Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

  1. Welcome to GM Inside News Forum – General discussion forum for GM

    Welcome to GM Inside News Forum - a website dedicated to all things GM.

    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, Join GM Inside News Forum today!
     
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 67

Thread: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

  1. #1
    GMI Staff Member Premium Member nadepalma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    8,547
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 75 Times in 43 Posts
    My Ride
    2007 Ford Fusion

    Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6
    Craig Cole | Nov 16, 2012

    Speaking at a media event in Detroit today Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne confirmed suspicions that there will be more versions of the company’s award-winning Pentastar V6.

    Chrysler is “working diligently on other variants of it,” he said at an announcement regarding ramped up V6 production based on improved demand. The Pentastar V6 engine currently displaces 3.6-liters but Marchionne hinted at a smaller, more efficient version. “You’re going to see a downsizing of engines across the fleet,” he said, stopping just short of confirming a 3.2-liter model that is strongly believed to be in development.

    But “variants” is plural, so what other six-cylinder projects could the company be working on? Direct fuel injection will certainly be part of the Pentastar line at some point down the road since it’s not at the moment.

    Another intriguing option could be an even smaller, turbocharged model a la Ford’s EcoBoost V6. This could be the perfect powerplant for a rear-wheel-drive sporty car like the upcoming SRT Barracuda. It could also service the needs of truck buyers as a much more economical replacement for a V8.

    CONTINUE AT: http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...icient-v6.html
    "La vita è come un albero di Natale..c'è sempre qualcuno che ti rompe le palle!"

  2. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    4.6 Liter Northstar V8
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville Fl.
    Posts
    1,676
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked 18 Times in 12 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Just as the auto makers are downsizing I4 engines and then Turbocharging them who not do the same with V6's as well! Replace 3.5L/3.6L NA V6's with Turbo 2.5L versions! Even for some brands they could replace NA 4.5L/5.0L V8's with 3.5L Turbo ones!

  4. #3
    News Contributor BlackGTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,105
    Thanks
    165
    Thanked 386 Times in 182 Posts
    My Ride
    2013 Cadillac ATS - Black

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    What will GM do? They already tried downsizing the 3.6 to the 3.0 and we all know how that ended up. Or is GM simply committing to turbocharged 4 cylinders?

  5. #4
    6.2 Liter LS3 V8 richmond2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    3,721
    Thanks
    190
    Thanked 43 Times in 38 Posts
    My Ride
    2009 Pontiac G8 V6

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackGTP View Post
    What will GM do? They already tried downsizing the 3.6 to the 3.0 and we all know how that ended up. Or is GM simply committing to turbocharged 4 cylinders?
    IMHO the 3.0L and the 2.8T never got the Development effort the 3.6 did and it showed as those engines where not bad at the time if you exclude the 3.6 and the fact that the cars they where in where over weight compared to the competition and todays "NEW" cars from GM
    I could see a engine line made up of
    1.0T 99 BHP
    1.4T 140 BHP
    1.6T 170 - 200 BHP
    2.0T 250 - 300 BHP
    2.8 - 3.0T 350 - 400 BHP
    3.6t 450+

    "LT1" V8 limited usage in Camaro / Corvette
    "truck V8" more limited avail in 1/2 tunners and avail across 3/4 and up trucks

  6. #5
    CJH
    CJH is offline
    3.6 Liter SIDI V6 CJH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Minnesotax
    Posts
    1,142
    Thanks
    152
    Thanked 39 Times in 29 Posts
    My Ride
    Audi A6 4.2, Durango LTD 5.7L

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackGTP View Post
    What will GM do? They already tried downsizing the 3.6 to the 3.0 and we all know how that ended up. Or is GM simply committing to turbocharged 4 cylinders?
    Hope Chrysler has better luck than GM did!!!

    I believe the Pentastar was developed with DI and Forced Induction (turbos) in mind.
    Last edited by CJH; 11-16-2012 at 06:33 PM.
    Past Rides:
    Audi S4 2.7TT
    Ford Explorer 5.0L
    Pontiac Grand AM 3.4L
    Chevy Corsica 3.0L

  7. #6
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,986
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 41 Times in 26 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackGTP View Post
    What will GM do? They already tried downsizing the 3.6 to the 3.0 and we all know how that ended up. Or is GM simply committing to turbocharged 4 cylinders?
    The problem with the 3.0L engine was not the engine itself, it was with the applications that they tried to use it with namely the 4,000+ pound ones......

