hyperv6

I had been hoping Mark would finally get to where he could make some changes. He is a real car guy. His dad Lloyd taught him well.

We should see soon if you are on the money or or off track. While GM is not fully recovered they are doing many things no one expected by looking into RWD cars and sport models that many just last June kept saying were dead and not coming back under the Goverment Motors banner. Remember when they said the GM perfromace division leliminated direct preoduction car development. Many here even said that was the end. How many times we were told the Zeta was dead and had no future by not only media but also by GM. In times like these the only thing for sure is things can and will change and when they do it will be swift. So while any of us may be right today we could be very wrong in a month. If anything the LS based engine will remain for a little while just because unless they reawake a still born project like the N Star replacment it would take time to make a new engine. But on the other hand GM is not sharing future product info as far in advasnce as they used to. One other option looked at in the past was BMW engines for Cadillac. I never heard how that ended or how that idea was left.

I was just looking this over and the torque looks a little lite at 275 lb-ft. The Ecotec witht he turbo upgrade is 315 lb-ft in fwd and the Solstice was seeing 340 lb-ft with the 5 speed.

Do you know anything about this? I have had this info for a while but never could learn much about it. I got this about a year and a half ago and a lot has happend since then. I have never heard anymore about this engine. I was hoping it would find its way into some of the other new cars that are coming. I do not expect it in the Cobalt or HHR SS since both die next year. As for the Kappa's we already know they will not get them for sure. If I recall this info was posted here as well as another place where I found this.

I mean more than reliability or quality. I mean to take a Sedan and hold it up to the best of any company and it come out as the best sedan in all areas. As of what I have read reviews are good but still not class leading. If the car needs more to make it class leading in handling, comfort, ride, power etc than I would first like to see this addressed and then the other work to make it into other versions then take place. Just being good and better than a Cobalt is not enough. A car like this as best in class would pave the way to regain the trust. Besides the sedan will be 2/3 of the sales anyway. Get that one right the rest will follow.

The Nstar is not as big as it appears. I have been involved with many Fiero groups and have friends with both LS and Nstar engines in their Fiero's. Most find the Nstar to be easier to fit into the car. Both are effective engines to put in but the Nstar really fits in nice to a small engine bay in the Fiero. I would feel the same if I look at the Nstar in my inlaws DTS as it looks crammed in but I also see the same engine in the Fiero and it works well. The Nstar also fit the Cadillac roadster well even with the Supercharger.

The first thing I want to see it the first model Cruze be the best in class before they start to clone it into other styles. If you can't get the 4 doors sedan to be the best they need to make it right before you go any farther. Right now we may get some of what they have already in Europe. If it is not sold somewhere else it will not be here. A two door hatch that is stylish like the Astra with a good strong performance package like the Cobalt. They need to find a way to make a Hatch sell as the Cobalt trunk is a waste of time. The SS label is going to stay and no better car to hold this would be a strong 300 HP Turbo coupe. As in how many models? If GM does not offer it else where then we will not get it here in the Cruze. They will not just do a car for here only.

The Turbo V6 is coming to GM just when. The Leno car was just a hint on the future. The one key no matter what they do is as long as it has power and is as fast or faster the Vette will be accpeted even with low tech. I just worry for the future will the engine be viable in the changes the Goverment will toss at it in the future. I also note they have really been pushing the Grand Sport. It this GM's way to push the Base Vette more upscale? Will this become the new base? I though I saw they expect it to be over half the sales. Lotus will get a hand if GM pays them. The one trade off in the lotus cars is they are light but pay a price for it in many areas. The Elise is mostly a stripped down car. The Exige is a stripped down racer for the street. While I love these cars the general public still want the toys. I work with a guy with a new Exige and few people would accpect a car like that for that price. It does not even have a rear window. It is for the person who is willing to do track time where most Vettes never hit the track. So you have to keep the toys and still lose the weight.

I jumped over to a Vette site to see what they were expecting or willing to accept. I was suprised to see most are already expecting a smaller lighter and less powerful car. But it would remain just as fast. Keeping the same engine as a 5.5 DI engine was tossed around. DOHC was something many would like to see. As well as a Superchager or Twin Turbo. The shocker was that a 3.6 DOHC Twin Turbo was brought up and many said they would like to see it. The forum had many ideas and suprisingly many were willing to accept change. This often is a group that seldom embraced change. Some might want to check around and see what other Vette forums are saying. While not all these guys are Smokey Yunick they are the ones buying the car. I am sure GM is taking in some of what they are asking or saying. One thing for sure when the C7 appears half will love it and half will hate it. Every C change goes this way at the start.

