Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6 - Page 3

  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 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 67

Thread: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

  1. #31
    2.4 Liter SIDI ECOTEC
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    385
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 9 Times in 6 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by Envoy4Life View Post
    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.
    It's very much in the same league as the non-turbocharged N52 (used in the 330i before the turbo version), which was more powerful than the 3.0L used in the 328 (that had ~230hp and 210 lb-ft).

    BMW - 255-268hp @ 6600 rpm, 230 lb-ft @ 2600 rpm
    GM - 270hp @ 6900 rpm, 223 lb-ft @ 5100 rpm (RWD applications)

    Both VVT, DI. Both very smooth, freely revving engines. The BMW has a better sound. On paper it makes more torque at a lower rpm. I've only ever driven a much lighter, and less powerful, 328ix (and not a similar to the CTS but still lighter 528), I honestly cannot say whether or not that you could feel the difference. I would loved to have seen an ATS with the 3.0L V6/manual combo - but that will never be.
    Last edited by obriend; 11-17-2012 at 02:19 PM.
    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

  2. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

  3. #32
    6.0 Liter L76 V8 T'Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,185
    Thanks
    96
    Thanked 104 Times in 60 Posts

    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....
    Ford claims that the maintenance schedules for the Ecoboost 3.5L V6 and the NA V6s in the Police Interceptors is the same so apparently increased maintenance doesn't have to be the case with turbos.

    The smaller Pentastar is a good idea for vehicles such as the FWD Journey, Avenger, 200, and the base Caravan.

    I've read some positive reviews about the 300 and Charger with the 3.6 L Pentastar and 8 speed auto in which they describe the power as being strong with 0-60 times in the 6 second range and rave about the great fuel economy that combo returns. Ratings of 19/31 for a fullsized car is amazing!
    Buy American. Buy Ford. So say we all!

  4. #33
    5.3 Liter Vortec V8 avro206's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,399
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    I find the idea of a Dart with a 3.2L V6 to be very intruiging. Doubtful I think...(Swinger would be a great name to revive)

    If not that--a Barcuda V6 would be allright.
    Proud Pontiac Owner
    2004 Grand Am SE V6 with 1SB package. Faster then my 2,4L Cobalt auto was! More fun to drive too.

  5. #34
    4.6 Liter Northstar V8
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,518
    Thanks
    109
    Thanked 113 Times in 97 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by avro206 View Post
    I find the idea of a Dart with a 3.2L V6 to be very intruiging. Doubtful I think...(Swinger would be a great name to revive)

    If not that--a Barcuda V6 would be allright.
    Chrysler 100/Lancia Delta and 200 would most likely get that. the Darts RT will probably get a power bump. they are planing 2 SRT Darts all with I4's

  6. #35
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    6,285
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 161 Times in 101 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by avro206 View Post
    I find the idea of a Dart with a 3.2L V6 to be very intruiging. Doubtful I think...(Swinger would be a great name to revive)

    If not that--a Barcuda V6 would be allright.
    I HATE FWD and V-6 combination, in fact I hate FWD and anything other then I-4 engine layout. Give me RWD with V anything.......

  7. #36
    2.4 Liter SIDI ECOTEC
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    438
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 14 Times in 7 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by cdp326 View Post
    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.
    If it's the same engine block then yeah it would be lighter when bored out. An engine block is a metal box with holes in it. If you make the holes bigger it becomes lighter.

    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.
    Any engine becomes revvier when you reduce the mass of the rotating assembly. On a V6 it also becomes smoother because the V6 is not a perfectly balanced engine and the NHV issues become more pronounced wen you increase the rotating mass. For this reason, they don't usually make V6s larger than 4.0l (and the larger ones are always sluggish truck engines) or I4s larger than 2.7l.

    The weight of the engine isn't really an issue because engines don't really weigh that much anyway and the difference is tiny compared to the weight of the car. The main problem is that when you step up to a bigger hotter engine the entire driveline has to be made stronger. When you go from an MT-82 to a TR-6060 transmission, or from a DSG transmission on the Audi S6 to a torque converter auto on the Audi S8 or (same engine, different power rating) you are adding a huge amount of weight, much more than the difference i the engine, everything else, the axles, driveshaft, wheel hubs, it all gets heavier.

