GM needs a new V6

[cstavro]

The general idea is an LS based V6, sharing 75% of its parts with the V8. Cast iron block engines would weigh 370 lb, and all aluminum versions come in under 300 lb.

There'd be a 3.6L with 240 hp, and a 4.6L (282 cu.in) with 280-300 hp. They'd have sinter forged powdered metal connecting rods, forged crankshaft, and hypereutectic pistons. I would like to see high pressure die cast pistons (an ohv V6 version of the Toyota 2JZ inline 6). They'd also be available with AFM, piston oil squirters, VVT, 3 valve/cylinder, DI, etc as the V8 evolves.

As a consequence, the 3500, 3900, 4.3L and 4800 V8 would die. The 5300 would have to make 340 hp, and the 6200 makes 412 hp. Thus, the only ohv engines in gm's lineup would be a 3600/4600/5300/6200/7000.

The 3600/4500 would also inherit the small block's enormous aftermarket; the common parts would further reduce cost for both engines. A simple cam and headers would take the 4600 to 400+ hp. They'd be turbo-proofed for ~800 hp on stock internals. An LSX version with 14 bolt heads and 380 cfm intake ports would handle 1800+ bhp, and be ridiculously cheap. The V8 and V6 share the same CNC programs, cam profiles, and fuel/spark maps.

Who could argue with a $4000 crate engine, with all aluminum construction, 300 lb fully dressed, 6600 rpm redline, 400+ hp with cam and headers, and ready for turbo or 150 shot of nitrous? the 4600 would revive the spirit of the Stage II Buick, the most hallowed V6 in history, and take it further.

I started a thread on GMInsidenews.com in "Letters to GM". Read more about it here: New V6 needed - GMInsideNews Forums

 

[turbofish38]

To bad it will never see the light of day. I agree with you. GM needs another 90 degree V-6 in the line up. The current 3.6 DOHC is to wimpy IMO. Altough if it was me doing the work I'd go with some 3800 V-6 looking heads just to keep it from looking to much like a Chevy.

 

[johnnyttype]

hey chris! i went on gminsidenews and read alot of the stuff there! very cool, and u have some great info on there! i love the idea of the 3.6 and 4.5, and the fact that u can share numerous parts with the V8's. i was actually talking about this today during my engine airflow lab at school! i cant wait to see what everyone else thinks about it!

where'd u get that picture from, its awesome

 

[John Wilde]

Cool idea, I went through the thread on the other site.
It probably makes too much sense for GM to implement though.
I still want a TT DOHC High Feature 3.6!!!

 

[cstavro]

hey chris! i went on gminsidenews and read alot of the stuff there! very cool, and u have some great info on there! i love the idea of the 3.6 and 4.5, and the fact that u can share numerous parts with the V8's. i was actually talking about this today during my engine airflow lab at school! i cant wait to see what everyone else thinks about it!

where'd u get that picture from, its awesome

thanks johnny i found an LS3 pic, and took it to ms paint. cut and paste...a little touch up work. i'd love to hear what your class has to say.

buick stage 2 ports are still some of the most efficient ohv heads on the planet. gm racing got close with their 15° heads in the late 90s, and put them on a production car in 2005.

about the LS3 heads...everyone is going crazy over them. i wouldn't change them, except i'd use 10° valve angles instead of 15°. they flow enormously, and they're $800 for a pair...assembled!! can you imagine a v6 head that flows 330 cfm as cast for $600/pair? that's almost what well ported stage 2 heads flow. they're porting LS7s to ~400 cfm. the LS7 valvetrain is good to 8200 rpm.

i've spoken to gm powertrain engineers about this, and they just shrug their shoulders. it's hard to mobilize such a big company quickly...although they have the resources to do it.

 

[turbofish38]

thanks johnny

i've spoken to gm powertrain engineers about this, and they just shrug their shoulders. it's hard to mobilize such a big company quickly...although they have the resources to do it.

