RV.Net Open Roads Forum: Tow Vehicles: Hemi to be replaced by inline six?

RV Blog

  |  

RV Sales

  |  

Campgrounds

  |  

RV Parks

  |  

RV Club

  |  

RV Buyers Guide

  |  

Roadside Assistance

  |  

Extended Service Plan

  |  

RV Travel Assistance

  |  

RV Credit Card

  |  

RV Loans

Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Posting Help and Support  |  Contact  

Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Tow Vehicles

Open Roads Forum  >  Tow Vehicles

 > Hemi to be replaced by inline six?

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Topic  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 7  
Prev  |  Next
Sponsored By:
LowRyter

OKC

Senior Member

Joined: 01/21/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 03/28/22 09:26pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

So many reasons that don't match the conclusions. Like saying the sun rises in the east and my Accord gets 30mpg. All true stuff but hardly related.

To sum it up: Absolute Power is One Thing, Power Curve is Everything.


John L
WW SL 2805 5th Wheel
2004.5 Chevy 2500HD Allison Duramax X Cab
Ducati 939 SS, Moto Guzzi V11 Sport, Moto Guzzi EV California and Suzuki 1200 Bandit

Me Again

Sunbird(Wa)/snowbird(Az)

Senior Member

Joined: 09/26/2012

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 03/28/22 10:07pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

LowRyter wrote:

So many reasons that don't match the conclusions. Like saying the sun rises in the east and my Accord gets 30mpg. All true stuff but hardly related.

To sum it up: Absolute Power is One Thing, Power Curve is Everything.


Having had a I-6 and similar size V8 is the same vehicle I can tell you one was a quarter horse that other a stallion.


2021 F150 2.7 Ecoboost - Summer Home 2017 Bighorn 3575el. Can Am Spyder RT-L Chrome, Kawasaki KRX1000. Retired and enjoying it! RIP DW 07-05-2021


FishOnOne

The Great State of Texas

Senior Member

Joined: 02/12/2011

View Profile


Online
Posted: 03/28/22 10:50pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

I drove a couple of the Ford fuel injected I6 F150's and they both were turds and I drove several V8 fuel injected 5.0 F150's and always felt like they performed so much better. One of the Ford I6 trucks I drove was my uncles/aunts truck when we would go water skiing I would back the boat into the ramp and also pull it out. There was one boat ramp on the Brazos river that F150 I6 couldn't even pull the boat out of the ramp. So we disconnected the boat trailer from that Ford and hooked it up to my dads 1981 Chevy C10 with a 305 V8 2.73 gear and we pulled that boat out of that ramp with no sweat. There were a few I6 die hard's on this site who swore that the Ford I6 was a torque monster, but that one truck struggled to even pull the trailer out of the ramp even without the boat. I want to say the I6 Fords, Chevy's and Jeep engines were prone to cracked heads and manifolds.

I was never impressed with the Ford I6 that had 300 C.I. even when pulling at low rpms compared to Fords and Chevy's similar size V8's.


'12 Ford Super Duty FX4 ELD CC 6.7 PSD 400HP 800ft/lbs
"200k Mile Club"
'16 Sprinter 319MKS "Wide Body"


Me Again

Sunbird(Wa)/snowbird(Az)

Senior Member

Joined: 09/26/2012

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 03/29/22 07:35am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

FishOnOne wrote:

I drove a couple of the Ford fuel injected I6 F150's and they both were turds and I drove several V8 fuel injected 5.0 F150's and always felt like they performed so much better. One of the Ford I6 trucks I drove was my uncles/aunts truck when we would go water skiing I would back the boat into the ramp and also pull it out. There was one boat ramp on the Brazos river that F150 I6 couldn't even pull the boat out of the ramp. So we disconnected the boat trailer from that Ford and hooked it up to my dads 1981 Chevy C10 with a 305 V8 2.73 gear and we pulled that boat out of that ramp with no sweat. There were a few I6 die hard's on this site who swore that the Ford I6 was a torque monster, but that one truck struggled to even pull the trailer out of the ramp even without the boat. I want to say the I6 Fords, Chevy's and Jeep engines were prone to cracked heads and manifolds.

I was never impressed with the Ford I6 that had 300 C.I. even when pulling at low rpms compared to Fords and Chevy's similar size V8's.


When you say it would not pull it out of the water, what was happening? Spinning rear wheels? Transmission not able to put the power to the ground? Engine missed and farted?

The 300 I-6 Ford engine is legendary.

https://jalopnik.com/heres-why-the-ford-........ine-six-is-one-of-the-greates-1795351528

Ford is said to be working on a new I-6 for F-150s.

[image]

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/ford-stabbi........next-f-150-is-this-the-future-of-trucks/

Bionic Man

Colorado

Senior Member

Joined: 04/03/2009

View Profile



Posted: 03/29/22 08:13am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

I didn't believe in the EcoBoost until I owned one. While my MPG hasn't been significantly better than the V8s I've owned (towing MPG is certainly worse), the power is nothing short of impressive.

