Cadillac Vehicles & Engine Lineup (Circa 2015)

[Lamar]

I still don't understand how a pushrod V8 is better than a DOHC V8, but a pushrod 4, 6, or 12 cylinder is not better than a DOHC. And if pushrods were so superior, why don't any of the wealthy car companies that can have any engine they want invest in one? Only the 2 bankrupt car companies still make them, plus Bentley who is using an engine from the 1960s out of some traditionalist appeal to their old school buyers.

All of the wealthier car companies are based in areas where displacement taxes are in effect. That's one reason why they continue to go that way... oh, and it's probably not in their best interests to draw up a whole new engine design based on nothing.

[hyperv6]

I can tell you never had any real marketing in school or did any through work. You take to much for granted. The public as a whole are stupid. They believe only what you want them to believe and that is where marketing comes in. If you polish a turd enough and and market it right you can sell it to 75% of the people out there. While I agree with most but not all of you engineering ideas the fact is you still have to sell it as today few products sell themselves.

The bottom line is you can post all the numbers you like and be right on most of them but the public precieves things much different than you and some other here. This line of though is part of what got GM in trouble. They gave people what they determind to be what they needed and people went elsewhere to buy what they wanted or thoght they needed.

Numbers mean little to the public but good marketing sells the product and technology.

Now see you example of FWD vs RWD is given at face value and is accurate. But people do not care about saving weight and adding space to a small car and the MFG understood this. So they marketed the cars as getting better traction in snow and sporty handling. You and I know these are false claims. While they were marketed with claims all the weight was over the front wheels [which is true till you step on the gas] the old rule of for ever action there is a equal and opposite reaction. In other words the weight transfers to the rear when you step on the gas.

Now marketing has convinced many today they can no go into the world of snow without FWD and refuse to buy a RWD for fear of being stranded.

If GM wants to change the image of the old pushrod they need to market it or get out of it. They are trying to hide it now and it wins few converts while everyone else is singing a different tune.

As for the gear heads. I just had a guy today that has waited for 4 cams for his Shelby. $14000 worth of cams and he still has not gotten them yet after 2 months. He has no regrette as I asked him if he missed his old 5.0. His reply was no as he see's his new engine as much more advanced and modern. This is what I see more and more of. I am ok with it as my company just makes more money sellig more cam parts than ever.

As for the Global warming deal no need to bring it up to me as we are on the same team here.

Here is the problem with your argument...

I'll wager that 95% or more of the general public do not know what DOHC is. Of the remaining 5%, some of them will be smart enough to know technical merit when they see it, some won't. But whatever the split is within that 5% it is irrelevant from a sales and marketing standpoint.

In the end the car will sell based on looks, interior quality, refinement, performance, fuel economy and value. It wouldn't sell on the alphabet soup on the engine cover or the lack thereof.

Most know what DOHC means as it is self explanitory. They may not know the techinical merits one way or the other but they believe what they have been taught over the years. Also they see it in a Benz and BMW so it has to be better no logic needed by the unwashed. Remember precieved value, precieved quality, precieved refinment etc are what is true to them.

Few people outside GM fans and old muscle car fans have any love for the pushrod. Where outside GM is the loud clamor for them? Do you see BMW fans writing letter asking for the pushrod? Benz? Even now few cry for them at Ford with the new Coyote out. Sorry but the market has shifted and most companies give what is expected in a car anymore. They no longer have to sell it as they all have it but for a few cars and some trucks.

We will just have to agree to disagree. But as it is the entire industry is proving you wrong. They are making money and selling cars so someone must want what they offer. None of companys that offer nothing but DOHC have filed Chapter 11.

There are many things todays advanced sports sedans don't need but the bag of tricks they offer sell cars. Self parking is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen but it sells cars. Technology sells no matter if it is needed or not.

It is human nature that more is better that is what the luxury and sports market is all about. Bugatti could have gotten by with a pushrod V8 but lets face it a Turbo W16 has help set them appart and many look at them as a technology leader so much to pay the price. The guy could build a 1,000 HP Vette for much less.

This is where Cadillac needs to be. A car special enough to pay more money for it so they can make a profit on less cars. People buy limited AMG's and other special cars as they want the only one at the country club.

Luxury cars need to feed the ego it is not about that the pushrod is more efficent or fits in a smaller area. In this class less is not considered better. That thinking is best saved for an Impala etc.

Edited July 22, 2011 by hyperv6

[hyperv6]

Thing is, Hyper, GM's not hiding anything about the LS engines.

