Any chance of the G6 getting a DOHC V-6?

[vt_hokie]

I almost purchased a Pontiac G6, but opted to get a used car instead. I would like to see Pontiac ditch the old pushrod engine in favor of the newer 250 hp DOHC VVT 3.6 liter V-6 that they're giving the Saturn Aura. Naturally, it should be mated to either a 6 speed manual or a 6 speed "sport shift" automatic transmission! :) Why don't I just get an Aura then? Well, I don't want the big goofy smiley face grin that they gave the Aura's nose, or the awkward looking headlight assemblies that are twice as big as they should be. I think the G6 is a much nicer looking car. But both the 201 hp 3.5 liter and 240 hp 3.9 liter OHV engines are getting to be outclassed by the competition. Is there any chance of the G6 getting new engines and transmissions? As for what I bought instead of a new G6, I went out and replaced my 1997 Saturn SL2 with a used 2000 SL2! I wish GM would put dent resistant body panels on more of its cars, but sadly, instead they're even getting rid of them on Saturns. Door and fender dings suck, and they're inevitable sooner or later with a steel clad car. :( Edited January 1, 2006 by vt_hokie

[thegriffon]

Unfortunately most consumers value tight panel gaps more highly, perhaps because in their experience door and fender dings are not "inevitable".

[haypops]

Although polymer panels are not at the top of my wish list, tight panel gaps are a complete non issue for me. Just don't get it.

[vt_hokie]

Unfortunately most consumers value tight panel gaps more highly, perhaps because in their experience door and fender dings are not "inevitable".

[post="65892"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Well, let's put it this way - they're probable if you park in parking lots, which most people have to do at some point. Whether it's at the supermarket (especially with shopping carts rolling around), mall, movie theater, train station, or wherever...sooner or later something is gonna get ya!

My 1997 Saturn SL2's plastic body panels still looked as good as new after 8+ years and 220,000 miles! The odds are very high that it wouldn't have held up so well over that span with steel side panels. Edited January 1, 2006 by vt_hokie

[caddycruiser]

Unfortunately most consumers value tight panel gaps more highly, perhaps because in their experience door and fender dings are not "inevitable".

[post="65892"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I agree. Many, many years of parking in different lots and other places over the years, and we've NEVER gotten a ding or any other damage. Guess it pays to typically park on the end or out away from everyone else most of the time.

That said, I also think that anyone who thinks the G6 sedan is better looking than the Aura is in the small minority. Sorry, but the odd mixture of bland/aggressive and odd proportions just doesn't do it for me.

I do agree on the powertrain, though--just don't expect it to ever happen, except when the car gets a full redesign *maybe*. The 3.5L and 3.9L are still very fresh powertrains for GM and even though they seem somewhat pathetic compared to things like Nissan's DOHC VQ 3.5L they use in everything, GM has to use them in SOMETHING, so they'll probably be under the hoods of G6's, Impalas, etc. for quite a while.

The only real possibility might be a new 6-speed transmission that might FINALLY allow the engines to have a much better powerband than the widely spaced 4-speeds that have been around for eons, but again, that's just a possibility.

[vt_hokie]

That said, I also think that anyone who thinks the G6 sedan is better looking than the Aura is in the small minority.  Sorry, but the odd mixture of bland/aggressive and odd proportions just doesn't do it for me.

Wait, are you saying that the G6 has odd proportions? Quite the contrary, imo! The G6 is a well proportioned sedan. On the other hand, the nose of the Aura could best be described as ungainly! I also don't care for the exaggerated wheel well flares on the Aura. Basically, I would describe the Aura as being a pimped out Dodge Stratus with a very ugly front end!

Not all of us want a cute, cuddly, friendly car that looks like it's smiling at you, and that seems to be the image that Saturn is going for. Why give Saturn the better powertrain options, if Pontiac is supposed to be the performance division? How will the G6 stack up against the Aura in terms of performance and power/fuel economy tradeoff? Would the 3.9 liter G6 GTP be able to keep up with the 250 hp 3.6 liter Saturn Aura? Just curious. I'll bet the Aura will beat the G6 GTP's mediocre 26 mpg highway rating, while still delivering more power! Edited January 1, 2006 by vt_hokie

[The O.C.]

Wait, are you saying that the G6 has odd proportions?  Quite the contrary, imo!  The G6 is a well proportioned sedan.  On the other hand, the nose of the Aura could best be described as ungainly!  I also don't care for the exaggerated wheel well flares on the Aura.  Basically, I would describe the Aura as being a pimped out Dodge Stratus with a very ugly front end!

