Ecotec To Go Turbo With New 3 & 4-Cylinder Engines

[Robert Hall]

Add to that that almost everything is sedan only, and most are automatic only. And now we have an increasing number of those becoming 4cyl. only.

Yes, choice is diminishing.

Small, medium, and large in white and beige - how exciting.

Also available in silver, gray and black! Diverse.

[Camino LS6]

I guess that many here are fine with the notion that RWD (and performance in general) becoming the exclusive province of the well-heeled.

I'm not.

So, in this huge market, I'm left with three flavors of retro-musclecar to choose from.

That's it, nothing more.

Don't tell me they can't do better than that.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Camino LS6

[Drew Dowdell]

Alpha is still coming.

[Camino LS6]

Alpha is still coming.

Yes, but to replace current RWD rather than augment it, right?

So, I'll be left with a different Camaro and nothing more to choose from.

Maybe a Buick?

Not so rosy an outlook.

Yeah, it could be so much more... but would you advise me to hold my breath?

Edited October 14, 2011 by Camino LS6

[Drew Dowdell]

I'd say watch the Holden lineup. It may not all end up at Chevy, but a lot of it will end up here.

[Camino LS6]

I'd say watch the Holden lineup. It may not all end up at Chevy, but a lot of it will end up here.

You know I will.

But that seems to lead to nothing but hopes dashed - repeatedly.

I do fervently hope that you are right - it would satisfy my own needs quite nicely.

However, what about smaller 4cyl RWD? Or even V6 RWD?

[dwightlooi]

I just swapped into a Cruze Eco 6-Speed this week. I have to say, that this is one of the most polite little engines I've driven coupled to one of the easiest manual transmissions to drive. GM already has the bar set pretty high on NHV, the 3-cylinder can't be a step back.

A 3-cylinder does not necessarily have to be less refined than a 4-cylinder. The biggest difference from an NVH standpoint is that the 3-cylinder is not 1st order balanced like the 4-cylinder and it has 3/4th as many power pulses at any given rpm.

What this means is that a 3-cylinder engine -- if fitted with a balance shaft -- is roughly as smooth from a vibrational standpoint as an equivalent 4-cylinder without balance shafts. However, it will not equal a 4-cylinder with balance shafts to cancel its 2nd order vibrations. The 1.4 liter Turbo is NOT balance shafted. Hence, a 3-potter with a balancer will roughly match its vibrational levels. The good news here is that a 3-cylinder only needs one balance shaft rotating at the same speed as the crank shaft -- unlike a 4-cylinder which needs two contra-rotating shafts at twice the crank speed.

From a power pulse standpoint, I don't think the difference is significant although there isn't anything you can do about it. At 3000 rpm, a 3-cylinder engine will have impulses spaced as far apart as a 4-cylinder at 2250 rpm. But really, I haven't heard anyone complain about their car being "less" smooth at 2250 rpm vs 3000, 3000 vs 4000 or 1200 vs 1600.

One thing I will do with these engines is lower the redline. This is because both unbalance-shafted fours and balance shafted threes tend to be most unrefined at higher rpms, and -- more importantly -- the sizing of the turbochargers to produce fast response at low rpms means that revving these things past 5500 rpm or so is useless from a performance standpoint. Forcing the engine to shift at 5000~5500 rpm actually makes it more refined AND faster!

[Drew Dowdell]

I'd say watch the Holden lineup. It may not all end up at Chevy, but a lot of it will end up here.

You know I will.

But that seems to lead to nothing but hopes dashed - repeatedly.

I do fervently hope that you are right - it would satisfy my own needs quite nicely.

However, what about smaller 4cyl RWD? Or even V6 RWD?

GM may not have a "One GM" branding like Ford does for a global project, but it is abundantly clear that is what is going on. Holden is not going to be able to maintain their little island of independence much longer. The ATS most likely going to be 4-cylinder RWD in base form, that leaves an option for a Chevy as well in addition to the Camaro.

[riviera74]

I wish GM would take the Alpha platform and do a less expensive version for Chevrolet and Buick! Then in the future do the next generation platform as a flexible FWD-RWD-AWD platform. They could move the front axle line forward allowing the engine to be placed between it and the fire wall. Then from there they could offer various drive lines with the engine and trans positioned like a conventional RWD car. Then just send the power to the front wheels for one model and the rear wheels for another and all the wheels for another. If they did this across the platform line it would allow them to offer more product to more buyers through more choices! This would change everything from the common FWD only market we have today on far to many cars! Open it up GM and rule the American road once again!

