ATS Results are in and They are Good Very Good!

[A Horse With No Name]

A piece o da action....

[regfootball]

a story i read on cadillac today said the twin turbo is a 3.6

[dwightlooi]

Dwight you still have not answered the question of why are you right and when the top car companies in the world are doing things opposed to what you claim they need to do at great cost? Why are you right and all of them wrong? Are they all that blind or are you not taking all the factors in? I have a hunch with BMW and Benz dropping V8 engines they may know something you are not factoring in.

Is the best debate line you have "everybody is doing it, so it must be right"? At one point everyone believed that the world was flat, is it? At one point it is a capital offense to claim that the Earth orbited the Sun, doesn't it? That's the same line of argument you hear a lot from the Global Warming crowd! Do you want to have an argument about that based on facts or based on "I have more scientists on my side, or my gang of PhDs are better than yours"?

I prefer to let the facts do the talking. Here are a list of contemporary V8 engines, their outputs, their weights and their fuel economy numbers. Look at it and tell us how DOHC or reduced displacement is superior (based on the statistics please)?

Comparison of Contemporary V8 engines

Remember, the two Pushrod engines are out going models that is being replaced next year. The pushrod engines lack VVT and DI, both of which are used in abundance by the DOHC mills in the chart. Even then the engines are more than competitive. These features can be incoporated in a Pushrod design, and will be in fact used in the Gen V Pushrod V8 arriving next year.

Edited August 17, 2012 by dwightlooi

[Z-06]

Good Comparison - Add Hemi, Infiniti, Hyundai and Jaguar V8 to it. That will give more statistics.

[Drew Dowdell]

I know what the 300C Hemi is Hwy rated for, but I know from experience that it does much better than EPA

[A Horse With No Name]

We still haven't answered why carmakers go the OHC in the first place...there must be reasons, or they wouldn't do it.

[Drew Dowdell]

HP/Liter fanbois drive the market. Anytime you read a review that it is "pathetic" that some pushrod V8 can only produce X hp from X liters while (DOHC ENGINE) can produce X hp from <X liters.

One of these days, I really have to write that "why horsepower is stupid" article....

[dwightlooi]

We still haven't answered why carmakers go the OHC in the first place...there must be reasons, or they wouldn't do it.

The simplest answer is the pursuit of specific output (hp/liter). In some countries, silly government legislation tax displacement rather than poor fuel economy. In those markets specific output as a tax advantage.

Then there is the 4-cylinder factor. Traditionally 4-potters are limited to 2.0 liters due to poor refinement at larger displacements, high specific output of DOHC engines allow refined and high revving 4-cylinder engines. With 4-cylinder (or I6 engines for that matter) the pushrod advantage is diminished. There is only one head, so you are saving one camshaft and not 3 by using pushrods instead of DOHC. Also, there is no width advantage since it is not a Vee engine and no matter how wide the head is i is not wider than the intake plenum and exhaust manifold. This leaves some weight and height advantages to using a pushrod arrangement, but 2/3rds of the design advantages simply doesn't apply with inline engines. If you wanted fuel economy in an inline engine, you'll simply use a SOHC 2-valve layout to save on frictional losses -- as did the Honda Insight for instance. With most of their development dollars and accumulated experience comes from 4-valve DOHC 4-potters. The natural progression from that is to apply these core competencies in V6 and V8 engines.

Edited August 18, 2012 by dwightlooi

[Z-06]

Yes, displacement taxes drove the need for less capacity engines and most of the development in DOHC took place for 4-cylinders. 6 and 8 DOHC were developed based on those 4 cylinder engines.

[smk4565]

My guess is that Audi, Mercedes and BMW are doing something right since they each sell over 1 million cars per year, and each year they are setting records for sales and profit. They already have the formula down. Cadillac doesn't need to invent the mousetrap here, just try to build a better one.

[Drew Dowdell]

My guess is that Audi, Mercedes and BMW are doing something right since they each sell over 1 million cars per year, and each year they are setting records for sales and profit. They already have the formula down. Cadillac doesn't need to invent the mousetrap here, just try to build a better one.

Cadillac has been 90% DOHC since 1992 and 99% DOHC since 1997. Perhaps there is another reason for the difference or do you just wish to continue to harp on the inane?

Oldsmobile was the division inside GM with more DOHC models than any other outside of Cadillac..... It really helped them. In fact, I'm probably buying a 2012 Toronado tomorrow.

[dwightlooi]

Yes, displacement taxes drove the need for less capacity engines and most of the development in DOHC took place for 4-cylinders. 6 and 8 DOHC were developed based on those 4 cylinder engines.

The problem is that while the notion of "larger displacement = higher fuel consumption" is quite widely accepted, it is a huge fallacy. It's not very different from the entire global warming and CO2 regulation nonsense. It is based on utter rubbish, but it hasn't stopped misguided politicians, media and individuals from jumping on the band wagon -- but that is another topic for another day.

