Talk:Tritec engine

Stub

Hi Sfoskett,

I regret to report that I have just marked this article as an {auto-stub} because I strongly feel that there is a confusion in naming. I wonder why you called an engine Chrysler Mini for the only reason it is used for propelling Mini cars (owned by BMW)? I think the right way to mention engines is the way the manufacturer call them such as Chrysler HEMI, and never e.g. "Chrysler LeBaron engine" for the only reason that an engine is used iin a particular model of car.

--Millisits 01:55, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It was developed for tiny (mini) cars and is referred to as the Mini engine colloquially among Mopar fans. I'd prefer a more precise name, but do not know of one! Also, some engines (like the Ford Pinto engine) really are named after the car they were designed for...--SFoskett 03:18, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

I found it's "right" name - Tritec! --SFoskett 01:05, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Contradiction of terms

In the opening paragraph we have:

In 1997, Chrysler Corporation and Rover Group (then a subsidiary of BMW) formed Tritec, a joint venture to design a new small straight-4 engine for small cars. They built a factory in Curitiba, Brazil to manufacture the engine. When BMW sold Rover Group, BMW retained the stake in Tritec.

Then in the third paragraph we have:

The Tritec engine was designed entirely by Chrysler and is related to the 2.0 liter Chrysler Neon engine. It is a modern engine with an SOHC 16-valve head, electronic throttle control, and meets Euro III emissions requirements. There are three current versions of the engine, 1.4 L, 1.6 L, and supercharged 1.6 L.

As you can see, the first paragraph states it's a joint venture, then the latter states it was designed soley for the Chrysler Neon, this seems odd as the Neon is a 2.0 and the current tritec is a 1.4-1.6

Because of that i've removed the third paragraph until it can be reliably verified. Silent52 (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silent52

As far as I'm aware the engine development was a joint venture by BMW & Chrysler, however I do not feel that in the end they were looking to develop & use exactly the same engine. It is my belief that the general principles of the engine are the same - Ie. The "ladder" construction of the block, where the crank is sandwiched between the main part and the lower section of the block. I also believe that both the engines are chain driven.
However I was under the impression that the Chrysler engine is a DOHC (double cam). Possibly we need to trawl through the internet and find out more data.
--Andrey Magiy (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merge from Fiat E.torQ engine

The Fiat E.torQ engine is a development of this engine that shares tooling and dimensions, initially with minor revisions. The E.torQ NPM engine has more in common with the earlier Tritec engine than it does with the later E.torQ EVO and E.torQ EVO VIS engines and components are interchangeable between all versions. Integrating the E.torQ page into the Tritec page would clarify the initial and later development of the engine on each page. BuffMyRadius (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reject. Yes share the same technical part, but isn't the same engine because as construction and selling with some many difference made peculiarities mechanical and have another brand and name. It is not identical engine, because they belong to different families power train: the Tritec is old, the etorq is more developed and adopted for another type of car only for FIAT specifically for Sud America market. 5.90.137.29 (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same but not entirely enough to warrant merge. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - E.torQ and Tritec are two different engines entirely despite sharing parts. They are not like Lamborghini and Audi's V10 which are the same engine to the core. That's almost like saying the new Chrysler V6 twin turbo is the same engine or revival of Toyota's 2JZ-GTE. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 12:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing given the consensus not to merge. Klbrain (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]