Drew Dowdell

Next you post peak power ratings on a handful of engines out of hundreds. I posted GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, and Benz. That easily covers the majority of the market, but since that doesn't satisfy you...Very well, I'll get you the rest. Nissan 3.5 VQ (Maxima) - 300hp @ 6400 RPM - RL 6600 RPM Ford 3.7 (Mustang) - 305hp @ 6500 RPM - RL 6850 RPM (fuel cut off) BMW N52 - 272hp @ 6650 - RL 7000 RPM (Last non-Turbo 6 I could find) the balance advantage of an I-6 over a V6 are pretty clear here though. !!!! Volkswagen 3.6 - 280HP @ 6200 RPM - RL 6000 RPM !!!! So VW is advertising a horsepower rating achieved 200 RPM beyond red-line? Hyundai Lambda 3.8 V6 - 348HP @ 6400 RPM - RL 6750 I've now covered V6es from all of the domestics, the big 3 Japanese, the best Hyundai has to offer (I can't find red-line stats on the Hyundai 3.3, but I doubt it's higher than the 3., and the Germans. Do I need to look up Peugeots and obscure Suzukis too or is this sufficient?

Very good questions. Unfortunately, I only have the data from the power curves that GM provides, and as you say, those are at full throttle. 2500 RPM isn't at all a strain for an OHV engine, it just isn't needed. OHC can get taller top end gears as you say. When you have great low end torque, you can have a taller top gear. The old LT-1 in the Buick Roadmaster would loaf along effortlessly at 65 mph turning only 1,600 rpm. The Passat TDi in 6th gear at 65 will turn only 1,800 rpm. My Honda CR-V runs over 3,000 rpm.

I have qualified all of my statements and you continue to ignore them. I've said multiple times, I'm not talking motorsports, which generally have a displacement limit rather than an engine bay size limit. I've said multiple times, I'm not talking motorsports, where engines generally run in the 8,000 - 12,000 RPM range, completely unsuitable for every day driving. I've said.... in every day cars like an Impala or Camry, both of which will rarely see an RPM over 4,000 and almost never get to red-line unless they've been stolen, that OHV engines offer superior driving in those applications when comparing engines of similar output. Thus, a 240hp OHV V6 will feel to be a more powerful engine than a 240hp DOHC V6. Why? Because the 240hp in the OHV engine is at a more accessible RPM level than the 240hp in the DOHC, 4900 rpm rather than 6900 rpm. If you are going unilaterally to agree to disagree with me, I do wish you'd do me the courtesy of at least reading my posts and the links I include. Of course the area under the curve matters, but so does the generally usable area under the curve. If a particular vehicle never reaches an RPM in general driving, then the area under that part of the curve is irrelevant. Take the GM 4.3 v. the GM 3.6 (GMC Canyon, tuned for better torque) v. the GM 3.6 (Cadillac ATS sedan, tuned for horsepower) At the 4.3's peak power output of 285hp, the engine is turning 5300 rpm. At 5300 rpm in the Canyon's 3.6, the engine is producing 265 lb-ft of torque or 267.42 hp. At 5300 rpm in the ATS's 3.6, the engine is producing no more than 277hp. We know this because the peak torque for the 3.6 is 275 lb-ft. The actual HP number is slightly less, but not significantly so. Score @5300 rpm: 4.3 - 285hp 3.6 Canyon - 267hp 3.6 ATS - 277hp So at 5300 RPM, the 4.3 has more power than the 3.6. But who really drives around at 5300 rpm all the time? How about a more civilized 3,000 rpm? At 3000 RPM the 4.3 produces 280 lb-ft of torque - thus it is producing 160 hp. At 3000 RPM the Canyon's 3.6 produces 252 lb-ft of torque - thus it is producing 143 hp At 3000 RPM the ATS's 3.6 produces 270 lb-ft of torque - thus it is producing 154 hp. So at 3,000 RPM, the 4.3 has more power than the 3.6. How about rather common 2,000 rpm? At 2000 RPM the 4.3 produces 260 lb-ft of torque - thus it is producing 99 hp. At 2000 RPM the Canyon's 3.6 produces 252 lb-ft of torque 93 hp At 2000 RPM the ATS's 3.6 produces 265 lb-ft of torque - thus it is producing 101 hp. At 2000 RPM, the 4.3 and both 3.6's have virtually identical HP. Since you pointed out the area under the curve being more important. In the area under the curve from 2,000rpm to 5,000rpm, where most people spend their time, the 4.3 offers more power. Why would you think the engineers get to make that decision? Marketing made the decision because they want to be able to advertise the "highest horsepower in it's class". As I've already shown, the 4.3 would be a more suitable engine for the Colorado. As you pointed out, in trucks torque is almost always more important than horsepower... and the 4.3 has more torque available under the curve at every point on the RPM band than the 3.6 in the Colorado and in the ATS. In an application like the XTS, which is knocked for being soft on low end torque, a 4.3 would be a better choice. Even if we accept a 9 lb-ft reduction in torque due to transverse mounting (ATS LFX v. XTS LFX), the 4.3 would still be producing 296 lb-ft at peak v. the 264 the 3.6 produces. The material used in the 3900 v. the Honda J engine is irrelevant. There is no reason GM couldn't have used aluminum... thus it was simply an OHV advantage n that GM left on the table rather than a disadvantage of OHV engines in general. Sure I can. The automotive media has notoriously steered or attempted to steer products to their own liking for decades. It is all in subtle phraseology.... "the Pontiac G6 takes a whole 3.9 liters to produce 240 hp from its old tech pushrod V6 while the Honda Accord's new SOHC V6 produces 240 hp from just 3.0 liters" while ignoring that the G6 has more torque and both engines were recent designed and use modern (for the time) tech like VVT - Stuff like that... all hand waving, man-behind the curtain twisting of facts to suit their particular bias. You're relatively new to C&G, but we've documented this kind of stuff in the automotive media for years.... probably for as long as our 14 year existence.

