Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6 - Page 2

  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 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 67

Thread: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

  1. #16
    4.6 Liter Northstar V8 caddycruiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    1,514
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 30 Times in 18 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by germeezy1 View Post
    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.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

  3. #17
    7.0 Liter LS7 V8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Savannah
    Posts
    4,807
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked 249 Times in 194 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    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.

  4. #18
    2.8 Liter Turbocharged V6 BlueMontreal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    957
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 48 Times in 35 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by SX3 View Post

    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.

  5. #19
    CJH
    CJH is offline
    5.3 Liter Vortec V8 CJH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Minnesotax
    Posts
    1,389
    Thanks
    440
    Thanked 134 Times in 96 Posts
    My Ride
    Audi A6 4.2, Durango LTD 5.7L

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by spd98 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by CJH; 11-17-2012 at 09:10 AM.
    Past Rides:
    Audi S4 2.7TT
    Ford Explorer 5.0L
    Pontiac Grand AM 3.4L
    Chevy Corsica 3.0L

  6. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,330
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked 30 Times in 22 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by spd98 View Post
    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.

  7. #21
    2.4 Liter SIDI ECOTEC
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    387
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 9 Times in 6 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by germeezy1 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by SX3 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by obriend; 11-17-2012 at 09:07 AM.
    Current cars:
    2009 Cadillac 1st-gen CTS wagon (a.k.a. SRX - AWD 3.6)
    2009 Ford Mustang GT
    2001 Jeep Cherokee

    Past cars:
    2010 Cadillac CTS Wagon (AWD 3.0)
    2001 Olds Aurora (3.5)
    2008 Chrysler T&C
    2001 Pontiac Grand Am (2.4)
    1998 GMC Sierra
    1997 Chevrolet Malibu (3.1)
    1995 Honda Civic (1.6) - married into it
    1984 Pontiac 6000 STE - first car

  8. #22
    CJH
    CJH is offline
    5.3 Liter Vortec V8 CJH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Minnesotax
    Posts
    1,389
    Thanks
    440
    Thanked 134 Times in 96 Posts
    My Ride
    Audi A6 4.2, Durango LTD 5.7L

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    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.
    Past Rides:
    Audi S4 2.7TT
    Ford Explorer 5.0L
    Pontiac Grand AM 3.4L
    Chevy Corsica 3.0L

  9. #23
    4.6 Liter Northstar V8
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville Fl.
    Posts
    1,733
    Thanks
    71
    Thanked 53 Times in 30 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    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!!

  10. #24
    7.0 Liter LS7 V8
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Daytona Beach, FL and Upstate NY
    Posts
    4,097
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 36 Times in 19 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by Carguy View Post
    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.

  11. #25
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8 KingElvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,182
    Thanks
    376
    Thanked 472 Times in 300 Posts
    My Ride
    '10 DODGE RAM ST RC HEMI 4.10

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by hunchman View Post
    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.
    Check out my automotive blog http://elvisceralappeal.blogspot.com/

  12. #26
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8 KingElvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,182
    Thanks
    376
    Thanked 472 Times in 300 Posts
    My Ride
    '10 DODGE RAM ST RC HEMI 4.10

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by Carguy View Post
    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?
    Check out my automotive blog http://elvisceralappeal.blogspot.com/

  13. #27
    7.0 Liter LS7 V8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Savannah
    Posts
    4,807
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked 249 Times in 194 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by CJH View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by ColoradoZQ8 View Post
    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.

  14. #28
    7.0 Liter LS7 V8 cdp326's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,174
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 47 Times in 34 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by spd98
    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.
    Last edited by cdp326; 11-17-2012 at 12:30 PM.
    "Here's to Mr. Iacocca and his failed experiment, the DeLorean!" - The Office

  15. #29
    News Contributor Premium Member Envoy4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    13,308
    Thanks
    689
    Thanked 2,255 Times in 1,096 Posts
    My Ride
    2014 Cadillac ATS Premium 3.6L

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by germeezy1 View Post
    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.
    Current:

    2014 Cadillac ATS4 3.6L Premium

    2006 GMC Envoy SLT 4x4

  16. #30
    3.0 Liter SIDI V6
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    602
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 62 Times in 37 Posts
    My Ride
    2011 Grandsport

    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?
    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

  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