Allpar Forums banner

41 - 60 of 136 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
37,830 Posts
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.
And Mitsubishi got the royalties.for the counter-rotating balance shaft design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Erik Latranyi

·
Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
·
410 Posts
Just because one or more iterations of an inline 6 is "smooth" doesn't mean they all are, especially new designs. Emission rules have made a lot of old classic engine designs obsolete. Bore vs. stroke ratios may have had to adjust in new designs, compression ,valve timing, all that stuff. Designing an engine for turbo requirements is quite different than many old normally aspirated engines.
I'd believe that if automotive history didn't already prove that even with various bore & stroke ratios, various forms of external weight (turbo & superchargers) within the 'saga' of the inline 6, (along with it's even more perfectly balanced twin, the V12) the engine is far better in NVH out the gate that many a counter part.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,490 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.
And Mitsubishi got the royalties.for the counter-rotating balance shaft design.
All well and good, but the Mitsubishi balance shafts came out in 1975 so the patent should have been expired in 1996 or 1997. No licensing fees or royalties anymore for any engine since the WGE. As for the cost, it was less for a 2.5-3.0 4 cylinder with balance shafts than a 2.5-3.0 V6.
 

·
370,000 miles
Joined
·
1,358 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!
In the '80s.
The Neon DOHC 2.0L from the 90s had to be either at the top or near the top of power and efficiency for its day. Nothing could compete with it. I read about several manufacturers who bought them and tore them down to figure out what made it so good. I also seem to recall that either Porsche or BMW strongly considered using the engine in one of their small cars - I wish I could find the old allpar article about the development of the Neon 2.0, it was in there. This new forum-biased allpar site is just disappointing.
 

·
Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
·
410 Posts
The Neon DOHC 2.0L from the 90s had to be either at the top or near the top of power and efficiency for its day. Nothing could compete with it. I read about several manufacturers who bought them and tore them down to figure out what made it so good. I also seem to recall that either Porsche or BMW strongly considered using the engine in one of their small cars - I wish I could find the old allpar article about the development of the Neon 2.0, it was in there. This new forum-biased allpar site is just disappointing.
BMW wanted it for the new Mini Cooper, but BMW owners protested from what I understand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
968 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
Almost all modern 4 cylinder engine still use balance shafts. They are built into the oil pump assembly.
I agree. The 2.4L Tigershark does:
79978
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
37,830 Posts
The Neon DOHC 2.0L from the 90s had to be either at the top or near the top of power and efficiency for its day. Nothing could compete with it. I read about several manufacturers who bought them and tore them down to figure out what made it so good. I also seem to recall that either Porsche or BMW strongly considered using the engine in one of their small cars - I wish I could find the old allpar article about the development of the Neon 2.0, it was in there. This new forum-biased allpar site is just disappointing.
BMW wanted it for the new Mini Cooper, but BMW owners protested from what I understand.
The "joint venture" engine was used in Minis, but the design was pretty much Chrysler.
What killed the engine more than disgruntled Mini owners was the fact the "competition" bought Chrysler.no way was BMW going to pay Diamler (Mercedes) for an engine for their cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,705 Posts
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.
" Too much noise and vibration " .....isn't a straight six famious for being smooth and quiet?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #54 ·
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.
I always understood the Jeep 4.0 was bullet proof. Our '99 GC and my '87 Comanche sitting under a tarp has that engine.

Also, doesn't the current 3.4/3.6 Pentastar 6 cylinder stack up well on NVH?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
The Neon DOHC 2.0L from the 90s had to be either at the top or near the top of power and efficiency for its day. Nothing could compete with it. I read about several manufacturers who bought them and tore them down to figure out what made it so good. I also seem to recall that either Porsche or BMW strongly considered using the engine in one of their small cars - I wish I could find the old allpar article about the development of the Neon 2.0, it was in there. This new forum-biased allpar site is just disappointing.
Yes, but not 2000-present. There is fuel efficiency there, but not competition crushing, that’s for sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,719 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,012 Posts
I always understood the Jeep 4.0 was bullet proof.
I think the biggest headache that the most owners see with this engine is the rear main seal.
The 4.0 in my 89 XJ never had any issue other than that. But the 4.0 in my 01 XJ developed internal damage at 144,000. That really surprised me. I couldn't be without a vehicle long enough for me to tear into it so I had a rebuilt 4.0 put in it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
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?
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!
 
41 - 60 of 136 Posts
Top