Chrysler's New Pentastar V6

Discussion in 'OT Driven' started by TriShield, Apr 13, 2009.

  1. TriShield

    TriShield Super Moderator® Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    132,748
    Likes Received:
    1,611
    Location:
    PRESIDENTIAL TOWER, GREAT AGAIN, NY
    Chrysler LLC Introduces All-new Pentastar V-6 Engine

    [​IMG]

    Refined, more fuel-efficient V-6 engine to debut in all-new 2011 Jeep® Grand Cherokee

    The all-new Pentastar V-6 is the most advanced six-cylinder engine in the history of Chrysler, with an ideal integration of select technologies that deliver refinement, fuel efficiency and performance All-new flexible-fuel 3.6-liter Pentastar V-6 to replace seven current V-6 engines, resulting in flexibility, efficient operations and significant cost savings to the company New Chrysler Pentastar V-6 to deliver fuel efficiency improvement of up to 8 percent on average compared with previous Chrysler V-6 engines New Pentastar V-6 will contribute a 2 mpg increase to Chrysler's CAFE by 2015 New York, Apr 8, 2009 - Chrysler LLC introduced today an all-new line of V-6 engines that will improve fuel efficiency across the Chrysler, Jeep® and Dodge lineup by 8 percent on average compared with previous Chrysler V-6 engines. This more refined and fuel-efficient V-6 engine will ultimately replace seven current Chrysler V-6 engines.

    The new 3.6-liter V-6 engine-named Pentastar-is part of the company's overall $3 billion powertrain offensive. It will first be offered in the all-new 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee, unveiled today at the New York International Auto Show and at the Jeep Safari in Moab, Utah.

    "Chrysler's all-new 3.6-liter Pentastar V-6 engine will offer our customers improved fuel economy, refinement and increased performance across the Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep vehicle lineup," said Frank Klegon, Executive Vice President-Product Development, Chrysler LLC. "At the same time, replacing seven current engines with one engine will result in increased flexibility, more efficient operations and significant cost savings to the company."

    The Pentastar is an all-new design, featuring double-overhead camshafts (DOHC) and a high-pressure die-cast aluminum cylinder block in a 60-degree configuration.

    In the all-new 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee, the all-new 3.6-liter Pentastar V-6 engine will deliver 280 horsepower (209 kW) at 6,400 rpm and 260 lb.-ft. (353 N•m) of torque at 4,800 rpm-an increase of 33 percent in horsepower and 11 percent in torque over its predecessor-while providing an 11 percent fuel economy improvement.

    "The all-new Pentastar is the most advanced six-cylinder engine Chrysler has ever offered," said Bob Lee, Vice President-Powertrain Product Team. "This new family of engines uses an architecture conceived with future technology growth and integration in mind."

    The new Pentastar V-6 also will contribute a 2 mpg increase to Chrysler's CAFE by 2015, resulting in fewer greenhouse gas emissions and a reduction in oil dependence.

    Customers Benefit: Fuel Efficiency, Refinement, Quality, Low Cost of Ownership

    During the initial goal setting for the Pentastar program, Chrysler engineers benchmarked the industry's leading engines to set functional targets. The result is an all-new engine that delivers truly world-class customer attributes.

    Chrysler's all-new 3.6-liter Pentastar V-6 engine design features a double-overhead cam (DOHC), narrow included valve angle, cylinder head and high-flow intake and exhaust ports. This design, combined with dual independent cam phasing, allows optimum volumetric and combustion efficiency over the full speed and load range, resulting in an exceptional, flat torque curve along with high specific power-the engine's torque exceeds 90 percent of its peak value from 1,600 to 6,400 rpm-which will provide customers with outstanding drivability and responsiveness, without the need for premium fuel.

    "Similar to what we did with the HEMI® engine, our engineers used the best combination of design features and technologies to create an engine that satisfies customer requirements," Lee added. "The elegantly simple design maximizes the functionality of each design element rather than adding technology to claim a feature. The result gives our customers everything they demand from an engine today-class-leading levels of refinement, fuel-efficiency, performance and cost of ownership."

