2023 Last year of the HEMI. 1000HP model coming
- Thread starter 66l78rat
- Start date
1970FuryConv
Old Man with a Hat
What is the replacement V8?
75LandYacht
Yank Tank
Electric
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
Wrong.
Straight six...
Gerald Morris
Senior Member
A 3 liter straight 6 is ALL the displacement Stellantis offers after this last run of Hemi V8s. They call it the "Tornado." This obscenity has been no secret for some time now. While the current regime certainly won't do anything about it, if folks care, a move to nationalize what's left of Mopar in this country would be the only way I know to save the Mopar V8.
Inline motors are less expensive to build than V-type motors, they claim. Plus the inline 6 is better balanced, too. Plus, a whole family of 4cyl, 5cyl, and 6cyl motors can be had for very little additional investment.
One cyl head rather than two, for example. One exhaust manifold unit rather than two. So it gets to be about cost and assembly hours to build it . . . which they don't always admit to.
Remember when the GM pre-Colorado S-10 was being leaked about? Inline 4 and inline 5 motors only. New tech. The "low-feature" 2.8L V-6 engine family was being replaced as "it was time". This seemed to be a step back, to me, especially considering that an I-5 is longer than a V-6, in a smaller vehicle where that additional length might matter.
GM was trying to tout that the wheels that turned didn't know if what was turning them was an inline motor or a V-type motor, which is accurate. But I remember thinking that for real "street cred", they needed a real V-8 in them (as Dodges had). The downside of the V-8 in that S-series truck was that when they finally did put 5.3L LS motors in them, they were so crammed in that it was good that they had Iridium spark plugs in them. The double-downside to the 5.3L S-10s was that they happened only in 4-dr models and they were on sale during a time of higher fuel prices, so nobody wanted one on their sales lots. Triple-downside was that they all had far too many options on them, along with the ABS controllers and such being very close to the exhaust manifolds!
Just like in the diesel realm of things, it's about how much mixture you can cram into the cylinders via turbos or superchargers. Then have the rest of the motor strong enough to support that activity. Having a 173CID motor that reliably puts out 1000 horsepower just seems totally insane to me, but then I remember when 425 horsepower was an ill-mannered "beast", er "elephant".
A side issue is that the Gen III Hemi is probably to the point of its useful life that new tooling is needed. When that happens, you go with what the newest and greatest things are and progress from there. Then, when the new bi-turbo inline 6's life is at that same place, EVs will be firmly in the mainstream of the USA consumer.
Just because no NEW Gen III Hemis will be built does not mean that they will disappear anytime soon, considering all of the ones in salvage yards which can be rebuilt and upgraded as needed to start new lives in new vehicles.
Just some thoughts,
CBODY67
One cyl head rather than two, for example. One exhaust manifold unit rather than two. So it gets to be about cost and assembly hours to build it . . . which they don't always admit to.
Remember when the GM pre-Colorado S-10 was being leaked about? Inline 4 and inline 5 motors only. New tech. The "low-feature" 2.8L V-6 engine family was being replaced as "it was time". This seemed to be a step back, to me, especially considering that an I-5 is longer than a V-6, in a smaller vehicle where that additional length might matter.
GM was trying to tout that the wheels that turned didn't know if what was turning them was an inline motor or a V-type motor, which is accurate. But I remember thinking that for real "street cred", they needed a real V-8 in them (as Dodges had). The downside of the V-8 in that S-series truck was that when they finally did put 5.3L LS motors in them, they were so crammed in that it was good that they had Iridium spark plugs in them. The double-downside to the 5.3L S-10s was that they happened only in 4-dr models and they were on sale during a time of higher fuel prices, so nobody wanted one on their sales lots. Triple-downside was that they all had far too many options on them, along with the ABS controllers and such being very close to the exhaust manifolds!
Just like in the diesel realm of things, it's about how much mixture you can cram into the cylinders via turbos or superchargers. Then have the rest of the motor strong enough to support that activity. Having a 173CID motor that reliably puts out 1000 horsepower just seems totally insane to me, but then I remember when 425 horsepower was an ill-mannered "beast", er "elephant".
