Pushrod Power: How should GM market its 3.5LVVT and 3.9LVVT Engines?

[Ming]

Should GM market its 3.5LVVT and 3.9LVVT as "Pushrod" Engines?
Commentary by Ming
www.gminsidenews.com

One might argue that GM has been hiding the OHV "Pushrod" nature of its new 3.5L and 3.9L Variable Valve Timing-enhanced engines in most of the ads and brochures out in the public eye. Where "DOHC" is often loudly trumpeted, GM's OHV engines are rarely advertised as such, but rather just with the displacement, the horsepower, or the impressive fuel economy (31 mpg for the 3.5L in the Impala). Here's a concept, why not play up their uniqueness in the market by linking the image of the 3900 to the GM V8 Smallblock?

Personally I like the 3.5LVVT (especially in the Impala with a no-cost E-85 option) capable of 31 miles per gallon, and available in models like the base Impala where Toyota might use a weaker 4-cylinder. But since GM does not market its Pushrods like Mazda markets its Rotary engines - as an alternative that is just as good in its own way - they have to overcome the negative image of GM's OHV V6's as being "outdated", even though they have undergone some serious revamping recently. Of course, GM didn't help that cause by calling the 3500 (non-VVT) in the 2004 Malibu a "Value" engine - essentially labeling it as "cheap", and if something is "cheap", then you are getting ripped off somewhere, right?

My hope is that if they intend to stick with the new 3.5L and 3.9L engines for years to come that they do a better job of marketing them, without trying to hide their OHV nature. OHV has its benefits, lots of low end torque, good fuel economy, etc. --- flaunt them!

When introduced, the 3.9LV6 was honored by Popular Mechanics for its introduction of variable valve timing, a first for overhead valve engines. At least the tech-heads there, if not at the car magazines where Honda sets the rules, got it right:

“General Motors keeps finding ways to advance overhead valve engines and the 3.9-liter V-6 used in the Impala reaches new levels,” said James Meigs, editor-in-chief, POPULAR MECHANICS. “For their continued success and innovation, we’re proud to recognize GM with a 2006 Breakthrough Award.” LINK

Also, the negative image doesn't affect the Corvette pushrod V8 -- so a little pride in engineering and some marketing could help the redesigned OHV V6 engines too.

Of course I'd love to see 2.8L and 3.6L Cadillac CTS DOHC V6 engines in more vehicles, but apparently GM can't crank them out for the right price to put them in lower cost sedans like the G6, Impala and Malibu (at least not without some kind of "Ultra" trim label and high price tag). If it isn't going to happen some time soon, then the Pushrod V6's could use a little investment and advertising.

And the non-VVT 3500 and imported 3400 should be phased out and replaced with the 3.5LVVT as soon as possible, or the 3.5LVVT will be forever linked to them in the public's mind as just another variation of "GM's Venerable 60-degree Overhead Valve V6" -- an engine family that is not about "moving forward" but about hitting the lowest price point. It doesn't help that the 3.5LVVT engine has the same displacement as the OHV 3500 (non VVT) in the CSV's, Malibu, G6 and Rendezvous.

Rotary-Pushrod-Diesel-DOHC-Hybrid, this market is broad and deserves choices. Why not market it as another choice, and not something GM tries to cover up while it plans how to move away from them? Or is GM just afraid of launching its new Euro-flavor Saturn Aura with "a Pushrod and a 4-speed", if it comes to that?

Now of course you can find some great examples of DOHC V6's in the Import competition that get impressive horsepower AND torque and are in affordable cars -- Nissan comes to mind -- and GM could indeed improve on its 3900's fuel economy and power. But one must look at the whole spectrum of the competition and what they offer for the money, not just a few of the best DOHC V6's tuned to the maximum and picked from a handful of shining examples in an Infiniti or an Avalon.

