Stellantis inline 6

[jpd80]

On 4/14/2022 at 10:17 PM, silvrsvt said:

 

No the 6.4L

This, the 6.4 hemi and the GM 6.2 are becoming problematic with rising CAFE, the answer is of course the new BEVs coming to offset fuel consumption of the large V8s.
 

 

The I-6 turbo is intriguing, it can be done relatively easy in RWD/AWD vehicles and only requires two cam phasers, the block and head are much “easier castings” to make and machine  as is the forged or cast crankshaft, the turbos are easier to package because there’s more room at the side of the I-6 and in full sized pickups and SUVs, there’s normally plenty of length I; the engine bay and even with a long engine, they surprisingly don‘t add that much weight forward of the front axle.

 

 

Edited April 15, 2022 by jpd80

[Stray Kat]

On 4/13/2022 at 11:16 PM, mackinaw said:

 

Inline six cylinder engines are naturally balanced for primary and secondary vibrations and are inherently smoother than a 60 degree V6.  

I have heard this before but I find it hard to picture without a diagram. I do know that 60 degree V12’s are pretty darn smooth but I guess lopping half the engine off removes 6 firing impulses and thus makes a V6 correspondingly more rough. 
 

The 60 degree V6 though is certainly no slouch. Thinking about the short rigid block and crankshaft all supported by four main webs. 
 

The EcoBoost 3.5 V6 won its class at LeMans in 2016 with lots of factory parts. 

[jpd80]

7 hours ago, Stray Kat said:

I have heard this before but I find it hard to picture without a diagram. I do know that 60 degree V12’s are pretty darn smooth but I guess lopping half the engine off removes 6 firing impulses and thus makes a V6 correspondingly more rough. 
 

The 60 degree V6 though is certainly no slouch. Thinking about the short rigid block and crankshaft all supported by four main webs. 
 

The EcoBoost 3.5 V6 won its class at LeMans in 2016 with lots of factory parts. 

That’s because the road going GTs actually produce more power than the regulated race cars, they had to add weight and retune them to give the atmo cars like Corvette a chance to win.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

That’s because the road going GTs actually produce more power than the regulated race cars, they had to add weight and retune them to give the atmo cars like Corvette a chance to win.

Race trim limits the GT and Corvette output to around 450 hp.  Far less than the retail versions.

[akirby]

8 hours ago, Stray Kat said:

I have heard this before but I find it hard to picture without a diagram. I do know that 60 degree V12’s are pretty darn smooth but I guess lopping half the engine off removes 6 firing impulses and thus makes a V6 correspondingly more rough. 
 

The 60 degree V6 though is certainly no slouch. Thinking about the short rigid block and crankshaft all supported by four main webs. 
 

The EcoBoost 3.5 V6 won its class at LeMans in 2016 with lots of factory parts. 

In a V6 the pistons are going different directions.  In an I6 they’re lined up and in synch so the forces cancel each other out.  That’s why the V6 requires a balance shaft.

 

 

[jpd80]

Here’s a good explanation of primary and secondary balance with six cylinder configurations

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTS48jX68YU

[DeluxeStang]

On 4/1/2022 at 1:25 AM, jpd80 said:

 

Ford had the 4.0 liter Barra DOHC 4-valve I-6 Turbo developed by Ford Australia, produced an easy 400 hp/400 lb with port injection and 10 lbs of boost. These engines are capable of making insane levels of power…

 

under all of the development work, this I-6 retains the original bore spacing of the 144/170/188/200/221/250 I-6s of the 1960s and 1970s

 

The first major change came with a Cleveland styled cantered valve cross flow head in 1976

followed by Single Overhead Cam two valve head in 1988 and then the Barra DOHC 4-valve in 2002

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know it will never happen, but how cool would it be if Ford put the Barra in the mustang instead of the 2.3. 

[jpd80]

48 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

I know it will never happen, but how cool would it be if Ford put the Barra in the mustang instead of the 2.3. 

A step down memory lane with Mustang I-6 and V8, two very different vehicles for two very different buyer types.

The 2.3 EB serves the same purpose but as the V6 Camaro showed, a high revving six can best an I-4T……

I wonder, the Challenger will probably get the new I-6 as well, that could be interesting……

Edited April 17, 2022 by jpd80

[Stray Kat]

Okay so the reason many if not all inline four cylinders are more “coarse” is because they’re two up, two down?

 

The inline six separates those forces?

