Jump to content
dwightlooi

Gen V - Pushrod Engines for the Future

  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Poll:

    • Gen V is a Good Idea
    • Gen V is a Bad Idea


Recommended Posts

Generation V - Pushrods for the Future

genvpc.gif

genvtk.gif

The pushrod layout is chosen for the following reasons:-

o In the interest of fuel economy, engines should have minimum internal friction.

o In the interest of fuel economy, it is better to decrease cylinder count than to decrease displacement.

o In the interest of performance, engines should have best in class power-to-weight ratios.

o In the interest of packaging, engines should have best in class power-to-size (external dimension) ratios.

o Advanced Technology like Direct Injection, Independent VVT and roller followers can be applied to pushrod engines

Gen V 6.2 V8s have the highest power-to-weight and power-to-size (external dimensions) of any mass production V8 in their power class. They also have the lowest fuel consumption in their power class. Gen V 4.7 liter V6es replaces the 4.2 liter I6, 4.8 liter V8 & 5.3 liter V8 with a physically more compact engine that boasts similar power and torque output while reducing fuel consumption. The Gen V pushrod four cylinder is essentially a V8 with one bank of cylinders. It replaces the DOHC 2.9L Inline four with an engine with both improved performance and enhanced fuel economy. All Gen V engines can be manufactured on the same production line using shared tooling and assembly procedures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine that 6.2 wouldn't be the only displacement available for the car engines? (5.5L is still the number I see thrown around the most)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why would you bother with a pushrod 6 and 4

Developed on their own, no. They are not worth the effort. But as derivatives of a V8 they are a relatively low cost means of getting a big displacement six or a big displacement four. The intent is that a 3.1 liter pushrod four may be a better engine than the current 2.4 liter DOHC four, 2.9 liter DOHC four or 3.0 DOHC V6 when used in light trucks. The 3.1 liter four promises over 210 lb-ft of torque and should have better economy numbers than a 3.0 liter V6. Similarly, a 4.7 liter V6 offers the same basic performance and towing capabilties as today's 5.3 V8 while possibly offering fuel economy number close to that of a 3.6 liter DOHC V6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you do a 6.0L V8 for the trucks that would translate to a 4.5L V6 and a 3.0L I4 that would sound better and space apart better also. I thought of this 4.5L V6 as a replacement for the aging 4.3L V6 long ago as they came out with today's 6.0L SB. I like your idea of a OHV I4 also and as a new and compact line of truck engines they could work great. For car usage I could also see a 5.5L V8 both supercharged and not and with it a premium 6.0L 3VPC version specially tuned for smoothness and quietness for Cadillac. And thinking beyond that and to offer Cadillac a unique line of engines do a premium 4.5L 3VPC V6 version for them also as a more torquey and most likely more efficient with AFM replacement for the 3.6L V6. Let Cadillac be something unique and be powered by something unique from other GM brands.---Again I like the way you think!!;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you do a 6.0L V8 for the trucks that would translate to a 4.5L V6 and a 3.0L I4 that would sound better and space apart better also. I thought of this 4.5L V6 as a replacement for the aging 4.3L V6 long ago as they came out with today's 6.0L SB. I like your idea of a OHV I4 also and as a new and compact line of truck engines they could work great. For car usage I could also see a 5.5L V8 both supercharged and not and with it a premium 6.0L 3VPC version specially tuned for smoothness and quietness for Cadillac. And thinking beyond that and to offer Cadillac a unique line of engines do a premium 4.5L 3VPC V6 version for them also as a more torquey and most likely more efficient with AFM replacement for the 3.6L V6. Let Cadillac be something unique and be powered by something unique from other GM brands.---Again I like the way you think!!;)

Thought about that. But, if we are going for maximum commonality and have to share a single bore & stroke, the logic goes that a pushrod V8's architectural advantage is the greatest when displacement is maximized. The same thing goes for V6es and I4s when it comes to fuel economy.

