[Ming]

Considering the cost, the price passed on to the consumer, fuel economy, performance and other considerations, which engine performance path makes the most sense for GM or for you as the buyer?

Keep in mind that the Grand Prix's "venerable" 3.8L is in its last incarnation (tweaked) and on its way out - the 3.9L supercharged engine I expect to replace it will see a big number jump, at least in potential (if the transmission holds it back, it could be lower). Looking at how the numbers of the Newly redesigned 3.5L in the Malibu are almost on top of the 3.8 (both naturally aspirated), that is.

I don't trust GM's figures on the "275 horsepower G6" 3.5, since the Grand Prix failed to deliver the "280/280" promise from the G-Force concept.

I thought the Saab turbocharged engine is a good representation of what we might see in the Saturn ION Redline, etc. in the future. (Even though it will be getting a supercharger)

Aaaanyway, here are the numbers:

Supercharged (Near-Instant power down low):

2004 Grand Prix GTP 3.8 "3800":
Horsepower @ RPM [email protected]
Fuel Economy Cty/Hwy: 18 / 28
Torque @ RPM [email protected]

Turbocharged (Some "turbo lag"):
2004 Saab 9-3 Sport Sedan Aero (2.0L I-4)
Horsepower @ RPM [email protected]
Fuel Economy Cty/Hwy: 22 / 30
Torque @ RPM [email protected]


"High Feature":

2004 Acura TL (like most Honda engines, HP numbers deceptively high for people used to low end power):
3.2L V6 Horsepower @ RPM [email protected]
Fuel Economy Cty/Hwy: 20 / 30
Torque @ RPM [email protected]

2004 Cadillac CTS:
3.6L V6, 24 - Valve, 255 @ 6500 Horsepower (torque about the same, I think)
Fuel Economy (cty/hwy): 18 mpg / 26 mpg

2004 Toyota Matrix (Pontiac Vibe):1.8L I4 (You won't see power until extremely high revs)
Horsepower @ RPM [email protected]
Fuel Economy Cty/Hwy: 25 / 30
Torque @ RPM [email protected]

Should GM have a 4 cylinder performance VVT engine design like in the Honda Civic Si? Who is Honda "pleasing" with an engine like this, when "Sport Compact" drivers seem to favor Drag Racing?

Or how about "High Output" engines that get good numbers without the high-rev VVT tricks of "VTEC", like the Ford SVT Focus engine or 180-horsepower Quad 4 engine in the 1990 Beretta GTZ?

Here's another question: If VVT engines are "High Feature" and OHV engines (and Ecotec) are "High Value", then what are Supercharged OHV engines? :woot2:

 

[Ghrankenstein]

Ouch, ming, you're backing me into a corner here. :lol:

My first choice is, of course, the HO version. The HO LS1, known as the LS6, is the perfect example: more guts, and more drama for the enthusiast. I see extra revs as a bonus.

Supercharging, then is next. I think the best candidate is the Ecotec, since it was designed to be blown from the get-go. I have no doubt that the 3.5 and 3.9 can also be blown to great effect, since the 3.8 has served well, and they've already shown us a blown 3.5 in the G6. The 3.9 SC is what I -want- to see in the MAXX SS/Sport.

I'm not a fan of the whole VVT thing as it is done in iVTEC and such. Strengthening the Vortec 4200's low end is great, but milking extra horses by extending the rev band into the stratosphere makes for good race cars, but not for stronger daily drivers. Case in point: the 180 hp, 130 lb-ft Vibe GT.

Ghrankenstein

 

[sceltor]

I hate sewing-machine engines you have to rev high to get any power. I'd take the 185 lb-ft of torque (my Z24, which has no top end power) over 180 HP at 7600 RPM. It's just ridiculous. Who revs that high during everyday driving?

 

[Pontiaddict]

For me, it boils down to whichever engine has the most average horsepower in it's rev range, and still gets good fuel economy.

 

[69nova]

Supercharging and turbocharging have less parts versus variable valve timing and multi-overhead cams so I would think that these methods would give the motor greater durability over the long haul.
Regarding the saleability, I would think that 80% of the customers do not look 5 years down the road regarding reliability and couldn't decipher a torque/horsepower curve. That is why so many 4 cylinder motors cranking out the last drop of hp at 6000-7000 rpm's are hyped in the brochures. Do they get better mpg's? I don't know since I have not seen significant differences (a stop light or a heavier foot will kill any 2-4 mpg advantage).
On the race track, sophistication is supported with constant maintenance-more than any consumer is accustomed to giving.

 

[BigAls87Z28]

I think GM needs to keep at or ahead of Nissan and Honda's small DOHC motors. a 270hp 3.5 in a G6(if it happens) with AWD would be awesoem. Exactly where is this AWD system coming from? Subaru?

 

[casket_demon]

Just supercharge the HF-VVT engine.No more problems

 

[Ming]

Originally posted by bigals87z28@Oct 30 2003, 03:08 AM
I think GM needs to keep at or ahead of Nissan and Honda's small DOHC motors. a 270hp 3.5 in a G6(if it happens) with AWD would be awesoem. Exactly where is this AWD system coming from? Subaru?

It was Versatrak in the concept. It's made by a German supplier for GM.

It's reactive, not full-time.

See: http://www.gmcanada.com/english/gminnovati..._versatrak.html