Allpar Forums banner

Ralph & Peugeot

10K views 57 replies 23 participants last post by  XRT2SRT 
#1 ·
Has anyone heard of when Ralph and Peugeot will start designing together? Are there any rumors on the table?

Imho, that is a marriage made in heaven and I'm totally enthused about the possibilities of what they can create.
 
#8 ·
When you get to a certain level, you just give an overall target and say 'make it so.' At his level, he is NOT working with CAD or getting into specifics of geometry, wheelbase, cabin room, etc.
 
#33 ·
At Chrysler that has varied dramatically by who the head designer is. Exner pretty much did all the large-scale designs. Engel did some but mainly delegated and got the groups to work well together. I don't know about R.G. but it's not like there is a constant flood of new cars coming through; he could still generate sketches and other designs. I suspect it's true re working with CAD but he could be doing some of the more "specific" work - if he wanted to do it, who would stop him?
 
#14 ·
The problem is someone has to rule design. For this merger to work, for the truth to be realized (SYNERGIZED = reduce the number of parts), for both Europe and North America, someone has to make the call for -

1) What platform will rule - EMP2 or small wide? Or are we going to just run things the way they are until 2025 or 2026 until the next C/D segment platform design occurs?
2) Depending on which platform wins, who is going to take the engineering lead - Auburn Hills or Europe?
3) Will there be localization of new products in the form of a different body/interior design? When do the localization requirements become factored in - during the initial design, or will they just have to adapt to what they've been given?
4) Who is going to manage the reduction in complexity in purchasing in consolidating the part releases to suppliers? Who is going to give the yes/no for part releases to make sure overall complexity is reduced?
 
#26 ·
Seems the only vehicles FCA has been interested in are the high profit high volume ones. They unlike Chrysler when it was America owned had a habit of looking for new niche vehicles. Anyone recall how the Sebring convert caught on like the PT Cruiser ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jimboy
#39 · (Edited)
@Dave Z

As you've mentioned. There is no hump on FWD cars with no AWD as can be seen on this EMP2 car:
View attachment 72857

Uhm, something must be wrong. It's not possible.
You really aren't illustrating anything with that low resolution black carpet picture. We can't tell if it has a hump, a bump or is perfectly flat. Exhaust pipes, driveshafts and batteries have to go somewhere. The tunnel for a driveshaft to the rear can be a pretty big deal in a low RWD car. If you make a skateboard BEV the floor is perfectly flat, but too high. I would rather have a low foot well than a perfectly flat floor. The child in the rear middle seat is either so small it isn't a problem, or he can stick one foot in each well. A flat platform is better than a rounded hump.
 
#44 ·
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.
 
#45 ·
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.
 
#48 · (Edited)
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)
 
#56 ·
"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.
 
#50 ·
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.
 
#51 ·
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.
 
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