Actually, the original "Passenger Car" table has three columns. There was originally a V8 just for Caddy exclusively. This has a traditional cross plane crank, dual VVT, DI, Cylinder De-activation and a BALANCE SHAFT under the high mounted camshaft to damp out residual end to end vibration on cross plane V8s. This is the "Serene V8" and it should make about 430~450 hp. Vette and Camaro SSes were supposed to get a more ranchous V8 making 480 hp NA. This has cylinder de-activation deleted and uses a flat plane crank with no balancer! I decided that it is one too many engine and a compromised "universal 6.2" may be a better idea.

Edited by dwightlooi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the 4.3L certainly should be replaced, but 10% bigger?

i do see why you want to simplify it all, but wouldn't just alittle modification be needed to update the 3.5/3.9L block, and give 280+hp in a ~3.9 variant and be inherently smoother with the 60 degree bank?

the perception of the OHV 4 seems like you'd have to show a REAL benefit over ohc engines, not 1 mpg but more, show it's smoother, ... sounds like it'll have more power.

i know you've adressed it several times, any advantage for moving forward with a 3valve design?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the 4.3L certainly should be replaced, but 10% bigger?

i do see why you want to simplify it all, but wouldn't just alittle modification be needed to update the 3.5/3.9L block, and give 280+hp in a ~3.9 variant and be inherently smoother with the 60 degree bank?

the perception of the OHV 4 seems like you'd have to show a REAL benefit over ohc engines, not 1 mpg but more, show it's smoother, ... sounds like it'll have more power.

i know you've adressed it several times, any advantage for moving forward with a 3valve design?

(1) If you have a 60 deg V6, it is a separate engine line. The reason 90 deg V6es exists for the most parts is because it can be built together with the 90 deg V8s. Once the 3.5 and 3.9 retires, an all 90 deg lineup simplifies production and logistics.

(2) A 3.1 liter Pushrod-4 will not be smoother than an OHC design, although it won't be any worse than a 2.9~3.1 liter class SOHC or DOHC four. It won't be dramatically more efficient than a 2.9 DOHC either and may in fact be less economical than a SOHC 8v four of the same displacement. It will however be more efficient than a 3.0 liter six and that is it's mission. And, with dual balancers, it is livable in terms of vibrations, especially since it is used exclusively in entry level trucks. If you ever want to experience a 3 liter four you can try out a Colorado with the 2.9 I-4 or... heh... a Porsche 968 (or late production 944) if you can find one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you should have kept the Cadillac "serene" V8 being they need it badly in there lineup. With the death of the Northstar and the CTS needing something between the V6 models and the V series along with an engine for the upcoming large Cadillac beyond the XTS its needed. And with the worries about fuel economy a smaller displacement and supercharged version could be done like todays 6.2L is at say 5.0L's and 475-500HP for the Vette and top Camaro. And I still like the idea of a related large capacity V6 version for Cadillac more premium in scope then the truck version. Like the OHV Bentley 6.75L V8 thats continually refined and developed a refined,quiet and torquey Cadillac OHV line of engines would be majestic and unique in the luxury car market. Some people would scoff at an OHV Cadillac engine thinking DOHC is superior until they drove one and felt its surge of low end torque that would be uniquely American in nature as Cadillac should be. I like you believe there is still a place for the venerable OHV tech using modern DI AFM ect in more then only trucks and Cadillac would be that place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why would you bother with a pushrod 6 and 4

Or a pushrod 8 for that matter. The cylinder count doesn't matter, more cams and valves is better than less cams and valves.

Plus we already know the next generation V8 is a 5.5 liter with 430-440 hp for the Corvette, thus probably 400ish for the trucks if it is geared more for torque. So most of these engine options probably won't exist, the CTS-V, Z06 and ZR1 will probably just have a supercharged 5.5 liter.

The XTS is front drive, so a V8 is pointless there (that is like an 06 Impala SS). Then you have to wonder if the next generation CTS and Camaro being on Alpha, if they will stick with V6 and turbo V6 engines. GM is moving away from V8s on larger car platforms, will they put one on a small car platform?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cadillac without a DOHC V8 is dead, even Hyundai has one, and they have a second version with 425 hp coming next year.

If GM needs torque and fuel economy for the pickups, diesel is the way to go. Why mess around with pushrod derivatives of an old engine design, making 4.7 liter engines with 300 lb-ft when a 3.0 liter diesel can make 425 lb-ft. The Jaguar XF diesel puts out 442 lb-ft, that is better than GM's 6.2 liter V8. And the 6.2 V8 can't get 35 mpg on the highway.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cadillac without a DOHC V8 is dead, even Hyundai has one, and they have a second version with 425 hp coming next year.

