Whats the future of GM's 3.6L?
 

I think of the 3.6L as the 3.8L part 2.

Whats going on? I know they are migrating to the DI for all the models now it seems however what is the reason the CTS now uses the 3.0L as the base engine or the SRX/ equinox use the 2.8L and 3.0L? Is it emissions? I dont think it's fuel economy...

What gives? I've enjoyed every car/ suv the 3.6L has been in and find it to be a great engine.

3.6L is in the Camaro, CTS, Enclave, Acadia, Traverse, Lacrosse, and Malibu.

GM has always had multiple V6's. 3.0L with be their new small V6 while the 3.6L is their large V6. Not every vehicle needs a ~300HP engine.

The 3.6L V6 in the Malibu is non-Direct Injection and a completely different engine than the 3.6L Direct Injected engine in the Camaro, right?

They are basically the same engine, just one has DI and one doesn't.

2.8L in the SRX does not have DI either.

Isnt that one turbo charged?

yup, I'm not sure why they are using that over the DI 3.6L. More torque would be my guess.

Doesn't the SRX use the LP9 which is an HFV6?

With Ford's 3.7L making more power in non-DI form than the DI3.6, I can't help but wonder if there's some higher-powered variant of this engine coming down the pipeline.

There was talk of a ~330-350HP n/a V6 not too long ago. I'm not sure what the displacement would be.

Interesting article in Hot Rod Magazine on the new Mustang 5.0. Ford determined that DI saw about a 1% benefit on N/A engines and left if out, but open for adding to future turbo/supercharged versions where it would see real benefits. Perhaps that's why it was left off the 3.7L. Which again, makes you wonder what GM has in store for the LLT. :D

Okay, then why is GM getting close to 20% increase in power with the 3.6DI vs. the port-injection version? Is GM doing something wrong with PI, or is Ford doing something wrong with DI?

Yeah I don't know if I truley belive Ford on that one, DI has been good for a healthy bump in power for every vehicle that has it over the non-DI version plus an increase in MPG in every case I have read about. I doubt my Cobalt would make 230 if it wasn't DI.

The 3.0L gets better fuel economy and has DI , over the standard HF 3.6 the CTS used to have . I dont know this as fact as to the "why's" , but the Turbocharged 2.8 IS an existing Opel/Saab engine combo , and likely why it was chosen and possibly offered more torque down low over the DI 3.6 . And as heavy as the Theta's are , more low end torque would be rather desireable .

I think the small percentage is a gain in fuel economy.

I think Ford is doing something right with PI, getting close to DI levels of power and efficiency.

The best article was in (I think) 5.0 Mustang. The latest Ford PI engines have been designed to get most of the benefit that DI would give.

The proof is in the pudding. Their formerly 273hp 3.7 now makes 305, while improving fuel efficiency.

A big advantage of DI is that you can crank up the compression ratio without fear of knocking. Ford was somehow able to crank the compression of the 5.0 without it. Its actually pretty impressive.

I believe that's the 263hp 3.5L V6 in the new Taurus. Which would equate to about to roughly 75.1 hp per Liter. So the 3.7L version should be about 278hp.

However the 3.7L V6 in the 2011 Mustang is 305hp - which equals about 82.4 hp per liter.

So there's a definite boost of nearly 10% in Hp.

They had a 3.7 available too. Not in the Taurus, but in some Lincolns, Mazdas, etc.
It was/is around 273hp.

Well - Then that would mean the new Mustang V6 is about a 11-12% boost in power.

Which definitely sounds like they added some kind of Direct Injection or VVT.

They still have PI, but went from single VVT to dual VVT, plus a number of other useful changes to optimize airflow and valve timing. Apparently, they can switch in and out of Atkinson cycle with valve timing too.

What the 3.6 lacks, IMO, is a lusty soul. Or at least a version of it which offers one. I mean, it's a good prime mover, it just doesn't give you goosebumps.

The other day, I had one of my boys in my car and was quickly accelerating away from a traffic light. He asked, "Dad, why do you only rev up to 4000 RPM in the CTS, but used rev your SVT Contour to 7000?" I answered, "because it wanted me to" :D. That motor (the SVT) had a lusty soul. It loved to rev, and it was glorious. It beckoned you!

I saw alittle bit of that in the personality of the 3.0L, motivating the SRX I recently had for afew days. But it sure would be nice if GM would develop a real enthusiast version of it's V6 - in whichever bore/stroke ratio they deem appropriate.

RE: Ford. Yes, I was talking about fuel economy. Sorry for the confusion. :p

As for the future of the 3.6L DOHC V6, with Direct injection - I tend to believe it has a great future potential (2012 & beyond).

I believe the technology will also make it's way into the "Next-Gen" Ecotecs(DOHC I4) which hopeful will make more power, yet better fuel economy.

And I would be surprised if the new DOHC V6s, with Direct Injection would range between 2.8-4.0L - with more hp, and even better fuel economy. Note - I also think that GM is going to need at least 3 different V6s - a small displacement (less than 3.0), a mid-level between 3.0-3.5L, and a large displacement between 3.5-4.0L.

Also I think GM should go with a small displacement DOHC V8 line(based off the 3.6 V6 line) - which help with the next gen Corvette, Camaro, & mid-size truck lines.

If they do that, hopefully it will be a 90 degree V8 and not a 60 like the V6. That would come out to 4.8 liters if they add two cylinders and keep the same bore/stroke.

The 3.6L in my wife's Aura seems to like the revs just fine. :yes:

Sure it revs just fine.

The question is, does it give you goosebumps at 6000 RPM or is it just 2000 RPM noiser than it was at 4000.

I'll always remember Patrick Bedard's review of the original Quad4. He described it as an engine that seemed to get bigger the more you revved it, always pushing you to go higher, promising you that the next 500 rpm are going to be even more fun than the last 500. Those are the engines that are fun to drive.

I'll agree with you about the 3.6. Although my CTS had the slushbox, my impressions are pretty much the same as yours. All revving it seemed to do was make it a bit coarser, like it was straining, like it would really rather not go there. I suppose one of the benefits of a broad torque curve is that you don't have to go there as often, but when you do, it'd be nice to enjoy it more.