Bare

Scusami ma non dovrebbe avere 480 cv ?

All is in the 5 year plan. If not in Alfa's than in Maserati's.

Presentation of Alfa Romeo D-RWD concept?

qui c'è la sfasatura tra gli scoppi, non l'angolo di manovella, giusto? altrimenti non mi torna il crossplane 90-90-90-90, io ricordavo che sono separati di 90 ma gli angoli sono 270-180-90-180... a meno che non sia quello del 2 tempi, allora manca qualche 90

As I know German they say 'firing interval' but they have some abbreviation for crossplane I4. But also there are other possibilities how they can eliminate 2nd order forces with crankshaft design or better said with altering of firing interval.

EDIT: If you look it schematic on circular you will get 270-180-90-180.

Unfortunately, the Alfa boxer is dead with 145/146 and I think we will not see resurrections.

However, Boxer architecture has some problems:

1) engine width reduces steering angle ;

2) The torque is minor than a inline-4 of equal displacement ( the stroke is inferior ) ;

3) the cost is major than inline-4 of equal displacement ( two heads )

I agree that boxer has some constraints. Many of them are irrelevant with RWD and engine placing in a car with RWD. So they can avoid limiting steering angle and short stroke in RWD car. Only problem for RWD build price for boxer engine compared to inline-4.

The other better solution than classic inline-4 is crossplane inline-4. Problem is cost of crossplane crankshaft compared to flatplane one.

From Automotive News:

Chrysler Pentastar V-6s to get turbos and direct injection, sources say

DETROIT -- Chrysler Group is improving its Pentastar family of V-6s, adding direct injection, turbocharging and other technology to enable smaller displacement engines to power its vehicles.

The Pentastar Upgrade -- or PUG for short -- is part of a strategy to meet tightening corporate average fuel economy standards. Sources say the improvements will boost output and increase fuel economy on the V-6 engines that power most Chrysler vehicles.

Also possible as part of the improvements: the potential for turbocharging what are now naturally aspirated engines. Meanwhile, Fiat's MultiAir variable valve timing technology will remain, sources say.

The first improved 3.6-liter V-6 is scheduled to debut in late 2015 as part of a freshening of the Jeep Grand Cherokee, sources say. A Chrysler spokesman declined to comment on the Pentastar Upgrade project.

Another example will be the redesigned Chrysler Town & Country minivan, due in 2016. Chrysler sources say the new minivan will be powered by an improved 3.2-liter V-6 instead of its current 3.6-liter V-6.

The improved 3.2-liter V-6 will be combined with a nine-speed automatic transmission, as it is in some versions of the 2015 Jeep Cherokee. The powertrain combination, better aerodynamics and weight reductions are expected to boost the minivan's fuel economy at least 25 percent over its current EPA fuel economy rating of 17 mpg city/25 highway, the sources said.

The naturally aspirated 3.6-liter Pentastar V-6 was introduced in 2010 on the 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee. Chrysler Group has spread the 3.6-liter across most of its lineup, including its top-selling products such as the Ram 1500 and Jeep Grand Cherokee and Wrangler.

Depending on the added efficiency engineers are able to achieve, the improved 3.6-liter engine could help the Ram 1500 regain the gasoline-powered fuel efficiency crown it lost last month to a turbocharged version of the 2015 Ford F-150.

4 cylinder engines are OK but from all 4 cylinder solution inline-4 with flatplane crankshaft is the worst solution. Both inline-4 with crossplane crankshaft (I don't know car engine with it) and boxer-4 are better solutions and IMO better sounding than flatplane inline-4. Actually there is no better 4 cylinder arrangement than boxer.

They will probably use bi-turbo or twincharger set-up for more than 300 HP from inline-4. I don't see how they can pump more than 300 HP from single turbocharged 2.0 inline-4 without noticeable turbo lag.

