Jump to content

Build Theme!

Photo

Premium Six for Caddy and Buick


35 replies to this topic

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

#21

Drew Dowdell

    Unimatrix 01

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,011 posts

Posted 31 October 2010 - 10:28 AM

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.


The Suzuki Verona had a transverse mounted I6. Look how great that sold.
  • 0

#22

Drew Dowdell

    Unimatrix 01

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,011 posts

Posted 31 October 2010 - 10:32 AM

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:


Sorry Balth, Lexus in the 90s partially got where they are today by using the I6 from the Supra in the GS. Once they took the I6 out, the GS lost all of it's cred.

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


Who cares if it even turns 6,500 rpm if it gets you to 80 at 3,000?
  • 0

#23

dwightlooi

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,627 posts

Posted 31 October 2010 - 11:34 AM

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.


The I6 is naturally balanced and practically vibration free. However, the industry has moved away from it because it is very long and rather heavy. An I6 will require all the current RWD platforms to be altered to accommodate it. It'll also not fit the transverse bays of cars like the Lacrosse.

You can go with high static compression and light pressure turbocharging. But this is significantly more complex and costly than switching out the intake manifold, adding insulation around the block and making half of the lifters collapsible. In addition, turbochargers bring with them a myriad of hoses, intercoolers and bypass tubes. Turbochargers -- especially twin turbo setups typical of V type engines -- are also rather expensive to service 10~15 years down the line. Eg. replacing a pair of turbos on a B5 Audi S4 is a $4500 job. Regardless of how longevity of turbos have improved and how GM markets it, "twin-turbos" will make some buyers hesitate based on reliability and maintenance cost stories related to other so equipped vehicles in the past. With light pressure forced induction, you are investing in all that with practically no return in power output but simply a remodeling of the torque curve.

The idea here is to build the V6 GM can build if it is not hamstrung by considerations such as accommodating the 87 octane rating or making the engine cheap enough for deployment in all vehicles right down to the Malibu. 91 Octane ratings are not unusal for luxury marques. In fact, it is typical. Acura, Audi, BMW, Infiniti, Lexus and M-B all drink 91 octane fuel. When you put 87 octane in the engine, it's not going to grenade itself -- no modern engine will, not even a 911 GT3. What'll happen is that you'll lose 10 maybe 20 horses and suffer from reduced fuel economy when the ECU detects the onset of very mild pining inperceptible to the driver and dials back timing and enrich the fuel mix. In extreme cases -- such as pulling a heavy load at low rpms when knocking is at its worst, the over enrichment may get bad enough that prolonged operation may cause spark plug fouling. The ECU will probably flash a warning to the driver in such cases, but not usually. I ran out of fuel once on the freeway and had a gallon of 87 added by AAA into the C55's tank to get to the gas station. The engine ran fine, nothing perceptible in power delivery, no pinging, nothing. I wasn't pushing it of course so I don't know if it made noticeably less power. The M113 5.5 liter SOHC V8 engine has conventional port injection and a pretty high compression ratio (11:1).
  • 0

#24

Chazman

    GXP Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 699 posts

Posted 02 November 2010 - 01:52 PM

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


Other than the requirement for 91 octane, I'd like to see GM improve the 3.6 across the board in this way. I find the 3.6 in my CTS to be a coarse, noisy unit, without much eagerness to rev. While it was under warranty, I did complain about it and the dealer found a TSB on the "vibration issue" and updated some software into the ECM. No difference which I could tell.
  • 0

#25

regfootball

    Firing on all sixteen cylinders

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,008 posts

Posted 02 November 2010 - 02:52 PM

Sorry Balth, Lexus in the 90s partially got where they are today by using the I6 from the Supra in the GS. Once they took the I6 out, the GS lost all of it's cred.



Who cares if it even turns 6,500 rpm if it gets you to 80 at 3,000?


because you need to accelerate and pass people, which requires accessing the upper reaches of the rpm band, more often than you think.

by your logic then, a 1 speed tranny is the schizzle.

any engine can be smooth at 3,000 rpm. if its smooth at 6500 rpm as well, you know the engineering is solid, not only the that, the vibration from the motor is less of an impact on the rest of the car. lastly, smoothness at high rpm only serves to underscore the quality of a product.

you can have your iron block dinosaurs like the 3800. There is a reason it was passed by by others LONG ago.

Edited by regfootball, 02 November 2010 - 02:52 PM.

  • 0

#26

regfootball

    Firing on all sixteen cylinders

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,008 posts

Posted 02 November 2010 - 02:55 PM

The I6 is naturally balanced and practically vibration free. However, the industry has moved away from it because it is very long and rather heavy. An I6 will require all the current RWD platforms to be altered to accommodate it. It'll also not fit the transverse bays of cars like the Lacrosse.

