cars and trucks. An inline 6 is a challenge.
Lanchester held the balancer shaft patents initially. They would have passed into the ownership of Daimler and ultimately Jaguar. Who knows which company would end up getting paid the licence fees.Cost. Cost of the assembly and the royalties they had to pay to use the design.