[gm_fanatic922]

They should've at least made the 3500 an optional engine on an LT. I think the engine will do fine, but they should give the buyers a choice though and guage what sells then. It'll be a hit on looks and ride alone.

Long live the "American Revolution"! :bounce:

 

[Rex Raider]

I'm sure a stronger engine will be offered within a year or two. (SS?)

In the meantime, 185hp isn't bad. It would be darnwell good, if Saturn didn't offer 250hp in the Vue.

The Tracker it replaces only had 165hp.
CR-V has 160hp.
Rav-4 has 148hp.
Mitsu Outlander has 140hp.

(yes, the Escape has 201, Santa Fe has 200)

 

[joey]

When C&D does a min-SUV comparison test, the NOX will be listed near the bottom as the Malibu did. There's no excuse for old lame technology in a new car anymore. I won't mind importing an engine if it was a DOHC 24 valve VVT all alum high tech engine. Don't they make the same old cast iron OHV 3.4L just over the border in upstate NY?

A loaded CRV is 23K MSRP, and you can get a V6 3.3L DOHC 242 lbs of torque Highlander with 3rd row seating for 26K, the middle level trim price of a Nox, so why bother?

 

[MelvinJ]

Originally posted by joey@Mar 15 2004, 06:50 PM

A loaded CRV is 23K MSRP, and you can get a V6 3.3L DOHC 242 lbs of torque Highlander with 3rd row seating for 26K, the middle level trim price of a Nox, so why bother?

The LT is the top of the line trim for the Equinox, and the AWD version of that is $24,900. A 4WD, V6 Highlander with third-row seating starts at $27930 and doesn't include the level of equipment of the Equinox.

Just where are you getting your prices? I'm got these directly off of the Mfg web sites.

 

[banzai79]

What an astute comment--you want high tech but have no justification for it. This, more than anything, is the problem with American car buyers. You know what I consider high tech? Any engine that gives motive power commensurate to the type of car it is going in, with high reliability and lowest price.
You see, judging engines based on real-world criteria makes much more sense than "VVT Roxorz!" or "DOHC 24 valvz ownz U!!" Why engineer (and make the customer pay for) a solution for a problem that doesn't exist? The 3.4 L is more than adequate for this type of vehicle, since it DOESN'T have tech just for tech's sake, it's broad and accessible powerband will shine during normal driving. I am guessing it's fuel economy will also be steller, similar to the Malibu's.

 

[joey]

I'm talk'n real world prices in the local newspaper. At least you can get a discount on a Highlander. I saw a V6 for 26K! The AWD LT I saw with 1SD package: leather stearing wheel, shift knob, 6 way seats. 17" tires on it, tow package and radio upgrade was 26,195. Right now maybe you can get $500 off MSRP.

What reliability? The 3.4 has had manifold gasket leaks for years. There's still a class action out there about all the Buick Rendezvous and Asteks still leaking out there on '03 models. How can carring the cast iron weight be good for fuel economy. FWD models only get 19/25 , with a 5sp auto. Read any C&D review on a value GM V6: not as refined as the OHC engines.

If GM want's to put the old tech in there, then don't charge me new tech prices.
LT Trailblazers are advertised for 24K

 

[MelvinJ]

Let's stick to apples to apples comparisons with prices. Did the Highlander in the paper include leather, towing package, aluminum wheels, power seats, and all the other stuff you chose to use as an example for the Equinox?

I'm sure I could go down to my local Chevy dealer and get considerably more than $500 off of an Equinox. Even if I couldn't, GM should be so lucky that the Equinox will sell for $500 off sticker for more than a month or so.

 

[joey]

True! I'll wait for 2 grand cash back this summer. Go on gmbuypower.com and checkout loaded LT AWD Nox's with 1SE package: 29,300K MSRP. You can't even get all the options yet like side curtain airbags, which would push the car to almost 30K. Some nerve, not even with the Honda Engine

 

[bgclarke]

We looked at one yesterday.

