Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

[caddycruiser]

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.

Part of why the 3.0L feels even better in the CTS is the RWD transmission, and different design therefore than the FWD applications. In my experience, 3.0L and 3.6L cars alike, it's not necessarily the engine but the GM tranverse FWD 6-spd that gives it a syrupy rubber band feel. Unlike the RWD applications, and 6Lxx transmissions that perform more crisp and responsively.

Even with it, we've been pleased for nearly 2 years with the 3.0L in our parents Terrain AWD. Having replaced a 3.6L 2010 Camaro before it, no it doesn't have the same torque, but it moves well, is SMOOTH and quieter, and gets better mileage without trying too hard. Not for everyone and a unique choice, but nice to live with in realty.

The Chrysler 3.2L should be interesting, especially as they start to add Direct Injection, even newer transmissions, etc. The current 3.6L has been performing well in nearly ever application, and they only left room for improvement with DI to come, transmission changes, and smaller displacement. As long as torque numbers are kept up there, and transmission calibration done well, power application should remain strong and possibly even better in aspects than the current 3.6L.

[spd98]

I have had a rental feel of the Pentastar motor and I have not been impressed. The LFX just feels better. It could be the transmission programming but in the 300 the Pentastar just seemed to really have to work hard to pass trucks going up long hills.

[BlueMontreal]

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.

GM doesn't have a transaxle able to handle tq. and hp from a 3.6 TT.

[CJH]

I have had a rental feel of the Pentastar motor and I have not been impressed. The LFX just feels better. It could be the transmission programming but in the 300 the Pentastar just seemed to really have to work hard to pass trucks going up long hills.

I took a rental Chrysler 300 w/ the Pentastar + 8-speed combo on a long trip and was really impressed with it. The 300 is not a light car, and the engine loafed along at interstate speeds, very quiet and smooth. When I put the pedal down, it seemed to respond willingly and with plenty of power for most people. I was impressed with it. Not a screamer, but there are two versions of HEMI"s to upgrade to, if you desire more power.

[ColoradoZQ8]

I have had a rental feel of the Pentastar motor and I have not been impressed. The LFX just feels better. It could be the transmission programming but in the 300 the Pentastar just seemed to really have to work hard to pass trucks going up long hills.

Well, lugging around the 2+ ton beast that is the 300 -- is hard enough for the base Hemi. The pentastar is an amazing engine in the right vehicles -- but I too think it is overwhelmed by the curb weight of the LX sedans. Although, compared to the last gen 300 with the wheezy 2.7 V6 -- it is a revelation.

[obriend]

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.

I agree. I own a CTS wagon with the 3.0L and think it's a great engine, its smoothness and rev-happy nature (if not sound) is on par with the NA 3.0L I6 in the previous 328. It's not a torque monster, but neither were the "base" German offerings at the time.

The 3.0L is crap. The only thing that might save it is twin-turboing it.

I couldn't disagree more - it's a great engine - power when you need (and rev) it, and, in my experience, excellent fuel economy. It's primarily the wife's ride, but at 20,000 miles we are averaging 22.6 mpg in 85% city/suburban driving. This in a 4200 lb AWD wagon.

Unfortunately, we will have to sell the CTS and will be getting a 2009 AWD SRX as we are unexpectedly needing a third row, and its the closest thing to a CTS wagon we can get. It's not much heavier, yet rated only 14/22 (as opposed to 18/26 in our CTS) with the non-DI 3.6 V6 and 5 speed auto. The 3.6 is not nearly as smooth and the SRX didn't have any more punch than the 3.0L CTS.

[CJH]

BTW, just read this about the new Maserati Quattroporte, maybe this is the version we'll see in future Chrysler products? (from Leftlane):

The Quattroporte's entry-level engine is an all-aluminum twin-turbocharged 3.0-liter V6 that is equipped with direct fuel injection. Rated at 410 horsepower, the mill is bolted to an eight-speed automatic transmission developed by ZF. Customers can choose whether they want power sent to the rear wheels or to all four wheels, the latter configuration being a first in the model's illustrious career.

With a V6 in the engine bay, the rear-drive variant of the Quattroporte sprints from zero to 62 mph in five seconds flat and goes on to a top speed of 177 mph.

[Carguy]

The 3.0L V6 was not junk or crap!! If you look at the HP of that engine for its size along with the compression ratio it could even be called a leader! Its was a lack of Torque when compared to the 3.6L V6 along with it not offering an advantage in fuel economy that over that engine that nearly killed it! The answer would be to continue to use it for Cadillac in Turbo form making a unique engine for that brand! With 330-350HP it would be a wonderful replacement for the NA 3.6L V6 in the Cadillac lineup!!