I think we ALL would absolutely LOVE to see that. Yes, Chevy and Buick need RWD sedans right now as flagships! The only reason GM went FWD is because it is cheaper than RWD.

As for the new Ecotec 3cyl and 4cyl engine family replacing three engine families, this is a good thing. Let the European and Asians design those engines since they deal with small engines every single day. In fact, I do hope they are actually better than the current 3cyl and 4cyl engines GM has now. For the most part, GM (at least in NA) had great V8s and the 231 V6 (the best pushrod V6 ever). The 4Cyl engines were mostly lame, especially compared to the competition. Only recently has GM taken 4Cyl seriously with the Ecotec line. In the 90s, you were a fool to get a 4Cyl GM car. Now, the GM cars with a 4Cyl are actually good. What the market wants are great 4Cyl engines that are refined rather than noisy. Remember, we are in the MPG wars now. That means 3Cyl and 4Cyl engines are everyone's primary weapons into battle. GM must be competitive here! That current Spark customer could actually graduate into an Equinox or a Traverse when his/her needs change. I would love to see a RWD Impala and/or Park Avenue replacement, but getting customers in the door with 3cyl and 4cyl models are vital to GM's long-term survival.

Remember when GM abandoned full-size RWD cars in 1996 to focus on higher-margin trucks? Big mistake when the Chrysler 300 came out in 2005 and GM left money on the table for three years. GM must never neglect the 4cyl market again like they did in the 70s. Indeed, worldwide, GM should push for more 3cyl and 4cyl engines in cars up to the Chevy Malibu to be competitive with the rest of the world.

Do we need more choice up here (i.e. Holdenate a new Imapla/Caprice and Park Avenue replacement)? YES. But 3cyl and 4cyl powered cars will pay the bills in order to afford GM that choice for the rest of us who cannot stand FWD.

[Camino LS6]

So goes the chant, but with damn few results.

[Satty]

Off the top of my head, I can think of 16 RWD cars with high powered 6's or V8s. Know how many FWD 3 cylinder cars I can think is that are on sale today? None.

[Camino LS6]

And so?

[Satty]

Up to 23:0

[Satty]

And so?

Your belief that every car on sale today is a FWD 3cyl sedan seems to be a little, well, wrong.

[Camino LS6]

And so?

Your belief that every car on sale today is a FWD 3cyl sedan seems to be a little, well, wrong.

That is certainly not my belief.

I've laid it all out already in this thread, and the facts are there despite the snide mockery.

[Camino LS6]

To take this back to the original article, let's think for a moment about the implications of the projection that these engines will ramp-up to 2 million units per year.

That's 2 million cars per year with displacements of 1.5 liters or less.

Now, what sort of cars do we expect those to be?

[hyperv6]

I'd say watch the Holden lineup. It may not all end up at Chevy, but a lot of it will end up here.

What many here fail to understand or even notice is Holden and Chevy are becoming more and more to be one. The new SWB RWD sedan is coming here, it may be limited but at the price it will be they will send enough.

The fact is I count myself as a RWD V8 fan but I also understand that I am also out of step with most in the auto market. There is a place for me but I am no longer the primary customer. The fact is if you look at all the best selling cars today almost all are FWD and 4 cylinder.

I too just got to spend some seat time in a 11 Cruze Eco tonight. I must say I was impressed. The car I drove has been averaging 354 MPG around town and did not drive anywhere near what I had expected. It was quiet, road well, stopped well, the power while not up to my LNF was more than able to drive this car with enough power to make most drivers more than happy. Chevy did a good job and I now fully understand why it has been one of the best selling cars in America. The 1.4 Turbo while not a race car was far from felling as a underpowered slug.

To be honest this car had as much get up and go as some of the so called performance cars of the 80's and 90's. I know it rode, handled and stopped better.

[hyperv6]

An absurd bit of hyperbole there.

Fact is, choice is diminishing as we speak.

For 2012 the F-series has a choice of a V6, Turbo-V6, 5.0 DOHC V8, 6.2 liter SOHC V8, 6.7 liter diesel (5-choices)

For 2012 the Camaro has a choice of 3.6 liter V6, 6.2 liter V8, 6.2 Liter Supercharged V8 (3-choices)

For 2012 the Mustang has a choice of 3.7 liter V6, 5.0 DOHC V8, and 5.4 liter Supercharged...... we also know that Ecoboost is coming to Mustang to ad a fourth engine choice. (3 choices with a 4th coming)

For 2012 the Cruze has a choice of two 4-cylinder engines, both available with a manual and with a diesel engine coming next year (2 choices with a 3rd coming) If you want to count the Verano and Volt, add the 2.4 Ecotec, 2.0T Ecotec, 2.5 eAssist, and Voltec to the list for a total of 7 choices of power train in a compact car platform.

