Allpar Forums banner

41 - 58 of 58 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,933 Posts
I have no idea what I'm looking at.
Really?

And why was my post removed?

EDIT: If you want to find proof of someone's trolling just look at constant post edits of some users which completely change the message they want to send so that it can fill new agenda after my response was already sent.

About my post and it can be clearly seen. EMP2 as on Pug 508 II has so called "hump". It's on the platform which doesn't offer mechanical AWD. Previous generation 508 didn't have it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,332 Posts
Really?

And why was my post removed?

EDIT: If you want to find proof of someone's trolling just look at constant post edits of some users which completely change the message they want to send so that it can fill new agenda after my response was already sent.

About my post and it can be clearly seen. EMP2 as on Pug 508 II has so called "hump". It's on the platform which doesn't offer mechanical AWD. Previous generation 508 didn't have it.
That used to be somewhat impossible. After 20 minutes or so on the old Allpar, a post was locked. Now...I can go back to old posts and make changes hours, even apparently days later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T_690

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,667 Posts
There is a certain amount of home team cheering on here. It's only natural. If what guys say is true about the NA operations being in charge of their own operations, then management needs a shakeup. Some decisions border on incompetentcy. This road ahead is going to be difficult because of the needs of the different regions. At this moment it appears that Europe does get first choice on powerplants for the shared platforms, while NA seems stuck with what they had before the merger. Some improvements are here, but not nearly enough to be competitive in their transverse vehicle type. At the other end, you have a Ram 1500 TRX that recently just destroyed the Raptor in a face off. It's like a tale of two totally different companies here in NA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,591 Posts
NA isn't so much stuck with what they had, as unsure what they needed. 2.0 was jointly developed in two variants: one for Alfa and one for Jeep, but both focused on performance over low price, which was fine until they were left still needing something to replace the 2.4. Replacing 2.4 is up to FCA US to pay for as it's not used anywhere else.

The upcoming 1.5 GSE might be built in Italy, but it very much looks like an engine developed for the US market - the projected production capacity is far too high for it to be Europe-only. Based on the 1.3's efficiency, the 1.5 should be good for 200 bhp with only mild boost, and it could easily be used as the ICE in a Hybrid setup for compact/midsize cars. And, as a GSE family engine, it should be cheap enough to finally oust the 2.4.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,569 Posts
NA isn't so much stuck with what they had, as unsure what they needed. 2.0 was jointly developed in two variants: one for Alfa and one for Jeep, but both focused on performance over low price, which was fine until they were left still needing something to replace the 2.4. Replacing 2.4 is up to FCA US to pay for as it's not used anywhere else.

The upcoming 1.5 GSE might be built in Italy, but it very much looks like an engine developed for the US market - the projected production capacity is far too high for it to be Europe-only. Based on the 1.3's efficiency, the 1.5 should be good for 200 bhp with only mild boost, and it could easily be used as the ICE in a Hybrid setup for compact/midsize cars. And, as a GSE family engine, it should be cheap enough to finally oust the 2.4.
I suspect the 1.5 GSE is indeed the 2.4 replacement. Part of what's happening is the long gestation period for new engines, and I suspect a lot of dithering before the GSE and GME programs were really put into place “for real” as some believed applying Fiat technology to the 2.0 and 2.4 (and federalizing the 1.4T) might make them unnecessary. That proved not to be the case. The 1.4T is great in the 124 but not great in the heavier crossovers or Dart; I can't imagine it in the 200 or Cherokee. The TigerShark was an improvement, but not enough. Fiat was clearly not the problem, MultiAir and other band-aids couldn't fix the basic (Hyundai-origin, Mercedes-cost-cutting-modified) design.

It's taking an awfully long time, but engine programs generally do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,933 Posts
The upcoming 1.5 GSE might be built in Italy, but it very much looks like an engine developed for the US market - the projected production capacity is far too high for it to be Europe-only. Based on the 1.3's efficiency, the 1.5 should be good for 200 bhp with only mild boost, and it could easily be used as the ICE in a Hybrid setup for compact/midsize cars. And, as a GSE family engine, it should be cheap enough to finally oust the 2.4.
For the time being 1.5 could be Euro only affair. It will replace 1.3 in various power outputs it seems. So far we are haering only about 1.5 turbo in a P2 MHEV setup which means it will be mated to a Getrag 7HDT300. This is a wet DCT capable for up to 320 Nm (236 lb ft).

If we take a look at first versions 1.3 GSE T4, GSE T4 D and GSE T4 M we can see that the maximum power capacity is ar 135-140 HP/l for each of them. The same is with torque capacity which stands at around 200 Nm/l (~150 lb ft).

So with the current state of tune of GSE and GME engines it's very realistically to expect around 200 HP and 300 Nm (221 lb ft) of torque from 1.5 T4 GSE/FireFly engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
I suspect the 1.5 GSE is indeed the 2.4 replacement. Part of what's happening is the long gestation period for new engines, and I suspect a lot of dithering before the GSE and GME programs were really put into place “for real” as some believed applying Fiat technology to the 2.0 and 2.4 (and federalizing the 1.4T) might make them unnecessary. That proved not to be the case. The 1.4T is great in the 124 but not great in the heavier crossovers or Dart; I can't imagine it in the 200 or Cherokee. The TigerShark was an improvement, but not enough. Fiat was clearly not the problem, MultiAir and other band-aids couldn't fix the basic (Hyundai-origin, Mercedes-cost-cutting-modified) design.

