GM Gets Into the Game: Next-Gen V6, BioPower 2.3L Turbo

[YSSMAN]

More good news out of GM today...

General Motors today announced a 3.6-liter V-6 gasoline engine with direct injection and variable valve timing (VVT) for use in the 2008 model year. The application of direct injection technology to the 3.6-liter VVT engine boosts horsepower by 15 percent — from 240 to 267 hp. “The 3.6-liter VVT with direct injection will be our highest specific output non-turbocharged V-6 engine, as well as one of the most fuel-efficient offerings in our high-feature family,” said Tim Cyrus, chief engineer for high feature V-6 and Northstar V-8 engines. Additionally, it was forecast that by the end of 2008, GM will produce as many as 200,000 vehicles globally with direct injection technology, and by 2010, GM projects one out of every six GM vehicles in North America will be equipped with a direct injection engine. GM has said it plans to sell a V6 version of the Chevrolet Camaro Concept to boost sales over 100,000 units. Could this engine be used for the V6 Camaro?

GM also announced its first V-6 application of fuel-saving Active Fuel Management on the 3.9L V-6 offered in the 2007 Chevy Impala, and E85 ethanol fuel capability on the 3.9L V-6 offered in ’07 Chevy Uplander fleet models.

“The application of Active Fuel Management (AFM) and E85 ethanol offers customers more choices when it comes to selecting efficient, fuel-conscious vehicles,” said Dr. Gary Horvat, assistant chief engineer, GM Powertrain HVV6 engines. “E85 fuel reduces the need for petroleum and helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while AFM offers improved fuel economy over comparable, non-AFM engines.”

Preliminary testing of the 2007 Chevy Impala equipped with the 3.9L V-6 with AFM indicates an estimated 20 mpg in the city and 29 mpg on the highway – improvements of approximately 5.5 percent and 7.5 percent, respectively.

Active Fuel Management enables the engine to automatically operate on half of the engine’s cylinders under light load conditions, improving efficiency by reducing fuel consumption when the cylinders are deactivated.

This is good news indeed, esp. when talking about the new 3.6L V6. This sould make the Cadillac CTS that will use the engine a better compeditor to the 330i after the redesign in 2008, and if it would be installed in the Camaro, a very interesting V6 model indeed.

More important, I think, is the news on the 3.9L V6. Being that it will probably become the standard V6 across the board for most cars (just as the 3.8L that it replaces was), better fuel economy is going to be key for increased sales. Although it does do without DI, the addition of AFM/DOD technology is something not even Toyota offers, so someone at GM needs to get on the phone and tell Toyota to go suck eggs.

...Just goes to show how drastic the changes are becoming at GM to remain compeditive and on-top of the world automotive market...

 

[Onikaze]

Hell, a 3.9 V-6 Camaro with DOD and that Hybrid...plus the right ratios, maybe 35-40 mpg?

That sounds pretty freaking awesome to me.

 

[Poverty]

MB was the first to use Displacement on demand but they decided to stop using it for whatever reasons.

Anyway it seems like GM have decided to go more high tech with theyre engines! Influence from Bob Lutz maybe?

 

[95GTIVR6]

What took them so long?

Kidding.

This is a good move for them, hopefully it will help them get out of "junk" status on the stock market.

 

[Onikaze]

Daimler Chrysler still uses DOD, the new Hemi has it.

I thought the first car on sale with DOD was that Caddilac that never worked right.

The technology has promise when developed properly, the new Hemi's work great last I heard, and the 5.3 in the Impala SS is so seamless apparently that many people don't even realise it is a DOD engine.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, GM is doing what they need to do to remain compeditive in their respective segments. The 3.6L DI engine will most certainly be used in the 2008 CTS, and hopefully will shorten the gap between it and the 330i with a few extra ponies and a savings of a few pennies at the pump as well.

With the 3.9L however, I still maintain my train of thought that it IS the new V6 for the Camaro, not the 3.6L unit. If they can combine the 3.9L V6 with the ECVT 6T70E automatic, there is a very good chance the car can top 25MPG in the city.

 

[IMADreamer]

Cool, I hope they do well with the engines. I am not particularly a GM guy but I hate to see a huge company like that, that effects millions of peoples lives to do poorly. Hopefully this can help pull them from the gutter.

 

[Firebird]

MB was the first to use Displacement on demand but they decided to stop using it for whatever reasons.

GM developed Displacement-on-Demand.