If GM needs torque and fuel economy for the pickups, diesel is the way to go. Why mess around with pushrod derivatives of an old engine design, making 4.7 liter engines with 300 lb-ft when a 3.0 liter diesel can make 425 lb-ft. The Jaguar XF diesel puts out 442 lb-ft, that is better than GM's 6.2 liter V8. And the 6.2 V8 can't get 35 mpg on the highway.

It is not what GM needs for pickups, or what Hyundai does or does not have.

It is that GM ought to consider an engine that is:-

  • Physically more compact and lighter than a DOHC engine of similar output.
  • More Economical than a DOHC engine of similar output.
  • Is unique to GM.
  • Can be applied across a wide array of applications.

No, a 6.2 V8 will not get 35 MPG. Neither will DOHC designs including Toyota's 4.6, Hyundai's 4.6, BMW's 4.4 (turbo), Mercedes' 5.5, Ford's 5.0, Audi's 4.2, Nissan's 5.6. A 6.2 Pushrod V8 however can have MPG numbers that is slightly BETTER than the best of these engines, and significantly better than some of them.

The only argument against a pushrod engine is that it is somewhat low tech and uncivil. A design using dual VVT, direct injection and cylinder deactivation is not low tech. And, if you successfully benchmark a Bentley 6.75 liter Pushrod V8 you are pretty darn civil.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That "serene" V8's 450HP and 432FT,LB of Torque would be out right killer compared to its competitors as would a 335HP and 315T large yet efficient serene V6 with the same Bore/Stroke! Cadillac would be KING for years to come when it comes to power without the cost of a new,expensive and less efficient DOHC V8 while letting Buick and Chevrolet use the 3.0L-3.6L HFV6. Return Cadillac to something uniquely American in focus and purpose with this new SERENE Engine line!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll again advocate a separate engine exclusively for Cadillac- the segment demands it. I strongly support the 'Serene V8' proposal (different name, tho ;) ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll again advocate a separate engine exclusively for Cadillac- the segment demands it. I strongly support the 'Serene V8' proposal (different name, tho ;) ).

LOL... how about the Cadillac "Symphony V8"

Cruising along at 1600 rpm at 60mph -- riding on roller rockers and roller lifters, with direct injection metering fuel, dual concentric VVT trimming out the overlap, dual length runners routing air through the long runners and (as a first among contemporary V8s) a single contra-rotating balancer damping out residual end-to-end rock of a 90 deg cross plane engine -- there isn't a lot to hear or feel though.

Edited by dwightlooi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not what GM needs for pickups, or what Hyundai does or does not have.

It is that GM ought to consider an engine that is:-

  • Physically more compact and lighter than a DOHC engine of similar output.
  • More Economical than a DOHC engine of similar output.
  • Is unique to GM.
  • Can be applied across a wide array of applications.

The only argument against a pushrod engine is that it is somewhat low tech and uncivil. A design using dual VVT, direct injection and cylinder deactivation is not low tech. And, if you successfully benchmark a Bentley 6.75 liter Pushrod V8 you are pretty darn civil.

On the first point, then why not a pushrod V6 or a pushrod I4. A pushrod V6 would have smaller dimensions than a DOHC V6, and it would also be unique to GM. No one here can make an argument that a pushrod V6 is better than the 3.6 DI Cadillac uses, or the 3.7 liter Infiniti V6. The argument doesn't change for V8s, DOHC is still superior.

The Bentley V8 is a dinosaur that gets 12 mpg, and struggles to pass emissions standards. It is a torque monster, but the redline is also around 4500 rpm, and compare the Bentley 6.75 liter V8 to Merc's AMG V12. The Mercedes V12 matches it in torque and beats it by a big margin in hp. Bentley makes the fastest trucks around, but Cadillac isn't competing against them, they are competing against Lexus, BMW and Mercedes (or are supposed to be).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mercedes V-12 is a dinosaur that gets 11 MPG and struggles to pass emissions. It's days are also numbered as mercedes limits future installations.

