PM Awards GM 3.9 V-6 For Breakthrough Technology

[Northstar]

POPULAR MECHANICS Awards GM 3.9 V-6 For Breakthrough Technology


New York - General Motors' new 3.9-liter V-6 has been recognized for ground-breaking technology by the editors of POPULAR MECHANICS in the publication's first "POPULAR MECHANICS Breakthrough Awards." The announcement was made today at the American Museum of Natural History and will be featured in the October issue of POPULAR MECHANICS, on newsstands nationwide October 11, 2005.

The POPULAR MECHANICS Breakthrough Awards recognize ten individuals and teams, including one winner of the Breakthrough Leadership Award, that are helping to improve lives and expand possibilities in the realms of science, technology and exploration. Additionally, POPULAR MECHANICS highlighted a separate group of ten consumer products that represent milestones in design and engineering.


The 3.9 V-6 has been awarded for the innovative adaptation of variable valve timing, an industry first for overhead valve engines.

"General Motors keeps finding ways to advance overhead valve engines and the 3.9-liter V-6 used in the Impala reaches new levels," said James Meigs, editor-in-chief, POPULAR MECHANICS. "For their continued success and innovation, we're proud to recognize GM with a 2006 Breakthrough Award."

The 3.9 is part of an all-new family of advanced overhead valve, 60-degree V-6 engines. The engine is designed new from the block up and in addition to variable valve timing, incorporates a host of advanced, premium features, including a variable intake manifold, piston-cooling oil squirters, and an advanced 32-bit engine controller.

"The breakthrough development of variable valve timing for the 3.9 demonstrates the continued relevance of the elegant overhead valve engine design," said Dr. Gary Horvat, assistant chief engineer, V-6 engines. "We're honored that the editorial team at POPULAR MECHANICS recognize the significance of this technology."

The variable valve timing system incorporates a vane-type camshaft phaser that changes the angular orientation of the camshaft, thereby adjusting the timing of the intake and exhaust valves to optimize performance and economy, and helping lower emissions. Within its range of operation, it offers infinitely variable valve timing in relation to the crankshaft. The cam phasing creates "dual equal" valve timing adjustments. In other words, the intake valves and exhaust valves are varied at the same time and at the same rate.

The award-winning, 240-horsepower 3.9 V-6 is available in the 2006 Chevrolet Impala, Monte Carlo, Malibu SS, Malibu Maxx SS and Uplander; Pontiac G6 GTP and SV6; Buick Terraza; and Saturn Relay.

POPULAR MECHANICS is published by Hearst Magazines, a unit of The Hearst Corporation (www.hearst.com) and one of the world's largest publishers of monthly magazines, with a total of 19 U.S. titles and 142 international editions. Hearst reaches more adults than any other publisher of monthly magazines (76.3 million according to MRI, spring 2005). The company also publishes 19 magazines in the United Kingdom through its wholly owned subsidiary, The National Magazine Company Limited.

[ehaase]

The 3.9 is barely faster than the 3.5 and is barely more fuel efficient than the 5.3. The engine does not impress me.

[jbartley]

The 3.9 is barely faster than the 3.5 and is barely more fuel efficient than the 5.3.  The engine does not impress me.

[post="22236"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

ironically, popular mechanics does not impress me either...

[razoredge]

You all know Im happy about this but wish it was the better engine to begin with - the 90*3.8. What I want to know is why are the gas economy reports so poor ? I never saw were GM ever got the 60* engines to workout as good as the Buick based 90* and I know thats now how its supposed to be but somehow that little bumble bee could fly. Well good for GM but Im still concerned.

[ponchoman49]

I'm not so sure about the 3900 being barely faster than the 3500. I haven't seen actual test numbers performed yet but the G6 GTP should be way faster than the GT model with it's 3500 and auto only trans. The 6 speed should be in the low to mid 6 second range 0-60 and the auto with it's 3.69:1 gears should be less than 7 seconds. The Impala with the 3500 uses a lazier 2.86:1 axle whereas the 3900 version uses a 3.29:1 setup which I recon will shave close to a second off the 0-60 time. Real world combined driving would give the 3900 the nod over the 5300 V8 but it wouldn't be a surprise if the V8 got about the same or better on the open road. This is often the case with bigger engines in smaller cars. A 4 cylinder Malibu gets the same highway economy as the V6 but in the real world the 4 banger will probably be a bit higher. Can't wait to see actual tests with these new engines.

[ehaase]

The road test I read (can't remember where) showed the Impala with the 3.5 doing 0 to 60 in 8.4 seconds, while the Impala with the 3.9 did 0 to 60 in 7.8 seconds. Not much of a difference, in my opinion. Maybe the rest of you disagree.

[76ChevyTrucker]

I hate to say it, but I actually like the 3.9, I'm still pissed off that they couldn't have designed it off the already well-designed and well-known 90-degree 3.8L engine (which runs like a damned champ in my '01 9C1 Impala), but to each its own I guess. Good to see that at least some of GM's engines are winning awards, although it is PM instead of some of the other Auto Rags.