 

[JCE]

While all of you GM nutters are celebrating this new GM 3.6L V6 with an *cough*astonishing*cough* 267bhp might I remind you that with 0.1L less Hyundai has produced (relitively the same) 268bhp from it's 3.5L V6--which for Hyundai is good. And I won't even bother reminding you of Nissan's output of the VQ35 V6 engines. GM, DC, and Ford (refering to the 4.0L V6) really need to start producing smaller V6 engines that produce more power natually aspirated. It's rediculous to be producing 3.6L+ engines with less than 270~290bhp. It's frankly embarrasing in my opinion.

Now, being positive I'm extremely glad that GM has finally started thinking more about DOD and putting it in a V6. Now I wonder if anyone will develop DOD for 4cyl engines. At motorway cruising speeds (and or with cruise control) shut off 2 cylinders--since you don't really need much power to maintain cruising speeds over 45~50mph.

 

[Jay]

Cylinder shutdown type technology is nothing new, in 1980 Cadillac briefly offered a 6.0L variable displacement engine, but Chyrsler seemed to make it popular now, its not really high tech stuff.

*EDIT* just noticed Onikaze mentioned it above.

 

[Poverty]

GM developed Displacement-on-Demand.

Eh MB's version of it was out years and years ago. This is just GM's version of it

 

[YSSMAN]

...Poverty, I belive Cadillac was the first to do it in 1981 with the V8-6-4...

For 1981 Cadillac introduced what became the most notorious engine in the company's history, the V8-6-4 (L62). The 368 had not provided a significant improvement in the company's CAFE numbers, so Cadillac and Eaton Corporation devised a cylinder deactivation system that would shut off fuel to two or four cylinders in light-load conditions like highway cruising, then reactivate them when the throttle was opened. A dashboard "MPG Sentinel" gauge could show the number of cylinders in operation, or instantaneous fuel consumption (in miles per gallon). The L62 produced 140 hp (104.4 kW) @ 3800 rpm and 265 ft·lbf (412.9 N-m) @ 1400 rpm. Cadillac hailed the L62 as a technological masterpiece, and made it standard equipment across almost the whole Cadillac line (the Seville retained its standard Oldsmobile-based 5.7 L diesel V8).

While cylinder deactivation would make a comeback some 20 years later (with modernized technology), Cadillac's V8-6-4 proved to have insurmountable teething problems, both mechanically and electronically. The biggest issue was that the engine control computer was simply not fast enough or powerful enough to efficiently manage the number of cylinders in operation, so many of these engines had their variable-cylinder function disabled by dealers, leaving them with permanent eight-cylinder operation. The 368 was dropped for most Cadillac passenger cars after the 1981 model year, although the V8-6-4 remained the standard engine for Fleetwood Limousines and the carb 368 remained in the Commercial Chassis through 1984.

 

[Poverty]

You could very well be right. I'll show this to the kid who said MB was the first and see what he makes of it. 👍

Edit: sorry for calling you a dunce firebird

 

[YSSMAN]

While all of you GM nutters are celebrating this new GM 3.6L V6 with an *cough*astonishing*cough* 267bhp might I remind you that with 0.1L less Hyundai has produced (relitively the same) 268bhp from it's 3.5L V6--which for Hyundai is good. And I won't even bother reminding you of Nissan's output of the VQ35 V6 engines. GM, DC, and Ford (refering to the 4.0L V6) really need to start producing smaller V6 engines that produce more power natually aspirated. It's rediculous to be producing 3.6L+ engines with less than 270~290bhp. It's frankly embarrasing in my opinion.

Well, I'm not going to quibble with you on all the terms, this is a HUGE step forward for GM on this front. The addition of Direct-Injection on the allready-great 3.6L "High-Feature" V6, IMO, is brilliant on their behalf. The engine is fairly cheap to build, has a great powerband, and the Direct Injection only adds to that. Sure, specific output per liter is lower than that of the Hyundai, but keep in mind that American engines (for the most part) are tuned more for torque than horsepower. It may be "embarassing" that it has taken GM this long to get to this level, but they have reached it nonetheless, only it took the re-design of their "next generation" V6.

About the 3.9L unit, well, it still follows a very old principal of American engine technology. It is still OHV, and spends more of it's time making torque than horsepower. She won't rev high, but it packs enough punch to get the full-size W-Body models moving. The great thing about the engines is that they are quite economical both in fuel consumption and in price, something the great Toyota and Honda can only partially do.

I suppose it is a difference of tastes and such, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you. It may be "embarassing," but then again, these same engine designs have worked so well, why completely change them?

 

[Onikaze]

Not to mention, last I saw, the 3.9 V-6 is a VERY compact little lump.

Whereas a VQ35 fills its engine bay.

 

[GT4_Rule]

My dad's 1990 Olds Eighty-Eight has the 3800 V6.

175HP, 225lb-ft of torque. Pretty brisk. And there's still lots of space left in the engine bay to add a turbo or supercharger if I want to.

