Dodge Avenger Unveiled!
#21
09-21-2006, 12:12 PM
#22
09-21-2006, 12:37 PM
RE: Dodge Avenger Unveiled!
ORIGINAL: Pitt Ram
dont you remember the 2001 dodge Stratus?
the 3.0 V6 had power.....but the sedan never really felt strong
My 1998 with the 2.5 feels a bit slowish[:'(]
dont you remember the 2001 dodge Stratus?
the 3.0 V6 had power.....but the sedan never really felt strong
My 1998 with the 2.5 feels a bit slowish[:'(]
#23
09-21-2006, 12:58 PM
RE: Dodge Avenger Unveiled!
ORIGINAL: BadStratRT
they didnt ake any 3.0 sedans...the largest engine was a 2.7, and the 2.5 is quite a bit less powerful...i dont know why they didnt offer a sedan 3.0
they didnt ake any 3.0 sedans...the largest engine was a 2.7, and the 2.5 is quite a bit less powerful...i dont know why they didnt offer a sedan 3.0
Personally, it wouldnt have made a whole lot of sense....
#24
09-21-2006, 01:36 PM
The Only Elite DF Member
#25
09-21-2006, 03:03 PM
RE: Dodge Avenger Unveiled!
Quoted from article; "Avenger will likely have the same choice of engines, which includes the 172-hp, 2.4-liter World Engine; 190-hp, 2.7-liter V6; and 235-hp, 3.5-liter V6."
Not bad for a aspirated 2.4 world engine. Not too far off from Nissan's 175 2.4 engine. I wonder if Nissan's 2.4 also a world engine?
I wonder why the 2.7 and 3.5 engines have degraded power output? Those figures are just lame. Especially the 3.5 v6. I wonder if it has anything to do with exhaust plumbing or something that caused this big loss in HP?
I was hoping to see the 2.7 engine to improve and get at least 225-230 HP which the 3.2 use to get. Slap the same DVVT technology on the 2.7 that is on the 2.4 and then you can get some really good HP ratings. If the 3.5 is a HO version, it is a joke to have that HP rating when we all know it made over 250 HP when the 3.5 was first introduced in the 300m and Prowler. Even the Intrepid R/T had better HP rating on the 3.5 at 240+ HP.
I hope those V6 power figures are still theorical and not final figures for production.
Not bad for a aspirated 2.4 world engine. Not too far off from Nissan's 175 2.4 engine. I wonder if Nissan's 2.4 also a world engine?
I wonder why the 2.7 and 3.5 engines have degraded power output? Those figures are just lame. Especially the 3.5 v6. I wonder if it has anything to do with exhaust plumbing or something that caused this big loss in HP?
I was hoping to see the 2.7 engine to improve and get at least 225-230 HP which the 3.2 use to get. Slap the same DVVT technology on the 2.7 that is on the 2.4 and then you can get some really good HP ratings. If the 3.5 is a HO version, it is a joke to have that HP rating when we all know it made over 250 HP when the 3.5 was first introduced in the 300m and Prowler. Even the Intrepid R/T had better HP rating on the 3.5 at 240+ HP.
I hope those V6 power figures are still theorical and not final figures for production.
#26
09-21-2006, 04:08 PM
Record Breaker
RE: Dodge Avenger Unveiled!
ORIGINAL: Kensai
Quoted from article; "Avenger will likely have the same choice of engines, which includes the 172-hp, 2.4-liter World Engine; 190-hp, 2.7-liter V6; and 235-hp, 3.5-liter V6."
Not bad for a aspirated 2.4 world engine. Not too far off from Nissan's 175 2.4 engine. I wonder if Nissan's 2.4 also a world engine?
I wonder why the 2.7 and 3.5 engines have degraded power output? Those figures are just lame. Especially the 3.5 v6. I wonder if it has anything to do with exhaust plumbing or something that caused this big loss in HP?
I was hoping to see the 2.7 engine to improve and get at least 225-230 HP which the 3.2 use to get. Slap the same DVVT technology on the 2.7 that is on the 2.4 and then you can get some really good HP ratings. If the 3.5 is a HO version, it is a joke to have that HP rating when we all know it made over 250 HP when the 3.5 was first introduced in the 300m and Prowler. Even the Intrepid R/T had better HP rating on the 3.5 at 240+ HP.
