New twin turbo six coming to Stellantis

[TimW451]

Hemi’s successor

Stellantis Goes Six in a Row with a Twin-Turbo Inline-Six Engine

The 3.0-liter inline-6, called Hurricane, is set to debut this year and will offer two flavors of varying power for Jeep, Dodge, Ram, and other brands.

www.caranddriver.com

 

[suke]

About time others are coming out with competitors to the 3.5 ecoboost. I'd give a good look to a Ram with more torque and better mileage than their 5.7. The interiors on the Rams are second to none right now.

 

[Weeb]

A straight block will definitely produce better torque than the same displacement v.

 

[BlkGS]

That's gonna be a big disappointment to a lot of people. I think you're gonna have a hard time converting hemi buyers to a turbo straight 6.

That said, we test drove an expedition this weekend and came away satisfied. The Ecoboost was fine. It sounds like garbage, the power was fine, and the efficiency was fine. It was fine in general. The real perk was it didn't have as insanely tall of a front end as Tahoe and yukon.

I don't really know that these turbo 6s actually end up being more efficient than the v8s. I will admit that they pick up a boatload of power from a tune though, which is nice I guess. If they offered expedition with the V8 and the turbo, I'd probably buy the V8.

 

[suke]

That's gonna be a big disappointment to a lot of people. I think you're gonna have a hard time converting hemi buyers to a turbo straight 6.

That said, we test drove an expedition this weekend and came away satisfied. The Ecoboost was fine. It sounds like garbage, the power was fine, and the efficiency was fine. It was fine in general. The real perk was it didn't have as insanely tall of a front end as Tahoe and yukon.

I don't really know that these turbo 6s actually end up being more efficient than the v8s. I will admit that they pick up a boatload of power from a tune though, which is nice I guess. If they offered expedition with the V8 and the turbo, I'd probably buy the V8.

Ford thought the same thing, but gave it a go anyways. When I was shopping for a truck the Ford dealer said they sold 3.5's several magnitudes more than the 5.0. It did take a little bit for it to catch on though. The homers will want the 5.7, the people looking for the most fuel efficient and most torque won't care. That's how I ended up with my EB. I'm not a Ford guy by any stretch. I wanted the most torque in a half ton that wasn't a diesel. Hard to beat 470 ft lbs of torque at 2500 rpms.

 

[Neutron]

Toyota's new tundra with the twin turbo 3.5 is not as big of a hit as the 5.7v8 was. Unless new buyers are waiting for the hybrid version due out soon.
The real world fuel mileage savings in the non hybrid is only slightly higher than the 5.7

 

[BlkGS]

Ford thought the same thing, but gave it a go anyways. When I was shopping for a truck the Ford dealer said they sold 3.5's several magnitudes more than the 5.0. It did take a little bit for it to catch on though. The homers will want the 5.7, the people looking for the most fuel efficient and most torque won't care. That's how I ended up with my EB. I'm not a Ford guy by any stretch. I wanted the most torque in a half ton that wasn't a diesel. Hard to beat 470 ft lbs of torque at 2500 rpms.

Ford doesn't really let dealers stock the 5.0, that's why the 3.5 is popular. You go in to buy an f150 and they say "well we can try to find you a v8 but we got 79 Ecoboost in stock to choose from. Well, not now. Now they say they have nothing in stock but would love to sell you a gently used 50k mile truck for over MSRP when new.

But yeah, a lot of times these turbo 6s don't live up to the hype. My parents had an explorer sport with the 3.5 Ecoboost, and it got worse mpg than my v8 f150. It got worse fuel economy than my dad's 6.4 ram 2500 when my mom drove the explorer, but that's partially drivers. After they got rid of that explorer, my mom drove their v8 sport Trac and gets much better mpg in that, so go figure.

All that said, we are probably buying an expedition because the rest of the vehicle is good. If wagoneer had came with the turbo 6 over the stupid Etorque thing we would have considered it more I think.

 

[BlkGS]

Toyota's new tundra with the twin turbo 3.5 is not as big of a hit as the 5.7v8 was. Unless new buyers are waiting for the hybrid version due out soon.
The real world fuel mileage savings in the non hybrid is only slightly higher than the 5.7

I think part of it is Toyota buyers also tend to be "don't buy the first year or 2" kinds of people. They should have offered the V8 alongside the v6, at least to launch it.

But with overreaching government, I guess we will be lucky if we are allowed to drive at all here pretty soon.

 

[Neutron]

I think part of it is Toyota buyers also tend to be "don't buy the first year or 2" kinds of people. They should have offered the V8 alongside the v6, at least to launch it.

But with overreaching government, I guess we will be lucky if we are allowed to drive at all here pretty soon.

