hyperv6

Well it looks like I was not too far off from my observation. The way I saw it the goverment and unions were going to stone wall GM if they kept Opel. Also Magna just at this point can not go it alone in the short term. The Russians could fund them to independence later but if that happened they would get nothing from GM. My hope is GM has stripped much of Opel and gives them nothing major in the future to protect their properties.

Talked to my local dealer and they sell most new Nox in 1-2 days once on the lot. THey will not get another for 2-3 weeks and it is already sold. This is while they have 2 SS sitting there unsold at sticker price.

With the German goverment and Union it was going to be near impossible to keep Opel without major changes in the plan. Magna and the Russians need GM as without them this just would not work for them. I just wonder if GM will limit technology they put into Opel now. It would protect GM but also hurt GM is Opel falls behind the other companies.

Another is Quiet Steel and more steel to make it quiet as well as thicker glass to make this one of the quietest cars on the market. As for the 3800. It came from a crap engine that was a rough as a single cylinder Briggs and Statton. The improvments over the years turned it into a great engine in the 80's and early 90's. But today it is just not enough any longer. For those who still think it is an engine that is workable today please go out and spend some time with some of the better engines on the market. The 3800 would need a major rework to meet the demands of many of todays customer. As a present owner of a 3800 SC series III and a 3.6 DOHC V6 I can tell you they are like night and day. What I would not give to have had the 3.6 and a six speed in my present GTP. With the advent of DI and Turbo engines the 3800 will really show its age as GM advances to the engines they need in the next 5-8 years. Lets face it they still have not solved the oil leaking valve cover gaskest on the 3800 even in the series II. At 70,000 miles I need to change mine. The Series II lost enough cracked plastic intakes to be recycled into a years worth of replacment panels for old Saturns. I know as we had one of those in the family too. The 3800 has had it's day and it has come and gone. The only main thing that is wrong with this car is weight but that is a sin not just at GM but many vehicles today.

Note the new Mclaren road car engine. It will not only be efficent, powerful and clean. It will be a twin-turbo 3.8-liter V8 engine producing around 600 horsepower and 433 lb-ft of torque. Note the future will be smaller more efficent, cleaner and no less powerful. GM could do this just as easy and I am sure much cheaper.

Civility or the lack of being the key word.

The Ecoboost I have read about was 2.0 230 hp and 240 ft lbs. The Vette will have to have a V8 as long as GM makes one. It will be smaller in the future with a lighter car as good HP perfromace will be as good or better than it is now.

Like the G6 or not the key is where was the performance? Pontiac claims Excitement but there was none. Many could have over looked styling more if it had a drivetrain that had real power. Even if it was just an option on the GXP to go with the image they tacked on the nose and tail.

The numbers are out on the Ecoboost 4 and they are no where near the 2.0 but I expect it to be more available. Hence the word leaking out of GM using the 2.0 more and killing the Cobalt and HHR SS to make them more avaiable for lines that will continue to be built. DI is going to be on every engine in time as will DOHC. THe question is how long do they delay it. I would say no merging of engines to make a V8. Used the concepts and ideas learned in the 2.0 and make a clean sheet engine and do it right. Too often GM has cut and added cylinders that just never worked as well as if they did it right.

Depends on the state of tune. My 2.0 has a rating of 21/29 260 5 sp and 235/250 HP Automatic stock. The 2.2 gets 22/32 155 HP The 2.4 gets 22/30 174 HP Now with that being said the 2.0 in reality does better than the EPA rating. In stock form I would have to drive it very hard to get less than 20 MPG in non highway driving. The funny part is with the GM Turbo tune kit. I now have a regular 23 city and 30/31 Highway. I picked up at least 1 MPG over my usual 22 MPG. Now this is not hypermiles. I often see 21 PSI from stop lights. All the guys with the tune have noticed this with the 2.0 and even GM said it is true in their testing. So in the Automatic I gained 55 HP in first and second gears and 45 in 3rd and 4th gears and picked up more MPG. Hmmm Not the guys with the other engines also beat the EPA ratings. I have noticed on several GM cars they do better than they are rated anymore since the change in the way they rate them . VVT, Computers and DI are game changers in the turbo area anymore. Things are not as they once were and comprimised. If smaller and turbo engines are not the way to go then why are most MFG going to them and not building more pushrod V8? I would like to know. Are they that ignorent?

