The High Feature DI 3.6 (LFX) is/was available in several different platforms. The lowest HP (~280) came in the Impala. The highest HP (~320) came in the Camaro. Various platforms had different HP ratings between those two extremes.
Other than the obvious differences (intake manifold to accommodate longitudinal or transverse configuration, and exhaust plumbing) are there any other real hardware differences (cams, etc.) ? Are any of the transverse intake manifolds better than the others?
I expect the tune would be different, but will it really make that much of a difference, with a free flowing intake manifold and exhaust?
Thanks!
------------------ Raydar 88 Formula IMSA Fastback. 4.9, NVG T550 Praise the Lowered!
I don't have any facts, but the usual reason for that large a HP difference would be different cams- The family car gets a "torque heavy" cam while the Camaro gets a cam that concentrates more power up high, including a high peak for bragging rights.....Different exhaust and even more restrictive intakes usually don't make that big a difference...usually only 5-15 hp. There also may be differences due to later model improvements.
Horsepower hp (kw) @ rpm Chevrolet Camaro Coupe and Convertible: 323 hp (241kW) @ 6800 SAE Certified Chevrolet Caprice Police Patrol Vehicle (PPV): 301 hp (225kW) @ 6700 SAE Certified Chevrolet Impala Police Vehicle: 302 hp (225kW) @ 6800 SAE Certified Chevrolet Impala: 300 hp (224kW) @ 6500 SAE Certified Chevrolet Equinox: 301 hp (225kW) @ 6500 SAE Certified Cadillac CTS Coupe, Sedan and Wagon: 318 hp (237kW) @ 6800 SAE Certified Cadillac SRX: 308 hp (230kW) @ 6800 SAE Certified Cadillac XTS: 304 hp (226kW) @ 6800 SAE Certified Cadillac ATS: 321 hp (239kW) @ 6800 SAE Certified Buick LaCrosse: 303 hp (226kW) @ 6800 SAE Certified GMC Terrain: 301 hp (225kW) @ 6500 SAE Certified Torque lb.-ft. (Nm) @ rpm Chevrolet Camaro Coupe and Convertible: 278 lb.-ft. (377Nm) @ 4800 SAE Certified Chevrolet Caprice Police Patrol Vehicle (PPV): 265 lb.-ft. (359Nm) @ 4800 SAE Certified Chevrolet Impala Police Vehicle: 262 lb.-ft. (355Nm) @ 5300 SAE Certified Chevrolet Impala: 262 lb.-ft. (355Nm) @ 5300 SAE Certified Chevrolet Equinox: 272 lb.-ft. (369Nm) @ 4800 SAE Certified Cadillac CTS Coupe, Sedan and Wagon: 275 lb.-ft. (373Nm) @ 4900 SAE Certified Cadillac SRX: 265 lb.-ft. (359Nm) @ 2400 SAE Certified Cadillac XTS: 264 lb.-ft. (358Nm) @ 5200 SAE Certified Cadillac ATS: 275 lb.-ft. (373Nm) @ 4800 SAE Certified Buick Lacrosse: 264 lb.-ft. (358Nm) @ 5300 SAE Certified GMC Terrain: 272 lb.-ft. (369Nm) @ 4800 SAE Certified
The horsepower disparity seems to be less than what I believed, in my initial post. Different sources... Perhaps it has to do with the transmissions that are utilized, too. Longitudinal pieces seem to be able to withstand a bit more "ummmph". Maybe because they don't have the chains and sprockets. Again, this is just speculation.
I suppose that I should mention that what really appeals to me about this engine (other than 320 HP, "out of the box") is that the exhaust manifolds are integral to the heads. There is one big oval shaped port on each head, where the downpipe bolts up. No headers are required (or even possible, for that matter.)
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 08-30-2016).]
Weight, about 20 lbs lighter than a 3800. According to wiki.
That aside. We are seeing a few issues with the 3.6. Timing chain components. Oil leaks. Due to some of the issues, GM has toned down the HP curves in some of the flash updates. Some of the HP differences, have to do with the valve timing maps.
Interesting. I've been hearing about the timing chain stuff. Not really an issue to me. I'm prepared to replace all of that, while the engine is out of the car.
