New V6 needed

[ogg vorbis]

trucks have:
4.3L V6 - 195 hp / 260 lb-ft
4.8L V8 - 295 hp / 305 lb-ft
5.3L V8 - 315 hp / 338 lb-ft
6.0L V8 - 367 hp / 375 lb-ft

cars have:
3.5L V6 - 217 hp / 217 lb-ft
3.9L V6 - 240 hp / 240 lb-ft

i believe ohv is a practical engine solution. every other car maker has just a handful of engines for cars AND trucks. here's my proposal for consolidating engines, sharing architectures and components.

3.6L V6 - 220 hp / 225 lb-ft (based on 4.8L parts)
4.5L V6 - 271 - 308 hp / 300 lb-ft (L76 with 2 cylinders chopped off)
5.3L V8 - 315 hp / 338 lb-ft
6.0L V8 - 380 hp / 400 lb-ft

they all share valvetrain, various reciprocating parts, sensors, and architecture. e.g. the CNC program for the L76 head would work on the 4.5L V6. the same engines would serve marine duty as well (why not put L76 ports/valves on the 8100?)

the 3.6/4.5 are 90° V6. while this requires a balance shaft, it leaves lots of room for the intake manifold, lowers centre of gravity, and lowers height. Nissan put the counter-rotating balance shafts for the QR25 in the oil pan. the crank needs to have split journals, but 60° V6s have split journals anyway for intake/exhaust tuning.

a cast iron-block 4.5L V6 weighs less than the 4.8L V6, but is 25% shorter, 25% fewer components, and 25% less expensive to produce. it weighs less than the all aluminum 5.3L V8, and about the same as the alloytecs! An all aluminum 4.5L V6 weighs under 300 lb. it's a cheaper, and lighter alternative for the 303 hp LS4. a V6 with V8 power, and 4 cylinder weight. it moves the centre of gravity back 4.4" vs V8 (on rwd apps).

the 3.6 is a lb for lb replacement for the alloytecs. it's a little wider, but much shorter, and much lower cost. with LS6 heads, it easily produces 225 hp, and capable of much, much more. nevermind available LS6 CNC programs, valvetrain, cam profiles, fuel injectors, etc. this is the engine the 3800 should have evolved into, and put the 60° family to rest.

As a proud owner of a 1999 Buick Regal GS, and long time admirer of Stage motors, I know there are millions who love V6s, and prefer them to gen III V8, and even big blocks! The Garrett GT35R - and Precision Turbo GT6131/6152RE - are the hottest upgrade to Grand Nationals. YES, there is still a huge market for cars that were discontinued 20 years ago! Now owners are discovering that Series II and III motors are very stout, and love turbos too! There are plenty of 11 and 12 second W body cars that are driven daily.

The 3800 is a cult engine. That's why GM extended its production by 4 years. Two years is plenty to create the 3.6/4.5 - all the components, systems, and ideas exist. it's a natural base engine for ohv V8 (as opposed to dohc V6) cars like Camaro, Impala, and G8. It will see a huge aftermarket acceptance, and be retrofitted to GNs, F-bodies, and others. This engine makes too much sense...build it and they will come!

[theoldchevykid]

Originally Posted by ogg vorbis

trucks have:
4.3L V6 - 195 hp / 260 lb-ft
4.8L V8 - 295 hp / 305 lb-ft
5.3L V8 - 315 hp / 338 lb-ft
6.0L V8 - 367 hp / 375 lb-ft

cars have:
3.5L V6 - 217 hp / 217 lb-ft
3.9L V6 - 240 hp / 240 lb-ft

i believe ohv is a practical engine solution. every other car maker has just a handful of engines for cars AND trucks. here's my proposal for consolidating engines, sharing architectures and components.

