# GM Developing Twin-Turbo V6 to Rival Ford's EcoBoost



## Administrator (Mar 14, 2008)

You knew it would only take time before General Motors took on Ford and its EcoBoost engine, and that time has just about come reports GMInsideNews. According to GMI's sources inside General Motors, the automaker is currently in development of a 3.0-liter V6 with twin-turbochargers. There's no word on actual output, but the same sources say it should rival the larger (3.5-liter) Ford powerplant. Ford's EcoBoost engine makes 365-hp in the SHO and was designed as a V8 replacement.

The engine's code is LF3, in direct reference to the LF1 direct-injection 3.0L V6 currently offered in several GM products.

Currently GM offers a turbocharged 2.8-liter V6 in the Cadillac SRX (above), which makes 300-hp and 295 ft-lbs of torque, so a reasonable bump over that output is certain.

This new twin-turbo V6 is expected in the flagship Cadillac XTS around 2012 and is likely to be used in several other GM products, including the upcoming 3 Series fighter, the ATS. In addition, there's even a strong possibility that such a motor could find its way into the Camaro – something which was previewed at last year's SEMA Show, when GM showed a twin-turbo 3.6-liter V6 stuffed under the hood of the muscle car.

More: *GM Developing Twin-Turbo V6 to Rival Ford's EcoBoost* on AutoGuide.com


----------



## 6QTS11OZ (Mar 27, 2005)

Hmmm. Interesting! A twin turbo V6 in a mid-size car should be nice. Since I don't really care for the new Camaro I don't care if they put it in it or not.


----------



## BlackJackByte (Aug 31, 2009)

6QTS11OZ said:


> Hmmm. Interesting! A twin turbo V6 in a mid-size car should be nice. Since I don't really care for the new Camaro I don't care if they put it in it or not.


Agreed...


----------



## jpalamar (Jul 22, 2008)

Some cars should just have a V8, Camaro's and Vettes are 2 of them. A V6TT will be really nice to see in GM. Cars need to be about fun and not just getting from A-B.


----------



## BWinc (Sep 21, 2005)

Camaro always had the V6 option, so no biggie.A V6 making near 400 hp? That's nothing to sneeze at. But putting it into other models, if you're going to throw that engine in transversely and kill all that power, why bother?


----------



## MJGTOWISH (Jun 15, 2006)

BWinc said:


> Camaro always had the V6 option, so no biggie.A V6 making near 400 hp? That's nothing to sneeze at. But putting it into other models, if you're going to throw that engine in transversely and kill all that power, why bother?


*Not true

Gm has put up to 303H.P. in front whell drive cars the 08/09 impala ss had 303 and it put this to the wheels via a 5.3 smallblock v8. My car stock had very lil torque steer, and i was able to light up the tires  but after a few mods it get a lil strong but imho it could have been fixed with a LSD*


----------



## GM4life (Mar 18, 2007)

MJGTOWISH said:


> *Not true
> 
> Gm has put up to 303H.P. in front whell drive cars the 08/09 impala ss had 303 and it put this to the wheels via a 5.3 smallblock v8. My car stock had very lil torque steer, and i was able to light up the tires  but after a few mods it get a lil strong but imho it could have been fixed with a LSD*


Unless the LS4 was under rated. GM "stated" the LS4 5.3 rated at 303hp, it was not included under GM SAE certs.


GM needs a twin turbo V6, GM has plenty of experiance with FI motors. I'm surprised the Ford jumped ahead of GM on this one. GM did work with Jay Leno on his twin turbo V6 Camaro, putting around 425hp.


----------



## Poncho Dan (Jun 30, 2009)

I'll bet my first born that these never see installation in any of their trucks...

They need to bring back a smallish straight six that can take a lot of boost. Hell, just tack two more cylinders onto the end of an LNF... that should give you 3.0 Liters and roughly 435HP using HP/Litre ratio, plus gobs of low end, straight six torque.


----------



## 6QTS11OZ (Mar 27, 2005)

Poncho Dan said:


> I'll bet my first born that these never see installation in any of their trucks...
> 
> They need to bring back a smallish straight six that can take a lot of boost. Hell, just tack two more cylinders onto the end of an LNF... that should give you 3.0 Liters and roughly 435HP using HP/Litre ratio, plus gobs of low end, straight six torque.


