By on June 23, 2015

Supercharged 6.2-liter HEMI® Hellcat V-8 engine produces 707 ho

Changes are coming to FCA’s HEMI engine family, ranging from increased fuel economy, to higher horsepower.

Though details are scant, the 5.7-liter HEMI V8 could receive direct injection to increase its fuel economy, Allpar writes. In turn, the upgrade would be enough to reduce or remove the need for FCA to buy CAFE credits.

Meanwhile, the Hellcat’s development splits two ways. One modification — for the upcoming Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk — would be tuned for greater refinement to better match the character of both SUV and driver, likely leading towards less horsepower under the bonnet.

The second modification is in response to Ford and Shelby bringing to market an engine said to be more powerful than the Hellcat. Thus, for 2017, FCA are looking to push the Hellcat beyond 707 horsepower against the Blue Oval’s twin-turbo 5.0-liter with direct injection and a potential 740-plus horses pushing the 2017 Shelby GT500 down the highway.

Beyond what is known, no models have been discovered as recipients for the upgrades, while said upgrades may not be ready in time for the 2016 model year’s start.

(Photo credit: Dodge)

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

92 Comments on “HEMI Engine Family Receiving Upgrades To Fuel Economy, Power...”


  • avatar
    readallover

    I find it remarkable they throw money at these motors for such a small niche when their four cylinders lag the market.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      Flagship, symbolism, Big Truck Series wet dreams…

      • 0 avatar
        Mandalorian

        Maybe the old Mitsubishi 4-cyls/World Engines were trash, but I have yet to hear anything terrible about the Fiat 4-cyls.

        The one in a rental 2015 200 I had was fine. Not excellent, not horrible. Just fine.

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          Mandorian,

          The 2.4 liter that is the 4 cylinder used in the Chrysler 200 is the awful old Mitsundai World Engine. They call it Multiair and Tigershark, but it is still a development of the engine that disappointed in such classics as the Caliber and Sebring. The Fiat 1.4 is awful in everything except the small Fiat 500. Just read some Dart, Renegade or 500L reviews involving it.

          • 0 avatar
            PentastarPride

            How is the 2.4 “World” engine awful? I intentionally chose it over the 3.6 Pentastar when I bought my 200. It’s been around for several years now so there has been some time to prove itself. The Pentastar hasn’t been around nearly as long and although it’s turning out to be a decent engine, though there were some issues early on — I did not want to take that chance. Not to mention, the 2.4 mated to the 62TE has a 2-4 mpg advantage.

            Before I bought my 200, I’ve done my research. I couldn’t find anything pointing to catastrophic failures or a chronic, reoccurring issue. I’ve talked with a couple of managers at a couple of rental agencies, service techs at Chrysler dealers, professional mechanics…this engine has been pretty reliable and is fairly easy to service. What’s more, there is no timing belt, unlike the older Chrysler 4-cyls (which were OK so long as they were changed).

            It may not have very high horsepower but not everyone wants a fast engine. Besides, I have no qualms with not having the horsepower as it performs very well regardless.

          • 0 avatar
            Lorenzo

            @PentastarPride, the 2.4 DOES have a timing belt, but it’s a non-interference engine, so a break won’t trash the engine.

          • 0 avatar
            Featherston

            @ Lorenzo – The 2.4 Tigershark has a timing chain.

            http://www.jeeprenegadeforum.com/forum/33-engines-discussion/4273-2-4l-timing-chain-belt.html

      • 0 avatar

        I’m not sure why people even bother arguing with me…

        They shouldn’t.

        Just accept HEMI.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          bigtruckseriesreview @ Youtube – I’m not sure either……….

          perhaps you are mistaking ridicule and sarcasm as valid conversation?

          • 0 avatar
            Lorenzo

            I don’t think either are mistaking anything. That’s the civilized way to respond to ridicule and sarcasm, which are more often than not a substitute for a valid argument.