There just aren't many cars right now in which they can use it. Camaro, Corvette, CTS-V... call me crazy, but I don't think they could or would stuff an LS3 into a LaCrosse. (Now if they revived the LS4... )

You can say that they're not winning many converts, but as I mentioned, the only LS engines in cars right now are in semi-niche to exotic vehicles. There's no appreciable volume to be expected there.

You missed the point. Look at the latest Z06 3 page ad and they talk abot the Z06 V8 They give the power rating, the torque and even the fact it uses Sodium filled valves. They make no mention as they do with most V6 and 4 cylinders the cam and valve count. My LNF turbo has often been stated as being a 24 valve DOHC. Chevy markets the engine but leaves out the advances that they have made on the engine. It leaves me feeling like they are not wanting anyone to notice. Ford plasters the 32 valve on everything they can when speaking tech aspects on their new Coyote V8. They make sure people know.

They have enough cars they put this in but in the cars they advertise they give HP numbers and some tech info but not much else. The engine is advanced enough it really to me is no longer a SBC. Very little is shared other than some dimentions. They did do a good job and should market it. Even on the LS9 they spend more time on the supercharger and intercooler than talking about much else on the engine other than the drysump.

They could so enough DOHC small V8 engines that would sell world wide to make it worth the investment. Cadillac and the Vette could and would sell many overseas. They also would do well here. The smaller enigne would play well in many markets. I see it better than a V6 Vette. The future for any V8 will be limited no matter the layout. They will be more limited and more expensive as time moves on.

Edited July 22, 2011 by hyperv6

[Lamar]

Most know what DOHC means as it is self explanitory.

NOW who's giving the public too much credit?

We will just have to agree to disagree. But as it is the entire industry is proving you wrong. They are making money and selling cars so someone must want what they offer. None of companys that offer nothing but DOHC have filed Chapter 11.

:bs: Correlation != causation.

It is human nature that more is better that is what the luxury and sports market is all about. Bugatti could have gotten by with a pushrod V8 but lets face it a Turbo W16 has help set them appart and many look at them as a technology leader so much to pay the price. The guy could build a 1,000 HP Vette for much less.

And Volkswagen AG loses money on every Veyron they sell. Can't even use the halo effect here because most who go to an Audi dealer will never be able to say "hey, that Bugatti Veyron got me thinking about this Audi A4."

[Lamar]

You missed the point. Look at the latest Z06 3 page ad and they talk abot the Z06 V8 They give the power rating, the torque and even the fact it uses Sodium filled valves. They make no mention as they do with most V6 and 4 cylinders the cam and valve count. My LNF turbo has often been stated as being a 24 valve DOHC. Chevy markets the engine but leaves out the advances that they have made on the engine. It leaves me feeling like they are not wanting anyone to notice. Ford plasters the 32 valve on everything they can when speaking tech aspects on their new Coyote V8. They make sure people know.

They have enough cars they put this in but in the cars they advertise they give HP numbers and some tech info but not much else. The engine is advanced enough it really to me is no longer a SBC. Very little is shared other than some dimentions. They did do a good job and should market it. Even on the LS9 they spend more time on the supercharger and intercooler than talking about much else on the engine other than the drysump.

The Ecotec replaced the iron-block pushrod I4 here. Made more sense that people know. And we know GM is slow to change things...

To be fair, most of Ford's V8s prior to the Coyote were SOHC 3V engines. So also in this case, speaking of DOHC 4V is speaking more of the updates on the (admittedly) ancient Modular engine.

However, since the LS7 isn't really replacing anything technology-wise, and the LS9/LSA are (to some extent) forced-induction LS3s, why mention anything about a valvetrain?

They could so enough DOHC small V8 engines that would sell world wide to make it worth the investment. Cadillac and the Vette could and would sell many overseas. They also would do well here. The smaller enigne would play well in many markets. I see it better than a V6 Vette. The future for any V8 will be limited no matter the layout. They will be more limited and more expensive as time moves on.

As has been mentioned here, they've had to shelve any new DOHC V8 engine designs due to the financial woes of years ago, while the LS line has been (correctly) deemed indispensable. Whether they revive the Ultra V8 (or something like that) program is up for speculation, but I doubt anything will be unpacked in the next ten years. Other things matter more.