I don't think they need it in the trucks anyway. There are plenty of engine options for the trucks. The turbocharged Duramax is the only FI they need for the trucks unless they put the twin turbo V6 in the mid-size Colorado. Now that would be nice though.


----------



## Poncho Dan (Jun 30, 2009)

6QTS11OZ said:


> put the twin turbo V6 in the mid-size Colorado. Now that would be nice though.


This. And there's no reason not to, they put the 5.3 in there. I was surprised they did not offer the 2.0 LNF as a motor option.


----------



## MJGTOWISH (Jun 15, 2006)

Poncho Dan said:


> This. And there's no reason not to, they put the 5.3 in there. I was surprised they did not offer the 2.0 LNF as a motor option.


Price one and the 5.3 makes much more sense in the truck.


----------



## BWinc (Sep 21, 2005)

MJGTOWISH said:


> *Not true
> 
> Gm has put up to 303H.P. in front whell drive cars the 08/09 impala ss had 303 and it put this to the wheels via a 5.3 smallblock v8. My car stock had very lil torque steer, and i was able to light up the tires  but after a few mods it get a lil strong but imho it could have been fixed with a LSD*


I'm not saying you can't get any performance out of a transverse engine, but you can't tell me you'll get as much out of it as if it was in longitudinally.


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

I don't think it makes any difference to the motor which direction it's facing for the HP it puts out.


----------



## Poncho Dan (Jun 30, 2009)

MJGTOWISH said:


> Price one and the 5.3 makes much more sense in the truck.


I suppose, but if I'm (me personally) purchasing a small truck, I'm looking for better fuel economy than the fullsize line, without sacrificing the ability to tow something beyond a jet ski or a stake trailer full of yard waste, which I could just as easily do with my car. It doesn't make sense to me to offer larger motors with less power than other smaller motors...they're inherently less efficient. Besides, a boosted motor can offer big TQ down low when you really need it on a truck.


----------



## GM4life (Mar 18, 2007)

Poncho Dan said:


> I suppose, but if I'm (me personally) purchasing a small truck, I'm looking for better fuel economy than the fullsize line, without sacrificing the ability to tow something beyond a jet ski or a stake trailer full of yard waste, which I could just as easily do with my car. It doesn't make sense to me to offer larger motors with less power than other smaller motors...they're inherently less efficient. Besides, a boosted motor can offer big TQ down low when you really need it on a truck.


It would make better sense to have a V8, a stright six like you said or a supercharged(roots, whipple)V8 in a truck. Turbo motors except diesels don't have the flat, low to mid-range torque ideal for a truck. GM did have the I5 in the Colderado before, I drove that thing it it was a stright dog.

Now what we need in small trucks is small 2.9L V6 Turbo diesel that GM has in Europe, 406 lb-ft at 2000rpm!


----------



## 6QTS11OZ (Mar 27, 2005)

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!! The best engine for a truck when it comes to towing is the diesel. Period! There's a reason semi-trucks have turbo and non-turbo diesels. TOWING! There's a reason trains have diesel engines. TOWING! Cargo ships. HAULING! Longevity, low end torque and efficiency. That will not happen with a gas engine even if a supercharger is added. Longevity and efficiency will be thrown out the window when the s/c is added. Plus a simple programmer for the turbo-diesel like Bully Dog can maximize the engine management system to where a gas engine, even a supercharger is added later, will not be able to touch it in any aspect other than probably max horsepower. Hopefully we* all* know that horsepower isn't as important as torque when it comes to towing. Can someone prove my thoughts differently? Oh! And before someone goes on the internet and find that 1 out of 6 million gas engine trucks that might compare to the performance of a wel designed diesel engine, I'll let you stay in your confused world and not even entertain trying to one upping you. 

Now I have to get off my soap box and go remove the sand out of my undies.


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

diesels are used in trains and ships just cause they are low RPM high torque motors used to turn generators which in turn power electric motors to power the vehicles. The lower the RPMs and the higher the torque the better.


