The auto industry might be moving headlong into all-electrics but that doesn’t mean internal combustion is dead, not by a long shot. Witness the introduction of a brand-new engine from Stellantis, a turbocharged inline-six that will be capable of generating more than 500 horsepower.
Development of this ‘Hurricane’ I-6 was kept on the down-low, at least as much as can be expected during these modern times when everyone has a camera in their pocket. Two variants will be available when the engine goes into production and pops up in showrooms later this year.
Stellantis says the Hurricane will offer its twin-turbo muscle using a broad and flat torque band, one which will see this mill maintain at least 90 percent of peak torque from 2,350 rpm all the way to its red line. Specific horsepower numbers will vary based on vehicle application, but the Standard Output will make somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 horses and 450 lb-ft while the extra-boosted High Output should knock on the door of 500 ponies and 475 units of twist.
Each turbocharger in the Hurricane twin-turbo I-6 feeds three cylinders, passing compressed air through an engine-mounted water-to-air charge air cooler to reduce its temperature before entering the intake manifold. The turbos on the Hurricane SO deliver a peak boost of 22 psi, while snails fitted to the Hurricane HO deliver 26 psi of peak boost.
And to answer the inevitable questions from gearheads in our audience: There is a difference in compression between the two brothers. Standard Output engines use cast aluminum pistons with a cast iron top ring land insert, running a 10.4:1 compression ratio. High Output variants deploy forged aluminum pistons with an anodized top ring land and a diamond-like coating on the pins, resulting in a 9.5:1 compression ratio on 91 octane premium fuel.
Bore, stroke, and cylinder spacing are shared with the globally-produced 2.0-liter turbocharged four-banger currently found in rigs like the Cherokee and Wrangler 4xe. The latter gives us a clue that this engine is likely to see a plug-in hybrid variant of some sort in the future. The non-electrified engine announced today will be assembled in Mexico.
Where will we see this engine? Stellantis ain’t saying other than to state the Hurricane twin-turbo I-6 is the primary internal combustion power plant of the future in North America for vehicles using the STLA Large and STLA Frame platforms. The smart money has it showing up in the Wagoneer, usurping the V8 and fitting the silky-smooth mandate of that luxury SUV very well. Logic dictates we’ll see it in Ram pickup trucks as well, with the venerable 5.7L Hemi (which has made 395 horsepower ever since Adam was an oakum picker) likely to soldier alongside in the short term, at least in the Ram 1500 Classic. This strategy is not without precedent since Ford has long offered turbo six-cylinder engines alongside the 5.0L V8 in its F-150. The octopot now comprises but a small portion of F-150 sales.
Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter .
This sounds like a great motor! I am assuming that the fuel economy under load (towing) probably will not be any better than the V8. AT least that is what the guys with the Ford Eco-Boost have proven thus far.
Somewhere on a commentary thread somebody mentioned that towing with these new small high output engines puts extra wear on the brakes because there’s not enough internal friction in the motors to slow the rig down when geared down. If similar efficiency and fuel economy targets could be met with a slow turning large V-8, (I’m thinking that 7.4 L Ford), then this would not be a problem. Make a big motor that runs efficiently at low RPMs, gets good fuel economy, and yet you can wind it up when you gear down and get lots of engine braking.
ttacgreg- All trucks have “tow-haul” mode that uses the motor for braking. The transmission will be programmed for optimal performance in “tow-haul” mode. I would say the commentator never towed with a truck before. That comment is based in ignorance.
If there is a difference in braking-it’s minimal at best.
I’ve driven Ford F150’s with the 5.4 V8 and 3.5 EB V6. The V8 provides better engine braking. The EB 3.5 V6 will do it but it felt like it needed to shift down one more gear than in the 5.4 to provide the same restraint.
Lou-BC If I understand your post correctly-you just stated the transmission is tuned to the motor and provides the same results as the larger-using motor power in tow-haul mode to slow the rig-possibly in one gear lower. What’s the issue?