The basic fallacy of displacement being correlated to fuel consumption can be debunked with three fundamental facts:-

(1) Displacement is measure of the volume of air an engine is capable of sucking in per revolution -- assuming that volumetric efficiency is equal on all engines. The amount of fuel that is injected and burned is generally proportional to this volume. However, there is no saying that all engines turn at the same speed for a given speed the car is moving at, hence there is no direct correlation between displacement and actual aspiration! Example: If a 2.0 liter car in top gear runs at 3000 rpm at 60 mph, while a 3.0 liter car runs 2000 rpm at 60 mph, they are actually displacing (ingesting) the same volume per unit time. The 3.0 liter engine may be able to be geared to turn slower because it makes more torque and can make an equivalent amount at 2000 rpm as the 2.0 liter can at 3000.

(2) Static Displacement is NOT an accurate measure of actual aspiration even at a given engine speed because some engines simply breathe more air than others at the same speed. This can be due to better or worse intake and exhaust restriction, valve opening duration and depth. It can be due to the presence of forced induction -- a turbo or supercharged engine cramps more air molecules into each cylinder and burn more fuel by breathing pressurized air! It can also be different simply because of the operation cycle of the engine -- cylinders in a 2-stroke engine breathes once every revolution, whereas those 4-stroke engines breathe once every two revolutions! There are many engines employing an Atkinson type cycle where the intake valve remains open even as the piston is coming up during the compression stroke. This causes part of the intake charge (usually about 30%) to be pushed back out of the cylinders, hence the engine breathes less than the static displacement will indicate. In other words, knowing the displacement and the rpm of the engine, without knowing its design, does not tell us how much air is actually being sucked in.

(3) In real life, lower displacement engine are not necessarily lower fuel consumption engines. Factors like transmission efficiency, vehicular weight and aerodynamics comes into play. Even when these are similar, the market is littered with examples of larger displacement engines with better fuel economy. For instance, our table a few posts ago demonstrates that the two biggest displacement engines the 6.2 and 7.0 pushrod engines actually have the best fuel economy numbers, while the smallest displacing units (4.0 and 4.2 liter) have the worst. Casting aside these high performance engines, we can draw on the example of the Toyota 1.8 liter (2ZR-FXE) in the Gen 3 Prius. This engine has a lower brake specific fuel consumption than the Toyota 1.3 liter (1NR-FE) that makes the same horsepower because it operates using the Atkinson cycle. The Mazda Renesis 13B Rotary is a 1.3 liter engine -- I'll let you look up the fuel economy numbers for the RX-8 that uses it (clue: it's not very good at all, in fact it is exactly the same as the 5.5 liter C55 AMG). Examples that contradict the notion that lower displacement generally means lower fuel consumption are so widespread and prevalent that using displacement as a gauge of fuel economy is simply ridiculous and focusing on displacement reduction as the primary means of improving MPG is dubious at best. Using displacement to levy taxes is outright injustice because it accomplishes neither basic fairness nor whatever environmental goals the legislators aspire to.

Edited August 18, 2012 by dwightlooi

[hyperv6]

And your best arguument is hidding behind a bunch of token numbers. You may fool some with a bunch of numbers they don't understand but I am not fooled. Like I stated this is a big picture issue where it is more than just about number and you leave out and discount the issues that don't fit with you views.

The fact is I have no issue with the OHV V8 and I am glad GM has it but the fact that others are spending millions and over time Billions mean they see or understand something that you don't seem to understand. I would just like to hear the other side of this or at least see and understand the other companies actions. I am sorry it is more than just "everyone else is doing it" The fact is they have their points and even if they do not argree with yours they deserve to be heard or considered.

Detailed Factors like Emissions CAFE, Marketing etc Goverment Regulatyion Factors, Global Market Needs are never posted by you. What are the needs today and what are their numbers expected or needed in 2025? . I am sorry but you leave too much out of this equation to make your view an absolute. The real fact is neither of us have enough facts from the MFG to prove or disprove our points. The fact is the MFG are doing based on their research what they well will make a better profit and product the power plants they fee will best fit their lines. Their jobs and company futures are based on it.

I respect you view even if I may not agree with all of it [note there are points I do agree with] but I do tire of they way it is present as if I am right and everyone is else is wrong. You are not Columbus.

Also you need to factor history in that the main two companies that have invested into the OHV are the two that just got bailed out and lacked money yes the kind of money for large expensive programs. In fact They also did not eliminate the OHV V6 till around the time they were bailed out. I feel if GM had not been to the point they were money wise the OHV more than likely have been gone a long time ago and they would have never been forced to do what they were able to accomplish with the engine they have today. While it was the cheaper way out it was not the easier way out. Sometimes you have to make due with what you have and GM by the grace of God had the engineers to pull it off.