The interior colors like this put me in the frame of mind of some of the nicer Bently or Italian type interiors of the past.

Here is the story last January on the C7. HP per pound was a point driven home. Also note a Hybrid could be in the Vettes future was stated last month. Word is a mid engine is done and Autoweek wanted to speculate a C7 would be delayed or gone. [Note No one else has stated that]. Here is what Wallace hinted at what they were looking at. Some may have seen this but some may not have. Over the last few years, the mantra at Corvette has been more performance, more horsepower. But the passage of the new energy bill that raises the CAFE standards to an average of 35 mpg will undoubtedly force GM's engineers to rethink performance while pursuing economy first. The results will be a lighter, greener Corvette that will not only survive the 35 mpg standard, but should thrive in it as well. The standard Corvette coupe and convertible models already get a highly respectable 28 mpg highway average despite being powered by the 6.2 liter 430 hp LS3. With its fiberglass panels and hydroformed aluminum frame, the current Corvette already weighs in at a lean 3200 pounds. According to Tom Wallace, GM's Performance Vehicle Line Executive, the future Corvette will be a sports car where fuel economy and a reduced carbon footprint can coexist with performance as long as engineers pay attention to the ever important weight to horsepower ratio. Wallace won't talk specifics about the C7 Corvette, but he told Automotive News that if the Corvette's weight was dropped 300 to 400 pounds and was powered by a 4.7 Liter V8 with about 150 less hp than the current LS3, the weight to horsepower ratio is essentially the same as the current standard C6 Corvette. While the Corvette ZR1 makes extensive use of carbon fiber as a weight saving material, the cost is currently prohibitive in the standard models. But that could change by the time the C7 is developed. It's also possible that by the year 2012 when the new C7 Corvette is expected that we will see the next generation of fuel efficient engines that utilize both gasoline and ethanol. With the trickle-down effect that Corvette Racing has on its regular production-bred siblings, its a natural evolution for there to be an E85 powered Corvette coming directly from the assembly plant at Bowling Green. Corvette Racing tells us that ethanol based fuel has a higher octane rating so the combination of the new engines powered by ethanol combined with a lighter body may get Corvette close to the 35 mpg highway average. Two other factors help Corvette as well. First, the amount of Corvettes produced in recent years averages roughly 35,000 cars compared to the nearly 4 million GM sells domestically, so the impact of the Corvette's highway MPG figure is smaller than that of one of GM's mass-produced vehicles. Secondly, GM's investment in alternative fuel solutions and new products like the Chevy Volt are likely to increase the automaker's average significantly if the market is there to support them. Corvette enthusiasts may have to swallow the reduced horsepower pill like we had to with the C3 Corvettes. The good news is that unlike the Seventies, GM won't simply cut performance to increase mileage standards. Performance will always be one of the governing covenants of the Corvette, and with the looming changes on the horizon, there will be room for a green Corvette. Just food for thought. Our debate here just over valves may not come close to some of the coming changes we may see in the car.

Electronics are keeping the ZR1 on track now. Any time you bring in AWD the questions of weight and how much power to run it. Audi has done well there many others have not. AWD is nice but it has to be done right and durable.

I would love to see a GM do a car like that but it is well down on the to do list. All cars are going to get lighter not just sports cars. GM and Mazda both have stated cars are too heavy and even Mazda is looking to remove 200 pounds ASAP from each of their cars. Now if you want to do this as a Cadillac or Buick you may have something if it could be done cost effective. It has to pay the rent or they will not build it. I would like to see a light weight Buick 2+2 coupe come to life with a back seat and 350 HP at 2900 pounds. Kind of a Solstice coupe that you can really use for daily driving without the weird RX8 kind of a back end. As for the Vette guys they want 8 Cylinders like a Harley guy wants a V twin. You give them a 4 and no matter the power you will lose them. That would only increase the value of the C4. The present Ecotec has a lot of room to gain power. As the LNF sits now it can go to 400 HP with no changes internally after 400 I think they recomend changing pistons. With minor changes it can go to 500 HP. The GM Ecotec performance book out lines what the engine can do and it will go a long way. He was very excited to work with this and the 3.6 as he was getting 2,000 easy in race trim. I am in no way saying these were stock but it shows what can be done but you would be suprised how many stock parts were used in these engines. It showed me how much could be done with the stock engine yet. I was not suprised with the power the present LNF has nor will be shocked to see more in the future. Think of the Eco as the 265 SBC was in 1955 only without oil ring issue that made the first SBC use oil. The Eco is only at the begining of a long and more powerful future.