A side issue is that the Gen III Hemi is probably to the point of its useful life that new tooling is needed. When that happens, you go with what the newest and greatest things are and progress from there. Then, when the new bi-turbo inline 6's life is at that same place, EVs will be firmly in the mainstream of the USA consumer.
Just because no NEW Gen III Hemis will be built does not mean that they will disappear anytime soon, considering all of the ones in salvage yards which can be rebuilt and upgraded as needed to start new lives in new vehicles.
Just some thoughts,
CBODY67
Gerald Morris
Senior Member
Given that piston internal combustion engines have been outrageously inefficient from a thermodynamic view, with averages of ~10% when our "Elephants" were cast, and 20% for the latest and greatest stuff, replete with computerized engine management, forced fuel/air induction, exhaust capture/recirculation et al ad nauseum, the switch to turbine driven hybrids has been overdue by about 50 years. Here too much grovelling to market whims has retarded innovation rather than spurred it, and such has been the case FAR more often than the Big Wheels care to admit. After all, turbine hydrocarbon/electric hybrid drives have proven their viability quite nicely in railroads. Well, the mass hysterics regarding global warming now should popularize a change which has long been needed. MASS TRANSIT would be a BETTER ONE, but I know this country too well to tout that. Maybe in 2 more generations, with some radical urban "renewal" our descendants might implement such.
Still, for a decade or 2, some seriously forced induction straight piston engines might turn and burn the rubber where it meets the asphalt. I might start researching some big DC motors to drop into Gertrude's engine compartment too. One thing about C body Mopars, those big bodies have PLENTY VOLUME for battery storage!
By observation, much of the innovations which started in the 1950s were not carried through due to cost and ONE other thing. Taking care of/servicing them in Small Town America, back then.
IF Bendix and Chrysler had solved the RFI issues with mercury vapor street lights back then, for a very reliable product, replacing Carter AFBs with it in 1958, it would have forced GM to follow suit with their Rochester RamJet FI system. Which would have left Ford to fend for itself, waiting for the others to fail and capitalize on that, especially in the fleet market where Ford and Chrysler were the main suppliers. By that time, though everybody knew about carburetors and many could work on them, BUT few Chevrolet dealers had competent Rochester FI techs for their Corvette customers. The frugal enthusiasts would not pay many hundreds of dollars for just 10 more horsepower, too. Back then, FI was about power and little else.
I remember reading about a mid-60s StingRay with the "fuelie" engine, close-ratio 4spd, and 4.56 rear axle ratio that would get over 20mpg on the highway. I suspect that most carburetors could not match that. But then, too, those FI motors had their own "tuned intake" system which was not a dual-plane intake. IF they had better refined it to work well with an automatic transmission, power with economy, reliably, it would have been all over the car magazines and they would have been desired. But techs out in the boonies could not work on it, fwiw.
So, if by 1960 the Detroit Big Three all had some sort of FI systems on the majority of their vehicles, think of the fuel savings for the consumers which might have resulted. Maybe even cleaner atmospheres too! GM with Rochester RamJet, Chrysler with Bendix Electrojector, and Ford probably with some European system. Then, to go with it, electronic ignition by 1966 across the board (GM-Delco had systems back then, on Corvettes and a few other cars, as I recall). Just consider how much farther ahead we would have been with just those two advances, embraced by the Detroit Big Three! And, a lot of it might have been cost-effective for the consumer, too.
Unfortunately, the cost involved at the OEM level to get the dealership tech community fully trained on those systems would have been monumental, I suspect. The argument against such progress might have been "Carburetors work just fine, are cheap to build, and servicing them is not a real issue . . . why upset the cart?" And so it was . . . until the cost of the cars could absorb those innovations as they were later needed to meet emissions and such. It was exciting to be "ahead of the curve" back then. Accelerating technology would have made it even moreso, I suspect. Even then, there was the beginnings of the "Got to take it back to the dealer for that" in the garage industry. But about three years later, the garage industry was fully educated on how to do those things.
Just some recollections . . .
