GM Powertrain Unveils 3.6-Liter VVT Engine With DI

[Robert Hall]

I agree.....time will tell.  I don't want the pushrod 3.9L either....

An entry-level 3.6L HF V6 could provide a nice, lower-cost alternative to cars like the 350Z and the G35 Coupe even...

Yes, I'd like to see this also, but knowing GM, they are going to try and do it on the cheap and use their old-school engines...they will probably dumb it down and use a 4-spd auto and 5-spd manual.

[Northstar]

I doubt it will have a 4-speed auto. GM should be over to 6-speeds in everything but entry-level (sub-$15k) cars.

[enzl]

Gotta do this one right, the first time...It's an overall execution thing in my opinion...I think the entry level V6 could be pushrod without too much crying...

If the Camaro comes in under 3500lbs...(which it should in base form), then a 220-250 hp base motor is fine.

The key Camaros will be the variety of v8...the sixes in either Mustangs or Camaros were always sold as 'secretaries specials' on some level...

It's gotta handle, look right and have a decent quality story...hopefully, Lutz can keep this one on the straight & narrow.

[RBB]

Question for everyone - why doesn't the media rip Ford for using a LIVE AXLE rear suspension in the Mustang? Talk about ancient...

Ideally, GM would have an OHC engine with DI and VVT as the base engine. However, I'm OK with the 3.9L "Cam-in-Block" VVT engine as the base, as it's gotten pretty favorable reviews by the car mags.

If it has good torque and doesn't sound like it's going to fly apart when revved over 4 grand, then it will be fine.

-RBB

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

just wondering... are there any plans for DI on the HV engines? because that would lend a ~280hp 3.9L engine, then throw on the proverbial 3v tech and you should have about 300hp.

[ToniCipriani]

Question for everyone - why doesn't the media rip Ford for using a LIVE AXLE rear suspension in the Mustang?  Talk about ancient...

They did. Top Gear was talking about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CTIxykcTH8

[MyerShift]

If they have to use old engines, is it better to do this than not build a Camaro at all?  Remember, GM is fighting for survival and this is supposed to be a cheap, low-profit model..

Umm, don't you mean high-profit?

It'd be stupid of GM to do a cheap AND low-profit vehicle.

A car like the Camaro is supposed to generate great revenues for its cost.

[bcs296]

What are they gonna do to get the V6s to 350HP? They might be able to make them more high-strung, but that's not going to be beneficial for daily driving.

Well that's a rather poor way to think about the situation. I bet there were plenty of people 20 years ago who said "What are car companies going to do to get 300hp out of a 6 cylinder?"

It used to be that 300hp was reserved only for V8's and 200hp was limited to V6's.

Now we have I4's with a minimum of ~150hp and climbing all the way to 250+. You can't deny technology, especially with the way Toyota is spending its money to advance it.

[RBB]

They did. Top Gear was talking about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CTIxykcTH8

Top Gear ripping on an American car? Shocking!

-RBB

[Robert Hall]

Umm, don't you mean high-profit?

It'd be stupid of GM to do a cheap AND low-profit vehicle.

A car like the Camaro is supposed to generate great revenues for its cost.

Well, given the cost of engineering this new platform (albeit shared with other Zeta-based upcoming models), and low projected volume and low prices needed to compete with the Mustang, I don't see how it could be a high-profit vehicle...

[Drew Dowdell]

Well that's a rather poor way to think about the situation. I bet there were plenty of people 20 years ago who said "What are car companies going to do to get 300hp out of a 6 cylinder?"

Or not...

[Satty]

The Camaro is not going to be a high profit vehicle, its not going to single handidly bring GM back into the black, its sole reason for being is to.....satisfy Camaro enthusiasts I guess. So dont be surprised when GM cheaps out on this and that, 3.9 over 3.6, 4-speed auto over 6-speed auto, and a dozen or so little things could mean the difference between losing money on the car (and making it more likely to be dropped when sales fall after the first year or two) and making money on it.

[Drew Dowdell]

The Camaro is not going to be a high profit vehicle, its not going to single handidly bring GM back into the black, its sole reason for being is to.....satisfy Camaro enthusiasts I guess.  So dont be surprised when GM cheaps out on this and that, 3.9 over 3.6, 4-speed auto over 6-speed auto, and a dozen or so little things could mean the difference between losing money on the car (and making it more likely to be dropped when sales fall after the first year or two) and making money on it.

If the platform is used elsewhere, I don't see why Camaro couldn't be at least slightly profitable. If the Mustang is profitable because it shares parts with the LS and S-type, can't the Camaro be profitable if it shares it's naughty bits with the admitedly more bread and butter <than the LS/S-type> Impala, G8, and Invicta?

[sciguy_0504]

Question for everyone - why doesn't the media rip Ford for using a LIVE AXLE rear suspension in the Mustang?  Talk about ancient...

Ideally, GM would have an OHC engine with DI and VVT as the base engine.  However, I'm OK with the 3.9L "Cam-in-Block" VVT engine as the base, as it's gotten pretty favorable reviews by the car mags.

If it has good torque and doesn't sound like it's going to fly apart when revved over 4 grand, then it will be fine.