I hope those V6 power figures are still theorical and not final figures for production.
Quoted from article; "Avenger will likely have the same choice of engines, which includes the 172-hp, 2.4-liter World Engine; 190-hp, 2.7-liter V6; and 235-hp, 3.5-liter V6."
Not bad for a aspirated 2.4 world engine. Not too far off from Nissan's 175 2.4 engine. I wonder if Nissan's 2.4 also a world engine?
I wonder why the 2.7 and 3.5 engines have degraded power output? Those figures are just lame. Especially the 3.5 v6. I wonder if it has anything to do with exhaust plumbing or something that caused this big loss in HP?
I was hoping to see the 2.7 engine to improve and get at least 225-230 HP which the 3.2 use to get. Slap the same DVVT technology on the 2.7 that is on the 2.4 and then you can get some really good HP ratings. If the 3.5 is a HO version, it is a joke to have that HP rating when we all know it made over 250 HP when the 3.5 was first introduced in the 300m and Prowler. Even the Intrepid R/T had better HP rating on the 3.5 at 240+ HP.
I hope those V6 power figures are still theorical and not final figures for production.
#27
09-21-2006, 04:12 PM
Record Breaker
RE: Dodge Avenger Unveiled!
ORIGINAL: DevilsReject
That's because the Sedan was a pure Chrysler product....where as the coupes werent. Not to mention, why would you offer a 3.0L V6 with 200hp when you have a 2.7L V6 with 200hp?
Personally, it wouldnt have made a whole lot of sense....
ORIGINAL: BadStratRT
they didnt ake any 3.0 sedans...the largest engine was a 2.7, and the 2.5 is quite a bit less powerful...i dont know why they didnt offer a sedan 3.0
they didnt ake any 3.0 sedans...the largest engine was a 2.7, and the 2.5 is quite a bit less powerful...i dont know why they didnt offer a sedan 3.0
Personally, it wouldnt have made a whole lot of sense....
#28
09-21-2006, 04:23 PM
RE: Dodge Avenger Unveiled!
ORIGINAL: 97 3.5 Intrepid
As much as I hate to admit it, the 3.0L would have been a better engine to offer instead of the 2.7L. Yes the had the same hp rating, but the 3.0L had 205ft-lbs of tq vs. the 2.7L had at best 192ft-lbs of tq. Also the 2.7L had some sluding issues; therefore, the 3.0L would have been better in the reliability category, as well as the refinement category. I wish they would have done what they used to do. Have the base I4 be a Chrysler engine and the optional V6 be a Mitsubishi design (unless they would have offered the 3.5L back then, that would have been nice).
As much as I hate to admit it, the 3.0L would have been a better engine to offer instead of the 2.7L. Yes the had the same hp rating, but the 3.0L had 205ft-lbs of tq vs. the 2.7L had at best 192ft-lbs of tq. Also the 2.7L had some sluding issues; therefore, the 3.0L would have been better in the reliability category, as well as the refinement category. I wish they would have done what they used to do. Have the base I4 be a Chrysler engine and the optional V6 be a Mitsubishi design (unless they would have offered the 3.5L back then, that would have been nice).
What they should have done is just offered the SRT-4 motor in the Stratus R/T and done away with the need for a V6
That said, they did offer the 3.5L motor then...as it was available back before the 2nd Gen Stratus re-design.....
#29
09-21-2006, 04:43 PM
Record Breaker
RE: Dodge Avenger Unveiled!
I agree that they should have offered the SRT motor in the Stratus, but the problem is that most people prefer V6s over turbocharged I4s. They could have offered one of Chrysler's lower tech V6 engines such as the 3.3L for those who only wanted a V6 and those who wanted performance could get the SRT-4 engine.
I know they had the 3.5L back then, even before the 1st Generation Stratus, I just don't understand why they didn't offer it in the 2nd Gen Stratus.
I know they had the 3.5L back then, even before the 1st Generation Stratus, I just don't understand why they didn't offer it in the 2nd Gen Stratus.
#30
09-21-2006, 06:38 PM
Professional
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location:
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