Ford did make the mistake of going OHC when they did as they lacked the funds to do it right and paid the price with a poor engine. They spent a lot of money to prop it up but it still was not the engine they needed. The Coyote today is what they needed but with Ford mostly moving to the 3, 4 and V6 it will have a limited roll outside the trucks. This is where I think GM got lucky they stuck with what they did.

The fact is 90% of the cars at GM and nearlyt everyone else will be smaller 3-4 and V6 OHC engines. Also nearly every model will over some form of Turbo and in some limited cases supercharging. The Truck market is still a question I think the automakers have not even decided and is something that changes daily and with each election. At this point they want to keep the V8 alive for this market but they now have proven a V6 ANd V6 Turbo are viable if they have the power. Also they have learned if anyone can get a jump on MPG this will sell trucks as they are now racing to remove weight. At times I think the MFG like the higher standards as it is forcing them all to make some radical changes at the same time so each company is facing the same risk.

I am not trying to give you a hard time on this but I am trying to force you to think outside your small back that you have put this all in. This is a big equation that is not just figured by published engine numbers and guesstimated future engine values. If that were true it would be so much easier on everyone.

I don't expect you to agree with everything I state nor do I want you too. This is how and were we help each other see points we over look. I hope that you understand I just want you to factor in more to your point and it will better show why MFG are doing what they are doing and where they will go. You make a good engineering argument but in the real world it takes so much more than that to sell a car. The days of slapping a 427 on the side and watching it sell are over. Markets have changed with the global markets. The customers have changes as their needs, wants and expectation have changed, Emissions have changed and they are not a major factor in the global market not just here and MPG is a major factor as goverments are forcing it to new levels and people are forcing with their higher expections. None of the answers for this can be found on your engine charts even with the real published figures.

GM is not making 4 cylinder Cadillacs because they want to they are because that is what these factors I just put down are forcing.

[hyperv6]

a story i read on cadillac today said the twin turbo is a 3.6

They have been working on both.

From what I have been told the ATS is expected to be the engines it has and the V will be a 3.6 TT

The CTS will be a Turbo 4, 3.6 NA, 3.0 TT and a V8

The DTS may get a 3.6 TT but that one is up in the air depending on who you speak to.

The LTS is too far out and few know but there is a possibility a 3.6 TT could be the base engine with a V8 option.

Note all of this is subject to change till they hit the showrooms.

[A Horse With No Name]

quote]

My guess is that Audi, Mercedes and BMW are doing something right since they each sell over 1 million cars per year, and each year they are setting records for sales and profit. They already have the formula down. Cadillac doesn't need to invent the mousetrap here, just try to build a better one.

[/

Cadillac has been 90% DOHC since 1992 and 99% DOHC since 1997. Perhaps there is another reason for the difference or do you just wish to continue to harp on the inane?

Oldsmobile was the division inside GM with more DOHC models than any other outside of Cadillac..... It really helped them. In fact, I'm probably buying a 2012 Toronado tomorrow.2290' post=707070]

[quote name='Oldsmoboi' timestamp='134525

My guess is that Audi, Mercedes and BMW are doing something right since they each sell over 1 million cars per year, and each year they are setting records for sales and profit. They already have the formula down. Cadillac doesn't need to invent the mousetrap here, just try to build a better one.

Cadillac has been 90% DOHC since 1992 and 99% DOHC since 1997. Perhaps there is another reason for the difference or do you just wish to wish to continue to harp on the inane?

Oldsmobile was the division inside GM with more DOHC models than any other outside of Cadillac..... It really helped them. In fact, I'm probably buying a 2012 Toronado tomorrow.

In all fairness, the cars that the OHC Olds motors were married to were pretty lame, though.

OHC Olds V8 was the starting field at Indy at one point, so you can't write off that motor entirely.

I appreciate Dwights viewpoint, however, I am pretty much with Hyper on this....carmakers are going OHC for a reason, which hasn't been discussed. Also, the move to 4 cyl motors hasn't been discussed, nor has the fact that everyone is downsizing. Hell, even Bently IIRC went from a w12 to a V8 twin turbo...

And I really think Hybrid is going to be the role of the future, like it or not. Porsche has already started using 911's in racing with hybrid drivetrains, and I read about Rolls Royce bringing out a plug in Hybrid in 2014....

[regfootball]

Yes, displacement taxes drove the need for less capacity engines and most of the development in DOHC took place for 4-cylinders. 6 and 8 DOHC were developed based on those 4 cylinder engines.

The problem is that while the notion of "larger displacement = higher fuel consumption" is quite widely accepted, it is a huge fallacy.

Like many other things in public knowledge, if the public has their own cemented idea of what something is (i.e. toyota makes the best cars) why spend all your resources trying to fight public opinion when you could roll with it.

I've tried to sell many a cheaper v6 car (aka malibu 3.5 vs. a 4 cylinder generic car) and even if the malibu is cheaper, has the same EPA rating, and gives more features and benefits for a cheaper price, people will say "but its a 6 cylinder, not a 4" and walk on and pay more for a 4 cylinder.

