topic sums it up. Thanks!

------------------
You have walked onto the biggest baddest dog porch and you will be dealt with accordingly.

I'd rather be historically accurate than politically correct!

 

It's not an eight, but at least it's not a V6. I HATE V6s. I have yet to see one that can do anything NA (including current NSX--$80,000 to get beat by a stock vette, an LS1 with minimal mods, no thank you. I realize that that is not what the car is for, but still.) I have yet to come across a V6 that I can hear(again, excluding TTA and GN and accords with fart pipes and stuff ). I think the new I6 is a step in the right direction. However if they decide to bring the f-body back with the straight six (knock on wood), you will not hear me singing the engine's praises.

If you're not running on all eight, you might as well not run at all! Of course if you have a certain 10 cylinder engine or any of several 12's or even that new W16 from VW you could also run. But you won't ever sound as good.

 

If you are referring to the one in the Trailblazers and Envoys, it is having it's share of teething problems right now..... They tend to break the tops of the cylinder sleeves off and basically grenade.... Could be a recall coming......

------------------
1987 GTA L98 MD8
355, TFS Heads, LT4 Hot Cam
My GTA

The Minnesota F-body Club

 

The advantages to a straight 6 is a very strong bottom end as they have more caps. Straight 6s tend to last forever.

Conversely, a V6 is a very compact engine. In fact, when the SBC V8 was first introduced in 1955, the block was lighter than the old Stovebolt 6 block.

I will say one thing I ALWAYS loved about inline 6s, damn easy to get at the spark plugs.

I cannot comment on the "teething problems" of the new inline 6, but give it some time and GM will resolve it. I've always liked inline 6s for their reliability and ease of maintenance.

[This message has been edited by Glenn91L98GTA (edited November 28, 2001).]

 

My mom has a new trailblazer with the new I6. I haven't heard of the cylinder wall problem but i do know that the damn thing runs really strong. Once it gets past 3000 rpms, it comes onto it's cams and pulls really hard. Hers has a 4.10 gear which helps it get off the line. A 5 speed auto would really make it quick!

I think that engine would be a wonderful base engine for the next Camaro. Imagine that motor with 1500 fewer pounds! I love it!

 

I like the new I6's like mentioned they have some faults. The 411 is chevy is following dodge's lead that faulty oil filters are poping engines left and right. The local Dodge dealer has had 6 TD's bomb out this month due to oil filter failure. (FRAM)

BTT. I6's are great my old 300 6 bronco had 300k miles on it then the lifters wore out. Besides a few fuel pumps and carb rebuilds its still running around town with no other mechanical failures (that I know of).

The design of any inline allows it to take much more abuse with out serious damage and it would be great if GM put inlines in thier new fbodys. They used inlines in the 1st and second gen Fbodys so why not the 5th?
SSC

 

As a base engine it would be pretty quick in our car. It makes 270hp, which in my book is better than the 4th gen V6 that makes 200hp. I dont think GM will give up on the LS1/LS6 engine platform so I'd expect to see that back (or I hope to)in the new Fbody. BMW has used straight 6's for years in thier performance cars. I rode in one of the newer trailblazers and that engine is smooth as a babies @ss!!

 

inline 6 is naturally balanced engine, no vibrations. personally i like the sound of smooth running sixes like quality made ones(Nissan, Toyota), not rough running like Mercedes

GM found variable cam timing 10 years after BMW. anyway BMW is step ahead in their new models again(L4,L6,V8), since those engines are not using throttle bodies. amount of air is controlled by adjusting valve lift. i can just imaging what kind of posibilities it will open to PROM burner gurus 4-valve per cylinder have lot of flow velocity in low rpm and plenty of flow area in high rpm, so you can have "mild cam PROM" and "all out cam PROM" in same engine not mentioning good mpg.

i bet dropping the TB is a good thing in order to have better effiency, and it has been possible with combination of computer controllable valve lift and drive-by-wire gas pedal.


-P

 

Cars are getting very complicated. Performance is better now that it ever has been, but it costs much more to mod the newer cars. At age 18, not even having been alive when my family owned a carb car, I see reasons to put a carb on. Is this because I like the simplicity (which I do) or just it's different to me? I don't know, but cars sure are getting compicated.

 

well, with my job i have the oppertunity of the training and testing of these. i've driven about every combo of them and i think they are great. no egr valve which is a big help. the exhaust cam is capable of moving up to 25 degrees with it's veriable exhaust cam timing. under about 2500 rpm it's a bit sluggish. i feel they should add a few hundred more rpm of stall to the torque converter. with the new five speed auto coming it will be nice. left in drive it shifts at 6k and would be nice with a programmer to shift it higher. i feel a 6300 rpm shift point would be about perfect. haven't had a single problem with the engine yet and haven't heard anything from gm about it. closest problem to the engine we've had was a fan clutch sticking. it's electronicly controled so it doesn't work the car too hard or suck the radiator through. driving one with the 3.42 gear is a joke and shouldn't even be offered. 3.73 is minimum and 4.10 is nice. gas milage according to customer reports is around 18 to 20 average. the suspension is a bit soft but great off road and could be improved apon. judging from our training video's etc. we get from gm it seems to be built impressivly strong. i'd bet the lower end could handle 7k in stock form. 6 coils, 24 valves, 2 cams, aluminum block, aluminum head, doesn't sound like your average inline 6. lol overall i'd give it a great rating so far.