From what Tom Wallace stated last winter it is a given the C7 will be a major drop in size and weight. Also there was talk of some kind of V8 in the 4 Liter plus area. Wallace pointed out that the engine may be down on performance a little the performace of a lighter car would improve the Vette in all areas of Braking. Accleration, Handling and mileage. I would not expect Kappa small. The car will be a little bigger. But with the Vettes higher base price than the Kappa the weight could be held to 2800-2900 pounds. As long as peformance is retaind or enhanced you can go smaller on the car or the engine but it has to remain a V8. The Book Inside the Corvette By Dave McClellan points this out and what GM learned from their owners over the years. If some here think they would hate to lose push rods just watch what they do if you lose 2 cylinders.

I agree with just about all of this. The only reason I say that the next engine 2 or 4 valve needs to be the shared is that between the cost and the fact the V8 will be in a much more limited use than ever. The fact you combine the use with 3 cars will give you more money and support to build a much better engine. It would be much like today. The base the new engine is designed on is what we are looking at but it would still be taylored for each application. Improvment in efficency is primary. But we also need refinment for Cadillac that also would benefit the other lines as well as performance for the Vette that would help the others. Trucks are in need of improved mileage if you plan to keep them selling in great numbers. That is the money maker so at this point it will be designed for the truck as it is now and then changed to work in the other cars. Let face it, if the truck V8 left today the Vette would also lose it too. Like it or not the Vette for years has had to rely on other GM products and only the C5 and 6 got more specialized but still shared the base engine design. The global idea can be big. Just based on where and how the engine will be sold will effect what it is. The question is where will GM sell it? Europe is getting smaller with many cars and Cadillac has yet to impact the market. Odd of Opel selling a V8 are slim. Holden I do not think they care. Aussies just want power. China the rich just ride and the poor walk or have 4 cylinder cars. At this point many there will take what they can get. They have not had cars long enough to get too picky yet. So the primary V8 market will be North America and the truck line will be the biggest user. The question also comes in what Dodge or Fiat will do with their V8. Does GM want to be the last push rod standing in a sea of higher tech V8 trucks? I do not see Fiat not changing the V8 in time. The Dodge push rod will live on for a while as they have too many other issues to deal with for now. There are a lot of things on the table here and GM is going to just have to wade through it. Out arguments one way or the other is just the surface of this issue.

Yes this was not a clean sheet of paper engine. It share much with the 60 degree push rod engines heritage. I recall many issue on these engins when they came out and GM often replaced them vs letting the dealers repair them. Some Fiero guys are still loyal to these even though they were never reliable or easy to get parts for today. This was one of the engines the Fiero had planned for it and it just never came to be. The 1990 Prototype has one in it at the GM collection. Also factored into to this. This engine was planned from what I was told for the GM 80 FWD F body replacment that died in development. They were looking to use it in this car and when it was canceled it left it with no where to go sinc the Fiero also dies soon after. I often wondered if this engine just dis not work well because it was just never intended for the early W cars. It was kind of like an engine with no where to go. I have had many people I know who had these at work with intake and head gasket problems.

Now wait a minute. You can change a lot of things on the Vette but they learned in the late 70's and early 80's the Vette needs to be and remain a V8. You can change the cams, displacment and a lot of other things but the cylinder count has to remain the same. The Vette demo has pointed this out long ago and the strong response sealed it. I think they would stop the Vette before they kill the V8. GM went to lengths in the past of doing two V6 engines before even going to less than 8 pistons. They has a test bed Citation running twin 2.8 V6 engines to test the concept. They just sold that car last spring at Barret Jackson. They may shrink the present engine but they will not remove two pistons.