[usa1]

I hate to say it, but I actually like the 3.9, I'm still pissed off that they couldn't have designed it off the already well-designed and well-known 90-degree 3.8L engine (which runs like a damned champ in my '01 9C1 Impala), but to each its own I guess.  Good to see that at least some of GM's engines are winning awards, although it is PM instead of some of the other Auto Rags.

[post="22308"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The old 90 degree V6 Buick engine is a fundamentally flawed engine. It's a V8 cut to be a V6. The balance shafts the put in the motor to smooth the vibration caused by its 90 degree configuration reflect this comprimise. 60 degrees is the best angle for V6 engines. We all the know the #1 reason GM insists on making OHV engines is to save money. Since saving money is the #1 priority for them, one of the two motors needed to be put the pasture eventually. Splitting their R&D dollars on both is a waste of resources. We could say the same about having a family of OHV and OHC V6 engines.

As for GM not getting awards for their engines, they don't have many to crow about. The Corvette V8 is great for its performance and fuel efficiency. This one is legitimate. However, the truck engines are OK, but no longer the best. The Northstar has been overshadowed by other engines from Infiniti, Lexus, BMW, etc. The Northstar V series may be good, but still won't beat the best from AMG. The Ecotec is considered noisy and not particularly fuel efficient. The OHC and OHV V6 engines are all at best mearly OK. I guess the Duramax diesel is good.

Am I missing something in GM's engine porfolio that is arguably best of breed beside the LS2/LS7?

Mark

[ryhai]

I just drove a G6 GTP yesterday and I was very impressed. I don't know about the other vehicles with the 3.9, but the G6 is great. It felt so much more smooth and refined than other Pontiacs I have driven. It will be interesting to see how the critics feel about the gtp compared to other sport coupes.

[razoredge]

Oh boy here we go again, a great big company thats got more models more drivetrains and still has near record sales years doesnt have the top engine in all catagories. Im just going to go cry. BFD. 2 hp here 2 hp there, winning on the track. Gaining 6/10ths between its own engines makes it a worthless investment but if it lacks one tenth of a second off your favorite flavor of rice or kraut its a POS.

I understand the 60* V6 issue as well as not developing both but the Chevy based 60* just never accomplished what the 90* has. I just dont understand why ? So if the 90* V6 being naturally flawed is one point against the 3.8 whats that say about the 60* always comming up short ?

BTW a 60* V6 is just a 60* V 12 with 6 cylinders chopped off :P

I have held great hopes for this "new" V6 PR engine, i sure hope they get it performing correctly in the MPG and torque department. Otherwise the SC 3800 will still blow its plug wires off- perhaps that is the problem "hey, someone wanna check those plug wires !"

Edited September 30, 2005 by razoredge

[regfootball]

The 3.9 is barely faster than the 3.5 and is barely more fuel efficient than the 5.3.  The engine does not impress me.

[post="22236"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

you might have beat me to saying that very thing

[gerardo]

BTW a 60* V6 is just a 60* V 12 with 6 cylinders chopped off 

I'm sure you know but the ideal angle for a 6 cylinders is 120º so 60º it's the next best thing for it :P .

[rkmdogs]

Oh boy here we go again, a great big company thats got more models more drivetrains and still has near record sales years doesnt have the top engine in all catagories. Im just going to go cry. BFD. 2 hp here 2 hp there, winning on the track. Gaining 6/10ths between its own engines makes it a worthless investment but if it lacks one tenth of a second off your favorite flavor of rice or kraut its a POS.

I understand the 60* V6 issue as well as not developing both but the Chevy based 60* just never accomplished what the 90* has. I just dont understand why ? So if the 90* V6 being naturally flawed is one point against the 3.8 whats that say about the 60* always comming up short ?

[post="22367"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Again razor, you have missed the boat on engine design.
The reason that the Chevy 60 degree V-6's came up short is that they were designed to fit in small packages, and were mostly transverse-mounted.
That restricts the physical size that the engine package can be.

The basic problem with 60-degree V-6's is intake runner length. To make more power, you need longer runners,--- and the space in the engine compartment
that these engines are designed for just isn't there!
The other factor was manufacturing technology at the time these engines were
designed. The use of non-metallic intake manifolds had not reached the level
of sophistication that we see today. Most of these designs had metal intake
manifolds, and they were restricted by the casting technology of the day.
The 90-degree V-6's had more physical space between the cylinder banks, so naturally you could have the longer runner paths needed to achieve higher
performance. The new designs with multi-chambered runners made in plastic
for direct fuel injection systems, allows for the best of both worlds, economy and
performance-- when you need it!

AND, then there is the factor of rotating mass, i.e., counter-balance shafts to
dampen the firing pulses on a 90-degree V-6, but that is another issue.

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

The 3.9 is barely faster than the 3.5 and is barely more fuel efficient than the 5.3.  The engine does not impress me.

[post="22236"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'd prefer the 3900 V-6 over the 3500 V-6 for sure, but neither one of those engines have a reason to survive when there are 2.8, 3.6, and supposedly (at least it was once planned) 3.2-liter DOHC High Feature V-6 engines. There's absolutely no excuse for the HF engines not to be in the other cars.

