Archives

Hi All:

___This one makes me fume :mad:

All-new HEMI® with Fuel-Saving MDS Technology Earns Ward’s 2009 "10 Best Engines" Award

Refined 5.7-liter HEMI Delivers Improved Fuel Economy, Even More Power and Torque
All-new 5.7-liter HEMI® engine recognized by Ward’s for powertrain excellence
Sixth “10 Best Engine Award” for 5.7-liter HEMI V-8 engine
Expanded utilization of Chrysler’s fuel-saving Multi-displacement System (MDS) operation
More power: as much as 390 horsepower
More torque: as much as 410 lb.-ft. of torque

Auburn Hills, MI - Now in its second generation, the legendary 5.7-liter HEMI® V-8 engine once again has earned a place on Ward’s distinguished “2009 10 Best Engines” list. Relentlessly delivering powertrain excellence, Chrysler LLC has earned Ward’s "10 Best" award six times in the last seven years with the iconic 5.7-liter HEMI engine.

"The HEMI earns the honor not on pure emotion or brute force but with advanced new technology such as variable valve timing, which allows cruising in four-cylinder mode about 40 percent of the time, which is twice as much as the previous-generation Multi-Displacement System cylinder-deactivation system," said Tom Murphy – Executive Director of Ward’s AutoWorld magazine. "

A number of Ward’s testers managed to top 19 mpg (12.3 L/100 km) with the HEMI, putting it in line with certain premium V-6s tested.

___Great to see the tech but a whopping 19 mpg? Why not just toss out 5-gallon cans with 3-gallons of gasoline in them every 100 miles while driving a Prius, Yaris, Corolla, Civic, Fit, HCH-II or Mini instead?

___Good Luck

___Wayne

I can understand awarding "powertrain excellence" based on the application of the various technologies, but it should come with an additional "powertrain irrelevance" award that is twice as large so it stands out in Mopar's trophy shelf.

This award may be similar to the awards won by Studebaker's supercharged 289 V8, three model years before the doors closed.

If Chrysler survives, they have their Phoenix V6 engine program waiting in the wings. These can be good engines to inherit this technology if they are used for trucks and minivans rather than four passenger sport coupes. But something tells me that they will want to continue to "Grab Life by the Horns" and offer a 300hp Phoenix V6 in a compact car. :(

I can understand that 19 mpg is nothing to write home about. But for people that really need these trucks for their work and for hauling 19-21 mpg sure beats 14-15 mpg and saves gas for all!

As long as they're in bigger vehicles that NEED them. It has been going around that the weight issue is due to gov't safety regulations. Anyone believe that BS? Toyota IQ.

My guess is Chrysler is putting out stuff they had planned 4-5 years ago, but I hope their greener projects are in overdrive (assuming they are around to put them in the showroom)

Scale the Hemi down to 2 or 3 cylinders, and I'd suddenly find it relevant.

Scale the Hemi down to 2 or 3 cylinders, and I'd suddenly find it relevant.

One of the darker spots in Pontiac history occurred in 1961-1963 when they developed a 4 cylinder engine for their new compact Tempest model by chopping their 389 V8 in half and installing only the passenger-side bank of cylinders. The resulting "Indy 4" engine, at 194.5 cubic inches, shook so bad that it almost rattled the car apart. And it didn't weigh much less than the V8 it was derived from. And it didn't help that this vibrating boat anchor was rigidly mounted via a torque tube to a modified Corvair transaxle at the rear axle. The entire assembly, about 12 feet from end to end, was suspended on mushy rubber mounts at either end. Oscillating and shuddering within the car body, the powertrain made more noise than power, at 110 gross hp.

While I know that "scale it down to 2 or 3 cylinders" was not meant literally, reading it made me chuckle with a "been there, done that" moment. It made me remember the dreaded Tempest and it's "half a V8" engine - a car that was credited as "the worst handling, worst all-around riding car ever offered to the American public".

But they "need" that power, how else are the dodge rams going to pass me after riding my bumper for an hour. I especially enjoy how you can almost smell the gas fumes as they roar by and then turn off at the nearest gas station.

