Allpar Forums banner

2022 Jeep Grand Cherokee Allegedly Coming With Inline-Six Engine

42K views 254 replies 53 participants last post by  Dave Z 
#1 ·
Can't find any recent news. Is this project dead? Tavares says no more investing in ICE but this engine was near roll out? Seemed to be a natural to use in Wagoneers? Stellantis will limp along with Hemis and Pentastar 6 for larger vehicles until electrification?
 
#2 ·
The topic is hit or miss:
  • Some say the lines were already pumping them out, then they were stopped.
  • Others say the motors were "vaporware" (essentially, non-existent).
  • Some say that the motor is still going to happen, but the actual hard facts on if it's gone completely through testing or is production ready are unknown.
I wouldn't really trust much at this point.
 
#3 ·
The rumor is that we will see it late this year or next year on the all-new Grand Cherokee and Grand Cherokee L, the Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer.
 
#4 ·
The only person who said it was vaporware was not very credible. He was probably just upset they were not completely created in Italy.

I doubt we will see it on premium Jeeps. Too much noise and vibration. It was meant for Ram to replace the 5.7 Hemi, according to credible insiders. This goes way back to SM’s plan to drop everything by 2 cylinders—where a V6 had been used, go to a four; where a V8 had been used, go to a six.
 
#10 ·
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.
 
#13 ·
We don't know anything about it, so rather than speculate, why not look up some legendary I6 engines like the Ford Barra, or the 1JZ and 2JZ, or even the AMC 4.0.
 
  • Like
Reactions: World14
#15 ·
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.

The huge problem that FCA has is that they are throwing a massive amount of Carbon Credits to Tesla, because they have so many gas guzzlers. In fact, a large part of Tesla's revenue stream is making money from FCA and other legacy automakers.


I know that pickup trucks have a ton of configurations, but here are some random fuel economy numbers:


FORD:
When equipped with the available 2.7-liter EcoBoost with standard Auto Start-Stop, F-150 4x2 has best-in-class EPA-estimated gasoline fuel economy ratings of 19 mpg city, 26 mpg highway and 22 mpg combined (actual mileage will vary).

The engine produces 325 horsepower and 375 lb.-ft. of torque with a maximum payload rating of 2,250 pounds and maximum tow rating of 8,500 pounds – ideal for meeting mid-range capability requirements and the needs of more than 90 percent of light-duty truck customers.


RAM:
The V8 engine should give you 17 mpg in the city and 23 mpg on the highway.
 
#22 ·
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.
Exactly. Maybe a Maserati or Alfa version was planned, but AFAIK, Ram and maybe Wrangler were the USA targets.

Especially given it sounds like they were engineering it to be compact, which brings along its own compromises.
Yes.

Or my twin turbo BMW six. Smooth as silk, as fast as my Hemi Charger was and better fuel economy.
Amazing what a nearly unlimited budget can do.
 
#26 ·
It seems that most programs were frozen around 2017 in order to pursue a merger, including the inline 6.

Many said the FCA I6 was meant to be as smooth as the I6 from BMW. Project was being led by Fiat Power Train (FPT)
 
  • Like
Reactions: UN4GTBL
#32 ·
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.
 
#33 ·
Because when you engineer "on the cheap" you get "cheap"
 
#38 ·
There is some reasons why the VR type of engines arent made today.
  • some balance problems
  • but mostly and most important, they will have to have an awful intake or exhaust port configuration. Its like building an aengine with a haed thas twice as wide and full of bolts that you need to sneak around.

The reason for the i-6 to be late..?
- well who can tell whats right today for tomorrow with electrification around the corner and at the same time people are buying pick up trucks larger than ever to commute by themselfes?
How the h..l are they going to choose right...
 
  • Like
Reactions: allparman
#50 ·
I only have experience with three I-6 engines.

The 4.0L AMC/Jeep engines were legendary in their day, which I think is a testament to how bad engines were back in "the day". Build quality was wildly inconsistent, with some going 400,000 miles and others not making it out of warranty. Smooth is not a word you'd use with it. They were heavy, weak at around 190 HP/230 lb/ft toward the end of the run, had a relatively narrow power band, drank fuel, leaked oil like sieves, and had some issues that were absolutely maddening to diagnose like the misfire issues in the WJ Jeeps, the cracked heads, the crank position sensors that required patience and lots of beer to swap out, etc. I had two in my driveway and there'll never be another.

