Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
dwightlooi

One V8 for all of GM

22 posts in this topic

GM has too many V8s in production... 4.6 (DOHC), 4.8, 5.3, 6.0, 6.2 and 7.0.

There's no reason to have six different eight potters not to mention multiple variants for some of them. GM should standardize on one V8 block and heads. This is something which has been tried quite successfully in the V6 world by companies like Nissan (with its VQ35 V6) and it makes even more sense in the V8 world given the lower overall volume. Money saved through commonality and economies of scale can then be spent on technological content.

I propose a 5.5 liter displacement in four different different guises.

GM Gen V Small Block V8 - Basic Specifications

Type: Cross Plane 90 deg V8, aluminum block & heads, watercooled

Bore x Stroke: 103 x 82 mm

Valvetrain: Single in-block cam, push rods, overhead valves, 2-valve/cyl

Intake valves: 55 mm

Exhaust Valves: 40.2 mm (Sodium cooled)

Displacement: 5466 cc (333 ci)

Variants:-

Vortec 5500

Applications: Trucks and SUVs

Features: Direct Fuel Injection

Synchronous VVT

Active Fuel Management (4-cyl deactivation)

Long intake runners

High Torque cam profile

11.3:1 Compression Ratio

Power: 360 bhp @ 5600 rpm

Torque: 395 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm

Redline: 6000 rpm

Fuel Type: 87 Octane Unleaded Gasoline

Mainstream V8

Applications: Camaro SS, Caprice, Commodore HSV, Cadillac STS/DTS (Northstar replacement)

Features: Direct Fuel Injection

Synchronous VVT

Active Fuel Management (4-cyl deactivation)

Short intake runners

Balanced cam profile

11.3:1 compression ratio

Power: 400 bhp @ 6200 rpm

Torque: 400 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm

Redline: 7000 rpm

Fuel Type: 87 Octane Unleaded Gasoline

Performance V8

Applications: Corvette C7; ATS-V

Features: Direct Fuel Injection

Synchronous VVT

Short intake runners

High Power cam profile

12.2:1 compression ratio

Power: 432 bhp @ 6600 rpm

Torque: 423 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm

Redline: 7000 rpm

Fuel Type: 91 Octane Unleaded Gasoline (required)

Extreme V8

Applications: Corvette Z06 / CTS-V / STS-V / Escalade-V

Features: Direct Fuel Injection

Synchronous VVT

4-lobe Roots Compressor w/air-water aftercooler

Reinforced bottom end

High Power cam profile

9.7:1 compression ratio

Power: 580 bhp @ 6800 rpm

Torque: 550 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm

Redline: 7000 rpm

Fuel Type: 91 Octane Unleaded Gasoline (required)

Future Evolution (Gen VI Advanced Small Block)

  • Cam-in-cam Dual VVT (independent Intake/exhaust cam phasing)
  • 2-stage variable rocker-ratio control (VRC)
  • Ionic Knock Sensing
  • Beltless accessory drive (timing chain driven water pump; electric a/c compressor & pwr steering)
  • Flywheel Integrated Generator/Starter (FIGS ;20hp)
  • 24-volt Lithium-Iron-Phosphate electrical system
  • User selectable Eco Mode with stoplight engine shutoff/restart & regenerative braking

Edited by dwightlooi
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch out dude. A grand total of three people here get very upset about Caddy's sharing the 'same' engines as Chev's. :duck::P

Edited by FAPTurbo
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch out dude. A grand total of three people here get very upset about Caddy's sharing the 'same' engines as Chev's. :duck::P

Well, first of all, Caddy is already using Chevy small blocks. The CTS-V in both the current and previous generation does just that. Nobody seems to be complaining about CTS-Vs having 556hp LSA V8s instead of the 443hp 4.4 liter force-fed Northstar.

The push-rod gives better cruise economy numbers than a DOHC V8. Aura quality at high rpm is a bit in a DOHC engine's favor, but valve train and induction noises can easily be turn into whispers with sound deadening which ought to be plentiful on a Caddy. This leaves the slightly higher vibrations from the mild end-to-end imbalance of cross plane V8s which is slightly worse in an engine of a larger displacement. Well, that's something you tackle with hydraulic engine mounts and all the other stuff.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow me to complain about a non-exclusive corporate engine in a Cadillac.

