Dodge News: 2018 Dodge Durango SRT To Begin At $64,090

[balthazar]

7 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

No, that would be incorrect, especially on turbo engines, which in spite of your disclaimer below, is relevant.

The whole point of the throttle is to regulate the amount of air and fuel gets to the cylinders. Holding steady at 2000 rpm with 1/4 throttle lets less fuel/air into the cylinder, thus less power. Ripping through 2000 rpm at full throttle puts a lot more fuel/air into the cylinder because..well.. the throttle is wide open and allows unrestricted access.  If it's a turbo, then there is also a few extra PSI being pushed into that cylinder.  The net result of that extra fuel/air is more power and an increase in RPM.  Increase the fuel supply by 1% at 2000 rpm and you've increase power output enough to overcome inertia and increase RPM. 

No engine at 1/4 throttle at 2000 rpm is producing what the torque charts from a Dyno run indicate. 

I'm still in disagreement on this.

A steady fuel air mix that gives 2000 RPMs is set according to engine specs/tune. It's only less power because you are @ 2000 RPMs on a 5000 RPM range, not because to the throttle position. TRQ is a mechanical output of crank revolution driven by combustion in the bores & piston movement. Within a singular engine- that fuel/air mixture is the same if the throttle is at 25% for an hour or 100% for .5 seconds.

In that an engine under WOT is only going to be at 2000 RPM for a split second, in this theoretical argument you'd have to measure that TRQ at the EXACT MOMENT the WOT test hits 2000- and ignore 1999 RPMS and 2001 RPMs. I don't believe 1. it's possible to accurately measure this, and 2. that the TRQ number is going to be any different.

You stuff more air/fuel in under WOT and the engine is lagging in the combustion cycle to push the pistons faster & faster- this is a graph plot, whereas 2000 RPMs is a single point.

I welcome any data that has taken a measured look at this...

[Drew Dowdell]

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

I'm still in disagreement on this.

A steady fuel air mix that gives 2000 RPMs is set according to engine specs/tune. It's only less power because you are @ 2000 RPMs on a 5000 RPM range, not because to the throttle position. TRQ is a mechanical output of crank revolution driven by combustion in the bores & piston movement. Within a singular engine- that fuel/air mixture is the same if the throttle is at 25% for an hour or 100% for .5 seconds.

In that an engine under WOT is only going to be at 2000 RPM for a split second, in this theoretical argument you'd have to measure that TRQ at the EXACT MOMENT the WOT test hits 2000- and ignore 1999 RPMS and 2001 RPMs. I don't believe 1. it's possible to accurately measure this, and 2. that the TRQ number is going to be any different.

You stuff more air/fuel in under WOT and the engine is lagging in the combustion cycle to push the pistons faster & faster- this is a graph plot, whereas 2000 RPMs is a single point.

I welcome any data that has taken a measured look at this...

Again. That would be incorrect.

Let's change the thought experiment a different way.  You've just bought a new car, it has hyper accurate cruise control that can keep a perfect steady speed no matter the conditions outside the car (A Mercedes First!!) . Be it flat land, a steep hill, quicksand, or a crowd of ISIS fighters... that car is going to continue on at whatever speed you set it at and not a 100th of a mph different. 

For the sake of this experiment, we'll be going 60 mph... that means the torque converter is locked and there is no slip in the transmission at all. Crank to wheels is a solid connection. You've also pressed the Eco button, so the computer keeps the car in the highest gear possible with no downshifting until you hit full throttle

You start your trip in the Pine Barrens... pretty flat land. You've set your cruise control at 60 mph and it will remain there until the end of the trip. Due to gearing and torque converter lock up, 60 mph will always mean the engine is turning 2000 rpm in its top gear.