I understand there are plenty of spots of Oshawa now. I see most of the pearl clutching is over Buicks being built in China, but I think the biggest advantage to GM is building them in Europe. They already have 30% to 40% excess capacity in their EU factories, so what better way to fill them than with a premium product that is relatively low volume. Building Regals in Russelsheim would be a rounding error for that plant (it used to produce Astras). Apparently the SRX is moving from Mexico to Springhill along with an unnamed GMC mid-size crossover. Unless there are other products going in to the Mexico plant, I can see the Envision being built there and GM just (Le)sabre rattleing China at the UAW. How many people really know where their car is built? Most german SUV buyers think their car was built in Germany without question. I can just hear the gasps of denial if they were told their "Ultimate Driving Machine" or their "Best or Nothing" was built in North Carolina or Alabama respectively.

The fuel economy of the Mazda's 2.5 would be hard to beat with a V6, but if the V6 ran in a Miller Cycle/Atkinson Cycle setup like the the I4, it would have a fighting chance. It would probably have better low end torque that would allow the cruising gears to be a little taller too. It wouldn't rev as high as the 2.5 and might not be sporty enough to fit Mazda's image though.

I did make one mistake above. The Cascada is built in Poland with the Astra. That makes even more of a case for building the Verano in Europe. The Regal could still be built in Rüsselsheim with the Insignia. Its volume is small enough that it would be a good use of capacity.

81, but that year should be the same

Boo. My hood lifts are fine. The trunk are recent, but failing only 3 years in.