The Ecotec is a better engine than the Eco boost 4 cylinder. But GM is losing the fight right now with the marketing that Ford has put out. Ford is just flat wasting GM in marketing all the way around. GM has some good DI v6 engines but they need to advance them and bring in the turbos asap and market them. GM is going to fall behind in the V6 race too. When Ford comes out with the Coyote if it is smaller and gets better mileage while making the same or near the same power it will hurt GM. Ford screwed up the first engine but I am willing to bet it will be right this time. GM has always had top notch engines and trannys. I know they can do a updated engine that will take todays technology and imporve on what they have now in ways of efficentcy. From a marketing stand point GM would have a hard time with a less efficent engine. Too many people are buying into this green crap but still want their power.

The key today is to make engines smaller and more efficent with out giving up power. In the past DOHC failed at the low end for power and torque but with the addition of VVT it has given them a very flat torque curve. Add in the impoved turbo chargers of today with Intercooling Direct Injection, the smaller engines will pave the way to the future of cars getting better mileage and emissions. Companies like Ford and others have not invested into these engines for status but because they had too to meet the future requirements. GM is only behind and stuck with the push rods as long as they have because they could not afford to do DOHC in the past due to tight money. They did to their credit push the 4 cylinder ahead with the Ecotech as they needed a good solid 4 cylinder. No one here is saying the LS engines are poor engines. GM has taken them farther than anyone ever thought possible. It is no different than carberators vs fuel Injection. One can do a lot with a carb yet today with emissions and fuel mileage but there comes a time and place it is more cost effective and easier to do it with other systems. If push rods has such a great future everyone would be moving ahead with them. As it stands few even offer them anymore. If there was a future to them and they were such an easy cheap way to go they would not have spent billions on developing DOHC engines for the future. If you not even GM on their 4 cylinders are moving down in size. 1.4 Turbo is going to be very common. This past will be seen with many of GM and everyone elses engines. With the ability to get 250 HP to 450 HP out of 2.0-3.6 liters is the way they will go to meet the mileage goals and emmision goals of the goverment.

Sure they do and very little on these cars are stock. Just like calling a top fuel car a push rod engine. It is but other than saying it has push rods and 8 pistons were involved can you compare it to a street engine. My point is with enough time or money you can make anything fast depending on the rules. Heck F1 ran very small displacment Turbo DOHC 4 cylinders in the 80's that made well over a thousand HP too. I know the transverse spring is a tradition but I wonder where the Vette would be with coil overs like Callaway used. We may never know as they have done well with the present set up but it makes one wonder.

It is amazing what old technology and $750,000+ per car can do. Give me enough money and I could make a little red wagon a winner. I did see the guys at the GT2 intro at Mid Ohio. Watching them there I think they are still holding back. They do not want to get a rules change before next year. These cars are just so well tuned and sorted out that going a class down is just going to make it easier for them to drive with less power. The less down force is not that much of an issue per what the drivers said at Mid Ohio. Long Live Jake. I suspect in the future the Vettes will have either an engine size reduction or more weight. Then they will need more revs. Winners always pay a price in road racing.

1972 GMC Sprint SP 400 [402]. It would chirp a mean second gear with a stock auto but only got 9 MPG and was a dog. I would have to guess it was a 15 second car at best 100% stock. My 70 350 Monte showed more spunk. I loved the guy with the stock 69 Chevelle SS that had to run my SBC with a cam. He made sure to get in line at the track to run me. When I clipped him by a full second he would not speak to me after telling me I had to have a BBC since I was missing all that power. I think he had the old 325 HP dog and thought he has a race car. There were many Great BBC but for every good one there were 5 slow ones. They all were not LS6's. In fact the best BBC built are the present crate engines today. They have the best of the past and present for a good price and a warranty. We have used many 502's and 572's at work for great effect.

