New V6 needed

[fenderbender]

Why not put the 3.6 DI in there and erase the 5.3 V8. It makes perfect sense to me, unless the 5.3 is significantly cheaper with better economy.

[member12]

GM needs no more than three V6 engines:

1.A really smooth nice one for the cars very similar to the 3.6L engine line that can be tuned differently for each application..Like the CTS gets the DI engine, the SUVs get more torque bias, etc.

2.A powerful, rugged, fuel efficient V6 for the trucks. This was supposed to be the Atlas lineup, but the T900s ended up using modified T800 frames instead of new ones and couldn't fit the long engine.

3.A fuel efficient V6 diesel engine that can be used for small/midsize trucks and SUVs and for midsize and large sedans.

[ogg vorbis]

there still is no replacement for displacement. the 5.3 has more low end torque than the 3.6di, and readily accepts afm. the aluminum 5.3 weighs only 20 lb more than the alloytec! i believe the cast iron 5.3 is cheaper to produce than the standard dohc 3.6...di raises the price.

a 4.5 v6 will be almost as torquey as a 4.8l v8, but be down on hp...although having larger bore and L76-sized valves, the 4.5 won't be down on hp! it will trounce the mustang gt

cut 2 cylinders off the 4.5, add a flat plane crank and balance shafts, and you have a 3.0L V4. the 3.0L v4, 3.6L v6, 4.5L v6, 5.3L v8 and 6L v8 round out the engine selection. it's simple, modular, cheap, compact and powerful. cast iron versions weigh the same as their dohc counterparts, and aluminum blocks brings them to ~1 lb/hp. the 180-200 hp V4 would weigh <250 lb in cast iron - even the 130 hp 1.8L corolla engine weighs 260 lb - and under 200 lb in aluminum. it'd be killer in compact cars, and base mid-sized cars in cast iron.

1) gm has the 2.8/3.6 alloytecs for uplevel cars. and 3.6/4.5 for high value cars and truck. 3L V4; cast iron for base mid-sized cars, aluminum for sport compact.

2) i agree atlas should be destroyed. they are no longer modular (4.2 should be 4384 cc), they're underpowered, and don't fit in the engine lineup. gm already has a dohc 4 cylinder, and the 3.9 v6.

3) gm europe is introducing a twin turbo 1.9L 4 cylinder cidi that makes 177 hp and 250 lb-ft. their 2.8L v6 turbo cidi is arriving soon.

[shabodah]

Basic design of a V6 will mean it will weight 75% or more of the v8 it's based apon. That makes it a silly idea in most vehicles if engine weight to horsepower is a concern.

GM would be better off developing the inline 4200 to a SOHC 3 valve per cylinder setup. Really, I don't understand why GM isn't using the engine in other applications. Heck, the 3.7L I5 wouldn't be a bad engine in other apps, either.

As stated above the 2.8L/3.6L engines will be used more as production of them pics up, but they will always cost more to make, and 4 cams will always get worse fuel economy than 1.

[DuSpinnst]

The Atlas I6 designs will go away. The 3400 and 3800 are both dying possibly even next year (finally). The 3900 even though new, looks like it is a short term solution it probably will be gone in the next 3 years. The 3500 will stick around to fill gaps for about 5 more years. The 4.3 Truck V6 may disappear completely. The HF family (2.8, 2.8T, 3.6, 3.6 DI) will get larger and replace every other GM V6.

The 3800 hasn't died yet because GM can't close the plant until they have jobs building HF's for those guys.

Regardless GM should be down to one V6 Engine family by 2015.

[shabodah]

Originally Posted by DuSpinnst

Regardless GM should be down to one V6 Engine family by 2015.

Yet they should have been there by now.

And they will NEED to add SOHC variants to meet fuel economy standards.

[ogg vorbis]

Originally Posted by DuSpinnst

The Atlas I6 designs will go away. The 3400 and 3800 are both dying possibly even next year (finally). The 3900 even though new, looks like it is a short term solution it probably will be gone in the next 3 years. The 3500 will stick around to fill gaps for about 5 more years. The 4.3 Truck V6 may disappear completely. The HF family (2.8, 2.8T, 3.6, 3.6 DI) will get larger and replace every other GM V6.

The 3800 hasn't died yet because GM can't close the plant until they have jobs building HF's for those guys.

Regardless GM should be down to one V6 Engine family by 2015.

i'm happy to hear atlas will die, and the 4.3, 3400 and 3900...and eventually 3500. i'm disappointed that the 3800 isn't being replaced, or that a pushrod v6 isn't planned. ohv are much cheaper, more compact, and put out respectable power/weight. the 3900, with half as many valves, and cast irong block weighs the same as the 3.6 hf and puts out almost as much power in some cases (240 vs 252). i assume it's quite a bit cheaper to produce as well.

i expect LSx will be around for ever in some form. i just wish gm would invest in a good ohv (LSx based) v6.

