New I-6 info...

[TestPilot57]

I honestly wouldn't mind if they reduced the next gen truck's size by 15%-20%. Do they really *need* to keep making them larger? Lower the front hood some for a bit better aerodynamics (and better visibility). Those two things alone would help improve fuel economy w/o having to add a lot of engine complexity. And do the engines REALLY need to be 400hp+??.

Happened to park my 2020 next to my wife's 1955 a couple weeks ago:

 

[Kickboxer]

I just went on the 2024 Build your own 1500 Ram, and the I6 engine is not available.

So, what is up with that ?

 

[Jimmy07]

I just went on the 2024 Build your own 1500 Ram, and the I6 engine is not available.

So, what is up with that ?

It’s because you are building a 2024 on that site.

 

[pacofortacos]

It's simple. Any added complexity introduces new points of failure. Going from points and distributors to solid state was a decrease in complexity and increased reliability. Going from a large engine to a smaller engine, then adding variable vane turbos and water cooling exhaust adds lots of complexity and gets you back to roughly where you started (420hp). You now will have much more to go wrong for the same performance. And, those parts will be very costly. Turbos aren't known to go 200k miles. Nobody has water-cooled exhaust manifolds. Adding finicky things like variable vanes to a turbo will add more stuff to get coked up and not work right (as others have mentioned). I would not buy the first year of these to come out. I suspect there will be lots of, "Anybody experience this issue?" discussions going on once they're released.

I mean, it's possible to get ridiculous performance out of small engines. Formula 1 will show you how much horsepower and RPM can be wrung out of a small engine. But those cars cost millions, have a dedicated crew, and get 4 engines for the season! It's a similar principle... You have to make the smaller engine work harder to produce the same power, so there is more stress on the parts. Not a recipe for longevity and reliability.

Someone find out what a new turbo will cost, or what the cost will be if the coating in the cylinders fails. What happens when the water jackets fail in the exhaust manifold? Honestly curious to see how this turns out.

I had the first year Daytona Turbo Z, went close to 300k miles.
Few key points though - the turbo was water cooled AND I changed oil with a premium oil (at the time) every 3000 miles or less.
Didn't hurt that Mopar at the time overbuilt the 84 Turbo engine - it was all forged and was basically a HD motor from the factory. In 85 the bottom end was no longer all forged.

But water cooling a turbo is mandatory IMO. the manifold doesn't need to be water cooled but it all helps.

Turbo performance is far superior to the hemi as far as daily driving - the torque curve is much more usable being a lot lower in the rpm range.
Mix DI with the turbos and it would make for a very nice package.

Adding turbo's doesn't really add much complexity, but it does stress the bottom end much more than a NA motor does. Will the bean counters allow the engine AND cooling system to be built correctly to do sustained max load towing????
That's the question.

 

[pacofortacos]

Exactly what Ford owners with Ecoboost discovered. And a 70,000 mile engine, to boot.

The flip side was use a regular size motor with cylinder cutouts at light load. Well, that wasn't durable either (GM oil pumper AFM, Hemi lifter & cam wiper).

So now we're on to GDI, with sooting the oil up from a one-size-does-all-not-very-well direct injector. Perhaps "Hurricane" will do it right and have dual injectors per cylinder. For ever mo' money, of course. And minimal fuel savings.

I actually like the performance from GDi, the idea of having an additional single injector to help clean valves is I think a smart move.
I would think at some point in the higher power levels that a second DI injector would probably be needed.

At least in the cars, I have had 2 with Direct Injection and both run really nicely with great mpg - on average about 10 mpg higher than the non DI engine on the highway. Something to be said for 12:1 or 13:1 compression on 87 octane.

 

[Yardbird]

My FIL bought a New Yorker new with the Mitsubishi turbo engine in it. That thing was fast and lasted forever. The wife and I took it to Florida and back. It was a blast to drive.

For its day, it was one of the fastest things on the road.

 

[pacofortacos]

My FIL bought a New Yorker new with the Mitsubishi turbo engine in it. That thing was fast and lasted forever. The wife and I took it to Florida and back. It was a blast to drive.

For its day, it was one of the fastest things on the road.

They never had a Mitsu turbo engine, it was the mopar 2.2 or possibly the 2.5 turbo.

 

[HEMIMANN]

I actually like the performance from GDi, the idea of having an additional single injector to help clean valves is I think a smart move.
I would think at some point in the higher power levels that a second DI injector would probably be needed.

At least in the cars, I have had 2 with Direct Injection and both run really nicely with great mpg - on average about 10 mpg higher than the non DI engine on the highway. Something to be said for 12:1 or 13:1 compression on 87 octane.

