jsaylor

GM needs to have a sit down with you Hollywood, because you seem a lot less worried than they do. GM's response to the upcoming CAFE standards was immediate and more than a little noticeable. As for the Volt, I'm not going to waste too much time on what are effectively little more than distraction for the real solution to the problem. In the grand scheme of things Volt changes nothing and is no more ground breaking than EV1 was and will be every bit as forgotten as that car is fifteen years from now, nothing more needs to be said..

Baised an erroneous...lets see. Your above statement completely ignores what we do know about the next Mustang, little as that may be, and what we know about direct injection. Put simply your statement is based on absolutely nothing. But I can see how pure conjecture could be seen as less erroneous than basic extrapolation.

I do love that you insist on continuing with this particular argument, particularly since the new CAFE standards offered you a way out. Were already seeing the ****** in Zeta's armour, even as Ford's rwd plans continue to unfold and grow. But please, do continue...I'm curious as to how you intend to argue your way out of what is becoming an increasingly obvious losing battle.

jsaylor

Your missing the point entirely. What GM and Ford both have right now wont cut it. And what they each have right now isn't really the problem or the solution since the new CAFE standards are sending everybody scrambling to find a way to meet them. What GM and Ford have coming down the development pipe right now and in the near future will be the problem or solution depending on how it helps or hurts CAFE ratings. And the reality is that Ford has a lot more which appears likely to ease the pain than does GM.

GM does have some 'answers' coming in the near future...just not enough of them. At least not enough to ensure that they can continue building the lineup they want to offer without making serious concessions in terms of power output and/or availability.

Hollywood_North GT

You bend facts to suit your own biases as opposed to seeing things as they really are...primarily because you like to argue, me thinks.

Take this statement, for example >> However, even should that fail to materialize the reality is that Ford has a high mileage V8 alternative in the TTV6. GM has, effectively, nothing.

How many direct injection vehicles does Ford produce in North America right now? I can't name one. On the other hand, Caddy has the CTS with it's direct injection V6. Today. Right now. On dealer lots. Now hard would it be/will it be for GM to turbo them? Not difficult, me thinks.

The comments about the Volt are painfully shortsighted, though I will concede that ALL of these alternative energy solutions are merely a short term stop gap.

As to what we know about the next Mustang - are you really trying to postulate that the 2010 GT will NOT use a V8 and will be TTV6 only? Are you seriously trying to push this as gospel? Cause if you ain't, then clearly it will have a V8. How does that give it an advantage over the Camaro, exactly?

You're trying to baffle with bullsh*t instead of offering up any coherent, empirically based arguments.

cheech6g

30 seconds went by. I went like this, he went like that. I said to Hollywood, "Where'd he go?" Hollywood said, "Where'd WHO go?!?"

Haha sorry I've wanted to say that for a while now.

jsaylor

You've just given a synopsis of your posting history in general, and projected it upon somebody else. The unfortunate part of all of this is that there are some here who don't yet know enough to know better.

Are you serious? How hard would it be to turbo them? Well, to actually do a good job a bit longer than you're insinuating to say the least. Is your grasp on the subject so limited that you actually believe that all GM has to do is grab the pre-existing DI V6, apparently developed without the intention of future turbocharged applications no less, and 'turbo it'?

Ford is preparing to debut a low pressure turbo four effectively developed from scratch despite the fact that they only recently unveiled a more performance oriented DI turbo four under the Mazda brand. By your standards somebody must have been out to lunch since the engineers at Ford felt the need to start over when it came to turb'o-ing a motor which had already been turbo'd in the first place.

As usual your deflecting from the real problem pointed out in my statement because you have no retort. The question is what programs does GM have in place which could potentially seriously improve fuel mileage in their V8 engine lineup, whether by evolution of the V8 or replacement of the same? The answer...not much. Effectively we have the potential of some turbo diesel offerings and/or DoD/DI push-rod V8's.

Ford has an existing TTV6 engine program, which is nearing completion no less, and a program for the development of a new/heavily revised, small V8. That's one known alternative designed specifically to provide V8 power with better fuel economy and one upcoming V8 which, while relatively unknown, is at least as promising as GM's DI V8 program thus far. Makes it a bit difficult to argue that Ford isn't a bit ahead here strictly on the merits of the V6 program alone.

The insinuation that GM has a DI V6 and Ford doesn't completely lost me if for no other reason than GM's DI V6 isn't a solution to the problem at hand. Without a turbocharged version, which would likely be at least three years off if development began today despite your projections, that engine can only hope to provide an alternative to the standard 3.6L and does nothing to solve the larger displacement engine issues presented here. And since DI engines are built under the direction of Ford Motor it isn't as though Ford is somehow out of the loop. A bit of shuck and jive here I suspect?

Solutions that wont work aren't really solutions...and Volt wont do what they want or some claim so it doesn't work.

Already covered it and it wasn't that complicated, but since you apparently missed it......At the moment the cutting edge of producable, mainstream V8 development is best represented by the new 4.6L V8 in the Lexus LS460. 380hp, a sweet little torque band, and 24mpg from a DI 4.6L V8 that is pushing a 4500lb, full size luxury car. The only ace in the hole here is the 8-speed auto and the reality is that you can stuff an overdrive just as tall in a 6-speed auto meaning that this car earns it's mileage stripes the hard way.....and I can't stand Toyota so this is no faint praise.

This is the future of the V8 engine. To put things in perspective that 24mpg highway rating would likely have been closer to 28mpg or so under the old ratings system. In a car the size and weight of the Mustang the old ratings system would likely have given this drive-line a figure that started with a 3 on the highway side, and for a ~3500lb coupe pushing 380 hp that would be pretty d**** impressive.

Ford's small V8 engine development program is, by all accounts, very similar in strategy to what Lexus has done. Does this mean that it will produce seriously better mileage numbers than what we have now? Nope, but it does mean that it is plausible so we can have hope that it can be done. We know from what Lexus has managed that the design isn't inherently handicapped in the near term.

So what about the Camaro? Thus far we have the promise of DI on top of what we already get, which means that we have no reason to believe GM has anything that can hope to make a near 400hp Camaro match numbers like those. The reason is simple, DI's feasibility on a production push-rod V8 engine is still questionable at best for reasons already discussed. To wit, DI still has some shortcomings involving issues with the combustion cycle at certain rpms. Separate camshafts for intake and exhaust valves allow more precise control of the same and help combat this, even so, Lexus still felt the need to resort to a hybrid fuel injection system to fully combat the problem even with DOHC's. Given this a push-rod V8 would seem to have little hope of reaping the full benefit of DI in the near future if such a design could even be made production feasible at all.

And, even in the event that CAFE standards become so strict that neither Ford or GM can manage V8's outside of limited production models we know that Ford will have an off the shelf TTV6 that can serve Mustang duty if it has to. Even better that same TTV6 will be doing time under the hood of vehicles which would otherwise be V8 powered, serving to improve Ford's CAFE ratings substantially increasing the likelihood that the V8 Mustang can continue unabated. look to GM for a similar alternative/solution that improves the V8 in these areas or helps alleviate the burden on the same and you'll come up empty because there is nothing.

Hollywood_North GT

You make up all sorts of pet theories to support your hatred of GM and desire to see them fail, while ignoring obvious facts.

As I said: you just like the sound of your own voice. But that voice has little bearing upon, or relationship to, reality.

Whatever.

jsaylor

You're completely out of your depth here.

Slims00ls1z28

J I think it is you that miss the point entirely. Theres too much to try to quote everything you are off base on so I'll touch on what I can.

First about GM tech and current V8's. I never said GM will continue with the current LS arcitecture and stay cam in block SFI. The gen 5 V8 is already in the works and is DI at a minimum. The 6.2L I told you about was a test bed for DI alone. Reguardless, my point was that GM has outperformed many much "higher tech" DOHC V8's with "ancient" technology. Stay with me here not 5 years from now we'll get to that below. Stay with the now or past not the future.

What many fail to realize is that GM has more research in combustion chambers alone than most do in their entire valvetrain placement not including airflow characteristics. GM spent countless thousands researching higher tech aspects such as flame front travel and flame physics or cylinder head airflow to achieve an extremely efficient OHV that are up to par if not over par for the course. Name a v8 pushing 320+ in any factory vehicle than can get 30 mpg without hybrid, e85 or cylinder deactivation. Just straight gas burning V8 of any configuration with a 4 speed automatic I might add. Any? No. It is not suiting situations to my needs it is using facts as a basis of future debate, I pick just two out of a complete line when according to NHTSA I could have used the entire line Trucks included. The LS engine family in general has been better than the OHC employed in V8 lineup of truck and that is where most of the improvements need to come. Not the car family. The disparity in the trucks is what makes the overall CAFE numbers the problem that they had not had to deal with in the past.

It is not antique technology it is older technology refined to its highest point. Think a DOHC 5.4 3 valve V8 or Lexus's DI V8 is anywhere near as high tech as the Carburated Cam in block R07 (google it, NASCAR R07)? Before you can cry it's race technology, it is technology that GM will employ alot of in the Gen V V8 save for the obvious carburation. GM refines an abandoned technology and advances it to a point on or above that of "higher tech" comparables would it not be safe to assume then that they can do the same or better with the same OHC tech which GM is admittedly looking into. They will eek every ounce they can with what they have got before moving on to the next. They take old school technology and across the board (NHTSA figures again) beat Ford's DOHC tech in car and truck applications yet you think they wont be able to manage when they make the switch to DI at a minimum.

Don't flatter yourself either with "explanitory to anybody that understands the difference between DOHC and OHV engines and the benefits and issues with direct injection". I garuntee you I know just as much if not more about engine physics, dynamics, arcitecture and design as you do. I asked to prove this scientifically not dodge the question and pretend you know more about it. Prove it scientifically that placing DI on current LS engines is akin to "wizzing" on the spark plug. Sure adding DI on an engine not specifically developed for DI will make marginal gains however GM jumped in the SIDI game already and is planning more.

Now we get to the future of GM's V8 program. Are you naive to think that just because you haven't heard of it in autoblog that GM does not have any answer to a problem that lies years away? I'll just quote an actual GM insider on this one "...........but right now, no one on the outside knows what we're going to do........... " Fbodfather AKA Scott Settlemeyer. That is all anyone has to say on it. GM has DI tech, GM has turbo tech, GM has DOHC tech and has mastered incorporating the three in not only gas but diesel as well. You think since you haven't heard of it they are just oblivious and doomed to get left behind? If so therin lies the problem, other than the blatent bias and the fact that you think you are the only one who understands physics and engine dynamics.

Now I don't know what crystal ball you get your information on the Zeta platform is but you obviously know way more than anyone at GM concerning it. Hell sounds to me like you know more about the Zeta than the aussies that designed it. I'm not buying it. 2 Zeta vehicles that were an afterthought on the Zeta chassis (rwd impala and GTO) get the axe and all of a sudden GM (according to you) is about to sink it and carry them with it? OK Fact 2 you do not know as much about the Zeta as you think you do. What are its max deminsions? Minimum deminsions? Weight? How many different Layouts are possible? Your obvious bias against GM prevents such so I'll leave this one alone. Need I post Scott again on this?

Now back to the turbo four. You obviously know nothing of this powerplant. It is not a reverse engineered four cylinder with just a turbo slapped on it. It is a Direct injected engine with a ground up turbo designed specifically for this instance. They were developed for use with each other not one added to the other. Research it and you will see it is exactly what Ford is developing and can and does the same thing. V6 to V8 power at 4 cylinder efficiency and reliability. Period. Dress up this miracle Ford engine all you want and in the end it is a purpose designed ground up Direct injected turbo four cylinder. The only difference is GM designed the engine when the ecotec first came out and designed the Direct injection and ground up turbo system later.

Again, you guessing that this 5.0 will be as efficient as this miracle V8 (GM had their DI engines out before lexus BTW) is a hope and a prayer. I already told you earlier, conjecture on the similarities of the two is just that. This 5.0 isn't even in the real world yet there is no possible way to estimate what it's efficiency is. By that logic every pushrod V8 should do the same as an LS1 and it is just not so. Once again there is more to engine physics than just cam placement, injection method and HP ratings. Until the 5.0 is out and tested all you can do is guess and hope period. You can't take scientific similarities and assume the two will be the same. Weather forecasters have been doing that for ages and still can't get it right.

You blast Hollywood for stating that GM has V6's and turbos and can mate them yet you ignore the fact that the twinforce is based on a duratec 35 with DI and Turbos added to it. It is not a mystic Voodoo technology that your average rodder can't understand, they have been doing it for a while. It is something that has been around for a long time, (turbos) added with another old technology (DI), evolved and mated. It is quite simple, just a natural evolution of technology (where have I heard that before) and in about 20 years it too will become obsolete. At last count GM has 3 Direct Injection engines on the market in lots and driveways; 2.2L turbo 4, 2.0 VVT 4, and 3.6L V6. Must not be too complex If GM can have 3 on the market before Ford puts one seeing how Ford is so much ahead of GM.

Obviously current technology is not up to par with the 2020 goal, I never inferred it was. 1950's cars weren't up to todays levels either so what. The point being GM has done its part many years in a row with better CAFE (with more V8 powered cars I might add). Zeta is not the entire lineup of GM but just a small fraction of it and is nowhere near in dire crisis as you want to believe. The truck line is where most of the improvements need to come from bottom line. Lastly this miracle cure from Ford has been around since WWII (Direct Injection in aircraft engines, need a engineering report on why?), and even longer for the turbo (1905), and has been in practical use in most diesels for a long time.

If you wish to debate further lets take it one issue at a time and fully debate it rather than jump around subjectively answering which arguments you wish and declaring yourself right.

Slims00ls1z28

Another crystal ball scenario. Manufacturers have untill 2020 to react to current legislation so even if (give you the benefit of the doubt just for this scenario) GM didn't have a solution at this time you think they won't by then? GM has stayed on top of the MPG issue do think they will honestly just give in the towel and say OK we give up? Again see above, you obviously aren't a GM engineer, technician, worker, spokesman, etc so you cannot claim your opinion as fact no matter how you try to justify it. You have nothing more than biased guesswork at this point.

Lastly as Scott said once before, this article the whole thread is based on is BS and no one outside GM actually knows what goes on inside GM same with Ford etc.

jsaylor

If breaking it up will make things easier for you thats fine by me. lets start with the V8 engine in general and how to keep it practical throughout the next five to ten years.........

First, what GM has done with the LSX engines thus far is admirable, but the reality is that things will have to get much better pretty quickly if GM intends to continue fielding a V8 lineup that can match the newest competition head to head. I keep going back to the Lexus DI 4.6L V8 here as an example of how some manufacturers will remain competitive because this engine is almost certainly indicating the direction you can expect virtually all manufacturer of DOHC V8's to move in order to keep their engines relevant.

And to cover it again Lexus is extracting 24mpg highway under the newest CAFE standards from a sedan which weighs 4500lb and makes 380hp. For reference the DTS makes 275hp from it's 4.6L managing a 23mpg ratings through a 4-speed auto. While the 8-speed auto from Lexus may help a bit here the reality is that all those gears contribute far more to city hwy ratings than a significant improvement on the hwy side of things. The impressive part here is that Lexus is fielding a bit over 100 more hp in a heavier car and still trumps the Caddy in hwy fuel economy.

The problem for GM here is that the DI technology employed on that DOHC Lexus engine wont work as well on a pushrod due to inherent issues with DI itself, and no amount of R&D by GM is going to change that. DI possesses a lot of benefit but the reality is that there are issues with fuel delivery, particularly at certain rpm's, that cause problems making the system less efficient under some conditions and creating issues with drivability.

DOHC engines can cope with this noticeably better since they have separate camshafts controlling the intake and exhaust valves. The benefits this setup lends to VVT help significantly as well. Even so, Lexus still felt the need to produce a hybrid DI/MPI fuel delivery system to help overcome these issues. That doesn't bode well for the OHV design since, while it too could make use of a hybrid fuel injection setup, it wont be able to take advantage of the benefits provided by separate intake and exhaust camshafts for obvious reasons. Again, Mercedes reverted to a DOHC setup soon after introducing their SOHC/3-valve design in anticipation of going the DI route we're discussing right now.

Up to now GM has thumbed their nose at the multiple cam community and not without reason, but in this particular instance separate camshafts are providing a large part of the answer to a problem nobody else has proposed solving otherwise. And we cannot simply say that GM will 'figure it out' because the reality is that separate intake and exhaust camshafts may prove to be a necessary part of the solution that will never be overcome otherwise. Put simply, this is a problem and as yet nobody, including GM, has demonstrated a solution that suits the needs of their current V8.

Whats that all mean. It means that Ford has a small V8 in development right now that we know can employ a solution which is proven to significantly improve mileage in existing V8's of similar design. They may choose not to do so for whatever reason, but the key factor here is that they can choose to do so without the need to redesign their entire V8 lineup.

As it stands, unless GM makes an as yet unknown breakthrough their V8 isn't as compatible with they ways in which we know such an outcome can be achieved. Until they show that they can somehow make one camshaft do what it currently takes four to accomplish, and with a bit of help no less, we have to assume that it just wont happen. And since Ultra has been cancelled, and Northstar is on the way out, were left without a near term alternative that even has the potential of delivering what the Lexus does.

And that is the difference here. Ford may not accomplish what Lexus has but they could do so and with basic engine designs which we know are coming. As yet we don't even know if the LSX V8 can manage the same without abandoning the pushrod setup altogether. In the near term that makes a big difference in what each company realistically has available to keep V8's plausible.

Hollywood_North GT

Just another salient fact that jsaylor apparently chooses to ignore. I raised this very point myself >> WHERE are Ford's DI engines RIGHT NOW?

Slims00ls1z28

Here you compare an almost 20 year old design (Northstar) without a major refresh to a brand new DI engine? The Northstar is older than a standard LS engine and is more akin to LT1 age wise it has made the about same output in power since it arrived in 91. Other than minor advances in coil and spark issues, it is nowhere near the level of even an LS1 in power, fuel efficiency, emissions. Talk about picking comparisons to suit your needs. The only similarities the 2 share is 4.6L DOHC engine and 4 doors. An 8 speed trans and DI alone make up the difference in mpg ratings, and a much newer design along, better camshaft profiles etc probably much better head revisions etc. The 8 speed acts almost like a CVT in the city and allowing a bit lower final drive ratio in overdrive than the 4L60E so you are wrong there as well. All with a 1 mpg better rating. How am I supposed to be impressed? Throw DI and and 8 speed on the old Northstar would shame the Lexus, hell throw an LS1 in it with just a 6 speed and I bet the lexus would be put down.


DOHC OHC or OHV has nothing to do with DI. Inherent issues, certain RPM's, some conditions. You said alot but really haven't said anything. Somebody somewhere did something somehow. The best benefit to direct Injection comes with variable timing which favors ohc in that respect but other than that how does the injection of gasoline directly into the cylinder matter as to how the valve(s) is(are) operated? Biggest problem I have ever seen, read, heard, researched, is combating increased NOx Gasses in increased lean burn applications, or the need for special design pistons to aid the complete mixture of the gasoline and air in the cylinders when DI is an issue educate me on these certain problems at certain rpms under some conditions lend me your source. I'll also add that in automotive theory there is never just one way of doing things. In many cases there are many ways. Otherwise everycar would have to be designed the same. All of this comes from R&D. You cannot change the laws of physics nor can you say you know everything about engine related physics to assertively make that claim.

How do separate camshafts help to cope with this certain problem? There are VVT and VCT cam in block setups that can achieve the same thing as a OHC VVT setup. GM already employs one and is actively researching variable rocker technology as well. What obvious reasons? OHC's main benefit to OHV is less mass in the valvetrain (overcome with better lighter materials as of late), easier to employ vvt (overcome by recent cam phasers and vvt cams themselves as well as variable rocker are geometry), better high rpm stability (moot when talking about fuel saving techniques), and ease in using more valves (overcome with large light valves). So what about mercedes they have one design. So does lexus, so does GM, so does Ford, Mitsubishi and a host of others, and all use a different route.

GM has not thumbed their nose at anything. GM uses DOHC in everything from V8's (northstar, aurora and at one time LT5), V6's, I5's, and I4's. Cam in blocks are just simpler to produce which helps keep costs down, they are smaller allowing smaller hood bays, and lighter. Separate camshafts MAY prove necessary that MIGHT never be overcome otherwise. Who knows at this venture, because no one alive knows how the combustion engine will evolve. I will agree though that it is a problem that as of yet no one, including Lexus and Mercedes, had demonstrated the only solution to the V8.

Assuming too much again. GM does have designs to accomplish a 2 camshaft scenario with a traditional cam in block and one cam. Aside from their DOHC R&D they are also working on variable geometry rocker arms to add the extra 2 settings needed to parallel that of 4 camshafts. I still iterrate Lexus hasn't delivered anything astonishing short of the 8 speed automatic and employment of DI in their GS460.

Then again Ford might find something better than Lexus. Otherwise they could just copy it. If lexus found the magic bullet all would later incorporate it. In the automotive world insisting that there is only one way of doing things limits potential and will always be proved wrong later on.

jsaylor

Yes, because this changes everything about this arg...oh, wait...no it doesn't. Everything you've posted has been rebutted and easily so. GM's existing DI designs aren't good enough since they don't solve the problems the BMW TTI6, Lexus V8, or upcoming Ecoboost engines do. The HF V6 offers a modest power improvement for no gain in hwy ratings and a loss in city ratings while their GTDI four offers improved power and somewhat better fuel economy but still doesn't come close to matching the improvements of the TTDi six cylinder designs fielded by BMW or Ford's upcoming Ecoboost designs. This isn't just about DI, this is about DI designs which solve the problems being discussed at hand. Since GM's existing designs effectively don't that would render any advantage your trying to claim here non-existent. You can start adding value to the conversation at any time.

jsaylor

Oh please. I've yet to lob a personal attack yet in this little debate...in fact I'm going out of my way to be polite.

No, they didn't. For reference Ford has been working on what we now know as the Ecoboost GTDI V6 for over two years already, and this on an engine which likely wont debut before early next year. We can say this because the MKR with a working prototype of a Twinforce/Ecoboost V6 was shown at the NAIAS in 2006. The reality of the situation is that the engine has been in development a good bit longer, again as indicated by a working prototype at NAIAS in January 2006. Do note that this is hardly the only example and that I had no idea how long Ecoboost/TF had been in development when I made the '3 years' statement.

You scoffed at the notion that it would take three years to develop such a piece using an inference to what a 'hot rodder' could do in his garage. This begs for a reality check because this isn't anything like when your uncle dropped that supercharged small block into his Laguna. Engineering an engine that works and works well takes a long time and a whole lot of money.

Further you claim this isn't voodoo, but in this case it is exactly that. Despite what you want people to believe what Ford has accomplished with the Ecoboost V6 has thus far been managed by one other company....BMW. You did point out that Ford is utilizing technology already employed by others to accomplish this. Like many other things in this argument I was already well aware of this assuming it to be a given and therefore didn't warrant specific mention but I was apparently wrong.

The reality is that this applies to everything in the auto world.....in some measure everything has been done before, but the end result and what it takes to get there is what we are after here. Ford's GTDI V6 produces at least 340hp and 340lb-ft torque from 2000-4500rpm while offering a roughly 20% improvement in fuel economy compared to what a 4.6L currently offers in the same application. Do note that insiders have universally indicated that these numbers are conservative, which is par for the course with Ford's pre-production estimates lately.

What does this mean? Using the existing Mustang GT for the sake of reference that means you could expect the above mentioned hp and tq numbers or better along with a 27.6mpg hwy rating for the manual and a 26.4mpg hwy rating for the auto. And this doesn't take into consideration the potential gearing benefits reaped through the use of a 6-speed auto or manual, etc. That would put such a Mustang on par with the 3.6L Malibu in terms of fuel consumption, which is pretty impressive for a 340hp car with a torque curve straight from the muscle car era. Other people may be building twin turbo six cylinder engines but as yet nobody outside of Ford and BMW has accomplished the above. The lesson here should be that a turbo application is not just a turbo application.

Thus far, there aren't even the vaguest rumours to suggest GM is seriously working on a volume production, high mileage alternative to their V8 which indicates no program at the worst and a program in the very early stages of development at best indicating that GM would be lucky to have something similar to the Ecoboost V6 by the 2012MY, or three years after Ford will have it.

Let's limit this to the portions which are interesting, meaning the multi-cam/multi-valve and turbo engines get to stay. Heard anything about a potential release date for any of these? Possible rumours of a show car debuting with a prototype of one of these engines? You will hear and then see these things before any of these engines get anywhere near production trim because, to be realistic, we always do.

Not only we have not yet seen any of them in any form yet the rumour mill still barely even acknowledges their presence in most cases. So where are they? They are on a drawing board somewhere a few years away from production. And that is the part you keep missing. It isn't that GM cannot or will not design and build these engines, it is that they are late to the game and right now being late is a very bad thing. And while you may be dieing to argue that they aren't as late to the game as I'm indicating, the reality is that they are well behind Ford.

No, it wont completely replace the V8 engine. But I have no idea what part of 340lb-ft of torque from 2000-4500rpm, and likely more than that, wont tow a 10,000lb boat. The reality is that production Ecoboost 3.5L hp and tq ratings appear likely to rival the overall power delivery of the 5.4L V8 more closely than the 4.6L V8 it is replacing. And this is another important factor, Ecoboost over-delivers in every respect wether discussing power production or fuel consumption. Once again, a turbo V6 isn't just a turbo V6 and the reality is that the Ecoboost V6 puts Ford in a far better position than GM is in.

You continually underestimate the difficulty in accomplishing what Ford and BMW have done. As for your development estimates, they are far too short. I addressed this above and wont revisit it here.

I actually think we almost manage to agree here. Yes and no. The reality is that if both Ford and Chevy accomplished what Lexus has with their latest V8 it would help the case of the V8 considerably but it wont be enough on it's own to allow them to install engines with V8 like power at their discretion....it would be an important part of the answer, but not all of the answer. Throw in something like Ford's Ecoboost V6 which is a genuine, high mileage V8 alternative and combined you have something which looks much more like an answer to the question of how to keep V8 power in cars at the manufacturers discretion, or something close to it, despite rising CAFE requirements. Since GM has nothing like the Ecoboost V6 set to debut anytime soon we have a situation where throwing DI on a LS series V8, even assuming it works better than I suspect that it will, isn't going to be enough on its own.

As yet hybrids are not an across the board answer for several reasons. And since Ford and Lexus both already have hybrid designs that work as well and better than those fielded by GM this isn't a solution that only GM has immediate access to even if it were feasible for high volume production. To be fair GM did take a route here which has some advantages, they traded the increased fuel efficiency of the Ford and Toyota designs for something which is cheaper and easier to produce and implement giving them the opportunity to beat the competition to the punch for at least a little while. Unfortunately, the reality appears to be that Toyota will, much to my chagrin, likely be the first to implement hybrid technology into volume production despite higher costs due no doubt to their very deep pockets. And while Toyota's plans for high volume implementation are optimistic IMO they are virtually certain to beat everybody else to the punch either way, which largely negates the advantage of the GM design.

All of the above. What makes the Lexus V8 special is the ways in which it differs from everybody elses design, and that it works so well right out of the box. Prior to the 4.6L Lexus DIV8 nobody had really realised anything like the full potential of the DI design in a naturally aspirated format. Generally past NA DI applications were a choice between a fair improvement in hp or fuel economy, but not both. The 4.6L Lexus V8 improves both and arguably to a greater measure than older designs managed to improve only one or the other. The hybrid fuel injection system is the primary factor that made all of this a reality. Just as it was with turbos direct injection is not simply direct injection....the Lexus V8 is a breakthrough and is the almost certainly template for how every other company is going to implement DI into their NA DOHC engines for the forseeable future.

To be blunt your using propaganda numbers from a one off R&D piece for which we have no indication of production plausibility or driveability. That is a good bit different than utilizing factory numbers for engines which are in production now or soon to be released. I've gone out of my way to exclusively use the latter here, even using similar existing design where necessary to given an indication of where Ford could go, for reasons which should be obvious. Even more, you keep using the Corvette to give an indication of what these designs can be expected to accomplish. The Vette is a 3200lb coupe with the CD of a teardrop and in no way shape or form is indicative of what GM can or more importantly has extracted from their volume production pieces. The same driveline in other designs always yields far worse results.

Please. The DTS was chosen because it comes as close to parity with the Lexus in terms of size as any sedan GM fields right now with the options be limited more or less to the DTS, STS, Lucerne, Lacrosse, and Impala. Not only was DTS the closest in size and intent but it is also the one which makes GM look the best which is frankly why I chose it. You see, my argument doesn't need any extra help which is why I don't continually cite outliers which artificially bolster my argument.......tell us about that oh so relevant Corvette again.

If you prefer I could use the STS which makes GM look even worse even if it does give a better indication of the Lexus advantages. The STS manages 24mpg hwy from a 4.6L V8 producing 320hp backed by a six speed auto with a lower final drive ratio than that found in the Lexus and does so in a car which weighs 400lb less than the Lexus. What does this mean? This means that for the purposes of hwy mileage ratings the Lexus is at a disadvantage in terms of weight (400lb heavier) and gearing (despite two fewer gears the Caddy's final drive ratio is lower than that in the Lexus which is what matters here) yet still manages to knock down the same hwy fuel economy despite making 60 more hp and 57more lb-ft of torque. A heavier car which makes far more hp and torque yet still manages to knock down identical fuel economy even with a deep final drive ratio? In baseball terms this is called a shutout.

As for your insinuation that dropping an LS V8 under the hood would give GM the edge over the Lexus lets throw the Pontiac G8 in the mix. And with the cancellation of the Ultra V8 engine program this is going to be the near future of GM so it is certainly applicable. Pertinent numbers? A bit lighter even than the STS thus further increasing the weight advantage over the Lexus (real world difference...about 600lb or more) the Pontiac also still uses an ever so slightly lower final drive ratio than does the Lexus so we still have no 8-speed advantage for the hwy. The Pontiac comes up 18hp shy compared to the Lexus but does field a 24lb-ft improvement in terms of torque. Hwy rating, again identical to that of the Lexus despite similar power and gearing and much less weight, which means the GM is still coming up more than a little short. That is every change you cited would make the GM outperform the Lexus with the exception of DI, the plausibility of which on GM's V8 remains to be seen, and the GM still loses despite being 600lb lighter. Throw this same combo into a GM sedan weighing more like 4500lb and fuel mileage is going to drop more than a little.

Of course the problems I initially stated remain, and without anything like a real rebuttal I might add. That is, assuming that GM somehow manages to quickly whip out near future pushrod smallblock that uses DI and overcomes the obstacles to match what Lexus has accomplished it wont be enough on it's own. (I've already pointed this out twice IIRC) They will still need something like the Ecoboost GTDI V6 as an even higher mileage alternative if they want to keep installing V8 power levels when and where the want. What do they have to accomplish this in the near term? The answer is still nothing.

This isn't a secret. Thus far reaping the full potential of DI has proved a bit ellusive to say the least, particularly for naturally aspirated applications. As I stated earlier most DI applications represented a decent improvement on hp or mileage if only because the advantage was small enough that trying to improve both netted too little advantage in either respect. Take GM's 3.6L V6 for example. The switch to DI nets 40hp but no gain in hwy fuel economy and a small loss in city fuel economy. That's a whole lot of change to the fuel induction setup to get 40hp and lose some city mpg.

The problem? For whatever reason DI doesn't currently deliver as efficient a charge under certain engine conditions as do existing multi-point designs. The truly sad part here is that both of the issues you cite are components of this problem, what exactly do you think the more efficient mixing of fuel and air addresses? Want a source...how about we just use the one your using above since it agrees with everything I have stated thus far. While it can be a good thing this proves the problem with Google. You've conducted a search to try and bolster your argument, found something which agrees completely with what I have been saying, and yet you know so little about the subject you don't even realize that it is addressing exactly what I am talking about.

You think those fuel mixture problems might be occurring primarily at certain rpms and under certain conditions? (they typically do) Think those problems might cause driveability and power production issues? Think Lexus might have solved those by using a hybrid fuel injection system in conjunction with VVT and DOHC's? Think you've heard all of this before but missed the connection? I didn't go into greater detail because it shouldn't be necessary if you know as much about engines as you claim. You just answered your own question and didn't even realize it.

At this point some people in this conversation would go well out of their way to belittle your argument for the sake of some online chest beating. I wont because that isn't why I'm here and you frankly haven't done anything to deserve it at this point. You could learn a lot on these forums, and from people who know a good bit more than I do, but neither you or Hollywood is on that list of people and your going to need to give up on the 'defend GM or die' philosophy if that is your intention.

GM could go a lot of different routes to manage the same thing Lexus has, but given what we know right now maintaining the typical pushrod route isn't likely one of them. There may prove to be a fix that allows the continuation of push-rods with no drawbacks but, if there is, we don't yet know what it is and that is a problem. Lexus has found a solution to this problem that any automaker who currently produces DOHC V8's can employ without having to completely revise their designs. Since the other routes GM could take more or less involve a different engine design altogether they aren't exactly a quick fix.

Separate intake and exhaust camshafts help with solving the problems with DI since the same allow for a higher degree of control as it relates to the combustion cycle. This is very basic and is the same reason why VVT can be used to greater effect here. The more finite the control over a valvetrain the better I can control the combustion process and therefore the better I can deal with any issue involving that process. Mercedes is the perfect example since, as I mentioned before, they decided to return to DOHC's from their SOHC/3-valve design when the decided to begin the development of direct injection for the very reasons I mention

GM has conducted development on such designs but that is a far cry from simply being able to churn one out at will. And the Lexus DI system, and how they managed it, would be exactly what I have been talking about in the first place.

They may at that. And then again they may just copy it, they certainly can since their engine design is very similar to what Lexus employs already sans the DI. No question more than a few R&D departments are tearing down Lexus V8's top figure out how to implement what Lexus has accomplished. The point is that they can just copy it if they have to and without the need to seriously retool their existing/upcoming V8. We know that what Lexus has done is a serious solution to a serious issue and that it works on engines like Ford's V8. We cannot say the same about GM's smallblock since DOHC's have thus far always been a part of the DI solution.

As I stated initially. GM has no V8 alternative anywhere near ready to go and the ability of the small block to up the ante as significantly as designs like the new Lexus V8 is questionable at best. GM has some TDi V8's coming for pickups, but so does Ford with the reality being that, right now, Ford is ahead in the race for greater mpg in nearly all respects.

Ford has the Ecoboost V6 set to debut in the 2009 MKS with applications slated to run from F-Series, to Edge, to Flex and beyond. GM currently has no counterpart. Ford has the 4 cylinder Ecoboost set to debut within the same time frame. GM's existing turbo four is more akin to the existing Mazda MZR designs and wont be competitive with Ecoboost in terms of economy despite delivering less hp than does the Ford unit. GM has no apparent plans for a comparable low pressure turbo four anytime in the near future.

Currently Ford has an advantage here, no plainer way to state it.

Hollywood_North GT

Here's a little value, genius: Try wrapping your head around this simple syllogism >> GM has DI engines for sale right now. Ford does not. Therefore, Ford's proclamations about prototypes under development cannot support your hypothetical arguments when the General's proven technology is already on the road today and in a further state of physical advancement than anything on Ford's proving grounds.

Clearly they do not. No plainer way to state it.

jsaylor

Please. This little argument of yours was trashed long ago. For the purposes of this argument GM's DI simply isn't good enough. Ford has access to MZR GTDi engines ready to go sitting on the shelf and passed them by to produce an all new design because, just like the GM units, they didn't perform well enough to provide solutions to the issues being discussed here.

Ford's Ecoboost engines begin rolling out in about a year if not less, indicating an engine which is, effectively, done but for final tweaks prior to ramp up. Ford has already released pre-production power numbers and what we can expect in the way of fuel economy improvements. Also worth mentioning is that, over the last few years, has always been conservative on such things which has once again been confirmed by all the typical insiders who have already stated these numbers are intentionally conservative. We're well beyond prototype stage and have salient numbers in hand.

Since this argument is about what solutions Ford and GM can do to solve these problems in the near term the relevance is obvious. GM, on the other hand, has existing DI designs which don't do nearly as much as the newest DI designs....including Ecoboost....to improve fuel economy and/or power. In effect, for the purposes of this argument they don't actually do what GM needs DI to do. At least, they don't do nearly enough of it. Near future improvements to GM's DI program? Nothing.

This is getting so easy the fun is almost gone.....almost.

Hollywood_North GT

Face it, the fun is never gone when you're just trolling for attention...which you most obviously are.

Oh, and you apparently couldn't get your head around my syllogism, other than to blatantly state that Ford's vaporware is somehow superior to the technology that GM has on the road...today.

Nice try.

jsaylor

You are obviously far more interested in the appearance of being correct than you are in actually being correct. I think that you know your argument is bankrupt, you just don't care. News flash, in this thread you've accomplished neither.

You may now resume your regularly scheduled trolling.

Hollywood_North GT

Anytime you want to stop stealing my material for your rebuttals...

97svtgoin05gt