Not all of us want a cute, cuddly, friendly car that looks like it's smiling at you, and that seems to be the image that Saturn is going for.  Why give Saturn the better powertrain options, if Pontiac is supposed to be the performance division?  How will the G6 stack up against the Aura in terms of performance and power/fuel economy tradeoff?  Would the 3.9 liter G6 GTP be able to keep up with the 250 hp 3.6 liter Saturn Aura?  Just curious.  I'll bet the Aura will beat the G6 GTP's mediocre 26 mpg highway rating, while still delivering more power!

[post="65967"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I had the opportunity to bounce a few emails with Lutz a few months back....and we discussed the G6 and its pushrod V6s.

He admitted that from day one, he wanted the HF 3.6L in the G6 but "production constraints" kept them from offering it in the vehicle (also what he said about the base engine in the Lucerne.)

Based upon his comments, I wouldn't bet against the engine finding its way in the G6 sometime in the near future....but I bet it wouldn't be before late '07 or '08.

To me....I HATE the "production contraints" arguement. When you have a solid product like the HF engines that would so obviously improve your vehicles, you need to FIND a way to increase production to meet demand. You don't find other manufacturers struggling with "production contraints" for its class-leading engine/powertrain combos.

[vt_hokie]

IBased upon his comments, I wouldn't bet against the engine finding its way in the G6 sometime in the near future....but I bet it wouldn't be before late '07 or '08.

That's interesting, but '07 or '08 will be too late for me. GM will lose a sale because of those old pushrod engines, as I don't want a Saturn Aura so I'll likely end up buying an import instead!

I don't really care whether the engine is OHC or OHV, but I want the best hp/fuel economy ratio I can get with the most refinement possible. If the Toyota Avalon's 3.5 liter V-6 can put out 268 hp and still get 31 mpg highway, then the 201 hp 3.5 liter pushrod is looking a little outclassed, I'd say! (Not that I'd get an Avalon, but it's just an example.) Edited January 1, 2006 by vt_hokie

[Cory Wolfe]

This is the G6's biggest problem... I've always said it. It needs those DOHC V6 engines which are obviously better than the OHV V6s. It's not OHC vs OHV, it's just that those engines are literally not where they should be. If they could be as advanced as the LS V8s, they would be fine. As is... nope. Bring on the HF V6s! As far as design... I, too, like the G6 sedan better than the Aura, but it needs to be less bland than it is. If that is ever corrected, as well as it's terrible rear end, it'd be perfect. Along with a much better interior, that is... Also, my Grand Am has it's share of dings and let me tell you, I wish it wouldn't. Same goes for the Blazer. I agree that getting a ding is more likely than anything associated with panel gap. Who really gives a shit about panel gap? Sure... it won't look as good, but atleast you'll be ding free. Even then, though, I prefer steel for other reasons.

[haypops]

Who really gives a shit about panel gap? Sure... it won't look as good, but atleast you'll be ding free. Even then, though, I prefer steel for other reasons.

[post="66251"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

;

I'm curius what are they?

[Cory Wolfe]

I just don't like the feel of having plastic body panels... makes it seem cheap to me. :P

[vt_hokie]

I just don't like the feel of having plastic body panels... makes it seem cheap to me. :P

[post="66256"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Does the Corvette seem cheap to you then?

[Cory Wolfe]

Sure... :lol: :D

[pow]

If you've got high quality sheetmetal and a light exterior color, most dents don't show anyway.

[thegriffon]

… When you have a solid product like the HF engines that would so obviously improve your vehicles, you need to FIND a way to increase production to meet demand. …

[post="66149"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yes, it's called the new Flint engine plant. Unfortunately supply has been strained even further by the liquidation of the Australian casting company, so Holden has to get blocks from the same North American supplier as St Catharines.

[bobo]

I just don't like the feel of having plastic body panels... makes it seem cheap to me. :P

[post="66256"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

A couple of decades ago GM did make an obscure fire-prone mid-engine vehicle on a space frame with plastic panels. And of course the Gen4 F-bodies had them too.

I'll miss the plastic panels on Saturns. I wish they would keep them for at least the doors, but I can understand the reasons for doing away with them.

[Flybrian]

I think one of the big problems was the inadequate explanation for the panel gaps. If it were made abundantly clear is was a necessity for expansion, you would've had more acceptance among the rags...or not, really.