    Most people would not want it on their minivan but on a sports car the 3.0l is a good engine, which is why they should have made it the base engine on the ATS instead of the 2.5l especially since everyone is complaining about the NVH quality of the 4 cylinder in a luxury car. The only issue would have been cost (maybe they could use the non-DI version to keep cost down) and the fact that it might have been a bit too close in power to the 2.0T(in which case they should have just turned up the wick on the 2.0T).
    Last edited by tentacles; 11-17-2012 at 08:06 PM.

  8. #37
    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 caddycruiser View Post
    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.
    Aside from torque production, and power under the curve the 3.2L Pentastar/ ZF9HP combo will achieve better fuel economy , and perform in a way that is not utterly divergent from the current 3.6 /5A/6A/8A combinations.

    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.
    Most rental car 300's utilize the barely passable NAG1/WA580 5 speed automatic, and quite frankly the relative lack of low rpm torque with the wide gear spacing is a detriment to it's performance in many ways. The Hemi with 394 lb ft of torque is able to propel the 300C with urgency despite the best efforts of the barely passable 5A.

    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.
    I am actually quite anxious to drive the upcoming 300C 5.7, and 300C SRT8 when the ZF 8HP debuts in those vehicles. The 300 with the 3.6/8A combo is amazingly potent in relation to the 3.6/5A 300, and it is surprising in how much better it makes the 3.6 feel.

    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.
    The ZF 8HP eliminates much of the lethargy inherent in the 300 with the 3.6 Pentastar, and quite frankly the lethargy is in many ways because of the 5A transmission. I would not say that the Hemi has a difficult time propelling the 300C with a 13.9@103 mph quarter mile despite the best efforts of the transmission to neuter the engine, and a 2.65 rear differential ratio.

    Quote Originally Posted by obriend View Post
    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.



    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.
    For those that do not mind an engine that does it's best at high rpm the LF1 3.0 is really a notable engine, and as far as NVH it easily shades the LY7.

    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!!
    It also was hindered by quite deplorable transmission programming, and it's utilization in relatively heavy vehicles.

    Quote Originally Posted by mjd1001 View Post
    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.
    Pray tell can you illuminate for me the engines that easily shade the 3.0 LF1 in the entry luxury class for power, and NVH?

    Quote Originally Posted by Envoy4Life View Post
    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.
    You must keep in mind that the E46 and E9x 330i with the N52 inline six was considerably lighter than the CTS, and if anything it's gearing advantage was as much responsible for the better performance as the engine itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by firefox View Post
    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
    I agree, and I think we should petition GM to develop naturally aspirated engines that easily eclipse a specific output of 90 hp a liter.



    Quote Originally Posted by obriend View Post
    It's very much in the same league as the non-turbocharged N52 (used in the 330i before the turbo version), which was more powerful than the 3.0L used in the 328 (that had ~230hp and 210 lb-ft).

    BMW - 255-268hp @ 6600 rpm, 230 lb-ft @ 2600 rpm
    GM - 270hp @ 6900 rpm, 223 lb-ft @ 5100 rpm (RWD applications)

    Both VVT, DI. Both very smooth, freely revving engines. The BMW has a better sound. On paper it makes more torque at a lower rpm. I've only ever driven a much lighter, and less powerful, 328ix (and not a similar to the CTS but still lighter 528), I honestly cannot say whether or not that you could feel the difference. I would loved to have seen an ATS with the 3.0L V6/manual combo - but that will never be.
    While the E46 and E90 330i's were considerably faster than the 3.0 LF1 CTS they were quite divergent in weight as well as size.

  9. #38
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    6,285
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 161 Times in 101 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    I do think that everyone should know that the CTS didn't go head to head with the BMW 3 series on even ground. It was larger (size wise in line with the 5 series), though price wise it was in line with the 3 series.

    In reality you should compare the 3.0 CTS with the old 528i that used the 3.0 I-6 engine, these would be the more comparable vehicles specs wise.

  10. #39
    7.0 Liter LS7 V8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Savannah
    Posts
    4,632
    Thanks
    128
    Thanked 214 Times in 166 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by cdp326 View Post
    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).