@CKNSLS Sierra SLT – the EB 3.5 feels like it needs much more RPM to produce sufficient backpressure to hold the vehicle. Even then it did not feel the same as the bigger V8. I think that losing those 1.9 litres and 2 cylinders does make a difference. Both trucks had the same 6 speed and rear end ratio’s. Even empty on a downhill, the 5.4 would hold better at lower RPM. As I’ve noted , that’s how it “feels”. One would have to use timed runs with identical trucks and trailers to tell.
Just downshift isn’t a panacea when the motors get that small, my 2.7 in 2nd gear running 4K+ won’t even hold the empty truck on some hills. It’ll lurch to make you wince when you kick it down that far too.
Pads are cheap and transmissions ain’t.
My line of reasoning here is that the move to small displacement motors, besides the lower weight and smaller packaging of the motor itself, is that it has less inherent internal friction than a larger displacement motor. This is a factor that contributes to less fuel burned. I’m no expert so I could be wrong, and to be honest I’ve always admired and favored higher output smaller motors over bigger low output ones, and never plan to tow, this 3L inline 6 sounds mighty appealing. (If I were i the market for a big pickup)
ttacgreg- It’s a non-issue and not worth any more of my keyboard time. You can continue to pontificate more on it if you wish.
It’s not friction- it’s compression (or is it really decompression? it’s pulling against vacuum). When the throttle valve closes the pistons work against the high manifold vacuum. A higher cylinder volume will provide more engine braking- that’s just the way it works. And the turbo doesn’t help for this scenario. Therefore a 2.7 in theory will have to spin twice as fast as a 5.4 to work against the same amount of air.
The transmission doesn’t provide any braking, it shifts down causing the engine to move against more air over time, or up to move against less air over time.
Does that make a difference? I guess that depends on where the redline is and if it makes you feel stressed to hear a smaller engine turning harder. Since this is for light duty trucks and light duty trucks are rated for “occasional towing” it doesn’t seem like an issue.
I’m not a mechanic- someone smarter will explain it better- but that’s my general understanding. And that’s for gas, my understanding is on light duty diesels there’s a valve on the exhaust side and on heavy duty diesels you can collapse the valves closed.
@MrIcky – you summed up why I believed a larger displacement V8 works better than a V6 turbo for engine braking. The larger displacement provides more “backpressure”.
You are one $+upid son of a b!+ch
“If there is a difference in braking-it’s minimal at best.”
I’d agree with both my 1/2 ton & 3/4 GM trucks I never noticed any difference in braking while towing by using the tow haul mode.
What about a Driveline or Transmission (pinon) brake? Not sure if they make any for the new vehicles. While not cheap, good insurance and less wear on the transmission.
“Make a big motor that runs efficiently at low RPMs, gets good fuel economy, and yet you can wind it up when you gear down and get lots of engine braking.”
We have that now. GMs V8s, the HEMI, and Ford’s 5.0L and 7.3L
Oh man…some fnckface in the comments said it…well heck,.it has to be true then. Good lord.
A good way to honor the Willys F4-134 Hurricane engine. The Tornado was the OHC-6 which replaced the flathead.
I’m not sure how the fact that this shares bore spacing with the 4cyl used in the 4XE means that we will see a PHEV that uses this engine.
I also see a lot of these blown up in the future as the tuners do their thing and try to get an extra power out of that standard output unit that needed that much of an upgrade to handle an extra 25 lb/ft of torque.
Please add to Alfa Romeo.
But with a multiair head.
Harkens back to the 2600 straight six of the 1950s and 60s.
“Bore, stroke, and cylinder spacing are shared with the globally-produced 2.0-liter turbocharged four-banger”
So it’s a 3.0-liter.
A lot of money for a new engine (and crash testing for every vehicle its headed for that was just crash tested for the old engines) when they have already said they are going EV soon.
They all SAY they’re going EV “soon”, and the non-engineer top brass may even believe it, but the people paid to be practical know there’s not enough generating capacity to recharge 280+ million cars and light trucks.