3.6L V6 - 220 hp / 225 lb-ft (based on 4.8L parts)
4.5L V6 - 271 - 308 hp / 300 lb-ft (L76 with 2 cylinders chopped off)
5.3L V8 - 315 hp / 338 lb-ft
6.0L V8 - 380 hp / 400 lb-ft

they all share valvetrain, various reciprocating parts, sensors, and architecture. e.g. the CNC program for the L76 head would work on the 4.5L V6. the same engines would serve marine duty as well (why not put L76 ports/valves on the 8100?)

the 3.6/4.5 are 90° V6. while this requires a balance shaft, it leaves lots of room for the intake manifold, lowers centre of gravity, and lowers height. Nissan put the counter-rotating balance shafts for the QR25 in the oil pan. the crank needs to have split journals, but 60° V6s have split journals anyway for intake/exhaust tuning.

a cast iron-block 4.5L V6 weighs less than the 4.8L V6, but is 25% shorter, 25% fewer components, and 25% less expensive to produce. it weighs less than the all aluminum 5.3L V8, and about the same as the alloytecs! An all aluminum 4.5L V6 weighs under 300 lb. it's a cheaper, and lighter alternative for the 303 hp LS4. a V6 with V8 power, and 4 cylinder weight. it moves the centre of gravity back 4.4" vs V8 (on rwd apps).

the 3.6 is a lb for lb replacement for the alloytecs. it's a little wider, but much shorter, and much lower cost. with LS6 heads, it easily produces 225 hp, and capable of much, much more. nevermind available LS6 CNC programs, valvetrain, cam profiles, fuel injectors, etc. this is the engine the 3800 should have evolved into, and put the 60° family to rest.

As a proud owner of a 1999 Buick Regal GS, and long time admirer of Stage motors, I know there are millions who love V6s, and prefer them to gen III V8, and even big blocks! The Garrett GT35R - and Precision Turbo GT6131/6152RE - are the hottest upgrade to Grand Nationals. YES, there is still a huge market for cars that were discontinued 20 years ago! Now owners are discovering that Series II and III motors are very stout, and love turbos too! There are plenty of 11 and 12 second W body cars that are driven daily.

The 3800 is a cult engine. That's why GM extended its production by 4 years. Two years is plenty to create the 3.6/4.5 - all the components, systems, and ideas exist. it's a natural base engine for ohv V8 (as opposed to dohc V6) cars like Camaro, Impala, and G8. It will see a huge aftermarket acceptance, and be retrofitted to GNs, F-bodies, and others. This engine makes too much sense...build it and they will come!

Ogg i agree gm need a new V6, but to replace the 4.3 V6 in the trucks with a LS1 based V6. The reason the car engine and truck engine are not consolidated is because the truck engine are beafer and heavyer.

[nailhead425]

Costs are the main issue here and the 4.3 is cheap, reliable, and it is clean enough to not necessarily justify a new Gen III/IV small block base.

Then again...since the heads are so much better, it might be worth it.

I dig 90* V-6s, odd and even fire, but I just don't see enough sales of the 4.3 to justify a change. a 6-speed behind a 4.8 with DoD may give better real-world results.

I'd rather see more DI V-6s, especially with turbos or superchargers, that produce big HP and Torque numbers with good fuel economy.

[ogg vorbis]

Originally Posted by theoldchevykid

Ogg i agree gm need a new V6, but to replace the 4.3 V6 in the trucks with a LS1 based V6. The reason the car engine and truck engine are not consolidated is because the truck engine are beafer and heavyer.

the LSx ARE consolidated in cars and trucks - trucks just have cast iron blocks. the LSx engines are plenty beefy in aluminum - an aluminum 5.3 is available on silverados! material choice is a cost issue. with a cast iron block the 4.5 is durable enough for marine duty. it weighs less than the aluminum v8, AND the alloytec...so it's not a concern in cars either.

in aluminum it will weigh <300 lb - about 20 lb heavier than the ecotec. super engine for solstice/sky think what 100 lb less will do in a fwd impala ss. it improves power-to-weight, steering, handling, moves weight distribution 1% rearward, and ~10% increased mileage. i don't know how insurance would look at a v6 vs a v8 (positive?)