[ehaase]

I'd prefer the 3900 V-6 over the 3500 V-6 for sure, but neither one of those engines have a reason to survive when there are 2.8, 3.6, and supposedly (at least it was once planned) 3.2-liter DOHC High Feature V-6 engines. There's absolutely no excuse for the HF engines not to be in the other cars.

Yes, there is. The 3.5 is far more fuel efficient than any of the HF V-6's. The 3.5 in the Malibu gets 22/32, while both the 2.8 and 3.6 in the CTS get 18/27. That is totally unacceptable, when the Lexus ES330 gets 21/29.

[lakefire]

3800 > 3900 Name the ways that the 3900 is better other than the idling feel.

[regfootball]

I'd prefer the 3900 V-6 over the 3500 V-6 for sure, but neither one of those engines have a reason to survive when there are 2.8, 3.6, and supposedly (at least it was once planned) 3.2-liter DOHC High Feature V-6 engines. There's absolutely no excuse for the HF engines not to be in the other cars.

[post="22417"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

yup.

if they wanted to cheap out on making cost efficient engines, why not just make simple SOHC head versions of the same HF v6's without vvt or anything. they could put those in base model cars but would still see the benefits of the smoother ohc design. Edited September 30, 2005 by regfootball

[regfootball]

Yes, there is.  The 3.5 is far more fuel efficient than any of the HF V-6's.  The 3.5 in the Malibu gets 22/32, while both the 2.8 and 3.6 in the CTS get 18/27.  That is totally unacceptable, when the Lexus ES330 gets 21/29.

[post="22440"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

check those gas mileage figures of the 3900 in the G6, yeah, that's saving gas.

[goblue1999]

The road test I read (can't remember where) showed the Impala with the 3.5 doing 0 to 60 in 8.4 seconds, while the Impala with the 3.9 did 0 to 60 in 7.8 seconds.  Not much of a difference, in my opinion.  Maybe the rest of you disagree.

[post="22303"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I certainly disagree. the power needed to shave this kind of time off an already quick 0-60 is substantial.

[goblue1999]

Yes, there is.  The 3.5 is far more fuel efficient than any of the HF V-6's.  The 3.5 in the Malibu gets 22/32, while both the 2.8 and 3.6 in the CTS get 18/27.  That is totally unacceptable, when the Lexus ES330 gets 21/29.

[post="22440"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

doesn't make much sense to compare epa figures on fuel economy, there is too much spread in the numbers, too much variation in real world driving.

It is more appropriate to google your way into real numbers, possible posted by car mags. We all know what the Japanese do with horsepower estimates....

[Cremazie]

Just watch the video, they get a bit edgy of the small stuff!

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...ticleId=107290#

[ehaase]

doesn't make much sense to compare epa figures on fuel economy, there is too much spread in the numbers, too much variation in real world driving.

Considering the automakers are required by law to have average fuel economy of 27.5 mpg (and I think that Congress will increase this substantially within the next few years) or face substantial penalties, the EPA figures are extremely important. Anyway, most of the writers for auto magazines drive like bats out of hell and get far worse gas mileage than most drivers would. Edited September 30, 2005 by ehaase

[ehaase]

check those gas mileage figures of the 3900 in the G6, yeah, that's saving gas.

The 3.9 is disappointing, but the 3.5 is a very reasonable, efficient engine, in my opinion, for value priced Impalas and Malibus. I'm probably the only person here who is not upset that the 3.5 will be used in the Saturn Aura (according to recent reports). Obviously, the 3.5 would be uncompetitive for upscale Buicks and Cadillacs.

[razoredge]

Again razor, you have missed the boat on engine design.

[post="22410"][/post]

How in the hell did I miss the boat when my lake doesnt hold any water in the first place :lol:

Thanks for the info on intake runners. Makes since.

The 3.8 actually fit in the W bodies just as well as the 2.8&3.1 due to the overall height of the engine. then the simple low heads and valve covers followed by a no nonsence intake made for a nice tight package, not the case with the chev60*.

I actually wasnt talking about power performance anyhow but the milage issues. they got the HP figure of this complicated 60*3.9 up nice but milage is worse than forced 3.8 so somehow all this 60* still doesnt seem to be where it should in overall milage & power performance. simple 3.5 sounds like its not too bad but can it go 300,000 miles ? I know, who cares we buy new and trade at 59,000.

Reg - I dont think a simple SOHC would have any benefits over where the inblock is at this point of developement. Mileage would mostlike be down and torque would be as well.

As for balance shafts didnt I read that all these engines have balance shaft now ?

So why does this 3.9 fall short in mileage compared to older 3.8 's when it has all this variable stuff ? The fuel ecnomy issue is the one thats going to hurt it.

We still need some type of variable in engine choices with a company that has so many models and divisions. I just wish I knew why the 3.9 seems to be falling short of expectations and what would seem like practical economy numbers ?