You can go with high static compression and light pressure turbocharging. But this is significantly more complex and costly than switching out the intake manifold, adding insulation around the block and making half of the lifters collapsible. In addition, turbochargers bring with them a myriad of hoses, intercoolers and bypass tubes. Turbochargers -- especially twin turbo setups typical of V type engines -- are also rather expensive to service 10~15 years down the line. Eg. replacing a pair of turbos on a B5 Audi S4 is a $4500 job. Regardless of how longevity of turbos have improved and how GM markets it, "twin-turbos" will make some buyers hesitate based on reliability and maintenance cost stories related to other so equipped vehicles in the past. With light pressure forced induction, you are investing in all that with practically no return in power output but simply a remodeling of the torque curve.

The idea here is to build the V6 GM can build if it is not hamstrung by considerations such as accommodating the 87 octane rating or making the engine cheap enough for deployment in all vehicles right down to the Malibu. 91 Octane ratings are not unusal for luxury marques. In fact, it is typical. Acura, Audi, BMW, Infiniti, Lexus and M-B all drink 91 octane fuel. When you put 87 octane in the engine, it's not going to grenade itself -- no modern engine will, not even a 911 GT3. What'll happen is that you'll lose 10 maybe 20 horses and suffer from reduced fuel economy when the ECU detects the onset of very mild pining inperceptible to the driver and dials back timing and enrich the fuel mix. In extreme cases -- such as pulling a heavy load at low rpms when knocking is at its worst, the over enrichment may get bad enough that prolonged operation may cause spark plug fouling. The ECU will probably flash a warning to the driver in such cases, but not usually. I ran out of fuel once on the freeway and had a gallon of 87 added by AAA into the C55's tank to get to the gas station. The engine ran fine, nothing perceptible in power delivery, no pinging, nothing. I wasn't pushing it of course so I don't know if it made noticeably less power. The M113 5.5 liter SOHC V8 engine has conventional port injection and a pretty high compression ratio (11:1).


if a buyers puts 1000 gallons in their car each year and its .20 premium over 87 octane that is 200 bucks extra a year for the fuel x lets say they own the car 10 years, that is 2 grand extra for 91 octane gas.

you could simply modify the displacement or breathing of the car to get more power instead of making it run on 91.

ecoboost runs dandy on 87, makes more power on 91 sure but its not touted that way.

Edited by regfootball, 02 November 2010 - 02:56 PM.

  • 0

#27

Drew Dowdell

    Unimatrix 01

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,011 posts

Posted 02 November 2010 - 03:14 PM

because you need to accelerate and pass people, which requires accessing the upper reaches of the rpm band, more often than you think.

by your logic then, a 1 speed tranny is the schizzle.

any engine can be smooth at 3,000 rpm. if its smooth at 6500 rpm as well, you know the engineering is solid, not only the that, the vibration from the motor is less of an impact on the rest of the car. lastly, smoothness at high rpm only serves to underscore the quality of a product.

you can have your iron block dinosaurs like the 3800. There is a reason it was passed by by others LONG ago.


Let's see here... no, no, no, no, and no.

NO #1: The need for 6,500 rpm smoothness to pass people? Two words: Racing Diesel. If the torque comes on much stronger at a lower RPM, you engineer the gearbox accordingly.
NO #2: Any engine can be smooth at 3,000rpm? Two words: Quad-Four.
NO #3: Smooth at 6,500 RPM has nothing to do with "solid" engineering. It has everything to do with the size of the reciprocating mass. With a properly configured 6-speed automatic mated to both, I'd pit even the LT-1 against a Nissan VQ any day of the week for solidness.
NO #4: Why is 6,500 rpm the cut off for smoothness requirement? Run a Honda 2.4 up to 8,500 rpm and see how smooth it runs then. Running an engine outside of design parameters will get you unpredictable operation. The 3800 was never intended to be run up that high.
NO #5: The 3800 was done in by it's lack of VVT and it's packaging requirements being a 90 degree engine. The 3900 is a lot smoother than the 3800 was simply because of the cylinder bank angle change. Where GM let both engines down was pairing it with the 4-speed automatic. If either of those engines had a 6-speed auto that was able to keep it in it's designed RPM range, there wouldn't have been so much complaining about it. Don't start an idiotic horsepower per liter argument, it's already been a long day for me.
  • 0

#28

regfootball

    Firing on all sixteen cylinders

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,008 posts

Posted 02 November 2010 - 10:26 PM

its simple. drive a lacrosse and an old lesabre and its pretty effing easy to understand which engine is better. part of it is because the high feature v6 is a better design and part of that is because it runs smoother at higher rpms. it doesn't run out of breath and it doesn't sound like a vacuum cleaner.

part of the reason honda engines get accolades is because they are smooth from dead stop to redline, as people access power in all part of the rpm range in normal everyday driving.
  • 0

#29

regfootball

    Firing on all sixteen cylinders

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,008 posts

Posted 02 November 2010 - 10:30 PM

Let's see here... no, no, no, no, and no.