LSx are putting out 1 hp/lb of engine weight. even the VQ37, with all its dohc, vvt, variable intake etc. only puts out 0.90 hp/lb. with dod, the 4.5 will get the same mileage, with tons more low end torque. the 4.5 is physically smaller, lower centre of gravity, less complicated, cheaper, and cheaper/easier to modify.

just like the L76/LS3/L92 can make 550 hp with just a cam/headers/tune, the 4.5 will surpass 400 hp. with the LS7 CNC port job, it's good for 450+ hp naturally aspirated (lingenfelter has 600+ hp LS7 that are emissions legal). let's not forget about a single turbo. the v8's potential is ridiculous - the 4.5 will be more than anyone needs on the street, and cheaper than the v8. it could become more popular than the v8! kick @$$!

of course an LS based V6 would be more expensive than the 4.3. but just as the L76 cylinder heads are much cheaper than LS6 heads, other components will fall in cost with increased volume. neither the 4.3 or 4.8 are big sellers. the 4.5 would supplant the 4.8 - same power, lighter, cheaper - and is a more viable engine than the 4.3. i think the 4.5 WILL sell as a base engine. the 4.8 is almost as powerful as the 5.3, but weighs the same, costs the same...and it was always gm's step child. plus, 4.5/5.3/6.0 are evenly spaced apart in terms of displacement and power.

gm could have dragged the gen 1 v8 on longer...but they made it better because it is an iconic engine. now the gen 3 mystique is stronger than ever. the 4.3 isn't even gen 1 v8 tech. the 4.5 is just a natural evolution. take the best ohv v8, chop off 2 cylinders, make a forged split journal crank, and you have the best ohv v6. it recalls the Buick Stage II motors, but even better, cheaper, abundant (once in production), and easier to build. it's even suitable for top engines (replacing the LS4 in the impala).

i agree with nailhead...i love sidi turbos. the only downside is initial cost. with the malibu getting 32 mpg highway with a pushrod 3.5, a similar power sidi turbo ecotec isn't worth the added cost for the mileage gain. dod will see another 2 mpg in the malibu. the big advantage of turbo cars is being able to slap on a much bigger turbo, and keep similar fuel economy. keeping the stock heads and cam, a 3800 can put out 400+ whp, and actually gain mpg.

thanks for your input guys.

[Smaart Aas Saabr]

Originally Posted by nailhead425

Costs are the main issue here and the 4.3 is cheap, reliable, and it is clean enough to not necessarily justify a new Gen III/IV small block base.

Then again...since the heads are so much better, it might be worth it.

I dig 90* V-6s, odd and even fire, but I just don't see enough sales of the 4.3 to justify a change. a 6-speed behind a 4.8 with DoD may give better real-world results.

I'd rather see more DI V-6s, especially with turbos or superchargers, that produce big HP and Torque numbers with good fuel economy.

I'm with you. The 4.3 is a great engine with good power, economy, cost, and excellent durability. I don't even think you need to put oil in one...

Eventually there might be a point where a new V6 in the trucks would be a good idea (ex emissions troubles)...

Why not just put a 3.9 in there - the 4.3 was used in passenger cars back in the 1980's...

[Stéphane Dumas]

Originally Posted by Smaart Aas Saabr

Why not just put a 3.9 in there - the 4.3 was used in passenger cars back in the 1980's...

I thaught of the same thing but the 3.9L is a 60 degrees engine while the 4.3L is a 90 degrees. We also have to beef-up the 3.9L for truck work to put it under the hood of the Silverado.

[HoosierRon]

Lest we all forget the inevitable new CAFE regulations, what GM needs is a 3.0 L DI V-6. As the 3.6 DI in the CTS gets 300 hp, a 3.0 version would get plenty of power for everythig from the Malibu, Equinox and Impala to the Aura, LaCrosse and all of the other Thetas. A 3.0 DI would get fantastic mileage, would have great subjective characteristics, would get great reviews and would put GM ahead of the competition.

