New V6 needed

[Triple-X08]

Originally Posted by 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!

the inline 6 is too tall. look at the trailblazer, you have to run the front axle through the oil pan. they designed everything the way they did on there because the 4200 is too tall, they had to get it lower and for better center of gravity. that engine if you pull one out of a 360 is a bohemoth.
not to say the v8 fits any better in there.

it is also not exactly a simple engine either. variable valve timing, and its a DOHC. i really hate the way they have the upper engine setup, spark plugs are burried under the intake, and the intake is oversized. im not saying its a bad design, its just frustrating when you get one in with a misfire and you go to test the coil or the plug and you have 30 minutes of time getting to the plugs.

bottom line- i dont think the atlas engine can fit into a silverado. its too tall, and the length is pretty long.

the 4.3 is an obsolete design. not much changed in the past 20 years on it. just some crappy fuel injection attempts that failed miserably, its not exactly the industry leader for the next generation. and i dont like it being distributor ignition. i agree with what the others have said, create an LS series based v6 engine for the trucks. they did it with the old small blocks why not the LS engines. hell you could even utilize direct injection. or DOD into it.

I do not under any circumstance want any more DOHC V engines.
too complicated.

[ksr]

I like the Atlas inline 6 from the TrailBlazer. Wish they could get this into a car.

What cars still use the 3.8? Time to retire it probably, but what a great ride it's had. HOFer.

[ogg vorbis]

Originally Posted by 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.

you said it better than i did. i agree with all these points...it just makes sense. best yet, the V6 instantly inherits the V8 aftermarket. and more common parts being produced further reduces cost.

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

i'd cull the herd even more. and i'd kill the 60° v6...they give 1.5" more crush space. but share nothing with other architectures.

3.4
3.5 3.6 230+ hp
3.9
4.3 4.5 V6 280+ hp
4.8
5.3 5.3 340 hp
6.0 6.0 400+ hp
6.2
7.0
they'd all have vvt, 3 valves, optional afm and sidi.

the high feature engines:
1.4/1.6 I4: 110-125 hp, 190 hp 1.6 turbo (saturn corsa)
2.0/2.4 I4: 155-205 hp, 260+ hp 2.0 turbo (saturn astra, aura)
2.8/3.6 v6: 220-305 hp, 360 hp 2.8 turbo (buick, saab)
4.2/4.8 v8: 325-405 hp, 500 hp 4.2 turbo (cadillac)
all dohc, vvt, and available sidi.

it gets kinda tricky because dohc engines lose any performance advantage when ohv adopt 3 valves, sidi and turbocharging.

i'd like to see ALL cars be mild hybrid - on/off capability. idling represents ~17% wasted economy. it would eliminate rush hour traffic pollution.

the 6.0 can be taken way over 500 hp with sidi and vvt. the LS7 isn't really needed for homologation, and it costs too much for nostalgia. the 6L would be just as powerful, and rev faster/higher. make a special edition with a flat plane crank

3 valves will take the 6L to 550+ n/a. similarly, the 4.5 v6 can be taken to 3/4 of that - 380 hp to 410+ hp. 3 valves will allow massive flowing heads, and twin ports will improve low speed power and throttle response, emissions, and economy.

a turbo 5.3 will easily make 650+ hp with today's turbos - e.g. borg warner S256. with E85, that can climb to 1000 hp. even a turbo 4.5 will make 600+ hp with no lag.

reduce the number of variants, and increase their quality (low cost through volume). i'm trying to get across the idea of an inexpensive 2JZ engine. cast iron block, high pressure die cast pistons, pm rods, forged crank, high flow heads. it'd be every tuner's dream engine. grand national guys would clamour for them. it would be an instant legend. with cast iron block, it's still lighter than the alloytec, and much less expensive (and easier to assemble).

[ogg vorbis]

here's my plan to meet 2020 CAFE by 2010:

gm flex fuel cars lose ~20% fuel economy. E85-only and 12:1 compression (vs gas and 9.5:1). you'll get 5% more power just for switching to E85, and gain 10% from the higher compression. the 3.6 would make 265 hp, while getting the same mileage as the 3.6 gasser. also, gas equivalent mpg is ~50% higher. the 3500 gets 21/31. that's equivalent to 32/46 mpg with e85 credits.

bas and afm both positively affect economy - say 26/33 mpg? all for a mild premium.

[ogg vorbis]

here's my little photochop of the LS v6. credit goes to microsoft paint just trying to keep the dream alive.

i sent a paper cut & paste pic to gm new devices section, along with a brief description, and features/benefits. gm said 'thank you', and 'we cannot reply blah blah because this might reveal future product plans'.

i've stirred up some excitement at a grand national website. now we need to let gm know how much we want an LS V6.

