Cars GM should consider
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,881
Re: Cars GM should consider
Originally Posted by muckz
I don't know what is that impressive about this engine. It will produce only 250 HP and 260 lbs/ft of torque. This is what the HF 3.6L V6 is for. 
Disciple
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,479
Re: Cars GM should consider
Originally Posted by dream '94 Z28
Personally I'd like to see a Trailblazer sized variant of the Avalanche with the I-6 and V8
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Re: Cars GM should consider
Originally Posted by poSSum
I believe they sort of tried that with the Envoy XUV and it flopped.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Re: Cars GM should consider
Originally Posted by orbitalshock2k
Considering the type of people that usually buy Cadillacs I always wondered why the even needed a V8, they are rarely going to go over 40mph. Steel front and rear bumper would be a better improvement.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,712
From: Ontario
Re: Cars GM should consider
Originally Posted by muckz
I don't know what is that impressive about this engine. It will produce only 250 HP and 260 lbs/ft of torque. This is what the HF 3.6L V6 is for.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,276
From: Chattanoga & Franklin
Re: Cars GM should consider
Why didn't they turbo the 3.6 V6 and get something in the neighborhood of 330+ horsepower.
It isn't that hard, Nissian got 300hp out of their twin turbo 3.0 V6 back in 1990. I don't see 100hp/liter being that difficult, especially with 4 valve heads and turbos.
It isn't that hard, Nissian got 300hp out of their twin turbo 3.0 V6 back in 1990. I don't see 100hp/liter being that difficult, especially with 4 valve heads and turbos.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,870
Re: Cars GM should consider
Originally Posted by AronZ28
Why didn't they turbo the 3.6 V6 and get something in the neighborhood of 330+ horsepower.
It isn't that hard, Nissian got 300hp out of their twin turbo 3.0 V6 back in 1990. I don't see 100hp/liter being that difficult, especially with 4 valve heads and turbos.
It isn't that hard, Nissian got 300hp out of their twin turbo 3.0 V6 back in 1990. I don't see 100hp/liter being that difficult, especially with 4 valve heads and turbos.
The turbocharged 3.6 would be pimp and Saab could use a high performance line. I like their newer stuff or the most part.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,881
Re: Cars GM should consider
Originally Posted by AronZ28
Why didn't they turbo the 3.6 V6 and get something in the neighborhood of 330+ horsepower.
It isn't that hard, Nissian got 300hp out of their twin turbo 3.0 V6 back in 1990. I don't see 100hp/liter being that difficult, especially with 4 valve heads and turbos.
It isn't that hard, Nissian got 300hp out of their twin turbo 3.0 V6 back in 1990. I don't see 100hp/liter being that difficult, especially with 4 valve heads and turbos.
Look at the price on those turbo engines for their time. They were top tech and top money.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
1996LT1Z28
Middle Atlantic
3
Dec 4, 2014 09:37 PM
1996LT1Z28
Show and Shine / Paint and Body Care
2
Dec 4, 2014 09:20 PM