Why don't we all take a constructive angle at this. Let take the present LS engine and list the way that GM could meet the goals of the next 15 years. The goals are. Better Mileage for future regs. Retain present power and have the ability to make more power if needed. Meet toughter EPA regs. Subject to be even tougher in the future. Improve refinement. Must work for trucks, Vette and Cadillac. If there are any other goals feel free to add them. The key most companies are showing are smaller engines. Can they make a smaller pushrod engine that will meet these goals? Supercharging is not the prime choice of a power adder with most companies and Turbo's are starting to become the norm on many types and kinds of vehicles. As witht he ZR-1 I know they can go to around 725 HP with the engine as it is now and still meet present CAFE, Emissions and Warranty. This came from a Guy in powertrain. His numbers they saw reliable on the dyno were even higher than what we got. GM at this point only has ever built two OHC engines that were really any good and neither have been taken to where they could go. The N star and Eco. If you want to make the Pushrod live what areas can they improve it. What do you know they can do to make it more efficent in more areas. Right now I am sitting just across from a cust away LS6 and know what the aftermarket has to offer. They all can add a lot of reliable power but few add efficency. I see a lot of reasons given to say why DOHC will not work or why but few here have given the reasons or ways to improve the present engine. GM can not just sit still on this. If they plan to keep it what will they do to advance it more. How will they do more with less CID? I know GM is on a crash program to cut weight but that is not going to be enough. So lets keep this to keeping Pushrods alive. At least I hope this will move things in a positive direction. Lets give it a shot. Be prepared to back up claims if needed. We all can do that but only so properly not just to snipe. Keep in mind if you can back it up it ai'nt braging. Lest see the ideas!! Note don't add Direct Injection as we already have it coming.

2.0 + GM Performance Turbo upgrade + 6 Speed = I just spoke to the engineer I know at GMPD. He told me histroy on how they came about doing the kit to upgrade the Turbo. I hope they can come up with a flash for this car as a dealer installed option. The dealers make a killing on these kits + Install cost. GM give you a flash, 2 connectors and two T MAP for $500-$600. They have sold out the kits twice in one year. GM has made a buck on this.

The 2.8 Turbo. Work per Lutz leak is a GS with the 325 HP V6 may be coming.

Everyone has a right their opinion right or wrong. At this point it is best to agree to disagree and just wait to see who is right in the future. This is an argument no one will win till GM tells us their plans. Debate is good for all to make their points but to threaten to ban someone just because they are not agreeing and are supporting their positition is wrong. If you don't agree just stop responding after ytou have made your point and everyone is done. While I do not agree with everything here I respect the others ideas too. At this point I think we all need to be a little more adult here or just let it go. If no new ground can be covered here it would be best to close the thread for the sake of all. I hate to see that but it may keep things civil. We can revisit this later when we get more info to work with or debate.

I think many who like to shif for them selves will learn to like the new GM models shared with Europe and China. By selling them in markets that the manual sell well in make it affordable to sell here. This is not the last Man we will see. The Six Speed should do real well in this car. The 4 speed auto and 5 speed were good but the six should work so much better. The torque curve on the turbo engine is flat and starts at a very low RPM. There is little to no tubo lag so it should be a blast to drive. It would nice if the AWD option was also available on a cheaper 2.0 Turbo and not just on the V6 Turbo.

No they have been around, GM left them on the Dyno years ago.

That is the understatment of the year. I find no one who likes the metal Jack O Latern.

The 4.6 was a paperweight from the start. That is why Ford has the new DOHC engine coming. The fact remains all but two MFG use multi vlave engine and the two who hold to the old design are Chaper 11. The readson they never moved ahead was the cost to make a new engine just was not their and it was cheaper and more profitable to keep the old engines longer. The problem is it will take all this new technology and multiple valves to meet the future goverment regs. All the other companies are not doing DOHC and all the other features just because it is cool but because to meet the new CAFE and Emissions they will need the more advanced designs. At some point GM is going to have to move ahead. I guess we just have to accept the fact You, I and about every auto MFG san 2 are wrong and the nostalgia gang here are right? They once told Columbus the earth was flat and in time they came around. In time the DOHC will surplant the so call SBC. Or they may adapt a similar block with new heads as the bottom end of the LS engine is strong enough to work with more up top. I could see a lite weight engine with multi cams with a similar block.