Jump to content


Advertisment
Photo

Premium Six for Caddy and Buick


Poll: Premium Six for Caddy and Buick (12 member(s) have cast votes)

What do you think of the Premium Six?

  1. Great Idea (8 votes [66.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 66.67%

  2. Horrible Idea (1 votes [8.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.33%

  3. Not Sure (3 votes [25.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1

Posted 29 October 2010 - 02:03 PM

dwightlooi

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,645 posts
When the so called HF V6 was created, it was the premium six cylinder in GM's line-up. It went into premium models while the 3.5 and 3.9 Pushrod sixes served the Malibu, G6es and other high volume models. With GM going to the DI V6 across the board in the near future, there no longer a Hi-Lo mix.

I believe that it'll be worthwhile to create a new derivative of the DI V6 engine specifically for premium applications as the Standard DI V6 moves into the mainstream. The premium version will focus on delivering greater refinement, performance and runs on 91 Octane. The idea is not to build a sports car engine here, rather it is to give the engineers a free hand to improve the DI V6 without having the compromise of 87 octane compatibility and cost sensitiveness.

3.6 liter Premium Six

Changes
  • Aluminum valve covers replace polymer ones for improved acoustics
  • Aluminum continuously variable intake runner assembly for flatter torque curve
  • 12.3:1 compression instead of 11.3:1 for improved torque output
  • Cylinder deactivation on 3-cylinders
  • Anechoic skirt around engine block for noise reduction
  • Anechoic acoustic cover over engine for noise reduction

Performance
  • Power Output: 312 hp @ 6600 rpm
  • Torque output: 292 lb-ft @ 3600~5600 rpm
  • Rev limit: 7000 rpm
  • Fuel: 91 Octane Unleaded
  • Est. Fuel Economy (RWD CTS w/6L50): 19 (City) / 28 (Hwy)
  • Price Delta (vs regular 3.6 DI V6): $2000

  • 0


Advertisment

#2

Posted 29 October 2010 - 02:10 PM

Drew Dowdell

    Unimatrix 01

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,449 posts
Garage View Garage
It's gotta be able to at least tolerate 87.
  • 1

#3

Posted 29 October 2010 - 02:18 PM

SAmadei

    Denali Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,993 posts

It's gotta be able to at least tolerate 87.


Agreed... at this power level, requiring 91 octane is not worth the 10~25hp increase.
  • 0

#4

Posted 29 October 2010 - 02:38 PM

dwightlooi

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,645 posts

Agreed... at this power level, requiring 91 octane is not worth the 10~25hp increase.


Actually, hp is not a factor. The 87 octane DI V6 is alrready making 312hp in the Camaro. Increasing the octane rating allows you to increase the compression ratio. This in turn means you can make more torque. With the hp target being relatively unchanged, you can move the torque peak lower and flatten the curve. This improves the perceived power delivery in daily driving. The higher compression also improves specific fuel consumption.
  • 0

#5

Posted 29 October 2010 - 03:48 PM

SAmadei

    Denali Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,993 posts

Actually, hp is not a factor. The 87 octane DI V6 is alrready making 312hp in the Camaro. Increasing the octane rating allows you to increase the compression ratio. This in turn means you can make more torque. With the hp target being relatively unchanged, you can move the torque peak lower and flatten the curve. This improves the perceived power delivery in daily driving. The higher compression also improves specific fuel consumption.


Ah. Yeah, area under that graph is sweet... still not sure its worth the cost of 91 octane.
  • 0

#6

Posted 29 October 2010 - 06:26 PM

ZL-1

    Ultra Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,839 posts
a question: if this V6 got pushed to 320hp (I'm using that figure with the Northstar V8's power in mind), how would torque and torque curve compare with that V8?
  • 0

#7

Posted 29 October 2010 - 07:17 PM

regfootball

    Firing on all sixteen cylinders

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,211 posts
first off, for GM to call a DOHC engine 'premium' is laughable since most of the rest of the competition had been making them and putting them in garden variety cars for quite awhile. For GM to say its premium was them putting their own band aid spin on why they kept shoving boat anchor 6's on the car buyers when they were clearly showing not a love of love for GM's motors anymore.

2nd, why the expense for a rare engine that only uses premium? Some dipshit will put 87 in it and you are back at square one.