[Drew Dowdell]

Yes, there is.  The 3.5 is far more fuel efficient than any of the HF V-6's.  The 3.5 in the Malibu gets 22/32, while both the 2.8 and 3.6 in the CTS get 18/27.  That is totally unacceptable, when the Lexus ES330 gets 21/29.

[post="22440"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You can't have it both ways. The ES330 also only had 225hp and 240 ft/lbs of torque. The CTS has 255hp and 252 ft/lbs of torque. That's a rather large sacrifice in power to gain 2mpg don't ya think?

[Angry Dad]

3800 > 3900

Name the ways that the 3900 is better other than the idling feel.

[post="22446"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

costs less to build.

You guys need to get something right.

The noise that the magazines have BRAINWASHED you with that multi cams and gazillion valves being the secret to efficiency is total crap.

The magazines are wrong!

The secret to power with respect to cost is in PCM capabilty and harnesing that capability to control the variables that produce the most gains. Yes an engine with variable cam timing and manifold controls is a better deal than a four cam non cam phased engine. Far more efficient and costs less in every respect.

Get this straight, cams aren't the secret to engines. The best posible solution is to eliminate the dang thing all together. They are always a compromise.

I dare say the vast majority of you complaining have not driven a 3.9 or a 3.5. This is the bottom line, GM wants to make money, to do so they have to give the consumer the best deal. They are not going to burn the current plants to the ground and build a new engine very other year. They do make huge improvements with PCMs far faster than any of you seem to recognize. There is far more reward there than radical engine designs coming to market at an insane pace.

After you drive a 3.9 and look at what you get for the money come back again and explain what a failure it is. I don't think many of you will.

[ehaase]

You can't have it both ways. The ES330 also only had 225hp and 240 ft/lbs of torque. The CTS has 255hp and 252 ft/lbs of torque. That's a rather large sacrifice in power to gain 2mpg don't ya think?

The 210 hp 2.8 also only gets 18/27, which is pathetic.

I like both the 3.5 HV and 3.6 HF. But I think that both the 2.8 HF and 3.9 HV are disappointing. Edited September 30, 2005 by ehaase

[regfootball]

[quote name='regfootball' date='Sep 30 2005, 05:39 PM']
what I get for the money? haha, I have searched GM buypower for a G6 GTP with 3.9 and manual transmission. I lost complete and total interest when the MSRP of each and everyone of them was absurdly priced at like 29 thousand. So a car I would actually consider buying even though it has pushrods....'what I get for the money'? Well, I'm getting decent but not stunning hp. And I'm not getting great gas mileage then, either. But, I can get a Mazda 6 with will likely register equal performance numbers with said manual transmission and I can buy it in a trim that I can get for 7-10 grand less out the door.

I guess if I have to buy a car with a 29 thousand dollar sticker, I can settle for a base Maxima or an Altima SE-r where I get more value for the dollar. Or now an Accord EX 6 speed. Or, I can get a Mazda 6 and save big coin. GM's 3.9 powertrain option is not giving me value in this scenario, and it has no performance advantage or mileage advantage.

So as for PM giving an award for something that cannot outperform its contemporaries vs. price.....they only gave the award because it was the application of vvt to a pushrod engine. Not because the engine itself was fantastic.

I bet I would like the G6 GTP, but it would have to be f*ing stellar under the hood to justify its insane price tag for what you actually get, which I am laying money down still isn't a complete match to the Nissan VQ series or the Honda v6.

If value to the customer here is part of GM's equation for the creation of this engine, then lower the MSRP by 5-6 thousand on that GTP G6 I want. If it doesn't, its merely just a manufacturing savings pocketed by GM with no obvious performance benefit to the end user.

At least with the 3800 series you could always make the engine that you were getting better mpg, which was true and for some was worth selecting the car based on that criteria.

and driving the Malibu and G6 with the 3.5, I have found that the 3.5 while improved over the 3.4, is still not up in total power and refinement with the competition.

[ehaase]

I checked out the Chevrolet Impala boards at Edmunds and read several posts by individuals who recently tested or purchased Impala LTZ's with the 3.9, saying it was fantastic, comfortable car. The 3.5 would be enough for a cheapskate like me, but people who try the 3.9 seem to like it.

[razoredge]

OK, well its new and can hopefully only be improved upon. I have a feeling the big price comes from new engine and this new 6speed ?

[cmattson]