[haypops]

I think one of the big problems was the inadequate explanation for the panel gaps. If it were made abundantly clear is was a necessity for expansion, you would've had more acceptance among the rags...or not, really.

[post="66357"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It seems to me that the "inadequate explanation for the panel gaps" should refer to the lack of explanation why it matters so much that they exist.

[vt_hokie]

It seems to me that the "inadequate explanation for the panel gaps" should refer to the lack of explanation why it matters so much that they exist.

[post="66382"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Isn't part of the reason for having so many different divisions to let consumers have more of a choice? Otherwise, might as well just have one label called "GM", if all of the cars are going to be similar rebadges. Have Saturn maintain the polymer panels so that those who want them have the choice to get them. Those who care about stupid "panel gaps" and would rather have dents in their car are free to buy from one of the other divisions! Edited January 2, 2006 by vt_hokie

[haypops]

I didn't right clearly. The explanation that I want is NOT why the plastic panels should exist, but rather why panel gaps are an important consideration. While eplanations from above are flowing, I sure would like to know just how much these panels add to the price of a car.

[The O.C.]

I didn't right clearly.  The explanation that I want is NOT why the plastic panels should exist, but rather why panel gaps are an important consideration.  While eplanations from above are flowing, I sure would like to know just how much these panels add to the price of a car.

[post="66508"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Well, my C6 has tight panel gaps with its FCP (fiberglass composite plastic) body panels.....so I don't know if the Saturn excuse of expansion/contraction is really true....if so, why doesn't the C6 have those huge, ugly panel gaps?

Saturns however, look really bad with such wide panel gaps. I was looking at some VUEs at the San Diego Auto Show and the gap that runs down the "B" pillar is so wide, you can easily see the insides of the door panels....it just makes the cars look like they were shoddily put together.

[gmhashope]

Is there any chance of the G6 getting new engines and transmissions? 

The G6 might get a different version of the 3.9 V6 to produce around 275 hp and 6 speed autos are on the way but I wouldn't expect to see any of this before '07. I don't think the 3.6 will make it in there though.

[Cory Wolfe]

A couple of decades ago GM did make an obscure fire-prone mid-engine vehicle on a space frame with plastic panels.  And of course the Gen4 F-bodies had them too.

I know... I know... I just prefer steel, but don't care about panel gaps. Is there a problem? :D

[vt_hokie]

The G6 might get a different version of the 3.9 V6 to produce around 275 hp and 6 speed autos are on the way but I wouldn't expect to see any of this before '07.  I don't think the 3.6 will make it in there though.

[post="66573"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Guess I'll have to find some other car to buy then, as I don't think I'll be waiting for '07. Sorry GM.

I was looking at the specs of the new Toyota Avalon again. 268 hp, 240+ lb ft of torque, 0 - 60 in 6.9 seconds, and still rated at 31 mpg highway! Too bad the Avalon is so butt ugly. :AH-HA_wink: But as for the powertrain, the bar has been set!

That Aura does have a nice aggressive stance, like the G6. I just can't stand that smiley face nose with those awful headlights! And I really don't care for that huge lip that runs along the underside and the wheel wells. Edited January 3, 2006 by vt_hokie

[haypops]

I was looking at the specs of the new Toyota Avalon again.  268 hp, 240+ lb ft of torque, 0 - 60 in 6.9 seconds, and still rated at 31 mpg highway!  Too bad the Avalon is so butt ugly.    :AH-HA_wink:  But as for the powertrain, the bar has been set!

[post="66609"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Perhaps Cadillac has something you like. Comprable pricing.

[The O.C.]

Perhaps Cadillac has something you like. Comprable pricing.

[post="66706"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I bet you could find a surprising deal on a base CTS 2.8L. Not overly powerful, but I bet it's still nice....

Reports are the 6-speed manual is somewhat sluggish in 5th and 6th.....but if you don't mind using revs and gears, I bet a 2.8L/6-speed CTS would be a fun car to drive and a nice value.

[evok]

Well, my C6 has tight panel gaps with its FCP (fiberglass composite plastic) body panels.....so I don't know if the Saturn excuse of expansion/contraction is really true....if so, why doesn't the C6 have those huge, ugly panel gaps?

Saturns however, look really bad with such wide panel gaps.  I was looking at some VUEs at the San Diego Auto Show and the gap that runs down the "B" pillar is so wide, you can easily see the insides of the door panels....it just makes the cars look like they were shoddily put together.