I'd rather just see GM go with the most sellable technology with each of its products.

[Robert Hall]

I've tried to sell many a cheaper v6 car (aka malibu 3.5 vs. a 4 cylinder generic car) and even if the malibu is cheaper, has the same EPA rating, and gives more features and benefits for a cheaper price, people will say "but its a 6 cylinder, not a 4" and walk on and pay more for a 4 cylinder.

Changing times and changing buyers, i guess...I couldn't imagine buying a 4cyl over a 6...

[hyperv6]

The target is always moving and the goals are always in flux as time, people and situations change so there are only the absolutes of the present time and the moving goals of the future.

A good example is the FWD car. While yes some will argue that the FWD car is not lighter than a RWD car that was not always true. Back in the late 70's it was much lighter to put a small engine and transaxle in the front of a X body and it also gave more room to the interior. That was also true for many other cars. But the MFG did not sell this on that fact as they tried to sell it as being better traction. Well as we all know that is not really true as it may be easier for a unskilled driver to point gas vs keeping the rear of a car behind them with RWD. But we all know the physics of for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction hence RWD normally provides more traction with weight transfer under take off. But yet today many still want and demand FWD and in the smaller cheaper cars it is easier for MFG to still provide. But today with more work and expensive materials cars like the ATS are possible. So companies today are trying to provide both products as there is demand and markets for both.

As of now they are all looking at the future and are moving things to being smaller and lighter in both engines and cars. At this point they really have little idea how they will meet the new CAFE unless there are drastic advancments. But it will take more than 10 years to get people to down size even more. The Malibu being a 4 cylinder only is very telling of where this is going.

I hate to say it but the norm coming unless they find some magic bullet will be 3-4 cylinders and some V6 with a rare V8. That is not to say we will not have cars that will perform but they will be small boxes and nothing most of us will get excited about. The other factor is all this will just get more and more expensive as we go.

When you see companies like Benz and BMW lose V8 engines and look even into small FWD cars we should take notice. These are things they have long worked to avoid but they see the writing on the wall. While you can get a V8 to get better MPG there are limits. You can only deactivate only so many cylinder.

Might also take note that the only two companies with the OHV engine are the two who went Chapter 11 and had little money to move forward. Even Fords attempt at OHC was failed due to lack of money and once they got their loans they put it into new Turbo engines and a new OHC V8 done right this time.

The bottom line is this is not some one dimemtional issue here as there are many factors in play and many future variable targets that are always in flux. In other words no absolutes here and each company has to find their way to future moving targets based on what they have to work with. I answer does not fit all MFG.

[Drew Dowdell]

In all fairness, the cars that the OHC Olds motors were married to were pretty lame, though.

OHC Olds V8 was the starting field at Indy at one point, so you can't write off that motor entirely.

Which is exactly my point. Having DOHC doesn't matter if the car is lame and having pushrods doesn't matter if the car is awesome. The configuration of the valvetrain does not matter as long as the car performs in a manner the customer expects.

[A Horse With No Name]

In all fairness, the cars that the OHC Olds motors were married to were pretty lame, though.

OHC Olds V8 was the starting field at Indy at one point, so you can't write off that motor entirely.

Which is exactly my point. Having DOHC doesn't matter if the car is lame and having pushrods doesn't matter if the car is awesome. The configuration of the valvetrain does not matter as long as the car performs in a manner the customer expects.

And I am agreeing with you....we just bought a car three months ago. OHC VS OHV isn't even on the radar in terms of what we were looking at, and I am a car guy.

[hyperv6]

This is a area that just depends on who you are. I note with my customers you have the dedicated old school guys that are OHV V8 till I die types and then I have the other end where it has to be 4 cyl and DOHC with a Turbo.

In the middle are many like me that the end results are all that matter. As long as the engine has torque on the bottom end and good pull throught the range I am fine and I don't care where the cams are and how many cylinders.

The fact is many of the younger buyers were brought up on the technology cars in Honda's and Toyotas. They read about the Benz and BMW with the marketed technology and they get excited. To many they would rather have a loaded up WRX vs a Loaded Camaro SS. The older guys tend to keep with the old school approach and they are happy. They like to think of their LS engines as the old time thing and that is fine.

The fact is there is no wrong or right here just customer demands. As the younger buyers age the technology engines will play a increased roll here drawing their interest and money.

Note I had to adapt to our 3.0 in the GMC as it will run but you have to put the revs to it. I would be more please with a lower torque range but it is all you could get. I suspect if they would add a turbo I would see a more flat torque curve as in my 2.0 but at this time that is not an option.

I think this whole argument would change once a few of you have driven the new coming TT engine. If it is half the engine the 2.0 is it should be pretty amazing.

[dwightlooi]

Well, let me just focus of three facts...