My plan is to order a new Wagoneer as soon as the extended wheel base is out. Now I might wait for this engine to be part of the package.

In regard to the claim of French engineering, I'd like to see some sort of proof source on that. This engine was being designed before there was a Stellantis.


2012 RAM 3500 Laramie Longhorn DRW CC 4x4 Max Tow, Cummins HO, 60 gallon RDS aux fuel tank, Reese 18k Elite hitch
2003 Dodge Ram 3500 QC SB 4x4 Cummins HO NV5600 with Smarty JR, Jacobs EB (sold)
2002 Gulf Stream Sea Hawk 29FRB with Honda EV6010

parker.rowe

Delaware

Senior Member

Joined: 09/14/2015

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 03/29/22 08:59am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Turtle n Peeps wrote:



If anybody want's to learn why, this is a great video to learn from. If you just want to know about torque, start at the 3 minute mark and learn about long and short stroke and what it "doesn't do to engines."

Don't like videos? Fine. Lets talk about actual diesel engines.

Engine #1. 2006 LBZ 6.6 Duramax. (Why this engine?) Because I own it and know about it.

Engine #2. 2006 Ram Cummins 5.9.

Engine #1 according to the internet the Durmax has a bore of 4.055 and a stroke of 3.90. (almost a square engine)

Engine #2 according to the internet the Cummins has a bore of 4.02 and a stroke of 4.72.

According to a lot of people on here the Cummins should kill my engine in torque because of the long rod.

Here are the dyno numbers:

2006 Duramax puts out 650 ft/lbs of torque.
2006 Cummins puts out 610 ft/lbs of torque.
So much for the long stroke putting out more torque.

I can hear the fan bois all ready saying that's not fair!! Your Dirty Max is a waaaaaay bigger engine!!! Fine, more facts:

2008 Duramax 6.6 L vs 2008 6.7 Cummins:

2008 Duramax 6.6 L = 650 ft/lbs of torque.
2008 Cummins 6.7 L = 650 ft/lbs of torque.

Well would you look at that? Same exact torque even though the Cummins has a waaaay longer stroke. [emoticon]

Engine Masters did a TV show a few months back about rod length. Everybody on the show (me too) thought the long rod engine was going to put out more torque. WRONG!! They were the same within dyno measurements. Link to Engine Masters rod article.


A few things...your example engines are all turbocharged. That throws everything out the window since the boost levels and other tuning parameters can easily change the power levels.

And longer rods to not always mean longer stroke, as in that engine masters comparison.

However, I do believe that in naturally aspirated engines, displacement is what increases torque in an apples to apples comparison. It just so happens that usually the easiest way for a manufacture to add displacement is to increase the stroke.

If you have two engines that are an I6 and a v8, with the same displacement, the I6 will not inherently make more torque or be a "stump puller" just due to its inline architecture.

Engines are air pumps. The only ways to pump more air is to increase flow efficiency, increase size, or increase air density (boost or elevation changes for example).


2015 Starcraft TravelStar 239TBS 6500 GVWR
1997 GMC Suburban K2500 7.4 Vortec/4.10
1977 Kawasaki KZ1000


Grit dog

Black Diamond, WA

Senior Member

Joined: 05/06/2013

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 03/29/22 09:46am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Me Again wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

I drove a couple of the Ford fuel injected I6 F150's and they both were turds and I drove several V8 fuel injected 5.0 F150's and always felt like they performed so much better. One of the Ford I6 trucks I drove was my uncles/aunts truck when we would go water skiing I would back the boat into the ramp and also pull it out. There was one boat ramp on the Brazos river that F150 I6 couldn't even pull the boat out of the ramp. So we disconnected the boat trailer from that Ford and hooked it up to my dads 1981 Chevy C10 with a 305 V8 2.73 gear and we pulled that boat out of that ramp with no sweat. There were a few I6 die hard's on this site who swore that the Ford I6 was a torque monster, but that one truck struggled to even pull the trailer out of the ramp even without the boat. I want to say the I6 Fords, Chevy's and Jeep engines were prone to cracked heads and manifolds.

I was never impressed with the Ford I6 that had 300 C.I. even when pulling at low rpms compared to Fords and Chevy's similar size V8's.


When you say it would not pull it out of the water, what was happening? Spinning rear wheels? Transmission not able to put the power to the ground? Engine missed and farted?

The 300 I-6 Ford engine is legendary.

https://jalopnik.com/heres-why-the-ford-........ine-six-is-one-of-the-greates-1795351528

Ford is said to be working on a new I-6 for F-150s.

