GM Powertrain lineup simplification

[dwightlooi]

I just counted over 50 different engines in GM's current North American lineup. I feel that this is absolutely unnecessary, and like brand proliferation does more to burden R&D, supply chain and marketing that anything else.

I'll like to propose a much simpler lineup with just four (4) engines available in FWD and RWD configurations as needed.

1.4 liter I4 NA or Turbo -- 100~140hp; 95~148 lb-ft

2.0 liter I4 DI NA or Turbo -- 170~260hp; 150~260 lb-ft

3.6 liter V6 DI NA -- 288~304 hp; 270~273 lb-ft

6.2 liter V8 OHV NA or Supercharged -- 400~638hp; 395~604 lb-ft

I'll also like to propose trimming down to just four (5) automatic transmissions and one (1) manual box

6T40 -- 6A, FWD; up to 177 lb-ft, 7000 rpm max

6T70 -- 6A, FWD; up to 280 lb-ft, 7000 rpm max

6L50 -- 6A, RWD; up to 332 lb-ft, 7000 rpm max

6L80 -- 6A, RWD; up to 439 lb-ft, 6500 rpm max

6L90 -- 6A, RWD; up to 550 lb-ft, 6200 rpm max

TR6060 -- 6M, RWD; up to 620 lb-ft, 6600 rpm max

That's it... everything else can go.

Edited November 10, 2008 by dwightlooi

[loki]

you're line sounds good, if you exclude trucks.

but in light of the 3.0L development....that'd just take the place of the 2.L turbo? have to have a larger 4 if the 1.4 was turboed,, though the 2.0L NA would prolly be a tad better than it....or just used the 2.3L DI coming. ?

how would the 2.0L make 170hp? ...give it a dash of s2000 tech?

Edited November 10, 2008 by loki

[dwightlooi]

you're line sounds good, if you exclude trucks.

but in light of the 3.0L development....that'd just take the place of the 2.L turbo? have to have a larger 4 if the 1.4 was turboed,, though the 2.0L NA would prolly be a tad better than it....or just used the 2.3L DI coming. ?

how would the 2.0L make 170hp? ...give it a dash of s2000 tech?

Trucks will use the 3.6 DI V6 or 6.2 LS2.

A 2.0 liter NA making 170hp is not "like an S2000". The S2000's F20C makes 250hp from 2.0 liters (240 with US emissions).

A 2.0 liter NA making 170 hp is a pretty moderate tune. About 150 lb-ft is pretty normal from DI and about 11.3:1 compression. 87 octane friendly too. Keep 90% of that to relatively placid 6600 rpm and you have 170 horses. As a matter of fact the specific output is basically the same as the 304hp 3.6 DI V6 (84.4hp/liter; 11.3:1 compression, DI, 87 octane).

[FAPTurbo]

Wouldn't it be prudent to keep the 5.3L? I'm not sure many people would be responsive to having such a huge gap between the 3.6 and the 6.2 in the trucks.

[dwightlooi]

Wouldn't it be prudent to keep the 5.3L? I'm not sure many people would be responsive to having such a huge gap between the 3.6 and the 6.2 in the trucks.

The output of the 5.3 and the 3.6 DI is similar. Torque is ~50 lb-ft lower on the 3.6 DI, but if a buyer really cares about things like that he'll spring for the 6.2 anyway. The BSFC of the 5.3 and 6.2 shouldn't be all that different, neither should the overall fuel economy.

[aldw]

I do think Cadillac needs brand-specific engines to help with brand building, otherwise naysayers would rip it for having the same parts as the lower brands.

[dwightlooi]

I do think Cadillac needs brand-specific engines to help with brand building, otherwise naysayers would rip it for having the same parts as the lower brands.

I don't think that matters as long as the engines themselves are excellent products. Everyone knows that Acura raids Honda parts bins for engines and that Lexus does the same with Toyota engines.

Engine exclusivity itself does not do much to position the brand. Basically positioning can be done under the following framework:-

(1) Chevy - FWD, mainstream cars.

(2) Buick - FWD, luxury cars with unique sheet metal, more luxurious interiors and additional quiet tuning.

(3) Pontiac - RWD, sporty cars.

(4) Cadillac - RWD, sporty Luxury cars with unique sheet metal, more luxurious interiors and additional quiet tuning.