And look at how far GM has come since the 3800 - which supercharged in my 2000 Bonneville SSEi got the same HP as the (unrelated - don't get confused by the naming) 3900 gets now. And the 3.5LVVT gets more HP than the naturally aspirated version of the 3800 in the "all new" Lucerne and LaCrosse. So progress has, and can be made with these engines.

The question is, will GM back these engines with its marketing muscle, or present them as "Value" engines, and which is the correct path for GM to take in the long run? Pushrod pride and further enhancements, or kowtowing to the image set by the Japanese DOHC V6's as the pinnacle of design while abandoning decades of OHV design experience?

[JVal14]

I think making the connection with V8s is good for drawing the attention of the everyday carbuyer. As for those with more automotive knowledge, it seems like anyone familiar with OHC would understand that pushrods have advantages as well. Maybe I'm wrong. I just think that people tend to retain prejudices about OHC and OHV, so it's best to flaunt the power and MPG figures to draw people in, then let them find out the valvetrain style on their own.

[CRBoyd91]

The reason why OHC is better is becasue the Japanese use them.

[stormwatcher]

Originally Posted by Ming

GM has been hiding the OHV "Pushrod" nature of its new 3.5L and 3.9L Variable Valve Timing enhanced engines in most of the ads and brochures I've been reading (where "DOHC" is often loudly trumpeted). Here's a concept, why not play it up by linking their image to the V8 Small Block?

I think the sooner that GM gets DOHC 6 cylinder engines into their cars the better. For reasons that may or may not be valid, most car buyers prefer DOHC. The same with 4 speed autos, don't fight what most customers want.

[cfch3399]

Problem is that these engines don't produce enough power, so establishing a connection with a V8 would be deceptive. Of course, that's the whole point of marketing but GM has a history of bad marketing.

3.5:
Horsepower: 211 @ 5800 rpm
Torque: 214 @ 4000 rpm
3.9:
242 @ 6000 rpm
242 lb-ft @ 4800

If GM can't get more power out of these things to compete with DOHCs, then I'm sorry, these engines have got to go, the sooner the better.
The alternative would be to supercharge them. If GM can produce a cheap SC 3.8 maybe they should have kept it around longer and used it more often (with better gaskets).

[Proetus]

Originally Posted by Ming

Of course, GM calling the 3500 (non-VVT) in the 2004 Malibu a "Value" engine was calling it "cheap", and did nothing for the image but hurt it. I hope that if they intend to stick with the new 3.5 and 3.9L engines for years to come that they do a better job of marketing them, without trying to hide their OHV nature. OHV has its benefits, lots of low end torque, good fuel economy (31mpg on the Impala 3.5L) etc. --- flaunt them!

I'm not sure how they could advertise those features without citing 'value', such as how they currently compare many V6 models with competitors' similarly priced I4 models.

For example Toyo 3.5 is rated at
268hp @ 6100
248lb-ft @ 4700

EPA for Camry and Avalon are 22/31.

The Impala 3.5 is rated at 21/31 and the 3.9 at 19/27.

If they wanted to compare these directly I am not sure how they could make a convincing argument without using 'value' as the primary virtue.

[327]

Originally Posted by cfch3399

Problem is that these engines don't produce enough power, so establishing a connection with a V8 would be deceptive. Of course, that's the whole point of marketing but GM has a history of bad marketing.

3.5:
Horsepower: 211 @ 5800 rpm
Torque: 214 @ 4000 rpm
3.9:
242 @ 6000 rpm
242 lb-ft @ 4800

If GM can't get more power out of these things to compete with DOHCs, then I'm sorry, these engines have got to go, the sooner the better.
The alternative would be to supercharge them. If GM can produce a cheap SC 3.8 maybe they should have kept it around longer and used it more often (with better gaskets).

history of bad marketing? maybe since the 80s with their cars.

more power has to do with what theyre going up against. usually the DOHC imports have 4 valves and a higher compression ratio.