Any other info is appreciated. (Also been hearing about "carboned up" intake valves on the DI engines. (Everyone's. Not just GM.) The universally recommended fix seems to be a good oil catch can.
Horsepower hp (kw) @ rpm Chevrolet Camaro Coupe and Convertible: 323 hp (241kW) @ 6800 SAE Certified Chevrolet Caprice Police Patrol Vehicle (PPV): 301 hp (225kW) @ 6700 SAE Certified Chevrolet Impala Police Vehicle: 302 hp (225kW) @ 6800 SAE Certified Chevrolet Impala: 300 hp (224kW) @ 6500 SAE Certified Chevrolet Equinox: 301 hp (225kW) @ 6500 SAE Certified Cadillac CTS Coupe, Sedan and Wagon: 318 hp (237kW) @ 6800 SAE Certified Cadillac SRX: 308 hp (230kW) @ 6800 SAE Certified Cadillac XTS: 304 hp (226kW) @ 6800 SAE Certified Cadillac ATS: 321 hp (239kW) @ 6800 SAE Certified Buick LaCrosse: 303 hp (226kW) @ 6800 SAE Certified GMC Terrain: 301 hp (225kW) @ 6500 SAE Certified Torque lb.-ft. (Nm) @ rpm Chevrolet Camaro Coupe and Convertible: 278 lb.-ft. (377Nm) @ 4800 SAE Certified Chevrolet Caprice Police Patrol Vehicle (PPV): 265 lb.-ft. (359Nm) @ 4800 SAE Certified Chevrolet Impala Police Vehicle: 262 lb.-ft. (355Nm) @ 5300 SAE Certified Chevrolet Impala: 262 lb.-ft. (355Nm) @ 5300 SAE Certified Chevrolet Equinox: 272 lb.-ft. (369Nm) @ 4800 SAE Certified Cadillac CTS Coupe, Sedan and Wagon: 275 lb.-ft. (373Nm) @ 4900 SAE Certified Cadillac SRX: 265 lb.-ft. (359Nm) @ 2400 SAE Certified Cadillac XTS: 264 lb.-ft. (358Nm) @ 5200 SAE Certified Cadillac ATS: 275 lb.-ft. (373Nm) @ 4800 SAE Certified Buick Lacrosse: 264 lb.-ft. (358Nm) @ 5300 SAE Certified GMC Terrain: 272 lb.-ft. (369Nm) @ 4800 SAE Certified
The horsepower disparity seems to be less than what I believed, in my initial post. Different sources... Perhaps it has to do with the transmissions that are utilized, too. Longitudinal pieces seem to be able to withstand a bit more "ummmph". Maybe because they don't have the chains and sprockets. Again, this is just speculation.
I suppose that I should mention that what really appeals to me about this engine (other than 320 HP, "out of the box") is that the exhaust manifolds are integral to the heads. There is one big oval shaped port on each head, where the downpipe bolts up. No headers are required (or even possible, for that matter.)
Interesting inquiry, I've been researching these specs since last week in consideration for buying an 08 or later Cadi CTS. I'm not sure what years the specs you posted cover but much of that diversity in performance output possibly addresses integral vs. traditional exhaust manifold arrangement and port vs. DI injection which apparently is still an option, along with the other differences you mentioned although I'm not sure about cam changes playing a big part from what I encountered in the past on that subject as they are usually the same throughout a particular engine nomenclature and often across. The Cadillac CTS received the first highest output 3.6L with DI and some fancy cylinder head work along with a compression ratio bump and some other stuff I don't recall and apparently the Camaro eventually received the same engine.
There is a crate 3.6L upgrade for the 2016 ATS that produces more power than any of the engines you've posted, here;
As for the timing chain problem, I read a couple of days ago that a good bit of that problem appears to be the result of prolonged oil change intervals which an owner states a good faith recall was offered for, that would adjust the oil life monitor programming to require shorter oil change intervals. Another owner stated the real problem was not the chain but VVT module wear in conjunction with sensitive DTC programming that caused engine lights to come on and stay on, an issue that was also stated to have been addressed in the good faith recall with an adjustment to the programming to increase the required thresh-hold to trip the light, which more frequent oil changes were also alleged would help by reducing wear.
