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

[Chris142]

Originally Posted by MrMoody
Surprised no one has mentioned the fairly hot Pontiac OHC I6s from back in the day. Some even had 4-bbl carbs.

First american engine to use a timing belt.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by ragtoplvr
Ever see a Hemi head slant 6. Also Australian.



The hemi wasn't a slant 6, it was a regular upright 6 in 245, 265, and 215 c.i. capacities...7 mains etc. etc.

They shipped a few units over to Italy and had Weber install and tune triple carbs on them for racing here...street 265 made an (advertised) 224KW.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted by Cujet
Like the post above, I've always liked the feel of a high quality inline 6. Besides the perfect primary balance and the smooth sound, there seems to be a good fit for 6 cylinder engines in modern cars and trucks.


Same here!! I loved the smooth quiet powerful inline 6 in my 280Z!!

 

[nthach]

Originally Posted by Chris142
Originally Posted by MrMoody
Surprised no one has mentioned the fairly hot Pontiac OHC I6s from back in the day. Some even had 4-bbl carbs.

First american engine to use a timing belt.

In that twist, wasn't Toyota's first six-cylinder a clone of the Chevy I6?

 

[edyvw]

Main reason for I6 is modularity.
I said before, engineers in Munich are telling everyone: we told you so.
Mercedes went to I6 too due to development of I4 and I6 as basically same engines: I6-2=4 and I4+2=6. BMW developed B48 (4cyl) and B58 (6cyl) using same line, and apparently new 4.0ltr V8 will be on same line.
I think FCA is doing same. All engines will be modular.

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted by nthach
Originally Posted by Chris142
Originally Posted by MrMoody
Surprised no one has mentioned the fairly hot Pontiac OHC I6s from back in the day. Some even had 4-bbl carbs.

First american engine to use a timing belt.

In that twist, wasn't Toyota's first six-cylinder a clone of the Chevy I6?


I believe that was Toyota's first engine at all. A total copy of a Chevy.

 

[clinebarger]

I've never had the love affair with Inline Six engines, So forgive my ignorance!

With the 3.6L 60 degree V6 Pentastar already developed.....Why would FCA clean-sheet design a I6? They could just modify the 3.6L for twin VGT snails! Or even a Screw/Helical Supercharger!

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by clinebarger
I've never had the love affair with Inline Six engines, So forgive my ignorance!

With the 3.6L 60 degree V6 Pentastar already developed.....Why would FCA clean-sheet design a I6? They could just modify the 3.6L for twin VGT snails! Or even a Screw/Helical Supercharger!

What I wrote on previous page: modularity.
FCA needs to update stuff. While Durango, Charger, Challenger use Mercedes platform, it is uber old platform. Competition is getting lighter and they will have to shed a lot of weight in order to stay competitive with mpg and performance. I personally like Durango, especially with HEMI. But weight is Achilles heal. I6 except modularity is probably one of the ways to shed some weight.

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted by clinebarger
I've never had the love affair with Inline Six engines, So forgive my ignorance!

With the 3.6L 60 degree V6 Pentastar already developed.....Why would FCA clean-sheet design a I6? They could just modify the 3.6L for twin VGT snails! Or even a Screw/Helical Supercharger!


Totally agree. I thought I read that the I-6 design was a way to create a new family of I-4 and I-6 engines. Maybe a turbo 6 will replace the V8s since that seems to be the current trend?

 

[clinebarger]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by clinebarger
I've never had the love affair with Inline Six engines, So forgive my ignorance!

With the 3.6L 60 degree V6 Pentastar already developed.....Why would FCA clean-sheet design a I6? They could just modify the 3.6L for twin VGT snails! Or even a Screw/Helical Supercharger!

What I wrote on previous page: modularity.
FCA needs to update stuff. While Durango, Charger, Challenger use Mercedes platform, it is uber old platform. Competition is getting lighter and they will have to shed a lot of weight in order to stay competitive with mpg and performance. I personally like Durango, especially with HEMI. But weight is Achilles heal. I6 except modularity is probably one of the ways to shed some weight.


Still didn't get it....

A 60 degree V6 is more compact & more practical to twin-turbocharge. The Pentastar is relatively new compared to the ancient 90 degree pushrod engines it replaced. I really like the 90 degree V6 3.5L/4.0L engines as well but they're too wide & can't be retrofitted with VVT without a major redesign.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by clinebarger
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by clinebarger
I've never had the love affair with Inline Six engines, So forgive my ignorance!

With the 3.6L 60 degree V6 Pentastar already developed.....Why would FCA clean-sheet design a I6? They could just modify the 3.6L for twin VGT snails! Or even a Screw/Helical Supercharger!