NO #1: The need for 6,500 rpm smoothness to pass people? Two words: Racing Diesel. If the torque comes on much stronger at a lower RPM, you engineer the gearbox accordingly.
NO #2: Any engine can be smooth at 3,000rpm? Two words: Quad-Four.
NO #3: Smooth at 6,500 RPM has nothing to do with "solid" engineering. It has everything to do with the size of the reciprocating mass. With a properly configured 6-speed automatic mated to both, I'd pit even the LT-1 against a Nissan VQ any day of the week for solidness.
NO #4: Why is 6,500 rpm the cut off for smoothness requirement? Run a Honda 2.4 up to 8,500 rpm and see how smooth it runs then. Running an engine outside of design parameters will get you unpredictable operation. The 3800 was never intended to be run up that high.
NO #5: The 3800 was done in by it's lack of VVT and it's packaging requirements being a 90 degree engine. The 3900 is a lot smoother than the 3800 was simply because of the cylinder bank angle change. Where GM let both engines down was pairing it with the 4-speed automatic. If either of those engines had a 6-speed auto that was able to keep it in it's designed RPM range, there wouldn't have been so much complaining about it. Don't start an idiotic horsepower per liter argument, it's already been a long day for me.


some motorcycle engines can run 12,000 or 13,000 rpm, and they are smooth at that speed. why? engineering effort and manufacturing effort and design. point is, the engine needs to be agreeable in all parts of the rpm range, as the driver will use all parts of the rpm range at times.
  • 1

#30

Carguy

    GXP Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts

Posted 02 November 2010 - 10:55 PM

With so many less brands within GM these days why not return to unique size engines for those brands? My thought would be like the Ecoboost line at Ford but unique to each brand. Say Chevrolet uses an efficient 1.5L DI Turbo I4 and a 2.5L Di Turbo V6 to replace today's larger normally aspirated engines? While Buick does a 1.8L DI Turbo I4 and a 2.8L DI Turbo V6 and a 3.8L like V8. That would let Cadillac use a more premium 2.0L DI Turbo I4 and a like 3.0L V6 and even a 4.0L DI Turbo V8? They could keep the SB V8 advanced with DI and other tech for trucks and performance cars while using the smaller DI and Turbo engines listed above for standard and luxury car models.
  • 0

#31

dwightlooi

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,627 posts

Posted 03 November 2010 - 03:34 AM

some motorcycle engines can run 12,000 or 13,000 rpm, and they are smooth at that speed. why? engineering effort and manufacturing effort and design. point is, the engine needs to be agreeable in all parts of the rpm range, as the driver will use all parts of the rpm range at times.


Actually, it's most of it has to do with the fact that motorcycle engines that rev to 12,000 rpm also have pretty small cylinders, somewhat tiny pistons and, most importantly, pretty short strokes. Engine vibrations from the reciprocating mass is a function of the mass of the reciprocating mass (piston and rods) and the square of velocity (piston speed). You are building and reversing the kinetic energy of each pistons two times per revolution. Kinetic energy is 0.5MV^2. So, lighter mass helps somewhat. But, having shorter strokes help tremendously.
  • 0

#32

Drew Dowdell

    Unimatrix 01

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,011 posts

Posted 03 November 2010 - 05:56 AM

some motorcycle engines can run 12,000 or 13,000 rpm, and they are smooth at that speed. why? engineering effort and manufacturing effort and design. point is, the engine needs to be agreeable in all parts of the rpm range, as the driver will use all parts of the rpm range at times.


A motorcycle is smooth at 12,000 rpm because their pistons are 1/3rd the size and the stroke is 1/3rd as long, and you wouldn't want to drive a car with a motorcycle engine in it because you'd need all 13,000 rpm just to get to 45mph in a reasonable time.