 

[YSSMAN]

They still sell that same 3800 lump these days in a few different cars. It isnt in every one mind you, but the Buick LaCrosse still uses it, and the same engine can be seen in the regular Pontiac Grand Prix, and in GT form, comes with the Supercharged 3800.

Shes a good engine, and has worked out well for the past, with it's design dating back to 1978. She will still live on as the 3.9L (3900) V6, as the only difference is the increased stroke and more complicated head design, etc.

 

[Firebird]

She will still live on as the 3.9L (3900) V6, as the only difference is the increased stroke and more complicated head design, etc.

The 3800 and 3900 are not related.

 

[YSSMAN]

...My undersanding was that it was essentially the same engine, but used a larger stroke than the 3800. I may have read it wrong now that I have gone back to the website... Looks as though it is a stroked version of the 3.5L V6... My bad I suppose...

 

[GT4_Rule]

So I guess the 3800 unit is going to die?

That engine is really reliable, it hasn't had any problems in 6 years of ownership.

 

[Jay]

Over here the 3800 V6 is known as a serious oil leaker, sump gaskets and main seals tend to leak pretty bad, problem is the main seals are a pain to replace (and costly in labour for people that don't do it themselves).

When the ECOTEC 3800 was developed their were some oil consuming problems due to the lightweight pistons but that problem was fixed quickly.

Otherwise the 3800 is pretty reliable, see a few oil burners from time to time, but nothing to complain about to much. Much more reliable than the Ford L6 six used in the Falcon.

 

[YSSMAN]

The engine is damn near bullet-proof here in the US. Of all of the models I've been around, none have really had any major problems to speak of. I've notice the oil consumption problems before on my Grandmother's Pontiac Grand Prix that has it, but thats about it. My Aunt's Grand Prix is about to roll over 201,000 miles on her 3800, and the only problem has been an ongoing oil-leak issue since about 180,000.

 

[GT4_Rule]

It's just the different assembly line and the materials used, plus the workers. Most of the comments made by owners of this engine in the US and Canada cite its bulletproof reliability as a major reason to buy love the car.

 

[YSSMAN]

...Well, when the only design changes you have to make with the engine since 1978 is the addition of electronic fuel injection and a few aluminup bits here and there, it just goes to show how good the design was to begin with.

 

[Jay]

...Well, when the only design changes you have to make with the engine since 1978 is the addition of electronic fuel injection and a few aluminup bits here and there, it just goes to show how good the design was to begin with.

We didn't get the engine until it was already fuel injected (1988 was the first year for us) to replace our bulletproof reliable 1940's designed Holden inline 6.

 

[Onikaze]

I've seen one with problems, from overrevving though, spun bearing in a Firebird (well, a Firechicken).

VERY annoying.

Tap-tap-tappity-tap-tap-tap-tappity.

Fun little car though, 91 I believe it was.

 

[GT4_Rule]

It made tap tap tap tap tap noises?

OT: What's the max rev for the 3800 engine, and at what rev does it redline at? Anyone know? My dad's car has an electroluminiscient gauge that doesn't display rpms

 

[High-Test]

THat's awesome! way to see GM getting back into things. I can't wait to see what this new DoD six could do with that new transmission. I think GM's on to something with this DoD thing.

25 mpg city in a 267 horse camaro? When do I sign up?


JCE: Yeah, sub 250 for a 3.5+ liter V6 is kinda sad, but there's a huge gap in technology with the 3800 and these new sixes. Isn't the VQ35 a DOHC engine? the 3800 is a pushrod if I'm not mistaken. The 3800 wouldn't get so much flak if it weren't for the damn 4L60 it had to be hooked up to.

Off topic: My stepdad has a 2001 Regal LS, and he can't praise the 3800 enough. He absolutely loves that motor.

Way off topic: Is the 4.3 still around?

 

[Jay]

. The 3800 wouldn't get so much flak if it weren't for the damn 4L60 it had to be hooked up to.

Were there no manual option for cars with 3800 V6?

I remember the fun I had in my younger driving days in a 1990 VN Commodore 3800 V6 5 speed manual with headers, full exhaust and intake. Went through alot of tyres.

 

[YSSMAN]

Way off topic: Is the 4.3 still around?

I think GM still offers the rather old 4300 in a few vehicles. The last of the Blazers and S-10s came with them up untill 2005, and if I'm not mistaken, the Chevrolet Silverado 1500 has it as an option on the base models. With only 190 BHP on tap, I really think it is sad that they have held onto that engine for so long. But it is baiscally a 350 with two cylinders removed, so, whatever. I hope that GM either debuts a new V6 for the GMT900 Silverado/Sierra, or they go with the 4200 straight-six.