Electrical generation would have to more than double, and that would take decades to achieve. Until then, ICE vehicles will still be made. Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares knows that, and is acting accordingly.
Ford has already proven the shortsightedness of a high strung, small engine that makes V8 power while consuming fuel like a V8.
It doesn’t work although this one should be far more reliable.
EB you re killing me man. Your redapple-truth-ometer average keeps going up. You are correct. Compliance motor that does nothing but comply.
Get your V 8 while you can. My brother just got his V 8 Tundra. I think I ll get a 6.2 Denali before they ruin those.
Let s go Branden ( Obama is having his 3rd term. Big Mike (michelle) is coming )
“EB you re killing me man. Your redapple-truth-ometer average keeps going up. You are correct. ”
I’m like Rush Limbaugh (RIP). Documented to be almost always right 99.8% of the time
Thanks for reminding me that Rush is dead. That always cheers me up!
Ah yes the tolerant liberal attitude shines again. Or did you not like him because he correctly said that liberalism is a mental disorder?
We get it. You hate the truth, common sense, and reason. You don’t have to keep making that point to us.
Rush had about as much to do with truth and reason as the “birds aren’t real” people. As for “common sense,” that’s what people invoke when they want to explain why they are going to ignore the data, and any politician who says it is a demagogue.
“As for “common sense,” that’s what people invoke when they want to explain why they are going to ignore the data, and any politician who says it is a demagogue.”
Tell me you don’t know what common sense is without telling me you don’t know what common sense is.
Also, it’s not science when you just flat out lie. You’re like a flat earther. Don’t believe what you research and what your own eyes see, just blindly believe me.
We get it Dal…you didn’t like Rush. STFU and move on d!ckface
“Flat earth” describes your head-in-the-sand attitude toward EVs quite nicely, as it turns out.
And you know I’m right about “common sense.” It means “I’m going to do what feels good, not make hard choices.”
“Flat earth” describes your head-in-the-sand attitude toward EVs quite nicely, as it turns out.”
Ah yes. Wanting comparable prices, range, recharge times, and the ability to charge the battery to 100% is so wildly outlandish.
“And you know I’m right about “common sense.” It means “I’m going to do what feels good, not make hard choices.”
No, much like every single one of your comments you are completely wrong. Again lies are not science.
Ah yes. Like stories of no loads getting evicted when the rent moratorium ran out and morons that voted for the guy that is doing exactly what he said he’d do with respect to energy complaining about fuel prices.
Can’t wait until they can’t afford to drive anymore. Less traffic for the non stupid lol.
Yeah, like when he was right (wing) having his immigrant maid get him illegal Oxy, when he was thrown off the NFL broadcast for being overtly racist, and got nabbed with a massive amount of off-market Viagra upon returning from a child sex-tourism trip to the Dominican Republic. Your hero.
Yawn. You love me every April 15th though, leech
Still waiting for all those expensive turbo failures your ilk predicted when Ford went all in on these motors.
I only know one fellow who experienced a turbo failure. It was on a truck he bought used so the history was unknown. He decided to install a used 5.0 since the turbo was pricy. He also had a few mechanics point out that a new turbo on a well worn motor was a bad idea.
It wasn’t a Ford, but I put 180k miles on a supercharger with a pulley pushing it harder than stock.
Yessir, them 2.7tt V6’s in F150s, jeez, they’re failing everywhar. You see ’em along the side of the road in the ditch, the motor having fled its environs, escaping the cruel and unusual punishment of having to move a full-size pickup.
God and America decreed V8 POWAH for freedom. These spineless sixes will never work, mumble, rant, bleurgle. How will it handle towing Grandma’s home 55 miles to a new lot on a flatbed? My V8 F150 towed an AIRCRAFT CARRIER down in Norfolk! No damn sweat!
Six cylinders means we can’t have nice things anymore!
“Yessir, them 2.7tt V6’s in F150s, jeez, they’re failing everywhar. You see ’em along the side of the road in the ditch, the motor having fled its environs, escaping the cruel and unusual punishment of having to move a full-size pickup.”