        • 0 avatar
          dantes_inferno

          > Just accept HEMI.

          You mean “Just accept PENTI” – as in pentroof combustion chamber. Today’s “HEMI” is just a marketdroid term.

          The shape of a true Hemispherical combustion chamber resembles that of a golf ball, and Chrysler hasn’t built a true HEMI since 1973. Those HEMIs were built for the dragstrip – street driveability was just an afterthought with its angry pit-bull like personality – and it showed.

          But that revelation would CRUSH the egos of many drivers today, so it is ignored.

    • 0 avatar

      Their 4-cylinders SUCK. They aren’t willing to do what it takes. Take that silly 4 cylinder and make it a TWIN TURBO 4 CYLINDER.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      Hence my post last week that slapping a HEMI in everything does not equal profit – as you can’t put a HEMI in the CAFE required vehicles coming up on the horizon.

      FCA is investing a ton of money for halo bragging rights while neglecting their current line up – and as announced a few weeks ago – some platforms will have to soldier on until they are a decade plus old. That is an eternity in the auto industry.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        You’re right that they’re developing high performance Hemis instead of attending to their rapidly aging mainstream products, but I don’t think you’re right that they’re spending a ton of money. This program is practically free compared to any of the substantive tasks involved in producing competitive platforms or CAFE compliant engines that won’t repel customers. So they’re rearranging the deck chairs, since they can afford to do that even if they can’t afford to save the ship. They’re also buying lots of cheap press that isn’t talking about how the cold and dead Journey will remain their entry in a hot segment, or that everything they have that’s the least bit interesting is geriatric Mercedes-Benz IP.

      • 0 avatar

        So basically, the only thing wrong with Chrysler is the democrat/liberal/environmentalist idiots setting standards they can’t meet?

        What happens if they don’t bother trying to meet those RIDICULOUS standards?

        How can I help remove these traitors from office?

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “So basically, the only thing wrong with Chrysler is the democrat/liberal/environmentalist idiots setting standards they can’t meet?”

          Wow – doesn’t that argument get old?

          What can we substitute for the word “Chrysler”?

          Family
          Religion
          Finance
          Legal System
          Guns
          Unions
          Slavery
          Gay rights

          Wow – covers every right wing talking point.

          Who scripted that?

          • 0 avatar
            dantes_inferno

            > Who scripted that?

            Someone with a severe case of “Little Dick Johnson” syndrome.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          No, the major thing wrong with Chrysler is their refusal to produce competitive product in any growing segment of the US market except full-size trucks and heavy off-roading SUVs.

          What’s growing? Crossovers of all sizes, and, to a lesser extent, small cars. Chrysler has a grand total of one (1) competitive product in that whole world: the new Cherokee. And even that product is CAFE-challenged because of the weight necessary to make it Jeepy.

          • 0 avatar
            APaGttH

            What is worse, is they have the institutional knowledge to build competitive products, and they just keep dropping the ball.

            The Renegade was predicted by many of the B&B to be the new subcompact CUV that would beat them all.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        I hope FCA openly disregards CAFE and forces the government to shut them down. If for no other reason than to see the ensuing internet chaos.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          ajla – ironically one of the conditions of sale to Fiat was Fiat’s responsibility to bring a fleet of mpg efficient engines and vehicles to the USA.

          So the only thing saving FCA are SUV’s and V8’s………and Ferrari.

      • 0 avatar

        10 years is not an eternity for a platform. It is an eternity if the body is 10 years old, however. But some companies, like Ford, manage to get away with that all the time with a decent overhaul. The most recent three examples are the 2004 F-150 that was “redesigned” for MY2009, the 2005 Mustang that was “redesigned” for MY2010 and the 2003 Expedition and Navigator that were “redesigned” for MY2007 and again for MY2015.

