Hemi=Dinosaur
06-04-2009, 07:10 PM
#12
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Posts: 4,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you all for your approval. Reading that just boiled my blood like I'm sure you all felt. I just had to let it out. It amazes me how arrogant some of these people are that they will get rid of something popular and successful purely because they didn't build it themselves. I get sick of fools like these constantly trashing Chrysler and the rest of the American car companies who have far more valuable assets and talents than they realize. I just hope that this guy isn't as foolish as Dr. Z and gets it that Chrysler does the best when they are Chrysler, and not when they are being forced into being something they are not "Ze best of american und GERMAN engineering!"
Seriously though, what does he think they will use in the trucks? I doubt any farmer, any construction worker, or anyone else who uses their truck for something other than commuting would ever consider having one of their high revving V8 engines let alone having only a V6. The Hemi has its place in the product line up and the name is still extremely valuable. Keeping it in the car line up is the wise idea not only because it sells well because it is fast, fuel efficient, reliable, and sounds tough, but the cost effectiveness of mass production is also an advantage. This is also part of their identity and competitive advantage. So far, no one has been able to match them in making a V8 like this in countries outside of the U.S. and despite what some might want to believe, this is what gives them an edge.
Seriously though, what does he think they will use in the trucks? I doubt any farmer, any construction worker, or anyone else who uses their truck for something other than commuting would ever consider having one of their high revving V8 engines let alone having only a V6. The Hemi has its place in the product line up and the name is still extremely valuable. Keeping it in the car line up is the wise idea not only because it sells well because it is fast, fuel efficient, reliable, and sounds tough, but the cost effectiveness of mass production is also an advantage. This is also part of their identity and competitive advantage. So far, no one has been able to match them in making a V8 like this in countries outside of the U.S. and despite what some might want to believe, this is what gives them an edge.
__________________
"To Debate and Moderate" since 2006
College Graduate:
B.S. in Marketing
A.A. in nothing
The first 426 Dual Quad member.
The first to 2000 posts
"To Debate and Moderate" since 2006
College Graduate:
B.S. in Marketing
A.A. in nothing
The first 426 Dual Quad member.
The first to 2000 posts
06-16-2009, 11:37 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location:
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone looked at the Fiat lineup? my god it's awful...they look like the same car to me except for the Doblo which is somehow more ugly than the rest. For some reason they conjure images of the Pacer. Check the link below...
It's going to be sad to say goodbye to the Challenger, 300, and the Charger probably as well. Hell, I wonder if they keep the truck lines.
http://www.fiat.com/cgi-bin/pbrand.d...ID=-1073761346
It's going to be sad to say goodbye to the Challenger, 300, and the Charger probably as well. Hell, I wonder if they keep the truck lines.
http://www.fiat.com/cgi-bin/pbrand.d...ID=-1073761346
06-17-2009, 04:44 AM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location:
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man Shoot me now! Like I'm going rush out to buy a "Panda" whaaaat a Punto HUH??? and a Useless? Gott be kidding me they look like every other POS foreign car out there Good grief. Thanks God I kept all my past issues of Mopar Muscle to get me out of this funk! RIP Ma Mopar indeed.
06-24-2009, 10:43 AM
#17
Senior Member
Thread Starter
In today's Bloomberg.com, Fiat announced its plan to share its technology. It also called our hemi a "dinosaur." It does not look good. Here are some key excerpts from the article (note the next to the last paragraph):
“We needed to do something radical with the gasoline engine,” Rinolfi said in an interview at Fiat’s research center in the northern city of Turin, the company’s headquarters.
Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne, seeking to turn around Chrysler after two previous owners failed, has engineers flying between Detroit and Italy every other week on the project as Fiat prepares to offer models that meet stricter consumption and emissions levels required by U.S. President Barack Obama.
Rinolfi’s MultiAir engine uses an electronic hydraulic- valve lift system that allows the engine to automatically adjust the amount of airflow into the combustion chambers, without the use of a traditional throttle valve. In addition to saving fuel, it also reduces carbon emissions by at least 10 percent, he said. The valve control system updates the internal combustion engine, where burning fuel in chambers filled with air creates pressure that applies force to moveable parts.