-RBB

I remember when the new Mustang came out every review mentioned the live axle and how it was old school. No one was really harsh on it but you could tell the reviewers would have liked to see IRS.

[regfootball]

The Camaro is not going to be a high profit vehicle, its not going to single handidly bring GM back into the black, its sole reason for being is to.....satisfy Camaro enthusiasts I guess.  So dont be surprised when GM cheaps out on this and that, 3.9 over 3.6, 4-speed auto over 6-speed auto, and a dozen or so little things could mean the difference between losing money on the car (and making it more likely to be dropped when sales fall after the first year or two) and making money on it.

basically its this, GM has proven countless times, time and time again, that they will go cheap and skimp out on content whenever they think they can screw the customer over on it. if they can even POSSIBLY get by with some cost cutting or lazy decision, that's what they do. Except for a Corvette etc. The only other aside is that they simply cannot motivate and get into action fast enough. example....the GXP G6, they are 2 years past intro on getting the 3.6 into it and THEN, when they do, they still don't have the manual set up for it, even though anyone who is considering buying that car with a stick wants the 3.6, not the 3.9. THEN, they claim its because there is no stick that can work with it, except its brother, the Saab v6, has a manual tranny that will probably bolt right up to it. So they flat out lie, to cover up being cheap.

Here's what will happen. GM will take its sweet time getting Camaro to market. THEN, they will cheap out on all sorts of content for the first two years, for various reasons, lazy, can't move fast enough, would rather pay for pricey union labor, old farts in charge....whatever they typically do. Then will lie their ass off to explain why the kick ass gorgeous new Camaro v6 is getting its ass spanked by a Mitsubishi Eclipse v6 or a VW GTI.

meh. its a sad tale, told over and over. this is their chance to wow us out of the box with a great v8 AND a great v6. they'll fk it up. I'm convinced of it.

Edited May 23, 2006 by regfootball

[RBB]

I remember when the new Mustang came out every review mentioned the live axle and how it was old school.  No one was really harsh on it but you could tell the reviewers would have liked to see IRS.

I remember that, too. But, the point is they liked it anyway - it wasn't the death knell. They said it was weird they went that way, but that it handled fine.

Again, preferably (to me, anyway) GM would do away with OHV engines altogether - in their sedans. But, if it revs as sweetly and is as torquey as the initial reviews of the Maxx SS and the G6 GTP indicate, then I don't see that it will be a problem, especially given the muscle-car fanatics/secrataries that will be the primary demographic. \

I doubt many people will be cross-shopping these with Civic Sis.

-RBB

[The O.C.]

Again, preferably (to me, anyway) GM would do away with OHV engines altogether  - in their sedans.  But, if it revs as sweetly and is as torquey as the initial reviews of the Maxx SS and the G6 GTP indicate, then I don't see that it will be a problem, especially given the muscle-car fanatics/secrataries that will be the primary demographic.  \

-RBB

I've driven a 3.9L in a G6 GTP, a MC LTZ, and an Impala LTZ and it doesn't rev any more "sweetly" than any other GM pushrod V6 has....

The engine was pretty impressive in the MC....but not really at all in the G6 or Impala...for which I can't explain.....other than the MC being a couple hundred pounds lighter than the Impala....

But at the end of the day, it hangs on to (rough-sounding) revs close to redline on acceleration, and groans and moans while getting there.....that's not to mention the vibration felt through the gearshift and steering wheel at idle with the car in gear. The 4-speed auto just makes the problem worse....

I HOPE that GM just banishes the pushrod V6s for the new Camaro.....but logic (unfortunately) tells me that they won't.....

[aldw]

The only way the pushrod V6s will go bye bye completely will be if GM decides to make the HF V6s their standard V6, otherwise it will just keep showing up again and again. At least the six speeds will be used for fuel economy and standardized production.

[titan]

This is great news. The 3.6-Liter VVT Engine With DI should be the standard V6 in every Buick and Caddy V6 application. 307HP for Caddy, 295HP for Buick. Similarly, Caddy should get a V8 pronto rivaling the LS's 4.6L V8 making 380HP. Again, Buick should get a version of it, detuned 10-15HP.

[Blu Angel]

I think 200,000 by the end of 2008 is okay. The Zetas won't come on strong until 2009, so that means they should still be getting the DI. Also, note that it says 1 out of every 6 vehicles by 2010, so I assume that means trucks and SUVs too; I wouldn't expect many trucks or SUVs to get the DI except for the SRX and the Lambdas, so really its 1 out of every 2 1/2 cars probably. I'm guessing Aveos, most Cobalts, some Malibus, and most stuff that still has OHV V6s by then will not get DI.

The 200k by the end of 2008 probably means the CTS, possibly SRX and STS, and Holdens. What's important is the 1 out of every 6 statement in NA by 2010.

I'm wondering if the oft-rumoured Equinox SS/Pontiac Torrent GT twins will be getting this upgraded DI 3.6 VVT. Someone remarked that this will be a 2008 model release coming onstream in July 2007. So, my question is whether this engine will find its way into the Theta twins? i want one!