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!

[FishOnOne]

Me Again wrote:

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.

When you say it would not pull it out of the water, what was happening? Spinning rear wheels? Transmission not able to put the power to the ground? Engine missed and farted?

The 300 I-6 Ford engine is legendary.

https://jalopnik.com/heres-why-the-ford-300-inline-six-is-one-of-the-greates-1795351528

Ford is said to be working on a new I-6 for F-150s.



https://www.motorbiscuit.com/ford-stabbing-straight-six-in-next-f-150-is-this-the-future-of-trucks/

The truck had a manual transmission and when you engaged the clutch too much it would literally kill the engine. Feathering the clutch too much and it started to smoke so that was when we switched trucks.

BTW... The I6 in your picture is a Jeep engine. My parents had a 1996 Jeep GC with that engine and it was a slug too.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

JRscooby wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

Here are the dyno numbers:

2006 Duramax puts out 650 ft/lbs of torque.
2006 Cummins puts out 610 ft/lbs of torque.
So much for the long stroke putting out more torque.

I can hear the fan bois all ready saying that's not fair!! Your Dirty Max is a waaaaaay bigger engine!!! Fine, more facts:

2008 Duramax 6.6 L vs 2008 6.7 Cummins:

2008 Duramax 6.6 L = 650 ft/lbs of torque.
2008 Cummins 6.7 L = 650 ft/lbs of torque.

Well would you look at that? Same exact torque even though the Cummins has a waaaay longer stroke. :B

As somebody that has used a lot of torque out many engines I can see a major problem with the numbers you post; You only list peak, and don't relate it to RPM. This would matter if the engine worked at that RPM. But most useful would to compare the graph of torque output over the RPM range.

So why don't "you" put up the torque graph if you find it useful? People have been saying that bigger stroke makes bigger torque. The numbers above prove that not to be true. The Dirty Max with the waaaaaaay shorter stroke makes way more torque than the Cummins I with a long stroke. Myth busted.

Fine, I will do your work for you:



These two charts tell tail I'm trying to get across.
Both of these Cummins engines have the same bore and stroke. They did not increase the stroke length to get way more torque. Fueling parameters, timing, turbo boost and probable 50 other things changed, but not the stroke length.

Listen to the videos I posted and learn.

BTW I personally think Cummins is doing an outstanding job making the power they do with that long of a stroke. It's hard to make power with a long stroke engine and Cummings is pulling it off. A hard thing to do.

[Grit_dog]

Yeah, for some reason, the 4.9s struggled more off the line. I used a lot more clutch pulling a 185 air compressor (for example) up out of a hole with a 5 speed I6 than the same truck essentially with a 5.0.

That said, this has about as much to do with Chrysler's new engine offering as the "I6s have more torque" peeing match!

[MFL]

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 bought a new 88 150 with injected I6. It had the 5-speed stick, with granny 1st/reverse. It would easily push/pull my 20' TT up/down
most inclines, using almost no throttle, just letting clutch out steadily.

Purchased new 92 150 with 5L 302 4-speed auto. Not near the low speed capability, but about the same towing capability at 65 mph, overdrive locked out, compared to I6 towing in 4th.

Jerry

[Grit_dog]

Me Again wrote:

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.

When you say it would not pull it out of the water, what was happening? Spinning rear wheels? Transmission not able to put the power to the ground? Engine missed and farted?

The 300 I-6 Ford engine is legendary.

https://jalopnik.com/heres-why-the-ford-300-inline-six-is-one-of-the-greates-1795351528

Ford is said to be working on a new I-6 for F-150s.



https://www.motorbiscuit.com/ford-stabbing-straight-six-in-next-f-150-is-this-the-future-of-trucks/

Might have been legendary, but legendary doesn't necessarily = powerful.
They were a turd compared to the 5.0.
The only power similarities were, off the line to to about 2000rpms.
After that, the 4.9 torque dropped like a rock and the HP never matched the 5.0.
5.0 maintained close to max torque for about 1500 rpms from 2000 to 3500 rpms and hp climbed faster, to a higher peak hp as well.

And yes, for some reason, out of the hole, the 4.9 pulled like a soft bag of ****, even with the 5 speed with a much deeper first gear than the auto trans, compared to the 5.0 and similar HP/TQ from idle to 2000rpms. I beat the snot out of most model years of 90s Ford half tons and the 5.0 was way more engine than the 4.9 I-6.
4.9 was reliable, but lets not put it on a higher pedestal than it deserves....LOL

[parker_rowe]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:


If anybody want's to learn why, this is a great video to learn from. If you just want to know about torque, start at the 3 minute mark and learn about long and short stroke and what it "doesn't do to engines."