Funny you should mention that because typically I *can* smell raw gas from the ECU going open loop and dumping too much fuel in response to a planted right foot. :(

___Great to see the tech but a whopping 19 mpg? Why not just toss out 5-gallon cans with 3-gallons of gasoline in them every 100 miles while driving a Prius, Yaris, Corolla, Civic, Fit, HCH-II or Mini instead?

___Good Luck

___Wayne

I just got a mental image of a mini with a 5.7L V8 hemi in it.

Was the nameplate "Dodge Shadow II" ?

:p

I just got a mental image of a mini with a 5.7L V8 hemi in it.

That reminds me of a magazine article I saw where a guy stuck a Cadillac Northstar V8 (4.6L, ~290 hp and torque) engine in his Pontiac Fiero.

It took a lot of work, cutting, new brakes, etc., but he fit that thing in there.

I know of a local guy here who fit a Mustang V8 into a Miata. Apparently it was fast. :rolleyes::eek:

I know of a local guy here who fit a Mustang V8 into a Miata. Apparently it was fast. :rolleyes::eek:

Reminds me of the old '87 Turbo Buick Grand National: the car that could pass anything on the road...except a gas station.

:D

Classic car, tho'.

Maxx, thanks for the history lesson. Didn't know that about the Tempest. Anyone should know that removing one bank of cylinders from a V-8 is going to be a vibrational nightmare. Going from 8 to 3 cylinders would be even worse! You're right that my scaling down comment referred more to implementing the same technology on a smaller scale, not just chopping down the engine -- although depending on the design it might be possible to make a V-twin out of the Hemi without a total redesign.

We just recently sold our Volvo diesel, which had the 6-cylinder version of the essentially same diesel engine that was offered with 4 cylinders in VWs and in Audi 4000s, and with 5 cylinders in Audi 5000s (and possibly something else oddball like Peugot diesels? Can't remember now).

chrysler can easily downscale the hemi, but that would be the equivalent of making the viper a V6. It would be killing off an icon. They are definitely in no position to preserve something when they're future as a whole isn't sure. THe cylinders hemispherical shape can easily be transferred to a 4 cylinder. It maybe the secret ingredient in the new phoenix V6's that chrysler will be offering in the future. Why they didn't do this earlier...no one knows.

THe cylinders hemispherical shape can easily be transferred to a 4 cylinder.

Heck... They've done it before. I had an '88 Plymoth Reliant K station wagon with a 2.5 Hemi (25 combined EPA, but it had the "towing" options).

It got a lot of laughs with that Hemi badge sitting under that 2.5 badge.

HEMI = (H)ot (E)ngine, (M)anufacturer (I)nsolvent

The old 4 cylinder hemi-head engine had real promise but was introduced at a time when computer-controlled carburetors were a new idea and therefore not fully ironed-out. So they had driveability problems that people associated with the entire engine rather than just a bad carb design.

I can understand that 19 mpg is nothing to write home about. But for people that really need these trucks for their work and for hauling 19-21 mpg sure beats 14-15 mpg and saves gas for all!

Unfortunately, I agree. That's roughly a 33% improvement. But it's mainly because it already based in the low end of the curve. Going from 15 to 19 mpg saves a helluva lot more than going from 20 to 30 mpg. :Banane22:

Where do they get these people to test drive? I managed better than 19 mpg nearly every time I turned the key in my Ram. And that truck didn't have any of Dodge's new "fuel efficient" offerings.

Felt the urge to bump Chrysler discussions. CleanMPG has a duty to report where the vultures are circling:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/jim-press-is-insane-still/

There might have been a time when Toyota felt sad about him leaving?

DAS

He's doing the best putting-lipstick-on-a-pig job that he possibly can. call it damage control or whatever - its just marketing applied in a reactive rather than proactive way - in other words BS.

...allows cruising in four-cylinder mode about 40 percent of the time,...


So it is engineered to be inefficient 60% of the time. Mopar, way to convince me that you are trying to embrace the economics of driving.

