Cadillac gets 300 horsepower next year......from a V6!
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
I'd personally liken torque (loosely) to a good launch down the quarter.
A good launch will give you a fast ET even if you lack a little at the top end.
Good hp will give you good mph, even if you botch the start, which would result in a slow-ish time.
The LSX V8s have good torque and top end. The HFV6 only has good top end.
A good launch will give you a fast ET even if you lack a little at the top end.
Good hp will give you good mph, even if you botch the start, which would result in a slow-ish time.
The LSX V8s have good torque and top end. The HFV6 only has good top end.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 2,224
From: CNY
http://coloradofans.com/viewtopic.php?t=45142
http://eogld.ecomm.gm.com/NASApp/dom...vehicleID=4923
Check out these links and you'll see what GM has done to the 355.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,620
From: Saginaw, Michigan
Why is everyone saying that this is a peaky engine? Do we have TQ curves for this DI 3.6L? Just because the HP is 30 higher than the TQ doesn't necessarily mean that it is peaky! 275 TQ is nothing to sneeze at for a family sedan.
Remember, this is a V6, not a V8. It's the base engine.
Personally, I think it is a fantastic improvement over any of the other GM V6's out there. Regular unleaded, better fuel economy, 300+HP and 272TQ? That's not going to feel slow by any means. It will be perfect for these sedans.
Dan
Remember, this is a V6, not a V8. It's the base engine.
Personally, I think it is a fantastic improvement over any of the other GM V6's out there. Regular unleaded, better fuel economy, 300+HP and 272TQ? That's not going to feel slow by any means. It will be perfect for these sedans.
Dan
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,712
From: Ontario
Let's take a couple of GM engines: the current 3.6 and the old 3800. Comparing these, I can understand where some of these comments are coming from. The 3800 had amazing throttle response, and a lot of torque down low. Both of these combined to make it feel really snappy in low speed situations. In comparison, the 3.6's throttle response is actually very poor (mostly attributable to the lousy throttle-by-wire system IMO), and while it may have adequate torque down low, the poor throttle response doesn't let it shine. Also you do feel the engine swell as the revs climb, which is nice, but also contributes to the feeling that there is 'less' down low. So I believe it's understandable how the 3.6 can get the "peaky" label.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
I was thinking, attempting to lead in every segment is just not possible or economical or even necessary. GM has great V8 powerplants, and high-end tuned V8 engines from GM are quite a tech feat.
Having said that, this V6 is "good enough". It doesn't need to have 308 HP to beat Nissan's offering, it doesn't need to top HP from Toyota, or whoever - all it needs to be is a good, reliable engine that delivers good performance and gets decent fuel economy. It should be powerful, but whether it's 302HP or 320 HP is only 6% difference.
Having said that, this V6 is "good enough". It doesn't need to have 308 HP to beat Nissan's offering, it doesn't need to top HP from Toyota, or whoever - all it needs to be is a good, reliable engine that delivers good performance and gets decent fuel economy. It should be powerful, but whether it's 302HP or 320 HP is only 6% difference.
GM engines are usually non-interference and therefore very durable and plenty powerful. GM engines therefore don't need to make 'more power' than equivalent interference designs.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
95z_28_camaro_4_Ivan
General 1967-2002 F-Body Tech
13
Oct 3, 2015 07:27 PM
Henson071
Parts For Sale
0
Sep 21, 2015 04:31 PM
CARiD
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
Sep 7, 2015 08:21 AM