[dwightlooi]

I still don't understand how a pushrod V8 is better than a DOHC V8, but a pushrod 4, 6, or 12 cylinder is not better than a DOHC. And if pushrods were so superior, why don't any of the wealthy car companies that can have any engine they want invest in one? Only the 2 bankrupt car companies still make them, plus Bentley who is using an engine from the 1960s out of some traditionalist appeal to their old school buyers.

Well, let's recap why and how pushrod engines came about. Before there were Pushrod engines there were SOHC and DOHC engines. In fact, WWII fighter V-12 engines were mostly SOHC 4-valve and 3-valve designs; the German ones even had direct injection. But somewhere along the way, engineers at American car companies realized that a OHC layout and especially a DOHC layout is unnecessarily complex and bulky; especially in a Vee engine where you have two banks of cylinders. Complex because there are four camshafts and their associated bearings and sprockets. Bulky because all the four cams are carried on top of the heads at the extremities of a Vee making the engine very wide with a lot of weight in the heads. So they concocted a new arrangement where four head mounted camshafts are reduced to just one camshaft nestled in the otherwise wasted space in the valley of the engine block. Pushrods actuate valves via rockers in on the cylinder head. This makes the cylinder heads drastically smaller and lighter. It also made the engine more efficient because there are less parts rubbing around and making frictional drag.

The Pushrod engine however did not really have ANY advantage in an inline-4 or six. These engines derives no width advantage from a pushrod layout and minimal height benefit. The only reason Pushrod 4s existed was because the companies built pushrod V8s and V6es, allowing cost savings from component savings. This brings us to Asian and European cars companies. These companies had their roots in post war recovery economies and in building small vehicles powered by small engines. These engines are usually 4-cylinder mill which eventually evolved to DOHC 4-valve assemblies in the 1980s. When they started to make bigger V6 and V8 engines, they went with valvetrain configurations they are most familiar with and one which they had raced with -- SOHC and DOHC designs. Meanwhile, American car companies languished in the 80s and 90s; going into a downward spiral not because of engine design choices but because of the flawed business model that somehow a US car company operating in a high cost labor market should compete by trying to be the price and value leader. Cost cutting, quality cutting, technology cutting and other bean counting to compete on price produced a couple of decades worth of vehicles with inferior quality, inferior technology, inferior reliability and inferior performance. This gave everything they made a bad reputation including their design choices.

For ANY given power output target, a Pushrod engine will be of a larger displacement than a DOHC counterpart. However, it is also smaller externally and lighter because its heads are so much smaller. It is also more fuel efficient because its valve train is so much simpler with so much fewer frictional elements. Whatever breathing advantageous a DOHC engine has is mostly irrelevant to fuel economy because of three reasons. The first being that the volumetric efficiency advantageous of 4-valve DOHC designs come at higher rpms, not at lower engine speeds where both designs have excess airflow capacity. The second being that at part throttle, which is the condition engines operate in at cruising speeds and a city driving, the breathing superiority of an engine is intentionally choked off by the throttle body. Lastly, an engine with higher displacement also has more torque at lower rpms which is conducive to the adoption of taller gearing which then reduces the rate of aspiration.

Coming back to your question... a pushrod 4 or Inline 6 is not superior to a OHC I4 or I6, period. There is not packaging or frictional advantages. A V6 and V12 will see the same weight and frictional benefits, but not as much size benefit because most V6 and V12s are of a 60 deg angle and not the wider 90 deg angle. V6es also generally fall in a class of engines where the buyers may still care about displacement taxes to a notable degree. Hence, a smaller displacement DOHC V6 may be a legislative advantage over a larger displacement Pushrod V6 or equivalent power which may be lighter and more fuel efficient. With V8s though, the 90 deg angle sees the greatest packaging advantage afforded by a pushrod arrangement. V8s also fall into a class of engines where the consumer is obviously looking for more power and performance at the expense of fuel economy or tax advantageous -- otherwise they would have bought the same car with a lower powered V6 which is usually also available. Hence, for V8s Pushrod designs make maximum sense. If the competition either does not see this or is technically and logistically unable to capitalize on it, that's their loss!

[hyperv6]

You missed the point. Look at the latest Z06 3 page ad and they talk abot the Z06 V8 They give the power rating, the torque and even the fact it uses Sodium filled valves. They make no mention as they do with most V6 and 4 cylinders the cam and valve count. My LNF turbo has often been stated as being a 24 valve DOHC. Chevy markets the engine but leaves out the advances that they have made on the engine. It leaves me feeling like they are not wanting anyone to notice. Ford plasters the 32 valve on everything they can when speaking tech aspects on their new Coyote V8. They make sure people know.