    The advanced oil filter system eliminates oil spills and contains an incinerable filter element-more efficient disposal than the typical spin-on filters, which are disposed of in landfill sites. The use of long-life spark plugs and a high-energy coil-on-plug ignition system also helps to reduce cost of ownership.

    The Pentastar V-6 is designed to run on regular gasoline, offering a 10 percent reduction in fuel cost compared with premium fueled engines. The engine also is fully flex fuel capable, offering consumers the choice of gasoline or E85 fuel without any degradation in performance or emissions.

    The new state-of-the-art Trenton (Mich.) Engine South Plant will be the lead facility for production of the Pentastar V-6 engine. A duplicate, new facility in Saltillo, Mexico, will ramp up for the 2012 model year.

    All-new Chrysler 3.6-liter, DOHC, 24-valve Pentastar V-6 Technical Specifications

    Displacement: 3.6 liters
    Bore x stroke: 96 x 83 mm
    Valve train system: Double-overhead cam with roller finger followers and hydraulic lash adjusters. Dual independent cam-torque actuated phasers
    Fuel injection: Multi-point port fuel injection
    Construction: High-pressure die-cast aluminum cylinder block and semi-permanent mold aluminum cylinder head
    Maximum engine speed: 7200 rpm
    Fuel requirement: E85 (Ethanol) or unleaded regular, 87 octane (R+M)/2
    Emission capability: PZEV
     
  2. shanker

    shanker unemployed

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    6,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Deep South Texas
    I didnt see any HP or Torque figures...


    Personally, If I was a auto manufacturer, I would focus on in-line, small displacement, turbo diesels for small cars/suv's
     
  3. 5.0Torx

    5.0Torx New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    looks nice. 90% of peak torque at 1600 rpm all the way to redline is very impressive.

    Does the V6 in the camaro offer that flat of a torque curve?
     
  4. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    .

    Hell, they don't even have to be that small. The Nissan ZD diesel is three liters on a four banger.
     
  5. TriShield

    TriShield Super Moderator® Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    132,748
    Likes Received:
    1,611
    Location:
    PRESIDENTIAL TOWER, GREAT AGAIN, NY
    Chrysler already tried one and it didn't work out so hot. Better to make something the public already buys instead of throwing money you don't have after stuff that doesn't sell.
     
  6. Mr3GTP

    Mr3GTP OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    30,603
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    O motherfucking HI-O
    280hp/260tq.

    Not bad, really.


    EDIT; redline of 7200.
     
  7. art_VW_shark

    art_VW_shark OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    156,723
    Likes Received:
    191
    Location:
    Bosstown
    nice! everyone's got sweet-spot 3.5/3.6L motors that produce in the 260-300 range.
     
  8. TriShield

    TriShield Super Moderator® Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    132,748
    Likes Received:
    1,611
    Location:
    PRESIDENTIAL TOWER, GREAT AGAIN, NY
    Damn. Power output can probably vary like GM's 3.6L as well.
     
  9. shanker

    shanker unemployed

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    6,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Deep South Texas
    thats because the CRD liberty's were underpowered and didnt get shit for mileage...my wife and I were going to buy one but after test driving it we walked away
     
  10. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh look, they can build something worth buying.
     
  11. Boomdart

    Boomdart New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    40,093
    Likes Received:
    0
    not for long :giggle:

    Aren't they going bankrupt if they don't merge with fiat or something?
     