[ogg vorbis]

103.25 x 83 mm gives 4170 cc - 4.2L - with large bore and valves, short stroke, stronger crank, higher revs, long rods, less side loading. there would be a bread and butter 3.6L, and a s.h.o. 4.2L.

with twin port/3 valves, even the 3.6 would have two 1.50" intake valves, and 1.60" exhaust; similar flow with the L92 heads. the big bore engines could get 1.55" intakes, and 1.625" exhaust valves. that's better than a 2.2" intake valve ported lt5 heads flow 400 cfm with 1.54" valves. the poor stage 2 buick had to make do with 2.125" intake valves, and ~340 cfm

gm could employ a vtec-like system to deactivate one intake valve at low rpm. one valve would still flow 165+ cfm, but with a tiny valve, for more low end torque. it would use longer duration than the 6.0L cam. open up the second valve after 3500 rpm and get all 330+ cfm. even the 3.6 would be capable of 320+ hp. the 4.6 would exceed 400 hp. electric cam phasing would flatten and broaden the torque curve (and work upon startup in freezing temps).

the v6 can have a higher specific power output than the v8. the v6 have shorter cams for less valve action 'scatter'. it's important that the valves open/close at the same time for each cylinder. the plenum is shorter for more equal cylinder filling. a single carb version will always have more even flow, and the runners will be closer in length than a v8. the power pulses are evenly distributed to take advantage of divided intake plenums and dual scroll single turbos. and the v6 has more main bearing area per cylinder than the v8.

[ogg vorbis]

i was playing with engine analyzer pro today. it contains an LS6 engine model. Here's what i found when i tested it with 6 cylinders.

you'd expect an engine with 25% less displacement to make 25% less bhp...but it only loses 23% hp. that means an LS3 based 4600 won't make 323 hp...it will make 335 hp and 332 lb-ft. a variable plenum intake and variable cam phasing really widens the power band (290 lb-ft just off idle to 6000 rpm). remember that the LS3 ratings are very conservative (they're actually putting down 394 whp). the 4600 will have over 300 whp!

imagine a camaro with the 4600. 10% more hp than the mustang gt, 200 lb lighter. it also has 21% more torque than the infiniti g37.

[ogg vorbis]

i just realized that an L92 truck version of the 4600 will make 316 hp and 327 lb-ft. that replaces the 4800 AND 5300 outright. replacing two engines with one simpler, much lighter, less expensive engine.

i'm even starting to doubt that the 3600 is even necessary...it's almost a completely different engine than the 4600 (not efficient from a cost pov).

what about an I4 with a single V8 head? chrysler has wicked I4 midget engines - 350 hp from 2.66L!
http://www.moparperformanceparts.us/...dHardware.html
the complete motor weighs 220 lb! for reference, the ecotec 2.2 weighs 265 lb.

imagine a 700 hp turbo I4, 220 lb weight the sport compact world will implode!

so the new lineup is:

3100 I4 202 hp 209 lb-ft
4600 V6 316-335 hp 327-332 lb-ft
6200 V8 403-430 hp 417-424 lb-ft

i expect 5% gain in hp with variable cam phasing, and 5-10% more torque in low rpm range. the variable plenum will support the v6 and 4 cylinder.

the Confederate Renovatio is using an LS7-based V twin in its bike. http://thekneeslider.com/archives/20...ate-renovatio/
just in case chevy wants to hot rod an aveo

[SierraGS]

Originally Posted by ogg vorbis

here's my little photochop of the LS v6. credit goes to microsoft paint just trying to keep the dream alive.

i sent a paper cut & paste pic to gm new devices section, along with a brief description, and features/benefits. gm said 'thank you', and 'we cannot reply blah blah because this might reveal future product plans'.

i've stirred up some excitement at a grand national website. now we need to let gm know how much we want an LS V6.

I like the look of the engine, and with new focus on the LS series V8 - maybe GM will look at a LS V6 with more interest.

With a 4.6L LS V6 capable of 300 HP (or more) I can't see why GM would not be interested - think about it in AFM mode (a 2.3L with 150 HP) enough to maintain highway cruise (no-load) speed.