[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 08-30-2016).]
Originally posted by cmechmann: Weight, about 20 lbs lighter than a 3800. According to wiki.
That aside. We are seeing a few issues with the 3.6. Timing chain components. Oil leaks. Due to some of the issues, GM has toned down the HP curves in some of the flash updates. Some of the HP differences, have to do with the valve timing maps.
Which 3.6 are you talking about exactly? The earlier 3.6 timing chain issues were corrected in later revisions (ie, the LFX which is specifically the one asked about in this thread).
Originally posted by Raydar: The horsepower disparity seems to be less than what I believed, in my initial post. Different sources... Perhaps it has to do with the transmissions that are utilized, too. Longitudinal pieces seem to be able to withstand a bit more "ummmph". Maybe because they don't have the chains and sprockets. Again, this is just speculation.
The HP ratings are crank HP, not wheel HP, so what trans comes with is mostly irrelevant. The main difference in the HP ratings is pretty much all in the ECM tune, intake, and exhaust. The transverse cars all have a Y pipe and single cat. The longitudinal cars all have dual cats prior to any Y-pipe or X-pipe. As the intake and exhaust are slightly different in the different configurations, there are some tuning differences to deal with those. Part of the difference is also marketing. There will be higher numbers on certain car classes simply as a result of marketing, but when you consider driveline losses and vehicle weight, most of the cars all come out around the same, despite the differences.
Originally posted by Joseph Upson: There is a crate 3.6L upgrade for the 2016 ATS that produces more power than any of the engines you've posted, here;
As for the timing chain problem, I read a couple of days ago that a good bit of that problem appears to be the result of prolonged oil change intervals which an owner states a good faith recall was offered for, that would adjust the oil life monitor programming to require shorter oil change intervals. Another owner stated the real problem was not the chain but VVT module wear in conjunction with sensitive DTC programming that caused engine lights to come on and stay on, an issue that was also stated to have been addressed in the good faith recall with an adjustment to the programming to increase the required thresh-hold to trip the light, which more frequent oil changes were also alleged would help by reducing wear.
The LGX is the Gen IV HF 3.6 engine. It's in the 2016 ATS, CTS, and Camaro (among a few others. The crossover SUVs with the engine have it at 310 HP, while the cars all have it at 335 HP. It replaces the LFX across GM's offerings.
As for the timing chain issues, my understanding is that there was a mechanical design defect in the timing system of the 3.6L, which was fixed in the LFX and subsequent Gen IV HF engine design. However, to mitigate the issue on earlier engines where the problem was more common, the ECM changes were made, for shorter oil changes and such.
One thing I can tell you is that it uses 3.7" diameter pistons and they look like the 3.4 DOHC pistons but slightly bigger (vs. 3.62"). When you bore a 3400 block to 3.7" bores you end up with a 3.5L engine...
Originally posted by dobey: Which 3.6 are you talking about exactly? The earlier 3.6 timing chain issues were corrected in later revisions (ie, the LFX which is specifically the one asked about in this thread).
Kinda like the corrected/revised lower intake gasket on the later 60* V6?, and I'm currently in the middle of a lower intake job on a 3500. The frequency may have went down with the revised chains but we still change them in newer cars at work for stretching (check engine light with cam/crank correlation codes). We have to reseal timing covers on low mileage 3.6 engines 1-2 a week and I've seen them with seepage at under 10k miles. Not to mention the other issues like misfires and carbon build up. I have zero faith in reliability in this engine but they do sound awesome at wot in any car/suv they are installed in.
Originally posted by 88cryan: I have zero faith in reliability in this engine but they do sound awesome at wot in any car/suv they are installed in.
Well, too much of the latter certainly has an effect on the former.
But again, what engines exactly are you seeing this on mostly? There are many 3.6L DOHC V6 engines in the engine family. And what about other engines in the High Feature family? Most all the complaints I've seen have been about the 3.6, and see almost none about the 2.8, 3.0, 3.2, etc… versions. How many of these that you claim you are doing so often are the LLT engine? How many are LFX? How many LGX? LF3? LF4? LFR?