For 2012 the Regal offers a choice of base 4-cylinder, low end Turbo 4-cylinder, high end turbo-4, and eAssist (4-choices)

For 2012 the Silverado has a 4.3 V6, 4.8 V8, 5.3 V8, 6.2, 5.3 V8-Hybrid, 6.0 V8, and 6.6 turbodiesel (7-choices)

Tell me the fairy tail again about how choice is diminishing?

No fairy tale whatsoever. Trucks aren't at issue here.

In cars, GM offers exactly one RWD choice that isn't Caddy or Corvette.

Everything else is FWD.

Clear enough for you?

Caprice? It may be a cop car but it is also a sign of things to come.

Alpha will be more than two cars too. Not sure what all yet but they will make better use of this car. GM is not even close to telling much in the post Chapter 11 era.

Finally most of the cars from most companies will be FWD and 4 cylinder. The Gov Regs had pretty much locked it in. We will still have RWD and V8's but they will be limited and not cheap. If you want to change this change Washington and their unresonable green think. I would like to see better MPG too but 65 MPG is just going to drive us to very very small cars and much higher prices for the cars we want.

Edited October 15, 2011 by hyperv6

[FAPTurbo]

To take this back to the original article, let's think for a moment about the implications of the projection that these engines will ramp-up to 2 million units per year.

That's 2 million cars per year with displacements of 1.5 liters or less.

Now, what sort of cars do we expect those to be?

Ones that will ensure we'll have resources and clean air in one hundred years.

[regfootball]

I'd say watch the Holden lineup. It may not all end up at Chevy, but a lot of it will end up here.

What many here fail to understand or even notice is Holden and Chevy are becoming more and more to be one. The new SWB RWD sedan is coming here, it may be limited but at the price it will be they will send enough.

The fact is I count myself as a RWD V8 fan but I also understand that I am also out of step with most in the auto market. There is a place for me but I am no longer the primary customer. The fact is if you look at all the best selling cars today almost all are FWD and 4 cylinder.

I too just got to spend some seat time in a 11 Cruze Eco tonight. I must say I was impressed. The car I drove has been averaging 354 MPG around town and did not drive anywhere near what I had expected. It was quiet, road well, stopped well, the power while not up to my LNF was more than able to drive this car with enough power to make most drivers more than happy. Chevy did a good job and I now fully understand why it has been one of the best selling cars in America. The 1.4 Turbo while not a race car was far from felling as a underpowered slug.

To be honest this car had as much get up and go as some of the so called performance cars of the 80's and 90's. I know it rode, handled and stopped better.

the cruze eco is an amazing car. it's a tight piece, something you would never expect from chevy. it is pleasing to the driver, it's good on gas, it's fun, and it doesn't break the bank.

honestly if the cruze eco doesn't make C/D ten best, then something is f-ed.........the cruze eco is a far better car than that piece of sht jetta that is out now. VW and their junk, the GM stuff is better.

i haven't driven the focus yet, but it lacks a 6th gear and the interior is claustrophobia. plus the exterior is too egglike and plain.

of all the cars in the last 10 years I am most proud of for GM, i would put the Regal and Cruze Eco right there. two cars that should be where GM is going.

Edited October 15, 2011 by regfootball

[Camino LS6]

To take this back to the original article, let's think for a moment about the implications of the projection that these engines will ramp-up to 2 million units per year.

That's 2 million cars per year with displacements of 1.5 liters or less.

Now, what sort of cars do we expect those to be?

Ones that will ensure we'll have resources and clean air in one hundred years.

You actually believe this?

Can I interest you in a bridge?

[Carguy]

Camino LS6 is correct here! The choices we have in RWD are limited to the extreme! How long has it been sense we could go to our Chevrolet dealer and buy a Mid Sized RWD Sedan with an I4 or V6 engine! The early 1980's!! To talk about the best sellers being FWD is not fare when that's the (ONLY) Mid Sized affordable choices we have in our market! Just think of a RWD Chevelle line of affordable models with a base I4 and opt V6 engine! Even a V8 SS version all sized like the upcoming Malibu except with the front axle moved forward to allow for a longitudinal engine and trans mounting! The drive could be sent anywhere to ether axle or both for that matter! If they were to do this design for the next generation platforms the market could open up to far more RWD cars in the U.S. both affordable and not! Someone needs to get some guts and do this! And GM is the perfect one for it!

[hyperv6]

I'd say watch the Holden lineup. It may not all end up at Chevy, but a lot of it will end up here.

