V8’s On The Horizon……..(?)

[BourbonRunner]

Active Fuel Management and Displacement on Demand - two problematic systems. (so, get rid of them!)

You'll get no argument from me. I'm just old enough to remember the disaster of the V8--6-4 and various other GM efforts to increase fuel economy even if it's stupid. For example: . My first car (an 86 cutlass supreme) had fixed rear windows because the bean counters said it would keep costs down and the engineers said it would also keep weight down and thusly increase fuel economy...

Count on at least some of it being the word "hemi" - people know the term, even if it really has no meaning these days.

As you've pointed out in this thread: The current Hemi ain't really a Hemi but the marketing department knows the general public doesn't know that. They're banking on the legendary Hemi muscle cars to push the sales, plain and simple.

And besides, calling it a Hemi sounds better than calling it a Magnum... Which depending on you talk to is not a motor but could definitely be either an ice cream bar or a jimmy hat.

Sponsored

 

[FrankFrqnkFrank]

You should care about psychology.......... there is a type of consumer that doesn't do forums at all - in fact, it's a dying thing. There are whole generations not into forums.

But , go ahead and keep believing they take forums and internet as their key to market demands.
Yes, they DO watch, but it's just one single source of information.
Yes, they are here, yes, they pay attention, but they also understand, only certain types are on forums and of those there's a subset who speak out - most do not. So they are actually only seeing the most loud, the most vocal, not the grass roots.
Keep up - I have, including reading more current issues of Psychology Today yes, from this century!

maybe Stellantis should start to think deeper about the psychology of trying to attract younger buyers. Each time I go to my dealer, I find I’m toe-tapping to a playlist clearly aimed at 60+ year olds which must act like the Mosquito Alarm on those potential younger buyers. maybe that interweb thingy can help

 

[Swisskidd]

You'll get no argument from me. I'm just old enough to remember the disaster of the V8--6-4 and various other GM efforts to increase fuel economy even if it's stupid. For example: . My first car (an 86 cutlass supreme) had fixed rear windows because the bean counters said it would keep costs down and the engineers said it would also keep weight down and thusly increase fuel economy.

The ‘famous’ Cadillac V8-6-4!! More miles in the shop than the highway. Only to be replaced by the 4100 V8, producing a blistering 135hp.

The Oldsmobile Diesel of the period is also noteworthy, when they thought it was smart to take a gas engine and convert it to diesel.

Interesting, I remember hearing the purpose for the fixed rear door glass was so kids couldn’t lean out the windows. Instead, they had vent windows that would open. Later on, the rear door glass would not roll down all the way for the same reason.

Was apprenticing 4 years as a Tech at a GM dealer in Switzerland in the mid to late 1980’s. Today’s vehicles are from a different planet, when compared to the years I grew up in!

 

[Jrgunn5150]

They never took it away. They "leaked" that they were talking about taking it away, then announced they were "saving the hemi" all to generate more sales in a dying platform. The whole thing was planned from start to finish because people will buy things if you make them think it's in limited supply.

They 100% took it away.

You could not get a Hemi in a 1500 DT MCA truck for the 25 model year, period.

They spent 4 months frantically arguing with suppliers over refurb and uptick and capacity costs to get the capacity back to bring the option back.

It wasn't even official in Stellantis until May, weren't sure if they would be able to pull everything back.

They brought back because they could cheaply enough and the architecture to install it already exists.

Same as they'll continue the Durango and Wrangler.

Gladiators and Chargers are an entirely different story.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

maybe Stellantis should start to think deeper about the psychology of trying to attract younger buyers.

Younger buyers - if they do that, there definitely won't be a V8.

 

[Rusty PW]

This is one I was thinking of............

The guys name was Wally Booth. Not Frank. Sorry.

 

[BourbonRunner]

The ‘famous’ Cadillac V8-6-4!! More miles in the shop than the highway. Only to be replaced by the 4100 V8, producing a blistering 135hp.

The Oldsmobile Diesel of the period is also noteworthy, when they thought it was smart to take a gas engine and convert it to diesel.

Interesting, I remember hearing the purpose for the fixed rear door glass was so kids couldn’t lean out the windows. Instead, they had vent windows that would open. Later on, the rear door glass would not roll down all the way for the same reason.

Was apprenticing 4 years as a Tech at a GM dealer in Switzerland in the mid to late 1980’s. Today’s vehicles are from a different planet, when compared to the years I grew up in!