Your trip is taking you to Delaware Water Gap. As you approach the mountains, the cruise control does its thing and opens the throttle more to keep you at 60.  The engine is still turning 2000 rpm, but now more fuel is entering the cylinder because the throttle is open wider. More fuel = more power.  As the hills get steeper, the throttle opens wider... now ever more power, but still at 2000 rpm and 60 mph.  Eventually you get to the steepest part of the hill, the throttle is almost all the way open. This is just about as much power as you're going to get at 2000 rpm. Now, you've hit full throttle at 2000 rpm, the only way to get more power is to spin the engine faster (i.e. pump more air and fuel through the engine), the computer kicks down a gear and you reach the very top.   From the flat Pine Barrens till the point just before the transmission kicked down a gear, the engine remained at 2000 rpm, yet the throttle gradually opened from about 1/4 to full.   Are you trying to say that the engine produced the same amount of power throughout that entire trip?

After you crest the hill, the cruise cuts the throttle back to nearly closed. Now you're producing less power, but still turning 2000 rpm. If this were a direct injection engine, the injectors would be practically off. Are you still producing the same amount of torque at 2000 rpm with nearly zero fuel?  Fuel injectors work by varying the amount of fuel squirted during each combustion cycle.  If you know of a way to produce max torque with the fuel injectors off, you better patent that idea fast. 

Given the same car, same transmission gearing, etc, a 2.5 liter I4 and a 3.6 liter V6 (Think Cadillac ATS) will be making about the same horsepower at the same vehicle speed.  It only takes a certain amount of power to move a passenger car along at a steady 60mph. Give and take a little for weight, gearing and aero, that number is around 10 - 20 hp. If you know your RPM at that speed, you can work backwards to see the torque (15hp, 2000rpm = 39 lb-ft of torque)... that's all your 400hp twin-electric-turbo Mercedes is producing.  That's why cylinder deactivation can work and keep a Suburban at a steady speed with half the engine shut down. 

The Horsepower and Torque graphs that get passed around are only measurements at WOT. Less than WOT on that same engine will produce a lower amount of torque because less fuel is being used. Lower torque at a given RPM means lower horsepower.  

[smk4565]

Well it is all history now.  And I don't see Chrysler-Dodge as viable brands past 2022.  Large sedan market overall is collapsing, they don't have a small or mid size sedan, no small crossovers, no EV.   Case in point this "new" 2018 product has a V8 from 10 years ago.

Imagine if GM cancelled the Malibu and Cruze and dropped a Z06 engine into a Tahoe because it was "badass" and could do burn outs and have a midnight edition with red brake calipers.  That is basically the FCA play book. 

Edited July 8, 2017 by smk4565

[Drew Dowdell]

3 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Well it is all history now.  And I don't see Chrysler-Dodge as viable brands past 2022.  Large sedan market overall is collapsing, they don't have a small or mid size sedan, no small crossovers, no EV.   Case in point this "new" 2018 product has a V8 from 10 years ago.

Who cares? It is in the top echelon of performance for any SUV at that price and size.

But all of the above that I typed out is for you to understand also. Peak torque and peak horsepower don't matter in everyday driving. 

[Drew Dowdell]

12 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Well it is all history now.  And I don't see Chrysler-Dodge as viable brands past 2022.  Large sedan market overall is collapsing, they don't have a small or mid size sedan, no small crossovers, no EV.   Case in point this "new" 2018 product has a V8 from 10 years ago.

Imagine if GM cancelled the Malibu and Cruze and dropped a Z06 engine into a Tahoe because it was "badass" and could do burn outs and have a midnight edition with red brake calipers.  That is basically the FCA play book. 

I don't disagree that FCA's other product lineup is pretty screwed... but that doesn't mean that the Durango is a bad or the Grand Cherokee is bad.  Sergio is a terrible CEO... I've said that for a while. 

[balthazar]

54 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Again. That would be incorrect.

Let's change the thought experiment a different way....

Your new analogy incorporates the plethora of variables I stated I was omitting- especially transmission, gearing & road variations.

