Chevrolet Corvette Stingray C7 Forum - View Single Post - In Terms of V6 Engines, Why Doesn't GM Simply "Go 4 It?"

Cmicasa the Great XvX · 02-10-2010, 10:18 AM

My question is WHY DOESN'T GM JUST GO 4 IT???

The 3.6L, when introduced 4 years ago was stellar... and it continues to be a great engine. My fear is that it is being neglected by GM, much like it's big sister the 4.6L Northstar, with attention being turned towards the mediocre and boring 3.0L.

The 3.0L, while certainly strong for it's size lacks torque.. which is necessary in moving heavy vehicles like the SRX. It has all of the goods to be a GREAT 2.8L replacement tho. Putting a turbo on top would most likely (and reportedly) earn U an engine with about 420HP. Consider that the NON-DI 2.8L has been tested up to 335HP, and settled at 325HP in the Opel OPC Insignia. The 3.0L could easily blow Ford's 3.5L Ecoboost away if it had a single Turbo let alone a TWIN set-up.

IF I WERE RUNNING THINGS...

1) The 2.8L would be retired. Great engine/set-up, but old, lacking new tech such as Direct-Injection and too costly to upgrade it.

2) Kill the 3.0L in EVERY vehicle unless it has a Turbo iced on top. This includes the Equinox and Terrain, because the 3.6L was better and just as fuel efficient

3) The 3.6L becomes what it was... GM's "go to" V6, configured from 270HP-350HP.

I have "friends" at RenCen who have told me that the 3.6L has been tested up to 350HP and was humbled during the NORTHSTAR'S reign as a way of keeping the STS/SRX variants higher in MSRP.

But that's hearsay.. but I do have proof that with a simple upgrade in air intake and exhaust.. the 3.6L is worth 340-350HP. That's without Turbos at all.

4) I would bring back a familiar name. The 3.8L She was a BAD ASS. "25 million served" and when we last saw it... 260 HP /280 ft lb. .

OK. Not the same 3.8L OHV, but one based on the 3.6LSIDI, bored and stroked. A naturally aspirated engine worth an easy 370 HP, I'm willing to bet

.. with A Turbo version boosting it to 480-500HP

5) The 3.8L would be the mid-engine for Cadillac ONLY for the first year.. then move to Buick

6) A 330HP 3.6L would be the base engine for Cadillac's CTS and SRX.

7) The Turbo Version of the 3.8L would go into the SRX and ATS as a Vseries

By comparison: The Ford 3.5-liter produces 285 horsepower and 253 pound-feet of torque, while the Sport's larger 3.7 Ti-VCT V6 delivers 305 ponies and 280 torques on 87 octane. What always confuses me is why don't companies just use ONE engine when HP is so close, in this case the 3.7L, and detune it 20HP/27lbs. GM is doing the same thing with the 3.0L vs 2.8L Turbo. :(

The whole thing is all over the place I kno. But isn;t all wishful thinking?

02-10-2010, 10:18 AM	#1
Cmicasa the Great XvX Account Suspended Drives: 07Taho, 11CamaroRS, 12CTSV Coupe Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: MD Posts: 705	In Terms of V6 Engines, Why Doesn't GM Simply "Go 4 It?" My question is WHY DOESN'T GM JUST GO 4 IT??? The 3.6L, when introduced 4 years ago was stellar... and it continues to be a great engine. My fear is that it is being neglected by GM, much like it's big sister the 4.6L Northstar, with attention being turned towards the mediocre and boring 3.0L. The 3.0L, while certainly strong for it's size lacks torque.. which is necessary in moving heavy vehicles like the SRX. It has all of the goods to be a GREAT 2.8L replacement tho. Putting a turbo on top would most likely (and reportedly) earn U an engine with about 420HP. Consider that the NON-DI 2.8L has been tested up to 335HP, and settled at 325HP in the Opel OPC Insignia. The 3.0L could easily blow Ford's 3.5L Ecoboost away if it had a single Turbo let alone a TWIN set-up. IF I WERE RUNNING THINGS... 1) The 2.8L would be retired. Great engine/set-up, but old, lacking new tech such as Direct-Injection and too costly to upgrade it. 2) Kill the 3.0L in EVERY vehicle unless it has a Turbo iced on top. This includes the Equinox and Terrain, because the 3.6L was better and just as fuel efficient 3) The 3.6L becomes what it was... GM's "go to" V6, configured from 270HP-350HP. I have "friends" at RenCen who have told me that the 3.6L has been tested up to 350HP and was humbled during the NORTHSTAR'S reign as a way of keeping the STS/SRX variants higher in MSRP. But that's hearsay.. but I do have proof that with a simple upgrade in air intake and exhaust.. the 3.6L is worth 340-350HP. That's without Turbos at all. 4) I would bring back a familiar name. The 3.8L She was a BAD ASS. "25 million served" and when we last saw it... 260 HP /280 ft lb. . OK. Not the same 3.8L OHV, but one based on the 3.6LSIDI, bored and stroked. A naturally aspirated engine worth an easy 370 HP, I'm willing to bet.. with A Turbo version boosting it to 480-500HP 5) The 3.8L would be the mid-engine for Cadillac ONLY for the first year.. then move to Buick 6) A 330HP 3.6L would be the base engine for Cadillac's CTS and SRX. 7) The Turbo Version of the 3.8L would go into the SRX and ATS as a Vseries By comparison: The Ford 3.5-liter produces 285 horsepower and 253 pound-feet of torque, while the Sport's larger 3.7 Ti-VCT V6 delivers 305 ponies and 280 torques on 87 octane. What always confuses me is why don't companies just use ONE engine when HP is so close, in this case the 3.7L, and detune it 20HP/27lbs. GM is doing the same thing with the 3.0L vs 2.8L Turbo. :( The whole thing is all over the place I kno. But isn;t all wishful thinking?