Chrysler Group Introduces PUG Plan For Pentastar V6 Family

Cameron Aubernon
by Cameron Aubernon
chrysler group introduces pug plan for pentastar v6 family

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles’ Chrysler Group has big plans for its venerable Pentastar engine family, all in the name of improved fuel efficiency and power.

Automotive News reports the Pentastar Upgrade — or PUG — will include turbocharging of current naturally aspirated mills, direct injection and other technologies, with the first updated 3.6-liter V6 to turn up in 2015 under the bonnet of the Jeep Grand Cherokee.

The next engine under PUG will be a 3.2-liter V6, which will replace the current 3.6-liter unit powering the Chrysler Town & Country when the next-gen model enters showrooms in 2016. The new engine will be paired with the nine-speed automatic found in some trims of the Jeep Cherokee, and is expected to deliver a 25 percent improvement to fuel economy over the current arrangement’s 17 mpg city, 25 mpg highway EPA rating.

Should all go as planned, the aforementioned 3.6-liter could also help the Ram 1500 take the gasoline-efficiency crown back from the Ford F-150 EcoBoost, which it lost to said truck in November.

Join the conversation
7 of 103 comments
  • Pete Zaitcev Pete Zaitcev on Dec 09, 2014

    I thought Pentastar was intended to support a water-cooled turbocharger from the get-go, they just didn't have the money to productize it from the outset. I may be mistaken about it, howeveer. Good info is difficult to find even on Allpar.

    • Gtem Gtem on Dec 09, 2014

      Looking at the exhaust manifold integrated into the head, I'd say yes it's practically begging for a turbo bolted up to the flange. At the same time I'd stay far-far away from an engine like this until they proved that the head can withstand all of that immense heat that it'd be subjected to. I bet the turbo would be offset from the head with some sort of intermediate pipe, at least I'd hope so.

  • DC Bruce DC Bruce on Dec 09, 2014

    Interesting data point on turbo charged engines vs. variable displacement. Pickup tested a bunch of 1/2 ton pickups, including a Ford F-150 with the 3.5 liter ecoboost engine and a Silverado with the 5.3 liter variable displacement, DI V-8. One of the tests was a loop of mixed driving, pulling, IIRC an 8,000 lb. trailer. They swapped drivers at predetermined locations to eliminate the effect of different driving styles, and all of the truck is the test drove together, so they were all subject to the same traffic conditions. The Chevy V-8 achieved about 12 mpg in that circuit; the Ford ecoboost about 10 mpg. That's significant. Unloaded, in EPA's test, the Ford wins by about 1 mpg. So, I think people are deservedly skeptical about the fuel economy benefits of turbocharging small displacement engines.

    • Benders Benders on Dec 09, 2014

      The Ford in that test had the 3.73 rear end (max tow package). So not quite a direct comparison of the fuel economy.

  • PentastarPride PentastarPride on Dec 09, 2014

    Every time I hear about the Pentastar, I get into a "what-if" scenario. What if Chrysler retained/refined the LH platform and equipped it with the Pentastar and a six-speed RWD transmission? My day would be made if I could obtain a brand-new Intrepid or Concorde with this combo, running it alongside the LX 300/Charger/Challenger. The MPG would be very impressive with its aerodynamics, even though the platform is relatively large. I'm willing to bet a +5 MPG gain over the LX counterparts with a little tweaking. We'd have a Camry/Accord killer overnight, no hybrid needed. Alas, it is only a dream.

  • Chicagoland Chicagoland on Dec 10, 2014

    Can't just "blame CAFE" in US. Europe has strict "green laws" and expensive, highly taxed, fuel