Dodge Challenger's 5.7-Liter V8 Hemi To Be Replaced By Inline Six

[Wagonmaster261]

Originally Posted by FlyNavyP3

It's hard to beat the sound of a non turbocharged 567 or 645 EMD pulling a grade in Notch 8 screaming against the load. Unfortunately the days of the 567 are pretty much gone as most were converted to 645s upon overhaul and the newer stuff got the 710. The days of 2 stroke EMD engines is numbered sadly, because they sure sound sweet!


We used to have some 12-645E non-turbo in MP15ACs. Those really bark under load. Fun times running glass end first at 49 mph. We do have a couple of 12-645 turbo (GP39-2), but I usually don't see them.

We used to have a couple of 16-567s, one was still a B block with the rectangular access ports. Less bark than the 645s. One sold to a customer for their use (the better one, with the C block).

Non-turbo makes better noise, but 3-4 SD40s will move just about anything we need. Turbo engines save fuel compared to non-turbo at higher notches.


Ford was crash testing the 1997 F150, and found they had some issues with the 300 coming into the cab account the length. They then started on enlarging the 3.8 into the 4.2.

 

[clinebarger]

Originally Posted by Shannow
I've showed the size of the Oz Ford 6 compared to the V-8.

Here's an SUV that Ford ran the six in plus AWD for ages.

All the talk about straight sixes not fitting in things isn't engineering fact, when Ford Oz have been doing it for 50+ years...upright straight six is their blood heritage.


I was simply pointing out that the 4.2L Atlas was pretty large for any use outside truck platforms, Is it bigger than the "Barra" 4.0L?......I honestly don't know that. I wish we had easy access to engineering drawings of engines!
I do have experience installing the Atlas in Jaguar E-type's that originally came with Jaguar 4.2L Inlines....The Atlas is larger in every dimension besides "dressed" width.

Sure.....Any manufacturer can develop a RWD-RWD based AWD platform for an I6 engine. However all the money invested in that I6 couldn't be used in FWD platforms unless you cut cylinders off.
I realize Volvo had Transverse I6 applications.....Work on one of those & get back to me!

The ONLY reason I replied to this thread was to question WHY FCA would design & develop a I6 when they already have the 3.6L Pentastar that could be modified for heavy boost......Most of which would include "Closing the Deck".

Most Americans have NO sentimental attachment to the Inline Six; I can't even think of a gas one outside of BMW that's for sell in the 'states?

For what it's worth Shannow......I enjoy reading your posts & believe your a great asset to this board!!!!

 

[Shannow]

Hey mate, it's all good...
Have read all sorts of guff (not from you) that inline sixes can't pass crash tests, don't fit under hoods etc. when I walk past them every day.

I've tried and tried through the discussion to get some numbers too to see how they compare.

The Barra is big, really big, and won't go into the mid 60s falcons with the 221 and the like.

Have found a couple of comparative pics...Oz had 6 cylinder Cortinas, and ended up with the 250 crossflow in them...(pain, as they kept the distributor under the inlet manifold, I loathed points changes on them)...so have included a comparo of a 250 and a barra retrofit in the same chassis.

Not to be argumentative, and I really appreciate your posting too...and the detail on the guts of autos...

 

[4WD]

My father had an early 60's Falcon ... That I6 was 144 CID and "3 on the tree" gear box ... SAE30 Amalie and a can of STP every 3k of course ...