 

The cylinder sleeve breakage issue is a very new one, and from what I hear, it is definately not uncommon. Evidently the sleeve material is too thin and doesn't like the drastic temperature swings that northern climates bring (like here in MN). I was BSing with the Techs at the Chev dealer I wrenched at and they said they have already seen three of them come in for this issue and the Service Manager has been in contact with some other dealers that have run into a few of these cylinder sleeve breakages as well..... It is too hard to say if a recall is coming at this point, but either way, I'd give GM a few years to work out any problems that may occur with a completely new design such as this one.....

I do agree that they rip though!! Wow are they fast for an SUV!! I stopped at a Pontiac/GMC dealer I know some of the techs at and I went for a road beat in an Envoy and it was pretty damn impressive.....

------------------
1987 GTA L98 MD8
355, TFS Heads, LT4 Hot Cam
My GTA

The Minnesota F-body Club

 

pontiac,

in it's most basic form, a four-valve head doesn't do a very good job of filling the cylinders at the low-end. with the port volume(whether from two seperate ports or a shared port) needed to supply two intake valves, flow velocity at the lower rpms is compromised. as the rpms climb, volume become more important than velocity. which is why four-valves support more rpms than their two-valve counterparts. however, as you hinted, throw variable valve timing and lift(even to the point of disabling one cam until the extra flow is needed) and it's a whole new ballgame. motors like those from Audi and Lexus have all the benefits of a four-valve configuration(i.e. very high rpm hp peak), while also delivering low and mid-range torque that is the equal of any two-valve motor of similiar displacement.

as for the 4.2 L-6, i'd say it's a baby step in the right direction. in terms of the technology and specific output/displacement I'd say it's about 15 years behind the germans and 8 years behind the japanese. i don't see it as a likely candidate for a 5th-gen f-body(if such a beast is being planned), as it would be too long and too tall for the kind of hood line I imagine for that type of car. the first and second generations of f-body had longer, flatter hoods, which allowed them to accomodate the stovebolt.

if the V8 that opel has been showing-off goes into production, I could see that as a base engine for a future camaro. dimensionally, you could prolly shoehorn it into a cavalier. but it's displacement(4.0 L IIRC) and output(300 hp @ 5800) would make it a great base engine. the northstar would also be a good candidate(after you swing it around 90° ), but i think it may near the end of it's production lifespan.

 

I removed my comment to stop any conflict. Comment and proof is located under the v6 section in the post labled for those who wish they had a V8.

[This message has been edited by dennis6 (edited November 29, 2001).]

 

whoa....lets stop it here....this is not gonna turn into a V6 vs I6 or V8 or I4 etc fight. To save this post no one even mention a word back about this...go start a thread in the V6 board or thero racing.

 

88IROCs,

i hope also there will be 5th gen fbody. new inline 6 with turbo would be cool engine for it. they can incline it like old mopars to make it fit under low hood

peace,


-P

 

not sure where the idea of the I6 being a camaro engine came from, but gm wouldn't waste their time doing that. gotta go up in hp, not down. the I6 also is too long and tall for a sports car. they need to get the camaro nose shorter and lower like the vette is if they plan to make the possible new one sell. and it should be classic styling. how many are going to buy a camaro with an I6 over the mustang? less than what buys it now.

 

Didn't GM buy that engine from Honda? Anyway if you make the Z24 cavalier a rear wheel drive car and put the I-6 in it, it would be a car I would love to have.

 

The new I6 is GM's own design, not honda's.

 

very true. If you look at it its just like the GM DOHC4 but with 2 more cylinders and adjustable cam timing amoung other advances.

------------------
-Tas
'89 Formula WS-6

305, TBI, 700R4, P.A.W. 14x3 open element with K&N, Milodon 160* thermo, functional Formula hood, cross-flow Flowmaster, '99z28 rear pipes and tips, Hooker 1-5/8" 50 state legal headers, Dynomax 3" I pipe (PN 44063 and 43248)
Super GRK_Taz World
F-Body Dual Exaust
EFI & Intake Options

 

The 1st and 2nd gen Fbodys had an option for and inline 6. If you were to look around in some wrecking yards im sure you will find a few still intact, because nobody wants the engine.

As far as HP is concerned 338 odd hp and im sure 380+tq isnt too shabby for and engine that gets 20+ MPG city.

To take an example from what Ive worked with (ford) 83 full sized bronco 300 6. 195hp 260tq. 83 Mustang 5.0 200hp 230tq. Dont quote me as having exact numbers here it's been a while since Ive looked at a fNord book, but I distincly remember only 5 HP more for a 302. 25/30 more tq for a 300 6.

A superior I6 GM engine will have many advantages in the future.
SSC