(1) The overwhelming majority of car buyers (probably in access of 70% -- perhaps 90% of women and 60% of the men) don't even know what a camshaft is much less what Pushrods do or what DOHC stand for. So, the argument that the market expects DOHC is a tenuous position simply based on the notion that consumers cannot care deeply about something they don't have an idea about.

(2) DOHC, 4-valve cylinder heads and high specific output does not directly help you in meeting CAFE or fuel economy goals. It doesn't for all the reasons we have already discussed, the most important of which is that they are not more miserly on fuel, period. In fact, the one design choice that results in the highest return in MPG (for any fixed hp target) is to enlarge the engine by about 30% in displacement and adopt an Atkinson Cycle camshaft. This is not an opinion, this is a fact.

(3) From a consequence standpoint, not meeting CAFE really isn't that consequential. Do you know the penalty? It's $5.50 per 0.1 mpg, $55 per 1 mpg and $550 for a whopping 10 mpg of non-compliance. Also, it is important for everyone to realize that CAFE mpg is not the same as EPA mpg. This is important because it is a lot more lenient and most manufacturers are ALREADY ahead of the curve. Eg. Passenger car CAFE today is 28 mpg, with the exception of hybrids and the most efficient compacts, today's cars are not going to average 28 mpg! But, do you know what GM's CAFE score is? It's 31.7 in 2011 -- and that includes every passenger car they make. Guess what Honda's CAFE score is? It's 42.8 in 2011. That includes Accords, Acura TLs and even their unibody crossovers. A window sticker MPG average of 21 mpg is equivalent to 28 CAFE. A Window sticker of 34 is equivalent to 46.These are also not opinions, they are facts.

[A Horse With No Name]

So Dwight, let me ask you one question...why the hell are carmakers building DOHC and turbo motors if simple pushrod motors will do the trick more easily and more cost effectively?

They don't randomly upgrade to a higher form of leather for the interior, or put ten coats of paint on a car rather than three just for the fun of it...so why DO they build the DOHC motors?

[hyperv6]

So Dwight, let me ask you one question...why the hell are carmakers building DOHC and turbo motors if simple pushrod motors will do the trick more easily and more cost effectively?

They don't randomly upgrade to a higher form of leather for the interior, or put ten coats of paint on a car rather than three just for the fun of it...so why DO they build the DOHC motors?

X2

What do you know that the the others spend billions missing? Why do all the automotive writer miss this too. I never see an SAE news letter pleading for a return to push rods as the only way to fly.

Other than GM the only push rod engine that is coming new is the V8 and that is it. Also if it was so good then why to I have a 3.0 and 3.6 24V in my GM cars with no option for a pushrod engine. I would think if they had it figured out with the V8 they would make all their engines push rods you know to save all that cost and weight. So why did they drop the 3800 since it was so good for that nasty heavy 3.6?

By the way did Honda do all that with two valve 4 and 6 cylinder engines or was it their OHV V8 that help them reach the point they can sell off credits to GM or any mfg that did not meet the 53 MPG CAFE level.

Note your penalty figures do not look like much when looking at one vehicle but add that up over several million cars it is enough money to pay a lot of union health care. It adds up and is money any mfg does not want to give away or add to an already too high price of a vehicle.

[smk4565]

My guess is that Audi, Mercedes and BMW are doing something right since they each sell over 1 million cars per year, and each year they are setting records for sales and profit. They already have the formula down. Cadillac doesn't need to invent the mousetrap here, just try to build a better one.

Cadillac has been 90% DOHC since 1992 and 99% DOHC since 1997. Perhaps there is another reason for the difference or do you just wish to continue to harp on the inane?

Oldsmobile was the division inside GM with more DOHC models than any other outside of Cadillac..... It really helped them. In fact, I'm probably buying a 2012 Toronado tomorrow.

Not just on DOHC, but size of vehicles, engine options, safety, design, marketing, etc. On the whole, those 3 brands are doing quite well and had success that Lexus or Cadillac can't match, and forget the rest like Infiniti, Acura or Lincoln.

[balthazar]

mercedees just closed down their flagship for sales failure, instead of investing in it & fixing what was wretchedly wrong, they're bringing out FWD models. They need to focus on their core models and stop trying to be toyota.

[SAmadei]

I get you Dwight.

This all reminds me of the This is Spinal Tap discussion between Nigel Tufnel and Marty DiBergi about Marshall Amps... the OHC guys are just going to continue saying "But these go up to 11".

[Robert Hall]

This is one of those pointless arguments that will go on to the end of time....like it was 25 years ago w/ carbs vs fuel injection, the vast majority of car makers have moved on from pushrod to OHC...obviously there were reasons for that...even GM and Chrysler have OHC for their 4 and 6 cyl engines. It's a losing argument arguing for pushrod. Get over it and move on..

Edited August 19, 2012 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[hyperv6]

It is not pointless. Dwight has a good argument but it is one that fails to address all aspects of the argument.

