So maybe the N/A V6 isn't quite dead after all?

[KMPrenger]

New MT article states GM, along with new I-3 and I-4 engines, is working on a family of next gen V6 engines.

http://wot.motortrend.com/gm-investi...#axzz2PdYCPHqM

I for one, feel the N/A V6 is in more danger of going MIA than the V8, as modern Turbo 4s are producing horsepower levels well in the acceptable range of a decent V6, and torque levels greater than high-performance N/A V6 engines. V8s on the other hand, still have a big purpose in the world of trucks and sports cars and I don't see them going away anytime soon.

So with that in mind, the above article got my attention. I'm wondering if the new 4.3 V6 is considered as the first of the new "family" of next gen V6 engines. I'm betting we see cylinder de-activation across the line, which is what the 4.3 also has.

I've been hoping for a good V6 offering in the 6th gen. Offering a strong, good revving 340 - 350 HP, 280 - 300 TQ V6 engine for sedans and the next gen Camaro would be awesome in my mind, and with cylinder deactivation would achieve great mpgs. (just make it so that if we put her in sport mode....there is NO cylinder de-activation! )

The 4.3 with its greater torque range would remain for truck duty.

I'm looking forward to seeing more about this.

[RubyCamaro]

Cool! & interesting

[revychevy]

What about Turbo V6? Don't understand why Turbo 4 bangers are always compared to NA V6's

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by revychevy

What about Turbo V6? Don't understand why Turbo 4 bangers are always compared to NA V6's

It is because that is what the Turbo 4 is made to replace...the N/A V6. The Turbo V6 is made to replace the V8. You get the power of the larger engine, with greater efficency when not in boost....(at least in most applications).

You can't compare the T4 to a T6 because its basically like comparing an N/A V6 to an N/A V8.

[BaylorCamaro]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

It is because that is what the Turbo 4 is made to replace...the N/A V6. The Turbo V6 is made to replace the V8. You get the power of the larger engine, with greater efficency when not in boost....(at least in most applications).

You can't compare the T4 to a T6 because its basically like comparing an N/A V6 to an N/A V8.

Sure is interesting. Can't wait to see what happens!

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

New MT article states GM, along with new I-3 and I-4 engines, is working on a family of next gen V6 engines.

http://wot.motortrend.com/gm-investi...#axzz2PdYCPHqM

I for one, feel the N/A V6 is in more danger of going MIA than the V8, as modern Turbo 4s are producing horsepower levels well in the acceptable range of a decent V6, and torque levels greater than high-performance N/A V6 engines. V8s on the other hand, still have a big purpose in the world of trucks and sports cars and I don't see them going away anytime soon.

So with that in mind, the above article got my attention. I'm wondering if the new 4.3 V6 is considered as the first of the new "family" of next gen V6 engines. I'm betting we see cylinder de-activation across the line, which is what the 4.3 also has.

I've been hoping for a good V6 offering in the 6th gen. Offering a strong, good revving 340 - 350 HP, 280 - 300 TQ V6 engine for sedans and the next gen Camaro would be awesome in my mind, and with cylinder deactivation would achieve great mpgs. (just make it so that if we put her in sport mode....there is NO cylinder de-activation! )

The 4.3 with its greater torque range would remain for truck duty.

I'm looking forward to seeing more about this.

I'm kinda 50-50 on whether the 4.3 will be the new generation of V6s mentioned or if they are talking about a new set of 60 degree V6s for use in passenger cars & crossovers. After all, it is an all new V6 engine design but at the same time, the current High-Feature V6 family is a decade old (slightly older than the gen IV small block in fact) and so is due for replacement pretty soon.

Chances are slim that we'll see V6s that can run in V4 mode in passenger cars. GM seems to like the idea of sticking to 60 degree DOHC V6s for their cars & crossovers, but leaving the big v8-derrived, pushrod activated 90 degree V6s for trucks. GM's AFM system requires the engine to use pushrods. Honda has an overhead cam cylinder deactivation system but it shuts down an entire bank of cylinders. I can only imagine the trickery that must go on to keep the unwanted vibrations to a minimum.