Very nice looking vehicle.....best looking of GMs latest batch.

As long as the engine pans out, or they put the 3.5 in later on, it should do well.

As for reliability issues, the intake manifodl gasket was redesigned, and all 3.1 and 3.4 V6s assembled after November 2002 have the new gasket. Whether it solved the problem has yet to be determined.

 

[MelvinJ]

Originally posted by joey@Mar 16 2004, 12:47 AM
True! I'll wait for 2 grand cash back this summer. Go on gmbuypower.com and checkout loaded LT AWD Nox's with 1SE package: 29,300K MSRP. You can't even get all the options yet like side curtain airbags, which would push the car to almost 30K. Some nerve, not even with the Honda Engine

And a loaded Highlander is well over $37K. So what's the point? It's not uncommon for there to be some overlap in classes of vehicles, but the level of equipment isn't the same.

And with the Highlander's 8.8 second 0-60 time, the Equinox should be just as quick, if not quicker according Car and Driver's estimates.

Of course, it won't be as "refined" as the Highlander, but the several extra thousand dollars in the pockets of the Equinox owners (compared to comparably equipped Highlanders) should help muffle a little of the lack of refinement.

 

[MelvinJ]

Originally posted by joey@Mar 16 2004, 12:47 AM
True! I'll wait for 2 grand cash back this summer. Go on gmbuypower.com and checkout loaded LT AWD Nox's with 1SE package: 29,300K MSRP. You can't even get all the options yet like side curtain airbags, which would push the car to almost 30K. Some nerve, not even with the Honda Engine

And a loaded Highlander is well over $37K. So what's the point? It's not uncommon for there to be some overlap in classes of vehicles, but the level of equipment isn't the same.

Price out a lightly equipped Highlander in the $27K range, and it will have the 160 hp 4-cylinder/4-speed automatic, although it's got DOHC and VVT-i, so that's all that matters. Never mind it will be glacially slow.

Meanwhile, the Equinox will have heated leather power seats, sunroof, and a 6-disc in-dash CD changer, and 185 hp/5-speed automatic.

It's all about assembling the right pieces to hit a specific price point, and an OHV V6 is a good choice for the Equinox's target. When capacity for the updated versions is increased, it will probably get at least the 3500.

 

[Beretta]

Everyone wants the 3500 in the Nox. Why don't you just buy a set of headers for the 3400 and put out the same amount of power a 3500 would for less money? I know not everyone is looking to mod the car, but cams are being made, and their are supercharger kits etc to boost the power if you really need it. How much does this thing weigh anyways?

 

[CarwithSoul]

Originally posted by joey@Mar 15 2004, 01:50 PM
When C&D does a min-SUV comparison test, the NOX will be listed near the bottom as the Malibu did. There's no excuse for old lame technology in a new car anymore. I won't mind importing an engine if it was a DOHC 24 valve VVT all alum high tech engine. Don't they make the same old cast iron OHV 3.4L just over the border in upstate NY?

A loaded CRV is 23K MSRP, and you can get a V6 3.3L DOHC 242 lbs of torque Highlander with 3rd row seating for 26K, the middle level trim price of a Nox, so why bother?

First off joey, mass-production OHC engines date back twenty years earlier than pushrods (to the 1930s). What was that about old lame technology??

The Equinox is class leading in every category BUT power, HP isn't the be-all end-all in this category. Take note, Toyotas and Hondas rarely lead the pack with big hp numbers, it's all in the details and execution and GM's done the same, they've hit one over the fence with the Equinox, I'm looking more and more forward to test driving and buying one.

 

[Tone]

While I agree with the sentiment ChevyExuinox expresses regarding the ohc vs. ohv issue, the statement isn't exactly accurate.

All kinds of engines were produced during the first couple decades of the automobile. Some early engines used atmospheric valves with no cam at all - the low pressuure in the cylinder opened the intake valve when needed, for example.

