Hemi to be replaced by inline six?

[rjstractor]

This was announced a while back, but Stellantis has finally released details on the new twin-turbo 3.0 liter inline six that might replace the Hemi in the Ram 1500 and other Stellantis vehicles. Pretty impressive power numbers!

[JRscooby]

valhalla360 wrote:

JRscooby wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:

JRscooby wrote:



Back in early '70s I leased on to a company that half the company trucks where inline 6I71 2-stroke. The others, 6V71. The worst of the I6s could out pull the best of V6s. Most of the owner operators had 8V71s Some of them could be passed by the best of the I6.

That's not inherent to "I" vs "V" that's because of the V6s were generally designed for cars/minivans where towing was not a priority, so they weren't worried about generating big torque numbers. Those vehicles generally didn't have an engine bay long enough to accommodate an "I" configuration.

False. Both the V-6, and I-6 I talk about where 2-stroke diesels built as truck or industrial engines back when the line was Detroit Diesel makes the engines by the mile, will cut off what you want. My '67 Pete, had a 12V71. (Buzzin' Dozen) At least 1 tugboat working the river had a pair of 16V71s I hauled a gen-set powered by inline 8, I assume it was 71) Most of the engines had CID of 71 inches per cylinder

So basically irrelevant to a discussion of modern 4 stroke passenger vehicle engines.

Had to go back thru, read that responding to somebody's statement

Only if "all else is equal"...which of course, it never is

by making a statement about where things pretty much ALL ELSE EQUAL, and the inline did the job better than the V.

[valhalla360]

JRscooby wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:

JRscooby wrote:



Back in early '70s I leased on to a company that half the company trucks where inline 6I71 2-stroke. The others, 6V71. The worst of the I6s could out pull the best of V6s. Most of the owner operators had 8V71s Some of them could be passed by the best of the I6.

That's not inherent to "I" vs "V" that's because of the V6s were generally designed for cars/minivans where towing was not a priority, so they weren't worried about generating big torque numbers. Those vehicles generally didn't have an engine bay long enough to accommodate an "I" configuration.

False. Both the V-6, and I-6 I talk about where 2-stroke diesels built as truck or industrial engines back when the line was Detroit Diesel makes the engines by the mile, will cut off what you want. My '67 Pete, had a 12V71. (Buzzin' Dozen) At least 1 tugboat working the river had a pair of 16V71s I hauled a gen-set powered by inline 8, I assume it was 71) Most of the engines had CID of 71 inches per cylinder

So basically irrelevant to a discussion of modern 4 stroke passenger vehicle engines.

[Grit_dog]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

But your statement that the Dmax makes waaay more torque is laughable and you're trying too hard to prove a point.

And, still off topic, comparing a Cummins engine to a Dmax, the Cummins has greater torque rise, which seat of the pants, "feels" like more torque, since the V engine has to spin up to keep up and the big C hunkers down and pulls.

Really? Why is that?
My LBZ puts out 650 ft/lbs of torque. The same year Cummins puts out 610 ft/lbs. (so much for the Long stroke BS) My truck puts out 360 HP. The same year Cummins puts out 310 HP.

Who's truck is going to climb the hill faster or tow better? Towing just got easier. :B

Now lets look at torque charts.


Now the LBZ looses what? (hard to tell because the chart is so course) maybe 50 ft/lbs from 1,500 to 3,200 (peak HP) So at peak HP the DM is at 600 ft/lbs or close to it.

I can't find a torque chart for the Cummins for the 2006 year. Cummins in these years are notorious for having pool table flat torque curves so lets just say this is the case the Cummins looses no torque from 1,500 RPM to 3,000 RPM (max HP for the Cummins) It started out at only 610 torque and the DM started out at the same the same RPM but made 650. So the DM made 40 ft/lbs of torque more than the Cummins at the same RPM. (oops I guess the DM makes peak torque at 1,600 not 1,500. So 100 RPM more. (Big woop :R)

BUT.......the DM makes a few more HP than the at 3,000 grand and the DM makes 50 more HP than the Cummins at 200 RPM more.

So much for the long stroke dominating the torque game.

Now if you want to win the efficiency game the long stroke game is the way to go for sure. The engineering videos I have supplied show why this is so. It has to do with heat loss or lack there of for the long stroke engines. And efficiency is big in this time.

You're still trying too hard here...lol. FWIW, my LB7 stock or similar tune would smoke my 2007 5.9 in a drag race and pulled just fine.
Your blathering about which one had more power in stock form is just too funny. Who cares? Either mfg could have tuned them up or down to whatever they wanted (within reason) on all stock components. And one would have more power than the other until one finally cut loose or couldn't pull enough fuel or push enough air.