[ogg vorbis]

with the LSx V8s gearing up for di, it follows that the v6 would be so equipped. true variable valve timing and lift will make the 4.5 look like a much smaller engine...with lower fuel consumption and emissions.

funny story about emissions. i called a major turbo manufacturer, and a rep told me i could pass emissions with E98 without a cat, regardless of how much cam or boost i run

the 3.5/3.9 have offset bores, and messed up heads/intake. they use ls1 pistons - which gm stopped selling 5 years ago. it's a b@$t@rd design.

an oem 3.6 or 4.5 would take 500-600 hp no problem. in light of the cast iron, siamesed bore LSX block/heads, it follows that they should have a 14 bolt v6 block and heads. 380 cfm on the intake, 1800+ max hp, no o-rings needed...the buick stage 2 v6 would be proud! again, at ridiculously low prices. a cast iron crate motor would be sub $3000. 'stage 2' block would be $1500, $600 for assembled heads, $400 complete intake manifold. 302 ci forged rotating assemblies would be $2400. gmpp 3 5/8" stroke 4340 forged crank should be under $1500. as much hp as 99% of the people want at 25% lower cost, less weight, smaller size - the v6 will be the new hot rod engine.

the 3.6/4.5 are logical/practical/economical. instead, gm made the 3.5/3.9, they've kept the 4.3, and they invested in the atlas engines. why?! the 3.0/3.7 don't even share pistons with the 4.2 now. gm is forgetting why they even made a new modular engine line. what was wrong with using the 2.4 ecotec? or the 3.5/3.9?

[ogg vorbis]

with a compact graphite iron block, forged crank/rods, 14 bolt heads, 17:1 compression, turbo...it could even make a decent diesel maybe a high performance diesel.

gale banks is determined to make diesels the new ecologically friendly hot rod motor. give up some torque, rev it higher, boost it to heaven, biodiesel. no worrying about octane or knock. fuel economy won't suffer (with a light foot).

[Smaart Aas Saabr]

Originally Posted by Stéphane Dumas

I thaught of the same thing but the 3.9L is a 60 degrees engine while the 4.3L is a 90 degrees. We also have to beef-up the 3.9L for truck work to put it under the hood of the Silverado.

The only difference between a 60 degree V6 and a 90 degree V6 is that a 90 degree unit isn't as well balanced, and is a bit shorter. For a V8, 90 degrees is the optimal, and the 4.3 is 90 degrees because it used to be a V8 :P

All I could see is maybe the 3.9 would need to be retuned for lower-end performance for a trucky application, I don't know why it would need to be beefed-up to be stronger (physically), if the engine will blow up in a Silverado it will blow up in a G6.

Maybe the 3.9 is taller (because of being 60 degree) and that makes it touch the hood of the truck? I don't think so because there is a LOT of room under the hood of the truck, but you never know.

[GMCdriver]

I don't think the 3.9 would be a very good truck engine, at least not a suitable replacment for the 4.3.

The only place in the rpm where the 3.9 would be making more power than a 4.3 would be up above 4500 rpm. That isn't the engine I want to use to get a truck load of topsoil or a small trailer moving.
By the time you get a 4.3 reving to 4500rpm it is about to shift gears and drop right back into the meat of it's power band again, the 3.9 would just be starting to get to a decent amount of power and would be just screaming for another 1000 or so more rpm untill it also shifts and finds itself outclassed in the power department again.

Just my 2 cents.

[A.J.]

Wanna know a good engine if GM were to bring back minivans?

The Equinox's 3.4L V6, but expensively built to churn out 230-250hp.

[ogg vorbis]

Originally Posted by Smaart Aas Saabr

The only difference between a 60 degree V6 and a 90 degree V6 is that a 90 degree unit isn't as well balanced, and is a bit shorter. For a V8, 90 degrees is the optimal, and the 4.3 is 90 degrees because it used to be a V8 :P

All I could see is maybe the 3.9 would need to be retuned for lower-end performance for a trucky application, I don't know why it would need to be beefed-up to be stronger (physically), if the engine will blow up in a Silverado it will blow up in a G6.