I don't know which engine is installed in what cars...but by far the most are the gmc Acadia suv family, followed by the equinox family. Also I have seen several cts, srx, camaros, Malibu, and g6. The newest front cover reseal was on the new gmc canyon. We have re sealed the 3.0 before in the cts but I've never seen a 2.8 and our dealerships do not sell saab so I've never seen their version. Keep in mind we have most every make model but it's only a sampling of the gm market, we'd need agm technician to tell us their version.
Originally posted by lou_dias: One thing I can tell you is that it uses 3.7" diameter pistons and they look like the 3.4 DOHC pistons but slightly bigger (vs. 3.62"). When you bore a 3400 block to 3.7" bores you end up with a 3.5L engine...
No need to bore a 3400 to those specs to get a 3500 as the 3500 non VVT shares the same bore with the 3.6L and the pistons were considered by Superdave on the 60 degree forum as a means to bump the compression up in his built 3500 that I believe had reached 300 hp naturally aspirated with its stock compression ratio.
Interesting inquiry, I've been researching these specs since last week in consideration for buying an 08 or later Cadi CTS. I'm not sure what years the specs you posted cover but much of that diversity in performance output possibly addresses integral vs. traditional exhaust manifold arrangement and port vs. DI injection which apparently is still an option, along with the other differences you mentioned although I'm not sure about cam changes playing a big part from what I encountered in the past on that subject as they are usually the same throughout a particular engine nomenclature and often across. The Cadillac CTS received the first highest output 3.6L with DI and some fancy cylinder head work along with a compression ratio bump and some other stuff I don't recall and apparently the Camaro eventually received the same engine.
There is a crate 3.6L upgrade for the 2016 ATS that produces more power than any of the engines you've posted, here;
As for the timing chain problem, I read a couple of days ago that a good bit of that problem appears to be the result of prolonged oil change intervals which an owner states a good faith recall was offered for, that would adjust the oil life monitor programming to require shorter oil change intervals. Another owner stated the real problem was not the chain but VVT module wear in conjunction with sensitive DTC programming that caused engine lights to come on and stay on, an issue that was also stated to have been addressed in the good faith recall with an adjustment to the programming to increase the required thresh-hold to trip the light, which more frequent oil changes were also alleged would help by reducing wear.
Thanks for that info. I specified the LFX, since it seems to have the most available power, without having to deal with DOD (cylinder deactivation.) It's just not something I am interested in. Of course, I may have missed some vital detail. I've just begun to research this.
(This is all "pie in the sky" anyway. You may recall that I am also considering an LZ9/LGD for my swap, as an alternative. They all have their pros and cons.)
quote
Originally posted by dobey:
The HP ratings are crank HP, not wheel HP, so what trans comes with is mostly irrelevant. ...
I understand that. I'm merely considering the possibility that the "transverse automatic" engines may have been purposely detuned in order to ensure transaxle longevity, and reduce warranty claims for broken trannies.
I don't have any facts, but the usual reason for that large a HP difference would be different cams- The family car gets a "torque heavy" cam while the Camaro gets a cam that concentrates more power up high, including a high peak for bragging rights.....Different exhaust and even more restrictive intakes usually don't make that big a difference...usually only 5-15 hp. There also may be differences due to later model improvements.
With variable cam phasing on a DOHC--meaning that intake and exhaust phase can be adjusted independently--the "torque cam" vs. "power cam" are all handled in the tune.
Kinda like the corrected/revised lower intake gasket on the later 60* V6?, and I'm currently in the middle of a lower intake job on a 3500. The frequency may have went down with the revised chains but we still change them in newer cars at work for stretching (check engine light with cam/crank correlation codes). We have to reseal timing covers on low mileage 3.6 engines 1-2 a week and I've seen them with seepage at under 10k miles. Not to mention the other issues like misfires and carbon build up. I have zero faith in reliability in this engine but they do sound awesome at wot in any car/suv they are installed in.