[SierraGS]

Originally Posted by Triple-X08

the inline 6 is too tall. look at the trailblazer, you have to run the front axle through the oil pan. they designed everything the way they did on there because the 4200 is too tall, they had to get it lower and for better center of gravity. that engine if you pull one out of a 360 is a bohemoth.
not to say the v8 fits any better in there.

it is also not exactly a simple engine either. variable valve timing, and its a DOHC. i really hate the way they have the upper engine setup, spark plugs are burried under the intake, and the intake is oversized. im not saying its a bad design, its just frustrating when you get one in with a misfire and you go to test the coil or the plug and you have 30 minutes of time getting to the plugs.

bottom line- i dont think the atlas engine can fit into a silverado. its too tall, and the length is pretty long.

the 4.3 is an obsolete design. not much changed in the past 20 years on it. just some crappy fuel injection attempts that failed miserably, its not exactly the industry leader for the next generation. and i dont like it being distributor ignition. i agree with what the others have said, create an LS series based v6 engine for the trucks. they did it with the old small blocks why not the LS engines. hell you could even utilize direct injection. or DOD into it.

I do not under any circumstance want any more DOHC V engines.
too complicated.

I agree on the DOHC V Engines - too complicated AND TOO EXPENSIVE.

[SierraGS]

Originally Posted by ogg vorbis

i just realized that an L92 truck version of the 4600 will make 316 hp and 327 lb-ft. that replaces the 4800 AND 5300 outright. replacing two engines with one simpler, much lighter, less expensive engine.

i'm even starting to doubt that the 3600 is even necessary...it's almost a completely different engine than the 4600 (not efficient from a cost pov).

what about an I4 with a single V8 head? chrysler has wicked I4 midget engines - 350 hp from 2.66L!
http://www.moparperformanceparts.us/...dHardware.html
the complete motor weighs 220 lb! for reference, the ecotec 2.2 weighs 265 lb.

imagine a 700 hp turbo I4, 220 lb weight the sport compact world will implode!

so the new lineup is:

3100 I4 202 hp 209 lb-ft
4600 V6 316-335 hp 327-332 lb-ft
6200 V8 403-430 hp 417-424 lb-ft

i expect 5% gain in hp with variable cam phasing, and 5-10% more torque in low rpm range. the variable plenum will support the v6 and 4 cylinder.

the Confederate Renovatio is using an LS7-based V twin in its bike. http://thekneeslider.com/archives/20...ate-renovatio/
just in case chevy wants to hot rod an aveo

Actually if GM could make the AFM V6 go to a V4 mode, basically use the V-8 AFM and using a mid range 325 HP for a 4.6L you would get the following

4.6 325HP/330 lb/Ft (AFM 4 3.1L "V4" 217 HP)
4.0 283HP/290 lb/Ft (AFM 4 2.7L "V4" 188 HP)
3.6 254HP/260 lb/Ft (AFM 4 2.4L "V4" 170 HP)

Not bad - even the 3.6L has HP/torque equal to the 4.3L and the 4.0L would be a nice choice since it is based off of the 5.3L.

[ogg vorbis]

even cadillac won't get a v8 engine - nevermind a v12. what's in store for the LS? will it be in cars much longer?

the split fuel economy laws re trucks and cars will let v8 live on for a while. will it be turned into an atkinson/hybrid only, with diesel/diesel-electric picking up the high torque models? surely no serious truck buyer will buy a cute v6 powered unibody truck for hauling.

my problem with the LS7/9 'dry sump' oiling is: it only has one scavenge stage, and they don't lower the engine much. a 335 hp 4.5L v6 in a kappa leaves room for a lower Cg corvette with true transaxle/dsg.

the nissan gt-r has a 3.8l turbo v6, weighs 600 lb more, and has less hp - yet it's faster on the 'ring. a turbo 4.5 would bring weight, Cg, weight distribution and fuel economy benefits. we already know daily driven turbo buicks running 11s with the 3.8 and returning 24 mpg.

i say 4.5, and not 4.6, because a 4.065" bore is a tight fit with a 9.24" deck height and 60° V angle. the 3900 offsets the 3.90" bore 0.080". buick learned 25 years ago that this angularity puts too much stress on conrods at around 450 hp. H beam rods are necessary. on center blocks were the best foundation.

even if an LS v6 doesn't come to fruition, they can take the 3900 much further. the 3900 doesn't need 3 valve heads. new heads with 2.08" x 1.52" inline valves, co-planar pushrods, shaft mounted rockers, and stage II style ports. 2.08" intakes give 9/10 the flow of 2.165" valves at much less weight in a smaller bore (~300 cfm as cast). chevy needs canted valve heads to compete with dodge w9/stageII-style heads. the pushrods are at such and angularity that they deflect, even at low lifts and low spring loads. this limits how big a cam you can use, and lowers redline. 7200+ rpm and 300+ hp puts the 3900 right on par with good mpfi dohc v6 at much lower cost, size and weight. an aluminum block version (i'd prefer nikasil bores, not cast in steel liners) gives it a power-weight ratio dohc dream of. mahle cam-in-cam variable cam lobe phasing (as on the 2008 viper) extends rpm/hp, gm cam phasing boosts torque. a gdi version with 11.5:1 compression and 345 hp is porsche carrera 3.8 territory.