You'd have to go back a few years, but try and find the LSX based V-10 article that GMHTP did a long time ago. There's a lot a reasons why they shrug their shoulders. (Personally I think they dont want that chip knocked off.) I'm thinking that a LSV6 isn't very efficient from either a engineering and manufacturing standpoint. Not so much the money saved on two cylinders worth of parts but all of the money that would be spent on devolpment and tooling costs. Lets put it this way. The V-8 can be made just as efficient as the V-6. An Ecotec can be built to make just as much power. GM probally would have continued with the evolution of the 3800 if they hadn't put most of Buick City's production on the chopping block in their cost restructioning plans. Sure they have the resources. They just chose to use them elsewhere. Kind of like the government and social secuirity. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

[cstavro]

You'd have to go back a few years, but try and find the LSX based V-10 article that GMHTP did a long time ago. There's a lot a reasons why they shrug their shoulders. (Personally I think they dont want that chip knocked off.) I'm thinking that a LSV6 isn't very efficient from either a engineering and manufacturing standpoint. Not so much the money saved on two cylinders worth of parts but all of the money that would be spent on devolpment and tooling costs. Lets put it this way. The V-8 can be made just as efficient as the V-6. An Ecotec can be built to make just as much power. GM probally would have continued with the evolution of the 3800 if they hadn't put most of Buick City's production on the chopping block in their cost restructioning plans. Sure they have the resources. They just chose to use them elsewhere. Kind of like the government and social secuirity. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

i remember the 455 v10. an equal displacement v8 will make more torque. they killed the 8100 instead of LSizing it. instead they invested in diesel tech for hd trucks. i would have done the same thing.

i see your point in the context of using a v8 that's equally as powerful as a v10, but lighter (vetter vs viper). the same applies to the 4600 which makes the more power than the 5300, but weighs 100 lb less. it's obvious that the power/weight, handling and economy go up.

6 cylinders flowing 330 cfm will make twice the power than 4 cylinders flowing 220 cfm - and weighs about the same!! the 2.2 ecotec is cheaper than the v6. and as far as putting direct injection, and a turbo on an ecotec for less than an ohv v6...no. even if the turbo ecotec weren't built in germany. and there is NO replacement for displacement. the v6 will be nicer to drive, and sound meaner.

i disagree on manufacturing. engineering would be shared between the two platforms. they have unique heads, block, cam, crank, intake and exhaust manifolds - but they still use common cores, and manufacturing processes. it would eliminate 10 various 5, 6, and 8 cylinder engines. and none of them share any parts (save a few parts between the I5 and I6). gm keeps retooling for all these engines every few years anyway. in a couple of years, it'd be best to retool for ONE v6 family, with 75% common parts, common machining operations, common assembly procedures, common evolution, common aftermarket, and common tuning with the best small block yet. it'd go through development quicker, pass durability testing, all the suppliers would be lined up, meet LEV (or ULEV) and driveability, all based on the strength and history of the LSx.

 

[cstavro]

turbofish, i see why gm killed the v10. it was a covert operation, siphoning funds from other projects. they actually made tooling to make 2 cast iron blocks. gmhtp says that the big block eventually killed the v10 - it was too good to replace. funny how the small block killed the big block. i'd love to see a comparison v10 with LS3 heads, and a big block with reher morrisson heads.

GM Stillborn Gen III V-10 - History, Review, Tech - GM High Tech

it was an engine that would have stood alone. the v6, as i said, would replace 10 engines. i'm talking consolidation, not creation.

if anyone really wants to see a prototype, i can have a block cnc milled from billet aluminum for about $8000. a billet crank for <$2000. i'd weld up heads, custom crower cam. i'm currently accepting donations

 

[S2V6RACER]

the 4600 would revive the spirit of the Stage II Buick, the most hallowed V6 in history, and take it further.

Looks like it is missing some extra head bolts and it isn't a Buick so it won't do us any good. :frown:

 

[johnnyttype]

Looks like it is missing some extra head bolts and it isn't a Buick so it won't do us any good. :frown:

i think i could find a use for it:biggrin:

 

[cstavro]

Looks like it is missing some extra head bolts and it isn't a Buick so it won't do us any good. :frown:

the 3.8 only has 8 head bolts too. 4 bolts are good for 1000+ hp with arp studs instead of torque to yield bolts (i don't know how far anyone's pushed the stock bolts). the 6 bolt main bottom end is more solid than the stage 2 ever was. the LSX v6 would be the equivalent to stage 2 blocks, for those who need 1800 hp or so. i don't believe the LSX needs o-ringed heads/block either - simpler/cheaper buildup.