I own a 2.8 V6 in a Fiero and a 3800 SC in a 04 GP. Both are good engines compared to where they came from But!!! THe now that I drive the 3800 SC after a 3.6 there is no comparison. THe 3.6 in the real world get a little better mileage vs the 3800. Also the power is not much different. But the refinement is night and day. The 3800 SC mileage in the GP is not all that great. In the real world it is 18 and 25 while in the Bu I see low 20's to 30 MPG The Ford flat head was a hell of a good engine but that doe not mean they should still put it into a 2010 Shelby. If ther eis better technology out there use it.

I just filled up yesterday. The 2.0 Turbo in my 3200 pound HHR got 23 MPG beating around town. No hypermiling. Just good all step on it till it feels good. It is more powerful and peppy than any V6 I have ever owned. In fact it is more potent than even many SBC and one BBC I owned.

Most aftermarket items that add real power are often items that the facotry would not or could not offer. Cams that effect MPG and Emission etc. OR exhaust and intakes that would not pass drive by noise rules. The most common change is a stroker kit to increase displacment. These kits are very common upgrades. The truth is GM has don most of the affordable and legal stuff. The ZR1 went to the supercharger as it was one of the few things left to do to get more air into the engine. The problem there is it is not a cheap mod and reallyt adds to the price of the engine if you do it right so it will hold up for warrant work.

The truth is the development of the LS was not that expensive. They just took pretty much what they had and corrected its short comings. While it is not the same engine as the original small block it is based on the same ideas and concepts. The savings was in the content of the engine. A GM engineer stated long ago with the less number of parts it kept the weight down as wll as the price. 1 cam vs 4 cams, 16 valves vs 32 valves, less aluminum etc. This is a case where less parts is less cost over how many vehicles that has a LS engine in the 90's to date. That is a incredible savings for a cash poor company. Lets face it GM saved money on all their engines in the last 25 years accept the Ecotec. They did pony up the money on it since it was used in so many cars around the world and they could not skimp out on it in Europe.

Yes the 4 and V6 engines will be kept smaller and Turbo's with DI will be very common. Borg Warner is working hard with many MFG for many new Turbo engines. The VVT, DI and Duel Scrolled turbo's have little lag and are great for low end torque. My 2.0 is at 315 ft lbs and is a fairly flat curve. THe V6 DOHC is going to be the new V8 in the industry and Small Tubo 4 cylinders are going to be everywhere. V6 Turbo's will not be rare. I see the same for the V8. The key though is the turbo will work better with more breathing and more RPM. I could see some 4.0-5.0 V8 engines with Turbochargers. These could be used in light trucks the Vette and Cadillac sedans. But if they do a new engine. I just don't see it without 4 valves. I know that Ford has looked at the Turbo V6 for the light trucks but killed it as they are affraid to give up the V8. But to keep the V8 they need it to be more efficent. Chevy and Dodge are in the same boat. They are going to have to get more from less to meet the MPG. The only way to do that is to be more efficent. If it were not for the higher cost of DOHC already GM would have given it up a while ago. If I recall the LS not only was designed to have a 3 valve set up but it was designed in a way so it could be adapted to be used with a duel cam set up too at some point. This is part of the reason the bottom end is as strong as it is. The LS was made so it could be adapted to may other uses. But GM did not have the time nor money to do more than they did. The LS is a cheap engine to build compared to the many other engines on the market. That fact is what keeps it alive and what kept the 3800 alive as long as it did. Just look how long it has taken GM to get a proper 6 speed transaxle. They could not wait any longer. Imagine many of these new Turbo engines with a six speed that keeps the revs up to keep the power up when you need it and a small displacment engine just for riding down the road. My 2.0 with a 4 speed is crying for the 6 speed it did not get.