They have enough cars they put this in but in the cars they advertise they give HP numbers and some tech info but not much else. The engine is advanced enough it really to me is no longer a SBC. Very little is shared other than some dimentions. They did do a good job and should market it. Even on the LS9 they spend more time on the supercharger and intercooler than talking about much else on the engine other than the drysump.

The Ecotec replaced the iron-block pushrod I4 here. Made more sense that people know. And we know GM is slow to change things...

To be fair, most of Ford's V8s prior to the Coyote were SOHC 3V engines. So also in this case, speaking of DOHC 4V is speaking more of the updates on the (admittedly) ancient Modular engine.

However, since the LS7 isn't really replacing anything technology-wise, and the LS9/LSA are (to some extent) forced-induction LS3s, why mention anything about a valvetrain?

They could so enough DOHC small V8 engines that would sell world wide to make it worth the investment. Cadillac and the Vette could and would sell many overseas. They also would do well here. The smaller enigne would play well in many markets. I see it better than a V6 Vette. The future for any V8 will be limited no matter the layout. They will be more limited and more expensive as time moves on.

As has been mentioned here, they've had to shelve any new DOHC V8 engine designs due to the financial woes of years ago, while the LS line has been (correctly) deemed indispensable. Whether they revive the Ultra V8 (or something like that) program is up for speculation, but I doubt anything will be unpacked in the next ten years. Other things matter more.

Ok you and a few people on the web ands two companies that went bankrupt are all correct and an entire world industry is wrong along with their marketing and engineering staffs by heading down the path of the evil DOHC. Just think of all the money they are spending if you are right.

I will have to watching for that protest in Stuttgart pleading for the pushrods return by the disapointed buyers. In fact we may hear Top Gears presenters dis all DOHC this year in efforts to bring back the pushrod. No one really knows if Tata or Mahindra will ever come here let alone even if they will offer a pushrod. They may lead the change?

So at this point like I stated let agree to disagree.

Edited July 22, 2011 by hyperv6

[balthazar]

Well, let's recap why and how pushrod engines came about. Before there were Pushrod engines there were SOHC and DOHC engines. In fact, WWII fighter V-12 engines were mostly SOHC 4-valve and 3-valve designs; the German ones even had direct injection. But somewhere along the way, engineers at American car companies realized that a OHC layout and especially a DOHC layout is unnecessarily complex and bulky; especially in a Vee engine where you have two banks of cylinders.

Just a quick detail in Dwight's excellent overview: those early SOHC and DOHC engines were all inline designs, IE: one head.

Ok you and a few people on the web ands two companies that went bankrupt are all correct and an entire world industry is wrong along with their marketing and engineering staffs by heading down the path of the evil DOHC.

You obviously must feel the same way about the BMW inline 6. The entire world industry has abandoned the inline 6 in favor of a V6 decades ago. Therefore, by your logic, BMW is overdue to declare bankruptcy.

[Lamar]

Deciding no longer to respond to Hyper's hyperbole (pardon the expression )...

I still have an idea floating around in my head about a W12 configuration, but unlike what Volkswagen AG uses. Instead of juxtaposing two V®6 engines, I thought about mating three Ecotecs. Since GM currently uses a few different versions of the engine, I'll just fudge some power numbers together and see what happens...

Naturally aspirated

Three LAFs/LEAs (Equinox) -> 7.2L W12, 546 hp, 516 lb-ft

Forced induction

Three LDKs (Regal Turbo) -> 6.0L W12TTT, 660 hp, 774 lb-ft

Three LNFs (Cobalt SS)-> 6.0L W12TTT, 780 hp, 780 lb-ft

Three LHUs (Regal GS) -> 6.0L W12TTT, 810 hp, 885 lb-ft

OK, maybe not three Regal GS engines...

But I keep thinking along these lines because it's a shorter design and could allow for AWD, as is the reason for Volkswagen's W12 which (necessarily) comes standard with quattro. I have no idea about the rest of the operating characteristics of such an engine though...

[Drew Dowdell]

Thing is, Hyper, GM's not hiding anything about the LS engines.

There just aren't many cars right now in which they can use it. Camaro, Corvette, CTS-V... call me crazy, but I don't think they could or would stuff an LS3 into a LaCrosse. (Now if they revived the LS4... )

You can say that they're not winning many converts, but as I mentioned, the only LS engines in cars right now are in semi-niche to exotic vehicles. There's no appreciable volume to be expected there.