        However, I agree with you. It looks like FCA’s R&D is mostly going toward vehicles and components that won’t be healthy for the company’s future CAFE scores. It seems like it would be wiser of Chrysler to start working on a range of high-performance I-4 and V-6 powerplants to rival Ford’s EcoBoost lineup. That way, when in ten years, the Charger and 300 inevitably stop offering giant V8 HEMIs, the company’s enthusiasts and customer base will have gotten acclimated to smaller-displacement engines.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          Mercedes and BMW are some of the most egregious CAFE violators. They just charge the customers and move on. 70k Dodges and 80k Jeeps can buy CAFE credits. While complying with CAFE would save some money, people still have to buy the cars.

          • 0 avatar
            whynot

            Mercedes and especially BMW are looking at ways to increase their fuel economy/get better CAFE results however. BMW has the popular i3 and the acclaimed i8, Mercedes has hybrids, and both are offering up diesel throughout most of their lineup.

            FCA just has the 500e and a few sprinkling of diesels in their full size pickups and the GC. They are completely behind the curve when it comes to hybrid/electric technology.

        • 0 avatar
          zoomzoom91

          Kyree is right. To add a bit, Ford is using platforms (the D3) based on Volvo’s P2, rolled out in 98/99. It should be noted that the Hurricane 4 cylinder, most likely with forced induction, is in the works. This will help Chrysler in this regard.

    • 0 avatar
      Superdessucke

      Really. Where’s my Dart SRT? Instead we get this SUV Tomahawk thing. Bahhhhh!

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    Direct injection, that cam system out of the Viper that lets them phase the intake and exhaust timing separately, and displacement on demand.

    Im feeling like all the big NA V8 days are numbered. I would not be surprised if they go hot V turbo next go round.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      I expect the 6.4 and supercharged 6.2 to stick around but the 5.7 is almost certainly going to be gone in the next five years, probably sooner.

      If they can pump the 3.6 to 330 or so then they wouldn’t even need a turbo v6.

      • 0 avatar
        sportyaccordy

        For a daily driver, having to wind out an engine to get its power sucks. A twin (or even single twin scroll) setup would give the engine the low and midrange punch that is much more relevant to daily driving. I like high revving engines on the track, but I don’t like HAVING to rev an engine out to get moving, which is what more up top power would require.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          You don’t have to wind out the Pentastar to get power from it. Looking at the power curve it is “strongest” from 2000-4000. The torque curve is almost completely flat.

          Adding a turbo will give a faster vehicle, but I would not expect ot to really improve power delivery.

  • avatar
    deanst

    Am I the only one irritated by the fact that every second article on TTAC includes the phrase “said upgrades”, “said car”, “said feature” etc. etc. etc. Is this “The Truth about Legal Cross Examinations” or an auto buff website?

    Perhaps there is some “writing for TTAC” manual that is given to all contributors? If so, time for at least one revision.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    If FCA wants to shore itself up for CAFE, it needs to make four-cylinder cars that people actually want to buy, not tinker around the edges with V8s whose only car applications CAFE hates. Man (or automaker) cannot survive on full-size pickups alone.

    Or maybe it’s just polishing itself up for the sale to PSA.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      They’ve obviously blown off trying to comply with CAFE. Either the fines are too miniscule, which really they are, or they’re just going for broke, swinging for the fences. But they’d be perfect for a Toyota buyout though. Toyota has the CAFE credits it pi$$es away, and in desperate need of something besides appliances

      • 0 avatar
        RideHeight

        I don’t think Toyota is in desperate need of anything except finessing Akio away from the office lest he sporty-up something else that doesn’t need fixing.

        Shacho! Gorufu?

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          RideHeight -Toyota is in desperate need of finding a more photogenic Chief Communications Officer.