What many here fail to understand or even notice is Holden and Chevy are becoming more and more to be one. The new SWB RWD sedan is coming here, it may be limited but at the price it will be they will send enough.

The fact is I count myself as a RWD V8 fan but I also understand that I am also out of step with most in the auto market. There is a place for me but I am no longer the primary customer. The fact is if you look at all the best selling cars today almost all are FWD and 4 cylinder.

I too just got to spend some seat time in a 11 Cruze Eco tonight. I must say I was impressed. The car I drove has been averaging 354 MPG around town and did not drive anywhere near what I had expected. It was quiet, road well, stopped well, the power while not up to my LNF was more than able to drive this car with enough power to make most drivers more than happy. Chevy did a good job and I now fully understand why it has been one of the best selling cars in America. The 1.4 Turbo while not a race car was far from felling as a underpowered slug.

To be honest this car had as much get up and go as some of the so called performance cars of the 80's and 90's. I know it rode, handled and stopped better.

the cruze eco is an amazing car. it's a tight piece, something you would never expect from chevy. it is pleasing to the driver, it's good on gas, it's fun, and it doesn't break the bank.

honestly if the cruze eco doesn't make C/D ten best, then something is f-ed.........the cruze eco is a far better car than that piece of sht jetta that is out now. VW and their junk, the GM stuff is better.

i haven't driven the focus yet, but it lacks a 6th gear and the interior is claustrophobia. plus the exterior is too egglike and plain.

of all the cars in the last 10 years I am most proud of for GM, i would put the Regal and Cruze Eco right there. two cars that should be where GM is going.

The Eco is everything you don't expect in a high mileage car let alone an American car or even a Chevy. I suspect as more people find out about this car the better it will sell. I want to drive a LTZ Cruze now because if the strip down car was this good how goo will it be.

Oh We also had our first Volt sighting here. Having driven the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Nox I need to give one of these a spin.

[hyperv6]

Camino LS6 is correct here! The choices we have in RWD are limited to the extreme! How long has it been sense we could go to our Chevrolet dealer and buy a Mid Sized RWD Sedan with an I4 or V6 engine! The early 1980's!! To talk about the best sellers being FWD is not fare when that's the (ONLY) Mid Sized affordable choices we have in our market! Just think of a RWD Chevelle line of affordable models with a base I4 and opt V6 engine! Even a V8 SS version all sized like the upcoming Malibu except with the front axle moved forward to allow for a longitudinal engine and trans mounting! The drive could be sent anywhere to ether axle or both for that matter! If they were to do this design for the next generation platforms the market could open up to far more RWD cars in the U.S. both affordable and not! Someone needs to get some guts and do this! And GM is the perfect one for it!

Camino is correct on the limited nature but the market has changed. The public has been fed the crap on how FWD has better traction for neat 30 plus years now and they believe it. The fact is the traction is not better but it is easier for the driver with few car control skills. You point the wheels and gas no turning into the spin or anything like this.

The sad fact is demand for RWD cars is limited. Most people are happy with a FWD 4 cylinder and if there was greater demand for RWD sedans we would have more. Even then the companies are reluctant to add more since they are in for a major down size on most models to meet the crazy CAFE.

Manual transmissions, Wagons, and RWD cars have groups that want them but today the market has shifted and they are no longer the primary car most buyers want. The days of cars like the RWD Caprice Sedan being one of the top sellers is long overs.

Also we have to factor the economy now as people have less money to spend on cars as well as fuel. This is why we see cars like the Cruze now selling so well. It is a lot of car for the money and get better than normal MPG. It meets needs of most drivers. 30 years ago a Cruze would have never sold as well as it is today.

[hyperv6]

To take this back to the original article, let's think for a moment about the implications of the projection that these engines will ramp-up to 2 million units per year.

That's 2 million cars per year with displacements of 1.5 liters or less.

Now, what sort of cars do we expect those to be?

Ones that will ensure we'll have resources and clean air in one hundred years.

You actually believe this?

Can I interest you in a bridge?

If this was true he would know Maurice Strong and Al Gore and their global warming would have killed us by then anyways. LOL!

Edited October 15, 2011 by hyperv6

[SAmadei]

Camino is correct on the limited nature but the market has changed. The public has been fed the crap on how FWD has better traction for neat 30 plus years now and they believe it. The fact is the traction is not better but it is easier for the driver with few car control skills. You point the wheels and gas no turning into the spin or anything like this.

Again, trying to spread misinformation. When recovering control from a spin in either a FWD or RWD car, you STILL have to turn into the spin.