 

I love the idea of an inline engine up to six cylinders. I was watching a TFL video last night where Andray lifted the hood on a Jeep Grand Wagoneer with the new six and it didn’t look like it had any big serviceability advantages over anything else in the market. It was packed with junk running every which way. (A problem I’ve had with Fords for a while now) Not to worry though there’s a big plastic cover shaped to make the engine bay look cleaner. 
 

I tell you that the Mustang 2.3 EcoBoost is probably the nicest use of under hood plastic and some thought was given to making the under hood area logical. 
 

Can you imagine if Ford just put two extra cylinders on the 2.3 EB? I wouldn’t doubt it if Ford was testing just such an animal. 
 

 

 

 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Stray Kat said:

Okay so the reason many if not all inline four cylinders are more “coarse” is because they’re two up, two down?

 

The inline six separates those forces?

 

Can you imagine if Ford just put two extra cylinders on the 2.3 EB? I wouldn’t doubt it if Ford was testing just such an animal. 

The 2.7L and 3.0eb was initially developed for both transverse and longitudinal installation so it had to be a V6.

 

In the I6 opposing forces cancel each other out.  In the I4 they don’t cancel each other out so it isn’t naturally balanced.  

[AGR]

12 hours ago, jpd80 said:

A step down memory lane with Mustang I-6 and V8, two very different vehicles for two very different buyer types.

The 2.3 EB serves the same purpose but as the V6 Camaro showed, a high revving six can best an I-4T……

I wonder, the Challenger will probably get the new I-6 as well, that could be interesting……

 

From what I've read, the next gen Charger and Challenger were a big reason for the I-6. The Alfa Romeo RWD platform (used on the Guilia and Stelvio) would not accommodate the Hemi V8s.

[silvrsvt]

6 hours ago, AGR said:

 

From what I've read, the next gen Charger and Challenger were a big reason for the I-6. The Alfa Romeo RWD platform (used on the Guilia and Stelvio) would not accommodate the Hemi V8s.

But at least from what I’ve seen/heard, that isn’t happening with the pivot to BEVs?

 

it’s sorta like the modular V8 being developed for FWD applications and that impacting it in RWD applications. 

[jpd80]

9 hours ago, Stray Kat said:

Can you imagine if Ford just put two extra cylinders on the 2.3 EB? I wouldn’t doubt it if Ford was testing just such an animal. 

Here’s the thing, there’s two trains of thought:

1. The Cyclone and Nano V6s, are already developed and amortised, there’s no need to spend money changing things

2. If two cylinders were added to an existing I-4 T like the 2.0/2.3 EBs then two V6 engine plants could be closed down

 

While Ford could begin downsizing it’s ICE manufacturing footprint by switching to I-6s, the main hitch to that would be the just developed Bronco/Ranger that uses the Nano V6, re-working them to accommodate a longer I-6 would be costly as it involves the crash protection cell. Not impossible but bloody time and resource consuming on top of an already delivered vehicle package.

Edited April 17, 2022 by jpd80

[jpd80]

25 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

But at least from what I’ve seen/heard, that isn’t happening with the pivot to BEVs?

 

it’s sorta like the modular V8 being developed for FWD applications and that impacting it in RWD applications. 

This, have they left their run too late and now it’s just money on top of ICEs instead of just getting on with BEVs?

Edited April 17, 2022 by jpd80

[AGR]

3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

But at least from what I’ve seen/heard, that isn’t happening with the pivot to BEVs?

 

it’s sorta like the modular V8 being developed for FWD applications and that impacting it in RWD applications. 

 

Unless things have changed in the last few months, they were planning Charger and Challenger models with the I-6 along with separate EV versions. 

Edit: I googled it, and the rumors are all over the place. The only thing that's "confirmed" is that there will be EV versions. Some say EV only, others say both. I dunno, I'm not a Chrysler/DCA/Fiatsler/ED Motors expert...

Edited April 18, 2022 by AGR

[silvrsvt]

35 minutes ago, AGR said:

Edit: I googled it, and the rumors are all over the place. The only thing that's "confirmed" is that there will be EV versions. Some say EV only, others say both. I dunno, I'm not a Chrysler/DCA/Fiatsler/ED Motors expert...

 

Don't worry, Chrysler/FCA/Stellantis has been all over the place for the past 10 years or so...Dodge and them have been starved for new Products and all the attention has been going towards Jeep/Ram

[fuzzymoomoo]

On 4/13/2022 at 11:34 AM, silvrsvt said:

I saw a report that it only offered a 1-2 MPG improvement on the Hemi powered Grand Cherokee in its 510hp form.