When all 3 of the American runners are out of shape and two are crippled, 3rd place just doesn't seem competitive enough for serious consideration in any form. - Dale

I wouldn't take a brand new chrysler vehicle if someone GAVE it to me. I'd promptly sell it or trade it in for something else and be happy with the depreciated loss. there is just no way I could possibly have any confidence in something made by a company so incredibly mismanaged.

Thanks for helping to keep the Chrysler death watch up-to-date.

I wish for Dan Quayle to articulately make the Chrysler pitch to Congress, but perhaps that's too much to wish for.

Remember Cereberus' role in mythology.. Just remember

DAS

Death watch or not, most of you are here to stick more pickle forks into Chrysler & the other American car companies.

Problem is American companies did respond to the foreign companies' assault. America is producing good vehicles....cars that last a long time...trucks that take punishment. My work mates love American trucks, SUVs, & bigger American steel. I, myself, always loved the smallest highest MPG hatchbacks, usually American labeled, but foreign in make...cars that Americans didn't want for decades.

Against my usual grain (but to obtain a particular transmission type), I bought a Dodge Caliber over 2.5 years ago. Expecting a great loss of MPG & maybe more mechanical problems than I'm used to, I found the Caliber trounced my expectations. The Caliber build is excellent with not one squeak, creak, or rattle. Except for minor computer glitches that have been easily fixed in this particular first year car, my Caliber makes me proud, staying away from shop repairs & making heavy stop & go traffic smoothly elegant. Further sophistication on high mountain passes is evident with the tranny making the little 2 liter engined car capable of easy gliding on all the widely varying slopes. I can get 32-33 MPG while traveling over 4000 foot mountain passes. Averaging 31.4 MPG in this 3000 pound automatic car, including some cold winter years, it collects 35+MPG on long highway drives, even with some mountain driving.

A member of a Caliber forum, I can say that the later 280 HP Turbo-charged 2.4 liter engine for the Caliber gives the traditional Dodge oomph that most on this thread poo poo. But at the same time, the hot horses can be reigned in for gentle cruising to gain as much as 30 to 33 MPG on the road!

There seems to be other fine American vehicles too, if people will purchase with care & good thinking. Of course, American trucks come to mind. The Ford Fusion also seems every bit as admirable as high quality foreign cars.

With a long history of good cars & motorcycles behind me, I am pleasured by either foreign or American vehicles.

... I can get 32-33 MPG while traveling over 4000 foot mountain passes. ... it collects 35+MPG on long highway drives, even with some mountain driving. ...

I don't know why folks presume mountains are tougher for mpg. That doesn't match my pre-hypermiling experience.

Even without real HM, my cars generally produce better mpg on mountain passes and winding mountain highways than on sealevel freeway driving. As long as braking needs are minimal, the less dense air and/or lower speeds produce better round-trip economy. Mild hypermiling has widened my difference.

Hi Litesong:

___I trash mediocrity and obviously the American car buying public has spoken with their pocket books a similar with regards to both Chrysler and GM.

___I will not debate the longevity of domestically designed and built vehicles but I know of a 2004 Cavalier that was an absolute POS by 40K miles. The 03 Corolla still feels as solid as the day it was driven off the lot at 90K.

___The problems with Trucks and SUV’s is that we are over 60% dependent on foreign oil and those vehicles only harm us. It doesn’t matter how tough or big or macho they are, they harm each and every one of us due to the amount of natural resources it takes to build and own. A 2.3L equipped Ranger w/ a stick, now you are talking tough yet capable P/U while still offering the best FE from an American truck in the US. The mags hate the thing because it was designed in the 80's and has not changed much since then.

___Regarding the Caliber, it sounds like you have a quite capable machine and with a little Hypermiling, she has proved her worth. However, a 280 HP Turbo-charged anything is only good for vastly exceeding the speed limits and or racing form stop sign to stop sign which is an absolutely ridiculous amount of power that will be used for seconds vs the hours and days that all of 30 HP will be used. Oomph for what, getting into an accident?

___With regards to the 2010 Fusion and Fusion Hybrid, by all means. I would recommend that vehicle over the Camry and Accord at every opportunity because it really is that good.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

To avoid ruffling CMPG feathers I've decided to get news on this topic here instead:

http://www.topix.com/autos/chrysler

I liked this one:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ab00Mwk4ZkZE

The request for further aid is to ensure the company will “never be back for more,” Kolka said.