If GM had more money back in the 80's when the change happened the LS may not have happened. GM looked at changing to the DOHC enigne for Chevy but several factors they kept with the old engine. Same went for the 3800. To be honest it was the right move or we could have ended up with boat anchors like the DOHC engines that made their way into the GP and Monte. We have to remember that GM money issues in the 80's was nearly as bad as they were later on.

The fact was GM did not have the money to invest in this and to make it at a price that would not have added a lot of cost to the lower priced cars. This is why the N star that came later was only in the top end car.

I am not sure who did it it but they figured out in drivetrain how to keep the pushrod engine alive and it has paid off. It is good to have good engineers. Chevy wanted DOHC so bad that they tried to do the ZR1 with Lotus and with an engine on the small scale the price killed it.

If one was to look at Ford they Paid the price too on cheaping out on the DOHC engine but they were so commited they had to live with it till they had enough money to fix it with the Coyote.

I know they made excuses like oh the push rod fits in the vette better and oh it was a little lighter etc but this was only for public consumtion. GM went on and has converted to DOHC on the 4 and 6 cylinder engines as these are now the volume engines. Also now that Turbo engines are better today with more upgraded turbo units and much better computer engine managment. The fact is many of the things that were poor in the 80's were fixed with the flash computers where they are much faster and have so much more capacity. This is why the cylinder deactivation kicks works.

Like everything else in the auto industry there is no simple answer or response to why something was do or happened. Often it is a cause and effect on several levels within a company and a few more outside that effect what happens.

I have been very lucky to have spent time with many of the Pontiac people who worked on the Fiero. There was a lot that went on there and so much of the real story never got to the public. The Fires and engine failuers were only symptoms of what really was going on and what went wrong. The entire story is so much more poltical and involved and would make a good book on a case study on what was wrong at GM even if you had no interest in the Fiero.

The long and short of it and I think the point that some of us are making is there is more to this than 3 paragraphs of statment and some engine specs.

Dwight has presented good info and I agree with much of what he says but as I have said you need to take all the factors in. I know even in my post I have left things out and there are things I do not know as GM has not made their internal buisness public.

Two of the last companies that stuck with the push rod were two who were hurting the most for money. When you can't afford a good interior for an F body that has power windows that won't fail and you can't afford the hood scoops on a 04 GTO because you don't have the money how do you expand to a major engine program is telling of GM's condition. Both of thes statments came from well placed people from GM in private convertations. They related how they had to streach a dollar for a long time and often GM had to make due with what they had. In this case thank God GM has some of the best drivetrain engineers who took something that could have set them back and kept them competitive.

Edited August 19, 2012 by hyperv6

[Z-06]

Two of the last companies that stuck with the push rod were two who were hurting the most for money.

Everything made logical sense - albeit anecdotal - till this statement. Seriously, pushrod put GM and Chrysler in bankruptcy - do you have causal argument for this? Sounds like SMK extraordinaire who will go and twist any data to make his point.

[Drew Dowdell]

Correlation is not causation. If DOHC was so important, why didn't GM switch after the 3.4 Twincam. That engine wasn't a boat anchor it was just tough to work on and the major maintenance issues we're all addressed by 1994.

How about the 3.5 shortstar? No major issues with that one and was class competitive.

There was also the weirdo 3.0 DOHC from Opel. That engine WAS a boat anchor and reliability nightmare, but they worked most of the bugs out of it when it became the 3.2.

At any of these stages, GM could have dropped the Pushrod V6 in favor of one of these engines but they didn't. A big reason they didn't was because in each case, the 3800 or 3800 S/C or 3900 could easily out perform it.

[ocnblu]

The later 3.4 DOHC was a reliable engine. Shortstar was a tragic hero. But the 3800 was run out of the market through no fault of its own.

Edited August 19, 2012 by ocnblu

[Drew Dowdell]

In fact, even today, the 3800 S/C is still a better performing engine than the 3.0 DOHC that GM has been trying to peddle in it's vehicles the past few years. I'd even go as far to say that the 240hp/240ft-lb 3900 was a better performing engine than the 3.0 DOHC as well. Though down on peak horsepower compared to the 3.0, it was able to maintain 90% peak torque from 1500 - 5500 rpm, which at all points is better than the pathetic peak of 220 ft-lb you get from the 3.0 DOHC only after you've spun it up to 5700rpm.

The 3900 would have been an interesting engine to throw a turbocharger on.

[hyperv6]

Two of the last companies that stuck with the push rod were two who were hurting the most for money.

Everything made logical sense - albeit anecdotal - till this statement. Seriously, pushrod put GM and Chrysler in bankruptcy - do you have causal argument for this? Sounds like SMK extraordinaire who will go and twist any data to make his point.

Push Rods did NOT put them in to Bankruptcy. GM's issues were there long before the OHC engine became the darling of the industry. The long lived pushrod I feel is a result of the lack of money not the cause of it.

