[KilWerBzz]

Old but it takes time to build an engine that will fit in multiple platforms without creative interpretation of the EPA rules.
http://www.trucktrend.com/news/1702-rumor-fca-working-on-new-i-6-diesels/

 

[Chance]

What they need more is a short inline-6 gasser to replace the V6. I have never liked V6s in FWD applications, not that I really like any V6 that much. As wide as a PM is they should have no trouble fitting an I-6 in. Alpar also has rumors of FCA working on such an engine based on 2.0L inline 4.

The new Mercedes I-6 gas or diesel is very short, hardly longer than the V6 it replaces. They did it by using smaller bore and longer stroke which adds low-end torque, and by using a tight bore spacing.

Unless PM is going to be made much larger and with higher GCWR, I doubt they need more power or torque than the 2.3L I-4 is making already. Just bring that diesel to US.

For what it's worth, I read that Mercedes is eliminating diesels in US except for trucks/vans. They only sold a couple of percent of cars with diesels, so it's not worth it to them. I'd still like to know what percent of PM are diesel. I expect it's a low number.

 

[RDinNHandAZ]

I really like the 3.0 I4 we have now. Any 6 is going to be less mpg. The engine we have now had to be detuned to keep it’s torque low enough for the M40 transmission. If they want more torque and hp up-rate that transmission and free up our engine. I too do not care for the V.

 

[Chance]

Here is just one of the rumors.

https://www.allpar.com/mopar/V6/tornado.html


RD, i disagree that just because it's an inline-6 it will get lower MPG than your I-4. They could still both be same displacement, and newer engine should be more efficient. But as I stated above, the 2.3L Diesel from Ducato already matches your Diesel in power and torque, plus achieves much higher fuel economy, so why not use that engine instead?

 

[RDinNHandAZ]

It uses a belt not our chain for cams. Ours was designed to go longer, harder, less service and produce more torque and Hp than that 2.3, in fact too much for the M40. Ours is used in Cantor trucks, and lots of commercial and industrial applications. It will outlast the 2.3 too. Engines are pumps and it is tough to cut the losses so 4 usually beats 6 in mpg. The best reason to use the 2.3 is it’s inherently lower emissions. It is a good engine. I would welcome it here too. It gets almost 10% better mpg too. I just wonder why the 2.3 wasn’t chosen for our diesel in the first place.

 

[Chance]

....cut..... I just wonder why the 2.3 wasn’t chosen for our diesel in the first place.

As I recall, when the PM was introduced to US market, your 3.0L I-4 was still the top of engine in the Ducato. I would assume FCA wanted to bring the "biggest" engine offering in keeping with American preferences.


I'm rarely in a hurry, so a naturally aspirated 3.0L inline-6 tuned for truck use would be perfect for me. At 80 HP per liter it could make 240 HP which is plenty to see the entire US many times. I don't need it to last 500,000 miles, but would still prefer an iron block rather than aluminum. Built right it could outlast the vast majority of vans. I just want them to keep it simple, and diesels have gotten too complicated by comparison to a NA gasser.

 

[phil]

Maybe they are certifying the 2.3 to Tier 3 vs Euro 6 emission standards?

 

[Brian P]

While I wouldn't doubt that FiatChrysler may be working on an engine like this, I have my doubts that it would show up in any transverse application. Longitudinal-engine Jeeps and trucks, sure.

Transverse inline 6 is "possible" (it's been done) but usually requires trickery: Small displacement engine with narrow bores and siamesed cylinders (no cooling jackets between them) to cut its length to the bare minimum, transmission behind or underneath the engine as opposed to end-on, timing chain in an odd location (VW squeezed their VR6 and inline-5 engines in transversely by putting the timing chain on the BACK of the engine - on the flywheel end), turning circle sacrificed because of the need to use a wider subframe, etc.

The ZF 9-speed transmission that FCA is currently married to for transverse applications installs end-on.

