Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

[nadepalma]

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

[Carguy]

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!

[BlackGTP]

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?

[richmond2000]

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

[CJH]

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.

[63GrandSport001]

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......

[CadiEldo67]

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.

[SX3]

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.

[tentacles]

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

[mr_bots]

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.

[mjd1001]

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

[63GrandSport001]

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.

[germeezy1]

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.

[JeffInDFW]

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....

[hunchman]

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.