Knowing and speaking to many GM people and having them tell their story of where short cuts were made and how product suffered it is clear GM was saving many where ever and how ever they could. That is why we also had Hail Mary attempts of the Quad V8 that thankfully never happened. Short cuts and short changed drivelines can comeback to bite you in the ass. It is one thing to provide a cheap interior but to sell a car where there are many engine or transmission isues are unforgivable in the eyes of the public.

GM learned their lesson on the transmission when they did not tun it through all the required develpment to save money. Lutz points this out in his book on how they saved money but had a high failure rate on a product GM normally made better than anyone else.

The long and short of it I think sticking with the push rod back when they did was the smart move if they did not have the proper funds to make the engine right from the ground up. Ford paid the price with many smoking and failed 4.6 engines. GM could not have afford the same mistake.

To be honest I still see a place for the push rod engine today in the trucks but I do think they need a DOHC engine available for the Cadillac and if they move to a high end Vette. There are market segments that it does matter and some it does not. It takes both to serve both customers.

In selling cars today it is very unforgiving and you have to fight for every sale you can. We have yet to see the last of the failed car companies. I suspect we will see more fail or merge.

Edited August 19, 2012 by hyperv6

[A Horse With No Name]

Mazda will fail, Suzuki will fail, and lots of other companies will fail. I think with the trouble in Europe, BMW may be in big trouble. even the BMW fanboi's are having problems with their cars, and it's becoming obvious that the emperor has no clothes at BMW.

[smk4565]

mercedees just closed down their flagship for sales failure, instead of investing in it & fixing what was wretchedly wrong, they're bringing out FWD models. They need to focus on their core models and stop trying to be toyota.

Maybach isn't a core product, and was a failure. They are focusing on the core products by dumping that and putting the efforts into the S-class. They aren't trying to be Toyota either, that is what GM is doing, making Cadillac a Lexus clone, and Chevy a Toyota clone.

[smk4565]

I think the ATS should get a 3800 V6 Supercharged instead of the 2.0T engine or 3.6 V6. BMW, Audi and Mercedes are all wrong by offering turbo fours, people really want a 3.8 liter V6 in their compact luxury sedan.

[A Horse With No Name]

mercedees just closed down their flagship for sales failure, instead of investing in it & fixing what was wretchedly wrong, they're bringing out FWD models. They need to focus on their core models and stop trying to be toyota.

Maybach isn't a core product, and was a failure. They are focusing on the core products by dumping that and putting the efforts into the S-class. They aren't trying to be Toyota either, that is what GM is doing, making Cadillac a Lexus clone, and Chevy a Toyota clone.

As a kid, did you find your own way out of the bathtub or did your parents have to give you a waterproof map?

I'd hardly call GM cars Toyota clones....

[Robert Hall]

I'd hardly call GM cars Toyota clones....

GM does by and large follow the Toyota playbook, though...offering a wide variety of boring FWD appliances..Ford is on the same plan, unfortunately.

[Z-06]

GM sells close to 1 million vehicles equipped with pushrod V8 motors. That is more than 4 cylinder DOHC equipped vehicles some manufacturers have hard time to sell outside our country. If you look at the equivalency of money spent and investment, just like it will not make sense for the development of a pushrod 4 cylinder for those manufacturers, it does not make sense for GM to research, develop, retool, re-educate to sell for the namesake of DOHC, when the scientific and mathematically proved that the gains are minimal at the best.

Engineering is not spending the most to get the best because you still do not end up being the best; it is making the best from what you have with room for improvement the next time. There is still life in pushrod and still advancement remaining and given the 60 plus year of small block expertise it is asinine for GM just because perception equates to pushrod is archaic. A team with a budget of $100,000 and wins podium is more valuable than a team that spends $2,000,000 for the same job.

[Robert Hall]

GM sells close to 1 million vehicles equipped with pushrod V8 motors.

A large percentage of those sales are just trucks, though.

[smk4565]

Mazda will fail, Suzuki will fail, and lots of other companies will fail. I think with the trouble in Europe, BMW may be in big trouble. even the BMW fanboi's are having problems with their cars, and it's becoming obvious that the emperor has no clothes at BMW.

BMW is making more profit than GM is this year. BMW also posted a healthy $6.4 billion profit last year, about $1 billion less than GM did, and GM is a far larger company. BMW will be fine, although I wouldn't be surprised if Suzuki and/or Mazda fail.

[Z-06]

I'd hardly call GM cars Toyota clones....

GM does by and large follow the Toyota playbook, though...offering a wide variety of boring FWD appliances..Ford is on the same plan, unfortunately.

So are BMW and Mercedes. Audi is already on the pulpit.

GM sells close to 1 million vehicles equipped with pushrod V8 motors.

A large percentage of those sales are just trucks, though.

Does it matter? Large percentage of MB sales are taxis in EU.

[Robert Hall]

I'd hardly call GM cars Toyota clones....

