![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)
Next-gen SRX and Equinox to also get DI 3.0L V6
If current rumors prove accurate, General Motors has big plans for its line of high-feature V6s, and with good reason. These six-cylinder engines make class competitive power and are very smooth. Thanks to direct injection, the engine range also offers excellent fuel efficiency when mated to GM's equally new six-speed automatic transmission. We recently heard that a new 3.0-liter version of this powertrain duo would make an appearance in the new 2010 Buick LaCrosse, and now we're hearing the engine will also be optional in the upcoming Chevy Equinox and standard in Cadillac's new SRX. Expect the new 3.0-liter V6 to offer around 250 horses and fuel efficiency slightly under 30 mpg on the highway. The Equinox's standard engine will be a new 2.3-liter direct-inject inline four-cylinder unit making something north of 200-horsepower, while the uplevel Caddy SRX should get the optional 300-plus horsepower 3.6L powerplant as found in the CTS.
[Source: GM Inside News]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
mikeyt 8:39AM (11/04/2008)
i guess this means the 9-4x should also receieve it as an option (besides the diesel bio fuel whatever) ? 9-4x aero perhaps ?
either way i dont expect it to return "just under 30mpg on the highway" ... maybe on a car with smaller cross section, more aerodynamic design, and lower ground clearance
Reply
Gabagool 8:44AM (11/04/2008)
"Expect the new 3.0-liter V6 to offer around 250 horses and fuel efficiency slightly under 30 mpg on the highway."------------The name of the game has been 30 MPG or nothing for about 2-3 years now, so i guess it will take GM another 6-7 years to come up with new engine that will reach that goal.
Reply
C.W. 9:27AM (11/04/2008)
Ah, 30 or nothing for a while? Interesting, so name a vehicle with a V6 that meets that. Rav4 V6? Sorry, EPA'd at 27 on the highway. The CR-V gets the same. The CX7 is laughable and doesn't even have a V6 (ditto for the CR-V). Even Camry and Accord with V6 don't get 30 on the highway, so get real, naysayer.
Serge 9:49AM (11/04/2008)
gabaTOOL is at his trolling again...
I dont see any crossovers getting above 25mpg, and that's from tiny little plastic rice-buckets with 4-bangers. Even economy mid-size sedans dont get 30mpg.
If the SRX, Equinox, LaCrosse get around 30mph and have at least 250hp then GM is good to go.
I actually want the country I live in to make good cars... That will bring up the economy. If an American car is made just as good as its competition, I'll proudly buy it just because the money will go to my country. Just seems logical to me...
Gabagool 10:21AM (11/04/2008)
That is why Cross overs do not sell, 30 MPG sells
Mark 12:10PM (11/04/2008)
its like you hate the truth
Ligor 9:12AM (11/04/2008)
I think this was a good move from GM
I also think they should offer this in the CTS wagon
so 3.0L DI or 3.6L DI - maybe a $32k base model, that would be awesome (or bring the G8 wagon state side for $28k)
I been saying Infiniti should offer the 2.5L V6 they offer in Japan, in the G35 as a base model, and it would have come handy as it'd save some gas plus lower hte base G35 $$ back down to about $31k since the G37 will now cost $33.5k
Reply
P.V. 9:55AM (11/04/2008)
I like the 3.6 DI a lot, so I think this should be as good, if not better. I like the fact that it gives the same power and better fuel economy as the non-DI 3.6 (and is a smaller engine than the 3.6, resulting in weight savings, and possibly even better fuel economy).
I liked the past SRX because it was RWD. I hope GM doesn't screw up and make the new one base FWD (instead of base AWD).
Reply
Dan 11:39AM (11/04/2008)
The outstanding feature of the 3.6 - with DI and without - is its best in class low end torque.
That won't show up with a 3.0 no matter how well it breathes over 6000 rpm.
As far as a smaller, lighter engine... it's the same block whether it's bored and stroked to 2.8, 4.0, or anywhere in between.
Tourian 11:52AM (11/04/2008)
I don't think its a screw up to offer the new SRX base FWD, AWD is not needed here and is considered a waste to a lot of buyers. It just means added weight, cost, and maintenance as well as worse mpg to most here.
Noah 11:59AM (11/04/2008)
Yeah, cause SRX buyers are buying a perfromance CUV, and only RWD will do!
I think a FWD SRX will be ok.
You know, I'm willing to bet that GM will have an XFE version of these cars with the 3.0, will put it over 30mpg. Just change up the final gear ration, low-rolling resistance tires. Set.
Reply
The Luigiian 12:47PM (11/04/2008)
Why won't they put this engine in the Chevy Colorado? Somehow I think it would be better than the five-banger the truck currently has, with better fuel economy. Rework it for RWD. Something.
I never asked for an eight cylinder, I don't need that much power in a compact truck. I'm asking for a six.
Reply
USA1fan 3:33PM (11/04/2008)
Putting the 3L into the compact trucks sounds like a good plan. But GM shouldn't need to rework the engine for RWD- the 3.6 already has variants for both FWD and RWD applications. If the 3.0 is based off the 3.6, shouldn't a RWD-capable variant be a given?