    The Lambdas are still LLT I believe, not the LFX 3.6L.
    Your correct I mis-typed lol

  11. #40
    7.0 Liter LS7 V8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Savannah
    Posts
    4,632
    Thanks
    128
    Thanked 214 Times in 166 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Originally Posted by firefox
    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
    I agree, and I think we should petition GM to develop naturally aspirated engines that easily eclipse a specific output of 90 hp a liter.
    I disagree with this on a lot of levels. Your speaking about 1 measure of performance and to be honest it doesn't really add any value. If GM can produce a 3.6 that matches the 3.0 in peak power, torque, and mpg yet do it at half the cost by using larger displacment I say go for it. not to mention that the BMW engine your speaking of will likley have more moving parts and generally not fare as well in long term reliability.

    If your going to compare engines and be absolutly fair about it the only realy way to do it is to look at the dyno curves, cost, and expected life cycle.

  12. #41
    2.8 Liter Turbocharged V6
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    918
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by avro206 View Post
    I find the idea of a Dart with a 3.2L V6 to be very intruiging. Doubtful I think...(Swinger would be a great name to revive)

    If not that--a Barcuda V6 would be allright.
    Just waiting for the incoming new Alfa 1.8lt I4, DI, low friction, charged, up to 300HP

  13. #42
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8 AdmiralViscen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    8,781
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Glad I clicked this thread so I could read about GM engines

    God Bless the Blue Bullet.

  14. #43
    2.4 Liter SIDI ECOTEC WX39C1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    354
    Thanks
    47
    Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts
    My Ride
    9C3 Caprice/2011/Silver

    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?
    Something like this as a follow-on:

    http://world.honda.com/MotorcycleEngine/

    2011 9C3 Caprice
    "Stock"
    0 – 60 mph in 5.3 sec
    1/4-mile in 13.9 sec @ 103 mph
    24-29 mpg highway
    All this on regular or E85 fuel
    “A Pontiac G8 GT in a polyester suite”
    Source for above: (Car & Driver, 2012)

  15. #44
    7.0 Liter LS7 V8 Premium Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    4,193
    Thanks
    166
    Thanked 491 Times in 335 Posts
    My Ride
    FG Falcon Utility

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    I have a feeling that the next generation of Ford Ecoboost engines is going to really gap the competition.
    While everyone else scrambles to make bigger engines more efficient, Ford has already downsized engines
    and added turbos, so the need for cylinder deactivation and more than 6-speed autos isn't there just yet.

    Credibility will be interesting with manufacturers' technical contortions to meet the ever tightening CAFE
    regulations, no good saying something get 40 or 50 mpg when consumers struggle to get close to that.

    Maybe it's time that CAFE was changed to include more than the highway cycle.. There's also a strong body of evidence showing that drivers are using increased fuel economy to travel further rather than reduce fuel usage...so what is the point of CAFE?
    Last edited by jpd80; 11-18-2012 at 02:36 PM.

  16. #45
    7.0 Liter LS7 V8
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Daytona Beach, FL and Upstate NY
    Posts
    4,092
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 32 Times in 17 Posts

    Re: Chrysler Commits to Smaller, More Efficient V6

    Quote Originally Posted by germeezy1 View Post



    Pray tell can you illuminate for me the engines that easily shade the 3.0 LF1 in the entry luxury class for power, and NVH?
    I sure will.
    1. The old, non-di version of the 3.6 in the our Saturn Vue. More torque, less hp but overall better performance, smoother engine, and only 1mpg less in a similar application.

    2. The new 3.6 DI that was in our nearly 5,000 FWD Travers that got only 1mpg less than the 3.0 with MUCH better power and smoothness.

    3. The Chryser Pentastar 3.6 in our Avenger. MUCH smoother, more power (and when used in a similar application to what the 3.0 was used in, equal to or better fuel economy.)

    4. The V6 in the Camry (drove one twice.) Worlds better in NVH than the 3.0 I drove, with similar MPG and more power also.

    Those are the only recent (last 5 years) V6's that I drove more than one time that I got a feel to, and every one of them was/is superior to the 3.0.

  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