29,000 sticker?!? What kind of options are you putting on the car? Assuming you are paying sticker (and who does that on a GM car?), the G6 sedan GTP starts @ $24,8xx. GM currently has a $1000 rebate on top of that, so, in reality, GM's G6 GTP starts at $23,800. To get to a $29,000 pricetag, you'd not only have to pay sticker, but you'd have to add $5,200 in options to the G6's top trim level. Visit www.notgonnahappen.com for details on that one. The 3.9l is adequate in it's current form. For a 240hp engine, it gets equal, if not better gas mileage than Nissan's 6cyl's. It's got a nice, broad, flat torque band to boot. It gets better gas mileage than it's comparable 3.6l DOHC engine -- and here's the kicker: it's cheaper to build and it's potential hasn't even been fully tapped yet! 3valves/cyl and DOD are still sitting on the shelf for this engine! Factor in the engineering costs saved by developing the 3.5l and the 3.9l as variants and you have yet another additional benefit. How about component sharing (i.e. starters, alternators, water pumps, etc). Yup -- all the same -- and that should garner some cost savings as well: less to engineer, outsource, build, troubleshoot, part-stock, etc. As a side benefit, this engine burns regular octane -- not the premium stuff you need on the high-compression DOHC engines of some Asian manufacturers. While I would love for this current-gen 3.9l to have better gas mileage (I think it's torque/hp #'s are just fine), I can't find fault with GM for the path that they pursued here. BTW, 0-60 times aren't just a measure of hp/torque. Factor in weight, factor in gearing. Does anybody know if the 3.5l G6 has different gearing than the 3.9l G6? Lastly, here are specs for comparable v6 sedans: Auto G6 3.5l 201hp@5600/222ft-lbs@3200: 21/29mpg G6 3.9l 240hp@6000/241ft-lbs@2800: 18/26mpg Camry 3.0l 190hp@5800/197ft-lbs@5600: 20/28mpg Camry 3.3l 210hp@4400/220ft-lbs@3600: 21/29mpg Accord 3.0l 244hp@6250/211ft-lbs@5000: 21/30mpg Altima 3.5l 250hp@5800/249ft-lbs@4400: 20/30mpg No question that the 3.9l is a bit more thirsty, but check out where peak torque is achieved compared to every other sedan.. the Camry @ 5600rpm? The G6 is HALF that. The Accord isn't much better @ 5000rpm. Edited October 1, 2005 by cmattson

[razoredge]

looks like Nissan is the problem but thats OK because aside from the 350, Nissans are buttfugly

[91z4me]

3800 > 3900

Name the ways that the 3900 is better other than the idling feel.

[post="22446"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

3800 needed a supercharger to make the same power as the 3900 does NA.

It is lighter and easier to package.

We could see the 60° V6 block expanded to a big block and get a 4.0+ L V6, not likely but possible.

You will see the 3V tech on the 60° in a few years with DOD that will get much better mileage numbers and power numbers and it will still be a better engine.

My only complaint is that it is an iron block, and that isn't much to complain about.

[regfootball]

29,000 sticker?!?  What kind of options are you putting on the car?

Assuming you are paying sticker (and who does that on a GM car?), the G6 sedan GTP starts @ $24,8xx.  GM currently has a $1000 rebate on top of that, so, in reality, GM's G6 GTP starts at $23,800.  To get to a $29,000 pricetag, you'd not only have to pay sticker, but you'd have to add $5,200 in options to the G6's top trim level.  Visit www.notgonnahappen.com for details on that one.

The 3.9l is adequate in it's current form.  For a 240hp engine, it gets equal, if not better gas mileage than Nissan's 6cyl's.  It's got a nice, broad, flat torque band to boot.  It gets better gas mileage than it's comparable 3.6l DOHC engine -- and here's the kicker: it's cheaper to build and it's potential hasn't even been fully tapped yet!  3valves/cyl and DOD are still sitting on the shelf for this engine!  Factor in the engineering costs saved by developing the 3.5l and the 3.9l as variants and you have yet another additional benefit.  How about component sharing (i.e. starters, alternators, water pumps, etc).  Yup -- all the same -- and that should garner some cost savings as well: less to engineer, outsource, build, troubleshoot, part-stock, etc.   As a side benefit, this engine burns regular octane -- not the premium stuff you need on the high-compression DOHC engines of some Asian manufacturers.

While I would love for this current-gen 3.9l to have better gas mileage (I think it's torque/hp #'s are just fine), I can't find fault with GM for the path that they pursued here.

BTW, 0-60 times aren't just a measure of hp/torque.  Factor in weight, factor in gearing.  Does anybody know if the 3.5l G6 has different gearing than the 3.9l G6?

Lastly, here are specs for comparable v6 sedans:

Auto
G6 3.5l 201hp@5600/222ft-lbs@3200: 21/29mpg
G6 3.9l 240hp@6000/241ft-lbs@2800: 18/26mpg
Camry 3.0l 190hp@5800/197ft-lbs@5600: 20/28mpg
Camry 3.3l 210hp@4400/220ft-lbs@3600: 21/29mpg
Accord 3.0l 244hp@6250/211ft-lbs@5000: 21/30mpg
Altima 3.5l 250hp@5800/249ft-lbs@4400: 20/30mpg

No question that the 3.9l is a bit more thirsty, but check out where peak torque is achieved compared to every other sedan.. the Camry @ 5600rpm?  The G6 is HALF that.  The Accord isn't much better @ 5000rpm.

[post="22619"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

"No question that the 3.9l is a bit more thirsty"

ok, so we've just eliminated the fuel economy issue. By the way, lots of real world testimonies from Nissan owners report quite good mileage from their vq's. Honda's get good mpg also. The Mazda/Ford v6 gets its best mileage with the CVT in the Freestyle/Fivehundred. In fact, the 500 manages a 20/29 rating for a heavier car.