i believe the best stage 2 heads flowed ~340 cfm (i'd appreciate input). stock 4600 heads flow 330 cfm. cnc'd they flow 360-380 cfm. further polished, they flow 400+ cfm. that's good for 600+ hp naturally aspirated. with these modern high pressure turbos, and methanol, the 2.2L drag ecotecs put out 1200 hp with a single turbo. the 4.6 is twice the size, and the heads flow 43% more. i'm sure 2400+ hp is realistic. i'm sure SOMEONE could find something to do with it

the deep threaded head bolts were originally used on the buick/olds 3.5 v8 back in 1965. the ports are very much like stage 2 ports. so it's more buick than chevy anyway. there are no 'chevy' or 'buick' engines any more. they're all corporate gm engines. but if it makes you feel any better, i have an 'L6X' block with power 6 logo again, microsoft paint to the rescue.

 

[cstavro]

i think i could find a use for it:biggrin:

what's the word around your engine airflow lab?

 

[fitz3820]

I have to go against the grain here - the 60 degree high feature motors are fine, direct injection now and possibly turbo in the future will carry GM for a while.

LSx V8s are there if more power is needed.

 

[turbofish38]

Maybe GM learned something from their foray into a SBC based V-6's in the late 70's and 80's? You know the old 200,229 and 4.3 that were just a V-8 with 2 cylinders chopped off. It sure doesn't explain why Buick got away with it with the 225/231 V-6. Other than it's an ego thing. You damn well know nobody would buy a Chevy truck with a Buick motor in it. GMC got away with it up until the 70's but than that was to be expected. Afterall those three letters stand for General Motors Corp.

 

[cstavro]

Maybe GM learned something from their foray into a SBC based V-6's in the late 70's and 80's? You know the old 200,229 and 4.3 that were just a V-8 with 2 cylinders chopped off. It sure doesn't explain why Buick got away with it with the 225/231 V-6.

the buick was the old 215 v8, with 2 fewer cylinders, and in cast iron. they learned lots from the 4.3. in race trim, a 3.4L turbo made 1200 hp in ENDURANCE trim. it was the highest specific power EVER in an endurance car. never mind that it failed frequently because gm was testing new technologies.

1986 Chevrolet GTP Corvette-GM Photo Store

the problem is that gm never evolved the production v6. the 4.3 should have become a 3.6/4.5 with cast iron block in 1998, with the introduction of the 4.8/6.0L gen 3 v8. it would have turned into a 325 hp all aluminum 4.6 by next year. 10 years wasted i've learned it's cheaper in the long run to get it right the first time - instead of a bunch of stop-gap measures.

they have several architectures all taking differing paths. you'd think they'd save themselves money by consolidating engines - instead they're proliferating. i also have a problem with their meaningless engine codes, and reusing codes from the 60s/70s.

 

[cstavro]

if the v6 equivalent of LSX is L6X, then the v6 equivalent of the LS9 is L69 how many people would buy a car just for 'L69' painted on the valve covers? or they could tease us with an L68 and an upgraded L70

if the corvette came with the 4.6 base engine, it'd weigh 3090 lb, be mid-engined, have a 48/52% weight distribution (yes, rear bias), and handle better. it'd have room for a proper turbo setup.

the new porsche gt2 is proof that people are willing to pay $120,000 for a 6 cylinder supercar. it has 530 hp @ 6500 and 505 lb-ft from 2200 - 4500 rpm. it weighs 3175 lb, does 0-60 in 3.6 s, and tops out at 204 mph. 530 hp is nothing on premium gas (3800 with turbo kits do this). a borg warner dual scroll S258 is good for 550+ whp with no lag, and 30 mpg (seriously).

i'm not saying 100 lb, or $1500 less is enough to justify a v6 corvette - there's huge politics there. but it'd suit top level fwd cars, mid level rwd cars, and trucks (top canyon, base full size). it doesn't make sense to me to have a dohc base engine, but ohv top engines. a 325 hp 4.6L is way cheaper than a 3.6L di alloytec and has way more torque. it's cheaper than a 320 hp 5.3L V8.