Overhead cam engines were common in race cars very early in the century. But pushrods were common as well. In fact, there were a number of kits for the Model T Ford to convert its four cylinder engine to overhead valve (common) or overhead cam (more exotic and less common).

Supercharging also existing, both in production and the aftermarket. Point being that as far as configurations go, there is very little that is new. What is different today is the electronics side - the computing power and various sensors that make it possible to have much tighter control of what goes on in an engine. That, and huge advances in material sciences mean that today's engine with electronic controls is a fairly exotic piece compared to production engines of the 1960s - whether they are ohc OR ohv.

 

[joey]

True, both technologies have been around forever, it's just that when we look at most of the industry, we see OHC as the most common engine technology. I can see where in a large block V8 in a Vette, there's a need for low engine hight and OHV generally are great low torque generators. The 8's power and big intake valves, still has enough HP to keep the power comming in the upper end of the RPM curve but it still falls off.

Even Ford and Chrysler have moved to OHC V6 in most of their products. OHC uses less parts and makes 4 valves per cylinder operation possible. This is a proven technology that also has been around forever but advancements such as VVT now allows the OHC engine to produce a flat torque curve over a wider range then an OHV. Cast iron blocks are cheaper but heavier. Not a big show stopper but there have been issues in the past with iron block/aluminum head warp and head gasket issues due to the use of different metals.

The 3.9L GM is working on only talks about 3 valves per cyl. Why not 4? Too complicaed and too many parts. Many of you say if it aint broke why change it. Well then why is GM trying to build technolgy into OHV when multi-valve OHC works and is what the industry has standardized on. The claim of being cheaper to build must come from using the same block castings for the last 20 years.

In the past , GM has imported technology that it did not have in the US. Globalization makes sense when GM already has a product in Europe/Asia/Australia that would meet US needs. But the 3.5L from Mexico and the 3.4L from China are clear examples of GM looking to expand profit margins by
moving production off shore. The 3.4L was being built in upstate NY, only a few miles from the Nox Canadian plant. Logically the 3.4L could have been used from here and a 3.5L upgrade made in NY also. But I'm sure GM would never think of expanding a manufacturing plant in the NE. The 3.9L sounds like an upgrade for the Mexico and China plants to produce.

 

[Tone]

Good points ... and they few times I've driven a rental with the 3.4 engine, I've not been overly impressed with it from a NVH point of view.

That said, I do think that OHV engines have a couple of potential advantages you haven't gone into. They can be made to package better in V configured engines. GM's 60 degree family of sixes are surprisingly compact, enabling them to fit into a fairly small engine compartments. If a vehicle is designed around this engine, it provides options for more passenger room or some advantages from a crashworthiness perspective that might be attractive.

This allows GM to squeeze a relatively large engine into a given space. This provides the next advantage - a fair amount of torque and the ability to operate happily at low rpm. Low revs equates with lower frictional losses and (hopefully, if it is pulling against tall gears) lower pumping losses. This means an optimized, simple OHV engine can be quite efficient in terms of fuel consumption, while still feeling responsive to the driver.

The NVH issues have very little - if anything - to do with the valve configuration. Japanese automakers like Honda do a whole lot of work on engine NVH, spending special attention to anything that might resonate and doing a lot of work on bracket mounts and engine mounts to isolate the engines as much as possible - very important when you have a four cylinder engine that likes lots of revs. GM could stand to spend a little more attention to their "bread and butter" engines in this regard.

As an enthusiast, I like the idea that GM has an engineering philosphy of its own that says pushrods can be appropriate and can offer some advantages in the right application. It's a refreshing change from the typical "me too" approach. I do think they've proven their point with their V8 engine family, but work seems to remain on their more "modest" engines.

 

[MelvinJ]

Overhead cams make a lot more sense on inline engines, and all of GM's inline engines are OHC designs now, I believe. In the case of DOHC, you only have 2 cams per engine and the drive system for the cams is fairly straightforward. Inline engines are inherently narrow, so the increase in head width isn't a problem. Only the height can become a problem.