If you are gonna blow money on ANOTHER new engine for GM, do a DOHC v8 OR a couple diesels.
  • 2

#8

Posted 29 October 2010 - 07:55 PM

Drew Dowdell

    Unimatrix 01

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,449 posts
Garage View Garage
Dwight, I've been schooled by experts in engine technology, like my friend who posted just previous to me, that torque doesn't matter, So why should I want an engine that makes more torque if it means I have to run 91 through it instead of 87?

first off, for GM to call a DOHC engine 'premium' is laughable since most of the rest of the competition had been making them and putting them in garden variety cars for quite awhile. For GM to say its premium was them putting their own band aid spin on why they kept shoving boat anchor 6's on the car buyers when they were clearly showing not a love of love for GM's motors anymore.

2nd, why the expense for a rare engine that only uses premium? Some dipshit will put 87 in it and you are back at square one.

If you are gonna blow money on ANOTHER new engine for GM, do a DOHC v8 OR a couple diesels.


Reg, it's a rework of the existing 3.6 with additional technology and more aggressive power tuning. It's not a whole new engine.
  • 0

#9

Posted 30 October 2010 - 12:41 AM

dwightlooi

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,645 posts

Dwight, I've been schooled by experts in engine technology, like my friend who posted just previous to me, that torque doesn't matter, So why should I want an engine that makes more torque if it means I have to run 91 through it instead of 87?

Reg, it's a rework of the existing 3.6 with additional technology and more aggressive power tuning. It's not a whole new engine.


Torque does not matter if, and only if, you can change gearing instantaneously, continually and through an infinite range. That is not reality, at least not with today's transmissions. In any particular gear, the torque multiplication is the same throughout the rev range. Today's best automatics only give you about 6:1 to 7:1 ratio spread to play with. An engine whose torque peak is further removed from the cruising rpm is likely to require more downshifts more often.

Reasons for using 91 octane in exchange for higher compression is as follows:-

  • A $0.20 difference in gas price (per gallon) at $3 a gallon is quite well tolerated by owners of luxury vehicles.
  • The increase in compression yields improvement in MPG numbers
  • Higher torque at lower rpms allows the vehicle to accelerate more quickly without having to trigger a downshift. This in turn improves the perceived refinement level by allowing a more relaxed operating speed in typical driving.

  • 0

#10

Posted 30 October 2010 - 10:30 AM

loki

    Ultra Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,219 posts
Garage View Garage
what could you do with a lite turbo set-up? with high static compression and lowish boost?
  • 0

#11

Posted 30 October 2010 - 11:57 AM

Drew Dowdell

    Unimatrix 01

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,449 posts
Garage View Garage

Higher torque at lower rpms allows the vehicle to accelerate more quickly without having to trigger a downshift. This in turn improves the perceived refinement level by allowing a more relaxed operating speed in typical driving.


Which is what I was getting at. More torque available at a lower RPM also gives the feeling of being more powerful.
  • 0

#12

Posted 30 October 2010 - 11:59 AM

A Horse With No Name

    Firing on all sixteen cylinders

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,516 posts

Which is what I was getting at. More torque available at a lower RPM also gives the feeling of being more powerful.


...and is also more in tune with what most traditional GM buyers would want in a car.



  • 0

#13

Posted 30 October 2010 - 08:42 PM

smk4565

    Ultra Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,758 posts
How about:
DOHC Straight six turbo
DI, VVT
300 hp @ 5800 rpm
300 lb-ft @ 1200-5000 rpm
20/30 mpg

GM should make that, more torque at lower rpm, better mileage, and an inline is smoother than a V.
  • 0

#14

Posted 30 October 2010 - 09:13 PM

balthazar

    Yoda of Vintage cars

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,127 posts
"If the inline engine configuration was so great, everybody would be copying it, instead of no one, so it obviously isn't that great."

"Inline configurations are ancient technology - Pontiac, Olds, Buick & Chevy used to be all inlines back, oh, 60 years ago or so."
  • 0

#15

Posted 30 October 2010 - 10:15 PM

smk4565

    Ultra Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,758 posts

"If the inline engine configuration was so great, everybody would be copying it, instead of no one, so it obviously isn't that great."

"Inline configurations are ancient technology - Pontiac, Olds, Buick & Chevy used to be all inlines back, oh, 60 years ago or so."