The 8-6-4 was an interesting idea that the contemporary tech was not capable of delivering on until computer control of EFIs and engine management caught up. Still don't particularly like it but that's me.

The Olds Diesel single handedly ruined Diesel engines as a viable alternative to gas guzzling low-po V8s for a good 30+ years. Then VW (and FCA) ruined Diesel's last chances just as people forgot about the Olds.

I've heard that too but considering there were plenty of other cars in The General's lineups that did roll down, I'm going to defer to the cost/weight savings side.

And you're right. May as well be a different galaxy.I learned how to jet a carb at 16 with a piece of piano wire and could tweak the timing if needed.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

The guys name was Wally Booth. Not Frank. Sorry.

He's a big name in AMC racing I think he might have also drive a Gremlin X

 

[Swisskidd]

The Olds Diesel single handedly ruined Diesel engines as a viable alternative to gas guzzling low-po V8s for a good 30+ years. Then VW (and FCA) ruined Diesel's last chances just as people forgot about the Olds.

I think the pollution mandates over the past 20 years killed the diesel in non-commercial vehicles. It’s hindering the efficiency and doubled fuel costs. Diesel used to be considered the first byproduct in the refining process. It was dirt cheap.

 

[BourbonRunner]

I think the pollution mandates over the past 20 years killed the diesel in non-commercial vehicles. It’s hindering the efficiency and doubled fuel costs. Diesel used to be considered the first byproduct in the refining process. It was dirt cheap.

Yep. DEF and particulate filters are a nuisance and reduce reliability. Worse yet, subjecting Diesel emissions to the same standards as gas emissions was born of a bureaucracy that doesn't understand engineering, thermodynamics and general physics.

Offering them as an option became unattractive because of both yours and my points above. Dieselgate soured the public image of them and the rest is history.

FWIW I rented a Dacia Duster 4x4 Diesel in Iceland last year and not only did it have a proper 3 pedals but it was (in spite of Clarkson's ramblings) FUN to drive for an economy trucklette.

I'm a data geek so I asked Grok AI what the total emissions of a WK Grand Cherokee with the Pentastar, Hemi and EcoDiesel was using the stock 24.6 gallon tank. Reason is the WK got all three as an option at the same time and I figured comparing VWs on a Jeep board was pointless.

Key Data

• Fuel Economy (EPA Combined, 4x4, 2018):
  • 3.6L Pentastar V6: 21 mpg
  • 5.7L Hemi V8: 17 mpg
  • 3.0L EcoDiesel V6: 24 mpg
• CO₂ Emissions Factors:
  • Gasoline: 8,887 g/gallon (19.6 lbs/gallon)
  • Diesel: 10,180 g/gallon (22.4 lbs/gallon)
• Tank Size: 24.6 gallons (stock capacity for all engines).

CO₂ Emissions Over a 24.6-Gallon Tank
CO₂ emissions are calculated as:
CO₂ = Gallons × CO₂ per gallon

3.6L Pentastar V6 (Gasoline)

• Fuel used: 24.6 gallons
• Distance traveled: 24.6 × 21 = 516.6 miles
• CO₂ Emissions: 24.6 × 19.6 lbs/gallon = 482.16 lbs CO₂ (218,620.2 g)

5.7L Hemi V8 (Gasoline)

• Fuel used: 24.6 gallons
• Distance traveled: 24.6 × 17 = 418.2 miles
• CO₂ Emissions: 24.6 × 19.6 lbs/gallon = 482.16 lbs CO₂ (218,620.2 g)

3.0L EcoDiesel V6 (Diesel)

• Fuel used: 24.6 gallons
• Distance traveled: 24.6 × 24 = 590.4 miles
• CO₂ Emissions: 24.6 × 22.4 lbs/gallon = 550.94 lbs CO₂ (250,426.8 g)

Comparison:

• EcoDiesel: 550.94 lbs CO₂ (highest, due to diesel’s higher carbon content).
• Pentastar V6 and Hemi V8: 482.16 lbs CO₂ (tied, as both use gasoline and consume the same 24.6 gallons).

The Diesel gets about 13.5% more range out of the same tank, the V6 needs about 3.5 more gallons to go the same.

But here's the part that's crazy to me:

The total CO2 emissions for the V6 to go as far as the Diesel are 550.76lbs to 550.94. I'll call that virtually identical and shatters the notion the CO2 output is greater when the total range is compared directly.