What I would like to see with the next gen of V6s is a small 3.1L that cranks out around 270 hp/230 ft-lbs with reasonable efficiency (probably besting the 2L turbos). That would be enough for most of the smaller vehicles that use V6s. But then have a larger one, say 3.8L, that is up at about 350 hp and 290 ft-lbs (like you mentioned) for full size cars, large crossovers, and the Camaro. Off the large one, you can make your turbo6 with similar output as the LT1 V8, for applications where it doesn't make sense to actually use the V8. There would be no point in doing a turbo version of the smaller one as it would likely barely best the big V6 in output.

Originally Posted by revychevy

What about Turbo V6? Don't understand why Turbo 4 bangers are always compared to NA V6's

Because turbo 4s and NA 6s are usually offer similar hp & torque output.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I...

What I would like to see with the next gen of V6s is a small 3.1L that cranks out around 270 hp/230 ft-lbs with reasonable efficiency (probably besting the 2L turbos). That would be enough for most of the smaller vehicles that use V6s. But then have a larger one, say 3.8L, that is up at about 350 hp and 290 ft-lbs (like you mentioned) for full size cars, large crossovers, and the Camaro. Off the large one, you can make your turbo6 with similar output as the LT1 V8, for applications where it doesn't make sense to actually use the V8. There would be no point in doing a turbo version of the smaller one as it would likely barely best the big V6 in output. ...

I really agree with this very much, and I was thinking something very similar.

If they really are making a new family of V6 engines, then this makes perfect sense to me. A 3.1 and a 3.8 or something similar would be perfect, damn I'd love that.

I remember the old 3.1 in my 96 Grand Prix. Totally different design of course, but it got awesome mileage.

[NASTY99Z28]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I'm kinda 50-50 on whether the 4.3 will be the new generation of V6s mentioned or if they are talking about a new set of 60 degree V6s for use in passenger cars & crossovers. After all, it is an all new V6 engine design but at the same time, the current High-Feature V6 family is a decade old (slightly older than the gen IV small block in fact) and so is due for replacement pretty soon.

Chances are slim that we'll see V6s that can run in V4 mode in passenger cars. GM seems to like the idea of sticking to 60 degree DOHC V6s for their cars & crossovers, but leaving the big v8-derrived, pushrod activated 90 degree V6s for trucks. GM's AFM system requires the engine to use pushrods. Honda has an overhead cam cylinder deactivation system but it shuts down an entire bank of cylinders. I can only imagine the trickery that must go on to keep the unwanted vibrations to a minimum.

What I would like to see with the next gen of V6s is a small 3.1L that cranks out around 270 hp/230 ft-lbs with reasonable efficiency (probably besting the 2L turbos). That would be enough for most of the smaller vehicles that use V6s. But then have a larger one, say 3.8L, that is up at about 350 hp and 290 ft-lbs (like you mentioned) for full size cars, large crossovers, and the Camaro. Off the large one, you can make your turbo6 with similar output as the LT1 V8, for applications where it doesn't make sense to actually use the V8. There would be no point in doing a turbo version of the smaller one as it would likely barely best the big V6 in output.


Because turbo 4s and NA 6s are usually offer similar hp & torque output.

Why a 3.1 with less power? A 3.8 would be the same size dimensionally and fuel mileage would probably be to close and not justify the lack of power. Plus if they stick with one engine it will be cheaper to produce.

[scrming]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Because turbo 4s and NA 6s are usually offer similar hp & torque output.

Just put my 2.0L 4 cylinder EcoBoost on the dyno this last Saturday. Only performance mods are a 93 octane tune and an axle back exhaust

Blue - Stock Tune
RED - 93 Octane Tune




While the peak HP number isn't stupendous, the TQ number is pretty amazing, IMHO... Not sure what the drive train loss is on a FWD car... so even at an 8% loss, you are looking at about 265 HP / 350 TQ at the crank...