[image]

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/ford-stabbi........next-f-150-is-this-the-future-of-trucks/


Might have been legendary, but legendary doesn't necessarily = powerful.
They were a turd compared to the 5.0.
The only power similarities were, off the line to to about 2000rpms.
After that, the 4.9 torque dropped like a rock and the HP never matched the 5.0.
5.0 maintained close to max torque for about 1500 rpms from 2000 to 3500 rpms and hp climbed faster, to a higher peak hp as well.

And yes, for some reason, out of the hole, the 4.9 pulled like a soft bag of ****, even with the 5 speed with a much deeper first gear than the auto trans, compared to the 5.0 and similar HP/TQ from idle to 2000rpms. I beat the snot out of most model years of 90s Ford half tons and the 5.0 was way more engine than the 4.9 I-6.
4.9 was reliable, but lets not put it on a higher pedestal than it deserves....LOL

* This post was edited 03/29/22 10:20am by Grit dog *


2016 Ram 2500, MotorOps.ca EFIlive tuned, 5” turbo back, 6" lift on 37s
2017 Heartland Torque T29

MFL

Midwest

Senior Member

Joined: 11/28/2012

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Online
Posted: 03/29/22 10:19am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

FishOnOne wrote:

I drove a couple of the Ford fuel injected I6 F150's and they both were turds and I drove several V8 fuel injected 5.0 F150's and always felt like they performed so much better. One of the Ford I6 trucks I drove was my uncles/aunts truck when we would go water skiing I would back the boat into the ramp and also pull it out. There was one boat ramp on the Brazos river that F150 I6 couldn't even pull the boat out of the ramp. So we disconnected the boat trailer from that Ford and hooked it up to my dads 1981 Chevy C10 with a 305 V8 2.73 gear and we pulled that boat out of that ramp with no sweat. There were a few I6 die hard's on this site who swore that the Ford I6 was a torque monster, but that one truck struggled to even pull the trailer out of the ramp even without the boat. I want to say the I6 Fords, Chevy's and Jeep engines were prone to cracked heads and manifolds.

I bought a new 88 150 with injected I6. It had the 5-speed stick, with granny 1st/reverse. It would easily push/pull my 20' TT up/down
most inclines, using almost no throttle, just letting clutch out steadily.

Purchased new 92 150 with 5L 302 4-speed auto. Not near the low speed capability, but about the same towing capability at 65 mph, overdrive locked out, compared to I6 towing in 4th.

Jerry



* This post was edited 03/29/22 10:33am by MFL *





Grit dog

Black Diamond, WA

Senior Member

Joined: 05/06/2013

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 03/29/22 10:23am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Yeah, for some reason, the 4.9s struggled more off the line. I used a lot more clutch pulling a 185 air compressor (for example) up out of a hole with a 5 speed I6 than the same truck essentially with a 5.0.

That said, this has about as much to do with Chrysler's new engine offering as the "I6s have more torque" peeing match!

Turtle n Peeps

California

Senior Member

Joined: 06/23/2008

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 03/29/22 10:33am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

JRscooby wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:


Here are the dyno numbers:

2006 Duramax puts out 650 ft/lbs of torque.
2006 Cummins puts out 610 ft/lbs of torque.
So much for the long stroke putting out more torque.

I can hear the fan bois all ready saying that's not fair!! Your Dirty Max is a waaaaaay bigger engine!!! Fine, more facts:

2008 Duramax 6.6 L vs 2008 6.7 Cummins:

2008 Duramax 6.6 L = 650 ft/lbs of torque.
2008 Cummins 6.7 L = 650 ft/lbs of torque.

Well would you look at that? Same exact torque even though the Cummins has a waaaay longer stroke. [emoticon]


As somebody that has used a lot of torque out many engines I can see a major problem with the numbers you post; You only list peak, and don't relate it to RPM. This would matter if the engine worked at that RPM. But most useful would to compare the graph of torque output over the RPM range.


So why don't "you" put up the torque graph if you find it useful? People have been saying that bigger stroke makes bigger torque. The numbers above prove that not to be true. The Dirty Max with the waaaaaaay shorter stroke makes way more torque than the Cummins I with a long stroke. Myth busted.

Fine, I will do your work for you:

[image]

These two charts tell tail I'm trying to get across.
Both of these Cummins engines have the same bore and stroke. They did not increase the stroke length to get way more torque. Fueling parameters, timing, turbo boost and probable 50 other things changed, but not the stroke length.

Listen to the videos I posted and learn.

BTW I personally think Cummins is doing an outstanding job making the power they do with that long of a stroke. It's hard to make power with a long stroke engine and Cummings is pulling it off. A hard thing to do.


~ Too many freaks & not enough circuses ~


"Life is not tried ~ it is merely survived ~ if you're standing
outside the fire"

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."- Abraham Lincoln


Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Topic  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 7  
Prev  |  Next

Open Roads Forum  >  Tow Vehicles

 > Hemi to be replaced by inline six?
Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Tow Vehicles


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:




© 2022 CWI, Inc. © 2022 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.