Why the I6 has greater torque rise? Efficiency of that design I spose.

[coolbreeze01]

Enjoyed a dual overhead cam I-6 in a Cressida years ago.

[MetalGator]

FishOnOne wrote:
I drove a couple of the Ford fuel injected I6 F150's and they both were turds and I drove several V8 fuel injected 5.0 F150's and always felt like they performed so much better. One of the Ford I6 trucks I drove was my uncles/aunts truck when we would go water skiing I would back the boat into the ramp and also pull it out. There was one boat ramp on the Brazos river that F150 I6 couldn't even pull the boat out of the ramp. So we disconnected the boat trailer from that Ford and hooked it up to my dads 1981 Chevy C10 with a 305 V8 2.73 gear and we pulled that boat out of that ramp with no sweat. There were a few I6 die hard's on this site who swore that the Ford I6 was a torque monster, but that one truck struggled to even pull the trailer out of the ramp even without the boat. I want to say the I6 Fords, Chevy's and Jeep engines were prone to cracked heads and manifolds.

I was never impressed with the Ford I6 that had 300 C.I. even when pulling at low rpms compared to Fords and Chevy's similar size V8's.

This is interesting as a friend of mine used to purchase two F150s at a time for his business. He would always buy a stripped down trucks since it was used for heavy work and after a few years the trucks would be all beat up. He should have been buying 3/4 or 1 tons trucks for the amount of weight they would put in the beds but he is a tight/cheap dude and didn't want to spend the extra money.

He purchased two new trucks back in the late 80s (or early 90s). One had the 302 V8 and the other had the inline 6. He said he preferred the I6 over the 302 as he said it had (more getup and go). He could squeal the tires pretty good on the I6 but couldn't on the 302 V8. He kept that I6 for a long time and he says he still misses it. I have no idea what rear-end gears each truck had so that might have been the difference between the two trucks.

My wife used to have a Jeep with a I6 in it. It didn't have that much horsepower but off the line and in lo gear that Jeep was powerful. It ran out of breath at higher RPMs and wasn't fast by any means but those old Jeep I6s would go a ton of miles.

I have always liked I6s as they, for the most part, have good low RPM torque and are naturally balanced. Very smooth running engines.

Burch

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

But your statement that the Dmax makes waaay more torque is laughable and you're trying too hard to prove a point.

And, still off topic, comparing a Cummins engine to a Dmax, the Cummins has greater torque rise, which seat of the pants, "feels" like more torque, since the V engine has to spin up to keep up and the big C hunkers down and pulls.

Really? Why is that?
My LBZ puts out 650 ft/lbs of torque. The same year Cummins puts out 610 ft/lbs. (so much for the Long stroke BS) My truck puts out 360 HP. The same year Cummins puts out 310 HP.

Who's truck is going to climb the hill faster or tow better? Towing just got easier. :B

Now lets look at torque charts.


Now the LBZ looses what? (hard to tell because the chart is so course) maybe 50 ft/lbs from 1,500 to 3,200 (peak HP) So at peak HP the DM is at 600 ft/lbs or close to it.

I can't find a torque chart for the Cummins for the 2006 year. Cummins in these years are notorious for having pool table flat torque curves so lets just say this is the case the Cummins looses no torque from 1,500 RPM to 3,000 RPM (max HP for the Cummins) It started out at only 610 torque and the DM started out at the same the same RPM but made 650. So the DM made 40 ft/lbs of torque more than the Cummins at the same RPM. (oops I guess the DM makes peak torque at 1,600 not 1,500. So 100 RPM more. (Big woop :R)

BUT.......the DM makes a few more HP than the at 3,000 grand and the DM makes 50 more HP than the Cummins at 200 RPM more.

So much for the long stroke dominating the torque game.

Now if you want to win the efficiency game the long stroke game is the way to go for sure. The engineering videos I have supplied show why this is so. It has to do with heat loss or lack there of for the long stroke engines. And efficiency is big in this time.

[1320Fastback]

I had a Chevy C30 with a 4-53 in it decades ago. Was, loud.

[FishOnOne]

MFL wrote:
FishOnOne wrote: "I'm good with a stick... My first car was a 1970 Chevelle Cowl Induction 454 torque monster 4 speed"

I'm sure you're a capable guy, was just funnin. 🙂 That's quite the 1st car!

A friend's friend, gave me a ride in his IIRC, 74 Chev Nova. It had a built, installed 454 4-speed with hood scoop induction. The ride was in town, a small city, but reached speeds of a buck twenty. Glad when we parked that thing!

