Wrong.V6 turbo
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
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
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. Stellantis.
To me, a "proper pickuo truck" is a single cab, 8' bed, and .... To me, I suspect that Stellantis is more oriented toward European sensibilities . . . which means smaller engines with turbos.
Just some thoughts,
CBODY67
Perhaps, it is time. Time for stellantis to go under.
Perhaps, it is time. Time for stellantis to go under.
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