I came into this thread on the statement that a given engine makes more TRQ at a specific RPM under WOT than it does under steady throttle. I still counter that a given engine can only make X TRQ @ Y RPM because Y RPM is dictated by throttle (fuel/air).

In other words : say Engine X (capable of 6000 RPM) turning 2000 RPM takes 33% throttle. If you start from a stand-still, mash the gas and don't let up until redline, you are still drawing 33% throttle at the 2000 RPM point because the engine cannot and is not drawing full airflow- the pistons aren't moving fast enough yet. Throttle may be @ 100% but AIRFLOW is only @ 33% and thusly, actual fuel flow is in the neighborhood of 33% also. Otherwise that WOT pedal mash would dump a pint of gas into an engine turning 750 RPM idle and bog it to stall/ wash the bores with raw fuel. There is of course an acceleration lag where increased fuel/air "leads" an engine to increase RPM... but the 2 plot curves are very close.

We never defined how much different you believe these 2 scenarios would be. I have stated there is some margin of error & acceleration lag... but these are minor factors, numbers-wise. Engine X making 300 TRQ @ 2000 at 33% throttle is not going to make 325 TRQ @ WOT @ 2000.

Real world in-car impression is quite different because no driver can analyze a single RPM point in a WOT full-range RPM pass. A WOT pass of course feels stronger than an off-steady throttle mash because of momentum.

[Stew]

14 hours ago, smk4565 said:

First off, Daimler should have never bought Chrysler to begin with.  It was a bad idea and the people who thought it was a good idea got fired and the people in charge now are the ones that got them out of it.

I never said the Durango should have a 4-cylinder, it needs a big engine because it is a big, heavy vehicle.  But Dodge-Chrysler brands as a whole don't have small and medium vehicles or a good 4 cylinder which is the majority of the market.  Even Jeep sales are down this year while crossovers are fire.

You realize the new turbo 4 in the Giulia/Stelvio that has great power and exceptional fuel economy IS the new Chrysler turbo 4, right?  Jeep has lost a model that had huge sales in the Patriot and they are still working up production of the Compass, of course the are down, but still selling excellent. 

[Drew Dowdell]

RPM is not dictated by throttle alone.

An engine at 10% throttle and 2000 with no load is producing less power than an identical engine at 90% throttle with a heavy load. 

The engine at 10% throttle is getting less air and fuel. The engine at 90% is getting more air and fuel. More air and fuel means more power output. It is the throttle's job to regulate air and fuel input.

As for your statement about flooding the engine... That's also incorrect. In a carb, the air only picks up fuel as it passes through the carb and the carb mixes it accordingly. In a fuel injection car, there is a mass airflow sensor and TPS so the computer gets inputs from those two and adjusts the injection rates to match.

The fact remains that it only takes about 10 - 20 hp to keep a car at a steady 60mph.

[balthazar]

DD- you are invoking a number of truths (and variables) that still do not support your theory.

• RPM is not dictated by throttle alone.
In a single engine on a test stand, it pretty much is. In that scenario, it's the only variable (going hand-in-hand with air flow).

• The engine at 10% throttle is getting less air and fuel. The engine at 90% is getting more air and fuel. More air and fuel means more power output. It is the throttle's job to regulate air and fuel input.
Yes, but a (steady state) 10% throttle and 90% throttle cannot be achieved at the same RPM (except for one half-second of time). A modern engine is not going to hold (per our example) 2000 RPM at 90% throttle. (Well, maybe my flathead...)

• The fact remains that it only takes about 10 - 20 hp to keep a car at a steady 60mph.
Immaterial to the discussion. "60 MPH" involves the entire vehicle and a host of conditions, including transmission gearing, rolling resistance, .cd, etc. We were talking about engine output alone, not road speed.

