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

[Captain Awesome]

I love how legitimate and rules compliant posts I made to this topic magically disappear.

Whomever is responsible think about this one day somehow when you are subjected to this same type of censorship and you are powerless to do anything, and nobody stands up for you because you set the example that overreach of power is perfectly acceptable.

[fielderLS3]

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.


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 was specifically talking about the NA Ecotec in the Equinox/Terrain. One of the turbo 4's would have plenty of power, but a 170hp NA 4-cyl is a bit overwhelmed in a vehicle that weighs over 3800 pounds.

I also understand that it is for CAFE ratings, but you do hit a point of diminishing returns when downsizing engines for efficiency. At some point, the engine is working so hard, that it begins to hurt efficiency, not help it, particularly when turbocharging an engine due to the reduction in compression ratio the forced induction requires. If the engine is so small that the turbos are always spooled up, then you are probably just a well off efficiency wise with a larger displacement, NA engine with a higher compression ratio.

Originally Posted by Number 3

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.

I've driven a 3.5L Ecoboost F-150 that had plenty of power. Not sure it actually gets the advertised fuel economy gain, though. I haven't driven any Ecoboost 4s yet, but everything I have heard about them in the Explorer suggests that even with a turbo, 2 liters is too little for a vehicle that big. The lighter Edge and Taurus can probably get away with it though.

Part of the reason they are getting away with the turbo 4s in certain cars is the low RPM torque the turbos offer, particularly given how weak today's V6s are in that area.

I also have to respectfully disagree on the new turbo 4 in the Regal offering both decent fuel economy and superior performance. The larger Impala with the 3.6L V6 has more power, and gets the same city, and a better highway MPG rating than the Turbo Regal. Compared to most V6 powered cars in its class (or even one class larger), the Regal is actually quite mediocre in both power and efficiency.