So.... Chryslers first new engine in years, and it is supposed to be truly excellent. 3.6L, 280HP and 260lb/ft of torque. I dunno about the rest of you, but if they put this engine in the Avenger, 300, and especially it is going into the Grand Cherokee (I love the GC) I will absolutely putting Chrysler back onto my list of considerations when I finally look to replace my cav.
Chrysler PentaStar/Phoenix V6
- Thread starter Nick R
- Start date
- Status
the direct injected versions are coming soon, and rumored to go in the trucks and the wrangler.
I'll take a "wait and see" attitude.
IMHO the domestics haven't had huge success making high-tech V6 engines...At least one that appealed to me. Though the new Ford Eco Boost V6 does seem to be promising.
The GM 3.8L V6 was a great engine, but that's not really a "high tech V6".
IMHO the domestics haven't had huge success making high-tech V6 engines...At least one that appealed to me. Though the new Ford Eco Boost V6 does seem to be promising.
The GM 3.8L V6 was a great engine, but that's not really a "high tech V6".
Originally Posted By: robbobster
IMHO the domestics haven't had huge success making high-tech V6 engines...
The GM 3.8L V6 was a great engine, but that's not really a "high tech V6".
thats where you and i differ i don't look for high tech i look for proven track record! such as the chrysler 3.3/3.8, or the gm 3.8?
IMHO the domestics haven't had huge success making high-tech V6 engines...
The GM 3.8L V6 was a great engine, but that's not really a "high tech V6".
thats where you and i differ i don't look for high tech i look for proven track record! such as the chrysler 3.3/3.8, or the gm 3.8?
Originally Posted By: robbobster
I'll take a "wait and see" attitude.
IMHO the domestics haven't had huge success making high-tech V6 engines...At least one that appealed to me. Though the new Ford Eco Boost V6 does seem to be promising.
What do you consider "high tech"? The SOHC 24 valve 3.2 and 3.5 Chrysler engines introduced with the 2nd generation LH cars have been bullet proof, and compared to the V6s GM has been pumping out for the last 20 years they are very "high tech."
I'll take a "wait and see" attitude.
IMHO the domestics haven't had huge success making high-tech V6 engines...At least one that appealed to me. Though the new Ford Eco Boost V6 does seem to be promising.
What do you consider "high tech"? The SOHC 24 valve 3.2 and 3.5 Chrysler engines introduced with the 2nd generation LH cars have been bullet proof, and compared to the V6s GM has been pumping out for the last 20 years they are very "high tech."
DOHC /= high tech. In fact I'd say the 3800 was much more high tech then some DOHC engines. My 88 3800 had distributor-less ignition, roller lifters, and Sequential port fuel injection, when others were using carburetors, throttle bodies and flat tappets for years afterward.
DI, VVT, and DOD are the main technology advancements these days. Valvetrain is just a different way of getting there, like a V6 vs I6, ect. Both DOHC and OHV have been around for a century.
Sounds like Fiat might upgrade Chrysler's V6s with their multiair VVT system. Maybe this with DI will catch it up with GM and Ford's newer V6s.
DI, VVT, and DOD are the main technology advancements these days. Valvetrain is just a different way of getting there, like a V6 vs I6, ect. Both DOHC and OHV have been around for a century.
Sounds like Fiat might upgrade Chrysler's V6s with their multiair VVT system. Maybe this with DI will catch it up with GM and Ford's newer V6s.
Originally Posted By: T-Keith
DOHC /= high tech.
That is a grossly simplistic definition of "high tech." Even though the 3.5 V6 in my 300 is a SOHC, it is still a four valve per cylinder design. The use of a single camshaft per head reduces reciprocating mass.
On the flip side, I would not automatically equate pushrods and 2 valve heads with "low tech."
DOHC /= high tech.
That is a grossly simplistic definition of "high tech." Even though the 3.5 V6 in my 300 is a SOHC, it is still a four valve per cylinder design. The use of a single camshaft per head reduces reciprocating mass.
On the flip side, I would not automatically equate pushrods and 2 valve heads with "low tech."
In my lifetime (and going back decades earlier, actually) I can only think of 2 Chrysler engines that weren't superb and bullet-proof- the 2.7 DOHC v6 (high oil temps and sludging, timing chain tensioner failures), and the early 2.0 SOHC and DOHC I4s (head gaskets- later solved). Although some of they are currently selling might be considered "dated" right now (exceptions being the World Engine and the Hemi), they were excellent at their time of introduction. Engines are one thing Chrysler has always been good at, even when they were having trouble in other areas. I had no qualms about buying a first-gen 3.5 v6 the first few months of production of its first year on the market (1993) and was rewarded with 260k miles of flawless service.
