GM Motor Rant! - General Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
GM Motor Rant!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010 9:56 AM
So, this weekend a Xerox service vehicle backed into my car, left a big dent in the front bumper, bent the passenger fender, cracked the headlight, threw the alignment off...and now it pops 10x worse than it did. Anywho...after Xerox fixes the car I've been doing some thinking, and if I swap in a Grand AM dash...I'll have a cluster that looks tits, and the ability to swap over the wiring harness without and ungodly amount of work...not to mention that little vent next to the drivers window is an excellent spot to put a guage (As I always keep it closed anyway).

Anyway...back to my rant.
What up with the dated powerplants? The 60* v6 engine platform was released in 1980, ALL 60* engines excluding ONE was a OHV pushrod engine.. It wasn't until 1991 that GM produced a DOHC V6...which was discontinued 6 years later to be replaced by, you guessed it. A PUSHROD ENGINE. Why'd they discontinue the engine? It was a bitch to work on!

My rant?
Let's compare the GM 60* V6 to say...Mitsubishi, which also is notorious for a 60* V6. The difference?
DOHC!! I've been noticing the engines of other car makers, and it's quite ASTONISHING that GM is SO FAR BEHIND in engine design...or well, their design is actually pretty good, their usage is rediculously WRONG.

I looked at the 3.0L Mitsubishi engine...you know it's putting out power numbers that makes ANY GM 60* engine look REALLY bad. Why? Cause they've been doing it since 1990.

Does GM have DOHC V6's? Of course...if you want a buick, caddilac, or any of GM LUXURY divisions....and most of them were built and designed by Saab...OMG...
It wasn't until 1999 that GM decided...hey...our cars will finally see more instances of the DOHC v6...in the 90* valvetrain.
Did any of the midsize cars see them? Not really. Look at the G6 GT...it was SLAMMED for recieving a PUSHROD ENGINE...why? Cause Mitsibishi can produce a smaller, lighter, cheaper engine RIGHT HERE IN THE USA...Oh...and did I mention it has a smoother power band? Oh did I mention there's more POWER?

But you might say...oh the 60* V6 isn't know for it power...their torquey.................and? Sounds like a truck engine to me.
That's why GM is in the hole they are in. Look At Their Engines!

When GM WANTS to build a good engine they do. Look at the LQ1...fabulous power, iron block, and they turbo'd the crap out of. What happened to it? Well some dumb@$$ engineer decided to make it so removing the sparkplugs required removal of the upper manifold....gay.

All I'm saying is GM had the power, resources, knowledge, and engineering to produce an inexpensive V6 SOHC or DOHC POWERHOUSE....but didn't.

I mean look at the DOHC engines found in the buicks, cadillacs, saabs, and saturns. They were strong, reliable, smooth running, and would make ANY OHV GM engine wanna crap itself.
So why did GM wait until the turn of the century to do what EVERY OTHER company has been doing, since the mid 90's at the latest?

end rant

Re: GM Motor Rant!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:52 AM
Are you really questioning why GM would do something.............stupid?

Besides, OHV engines are fine for cheap commuters. Which made up over half of GMs lineup at the time..



Re: GM Motor Rant!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010 12:30 PM
I would rather have a V6 pushrod than a DOHC.

Atop bitching.



FU Tuning



Re: GM Motor Rant!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010 12:42 PM
Screaming for Mercy!! wrote:

I would rather have a V6 pushrod than a DOHC.


Really? You'd rather have an engine with more moving parts that wear are prone to fail? An engine that can never incorporate more than two valves per cylinder? An engine that now has to incoporate DISTANCE in it's valvetrain.

...if a rod bends it could spell disaster for an engine...OHC engines, whether single or dual can be made non interference...meaning if the timing belt breaks you won't need a new motor...OH TIMING BELTS. Easier and far less expensive to replace than a chain.

You'd rather have a rougher running, less efficient, lower powered, faster wearing engine? Glutton for punishment much?
Re: GM Motor Rant!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010 3:54 PM
Just for the record (And an apology for double posting), let it be known the previous post is not intended to offend, merely to instigate intellectual automotive conversation. I love big words...
Re: GM Motor Rant!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010 4:14 PM
If a rod bends you have a misfire due to a valve not opening all the way.

I would ratehr GM sticks with pushrod V6 and V8 engines. Fewer parts to fail, easy to work on, reliable, cheaper to produce and repair, more compact...... Timing belts blow. Timing chains last longer and take up far less space. How does a DOHC engine have fewer moving parts than a pushrod engine? Any engine can be made non interference regardless of design.

The 3400 X motor was great until around 60K. then it needed a new belt, the alternator was in an incredible stupid location, it was a bitch to work on, and it was not all that reliable.

I will take a "old technology" engine that will run for more miles than I will ever put on it over a newer DOHC engine. Amazing how in real world driving the GMT360 with the old tech push rod engine would get far better economy than the newer DOHC POS. It was bigger and "less efficient" yet still suited the vehicle far better than the I6.



