You know all those lifeless V6s that permeate the Chrysler lineup? Well, they're on the way out, eventually. It's going to take awhile, but the Pentastar V6 will eventually replace them all. Not just one Pentastar of course. There will be a whole range of displacements, from 3.0-liter to 4.0-liters, naturally aspirated and turbocharged. Some with direct injection (DI) too.
The initial setup is a non-DI 3.6-liter V6 that will power the Jeep Grand Cherokee. It's rated at 290 horsepower and 260 pound-feet of torque. That puts it on par with most of the V6s in its class and clearly there's more power to be had with a little more displacement and maybe a turbocharger down the line. Could get interesting.
AutoObserver: Chrysler Starts Production of New-Age V6
stovt001 says:
03:07 PM, 03/19/10
It actually sounds like a decently competitive engine. Combined with what looks like improving interiors (on upcoming models, supposedly, not anything that is out yet) then maybe, just maybe Chrysler can come back. It is going to take a lot of time to get over the damage to their image, but maybe, hopefully they'll last that long.
smilez says:
03:23 PM, 03/19/10
I'm a Jeep man. I'm looking forward to the applications.
Especially once they dump the horrid V-6 that currently resides in the Wrangler.
cr_driver says:
05:06 PM, 03/19/10
About time.
How many years horrendous V6`s have served duty at chrysler??
firstwagon says:
07:53 PM, 03/19/10
The 3.8 is dated but how is it horrible? It one of the most durable motors made, gets decent mileage and power, it's smooth enough for anything it's used in and it's compact enough that it's easy to service.
I can't think of a single "horrendous" V6 at Chrysler.
canddmeyer says:
12:57 AM, 03/20/10
Folks complain about their Chrysler products, but they never complain about their engines.
kingfish4 says:
05:45 AM, 03/20/10
The 2.7 DOHC V6 from Chrysler is a horrendous engine. They suffer from sludge, timing chain issues, and ususally only last to about 80K miles. The 3.5 V6 is much better than the 2.7. The V6 that they use in the Jeeps are not great engines either, and are actually inferior to the old AMC derived 4.0 liter for these applications. The two most reliable engines in the Chrysler portfolio were the Slant Six and the 4.0. They both will run forever with minimum fuss.
audisport says:
07:49 AM, 03/20/10
@kingfish4- I was about to say the same thing. 2.7l is bad, but the rest of the line is, if nothing else, reliable.
These new engines are pretty advanced actually. And word is that Chrysler is working with Getrag on several dual-clutch auto manuals for wide use across the line.
smilez says:
07:57 AM, 03/20/10
202hp out of a V-6 is not decent. Companies are getting well over 300hp out of their 6's, and over 200 out of 4's (nat asp.). I'm not saying 300+ is needed, but this can't get out of its own way, especially in the Wrangler app.
I'm not looking for a stop light dragster, but 10 seconds to 60 isn't acceptable...to me. I don't care if it's an SUV.
The straight-6 was durable. This motor needs more time to test durability. I will agree on 'decent' mileage.
I didn't like not having an option in the Wrangler. Yes, you could swap the Hemi, but I don't have that kind of money.
roadburner says:
09:54 AM, 03/20/10
Bring back the 4.0 inline six! That's one reason I much prefer my 1999 TJ Sahara to the 2010 JK...
firstwagon says:
10:29 AM, 03/20/10
"This motor needs more time to test durability"
It's the same 3.8 used in the Caravan for 20 years. How much more durability testing do you need?
"The V6 that they use in the Jeeps are not great engines either, and are actually inferior to the old AMC derived 4.0 liter for these applications."
I've seen dyno curves of both and they are almost identical. The 4.0 has a slight edge below 2K while the 3.8 has a edge above 4K. It feels less powerful becasue the new Wrangler is quite a bit heavier then the old TJ. Put a 4.0 in a 4 door Wrangler with an automatic and it will feel just as underpowered.
"The two most reliable engines in the Chrysler portfolio were the Slant Six and the 4.0. They both will run forever with minimum fuss."
The 4.0 in my 95 Grand Cherokee is durable (aside from endless oil leaks and a couple cracked exhoust manifolds) but so is the 3.3 and 3.8 60 deg V6s. They are alot smoother and more compact too.
smilez says:
12:02 PM, 03/20/10
my bad firstwagon, I thought it was new when they replaced the 4.0
It is the first time they mounted it longitudinally (whch doesn't mean much).
But if it's 20 years old and is 'all the way up to' 202hp, it needs to be replaced. WHICH IS WHY I'm looking forward to a version of this new Pentastar making its way into the Wrangler.
powell_jr says:
12:17 PM, 03/20/10
I'm looking forward to the new V6s also. I'd buy a 290 hp wrangler with 4.10s and a six speed in a heartbeat.
wrinklebump says:
10:31 AM, 03/21/10
The 3.5 isn't horrendous. It's a little underpowered considering the heavy lifting it has to do in the LX cars, but it's not unreliable.
threemopars says:
02:12 PM, 03/21/10
"The two most reliable engines in the Chrysler portfolio were the Slant Six and the 4.0. They both will run forever with minimum fuss."
You can add the LA Series V-6/V-8's, 3.3/3.8 V-6 and in all honesty the 5.7 HEMI hasn't had a bad run.
3.5's in second generation form became more reliable (1999 and up). 1st gen motors (1993-1997) suffered from a lot of water-pump failures. Funny which was the only thing that failed on my 93 Intrepid.
1487 says:
05:24 AM, 03/22/10
I am looking forward to seeing what they do with the Avenger and Sebring for 2011. Supposedly the Sebring's interior is going to be a quantum leap over the current car. Hopefully they will use one of the new V6s as well.
anythngbutgm says:
09:57 AM, 03/23/10
The engine program is not called "Pentastar" it's called "Phoenix"... ;)
smilez says:
01:08 PM, 03/23/10
-anythngbutgm
It's both:
http://www.allpar.com/model/upcoming.html
and
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/phoenix-engines.html