----------



## GM4life (Mar 18, 2007)

:confused I don't know what brought on the diesel rant, but I think everyone knows the bases of the diesel. And Americans/goverment don't like diesels like the Europeans do. Besides what* Poncho *and I are talking about you generally don't see turbocharged engines(except the ones on diesels) or even any type of FI in a production truck. We have seen them in the past with GM first and then Ford in "sport" trucks but thats were it stops. Now I've seen guys add superchargers to their gas trucks to increase the towing power, because they tow chit. Much more cost effective than going out and buying a brand new diesel truck. I talked to this guy that had a whipple supercharger on his 5.3L Chevy because he needed the towing power. I don't know how many of you try to tow stuff like a car behind a 5.3L Chevy but I tell you this, it will do it but not that good.


----------



## 6QTS11OZ (Mar 27, 2005)

Rukee said:


> diesels are used in trains and ships just cause they are low RPM high torque motors used to turn generators which in turn power electric motors to power the vehicles. The lower the RPMs and the higher the torque the better.


That's supporting what I was saying. For what trains and ships are used for (hauling heavy ass loads) the diesel engine is better suited for their need.



GM4life said:


> :confused I don't know what brought on the diesel rant, but I think everyone knows the bases of the diesel. And Americans/goverment don't like diesels like the Europeans do. Besides what* Poncho *and I are talking about you generally don't see turbocharged engines(except the ones on diesels) or even any type of FI in a production truck. We have seen them in the past with GM first and then Ford in "sport" trucks but thats were it stops. *Now I've seen guys add superchargers to their gas trucks to increase the towing power, because they tow chit. Much more cost effective than going out and buying a brand new diesel truck.* I talked to this guy that had a whipple supercharger on his 5.3L Chevy because he needed the towing power. I don't know how many of you try to tow stuff like a car behind a 5.3L Chevy but I tell you this, it will do it but not that good.


I really don't see how that is more cost effective. They guy had to purchase the gasoline powered truck at some time didn't he unless someone gave it to him for free. Once you add a supercharger and other supporting mods which should include beefing up every driveline component from the trans to the rear end as well as beefing up the frame, I'm sure the price will sky rocket well pass the cost of a diesel truck. If it was me and I needed a truck "strictly for towing" I would get the diesel and be done with it but like I said, that's just me. And knowing a little about what the state of California prefers, diesels are liked a tad bit more than gasoline powered engines. Plus with some diesels now using bio-diesel fuels, diesel engines really aren't too bad of a thing anymore. Cali has started to crack down on diesels a little more though. Just a simple visual opacity reading of their emissions can result in a diesel truck being pulled over and inspected. Fines can get way up in the thousands in a hurry.


----------



## GM4life (Mar 18, 2007)

6QTS11OZ said:


> *I really don't see how that is more cost effective. They guy had to purchase the gasoline powered truck at some time didn't he unless someone gave it to him for free. Once you add a supercharger and other supporting mods which should include beefing up every driveline component from the trans to the rear end as well as beefing up the frame, I'm sure the price will sky rocket well pass the cost of a diesel truck. If it was me and I needed a truck "strictly for towing" I would get the diesel and be done with it but like I said, that's just me.* And knowing a little about what the state of California prefers, diesels are liked a tad bit more than gasoline powered engines. Plus with some diesels now using bio-diesel fuels, diesel engines really aren't too bad of a thing anymore. Cali has started to crack down on diesels a little more though. Just a simple visual opacity reading of their emissions can result in a diesel truck being pulled over and inspected. Fines can get way up in the thousands in a hurry.


Diesels are only offered in full size trucks. This guy had a older body style Tahoe or a 1500 Silverado w/a camper(i don't remember that was some years ago)that was based on the GMT800 platform, thats a truck platform. No need to beef up anything like you do with a car. I'm pretty shure that the vehicle was paid for, so paying $5-6K for a Whipple S/C for occasional towing is the way to go. You'll pay more than that in taxes and interest for a new or used truck, expecially if I'll allready own the thing. For people that buy trucks/SUV's that don't tow that often, so no need for a expensive diesel truck. So people that want alittle more umph the S/C is the way to go. I know in California, if you buy a diesel truck your taxes will be higher than that of a smaller truck because you get charged for GVW taxes and all thoes other weight taxes based on the size of the truck, yada, yada, yada. So would I buy a 2500 or 3500 so I can have the pulling power that I would only use a few times a year(pop-up, car, ect.); buy or keep my DD 1500/SUV and mod it to do what I need it to do every once in awhile? Thats what I mean by cost effective.