You missed the point. Look at the latest Z06 3 page ad and they talk abot the Z06 V8 They give the power rating, the torque and even the fact it uses Sodium filled valves. They make no mention as they do with most V6 and 4 cylinders the cam and valve count. My LNF turbo has often been stated as being a 24 valve DOHC.

A 6-valve per cylinder turbo 4-banger would certainly be unique in today's market......

[dwightlooi]

Deciding no longer to respond to Hyper's hyperbole (pardon the expression )...

I still have an idea floating around in my head about a W12 configuration, but unlike what Volkswagen AG uses. Instead of juxtaposing two V®6 engines, I thought about mating three Ecotecs. Since GM currently uses a few different versions of the engine, I'll just fudge some power numbers together and see what happens...

Naturally aspirated

Three LAFs/LEAs (Equinox) -> 7.2L W12, 546 hp, 516 lb-ft

Forced induction

Three LDKs (Regal Turbo) -> 6.0L W12TTT, 660 hp, 774 lb-ft

Three LNFs (Cobalt SS)-> 6.0L W12TTT, 780 hp, 780 lb-ft

Three LHUs (Regal GS) -> 6.0L W12TTT, 810 hp, 885 lb-ft

OK, maybe not three Regal GS engines...

But I keep thinking along these lines because it's a shorter design and could allow for AWD, as is the reason for Volkswagen's W12 which (necessarily) comes standard with quattro. I have no idea about the rest of the operating characteristics of such an engine though...

VW's W12 is not really a W12 in the traditional sense (ie. three 4 cylinder banks). It is really a V12 where each bank features staggered cylinders very much like bullets in a double stack magazine. Within each bank, the cylinders are spayed at 15 degrees (later reduced to 10.6 degrees), but the top of the pistons are flush with the deck and in parallel with the other row. Each bank has only one head with two camshafts. The camshafts are independent in that one only operates intake valves and the other only operates exhaust valves. They do so via long-short valve stems and asymmetric intake/exhaust valve angles. Half of the W12 is a 10.6 degree or 15 degree VR6. These are actually more of a staggered I6 than a V6. They have 7 main bearings (vs 4 in a typical V6) and they sound like a slightly off beat Inline-6 more than a V6. I had the first generation 2.8 liter 172hp, 12v version a long time ago in an 3rd Gen Golf GTi VR6 (1995 model).

It's by far the most compact 12-cylinder design. It is however not the best flowing design or the highest revving design. It is also not a balanced design and there are no attempts to fully balance it with balancer shafts. Instead, each bank behaves like a slightly off-balance I6 and the mild residual vibrations are simply tolerated.

Edited July 22, 2011 by dwightlooi

[Lamar]

True facts about the VW W12, Dwight.

I'm somewhat in favor of GM developing a traditional W12. Just don't know how to balance it.

[Drew Dowdell]

I don't think a V12 is really needed... how about just a radically different V8?

VVT Concentric Cam, pushrod, 3 valve per cylinder, variable displacement, turbo and super charged with 2-mode hybrid.

[Lamar]

I don't think a V12 is really needed... how about just a radically different V8?

VVT Concentric Cam, pushrod, 3 valve per cylinder, variable displacement, turbo and super charged with 2-mode hybrid.

With V6 engines able to make as much power as the Northstar, though, one can argue that at this point, V8 engines aren't even "needed."

"Desired," though, is a whole 'nother animal.

Even the 12s that the Europeans have are for premium cache, as they have been for generations. It's something that Jaguar lost with the newest XJ in offering three V8s, two supercharged, one at a hotter tune.

I at least say it wouldn't hurt to offer something with more than 8 cylinders.

[Z-06]

Deciding no longer to respond to Hyper's hyperbole (pardon the expression )...

I still have an idea floating around in my head about a W12 configuration, but unlike what Volkswagen AG uses. Instead of juxtaposing two V®6 engines, I thought about mating three Ecotecs. Since GM currently uses a few different versions of the engine, I'll just fudge some power numbers together and see what happens...

Naturally aspirated

Three LAFs/LEAs (Equinox) -> 7.2L W12, 546 hp, 516 lb-ft

Forced induction

Three LDKs (Regal Turbo) -> 6.0L W12TTT, 660 hp, 774 lb-ft

Three LNFs (Cobalt SS)-> 6.0L W12TTT, 780 hp, 780 lb-ft

Three LHUs (Regal GS) -> 6.0L W12TTT, 810 hp, 885 lb-ft

OK, maybe not three Regal GS engines...