In the traditional engine, the valves that pump air into the chambers open fully, regardless of how fast the car is moving. Even if the car is coasting and needs less power to keep momentum, air and fuel get in and energy is wasted.
“For years, engines have lost energy in this pumping process,” said Rinolfi, vice president of Fiat Powertrain Research & Development, who joined Fiat in 1971 after getting a physics degree at the University of Turin.
His team spent $100 million in a decade creating the engine at the center in Turin, home of the 2006 Winter Olympics. Analyst Close says Rinolfi’s system is “breakthrough technology” because it regulates each cylinder individually and decides the timing automatically, making the setup more efficient and the engine more responsive. Marco Santino, a consultant with A.T. Kearney in Rome, says MultiAir can be mounted on different engines without having to redesign them.
Fiat hasn’t said how many miles per gallon cars with the new engine will achieve. The company’s two-door 500, which is smaller than BMW’s Mini, gets more than 40 miles per gallon in city driving without the MultiAir engine in most of its gasoline and diesel versions, according to Fiat’s Web site. Chrysler’s most fuel-efficient car is the Dodge Caliber with manual transmission, which gets 24 to 30 miles per gallon.
Chrysler makes two engines that are the most likely to be retrofitted with the MultiAir technology, Rinolfi said. They are the so-called World Engine, produced under the Global Engine Manufacturing Alliance (GEMA) with Hyundai and Mitsubishi, and the V6 “Pentastar” which is being developed for vehicles such as the Grand Cherokee and the Dodge Charger. The GEMA-made engines are 4-cylinder ones used for the Caliber, Compass, Patriot, Avenger and Sebring models.
“A number of things are being considered,” said Chrysler spokesman Rick Deneau, who couldn’t comment on whether the World engine or the Phoenix are candidates for MultiAir technology.
Rinolfi doesn’t expect Fiat technology will be applied to Chrysler’s biggest engines, including 6-liter ones, which he said are destined to disappear “the way the dinosaurs did.”
“It might be difficult psychologically for your average North American customer to downsize to a 4-cylinder engine, even if it has the same performance as a bigger one,” said Marco Santino, an automotive consultant with A.T. Kearney in Rome.
IF HEMIS ARE DINOSAURS, I AM GLAD THAT WE OWN A T-REX!
“We needed to do something radical with the gasoline engine,” Rinolfi said in an interview at Fiat’s research center in the northern city of Turin, the company’s headquarters.
Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne, seeking to turn around Chrysler after two previous owners failed, has engineers flying between Detroit and Italy every other week on the project as Fiat prepares to offer models that meet stricter consumption and emissions levels required by U.S. President Barack Obama.
Rinolfi’s MultiAir engine uses an electronic hydraulic- valve lift system that allows the engine to automatically adjust the amount of airflow into the combustion chambers, without the use of a traditional throttle valve. In addition to saving fuel, it also reduces carbon emissions by at least 10 percent, he said. The valve control system updates the internal combustion engine, where burning fuel in chambers filled with air creates pressure that applies force to moveable parts.
In the traditional engine, the valves that pump air into the chambers open fully, regardless of how fast the car is moving. Even if the car is coasting and needs less power to keep momentum, air and fuel get in and energy is wasted.
“For years, engines have lost energy in this pumping process,” said Rinolfi, vice president of Fiat Powertrain Research & Development, who joined Fiat in 1971 after getting a physics degree at the University of Turin.
His team spent $100 million in a decade creating the engine at the center in Turin, home of the 2006 Winter Olympics. Analyst Close says Rinolfi’s system is “breakthrough technology” because it regulates each cylinder individually and decides the timing automatically, making the setup more efficient and the engine more responsive. Marco Santino, a consultant with A.T. Kearney in Rome, says MultiAir can be mounted on different engines without having to redesign them.