No no.. it's quite alright.... clearly there is an issue with the forum software that prevents people from reading what I actually type. As I've said... over and over and over and over and over and over again..... OHV engines are superior DOHC engines OF SIMILAR OUTPUT I cited the 3.0 liter class from the competition for a reason.... the reason I stated above. Because the 3.0 engines are at a similar output. I specifically didn't cite the 3.5 liter DOHC engines because they are in a higher horsepower class and are of larger physical size. In the same physical space as the Toyota 3.5 liter, you can stick the GM 4.3 liter V6, which as the specs show, offer more power in a smaller package. In fact, you can probably even fit a GM 5.3 liter V8 in a spot that would be completely full with a Toyota 3.5. If you're looking to get max horsepower in a specific sized engine bay, DOHC is NOT the way to go. Go with pushrods and throw as much displacement at it that you can fit. If you have 5 cubic feet of box to fill, I guarantee the best way to fill that box with power is to go with a pushrod. I said at or near red-line.... and it's almost like I haven't already posted a list.... oh wait... I have. To save you from scrolling up... and I'll even provide links. GM 3.0 DOHC 255hp @ 6900 RPM - RL 6900 RPM http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/track-tested-2010-buick-lacrosse-cxl-30.html GM 3.6 DOHC 312hp @ 6800 RPM - RL 6800 RPM http://gmpowertrain.com/2014_images/charts_lg/lfx_chart_cadillac_ats.jpg FCA 3.6 DOHC 305hp @ 6400 RPM - RL 6400 RPM http://www.pentastars.com/engines/specifications.php Toyota 3.5 DOHC 268 @ 6200 RPM - RL 6500 RPM http://www.edmunds.com/toyota/camry/2015/road-test-specs.html Honda J35Y 3.5 DOHC 278 @ 6200 RPM - RL 6900 RPM http://www.edmunds.com/toyota/camry/2015/road-test-specs.html (arguably, the best spread between peak and RL) Mercedes 3.5 DOHC 302 @ 6500 RPM - RL 6250 RPM (rated) 6800 RPM (Fuel cut off) http://www.edmunds.com/mercedes-benz/e-class/2015/?tab-id=specs-tab&sub= What on earth makes you think I wouldn't have actually looked this stuff up before posting it? This ain't my first time at the rodeo. The reason is because the automotive media bullied them into it. The GM 3500 in the old boxy Malibu could get equal or better highway mileage to a 4-cylinder Camry even though it had one fewer gear.... but the media was so fixated on comparing the V6 to the V6 and comparing horsepower per liter that they would ignore the superior torque characteristics of the V6 over the 4-cylinder. Gearing... entirely. The 5.3 only ever had 4 gears to work with and a tall 4th gear. The 3.6 was only mated to the 6-speed auto. Actually they did put the 3.6 in the Rendezvous with a 4-speed and it was pretty crappy.

I've always had a soft spot for the last LHS

If they're talking by volume, that only makes sense. The smaller cars will sell the greatest volume and the EU at least does premium smaller cars better anyway. The Encore is a European design imported from Korea. The Regal was initially built in Rüsselsheim, and the Cascada will be. Envision is probably being built in China. Regal is currently built in Oshawa, a plant quite clearly on the chopping block..... so the question marks are where Regal and Verano will be built. As variants of the Verano being built in at least 3 other plants worldwide, it is not a stretch to think that they could move production to one or more of them. (China, England, Poland) Verano, Encore, Regal, Cascada, and future Envision - there's at least 75% of Buick's sales right there. Regal won't be built in China... they'll move it back to Rüsselsheim Germany and put them on the same boat as the Cascada

Purdy! Is she sitting high in the rear or is it just a funny angle?

I do try. And I do feel like I make every effort to be fair and impartial, both to the various car brands and to the posters here.

I've been having issues with Chrome getting very laggy and processor intensive lately.

yeah, I'm having trouble with Edge on this forum software also. The trouble is, it isn't being supported, so I don't know if it will be fixed until I upgrade to the next version. At the same time, the next version is still missing some required features that prevent an upgrade.... so at the moment, people on Edge browser are kinda stuck.

What brand did you get? Do they make ones for Toronado trunks?