Biggest problem by far is dressing a $200K, 600HP V12 sedan in the exact same trim as the $87K, 295HP V6 sedan. Cheap, very cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mercedes V-12 is a dinosaur that gets 11 MPG and struggles to pass emissions. It's days are also numbered as mercedes limits future installations.

Biggest problem by far is dressing a $200K, 600HP V12 sedan in the exact same trim as the $87K, 295HP V6 sedan. Cheap, very cheap.

What is cheap about it? The trim isn't exactly the same, there are more options and features, plus upgraded leather, different seats, suede headliner, upgraded brakes, wheels, etc. There is more interior difference in an S65 and an S400 hybrid than there is in a base Corvette and a ZR-1. Percentage wise, the ZR-1 and base Corvette are farther apart than an S65 and a base S-class, and at least the S-class adds equipment and upgrades the interior. The ZR-1 adds head up display and some leather on the dash to replace the Cobalt level plastic that normally lives there.

The Bentley V8 is going on 60 years of usage, that is a dinosaur. And I am a Bentley fan (of real Bentleys anyway, not the phony Audi A8 Bentleys). Mercedes has been making V12s for 20 years, and the S65's V12 is in its 7th year. And that engine may leave soon, but I'm sure AMG will come up with something good for the future. Plus that is what this thread is about, a future GM engine, and how the 5.3 and 6.2 liter V8s are going to get replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is cheap about it? The trim isn't exactly the same, there are more options and features, plus upgraded leather, different seats, suede headliner, upgraded brakes, wheels, etc. There is more interior difference in an S65 and an S400 hybrid than there is in a base Corvette and a ZR-1. Percentage wise, the ZR-1 and base Corvette are farther apart than an S65 and a base S-class, and at least the S-class adds equipment and upgrades the interior. The ZR-1 adds head up display and some leather on the dash to replace the Cobalt level plastic that normally lives there.

Mercedes-Benz's own website says and shows otherwise. Only interior option you can get on the S600/S65 that isn't available on the S400 is the upgraded leather. AMG upgrades on the S65 are, well, obvious.

Also, about the percentages...

The ZR1 is 218% the price of the base Corvette coupe.

The S65 AMG is 228% the price of the S400 Hybrid.

The Bentley V8 is going on 60 years of usage, that is a dinosaur. And I am a Bentley fan (of real Bentleys anyway, not the phony Audi A8 Bentleys). Mercedes has been making V12s for 20 years, and the S65's V12 is in its 7th year. And that engine may leave soon, but I'm sure AMG will come up with something good for the future. Plus that is what this thread is about, a future GM engine, and how the 5.3 and 6.2 liter V8s are going to get replaced.

Then why are you arguing (incorrectly) about differences in interiors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you use a loaded ZR-1 which is $120,000, then the ZR-1 is a 245% increase over the base car. Where as the S65 has no options. So the gap from absolute base model to top end is still greater on the Corvette. But every car maker does essentially the same thing, offering upgraded of special versions of the basic car, that is where the profit is.

But balthazar brings up a good point, Mercedes charges $90k for a 295 hp V6 sedan. Cadillac could build a sedan with 600 hp and not get $90k for it. Cadillac has to do more to break away from mainstream GM, otherwise they are no different than Lincoln or Acura. Part of that breaking away is not using the same engine in the Silverado.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the first point, then why not a pushrod V6 or a pushrod I4. A pushrod V6 would have smaller dimensions than a DOHC V6, and it would also be unique to GM. No one here can make an argument that a pushrod V6 is better than the 3.6 DI Cadillac uses, or the 3.7 liter Infiniti V6. The argument doesn't change for V8s, DOHC is still superior.

The Bentley V8 is a dinosaur that gets 12 mpg, and struggles to pass emissions standards. It is a torque monster, but the redline is also around 4500 rpm, and compare the Bentley 6.75 liter V8 to Merc's AMG V12. The Mercedes V12 matches it in torque and beats it by a big margin in hp. Bentley makes the fastest trucks around, but Cadillac isn't competing against them, they are competing against Lexus, BMW and Mercedes (or are supposed to be).