          She does seem to fit the Toyota image (bland but effective) until she got busted for prescription narcotics.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            She looks so familiar…

            https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/asset-viewer/american-gothic/5QEPm0jCc183Aw?utm_source=google&utm_medium=kp&hl=en&projectId=art-project

      • 0 avatar
        LectroByte

        Seriously? I don’t see Toyota buying anything from FCA, unless Jeep is up for sale and GM and Ford have already passed on it.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      CAFE will be negotiable. The handwringing among the commentariat here is not likely shared by those who run the company.

      Marchionne is doing what he needs to do — he is building brands and nameplates. One reason that company sales are improving is that he is working hard to make things more interesting. He’s done remarkably well in a short period of time, particularly given his lack of emphasis on the reliability that Americans cherish so much.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        He’s building houses of cards. Do you think BTSR will stay around when all Chrysler has to offer is a sorry 2.4 Tigershark when everyone else has sophisticated turbo/hybrid powertrains?

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          Hybrid powertrains are generally money losers. You know what isn’t? Selling hoardes of non CAFE compliant $50K+ Jeeps, trucks and Hellcats. BMW and Mercedes haven’t bothered to comply with CAFE and just charge customers for what they want. You really think FCA abandoning their core markets and going full bore against Honda and Toyota in the compact/hybrid market is a viable strategy?

          • 0 avatar
            whynot

            BMW is having huge success with the i3 and i8.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            They’re not going to sell a lot of Hellcats. I doubt that they will prove to be a great money maker in absolute terms, as not many will be sold.

            However, they do help to create positive publicity for Chrysler, which is the point. In just a few years, the brands have been transformed from being a bad joke into being worthy of a second look.

            tl;dr Halo car.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @danio

            This is an excellent point. FCA is giving Americans the products a significant segment of them want. In some cases they own markets where their domestic competitors bowed out (ie Wrangler, JGC, LX platform)

          • 0 avatar
            whynot

            @28-Cars-Later

            The only product in “a significant segment” that FCA offers that domestic competitors have bowed out of is the Wrangler.

            FCA sells a lot of the GC, but it is hard to determine what the JPC’s actual competitors are. Ford sells more Explorers than Jeep does GCs, and if you look at the price levels of the trims you will notice they actually match up closely. But the GC is traditionally seen as a more premium vehicle than the Explorer even though that really isn’t reflected in price anymore.

            FCA is the top in the full size RWD category with the Charger, but it is hard to say if that is actually a significant segment. Same with the 300- it technically dominates the pseudo-premium RWD segment- but its sales are on par with the similarly sized and priced LaCrosse. Most people don’t care about RWD vs FWD, so I would argue they are in the same segment.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            “BMW and Mercedes haven’t bothered to comply with CAFE and just charge customers for what they want.”

            You must have missed the giant sh!tstorm over replacing BMW’s inline sixes with the N20. That was purely driven by CAFE and other fuel economy standards in other countries, as was the less controversial shift to turbos by both Audi and Mercedes. Just because they don’t make the target doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to get as close as possible.

            Chrysler, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to be doing anything at all, at least in volume segments. FCA needs to find a way to move their core products closer to the goal, and right now there’s no motion at all.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            “Chrysler, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to be doing anything at all, at least in volume segments. FCA needs to find a way to move their core products closer to the goal, and right now there’s no motion at all.”

            They’re doing the same. Steady improvements have been made over the past few years with the latest powertrains and there are more in the pipe including hybrids. Aside from that, they’re choosing to continue to satisfy their core truck and SUV market with powertrains that work in that segment.

            The Hemi is incredibly inexpensive to produce, it doesn’t surprise me that it would continue on even if in more limited use.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            You might have a point on LX competing with GM’s Epsilon II sedans and Ford’s D3s, although Chrysler’s LX can be had with a standard V6 (which Impala lacks) and optional V8 (which is not offered by Ford/GM). I see a glaring difference in driveline alone but many buyers are ignorant of this I agree.

