Mopar Insiders: Our First Look At The All-New Twin-Turbo 3.0-liter GME-T6 Inline-Six Engine!.

[Cujet]

That engine looks like a rats nest of complexity.

 

[A_Harman]

Chrysler crash-programs everything they do. I've been wondering for years when they're going to release that one product that's going to sink the company. This could be it.

 

[gregk24]

A lot of crying on this thread. If you aren't interested just don't buy it. It will likely have some teething issues, then Stelantis will work it out. Give me a well sorted turbo any day!

 

[dareo]

Just a minor quibble on that, but for BMW and Mercedes, it's most usually an inline 6 unless you get into AMG or ///M trim. Both marques have a reputation for their glass-smooth inline 6 engines.

Mercedes G classes are V8. For smaller stuff or sedans those I6 are good. We are talking about full size towing SUVs here. You have to start with a V8. Then discuss if it will be n/a or turbo. But do not take the V8 off the table for such a large application.

 

[billt460]

That engine looks like a rats nest of complexity.

It is. The long way around the barn to make the same HP as a big V-8.

 

[RooflessVW]

Mercedes G classes are V8. For smaller stuff or sedans those I6 are good. We are talking about full size towing SUVs here. You have to start with a V8. Then discuss if it will be n/a or turbo. But do not take the V8 off the table for such a large application.

Do you think the G wagon is a luxury car? It's a military vehicle covered in leather and sold to idiots.

 

[billt460]

..... We are talking about full size towing SUVs here. You have to start with a V8. Then discuss if it will be n/a or turbo. But do not take the V8 off the table for such a large application.

That's just it. You are talking about a big heavy, 6,400 lb. luxury SUV. And then you're going to spend an extra $2,000.00, so you can put a 6-cylinder engine in it? And one with all but equal horsepower and torque of the standard 6.4 L V-8 they offer.

Except for the fact it's more expensive. Along with having all of the added complexity and repair cost of a twin turbo unit. That makes no sense.

What are you gaining? This isn't some wheezing little 2 seat rocket ship the kids are all drooling over. It's a 6 figure plus, luxury SUV. It would have made more sense to introduce this thing in a gussied up, high priced, rag top Rubicon. Than to put it into the biggest, heaviest vehicle they make.

My guess is in time you'll see quite a few Wagoneers. But not with these little buzz bombs under the hood. The type of person who is going to spend 6 figures on a SUV is going to want a V-8..... And a BIG one at that.

And for $100K+ if you still want an SUV that goes fast, and like a complex, expensive engine, you could buy a Trackhawk with 707 HP, that would eat any vehicle they could possibly put this little thing into. And still have a nice size, well appointed SUV.

 

[PimTac]

Maybe a simplistic view but from reading this article, at the end it mentions that it shares its DNA with the 2.0 four banger. Sounds like they added two more cylinders to a existing design.


https://www.autoweek.com/news/a39525460/stellantis-hurricane-engine-details/

 

[dlundblad]

A lot of crying on this thread. If you aren't interested just don't buy it. It will likely have some teething issues, then Stelantis will work it out. Give me a well sorted turbo any day!

While I do prefer simple, a turbo should be nothing to be afraid of. That said, I wouldn’t be the first one in line to jump on a new platform or drivetrain either.

My wife’s 2002 Volvo S60 2.4t has something like 215k miles with zero issues whatsoever.

 

[OVERKILL]

Mercedes G classes are V8. For smaller stuff or sedans those I6 are good. We are talking about full size towing SUVs here. You have to start with a V8. Then discuss if it will be n/a or turbo. But do not take the V8 off the table for such a large application.

GLE has an i6 (twin turbo). You only get the 8 when you pop up into AMG GLE63 trim, anything below that is i6. The GLS 450 (full-sized SUV) also has the twin-turbo i6 until you get into GLS580 trim, at which point you get the V8. The BMW X5 (which has a 7,000lb towing capacity) comes with the I6, you need to get the X5M or M50i to get the V8, but it's unfortunately problem-prone (the V8). The X7 is similar (which is a full-sized SUV), coming with the i6 unless you go M50i.

I'm not taking the V8 off the table, just pointing out that lots of large Euro SUV's have I6's.

 

[OVERKILL]

That's just it. You are talking about a big heavy, 6,400 lb. luxury SUV. And then you're going to spend an extra $2,000.00, so you can put a 6-cylinder engine in it? And one with all but equal horsepower and torque of the standard 6.4 L V-8 they offer.

Except for the fact it's more expensive. Along with having all of the added complexity and repair cost of a twin turbo unit. That makes no sense.

What are you gaining? This isn't some wheezing little 2 seat rocket ship the kids are all drooling over. It's a 6 figure plus, luxury SUV. It would have made more sense to introduce this thing in a gussied up, high priced, rag top Rubicon. Than to put it into the biggest, heaviest vehicle they make.

My guess is in time you'll see quite a few Wagoneers. But not with these little buzz bombs under the hood. The type of person who is going to spend 6 figures on a SUV is going to want a V-8..... And a BIG one at that.

And for $100K+ if you still want an SUV that goes fast, and like a complex, expensive engine, you could buy a Trackhawk with 707 HP, that would eat any vehicle they could possibly put this little thing into. And still have a nice size, well appointed SUV.

Ford has had a great deal of success with their EcoBoost engines, so conceptually, this is similar, but using an inline engine instead of a vee.

This started in the F-150 and then carried over in their full-sized SUV's like the Expedition and Navigator, which have the 3.5L twin-turbo V6.