[USA1Fan]

Why would it make you happy to hear that the Atlas will die? This is one of the best, if not the best, 6 cylinder engines GM has made in decades. If anything, find ways to make it fit in place of V6's in MORE applications (4.3 in ALL trucks, for example), the next midsized truck, etc. I'm all for simplified engine lineups, but keep the GOOD stuff when you do!

[Squachy]

Originally Posted by DuSpinnst

The Atlas I6 designs will go away. The 3400 and 3800 are both dying possibly even next year (finally). The 3900 even though new, looks like it is a short term solution it probably will be gone in the next 3 years. The 3500 will stick around to fill gaps for about 5 more years. The 4.3 Truck V6 may disappear completely. The HF family (2.8, 2.8T, 3.6, 3.6 DI) will get larger and replace every other GM V6.

The 3800 hasn't died yet because GM can't close the plant until they have jobs building HF's for those guys.

Regardless GM should be down to one V6 Engine family by 2015.

wow thats a long time from now.

[DuSpinnst]

Originally Posted by Squachy

wow thats a long time from now.

When you have to negotiate to close your own plants things take time.

[IAMCANADIAN]

I think that GM should drop the 3.4L V6, keep the 3.9L V6 on vans/crossovers and add VVT and/or DI variants to the 3.5, 3.8 and 4.3L V6s. The reason why I think GM should keep the 3.8L V6 and improve upon it is because it's so reliable, has excellent performance and a great reputation. Then on the high feature V6 trims, there would be a 3.1L V6 and 3.6L VVT non DI and DI variants.

So basically:

Cars: 3.5, 3.8 OHV
3.1, 3.6 DOHC

Trucks/SUV/Van: 3.5, 3.9, 4.3 OHV
3.6 DOHC

[SCarFan]

Add me to the list of people who think the 4.3 is a great motor for what it is. I hope they keep it around for a while, I would be somewhat sad to see it go.

[Greenday91490]

Originally Posted by member12

GM needs no more than three V6 engines:

1.A really smooth nice one for the cars very similar to the 3.6L engine line that can be tuned differently for each application..Like the CTS gets the DI engine, the SUVs get more torque bias, etc.

2.A powerful, rugged, fuel efficient V6 for the trucks. This was supposed to be the Atlas lineup, but the T900s ended up using modified T800 frames instead of new ones and couldn't fit the long engine.

3.A fuel efficient V6 diesel engine that can be used for small/midsize trucks and SUVs and for midsize and large sedans.

I agree, but the should be different displacement levels, if you are going to do the 3.6L V6 across the board, give the lower end cars 230 horses, and the higher end cars 300 horses with DI. I think they should make a 2.7L V6, and a 3.6 based on the newest high feature. Update the ecotecs, and make a diesel V6 option.

[SierraGS]

The (4) different 6 cylinder 3.4L V6, 4.2L I-6, 3.8L and 4.3L 90 Degree 6-cylinder engines can be replaced by (1) 90 Degree V6 engine with different sizes based on the LS V8 engine and share the following:
Bore Size
Bore Centers
Pistons
Connecting Rods
Valve Train
Numerous Sensors/Intake Track and emission parts
Front Accessory Drive (making BAS much cheaper)
The common front drive would also make Supercharging or Turbocharger packaging more or less common.

Modified parts
Heads
Crank
Intake Manifold
Exhaust Manifold

A 90 Degree (OHV) V-6 line derived from the existing world class LS V8 architecture is not a “all new” engine so the GM 6 cylinder lineup is reduced to 2 lines from 7 (a 71% reduction); even if the 90 degree V8 derivative is counted as a separate line it is still a 57% reduction.

Making this new lineup from the V8 will maximize savings by using only (2) bore sizes 3.78 (4.8 and 5.3L); 4.06 (6.2L) and (2) stroke sizes 3.27 (4.8L); 3.62 (5.3L and 6.2L), both of which are shared with an existing engine. Commonality with the LS V8 will allow savings in development where both V6 and V8 versions are used on the same vehicle by using the same accessory drives and BAS system for all engines along with the ability to easily take advantage of the latest improvements in AFM, E-85, and Variable Valve Timing in OHV engines that can be shared quickly in a cost effective manner.

The 3.6L can replace the 3.4L in the Theta greatly improving performance and AFM providing better MPG. The AFM 3.6L MPG should be good enough to use it to replace the base 2.9L I-4 in the Colorado adding Direct Injection allows it to replace the 3.7L so it could replace both the 2.9L and 3.7L, again making the Colorado a vehicle that uses only one engine family.

The 3.6L and 4.0L will satisfy MOST 3800 and 4.3L fans as a replacement for their favorite engine since in the case of 4.3L fans the 4.0L is a derivative of a Chevy Small Block like the 4.3L and 3800 fans (myself included) can accept a 90 Degree OHV V6 as a replacement more than an DOHC one. Additionally as has been noted, most V8 performance parts can be used on a V6 derivative and with the engines being similar in size many 3800 tricks and Supercharge/Turbo parts will be sized correctly and need less revisions to work on the new 3.6L and 4.0L. The higher torque and performance upgrade potential will be attractive to 3.7L fans and AFM on the 3.6L and 4.0L will deliver better MPG than any of the current engines provide.