What I wrote on previous page: modularity.
FCA needs to update stuff. While Durango, Charger, Challenger use Mercedes platform, it is uber old platform. Competition is getting lighter and they will have to shed a lot of weight in order to stay competitive with mpg and performance. I personally like Durango, especially with HEMI. But weight is Achilles heal. I6 except modularity is probably one of the ways to shed some weight.


Still didn't get it....

A 60 degree V6 is more compact & more practical to twin-turbocharge. The Pentastar is relatively new compared to the ancient 90 degree pushrod engines it replaced. I really like the 90 degree V6 3.5L/4.0L engines as well but they're too wide & can't be retrofitted with VVT without a major redesign.

I4 and I6 will be assembled on the same line. BMW will assemble 20. I4, 3.0 I6 (ll ready out few years) and new 4.0ltr V8 on same line. It is modularity that this design offers.
V6 is compromise. It is easier to fit in, but it is not naturally balanced and people who care about dynamics will be happy with the fact I6 is returning back. As for turbos, that is not a problem. BMW uses one twin scroll turbo, two turbos, three turbos and four turbos on their numerous versions of I6. I had X5 35d with inline 6 and two turbos. If FCA wants it can easily do that, or one twin scroll turbo.

 

[nthach]

You also forgot the I3 in the Mini Cooper, also part of that BMW modular engine family that displaces 500cc(ish)/cylinder.

 

[Brigadier]

Will these need bearings replaced every 60k as well?

 

[BrianF]

I love the inline 6. Have 2 of them. But GM did not see the need to continue on with the Atlas. The 4.2 was used from 2002 to 2009 in the GMT360 and that's it. A waste in my mind.

 

[clinebarger]

Originally Posted by edyvw

I4 and I6 will be assembled on the same line. BMW will assemble 20. I4, 3.0 I6 (ll ready out few years) and new 4.0ltr V8 on same line. It is modularity that this design offers.
V6 is compromise. It is easier to fit in, but it is not naturally balanced and people who care about dynamics will be happy with the fact I6 is returning back. As for turbos, that is not a problem. BMW uses one twin scroll turbo, two turbos, three turbos and four turbos on their numerous versions of I6. I had X5 35d with inline 6 and two turbos. If FCA wants it can easily do that, or one twin scroll turbo.


60° V6's are pretty smooth with the counterweight between adjacent rod pins along with the offset to even out the piston firing. I hope we're not comparing 90° V6's to I6's here? As the latest even-fire/offset rod pin 90° V6's with balance shafts are not as smooth/balanced.

Packaging 2 turbochargers, Catalysts, Oxygen sensors, Hot side Intake plumbing & Air Intake plumbing on one side of the engine Along with the inherent packaging problems a I6 engine already presents.....All in the name of natural balance & sentimentality?

 

[clinebarger]

Originally Posted by BrianF
I love the inline 6. Have 2 of them. But GM did not see the need to continue on with the Atlas. The 4.2 was used from 2002 to 2009 in the GMT360 and that's it. A waste in my mind.


What other platform would accept such a large/long engine besides full size pick-ups.....

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by clinebarger
Originally Posted by BrianF
I love the inline 6. Have 2 of them. But GM did not see the need to continue on with the Atlas. The 4.2 was used from 2002 to 2009 in the GMT360 and that's it. A waste in my mind.


What other platform would accept such a large/long engine besides full size pick-ups.....

 

[4WD]

Originally Posted by clinebarger
Originally Posted by BrianF
I love the inline 6. Have 2 of them. But GM did not see the need to continue on with the Atlas. The 4.2 was used from 2002 to 2009 in the GMT360 and that's it. A waste in my mind.


What other platform would accept such a large/long engine besides full size pick-ups.....


It would not go in the GMT355 and so they offered V8's in both the H3 and Colorado/Canyon ...
However, I used to stare at that 5.3L in my Canyon and not look forward to plugs one day ...
Traded it after 8 years and left 9 new iridium plugs in the glove box ... LoL ...

 

[Wagonmaster261]

Ford experimented with cross flow headed turbo 300s for a bit. Apparently they pulled like a 460. Other discussion about the Ford 300 here: https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1566039-some-interesting-history-on-the-300-a.html

A straight 6 is inherently balanced, unlike any vee-type engine. Less side loading of the cylinders. There is probably a reason most semi truck engines are straight sixes.

One hopes they learned from the EcoDiesel fiasco and use appropriate sized bearings to handle the loading and lugging down they will need to pass emissions and fuel economy standards.

 

[4WD]

Because they are the right size displacement for the space allowed ... but there was a period where the 3408 was popular ...
We run large fixed (industrial) V16 engines when they fit a certain need and HP/torque/economy ... and the space allowed with access to the heads etc ...
Both configurations will be around as long as ICE are mainstream ...