But I keep thinking along these lines because it's a shorter design and could allow for AWD, as is the reason for Volkswagen's W12 which (necessarily) comes standard with quattro. I have no idea about the rest of the operating characteristics of such an engine though...

Semantics - Dude, that is not W configuration but three finger configuration. You have 4 lines in W with three ecotecs there will be only three lines.

[Drew Dowdell]

I don't think a V12 is really needed... how about just a radically different V8?

VVT Concentric Cam, pushrod, 3 valve per cylinder, variable displacement, turbo and super charged with 2-mode hybrid.

With V6 engines able to make as much power as the Northstar, though, one can argue that at this point, V8 engines aren't even "needed."

"Desired," though, is a whole 'nother animal.

Even the 12s that the Europeans have are for premium cache, as they have been for generations. It's something that Jaguar lost with the newest XJ in offering three V8s, two supercharged, one at a hotter tune.

I at least say it wouldn't hurt to offer something with more than 8 cylinders.

I was going for enough panache to go up against a V12 without actually being a V12.

[Lamar]

Semantics - Dude, that is not W configuration but three finger configuration. You have 4 lines in W with three ecotecs there will be only three lines.

This guy built a prototype what he calls a W9 engine though. It's what I had in mind, except for the cylinder count.

I was going for enough panache to go up against a V12 without actually being a V12.

No, I completely get what you're saying. I doubt that the status chasers with money to burn on this class would get what you're saying, though.

On a flagship sedan, there's room for both... a regular V8 for entry, and as an upgrade, both a V8 with all the trimmings like you mention along with a whatever-12.

[Z-06]

Semantics - Dude, that is not W configuration but three finger configuration. You have 4 lines in W with three ecotecs there will be only three lines.

This guy built a prototype what he calls a W9 engine though. It's what I had in mind, except for the cylinder count.

That is Dubya's Dubya.

That is a good concept. High revving three bank engine.

[hyperv6]

Well, let's recap why and how pushrod engines came about. Before there were Pushrod engines there were SOHC and DOHC engines. In fact, WWII fighter V-12 engines were mostly SOHC 4-valve and 3-valve designs; the German ones even had direct injection. But somewhere along the way, engineers at American car companies realized that a OHC layout and especially a DOHC layout is unnecessarily complex and bulky; especially in a Vee engine where you have two banks of cylinders.

Just a quick detail in Dwight's excellent overview: those early SOHC and DOHC engines were all inline designs, IE: one head.

Ok you and a few people on the web ands two companies that went bankrupt are all correct and an entire world industry is wrong along with their marketing and engineering staffs by heading down the path of the evil DOHC.

You obviously must feel the same way about the BMW inline 6. The entire world industry has abandoned the inline 6 in favor of a V6 decades ago. Therefore, by your logic, BMW is overdue to declare bankruptcy.

That is so weak...you usally have better than that one and you know it. I can't even compare this as apples to oranges.

The only reason the inline is not popular with most is size and has nothing to to with technology or in this case perceived technology. Many buyers today would pick the inline BMW as being a advanced engine not so much because it is but that is what they think.

The Camry became the best selling car for a long time not because it was the best car but people thought it was and that is what they wanted.

[hyperv6]

GM will not do a V12, W12 or I12.

A small V8 still has a place and could still be used in many vehicles world wide. Don't forget about Holden/Vauxhaul.

VW just did the W engines to save space. They were trying to keep the cars somewhat smaller in the nose and these engine work well enough and made for a much smaller package. Also they marketed the hell out of it till the Phaeton failed.

[Drew Dowdell]

Hyper, are you trying to claim that it was the pushrod engines that did GM in? It wasn't the faceless Saturn designs?

If pushrods did GM into bankruptcy... why didn't it do the same to Ford? They were using the pushrod Vulcan in the Taurus right up until the crisis. The Mustang had a pushrod V6 up until last year.

Keep in mind that to many non-car people, the 3800 was a selling point due to reliability and fuel economy.

[dwightlooi]

I don't think a V12 is really needed... how about just a radically different V8?

VVT Concentric Cam, pushrod, 3 valve per cylinder, variable displacement, turbo and super charged with 2-mode hybrid.

