hyperv6

No, but they do not view the V8 negatively compared to a turbo V6 either, especially when power output is comparable or superior. If a V8 can be similarly or more powerful, cost less, be less demanding on maintenance, and offer similar fuel economy, there is very little imperative to downsize displacement and go with forced induction. The big misconception is that there is a huge fuel economy difference between a 3.5 TTV6 and a 6.2 Pushrod NA V8. There isn't. An SHO Taurus is at 17/25 mpg, A Camaro SS is at 16/25 mpg -- both automatic. By itself, the V8 6.2 is actually lighter than the TT V6 3.5, with less plumbing under the hood and cost less to build. It makes 35 more hp and 50 more lb-ft of twist. That's without direct injection and closing that 1 mpg gap shouldn't be mission impossible. Cylinder count is becoming more irrelivant. The real factor is even 1 MPG is a major issue for many Full Size Truck buyers and they are willing to pay for it. While they do not view the V8 in a negitive light they do get more and more excited about smaller engines with as good or little better power even if they have to pay for it. Also for years Torque ment little to the average buyer but today most truck buyers understand and love the low end torque of the turbo engine and how it feels. Most V8 engine have the torque but the it is still on a curve vs the flat and level torque levels of the turbo engines. Reguardless of the numbers etc the bottom line is what the people want and what they are willing to pay for. So far the TT V6 in the Ford is a money maker and looks to continue this into the future. Lets face it these people don't need a TT V6 but 90% of them don't need 4 wheel drive either. To be honest most of them don't need a full size truck either. But if it make money for GM or Ford God Bless them and their money.

Buick needs to spread them all out more in size and price. But till Cadillac moves up there is little room there price wise.

Interesting...where does a loaded AWD V6 Acadia Denali end up? Don't quote me but I think it starts in the mid $50K range and ends near $60K. Again way too much but at least with the large model you do get more for your money,

I know Buick has been advertising much more but it is very low key. The new lovely lady showing the Enclave is good and if done right make her a star like Mercury Jill. But even Jill could not save Mercury. Buick needs a wow look at me product that would make people take notice at Buick. I will not call it a flag ship or anything else but they need a image buster. This is where a Riv done properly could gain notice and make people come into show rooms. They need a Riv that has a cool factor that would make people wait months to get theirs. Buick has a lot of nice cars but not a lot of soul. They need to get some mojo going that ties this all together. Image sells more cars than just being great cars does. While GM has done well to design and build nice Buicks they need to design and build a soul and image for them now. I do not want them to just try to relive the past with an old styled Riv or doing a modern GN ike car. They can build a Riv that has the impact of a GN or 63 Riv but do it on it's own merit. Time for them to be fresh and original again.

It was a given that the LTS will share a platform somewhere in GM. That is where it will make the engine interesting on how and what they do.

$41,000 plus for a loaded AWD V6 Denali. Are they friggin nuts? I own a Terrain and love it but no way in hell is this vehicle worth that kind of money. Once you break $40K the door opens to a lot of better options. May as well just pay a little more and get the SRX. There is a dealer here selling the SRX new for $32,000 here. I see rebates on some real deals on this one. On a positive note the new engine is nice. The present one is good and the 3.6 is just 14% to the better. More power is never bad. At least you do not have to buy the Denali to get the 3.6.

The fact is today while the enthusiast may cry for a stripped down car they are in the great minority. Also keep in mind the reason even the base cars have power windows is it is cheaper to put them in all vs still offering a manual. The fact is even back in the day the strippers with big engines would sit around for months unsold. Many of todays cars like the original ZL1 and ther COPO cars are worth so much is that nobody wanted them back then. They were expensive and they were not popular. That is why there are so few. To do a real COPO car today they still would not be cheap and they would not prove to be very popular just as in the past. Though in 40 years they may be worth something then. People today want all the options they can afford. I wish Buick would do more high profile advertising as the car is still a mystery to many. I hope we see a surge like we did with the Cruze as this car is too good to be overlooked. But it is still so hard to get people to accept that Buick has changed.

