Growing up in the 1960s many of us drove straight 6 motor cars . My first car was a 1949 Chevy , stripped , stick with the big 6 ..... Ran great, certainly enough power for those days and super reliable. I must add to work and maintain these 6's was fairly easy for a young teenager . I just read that Dodge is producing a straight 6 Charger for 2025 ...I couldn't believe my eyes . I read on ... 550 horsepower ...I knew what was coming next , the inclusion of 2 massive superchargers to , IMHO , beat the crap out of the 6 to make it run like a Hellcat V-8 .... My question is this ....why hook 2 huge turbochargers to a 6 when you can just use a naturally aspirated ,
IMHO the best type , motor to achieve even better results and add better reliability ??... Save a little gasoline perhaps ???... lower insurance ??.. What's your opinion ?
CAR BUFFS ..... a question please .
- Thread starter malocchio
- Start date
It’s probably a mod of the Jeep straight 6 that they’re supercharging.
You can go natural and get 420 HP out of the 6 or Twin Turbo and get 130 HP more. Who says they are huge turbos. Typically you use two smaller vs one larger because the two smaller turbos spool up quicker reducing the amount of lag you would get if it was one larger turbo. Both HP figures are pretty sweet for an inline 6 in my opinion and if you can get 550 with a couple turbos and keep a factory warranty, why not.
I can't answer why, but am of the opinion this new pumped up inline six will not be as reliable and long living as the inline sixes of yesterday. I don't know if any of old ones were bad regardless of the manufacturer. Some are legendary, like the Ford 300.
I have/have had inline sixes from Ford, Jeep, and Mercedes. All were solid.
I have/have had inline sixes from Ford, Jeep, and Mercedes. All were solid.
- Thread starter
- #5
I've read in many auto magazines the motors with super or turbo chargers are more prone to have problems ... true ??
- Thread starter
- #6
Mine were all trouble free as well.... 1949 Chevy , 1964 Biscayne , 1978 Datsun 700 , 1962 Falcon that I can remember at the moment ... One thing I really miss on old cars is an inline fuel filter , a 2 minute change and dirt cheap .
This is absolutely true. More moving parts means more risk of failure, especially when heat is involved.
One of the reasons I jumped on the last of the V8 Tundra generations. I didn't want a V6 Twin Turbo.
Old tech, gas guzzler but fail safe and tried & true.
Mechanically, the straight-six design leads to a naturally balanced engine which is good for smoothness and efficiency. Packaging is good with lots of room around the engine making it simpler to maintain One of the few flaws is the relatively long crankshaft.
Guessing here that the turbo version will be a "halo" car for the line, but the majority sold will be lower cost naturally-aspirated versions with lower insurance premiums and no requirement for premium gas.
The twin turbo advantage is faster spooling using lighter turbo impellers. This makes the engine's power output smoother and more controllable. It will feel like a bigger engine, not a souped-up engine.
Guessing here that the turbo version will be a "halo" car for the line, but the majority sold will be lower cost naturally-aspirated versions with lower insurance premiums and no requirement for premium gas.
The twin turbo advantage is faster spooling using lighter turbo impellers. This makes the engine's power output smoother and more controllable. It will feel like a bigger engine, not a souped-up engine.
That's a given with anything. The harder you work something, the more you push the limits, the more prone to failure it will be. But things have really come a long way in terms of durability/reliability and its not like it was back in the 70's/80's. Nobody is forcing you to have more power, but they are there for those who want it.
Oh mama, Mrs McB bought a ford Mustang 5.0 convertible just before Christmas and i nearly wet myself, but his Dodge has just pushed me over the edge. Straight 6, twin turbo........you lucky, lucky people over there. What size CC engine?
I have a Ford F150 4x4 with the V6 EcoBoost twin turbo motor and it has been very reliable, gets pretty good gas mileage(when driven conservatively) and has impressive power when you get on it. I have always been a diehard V8 fan but I am pretty impressed with these newer smaller displacement boosted motors. They are more complicated and can be expensive to fix but they do work very well.
These modern boosted engines are built to take a lot of stress. Cross bolted main bearings, crankshaft main bearing cradle, oil spray on bottom of pistons, etc. These used to be expensive mods used on high end performance engines but are now standard practice.
I am very interested to see how the new twin turbo straight six works out. The straight six motor tends to work very well boosted. The legendary Toyota Supra motor is often pushed to produce well over 1000 HP reliably!
These modern boosted engines are built to take a lot of stress. Cross bolted main bearings, crankshaft main bearing cradle, oil spray on bottom of pistons, etc. These used to be expensive mods used on high end performance engines but are now standard practice.
I am very interested to see how the new twin turbo straight six works out. The straight six motor tends to work very well boosted. The legendary Toyota Supra motor is often pushed to produce well over 1000 HP reliably!
- Thread starter
- #14
I understand that completely , but why a straight 6 ??..why not a V8 or even a V6 ?
- Thread starter
- #15
- Thread starter
- #16
An inline engine provides more room under the hood for the turbo plumbing compared to a V configuration. A straight six is desirable because of the inherent torque characteristics and extremely well balanced intake and exhaust flow characteristics.
- Thread starter
- #18
That makes sense .
Just because they can!!!
Because they already have the tried and true Jeep straight 6 block that they can soup up.
