• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

So why do car manuf'rs kill good in-line cylinder engines?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Throckmorton said:
What's your Jeep??
Click to expand...

He mentions in the OP that it's a grand cherokee. The 4.0L is good for the wrangler and normal cherokee, but the extra weight of grand and whatever he's towing is going to be showing the I6's limits.

If he's considering swapping to any drive train option that ever was available from the factory it will be far cheaper and easier to just buy a jeep set up how he wants it. The cost of doing an engine swap in a modern vehicle correctly so everything actually works is not cheap.
 
Throckmorton said:
I can't see a BMW's engine fitting under the car unless it lifts the front end off the ground
Click to expand...

The engine mounts are usually designed to shunt the engine underneath the passenger compartment which can lever the front of the car up in severe accidents, but you're absolutely right that a longer engine means a longer hood.

ZV
 
Who wouldn't want an inline eight cylinder in a full size RWD Buick these days? 😛

I lament the overall loss in the production of good inline engines. I would love to have a RWD car with an i6 that isn't some high-end luxury/sport model....you know, for the rest of us.
 
KDOG said:
Well this is what I was talking about when I said they could've re tweaked it. My Jeep can get 23-24 mpg hwy when driven conservatively (55mph, slow starts) which is what the new ones with the 3.6L Pentastar get! Doesn't seem like there was a very good reason to do away with it. I even thought about the 4.6L Stroker mod engines too... I don't know. Just seems odd. The biggest problem I've had with this engine in the 74K that I've put on it was a vacuum hose.
Click to expand...

The 4.6L modular (is that what you're talking about here?) is going away because it is old. The block is heavy and far too flexible since so many compromises were made for it to BE modular. The new smaller, lighter, more powerful engines with better flow, power, and emissions beat it all to pieces.

That's why motors get redone. Removing weight, lowering thermal mass, redoing water and oil flow, bore sizes....

It seems simple to just tweak something, but it reality it's not.
 
KDOG said:
Is it just me? I'm still rockin' a good ol' 2004 Jeep GCL with the 4.0L I-6 in it. Its common knowledge thats one of the best engines ever as far as reliability.
Click to expand...

That's because they have had decades to iron out any issues.
 
Pulsar said:
The 4.6L modular (is that what you're talking about here?) is going away because it is old. The block is heavy and far too flexible since so many compromises were made for it to BE modular. The new smaller, lighter, more powerful engines with better flow, power, and emissions beat it all to pieces.

That's why motors get redone. Removing weight, lowering thermal mass, redoing water and oil flow, bore sizes....

It seems simple to just tweak something, but it reality it's not.
Click to expand...

I don't know why it's heavy but the "modular" part refers to the plant where they're built being modular, not the engines
 
Throckmorton said:
I don't know why it's heavy but the "modular" part refers to the plant where they're built being modular, not the engines
Click to expand...

IIRC Pulsar works for Ford. Pretty sure he knows that the "modular" bit refers to being able to easily re-tool the assembly line for the 4.6 or 5.4 or any of the variants. 😉

Anyway, his point stands. In order to enable the assembly line to be more easily re-configured for different variations of the engine, there would certainly have to be compromises in the engine's design to accommodate the limitations inherent in the "modular" assembly line.

ZV
 
IGBT said:
the eco-KOOKS want to get rid of combustion motors. So they keep establishing unrealistic tailpipe emission standards which require mfgr's to re-invent motors that will comply. As soon as they do the eco-KOOKS change the rules again to obsolete the motors complying to existing standards and force the mfgr's to start all over. Huge waste of R+D research asset that could be better spent on vehicle safety.
Click to expand...

Emission standards are a good thing. If you like breathing bad air, why don't you move to Mexico, China, or India where they don't have such "eco-KOOKS" keeping their air clean.
 
jhu said:
Emission standards are a good thing. If you like breathing bad air, why don't you move to Mexico, China, or India where they don't have such "eco-KOOKS" keeping their air clean.
Click to expand...
I thought it was an unwritten rule not to ever respond to IGBT or JediYoda.
 
jhu said:
Emission standards are a good thing. If you like breathing bad air, why don't you move to Mexico, China, or India where they don't have such "eco-KOOKS" keeping their air clean.
Click to expand...

Even in Italy my friend from LA brought up the fact the fumes from cars were really noticeable when walking along side of a few of the busy streets.
 
Zenmervolt said:
The engine mounts are usually designed to shunt the engine underneath the passenger compartment which can lever the front of the car up in severe accidents, but you're absolutely right that a longer engine means a longer hood.

ZV
Click to expand...

This, lengths of I-6's are much larger than V8's, and the like... With the V formation it allows more crumple zone...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top