It's taking an awfully long time, but engine programs generally do.
The WGE should have received direct injection instead of multi air. Hyundai is still selling cars with the DI Theata II, Mitsubishi is still selling cars with the DI 4B1. The 1.4T should have gotten direct injection and been tuned to run on regular when it was federalized. The Alfa 1.75T should have been federalized to run on regular, it already had direct injection which for some strange reason they were keeping for Alfa. 1.3T is 177 HP, 210 lb ft, 2.4 184 HP, 179 lb ft. 1.3T should be the 2.4 replacement, re tune it more for power for lighter cars. The same HP/L gives a 204 HP 1.5T, very similar to the Honda 1.5T in the Civic Si and 1.6T in the Veloster, so that is an upgrade engine. Fiat was the problem with the Tigershark, they believed Multi air could fix it and wanted to keep direct injection for Alfa. Hyundai and Mitsubishi fixed theirs with direct injection and a little head work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,591 Posts
Mike Manley came from Chrysler.

The 1750 was considered by Chrysler, but they declined as it was too expensive to produce. It was also designed solely for forced induction, while US buyers preferred atmospheric engines (and still do).

There used to be a good article on Allpar comparing the three WGE engines, but DI is not the single difference between these motors, and DI itself is not that big an improvement. (DI pushes up NOx emissions, so requires more exhaust-gas treatment)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,933 Posts
GDI on non turbo engine doesn't do much. Same for MultiAir or any VVL and VVT combination.

Combining all together with turbo is the best solution. But at the time American market was reluctant on turbo use.
 

·
Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
·
186 Posts
Why is the idea/rumor/what-have-you here for the 2.4's 'replacement' as a 1.5T to make a whole 23 more horsepower then the 177hp 1.3T, and maybe the same in torque?
So, to understand this a different way: the 1.3T is to replace 2.0 & 1.4T, and the 1.5T replaces the MA 2.4L...…
Why wouldn't it be: 1.3T replaces 2 liter/1.4T/MA2.4, and the 4XE/other hybrids creates more power while meeting the need for said hybrids?
The idea of the 1.5 coming here to create a motor in-between the GSE 1.3 and GME 2L sounds counter-intuitive to reducing excess, creating more hybrids, increasing CAFE numbers, etc.. to me, honestly.
The 1.3 would work in anything sub-KL. Everything bigger, 2.0. Need more power? Hybrid.
Driving the 2L Wrangler's taught me that it's already a motor willing to go, sans eTorque. I've been annoyed that they haven't put it into anything else yet. I feel like it'd be a hoot in the LX/LD/LA trio. And the Gladiator.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
37,284 Posts
Driving the 2L Wrangler's taught me that it's already a motor willing to go, sans eTorque. I've been annoyed that they haven't put it into anything else yet. I feel like it'd be a hoot in the LX/LD/LA trio. And the Gladiator.
The 2.0T was supposedly dropped from consideration in Gladiator due to heat and towing issues.
 

·
Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
·
186 Posts
The 2.0T was supposedly dropped from consideration in Gladiator due to heat and towing issues.
Now THAT sounds like they didn't put enough money into it to fix those issues.....
Particularly if the much bigger Ecodiesel was put in there tbh 😂
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
37,284 Posts
Now THAT sounds like they didn't put enough money into it to fix those issues.....
Particularly if the much bigger Ecodiesel was put in there tbh 😂
And EcoDiesel is "compromised" (for lack of a better term) in Gladiator. The EcoDiesel's peak towing rating is LESS than the V6 - the opposite of what people expect from a diesel. So even with the diesel, cooling capacity is an issue. Most likely the only solution would have been a wider radiator which would mean losing the Wrangler front styling on Gladiator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David S

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
GDI on non turbo engine doesn't do much. Same for MultiAir or any VVL and VVT combination.

Combining all together with turbo is the best solution. But at the time American market was reluctant on turbo use.
"The 1750 was considered by Chrysler, but they declined as it was too expensive to produce. It was also designed solely for forced induction, while US buyers preferred atmospheric engines (and still do)."

The American market was fine with turbo use. See 2013-2015 Ford Fusion sales of over 300K, 2011-2015 Sonata sales of over 200K. FCA management was fine with DI turbo cost for Alfa, It wasn't fine with DI turbo cost for Dodge and Chrysler. That US buyers still prefer normally aspirated engines is laughable. Look at Ford, GM, Honda and Hyundai. Only Toyota persists with the NA engines for the high selling cars.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
37,284 Posts
"The 1750 was considered by Chrysler, but they declined as it was too expensive to produce. It was also designed solely for forced induction, while US buyers preferred atmospheric engines (and still do)."

The American market was fine with turbo use. See 2013-2015 Ford Fusion sales of over 300K, 2011-2015 Sonata sales of over 200K. FCA management was fine with DI turbo cost for Alfa, It wasn't fine with DI turbo cost for Dodge and Chrysler. That US buyers still prefer normally aspirated engines is laughable. Look at Ford, GM, Honda and Hyundai. Only Toyota persists with the NA engines for the high selling cars.
US buyers will accept a turbo if it's reliable and delivers good power with low end torque. Peaky HP, that's great on paper but not on the street, isn't going to be accepted widely in the US market. For all the fun people make of them here, Ford has had pretty good success across the board with their EcoBoost engines.
 
41 - 58 of 58 Posts
Top