[hyperv6]

Camino is correct on the limited nature but the market has changed. The public has been fed the crap on how FWD has better traction for neat 30 plus years now and they believe it. The fact is the traction is not better but it is easier for the driver with few car control skills. You point the wheels and gas no turning into the spin or anything like this.

Again, trying to spread misinformation. When recovering control from a spin in either a FWD or RWD car, you STILL have to turn into the spin.

FWD cars can oversteer but more often prone to understeer. Understeer is a skid and in that case you turn into it. If you understeer in a RWD car more time than not you can pull out of it with the gas and steer in to it and steer into it.

To get most FWD cars to understeer you really have to pitch it in or do something like pull the e brake. With Stability control today it is almost a forgotten issue in either bit people still find control of a FWD eaiser even when it is not better.

No matter what your point is here people believe FWD has better tractions even when it is not true. Sorry if I did not say skid vs spin I assumed you were smart enought to understand the point. Sorry if I made the mistake.

Edited October 16, 2011 by hyperv6

[SAmadei]

FWD cars can oversteer but more often prone to understeer. Understeer is a skid and in that case you turn into it. If you understeer in a RWD car more time than not you can pull out of it with the gas and steer in to it and steer into it.

Trying to explain your way out of it, huh?

From thefreedictionary.com:

Skid - 1. To slide sideways while moving because of loss if traction. 2. To slide without revolving.

Understeer - To turn less sharply than the operator would expect.

There is no correlation between a skid and understeer. I checked 3 or 4 reputable sources to be sure. A skid can occur from either an oversteer or understeer situation.

If you jump on the gas in a RWD car exhibiting understeer, it negates your attempts to steer into the slide and puts you into the ditch faster. Oversteer is when you can countersteer, pile on the throttle and do a big smoky powerslide.

To get most FWD cars to understeer you really have to pitch it in or do something like pull the e brake. With Stability control today it is almost a forgotten issue in either bit people still find control of a FWD eaiser even when it is not better.

Again, your backwards. FWD cars love to understeer... they are difficult to get them to oversteer... which is why you have things like the Scandinavian Flick.

Stability control is usually heavy handed and does not make the FWD driving experience into a RWD driving experience.

No matter what your point is here people believe FWD has better tractions even when it is not true. Sorry if I did not say skid vs spin I assumed you were smart enought to understand the point. Sorry if I made the mistake.

You can say skid, slide, spin... all are symptoms of loss of control. That is not my gripe, neither is your oft repeated "people believe FWD has better traction". My gripe is that you are saying people with FWD do not need to turn into the {spin|skid|slide}.

But if you want to open the scope here a bit, it is my belief that people are not as fooled by the FWD myth anymore... nothing else explains why BMW and Mercedes cars have been so popular in the northeast for 2 decades. The FWD myth only existed when people had to choose between weak FWD offerings that could not overpower the front wheel traction on dry pavement and weak RWD offerings that couldn't overpower the rear wheel traction on dry pavement, either. Yeah, when your only slinging 135hp, it doesn't matter (to the average person) which wheels are powered until you're in the snow.

[hyperv6]

I have stopped reading your post in this thread. You are not getting my point and it is not worth arguing about anymore.

I will say you are correct on what ever point you have to make you happy.

Olds I am done and will get back on topic! Sorry!

Edited October 16, 2011 by hyperv6

[G. David Felt]

Personally this is just giving the auto companies the ability to build 100,000 mile recycle auto's. Anyone that can remember the last go around with v6 engines in full size trucks and small auto's with 3 or 4 cylinder engines with turbo's will remember that there are very few of these auto's on the road today as they cannot last past 100,000 miles.

This will satisfy the politicians and tree huggers and for a commuter auto to and from work but for a long living real auto, give me a bullet proof V8!!!

[Drew Dowdell]

To be fair, I think a modern V6 is a lot more dependable than the old V6es of yore. Ditto the 4-cylinders. The 2.4 Ecotec is easily a 250k mile engine if you take care of it properly.

[dwightlooi]

Actually, I really hope they will make not just a small 3-cylinder, but a larger three cylinder. Something along the lines of a 1.8 liter three, with the same cylinder dimensions as the 2.4 or 2.5 liter fours. Such an engine will make about 140~150 hp / 135~140 lb-ft in NA trim, and about 200 hp / 235 lb-ft with very reasonable boost levels. These will serve well in the compact and mid-size classes -- at least the base and ECO trims.

[Drew Dowdell]

What kind of fuel economy would we see from such an engine?

[G. David Felt]

To be fair, I think a modern V6 is a lot more dependable than the old V6es of yore. Ditto the 4-cylinders. The 2.4 Ecotec is easily a 250k mile engine if you take care of it properly.