The engine does need to be agreeable in all parts of it's designed rpm range. The problem with the 3800 was GM trying to make it do what it wasn't meant to be doing. A 6-speed auto with appropriately spaced gearing and a tall final drive would have helped the 3800 remain competitive longer.
  • 0

#33

regfootball

    Firing on all sixteen cylinders

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,008 posts

Posted 04 November 2010 - 10:33 PM

Actually, it's most of it has to do with the fact that motorcycle engines that rev to 12,000 rpm also have pretty small cylinders, somewhat tiny pistons and, most importantly, pretty short strokes. Engine vibrations from the reciprocating mass is a function of the mass of the reciprocating mass (piston and rods) and the square of velocity (piston speed). You are building and reversing the kinetic energy of each pistons two times per revolution. Kinetic energy is 0.5MV^2. So, lighter mass helps somewhat. But, having shorter strokes help tremendously.


but that's exactly my point, a larger car engine should have no excuses at all for smoothness at little more than half the rpm of the tiny motor.
  • 0

#34

pow

    Ultra Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,367 posts

Posted 05 November 2010 - 02:28 AM

point is, the engine needs to be agreeable in all parts of the rpm range, as the driver will use all parts of the rpm range at times.

Ding, ding, ding, ding! We've got a winner. This is especially true for a CVT, which puts you in the optimum RPM all the time.
  • 0

#35

dwightlooi

    OSV Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,627 posts

Posted 05 November 2010 - 07:28 PM

Speaking of smoothness...

High tech doesn't mean smooth and refined. I know a lot of people don't want to hear this, but the 3.5 Pushrod V6 in the last generation Malibu and the G6 was smoother and more refined than the 3.6 liter DOHC DI-VVT engine in the Camaro. Don't believe me? Go drive both. It's significant in enough that you don't even have to do it back to back to register the difference. Now the Lacrosse and the CTS have plenty of insulation to mute the engine, but in the Camaro it has a grainy, coarse, groan that's very annoying from 4500 rpm on up. Rougher than the 2.4 liter four IMHO. Even at 3000~4500 its worse than the Pushrod V6.

Maybe its the higher compression leading to higher combustion noise. Maybe its the plastic valve covers and intake manifold. Maybe its something else, but the engine is irrefutably coarse.

One thing GM ought to consider is a balance shaft. Even though 60 deg V6es generally don't have them because they are reasonably well balanced as is, they CAN benefit from one. A 60 deg six is NOT perfectly balanced like an I6 or a H6, its just better than a 90 deg six in this regard. In fact, if anyone remembers, the Twin Dual Cam 3.4 V6 (LQ1) from the early 90s is a 60 deg V6 with a balance shaft. The engine was built on the pushrod 60 deg block, but had belt driven DOHC heads added. It had a balance shaft where the in-block cam normally was. The motor was not without its failings in terms of reliability and especially serviceability -- the amount of dis-assembly needed to just get to the spark plugs borders on the ridiculous -- but it was one of the smoothest V6es ever.
  • 0

#36

regfootball

    Firing on all sixteen cylinders

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,008 posts

Posted 06 November 2010 - 08:44 AM

Speaking of smoothness...

High tech doesn't mean smooth and refined. I know a lot of people don't want to hear this, but the 3.5 Pushrod V6 in the last generation Malibu and the G6 was smoother and more refined than the 3.6 liter DOHC DI-VVT engine in the Camaro. Don't believe me? Go drive both. It's significant in enough that you don't even have to do it back to back to register the difference. Now the Lacrosse and the CTS have plenty of insulation to mute the engine, but in the Camaro it has a grainy, coarse, groan that's very annoying from 4500 rpm on up. Rougher than the 2.4 liter four IMHO. Even at 3000~4500 its worse than the Pushrod V6.

Maybe its the higher compression leading to higher combustion noise. Maybe its the plastic valve covers and intake manifold. Maybe its something else, but the engine is irrefutably coarse.

One thing GM ought to consider is a balance shaft. Even though 60 deg V6es generally don't have them because they are reasonably well balanced as is, they CAN benefit from one. A 60 deg six is NOT perfectly balanced like an I6 or a H6, its just better than a 90 deg six in this regard. In fact, if anyone remembers, the Twin Dual Cam 3.4 V6 (LQ1) from the early 90s is a 60 deg V6 with a balance shaft. The engine was built on the pushrod 60 deg block, but had belt driven DOHC heads added. It had a balance shaft where the in-block cam normally was. The motor was not without its failings in terms of reliability and especially serviceability -- the amount of dis-assembly needed to just get to the spark plugs borders on the ridiculous -- but it was one of the smoothest V6es ever.


i'll take issue with that to a point. first off, and i know this is a third party observer pointing it out, but most magazine reviews I read on the 3.5v6 whether it was in a saturn vue or a saturn aura etc. in comparison tests they did not speak favorably of the NVH of that powertrain, even in comparison tests against 4 cylinders from other makers.

my own test drives of the aura and other epsilon cars with the high feature vs. the 3.5, the 3.5 is not as refined as the high feature was. so i would disagree the first part of your post.
  • 0



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users