The 3.9L does a great job vs toyotas 3.5L avalon engine same power output/ similar MPG.

just because theyve built a 3.5L v6 @ 211 HP doesnt mean they cant or wont get more power from them. Look at the 5.3L v8, keeps getting bigger HP I think they started at around 285? now have 320.

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by Proetus

EPA for Camry and Avalon are 22/31.

The Impala 3.5 is rated at 21/31 and the 3.9 at 19/27.

A big part of that difference - maybe the entire difference - is that Toyota has a five speed auto in the Avalon and a six speed auto in the new Camry, while the Impala shoulders on with a 4 speed auto.

If GM can get the six speed auto into the Impala LTZ before they go out of business, the numbers should look much better.

[Canyonaro]

Let alone the import DOHC engines typically suggest a premium fuel as opposed to the suggested regular fuel in the OHV variants.

I think that they should offer both variants maybe one in a LS and one in an LT? Or so on, let the customer decide. I think the OHV engines may not be stellar in this day and age, but excellent engines and still can serve a purpose whether or not the customer knows or is just buying the import hype.

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by Canyonaro

Let alone the import DOHC engines typically suggest a premium fuel as opposed to the suggested regular fuel in the OHV variants.

The new way the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) tests horsepower is to use the minimum permitted octane of fuel, not the recommended fuel. So the 268 horsepower rating for the Avalon, Camry, and RAV4 are all from 87 Octane fuel.

[big swede]

If GM capitolized on the merits of OHV with their V6’s then I could see them talking about those aspects in a positive light. They could then brag about lighter weight, more power, smooth engines and cheaper costs . Unfortunately GM’s V6’s have iron blocks, heads that kill hp, give off sounds and vibrations to make them feel cheap and put them in cars that are at least as expensive as the competition.

[Ming]

Alot of those comparisons are why I mentioned the "high tech" Rotary Mazda engine, which has its own ups and downs, yet people forgive its specs while blasting an OHV by directly comparing (and usually only comparing) horsepower specs (also see my Sig). I'm convinced that if GM made the same Rotary engine for its mainstream cars, it would get blasted for that "Old tech Wankel engine design". But by virtue of being Japanese, and different than what we're used to, it has a cult following.

2006 Mazda RX-8 Sport AT Technical Specs
Standard Engine
1.3L R2
6 Speed Automatic
Horsepower @ RPM
212@7500
Torque @ RPM
159@5500
18/25 mpg

[LAMRONH]

class-exclusive Corvette-style design 3+3 V-type with compression pistons and hydraulic lifters! with UNIQUE Powerglide-PlusPlus-Overdrive 1960s++ ultratronic superfluid multi-gear automatic transmission!!!!

[mgescuro]

I still don't know why GM maintains OHV engines at all. It's all about perception here... and this is where GM trails.

Calling the OHV engines "value engines" also degrades the image of the cars that carry the engine. Especially when these same cars are competing with the obviously "better value" Camry... it really begs the question, "What the hell is GM thinking?"

GM can make competent OHC engines -- V6 and V8. And they receive accolades on the HF engines as well as the Northstar. So why not build them across the board?
HF engines might cost more to build, but when you're building hundreds of thousands of them, GM will experience something called "Economies of Scale."

Come on GM... get with the program.

[327]

Originally Posted by Ming

Alot of those comparisons are why I mentioned the "high tech" Rotary Mazda engine, which has its own ups and downs, yet people forgive its specs while blasting an OHV by directly comparing (and usually only comparing) horsepower specs (also see my Sig). I'm convinced that if GM made the same Rotary engine for its mainstream cars, it would get blasted for that "Old tech Wankel engine design". But by virtue of being Japanese, and different than what we're used to, it has a cult following.

actually they shouldnt take credit for having building the wankel engine, they didnt design it. the only thing they get is being the first automaker to produce them in big numbers


the wankel was first designed by German Felix Wankel in 1925. I think he reworked it to make it better until the 40s. then it was used in some british motorcycles and suzuki bikes. 50s-60s And John Deere in the US experimented with them to work using any kind of fuel!