Yes the 3.6 we are seeing a lot of issues are the Arcadia, Equanox and Cadi clone. From about 08-11. The timing component issues would cause just enough "slop" in the timing chain to cause correlation codes. When you had scopes hooked up to look at the patterns, you could see the cam signals move around. You need a scope with 4 signal or 2 with 2 signal. You would dial in the patterns to get them even. Then slowly bring the rpms up and back down to see if the patterns would migrate around. You would normally see the patterns go off when the rpms came back down when the engine was under a decell condition. The timing between the front and rear cams would bounce around. Most of that was in the chain and the center guide. These were on engines, for the most part, were maintained and under 100,000. Yes we also seen phaser problems on those that had too few oil changes. The phasers would get "stuck" causing performance issues and correlation codes. We were seeing other issues on earlier 3.6s. These also were in the crossover type vehicles. It had to do with excessive oil usage to the point it would puke oil into the vacuum chamber right after the throttle body. This would cause oil to leech down into the vacuum booster. Then it would saturate the vacuum sensor in the booster causing an ABS code. The dealers also seemed to have plenty of the boosters in stock. The 2.8 56 degree engine in early 2000s CTS were known for burning oil. Odd the timing belt version of the 3.0 in older Saturns, seemed to be dependable as long as they didn't have a timing belt failure or they were over heated.
Originally posted by Raydar: I understand that. I'm merely considering the possibility that the "transverse automatic" engines may have been purposely detuned in order to ensure transaxle longevity, and reduce warranty claims for broken trannies.
I don't think much of the detuning is done for that. Torque management programming doesn't affect peak HP/TQ numbers, only how the torque is applied in certain conditions. Most of the tuning for dealing with transmission longevity and warranty concerns is done via the torque management. I think several of the transverse applications are also AWD, so there may be some tuning for that type of application which may result in slightly lower peak numbers.
Originally posted by cmechmann: Yes the 3.6 we are seeing a lot of issues are the Arcadia, Equanox and Cadi clone. From about 08-11. The timing component issues would cause just enough "slop" in the timing chain to cause correlation codes. When you had scopes hooked up to look at the patterns, you could see the cam signals move around. You need a scope with 4 signal or 2 with 2 signal. You would dial in the patterns to get them even. Then slowly bring the rpms up and back down to see if the patterns would migrate around. You would normally see the patterns go off when the rpms came back down when the engine was under a decell condition. The timing between the front and rear cams would bounce around. Most of that was in the chain and the center guide. These were on engines, for the most part, were maintained and under 100,000. Yes we also seen phaser problems on those that had too few oil changes. The phasers would get "stuck" causing performance issues and correlation codes. We were seeing other issues on earlier 3.6s. These also were in the crossover type vehicles. It had to do with excessive oil usage to the point it would puke oil into the vacuum chamber right after the throttle body. This would cause oil to leech down into the vacuum booster. Then it would saturate the vacuum sensor in the booster causing an ABS code. The dealers also seemed to have plenty of the boosters in stock. The 2.8 56 degree engine in early 2000s CTS were known for burning oil. Odd the timing belt version of the 3.0 in older Saturns, seemed to be dependable as long as they didn't have a timing belt failure or they were over heated.
Right, all those 3.6s you're talking about are the older LY7 and LLT versions, it would seem.
The 2.8 I was talking about was the Saab 2.8t (LP9 and related), which is also a High Feature engine, and the 3.0 I mentioned is as well, which was used less but primarily in the crossovers, but also in the CTS and LaCrosse very briefly. The vehicles with the HF 3.0 were all replaced with a version of the 3.6 at some point.
Lots of good info here. I thank everyone. What I'm looking at doing (if I do the HF V6) is an LFX from an Impala, with an aftermarket intake, and a manual trans. Probably a Beretta Getrag (NV T-550) Using a manual trans Camaro tune.
Originally posted by Raydar: Lots of good info here. I thank everyone. What I'm looking at doing (if I do the HF V6) is an LFX from an Impala, with and aftermarket intake, and a manual trans. Probably a Beretta Getrag (NV T-550) Using a manual trans Camaro tune.
If possible, I would try to find the F40 from a Saab 2.8t, for an HFV6 swap, and would fall back to adapting one of the other transmissions if that turns out to not be feasible.