The problem was they designed the new tundra new from the ground up with the intent and design to only accept a v6 so they already had the plans to 86 the v8 in the whole line up.
The lexus ls460(v8) was changed to the ls500 which is the twin turbo v6.
So no more v8s from toyota/lexus

 

[BlkGS]

The problem was they designed the new tundra new from the ground up with the intent and design to only accept a v6 so they already had the plans to 86 the v8 in the whole line up.
The lexus ls460(v8) was changed to the ls500 which is the twin turbo v6.
So no more v8s from toyota/lexus

The is500 and gx460 still exist. But yeah, makes you wonder when these gambles fail what will happen.

 

[Neutron]

The is500 and gx460 still exist. But yeah, makes you wonder when these gambles fail what will happen.

Probably fazed out with design change soon.

I know i love my 2020 tundra more everyday

 

[BlkGS]

So this and some responses had me thinking... A lot of money goes into making vehicles "more". The expedition for example is sort of crazy fast for its size. It has no need to be as fast as it is. I suspect that the turbo 6 from dodge will be the same.

I may be in a minority here, but man, I'd rather these things come with like, 250hp and 300 tq and get 27 highway than 350hp and 470 torque or whatever. I kinda wish they'd just start designed some engines that have modest outputs, generous tolerances, and use modern tech solely for reliability and efficiency gains. I don't need an expedition to do 0 to 60 under 10 seconds, let alone the 6 or whatever it does it in. My wife will probably never step past 30% throttle. Frankly, they could probably but a basic non turbo 4 banger in it and she'd be fine with it. I bet a 2.5L NA 4 banger with the 10 speed auto would move plenty fast enough for her, and as long as it could stay cool would be all she wanted, and still tow just fine. People used to tow 9k pounds with les than 300tq routinely, e don't need 500 tq to pull a 5k boat around.

Maybe I'm the crazy one but it really feels like putting some modest engines in with some modern tech would yield dividends.

 

[Neutron]

So this and some responses had me thinking... A lot of money goes into making vehicles "more". The expedition for example is sort of crazy fast for its size. It has no need to be as fast as it is. I suspect that the turbo 6 from dodge will be the same.

I may be in a minority here, but man, I'd rather these things come with like, 250hp and 300 tq and get 27 highway than 350hp and 470 torque or whatever. I kinda wish they'd just start designed some engines that have modest outputs, generous tolerances, and use modern tech solely for reliability and efficiency gains. I don't need an expedition to do 0 to 60 under 10 seconds, let alone the 6 or whatever it does it in. My wife will probably never step past 30% throttle. Frankly, they could probably but a basic non turbo 4 banger in it and she'd be fine with it. I bet a 2.5L NA 4 banger with the 10 speed auto would move plenty fast enough for her, and as long as it could stay cool would be all she wanted, and still tow just fine. People used to tow 9k pounds with les than 300tq routinely, e don't need 500 tq to pull a 5k boat around.

Maybe I'm the crazy one but it really feels like putting some modest engines in with some modern tech would yield dividends.

The problem is when you add turbos to a smaller engine to gain fuel efficiency with same or more power, it leaves for much more to go wrong and fail.
I am curious to see what these tt 6s get for fuel mileage while towing loads.

 

[TimW451]

@BlkGS That’s the problem, we lack self control to buy only what we need, which leads to manufacturers making things bigger, and the cycle repeats. I’m right with you, 225-250 HP is just right. (I had a 1992 Lumina Z34 that was probably one of the best all around cars I’ve owned.)

I’m a big fan of newer turbos, but they do have negatives, real & FUD. I had an ecoboost Mustang and while shopping and owning I heard all the wear and maintenance concerns. Worst was that at that time the BMW M3(?) Turbo required head remove and cleaning due to carbon build up. I think things like that are oddities, not norms, and are likely due to an aggressive tune. But to @Neutron ’s point, more parts means there is more to break, and if you had an 80s turbo car you expect it. (I want to say the ”rule” was a turbo car was out the door after 60k, and past its life after 80k.) And only a conservative right foot will get you the advertised mileage, so it is on the driver. I could get 28 mpg with the Mustang, but that was no fun.

But I digress, when I boat the Yamaha and needed a truck, I was locked in on an Ecoboost F150, but after seeing the interior of a RAM I quickly switched. Of course I got the HEMI, even though the dealer said the V6 was enough to tow the boat. 16 mpg sucks, I’d switch to this new engine if it got at least 24 mpg.

So this and some responses had me thinking... A lot of money goes into making vehicles "more". The expedition for example is sort of crazy fast for its size. It has no need to be as fast as it is. I suspect that the turbo 6 from dodge will be the same.

I may be in a minority here, but man, I'd rather these things come with like, 250hp and 300 tq and get 27 highway than 350hp and 470 torque or whatever. I kinda wish they'd just start designed some engines that have modest outputs, generous tolerances, and use modern tech solely for reliability and efficiency gains. I don't need an expedition to do 0 to 60 under 10 seconds, let alone the 6 or whatever it does it in. My wife will probably never step past 30% throttle. Frankly, they could probably but a basic non turbo 4 banger in it and she'd be fine with it. I bet a 2.5L NA 4 banger with the 10 speed auto would move plenty fast enough for her, and as long as it could stay cool would be all she wanted, and still tow just fine. People used to tow 9k pounds with les than 300tq routinely, e don't need 500 tq to pull a 5k boat around.