I have no doubt that an engine of modern build with proper maintenance can go 250K, that is true of even old GEO's, but then if you ever got into an old GEO with 200K of miles, it barely goes and that is what I am expecting out of these engines. Great up to 100K and will still run after that but will loose out fast on torque and HP.

My 99 Durango with the 5.9 V8 has 227,000 miles and still flies. Yea it is starting to use a quart of oil between oil changes, but over all you need to go and put your foot into it and it moves. I have yet to see that in current or old 3 & 4 cylinder engines at that mileage.

I hope I am wrong, but every Honda, Toy, Nissan, etc that is a 4 banger barely bangs after 100k even with the maintenance done. Just not a fan of small engines as I have not seen them last like a v8.

[dwightlooi]

What kind of fuel economy would we see from such an engine?

Probably 5~6% better than a 4-cylinder of a similar output. That is about 1.5~1.8 mpg in a 30 mpg car.

[hyperv6]

Having worked on many of these engines many of todays small engines will go many many miles. GM's engines are well known for high miles as they have used many things like chain drive cams etc. Many of the imports too will go high miles but at times need things changed like timing belts etc.

I have seen many Eco engines over 200,000 miles and easily out last the rust on the car. I have even seen many of the Eco Supercharged and Turbo engines already over 100,000 miles with few to no problems.

I think few really understand how good the Ecotec engine really is. If the improvments make it better and retain or even improve its quality GM will have one of the best small engines in the world.

The Eco is the new Small Block Chevy of the future. This engine will do a lot of things in a lot of models. The future of GM is going to be built on it since it will be in 80% of the cars they build world wide. This is one engine in recent years they did get right.

Note famed engine builder John Lingenfelter loved this engine and had a lot of fun building them. He raced them of us and was up to 1500 HP with a stock head before it broke. He also built a Turbo engined Cobalt sedan for us years before GM did one. It was fast and durable. John had built winning BBC and SBC and loved this engine as much as was amazed at what he could do with it.

[67impss]

Actually, I really hope they will make not just a small 3-cylinder, but a larger three cylinder. Something along the lines of a 1.8 liter three, with the same cylinder dimensions as the 2.4 or 2.5 liter fours. Such an engine will make about 140~150 hp / 135~140 lb-ft in NA trim, and about 200 hp / 235 lb-ft with very reasonable boost levels. These will serve well in the compact and mid-size classes -- at least the base and ECO trims.

+1 Ditto

[hyperv6]

I really wonder how the public would react to a 3 cylinder? The 5 Cylinder was not really bad but many people who never drove one often sneered if you said anything about it. Odd number engines at GM just seem to get a sigma about them, this also applied to the old Geo 3 cylinder too.

I also never saw great love for the Audi 5 cylinder either.

Edited October 19, 2011 by hyperv6

[Robert Hall]

I really wonder how the public would react to a 3 cylinder? The 5 Cylinder was not really bad but many people who never drove one often sneered if you said anything about it. Odd number engines at GM just seem to get a sigma about them, this also applied to the old Geo 3 cylinder too.

I also never saw great love for the Audi 5 cylinder either.

I think if they don't make a big deal about it in advertising, etc most consumers won't notice the difference. In the appliance market, engine size and # of cylinders mean little amongst the general public, I suspect.

[SAmadei]

Note famed engine builder John Lingenfelter loved this engine and had a lot of fun building them. He raced them of us and was up to 1500 HP with a stock head before it broke. He also built a Turbo engined Cobalt sedan for us years before GM did one. It was fast and durable. John had built winning BBC and SBC and loved this engine as much as was amazed at what he could do with it.

Yeah, we've heard this for 8 years... but why does LPE not list any engine packages for the Eco?

[hyperv6]

Note famed engine builder John Lingenfelter loved this engine and had a lot of fun building them. He raced them of us and was up to 1500 HP with a stock head before it broke. He also built a Turbo engined Cobalt sedan for us years before GM did one. It was fast and durable. John had built winning BBC and SBC and loved this engine as much as was amazed at what he could do with it.

Yeah, we've heard this for 8 years... but why does LPE not list any engine packages for the Eco?

Because he went into a Comma and Died before he could do anything with it played a big roll. He built a few customer engines and was looking into it at the time he had his accident. We sold the one we had a little while ago. They only did work on the Vette amd even sold his TT LS powered Somoma that was soon crashed and totaled after he died and the new owner has just added the Camaro and his own Firebird. LPE is not the company it once was.

John had also started to work with the HV V6 for GM. The Cobalt he crashed was a Turbo HV car dipping into the high 6 second range.