Then I asked it to calculate the emissions per mile, not just the total range of the tank.

CO₂ emissions per mile are calculated as:
CO₂ (g/mile) = CO₂ per gallon / Fuel economy (mpg)
3.6L Pentastar V6 (Gasoline)

• CO₂ per gallon: 8,887 g
• Fuel economy: 21 mpg
• CO₂ per mile: 8,887 ÷ 21 ≈ 423.2 g/mile (0.933 lbs/mile)

5.7L Hemi V8 (Gasoline)

• CO₂ per gallon: 8,887 g
• Fuel economy: 17 mpg
• CO₂ per mile: 8,887 ÷ 17 ≈ 522.8 g/mile (1.152 lbs/mile)

3.0L EcoDiesel V6 (Diesel)

• CO₂ per gallon: 10,180 g
• Fuel economy: 24 mpg
• CO₂ per mile: 10,180 ÷ 24 ≈ 424.2 g/mile (0.935 lbs/mile)

Takeaway: Diesel and Pentastar have almost identical CO2 emissions per mile.

But where the rubber meets the road:

While CO₂ is the primary greenhouse gas, other pollutants vary by engine type:

• NOx (Nitrogen Oxides):
  • EcoDiesel: Higher NOx emissions due to diesel combustion, though mitigated by selective catalytic reduction (SCR) with diesel exhaust fluid (DEF). Real-world NOx can exceed EPA estimates, especially in city driving or if emissions systems are not maintained.
  • Pentastar V6 and Hemi V8: Lower NOx emissions, as gasoline engines produce less NOx, and catalytic converters are effective at reducing it.
• Particulate Matter (PM):
  • EcoDiesel: Higher PM emissions, reduced by the diesel particulate filter (DPF). Incomplete DPF regeneration or heavy load conditions can increase PM.
  • Pentastar V6 and Hemi V8: Lower PM emissions, though gasoline direct-injection engines (like some Pentastar variants) may produce fine particulates, still less than diesel.
• CO and HC (Carbon Monoxide and Hydrocarbons):
  • Pentastar V6 and Hemi V8: Slightly higher CO and HC due to gasoline combustion, but modern catalytic converters minimize these.
  • EcoDiesel: Lower CO and HC, as diesels are more efficient at combusting fuel.

Like I said, I'm a data geek and found it interesting.

Your own mileage may vary.

 

[BillyP]

What really blows me away is it says the emissions for the 3.6 and 5.7 are the same per gallon. If that’s the case then why are they getting rid of V8’s? I guess because the V8 is less efficient.

 

[Jrgunn5150]

I'm in Toledo tonight, and I'll be at Mobis tomorrow, but it'll all fall on dead ears of yeah, but you could just...

 

[ShadowsPapa]

What really blows me away is it says the emissions for the 3.6 and 5.7 are the same per gallon. If that’s the case then why are they getting rid of V8’s? I guess because the V8 is less efficient.

Because you get more miles out of a gallon. So the 5.7 over the life of the engine puts out a lot more.
21 vs say 17 mpg - that's a lot more emissions per "drive". (and in a Jeep that 17 is optimistic)

3.6 -

• CO₂ per mile: 8,887 ÷ 21 ≈ 423.2 g/mile (0.933 lbs/mile)

5.7

• CO₂ per mile: 8,887 ÷ 17 ≈ 522.8 g/mile (1.152 lbs/mile)

So again - emissions rules - CAFE and all. More 5.7s on the road, more fines

 

[BillyP]

Because you get more miles out of a gallon. So the 5.7 over the life of the engine puts out a lot more.
21 vs say 17 mpg - that's a lot more emissions per "drive". (and in a Jeep that 17 is optimistic)

3.6 -

• CO₂ per mile: 8,887 ÷ 21 ≈ 423.2 g/mile (0.933 lbs/mile)

5.7

• CO₂ per mile: 8,887 ÷ 17 ≈ 522.8 g/mile (1.152 lbs/mile)

So again - emissions rules - CAFE and all. More 5.7s on the road, more fines

Yes sir. Thank you.

 

[Wheelin98TJ]

I'm in Toledo tonight, and I'll be at Mobis tomorrow, but it'll all fall on dead ears of yeah, but you could just...

Hopefully you got a nice filet from Mancy’s.

Sponsored