Maybe the 3.9 is taller (because of being 60 degree) and that makes it touch the hood of the truck? I don't think so because there is a LOT of room under the hood of the truck, but you never know.

all good replies. the 3800 used to be a v8 too;P

saabr: i drew fairly detailed blueprints for 60° and 90° v6 engines. i found that the 60° block is 0.5" taller, and 3" narrower. however, the narrow v left no room for an intake. the ls3 intake is low profile, good flowing, nylon (light), and packages very well.

the 60° also needs offest bores for its 3.9" cylinders...the 90° can fit 4.125"+ with no offset. buick stage 2 engines with offset bores placed more stress on the connecting rods, necessitating H-beam rods (the on center block was ok with I-beam rods).

i know 60° is 'ideal' for a v6 (I6 is the best) but modern v6 use split cranks...thus they're not even firing! so you don't really lose much by going to an even firing 90° v6. mercedes introduced a new 90° v6, and it's smooth enough for them. the imsa corvette gtp used a 1200 hp turbo 3.4l 90°v6 (based off the 4.3!), and buick stage 2 made 1400+ hp. the imbalance won't shake the engine to death - it's purely an nvh issue.

the split crank originated with the buick v6! what it does is fires cylinders alternately from either bank. the firing order is 1-2-3-4-5-6. thus you can group 1-3-5 and 2-4-6 for better intake and exhaust tuning. using a dual scroll turbo 1) works with this firing order 2) spools faster. this is the same reason ferrari uses a flat crank for its v8s. if you recall the gt40, it needed a huge bird's nest of header tubes to collect cylinders that fired 180° apart.



and it's imminently easier to manufacture a mod v6. same pickup points on the chassis, same machining ops, many common parts and fasteners, same tuning, same cnc program for the intake/exhaust ports. gmpd ran fea on the LSx block and removed a tonne of material - and strenghtened other areas. and any improvements in the v8 can be directly transfered to the v6. i hope this means the v6 will never fall woefully behind again. a 4.5 v6 with inline valves is cheaper to machine than the 3.9. the parts commonality will make it cheaper. the nylon intake will make it lighter, and have a lower center of gravity.

the 3.9 would do well in a truck. it's not a honda vtec...it's tuned for broad torque. the 3.5/3.9 are beefy engines. however, i really don't like the 3.5/3.9's offset bores, or its cylinder heads and intake.

[James_in_MICH]

I need a small V6 with high compression-

I want to run Ethanol all the time, and want high fuel milage.

I am beginning to look around for a new car- but am not happy with the choices I see out there now:

My 2001 Monte Carlo gets around 29 MPG on 87 octane regular with the 3.4 l engine. That's not bad, but we can do better.

Where is a good, small, 2.8 to 3.1 liter V-6, with ethanol compatibility, that would power a Monte Carlo, Malibu, or Impala sized vehicle, and utilize compression, or turbo charge, or the new varible cylinder configuration, that will consistantly get me to the 32-34 highway MPG (24-25 MPG ethanol) range?

Or is this too much of a quest for the holy grail?

[ogg vorbis]

Originally Posted by James_in_MICH

I need a small V6 with high compression-

I want to run Ethanol all the time, and want high fuel milage.

I am beginning to look around for a new car- but am not happy with the choices I see out there now:

My 2001 Monte Carlo gets around 29 MPG on 87 octane regular with the 3.4 l engine. That's not bad, but we can do better.

Where is a good, small, 2.8 to 3.1 liter V-6, with ethanol compatibility, that would power a Monte Carlo, Malibu, or Impala sized vehicle, and utilize compression, or turbo charge, or the new varible cylinder configuration, that will consistantly get me to the 32-34 highway MPG (24-25 MPG ethanol) range?

Or is this too much of a quest for the holy grail?

3600 - 22/32 220 hp
11:1 compression and di- 23/33 and 252 hp (+15% hp, +4% mileage)
6 speed - 25/33 and better acceleration (+7% city)
afm - 25/35 (+7-13% hwy)
bas - 29/35 (+17% city)
e-85 - 24/29 (-18%)

$1000 for the 6 speed, $1000 for di pump and injectors, and $1500 for bas to get the same mileage as gasoline. vvt, afm, and compression are very inexpensive from the factory.

8+% mileage and 40% power with a low pressure turbo (add $2000), but then you should use a 4 cylinder to keep the same power level. or another 12% mileage and power with 14:1 compression.

di/bas (stop/start only) should be on every car!

a miller cycle di/bas v6 is a logical match. miller should add 7%. miller can work with vcp, or cam-in-cam vvt.