The 4.9L Ford was legendary also but unlike the Jeep engine I found that those were extremely reliable. I've seen those beat on like rented mules and they always came back for more. I put 30,000 miles on one hauling, towing, and commuting to college after my father had beaten it for 100,000 as his heavy equipment repair truck and it never had a single failure. I tended to even prefer that engine over the 5.0L V8 that was simultaneously offered. But, they too were a little rough around the edges and were very clearly meant to be a work tool.

The 5.9/6.7 Cummins is sort of in that rare class of legendary engines. Being a diesel it's obviously not smooth, nor quiet. It drinks a lot of fuel compared to the competitors' V8 offerings which seems odd, it's slow, and it tends to have its own personality. But, it'll last forever and parts are simple to find. A guy can keep those working for decades if he wants. But it has been in Rams for over 30 years and at some point you have to wonder if it'll be used another 30.

I suppose that none of these would stack up against a new, modern, clean sheet design I-6 in terms of efficiency, smoothness, and power per liter. But I think of them all as old engines that I grew up with that probably don't fit in or belong in today's world. If a new I-6 comes, I hope it is a very well designed and built engine and it feels like it belongs here.
 
#57 ·
GM’s. 4.2 straight six that they used in all their Trailblazers,Envoys,Isuzu Ascender and Rainer is very smooth and one of the best engines I have owned . It would be real interesting to see what that engine would do behind a modern ZF eight speed instead of the 4 speeds they came with . It had good power at almost 300 hp though it was a bit thirsty behind that 4 speed transmission .would buy a mopar straight six in a heartbeat.
 
#59 ·
a 3.0 I6 would make a great truck base motor and if built with turbo coudl be tuned for a small sporty "cuda" srt6 smaller then the challenger bigger then the miata/ BRZ cars. with a 4 banger with E power MPG could be quite good
as t the 2.0 DOHC neon motor i was always shocked tht it had both HP and MPG class leading. what a fun car my RT was even beating on it i was getting like 30mpg. fuel price going up i almost wish i coudl find one and just use it as the runaround intead of my dakota
 
#60 ·
Wonder if Tavares is familiar with the FCA study showing a 2500 w/cummins has half the environmental footprint of a Tesla! Consider coal power plants, extensive mining for radioactive and toxic rare metals for batteries, very dangerous mining conditions and 80% of these materials come from China. Not so sure all this so-called "green" is a good idea. Give me a Hemi, forget the rest!
 
#78 ·
Wonder if Tavares is familiar with the FCA study showing a 2500 w/cummins has half the environmental footprint of a Tesla! Consider coal power plants, extensive mining for radioactive and toxic rare metals for batteries, very dangerous mining conditions and 80% of these materials come from China. Not so sure all this so-called "green" is a good idea. Give me a Hemi, forget the rest!
Not to mention the horrific exploitation of young children in the mining of Cobalt in The Republic Of The Congo!
 
#62 ·
Just a comment on the 4.0. I have a ZJ I bought new 26 years ago. 245,000 miles with the following repairs, one header, one alternator, one starter, 2 water pumps, 1 distributor and 1 crank position sensor. It doesn't run rough, it doesn't burn oil and the rear seal leaks. I think the torque is good to excellent and it still gets 21 mpg on the highway. The upgrade done for the WJ included a cheapening of the head, causing problems on some. AMC knew best sometimes.

For what its worth, I think the 4.0 is one of the best Jeep engines ever and the new one, if they make it, could only hope to have the same following with Jeepers.
 
#64 ·
I dont understand your reply. What does it have to do with anything? The GSE has no need for them. The only time they are noticeable are usually on engines over 2 liters. The world engine 2.0 and 2.4 had counter rotating shafts, the 1.8 had none. GMs ecotec engines used balance shafts in the engine.

On a side notex I have raced cars using Chrysler 2.4 and World Engine 2.4 and Ecotec 2.4. The very first thing we do is remove the balance shafts from all the engines.
 
#66 · (Edited)
It is how to make an I4 run smoother than a V6. It is about NVH. Yes it is trading off a little power for a lot smoother engine. Exactly what a Chrysler street car should have.

A race car engine can shake all it wants at idle, that is normal. What does that have to do with a discussion about engines for street cars?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top