|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 839
Veteran CEG\'er
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 839 |
The only reason I respect GM is because they make bad-ass pushrod engines. Look at the LS6. Almost as of a high specific output as our engines, and its BIG and PUSHROD.
The Spickle
New Car: Infra Red '04 FSVT
Former Car: Black '98 CSVT, #3137/6535 "The Unluckiest car.. ever"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,741
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,741 |
Originally posted by SAV-ZX2:
Originally posted by Mad_Medeiros:
I do find it sad how its a 3.9L making 250 hp, when some honda 3L v6's are making pretty close to the same numbers!
I love how you're bashing the 3.9L engine, saying how Honda's 3.0L is making nearly the same amount of horsepower.
Did you consider that the 3.0L Honda engine will be at a torque deficiency in comparison to the 3.9L Pontiac engine? Horsepower, especially just printed numbers, aren't everything. 
well yes I understand the 3.9 probably out numbers a typical honda engine, tourqe wise..
But I was referring to a 3L lets say from the NSX.. acually I think its 3.2? I could be wrong, 290 HP, mazda's 3.5 is making 250 HP... and quite the amount of tourqe..
and then we have the 3.9, yes a big engine, to me I think its just a bored out 3800, or a 3800 with longer stroke? who knows. but 250 HP? why not just drop a series 3 3800 s/c making 280 HP... quite more practicle, and to me, I would assume it would be cheaper.
1997 Civic CX (lsvtec,el frontend,fast, nuff said)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by Mad_Medeiros:
well yes I understand the 3.9 probably out numbers a typical honda engine, tourqe wise..
But I was referring to a 3L lets say from the NSX.. acually I think its 3.2? I could be wrong, 290 HP, mazda's 3.5 is making 250 HP... and quite the amount of tourqe..
So you are comparing a 3.2L V6 engine in a $90000 very limited edition sports car to the engine in a 20k run of the mill compact car? Which Mazda engine is 3.5L in size and making 250HP? The V6 engines in the Mazda 6 are Ford Duratec variants with Mazda built heads, 3.0L making 220HP. I'm not up on all of the Mazda models but didn't see anything on their website about a 3.5L V6 engine. Still, I'd agree with you that OHC engines largely have a HP advantage per liter of displacement, mostly because they have more cams to play with (meaning greater flexibility of the production of the power band via multiple cam profiles)
Originally posted by Mad_Medeiros:
and then we have the 3.9, yes a big engine, to me I think its just a bored out 3800, or a 3800 with longer stroke? who knows. but 250 HP? why not just drop a series 3 3800 s/c making 280 HP... quite more practicle, and to me, I would assume it would be cheaper.
Depends on who the G6 is being marketed to. HP isn't everything, there are CARB considerations (mileage requirements), market considerations, pricing limitations, cost limitations, and the list goes on. The truth is that most people don't really care that much about hi-po engines as compared to most of the people on an auto enthusiast forum like this one. This is why the Mustang has been a success for Ford. GT models don't sell near as well as base models. Divisions like SVT exist solely to appeal to the market for auto enthusiasts like us, but the majority of people (of which an increasingly larger percentage are female purchasers who care more about efficiency of design, aesthetics, etc., than performance numbers) could care if it has 250 verses 200HP. 200HP is more than enough power for most people.
As for GM's direction, their current engine strategy is to continue to develop the existing lines of pushrod, single cam engines, which they will continue to use in most of the vehicles that are more value price point oriented than performance oriented. The other strategy is to develop "hi-tech" engines, DOHC and such, to deploy in performance oriented vehicles or higher price point "luxury" type vehicles like the Caddies. This strategy, quite honestly, appears to be working for GM quite well as the last few years of sales and profitability numbers show. Car companies are in the business of selling cars, not performance. For folks like us, the two (cars and performance) are one in the same, but for the majority of people, the two aren't really related.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 568
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 568 |
Originally posted by Mad_Medeiros:
and then we have the 3.9, yes a big engine, to me I think its just a bored out 3800, or a 3800 with longer stroke? who knows. but 250 HP? why not just drop a series 3 3800 s/c making 280 HP... quite more practicle, and to me, I would assume it would be cheaper.
Actually, the "LZ8" 3900 V6 is a bored & re-bore-centered derivation of the iron-block 3500, itself based on the General's 60-degree OHV V6 family (2.8L, 3.1L, 3.4L). No relation to GM's 90-degree family other than the familiar rocks-in-a-blender pushrod clatter.