That's huge considering the HP increase though. 

[jpd80]

34 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

That's huge considering the HP increase though. 

It’s also probably why the boost levels were kept down on the Ecoboost V6s, to keep fuel economy uppermost.  Clearly, Stellantis need a complete replacement for their V8s and that brings different priorities……

 

 

[jpd80]

I’m not convinced that a 3.0 litres is the ideal capacity for use in large pickups and SUVs, be that gasoline or diesel.  I like Ford’s strategy of 2.7 EB and 3.5 EB as a point of difference between each and the 5.0 coyote, although a high deck 5.8 coyote may have proved useful in Super Duty…….

[silvrsvt]

11 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

That's huge considering the HP increase though. 

 

Not exactly-

What is "V8 power," exactly? Well, in standard output guise, the new I6 cranks out more than 400 horsepower (the specific figure will vary by application) and 450 pound-feet of torque, while the high-output variant is good for more than 500 horses and 475 lb-ft. The final figures will be dependent on the application. We'll save you a little legwork: In current Ram, Jeep and Dodge products, the 5.7-liter Hemi tops out at about 395 hp and 410 lb-ft, give or take, and the 6.4-liter around 485 hp and 475 lb-ft. 

 

 

[Stray Kat]

17 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Here’s the thing, there’s two trains of thought:

1. The Cyclone and Nano V6s, are already developed and amortised, there’s no need to spend money changing things

2. If two cylinders were added to an existing I-4 T like the 2.0/2.3 EBs then two V6 engine plants could be closed down

 

While Ford could begin downsizing it’s ICE manufacturing footprint by switching to I-6s, the main hitch to that would be the just developed Bronco/Ranger that uses the Nano V6, re-working them to accommodate a longer I-6 would be costly as it involves the crash protection cell. Not impossible but bloody time and resource consuming on top of an already delivered vehicle package.

Oh trust me I was only posting a “what if” scenario when I made the comment about an inline six EB. 
 

As a young Ford guy who grew up in the 70’s I was introduced to the reality of spunky 60 degree V6’s in Mustangs and Pintos. 
 

If backed by a manual transmission the 2.6 and 2.8 V6 cars were probably just as quick as anything in Ford’s lineup short of the Pantera. 
 

I have no problem with proper 60 degree V6’s but lots of traditional pickup truck guys worship inline 6’s. 
 

On one hand the traditional buyer condemns a V6 but then worships an inline engine. 

[akirby]

Wasn’t Ford’s popular I6 truck engine 4.9L though?

[mackinaw]

41 minutes ago, akirby said:

Wasn’t Ford’s popular I6 truck engine 4.9L though?

 

Most definitely.  One of the best Ford engines ever designed.  Easily last 250,000+ miles if properly maintained, probably much more.  Smooth as silk too.  I have one in my '94 F-150.  I have no doubt it will still be running long after I've gone.

[jpd80]

4 hours ago, Stray Kat said:

Oh trust me I was only posting a “what if” scenario when I made the comment about an inline six EB. 

You went a little further than that by suggesting that Ford probably  had tested such an Animal. I think that’s highly likely after J/LR developed its own I-4/I-6 Ingenium gasoline/diesel engines as an efficient way of replacing Ford supplied engines. The ability to make multiple engines  in one engine plant wouldn’t have been missed by Ford as a possible future strategy to reduce engine plants.

 

 

Quote

As a young Ford guy who grew up in the 70’s I was introduced to the reality of spunky 60 degree V6’s in Mustangs and Pintos. 
 

If backed by a manual transmission the 2.6 and 2.8 V6 cars were probably just as quick as anything in Ford’s lineup short of the Pantera. 
 

I have no problem with proper 60 degree V6’s but lots of traditional pickup truck guys worship inline 6’s. 
 

On one hand the traditional buyer condemns a V6 but then worships an inline engine. 

Two different philosophies on show back then,  engines that could rev and engines that couldn’t or didn’t need to.

[Bob Rosadini]

On 4/18/2022 at 12:15 PM, mackinaw said:

 

Most definitely.  One of the best Ford engines ever designed.  Easily last 250,000+ miles if properly maintained, probably much more.  Smooth as silk too.  I have one in my '94 F-150.  I have no doubt it will still be running long after I've gone.

Remember the 4.9 was a popular industrial engine.  I would bet a lot of airport tugs are still running with  4.9 power.