Yeah. I know. Except everything I've seen about the F40 is a complete pain in the ass. And would seem to require a lot more fabrication than I'm prepared (or skilled enough) to deal with. (I don't weld. Yet.) And that's aside from the initial cost of the oddball Saab F40. If someone (Paul?) comes up with a kit that makes it a direct bolt in, then I might spring for it.
I am also quite familiar with the T-550. I have one (with the GM metric pattern) bolted to my 4.9. Since it's essentially a Getrag, it can use stock tranny mounts and axles. All I had to add was a clutch line adapter fitting (for the HTOB) and Rodney's FWD shift lever kit. Done deal. It does quite nicely, and I haven't broken anything, yet. (I try not to shock load it, but I am not averse to rolling along in gear with the clutch engaged, and then matting the right pedal.)
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 09-01-2016).]
With variable cam phasing on a DOHC--meaning that intake and exhaust phase can be adjusted independently--the "torque cam" vs. "power cam" are all handled in the tune.
Doesn't a power cam have more duration than a torque cam? In other words, something that can't be patched by a calibration?
[This message has been edited by pmbrunelle (edited 09-01-2016).]
Modern heads flow so much better than old heads that the distinction no longer applies. LS engines are making phenomenal power on cams that are fairly short duration compared to "old school" race cams... the long duration cams actually perform worse on LS's.
I guess that also has something to do with the trend towards roller cams ... maybe less duration at 0.050" lift than previously, but more duration at high lift.
Simply put, these engines are an engineering failure. I have one in a car of mine and after the timing chain fault code came up, I did a lot of research. The engine uses the oil to hydraulically actuate the phasers to modify the cams/timing. If ANY dirt is in the engine through whatever means, it will clog the 2mm passages that supply this oil and either cause the phasers to not advance or bind up the phasers and cause the insanely long timing chains to stretch. The ONLY true fix is to completely tear down the engine and flush every little bit of dirt out of these passages, which I was told is near impossible, or replace the engine. We ALL know a bit of dirt is inevitable and so is this problem. GM's fix was a stronger (I'm assuming higher carbon steel chains) and extending the warranty from 60k miles to 120 k. Many reports of this problem exist from 10k, 20 k, + even with regular oil changes. The best part is that when you hit 120k miles, GM refuses to work on your engine and i sits on replacing it for $10,000. Which you won't do cuz the book value is $8,000. This is how they force their failures off the road. Believe me, I LOVED this car of mine with this engine. Yes it is the earlier version but I also have zero faith in any of its sisters. If there is a car for sale with this engine, it's because the guy just got the timing chain replaced for the fourth time and has had enough of the piece of junk. If it's in the wrecking yard without any damage, the engine is in need of a complete teardown. Now I'm stuck driving a substandard Durango cuz it was the next option for seating 8 to my Saturn outlook. Pretty bad when a Durango beats any GM product. I was thinking about the 3800sc as an option for a swap but would be a nightmare with all the control modules talking to each other without being a GM tech insider.
Originally posted by pmbrunelle: Doesn't a power cam have more duration than a torque cam? In other words, something that can't be patched by a calibration?
GM's VVT technology is constantly variable, so the actual duration is controlled by the ECM as a function of the lobe duration. In traditional non-VVT setups, the torque band is adjusted higher or lower in the RPM range by duration and straight up timing. A "power cam" just moves the torque curve into the higher end of the RPM range of the engine. With VVT, the "straight up" timing is generally always best for mid-range operation, and then the ECM will advance or retard the cam using the pressure valve, to advance or retard the cam, so that the most torque and power can be made throughout the entire RPM range.
Originally posted by Reallybig: Now I'm stuck driving a substandard Durango cuz it was the next option for seating 8 to my Saturn outlook. Pretty bad when a Durango beats any GM product.
The VVT in the Chrysler (and pretty much any other) engines all work pretty much exactly the same.
