![Bugatti Bird-gate Followup: Driver identity revealed <b>[*UPDATE:</b> Now with actual crash video!]](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/11/bugatti-veyron-swim-1258147199_143x85.jpg)
GM plans to sharply increase production of next-gen V6
High fuel prices have car buyers looking away from V8 engines in favor of smaller, more efficient powertrains. GM is looking to feed the increased demand with an expansion of its Ramos, Mexico plant that builds its 3.6L V6 engines. The planned increase in output will allow the General to increase production of its next generation V6 engines an additional 350,000 units to a whopping 940,000 engines per year. The next generation HFV6 engines will also provide more of everything customers want, including improved fuel economy and a 6% increase in power. The engines will likely feature direct injection across the lineup this time. There is no word at this time if GM will change the displacement size for the next-gen HFV6 engines, but we did hear a couple weeks back that a Cadillac CTS wagon may feature a smaller 3.0L version of the engine in base form.
The HFV6 production increase was announced at the opening ceremony for Ramos' new six-speed transmission plant, which will also supply slush boxes for FWD crossovers and cars. The transmissions will replace the long in the tooth four-cogs (Yay!) and increase efficiency by up to 7 percent.
[Source: Automotive News - sub. req'd, via AutoblogGreen]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
mike 5:02PM (6/11/2008)
LOL, i bet by the time GM will start making almost a million V6's a year, gas will again become afordable.
MISMANAGMENT.
Reply
Yar 5:12PM (6/11/2008)
Wow, your reasoning is iron-clad!
Torrent 5:25PM (6/11/2008)
Exactly.
Frank 6:19PM (6/11/2008)
Really? Do you have some sort of information you would like to share with everyone? I didn't think so, there are no real reasons right now to believe that gas will drop to a reasonable enough price that this would become a bad move, especially in the next year. I really wish the GM haters would just shut up.
HotRodzNKustoms 9:00PM (6/11/2008)
The oil companies Honda and Toyota are all in on it together to take the big three out!
Sorry couldn't resist!
RJ 9:36PM (6/11/2008)
Yeah Mike, I totally agree.
I think GM should bring back the V16 in the concept Caddy a couple years ago, and put that in everything from the CTS to the XLR.
Then bring back the 8.1 big block, and put it in everything from the Torrent to the Malibu. I can see $1.29 / gal gas coming real soon...
(yes, you're retarted)
The Luigiian 10:19PM (6/11/2008)
Guys, Mike was joking. As in, the auto journalists and Toyota fanboys are so desperate to find ways to attack GM that if GM were to build really fuel-efficient cars right now and gas were to go back down to $1.29 a gallon, they would argue that GM's overreliance on fuel efficient compact cars was because GM was mismanaged and just couldn't SEE that gas was going to go back down.
Seriously, sometimes the levels of Asperger's on this site are unbelievable.
Za 1:36AM (6/12/2008)
RJ, the word is spelled "retarded" with a "d". If you are going to insult someone, spell it right, at least?
Keat 5:14PM (6/11/2008)
Good news. The 3.6L is a great motor to replace V8s in crossovers and larger cars. Ive driven the CTS with the DI 3.6 with 304HP and that thing moves. I know the Chevy Traverse Crossover will use this motor with direct injection.
Reply
kory kickul 5:19PM (6/11/2008)
why dont they build the 3800 again so they can sell a buick......... the only redeeming quality of one...
RSR 6:57PM (6/11/2008)
I've also spent a good amount of time in CTS with the direct injection V6, and I agree with you. That thing is sweet. Glad to hear GM's spreading it out to more models.
Chris 5:38PM (6/11/2008)
Why such a large V6? Where are the 2.5 and 3.0 versions? Throw a turbo or two on them and they would easily provide the power required in today's cars. Let alone better fuel economy than a 3.6L
Reply
MikeW 6:10PM (6/11/2008)
GM has a 2.8 liter version. 89x74.8mm bore x stroke.
They also have a 3.2 liter version 89x85.6, small bore of 2.8, with long stroke of 3.6.
I'd like to see the large bore of the 3.6, 94mm, with the short stroke of the 2.8, for 3.1 liters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gm_high_feature_engine
RSR 7:00PM (6/11/2008)
Because 3.0L with turbo will cost a lot more than the naturally aspirated 3.6L. Maybe that's why you don't see many 3.0L turbo in other OEM's models?
So easy to make smart suggestions when you are not paying.
Justin 5:39PM (6/11/2008)
Meh, an non-e85 version of the LS4 gets the same mpg with more low end guts and a better sound (imo). But of course it has 8 cylinders and (gasp) only 2 valves per cylinder! So it must be a guzzler.
Reply
johnny 6:00PM (6/11/2008)
Throw in the 304hp 3.6 V6 and a 6speed auto and I will buy a Silverado. I dont tow more than 4200 lbs (boat) and most I would carry in the bed would be furniture or landscaping stuff or other light loads. 304hp is plenty considering the last pickup I owned in the early 1990s was a F150 with the 5.0 175hp and 4 auto.
Reply
t 6:10PM (6/11/2008)
I think trucks need a larger displacement engine with more torque at lower rpms. I don't think a samller dohc engine is a direct replacement for a truck.
MikeW 6:38PM (6/11/2008)
Maybe GM has a 7 speed double clutch transmission in development. 1-6 in tow/haul, 2-7 otherwise.
That would compensate for the light low end torque in the direct injection 3.6.
(or GM reworking the intake manifold and adding a variable resonance function for more sub-4000rpm torque.)
GM could consider a twin turbo direct injection 3.2 V6 for trucks, 300hp, 300ft-lbs.
or their inline6, 4.4 liters (using larger diameter pistons of the I4/5) 300hp, 300ft-lbs (adding variable intake valve timing too)
or chopping two cylinders off the LS3
GM has plenty of options to explore.
RSR 7:07PM (6/11/2008)
Actually, HP is overrated more than torque. Think of all the Hondas. Your comparison isn't too good: 175 hp to 304 hp? Also think of why many diesel models in Europe gets better acceleration with lower HP than its counterparts (check out Mercedes E-class).
Torque is great in city traffic. HP is good at highway speed. That's why you need a good balance of both to get the best driveability. This is where direct injection has an advantage: good low end torque, keeping HP. Add turbo, as someone suggested before, and the turbo lag is compensated by good low end torque of DI (albeit expensive).
RJ 9:46PM (6/11/2008)
For anyone having trouble with the physics / engineering concept behind torque, just remember the following:
You can always get more torque (at the wheels) through use of gearing; You can't get more hp at the wheels by ANYTHING.
Take your 3.6L 266lb-ft engine and run it through a 2.0:1 4Lo transfercase, and you'll effectively end up with a 532 lb-ft engine, that can rev half as high.