With all the corporate difficulties during the birth of the Phoenix line, though, I'm going to wait and see. Its a good design on paper, but one has to worry how much "cost engineering" has been done and how harmful that might have been :-(
With all the corporate difficulties during the birth of the Phoenix line, though, I'm going to wait and see. Its a good design on paper, but one has to worry how much "cost engineering" has been done and how harmful that might have been :-(
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
With all the corporate difficulties during the birth of the Phoenix line, though, I'm going to wait and see. Its a good design on paper, but one has to worry how much "cost engineering" has been done and how harmful that might have been :-(
thats why i never buy "new tech" stuff. but five years down the road i may end up in a vehicle with the pentastar v-6. mike
With all the corporate difficulties during the birth of the Phoenix line, though, I'm going to wait and see. Its a good design on paper, but one has to worry how much "cost engineering" has been done and how harmful that might have been :-(
thats why i never buy "new tech" stuff. but five years down the road i may end up in a vehicle with the pentastar v-6. mike
here is the link to the phoenix v-6 (pentestar) technical page! mike
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/phoenix-engines.html
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/phoenix-engines.html
You got that right my 1987 with a 2.2 and my 1989 with a 2.5 both turbo went through a few of them....
JTK
$100 Site Donor 2025
It's a nice looking engine. It should do well if it can yield decent MPGs
Joel
Joel
What happened to the 4.7 V8 that is a nice modern engine and the 5.7/6.1 Hemi is not a slouch either.
The Pheonix is as much a Daimler Engine as it is a Chrysler it is not a single engine rather an engine family based largely on what Mercedes needed and watered down versions being used by Chrysler!
The Pheonix is as much a Daimler Engine as it is a Chrysler it is not a single engine rather an engine family based largely on what Mercedes needed and watered down versions being used by Chrysler!
Originally Posted By: JohnBrowning
What happened to the 4.7 V8 that is a nice modern engine and the 5.7/6.1 Hemi is not a slouch either.
the hemi i understand is being kept for some years (indefinetly)! but the old 4.7L v-8 will be replaced by the phoenix (pentestar) 4.7L v-8 eventually (4-5years????). that being said the replacement of the old 4.7L v-8 are not even close to happening. i am aware of no prototype v-8 phoenix even existing.
i think they are concentrating on the v-6 launch before they engineer it into a v-8? mike
What happened to the 4.7 V8 that is a nice modern engine and the 5.7/6.1 Hemi is not a slouch either.
the hemi i understand is being kept for some years (indefinetly)! but the old 4.7L v-8 will be replaced by the phoenix (pentestar) 4.7L v-8 eventually (4-5years????). that being said the replacement of the old 4.7L v-8 are not even close to happening. i am aware of no prototype v-8 phoenix even existing.
i think they are concentrating on the v-6 launch before they engineer it into a v-8? mike
Originally Posted By: JohnBrowning
What happened to the 4.7 V8 that is a nice modern engine and the 5.7/6.1 Hemi is not a slouch either.
The 4.7 is still around, output has been bumped up to 310 horses. Its not a bad engine, in fact its been very reliable. But its really a lame duck- it has less power and gets poorer fuel economy than the 5.7 Hemi, plus its physically larger (OHC versus pushrods).
Quote:
The Pheonix is as much a Daimler Engine as it is a Chrysler
False. Daimler never got involved in Chrysler engine design in anything more than a VERY rudimentary way. All that Daimler really gave the Chrysler side was inputs on the chassis of the LH platform and the basics of what became the W5A380 and W5A580 transmissions. Chrysler gave Daimler a lot of expertise in rapid design-to-production and a lot of cash.
What happened to the 4.7 V8 that is a nice modern engine and the 5.7/6.1 Hemi is not a slouch either.
The 4.7 is still around, output has been bumped up to 310 horses. Its not a bad engine, in fact its been very reliable. But its really a lame duck- it has less power and gets poorer fuel economy than the 5.7 Hemi, plus its physically larger (OHC versus pushrods).
Quote:
The Pheonix is as much a Daimler Engine as it is a Chrysler
False. Daimler never got involved in Chrysler engine design in anything more than a VERY rudimentary way. All that Daimler really gave the Chrysler side was inputs on the chassis of the LH platform and the basics of what became the W5A380 and W5A580 transmissions. Chrysler gave Daimler a lot of expertise in rapid design-to-production and a lot of cash.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
False. Daimler never got involved in Chrysler engine design in anything more than a VERY rudimentary way. All that Daimler really gave the Chrysler side was inputs on the chassis of the LH platform and the basics of what became the W5A380 and W5A580 transmissions. Chrysler gave Daimler a lot of expertise in rapid design-to-production and a lot of cash.
Uh, the LH platform was designed and in production years before the "merger." Where Mercedes input is clearly overwhelming is in the suspension of the LX platform.
And likewise on the Mercedes side, the W5A580 (only transmission of Mercedes design used by Chrysler) was designed and in production years before the "merger."
False. Daimler never got involved in Chrysler engine design in anything more than a VERY rudimentary way. All that Daimler really gave the Chrysler side was inputs on the chassis of the LH platform and the basics of what became the W5A380 and W5A580 transmissions. Chrysler gave Daimler a lot of expertise in rapid design-to-production and a lot of cash.
Uh, the LH platform was designed and in production years before the "merger." Where Mercedes input is clearly overwhelming is in the suspension of the LX platform.
And likewise on the Mercedes side, the W5A580 (only transmission of Mercedes design used by Chrysler) was designed and in production years before the "merger."
- Status