• As for your statement about flooding the engine... That's also incorrect. In a carb, the air only picks up fuel as it passes through the carb and the carb mixes it accordingly. In a fuel injection car, there is a mass airflow sensor and TPS so the computer gets inputs from those two and adjusts the injection rates to match.
In a ICE, there are optimal ratios for these together, and within 2 otherwise identical engines, they are going to be in a very tight range when tuned for the same outputs.

But my example stands- if the throttle position on an idling engine was suddenly open to 100%, why doesn't the engine suddenly develop peak HP at -say= 1000 RPM? The answer is it cannot develop peak HP/TRQ at idel speed because throttle position does not determine output WITHOUT RPM.

Edited July 8, 2017 by balthazar

[surreal1272]

10 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Well it is all history now.  And I don't see Chrysler-Dodge as viable brands past 2022.  Large sedan market overall is collapsing, they don't have a small or mid size sedan, no small crossovers, no EV.   Case in point this "new" 2018 product has a V8 from 10 years ago.

Imagine if GM cancelled the Malibu and Cruze and dropped a Z06 engine into a Tahoe because it was "badass" and could do burn outs and have a midnight edition with red brake calipers.  That is basically the FCA play book. 

So f@#king what? Jesus. How many times do the simple things have to be explained to you? You act like Benz has never done such things but that would be an obvious lie. Don't worry, at least Benz is bringing yet another FWD four cylinder help in the form of the useless CLA lite, I mean A Class. That should help bring up the class (note obvious use of sarcasm here). 

Edited July 8, 2017 by surreal1272

[Drew Dowdell]

48 minutes ago, balthazar said:

DD- you are invoking a number of truths (and variables) that still do not support your theory.

• RPM is not dictated by throttle alone.
In a single engine on a test stand, it pretty much is. In that scenario, it's the only variable (going hand-in-hand with air flow).

• The engine at 10% throttle is getting less air and fuel. The engine at 90% is getting more air and fuel. More air and fuel means more power output. It is the throttle's job to regulate air and fuel input.
Yes, but a (steady state) 10% throttle and 90% throttle cannot be achieved at the same RPM (except for one half-second of time). No engine is going to hold (per our example) 2000 RPM at 90% throttle.

• The fact remains that it only takes about 10 - 20 hp to keep a car at a steady 60mph.
Immaterial to the discussion. "60 MPH" involves the entire vehicle and a host of conditions, including transmission gearing, rolling resistance, .cd, etc. We were talking about engine output alone, not road speed.

• As for your statement about flooding the engine... That's also incorrect. In a carb, the air only picks up fuel as it passes through the carb and the carb mixes it accordingly. In a fuel injection car, there is a mass airflow sensor and TPS so the computer gets inputs from those two and adjusts the injection rates to match.
In a ICE, there are optimal ratios for these together, and within 2 otherwise identical engines, they are going to be in a very tight range when tuned for the same outputs.

But my example stands- if the throttle position on an idling engine was suddenly open to 100%, why doesn't the engine suddenly develop peak HP at -say= 1000 RPM? The answer is it cannot develop peak HP/TRQ at idel speed because throttle position does not determine output WITHOUT RPM.

I'm not talking on a test stand. I've said multiple times "in real world driving".

But no, you are still incorrect. Steady 2000 rpm at partial throttle and 2000 rpm for a split second during WOT will not be producing the same power. The steady rpm one will be ingesting just enough fuel to maintain that rpm. That engine will be operating at a vacuum. At WOT it is ingesting a lot more fuel even though the only load on the engine is friction and intertia.  It is operating close to atmospheric pressure as much as the intake flow will allow.

More throttle = more fuel. More fuel = more power. If you know otherwise please email Mary Barra ASAP.

[A Horse With No Name]

11 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Well it is all history now.  And I don't see Chrysler-Dodge as viable brands past 2022.  Large sedan market overall is collapsing, they don't have a small or mid size sedan, no small crossovers, no EV.   Case in point this "new" 2018 product has a V8 from 10 years ago.