Don't like videos? Fine. Lets talk about actual diesel engines.

Engine #1. 2006 LBZ 6.6 Duramax. (Why this engine?) Because I own it and know about it.

Engine #2. 2006 Ram Cummins 5.9.

Engine #1 according to the internet the Durmax has a bore of 4.055 and a stroke of 3.90. (almost a square engine)

Engine #2 according to the internet the Cummins has a bore of 4.02 and a stroke of 4.72.

According to a lot of people on here the Cummins should kill my engine in torque because of the long rod.

Here are the dyno numbers:

2006 Duramax puts out 650 ft/lbs of torque.
2006 Cummins puts out 610 ft/lbs of torque.
So much for the long stroke putting out more torque.

I can hear the fan bois all ready saying that's not fair!! Your Dirty Max is a waaaaaay bigger engine!!! Fine, more facts:

2008 Duramax 6.6 L vs 2008 6.7 Cummins:

2008 Duramax 6.6 L = 650 ft/lbs of torque.
2008 Cummins 6.7 L = 650 ft/lbs of torque.

Well would you look at that? Same exact torque even though the Cummins has a waaaay longer stroke. :B

Engine Masters did a TV show a few months back about rod length. Everybody on the show (me too) thought the long rod engine was going to put out more torque. WRONG!! They were the same within dyno measurements. Link to Engine Masters rod article.

A few things...your example engines are all turbocharged. That throws everything out the window since the boost levels and other tuning parameters can easily change the power levels.

And longer rods to not always mean longer stroke, as in that engine masters comparison.

However, I do believe that in naturally aspirated engines, displacement is what increases torque in an apples to apples comparison. It just so happens that usually the easiest way for a manufacture to add displacement is to increase the stroke.

If you have two engines that are an I6 and a v8, with the same displacement, the I6 will not inherently make more torque or be a "stump puller" just due to its inline architecture.

Engines are air pumps. The only ways to pump more air is to increase flow efficiency, increase size, or increase air density (boost or elevation changes for example).

[Bionic_Man]

I didn't believe in the EcoBoost until I owned one. While my MPG hasn't been significantly better than the V8s I've owned (towing MPG is certainly worse), the power is nothing short of impressive.

My plan is to order a new Wagoneer as soon as the extended wheel base is out. Now I might wait for this engine to be part of the package.

In regard to the claim of French engineering, I'd like to see some sort of proof source on that. This engine was being designed before there was a Stellantis.

[Me_Again]

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.

When you say it would not pull it out of the water, what was happening? Spinning rear wheels? Transmission not able to put the power to the ground? Engine missed and farted?

The 300 I-6 Ford engine is legendary.

https://jalopnik.com/heres-why-the-ford-300-inline-six-is-one-of-the-greates-1795351528

Ford is said to be working on a new I-6 for F-150s.



https://www.motorbiscuit.com/ford-stabbing-straight-six-in-next-f-150-is-this-the-future-of-trucks/

[FishOnOne]

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.

[Me_Again]

LowRyter wrote:
So many reasons that don't match the conclusions. Like saying the sun rises in the east and my Accord gets 30mpg. All true stuff but hardly related.

To sum it up: Absolute Power is One Thing, Power Curve is Everything.

Having had a I-6 and similar size V8 is the same vehicle I can tell you one was a quarter horse that other a stallion.

[LowRyter]

So many reasons that don't match the conclusions. Like saying the sun rises in the east and my Accord gets 30mpg. All true stuff but hardly related.

To sum it up: Absolute Power is One Thing, Power Curve is Everything.

[Me_Again]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

mkirsch wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
A lot of misinformation and misunderstanding in this thread. And I do mean a LOT. :B

Long strokes do NOT make more torque. That is a myth.

Because some dumpy old guy who makes a youtube video sez so?

No. Because engineers say so that's why.

If anybody want's to learn why, this is a great video to learn from. If you just want to know about torque, start at the 3 minute mark and learn about long and short stroke and what it "doesn't do to engines."

Don't like videos? Fine. Lets talk about actual diesel engines.

Engine #1. 2006 LBZ 6.6 Duramax. (Why this engine?) Because I own it and know about it.

Engine #2. 2006 Ram Cummins 5.9.