Maybe I'm the crazy one but it really feels like putting some modest engines in with some modern tech would yield dividends.

 

[2kwik4u]

Maybe I'm the crazy one but it really feels like putting some modest engines in with some modern tech would yield dividends.

And you want a Hellcat Durango?

 

[2kwik4u]

In reference to the turbo straight six.....I expect it to be a winner.

• The straight six is one of the only naturally harmonically balanced configurations for internal combustion engines. They are inherent smooth.
• They are know for producing good torque low in the rev range. Adding a turbo brings that power band even lower in the rev range.
• Straight six's are found in a TONS of HD applications from 2500 pickups all the way up to over the road trucks, as well as a myriad of other applications like generators and forklifts. They're workhorse engines in general.

• 4.2L in the Trailblazers was an excellent DOHC straight six.
• 5.9L Cummins diesel is a well respected straight six.
• 3.0L from Toyota is know well and respect in the tuner crowd for being this side of non-destructible
• 5.0L from Ford had a LONG run as the preferred engine over the V8's of the time
• 3.0L diesel from GM is getting excellent reviews for smoothness and power delivery

Public opinion might take a bit to catch on in general, but power delivery will win over those that have doubts IMO. Same as the Ecoboost. Efficiency might only be marginally better, but low end torque of a turbo motor can't be denied. Keep in mind these aren't your grandfathers turbochargers.

 

[BlkGS]

The problem is when you add turbos to a smaller engine to gain fuel efficiency with same or more power, it leaves for much more to go wrong and fail.
I am curious to see what these tt 6s get for fuel mileage while towing loads.

I asked the explorer st guys (3.0 twin turbo) what they got while towing. One guy said he got 15 towing a really small boat. I'm not sure how that'd change if you were towing a larger 23' like mine. I was sort of surprised, despite being rated to tow 5600 pounds, most of the owners there hadn't towed anything. They also said that th explorer used the 10l60 which was almost up to holding up to the stock power, and they didn't think it'd hold up great towing.

 

[suke]

I asked the explorer st guys (3.0 twin turbo) what they got while towing. One guy said he got 15 towing a really small boat. I'm not sure how that'd change if you were towing a larger 23' like mine. I was sort of surprised, despite being rated to tow 5600 pounds, most of the owners there hadn't towed anything. They also said that th explorer used the 10l60 which was almost up to holding up to the stock power, and they didn't think it'd hold up great towing.

I get anywhere from 12-15mpg at 65-70mph towing my 212x. Buddy that has a Ram 2500 with the 6.4 gets 6-8mpg towing my old 212x. LOL!

 

[suke]

But I digress, when I boat the Yamaha and needed a truck, I was locked in on an Ecoboost F150, but after seeing the interior of a RAM I quickly switched. Of course I got the HEMI, even though the dealer said the V6 was enough to tow the boat. 16 mpg sucks, I’d switch to this new engine if it got at least 24 mpg.

I wanted a Ram when I was truck searching but the fuel mileage is what turned me off. Can't beat that interior like you said. I get 19-20mpg around town and 23-24mpg on the highway with the cruise set at 73-75mph.

 

[suke]

So this and some responses had me thinking... A lot of money goes into making vehicles "more". The expedition for example is sort of crazy fast for its size. It has no need to be as fast as it is. I suspect that the turbo 6 from dodge will be the same.

I may be in a minority here, but man, I'd rather these things come with like, 250hp and 300 tq and get 27 highway than 350hp and 470 torque or whatever. I kinda wish they'd just start designed some engines that have modest outputs, generous tolerances, and use modern tech solely for reliability and efficiency gains. I don't need an expedition to do 0 to 60 under 10 seconds, let alone the 6 or whatever it does it in. My wife will probably never step past 30% throttle. Frankly, they could probably but a basic non turbo 4 banger in it and she'd be fine with it. I bet a 2.5L NA 4 banger with the 10 speed auto would move plenty fast enough for her, and as long as it could stay cool would be all she wanted, and still tow just fine. People used to tow 9k pounds with les than 300tq routinely, e don't need 500 tq to pull a 5k boat around.

Maybe I'm the crazy one but it really feels like putting some modest engines in with some modern tech would yield dividends.

Part of the reason they get good mileage is by finding ways to make buttloads of torque/HP. Takes less energy/power/RPM's to make them move/get going. Same thing while towing. If you're having to wring out your motor at 6k RPMs to tow a boat you'll burn way more fuel than I will at 1900 rpms cause I have gobs of torque at my disposal.