            However JGC is in a segment almost its own offering: true offroad capability, optional V8, vs Explorer weighs 320lb less (Laredo 4×4) and is 8.5 inches shorter. GM’s K2XX SUV (Yukon) is five inches longer than the Explorer, weighs 500 more than Explorer (or 820lb more than JGC) 4×4 starts at 50K vs Jeep Laredo’s 32. So really all three of these are vastly different from each other in price, weight, length, drivetrain options, and true capabilities. The only thing I can think of which would be similar to JGC is 4Runner which also starts at 32. Chrysler sells a fair amount of JGC and at nominal ATPs (whereas GM puts money on the hood, not sure about Ford’s Explorer ATP). Buyers evidently like what JGC does for them, its certainly not exactly like its immediate competition.

            http://www.ford.com/suvs/explorer/specifications/view-all/

            http://www.jeep.com/model-compare/detailed-chart/?modelYearCode=CUJ201503&variation=1#

            http://www.gmc.com/yukon-full-size-suv/features-specs/options.html

          • 0 avatar
            whynot

            The problem is when you start going to that narrow of a definition then things start looking worse for FCA.

            They really only have 1 competitive non-off roady CUV, the Durango (which is also their only 3 row CUV for now), which lags in sales compared to its competitors. They have nothing against the Tahoe/Suburban. They have no sub compact sedan/hatch(500 too small), their compact sedan is merely adequate, their midsize sedan is good but has a tarnished name they have no good compact CUV, their subcompact CUV (Renegade) is fairly good but doesn’t seem to back up the hype given, and their midsize CUV (Cherokee) is good but again compromised by the fact that it is packed with stuff to make it off roady which turns some people away.

            The biggest problem is it doesn’t seem like FCA is really investing into any future innovations. They don’t seem to be investing much in carbon fiber like BMW. They talk about aluminum then back away from it. Danio mentions a hybrid coming down the pipeline but FCA never really talks about hybrid tech all that much (just that hey, we will have a hybrid eventually) or even teases it in concepts. FAC might be the only major car conglomerate to not actually have a hybrid vehicle for sale. They weren’t particularly early adopters to turbos and had a huge marketing push around them like Ford (say what you want about the Ecoboost, but you can’t deny that Ford sold the hell out of the engine/technology to the general public). the With the exception of off road tech (which is nice, but lets be honest a niche market), and the fact that they seem to make the only infotainment system journalists actually universally like, FCA always appears to be following the market and afraid to try out new things. Which is ok, except the early adopters get the publicity and the opportunity to learn from their mistakes faster.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “You must have missed the giant sh!tstorm over replacing BMW’s inline sixes with the N20.”

            BMW manages to sell a lot of cars in its segments. I would not confuse whining on the interwebs with the business of automaking

            Marchionne is playing to FCA’s strengths, which is something that he needs to do in order to pay for the R&D that you are talking about. If he can stall long enough to get that R&D through a JV or merger, then even better.

            It is very difficult to turn around an ailing business. Give management credit for playing the long game here — unlike Rick Wagoner, this guy knows what he is doing.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Very nice post, I agree with most it, especially your second paragraph.

            “they really only have 1 competitive non-off roady CUV, the Durango (which is also their only 3 row CUV for now), which lags in sales compared to its competitors. ”

            Chrysler still competes in the minivan segment (and in fact owns it in terms of volume) which GM no longer competes and Ford’s Flex does but IIRC is scheduled to be discontinued. The three row CUVs from what I have read are meant to compete for people hauling duties which used to be the domain of the minivan (and to a lesser extent Suburban/Expedition). Sergio is looking at a Grand Wagoneer to replace the Durango, but I think due to the minivan the Durango/GW face internal competition let alone competition from GM’s Lambada, Ford’s D3/D4, and Japanese offerings such as Pilot (which I think offers a tight third row).

            “They have nothing against the Tahoe/Suburban.”

            True but Ford’s offering is dated, and I don’t believe Nissan or Honda bother to compete, while Toyota still offers Sequoia. One would think a Ram SUV would be an easy thing to do, but with quad cab RAM 1500s being available they might find it redundant.