Re: GM Motor Rant!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010 7:36 PM
The 60 degree LQ9 V6 was discontinued for one reason only. It cost GM more to build than the 90 degree 3.8 pushrod V6 engine that replaced it in most applications.


markc50...formerly 1of7627 but that login doesn't work anymore.
Re: GM Motor Rant!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010 7:51 PM
Yellow Cav Guy wrote:

Screaming for Mercy!! wrote:

I would rather have a V6 pushrod than a DOHC.


Really? You'd rather have an engine with more moving parts that wear are prone to fail? An engine that can never incorporate more than two valves per cylinder? An engine that now has to incoporate DISTANCE in it's valvetrain.

...if a rod bends it could spell disaster for an engine...OHC engines, whether single or dual can be made non interference...meaning if the timing belt breaks you won't need a new motor...OH TIMING BELTS. Easier and far less expensive to replace than a chain.

You'd rather have a rougher running, less efficient, lower powered, faster wearing engine? Glutton for punishment much?


Wow, there isnt a single correct statement in there.

Yellow Cav Guy wrote:

You'd rather have an engine with more moving parts that wear are prone to fail?


You still need lash adjusters(lifters) for each cam follower for each lob on each cam on a DOHC engine.


Yellow Cav Guy wrote:

An engine that can never incorporate more than two valves per cylinder?


Not true. A 24 valve 5.9L Cummins is just one example of a 4 valve per cylinder OHV engine.

Yellow Cav Guy wrote:

An engine that now has to incorporate DISTANCE in it's valvetrain.


Same with OHC engines, why do you think the lash adjusters are in there?

Yellow Cav Guy wrote:


...if a rod bends it could spell disaster for an engine...


mitdr774 said it. Push rod fails, valve closes, engine misfires, no damage done.

Yellow Cav Guy wrote:

OHC engines, whether single or dual can be made non interference


engines whether OHC or OHV can be made non inferterence.

Yellow Cav Guy wrote:

OH TIMING BELTS. Easier and far less expensive to replace than a chain.


I'd rather replace the timing chain on a SBC than a timing belt.

Yellow Cav Guy wrote:

You'd rather have a rougher running, less efficient, lower powered, faster wearing engine? Glutton for punishment much?


You know that the Corvette still uses a pushrod engine.....




its an old concept. time for something new to take the reigns. - Z yaaaa

Re: GM Motor Rant!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:14 PM
Isn't the 3.0L Mitsubishi the one you usually find burning oil out of an older Caravan or Lebaron? I would recommend a different OHC to use as comparison. Mitsubishi, despite it's japanese name, is usually at the bottom of reliability and quality surveys. I'm not a fan of the 60* GM family (having had a 2.8 in a cav and 3.4 in an aztek) but in terms of an appliance engine you could do a lot worse. (I am a big fan of the 90*V6 family) The more cylinders an engine has the cost tend to start outweighing the advantages of OHC architecture, particularly on V configuration engines. It's the reason why the original ZR1 vette wasn't around long, and the northstar is being phased out. Most people who purchase cars aren't enthusiasts all they think is 6 cyl > 4 cyl, how quiet it is, what MPG it gets, and how much it costs. They don't understand or care to learn why. If someone does care GM has the HF V6 family for the upper level Chevrolets and premium brands which is OHC.
Re: GM Motor Rant!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:25 PM
-GM's modo: "If ain't broke, why fix it?"
-Of all the OHC engines in the world to compare with... Mitsubishi... Really? Could you pick a worse manufacturer in terms of reliability and power ratings. Now if you would have said Nissan, then you might be up to something.
-Current GM's DOHC V6 aren't made by Saab.



>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

Re: GM Motor Rant!
Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:56 AM
my DOHC 4cyl has a timing chain.....




Re: GM Motor Rant!
Wednesday, October 27, 2010 1:22 PM
No one has mentioned the ridiculous size of a DOHC V6 compared to an OHV one. Look at the 3.4 DOHC compared to the 3100 in an older model Grand Prix or Monte Carlo and tell me what youd rather work on. The engine is STUFFED in there.

Someones gradnma driving her Buick Century doesnt care if its DOHC or OHV. She doesnt care about the power. She just wants an engine that will last and get her to and from church. Thats about 90% of GM's customers. Why introduce a failure point into a proven system?



Re: GM Motor Rant!
Wednesday, October 27, 2010 1:37 PM
bottom line: older technology is proven and cheaper.

DOHC V6 engines are in more expensive GM cars because... they're more expensive.

I will always take a chain over a belt.