Jeby has right about V6 and he correctly stated that for even firing order V6 90^o must use split crankpins. Naturally V6 90^o has uneven firing order altering at 90^o and 150^o. Example of V6 90^o can be found in current Audi's and Porsche's models. More ideally would be to make V6 60^o while even better solutions are inline-6 or boxer-6 engines but they consume to much space.

There is nothing wrong with modified American block for Maserati's V6 60^o but it's an open deck design and it's questionable if they can push for more than 500 HP from it. For that purpose they could probably use Ferrari's turbocharged V8 as base for V6 90^o with closed deck block.

Or MA on diesel to get rid of EGR.

@ RVC

So you are saying that Hurricane could have a open deck block? Engines from Pratola Serra family are with closed deck block.

I think we can expect numerical model names.

ma se i primi a fare disinformazione sono qui dentro!!

prima si dice che le nuoe Alfa avranno motori progettati da zero, poi che saranno derivati Maserati che a loro volta sono derivati dal Pentastar...

It's how you look on it. Actually in Chrysler naming scheme engine name means head design, not block. If you have that in min than Maserati's V6 has much more in common to turbocharged V8.

this is a very interesting point of view but:

- the Vee angle V8 is 90° while the V6 is 60°

- the Ferrari's V8 turbo engine are produced in what, 6k units/year? the Alfa's V6 both diesel and gaoline is going to be (hopefully) produced in 50k units/year or something.

i see this only feasable if they're goign to cut the V8 only for Giulietta's GTA model, but this will involve a rethinking of the engine bay layout and clearance around the engine heads.

Today is nothing strange to have V6 with 90° and you can still have even firing order. And that engine has advantage to 60° because it can be modular and built on the same line as V8.

But I agree with you. It's viable solution to GTA models if it's going to be built under Ferrari's roof although they can always outsource its production.

One thing is omitted from predictions. What will be with Chrysler's future engines? Situation with current engines is not sustainable because of CAFE. Also Chrysler never made engine with direct injection.

Anything is possible and even an engine with more than 500 HP from 3 liters with open deck block although it will probably cost to much. I don't know which type of block is using Ferrari/Maserati V8 but if it's a closed deck than 'cutting' 2 cylinders from it is very plausible solution and good base to make high performance V6 engine. In that way engine could share many components with V8 and could even be produced on same production line. And it's not weird that Maserati's V6 achieve maximum power figures at less than 6000 rpm, it's an open deck block.

In fact, it makes no sense to make

a new 3-liter engine when you have

the Maserati.

It depends on how you look on that matter. Most probably this block is not good enough for more than 500 HP and they will need close deck block to achieve that. Just look at BMW's N55 and S55 if you want good comparison.

Maserati's Chrysler derived block is an open deck. It's not that easy and it's to expensive to make 500+ HP from 3 liters V6 engine and it's normally if they are planing closed or semi-closed deck block for that engine.

I have some questions. I don't know if I'm on-topic or not.

So aluminium 1.75 TBi has closed deck block while GEMA I4 and Chrysler's V6 and derived Maserati's V6 are open deck blocks. So if new 2.0 TBi is descendant of GEMA it will has open deck block. So can any insider (if there are some on this forum) confirm which block will use 2.0 TBi?

Hi Bare, welcome in this forum.

Obviously it is allowed to type on English . Unfortunately many answers to your message will be written in Italian . I hope you understand anyway.

Thanks for the welcome!

I hope it's allowed to type on English. Some like RVC knows me from some other forums.

500 cc is capacity per cylinder for all new modular engine family. Some brands like for example Alfa will get engines which will be pretty much unique, only basic design will be shared with other brands.

My bet is on 1750 as base engine for new Giulia. IMO 1.4 FIRE is not appropriate choice for true Alfa.

And about 2.2 JTD. It's a good way to be independent form VM's supply because they have problems to meet the demand for 3.0 V6. If they ca make 2.2 JTD with sequential turbos and ~230 Hp they will pretty much be an independent from VM's tinny production capacities.