            “They have no sub compact sedan/hatch(500 too small)”

            I think in the US this highly competitive segment is more a compliance exercise than a profitable one.

            “their compact sedan is merely adequate”

            I agree. It felt like it was phoned in a bit.

            “their midsize sedan is good but has a tarnished name”

            Maybe, but per GCBC the new 200 sold 88,009 copies YTD. The previous 200 sold 117,363 in all of 2014. If the 200 can keep the momentum going it is on pace to exceed that figure at a higher ATP than the old 200s were sold.

            http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01/chrysler-200-sales-figures.html

            “they have no good compact CUV”

            Agreed.

            “their subcompact CUV (Renegade) is fairly good but doesn’t seem to back up the hype given”

            Perhaps, I’m not sure.

            “and their midsize CUV (Cherokee) is good but again compromised by the fact that it is packed with stuff to make it off roady which turns some people away”

            The Cherokee can be had in FWD. I’m not sure of the FWD has any of the off roady stuff built into it or not, but I think the fact it is sold as a Jeep as opposed to a Chrysler/Dodge/Fiat helps it tremendously. People like tough looking things from a brand of a heritage of off roading even if their car is a modified Dart with a transverse powertrain.

          • 0 avatar
            zoomzoom91

            @28 cars

            I believe your #s for the three SUVs you listed, but where did you pull the curb weight for the 4×4 Explorer (compared to 4×4 Laredo JGC)? I can only find the weight for the base trim. Thanks

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    Pushrods baby…not going down any time soon.
    Cheap to build and working plenty well.
    The LS and the Hemi rock on.

    • 0 avatar
      johnny_5.0

      The 5.7 needs more power as the platforms it is in are generally heavy and it has been falling behind the GM and Ford offerings. The glory of the 6.4 has a ~$40K admission price. They could replace the 5.7 with a turbo 3.6 and bump the 6.4 up to 500+hp. But there’s obviously added cost/complexity vs. the 5.7.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “The LS and the Hemi rock on.”

        I am always amused by Chrysler’s use of the word “hemi”. They copied a Porsche design for the 5.7. They also applied that tag to a 4 banger way back when.

        http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/0407_hemi_engine/

        • 0 avatar
          wmba

          Pray inform us which Porsche has/had a pushrod V8 with lousy shaped combustion chambers that requires two spark plugs to properly fire? Which Porsche V8 had an iron block? Ever?

          Useless two-valve heads with pushrods in this day and age. High friction valvetrain, bad flow.

          Only dinosaurs promote such technology these days.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “Useless two-valve heads with pushrods in this day and age. High friction valvetrain, bad flow.”

            Scoreboard, baby.

            http://tinyurl.com/o43ebhl

            Enjoy your extra valves and camshafts. Plus, dinosaurs are cool.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            wmba –

            “Early in the research phase, they discovered a combustion chamber that Porsche used for 1965-97 air-cooled 911s offered the ideal starting point for their new design. Porsche’s head happened to be a hemi.”

            “The natural course of engineering evolution has moved Chrysler’s hero powerplant far from its Porsche roots and severed all ties to the Hemis of yore. Even though it isn’t a genuine hemi, this engine still packs a powerful punch as a marketing ploy.”

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            “Useless two-valve heads with pushrods in this day and age. High friction valvetrain, bad flow.”

            You have obviously no idea what kind of volume numbers modern Hemi heads flow. The 6.4L heads are especially magnificent.

          • 0 avatar
            ponchoman49

            Apparently you haven’t driven a modern day Vette with a crappy old fashioned pushrod lightweight alloy V8 that can knock down 30 MPG on the highway and blast past those pesky ricer 4 cylinder turbo sedan pretenders like the WRX or Lancer that have trouble getting low 20’s MPG

          • 0 avatar
            indi500fan

            Bad flow, LOL
            That’s why Nascar had to introduce the “tapered spacer” this year to cut them back from 900 to 750hp.