  12. Pussysmith

    Pussysmith Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    429
    Likes Received:
    0
    I love the engine to tell you the truth. Seems like a real powerful yet flexible plant. There is a problem and its a big one: everybody is going direct injection which is a costly addition but adds to efficiency. I wonder why they didn't go direct and instead opted for the much older and outdated multipoint. (For lay readers: direct injection dumps fuel directly into the cylinder and multipoint is just a fancy way of saying one injector per intake runner so for this engine it would be six injectors. The direct injection doesn't have fuel spray anywhere it won't burn so it is the ultimate in efficiency and the ultimate in power)
     
  13. z284pwr

    z284pwr OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,011
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Fruit Heights, Utah
    I think the problem there is that Americans just aren't into small cars with diesel engines. The big diesel trucks gave them a bad rap I think so now Americans associate diesels as loud smelly engines. As they aren't that popular its hard to say but trucks still are semi loud and quite smelly, I absolutely HATE sitting behind one/side one at a stop light, make your eyes water from the smell in no times.

    Until the Automakers can make them run 75+ MPG or convince Americans they aren't that bad, I don't think diesel will be that popular with little cars anytime soon. All my opinion of course.
     
  14. CJPA

    CJPA New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    114,304
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    350z engine lol
     
  15. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    :slap:
     
  16. Mitchj

    Mitchj OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    Messages:
    112,077
    Likes Received:
    81
    sounds very similar to GM's global 3.6, and that thing has been absolute fail so far
     
  17. Pussysmith

    Pussysmith Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    429
    Likes Received:
    0
    :fart:

    Yeah it is costly to add but cheap on the long run. Its not the machining of the head but rather the injectors and plumbing is more expensive than the port injectors and plumbing. I would argue its time for all engines to be direct injection.
     
  18. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    That actually wouldn't be a bad thing. FIAT owns Alfa Romeo, and Alfa V6s are some of the nicest on Earth.
     
  19. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not only that, but direct-injection doesn't need a throttle valve; since the fuel doesn't get injected into the cylinder until the instant before it's ignited, there is no need to restrict air intake under light load in order to prevent lean running and detonation. Removing the throttle valve from the system makes it that much more efficient, because the engine doesn't waste energy sucking against a vacuum.
     
  20. art_VW_shark

    art_VW_shark OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    156,723
    Likes Received:
    191
    Location:
    Bosstown
    if by nice you mean amazing ways to blow thousands in maintenance, sure...
    ok so thats the surrounding electrical systems.
     
  21. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"

    The company is going bankrupt, and you want them to spend MORE money on each engine on a feature that the average consumer isn't going to want to spend any extra money on? riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
     
  22. wabash9000

    wabash9000 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    14,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Overland Park, KS
    I think auto manufactures need to focus more on reducing the weight and cost of a car rather than making the engine smaller. In a 240sx(which I drive) the stock 2.4L ka24de engine puts out 155hp/178ft/lb the car weighs in at 2800 pounds and gets 23 city/26 highway. A Camaro from late 90's through the early 2000's weighs 3,433 lbs. It has a 5.7L ls1 engine which puts out 325hp/350ft/lb and get 18mpg city 25mpg highway. The ka24de engine weighs 100 pounds more than the ls1. When the ls1 is swaped into the 240sx suddenly you have a car that weighs 2700 pounts, has 325hp/350ft/lb, and because of weight savings gets 24mpg city and up to 31mpg on the highway.

    So I think that v6's and v8's should get more development and also car makers should look for ways to reduce the weight of their cars. I would start by making all engines should be aluminum and make all non structual body panels out of plastic or fiberglass(bumpers, hoods, fenders, doorskins,rear quarter pannels).

    just my thoughts on all this. I like that they are working on engines that actually make power rather than just "ecconmy"
     
  23. wabash9000

    wabash9000 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    14,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Overland Park, KS
    just hidden.
     
  24. shanker

    shanker unemployed

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    6,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Deep South Texas
    But there are alot most costs associoated with that, such as any vacuum assisted anything, whether it be the HVAC system, or power brakes. a Hydroboost brake system costs about 3X that of a Vacuum assisted brake setup. Imagine having an electric solenoid valve to control the HVAC system in every aspect, rather than vacuum canisters, that would add alot to the cost to built as well as the cost to maintain...

    Look at the costs of oil burners vs. gasoline cars, all that little crap adds up
     
  25. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    Where did you get the info that a KA is heavier than a LS?
     

Share This Page