Jerry

Not everyone is really good with a stick. I grew up on dirt bikes so driving my first stick shift was really no big deal. But yes manual transmissions is not everyones cup of tea.

As for the Chevelle it was my parents car (more like my dads car) that sat in the garage most of its life.

[MFL]

FishOnOne wrote: "I'm good with a stick... My first car was a 1970 Chevelle Cowl Induction 454 torque monster 4 speed"

I'm sure you're a capable guy, was just funnin. 🙂 That's quite the 1st car!

A friend's friend, gave me a ride in his IIRC, 74 Chev Nova. It had a built, installed 454 4-speed with hood scoop induction. The ride was in town, a small city, but reached speeds of a buck twenty. Glad when we parked that thing!

Jerry

[JRscooby]

Me Again wrote:

JRscooby wrote:

Me Again wrote:

JRscooby wrote:

And yes, they did make several size cylinders but bet more 71 than all others combined

US Navy had a conzillion of them. WWII landing crafts had two. The blocks are symmetrical along with many other components. You can build a mirror image left hand turning 6-71 with less than one hand of different parks. Take the fuel pump, take a plug out of each side and reverse the check ball and spring and put to two plugs back in.

I corrected and earlier statement. There was not a 8 cylinder head.

LOL, more than once a driver would power out, kick clutch in just before it stops and exhaust starts blowing out the air cleaner!

We kept two boards and rags one for each end of the intake air box in the engine room to snuff out a run away engine.

Most that I was around had a spring loaded damper that would shut off air flow if engine picked up false fuel (You don't use the mounted compressor to power a paint gun. Alcohol was involved) But if the engine was running backwards, the emergency kill would not work exhaust pressure just push open. Just stick it in a high gear drop the clutch.

[FishOnOne]

Grit dog wrote:

MFL wrote:
JR wrote: "Sounds like driver issue to me."

Think you're right! Fish probably didn't know, that you needed to let the clutch all the way out?? Had a Great Uncle with same issue. He'd rev the engine so hard while barely letting the clutch out, (he could not hear) that it was said the fan was pulling the car forward.

Jerry

Yeah......no.
Even with a deeper first gear than an auto, or comparing 5 speed trucks with a 4.9 or 5.0, the 4.9 was a clutch eatin mofo if you had to use it to start a load up a hill.
I smoked the original clutch in that 4.9 5 speed in pretty short order and the next one would still have to get slipped more than it should to get enough rpms out of the 4.9 to pull a trailer up a hill from a dig.

I'm good with a stick... My first car was a 1970 Chevelle Cowl Induction 454 torque monster 4 speed. :B

That particular ramp was pretty steep and while the boat was trailered still in the water my uncle was literally gunning the boat in drive trying to help push that Ford to get going and that's when I would lock to clutch and it would just kill the engine.

Trust me there was some pride swallowing to have that 305 Chevy come to the rescue. We visited that location once, but never went back.

[Me_Again]

JRscooby wrote:

Me Again wrote:

JRscooby wrote:

And yes, they did make several size cylinders but bet more 71 than all others combined

US Navy had a conzillion of them. WWII landing crafts had two. The blocks are symmetrical along with many other components. You can build a mirror image left hand turning 6-71 with less than one hand of different parks. Take the fuel pump, take a plug out of each side and reverse the check ball and spring and put to two plugs back in.

I corrected and earlier statement. There was not a 8 cylinder head.

LOL, more than once a driver would power out, kick clutch in just before it stops and exhaust starts blowing out the air cleaner!

We kept two boards and rags one for each end of the intake air box in the engine room to snuff out a run away engine.

[JRscooby]

Me Again wrote:

JRscooby wrote:

And yes, they did make several size cylinders but bet more 71 than all others combined

US Navy had a conzillion of them. WWII landing crafts had two. The blocks are symmetrical along with many other components. You can build a mirror image left hand turning 6-71 with less than one hand of different parks. Take the fuel pump, take a plug out of each side and reverse the check ball and spring and put to two plugs back in.

I corrected and earlier statement. There was not a 8 cylinder head.

LOL, more than once a driver would power out, kick clutch in just before it stops and exhaust starts blowing out the air cleaner!

[Me_Again]

JRscooby wrote:

And yes, they did make several size cylinders but bet more 71 than all others combined

US Navy had a conzillion of them. WWII landing crafts had two. The blocks are symmetrical along with many other components. You can build a mirror image left hand turning 6-71 with less than one hand of different parks. Take the fuel pump, take a plug out of each side and reverse the check ball and spring and put to two plugs back in.

I corrected and earlier statement. There was not a 8 cylinder head.