If you take the distance between the inside edges of the front wheels
and subtract the allowance needed for maximum steering angle on both sides
and subtract a little bit of necessary clearance to the subframe on both sides
and subtract the width of the subframe rails twice (bearing in mind that you can't sacrifice crash structure performance these days)
and subtract another bit of necessary clearance on both sides for engine and transmission mounts and necessary clearances and wiggle room (you need to be able to change the belts!)
and subtract the (transverse) length of the end-on transmission
and subtract the distance needed for the accessory drives themselves
you end up with the maximum length that the engine block can be.

Yeah I hate changing the back three spark plugs on a transverse V6 as well. At least we don't have to do it for a long time.

 

[Chance]

They use 4-cylinder engines in cars barely 60 inches wide all the time, so why wouldn't a PM that is +/- 80 inches wide not accommodate an engine roughly 7 inches longer, and that assumes no creative solutions are used.

I do recall the Volvo transverse inline 6, but don't recall specifics.

 

[Brian P]

The wheels are smaller, taking up less of that width and requiring less clearance for steering angle, and the whole thing is just smaller. And often it's darn tight. My daily driver is a Fiat 500. It's tight in that engine compartment!

The issue isn't necessarily the ProMaster, it's the other vehicles that it would be sharing the drivetrain with. This vehicle doesn't sell in high enough volumes to justify having its own fully unique powertrain that won't fit in anything smaller.

Volvo has used transverse 6-cylinders for some time. Friend of mine has one. The transmission is behind/below the engine (it's a GM transmission of some sort). The car is not particularly narrow and the turning circle is not particularly short.

I'm not saying it's impossible ... I'm just saying that as long as FCA is married to the ZF 9-speed end-on transmission for new front-drive applications, it's pretty darn unlikely that there would ever be a transverse inline 6 under the hood of anything they build.

 

[KilWerBzz]

ZF does make a transverse that will mate to the 3.6 gas and is in use. Now will it work on a promaster when they get the bugs out yes. Remember the 62te, 2007-present, on the promaster had its faults and not made for the loads of the promaster. It has been doing its job very well, does it shift like a honda no, it's a work truck. I'm not saying this is the correct trans just that ZF makes one and one for diesel. That will fit. By the way the 62te was mated to the 2.8l diesel in Europe on what vehicle I don't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZF_9HP_transmission

 

[Chance]

The present six speed auto has been discussed to death, and whether it meets your needs or expectations comes down to personal opinion, preference, expectation, etc.


As I stated before, the Euro 2.3 diesel already matches power and torque of the larger 3.0 diesel used for US market, and is lighter and more fuel efficient. Even if Fiat could fit a 3.0L inline six in a Ducato, what would they gain? Smoothness for certain, and maybe added durability, but would that justify the cost when most other companies are downsizing engine displacement? I don't know but expect it would only be needed if a new Ducato was made larger and heavier-duty.


By the way, typical torque ratings of 3.0-liter modern diesels are in +/- 450 lb-ft range, which I believe exceeds torque capacity of existing ZF 9-speed. The 2.3 diesel's torque is about all the ZF is rated for. And I'm not even sure other factors like much higher GCWR of a large and heavy van wouldn't rule the ZF out anyway.

 

[KilWerBzz]

Here's the List of ZF 9HP variants
Name Weight Max. gasoline torque (N·m) Max. diesel torque (N·m)
9HP28 78 kg 280 280
9HP48 86 kg 480 450

Can this be updated to match a engine with more power who knows, they don't have the engine yet.

Mercedes has gone back to inline after 18 years of V's. Less weight, more power and better fuel economy in a 3.0l package.
http://www.caradvice.com.au/494895/...the-straight-six-debuts-new-i4-and-v8-motors/

 

[Brian P]

But all of the M-B inline-six applications are longitudinal.

We all know about the ZF 9HP and that it will mate up to the Pentastar. The big Promaster doesn't use it although it theoretically could. The 948HP fits in the same space envelope as the 62TE. But it doesn't help with mating to this hypothetical INLINE six-cylinder. Both the 62TE (existing big Promaster transmission) and 948HP (what FCA has been using in all newer applications) are "end-on" transmissions. The main gear sets and the various clutches that engage them are in line with the engine's crankshaft - in line with the "end" of the engine. (This is the usual arrangement for transverse front-drive transmissions). What it means is that it takes up some of the width of the engine compartment and this puts a limit on how long the engine can be. Hence ... V6, not inline-6, because it's shorter (transversely).