[post="66511"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The type of plastic used on the Saturn differs from what is used on the Vette. The Vette uses SMC or sheet molded compound where the Saturn uses a thermoplastic.

The plastics are different and it is like comparing apples to oranges.

[haypops]

I assume that the price is something like steel<thermoplastic<SMC. Is that right? Edited January 3, 2006 by haypops

[evok]

I assume that the price is something like steel<thermoplastic<SMC. Is that right?

[post="67063"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It depends on how you count the cost, each has its advantages and disadvantages.

From a piece cost, you are correct, but TP and SMC have lower tooling cost and higher cycle times.

SMC is heavy where TP is light.

It all depends on where you sink the cost but generally plastic is good for low volume where cycle times are not an issue and you do not want to sink a lot of money into tooling.

Personally, the hydroformed body panels used on the kappa cars is the process of the future for low volume.

The TP on the Saturn were a misguided mistake. Cycle times too long for high volume vehicle and the quick styling updates were not feasible. Edited January 3, 2006 by evok

[vt_hokie]

I bet you could find a surprising deal on a base CTS 2.8L.  Not overly powerful, but I bet it's still nice....

I think the CTS is ugly. I don't like angular, boxy, or in your face designs. I like a nice, well proportioned, sleek and streamlined but somewhat conservative and understated look. That seems exceedingly rare these days, unfortunately. The G6 sedan is one of the few new cars that I actually like the looks of. The Subaru Legacy would be another example.

[haypops]

I think the CTS is ugly.  I don't like angular, boxy, or in your face designs.  I like a nice, well proportioned, sleek and streamlined but somewhat conservative and understated look.  That seems exceedingly rare these days, unfortunately.  The G6 sedan is one of the few new cars that I actually like the looks of.  The Subaru Legacy would be another example.

[post="67398"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You don't like the looks of the CTS or the Aura, nor do you like the new OHV engines of the G6. You sound like a Camry man to me. Enjoy its really not as bad as many here say and I'm sure America will recover from this one sale.

[Drew Dowdell]

I was going to suggest Saab 9-3 to him.

[vt_hokie]

I was going to suggest Saab 9-3 to him.

[post="67494"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The Saab 9-3 is a nice car, but I'm not really a Saab guy. I'd get a Subaru Legacy GT before I got a Saab.

As for the Toyota Camry, I can't stand it.

[Matt276]

The pushrod engines are a bad decision, probably made by a bunch of bean counters who knows nothing about cars. Ecotec 2.4 and 3.6 should be the only engines available in the midsize cars.

[invertigo]

Well, the Avalon is an exception... even the Camry V6 (20/28) falls short of those perhaps inflated MPGs. Please also consider the economy ratings for the vehicles with the HF 3.6 V6... the Lacrosse is rated at 19/27 with the 3.6 vs. 20/30 with the 3800. Using the HF3.6 engine as it is currently utilized provides significantly lower EPA ratings than those "outdated" pushrod designs. In order to keep its CAFE average up, GM will continue to use its most efficient powertrains in volume products. BTW the Aura as pictured is a concept NOT production... it is likely that the production version will differ in several ways... notably fender flares and front/rear fascias. OHC designs are more complex, more expensive to build and offer few real-world advantages to a well designed "pushrod" engine.(Look at those lame GMT900 or corvette engines :P ) The press continues to exagerate the rev-ability (what good is torque above 4000-5000rpm?) and "smoothness" of particularly asian OHC engines. Either way, judge a product on it's own merits. You can't compare Avalons to G6's. The G6 3.5 with 201hp/222torque and 22/32mpg compares very favorably to the Camry V6 with 190hp/197torque and 20/28mpg.

[MyerShift]

For the G6 to be a truly viable option in the eyes of consumers versus Asian or European imports, the engines need to deliver on ALL fronts. Not just efficiency. Not just refinement. Not just technology. They must deliver it all. Another thing that bugs me is the fact that what GM calls "high-feature" engines are what the foreign brands offer as "the usual". I would like to see the 2.8L and 3.6L DOHC engines in the G6. Remember, it's all about what the customer wants.

[haypops]

Another thing that bugs me is the fact that what GM calls "high-feature" engines are what the foreign brands offer as "the usual".