But diesels are the way to go for the heavy duty stuff like you mention above. Now modding a gas engine to do what a diesel does hell naw, no way that not the way to go. Thats why I posted putting the 2.9L V6 Diesel w/406lb-ft @ 2000rpm in the small/mid sized trucks would be the chit. So far we don't have small diesels that they can drop in small/mid sized trucks thats why *Poncho* brought up the point of a stright six along thoes lines having the power of a full size but have the effecency of a small size. 

Hopefully next year I'm looking to get a used 2500 Silverado 4x4 D-Max with the Allison tranny.


----------



## 6QTS11OZ (Mar 27, 2005)

GM4life said:


> Diesels are only offered in full size trucks. This guy had a older body style Tahoe or a 1500 Silverado w/a camper(i don't remember that was some years ago)that was based on the GMT800 platform, thats a truck platform. No need to beef up anything like you do with a car. I'm pretty shure that the vehicle was paid for, so paying $5-6K for a Whipple S/C for occasional towing is the way to go. You'll pay more than that in taxes and interest for a new or used truck, expecially if I'll allready own the thing. For people that buy trucks/SUV's that don't tow that often, so no need for a expensive diesel truck. So people that want alittle more umph the S/C is the way to go. I know in California, if you buy a diesel truck your taxes will be higher than that of a smaller truck because you get charged for GVW taxes and all thoes other weight taxes based on the size of the truck, yada, yada, yada. So would I buy a 2500 or 3500 so I can have the pulling power that I would only use a few times a year(pop-up, car, ect.); buy or keep my DD 1500/SUV and mod it to do what I need it to do every once in awhile? Thats what I mean by cost effective.
> 
> But diesels are the way to go for the heavy duty stuff like you mention above. Now modding a gas engine to do what a diesel does hell naw, no way that not the way to go. Thats why I posted putting the 2.9L V6 Diesel w/406lb-ft @ 2000rpm in the small/mid sized trucks would be the chit. So far we don't have small diesels that they can drop in small/mid sized trucks thats why *Poncho* brought up the point of a stright six along thoes lines having the power of a full size but have the effecency of a small size.
> 
> Hopefully next year I'm looking to get a used 2500 Silverado 4x4 D-Max with the Allison tranny.


I think you missed my point. I'm sure homeboy's truck was paid for but he *did *spend money for it at some time. For example, my GTO is paid for. If I wanted to bump up the performance to equal a ZO6, I can't ignore what I paid for the car and only mention what I paid for mods. If it took $35K in mods, I can't say that I spent _just_ $35K to compete with the Z. You have to add the cost of your car. In that case I would have spent $70K to equal a car and to me that's a waste of money cause I should've just gotten the Z based on the cash I spent unless I was just modding my ride for fun was and using the Z as a benchmark. That's the point I was previously making without any intention of bumping heads with ya bruh. 

As a side note, you should know me by now. No matter what I got, I'm more than likely going to mod it. If you get the Silverado, I'm sure you're gonna do something to it too. I'll bet money that you won't leave it 100% stock.


----------



## GM4life (Mar 18, 2007)

Nah we ain't bumpn' heads bruh we are discussing, trust me over ten years in the Air Force and almost a year in QA, disscussions are a good thing.:cheers

You or I can't justify why people do what they do. For example people say why buy a 4 banger and throw a turbo on it when you could have had a V6 or a V8 or why throw money into a V6 when you could have had a V8. Why did GM and Jay Leno spend the time and money on a twin turbo V6 Camaro to end up with the same HP as a V8 Camaro, why Ford develop the Ecoboost when they could have put a V8 in there. You know what the saying is to each their own.

What I'm *assuming* diesels are over kill for most people, I've towed 23,000 lb airconditioners with them, and in Kellyfornia it cost more to have a diesel truck sitting in the driveway(taxes) than owning a smaller gas truck/SUV. I didn't say adding a S/C to a gas vehicle was going to match a diesel powerd one just that people want a little more power than what they currently have.


Using your reasoning in your above post thats one of the reasons why I want to buy a D-Max, besides modding it to get butt loads of torque and kill skeeters.:cheers


----------

