Dodge Challenger Forum banner

Here comes the 4-cylinders!

29K views 360 replies 57 participants last post by  illhaveanother 
#1 · (Edited)
A new 4-cylinder engine is being developed and will be built in Trenton, MI beginning 3rd quarter 2017. It will replace the Pentastar 3.6L that is being built there now but 3.6L production will continue at other locations. Sign of the times? Will we really see a 4-cylinder 2019 Challenger?

News | Timing of new Mopar engine revealed

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
 
#4 ·
The 2.0 4 cylinder turbo engine in the new Camaro does 0-60 in 4.4....times they are a changin...
 
  • Like
Reactions: rghoskins
#5 ·
I'm keeping my Scat Pack with its eight cylinders. :D
 
#6 ·
Unless there is a major lightening of the chassis and boosting of the 4 cylinder I don't see how they could put one in the current Challenger, the weight to power ratio would be so screwed up and it would be a major gutless wonder worse than cars of the 70's and 80's!!

My two cents!

-Kenny
 
#25 ·
OMG, I had a 1983 Challenger technica and a plymouth Sapporo.. both gutless piles of scrap
 
#11 ·
We don't need nor want no dang 4 cylinder. I couldn't even stand the MDS kicking in so it's turned off. ALL 8 ALL the time !!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19johned53
#12 ·
I'd prefer a boosted V6 over an inline 4 any day. I'd still prefer a V8 though. The day Dodge announces no more V8's after X model year, I'm going to go buy a few of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSM450
#13 ·
Current Formula One engines are 1.6 liter V-6s that turn over 800 hp with their regenerative braking energy. They are the fastest cars in the world on a road course.

I prefer the big V-8, but it is very possible to get a LOT of power out of a smaller engine.

Imagine for a moment what we would have if we applied that F1 technology to a 6.4 liter mill.......
 
#28 ·
I had one of those as well and it was junk. :frown:
 
#15 · (Edited)
I'm fine with a four-cylinder being offered as an option next-gen, like on Mustang and Camaro. They can be made to produce very respectable power (and even torque!) these days, especially with forced induction. But personally I'll never be able to stand the sound of them nor their preference for operating in the upper half of the tachometer, so I'll never buy one unless there is literally no other option. I've been miserable in every single NA four I've ever driven, although my buddy's '05 WRX STi and a turbo Saab 9-3 offered pretty good experiences.

I will agree, though, that they've gotta work on reducing the weight of the Challenger if they're thinking of giving it a four-cylinder powertrain. I doubt anyone enjoys the thought of throwing around 4,200 pounds of car with a four-cylinder underhood, especially a naturally-aspirated one.

Naturally, my hope is that a V8 will continue to be an option going forward, because that's the option I'll always spring for.

Finally, we must all consider whether there's even likely to be a next-gen Challenger, regardless of cylinder count, given the way FCA is headed. As a prospective new Challenger Scat Pack owner, I have to admit that the company's future outlook and current leadership is giving me some pause.
 
#16 ·
This is what I got from Autoblog


EngineTurbo 2.0L I4 Power275 HP/ 295 LB-FT Transmission8-Speed Automatic 0-60 Time5.4 Seconds DrivetrainRear-Wheel Drive Engine PlacementFront Curb Weight3,339 LBS MPG22 City / 31 HWY Base Price$26,695
 
#19 ·
I'd take a 4 cylinder... per bank.
 
#21 ·
Amen to the overweight observations!

If I've slurred it once, I've slurred it unintelligibly a quadrillion times: these cars are bloated tuna boats!!

And trying to move their phat asses with an underpowered engine is always going to end the same way - badly!

That's why you wont catch me leaving the house without at least 2 oxy-acetylene tanks full of helium in the trunk. I figure the uppliftiness all that helium provides has to counteract some of the beer I drank...i mean wait...wait, no, weight!

Yeah, that's what I mean...

And for gosh sakes, who let that pink elephant in to run all amok and such?!?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: c26bt34c
#23 · (Edited)
The important context...that time is more about the Camaro dropping to under 3400 lbs, rather than it being a turbo-4.