You did. In moronic post after moronic post
“Six cylinders means we can’t have nice things anymore!”
Said no one who’s ever owned a bada$$ Buick Grand National!………….LOL
Chevy has the 2.7 turbo that they now plan to put in the Colorado/Canyon.
We now have Stelantis. My friend just bought a new Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon with the turbo 2 litre.
Even Toyota, a company that is exceptionally cautious/conservative has gone down that path.
Ford did it in 2011 and the EBflucked types loose their sh!t. Ford’s still #1 in pickups. That in itself shows that turbos are fine.
All the examples cited have a lower specific output, less boost, and/or different block construction than what Stellantis is announcing.
A 400hp all-aluminum 3.0L I6 twin-turbo is a lot of pepper for a Ram Tradesman while that same engine with 500hp is edging into exotic territory.
“Ford did it in 2011 and the EBflucked types loose their sh!t. Ford’s still #1 in pickups. That in itself shows that turbos are fine.”
Where did I say turbos were not fine? Sure the EB engines (in the F150) were/are not as reliable as the 5.0L but over all they were fine.
The smaller EB engines have been absolute garbage though.
Instead of “HellCat’ everything, it will be “Hurricane” everything.
500hp out of 3 liters means a LOT of boost. Hope they got good head gaskets.
I think they’ll be fine. It’s from the company that engineered a factory 840hp V8.
And the 2.7 V6! Oh wait.
I would be worried about the thermal management of so much power in a small package. These engines will be running hot, like blazing hot. Thermal gradients, hot spots, all sorts if thermal expansion issues. And with lots of pressures to top it all.
Don’t get me wrong, it can be done. But has Stellantis really done their homework? Their reliability testing? I would wait a couple years for real world reliability data before even considering this power plant.
Agree about waiting a few years. Hopefully it is a great engine. A good straight 6 cylinder engine would sell well in Jeeps especially if it is reliable.
I’ve got to wonder how much it would have cost to just call up Toyota and ask for a license to the 2JZ?
My shallow, uninformed comment based solely on the picture (and some life experience with material selection):
“Thermal aging of polymers is molecular deterioration as outcome of overheating due to the presence of tertiary hydrogen atoms in the polymer chain. The elevated temperature causes chain scission of the long chain backbone of the polymer that reacts with one another. In general, the reduced chain length reduces the molecular weight and molecular weight distributions that typical change the properties of the polymer such as: • Reduced ductility and embrittlement, • Chalking, • Color changes, • Cracking, • Reduction in other desirable physical properties.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/materials-science/thermal-aging
[Probably never happens in California or behind a RAM badge. Perhaps electing the right politicians could solve thermal aging. Oh, I forgot – vehicles are better (and longer-lasting) today than ever in history. Nevermind.]
Is it possible to get a plane Jane version of the inline-6 sans the turbos??? Less is more and turbos only add to cost, complexity, anxiety, & maintenance.
Inline 6 with 2 turbo’s, should pull like a freight train. Just what you want in truck, gobs of torque way down low. But holy crap hope you never have to work on it! There is something to be said for the overall simplicity of the 5.3 V8 under the hood of my Chevy!
I’m not sure there will be an LX platform by the time this is released but if there is I’d very much like to rent an example powered by it. I6 “don’t get no respect” to borrow from Rodney Dangerfield.
I’m just glad it’s an I6 instead of a v6. They sound better, they feel better (smoother), fewer parts, etc.
And I like the idea of the 2.7 in the canyon, I think that would be impressive.
So when the CX-5 is inevitably phased out at the end of this generation, we’ll have a more expensive replacement in the CX-50 with worse driving dynamics (thanks to the torsion beam), visibility, NVH, and seat comfort.
Why can’t the US get a Mazda hybrid? The CX-60 looks pretty nice https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a39371226/mazda-cx-60-revealed/
You must be logged in to post a comment.