the epa recently asked manufacturers to stop the hp wars. this gives the opportunity to focus on torque again...the domain of diesels and 2V motors. i wish they would emphasize average hp and power-weight over peak...or even whp. consumers pretty much only have access to chassis dynos, and whp gives us relevant numbers. dohc have lower pumping loss at higher rpm, but we rarely operate up there...they do it to show good peak hp...and hp sells cars.

[ogg vorbis]

Originally Posted by SierraGS

Actually if GM could make the AFM V6 go to a V4 mode, basically use the V-8 AFM and using a mid range 325 HP for a 4.6L you would get the following

4.6 325HP/330 lb/Ft (AFM 4 3.1L "V4" 217 HP)
4.0 283HP/290 lb/Ft (AFM 4 2.7L "V4" 188 HP)
3.6 254HP/260 lb/Ft (AFM 4 2.4L "V4" 170 HP)

Not bad - even the 3.6L has HP/torque equal to the 4.3L and the 4.0L would be a nice choice since it is based off of the 5.3L.

i don't know how the v6 would vibrate in v4 mode. shutting down one bank works well enough, ~120 hp peak 1.94 L I3 (based on 3900). so anything over 120 hp is gravy. a 300 hp 3900 could probably operate in 3 cyl mode all day. it may allow a valet mode.

fwiw, i don't know if the 4.8 will survive at all...thus the 3.6 would be in danger of drawing from a smaller pool of parts (although it would be fitted to more cars than the 4.8 is in trucks). the 4l is a more likely candidate.

i included the LS I4 as a base engine because of the aftermarket potential and sprint/midget/hobby car potential. even at 450 hp it's 2 hp/lb. 'high tech' bmw turbo 3l i6 is 0.85 lb/hp. a cast iron block crate engine (~200 hp) will go for less than $2000 and still weigh 260 lb (the all aluminum 155 hp 2.2 dohc ecotec is $2200).

[ogg vorbis]

i was reading the rolex grand am rules. gm's v8 is 5L, 3.9" x 3.185", stock ls6 heads, bigger cam, and is limited to 7100 rpm. the porsche 3.99L H6 has OPEN mods. cam intake duration is limited to 260° @ 0.050".

i think a 4.5L v6 would kill at grand am. it has a larger bore for larger valves (4" max bore, so 2.125" x 1.59"), more flow, more hp. it has a longer stroke to lower peak hp below 7100 rpm. the race engine can replace production steel rods/pins/valves/valve retainers with titanium. compression will be 11:1. the v6 also weighs under 300 lb...much lighter than any v8, and the porsche H6 while making as much or more hp.

the porsches and v8 are probably making around 500 hp; the 4.5 can easily make over 510 hp with a nice flat, fat torque curve, and really low bsfc. i've modeled this engine based on an ls7 in engine analyzer pro (i assume gm can offer cnc heads on through gmpp). it just needs a stock tuned intake (variable intakes aren't allowed) as a production intake is required. exhaust design is open. 2.125" valves are 7% smaller than ls7 valves, but imo they can flow just as well with the proper port geometry.

if they really wanted to stretch the rules, they could use a 4" stroke and make a 4.9L v6. piston speed is 4733 fpm at 7100 rpm (very high). torque would be insane, with 540 hp.

racing improves the breed. the high value v6 aren't raced anywhere...hence the ls v8 is evolving the quickest. even the g6 race car is LS powered and rwd

fwiw, increasing number of cylinders does automatically increase hp. the equation is bmep x piston speed/400 x (bore/stroke ratio x displacement)^2/3 x (no. cyl x pi/4)^1/3. bmep is 15 bar for a race engine. piston speed is 24 m/s, displacement is 4475 cc, bore/stroke is 1.104, no. cyl is 6. so est. hp for the v6 is 437 kW max. for the 5L v8, it's 443 kW max. because of limited rpm, limited cam, and limited ports on the v8, the v6 would be way ahead. even if they made the same power, the v6 is 100+ lb lighter, and makes power in a more useable range.

[member12]

Ah...designing engines based on racing rules.

I like where your head's at.