Right, when everything was rear wheel drive. Inline six is still more balanced and smoother than a V6, or even a V8. Everyone doesn't use a straight six now because they make mostly front drivers and a straight six won't work in a CamCord.
  • 0

#16

Posted 30 October 2010 - 10:17 PM

SAmadei

    Denali Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,993 posts

Right, when everything was rear wheel drive. Inline six is still more balanced and smoother than a V6, or even a V8. Everyone doesn't use a straight six now because they make mostly front drivers and a straight six won't work in a CamCord.


I've always been surprised that a small BMW or Supra could hold a straight six longitudally.

Edited by SAmadei, 30 October 2010 - 10:18 PM.

  • 0

#17

Posted 30 October 2010 - 10:27 PM

balthazar

    Yoda of Vintage cars

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,127 posts
inline 6 or 8 = pre-war 'technology'... ancient, out-dated, toyoyo/lexus builds a bunch of RWD cars- best in world because they sell so much, none have inline engines, bad design, old, V-type much more modern, better packaging, new technology, betterer.


:wacko:
  • 0

#18

Posted 30 October 2010 - 11:49 PM

regfootball

    Firing on all sixteen cylinders

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,211 posts

Which is what I was getting at. More torque available at a lower RPM also gives the feeling of being more powerful.


as long as the engine is not a wheezer at 6500 rpm and still has automotive viagra at higher speeds.....

Right, when everything was rear wheel drive. Inline six is still more balanced and smoother than a V6, or even a V8. Everyone doesn't use a straight six now because they make mostly front drivers and a straight six won't work in a CamCord.


in line six is a large engine, for a lot of engine bays. it only works mostly for the rare rwd chassis....
  • 0

#19

Posted 30 October 2010 - 11:56 PM

regfootball

    Firing on all sixteen cylinders

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,211 posts

Dwight, I've been schooled by experts in engine technology, like my friend who posted just previous to me, that torque doesn't matter, So why should I want an engine that makes more torque if it means I have to run 91 through it instead of 87?



Reg, it's a rework of the existing 3.6 with additional technology and more aggressive power tuning. It's not a whole new engine.


if it requires technology and manufacturing investment, it might as well be a whole new engine. you are talking about switching materials, finishing processes, specifications. generally in manufacturing engines, it sometimes is based on the bore centers and such. you mess with the metalurgy of an engine, and the cam drives / valvetrain, it pretty much is a new engine.

From an operations perspective.....once you have divergent parts numbers, its a whole new engine too, especially for the people who need to stock parts.

...and is also more in tune with what most traditional GM buyers would want in a car.


.............15-20 years ago.............

these days i doubt it matters. people want what is consistent with the times.

Torque does not matter if, and only if, you can change gearing instantaneously, continually and through an infinite range. That is not reality, at least not with today's transmissions. In any particular gear, the torque multiplication is the same throughout the rev range. Today's best automatics only give you about 6:1 to 7:1 ratio spread to play with. An engine whose torque peak is further removed from the cruising rpm is likely to require more downshifts more often.

Reasons for using 91 octane in exchange for higher compression is as follows:-

  • A $0.20 difference in gas price (per gallon) at $3 a gallon is quite well tolerated by owners of luxury vehicles.
  • The increase in compression yields improvement in MPG numbers
  • Higher torque at lower rpms allows the vehicle to accelerate more quickly without having to trigger a downshift. This in turn improves the perceived refinement level by allowing a more relaxed operating speed in typical driving.


and then one idiot pumps 87 in his tank and all hell breaks loose.

the engine must run fine on 87, if it performs better on 91 than so be it. America has too many idiots to trust them to put 91 in consistently or willingly.

Edited by regfootball, 30 October 2010 - 11:53 PM.

  • 0

#20

Posted 31 October 2010 - 10:26 AM

balthazar

    Yoda of Vintage cars

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,127 posts
regfootball ~ >>"first off, for GM to call a DOHC engine 'premium' is laughable since most of the rest of the competition had been making them and putting them in garden variety cars for quite awhile. For GM to say its premium was them putting their own band aid spin on..."<<
Where did GM call one 'premium'? Isn't it labeled 'HF' for 'high feature' ?? This is a bad thing somehow?

regfootball ~ >>"if it requires technology and manufacturing investment, it might as well be a whole new engine. you are talking about switching materials, finishing processes, specifications. generally in manufacturing engines, it sometimes is based on the bore centers and such. you mess with the metalurgy of an engine, and the cam drives / valvetrain, it pretty much is a new engine."<<
Why on earth would you need to reinvent metallurgy or machining processes to offer new technology on an engine ??
  • 0



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Advertisment