hyperv6

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Depends on where you are from.

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.

whatever the buyers with money tell them what they want, is what they would be best to build. Or it could be BMW, MB, Audi and soon to be Cadillac know something more than just some guy on the internet. It would be interesting to hear their side of the marketing and engineering. I am sure they have good answers about this other wise they would all not be moving to th 6 cylinder Turbo engines. There has to be Money and MPG there or they would not be doing it.

More leg and bar room in the back of a streach.

I never said a word about RWD. Those who drive these cars could care less and those in the back either can't or won't notice. The appeal to the converters is the FWD will make changing these cars so much cheaper and easier to do.

You'll have a real hard time getting out of the Cadillac dealership with an ATS for $29k... and even then you still won't have a manual transmission. No but for under $40K I can get a RWD Cadillac and I could care less if it is manual or auto since majority would be sold that way any how. My issue is the Regal. It is so little more and it has the Verano nipping at its heals and the Turbo ATS not too far over it. All I have to say the sooner they can move Cadillac up the better off Buick will be. Right now Chevy and Cadillac just has them penned in. Even the new Impala might take away some of this market as it will get good MPG and have much of what the Verano offers in just a little larger package. GM still has too many models too close together.

Thanks for posting that. I had seen they were already at work on this. Like I have repeated GM's comments This car will be a fleet/professional car. With the loss of the Town Car there was nothing left to take up the market. This is a big market with a lot of easy money to make if you have somthing to offer.

If it were as simple as Keith tries to make it. The fact is from a car stand point he is correct but from a Political stand point and union stand point it is a whole different ball game. GM has major issues with Opel and unions add to the this the Euro mess. On the other hand many of the Chevys are being built in Korea, some of the old Iron Curtain counties and other sites. Most of these counties are either non union or cheaper to build the cars. While it is going to take work to intro Chevy to a poin (it's not a totally unknown name) the future of Opel is going to be just as diffcult and if GM wants to bail they can or at least use the Chevy line as a threat to bail. In other words most of this issue is non car related and the cars are the the pawns in the large chess match. While years ago people in Europe would buy nothing from the outside that has changed and is no longer true. There are many Asian cars there now and they very well accepted as they are Cheap. If GM can sell Chevy Cheap or cheaper than Opel it may give them a chance to salvage some sales and money. Europe is one of those deals where GM can't let go and they keep holding on. They are damned either way.

Kind of makes you wish you could be around for that final ride. LOL!

I am not in fear of the Honda. The fact the ATS is so close in price is what hurts. But then again many today just want FWD some age brackets.

Well Last week we had the PGA tour here and a whole fleet of XTS everywhere. This was not the first time I saw a XTS but it was the first time I saW them on the road. I must say they struck me as much nicer than the first one I saw. I did not detect any narrow look to them as the large grill helps off set this and there was no mistaking it for anything but a Cadillac. While it is not a car most here will be interested in it is a car that many people just looking for comfort in will enjoy. Also it will introduce them to many of the new things like the manetic ride with better handling the other Cadillacs are now offering. It may not set the Green Hell lap record but it will give the one of the best rides they have ever had and handling that is far from Numb. It will be interesting to see how soon the service fleets pick up on this with the town cars already gone.

The lack of money left many things half baked. We were lucky that the people in charge when the Ecotec was developed understood how important it was to get that one right the first time out of the box. The fact is the V6 engine at GM has never really gotten much in the way of proper funding for years. Till the HF V6 came out they mostly had to rely on updates to old engines like the 4.3 or 3800, They were lucky they did a good job on the original that let them get away with this. But GM also really failed on the early 3.8 turbo engines and the DOHC V6 that came out in the GP and Monte Carlo. that one was a real boat anchor. GM also half baked cars for years too. Like the 4th gen F body. It had handling and engine but they always ran out of money on the interior Same for the Vette. Settlmire said he was always frustrated that they never had the funds to finish the car the way they really wanted. Today that has changed and the public is no longer forgiving of GM for cars that fall that far short anymore. The ATS is the first full new project done under the new funding and it really shows. I can't wait to see the other coming new product.