GM does by and large follow the Toyota playbook, though...offering a wide variety of boring FWD appliances..Ford is on the same plan, unfortunately.

So are BMW and Mercedes. Audi is already on the pulpit.

BMW has no BMW-brand FWD vehicles yet, MB just a couple...the vast majority of their cars are superior RWD models, not FWD mediocrity.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Z-06]

I'd hardly call GM cars Toyota clones....

GM does by and large follow the Toyota playbook, though...offering a wide variety of boring FWD appliances..Ford is on the same plan, unfortunately.

So are BMW and Mercedes. Audi is already on the pulpit.

BMW has no BMW-brand FWD vehicles yet, MB just a couple...the vast majority of their cars are superior RWD models, not FWD &#036;h&#33;.

YET does not mean NOT. You can slice as much as you want but to support the "superior" cars steaks MB needs FWD A and B class oatmeal to sustain itself.

[smk4565]

I'd hardly call GM cars Toyota clones....

GM does by and large follow the Toyota playbook, though...offering a wide variety of boring FWD appliances..Ford is on the same plan, unfortunately.

Yes they do, the Cruze is mostly boring and geared toward the Civic/Corolla, the Impala is being repositioned to take on the Avalon, which Ford already did with the Taurus. Toyota/Scion has the iQ, and here comes the Chevy Spark to compete. Rav4 and Highlander go unibody crossover, GM SUV's aren't far behind. Lexus has the RX, Cadillac has the SRX. To a large extent, the Toyota playbook works though, that is why others follow.

[A Horse With No Name]

I'll have to disagree...latest BMW offerings I think are below par for the company.

And while RWD has advantages for performance and trucks, for general service automobiles, there is nothing wrong with FWD. .07% of people care...you and I and the members of this board just happen to be in the .07%....

[Z-06]

Mazda will fail, Suzuki will fail, and lots of other companies will fail. I think with the trouble in Europe, BMW may be in big trouble. even the BMW fanboi's are having problems with their cars, and it's becoming obvious that the emperor has no clothes at BMW.

BMW is making more profit than GM is this year. BMW also posted a healthy $6.4 billion profit last year, about $1 billion less than GM did, and GM is a far larger company. BMW will be fine, although I wouldn't be surprised if Suzuki and/or Mazda fail.

Let's talk in two to three years about BMW being fine. BMW and MB are already rigging sales, remember the classic Lincoln and Cadillac race to be #1 luxury sales brand in the 90s? Well history repeats itself. Only in this case MB and BMW do not have volume brands to support on like GM and Ford did.

[Robert Hall]

I'd hardly call GM cars Toyota clones....

GM does by and large follow the Toyota playbook, though...offering a wide variety of boring FWD appliances..Ford is on the same plan, unfortunately.

Yes they do, the Cruze is mostly boring and geared toward the Civic/Corolla, the Impala is being repositioned to take on the Avalon, which Ford already did with the Taurus. Toyota/Scion has the iQ, and here comes the Chevy Spark to compete. Rav4 and Highlander go unibody crossover, GM SUV's aren't far behind. Lexus has the RX, Cadillac has the SRX. To a large extent, the Toyota playbook works though, that is why others follow.

Yes...quality mediocrity sells to the uninformed masses.

[A Horse With No Name]

I'd hardly call GM cars Toyota clones....

GM does by and large follow the Toyota playbook, though...offering a wide variety of boring FWD appliances..Ford is on the same plan, unfortunately.

Yes they do, the Cruze is mostly boring and geared toward the Civic/Corolla, the Impala is being repositioned to take on the Avalon, which Ford already did with the Taurus. Toyota/Scion has the iQ, and here comes the Chevy Spark to compete. Rav4 and Highlander go unibody crossover, GM SUV's aren't far behind. Lexus has the RX, Cadillac has the SRX. To a large extent, the Toyota playbook works though, that is why others follow.

And IIRC the FWD SRX outsells the RWD SRX...an awful lot of what we value here is not valued by the 15 million new car buyers we will have in our country this year.

I'd hardly call GM cars Toyota clones....

GM does by and large follow the Toyota playbook, though...offering a wide variety of boring FWD appliances..Ford is on the same plan, unfortunately.

Yes they do, the Cruze is mostly boring and geared toward the Civic/Corolla, the Impala is being repositioned to take on the Avalon, which Ford already did with the Taurus. Toyota/Scion has the iQ, and here comes the Chevy Spark to compete. Rav4 and Highlander go unibody crossover, GM SUV's aren't far behind. Lexus has the RX, Cadillac has the SRX. To a large extent, the Toyota playbook works though, that is why others follow.

Yes...quality mediocrity sells to the uninformed masses.

So we as enthusiasts buy enthusiast cars. I don't want to force a Subaru BRZ on a mindless consumer any more than I want a Corolla forced on me...different strokes for different folks.

...and yes, Z06 is correct, they are already rigging sales.