I totally agree that the V8's can and will surpass the TT-V6 models when sold. The efficiency of a V8 can truly be optimized with better return on the dollars than a TT-V6 The one thing left out is the fact that the public is no longer I have to own a V8 mentality anymore. Ford has proven they could take the strongest market for the V8 in the Half Ton pickup market and slap a TT V6 in it even at a higher price and take 50% of the sales. Too many here think the public has a unending love affair for the V8 and they no longer do. The fact is people today love technology and the flat torque curves of the new turbo engines. The V8 will have a place but it is no longer the end all be all of all automotive things to the public. What they want and think is all that matters in the end because if there is that great of a take rate on TT V6 engines in a pick up there is even a greater one in a performance luxury auto. They are the ones paying the money and if that is what the public demands then give it to them.

Bigger numbers do not always point to the better sorted car. While GM got caught out with less power Ford got caught without a world class electronic suspension. They know it and that is why there were reports already that Ford has started to work on one already. This game is far from over.

Our famous and missing friend, PCS/Oracle of Delphi, stated long ago that the Theta platform was quite capable of handling off-road duty if the suspension was set-up correctly. The current set-up of the Terrain and Equinox is for on-road performance - aka "inclement weather" driving and light all-terrain duty. However, if a modest suspension lift can be installed, with meatier tires, an All-Terrain limited edition (not an Off-Road model) could be brought to market to capture an audience attune to such a vehicle. Jeep does this with the Compass (on-road) and Patriot (all-terrain) models, though we all know that with a little extra tuning the Patriot can be an off-road warrior too. My biggest peeve with the Terrain is that for a SUV-wannabe CUV with truck-like styling, it sits way too low to the ground. That would be okay if it was the FWD that sat this low, but I feel the AWD version should have some lift to it and extra ground clearance. My mom's '05 Saturn VUE V6 AWD (and the Gen1 Equinox & Pontiac Torrent too) sits higher off the ground than the current Theta's do. Oh hell that means little as I could take a Sonic and make it into a capable off road vehicle too with the right parts. But that does not mean it would be a good idea. The issue is with my customer. We sell almost every off road part known to man at work at you would find few real off roaders that would bite on a butched up Terrain. Off roaders love RWD/AWD/4WD but if it has any ties to abased FWD they have little use for it. Vehicles like the Nitro, Patriot, Compass, Escape, Nox, Explorer. Terrain etc are not what real off roaders want. They have some nice slurs for them and people who consider them real off road material. Now the old S-10, Jeep and even the Samuri are ok with them but they have little interest in these Crossovers. In all the 4x4 events I have run the show Judging on where we average 800 vehicles few to none are what I would term a modern cross over. The rest are mostly soccer mom vehicles or butched up mini vans at best. The cost to make the Terrain into a real off roader will drive the price to where they would just get a Yukon anyways. The terrain has 7" of Ground Clearance and for the most will make it over what ever you need to with it. Hell I like the Terrain but I would not want to go off road in it. There are more and better options out there. I would rather see a light jeep like vehicle on the Delta put out and designed from the start as trail ready as they like to say. Short wheel base, light, good ground clearance, durable and easy to see out of is what most off roaders like and that is what they should be given. The comments I heard on the guys witht he Patriots were crazy. Even the regular Jeep guys make fun of their manhood. This is not what I feel but it is what I hear and see from the real trail guys out there. The kind that will run through a mud pit for $100 with out a truck. We did it evey year just to see how many we could get to do it. We has to limit the field. LOL!

Ok first off forget the OFF Road Package Idea. The Terrain is not an off road vehicle and to be honest never will be. This thing was designed to be a on road cross over and nothing more. The new Terrain will be here in 2014 as a 2015 so at this point it is just going to ride it out. Word is the next one will be on the Delta II and this will fix the major issue of weight. It will be a 4 cylinder only and be about the size of a Cruze and Escape. There will be a shift in the market on the SUV line at GM. I still expect the Trailblazer to appear at some point no matter what GM stated and Chevy will get some kind of version of the Trax. THe market is all about cross overs now and every company will offer them is several sizes and drivetrains. Either way the Denali price is to the point there are too many other good options. Hell for just over 40K you can get a lot of really prime vehicles. I own a loaded Terrain and it makes a wonderful $31K out the door vehicle but it is no way a $40K vehicle. Even GMC offers better at that price. High profits are often built on the idea there is a sucker born every min. I can't blame GM as this is pure money but I see a fool behind every wheel. I normally opt for all the options when I buy a new car but generally I get things like Superchargers, Turbo's and suspension packages. For $5k I expect more than some chrome and a night light.