Funny how the same engine can be so dramatically different owner to owner. The LY7 in our '05 Rendezvous has been a joy. It is north of 150K miles now, everyday taking the missus up Rt I287 at better than 80mph sustained at times (this is normal rush hour stuff here). Have been pretty good with maintenance, Quaker State synthetic - conventional SUV oil since new. Its oil tight and doesn't use any oil between changes; no issues at all.
Having said that, it'll probably blow up tonight on the way home, but at 150K is it that bad?
With this experience to date, an LY7 with a 6 speed auto in my 86 has always been appealing to me but isn't the BCM an issue?
BR's,
Mark
------------------ 86 SE V6 Auto 65 Tempest 400 CID 2008 G6 GT "Street" Coupe 2005 Buick 3.6 Rendezvous 2001 Olds Silhouette (AKA The Band Van)
With this experience to date, an LY7 with a 6 speed auto in my 86 has always been appealing to me but isn't the BCM an issue?
Some of the folks on the Camaro forums are apparently running the LFX as a stand-alone. Harnesses are available. The LY7 is older technology. I would suspect it's not any more difficult. The transmission controller might be an issue. I think the standalone harnesses are for manuals.
But yeah... My mother in law has a CTS with the LY7 and 6 speed auto. I always thought that it would make a Fiero a pretty quick entity. (Yeah, the CTS is longitudinal, but the gear ratios, compared to the transverse, are quite similar.)
not sure if its been said, i didn't read every post, but i bet its also in the tune. if your selling a V6 Camaro you want to have the highest HP, if the tune can get you +30 hp and all you lose is a few MPG then you can sell more Camaros. If a buyer is looking at a V6 Mustang, V6 Challenger or a V6 Camaro, you need all you can get, MPG be damned. I was shocked to see what a good tune can do to a LS motor. Lose a little MPG to gain some HP/TQ... hell yea.
Originally posted by Raydar: Some of the folks on the Camaro forums are apparently running the LFX as a stand-alone. Harnesses are available. The LY7 is older technology. I would suspect it's not any more difficult. The transmission controller might be an issue. I think the standalone harnesses are for manuals.
But yeah... My mother in law has a CTS with the LY7 and 6 speed auto. I always thought that it would make a Fiero a pretty quick entity. (Yeah, the CTS is longitudinal, but the gear ratios, compared to the transverse, are quite similar.)
The LY7 I think is not SIDI, so should generally be easier. SIDI is a bit harder because the OEM ECMs have tended to be harder to break, and most "affordable" aftermarket ECMs still don't support SIDI yet, because the electronics for the injectors is a bit different.
On the phaser problem. It's not just the 2mm oil feed to the phaser that hinders many VVT engines. It is also the tiny passages that are in a lot of the solenoid controlled phasers. Just like transmission solenoids that have a small grain of dirt, that can stick. So can the VVT solenoids. While most have some sort of screen, only only a few, that I know of, have a screen that can be replaced by itself easily. By the way there is a screen in the LS series engines that have DOD. It is under the oil sending unit and a pain to get to. But replacing it as preventive measure can help save the lifters on those engines. There are systems out there that don't need a heavy phaser assembly on each cam to add a lot of weight to the cam components. Honda Vtech comes to mind, but I would gather they have a copyright on that, Also it is not full VVT. On older Toyotas. I liked the way they had 2 cams that ran off one cam gear then had different set of gears in the head that connected the 2 cams. That very much limited the lenth of the timing belt. I would very much like to see versions of these ideas incorporated into new engine designs. But don't count on it. The best way to deal with the extra mass that has been introduced into the timing components, is to incorporate gear/chain design. Gears driving shorter chains, then chained gear driving 2 more gears for the cams. That also involves larger head/timing cover assemblies and added cost. Don't count on that. ECM controlled valving is looking better if they design good failsafes. Another issue. This one is in reference to the demand for lessened tensioned rings to reduce free drag. While it "might" save a few MPGs, the concept shows it's ugly head when you stress these engines. Causing higher crankcase pressures. It's not just the GM 3.6s. Seen a few past decent engine designs that have been offed due to the newer restrictions. And there are some current designs with known oil issues. Our government will be getting even more strict with engine emission related factors and the problems will only get worse.
