Quote:
Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65
If I'm not mistaken, Holden fixed the 3.0L's torque problem, but the EPA won't let GM use it in the states or whatever. Nevertheless, the 3.0L NEEDS more torque at lower RPMs. Most drivers won't notice a thing, but it hurts fuel economy a lot. The 3.0L CTS gets the exact same fuel economy rating as the 3.6L, 27 MPG highway. One of our Australian members at GMI managed over 30 MPG in a 3.0L equipped Commodore.
|
But what are the performance specs? The 3.0L having the same fuel econ as a larger more torquey engine is not a positive thing IMO. If the 3.0L was GAINING... saaaaay... 3 MPG.. then I would be at happy.
As it stands it is no more than a replacement for the larger engine's exact specs. If that's the goal... cool... GM should come out and SAY IT. They matched the non-DI 3.6L's power rating... which is extraordinary... but did nothing to improve the FE.. which is disappointing. They are literally making a STELLAR vehicle (SRX) look incompetent (non-2.8L) in almost ever comparison. Despite sales being excellent, why would they hobble this vehicle when the competition is hitting from all directions. THEY HAVE THE ENGINES... they don't even need to develop them. They are already available.