They did not forget and with each new model GM makes they have repaired much of what was wrong. I expect the ATS to show that with the right money and less short cuts that they are making a car on par or better than most others. For the most GM is getting it pretty much right now on quality. My Terrain has been defect free with perfect paint., My Maliubu has only had an issue with a TPM valve in one wheels and the SS has only had issues with effects from the accident and none were directly related to a factory installed part. The SS issues were limited to moving the IC so the Map did not hit the AC compressor. The IC was reinstalled a little more back than it should have been. Also the replacment intake tube blew the MAP out when I installed the upgrade. The higher presure made the plastic weld fail. The new tuber has been there for about 20,000 miles and no issues.

I have to say the Cruze Eco I drove was very impressive. Fix that damn upshift light and I would have no complaints.

Why? I know that a twin turbocharged engine will have more HP and torque than a NA engine of the same size, but the 3.6L is a great V6 in its own right. What are the benefits of having a TTV6 that is a 3L over the NA 3.6L? Unless the engine ends up being a TTV6-3.6L..... The TT DI VVT turbo no matter the size will have a higher torque rating and the torque curve. I would not be suprised to see at least 90% max torque at 1800 RPM and it will hold near 100% from 2000-5500 RPM. The broad flat torque curves are where the performance is and the abilities to get better mpg. My LNF 2.0 has max Torque of 315 FL LB at 1800 and holds it till 5300 RPM. If demad is there the torque is there. Torque does the work and gets you up to speed. Off Throttle time the DI fuel is cut off the sooner you get to speed and off throttle the better the fuel savings per the GM performance engineer I questioned when I went from 235 to 290 HP and 240-315 FT LB on my GMPD tune. I saw a average gain of 2 MPG highway and 1-2 city even with the boost of performance.

The Ecotec in the HHR with the upgrade GM tune will dips into the 13's and does an easy 32 MPG highway Even driven hard it easily stays in the mid 20 MPG range. The trick the GM Performance engineer told me is the low end torque. With so much low end torque you can still get into the boost and get up to speed quickly but then you have much more off gas time. The DI kills the fuel if left in gear and coasting down the road. The increase with the Turbo Upgrade added not just more power but 2 MPG highway. This was confirmed buy the engineer as accurate. The key to the turbo engines with DI and VVT is that the torque range starts low and is as flat as a table top. This give great power and torque at nearly any speed. To be honest there is normally no need for high revs to get into the power band as I have to with a my LS, 3.0 or 3.6 powered cars. Even my old 3800SC has to rev to get anywhere compared to my 2.0. As for stressed engine? If an engine is properly built there is no stress. Power is stress and if the sum of the parts are built for the task ther is no stress. In the past many Turbo engines were stressed as they were never built proplerly as companies tried to bolt on a turbo but neglected the engine. The Ecotech block and head will take over 1000 HP and most of the rest of the engine will take more than most parts on many of GM's other engines. No matter what the perspective by us here the public has made it known they have an interest in a turbo V6 with a broad torque range and Ford can sell it for more than the V8. THis is a no brainer for a company who has coming soon a TT V6 that could be shared with many different vehicles. Just the numbers sold in the trucks would reduce the cost per unit built by GM and increase the profits even more. We can sit here all day and argue about this but the reality is GM will have a new Gen V V8 and will offer NA and Turbo V6 engines in the new trucks. They will make money and more money on each. These profits lowering of unit cost with shared engines will create the cash flow to fix the rest of GM. That is is the key to the truck make money and more money and they will.

I expect the sticker on the fully loaded Denali will break the $40,000 level. Might get to $42K with the entertainment system. The SLT2 with all the toys are stickered a $38K now. Note there are a few high dollar options like AWD, V6 and entertaiment system that can add to the price fast. these three alone can add Approx $5,000 alone. The best value is the SLE model 2WD. they can be had for near $20,000 and while may not have all the toys they are well optioned.

This may be the first of the TTV6 cars and more should follow soon after.

