In Terms of V6 Engines, Why Doesn't GM Simply "Go 4 It?"

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

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?

[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.

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

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.

[MikesZ]

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

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?

I would like to see more use of the 2.0L Turbo in small cars and either a 2.8L Turbo or 3.0L Turbo in mid-sized cars and CUV's...more power without diminishing FE.

[FxsX24]

what about the 4.3 v6, that motor could be helped alot, they have not done much to it in 7 years, still the same old 200hp output

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

Originally Posted by FxsX24

what about the 4.3 v6, that motor could be helped alot, they have not done much to it in 7 years, still the same old 200hp output

The Atlas is Pushrod. I think because of a need for GM to get away from the architecture... they have gone completely towards OHC designs outside of V8s... where they are still class-leading.

Having essentially one engine base (the HF) is both logical and cost efficient. They seemed to have adopted this strategy across the board. The V8s are LSs, the 4 Cyl are Ecotecs, the V6s are HFs

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

Originally Posted by MikesZ

I would like to see more use of the 2.0L Turbo in small cars and either a 2.8L Turbo or 3.0L Turbo in mid-sized cars and CUV's...more power without diminishing FE.

In ref. to the 2.0L.. U will. I think damn near every Buick will have the 2.0L in it except the Lacrosse and Enclave.

[jputer]

Our horsepower renaissance will get a setback with the new CAFE standards. It will be like 1971 all over again. GM will have to restrict the high performance engine availabilty to keep the fleet average up. Expect higher prices for high performance. They will want to profit off the situation.

I agree with your desires and logic. I just don't expect GM to listen to what we want too much, when they are faced with the new standards.

[MikesZ]

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

In ref. to the 2.0L.. U will. I think damn near every Buick will have the 2.0L in it except the Lacrosse and Enclave.

I want to see a Verano GS coupe with a 2.0L Turbo.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by MikesZ

I want to see a Verano GS coupe with a 2.0L Turbo.

Supposedly the Regal isn't the only GS model...

[MikesZ]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Supposedly the Regal isn't the only GS model...

Sweet...Verano would be more in my price range and be able to deliver a good balance of performance and FE.

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

Originally Posted by jputer

Our horsepower renaissance will get a setback with the new CAFE standards. It will be like 1971 all over again. GM will have to restrict the high performance engine availabilty to keep the fleet average up. Expect higher prices for high performance. They will want to profit off the situation.

I agree with your desires and logic. I just don't expect GM to listen to what we want too much, when they are faced with the new standards.

a 350HP Hybrid 3.6L with Electric capability up to 40MPH seems to disagree with the "1971" assessment...

[a_Username]

Our technology is far beyond what the '70s have. You no longer need to have a 8.1L to produce 500HP. We've come up with ways to be more fuel efficient, but be just as powerful as the '70s big blocks. Obviously the high performance cars will see increase like the 70s though.

[jputer]

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

a 350HP Hybrid 3.6L with Electric capability up to 40MPH seems to disagree with the "1971" assessment...

Enjoy and partake like there is no tomorrow. I will call and write my legislators and support SEMA efforts to perserve our "horsepower". An electric Camaro will sell too.