GM Reveals 2013 GMC Terrain Denali, 3.6L V6 Replaces 3.0L

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Which can only mean one thing ...

The General Automotive section of Camaro5 is a primary influence on GM's product planning department.

Glorious! Next thing on the list, Cruze SS!

[CamaroSkooter]

Dude, Sonic SS

Or, just put a supercharger on it and call it a SuperSonic

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

Dude, Sonic SS

Or, just put a supercharger on it and call it a SuperSonic

SuperSonic, love it!

[big hammer]

have they resolved the timing chain issues with the 3.6 yet?

[fielderLS3]

The engine they should have replaced is the 2.4L Ecotec. That isn't enough for an SUV. If they want a 4-cyl base engine, it should at least have a turbo.

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Not sure yet, but this thing is going to be a rocket in V6 form.

That seem like very good HP numbers for a smaller sized SUV. I really like the looks.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

The engine they should have replaced is the 2.4L Ecotec. That isn't enough for an SUV. If they want a 4-cyl base engine, it should at least have a turbo.

Except that, they can't build enough of the 2.4s to keep up with demand. They're discounting the V6s now to try and shift the mix a bit

I do agree that its not enough for an SUV, but since the Terrain & Equinox are crossovers its kinda a moot point.

[ROBOSSRS]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Except that, they can't build enough of the 2.4s to keep up with demand. They're discounting the V6s now to try and shift the mix a bit

I do agree that its not enough for an SUV, but since the Terrain & Equinox are crossovers its kinda a moot point.

I'll keep my 05 Equinox for a few more years. Why they put 4 bangers in something that size I'll never know.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

The engine they should have replaced is the 2.4L Ecotec. That isn't enough for an SUV. If they want a 4-cyl base engine, it should at least have a turbo.

Have you driven one? I'm a performance junkie as well, but the SIDI 2.4 in the Equinox/Terrain is pretty decent. Not saying it's great with 4 passengers and luggage mind you, but I've found them to be pretty well balanced with the 6 speed trans.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Except that, they can't build enough of the 2.4s to keep up with demand. They're discounting the V6s now to try and shift the mix a bit

I do agree that its not enough for an SUV, but since the Terrain & Equinox are crossovers its kinda a moot point.

\

Originally Posted by Sanddemon

I'll keep my 05 Equinox for a few more years. Why they put 4 bangers in something that size I'll never know.

Fuel economy, plain and simple and as mentioned they can't keep up with the demand.


BTW the MUST get rid of the silver gloss painted plastic around the center stack, the HVAC vents, the steering wheel (also on the Camaro) to be a serious contender for a decent interior. Painting something with gloss paint in a crappy color indicates you don't know how to balance high quality materials in an interior. Always my pet peeve on GM interiors. Need better materials period. If you think you are there....................go one level higher.

[ROBOSSRS]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Have you driven one? I'm a performance junkie as well, but the SIDI 2.4 in the Equinox/Terrain is pretty decent. Not saying it's great with 4 passengers and luggage mind you, but I've found them to be pretty well balanced with the 6 speed trans.

\





Fuel economy, plain and simple and as mentioned they can't keep up with the demand.


BTW the MUST get rid of the silver gloss painted plastic around the center stack, the HVAC vents, the steering wheel (also on the Camaro) to be a serious contender for a decent interior. Painting something with gloss paint in a crappy color indicates you don't know how to balance high quality materials in an interior. Always my pet peeve on GM interiors. Need better materials period. If you think you are there....................go one level higher.

It seems to me once you get to a certain weight in a vehicle, the smaller engine will loose out in the economy department. What 's next the Camaro II with a turbo 2.4 liter ? :( My old Chinese engine in my 05 Nox is just fine. Better than a four banger, but that's what I like.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by Sanddemon

It seems to me once you get to a certain weight in a vehicle, the smaller engine will loose out in the economy department. What 's next the Camaro II with a turbo 2.4 liter ? :( My old Chinese engine in my 05 Nox is just fine. Better than a four banger, but that's what I like.

You might want to pay attention to what Ford is planning for the Mustang...

[ROBOSSRS]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

You might want to pay attention to what Ford is planning for the Mustang...

What Mustang II, back to the future ?

[Number 3]

You are partially correct. Going smaller in engine displacement doesn't always help in fuel economy. Look at the very vehicle in this thread. Going up the 3.6 from the 3.0 without penalty.

But for many many customers today, FE is more important than 0 to 60. If you can provide a smaller engine that provides decent drivability and maximum FE that gets it done for most people...................not generally the people that hang out in Muscle Car threads...........................but most OTHER people.

Look at the Turbo 4 in the Regal. A large "mid-size" car. It gets decent FE while providing superior performance.

Ford is putting their Turbo 2.0L in the Exploder, Edge and even the "full-size" Taurus.

When CAFE hits, you will likely see more and more and more of that, like it or not. The government knows better.....................................no they don't, but they think they do.

It's a balance thing that goes well beyond the engine displacement. It's number of gears in the trans, final drive ratio, and probably most important, the powertrain calibration.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Number 3

You are partially correct. Going smaller in engine displacement doesn't always help in fuel economy. Look at the very vehicle in this thread. Going up the 3.6 from the 3.0 without penalty.

But for many many customers today, FE is more important than 0 to 60. If you can provide a smaller engine that provides decent drivability and maximum FE that gets it done for most people...................not generally the people that hang out in Muscle Car threads...........................but most OTHER people.

Look at the Turbo 4 in the Regal. A large "mid-size" car. It gets decent FE while providing superior performance.

Ford is putting their Turbo 2.0L in the Exploder, Edge and even the "full-size" Taurus.

When CAFE hits, you will likely see more and more and more of that, like it or not. The government knows better.....................................no they don't, but they think they do.

It's a balance thing that goes well beyond the engine displacement. It's number of gears in the trans, final drive ratio, and probably most important, the powertrain calibration.

I wouldn't tought the Turbo Regal FE as it's MPG is worse than a lot of other manufacturers mure power 6 cykinders.