CBODY67
IF Bendix and Chrysler had solved the RFI issues with mercury vapor street lights back then, for a very reliable product, replacing Carter AFBs with it in 1958, it would have forced GM to follow suit with their Rochester RamJet FI system. Which would have left Ford to fend for itself, waiting for the others to fail and capitalize on that, especially in the fleet market where Ford and Chrysler were the main suppliers. By that time, though everybody knew about carburetors and many could work on them, BUT few Chevrolet dealers had competent Rochester FI techs for their Corvette customers. The frugal enthusiasts would not pay many hundreds of dollars for just 10 more horsepower, too. Back then, FI was about power and little else.
I remember reading about a mid-60s StingRay with the "fuelie" engine, close-ratio 4spd, and 4.56 rear axle ratio that would get over 20mpg on the highway. I suspect that most carburetors could not match that. But then, too, those FI motors had their own "tuned intake" system which was not a dual-plane intake. IF they had better refined it to work well with an automatic transmission, power with economy, reliably, it would have been all over the car magazines and they would have been desired. But techs out in the boonies could not work on it, fwiw.
So, if by 1960 the Detroit Big Three all had some sort of FI systems on the majority of their vehicles, think of the fuel savings for the consumers which might have resulted. Maybe even cleaner atmospheres too! GM with Rochester RamJet, Chrysler with Bendix Electrojector, and Ford probably with some European system. Then, to go with it, electronic ignition by 1966 across the board (GM-Delco had systems back then, on Corvettes and a few other cars, as I recall). Just consider how much farther ahead we would have been with just those two advances, embraced by the Detroit Big Three! And, a lot of it might have been cost-effective for the consumer, too.
Unfortunately, the cost involved at the OEM level to get the dealership tech community fully trained on those systems would have been monumental, I suspect. The argument against such progress might have been "Carburetors work just fine, are cheap to build, and servicing them is not a real issue . . . why upset the cart?" And so it was . . . until the cost of the cars could absorb those innovations as they were later needed to meet emissions and such. It was exciting to be "ahead of the curve" back then. Accelerating technology would have made it even moreso, I suspect. Even then, there was the beginnings of the "Got to take it back to the dealer for that" in the garage industry. But about three years later, the garage industry was fully educated on how to do those things.
Just some recollections . . .
CBODY67
1970FuryConv
Old Man with a Hat
Can't buy a full size 1/2 ton pickup with V8 or an 8-foot bed. Now it's a 2500 or 3500 with a cummins or a straight 6 very short bed car/truck. 
Stellantis.
Stellantis.
Gerald Morris
Senior Member
The main ingredient enabling modern EFI automotive tech barely existed in the 1960s, the FET. Cobbling together even 32K RAM computers using BJTs just wasn't practical under automobile hoods, and still isn't. Look at how clunky even early Lean Burn computer boards (which had crude MOSFET chips by then) were in the late 1970s.
I concede mech FI worked well enough for specialized use from WW2 through 1980, but some technology simply can't be rushed any faster than the growth of the key element. EFI made FI affordable, (but just) and while there was plenty excellent innovation during the Golden Age of Detroit Iron, the MOSFET has been THE crucial element.
Mind you, the ABUSE of computing now concerns me every bit as much as its beneficial uses. I'll pray tonight to St. Isidore a bit more than usual, w this in mind....
As things have evolved in the light-duty truck market, the vast majority are 4-dr 6' (approx) bed models. The ones with the "bigger rear doors" are 5.5" beds. RAM has a 3L V-6 diesel, too.Can't buy a full size 1/2 ton pickup with V8 or an 8-foot bed. Now it's a 2500 or 3500 with a cummins or a straight 6 very short bed car/truck.
In this area, there are lots of RAM 1500 single cab short bed pickups around. Some with the Ram Box, too. Many with some sort of V-8. Nice looking vehicles!
GM still does a single cab 8' bed Work Truck, but not one in a fancier mode. Ford has several variations of that theme, too.
The key to the RAM product line is their "new" truck and the "Tradesman" version of the prior truck, it seems. Kind of confusing.