Fiat hasn’t said how many miles per gallon cars with the new engine will achieve. The company’s two-door 500, which is smaller than BMW’s Mini, gets more than 40 miles per gallon in city driving without the MultiAir engine in most of its gasoline and diesel versions, according to Fiat’s Web site. Chrysler’s most fuel-efficient car is the Dodge Caliber with manual transmission, which gets 24 to 30 miles per gallon.
Chrysler makes two engines that are the most likely to be retrofitted with the MultiAir technology, Rinolfi said. They are the so-called World Engine, produced under the Global Engine Manufacturing Alliance (GEMA) with Hyundai and Mitsubishi, and the V6 “Pentastar” which is being developed for vehicles such as the Grand Cherokee and the Dodge Charger. The GEMA-made engines are 4-cylinder ones used for the Caliber, Compass, Patriot, Avenger and Sebring models.
“A number of things are being considered,” said Chrysler spokesman Rick Deneau, who couldn’t comment on whether the World engine or the Phoenix are candidates for MultiAir technology.
Rinolfi doesn’t expect Fiat technology will be applied to Chrysler’s biggest engines, including 6-liter ones, which he said are destined to disappear “the way the dinosaurs did.”
“It might be difficult psychologically for your average North American customer to downsize to a 4-cylinder engine, even if it has the same performance as a bigger one,” said Marco Santino, an automotive consultant with A.T. Kearney in Rome.
IF HEMIS ARE DINOSAURS, I AM GLAD THAT WE OWN A T-REX!
Last edited by Cuda340; 06-24-2009 at 11:18 AM.
06-24-2009, 07:56 PM
#18
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Posts: 4,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So we have a half-wit suck up to Dr. Z II, it sounds to me like I hit a nerve with this remark. "“It might be difficult psychologically for your average North American customer to downsize to a 4-cylinder engine, even if it has the same performance as a bigger one,” So, I'll give this loser the same treatment.
Dear the hopeless yes man to Dr. Z II,
You further have proven my point. When I hear the quote “It might be difficult psychologically for your average North American customer to downsize to a 4-cylinder engine, even if it has the same performance as a bigger one,” I hear an underlying slam against the consumer's intellectual integrity that we are somehow stupid and lack your great intelligence that you so graciously decide to bless us with as you insult us. The problem with this logic is what you are saying is first of all false, 2ndly it lacks the understanding of the customer's wants, and it 3rdly displays a lack of understanding between the Utopia world fools like you live in and the real world. And here is why your logic is fundamentally flawed.
What is the definition of V8 power? There isn't a set definition because it keeps changing with time. If in fact customers only wanted a certain amount of power and that would be enough, then all customers would be satisfied with the V6 version of the Challenger as it produces more hp than many of the V8s that were offered in the original Challenger. The key difference is the how consistent the power is. You obviously lack an understanding of this since you seem to think all engines are meant to rev like Rotary Engines, but this approach takes too much time, too much fuel, and is inadequate. If Americans were to be satisfied with the approach of a turbo I4, then the Talon/Laser, Daytonas, and Stealth would still be produced in the same forms that they were when they were dropped due to too low demand. It isn't just Chrysler that this is a proven fact. Ford tried the same stupid idea you are toying with in the 80s and the customers didn't go along with it despite the superior acceleration. GM's Solstice/Sky have been failures as well. It doesn't matter how much they have improved, the issue is most prefer the traditional way. If this strategy is so perfect, then explain why Saab has been such an enormous failure while sharing much of the same technology (the Wal-Mart engine) that you are using. Americans like V8s, they tolerate V6s but many hate I4s.