The low cost and great low end torque with good MPG and a bonus of easy and reasonable cost performance upgrades make a LS derived V6 attractive for both the initial purchase and performance upgrades later, which is what made the Small Block Chevrolet what it is today.

The 4.6L version with AFM can be used as a performance option in smaller vehicles and a MPG improvement aid as a replacement for the 4.8L V8 in heavier ones, and dependant upon real world performance and customer acceptance could replace the 4.8L engine in some vehicles, however I do doubt it since most buyers have a perception they must have a V8.

3.6L 3.78 x 3.27 220 HP / 230 Lb/Ft replaces 3.8L 200 HP / 230 lb/ft (and 3.4L 185/210)
4.0L 3.78 x 3.62 240 HP / 255 Lb/Ft replaces 4.3L 195 HP / 260 lb/ft (and 3.7L I-5 242/242)
4.6L 4.06 x 3.62 305 HP / 310 Lb/Ft replaces 4.2L 285 HP / 276 lb/ft

Changing the line from (5) engine lines and (9) Engines to (1) engine line and (6) engines
3.4L 3.6L
3.7L
3.8L
4.3L 4.0L
4.2L 4.6L
4.8L 4.8L
5.3L 5.3L
6.0L
6.2L 6.2L

The 60 Degree 3500 and 3900 would continue to be used in Epsilon models and expanded to Delta platforms where the width advantage would give GM a low cost/high MPG V6 with good low end torque. These engines are tailor made for the HHR and Delta based Buick Sedan.

The GM 6-cylinder line (and a 5-cyl.) drops from (6) engine lines and (9) Engines to (3) engine lines and (7) engines.
2.8L (DOHC) 2.8L (DOHC)
3.4L (OHV) dropped 3.6L (OHV) added
3.5L (OHV) 3.5L (OHV)
3.6L (DOHC) 3.6L (DOHC)
3.7L (DOHC) dropped 3.6L (OHV) duplicate add
3.8L (OHV) dropped 4.0L (OHV) added
3.9L (OHV) 3.9L (OHV)
4.3L (OHV) dropped 4.0L (OHV) duplicate add
4.2L (DOHC) 4.6L (OHV) added

The OLD line was (max power numbers shown and vary by model)
2.8L 3.50 x 2.94 210 HP / 194 Lb/Ft
3.4L 3.62 x 3.31 185 HP / 210 Lb/Ft
3.5L 3.70 x 3.31 224 HP / 224 Lb/Ft
3.6L 3.70 x 3.37 251-304 HP / 254-273 Lb/Ft
3.7L 3.77 x 4.01 242 HP / 242 Lb/Ft
3.8L 3.70 x 3.40 200 HP / 230 Lb/Ft
3.9L 3.90 x 3.31 240 HP / 240 Lb/Ft
4.2L 3.66 x 4.01 285 HP / 276 Lb/Ft
4.3L 4.00 x 3.48 240 HP / 255 Lb/Ft

The new line would be (max power numbers shown and vary by model)
2.8L DOHC 3.50 x 2.94 210 HP / 194 Lb/Ft
3.5L OHV 3.70 x 3.31 224 HP / 224 Lb/Ft
3.6L OHV 3.78 x 3.27 220 HP / 230 Lb/Ft
3.6L DOHC 3.70 x 3.37 251-304 HP / 254-273 Lb/Ft
3.9L OHV 3.90 x 3.31 240 HP / 240 Lb/Ft
4.0L OHV 3.78 x 3.62 240 HP / 255 Lb/Ft
4.6L OHV 4.06 x 3.62 305 HP / 310 Lb/Ft

Add Direct Injection across the line (max power numbers shown and vary by model)
2.8L DOHC 3.50 x 2.94 236 HP / 212 Lb/Ft
3.5L OHV 3.70 x 3.31 248 HP / 240 Lb/Ft
3.6L OHV 3.78 x 3.27 245 HP / 246 Lb/Ft
3.6L DOHC 3.70 x 3.37 304 HP / 273 Lb/Ft
3.9L OHV 3.90 x 3.31 265 HP / 257 Lb/Ft
4.0L OHV 3.78 x 3.62 265 HP / 274 Lb/Ft
4.6L OHV 4.06 x 3.62 337 HP / 336 Lb/Ft

Optional smaller engines:
3.2L DOHC 3.50 x 3.37 227 HP / 219 Lb/Ft
3.2L DOHC 3.50 x 3.37 252 HP / 234 Lb/Ft (Direct Injection)
3.3L OHV 3.64 x 3.27 225 HP / 225 Lb/Ft (Direct Injection)

[Triple-X08]

Originally Posted by 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.

thats hilarious right there