GM Inside News Forum banner
21 - 32 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,103 Posts
Originally posted by usafang@Jun 19 2004, 06:28 PM
I test drove the I5 and I'm not impressed. That's why my 95 GMC Sonoma will be replaced with the 2k5 Frontier that has a 4.0 V6(drived from the SWEET 3.5) with 240+ hp and can be had with a manual transmission. Bet ya the mpg's will be as good as the I5 plus more HP and torgue!!
Aren't the Nisson Frontier's supercharged and only making 240? If so premium gas will be needed. Doesn't make sense on a small truck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,126 Posts
Originally posted by 91z4me+Jun 19 2004, 03:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (91z4me @ Jun 19 2004, 03:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 07:11 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-thehemi
@Jun 15 2004, 05:18 PM
It is interesting that the I4/I5 is only going into the GMT355s.
I guess the fact the Atlas engine line shares so many parts it
is not really all that bad that they are not distributing them to
other lines.  I guess the I5 will be in the H3, too.

That post is exactly on the money.

grrrrrrr they should ditch the I5 for the H3 and install the Isuzu D-Maxx V-6 diesel. Hummer's a name in offroad right? and what do you do when you go offroad, go slowly. WHat do you need to move weight at slow speed? torque, and what is diesel all about? TORQUE. Very simple equation, GM designers hopefully have seen it, it should just be a bolt in replacement. Maybe it shouldn't be the standard engine but at least an option. Hummer is an offroad brand, and the H3 will most likely compete with upper end liberties and lower end Grand Cherokees and in order to do that they need the offroad prowess to match. GM screwed up on the H2, no going back on that, but the H3 is pretty much a clean slate, I'm hoping that enough people over at GM have had the same thoughts as me and they are going to make the V-6 available on the H3. Hopefully.....
The D-Maxx's Diesels are only 4 Cyls. There is The 3.5 DI V6 but it is gas. None of these engines are US certified because none of them are sold in the states, note slightly different DI v6 than the other Isuzu's get. The D-Maxx is on a slightly different platform than the Colorado/Canyon twins. The actual chassis engineers stated that a V6 will not fit nor would a V8 or the I6. The I6 is to long. The V6's and V8's are to wide. The twins were made for just the inline Atlas 5 and 4. The Turbo I5 will make plenty of power. The 4 and 5 will both get bumps in hp over the years, timing change for more power and less gas mileage. [/b][/quote]
I'm pretty sure that the 3.0 is a V6...but either way, a diesel would be better for offroading, and I don't think that someone who really cares about offroading is going to care about the stereotype diesels have. Not to mention the fact that it will only be an option
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,864 Posts
Originally posted by Ming@Jun 14 2004, 02:48 PM
I may just be strange, but I think the idea of a 5-cylinder inline DOHC engine from GM is just wicked cool.  So unlike the cheap and lazy GM method of dropping a "proven" engine in there.
So, so unlike GM, sad to say.

Why is it they can put good stuff like twincams in an inexpensive truck, but in the passenger car business these engines are considered too fancy and of little interest to buyers?

If I see another review of a GM sedan in which the reviewer starts off talking about the powertrain by noting (however unfairly, to be sure) that the architecture of the 3.4L V6 harkens back to the 1960s and then takes a snotty, demeaning attitude toward the whole car based on that, I'm gonna scream.

Quit shooting yourselves in the foot, GM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
As to what Dark Helmet said about the balance shafts, that really doesn't make a great motor, that means alot more weight to be spinning around, loss of power.
i was told it too GM 7 Years to design this motor, you think GM could have done better then that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,882 Posts
Originally posted by Doctor Gravity@Jul 27 2004, 06:45 AM
As to what Dark Helmet said about the balance shafts, that really doesn't make a great motor, that means alot more weight to be spinning around, loss of power.
i was told it too GM 7 Years to design this motor, you think GM could have done better then that.
I really don't think it's "a lot more weight spinning around". The 4.2L I6 doesn't have balance shafts, and by my calculations, if the I5 was making the same hp/L it would only have about 8 more horsepower.

There are a great deal of highly respected engines out there balance shafts. Most larger four-cylinders from all manufacturers have them.

The beauty of these engines is that Powertrain only needs to design and perfect on combustion chamber, because it's identical in all three engines, bore, stroke, valves, everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
I4s and I5s need a balance shaft to be smooth. An I6 is naturally balanced.

I'm not sure why all the hatred for balance shafts, someone must be spreading some misinformation. They are needed if you want something other than an I6 or V8.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
Lots of engines will fit, but they must be servicable and reliable for them to go into production.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,966 Posts
What do you guys think about this I-5 usage. A Kappa based Nomad. It's RWD so it should fit in the engine bay. The platform is light enough for the I-5 to provide plenty of zip in stock form with an available SS version having the rumored turbo I-5 from the Colorado SS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,103 Posts
Originally posted by big swede@Aug 10 2004, 08:11 PM
What do you guys think about this I-5 usage. A Kappa based Nomad. It's RWD so it should fit in the engine bay. The platform is light enough for the I-5 to provide plenty of zip in stock form with an available SS version having the rumored turbo I-5 from the Colorado SS.
Unfortunately the I5 in the Canyon and colorado is just too tall without going in at a slant /. Also the I5 isn't built for performance in its current form, it is a truck motor and therefore quite undersquare.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
466 Posts
91z4me:

yeah all those 383 folks sure are crazy. j/k, but whats your definition of "quite undersquare"? 93 mm Bore x 102 mm stroke. Chevy should not have wasted their time on the ss silverado, instead, they should have dropped the ls2 into the colorado, charged way to much, and end the silly fued over performance trucks. that or the turbo five would work too! :p
 
21 - 32 of 32 Posts
Top