I-6 coming back to Jeep!
- Thread starter Artsifrtsi
- Start date
So true Zorba ! At some point we as a society have began to fall under the guidance of idiots who are " educated beyond their intelligence " . Sound engineering has been replaced by a half assed make a quick buck business model.
Greed and depravity is at the heart of the problem. I feel the book of Ecclesiastes sums it up accurately, "There is nothing new under the sun ". I chuckle to myself when I think of the possibility of Stellantis building a I-6 as reliable as a 58 year old AMC motor that was modernized ONLY 35 years ago to port fuel injection. Will the new 3.0 twin turbo make more power ? definitely !
Will it be as reliable ? If the 3.8 AND 3.6 V-6 are any indication I say probably very questionable. Look at TJ's the newer you get the more issues raise their ugly head. Looking at you 2005 and 2006 TJ's PCM issues and glass jaw manual transmissions.
Yeah but look at how simple to work on it looks.
Part of it too is CAD and similar technologies. Don't get me wrong, CAD is absolutely wonderful - and in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing, better results quicker are forthcoming. But it also means that any idiot can "design" something without knowing a whole lot, nor knowing all the ramifications. Back when I did circuit board layouts with a rather bad CAD package, I had to actually LEARN what the hell I was doing. My first layouts weren't all that great, CAD or no. They got better and at the end, I was pretty damn good if I say so myself - but I never lost sight of the poor bastard that had to assemble and/or work on my designs. I took certain steps to ensure ease of "work on" - something I had to argue with the circuit designer over from time to time.
But yea, I've encountered my share of overeducated idiots.
I worked with many people that believed the results spit out by computer programs (CAD/FEA), and never did a "sanity" check. Just because the computer gives you good results, doesn't mean it's practical.
I'm sure we've all experienced a certain vehicle where doing simple maintenance, like changing oil or spark plugs, was a nightmare. But this vehicle probably had good results from a computer program.
Or the machinist having to explain to the "designer" why a 1 mil tolerance just won't work in the real world. And yea - I was the idiot doing the equivalent with circuit board design at one point. The board house had to explain to me why my chosen micro-vias weren't manufacturable. My only saving grace was that I had actually worked previously in a manufacturing engineering department, so I believed what they were telling me, learned the right way to do it and got on with it. Even then, my 8/8 design rules were at the edge of the board house's capabilities. I understand that nowadays 3/3 is "every day, no problem" - I couldn't have done that back in my day.
I am excited for this. Supposedly they just “lengthened” the 4 cylinder already in the Jeeps. So at least it’s not “all new”.
I can tell there's a lot of job shop type experience here and a lot of that stuff does go on. The quality produced by the university system is not what it once was, for sure. I had a roommate once who was in many of my classes...knew how to study and get good grades (often better than me), but couldn't engineer his way out of a paper bag. Programmers have gotten lazy because they have so much hardware headroom that they can afford to be, and worst case if the screw up they just roll it and the 100 other bugs discovered that week into a patch that gets installed automatically the next Tuesday. There's no skin in the game and mediocrity is tolerated, even expected.
Having spent some years as a product and system design engineer in volume equipment manufacturing for a company that spent millions, if not billions modeling it's entire product design process after automotive manufacturers like Toyota, I can tell you automotive manufacturing exists in a completely different universe. They have this thing called warranty claims that can sink a project in a hurry, and if a real quality issue escapes they could have half a million or more problems out there before they even know about it. No single part makes it to launch without going through multiple reviews by cross functional teams or designers, mfg engineers, and "independent" reviewers not on the project to provide a critical eye outside of groupthink. And usually those are senior engineers that know a thing or two. A system like an engine would include multiple independent subject matter experts all the way up to the chief engineer at the company whose close to retirement and as salty as they come and won't hesitate to send a young design engineer out of a review meeting sobbing as they question every life choice that led up to that day.
So an engineer just screwing something up by a lack of fundamentals being the explanation for why gasoline tdi engines still haven't matched traditional gas engines in terms of maintenance and longevity is preposterous. They might let something small slip (like painting frames before the welds have cooled off enough), but when it comes to powertrain, they've put it through so much testing and data analysis that they know exactly what they're doing and putting out an engine that needs a timing chain every 80k miles or starts blowing itself up once the lowest-bidder sensors have drifted or the owner uses oil that isn't at the very latest API standard is DELIBERATE. They've had engineering, marketing, and finance all in a room together consciously making a decision that this balance is what's most profitable for the shareholders, because product cost, sale price, and expected warranty claims are balanced and optimized to paint the best possible picture on the next quarterly and annual reports. They've arrived at that conclusion based on a list of thousands of things that could go wrong, with each line understood, prioritized, and either addressed or deemed an acceptable risk. That's where most of the misses occur...not in design fundamentals but in miscalculating where the right balance is in whether a known issue needs to be solved or whether it will most often wait to show up until the warranty has expired.
