Land Rover Debuts New Inline-6 Engine

Riding Mercedes coat tails on this one.  But a good move for them.

MEH, so complex, so expensive to maintain and repair. Give me an Electric power train over this mess.

Hmmm, yes first the electric will only control the spark... And then over time the engine lost control of propelling the car altogether.

The electric developed further, overtime taking over more and more functions of the engine.  

And then the electric motor achieved cost and technological parity. After that the engine died out. Eons later no one knows to this day why combustion was favoured over electric. 

The I6 is a good idea and congrats to Land Rover for installing a very modern I6.  Too bad GM ditched the Atlas I6 after the Morain OH plant shuttered in 2008.  An I6 would be a great base engine for the trucks and RWD Cadillac/Camaro/Corvette.

12 hours ago, riviera74 said:

The I6 is a good idea and congrats to Land Rover for installing a very modern I6.  Too bad GM ditched the Atlas I6 after the Morain OH plant shuttered in 2008.  An I6 would be a great base engine for the trucks and RWD Cadillac/Camaro/Corvette.

I6 had their day, V6 has their day now and Electric is the future. I see no reason to waste good money on building a new I6 when they will all be replaced with electric motors.

Land Rover is buying the I6 from another company either BMW or MB probably and will then help reduce that companies R&D expense. No reason at all for GM to waste millions if not billions to build one.

1 hour ago, dfelt said:

I6 had their day, V6 has their day now and Electric is the future. I see no reason to waste good money on building a new I6 when they will all be replaced with electric motors.

Land Rover is buying the I6 from another company either BMW or MB probably and will then help reduce that companies R&D expense. No reason at all for GM to waste millions if not billions to build one.

This is JLR’s own engine not from anyone else.  It is based off their 2 liter 4 cylinder engine family.  That is where the cost savings is, a V6 and an in-line 4 have different parts, in-line 4 and in-line 6 can share almost all the parts so it is cheaper to manufacture.

Electric probably has 10 years before it replaces ICE, at least.  And an engine program should only last 10 years anyway, unless you are Toyota.   And some engine programs are like 5 years before they go to a new one.

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

This is JLR’s own engine not from anyone else.  It is based off their 2 liter 4 cylinder engine family.  That is where the cost savings is, a V6 and an in-line 4 have different parts, in-line 4 and in-line 6 can share almost all the parts so it is cheaper to manufacture.

Electric probably has 10 years before it replaces ICE, at least.  And an engine program should only last 10 years anyway, unless you are Toyota.   And some engine programs are like 5 years before they go to a new one.

Thanks, the story did not identify that they were building their own. Since they used Ford engines for so long and their own engines are not known to be reliable, I mad the assumption they were taking a German I6 which would make sense over building their own except as you stated. Thanks again for that info.

1 hour ago, dfelt said:

Thanks, the story did not identify that they were building their own. Since they used Ford engines for so long and their own engines are not known to be reliable, I mad the assumption they were taking a German I6 which would make sense over building their own except as you stated. Thanks again for that info.

No, SMK has it right.  This new 3.0 will share components and machining with the 2.0 that JLR already produces.  Their 4-cylinder isn't known for any unusual issues that I've heard of. 

Q: Why won't GM build an I6 derived from one of their I4 engines? 

Seems to me that the current corporate V6 does not always pass muster like it should.

23 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

Q: Why won't GM build an I6 derived from one of their I4 engines? 

Seems to me that the current corporate V6 does not always pass muster like it should.

A 3-liter I6 is probably too long to be used in transverse applications, thus the reliance on the 3.6.  However, the 2.7 liter 4-cylinder would probably fit in that same space as the V6. 

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

A 3-liter I6 is probably too long to be used in transverse applications, thus the reliance on the 3.6.  However, the 2.7 liter 4-cylinder would probably fit in that same space as the V6. 

Correct and GM has too many transverse engine products.  If they made the Traverse/Enclave/XT6 on a rear drive platform you could put an in-line 6 in all of them plus all the current rear drive cars and trucks they have.

A Turbo 4 is enough for any mid-size crossover or sedan from Chevy or Buick.  I could make a strong case to kill the 3.6 V6 and that is for the USA, not even getting into It being over China’s 3 liter displacement tax which makes it useless there.

1 hour ago, riviera74 said:

Q: Why won't GM build an I6 derived from one of their I4 engines? 

Seems to me that the current corporate V6 does not always pass muster like it should.

Answered in response to Drew’s post.