"The 3.9l is adequate in it's current form."

Its got decent power on paper but we've yet to see times on it and I haven't driven one. And I'm not gonna for 29 grand. TRY TO FIND A G6 GTP manual anywhere under 28,500 or whatever on gmbuypower.com. Last time I checked each and every one was optioned up to around 29,300. Sorry, but that's too much.

"For a 240hp engine, it gets equal, if not better gas mileage than Nissan's 6cyl's."

I would doubt that (see above). I've read lots of owner reports that say the Nissan gets pretyt good mileage. Not bad for 9-10 time in a row Wards winner.

"It's got a nice, broad, flat torque band to boot."

Fine, can it rev at all too? The Maxima has balls on the band top to bottom, torque and power. Its got awesome amounts of both. We all say we love torque just like we all say the chubby chick has a nice personality, even though we really wish she was built more like Jessica Alba as well. One reason the GM Ecotec 4 cylinder I enjoy them so much is that they can rev as well as have good torque. But I've yet to drive an OHV GM v6 that feels as lively and energetic through the whole powerband as even the Ecotec 4's. I will have to find me a G6 manual to drive to see if its any good as its numbers do intrigue me. But more than one buff book said the 3.9 didn't feel hardly any more powerful than the 3.5, and that's not encouraging.

"It gets better gas mileage than it's comparable 3.6l DOHC engine"

hardly a scant bit better. If barely. If at all. NON issue.

"-- and here's the kicker: it's cheaper to build"

at 29,300 that savings is going into somebody's pension fund or GM's pocket, its not saving me any money versus that Altima. that Sonata might still be faster and its like 4 grand or more cheaper.

"and it's potential hasn't even been fully tapped yet!"

true, but GM is slow to get this going, the 3800 in the 06 Lucerne isn't much more powerful than the early-mid nineties versions of the 3800.

from carsdirect.com (and they usually high still)

Mazda Mazda6 4dr Sedan s Sport (leather/roof/v6/manual/SAB/SAC)
$26,730MSRP Price:
$24,382Invoice Price:
$24,632Sales Price:($3,000)Manufacturer Rebates:

Target Price: $21,632 (I'm sure you could get it even another thou cheaper at some dealers).

I cannot buy that G6 with leather and stuff for that price. The G6 in some cases has the panorama roof and stabilitrak as advantages, but even the G6's with leather and a standard sunroof are still around 29 grand. So much for value pricing.

Its fair to say the G6 GTP manual is a spot on competitor for the Mazda6 manual.

C/D ran a 6.4 second 0-60 with their sedan and their wagon ran 7.2 0-60 fresh and new. I would ask that the G6 should be able to meet at least 7.0 in the same run and if it could come close to the 6.4 it would be nice. Will it we don't know.

I am only presenting this this way. GM's achievement here is the incorporation of the vvt into a pushrod design which deserves credit. BUT I don't think it makes it a class leader or anything. Its a nice feature set for a basic family car or minivan I suppose. And yet it doesn't seem to give any major end benefit to the consumer, either in money saved, or advantages in performance or fuel economy. It would have been a bigger splash for the G6 to arrive in GXP form with the 3.6 hf and 270 hp at the same price point its trying for. Get this, I'd lay money that even the new four cylinder Passat with stick may have a good chance of outrunning the GTP G6, for less or about the same money. The G6 GTP ought to be at the same real out the door pricing levels as the Mazda 6s, because it needs to perform about the same as that, and hopefully it ought to match its acceleration numbers.

I don't wet my pants on the Mazda 6, I think it even is overrated, but here I am merely using it to present the value equation here to whow that I just don't think the end user sees the value of the use of pushrods in this case at too high a price for what you get. Edited October 1, 2005 by regfootball

[razoredge]

I cant get anything out of Pontiac.com except very slow loading and some very very fine print that looks nearly Japanese. I was going to try to price out a GTP but had no luck. Did a Solstice last week and that went but still had that funny tiny Japanese looking print. Watup?

[regfootball]

G6 - GTP SEDAN ENGINE, 3.9L HO V6 SFI TRANSMISSION MANUAL 6 SPEED BLACK TRIM, EBONY MANUFACTURER'S SUGGESTED RETAIL PRICE $ 24,210.00 Options installed by Manufacturer LICENSE PLATE BRACKET, FRONT NO CHARGE TRANSMISSION, 6-SPEED MANUAL (REPLACES STD/OPT TRANSMISSION) $ 0.00 LEATHER PACKAGE: GTP LEATHER APPOINTED SEATING 6-WAY POWER DRIVER SEAT HEATED FRONT SEATS LEATHER WRAPPED STEERING WHL STEERING WHEEL RADIO CONTROLS LEATHER WRAPPED SHIFT KNOB AND PARK BRAKE HANDLE $ 1,265.00 ENGINE BLOCK HEATER $ 35.00 ONSTAR SYSTEM -INCLUDES 1 YEAR SAFE & SOUND $ 695.00 AXLE RATIO 3.55 NO CHARGE TOTAL PACKAGE SAVINGS $ -500.00 PREMIUM VALUE PACKAGE INCLUDES: (4) 18" 5 SPOKE ALLOY ULTRA-BRIGHT WHEEL AM/FM STEREO 6 DISC CD PLAYER (REPLACES STD/OPT/PKG RADIO) PANORAMIC ROOF, POWER $ 2,350.00 (4) TIRES, P225/50R18 SUMMER-ONLY PERFORMANCE $ 150.00 FRONT SIDE IMPACT AIR BAGS & HEAD-CURTAIN SIDE AIR BAGS $ 690.00 TOTAL OPTIONS $ 4,685.00 TOTAL VEHICLE & OPTIONS $ 28,895.00 DESTINATION CHARGE $ 625.00 TOTAL VEHICLE PRICE*** $29,520.00