Having spent some years as a product and system design engineer in volume equipment manufacturing for a company that spent millions, if not billions modeling it's entire product design process after automotive manufacturers like Toyota, I can tell you automotive manufacturing exists in a completely different universe. They have this thing called warranty claims that can sink a project in a hurry, and if a real quality issue escapes they could have half a million or more problems out there before they even know about it. No single part makes it to launch without going through multiple reviews by cross functional teams or designers, mfg engineers, and "independent" reviewers not on the project to provide a critical eye outside of groupthink. And usually those are senior engineers that know a thing or two. A system like an engine would include multiple independent subject matter experts all the way up to the chief engineer at the company whose close to retirement and as salty as they come and won't hesitate to send a young design engineer out of a review meeting sobbing as they question every life choice that led up to that day.
So an engineer just screwing something up by a lack of fundamentals being the explanation for why gasoline tdi engines still haven't matched traditional gas engines in terms of maintenance and longevity is preposterous. They might let something small slip (like painting frames before the welds have cooled off enough), but when it comes to powertrain, they've put it through so much testing and data analysis that they know exactly what they're doing and putting out an engine that needs a timing chain every 80k miles or starts blowing itself up once the lowest-bidder sensors have drifted or the owner uses oil that isn't at the very latest API standard is DELIBERATE. They've had engineering, marketing, and finance all in a room together consciously making a decision that this balance is what's most profitable for the shareholders, because product cost, sale price, and expected warranty claims are balanced and optimized to paint the best possible picture on the next quarterly and annual reports. They've arrived at that conclusion based on a list of thousands of things that could go wrong, with each line understood, prioritized, and either addressed or deemed an acceptable risk. That's where most of the misses occur...not in design fundamentals but in miscalculating where the right balance is in whether a known issue needs to be solved or whether it will most often wait to show up until the warranty has expired.
I still wonder if it'll go into the Wrangler (irrespective of # of doors) without them stretching the vehicle a little and making the engine bay bigger in size. Maybe that's what is in store for the mid cycle refresh in the JLs?
If they can fit that 392 Hemi in there without enlarging the engine bay (or did they?) then this thing should fit no problem I would think.
I hadn't thought of this, but you're probably right. The industrial computer outfit I worked for put its customers first and foremost, our product was intended to be as dead nuts reliable as possible and for the most part it was. I find the idea of this crap being deliberate to be both disturbing and disgusting - but also quite believable - esp. in light of the fact that cars are becoming smartphone-ized, "upgrade" every 2 or 3 years and throw the old one away. Yet another reason I don't want any more new cars.
Funny you mention this, I felt like there was a time cars were unreliable. Then CAD allowed them to get very reliable. Now it seems to be down to a science of this will break 5000 miles after warranty is up, and they seemed to have perfected it.
If the automotive industry was shooting for long term dead reliable, they would build half as many and they would cost twice as much. The problem we have as enthusiasts for automotive products is we are enthusiastic about them and as such, want them to work and last forever. WERDUMB sometimes.
I-6 will longer than v6/v8s, I would be surprised if they can make it fit. But let's see what they announce.
You sure about that? That 392 Hemi is a big sucker. I don’t actually know the measurements so I can’t compare, I just know it’s pretty big. We will see though! Either way it’s time for a new engine option.
If I want longevity and quality, I'll buy from a privately owned company. Once you become publicly traded, the investors become the customers and the people buying the products you make become a commodity. Unfortunately there are certain industries where the cost of entry just isn't within reach of the private individual anymore.
To a point. You're talking the old skool Mercedes philosophy- that they've long since lost touch with. As much as new cars cost, I don't think its unreasonable to expect quality. Unrealistic, probably. Unreasonable, Hell no! A quality automobile wouldn't cost any more than the crap they're turning out now *IF* they'd dump the fucking "technology" and put the money towards basic longevity. But the sad fact is that nobody gives a damn about reliability, longevity, or even affordability now. Its all about the smartphone!
My dad had a 1981 Blazer his company gave him as a work truck. He had the transmission replaced three times in 60k miles, 90% of that was Highway driving.
I had a 91 1500 with a 700R4 that I had rebuilt four times in five years. Even our TJs have constant problems and pets failures.
We had a 2009 Kia Sorento that my son is now driving. It has over 250k on it and still going strong.
I had a 91 1500 with a 700R4 that I had rebuilt four times in five years. Even our TJs have constant problems and pets failures.
We had a 2009 Kia Sorento that my son is now driving. It has over 250k on it and still going strong.