mygasser
Well-Known Member
there's some choices of reading here with a quick google search.What is a synthetic fuel consist of?
synthetic fuels for cars - Google Search
www.google.com
there's some choices of reading here with a quick google search.What is a synthetic fuel consist of?
Thanksthere's some choices of reading here with a quick google search.
synthetic fuels for cars - Google Search
www.google.com
They may put the peak where they want, but the actual amount of torque at said peak will still be proportionate to displacement.They can put the power peak wherever they want by sizing and tuning the turbocharger system. This article should answer most of your questions:
Stellantis Whips Up a 500-HP Hurricane
My opinion mirrors @Professor Fate 's. Automakers don't know what's on the horizon with regulations and customer demands. Realistically it'll take a lot longer to go "full EV" than governments and climate loonies want us to (who, big surprise, have little to no actual technical knowledge and expertise). It's become a huge issue on LinkedIn, it's gotten really bad with EV zealots (usually with a sales, marketing etc. background) claiming it'll save the world and the actual engineers and scientists doing their best to call out the bullshit and explain the realities of not only EV adoption but emissions and environmental efforts overall.
Chrysler is a smaller company, they can't afford to have too many platforms on the go, sounds like their jumping in with both feet to electric future and this six is a stop gap to that future.With Chrysler dropping the hemi and offering some turbo charged V/6. GM is designing a new V/8 engine for the vette and its still gasoline powered, Ford is making improvements on their V/8 for the mustang. Is Chrysler getting out of the performance scene ? I'm not talking about the electric version of the challenger. It just seems odd that the other 2 are building performance engines and electric options for their cars. What happened to Chrysler building a 426 hemi challenger. And supposedly they are dropping the chargers as well. Makes me think that Chrysler doesn't think that they can compete with the new offerings from Ford and GM. With Ford announcing that they are going to continue to offer a V/8 for the next 5 - 8 years and GM the same, so I have read and heard . I think that Chrysler not having any V/8 offering is not good.
They may put the peak where they want, but the actual amount of torque at said peak will still be proportionate to displacement.
I get what you're saying, but physics is physics. If you want a big power level out of a small displacement, you're gonna have a laggy deal that's soft down low. You're absolutely not going to get the off idle grunt and top end power of a big V8.True, but also proportional to boost which can be significant. That's more my point, when boost from a turbo comes into play with good sophisticated controls and plumbing the torque and HP characteristics can be modified a lot more than on a NA engine. Without a turbocharger you're pretty much limited to modifying hard parts like camshafts, cylinder heads and manifolds if you want to alter the output and that can be very expensive and labor-intensive on more modern engines especially how they're packaged into modern cars.
I'm excited for this new turbo I-6 but having it completely replace a V8 takes away some of the excitement. I am hoping at least to see them finally have a RWD performance car (with an IC engine) that weighs less than 2 tons.
They say it will make a least (405tq) 90% of it's 450tq peak from 2350 rpm to redline.I get what you're saying, but physics is physics. If you want a big power level out of a small displacement, you're gonna have a laggy deal that's soft down low. You're absolutely not going to get the off idle grunt and top end power of a big V8.
Sure. I'm sure it will be a blast to drive. And I'm just crazy enough where I would like to see a road racer style Mopar with one of these engines.They say it will make a least (405tq) 90% of it's 450tq peak from 2350 rpm to redline.
500+HP Hurricane I-6 Engine Coming to Jeep, Ram, Dodge
It's a ploy to force us to repower our cars with LS power!Ford and GM are still investing in ICE. GM announced just the other day they are investing big money in a new generation small block. Stellantis, however the **** it's spelled, apparently is not.
It's a ploy to force us to repower our cars with LS power!
I would do it. Thought seriously about it, but there's better chassis's to convert.It's a ploy to force us to repower our cars with LS power!
I would probably do an LS swap into a fox body Thunderbird. Always liked that body style and it has a lot more room than a fox body Mustang, plus most anything that will fit the Mustang will also work on a Thunderbird. Toss in a 6 speed stick and let the fun begin.I would do it. Thought seriously about it, but there's better chassis's to convert.
Would be fun. And you'd make Ferd loyalists angry so bonusI would probably do an LS swap into a fox body Thunderbird. Always liked that body style and it has a lot more room than a fox body Mustang, plus most anything that will fit the Mustang will also work on a Thunderbird. Toss in a 6 speed stick and let the fun begin.
Don't forget to put in an 8 3/4 rear endI would probably do an LS swap into a fox body Thunderbird. Always liked that body style and it has a lot more room than a fox body Mustang, plus most anything that will fit the Mustang will also work on a Thunderbird. Toss in a 6 speed stick and let the fun begin.
Just happen to have one sitting in my garage, waiting for a purpose.Don't forget to put in an 8 3/4 rear end
Wamp wamp wamp wamp wamp, wamp wamp wamp....wamp wamp wamp wamp wamp wamp...wamp wamp wamp!Our current governing body is attempting to sneak through our legislative body new laws banning the new car industry from building SO CALLED inefficient internal combustion engines by the year 2050 at the very latest, and if they have their way it could be *** early as 2035. Simply because our current CHIEF in charge believes all the lies about automobiles being the main cause of global warming, when in truth it is one of the least causes. when compared to the global cattle market which produces TONS of uncaptured methane gas each year. And yes methane does harm our environment much more so than the carbon emissions from current vehicles. Has anyone compared fuel mileage of a vehicle running on e85 as compared to regular non alcohol fuels? Last i checked its almost a 20 percent loss in mileage, sounds to me like we use more gas that way. OH well, just my humble opinions.
Lee Iacocca put Chrysler in a good position with their K cars, etc. Then somebody got the government to lower the mileage standards. [exxon, gm, ford, Reagan ????] . It's called power.Somewhere in the late '70's-early '80's there was an issue of Popular Mechanics with the headline something like The Demise of the American V-8 or Rise & Fall of, & Chrysler w/ Lee Iacocca ended up commiting to a switch to almost exclusive FWD cars, wagons/pass. vans etc. What's old is new, odd how 30yrs later there were RWD GenIII Hemis supercharged running around on a Daimler platform, lol.
Nobody EVER lowered mileage standards, including Reagan, the most that may have happened was a freeze on INCREASING the standards. Everyone purchasing a Viper paid the criminal "Gas Guzzler" tax, Genital Motors used a shitload of Isuzu, Toyota, & Daewoo cars to keep the CAFE numbers down, Furd had the usual re-badged Mazda offerings, Mopar the Mitsubishi's but almost disappeared other than the Colt Vista, & the Plymouth Laser/Eagle Talon + the very short lived Dodge Stealth(Mitsu 3000GT).Lee Iacocca put Chrysler in a good position with their K cars, etc. Then somebody got the government to lower the mileage standards. [exxon, gm, ford, Reagan ????] . It's called power.