[razoredge]

Reg - your cant rev line has been old but even the stats givin by mattson show their is only one higher rever of these 4 engines. Theres alot of things that go on while only you are driving a car ?

[regfootball]

XM® Satellite Radio $350 Side Air Bags and TCS Option $800 Accessories None Selected NISMO Accessories (installation not included) None Selected Base MSRP $29,550.00 Total Packages, Options, & Accessories $1,150.00 Total NISMO Accessories $0.00 Destination & Handling $580.00 Total Configured MSRP† $31,280.00 ******** in fairness, the SE-RAltima's price has increased like 1500 or so and now seems to be about 2 grand over the G6 for this year. So maybe in this case, the G6 can differentiate itself some on price. I do know baseSE Maximas were selling for around 25 grand here recently. **** subtract the XM from the maxima as the GTP I do not believe has it in this example. Edited October 1, 2005 by regfootball

[regfootball]

Reg - your cant rev line has been old but even the stats givin by mattson show their is only one higher rever of these 4 engines. Theres alot of things that go on while only you are driving a car ?

[post="22667"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

it can make the rpm but the question is whether it does it as velvety smooth and liquidy as the 'other' v6's. the 3500 is still asthmatic in this regard, so i doubt the 3900 is a big upgrade over the 3500 int his regard. Edited October 1, 2005 by regfootball

[razoredge]

loose block heater ? what is this Alaska with a diesel ? side air bags are for loosers that cant drive, loosers that cant drive dont belong in anything but a KIA Onstar come in that Mazda, well loose that anyhow _35 695 690 =1420 Im at $28100.00 for something I could live with, could probably land that for 26000 and be driving American as it should be.

[razoredge]

it can make the rpm but the question is whether it does it as velvety smooth and liquidy as the 'other' v6's.  the 3500 is still asthmatic in this regard, so i doubt the 3900 is a big upgrade over the 3500 int his regard.

[post="22669"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

asthmatic - what did you read that in some magazine ? What did they do unplug the MAF first to give it that asthmatic feel ?

You have serious issues, my SC 3800 will reach 6 grand faster than your senses could register smooth or anything but fear, next thing you would be crying for me to slow the F down. But I wouldnt , I'd drive you till you wet your little panties.

Get it through your thick head, We have many divisions, we have many cars, we cant put all the same engines in all the same cars and we dont want to loose models or divisions. Quite the damn nit pickin, the easiest thing in the world to do is be contrare all the time. None of the engines above have anything going on over the 3.9 to degrade the 3.9 over. There is a mileage issue and thats about it.

[razoredge]

I came up with 26,830 on Mazda 6 3.0 220 hp engine with only the moonroof w/great sterio option. Was higher at 27,965 but that was a Grand Touring or something. I see the standard saves 1000 dollars on the Mazdas so a automatic would be an instant extra 1000. I think the new Mazdas are kinda nice but they still have the same stupid Japanese grill they all are running and they are still Japanese junk, this is America, so on and so forth. G6 GTP is a sleek looking Coupe I cant see any comparision in the styling = priceless, American = future This topic has made me like that G6 6speed coupe alot more, thanks, very much.

[regfootball]

I came up with 26,830 on Mazda 6 3.0 220 hp engine with only the moonroof w/great sterio option. Was higher at 27,965 but that was a Grand Touring or something. I see the standard saves 1000 dollars on the Mazdas so a automatic would be an instant extra 1000. I think the new Mazdas are kinda nice but they still have the same stupid Japanese grill they all are running and they are still Japanese junk, this is America, so on and so forth. G6 GTP is a sleek looking Coupe I cant see any comparision in the styling = priceless, American = future

This topic has made me like that G6 6speed coupe alot more, thanks, very much.

[post="22687"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

repeat , mazda 6 Target Price: $21,632 (I'm sure you could get it even another thou cheaper at some dealers).

if they would sell the G6 with the 3.9 and stick and lthr and roof and side air bags at that price then i could say tit for tat and its fine. The G6 simply gets obscenely pricey once you add the GTP goods.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

the 60* family is naturally balanced compared to the 90* family (er 1 engine) that needs balancing. the 60* block has always been a compact and powerful block to build off of. Lets remember the 3.4L DOHC version... what was that? 210hp in 94? thats pretty nice... and 10 years later the 3.5L OHV version is making 211!!! WHAT PROGRESS!!! :P 90* is too large and bulky to be useful in typical car applications. The ygot the ole 2.8Ls in Cavaliers, but i doubt a 3.8L would fit, or if it did it would be very tight. the 60* block has more potential in the long run than the 90* one. and the 4.3L V6 is actually a V8 with 2 cyls hacked off unlike the 3.8L which was devised as a 90* and not made off a V8,

[razoredge]

the 60* family is naturally balanced compared to the 90* family (er 1 engine) that needs balancing. the 60* block has always been a compact and powerful block to build off of.