I too as a owner of a 2012 SLT2 2WD I see no value in this. I to be honest do not have any issue not having the higher HP engine. The 3.0 does the job and while I would have liked to have a 3.6 I really have no regrett. For this price I would just move up to the SRX. There is a dealer here offering well optioned SRX's new for $32,000. GMC needs to offer real hardware for that kind of money and make the V6, Entertainm,entertainment system and AWD standard. Lighted rockers and a few extra chome items mean little to me. To be honest I could order the grill and tailights at cost and get the same effect. Even the wheels are hardly different from what I have now with the present 19". This is one the dealers will get and have to discount so sell. Look for rebates. The only Denali that was worth the extra money I have driven was the original Serria Pick up with AWD, 6.0 and electric sunroof with the high grade leather interior. But then that one was over $60K. GMC would have done better to replace the SLT2 with the Denali.

The Turbo and Supercharged engines from GM generally are listed as Premium Recomended. This means you can use regular with no risk of damage but you will lose about 20 HP. Now if and where GM list the engine as Premium Required you must use premium oar else you will have damage under hard use. My 04 GTP was Premuium Recomended and we used both. You could tell if it had a tank of regular. Note I used premium when I filled up but the wife used regular. On the HHR SS I used only premium but It also has the recomended option too. Now that I have the GM upgrade tune on it part of the GM kit was a gas lid sticker that changed to Premium Required. 23 PSI will do that. Per the marketing manager I know he said they want to give owners the option as many people will avoid buying a performance car if they have to buy the higher priced gas. With gas priced up it hursts sales. If they give them the option they tend to be more likely to buy the car. Todays electronics have really help make this possible and made it a good maketing tool to those that would normally be scared off. The Ecotech with minor changes can do 500 HP easy and reliably. I am not saying we will see this in street trim but it has been done and only things like rods valves and pistons needed changed. The GM Eco power book is very informitive on how much power ever part of the engine will take. Many stock parts will make over 1000 HP with no reliability issues. If you read up on this engine you would be amazed at what it will take. Two 3 bar mass air sensors a dyno and flashing a new tune cam make well over 300 HP with no issue. I see the Eco Turbo as the small block of the futue. There will be many of them they will get cheaper and they will be easy to make power with.

Speaking as a owner of a a Eco Turbo I can say I bought it with a little reservation on several levels but today I am just crazy about the engine. If GM does with the V6 like they did with the Eco it should be a fine engine. The power and MPG I get are great. Just beating around twon I get a solid 25 MPG. Note this is not any hypermile deal either as I drive it to enjoy it. My City was to have been 19 MPG per the EPA listing but I have never gotten worse than 23 MPG. Highway has been 32 MPG at 70-80 MPH. Yes I see 23-24 PSI on on ramps. The only negitives are the lack of traction due to the FWD and load transfer and the rock hard Michelin Pilots Chevy used. I am just at 25K miles now but I know many on the HHR web site with the SS that have near or even over 100K miles. Very few have had issues. The guys who mod the SS have seen it easy to add power and generally the engines take it well. The Transmissions and clutches have been the weak link but these are the old 4 and 5 speed transaxles. There have been only a couple turbo failures and all were under warranty. The wastegate on a few also had issues but these were rare. To be honest I have seen less issues on the SS than I saw on the 3800SC Series III. From the people I have read who have driven the early TT V6 engines they all have said they have the power of the LS but the MPG of the V6. Now like any engine if you drive it very very hard it can get thirsty but the Turbo engines under normal driving and with the new DI system will get very good MPG. We just have to learn what was once true is no longer at issue with turbo engines. Better syn oils, Better quality turbo's and water cooled housings have made trouble pretty much a non issue. GM learned their lessons when they cheaped out on the T type engines. Once they upgraded to the GN engines with the water cooled turbo's they had little issue after that. The early T types were only good for 30K-36K miles and the bearings would die. GM and most other companys will all be using Turbo engines and the will not skimp this time.

I wonder where the Regal is going to go and what they have planned for it. Right now this package will kill the present GS. I wonder how long till we get a better and new Regal to move it up. Then you have the issue with the Lacrosse and you need to move it up the chain too. I see some neat cars but a lot of overlap at Buick right now.

