Allpar Forums banner

21 - 40 of 136 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,911 Posts
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.
Or my twin turbo BMW six. Smooth as silk, as fast as my Hemi Charger was and better fuel economy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HotCarNut

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
36,198 Posts
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.
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
36,198 Posts
It'll be in the new wrangler! -False
It'll be in the new Ram -False
It'll be in the new Gladiator -False
It'll be in the new Grand Cherokee -False
It'll be in the new Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer -False

What do you think?
FWIW, I only ever pegged it for Ram.
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
36,198 Posts
Like most everything, this thing has been coming for years. I think I remember hearing about this in 2014-2015.
Yes, at allpar. I am certain it was real for reasons I can't disclose. Engine programs can take many years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,718 Posts
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

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
When have you ever known Chrysler to make the best fuel efficient engines? You certainly don’t buy their stuff based on that.
I-6 my ace!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
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.

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,718 Posts
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.
Because when you engineer "on the cheap" you get "cheap"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
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 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.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
Your 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.


Your criticism is not accurate

"A V6 engine is a six-cylinder piston engine where the cylinders share a common crankshaft and are arranged in a V configuration."
" All V6 engines—regardless of the V-angle between the cylinder banks—are subject to a primary imbalance caused by each bank consisting of an inline-three engine, due to the odd number of cylinders in each bank."

My summary is perfectly accurate. You can draw a triangle linking the centers of the bores of three pistons, they are not inline. A VR6 is just a V6 with a 10-15 degree angle.

There are many different firing orders for V6 engines, the VR6 of course being one of them.


A big 4 cylinder with balance shafts is cheaper and smoother than a V6 without a balance shaft.

An inline 6 fits just fine in longitudinal applications designed for it. A transverse I6 results in an excessively wide vehicle for most applications.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,051 Posts
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

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
37,867 Posts
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.
Cost. Cost of the assembly and the royalties they had to pay to use the design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Erik Latranyi

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Cost. Cost of the assembly and the royalties they had to pay to use the design.
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.
 
21 - 40 of 136 Posts
Top