[post="71118"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

They may call it "the usual" but they don't charge like its the usual. Check out the price differential for a 6 compared to a four. Now the four is really "the usual"

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

a little off topic here... but has any1 noticed the Northstar gets better gas mileage than the HF 3.6L in the STS?

[vt_hokie]

Please also consider the economy ratings for the vehicles with the HF 3.6 V6... the Lacrosse is rated at 19/27 with the 3.6

Still beats the G6 GTP, which needs 3.9 liters in order to get 240 hp (still less than the 3.6 liter LaCrosse) and is only rated at 26 mpg highway.

BTW the Aura as pictured is a concept NOT production... it is likely that the production version will differ in several ways... notably fender flares and front/rear fascias.

I'll be curious to see what the production version looks like then.

The G6 3.5 with 201hp/222torque and 22/32mpg compares very favorably to the Camry V6 with 190hp/197torque and 20/28mpg.

Yeah, the Camry is falling behind the competition. I don't know why anybody would choose a Camry over a Honda Accord.

Oh, and the G6 3.5 only gets 32 mpg highway in the cheap version. If you want the sport shift transmission, you lose 3 mpg. Edited January 11, 2006 by vt_hokie

[91z4me]

a little off topic here... but has any1 noticed the Northstar gets better gas mileage than the HF 3.6L in the STS?

[post="71449"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah I noticed that when it first came out. They wanted the V6 to feel like it has some performance to it so they geared it for acceleration vs mileage. The N* has the power so the gearing didn't have to be as steep.

[haypops]

Still beats the G6 GTP, which needs 3.9 liters in order to get 240 hp

[post="72484"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The dispalcement of an engine(3.9 l. in your example) is a false measure. The weight of an engine is critical to performance and fuel economy. The outside demensions of an engine are critical to packaging and perhaps frontal area by extension. These are critical concerns of a good engineer. The displacement is a nebulous thing at best.

[91z4me]

The dispalcement of an engine(3.9 l. in your example) is a false measure. The weight of an engine is critical to performance and fuel economy.  The outside demensions of an engine are critical to packaging and perhaps frontal area by extension.  These are critical concerns of a good engineer.  The displacement is a nebulous thing at best.

[post="72523"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Had to look up nebulous, my mind when on break.

Nebulous \Neb"u*lous\, a. [L. nebulosus: cf. F. n['e]buleux. See Nebula.]

1. Cloudy; hazy; misty.

And I agree. Displacement means nothing without a measure of physical external size.

[Robert Hall]

Still beats the G6 GTP, which needs 3.9 liters in order to get 240 hp (still less than the

It's sad that they need 3.9L to get 240 hp when Honda gets that out of 3.0L....

[91z4me]

It's sad that they need 3.9L to get 240 hp when Honda gets that out of 3.0L....

[post="72639"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Would you care to compare the external dimensions of those two engines? Go pop a Honda 3.0 hood and a 3.9 OHV hood and take a look at which engine is larger.

[Robert Hall]

Would you care to compare the external dimensions of those two engines?  Go pop a Honda 3.0 hood and a 3.9 OHV hood and take a look at which engine is larger.

[post="72847"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

What does the external dimensions of the engines have to do with anything?????? Seems like a lame argument. Edited January 13, 2006 by moltar

[haypops]

What does the external dimensions of the engines have to do with anything??????  Seems like a lame argument.

[post="72973"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

packaging>frontal area>wind resistance>fuel milage

[z28luvr01]

packaging>frontal area>wind resistance>fuel milage

[post="72980"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Don't forget weight :)

[91z4me]

What does the external dimensions of the engines have to do with anything??????  Seems like a lame argument.

[post="72973"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

No take a look at which engine is actually larger. The high tech OHC engines are not high tech in that they take up more room, weigh more, cost more, and have more moving parts than a OHV motor. Given the same physical space to fit a motor for the most power AND fuel savings OHV wins every time.

[Robert Hall]

No take a look at which engine is actually larger.  The high tech OHC engines are not high tech in that they take up more room, weigh more, cost more, and have more moving parts than a OHV motor.  Given the same physical space to fit a motor for the most power AND fuel savings OHV wins every time.

Maybe, but the market doesn't view it that way..the continued use of the 3.9 is viewed as GM being stuck in the past...

[91z4me]

Maybe, but the market doesn't view it that way..the continued use of the 3.9 is viewed as GM being stuck in the past...

[post="73009"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Kinda sad isn't it. A more efficient design is pushed to the side because a greater number of the competition uses an older more inefficient design.