The flaw with you logic can pretty much be summed up in this commercial. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyyii8cypFw What was wrong with this commercial is it underlined the problem with the new product while mocking the fans of the old product. This commercial demonstrates the arrogance that you too suffer from. You think that the previous group in charge are a bunch of mindless sheep and the elements that made the past products successful should be abandoned because you don't like the image. To be successful, you need a diverse product for a diverse customer base. How many manufacturers have affordable I4 models? Just about every player in the market has one. how many players in the market have a distinguishing engine like the Hemi, the closest it gets is GM. The Hemi isn't the reason why Chrysler has been suffering, its the lack of a competitive I4 line and an ignored V6 line, poor quality interior, over used styling cues, and badge engineering unpopular models. These elements are the part that need fixing, the Hemi isn't. If you don't believe me look at the history of sales from the Caliber compared to the Neon when it wasn't long in tooth. Look at the sales of the Stratus/Sebring to the Avenger/Sebring. Then look at the sales of the LH models to the LX. The LX lost the least sales of all, and why, because of the Hemi engine. It made the cars standout. Drive an LH model compared to an LX and you'll see that the primary advantage the LX models have is the Hemi option, because without that, the car is lacking compared to the LH models interior materials, interior styling, space weight. If you remove the Hemi, you can expect this to fail.
Also, let's pull out the math for dummies guide. You claim that you have I4s that produce as much hp as V8s. Well let's see here, from what I can see you're "SUPERIOR" I4 engines many borrowed from GM produce not much more than 200hp. Now unless we are in the 80s, that is not only less than any American V8, but it is far less than the say 90% of V6 models in the market today; nevermind the fact that these never produce the torque of a V8 which is precisely what we seek from our V8s. The only engine that can produce anything close to a V8 power is the World Engine you are inheriting but that only produces about 285hp and despite your flawed math 285 is less than 425 let alone 372.
Also if I4 are equal quality in every way to V8s, then discontinue Fiats V8s in all the Ferrari & Maserati. Remember you said it was just as good, the customers are just too stupid but they'll catch on. Remember the engine size on the 500 is half the displacement of some of the Caliber models and was that 40 mpg US or 40 mpg Imperial?
Furthermore, you are not going to gain many customers from the competition in the fuel economy arena. Most of that segment is located in cities and city people tend to prefer foreign cars, not American. By doing this, you are going to loose a considerable amount of the non-city customers who are an asset to Chrysler as they buy many of the large trucks and gas guzzlers because they have to commute and drive a lot more than the city people do. Think through this.
Dear the hopeless yes man to Dr. Z II,
You further have proven my point. When I hear the quote “It might be difficult psychologically for your average North American customer to downsize to a 4-cylinder engine, even if it has the same performance as a bigger one,” I hear an underlying slam against the consumer's intellectual integrity that we are somehow stupid and lack your great intelligence that you so graciously decide to bless us with as you insult us. The problem with this logic is what you are saying is first of all false, 2ndly it lacks the understanding of the customer's wants, and it 3rdly displays a lack of understanding between the Utopia world fools like you live in and the real world. And here is why your logic is fundamentally flawed.
What is the definition of V8 power? There isn't a set definition because it keeps changing with time. If in fact customers only wanted a certain amount of power and that would be enough, then all customers would be satisfied with the V6 version of the Challenger as it produces more hp than many of the V8s that were offered in the original Challenger. The key difference is the how consistent the power is. You obviously lack an understanding of this since you seem to think all engines are meant to rev like Rotary Engines, but this approach takes too much time, too much fuel, and is inadequate. If Americans were to be satisfied with the approach of a turbo I4, then the Talon/Laser, Daytonas, and Stealth would still be produced in the same forms that they were when they were dropped due to too low demand. It isn't just Chrysler that this is a proven fact. Ford tried the same stupid idea you are toying with in the 80s and the customers didn't go along with it despite the superior acceleration. GM's Solstice/Sky have been failures as well. It doesn't matter how much they have improved, the issue is most prefer the traditional way. If this strategy is so perfect, then explain why Saab has been such an enormous failure while sharing much of the same technology (the Wal-Mart engine) that you are using. Americans like V8s, they tolerate V6s but many hate I4s.
