GM Gasoline Engine Lineup -- Circa 2013

[dwightlooi]

Eight Engines -- starting with 3-cylinders and ending with Pushrod V8s.

[Drew Dowdell]

No trucks in 2013? You foresee the 3.6 going away?

[loki]

olds, this doesn't have the duramax on it... that will survive.

but, if small trucks come back, the 1.5 turbo and the 3L. maybe the 2.1 T for an "ss"

but otherwise, the 3L turbo and the V8 should work for the gas trucks.

curious why 2.1L?instead of using the .5L/cylinder, or is it just a rounding issue?

Edited September 30, 2010 by loki

[dwightlooi]

olds, this doesn't have the duramax on it... that will survive.

but, if small trucks come back, the 1.5 turbo and the 3L. maybe the 2.1 T for an "ss"

but otherwise, the 3L turbo and the V8 should work for the gas trucks.

curious why 2.1L?instead of using the .5L/cylinder, or is it just a rounding issue?

The whole exercise is to see if we can reduce the entire GM gasoline lineup to eight engines that cover the entire application spectrum. If you look at the vertical axis, the idea is to cover the entire power spectrum evenly with as few engines as possible.

The corner stone here is that we are using the same Cam-in-cam concentric camshaft layout across the board. In the overhead cam engines it enables a more efficient SOHC like layout (lower frictional losses due to less parts and less space usage due to having only one apparent camshaft) without sacrificing the ability to advance and retard intake and exhaust events independently. In pushrod applications, the heads are already very compact, but the cam-in-cam arrangement allows one to implement independent intake and exhaust VVT without having over-under or side by side twin cams.

The 1.5 liter covers the mini cars like the Aveo and the Smart. The NA version for typical versions, the 1.5 turbo for the SS. The 1.5 is also basically half a 3.0 using the same rods, pistons, valves, followers, springs, etc. A 1.5 liter three is more efficient than a 1.5 liter four.

The 2.1 covers all the duties currently handled by the 1.8, 2.0, 2.2 and 2.4 engines. I simply picked a middle displacement. An NA version goes into the base Chevys. A Turbo goes into SSes and base Caddies.

The NA 3.0 replaces 3.0 and the 3.6. The turbo V6 also replaces the 4.8 and 5.3 V8s.

The 6.2 Pushrod replaces the 5.3, 6.0, 6.2 and 7.0 V8s in performance RWD applications. Here we go for the biggest displacement small block that supports NA and force fed configs in an effort to obtain the highest power-to-weight and size ratio. Up level trucks, the Vette and even the ATS-V can use the same NA 470hp engine. The Z06, CTS-V, STS-V and Escalade-V can use the supercharged 600hp unit. (Torque is limited to 438 & 550 lb-ft for 6L80 & 6L90 tranmission compatibility respectively)

[ZL-1]

Add twin turbo 3.0L to close the power gap to the V8

[dado]

The whole exercise is to see if we can reduce the entire GM gasoline lineup to eight engines that cover the entire application spectrum. If you look at the vertical axis, the idea is to cover the entire power spectrum evenly with as few engines as possible.

The corner stone here is that we are using the same Cam-in-cam concentric camshaft layout across the board. In the overhead cam engines it enables a more efficient SOHC like layout (lower frictional losses due to less parts and less space usage due to having only one apparent camshaft) without sacrificing the ability to advance and retard intake and exhaust events independently. In pushrod applications, the heads are already very compact, but the cam-in-cam arrangement allows one to implement independent intake and exhaust VVT without having over-under or side by side twin cams.

The 1.5 liter covers the mini cars like the Aveo and the Smart. The NA version for typical versions, the 1.5 turbo for the SS. The 1.5 is also basically half a 3.0 using the same rods, pistons, valves, followers, springs, etc. A 1.5 liter three is more efficient than a 1.5 liter four.

The 2.1 covers all the duties currently handled by the 1.8, 2.0, 2.2 and 2.4 engines. I simply picked a middle displacement. An NA version goes into the base Chevys. A Turbo goes into SSes and base Caddies.

The NA 3.0 replaces 3.0 and the 3.6. The turbo V6 also replaces the 4.8 and 5.3 V8s.

The 6.2 Pushrod replaces the 5.3, 6.0, 6.2 and 7.0 V8s in performance RWD applications. Here we go for the biggest displacement small block that supports NA and force fed configs in an effort to obtain the highest power-to-weight and size ratio. Up level trucks, the Vette and even the ATS-V can use the same NA 470hp engine. The Z06, CTS-V, STS-V and Escalade-V can use the supercharged 600hp unit. (Torque is limited to 438 & 550 lb-ft for 6L80 & 6L90 tranmission compatibility respectively)

I would like to see Z06 to keep N.A engine. Let the future zr1 to come with supercharger. So i would put 6.2 l v8 with about 530 hp (engine just for Z06 like ls7 for present z06...okay and special edition Holden) and make it lighter than present if it is possible. Also engine between 380 hp and 470 hp would be welcome. Something like 420-430 hp. V8 with lesser displacement or higher boost v6.

[dwightlooi]

I would like to see Z06 to keep N.A engine. Let the future zr1 to come with supercharger. So i would put 6.2 l v8 with about 530 hp (engine just for Z06 like ls7 for present z06...okay and special edition Holden) and make it lighter than present if it is possible. Also engine between 380 hp and 470 hp would be welcome. Something like 420-430 hp. V8 with lesser displacement or higher boost v6.

Personally, I don't think the ZR-1 will stick around as a standard member of the Vette lineup. Instead, I see the Z06 moving from the current LS7 engine to an engine between the LSA and the LS9 in performance. This will probably be shared with the next CTS-V as well. It will be very much like the LS2 being practically as good as the LS6, and the LS6 disappearing.

It'll be difficult to push an NA 2v engine to 530 hp. And I don't see them going to the expense of adding a compressor and specifying 26hp less than the LSA.

As far as slotting in an engine between 360 and 470hp, I thought about a higher boost 3.0 V6 or a "87 Octane" torque tuned 6.2 V8. But, I decided against it for the sake of keeping a 1+1 variant geometry for each engine.

Edited September 30, 2010 by dwightlooi

[dado]

It'll be difficult to push an NA 2v engine to 530 hp. And I don't see them going to the expense of adding a compressor and specifying 26hp less than the LSA.

.

I think GM could do it. It would be engine just for Z06 so it could use more expensive material (something like present LS7 but with DI higher rpm, etc.). This guys can reach 800 BHP from 6.9 l v8 pushrod. Yes i know there is big differences between vette and this car (especially the price) but i think 85 hp/l can be reach.

[dwightlooi]

I think GM could do it. It would be engine just for Z06 so it could use more expensive material (something like present LS7 but with DI higher rpm, etc.). This guys can reach 800 BHP from 6.9 l v8 pushrod. Yes i know there is big differences between vette and this car (especially the price) but i think 85 hp/l can be reach.

A better question is why not just use the 600hp Supercharged V8 for the Z06? After all, this is a positive displacement air pump we are talking about; no turbo lag to worry about. Besides, I am not sure which is more expensive -- the titanium innards on a LS7 like high revving engine r a plain vanilla 2.1L Eaton supercharger.

If you want to do a "special" limited production engine, do that for the next ZR1. You can probably push 800 hp from the 6.2 with a pair of turbos. It'll very quickly get to the point where the transmission and managing traction becomes a dorminating factor.