GM has the 4cyl turbo-diesel in the 1500s. Although it has good numbers and towing capacity, do NOT get an a hurry in one. "Torking" it against the brake, then flooring it as the brake is released, just about the time the tire noise gets "fun", a 1-2 shift happens and all of the fun is gone. Much more of a cruiser.
To me, a "proper pickuo truck" is a single cab, 8' bed, and a V-8 with limited slip rear axle. I suspect that Ford will make that variation longer than anybody else. To me, I suspect that Stellantis is more oriented toward European sensibilities . . . which means smaller engines with turbos.
Just some thoughts,
CBODY67
Gerald Morris
Senior Member
Golden Words of Wisdom! Stellantis will knock every Mopar plant in this continent down when they're done with MoPAR. They've already given their ultimatum to this "branch" of their ill-gotten conglomeration and if the Fed let's them do this, we can seriously consider them an occupation regime, as I've long characterized them. I wonder if any of the Fed outside aging Pentagon brass concerned with maintaining aging equipment have thought through the implications of allowing hostile foreign takeovers of industry which their military relies on. I don't wonder MUCH though.
Stellantis put together many Euro brands which can leverage a broad knowledge base for the future of electric vehicles. Are they using great Chrysler brands for the cash to do this? That remains to be seen.
Chrysler, GM, and Ford have a much smaller product range than at any other time in history, as the gaps they created are filled by off-shore brands who seem to do well with them. When Oldsmobile was deleted, it had more volume itself than many off-shore brands did. The good thing, if their might be one, is that Ford and Chrysler do "retro" better than GM seems to be able to. Or possibly has the "will" to do, with the Mustangs and Challengers leaving the Camaro in the dust. While the Camaro looks good on the outside, the inside to me is just too far out, plus the emphasis on "SS" and higher-performance models. FWIW.
We have a front-row seat to what "the gread minds" will do with/to their brands in the coming years. All we can do is sit and watch as we continue to revive and maintain our vintage Chrysler products to/in their original glory (with a few upgrades here and there).
Enjoy!
CBODY67
Chrysler, GM, and Ford have a much smaller product range than at any other time in history, as the gaps they created are filled by off-shore brands who seem to do well with them. When Oldsmobile was deleted, it had more volume itself than many off-shore brands did. The good thing, if their might be one, is that Ford and Chrysler do "retro" better than GM seems to be able to. Or possibly has the "will" to do, with the Mustangs and Challengers leaving the Camaro in the dust. While the Camaro looks good on the outside, the inside to me is just too far out, plus the emphasis on "SS" and higher-performance models. FWIW.
We have a front-row seat to what "the gread minds" will do with/to their brands in the coming years. All we can do is sit and watch as we continue to revive and maintain our vintage Chrysler products to/in their original glory (with a few upgrades here and there).
Enjoy!
CBODY67
Perhaps, it is time. Time for stellantis to go under.
You know that isn't going to happen.
Mopar has the best pickup, Challenger and Charger, Jeep, etc.
I have a Redeye Challenger, Scat Pack Plus Charger, a special edition Southfork (1 of 113) Ram, 2 1978 Chrysler's. I too am bummed out about the internal combustion engine. Mopar has said repeatedly that they aren't playing with just an ordinary EV. I'm sure they have SRT boys building the world's fastest by far car. I'm thinking it might be the Cuda or some other throwback model. We should find out sometime next year and it will be available in 2024.
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
Gerald Morris
Senior Member
When the 3 lanes to the right of the "Green Lane" get covered with dirt tracks for us peasants to put our oxcarts, dog carts, and rusted shopping carts on, we will see the "Great Plan to Save the Environment" in all its glory. Will the overlords use IOT controlled quirts to lash us as they pass in their electric computo-dildo-mobiles? Cold comfort in the likelihood THAT **** WON'T WORK BECAUSE THE MORONS WHO WANT IT HAVEN'T THE BRAINS TO DO BASIC ALGEBRA FOR WORKING CODE!
Gerald Morris
Senior Member
They can be PUSHED under by nationalizing MoPAR, but this pack of lackeys won't do that.
Gerald Morris
Senior Member
Stated like a True Texan! Bravo!
Similar threads