No more SRTs that aren't Dodges. A. You just described my dream vehicle B. It could be a Trailhawk model. I knew the Mitsubishi Colt Vista.... the Mitsubishi Colt Vista was one of the cars I grew up with..... you are a sick sick man. You realize you are talking to guy who has the Kia Sedona on the short list for best vehicles I driven this year. Yes, and I remember you at the auto show when it was being shown.

Compared to OHV, DOHC is the costly trick. Not in terms of max power. The LS7 uses titanium rods and premium machining and DI to get 505hp out of 7.0L. It costs far more to make and sell than a 5.2L. I'm not sure how many more times I have to say it.... I'm talking about the every day cars like the Camry and Impala. Can I make it in big lettering? Will that work? IN NON-SPORTING APPLICATIONS, OHV V6 DELIVERS SUPERIOR DRIVABILITY TO AN EQUIVALENT PEAK OUTPUT DOHC. What every day car comes with an OHV V-6? None do. Your comparison is pure hypothetical speculation.They only push rod V-6 even available for every day purchase is the GM truck 4.3L. And even at that size fails to hit 300hp. Horsepower per litre is a dumb metric because it only tells 1/4 of the story. It doesn't tell you where you get that horsepower... and in many DOHC V6 cases you will never ever ever see that horsepower because it only exists at an RPM that the transmission doesn't support. If the engine produces 300 horsepower at 6800 rpm, but the transmission forces a shift on you at 6300 rpm, are you getting the advertised horsepower? My argument is NO you are not. My argument has always been for comparing engines of comparable output. (I can't believe I have to type all of this out again) Back when GM was making the 3900, the direct competition would have been the 3.0 liter DOHC engines. The 3900 fit in spaces that the 3.0 liter engines could not. The 3900 produced about the same horsepower as the 3.0 class V6es from Toyota and Honda at the time, but it has much more usable torque. Back to the 4.3: Model/torque/HP GMC 4.3L V6 305 @ 3,900 285 @ 5,300 Ford 3.7L V6 278 @ 4,000 302 @ 6,500 Ram 3.6L V6 269 @ 4,175 305 @ 6,400 The Ford and Ram are going to feel softer off the line than the GMC given equal gearing. 30 lb-ft of torque goes a long way. The GM 4.3 is relatively tiny in packaging... much smaller than the GM 3.6, yet it produces much more torque. In something heavy like the XTS or Lacrosse, both of which get comments about soft low end torque in review, the PUSHROD 4.3 would actually be an improvement because of the better torque curve even if peak horsepower is lower. It would improve drivability day-to-day.

Ive always liked the interior of the Chinese Envision, but the exterior looked like just another Vue-ick. I see lots of Captiva in it.

The XTS starts in the mid-high 40s, but it doesn't have the engine power or the AWD that the Continental will likely have.

No more SRTs that aren't Dodges. A. You just described my dream vehicle B. It could be a Trailhawk model. I knew the Mitsubishi Colt Vista.... the Mitsubishi Colt Vista was one of the cars I grew up with..... you are a sick sick man.

Trax RS? but I'm sure your hypothesis is correct. The current 1.4T is from an engine family that is due to be phased out... so as models get refreshed, it will fade from production in favor of the new model.

...... but... it's all wheel drive It is AWD. And that's fine. But it's FWD-based AWD that is riding on a mainstream platform. It is an acceptable stopgap for D6, if the price is right. But it is no more a flagship, or even premium model than the Cadillac XTS, and for the exact same reason. If it is the same AWD system used in the Ford Focus (I've had a long day and a martini, correct me if I'm wrong) it doesn't matter if it is FWD or RWD based because its that good.

...... but... it's all wheel drive

At no point on the everyday driving scale will a 300hp DOHC V6 outperform a 300hp OHV V6. The OHV will be more efficient, have better off the line pull, have more torque throughout the usable RPM range. The DOHC engine will only see that horsepower at or close to the red-line. The OHC engine will hit that peak horsepower 20% short of red-line. In other words, you'll actually get to use all 300 horses in the OHV... in the DOHC engine, the only time you'll see them is when you look at the window sticker.