VW's "VR6" arrangement is a halfway-house between an inline and a V, and that layout was specifically designed so that it could fit transversely in a VW Golf-sized vehicle with an end-on transmission.

Having an inline-6 in a transverse application generally requires a different arrangement with the transmission "off-axis" - either underneath or behind the transverse engine. There are off-axis transmissions out there. GM has a few of them (Volvo has used GM transmissions in the past).

It's not impossible. I just highly doubt that after all the investment FCA has made in building the ZF 9HP under license, that they would design both a new engine AND a new off-axis transmission just to be able to put an inline-six into a commercial van that doesn't sell in enormous numbers!

Not impossible ... but very unlikely!

If FCA develops an inline-six (and this wouldn't surprise me) they have plenty of high-volume applications that can use it ... longitudinally!

 

[Chance]

The new Mercedes Sprinter will be offered with FWD, AWD, and RWD, much like the VW Crafter and Ford Transit. The Sprinter will reportedly also offer 4- and 6-cylinder engines. However, Mercedes hasn't yet announced specifics, like what FWD transmission they will offer, and whether inline 6-cylinder engines will be an option on FWD and AWD Sprinters. For that matter they haven't announced, as far as I know, whether AWD Sprinters will be based on FWD like Crafter and Transit, or remain based on RWD Sprinter as at present.

 

[Chance]

By the way, I just looked it up, and the Volvo with transverse 3 liter inline 6 was only 75 inches wide. The engine was designed to be short, with a bore of 82 or 83 mm, much like the new short 3.0L Mercedes inline 6s.

I still think a transverse inline-6 is very doable, but don't see the need for it as a turbo diesel. If it's a naturally aspirated gasoline engine to replace the V6, then that makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Brian P]

The Ford Transit has been offered (overseas) in either front-drive or rear-drive configurations before, in something that used more-or-less the same bodyshell.

The Transit rear-drive had the engine longitudinal. The Transit front-drive had it transverse. It's possible because in this day and age, the whole powertrain is mounted on a subframe (along with the steering rack and parts of the front suspension) and the whole deal goes "kaplunk" into the bodyshell as a unit. As long as the bodyshell has enough space to accommodate it, it's been done. Obviously the subframe is different.

I don't think either of the Transit configurations had an inline-six but they definitely had an inline-five.

Off topic but there have been much smaller vehicles that had a choice of longitudinal or transverse powertrains in the same vehicle. The Citroen LN either had the old 2CV's longitudinal flat-twin or the Peugeot's transverse-lying-flat inline-four (with the gearbox underneath the engine "off-axis"). Both front-drive. The first-generation Fiat Panda either had the old Fiat 126 longitudinal air-cooled twin (which was in the rear of the 126, but turned around and put in the front of the Panda) or the general Fiat transverse liquid-cooled inline-four. Both front-drive. The general disadvantage is that space has to be made available to accommodate both.

For that matter, the original (1966) Olds Toronado and Buick Riviera were the same basic vehicle platform but the Toronado was front-drive and the Riviera rear-drive. The Toronado had the transmission turned around and put beside the engine which allowed the Toronado to have a flat floor with no transmission hump.

Lots of things are possible. Whether they're practical or economically viable is another matter!

 

[phil]

Regarding the 2.8l diesel & 62TE, it was in the Chrysler's export minivan, Lancia Voyager.

 

[KilWerBzz]

The engines of yesterday and today met the standards of their day. Where are yesterday's engines if they were so good at meeting emission and mph standards. You have emission and mph standards on a global basis that will need to be met tomorrow. Which engine do you redesign to meet those challenges. Remember Henry's first engine was bi fuel so we have gone full circle there.

 

[Chance]

Rarely do you reduce emissions or improve fuel economy by increasing engine displacement. If that remains the case, the PM should get the smaller 2.0-liter I-4 from the Ducato that is very efficient.

Keep in mind that Mercedes and VW have large vans powered by 2.0-liter diesels (or will have very soon), so going to a larger 3.0-L inline 6, while very desirable from a driver's standpoint, probably won't improve emissions or fuel economy.