Am I against 556 HP/ 550 TRQ and 'king sedan' performance ?? Of course not.

But it should be from a Cadillac engine, period.

V should be running a 556/550 Cadillac engine in there.

Look, plenty of naysayers already harp on a 'Chevrolet' engine in a Cadillac WRT the CTS-V, I've read the comments in numerous forums over the years, we all have.

The very root of GM's problems, regardless of the other 1000 reasons you can readily read just about anywhere- is the homogenization / castration of the Divisions. They've had 4 vehicles on the same chassis / platform numerous times : sometimes it worked exceedingly well, others times disasterously. Proprietory engineering is the key to answering 'why?', and it's beaten down to nothing as it is.

I hold onto the slim hope another Cadillac V-8 will emerge, the Ultra or at least a proprietory one (Northstar II).

I cannot state emphatically enough how 'wrong' I believe this proposal is (and, IMO, of the 'old GM' school of thought).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I do not mind Cadillac using a corporate engine, I think the engines should be introduced in Cadillacs first, thn the Corvette, then other GM cars that might make use of them (Camaro, Commodore, and so on). Just a way to respect brand hierarchy.

Re the engine, why make it a single displacement engine? Why not a higher displacement version for non-forced-induction engines, and a slightly de-bored engine, with its stronger cylinder walls, as a basis for forced-induction engines?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I do not mind Cadillac using a corporate engine, I think the engines should be introduced in Cadillacs first, thn the Corvette, then other GM cars that might make use of them (Camaro, Commodore, and so on). Just a way to respect brand hierarchy.

Re the engine, why make it a single displacement engine? Why not a higher displacement version for non-forced-induction engines, and a slightly de-bored engine, with its stronger cylinder walls, as a basis for forced-induction engines?

One word, commonality... better economies of scale, less parts in the supply chain, less parts to stock for supporting repairs. It adds up to a lot of money to have 4 engines of different displacement and components as opposed to 4 very similar ones.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One word, commonality... better economies of scale, less parts in the supply chain, less parts to stock for supporting repairs. It adds up to a lot of money to have 4 engines of different displacement and components as opposed to 4 very similar ones.

That was exactly my point: 2 displacements, one block... no need to have a single displacement one, no need ot have 4 or 5 differnet engines :AH-HA:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow me to complain about a non-exclusive corporate engine in a Cadillac...

The very root of GM's problems, regardless of the other 1000 reasons you can readily read just about anywhere- is the homogenization / castration of the Divisions. They've had 4 vehicles on the same chassis / platform numerous times : sometimes it worked exceedingly well, others times disasterously. Proprietory engineering is the key to answering 'why?', and it's beaten down to nothing as it is.

I hold onto the slim hope another Cadillac V-8 will emerge, the Ultra or at least a proprietory one (Northstar II).

I cannot state emphatically enough how 'wrong' I believe this proposal is (and, IMO, of the 'old GM' school of thought).

From an economics standpoint, the other "affordable" option is to have a DOHC 4.8 liter 60 degree V8 based on adding 2-cylinders to the 3.6 liter DI V6 (LLT). It'll make ~400 hp and ~364 lb-ft. The 60 deg angle hurts smoothness a bit, but the deg degree angle will allow it to fit in the same envelope as a pushrod small block of the 5.5~6.2 liter class. Being DOHC and having higher internal friction means that fuel economy numbers will be down 1 mpg or so.

I am not convinced that this is a better engine for caddy or any other brand. Besides, the whole point about sharing engines is to reduce the cost of each individual engine so you can have higher technological content on each one. It may mean the absence or absence of Direct Injection across the board.

I personally do not think that there will be a psychological barrier to caddy buyers if the cars use the same engines as top of the line Chevys. Toyota uses the same 3.5 liter in both their Lexus and Toyota models. Nissan shares the VQ35/37 between the Infiniti and Nissan models. It hasn't impeded on the success of the RX, ES, G or FX models.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One word, commonality... better economies of scale, less parts in the supply chain, less parts to stock for supporting repairs. It adds up to a lot of money to have 4 engines of different displacement and components as opposed to 4 very similar ones.

Pretty much what I was thinking.