(1) Going to 3-valves requires either an SOHC design or a Pushrod design with two in-block camshafts. Both of which grossly increase the engine size, mass and complexity. And, really, 2-valve heads can already support 72 bhp / liter, 11:1 compression and a 7000 rpm redline with port injection and no VVT. Do we really need to grossly complicate things to improve breathing?

(2) Using turbocharging and supercharging at the same time (ala VW/Audi TSi) is mainly a scheme designed to enhance low end torque and response in small displacement engines. The Small block V8 needs no help in this department. In fact, it may actually be better to lower maximum torque and move it slightly higher in the rev range. This actually improve traction off the line. Traditionally, cam grinds that do this would have resulted in a lumpy idle, but if cam-in-cam VVT is implemented some of the overlap can be artificially dialed out and much hotter cams can be made civil.

Apart from that, I think your wish will be fulfilled. We know for a fact that the new Gen V Pushrod V8s will feature Direct Injection and variable displacement. We also know that it will have VVT and strongly suspect that it may be a cam-in-cam setup (ala Viper) which afford independent intake and exhaust timing control. This engine (or engine family) will propagate across the entire GM lineup that currently gets V8 powerplants. This will probably include the 2-mode Hybrids.

Edited July 22, 2011 by dwightlooi

[Drew Dowdell]

I'm not suggesting that my additions have to make sense (and they can do 3 valves per cylinder on a single camshaft.. it uses a forked rocker) it just has to have enough acronyms after the name to make the average BMW buyer feel like they got their money's worth.

Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham 24 valve VVT-CIC EcoFlex 2-mode torque assist super turbo

Or as BMW would spell it: e-760iLst xDrive M

[dwightlooi]

I'm not suggesting that my additions have to make sense (and they can do 3 valves per cylinder on a single camshaft.. it uses a forked rocker) it just has to have enough acronyms after the name to make the average BMW buyer feel like they got their money's worth.

Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham 24 valve VVT-CIC EcoFlex 2-mode torque assist super turbo

Or as BMW would spell it: e-760iLst xDrive M

I think you have enough materials for an alphabet soup as it is...

SIBC-VVT-RRA-AFM-RHL-CNS V8

Single In Block Cam - Variable Valve Timing - Roller Rocker Arm - Active Fuel Management - Roller Hydraulic Lifter - Coil Near Spark V8

[riviera74]

Ford no longer has pushrod engines? Not even in their rather popular F-series pickups? When did that happen?

[Lamar]

Ford no longer has pushrod engines? Not even in their rather popular F-series pickups? When did that happen?

Ford's last pushrod is the Ranger's V6. When the truck dies, so will that engine.

As for the F Series, they had a pushrod V6 until '08.

[smk4565]

V12 is just special. Regardless of how many turbos or whatever you do to a V8, it still isn't a V12. And any turbo or supercharging, or hybrid systems that you put on a V8 can be put on a V12. I would like to see Cadillac offer a V12 engine, even though they don't need one, it would be cool to have.

[dwightlooi]

V12 is just special. Regardless of how many turbos or whatever you do to a V8, it still isn't a V12. And any turbo or supercharging, or hybrid systems that you put on a V8 can be put on a V12. I would like to see Cadillac offer a V12 engine, even though they don't need one, it would be cool to have.

I think the cost of developing a V12 can be quite minimal if you do it using existing V6 parts. Really, take two V6es redesign the block so they are joined. Keep the valves, pistons, rods, valve springs, cam phasers, lifters, combustion chamber geometry, intake ports, spark plugs and everything else as is. Two 3.6 LFX V6es make a decent enough V12 -- 7.2 liters, 646hp and 556 lb-ft if you let it spin to 6800 rpm. Still a good 600hp if you cap it off at 6200 so it can work with exisiting GM automatic transmissions. Either is more than competitive. No, it won't have "volume". But neither does engines like the LS7. In fact, it'll have better economies of scale because most of its parts are shared with ubiquitous 3.6 V6.

To make it extra special, you can build it at GM's Performance Build Center at Wixom, Michigan it can then proudly where a plague saying...

Hand Made in USA

by

John Doe

Signature

[hyperv6]

Hyper, are you trying to claim that it was the pushrod engines that did GM in? It wasn't the faceless Saturn designs?

If pushrods did GM into bankruptcy... why didn't it do the same to Ford? They were using the pushrod Vulcan in the Taurus right up until the crisis. The Mustang had a pushrod V6 up until last year.

Keep in mind that to many non-car people, the 3800 was a selling point due to reliability and fuel economy.