          • 0 avatar
            nrd515

            Bad flow? You don’t know what you’re talking about. The LS and Hemi engines have great flowing heads. They are compact motors compared to the supersized Ford Coyote 4 valve motor, and they make decent power and cost a lot less to both make and repair. The two spark plugs in the hemi is a simple and cheap way to improve emissions, nothing more. Back in the late 70’s, an MSD ignition did the same thing, just in a more expensive way.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        What about the ZF-licensed 9-speed? Can it take the torque?

    • 0 avatar
      pragmatic

      Make in aluminum to save 100 or so pounds and then they’d have something. Pushrods make sense in V engines saving weight and better packaging.

      If I were king of FCA the 5.7 and 6.4 hemis would have aluminum blocks for lighter weight. I’d also make a baby hemi 3 to 4 liter aluminum head and block. With this you’d have 200 – 250hp with much lower cost and equal weight to a DOHC 2.0L turboed 4 cylinder. Cheap to make very small and light. Make use of the small packaging to make a smaller and lighter car.

    • 0 avatar
      Pig_Iron

      @indi500fan,

      Well, yes and no, It depends. I’m a big fan of OHV, but multi-valve heads have their place depending on application and market. These makers don’t decide to implement a design without cost/benefit analysis.

      Otherwise I’d still be able to buy a regular cab, step-side Ranger 4X4 with stick and an LSD, all painted up in Peter Pumpkinhead orange.
      ;-)

  • avatar
    319583076

    It seems like the “C” in FCA is doing what it has always done, i.e. – Chrysler’s a one-trick pony without the resources to do much more than dress up that trick with various BS as long as possible while waiting for one of two things to happen: A. Gov’t Bailout or B. Merger/Partnership. In either case, the cash infusion allows them to develop the next trick which they proceed to ride into the ground while the mediocre and under-developed product languishes…rinse and repeat.

    • 0 avatar
      MrGreenMan

      There appears to be a reliable about 15% of the market that likes this trick when financed via Santander or some other sub prime lender.

      That trick could also be – they swallow and learn from a better, smaller player. But there are no new Dodge Brothers, and there is no new AMC.

  • avatar

    AMERICA is good at making BIG CARS with BIG ENGINES.

    That’s the reason the SUV did so well and crossovers continue their reign.

    Small cars?
    Small engines?

    Not so much.

    When people think MURICA – they think Cadillac, Lincolns…etc.

    Now, the phrase S.R.T will dominate simply because there’s no one else to challenge S.R.T. in a bracket that you can actually afford.

    Hyundai Genesis R-spec???

    LOL.

    • 0 avatar
      johnny_5.0

      I’m not sure which crossovers with big engines you are referring to. You can’t even get a V6 let alone a V8 in a CRV/Escape/RAV4. The Explorer easily dominates the three row category and only a small percentage of those are the “big” turbo 3.5. Large care sales aren’t exactly stellar. Americans like spacious vehicles, but lets not kid ourselves that the demand for RWD and V8 engines extends beyond the tiny percentage of the market that enthusiasts occupy when it comes to cars. The EcoBoost sales ratio of the new F-150 is hinting that American’s don’t even care about big V8s in trucks.

      • 0 avatar
        clivesl

        I think enthusiasts severely underestimate the number of new car purchasers that have any idea how many cylinders are under the hood.

        All they care about is “does it feel fast enough?”

        If you could get 400HP from two squirrels mating in the engine bay most Americans would be just fine with that.

    • 0 avatar

      Got hammered by an SRT Challenger on an on ramp today….sucked the headlights out of my wimpy 230 hp beemer….

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al From 'Murica

      Americans think Cadillac and Lincoln? You must be looking at sales figures from 1972.