  8. #7
    6.0 Liter L76 V8 CadiEldo67's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by 63GrandSport001 View Post
    The problem with the 3.0L engine was not the engine itself, it was with the applications that they tried to use it with namely the 4,000+ pound ones......
    Exactly, it was used in the LaCrosse, (which I imagine was pretty slow in AWD trim), the Terrain, CTS and SRX.

    Could you imagine the 3.0L in the previous or even current Malibu? Other than the Malibu, I don't know what the 3.0L would be used for, so I don't really know where they were going with it.
    Regal:
    S40:

  9. #8
    SX3
    SX3 is offline
    3.6 Liter SIDI V6 SX3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 17 Times in 12 Posts
    My Ride
    '06 Altima, '13 Sonic Turbo

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by CadiEldo67 View Post
    Exactly, it was used in the LaCrosse, (which I imagine was pretty slow in AWD trim), the Terrain, CTS and SRX.

    Could you imagine the 3.0L in the previous or even current Malibu? Other than the Malibu, I don't know what the 3.0L would be used for, so I don't really know where they were going with it.
    The previous Malibu has the non-DI 3.6L. The DI 3.0L is good for more power (264 vs the old 252hp) but less torque (222 vs 251ftlb) so it wouldn't have been much different other than it would sound like it was trying harder.

    The 3.0L is crap. The only thing that might save it is twin-turboing it. But again the 3.6L will outshine it. And at that point the GenV based 5.3L will likely be better (and cheaper) as well.

    They could always put the 3.0 into the Sonic. Shorter engine than the 2.0/.4/.5 Ecotecs so it might fit. Making a tranmission to handle it is another story. But this is unrealistic. Especially for GM.

  10. #9
    2.4 Liter SIDI ECOTEC
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    411
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 6 Times in 2 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    The 3.0l would have been a better base engine for the ATS than the 2.5l.

  11. #10
    2.4 Liter SIDI ECOTEC mr_bots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Land of Enchantment
    Posts
    297
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Pretty sure I've read somewhere that a DI 3.2L Pentastar V6 will debut with a 9 speed transmission on the 2014 (FWD, Dart based) Liberty.
    "It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office." -H. L. Mencken

  12. #11
    7.0 Liter LS7 V8
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Daytona Beach, FL and Upstate NY
    Posts
    4,054
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 15 Times in 6 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    I tend to disagree. There was just something about the engine that didn't fit. It was also used in the Lacrosse, and CTS (I believe for a model year) in cars that were under 4,000 lbs. But still, for the HP figures it put out (even with the limited torque), it felt very anemic. With a 6 speed automatic, a 260-270 hp with 220-230lbs/ft torque engine should have felt more powerful (and smoother) than it did.

    The big thing is, if it was so much down on power (especially torque) than the 3.6 version of it, why did it get such poor mileage in comparison. Once a car gets up to speed, it doesn't take a lot of torque to keep it going, so at the very least the highway MPG ratings of the cars with the 3.0 should have been a few MPG's better than the 3.6, but they weren't.

    GM has put forth some really good cars and some really good powertrains in the last few years.......but just like the Current Malibu as a car, the 3.0 was one of the dissapointments among a group of good products
    Last edited by mjd1001; 11-16-2012 at 10:53 PM.

  13. #12
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,986
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 41 Times in 26 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by mjd1001 View Post
    I tend to disagree. There was just something about the engine that didn't fit. It was also used in the Lacrosse, and CTS (I believe for a model year) in cars that were under 4,000 lbs. But still, for the HP figures it put out (even with the limited torque), it felt very anemic. With a 6 speed automatic, a 260-270 hp with 220-230lbs/ft torque engine should have felt more powerful (and smoother) than it did.

    The big thing is, if it was so much down on power (especially torque) than the 3.6 version of it, why did it get such poor mileage in comparison. Once a car gets up to speed, it doesn't take a lot of torque to keep it going, so at the very least the highway MPG ratings of the cars with the 3.0 should have been a few MPG's better than the 3.6, but they weren't.

    GM has put forth some really good cars and some really good powertrains in the last few years.......but just like the Current Malibu as a car, the 3.0 was one of the dissapointments among a group of good products
    The 3.0L engine is still used in the CTS and I hear no one complaining about it in that application, all of the applications in which people complained about that engine were in 4,000+ pound vehicles. If the LS7 was in a 10,000 pound vehicle we too would be calling that engine crap, yet it was put in a 3,150 pound vehicle and the engine is put up somewhere high.

    You are only going to get so much MPG from such heavy vehicles, also if the 3.0L engine debut in the ATS we would have a completely different opinion of that engine. Yet our opinions of the engine mainly comes from its use in the Cadillac SRX a vehicle which was 4,225 pounds. Also fuel economy doesn't work like that, the vehicle itself plays a much bigger role then does the engine. Had the SRX been 500 pounds lighter then the 3.0L engine would have gotten much better reviews.

    Though everyone seems to just jump on the band wagon with this engine, really a good engine with nothing good to put it in at the time.

    The 3.0L engine should have been used in 3,000-3,600 pound vehicles in which it was only put in 3,800+ pound vehicles.
    Last edited by 63GrandSport001; 11-17-2012 at 12:32 AM.

  14. #13
    Firebird Concept (the turbine one)
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Dearborn, MI
    Posts
    14,995
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    My Ride
    FORD

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by 63GrandSport001 View Post
    The 3.0L engine is still used in the CTS and I hear no one complaining about it in that application, all of the applications in which people complained about that engine were in 4,000+ pound vehicles. If the LS7 was in a 10,000 pound vehicle we too would be calling that engine crap, yet it was put in a 3,150 pound vehicle and the engine is put up somewhere high.

    You are only going to get so much MPG from such heavy vehicles, also if the 3.0L engine debut in the ATS we would have a completely different opinion of that engine. Yet our opinions of the engine mainly comes from its use in the Cadillac SRX a vehicle which was 4,225 pounds. Also fuel economy doesn't work like that, the vehicle itself plays a much bigger role then does the engine. Had the SRX been 500 pounds lighter then the 3.0L engine would have gotten much better reviews.

    Though everyone seems to just jump on the band wagon with this engine, really a good engine with nothing good to put it in at the time.

    The 3.0L engine should have been used in 3,000-3,600 pound vehicles in which it was only put in 3,800+ pound vehicles.
    I have driven many 3.0 LF1 CTS sedans , and for extended periods of time and it is the best base engine in the entry sport sedan class in my opinion. No it does not have the power under the curve as the 3.6 LFX but it moves the CTS with an urgency missing in much of the competition.

  15. #14
    5.3 Liter Vortec V8 JeffInDFW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,449
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 25 Times in 7 Posts
    My Ride
    96 Viper GTS/11 MINI Cooper S

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Has anyone ever done the math weighing money saved for better milage vs increased cost of maintenance and replacement of turbo? With my turbo cars, I change the oil more frequently than my V8 cars and can't imagine not using full synthetic in a turbo car. Failed turbos are not cheap to replace after warranty. Just wondered....
    Toyota--The Official Vehicle of Terrorist Everywhere

  16. #15
    Banned hunchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bridgeport
    Posts
    2,245
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    My Ride
    2012 F150 ecobeast 4x4

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffInDFW View Post
    Has anyone ever done the math weighing money saved for better milage vs increased cost of maintenance and replacement of turbo? With my turbo cars, I change the oil more frequently than my V8 cars and can't imagine not using full synthetic in a turbo car. Failed turbos are not cheap to replace after warranty. Just wondered....
    If the increase in maintenance is an extra 10 or 20 bucks an oil change for synthetic oil then better mileage is worth it. For my 2012 f150 eco I have been quoted 800 bucks a side for turbos. I would think that the turbo is still a cheaper option than replacing these newer 6 and 8 speed transmissions. I have been told that the replacement cost of most truck 6 speeds is around 5 grand. I'm sure chrysler's new 8 speed won't be cheap either. I think the key is proper maintenance and don't put it off. I love newer technology and am all for the future so I didn't mind paying a premium for the new 3.5 eco I had only wished that GM had something newer and more advanced when i went shopping. As long as these new direct injection turbo engines prove to be reliable I am sure in the long run the fuel savings will be worth it.

  17. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.1.2