Actually, there are advantages to a Pushrod V6 over a DOHC V6. These being that, like a pushrod V6, it is smaller and lighter than a DOHC V6 of similar output and it can have better fuel economy through comparatively lower internal friction. The reason DOHC I4s and DOHC V6es are preferred are three fold. The first being the fact that many countries tax vehicles based on displacement. DOHC engines have higher specific output -- that is, they have higher horsepower and torque numbers per unit displacement. It is advantageous for most economy cars and family haulers to be taxed less while offering a given amount of power. The second being that I4s and V6es, unlike I6es and 90 deg V8s are not well balanced unless additional measures are taken to balance them via balancer shaft(s). The problem with balance gets worse with increased reciprocating mass and stroke. This tends to get worse with displacement. Hence, with V6es and I4s civility tends to suffer worse than with V8s if you adopt a big displacement solution (pushrod or not). This is why really big engines tend to be I6es, V8s or V12s -- the first and last having perfect natural balancer and the V8 being very well balanced simply through the use of a cross plane crank and heavy counter weights because the pistons on the other bank balances the counterweights. Lastly, one of the biggest reasons for a pushrod layout is superior compactness in a 90 deg V8 because the heads are very compact and narrow compared to DOHC designs. In an I4 there is no packaging advantage whatsoever. In a 60 deg V6 the advantage is much less significant because a 60 deg engine is already narrow.

None of the above are particularly important for light trucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the first point, then why not a pushrod V6 or a pushrod I4. A pushrod V6 would have smaller dimensions than a DOHC V6, and it would also be unique to GM. No one here can make an argument that a pushrod V6 is better than the 3.6 DI Cadillac uses, or the 3.7 liter Infiniti V6. The argument doesn't change for V8s, DOHC is still superior.

The Bentley V8 is a dinosaur that gets 12 mpg, and struggles to pass emissions standards. It is a torque monster, but the redline is also around 4500 rpm, and compare the Bentley 6.75 liter V8 to Merc's AMG V12. The Mercedes V12 matches it in torque and beats it by a big margin in hp. Bentley makes the fastest trucks around, but Cadillac isn't competing against them, they are competing against Lexus, BMW and Mercedes (or are supposed to be).

I think the argument does change for a V8.

DOHC engines have larger frictional losses.

Another 2 cylinders adds a whole lot of parts.

Heck it's another 8 valves!

A lot of it is perception and pointless numbers like "hp/liter".

Even the fuel efficiency ratings are bs, my "archaic" pushrod V6 has been earning me 28 mpg combined.

By new government standards it's rated at 21 mpg combined. Around town accelerating 2000-2500 rpm is a breeze

thanks to the availability of low end torque. Add the fact that a 115 km/h cruise is done at 2000 rpms. A lot of

crap is perception man. Don't get me wrong, the pushrods of yesteryear were generally out-dated, mine included. However, by no means is it

not possible to have a pushrod engine that makes good power and achieves good mileage. GM just hasn't put in the time or money to do so.

To be completely honest, look at the DI 2.4, my 10+ year old V6 gets simular power, more torque and by my personal experience, better mileage.

However the mileage is really subjective to driving habits, push the V6 hard and beat on it all the time it's going to waste more gas. This is just comparing an engine

that was designed and barely changed from the early 90's all the way to the late 2000's to one that's revered as one of the better engines of today.

This isn't a knock on the 2.4 but rather trends I've been noticing. Lets get the same power and mileage of a V6, but with an I4 and somehow it's a good thing...

Either way, a lot of things are perception, but the reality is GM has to follow the herd because there will always be people who turn away over stupid crap like this.

Then again, I personally wouldn't complain, and an engine (IBC or SOHC, DOHC etc) has never caused me to turn away because of it's configuration. More like things such as

power curves, sound (I like my engines throaty), mileage etc.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the argument does change for a V8.

DOHC engines have larger frictional losses.

Another 2 cylinders adds a whole lot of parts.

Heck it's another 8 valves!

A lot of it is perception and pointless numbers like "hp/liter".

Even the fuel efficiency ratings are bs, my "archaic" pushrod V6 has been earning me 28 mpg combined.

