The 3.6s I had prior (JK and chrysler 300) were great, but also pretty noisy. I've never had an issue with them. Fingers crossed that my JL's v6 is the same!
Cost, I'm sure. Narrow applicability, little upside.Interesting stuff. It's cool to hear from one of the engineers responsible for the design. I'd love to ask him why they didn't make a stroker version of the pentastar to more suit our jeep needs (longer stroke to provide more off-idle torque at the sacrifice of high redline that we don't need anyway).
LOL! Why do you care if they don't like ESS? Rabid? [chuckling]I didn't watch the whole video, but I did see the crank and rod bearings and they look absolutely amazing compared to some BMW engines with 1/5th the miles. Seems like there's no reason anybody with a Pentastar-powered JL should be worried about the engine longevity so long as they change the oil on schedule.
I'll stick to the factory recommended weight and keep an eye on revs to keep them closer to 2k. I usually do that anyway just based on drivability.
Glad to hear running it up in the rev range is good for it - I do that for fun anyway. Disappointed to hear about the ESS - that will only add more fuel to the rabid anti-ESS crowd.
Generally sounds like an excellent engine, but also note in order to get this high of mileage you're gonna be doing a LOT of long highway stints, so those doing shorter trips in town or having longer periods of time between startups could see more wear. I'm impressed and glad my instincts to trust FCA on the Pentastar seem right. Hope the 2.0t is just as durable.
It's not a flaw, it's EPA nonsense. If the disable button is "latching" - e.g. still disabled after subsequent starts, the MFR can't use the feature in their EPA claims. There were some documents flying around on one of the other forums, but that's the gist of it.LOL! Why do you care if they don't like ESS? Rabid? [chuckling]
To me the only major flaw to that system is forcing people to turn it off every time they get in their rig. We bought the little device that let's the vehicle remember the last setting and stay there.
When a system causes people so much grief it's kinda easy to see why some people are perturbed by it, for most of us anyway.
Curious as to why he says E85 is bad for the 3.6l. I understand its not flex fuel ready from the factory (maybe that's what he is getting at?) but a cracked PCM can fix that. Or it could just be a pre JL post.Here is an interesting comment from a guy who claims to be (and from other posts appears to be accepted as) a former Chrysler engineer who participated in the development of the Pentastar. His username on Bitog is Oil_Udder.
¨Nice! As an former Pentastar design engineer I am slightly bias but the engine is really high quality. Few points from the development using tens of millions of dollars in analysis and testing regarding the oil and durability.....
The lighter oil was chosen mostly for fuel economy BUT engineering is the science of compromise. You help one thing but hurt another.
A thicker oil will reduce timing chain and tensioner wear because the center timing chain idler doesn't go fully hydrodynamic till about 1650rpm on 5w-20. So, a thicker oil will lower that number slightly and with general loads/speeds the engine spends a lot of time around 1500-1750 rpm with the 8 speed. So thicker oil is a win there. Additionally, the earlier engines had what was called the "McDonald's Arches" in the idler bearing which was intended in making a more uniform distribution but in actuality acted as a knife edge. This design was changed around 2014 to a smooth bearing. So overall timing chain issues will likely follow the 2011-2014 engine years more than 2014+.
Where you lose.... The head is very complicated with a Type II valve train. Meaning lots of things to pressurize and pump up at start up. A thicker oil didn't do so well here (on long sit times +cold start) and contributed to a overall increased engine wear especially in the head and cam bearings.
Last point. This engine needs occasional WOT runs if you want it to last. Granny cycling is bad for it. So bad for it we actually created a new granny cycle test during the cylinder #3 misfire issue. The highest wear is in the valve guides, because of tight valve stem seals (for emissions, reduce oil burn). They basically dry out. When you go WOT/high rpm/load you get some fresh oil in there and this keeps the wear down. Thicker oil might not help this condition but we also change the valves/guides/seals in 2014+. Not sure the impact.
PS. Turn off stop start and do not run e85 if you are concerned about engine wear. Eats the engine alive.¨
It strips oil film from cylinder walls and probably other parts, as well.Curious as to why he says E85 is bad for the 3.6l. I understand its not flex fuel ready from the factory (maybe that's what he is getting at?) but a cracked PCM can fix that. Or it could just be a pre JL post.
I'd like to see the 2L turbo do thathttps://www.thedrive.com/news/34672...s-chrysler-pentastar-v6-is-after-626000-miles
Check Out How Surprisingly Durable This Chrysler Pentastar V6 Is After 626,000 Miles
See how important maintenance really is.
When you think of reliable engines, something with small displacement, four cylinders, and produced by a foreign automaker probably comes to mind. Hell, just about anything would ring a bell for me before a V6 Chrysler engine. But, as one mechanic who tore down a 626,000-mile Pentastar 3.6-liter will show you, it's (almost) always the ones you least expect.
It all starts with the once-beating heart of a 2014 Ram Promaster. The cargo van—which has enough miles on the odometer to account for at least one round trip to Earth's moon and back—finally bit the dust after a long six years on the road. During that time, the Promaster accumulated roughly 285 miles per day of travels until the six-cylinder powerplant finally experienced a failure that warranted an engine-out service.
According to the owner's YouTube video, the van began running rough and throwing codes related to engine timing. When he pulled the engine, he decided to dig a bit deeper into the failure and determine how the motor held up during its long life. The result is nothing short of surprising.
After a bit of investigation, the owner discovered that the failure was indeed related to the Pentastar's timing. The plastic chain guides broke down over time and the tensioners had outlived their service life. As a result, the motor appeared to have jumped timing.
But that appears to have been the only large failure that occurred. The oil pump was still in excellent condition, the cylinder walls still showed the factory crosshatching and even the rod bearings appeared to have some life left before wearing though the outer-most layer of alloy. Still, the owner claimed that the Pentastar didn't burn oil and ran smooth until the day it, well, didn't.
So what's the owner's secret? As you may have guessed: maintenance. He changed the vehicle's oil every 8,000 miles (though he did admit going over on some rare circumstances) using only Valvoline or Mobil1 lubricants.
But perhaps even more important, the longevity speaks to the reliability of some modern engines, especially one which Chrysler says has the "hallmarks of an enduring icon"—meaning it probably won't be going anywhere anytime soon.
As controversial as the platform may be, the Pentastar is immensely popular within Chrysler's lineup. With more than 10 million units built since the motor's introduction in 2011 between Fiat Chrysler's Trenton South, Saltillo South and Mack Engine plants, the Pentastar has found life in 22 different vehicles—whether it be in 3.0-liter, 3.2-liter, or 3.6-liter configurations (the last being the most widely used). Even today, you can buy a brand new Chrysler 300, Chrysler Pacifica, Jeep Gladiator, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Ram 1500, or many other FCA vehicles with one of these bad boys under the hood.
If you paid for the whole car, you might as well use the whole car—especially if it's going to last long enough to take you around the entire globe 25 times.
It’s not “EPA nonsense”...... it’s FCA nonsense. FCA had a choice to make. One choice burdened their customers by not making the switch latching. The other choice burdened Their shareholders by having the company pay a slightly higher cash penalty for not meeting some level of CAFE standards. FCA designed a horrific implementation of the ESS system and then chose to burden their customers with it to save their shareholders a couple of bucks. That is FCA nonsense.It's not a flaw, it's EPA nonsense. If the disable button is "latching" - e.g. still disabled after subsequent starts, the MFR can't use the feature in their EPA claims. There were some documents flying around on one of the other forums, but that's the gist of it.