Imagine if GM cancelled the Malibu and Cruze and dropped a Z06 engine into a Tahoe because it was "badass" and could do burn outs and have a midnight edition with red brake calipers.  That is basically the FCA play book. 

There is a fallacy here...that you need a ton of models to be successful.  Subaru sells more cars than Benz in the USA and they have three basic platforms...

[Stew]

2 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

There is a fallacy here...that you need a ton of models to be successful.  Subaru sells more cars than Benz in the USA and they have three basic platforms...

I and many others like what Dodge is doing.  And nothing electric?  They have electrics in their Fiat brand and a freaking hybrid minivan.  He tech will trickle out, it just isn't needed right now, especially with gas prices relatively cheap.  And the fact is car sales, especially in the compact and midsize arena, are starting to wain terribly. 

[balthazar]

3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I'm not talking on a test stand. I've said multiple times "in real world driving".

But no, you are still incorrect. Steady 2000 rpm at partial throttle and 2000 rpm for a split second during WOT will not be producing the same power. The steady rpm one will be ingesting just enough fuel to maintain that rpm. That engine will be operating at a vacuum. At WOT it is ingesting a lot more fuel even though the only load on the engine is friction and intertia.  It is operating close to atmospheric pressure as much as the intake flow will allow.

More throttle = more fuel. More fuel = more power. If you know otherwise please email Mary Barra ASAP.

OK- then we were talking at the question from 2 different POVs.

You had stated : The engine can be spinning at 2,000 rpm at both 1/4 throttle and full throttle. In which throttle position do you think the engine is making more torque?
whereas I answered :
When talking about 'The OEM should take out Engine A and use Engine B because Torque C is more'... we are talking about an engine independent of all other factors that contribute to vehicle performance: transmission, gearing, weight, etc., IE; an engine on a test stand, because we are only comparing power figures.

The quote I responded to did not state "in real world driving", it only addressed 'throttle position vs. RPM equating to TRQ'. I specified my parameter for response; an engine on a test stand to eliminate all the other factors (tho I also stated many times it's entirely different in a car, driving on a road). Once you answer my quoted post, I feel we have entered into a debate based on my post and thusly, my terms.  

- - - - -

I did skim thru Chevelle, Miata, VW and BMW forums that touched upon this question, but there was no definitive answer because steady-state dyno testing not only is more difficult to achieve repeatable results with, dynos capable of testing with those programs are few & far between and it is of highly questionable tuning value so it just isn't done.

Just watched a LS3 dyno test on Utube: went from the starting 2500 RPM to 7000 RPM in basically 6 seconds: 4500 RPM / 6 seconds is 750 RPMs/second! At WOT, that engine is at exactly 2000 RPM for 0.0013 seconds. Someone measure fuel consumption for 0.0013 seconds at a given RPM point in a WOT run, please, and get back to us here at C&G.

The steady rpm one will be ingesting just enough fuel to maintain that rpm. That engine will be operating at a vacuum. At WOT it is ingesting a lot more fuel even though the only load on the engine is friction and inertia.

A "lot more"? Perhaps the question needs to be : how much fuel does Engine X ingest at a steady throttle @ 2000 RPMs vs. the 0.0013 seconds Engine X is at 2000 RPM on a WOT run? That's not much time to see a 'lot more' fuel go thru the carb/TB...

Appreciate the back-n-forth, DD, hope you're enjoying your weekend!

[smk4565]

6 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

There is a fallacy here...that you need a ton of models to be successful.  Subaru sells more cars than Benz in the USA and they have three basic platforms...

You don't need a ton of models, but you need models in 2 of the top 3 largest segments. Daimler got Chrysler rear drive full size sedans, a halo sports car, a revamped Grand Cherokee.  Dodge/Chrysler had to come up with small and mid-size sedan and they let the Sebring stick around 5 years too may and brought out the Dodge Caliber.  What a mess.  The one hit they had was the PT Cruiser and that was a Diamler era car.