Kinda raises the whole question, why do we like these cars in the first place?...because they are just fast or because they roar with a v8 while going fast?

...and what is all this excitement over rebooting the 80's? I can understand reliving the muscle car era of the late 60's, but the 80's? WtF is that about?! Inflation, unemployment, living in a world with nothing but econo 4-banger tin cans? Only reason those were so popular is because we were getting back on our feet after a gas crisis, not because there was something spiritually magical about i4 engines (most of them sucked pretty bad, iirc). I have zero fond memories of the 80's.

Aside from the SVO, the big shining star in the i4 world was Acura's vtec...and it was to become the poster child of the quintessential torque-less wonder that you had to rev the daylights outta to make that fancy hp rating do something useful. Car makers thought this new found hp would make it suitable for larger 4-door models, which even further exposed the underpowered weaknesses unless you were willing to rev the daylights out of it.
 
#42 ·
...and what is all this excitement over rebooting the 80's? I can understand reliving the muscle car era of the late 60's, but the 80's? WtF is that about?! Inflation, unemployment, living in a world with nothing but econo 4-banger tin cans? Only reason those were so popular is because we were getting back on our feet after a gas crisis, not because there was something spiritually magical about i4 engines (most of them sucked pretty bad, iirc). I have zero fond memories of the 80's.

Aside from the SVO, the big shining star in the i4 world was Acura's vtec...and it was to become the poster child of the quintessential torque-less wonder that you had to rev the daylights outta to make that fancy hp rating do something useful. Car makers thought this new found hp would make it suitable for larger 4-door models, which even further exposed the underpowered weaknesses unless you were willing to rev the daylights out of it.
and recall that the domestics (Ford) had the SVO Mustang and the SuperCoupe T-bird and those didn't hold up well for durability - especially when you tried to use that power a lot...

I remember when the 'Vette was going from 205 - 245hp. And it was one the faster new cars around, given what was available as new

There was the Dodge Omni GLH, but refinement wasn't one the key words to describe it. Plus the torque steer would snatch the wheel out of your hands if you weren't prepared.
 
#26 ·
I posted in a different discussion in FB not too long ago, maybe this resurgence is more an indication that people just wanted a reboot of a 200sx with an American badge slapped on it (i.e., shoehorning 3 American car icons from the muscle car era into this role is really taking the piss)?
 
#31 ·
It's 5.4, multiple sources, which btw is damn fast. He's lost in an error.
 
#38 · (Edited)
Missprint. They transposed the numbers. they meant 5.4. Because that's what it does 0 to 60 in. look it up.


Chevrolet 0-60 Times & Chevrolet Quarter Mile Times | Chevy Corvette, Camaro, Chevelle, Blazer & Nova 0 to 60 stats!

Official 2016 Camaro Performance Numbers and Curb Weights are Here!

From chevrolet:

http://www.chevrolet.com/camaro-sports-car.html

>>>
2016 Camaro Sports Car 2.0L turbo engine
The sports car’s mass-savings allows the LT’s standard turbo engine to put all of its 275 hp and 295 lb.-ft. of torque to work. Expect great efficiency plus surprising cornering and braking, and 0 to 60 manual time of 5.4 seconds† (5.5 automatic).
 
#39 ·
A lot of speculation on this thread, but I might as well at my thoughts. The V8 is not going away any time soon. No need to spread fear about that. Dodge isn't that stupid.

However, it is safe to say that Dodge is going to widespread use the new generation 4 cylinders. Fuel economy and lower emissions are key for FCA. They will find the engine bays of our beloved performance cars, as base engines and V6 alternatives. I'm ok with that, and here is why: Significant redesigns likely mean that the next gen Challenger will be smaller and lighter so that a 4 cylinder won't be overburdened. That just means the V8 versions will just be hell of a lot faster!

Imagine a 5.7L R/T pulling around 3600lbs. I'll say 0-60 in 4.1, 1/4 in 12.4 consistently. Now consider a 6.4L SRT! Or 707 hp Hellcat! Or even a new rumored 4.8L Pentastar V8 based off the 3.6. It's a long way yet but there is definitely hope in the future.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top