Where did I say the pushrod did in GM? Don't even go there with me!

Not having a good viable update or replacment for the Northstar did not help GM and put them behind in the eyes of many buyers but GM issues were much deeper than that.

It is not that the pushrod did not sell cars, my point is that they would appeal to more people and would have sold more cars. The problems GM had would have still been there no matter what engine they sold.

3800 was a good engine for people who really never drove a modern power plant. Trust me I know what a 3800 is as I own one. Reliable yes, Economy ehhhh, smoothness no, cheap to build yes. Owning both a 3800 SC Series III [the best they did] and a 3.6 HV I would take the HV anyday for smoothness and queit. Gas economy is better both in town and highway by a couple MPG. Don't get me wrong I like my 3800 SC but it is a old engine and is showing it's age.

The reliability was not one good point with me on the 3800 as I just had to put on a head gasket. It leaked and took the converter and 02 sensors out too. We also lost an intake on mom's Buick too. Other than a water pump on a GM engine I seldom have issues but the two 3800's in our family they both have needed more work than I have had to do with any other.

A buddy work just put an intake on his Intrigue 3800. The plastic intakes are an issue.

My point is the market has left the pushrod behind and it gives the public the impression GM is behind the others. What people think can hurt a company. It may not kill it but it can hurt image and sales. In the past some companies and models have died due to poor image and marketing issues.

Pushrods kill GM no but do they prevent non GM people from considering the brands Yes! Fair no but that is the way it is. In this day and age no company can afford to leave any sales on the table.

[hyperv6]

What many forget on V12 engines is that most were very small engines. The Ferrari had pistons that looked like a Briggs and Stratton. The Jag has a stoke that was so short. I remember the first one we pulled the head off of and rolled it over it was amazing how little the stoke was. Many of these older V12's were around 5.0 liters.

What V12s I have driven were very smooth. But that was before many V8 and V6 engines were refinded with balance shafts and other things that made them feel as smooth and powerful.

The best thing I ever heard was a group 44 Jag IMSA car at Mid Ohio. Thes to this day are the sweetest sounding race car this side of an old Ferrari.

I also had a guy here in town that had a rebodied Ferrari 250 coupe that was changed to a mechanically correct 250 GTO. Physically this car was a GTO and was reworked in Italy by Scaglietti. I would see him on the on ramp here in town near my work and the sound of the car echoing off the concrete walls was a thrill.

Too bad any modern V12 would never have the same sounds as these cars.

[Drew Dowdell]

I think bigger outside factors killed GM's pushrods. Their utter refusal to pair the 3.4 and 3.9 with a 6-speed auto really held those engines back. The 3.6 is a HUGE HEAVY V6 compared to the 3.9. Sure the 3.9 didn't make as much power, but it also doesn't have direct injection either. As for smoothness, I don't know how many times I can tell the story of my driving one on the highway in 3rd gear for 20 miles and only realizing it when the MPG average dropped significantly. I took 66stang out for a ride in the Lucerne, we had it to 80mph and downshifted into 3rd. There is simply no visceral or audible change.

Yes, the 3800 was old... we get it. But the 3900 was as smooth as any modern DOHC V6.

[Lamar]

Was there a rigid production contract for 4ATs?

[dwightlooi]

I think bigger outside factors killed GM's pushrods. Their utter refusal to pair the 3.4 and 3.9 with a 6-speed auto really held those engines back. The 3.6 is a HUGE HEAVY V6 compared to the 3.9. Sure the 3.9 didn't make as much power, but it also doesn't have direct injection either. As for smoothness, I don't know how many times I can tell the story of my driving one on the highway in 3rd gear for 20 miles and only realizing it when the MPG average dropped significantly. I took 66stang out for a ride in the Lucerne, we had it to 80mph and downshifted into 3rd. There is simply no visceral or audible change.

Yes, the 3800 was old... we get it. But the 3900 was as smooth as any modern DOHC V6.

V6es are a completely different ball game. You can build a 350 hp, direct injected, VVT and AFM equipped Pushrod V6 displacing 4.7 liters that has similar or better fuel economy than 323hp 3.6 liter DOHC DI V6. However, V6es are used in applications like Minivans, Family Sedans and any number of vehicles that are NOT performance cars. V6es are also used in luxury applications as the more economical, lower performing engine option. As such, being of a lower displacing to get in a lower displacement tax brackets is important. This is NOT important for a V8 engine which is always a deliberate choice made for performance or prestige.