Just reading through some of my old magazines, and in the May issue of Hotrod magazine, I saw an article showing GM's global V6. It reads as the following,

"GM is about to unveil its newest 'plant: a 3.6L, all-aluminum V-6 encompassing the best attributes (and cost analysis) of the best engines in the world. It is the first example of an extended family that will eventually include spark-ignition direct-injection (SIDI), twin-turbochargers, adaptation to an array of platforms (front-, rear-, and all-wheel-drive), and hybrid (gasoline/electric) applications.
This engine is founded on a 60-degree cylinder block, is compact and lightweight, and is built like a brick poophouse. It easily expands from 2.8L to 3.8L while affording a power range of 200- to 370-plus horsepower. As presented here, the engine makes 255 hp at 6,500 rpm and 250 lb-ft at 2,500 rpm and does so with variable valve timing (a first for a GM engine). As such, 90 percent of its torque is available from 1,600 to 5,800 rpm.
The DOHC Global V-6 also encompasses cam phasers that allow adjustments up to 50 degrees; a dual-stage variable intake manifold (VIM) adjusts plenum volume to boost cylinder charging in the low- to mid-speed range; a forged steel crank is held by six-bolt main caps and Sinterforged steel rods work 10.2:1 pistons (cooled by oil jets) on full-floating wristpins. We've seen a twin-turbo edition, albeit dormant on an engine stand. Can you say street rod?"
-Ro McGonegal

This is just speculation and such on my part, but I just replaced my 3.4l last week, and I know this junkyard 3.4l won't last very long either. It says this global V-6 is due to appear in '04. Now I was wondering, being this engine is founded on the 60-degree block, same as the 3.4l, the mounts would be in the same area, the transmission would bolt-up etc, so for a possible swap. I know it will cost a lot, but its just speculation at this point. I wasn't sure where to put this post at. I think this engine will prove be work a lot better than the V6's GM has around now and will help sales as well possibly. What are your thoughts on the engine(s) and my speculations?

-Eric

 

cool.. now they have to put them in equally as impressive cars!

 

i wish they put it in the vue.

 

I wouldn't count on it bolting up in place of you 3.4 pushrod. Number one will be motor mounts and number two would be that we don't know the Bolt Patter on the transmission. The hardest part would be the Electronics. I am sure since it is a Caddy that the BCM an ECM are tied directly to each other so unless it was going into a car with the same BCM I doubt it will work. That is the main reason the N* hasn't had many aftermarket apps, save for a few Fieros. Wait till it comes in a sporty performance car, probably in Aus first. Then we will see how quickly the aftermarket breaks into the code so others can use it.

 

Ironically, they went with a 3.5L Honda engine in the Redline Vue. Why they picked that over this new 3.6L..i don't know .

 

The reason that the Vue got the Honda motor is that GM is getting it super cheap. In basically an engine exchange for desiels honda is giving GM the 3.5. Also I don't think the 3.6 was ready for the Vue introduction. Who knows GM may put the 3.6 in the Vue in the future once the plant is turning out more motors so that the costs are spread a little farther out. Remember right now only Caddie, cts and srx, havehe 3.6 and they charge for it with their price tags but with the Vue coming in under 20K they wouldn't be making as much.

 

The HF V6 is also going in the Buick Rendezvous Ultra. That's not a cheap vehicle either, but at least it shows GM is willing to let other divisions besides Caddy have the motor if they want it. My guess is not too many will want it because of its cost.

 

Holden have a HFV6 engine plant. I think the first run is going into SAAB's but its going into the current model commodore range as well as the new "VE" platform. So any cars in the US built of the VE platform you would think will get that engine.


EDIT : To add I read that for the VE platform, Holden are pushing the displacement on the engine up to 3.8 litres.

 

The HFV6 is new from the ground up. I don't think it shares anything with the 3.4L (60 degree) pushrod engines.

I found it funny how, in the article you quoted, they talk about VVT. They claim it is a first for GM, which isn't true. The 4.2L line 6 in the GMT360s (Trailblazer, Envoy, etc.) has VVT on the exhaust camshaft (so no EGR). Also, the article goes on to talk about cam phasors like they are something separate from the VVT. The cam phasors ARE the VVT; in other words, the valve timing is varied by changing the "phasing" of the cams in relation to the crankshaft and each other. The line six has the mechanism (controlled with oil pressure) on the end of the exhaust camshaft; the HFV6 has it on the intake and exhaust cams.

 

that the larger capacity holden version going in the rendevous, im sure i read it somewhere.

Buick will be Holdens first HFV6 application.

 

I knew the Trailblazer has VVT....bu doesn't the new Northstar line have it too? I thought it did...

 

Yup, the new Northstar, but not the old one.

 

Let's see... the Honda motor is cheaper to produce, has a smaller parts count, has a proven track record of reliability and is a mature design. In the Acura MDX, it even trumps the new GM motor in output (260hp!). If anything, this is a smart move for GM, but a sad indication of how their engineering has gone awry.

The "High Feature" V6 should have been a mainstream engine, going into every product from the Malibu to the Caddy SRX. Instead, they screwed up the production costs. That's why the Malibu and other "mainstream cars" are stuck with the Citation descended "High Value" V6 lump.

Why can Honda, Nissan, and now even Toyota, offer high powered, high-tech V6 motors in all of their cars? Why can't GM? It appears GM is stuck in a cycle of technological obsolecence and managerial neglect. That's why products like the Malibu will perpetually be saddled with pushrods and a 30 to 45 hp power deficit.

 

The 3800, though old as dirt and about as advanced, is actually still a very good engine. High fuel economy, high torque (for a V6) and simplicity.

Cast it in aluminum and it's good to go for a few more years IMHO.

 

I'm always wary about people throwing out peak HP or torque numbers as proof that one engine has better output than another. You really need to look at the area under the curves. And then there's the intangibles like drivability, throttle response, fuel economy, etc. A prime example, of course, is Honda's 2.0 litre S2000 engine that produces 240 HP. That's the same peak value as the supercharged 3800 V6, but drive the two and there'll be no doubt as to which powers a car better.

I don't think OHC is the answer for every automotive application. For example, my parents have no idea how many camshafts reside under the hood of their Camry, and I'm sure they don't care. If an OHV engine does the job just as well, then why go to the added expense of multivalve engines? I will admit, though, that GM needs to use the HF V6 in more cars because there is an image and perception issue that they need to lick, even if it isn't grounded in reality.