As much as I like choice, this might be the best way to keep the v8 around....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"I personally do not think that there will be a psychological barrier to caddy buyers if the cars use the same engines as top of the line Chevys. Toyota uses the same 3.5 liter in both their Lexus and Toyota models. Nissan shares the VQ35/37 between the Infiniti and Nissan models. It hasn't impeded on the success of the RX, ES, G or FX models."<<

HUGE difference here. infiniti/lexus were created FROM nissan/toyoyo; they have grown apart from one source. infiniti/lexus have NO unique heritage, no pretense of being an independant entity- just marketing. Cadillac was fully independant, and remained autonomous in reality a good 50 years, plus proprietory another 25. The heritage of a 'Cadillac engine' is longstanding.

Of course I know this is 'ancient history' as far as 2010 goes, but it's relatively well-known history, and it DOES color modern impressions. Look at Jaguar- still viewed as British when it's been decades since being so... yet read the common reference in reviews.

If GM were to institute a cross-board corporate V8, they might as well shut Cadillac down. Think of the economies of scale if GM was 1 brand to everyone.

You can make the same economies of scale WRT any component; radios, seats, body shells, steering wheels, whathaveyou. But at some point these things are noticed, harped upon, and reduce price tiers & brands to irrevelancy & redundancy. Engines is not the place to do this.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"I personally do not think that there will be a psychological barrier to caddy buyers if the cars use the same engines as top of the line Chevys. Toyota uses the same 3.5 liter in both their Lexus and Toyota models. Nissan shares the VQ35/37 between the Infiniti and Nissan models. It hasn't impeded on the success of the RX, ES, G or FX models."<<

HUGE difference here. infiniti/lexus were created FROM nissan/toyoyo; they have grown apart from one source. infiniti/lexus have NO unique heritage, no pretense of being an independant entity- just marketing. Cadillac was fully independant, and remained autonomous in reality a good 50 years, plus proprietory another 25. The heritage of a 'Cadillac engine' is longstanding.

Of course I know this is 'ancient history' as far as 2010 goes, but it's relatively well-known history, and it DOES color modern impressions. Look at Jaguar- still viewed as British when it's been decades since being so... yet read the common reference in reviews.

If GM were to institute a cross-board corporate V8, they might as well shut Cadillac down. Think of the economies of scale if GM was 1 brand to everyone.

You can make the same economies of scale WRT any component; radios, seats, body shells, steering wheels, whathaveyou. But at some point these things are noticed, harped upon, and reduce price tiers & brands to irrevelancy & redundancy. Engines is not the place to do this.

I don't think most of today's Cadillac buyers know about Cadillac's ancient history. If they know anything it's the spotty reliability and quality of Caddys from the 80s and 90s -- that's actually better forgotten.

Cadillac doesn't need unique engines. They can simply be the highest priced, best finished, most luxurious GM. And, for the most parts, that's how the brand is seen today. As far as the engine goes, it has to be competitive with BMW, Mercedes Benz, Audi and Lexus. Where is comes from and what it is shared with isn't particularly important. A 5.5 liter making 400hp and delivering better fuel economy numbers than the competition's 4.6~5.0 liter DOHC engines is competitive. With proper quiet tuning it can be quiet enough too. That should be good enough shouldn't it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"I don't think most of today's Cadillac buyers know about Cadillac's ancient history. "<<

They kno it as well as they kno BMW means (a miniscule edge in) handling, or mercedes means.... someone help me here.

It's baked into Cadillac. What's NOT is a corporate-wide engine underhood- that's a perception changer, right now.

Long-term corporate success will hinge on how well "GM" is de-emphasized and 'Cadillac', 'Buick, etc are emphasized (and marketed). "GM" is the biggest albatross perception-wise, and there are no products sold only with 'GM' badging. It must step back into the shadow, and yes; it can be done. Focus must be put on the Divisions first & foremost. Engineering is a primairy cog in that machine.

Do you kno that all lexsuxes used to have glass marked 'toyota', but not too long ago even that was changed ? Tiny lettering only read by squinting. Same corporation. You can figure out why; perception. It's paramount, esp in light of the sheer volume of competetion and the equalizing of said competition in quality & features, plus the near-death of stylistic progress. The little things are becoming big things because the big things are settled out already (for the most part).

>>"That should be good enough "<<

Most will reply that that attitude has without question wreaked all sorts of problem for many years. I've read it vehemently in a 33,xxx post thread on the XTS elsewhere.