In the trucks, they continued to offer the 5.0L V8, but the Navigator only comes with the TT V6.

 

[CarbonSteel]

I have (had) high hopes for this engine in the Wrangler because it should not take a V8 to have decent HP and TQ--FCA could/should have twin-turbocharged the 3.6L to achieve it, but they upped the compression to 11.x instead and subsequently did nothing to leverage it.

For this engine to fit a Wrangler (with no other structural changes) FCA is removing cylinder liners and using a Nikasil type spray in technology to shrink it so it will.

50,000 opinions here, but for me as much as I like the idea of an i6, that is totally a non-starter and I would never be a first adopter of this engine.

 

[Schandyman]

This is where American auto makers go wrong. Work on an electric power train

 

[2EHA]

For this engine to fit a Wrangler (with no other structural changes) FCA is removing cylinder liners and using a Nikasil type spray in technology to shrink it so it will.

translation: i have no idea what i’m talking about it

 

[PimTac]

translation: i have no idea what i’m talking about it

Yep. I was wondering what he was trying to get at.

 

[dareo]

Ford has had a great deal of success with their EcoBoost engines, so conceptually, this is similar, but using an inline engine instead of a vee.

This started in the F-150 and then carried over in their full-sized SUV's like the Expedition and Navigator, which have the 3.5L twin-turbo V6.

In the trucks, they continued to offer the 5.0L V8, but the Navigator only comes with the TT V6.

Ford ecoboost has turned out well. The fuel economy does disappoint if your using boost. This tends to be true with the GM 2.7T. Boosting a smaller engine with a big load has yielded lower efficiency. Only at idle speed and light load do these turbo engines pay off in terms of economy.
A grand wagoneer is going to be full of people and possibly towing. Add in the luxury factor and the 6.4 hemi is exactly what i would want. Unless i could gave a GM gen V in it.

 

[nthach]

translation: i have no idea what i’m talking about it

I have (had) high hopes for this engine in the Wrangler because it should not take a V8 to have decent HP and TQ--FCA could/should have twin-turbocharged the 3.6L to achieve it, but they upped the compression to 11.x instead and subsequently did nothing to leverage it.

For this engine to fit a Wrangler (with no other structural changes) FCA is removing cylinder liners and using a Nikasil type spray in technology to shrink it so it will.

50,000 opinions here, but for me as much as I like the idea of an i6, that is totally a non-starter and I would never be a first adopter of this engine.

BMW, Ford(when they owned Jaguar and Land Rover) as well as Mercedes had issues with Nikasil and high-sulfur fuel in the US and other countries in the 90s via high-sulfur fuel. With ultra-low sulfur fuel a must for GDI and part of CARB’s gasoline spec which the EPA has adopted somewhat, Nikasil may make a return.

FCA’s using plasma-arc spray much like Ford is on the 5.0 Coyote and Nissan on the GT-R’s VR-series V6 and the new turbo 4 on the Altima. The jury is out - the early Ford 5.0s are drinking oil. Nissan hasn’t reported issues.

 

[OVERKILL]

Ford ecoboost has turned out well. The fuel economy does disappoint if your using boost. This tends to be true with the GM 2.7T. Boosting a smaller engine with a big load has yielded lower efficiency. Only at idle speed and light load do these turbo engines pay off in terms of economy.
A grand wagoneer is going to be full of people and possibly towing. Add in the luxury factor and the 6.4 hemi is exactly what i would want. Unless i could gave a GM gen V in it.

Yes, driven lightly, the EcoBoost delivers better mileage. Driven with a more firm foot, well, economy predictably plummets. Personally, I think they should offer both engines, since the 6.4L is the standard offering at present for the Grand Wagoneer. You will have people in both camps and catering to both definitely isn't a bad idea.

 

[OVERKILL]

BMW, Ford(when they owned Jaguar and Land Rover) as well as Mercedes had issues with Nikasil and high-sulfur fuel in the US and other countries in the 90s via high-sulfur fuel. With ultra-low sulfur fuel a must for GDI and part of CARB’s gasoline spec which the EPA has adopted somewhat, Nikasil may make a return.

Nikasil was replaced by alumasil, which didn't have the same problems, but provided the same performance. My S62 had alumasil bores.

FCA’s using plasma-arc spray much like Ford is on the 5.0 Coyote and Nissan on the GT-R’s VR-series V6 and the new turbo 4 on the Altima. The jury is out - the early Ford 5.0s are drinking oil. Nissan hasn’t reported issues.

Yep, this isn't new technology, other OEM's have been using it for several years now and the results have been a bit mixed. I would not want to be the beta tester for this engine, that's for sure.

 

[2EHA]

BMW, Ford(when they owned Jaguar and Land Rover) as well as Mercedes had issues with Nikasil and high-sulfur fuel in the US and other countries in the 90s via high-sulfur fuel. With ultra-low sulfur fuel a must for GDI and part of CARB’s gasoline spec which the EPA has adopted somewhat, Nikasil may make a return.

FCA’s using plasma-arc spray much like Ford is on the 5.0 Coyote and Nissan on the GT-R’s VR-series V6 and the new turbo 4 on the Altima. The jury is out - the early Ford 5.0s are drinking oil. Nissan hasn’t reported issues.

mercedes never used it. bmw and jaguar nikasil issues had to do with it being a low cost version of nikasil, failure outside of those two brands is unheard of. porsche 911 turbos with nikasil bores have cruised around with the worst fuel for decades, same with the C5 ZR1, many bikes, etc.

the only reason it is not employed is extreme cost and environmental concerns