The flaw with you logic can pretty much be summed up in this commercial. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyyii8cypFw What was wrong with this commercial is it underlined the problem with the new product while mocking the fans of the old product. This commercial demonstrates the arrogance that you too suffer from. You think that the previous group in charge are a bunch of mindless sheep and the elements that made the past products successful should be abandoned because you don't like the image. To be successful, you need a diverse product for a diverse customer base. How many manufacturers have affordable I4 models? Just about every player in the market has one. how many players in the market have a distinguishing engine like the Hemi, the closest it gets is GM. The Hemi isn't the reason why Chrysler has been suffering, its the lack of a competitive I4 line and an ignored V6 line, poor quality interior, over used styling cues, and badge engineering unpopular models. These elements are the part that need fixing, the Hemi isn't. If you don't believe me look at the history of sales from the Caliber compared to the Neon when it wasn't long in tooth. Look at the sales of the Stratus/Sebring to the Avenger/Sebring. Then look at the sales of the LH models to the LX. The LX lost the least sales of all, and why, because of the Hemi engine. It made the cars standout. Drive an LH model compared to an LX and you'll see that the primary advantage the LX models have is the Hemi option, because without that, the car is lacking compared to the LH models interior materials, interior styling, space weight. If you remove the Hemi, you can expect this to fail.
Also, let's pull out the math for dummies guide. You claim that you have I4s that produce as much hp as V8s. Well let's see here, from what I can see you're "SUPERIOR" I4 engines many borrowed from GM produce not much more than 200hp. Now unless we are in the 80s, that is not only less than any American V8, but it is far less than the say 90% of V6 models in the market today; nevermind the fact that these never produce the torque of a V8 which is precisely what we seek from our V8s. The only engine that can produce anything close to a V8 power is the World Engine you are inheriting but that only produces about 285hp and despite your flawed math 285 is less than 425 let alone 372.
Also if I4 are equal quality in every way to V8s, then discontinue Fiats V8s in all the Ferrari & Maserati. Remember you said it was just as good, the customers are just too stupid but they'll catch on. Remember the engine size on the 500 is half the displacement of some of the Caliber models and was that 40 mpg US or 40 mpg Imperial?
Furthermore, you are not going to gain many customers from the competition in the fuel economy arena. Most of that segment is located in cities and city people tend to prefer foreign cars, not American. By doing this, you are going to loose a considerable amount of the non-city customers who are an asset to Chrysler as they buy many of the large trucks and gas guzzlers because they have to commute and drive a lot more than the city people do. Think through this.
__________________
"To Debate and Moderate" since 2006
College Graduate:
B.S. in Marketing
A.A. in nothing
The first 426 Dual Quad member.
The first to 2000 posts
"To Debate and Moderate" since 2006
College Graduate:
B.S. in Marketing
A.A. in nothing
The first 426 Dual Quad member.
The first to 2000 posts
07-01-2009, 04:00 PM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location:
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take great exception to "It may be difficult psychologically blah blah blah". He acts as though how someone feels about their car is irrelevant. It might be difficult psychologically to buy a car that is grotesquely ugly too, even if it was just as roomy or roomier than a normal looking car. Should we ignore styling as well and ride around in a bunch of transport blobs? If something about your car is "difficult psychologically" for a potential buyer to embrace, chances are, he doesn't buy it.
V8 engines sound better than I4's, and produce the aforementioned torque better than a high revving small engine. The technology discussed actually sounds pretty cool, but a little engine is better for a little car, even if it makes respectable peak hp. Now if they wanted to use some nifty valve control to increase the power and efficiency of an already excellent Hemi, I'd say go for it.
Perhaps they'll say that they will phase out the big cars, and thus don't need the big engines. In that case, why buy Chrysler at all? Oh, wait, they're pretty much getting it for free. Nevermind. I'm depressed now. Must buy Challenger...stat!
V8 engines sound better than I4's, and produce the aforementioned torque better than a high revving small engine. The technology discussed actually sounds pretty cool, but a little engine is better for a little car, even if it makes respectable peak hp. Now if they wanted to use some nifty valve control to increase the power and efficiency of an already excellent Hemi, I'd say go for it.
Perhaps they'll say that they will phase out the big cars, and thus don't need the big engines. In that case, why buy Chrysler at all? Oh, wait, they're pretty much getting it for free. Nevermind. I'm depressed now. Must buy Challenger...stat!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Puthy
General Dodge Challenger Discussions
3
09-14-2007 07:47 AM