B. Riley
Melbourne, FL
'01 Camry LE V6/5-spd
Was: '00 Black/Tan SVT Contour #560 - Sold 3/26/03
Before that: '95 Champ/Blue Contour GL V6 ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193 |
Originally posted by Pete D:
I think VW has done a pretty good job in the past few years and definitely has advantages over many of Ford (and other domestic makes). I don't know if I would ever buy a VW as their quality control and reliability seems to be pretty This is a great idea in theory but how easy is it to actually implement? Constant changes can decrease QC/Reliability. There is the cost of retooling and retraining as well negative impacts on resale value. It's not a perfect solution.
The Japanese have been doing it for 30 years, while keeping up their high quality. While the US would languish an existing model for 10 years with small tweaks where the Japanese would make large steps every 4 years or so.
The Chevrolet Chevette was a very good small car when it came out in 1976... however, by 1980, it already was behind the times, and by 1984 was a dinosaur... but still being built.
The Cavalier is worse... 2 generations lasting 23 model years!
Brad "Diva": 2004 Mazda 6s 5-door, Volcanic Red
Rex: 1988 Mazda RX-7 Vert, Harbor Blue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816 |
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Originally posted by Mad_Medeiros:
well yes I understand the 3.9 probably out numbers a typical honda engine, tourqe wise..
But I was referring to a 3L lets say from the NSX.. acually I think its 3.2? I could be wrong, 290 HP, mazda's 3.5 is making 250 HP... and quite the amount of tourqe..
Which Mazda engine is 3.5L in size and making 250HP? The V6 engines in the Mazda 6 are Ford Duratec variants with Mazda built heads, 3.0L making 220HP.
I think they were thinking of Nissan's 3.5L (like in the Altima and Maxima), but it's actually this:
?-2003 Altima 3.5L: 240 hp; 246 lb/ft.
?-2003 Maxima 3.5L: 255 hp; 246 lb/ft.
2005 Altima 3.5L: 250 hp; 249 lb/ft.
2004 Maxima 3.5L: 265 hp; 255 lb/ft. <--avail 6 speed
I think that's pretty good for a NA 3.5L...
Source: www.consumerguide.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 226
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 226 |
GM is trying to please everybody. Which we all know is impossible to do. The major corp. hasnt learned that yet. Not like ford is any better though with thier angled oil filters right over the exhaust. What the hell. 
Quote:
My bicycle has four wheel disc brakes
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,741
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,741 |
cjbaldw - good explanation!
and yes I meant nissan engines, I don't where the hell mazda came from!?!? guess its cause I drive one?
anyways I still think gm should just use the simple series 3 supercharged 3800, in the GTP model g6.. thats my opinion, it would be more powerful and cost less to do
1997 Civic CX (lsvtec,el frontend,fast, nuff said)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 568
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 568 |
Originally posted by Mad_Medeiros:
anyways I still think gm should just use the simple series 3 supercharged 3800, in the GTP model g6.. thats my opinion, it would be more powerful and cost less to do
It could be they didn't design the length in the nose for the spread of the 90-degree 3800.
While the origins of the 3500 and 3900 may be considered geriatric, the roots of the 3800 are positively ancient. It's likely there are weight benefits realized from using something from the newer, 60-degree engine family as opposed to the older, balance-shafted 90-degree motors. Also, there are long-term costs associated with the blower that, perhaps, Pontiac was trying to take into consideration.
Given Pontiac's proclivity for nose-heavy ditch-diggers, maybe they were trying to break out of the mold with a slightly better packaged engine...but I'm not convinced of it since what I see right now is lots of front overhang, big-cube, iron-block (instead of aluminum) V6's, and curb weights pushing 3400#. I hope it handles better than its looks and spec sheets suggest, since for the first time in a dozen years, I could actually visualize a Pontiac in my driveway.
B. Riley
Melbourne, FL
'01 Camry LE V6/5-spd
Was: '00 Black/Tan SVT Contour #560 - Sold 3/26/03
Before that: '95 Champ/Blue Contour GL V6 ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149 |
wow, they're still using iron V6's for their NA motors?
-- 1999 SVT #220 --
In retrospect, it was all downhill from here. RIP, CEG.
|
|
|
|
|