No; it's not good enough.

Well, it would be... for the bean counters.

Edited by balthazar
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just remember there should be a 6.5-7L DI engine coming for the trucks in the next 3 years too.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh. curious what you think the power/economy benefits would be with independent VVT?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how it's done.

bmwv8n63engine.jpg

400 hp @ 5600 rpm, 450 lb-ft @ 1800-4500 rpm

or

555 hp @ 6000 rpm, 500 lb-ft @ 1500-5650 rpm

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how it's done.

that's how it should be done.

LOL

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how it's done.

bmwv8n63engine.jpg

400 hp @ 5600 rpm, 450 lb-ft @ 1800-4500 rpm

or

555 hp @ 6000 rpm, 500 lb-ft @ 1500-5650 rpm

How is this the better solution?

Let's compare the numbers shall we?

In naturally aspirated form...

BMW N62 V8 w/Double Vanos (VVT) & Valvetronic (CVVL)

Type: DOHC-32v, 90deg V8

Displacement: 4.8 liters

Horsepower: 360 @ 6300 rpm

Torque: 360 @ 3400 rpm

Fuel Economy: 15 (City) / 22 (Hwy) mpg*

*3968 lbs BMW 550i w/6-spd Automatic

Chevy L99 V8 w/Synchronous VVT & AFM (DoD)

Type: Pushrod-16v, 90 deg V8

Displacement: 6.2 liters

Horsepower: 400 @ 5900 rpm

Torque: 410 @ 4300 rpm

Fuel Economy: 16 (City) / 25 (Hwy) mpg*

*3908 lbs Camaro SS w/6-spd Automatic

In force induction form...

BMW N63 V8 w/twin turbos & intercooler

Type: DOHC-32v, 90deg V8

Displacement: 4.4 liters

Horsepower: 400 @ 5500 rpm

Torque: 450 @ 1800 rpm

Fuel Economy: 15 (City) / 22 (Hwy) mpg*

*4564 lbs BMW 750i w/6-spd Automatic

Cadillac LSA V8 w/Eaton VSR Supercharger & aftercooler

Type: Pushrod-16v, 90 deg V8

Displacement: 6.2 liters

Horsepower: 556 @ 6100 rpm

Torque: 551 @ 3800 rpm

Fuel Economy: 14 (City) / 19 (Hwy) mpg*

*4292 lbs Cadillac CTS-V w/6-spd Automatic

Edited by dwightlooi
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the N62 V8 is dead, so all BMW V8s are the N63/S63 twin turbo moving forward (aside from the M3). It makes sense because it is one basic structure with 2 levels of tuning that can be used in any vehicle. Which makes more sense than 4.8, 5.3, 6.0, 6.2, 7.0 liter V8s, and 6.2L supercharged, and the Northstar (FWD and RWD versions). And BMW's V12 is similar in design to the V8, so they can spread that technology across multiple engines and product lines. GM can't spread pushrod V8 technology into a V6, because pushrod V6s are pretty much a thing of the past, I think only the Impala and Lucerne still use one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the N62 V8 is dead, so all BMW V8s are the N63/S63 twin turbo moving forward (aside from the M3). It makes sense because it is one basic structure with 2 levels of tuning that can be used in any vehicle. Which makes more sense than 4.8, 5.3, 6.0, 6.2, 7.0 liter V8s, and 6.2L supercharged, and the Northstar (FWD and RWD versions). And BMW's V12 is similar in design to the V8, so they can spread that technology across multiple engines and product lines. GM can't spread pushrod V8 technology into a V6, because pushrod V6s are pretty much a thing of the past, I think only the Impala and Lucerne still use one.

No, but GM can spread ONE 5.5 liter Push Rod V8 with different tunings, with or sans a supercharger across the entire V8 lineup. In fact, that's what I am advocating. BMW is not replacing the Inline Sixes with the N63 or its derivatives either.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the N62 V8 is dead, so all BMW V8s are the N63/S63 twin turbo moving forward (aside from the M3). It makes sense because it is one basic structure with 2 levels of tuning that can be used in any vehicle. Which makes more sense than 4.8, 5.3, 6.0, 6.2, 7.0 liter V8s, and 6.2L supercharged, and the Northstar (FWD and RWD versions). And BMW's V12 is similar in design to the V8, so they can spread that technology across multiple engines and product lines. GM can't spread pushrod V8 technology into a V6, because pushrod V6s are pretty much a thing of the past, I think only the Impala and Lucerne still use one.