But before they do that, they need to ask a simple question. Why is a 3.6 Bi-turbo V6 better than a 6.2 Gen V DI V8? We could argue this for weeks but the fact remains they see something you don't as they would not be spending the kind of money they are unless they had a good damn reason. No matter if it is marketing reports or the fact they have the real data on these engines vs what you post may give them an advantage on knowing why they think it is a good idea. Either way they are coming and will be used well to market the cars. If GM could do a N star mostly for Cadillac before they can do a TT V6 for mostly Cadillac too.

Shhh!!!!!! I have just been to Hanger 18 at Wright Patterson AFB and look what I found. http://www.leftlanenews.com/photos/cadillac-cts-2014-picture-9.html Note this was a 3.0 TT V6 in a new CTS non V. According to people that really know what is going on there is a 3.6 TT V6 too in development too. Unless something changed the ATS V will get the 3.6 TT. The new CTS will get a 3.6 NA, 3.0 TT and the New V8 for the CTS V. It is also expected the XTS will get the 3.0 TT V6 at some point. As for the 3.6 TT it could be a base engine in the LTS but it is way too soon to really even debate that one as we know way too little on this car yet. I would also expect one of the TT V6 to end up in one of the Alpha Camaro's too and some claim a 1/2 ton truck. That would make a nice GMC option. The TT V6 has been around for a good while but it has been one of those still born projects that was put on the shelf before and during the Chapter 11. The basic work was done but it was never completed. They pulled it off the shelf and are updating it and completing it now that they have the funding. I would also expect Holden to see at least one of the engines for their use too.

Well if you drive a Z06 hard you are probably getting 13 mpg. I was just going off EPA ratings because it is the fairest way to compare cars. If you drive a 911 around in 7th gear all day at 55 mph I am sure you can get 25 or better and edge out gently driving Z06 drivers. Obviously driving style and weather conditions are going to affect mpg. One other thing to think about that would support Dwight's position. Lots of people swap LS series motor into Porsche's... people never seem to swap Porsche motors into GM cars. I wonder why? The reason they swap in LS engines are because they are small, powerful and the key Cheap to buy since there so many in the junk yards. My buddys father bought a V12 Jag sedan with a dopped valve seat. This was years ago and the head casting was $1200 bare. He then said he wondered why so many Jags had Chevys and once he was done rebuilding the V12 he knew why the cost. Since then the other head dropped a valve seat so as he is a ex Pontiac racer we dropped in a 428 HO Pontiac engine that was laying around. The car has had no failures since in the last 25 years. Also had a buddy buy a 928 before I could talk him out of it. Once the fuel pump went out and he saw the cost the car was up for sale. He found that nearly all the parts for the 928 are almost as much as the value of the car. We had talked a Chevy transplant but he just wanted the car out of his sight. So generally like most expensive euro cars built in any real volume they are more to repair than they are worth. You would be suprised at how many Ferraris go to salvage because they are more expensive to replace timing belts or a clutch vs the value of the car. I have been seeing more and more 308's with 2.8 and 3.8 V6 engines to keep them running. Just Think a Fiero engine in a Ferrari. LOL! The sad fact is even American cars are getting this way as once they get to a point they are not worth the repair vs value. The time of the disposible car is not far off.