There are a lot of programs that died with John. I ran into him a Mid Ohio and he was looking at doing GM ALMS race engines for a team he did not want to say. More than not it was a V8 program and it never came about after his death. His team mate tried to carry it on but John was the engine guy and the loss of his knowledge hurt the program.

LPE stuck to the basics for the most part after his death and till his wife could find a buyer. The distant cousin is doing his own projects today and does not have as wide of an interest as johm did. He liked new things and challanges.

It would have been interesting to have seen what may have happened if he had lived not only with the smaller engines but even cars like the ZR1 and the new V8. He had told me his last TT Vette could be made to do 300 MPH if he wanted too. I asked if he would try it as he had just tested the one he had to 235 MPH and he said no. The Callaway Sledgehammer was all the faster he wanted to do in a street car and he wanted to keep racing as it was safer. The sad part is even the race car did not kill him directly, the seditive he recieved before surgery after his accident stopped his heart and damaged his brain.

[G. David Felt]

I really wonder how the public would react to a 3 cylinder? The 5 Cylinder was not really bad but many people who never drove one often sneered if you said anything about it. Odd number engines at GM just seem to get a sigma about them, this also applied to the old Geo 3 cylinder too.

I also never saw great love for the Audi 5 cylinder either.

I think if they don't make a big deal about it in advertising, etc most consumers won't notice the difference. In the appliance market, engine size and # of cylinders mean little amongst the general public, I suspect.

I have to totally disagree with you. My father has a colorado 5 cylinder and while he loves his truck, even he complains that the engine seems to run rough, never is as smooth as v8's or v6's he has owned and in riding with him, it is a noisy engine. Most people have noticed this about the 5 cylinder engines. My dad has taken his truck to 3 different dealers in the Seattle area and they all say the engine is within spec and runs just fine. One dealer did seem to get it to run a bit smoother, but still the engines are not the best balanced or have the best response.

GM as well as all auto companies have a long way to go in getting 3 & 5 cylinder engines to run smoother and quite. Some day they might prove me wrong, but the only small engine I ever really loved was the QUAD 4. That engine could move and be custom built to race.

Personally, the V8's have a long life ahead of them still.

[Drew Dowdell]

From what I understand, the new 2.5 series based Ecotecs might be just up to the task of proving you wrong. Supposed to be very smooth with a good combo of power and fuel economy.

[hyperv6]

I really wonder how the public would react to a 3 cylinder? The 5 Cylinder was not really bad but many people who never drove one often sneered if you said anything about it. Odd number engines at GM just seem to get a sigma about them, this also applied to the old Geo 3 cylinder too.

I also never saw great love for the Audi 5 cylinder either.

I think if they don't make a big deal about it in advertising, etc most consumers won't notice the difference. In the appliance market, engine size and # of cylinders mean little amongst the general public, I suspect.

I have to totally disagree with you. My father has a colorado 5 cylinder and while he loves his truck, even he complains that the engine seems to run rough, never is as smooth as v8's or v6's he has owned and in riding with him, it is a noisy engine. Most people have noticed this about the 5 cylinder engines. My dad has taken his truck to 3 different dealers in the Seattle area and they all say the engine is within spec and runs just fine. One dealer did seem to get it to run a bit smoother, but still the engines are not the best balanced or have the best response.

GM as well as all auto companies have a long way to go in getting 3 & 5 cylinder engines to run smoother and quite. Some day they might prove me wrong, but the only small engine I ever really loved was the QUAD 4. That engine could move and be custom built to race.

Personally, the V8's have a long life ahead of them still.

I agree the I 5 could have been a little smoother but it was better than any of the 4.3's I owned and had more power.

The Quad was a good engine if you had one that did not warp the head. The present day Eco is a far better engine and stronger then the Quad. To modify that engine you had to do some major work where the Eco stop parts will take a lot in many areas before they need changed. The Rods and Pistons are the weak area and will take 400 HP with no issue per GM. The rods are similar to the pink rods or so GM claims.

The V8 will be around but they will be even more limited to fewer models and I suspect they will jack the price up to prevent more people from buying them. I hate to see it but just get the feeling this will come to pass if they don't back off CAFE.

[loki]

From what I understand, the new 2.5 series based Ecotecs might be just up to the task of proving you wrong. Supposed to be very smooth with a good combo of power and fuel economy.

and if so, some will say a basis for a 5.0L "Lux" V8 for caddy, or others.

[SAmadei]

Because he went into a Comma and Died before he could do anything with it played a big roll. He built a few customer engines and was looking into it at the time he had his accident. We sold the one we had a little while ago. They only did work on the Vette amd even sold his TT LS powered Somoma that was soon crashed and totaled after he died and the new owner has just added the Camaro and his own Firebird. LPE is not the company it once was.