  • avatar
    nickoo

    As many here have stated, yes it would be really stupid for FCA to focus on updated the hemi, while neglecting their 4 cylinders. FCA’s new 4 cylinder, the hurricane engine, will likely debut before the hemi upgrade. IT WILL LIKELY DEBUT in a NEW JEEP PRODUCT set to be revealed this calendar year. Also, their is a penta-star upgrade, know as PUG, which is also coming, likely before the new hemi.

    FCA needs a major change to its line-up thanks to upcoming CAFE standards, and it’s going to be tough on them, but it looks like they may just pull it off with the new 4s, 6s, transmissions, and new plug in hybrid minivan/crossover that is coming.

    The other hope is that a business friendly republican gets the white house in 2016 and delays the new CAFE requirements by 3-5 years giving FCA more time, they are in the worst position of any automaker at this point.

  • avatar
    Big Al From 'Murica

    Umm, whatever on the Hemis…more power, DI, blah blah blah. My question is how the hell did I miss the twin turbo Ford Coyote and when can I get one under the hood of a revived Lightning F150?

  • avatar
    That guy

    1. Trucks and SUVs are still huge profit generators. Chrysler moves a lot of Hemi engines and most of them go into the heavy profit generators. It makes complete sense to put development dollars into them.

    2. Trucks still count against CAFE. When trucks are such a huge part of a company’s volume, improving their fuel economy has a major CAFE impact.

    3. It’s not like Chrysler isn’t investing in other engines. The Pentastar family is still pretty new. The I4s need to be cometely replaced, though they did make tangible improvements to them. It takes time to develop a new engine family.

  • avatar
    kosmo

    I’m all for gas mileage, having never in my life owned any car that did worse than 20 (a big deal in 1980!), but so much of current high mileage engine design is driven by mileage testing, rather than real world driving.

    I’m pretty sure that in total, in the real world, smaller turbos don’t save one bit of gas.

    I say bully for FCA (and Toyota to a certain extent) for continuing to develop NA technology.

    And damn BMW to hell eternal for replacing the NA I6 with a turbo 4!

  • avatar
    kkop

    We, as a family, own three Hemis, two of which have the MDS system. I love all of them, and I’m excited Chrysler is investing in this platform. As far as we’re concerned the Hemi MDS engines ARE the Chrysler 4-cylinders :-)

    Even the current MDS Hemis are pretty frugal (for a 5.7 V8): in our 2014 Ram CC 4×4 20mpg is my usual average, which (coming from a Nissan V8) was a major increase in fuel economy. If Chrysler can increase that, they’ll surely keep me as a customer.

    Finally, it’s pretty funny to read the comments in this thread; other than BigTruck there doesn’t seem to be any hands-on owner experience with the modern Hemis in the readership. So, naturally, the discussion devolves into rants about how Porsche had a Hemi first bla bla etc.

    Sigh.

    • 0 avatar
      nrd515

      I’ve had 3 hemis so far, going back to my 2003 Ram 1500, and my 2008 Charger R/T, the only real complaint I’ve had so far is how long it took for the dealer to replace the timing chain in my 2010 Challenger R/T Classic after the recall. If things work out, and I have no reason to think they won’t, I should be buying a 2016 or ’17 Scat Pack Challenger at the end of 2016. Hopefully, the color choices will be better than they are now, but if not, TorRed will be fine.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • namesakeone: My guess is that the corporate powers that be will keep on pushing this technology, regardless of...
  • Lightspeed: Everything is called “Q” hilarious! I liked the old G35/37, that seemed to be a pretty nice...
  • DenverMike: In the days before Rodney King, it was just understood that after a police chase, they were gonna beat...
  • Lightspeed: I’ve driven the current IS in 350 and 250 form. The 350 is more than adequate, the 2.5L 250 is an...
  • Get Necked Ya Dumb Nigger!: Cant wait for the ground forces to move in and neck all these animals! You’ll be...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber