LOST JEEPS :: View topic - Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this?

Chrysler cheaping out..

We all know that the 4.7 had an update in 2008 with dual spark, a new combustion design system, and a raise in the compression. It raised power/tq from 235/295 to 310/330. Since the 3.7 is essentially the same engine with 2 less cylinders, why weren't the same changes applied? The KK was definitely heavier than the KJ so it could of used the extra power. 250 hp would've been easily attainable, and the KK definitely needs it.

Does anyone know why? I'm assuming it had something to do with Chrysler cheaping out..

Does a tune really help guys... my lib struggles at highway speeds and i try to baby it at times.

Ideas?

The reason why is simple, why pay to update an engine when there's a replacement in the pipeline? That replacement came out not too much later. That replacement is the 3.6L Pentastar V6.

It has nothing to do with being cheap.

The KK was definitely heavier than the KJ so it could of used the extra power....

zak62592 wrote:

The KK was definitely heavier than the KJ so it could of used the extra power....

The KK is actually about 50 pounds lighter than the KJ... but I agree I wish the last few years models could have come with the Pentastar V6.

Yeah, and the pentastar v-6 is great from everything I hear.

Albert wrote:

Yeah, and the pentastar v-6 is great from everything I hear.

Guess you've missed the recall and TSB's for head replacements on the 3.6's already.

tjkj2002 wrote:

Albert wrote:

Yeah, and the pentastar v-6 is great from everything I hear.

Guess you've missed the recall and TSB's for head replacements on the 3.6's already.

New engine new problems. Same happened when I got the Chevy Colorado first year out. Wait a few years and it will be a dependable engine.

And then you'd be complaining about changing 12 spark plugs and 6 wires instead of 6 plugs and 3 wires('09+)

Albert wrote:

Yeah, and the pentastar v-6 is great from everything I hear.

Guess you've missed the recall and TSB's for head replacements on the 3.6's already.

tjkj2002 wrote:

And then you'd be complaining about changing 12 spark plugs and 6 wires instead of 6 plugs and 3 wires('09+)

Not me. I'd rather have the extra output.

Smetna wrote:

tjkj2002 wrote:

And then you'd be complaining about changing 12 spark plugs and 6 wires instead of 6 plugs and 3 wires('09+)

Not me. I'd rather have the extra output.

I agree with this guy. At least it's better than having 16 spark plugs!. Plus they're a cakewalk to change on the 3.7

Author:	zak62592 [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this?
We all know that the 4.7 had an update in 2008 with dual spark, a new combustion design system, and a raise in the compression. It raised power/tq from 235/295 to 310/330. Since the 3.7 is essentially the same engine with 2 less cylinders, why weren't the same changes applied? The KK was definitely heavier than the KJ so it could of used the extra power. 250 hp would've been easily attainable, and the KK definitely needs it. Does anyone know why? I'm assuming it had something to do with Chrysler cheaping out..

Author:	DirtyKK [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this?
zak62592 wrote: Chrysler cheaping out.. thats probably the ticket.

Author:	tjkj2002 [ Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this?
zak62592 wrote: We all know that the 4.7 had an update in 2008 with dual spark, a new combustion design system, and a raise in the compression. It raised power/tq from 235/295 to 310/330. Since the 3.7 is essentially the same engine with 2 less cylinders, why weren't the same changes applied? The KK was definitely heavier than the KJ so it could of used the extra power. 250 hp would've been easily attainable, and the KK definitely needs it. Does anyone know why? I'm assuming it had something to do with Chrysler cheaping out.. And then you'd be complaining about changing 12 spark plugs and 6 wires instead of 6 plugs and 3 wires('09+)

Author:	musclezmarinara [ Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:54 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this?
Does a tune really help guys... my lib struggles at highway speeds and i try to baby it at times. Ideas?

Author:	isomswim [ Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:46 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this?
musclezmarinara wrote: Does a tune really help guys... my lib struggles at highway speeds and i try to baby it at times. Ideas? Try regearing or if all else fails be the first with a hemi KK

LOST JEEPS http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/

Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this? http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=70821	Page 1 of 3

Author:	Marlon_JBT [ Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this?
The reason why is simple, why pay to update an engine when there's a replacement in the pipeline? That replacement came out not too much later. That replacement is the 3.6L Pentastar V6. It has nothing to do with being cheap.

Author:	Albert [ Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:14 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this?
Marlon_JBT wrote: The reason why is simple, why pay to update an engine when there's a replacement in the pipeline? That replacement came out not too much later. That replacement is the 3.6L Pentastar V6. It has nothing to do with being cheap. Yeah, and the pentastar v-6 is great from everything I hear. Marlon, did the 3.7L stop production altogether?

Author:	Mikzor [ Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this?
zak62592 wrote: The KK was definitely heavier than the KJ so it could of used the extra power.... The KK is actually about 50 pounds lighter than the KJ... but I agree I wish the last few years models could have come with the Pentastar V6.

Author:	jet9000 [ Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this?
Marlon_JBT wrote: The reason why is simple, why pay to update an engine when there's a replacement in the pipeline? That replacement came out not too much later. That replacement is the 3.6L Pentastar V6. It has nothing to do with being cheap. X2. They are dumping this KK alltogether so why keep the 3.7 around, sell them off.

Author:	Marlon_JBT [ Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:30 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this?
3.7L Production has been done, along with KK production.

Author:	zak62592 [ Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:37 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this?
Mikzor wrote: zak62592 wrote: The KK was definitely heavier than the KJ so it could of used the extra power.... The KK is actually about 50 pounds lighter than the KJ... but I agree I wish the last few years models could have come with the Pentastar V6. Wow is it really? Is there a certain tech spec sheets that confirms this?

Author:	Marlon_JBT [ Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this?
KK is heavier than KJ by about 300lbs. Dunno what drugs the people are on who edited the Wikipedia page. Driving both back to back, it's very obvious.

Author:	tjkj2002 [ Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this?
Albert wrote: Yeah, and the pentastar v-6 is great from everything I hear. Guess you've missed the recall and TSB's for head replacements on the 3.6's already.

Author:	isomswim [ Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this?
tjkj2002 wrote: Albert wrote: Yeah, and the pentastar v-6 is great from everything I hear. Guess you've missed the recall and TSB's for head replacements on the 3.6's already. New engine new problems. Same happened when I got the Chevy Colorado first year out. Wait a few years and it will be a dependable engine.

Author:	jet9000 [ Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:55 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this?
I am not sold (yet) on a cast aluminum block with integrated exhaust manifolds. Metal shavings in the oil filter with the first oil change has plagued this engine because they can not clear all the chips after machining during manufacturing. Yea not yet I'll pass for now. I wish they kept the 3.5 The build options are endless. Paxton super charger, cams, headers, everything. You could even buy a Prowler stroker 5.0 and dump it in.

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	tjkj2002 [ Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this?
isomswim wrote: tjkj2002 wrote: Albert wrote: Yeah, and the pentastar v-6 is great from everything I hear. Guess you've missed the recall and TSB's for head replacements on the 3.6's already. New engine new problems. Same happened when I got the Chevy Colorado first year out. Wait a few years and it will be a dependable engine. Funny thing is the 3.5/3.7's in the colorado's have yet to be a reliable engine,see more of them with major issues with cam sensors and then the trailblazers 4.2's with there junk VVT actuators.

Author:	Smetna [ Sun Sep 16, 2012 2:05 am ]
Post subject:	Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this?
tjkj2002 wrote: And then you'd be complaining about changing 12 spark plugs and 6 wires instead of 6 plugs and 3 wires('09+) Not me. I'd rather have the extra output.

Author:	Smetna [ Sun Sep 16, 2012 2:08 am ]
Post subject:	Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this?
tjkj2002 wrote: Albert wrote: Yeah, and the pentastar v-6 is great from everything I hear. Guess you've missed the recall and TSB's for head replacements on the 3.6's already. IIRC, that was only a handful of units, one time. And they caught them all.

Author:	zak62592 [ Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:13 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this?
Smetna wrote: tjkj2002 wrote: And then you'd be complaining about changing 12 spark plugs and 6 wires instead of 6 plugs and 3 wires('09+) Not me. I'd rather have the extra output. I agree with this guy. At least it's better than having 16 spark plugs!. Plus they're a cakewalk to change on the 3.7

Author:	tjkj2002 [ Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why didn't the Chrysler engineers do this?
zak62592 wrote: Smetna wrote: tjkj2002 wrote: And then you'd be complaining about changing 12 spark plugs and 6 wires instead of 6 plugs and 3 wires('09+) Not me. I'd rather have the extra output. I agree with this guy. At least it's better than having 16 spark plugs!. Plus they're a cakewalk to change on the 3.7 Yeah you maybe thinking that but those bottom row is not as easy to get to as you may think and if they did it like the 4.7 V8 then you need a special ultra thin walled 5/8" plug socket.It took me almost 9 months to find one that actually was thin enough.All the major tool company's do not make one thin enough to change the top 8 on the lastest GEN 4.7's.