GM Will do just fine with building a better ME TOO for a while. Right now GM is in the mode where they have no great need to take any silly multibillion dollar risk. They have good product and better coming. The Me Too thing is all industries anymore. we get one Reality show on the life of cross dressing Amish then we get 5 more from other networks. It is just a sign of a tight market in an even more tight economic time. The difference of being here is just one failed project for many anymore. My company has bailed out many companies in the perfromce area because they took a great risk and failed. Once GM gets things done like a Flagship for Cadillac. More produce for Buick and Chevy fully revamped then they can take a look at some risks once the economy improves. Till then they need to put some profits under their belts. Even then the risks need to be calculated. The bottom line is the Atlas is an old engine that would need a lot of investment, would have limited use and too few people crying for it let alone know about it. On the other hand the Cruze Diesel is a risk but is calculated. It is already in great use in Europe and elsewhere. They plan a slow roll out in a Cruze to test the waters and educate the public. Things like this may or may not work but you can still take a risk and limit the damage if it failes or gather the profits if it works. The idea of an inline 6 in a FWD is just a poor one right now with most cars getting smaller and smaller. The packaging just has little chance to work even in coming cars like the Impala. Why re engineer all your cars for something that is more difficult to fit when you can come out with the best TT V6 on the market and put it in anything you build now and in the future win no need to redesign anything.

The weight has not been given but one look at the Alpha ATS Cadilac is if I recall correctly 3200 pounds with the Turbo 4 and 3300 pounds with the V6. A Camaro coupe with a TTV6 and V8 would not be much more. I would expect a V8 to be at least 3500 pounds or could even less if they do their home work. The final weight might be based much on the cost of materials cutting the weight in a Chevy vs the Cadillac.

No I just interjected the reality and economics as part of the dream. I am not saying that a I 6 would not cool but when you inject real world business issues it has it's great risks. The Atlas was big, heavy, not all that well know or popular, poor mileage [this could be addressed], shares no parts with any other engine, was not used in anything but the Trailblazer or Envoy. Add to that the cost to build it was more than the LS V8. So basically you have an older engine that is only good in trucks or SUV's that may cost more to build per unit than the new Gen V that can be sold in many vehicles. Now if you engineer a Inline 6 based on the Ecotec and use many of the same valvetrain and rotating assembly. Then design a new block based on the new lightened Ecotec Gen 2 you can use this in the trucks and still spread the cost out with shared parts with all the Ecotec engines that are built. The fact is the Ecotec is the highest volume engine GM makes and one of the best engineered and proven engines they have ever offered. The bottom line is the Atlas was dropped for good reason. Cost and lack of the ability to use it in much else. Most companies lay a inline 6 over because they have too in just about any car other wise the cowls of the cars would need to be raised. Even the simple in line Ford in the Mustang is a tight fit but add DOHC to it today and it takes up more room. It is fine to dream and want to be different but the fact is companies can not afford to always be different. GM is not out of the woods yet and can not afford to lose large amounts of money on limited use engines if the public does not embrace them. The TTV6 is already proven popular and profitable in the Ford. It would be foolish for GM who already has a very good TTV6 coming not to use it. If it fails it will do just fine in the car line. Economics of scale have to always be considered. Bob Lutz even understands this and points it out in both of his books.

Meh, GM has done way too much "me-too" thinking over the years. It's much more interesting to think about them innovating and leading for a change. Oh, and on the trucks, messing with interior space and feminizing the front styling would just be foolishness. In todays market few companies can afford a few billions in a mistake on a product. Ford took a measured risk with a Turbo engine already used in many other vehicles and it paid off. For GM to use a inline 6 not used in anything else with no demand is a major risk and could lose a lot of money if it fails to sell. It easy for you to dream here but to put your name on the order to build a new product is a major issue for not only the person signing his name but also for GM. Money lost could damage other product that could use the money for changes and development. The bottom line is the TTV6 is a limited risk vs doing a whole new engine. The Atlas is dead and will not becoming to any vehivcle in the near future. On the space and boxy front end. I expexct them all to address this. The package needs to me more efficent if you are going to lose weight. Hell Most of the Semi Companies have learned to make their trucks with smaller and more aero noses. If Kenworth can do it GM and Ford can too. An acceptable ground is out there and they will find it. Sorry but you have to keep a dose of reality here and keep risk in mind. Add to this that the Atlas was not a bad engine but it was not a great engine either. I have known many people who owned one and few really shed a tear when they sold it.