I agree that many MFG could and should do better but I do not agree with going all out retro on too many things. It is a box that is hard to get out of once you are in it. Right now the Camaro is doing well but the 6th gen is going to be a challange as it will be a global car and the retro only means so much to even those in the American Market. The trick is to come up with a modern car that can be identified as a Camaro that will be accepted buy a global market. The global market is less forgiving on size and visibility out of the car inless it is a Enzo etc. I just think companies have gotten lazy with retro and the egg styling. Cars like the HHR, new Impala etc. One thing to note too is full on retro is not fully embraced. As an owner of an HHR I know it has sold well but I would be 1/3 of the market hates the styling. Even the Camaro has a larger than normal segment that hates it. One car that is in major trouble is the coming Mustang as if they hold the the show car look I expect they will pay a price as it has done the retro thing so long it will piss off the present buyers and they are a large segment. I guess it just proves you can't please everyone.

Buyers today have a preference for smaller displacement and fewer cylinders rather than actual Fuel Economy numbers They do want better MPG but they generally precieve that the smaller engines give the best MPG. For the most part most 4 and V6 engines do give better MPG. Buyers have a predisposition towards Turbocharged engines and perceive them as more advanced and more desirable It is true that many buyers look at the new Turbo engines as being efficent but with power. nearly half of todays market grew up in 4 cylinder Honda's and Toyota's so they have no real love for a V8 even if it has the same MPG. Buyers place a great importance on a 1 mpg difference over most other factors when making a buying decision They seem to with the extra money many are putting down on the F150 Ecoboost over the V8. Many seem to be willing to pay for the 1 MPG, technology etc. They are also paying over $1000 for it. Manufacturers deem the CAFE penalty for an additional 1 mpg of non-compliance as actually significant and worthy of significant engineering or manufacturing costs to overcome. Bud you ain't seen nothing yet. By 2025 [unless someone steps in to change CAFE] You will see some major investment into many far reaching technologies from here forward. The V8 has been and can be inproved but it is going to lose more and more market share becasue it still can not overcome the simple physics of volume. I would not be suprised to see a much smaller V8 with some kind of pressureized induction at some point as there is a limit to the gains to be had. But no matter what things will be smaller on many levels unless someone can figure out how to sell the Chevy Spark in numbers greater than the Pick up trucks. The fact is most MFG are looking to try to find a way to retain at least a V8 for use but it will be used in more limited vehicles as time goes on. It also will climb in cost so it will only be found in cars like the top V series or a Vette. The fact is they have done well with the V8 but smaller engines will rule the future. To be honest the 4 cylinder already owns the market now with a percentage of V6 and V8 engines filling an even smaller share of the market. If fuel prices continue to climb the public will revolt from most larger engines. That would hit V8 sales and even any V6 sales turbo and non turbo. The Verano Turbo is very telling where the market and most buyers are going. Note it is not a performance car. GM is looking to give a big car feel in comfort and power to a small car. A car like this a few years back would have never sold but today the public is looking for them. I don't want to see thing go the way they are but I am not going to sit here and pretend we will have V8 engines getting 50 MPG in 10 years from now. The telling thing to watch is the next gen of Pickups after the coming one. There will be some major changes in them and it will be telling. Automakers are hoping that electric vehicles will shoulder some of the burden but as of yet the response is luke warm and it will force them into changes they are not really keen on making. Again I ask you why do you think the automakers are not agreeing with what you are saying and are moving more and more to smaller engines and turbo engines if they can do all you say they can with a V8. Tell me why you are right and why they are all spending billions doing what you say is wrong? The bottom line is that they are prolonging the V8 for the trucks as long as they can. They need the sales. The problem is when they do not meet the numbers they need the Truck will be faced with down size. As it is now you only have 3 car in North America in the GM line with the V8. Next year they will be adding a limited number of SS sedans and the LTS in a year or two later. The fact the new Impala is coming with only a 4 and non Turbo V6 is telling. I also expect GM to into a Turbo 3 cylinder soon. I am not trying to be the forteller of doom all I am doing is watching what the industry is doing and they do not look to me to be adding much in V8 market share. Unless they can sell more propane.

Chrysler 200 is on the list. They may have improved it but the car still sucks. Not a fan of any of the Kia line. Just because any of these cars sell does not mean they are good cars.