Using a GDI injector for stoichiometric rich burn mode is a mis-design. Gasoline, being a solvent unlike diesel fuel that is a lubricant, is limited to a low injection pressure such that it promotes incomplete combustion and soot deposits. Hence the shorter OCI's for a single injector GDI engine. It only uses less fuel in lean burn mode when excess oxygen is present.

It is a terrible design.

 

[TestPilot57]

As far as the complexity vs longevity conundrum, it comes down to three things: engineering, quality of parts and maintenance. How often does a jet engine fail? Modern jet engines consist of 25,000 to 45,000 individual parts. I know a guy that works at Timken in their aircraft bearing division. Every individual bearing has dozens of quality checks before it goes out the door.

So the question becomes, and remains "How good of a job did they do building the I6?". They can spout all the high tech jargon they want, but the proof is in the pudding.

 

[pacofortacos]

Using a GDI injector for stoichiometric rich burn mode is a mis-design. Gasoline, being a solvent unlike diesel fuel that is a lubricant, is limited to a low injection pressure such that it promotes incomplete combustion and soot deposits. Hence the shorter OCI's for a single injector GDI engine. It only uses less fuel in lean burn mode when excess oxygen is present.

It is a terrible design.

I'm not sure whether you are arguing against DI or just that it needs to be refined more??

 

[Yardbird]

They never had a Mitsu turbo engine, it was the mopar 2.2 or possibly the 2.5 turbo.

I stand corrected. All this time I thought the engine was a Mitsubishi, since Chrysler used so many of them. They did offer a Mitsu in the K cars, but non-turbo from what I read.

 

[Wild one]

They never had a Mitsu turbo engine, it was the mopar 2.2 or possibly the 2.5 turbo.

Mitsubishi did have their own turbo charged Diesal engine in their little mini pick-ups in the 80's.For the day they were quick little mini trucks,i just about bought one new,after test driving it,as it was a quick little truck.

 

[turkeybird56]

They could bring back the Magnum 318 while they're at it...

They just do not make em like that anymore.

 

[Travelin Ram]

Well, they don’t make them like the slant 6 anymore either. That doesn’t mean I want to ever drive one of those dogs again. They were indestructible because they made about as much power as my lawnmower.

 

[Kickboxer]

It’s because you are building a 2024 on that site.

The Ram official website................

 

[HEMIMANN]

I'm not sure whether you are arguing against DI or just that it needs to be refined more??

Well, both. If you're gonna add all the cost, gizmos and software to do GDI, then do it right instead of half-a$$ed to save a few bucks from an already exorbitantly expensive design just to save a fraction of an mpg. As with all machine refinements, the last 10% cost 90%.

I've seen some members on here stating a few engines do have dual injector GDI. I haven't looked up which. Essentially, this is nothing more than an architecture that mimics diesel combustion, running lean under low load and rich under high load. The point here is that all the added cost is STILL less than all the exhaust aftertreatment the EPA made diesel engines have.

Bottom line is emission reduction and mileage improvement are costing an arm and a leg to make. And EV is hardly the answer in remote areas, cold areas, and hot areas.

Keeping an eye on Stellantis concept of rail locomotive hybrid (except add batteries). EV driven vehicle with onboard engine generator. Looking at mileage costs - engine generator is more efficient than engine drivetrain, since generators can be up to 95% efficient where a mechanical drive train is 95% efficient for each gear set driven through.

 

[HEMIMANN]

Well, they don’t make them like the slant 6 anymore either. That doesn’t mean I want to ever drive one of those dogs again. They were indestructible because they made about as much power as my lawnmower.

Do we have to choose from one extreme or another instead of optimizing?

 

[Jimmy07]

The Ram official website................

Correct.
The hurricane engine does exist for a 2024 ram 1500.

 

[Travelin Ram]

Do we have to choose from one extreme or another instead of optimizing?

Optimize for what? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, there are always competing goals in the real world. It’s your view (apparently) that a turbo GDI is extreme.

Not in my view, having owned a few. It’s hardly a Formula 1 engine. The technology is mainstream and I’ve personally owned and enjoyed several, in ordinary consumer vehicles. I’m not a Maserati or Porsche driver.

Hang onto the NA V8 as long as you wish, they’ll be around for some time. But the future is coming whether we like it or not, and drivers that get a taste of more power and better efficiency like it. And the majority don’t give much thought to complexity.

I’ve said this before, modern vehicles are more complex, and they outperform and outlast the old iron. The average fleet age has been rising for a long time.

Also, consider that Ram is hardly the innovator here. They are the last of the big 4 to bring a gas turbo pickup to our market.

 

[Stavinksi]

And thank goodness for RAM holding out with a v8 as long as possible! I’ll keep my ‘22 non-eTorque forever if that ram charger thing is a hundred grand, which it may well be.