No argument LPE is not the company it was under his brilliant leadership, but no man is an island. There are other people carrying on the flame. John did not live to see the latest incarnations of the Hemis and LSx engines that LPE continues to sell kits for... so _somebody_ at LPE is still actively developing and testing new stuff. His Ecotec stuff should have been far enough along for it to be on the market in some form.

In any case, others watched John's developments, and could have brought them to market.

If the Ecotec is the new SBC, where is a performance rebuild kit for the LNF? Hotter cams? Better heads for the LHU? The only performance kit out there is the GMPP LNF turbo upgrade. Other than that, its all intakes, "HID" headlight bulbs and drilled clutch/brake/accel pedals.

[Robert Hall]

If the Ecotec is the new SBC, where is a performance rebuild kit for the LNF? Hotter cams? Better heads for the LHU? The only performance kit out there is the GMPP LNF turbo upgrade. Other than that, its all intakes, "HID" headlight bulbs and drilled clutch/brake/accel pedals.

It seems like the 4cyl end of 'tuner' market has been dying off for a few years now...a couple of the major companies doing parts for Hondas, Nissans, etc have gone bankrupt recently. The aftermarket for more adult tuner products (i.e. Ford/GM/Mopar V8s, BMWs, etc) is still strong, but the aftermarket for 4cyl seems to be not so hot...

Edited October 20, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[hyperv6]

Because he went into a Comma and Died before he could do anything with it played a big roll. He built a few customer engines and was looking into it at the time he had his accident. We sold the one we had a little while ago. They only did work on the Vette amd even sold his TT LS powered Somoma that was soon crashed and totaled after he died and the new owner has just added the Camaro and his own Firebird. LPE is not the company it once was.

No argument LPE is not the company it was under his brilliant leadership, but no man is an island. There are other people carrying on the flame. John did not live to see the latest incarnations of the Hemis and LSx engines that LPE continues to sell kits for... so _somebody_ at LPE is still actively developing and testing new stuff. His Ecotec stuff should have been far enough along for it to be on the market in some form.

In any case, others watched John's developments, and could have brought them to market.

If the Ecotec is the new SBC, where is a performance rebuild kit for the LNF? Hotter cams? Better heads for the LHU? The only performance kit out there is the GMPP LNF turbo upgrade. Other than that, its all intakes, "HID" headlight bulbs and drilled clutch/brake/accel pedals.

Johns work was not far enough for customer cars other than one off's at the time. Also 4 cylinders were not all the rage at GM at the time since the Eco was only a year or two old.

There are Eco cams and other parts avail. Granted not as many as the V8. My point is the time is coming where people will be moving to engines like these as they will represent 95% of te market. Today a 4 cylinder car is already 75% of the market.

With some of the comments being made I fully expect the next Camaro to have 4-6 and 8 cylindrs, I also expect the price of the V8 Camaro to go up and be more limited. You will be able to get one but you will have to pay a premuum for it. Ford has also give the same indications. The load will be shifted to the 4-6 cylinder cars.

When you see companies putting turbo v6 engines in their pick up trucks and taking the risk you know we are in for major changes in all models including performancer.

I am not sure if a Turbo V6 option will hit the C7 but I expext models like the C8 to have a V6 Tubo or at least option one in the standard model.

The sheer numbers of these engines will drive people to build these. We never thought there would be a day where you could not find a 455 Pontiac in a Junk Yard but that time is here. The sport compact movement has stagnated but in the future the small engine market with the new Turbo 4's will grow, The Turbo engines are so easy to do things with. Get a dyno and a tuner change tome maps sensors and flash a computer you can easily add 50-100 HP depending on the engine. The performance market will change with the addition of Turbo chargers. We have already seen it in the Diesel market. We sell so many Turbo parts for truck now it is crazy.

Keep in mind this is long term. It is not going to happen next year but over the next 10 years.

[G. David Felt]

From what I understand, the new 2.5 series based Ecotecs might be just up to the task of proving you wrong. Supposed to be very smooth with a good combo of power and fuel economy.

I hope this is true that this really is a smooth reving engine with long life 250K miles and still holds up on HP and Torque.

Wonder if you could take the 4 banger and do a dual turbo solution and get massive HP and Torque with decent milage? That would be fun.

I will say that GM should do a Duramax Series of small v8, v6 & 4 banger. I think they could have a killer BioFuel Engine family that would really give them recognition and sales.

[Drew Dowdell]

The twin turbo 4 would be a question for Dwight.