Could we get that in writing?

Ron Kolka is Chrysler's CFO and he says Chrysler Is Safer Bet Than GM for Taxpayers. I'll leave it at that.

DAS

Scale the Hemi down to 2 or 3 cylinders, and I'd suddenly find it relevant.

Well why not just scale it down to a smaller size? Perhaps 5.655 cu.in.? Is that small enough? weighs in at 25 lbs, has dual carbs, electronic ignition, and a dry sump lube system. This little beast will turn 12,000 rpm... yeah try that with your full size hemi!!

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/500/Miniature_hemi_engine.jpg

And just yesterday I heard this on the radio:

Buy a new Dodge truck, and we'll give you the Hemi free.

Blech!

One of the darker spots in Pontiac history occurred in 1961-1963 when they developed a 4 cylinder engine for their new compact Tempest model by chopping their 389 V8 in half and installing only the passenger-side bank of cylinders. The resulting "Indy 4" engine, at 194.5 cubic inches, shook so bad that it almost rattled the car apart. And it didn't weigh much less than the V8 it was derived from. And it didn't help that this vibrating boat anchor was rigidly mounted via a torque tube to a modified Corvair transaxle at the rear axle. The entire assembly, about 12 feet from end to end, was suspended on mushy rubber mounts at either end. Oscillating and shuddering within the car body, the powertrain made more noise than power, at 110 gross hp.

While I know that "scale it down to 2 or 3 cylinders" was not meant literally, reading it made me chuckle with a "been there, done that" moment. It made me remember the dreaded Tempest and it's "half a V8" engine - a car that was credited as "the worst handling, worst all-around riding car ever offered to the American public".

VW made the 2.5L I-5 by cutting the Lamborhini Gallardo's 5L V10 in half. It seems to do okay. If only they'd mated the engine with a taller geared overdrive...

Going from 15 to 19 mpg saves a helluva lot more than going from 20 to 30 mpg. :Banane22:

I remember someone explaining this before but could anyone go over this again? Slowly and in a way that I can pass it along. :eyebrow: - Dale

Dale, pick a distance and then compute the difference in usage.

For example, if you drive 100mi in a vehicle at the 4 different consumption rates:

100/15 = 6.7g
100/19 = 5.3g
Yielding a savings of 1.4g

100/20 = 5g
100/30 = 3.3g
Yielding a savings of 1.7g

From the above, it seems the example numbers were poorly chosen. ;)

Man I was banging my head figuratively trying to make 19mpg better than 30 in comparison to 15 and 20 respectively. I just couldn't see this as a correct statement but thought that I had forgotten the "angle" I tried the usage idea too and couldn't get it to stand.

With the above numbers I'll stick to a 50% increase in fuel economy is better than a 26.6% increase.

So what peacefrog_0521 could have said was:

15 to 22.5 mpg saves a helluva lot more fuel than going from 20 to 27.5

Both with an increase of 7.5 mpg a difference of improvement of 50% and 37.5% respectively.

Or a fuel usage savings of 2.255 gallons from 15mpg to 22.5mpg

and only 1.3636 gallons saved from 20mpg to 27.5mpg if all traveled 100 miles distance.

Correct me please. - Dale

No correction needed.

A better statement is that the lower the EPA, the greater the savings at the same percentage over EPA.

For example, at 150% EPA you'd have the numbers below:

15 --> 22.5
20 --> 30

100/15=6.7g
100/22.5=4.4g
Yielding a savings of 2.3g

100/20=5g
100/30=3.3g
Yielding a savings of 1.7g

This will work for any comparison of two EPA ratings -- the lower of the two will "save" more fuel with the same percentage increase. In that sense, hypermiling an FSP will have a larger impact on usage than hypermiling a fuel efficient vehicle. However, the fuel efficient vehicle will always win out in net usage with the same effort applied to its use.

OK I've got it. Understood as most improved but not most economical. I'll take the 30mpg one please. :D - Dale