Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

GM working on a compact truck?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 31, 2010 | 09:36 PM
  #76  
91_z28_4me's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,600
From: Pewee Valley, KY
Originally Posted by toneloc12345
I don't know why they don't base a new V6 for the trucks based off of the 6.2 liter V8's. That should be good for a 275hp cam in block V6 that would be pretty badass IMO.

As a GM tech I would own a 4.3 small truck way before a 3.6 truck. Besides, the truck is supposed to be cheap anyway. I've seen way more 3.6's torn apart for timing chains, piston wrings, and oil leaks than 4.3's. And 4.3's are already super torquey.

Anyway I would be interested in a "small" truck with a ecotec and a A6 transmission
Why spend the money developing/engineering/certifying a 3/4 V8 when you already have a well regarded, high volume V6?
Old Jun 1, 2010 | 10:00 AM
  #77  
HAZ-Matt's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,000
From: TX Med Ctr
Originally Posted by 91_z28_4me
Why spend the money developing/engineering/certifying a 3/4 V8 when you already have a well regarded, high volume V6?
Absolutely correct. There is no reason why you should waste the money to develop an entire line of new V6's just for trucks.
Old Jun 1, 2010 | 10:09 AM
  #78  
Z28x's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by 91_z28_4me
Why spend the money developing/engineering/certifying a 3/4 V8 when you already have a well regarded, high volume V6?
Originally Posted by HAZ-Matt
Absolutely correct. There is no reason why you should waste the money to develop an entire line of new V6's just for trucks.
especially when the 3.6L is already used in the GMT-355 buy Holden.
Old Jun 1, 2010 | 04:01 PM
  #79  
toneloc12345's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 586
From: OHIO
That's just my opinion, I'm a GM guy but don't really like the 3.6 that much... "high feature" just doesn't do it for me. Especially when you have to work on them.
Old Jun 1, 2010 | 05:25 PM
  #80  
HAZ-Matt's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,000
From: TX Med Ctr
Well personally I believe we should move to an era where the small truck is based around a 4 cylinder anyway. If they had to I suppose they could make a new intake manifold or recam the 3.6L if you are all afraid it doesn't make enough torque. However, I still think the pull should be fuel economy with a nice NA I4 and optional turbo motor... especially since we really haven't seen a turbo 4 in a small truck it may open up the market to new kinds of buyers. Especially if the truck is a good bit cheaper than the fullsizes and will likely appeal most to young buyers.
Old Jun 1, 2010 | 05:28 PM
  #81  
HuJass's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 2,224
From: CNY
I'm all for a refreshed Colorado as long as the dimensions stay relatively the same, the V-6 Camaro driveline is included, and it's built here in the States.
Old Jun 1, 2010 | 06:39 PM
  #82  
91_z28_4me's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,600
From: Pewee Valley, KY
Originally Posted by toneloc12345
That's just my opinion, I'm a GM guy but don't really like the 3.6 that much... "high feature" just doesn't do it for me. Especially when you have to work on them.
What exactly do you not like about it? Do you think it is unreliable? Do you think it has to many moving parts? Do you think it is to large/heavy? Do you think it has lower power output? Does it idle rough/drive poorly?

Just curious what exactly you do not like about it.
Old Jun 3, 2010 | 11:07 AM
  #83  
toneloc12345's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 586
From: OHIO
Originally Posted by 91_z28_4me
What exactly do you not like about it? Do you think it is unreliable? Do you think it has to many moving parts? Do you think it is to large/heavy? Do you think it has lower power output? Does it idle rough/drive poorly?

Just curious what exactly you do not like about it.
IMO they just seemed to have some crappy things wrong with them, mostly oil consumption (replacing rings) and timing chains stretching, and thermostats.

The biggest thing with this truck is making it cheap!
Old Jun 3, 2010 | 03:43 PM
  #84  
Silverado C-10's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,897
From: Greenville, SC
I was looking into possible issues if we bought my wife a CTS and I could not believe how many people had problems with the 3.6L DI timing chain stretching. Seemed to happen between 25-40K, and the majority of issues were with the early model 2008 cars.

Last edited by Silverado C-10; Jun 3, 2010 at 03:48 PM.
Old Jun 3, 2010 | 05:40 PM
  #85  
91_z28_4me's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,600
From: Pewee Valley, KY
Originally Posted by toneloc12345
IMO they just seemed to have some crappy things wrong with them, mostly oil consumption (replacing rings) and timing chains stretching, and thermostats.

The biggest thing with this truck is making it cheap!
Shouldn't the money be better spent improving the issues with the 3.6 instead of creating an all new engine.
Old Jun 4, 2010 | 07:19 AM
  #86  
Darth Xed's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Originally Posted by Silverado C-10
I was looking into possible issues if we bought my wife a CTS and I could not believe how many people had problems with the 3.6L DI timing chain stretching. Seemed to happen between 25-40K, and the majority of issues were with the early model 2008 cars.

If I am remembering what I read correctly, there was a bad batch of chains from the chain vendor.... I was under the impression this was no longer an issue.
Old Jun 4, 2010 | 07:47 AM
  #87  
soul strife's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 824
From: North of Cincy
Originally Posted by HAZ-Matt
Well personally I believe we should move to an era where the small truck is based around a 4 cylinder anyway. If they had to I suppose they could make a new intake manifold or recam the 3.6L if you are all afraid it doesn't make enough torque. However, I still think the pull should be fuel economy with a nice NA I4 and optional turbo motor... especially since we really haven't seen a turbo 4 in a small truck it may open up the market to new kinds of buyers. Especially if the truck is a good bit cheaper than the fullsizes and will likely appeal most to young buyers.
At first I was like, you need a V6. As I am thinking about it though, you are right. I mean DI Turbo 4's are making great power and from just a money aspect, the truck would only be designed around one engine. That would seperate it enough from the larger trucks. Not a bad plan at all.
Old Jun 4, 2010 | 11:50 AM
  #88  
Silverado C-10's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,897
From: Greenville, SC
Originally Posted by Darth Xed
If I am remembering what I read correctly, there was a bad batch of chains from the chain vendor.... I was under the impression this was no longer an issue.
I really hope that it isn't
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
rideordie
LS1 Based Engine Tech
9
Nov 5, 2019 04:52 PM
Lakebratt
Fuel and Ignition
5
Feb 5, 2015 07:55 PM
chevysam
Parts For Sale
0
Jan 16, 2015 07:45 PM
BIGCOWL-IMP
Midwest
0
Nov 21, 2014 09:40 AM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:27 PM.