Engine #1 according to the internet the Durmax has a bore of 4.055 and a stroke of 3.90. (almost a square engine)

Engine #2 according to the internet the Cummins has a bore of 4.02 and a stroke of 4.72.

According to a lot of people on here the Cummins should kill my engine in torque because of the long rod.

Here are the dyno numbers:

2006 Duramax puts out 650 ft/lbs of torque.
2006 Cummins puts out 610 ft/lbs of torque.
So much for the long stroke putting out more torque.

I can hear the fan bois all ready saying that's not fair!! Your Dirty Max is a waaaaaay bigger engine!!! Fine, more facts:

2008 Duramax 6.6 L vs 2008 6.7 Cummins:

2008 Duramax 6.6 L = 650 ft/lbs of torque.
2008 Cummins 6.7 L = 650 ft/lbs of torque.

Well would you look at that? Same exact torque even though the Cummins has a waaaay longer stroke. :B

Engine Masters did a TV show a few months back about rod length. Everybody on the show (me too) thought the long rod engine was going to put out more torque. WRONG!! They were the same within dyno measurements. Link to Engine Masters rod article.

Your numbers are meaningly, because it is unknow how much power the manufacture of any given engine had tuned for! Cummins has traditionally tuned for longevity. Think million mile motors. How many Duramax's or Powerstrokes go a million miles?

[JRscooby]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

Here are the dyno numbers:

2006 Duramax puts out 650 ft/lbs of torque.
2006 Cummins puts out 610 ft/lbs of torque.
So much for the long stroke putting out more torque.

I can hear the fan bois all ready saying that's not fair!! Your Dirty Max is a waaaaaay bigger engine!!! Fine, more facts:

2008 Duramax 6.6 L vs 2008 6.7 Cummins:

2008 Duramax 6.6 L = 650 ft/lbs of torque.
2008 Cummins 6.7 L = 650 ft/lbs of torque.

Well would you look at that? Same exact torque even though the Cummins has a waaaay longer stroke. :B

As somebody that has used a lot of torque out many engines I can see a major problem with the numbers you post; You only list peak, and don't relate it to RPM. This would matter if the engine worked at that RPM. But most useful would to compare the graph of torque output over the RPM range.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

mkirsch wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
A lot of misinformation and misunderstanding in this thread. And I do mean a LOT. :B

Long strokes do NOT make more torque. That is a myth.

Because some dumpy old guy who makes a youtube video sez so?

No. Because engineers say so that's why.

If anybody want's to learn why, this is a great video to learn from. If you just want to know about torque, start at the 3 minute mark and learn about long and short stroke and what it "doesn't do to engines."

Don't like videos? Fine. Lets talk about actual diesel engines.

Engine #1. 2006 LBZ 6.6 Duramax. (Why this engine?) Because I own it and know about it.

Engine #2. 2006 Ram Cummins 5.9.

Engine #1 according to the internet the Durmax has a bore of 4.055 and a stroke of 3.90. (almost a square engine)

Engine #2 according to the internet the Cummins has a bore of 4.02 and a stroke of 4.72.

According to a lot of people on here the Cummins should kill my engine in torque because of the long rod.

Here are the dyno numbers:

2006 Duramax puts out 650 ft/lbs of torque.
2006 Cummins puts out 610 ft/lbs of torque.
So much for the long stroke putting out more torque.

I can hear the fan bois all ready saying that's not fair!! Your Dirty Max is a waaaaaay bigger engine!!! Fine, more facts:

2008 Duramax 6.6 L vs 2008 6.7 Cummins:

2008 Duramax 6.6 L = 650 ft/lbs of torque.
2008 Cummins 6.7 L = 650 ft/lbs of torque.

Well would you look at that? Same exact torque even though the Cummins has a waaaay longer stroke. :B

Engine Masters did a TV show a few months back about rod length. Everybody on the show (me too) thought the long rod engine was going to put out more torque. WRONG!! They were the same within dyno measurements. Link to Engine Masters rod article.

[JRscooby]

Me Again 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.

The 350 Detroit 8V71 with 13 speed in the truck was more or less a dog. Any 350 Cummins I6 would walk all over it. And it was a fuel and engine oil hog.

For a long time 8V71 was the engine of choice in a lot of applications. Until Cummins started putting turbos on their 855 CID I-6, the lighter 568 inch could do a good job with a less skilled driver. If yours was 350 HP that means it had a turbo. Detroit did that because a average 290 Cummins was so much better than a 318 when pulling a van