On the phaser problem. It's not just the 2mm oil feed to the phaser that hinders many VVT engines. It is also the tiny passages that are in a lot of the solenoid controlled phasers. Just like transmission solenoids that have a small grain of dirt, that can stick. So can the VVT solenoids. While most have some sort of screen, only only a few, that I know of, have a screen that can be replaced by itself easily. ...
Our Trailblazer (4.2, I-6) had VVT. It was particularly sensitive to what weight of oil you used, and how often it was changed. If the oil got too thick, it would set the "exhaust cam is too far advanced" code. As soon as the oil was changed, it cleared.
Originally posted by Raydar: Our Trailblazer (4.2, I-6) had VVT. It was particularly sensitive to what weight of oil you used, and how often it was changed. If the oil got too thick, it would set the "exhaust cam is too far advanced" code. As soon as the oil was changed, it cleared.
I've read about VVT motors being sensitive to increasing oil viscosity and would be looking at reprogramming to counter that in the same manner that was performed for the timing chain/VVT module problems that would trip the engine light. On a stock motor that has been modified to considerably increase power output or will be driven much harder than average spirited driving an oil viscosity change is in order to absorb the increased intensity rotating and impact surfaces would otherwise have to absorb. The thicker oil would bleed through the VVT module at a slower rate that would either cause VVT delays, or accelerations or both depending on the commanded movement direction that can be sensed as outside parameters. Keep in mind that although 5W30 is still the mark for HO motors from the production line, the PCM plays a big part in managing what can be considered abusive input at the throttle. 5W40-50 is what I use year round.
quote
Originally posted by cmechmann: ... Another issue. This one is in reference to the demand for lessened tensioned rings to reduce free drag. While it "might" save a few MPGs, the concept shows it's ugly head when you stress these engines. Causing higher crankcase pressures. It's not just the GM 3.6s. Seen a few past decent engine designs that have been offed due to the newer restrictions. And there are some current designs with known oil issues. Our government will be getting even more strict with engine emission related factors and the problems will only get worse.
I've come across a few modern 4 cyl engines mainly imports so far that have such a strong blow by pulse that you can feel it from several inches above the oil fill hole in the valve cover along with oil spray which makes me wonder why some cars are not equipped with oil catch cans to keep the intake and valves cleaner.
[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 09-03-2016).]
I've come across a few modern 4 cyl engines mainly imports so far that have such a strong blow by pulse that you can feel it from several inches above the oil fill hole in the valve cover along with oil spray which makes me wonder why some cars are not equipped with oil catch cans to keep the intake and valves cleaner.
Baffling in the valve cover does the same thing, no?
Except that the oil is directly drained to the engine; no need to manually empty the can every so often.
Originally posted by pmbrunelle: Baffling in the valve cover does the same thing, no?
Except that the oil is directly drained to the engine; no need to manually empty the can every so often.
No where near as effective and that's why every engine with a PCV system that I've torn down to some deg (many) has oil residue and carbon build up in the intake and on top of the valves on engines with low enough mileage to not be able to blame valve stem leaks as the cause. I haven't had to empty my oil catch can since I put it on the motor 5 yrs ago but there's oil trapped in it, then my motor doesn't blow oil mist out the filler neck like the late model 4 cyl engines I'm referring to. I've seen a near new car with an underhood mess in just a few short miles around the block because a tech forgot to put the oil filler cap back on after the oil change. A properly setup oil catch can, can be built and arranged to drain oil back into the engine automatically.
Oil in the intake is a problem with the 3.6 also, google it. My mom has one in her Saturn and during a spark plug replacement I ended up spending quite a bit of time carefully cleaning the MAF sensor because the tube coming from the air filter housing has a vent tube feeding into it from the valve cover. I turned the tube on end unaware of the oil that pooled in the bellows section of it until it started pouring out the end on an engine that had about 92k miles on it. Still runs great but I suspect it's pretty ugly up top on the inside considering I believe there's another vent tube going directly to the intake.
The four cylinders now often run 0W20 and along with low tension rings I imagine it's much worse with them as some tend to be down on the oil level a good bit at change interval. Again I'm referring to examples that do not have the mileage history to support such characteristics
[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 09-03-2016).]