Let me repeat again. The quantity of trucks that GM sells can make them afford multiple V8s development costs to be spread around and the car V-8's are nothing but more profit on the investment for truck V8.

GM's trucks alone sell more than BMW, MB, Audi and Lexus combined volume of vehicles in NA. The number of V8's these car company's sell is less than 25% of what the GM trucks sell with V8's. Yes truckers need more than one V-8 given the requirements.

Let us not make BMW and GM comparison.

If BMW is such a hallow company why is it sharing the V-8 of its vanilla 5 series with an M5? M5 should deserve a separate engine don't you think so? BMW's latest quest of saving money and charging off the ying-yang will make them go to the brink. The more I look at BMW the more the brand is losing its focus and living on its perception it has created in the media. Another company came crashing down on that perception. I do not want GM to follow that route.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me repeat again. The quantity of trucks that GM sells can make them afford multiple V8s development costs to be spread around and the car V-8's are nothing but more profit on the investment for truck V8.

GM's trucks alone sell more than BMW, MB, Audi and Lexus combined volume of vehicles in NA. The number of V8's these car company's sell is less than 25% of what the GM trucks sell with V8's. Yes truckers need more than one V-8 given the requirements.

Let us not make BMW and GM comparison.

If BMW is such a hallow company why is it sharing the V-8 of its vanilla 5 series with an M5? M5 should deserve a separate engine don't you think so? BMW's latest quest of saving money and charging off the ying-yang will make them go to the brink. The more I look at BMW the more the brand is losing its focus and living on its perception it has created in the media. Another company came crashing down on that perception. I do not want GM to follow that route.

I wouldn't exactly call the 550i vanilla, it is a 400 hp car that will do 0-60 in 4.7 seconds. Plus the 2011 model is bursting with techno-gadgets. The M5 will have 578 hp, so a little extra pop over the X6/X5 M. But the M5 isn't just about the engine, it is about the aluminum body panels and carbon fiber roof as well. The BMW V8 shares a lot with the BMW/RR Ghost V12, plus double vanos, valvetronic, direct injection, etc are shared on every engine they make.

Hyundai spent $300 million on a V8 to put in the Genesis and Equus, I know they didn't spend that much to just make 20,000 engines a year. That technology is going to spread to 4 and 6 cylinders. You can't just have high tech on one engine line, you need it on the 4, 6, and 8 cylinder engines.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't exactly call the 550i vanilla, it is a 400 hp car that will do 0-60 in 4.7 seconds. Plus the 2011 model is bursting with techno-gadgets. The M5 will have 578 hp, so a little extra pop over the X6/X5 M. But the M5 isn't just about the engine, it is about the aluminum body panels and carbon fiber roof as well. The BMW V8 shares a lot with the BMW/RR Ghost V12, plus double vanos, valvetronic, direct injection, etc are shared on every engine they make.

Hyundai spent $300 million on a V8 to put in the Genesis and Equus, I know they didn't spend that much to just make 20,000 engines a year. That technology is going to spread to 4 and 6 cylinders. You can't just have high tech on one engine line, you need it on the 4, 6, and 8 cylinder engines.

Again let me rephrase. Apart from the plumbing of the turbo, what is different between the vanilla 5er V8 and the M5 V8? I am not talking about the technology in the car in the thread dedicated for the engines. M's core proncipal has always been about the engine if you look into the history a little deeper. None of the M engines were shared with the vanilla BMWs until now. Just like you harp about the Cadillac sharing 6.2L with the Chevy trucks, to me it is the same analogy for the vanilla 5 V8 and M5 V8. BMW is no different than GM when it comes to bean counters then. New BMW is diluting the M philosophy to make money. What exceptional thing does the turbo M5 V8 bring to the table like the previous V10? Zilch.

As for the Hyundai, I will reverse your hypothesis. Hyundai spent additional $300M to make V8's based on their V-6 and 4 cylinders so that the development of 20,000 V8s could be subsidized.

GM has volume for the V8 and it can justify an independent V8 development while getting thorough returns for its development.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0