2010 H3 getting DI 3.6L V6, Atlas Dead?

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/21/2010-hummer-h3-base-engine-to-be-e85-capable-direct-injected-3-6/

This is just what the H3 needs, but with the H3 dropping the 5 cyl. and the TrailBalzer going away does this mean the atlas engines are dead?

I imagine that would be the case. I'm ok with it...makes all cars using that engine cheaper to build. Atlas is a great engine line, but its too bad GM didn't make them short enough to fit in a car. I personally think the I6 would've made a great 290hp engine for larger cars like the Lucerne, DTS etc.

The only problem there is that it sounds like an angry tractor :D

I imagine that would be the case. I'm ok with it...makes all cars using that engine cheaper to build. Atlas is a great engine line, but its too bad GM didn't make them short enough to fit in a car. I personally think the I6 would've made a great 290hp engine for larger cars like the Lucerne, DTS etc.

The only problem there is that it sounds like an angry tractor :D

and that it gets crap gas mileage

I've been saying right along that GM should have been offering the 3.6 V-6 in the GMT-355s.
It's WAY overdue.
The question now is, will the Colorado and Canyon get the engine, too.

and that it gets crap gas mileage

How the hell do you figure that? My dad's had two of them, both rated at 15/20, and he's always averaged over 18 MPG. Not bad for a larger mid-sized SUV!!!

He's taken his '05 from MA to FL 3 years in a row, and with 2 people and enough luggage for 2 weeks they average over 19 MPG doing 70-75. If that's bad for a car that size with that amount of HP, then I'd like to know what you consider good???

How the hell do you figure that? My dad's had two of them, both rated at 15/20, and he's always averaged over 18 MPG. Not bad for a larger mid-sized SUV!!!

He's taken his '05 from MA to FL 3 years in a row, and with 2 people and enough luggage for 2 weeks they average over 19 MPG doing 70-75. If that's bad for a car that size with that amount of HP, then I'd like to know what you consider good???

In 2008 ratings, it gets 14/18.

That is worse than the suburban, sequoia, durango, commander, etc etc. It is actually pretty close to the largest of SUV's out there today. Go to something like the acadia, which is still larger, it gets 16/24. I would pretty much call it crap for today's SUV's.

2008 TrialBlazer 4.2L I6 = 14/20
2008 TrailBlazer 5.3L V8 = 13/19
2008 GMC Acadia 3.6L V6 = 16/22

The Direct injection 3.6L should be good for at least 1 more mpg

look at the HP and torque curves on http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2008/08truck.htm

The question now is, will the Colorado and Canyon get the engine, too.

I bet they get the 3.5 and/or 3.9.

I bet they get the 3.5 and/or 3.9.

#1 those engines are only currently setup for FWD, #2 They are being phased out in favor of the DOHC V6's.

2008 TrialBlazer 4.2L I6 = 14/20
2008 TrailBlazer 5.3L V8 = 13/19
2008 GMC Acadia 3.6L V6 = 16/22

The Direct injection 3.6L should be good for at least 1 more mpg

Those mileages for the T-blazer are HORRIBLE.

The trip in the 'Burban I'm driving right now says 15.9mpg lifetime after 72k. It's an '04 fyi.

If the H3 is getting the 3.6 then I dont see why the Colorado won't. The Atlas engine will be ~8 years old by then - good time for a change. However if atlas dies completely they'll have to develop a new I4 for the Colorado base engine.

If the H3 is getting the 3.6 then I dont see why the Colorado won't. The Atlas engine will be ~8 years old by then - good time for a change. However if atlas dies completely they'll have to develop a new I4 for the Colorado base engine.

DI version of the 2.4L Ecotec? Ecotec 2.4L is already setup for RWD. Since mileage will be important maybe even a smaller turbo ecotec, but that would also add cost.

Sounds like a good idea. That would work out awesome for the company I used to work for. They do the HVAC and PTC for the H3 and Solstice. The H3 and Solstice actually use the same HVAC unit.

#2 They are being phased out in favor of the DOHC V6's.

Thank God! We had two cars in today for oil changes with the 3.5 in them ('05 G6 50k miles, 07 Malibu 6K) and they both had the oil pans leaking already. If GM is to get anywhere on the list of being reliable cars, they need to learn how to build their V6s like they build their V8s, leak free. They also need to get rid of that leaky 4spd auto in the medium FWD applications. I havn't seen any at work, but I can only hope that the 3.6 has better gaskets than the 3.5/3.9 or any past GM V6s.

He's taken his '05 from MA to FL 3 years in a row, and with 2 people and enough luggage for 2 weeks they average over 19 MPG doing 70-75. If that's bad for a car that size with that amount of HP, then I'd like to know what you consider good???

With a GMT900 Tahoe, I've typically obtained highway mileage of ~18MPG at 75-80 MPH. That's a truck with more power, more weight, and more frontal area - and the same transmission.

The Atlas is a neat engine on paper, but in reality, it serves as justification for GM's OHV V8 strategy.

With a GMT900 Tahoe, I've typically obtained highway mileage of ~18MPG at 75-80 MPH. That's a truck with more power, more weight, and more frontal area - and the same transmission.

The Atlas is a neat engine on paper, but in reality, it serves as justification for GM's OHV V8 strategy.

It hasn't had much done to it in the last few of years. 10 years ago, premium V8 engines had 275-300 HP and V6s were considered powerful if they had 220. Time marches on. I imagine that it's very expensive to engineer the same sorts of changes to multiple lines of engines.

If GM add DI, dual VVT, and all the other enhancements in the uplevel 3.6, the 4.2 (actually maybe it would be 4.4 or 4.5 if it got the same enhancements made to the other Atlas engines) would probably be 330hp and better economy to boot. But how would GM justify spending the $$ on those changes to an engine that fits only in larger trucks, and how would it position that engine against the V8?

Are the small trucks set to die in a couple of years?

But how would GM justify spending the $$ on those changes to an engine that fits only in larger trucks, and how would it position that engine against the V8?

Bingo. The HF V6 can fit in both cars and trucks; the Atlas isn't nearly as versatile. GM can no longer afford to create ump-teen different engine lines, as it's increasingly expensive to keep an engine up-to-date, and GM isn't exactly rolling in extra cash.

I'd much rather see GM investing in smaller clean diesels (like the new 4.5L) and alternative fuel technologies than spending money on an engine that's limited to one or two platforms.