I don't expect the goverment to put in size restrictions. The rules they have in place are already doing the job for them. Engines will have to be smaller because of the jumps in MPG snd Emissions. The plain simple fact is we will have to get more from less. Also remember the engines we will use are not just for here in the states but also will be used world wide. So in some way the size issue elsewhere still may play into to this. It is a global company. I know the LS is not the old Small Block. It shared bore spacing and that is about it. Just as the 911 flat six. It is no longer the air cooled wonder it once was. I just ask if push rods has such a great future why are few if any are working to make them? There are reasons all these companied are spending more money on the new engines andnot just because they want to. Also an example that we are not going to have to do more with less is Aston Martin and BMW beating a path to the Toyota IQ platform? Cars are going to shrink world wide with this green crap. It has them all scared no matter the maker.

They will buy time with the DI but I do not expect the 3 valve. I suspect the new GM will move ahead with a smaller displacment V8 that will be for the trucks but adapted to the Vette and Cadillac on the top sedan. I saw a whle back Tom Wallace mention they were looking at smaller diplacment and if they were I do not expect them to be push rod. They will stay with the LS for a while just because they are so far behind on a new engine. I think we may be into the C7 a couple years before we will see a new engine around 2016-2017. They are now working on the duel clutch. Tom also said they were looking into a smaller and lighter car. Since he is retired I suspect some things will change a little but with the future rules I suspect the future Vette will be smaller in several ways.

The new 911 is not anything like the old engine other than it is a flat 6. The restrictions are coming in higher MPG and lower emissions. These are killers of large displacment engines.

IF DOHC is such a poor design that GM is one of the only ones still making it? It is not good enough for everyone else but Dodge. The push rod engine is cheaper to build. Hmm. I just wonder why it is the two push rod kings were still making excuses for building push rod engines? Could it have been the lack if money?? You want a good example? The new Camaro has a V6 that makes 304 HP on 3.6 liters vs a 6.2 V8 that makes 426 Hp in top form. It is not all direct injection here. The Northstar was killed more do to cost. Even the V6 in the Camaro was a concern do to cost. DOHC is just more expensive in a V style engine and cost is the prime factor. The fact is the push rod V8 is still around more to the fact it is cheaper to build. Less parts. I will give you that GM has done well for a long time with the puch rod and the LS engine is a good engine. But time is running out. You can argue with me but when the other companies start to move back to push rods I will tell you that you were right. But how many push rods are in development with any of the other companies? Do you see a great move back to push rods? Is GM the only one that is right and everyone else is wrong? I think you need to be prepared as I expect GM to move away from push rods soon in the V8. THey have already done so with the Truck Diesel. Believe me I would rather see the LS engine continue as I make a lot of money off those engines. When Ford the loss of the 5.0 hurt. But I stopped buying the lie along time ago and know the companied need to be more efficent with there engines or we will not have any kind of performance with the new goverment rules.

Imagine if they had a modern engine to work with how much better it would be. You are missing my point that the present engine is good and I do not disagree but the key to the present engine is large CID. In the future you are going to lose CID and need to do more with less. This are what GM is going to be up against. Now if all they did is use this engine in a Vette with a limited volume it is not a big deal but if it is to be shared with trucks and Cadillac sedans in the future they are in a volume that they can no longer be as inefficent per liter and with emissions as they are now. They are going to have to fit very tight rules that are coming.. Time to plan for the future as it is at hand. The only reason we have what we have now is GM could not afford to do the better engine. Today they can and need to. I usd to think this way and was fooled by GM stating we don't need no stinkin OHC and 5 Speed trannys. Now that I have spent a lot of time behind the wheel of modern DOHC and 6 Speeds I found out what we have been missing. With DI and VVT the new DOHC and Turbo engines come alive in ways we never saw before. GM has the lead with the 4 and V6 and if they don't watch Ford with their Ecoboost marketing will take the lead with an engine not as good yet. The other factor is many people want the latest and greatest. Technology is king now in many cars. The higher the price the more they expect. By the way just one county south of me there are still a lot of those buggys still rolling.