By new government standards it's rated at 21 mpg combined. Around town accelerating 2000-2500 rpm is a breeze

thanks to the availability of low end torque. Add the fact that a 115 km/h cruise is done at 2000 rpms. A lot of

crap is perception man. Don't get me wrong, the pushrods of yesteryear were generally out-dated, mine included. However, by no means is it

not possible to have a pushrod engine that makes good power and achieves good mileage. GM just hasn't put in the time or money to do so.

To be completely honest, look at the DI 2.4, my 10+ year old V6 gets simular power, more torque and by my personal experience, better mileage.

However the mileage is really subjective to driving habits, push the V6 hard and beat on it all the time it's going to waste more gas. This is just comparing an engine

that was designed and barely changed from the early 90's all the way to the late 2000's to one that's revered as one of the better engines of today.

This isn't a knock on the 2.4 but rather trends I've been noticing. Lets get the same power and mileage of a V6, but with an I4 and somehow it's a good thing...

Either way, a lot of things are perception, but the reality is GM has to follow the herd because there will always be people who turn away over stupid crap like this.

Then again, I personally wouldn't complain, and an engine (IBC or SOHC, DOHC etc) has never caused me to turn away because of it's configuration. More like things such as

power curves, sound (I like my engines throaty), mileage etc.

I think one point that most people are missing is this...

  • An engine's breathing ability has very little, if anything, to do with fuel economy!

Sounds counter intuitive? Not really.

Let's look at it this way. Picture yourself moving a plunger inside a syringe. An engine's cylinder is similar. The small hole on top of the syringe causes resistance as you try to pump air in and out with the plunger. If you cut off the top of the syringe such that it is essentially an open ended cylinder, you'll have perfect volumetric efficiency -- perfect breathing with no restrictions -- and the only resistance comes from the friction between the plunger and the walls. Now picture a DOHC 4-valve engine as one with a bigger hole on top and a push rod 2-valve engine as one with a smaller hole. Naturally, as you work the plunger the syringe with a bigger hole has less resistance. In an engine this translate to lower pumping losses, more air being aspirated and more power! However, this is under wide open throttle conditions!

Now... picture attaching a rubber tube to both syringes and pinching the tube to constrict flow. That is exactly what the throttle plate does at all driving conditions except when you are flooring it. Therefore, at cruise and under moderate driving conditions, any intake restriction not present in the intake and through the valves is intentionally introduced by the throttle body! If your car doesn't do this, it needs to be recalled for a "stuck accelerator pedal". Therefor intake side restrictions of any engine typically does not introduce additional pumping losses at cruise and does not impact fuel economy.

Now, we are talking about intake restictions of course. On the exhasut side there is no throttle plate. However, exhaust under pressure self-aspirate quite easily even through one valve or valves with less opening. And, exhaust restrictions, while ever present typically does not impact power or economy until reasonably high up in the rev range (4000~5000 rpm or so). At cruise and under moderate driving conditions the impact is minimal.

Edited by dwightlooi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem that I have seen throughout the years is larger engined cars 1970's with mid-range gearing was replaced with smaller engined ones 1980's with less efficient lower gearing. Then the 1990's came along and cars got heavier so the smaller engines where replaced with larger ones while keeping the same inefficient gearing. 3.0L V6's became 3.5L V6's and 4.0L V8's became 4.5L's and then in the early 2000's cars got heavier still all the while keeping the same low and inefficient gearing. Only rarely has someone built a mid to large torquey engined car with high gearing allowing the engine to turn slower and in turn be more efficient. The Chevrolet Caprice was one example that had great fuel economy for its size in the real world. Replacing todays DOHC 3.6L V6 in the Cadillac CTS with a slower turning OHV 4.5L-or-4.7L V6 with higher gearing to deliver like performance would be more efficient. The Domestic makes have been to Euro/Asian in there thinking with DOHC and lower gearing and in turn actually lost our efficiency advantage over all. In Asia and Europe they built smaller engines due to tax reasons among others so a lower gearing was needed to make up for the lack of Torque from those smaller engines. DOHC and 4VPC was used again to make up for the engines smaller size and that allowed for higher revving with the lower gearing a prefect match. In our attempting to be like them with our traditionally larger models we have lost what could have been a real world advantage in fuel economy.

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




About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×