Look at the new V6 in the 5th gen camaro. I'm pretty sure it got a lot of acclaim for its power output given its size.
granted, the 5th gen camaro V6 is late to the party, but remember who you're talking about here... GM... V8. end of story.

if you want an import, buy one. you'll get everything you've ever wished for. I think you're insane for wanting a belt vs a chain... thats just stupid.

personally, I like the 4 bangers better (ecotec especially.. yes it was deisgned by saab and a few other contributors... who cares!) they're easier to work on, and majority of the time have the same power output (while sacrificing torque) but since most GM small cars are FWD, torque isn't necessarily a good thing to have (assuming the car is light... aka under 2600lbs).





Re: GM Motor Rant!
Wednesday, October 27, 2010 2:06 PM
DaFlyinSkwirl (Pj) v2.0 wrote:

(ecotec especially.. yes it was deisgned by saab and a few other contributors... who cares!)

N-Amercian N/A "Ecotecs," no... GM of Europe had a minimal to no hand in it.
N-American boosted "Ecotecs," yes... GM of Europe did had a hand in it.
The only thing Europe truely had a hand in, is in the marketing name; as there are fools living in the US that swear European made products are god's gift to America, hence the adaptation for good PR... but who cares.

Carry on.



>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

Re: GM Motor Rant!
Monday, November 01, 2010 5:26 PM
as far as i am concerned the ecotec is not a GM engine.

..hence the hate.



Underdog Racing
Re: GM Motor Rant!
Wednesday, November 03, 2010 5:53 PM
I have a '99 Olds Intrigue with the 3.5L DOHC V6, and I quite like it.

It's AKA the "Short Star", or as GM called it, the "Short North".

It produces 215 HP @ 5,600 RPM and 234 lbs/ft @ 4,400 RPM.

Quite expensive to produce though with all the extra components necessary. AAMOF, the alt. has to be ridiculously small to make room for the excess room from the timing cover. Because of that, the rectifier and regulator overheats easily and voltage surges can be seen in the headlights and dash lights while driving down the road.

It's a dog off the line. Has nowhere near the flat, responsive torque curve of the 3800 V6. But once it gets rolling, that car will sh*t and git.

Currently has 150,000 miles on it. It burns a little bit of oil, but no worse than a SBC. I only change the oil when it tells me to, and I use synthetic blend. Anything less and the valve train is quite noisy, especially on start up. But, from what research I've done, the reliability of these engines is top notch. I would guess the excess noise is partially due to it being a chain-driven valve train. Once the slack in the chains increases, they get a little noisy.

It's actually a common engine used in smaller kit cars because it has higher rev. capabilities than a common V6, is fairly light (all aluminum) and pretty good on gas. Plus reliable.

***Brand New In the Box Pioneer GM-D8500M For Sale***
Re: GM Motor Rant!
Friday, November 05, 2010 1:49 PM
i have a camaro with a pushrod engine. is mine a POS too?



Im a Xbox 360 fanboy...and damn proud of it!!
Re: GM Motor Rant!
Friday, November 05, 2010 2:28 PM
For those non inclined to read a bunch of garbage, here's the Reader's Digest...
Yellow Cav Guy wrote:

A PUSHROD ENGINE ... GM is SO FAR BEHIND ... DOHC ... smaller, lighter, cheaper engine ... smoother power band ... ANY OHV ... crap

Typical ricer rhetoric. DOHC > OHV... blah blah blah. As I smoke anything Mitsu has ever put out in an *OHV* 638 hp beast of a *production* engine from GM. Cry me a river.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Friday, November 05, 2010 2:28 PM


"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about
the former." - Albert Einstein

Re: GM Motor Rant!
Friday, November 05, 2010 11:39 PM
There are a few things I forgot to mention about the engine in my car...

The other engine available pre-1999 and midway through 1999 was the tried and true 3.8L (aka 3800).

My engine (LX5) costs more to build, makes very little more power (215HP vs. 200HP, 234 lb-ft vs 230 lb-ft.) is a mere 22 lbs lighter. than the L36, and gets worse gas milage (17 city/25 hwy vs. 17 city/27 hwy.)

That is all.

***Brand New In the Box Pioneer GM-D8500M For Sale***
Re: GM Motor Rant!
Saturday, November 06, 2010 1:36 AM
My LN2 runs low 10's, I have a quad turbo setup 30psi each. Though im only running on three pistons, I decided I didnt need to run all 4.


Proud owner: 2002 Cavalier Sedan 2200SFI LN2 4-speed auto.Slowest compact car, only designed for school and groceries.

Re: GM Motor Rant!
Saturday, November 06, 2010 10:06 AM
Psoutrage wrote:

My LN2 runs low 10's, I have a quad turbo setup 30psi each. Though im only running on three pistons, I decided I didnt need to run all 4.


wtf are you talking about this has nothing to do with the thread

Re: GM Motor Rant!
Saturday, November 06, 2010 10:30 AM
03cav83 wrote:

Psoutrage wrote:

My LN2 runs low 10's, I have a quad turbo setup 30psi each. Though im only running on three pistons, I decided I didnt need to run all 4.


wtf are you talking about this has nothing to do with the thread


don't be jealous. the streets are his kitchen yo.



Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search