It's when you get to V engines that DOHC (or SOHC) comes with some serious consequences. 4 cams instead of two, and the drive system for them gets much longer and complex. Width becomes an issue too.

I'm no expert on the subject, but the statement that OHC designs use fewer parts just seems wrong to me. Even if there are fewer parts, the cost of the parts for a DOHC engine versus an engine with one in-block cam has got to be higher. I mean, sure you've got a lot of pushrods, but how expensive are those? On the other hand, producing 4 cams instead of one must be way more costly.

Could I get other knowledgable GMI folks to weigh in on this? Which design typically uses more parts, and and which is more costly?

The Gen III small-block was a complete redesign back in 1997, so all the castings were new then, and still GM went with pushrods. Similarly, GM has had two different DOHC V6's with their own blocks (including the new 3.6L), so they have invested in the castings. It's not about them wanting to use old or existing castings that keeps them developing pushrod engines.

There are definite cost/value advantages to pushrod V engines that make them appropriate for a huge portion of the North American market. Sure, the industry as a whole goes with DOHC designes now, but that's the easy way out. You don't need to do as much development on a DOHC engine to meet mileage and horsepower targets, but the customer pays with higher build and maintenance costs. For instance, the timing belt in my Probe GT would have cost about $450 to replace, and it should have been done every 60,000 miles. I've never replaced a timing chain on a pushrod engine.

 

[joey]

Looking at the specs on the 3.5L 3500 inline five on the Colorado, that would have been a kick *** engine for the Nox. They have it mated up to an Aisin tranny also. With DOHC, 20 valves, all aluminum, chein drivien balance shafts engine and 225 lbs or torque it would have been perfect. It must fit, since the NOX is slightly wider then the Colorado. Trailblazer I6, Nox I5, perfect. And the 3500 is only being made for one pickup truck! I'm suprised an engine like this wasn't used on the Nox/Vue rather then buying the Honda V6. The only issues might be emissions and fuel economy since the Nox/Vue's are clasified as cars? It can't be that much more costly then a V6 since the Nox and Colorado are in the same price range. Well maybe there's hope for a Nox SS in five years.

 

[MelvinJ]

Hey Joey, we agree on something.

I think the I-5 would be a nice engine in the Equinox. It might even be nice in the CSV's. But I'm not sure if there is enough width to put it in the Equinox or the vans, given that they have transversely mounted engines (the Colorado is longitudinal). And I think there is a fair amount of engineering required to change an engine from longitudinal to transverse, so it wouldn't be a no brainer.

The Aisn transmission in the Colorado is a longitudinal manual, versus a transverse automatic in the Equinox, so I'm not sure if there is much similarity there.

 

[Rabbit]

Could I get other knowledgable GMI folks to weigh in on this? Which design typically uses more parts, and and which is more costly?

SOHC and pushrod engines use about the same amount of parts on V-engines. The pushrod V6 has 12 pushrods, the SOHC engine has one more timing bely, an extra cam, a few extra cam sprokets, larger heads, and some other stuff I am forgetting, like larger lubricarion system to feed that extra crap.

Cost is about the same, but so is power output going by displacement.

DOHC engines throw in a lot more valves, cams, their driving gear, rocker arms and THEIR little pieces, MUCH bigger heads and lubrication systems, yadda yadda yadda.

They produce more power for their displacement, but are also MUCH larger for their displacement. The 3.5 liter Nissan V6 is nearly identical in size and weight to the 7 liter C5R engine. The 3.9 V6 will be about the same size and weight as the S2000s 2/2.2 liter I4 if it goes aluminum.

Displacement is a terrible way to compare engines anyway. It isn't the volume of air that matters, it is the amount of air and how it flows that matters. You can have 2 molecules of air in a liter, or you can have a billion molecules of air in a liter.

In short, here is why I prefer pushrods: