Are you an EV owner who has received a shockingly high quote for repairs? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to [email protected] by Friday, May 26 for more details.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
> term) engines are not cutting it.
Well, I guess I don't understand how you define "cutting it."
As I and several others have pointed out, the Malibu 3500 gets the same mileage as a 4 cylinder Camry, yet it has an additional 43 hp and 58 ft/lb torque. Free horsepower and torque is a good thing from my point of view.
It's not as smooth as the V6 in my '03 Accord, but it's not exactly rough either. It's smoother than the 3800 in my '98 GP. Go drive one and see/hear/feel for yourself.
Cripes, right there is an admission its not as good.
Being second best or third best or whatever doesn't help GM's image.
And so many other manufacturers have no problem producing high feature mills in their cars of equal or less price and equal or more featues and room.
It hurts GM in no way to offer as an option an engine they already have sitting on the shelf and engineered for the Epsilon chassis. As previous poster noted, the Opel version has like ten engines to pick from including a quality v6.
this is equivalent to something as lame as not letting a buyer get a side by side fridge/freezer in their new house.
If I was buying I would just get the 3.5L anyway. 200 hp is plenty for me.
That was a decent engine in its day, but pretty dated now.
There is no motivation in Europe for spending a lot to develop a large V6. All the larger cars there are going diesel now.
I think you will see a 3.6 V6 option in the coupe and convertible. GM is making a new factory in Indiana to build them. I do not see Cadillac and Buick using all the production.
the new GM global DOHC v6's were to be built in 2.8l, 3.2l, and 3.6l versions, at least what I know.
And yes there is a turbo four in the Vectra. Snappy but not overpowering. A super/turbo charged 2.4 ecotec similar to cobalt/ion redline would be a good option for the G6 too. A base G6 with a stick and turbo, I could even go for that.
The 9-3 Linear is quite spritely and has only 175hp, but 195 lb.ft of torque early and wide. Thing is the motor revs out too. Can't imagine how nice the Vector / Aero is. Will there be a Viggen?
Maybe someone else here does know.
G6 is getting good reviews as far as fit and finish. Posting numerous times on Edmunds doesn't change what journalists say.
You are right, the press was impressed over all and I think that says a lot. Given what I have seen in my visits and drive of the 04 Malibu, I will be surprised if this is not a very nice car.
Because they won't put anything besides that into their cars, at least for v6's.
Looks kind of "beaky", i.e. pointy front end like the beak of a bird. I didn't particuarly care for it, though styling is still better than the Malibu.
Honestly? People largely ignored it. The GM cars that got attention were the 3 small sporty ones: Saturn Curve, Pontiac Solstice, and Chevy Nomad. Now those were cool.
Besides that, the 'vette got attention, but actually those 3 were together and drew more attention than the Vette did.
The G6 was ignored, seriously. I was able to get an unobstructed look at it for a long time.
With the Mustang, I had to elbow and fight to get a 3rd row view. Had to take the picture by holding the camera up in the air and guessing.
These were the Industry Preview days, most folks there were dealer employees or media. Autoweek had a design forum so it was packed with their staff.
I guess people were not voluntarily going up to see it.
Solistice is gorgeous. The designer was there, with his Mom!
Whay can't the new 4-cyl and super 6-cyl be available at launch? At least have the big engine there, with the 200HP six, and the old 4, then bring in the new 4 for the 2-3 year facelift.
I've driven an '04 Malibu, and the 3.5 is just fine, OHV or not.
My concern with the G6 is pricing. The Malibu sedan tops out at $25.7, which is at least $2K too much ($1,000 cash back, I know), so the well-equipped G6 will hit $28 or 29, I bet. The panorama roof alone will go for at least $1500, I'm sure.
which underscores why a TSX or Accord/Altima is a raging deal vs. this pushrod G6.
more i look at the production pics, the less appealing it looks vs. the concept car. More 'lost in translation'. The G6 concept was so muscular and graceful. The production version.........isn't.
As far as pushrods, a midwest whiner sent in a letter to Car and Driver regarding pushrods and the 3.5 on the Malibu. Loved C/d's response. Something to the effect of, the difference is obvious if you listen to the engines in comparison. LOL, duh.
Even M/t's family sedna comparo pointed out the 3.5 was thrashy.
If the well equipped G6 is 28 or 29k why would they try to sell it with pushrods?
In fact it makes torque at lower revs than most multi-cammers, so you don't need to drive it like you stole it. Effectively, with fewer revs it could be driven more smoothly/quietly.
TSX is a 4 banger and it would be screaming near redline to keep up with these quiet V6s.
You really should drive it before using all these 2nd hand opinions.
I agree that the design didn't quite meet up to expectations.
A 28K G6 is mearly an estimate but even if true, the car would likely sell for $24-25K and that ain't bad for a 240hp beauty!
I meant it'll probably be around 28K for a 240HP G6, because having two midsizers in the same segment (one with more HP) wouldn't coincide well.
There is no way GM will want to have a new facility at anything but full operational capacity.
Where do you get Lutz saying the 3.5 is all GM wants for the G6? Certainly not in any of the dozens of articles I have seen.
3.9L if like the 3.5L should be one nice motor. I can't wait to try one.
"Lutz better put those intake manifold gaskets on straight"
LOL....still chuckiling, my father in law is not! It cost him 1200 bucks!
I haven't seen expected fuel economy numbers for the GM 3.9L DOD, but maybe they will be the same as the smaller non-DOD 3.5L given the 8% savings estimate.
I thought GM said DOD was only feasible on OHV engines?
Second, GM said it was much easier to do DoD on OHVs. Honda already sells a DOHC DoD in Japan, I think GM is just making excuses.
Lastly, I am going to make a bold prediction. In maybe 2-3 years, I am going to guess that GM will drop the 3500 and make the 3900 (VVT, BTW) standard on GT. I think they will then put the 18-cylinder 3900 VVT DoD in for the GXP trim level, good for 270 horses. By then most, if not all, trim levels will get the new 6-speed auto. That part is fact.
BTW the coupe will be out in mid 2005, and the convertible more than a year after the sedan. Neither will debut until next year's round of autoshows, but GMI does have a sneek peak.
My suggestions of dumping the weight of those cast iron blocks go ignored. Probably save more gas overall. DOD is about as dumb as those engines that turned off at stop lights and restarted as the accelerator pedal was touched. (Even Honda played with this looser!) The Cadillac 3.6 DOHC makes the 3.9L an obsolete project for some 3rd world nation (3.4L = China, 3.5L = Mexico). Put VVT on the 3.6L for Cadillac and give the other divisions a de-tuned version. Let's start using 21st century engine technology GM!
The 3.9L is actually a perfect engine for this car because the torque that will come from this engine will smoke any other car in it's class.
That doesn't necessarily mean it will outaccelerate the other cars. We have to wait and see.
Honda seems to be serious about Hybrid technology ever since Toyota made the Prius. I'm excited about the Hybrid Accord. If it can maintain the sportiness the V6 has while giving great gas mileage, then almost nothing will be this car's con.
> Cripes, right there is an admission its not as
Thanks for quoting me out of context.
Did you read the rest of my post?
they said that because there wasn't any OHC engines they made that they could test it on......