Lets remember the 3.4L DOHC version... what was that? 210hp in 94? thats pretty nice... and 10 years later the 3.5L OHV version is making 211!!! WHAT PROGRESS!!!  :P

90* is too large and bulky to be useful in typical car applications. The ygot the ole 2.8Ls in Cavaliers, but i doubt a 3.8L would fit, or if it did it would be very tight.

the 60* block has more potential in the long run than the 90* one.

and the 4.3L V6 is actually a V8 with 2 cyls hacked off unlike the 3.8L which was devised as a 90* and not made off a V8,

[post="22874"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Everyone is aware of the 60* bla bla bla and it sounds so great but as per all my posts it just has never ever been able to accomplish the durability and economy per power as the 3.8. The 3.8 was always the better engine. Now recently the 3.5 & 3.9 may finally be where they should be except for the mileage on the 3.9.

The 3.4 or $># twin cam was little more than a liability. And talk about a tight fit. GTP went from DOHC 3.4 to L67 for damn good reason and when it did it finally became a car with sizeable hot rod following. LQ was a worthy project half assed as per GM and droped because of maintence costs and ease of service. It just wasnt user friendly. Unhooking engine mounts and "rocking " engine to change plugs, we 90* Buick owners just chuckle. Breaking timing belts, leaking O rings. Cool engine but, no thanks!

" 90* is too large and bulky to be useful in typical car applications." As I said earlier the 3.8 fits better than the 2.8 or 3.1 ever did. The HO 3.0 90* was the high option and was used in mid 80's Skylarks, Grand Ams and others. The 90* 3.3 replaced it and was the best engine option in the later Cieras, Centurys and even the smaller Skylarks. Eventually replaced altogether by the more improved 3100.

The 3.8 was designed off a 90* V8 Buick. It evolved from there in many upgrades or "refinements" but that is its roots and why it was a 90*.

The 211hp 3.5 has come along ways from its 110hp 2.8 ancestor.

Im not pineing for the 3.8 here, I mean I wish they would advance it but they havent so our hopes ly in the 3.9 and mileage is not what it should be especially with all this "high feature" BS.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

The 211hp 3.5 has come along ways from its 110hp 2.8 ancestor.

[post="22930"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I have that "ancestor" engine, it feels plenty potent for my needs (albiet a little rough these days).

3.8L 90* V6

PROS:
Shorter engine
Potent engine when supercharged/turbo'd and or just modded.

CONS:
wide engine
heavy engine
not naturally balanced


60* Pushrod V6
Pros:
"compacy dynamo"
narrower engine
potentially potent engine, takes mods well.
Utilizes newer technology.
Fuel econ (3.5L)

CONS:
Fuel economy(3.9L -- altho this may just be GM getting the gear ratios for it to be faster)
taller engine


and for good taste...

4.3L 90* V6

Pros:
hacked off a 350 block, so easy to mod.
large displacement

Cons:
BIG! HEAVY! SLOW!

:P

[razoredge]

3.8 engine pros rock solid economical square, easy to place easy to maintain and service great power per pound in NA form - killer in forced induction cons none all the whiners that have never owned one 60* family pros naturaly balanced good design by other manufacturers but not GM weights 1.68 lbs less than its superior 90* cousin Cons too tall screwy intake manifold less durable than its 90* superior previously underpowered with poor economy finally getting to levels of refinement 3.8 has been at for decades 4.3 = just another Chevy engine

[quantum110]

First, it sounds like there are a couple of people here that may be confused about the 3.5L in the Impala...Just so everyone is clear, It is not the same engine that is in the Malibu and G6. The LZE/LZ4 3.5L in the Impala utilizes the same VVT tech that the 3.9 uses. Also it has a larger bore and shorter stroke compaired to the LX9 in the Malibu/G6 etc. As for the 0-60 times people are questioning. Tq is what seriously effects this number and your only increasing that by 28ft/lbs and shifting that peak up by 800rpm. Where the 3.9L really comes alive is in the upper mid-range compaired to the 3.5L. Not to mention the slightly increased tq is going to mean more tq management during shifts. The 3.9L should make passing a lot easier compaired to the 3.5L. Not to mention the LTZ is a bit heavier than the base model, you would be complaining about how slow the 3.5L was in this and asking why GM didn't offer a more powerful V6 option.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Wow... Absolutely NO media on this... Big surprise.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

the 3.9L might very well benefit from a 6spd transmission... if the gear ratios are a bit shorter with some tall OD gears... then the car could get very competitive acceleration and have good MPG.