I am all for 3 basic platforms, but how can a main line car company not have a small sedan or a mid-size family sedan?  FCA still has all their investment in the large sedan category, the one that is shrinking the fastest.

[Robert Hall]

33 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

 

I am all for 3 basic platforms, but how can a main line car company not have a small sedan or a mid-size family sedan?

Those are declining segments... FCA needs to play on their strengths in growing segments--trucks, CUVs and SUVs and leave the rental/generic appliance market to Hyundai, Kia, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Chevy, and Ford.  

It is amazing how much FCA failed in their last efforts to build  compact and midsize sedans...was it a case of poor marketing, poor product, or product that was good but not as good as the competition?   (Dart & 200). 

Edited July 8, 2017 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[surreal1272]

49 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

You don't need a ton of models, but you need models in 2 of the top 3 largest segments. Daimler got Chrysler rear drive full size sedans, a halo sports car, a revamped Grand Cherokee.  Dodge/Chrysler had to come up with small and mid-size sedan and they let the Sebring stick around 5 years too may and brought out the Dodge Caliber.  What a mess.  The one hit they had was the PT Cruiser and that was a Diamler era car.

I am all for 3 basic platforms, but how can a main line car company not have a small sedan or a mid-size family sedan?  FCA still has all their investment in the large sedan category, the one that is shrinking the fastest.

The Caliber was Daimler era as well and was $h!, just like the PT ended up being. 

[A Horse With No Name]

3 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Those are declining segments... FCA needs to play on their strengths in growing segments--trucks, CUVs and SUVs and leave the rental/generic appliance market to Hyundai, Kia, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Chevy, and Ford.  

It is amazing how much FCA failed in their last efforts to build  compact and midsize sedans...was it a case of poor marketing, poor product, or product that was good but not as good as the competition?   (Dart & 200). 

This is exactly why I don't play the Violin for a living...I know my strengths and weaknesses.

Small cars are not an FCA strength.

I actually want them to keep investing in Jeep, which is what they are doing.

[Robert Hall]

15 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

This is exactly why I don't play the Violin for a living...I know my strengths and weaknesses.

Small cars are not an FCA strength.

I actually want them to keep investing in Jeep, which is what they are doing.

Well, small cars has been Fiat's strength for many decades worldwide, outside the US..though I don't know how good they have been quality wise or if cheap was the key factor in their success..

[A Horse With No Name]

55 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Well, small cars has been Fiat's strength for many decades worldwide, outside the US..though I don't know how good they have been quality wise or if cheap was the key factor in their success..

And if gas goes to six bucks a gallon they can import them and sell them like hot cakes.

But even at $4.50 a gallon they will still have reasonable SUV demand.

[David]

6 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Well, small cars has been Fiat's strength for many decades worldwide, outside the US..though I don't know how good they have been quality wise or if cheap was the key factor in their success..

Fiat's quality has sucked always, Cheapness is what has kept them going. Cheap to buy and run for the most part. Many of my European coworkers talk about how sucky Fiats are but if it was not for the cheapness to own and easy to repair, they would buy something else. There is also the other side of this coin where some europeans are happy to have alternatives to Fiat and have like many in the US wondered why they are still alive.

5 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

And if gas goes to six bucks a gallon they can import them and sell them like hot cakes.

But even at $4.50 a gallon they will still have reasonable SUV demand.

So many other options that even at $10 a gallon, I would pick something else over Fiat crap.

[A Horse With No Name]

13 hours ago, dfelt said:

Fiat's quality has sucked always, Cheapness is what has kept them going. Cheap to buy and run for the most part. Many of my European coworkers talk about how sucky Fiats are but if it was not for the cheapness to own and easy to repair, they would buy something else. There is also the other side of this coin where some europeans are happy to have alternatives to Fiat and have like many in the US wondered why they are still alive.

So many other options that even at $10 a gallon, I would pick something else over Fiat crap.

Agree completely.