[mjd1001]

The 3.0L V6 was not junk or crap!! If you look at the HP of that engine for its size along with the compression ratio it could even be called a leader! Its was a lack of Torque when compared to the 3.6L V6 along with it not offering an advantage in fuel economy that over that engine that nearly killed it! The answer would be to continue to use it for Cadillac in Turbo form making a unique engine for that brand! With 330-350HP it would be a wonderful replacement for the NA 3.6L V6 in the Cadillac lineup!!

Well I disagree and agree with you at the same time. I don't think it was "crap", just it it was/is not good, and it may be "rev happy" or it may be a good base engine for a Cadillac in terms of feel, all that may be true...but it still can't hide the fact that an engine that is almost 20% smaller in displacement with close to that percentage less in torque simply should NOT get the same fuel economy in similar applications. If it was simply a lack of torque, than why do 4 clyinder engines in the Equinox and Terrain with a major lack of torque get 8mpg better, but the 3.0, which basicall splits the difference in torque between the 2.4 and the 3.6, can only match the 3.6 for fuel economy? By itself, it is an "O.K." engine, but it simply isn't good compared to the competition, and GM's choices.

[KingElvis]

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.

You make some good points and it's worth remembering that all of this awesome-ness comes at a cost. Prices will be higher and - if you think about the $22K work trucks, profit margins will be lower. This in addition to higher replacement and/or maintenance costs.

[KingElvis]

Its was a lack of Torque when compared to the 3.6L V6 along with it not offering an advantage in fuel economy that over that engine that nearly killed it!

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement. It would seem that was precisely the reason GM replaced it with the 3.6 - it gets the same mileage but has more response. If the whole purpose of the 3.0 was to be an entry level engine, why then is the only answer to 'turbo it?' Why not just turbo the 3.6 and have even more power? Especially considering - again - that in light cruising, it gets the same gas mileage?

[spd98]

I took a rental Chrysler 300 w/ the Pentastar + 8-speed combo on a long trip and was really impressed with it. The 300 is not a light car, and the engine loafed along at interstate speeds, very quiet and smooth. When I put the pedal down, it seemed to respond willingly and with plenty of power for most people. I was impressed with it. Not a screamer, but there are two versions of HEMI"s to upgrade to, if you desire more power.

Well, lugging around the 2+ ton beast that is the 300 -- is hard enough for the base Hemi. The pentastar is an amazing engine in the right vehicles -- but I too think it is overwhelmed by the curb weight of the LX sedans. Although, compared to the last gen 300 with the wheezy 2.7 V6 -- it is a revelation.

To me the LFX in the Lambda's drives better but like I said it could be the combintation of the car + the transmission. I have yet to drive it in anything other then the charger/300 combo.

[cdp326]

Most manufacturers went to the largest possible versions (around 3.5L) of their V6s here because they cost about the same to make and produce, and got about the same mileage in the end. In some cases like the Honda J-series and Nissan VQ they touted the fact the new larger displacement V6 was just as light if not lighter than the previous 3.0s they replaced, but that's probably more the effect of being a new/improved variant.

I've heard remarks that the 3.0L variants of V6s from Honda or Nissan were smoother or revvier than the subsequent 3.5L, something that comments on the GM 3.0/3.6 seems to support, but not much use to most buyers. GM putting the 3.0L in such heavy products didn't help - need the torque to start to take advantage of the revs - but I have a feeling it's also the transmission programming that blunted performance like caddycruiser mentioned. (IIRC the 3.0L Commodore, using the same trans as the CTS, was said to move pretty well as well.) Needing revs + eagerness for higher gears for fuel economy + heavy vehicle, equaled unimpressive performance.

Not that the transmission might be any better but I would have liked to see how the GM 3.0L would have done in a Malibu or Regal - which are heavy but even comparing four-cylinders, still a few hundred lbs lighter than Equinox/LaCrosse/etc. But then it still wouldn't be any cheaper or more efficient than using a 3.6L, or sticking with four-cylinders (as they're doing).

To me the LFX in the Lambda's drives better but like I said it could be the combintation of the car + the transmission. I have yet to drive it in anything other then the charger/300 combo.

The Lambdas are still LLT I believe, not the LFX 3.6L.

[Envoy4Life]

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.

It's not even in the same league as the outgoing 3.0L I6 in the 328i, and the 2.0T in the 328i puts the CTS 3.6L to shame.

[firefox]

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?

It seems that GM has a problem with regards with specific output per Liter in all of their engines. They should be able to produce a 3.0 with the same output as the current 3.6