Why no V6 LS engine?

[texfc]

I have wondered why GM never built a V6 version of the LS series of engines.  The LS engine has been such a success that I figured they would make a V6 version the same way they did with the 4.3 engine.  You could design it with a lot of parts commonality with the V8, but I guess that's not a big deal to GM these days.  I know the 90 degree V6 would be rough, but for trucks or SUVs it would be fine, they sold a ton of 4.3s that way.  A six cylinder version of a 5.3 would be right at 4 liters, perfect size for a small truck.

[DeaconBlue]

Interestingly that is a very good question.  Probably it is due to the fact that for what ever reason they decided to keep the old 90 degree 4.3L V6 around, even in the new 2014 trucks.  It is most likely cheaper to keep the old V6, as long as it can be made to meet the emissions requirements fairly easily, than to design and tool up a new 90 degree V6.

A couple years ago we (the company I work at) took a very long hard look at a L4 engine design based on one half a LS V8 engine to be used to re-fuel/re-engine one of our industrial account's fleet of vehicles.  The L4 based on one half of a V8 has been done several times before and it would have worked very well in this case, but the customer decided to go a different direction. 

[digitalsolo]

Ever looked closely at a 3800 Series II or Series III ?

6 bolt cross bolted mains just like an LS1, rocker arms and beehive springs just like an LS1, crank driven gear type oil pump, just like an LS1, powdered metal rods, plastic intake manifold, captured lifters...

It has a balance shaft to smooth out the roughness of a 90* V6, but overall there is a LOT of similarity to the Gen III V8 stuff.   Aside from making an aluminum block and tweaking the cylinder heads, I don't think you could get much closer.

[texfc]

 

Ever looked closely at a 3800 Series II or Series III ?

6 bolt cross bolted mains just like an LS1, rocker arms and beehive springs just like an LS1, crank driven gear type oil pump, just like an LS1, powdered metal rods, plastic intake manifold, captured lifters...

It has a balance shaft to smooth out the roughness of a 90* V6, but overall there is a LOT of similarity to the Gen III V8 stuff.   Aside from making an aluminum block and tweaking the cylinder heads, I don't think you could get much closer.

That's what I don't understand.  From what I read, the 3800 design goes back to the Buick V6.  Why design all these improvements for it, (basically a new engine) when you could just use off the shelf parts.  For a LS V6 you just need the block, crank, heads, intake, exhaust, and oil pan.  Pistons, rods, valves, springs, water and oil pumps, front brackets, etc. could all be the same as the V8. 

[DeaconBlue]

What is even more interesting is when you compare the specifics of the two Gen IV Camaro engines, such as the power per volume values and the peak power at RPM values - they are nearly identical;

3.8L Series II L36 engine rated at 205cHP @ 5200 and 230 ft-lbs @ 4000 RPM
5.7L Gen III LS1 V8 engine rated at 310cHP @ 5200 and 340 ft-lbs @ 4000 RPM

[digitalsolo]

I'm pretty sure that they just did the Buick motor to keep it around for a while and didn't do a from scratch design off the LS since they were moving to the DOHC motors instead, which honestly is a better idea than a V6 LS motor.   60*, DOHC, 300+ HP, etc.

[SSjon]

Looks like they are gonna do this with the new LT1 series, truck motors are gonna be a 6.2L V8 5.3L V8 and a 4.3L V6, all badged as Ecotec III engines.

[Ebush]

Why make a V6 version when the V8 version is fairly lightweight, gets good gas mileage, makes good power, and already exists?

[DeaconBlue]

Here is your answer.

http://www.chevyhardcore.com/news/gen-v-family-welcomes-three-more-engines-including-a-v6/

[Grumpy]

Why make a V6 version when the V8 version is fairly lightweight, gets good gas mileage, makes good power, and already exists?

The old 86/87 Buick V6 Turbo's makes a great swap to.. EASY as hell to make go to 

[digitalsolo]

Here is your answer.

http://www.chevyhardcore.com/news/gen-v-family-welcomes-three-more-engines-including-a-v6/

I just don't get it;  can someone explain to me the point of that engine, beyond just having a V6 version available?

FWIW, my Dad bought a 4.3L V6 2001 Silverado years ago (yes, I realize, very different 4.3L than the one in the link).  His idea was that it was cheaper and would get better fuel mileage than the V8.  Well, cost savings was <1000 dollars, and he spent several times more than that due to the poorer fuel mileage vs. the V8.  It was a pig to drive, also.  As a point of reference, my Mom had a 2000 Silverado with a 5.3L in it.   The 5.3L did about 2-3 mpg better, average, than the 4.3L.

I will give both trucks credit though, my Dad recently sold his with ~230k miles.   Trans was replaced (under warranty) at 20k, but aside from spark plugs, belts, air filters, plug wires, cap and rotor, and fluids, that truck was BONE stock, not a damn thing replaced.   My Mom's truck has ~210k on it and runs like a damn top, same thing maintenance wise, aside from replacing a P/S pump, water pump and u-joints, all around 175k miles.   The stupid automatic transfer case is a dick to get in or out of 4LO though.

I just don't see the point of putting less power in it, with an engine that won't be appreciably more efficient when lugging around 2+ tons of pickup truck.

[texfc]

I understand your point Blake, but it also shows how much better the LS engines are compaired to Gen. l or ll.  The 5.3 made more power and used less fuel doing it than the 4.3 in real world driving.  At least with the new Gen. V engines we will be comparing apples to apples.  Maybe GM will release a turbo V6 in a year or two.  A direct injection, turbocharged, V6 that can switch to a V4 under light load would be sweet in a small truck.

[digitalsolo]

Yeah, but a DOHC 60* V6 would be WAAAAAAAY better.   See Ford Ecoboost V6.

[texfc]

I guess I'm just an old school pushrod guy.  Never liked the idea of mile long timing chains whipping around.  I see the pushrod engine as being compact and simple, but I guess a Turbo, DI engine would not be viewed as simple.  To me, the fewer moving parts, the better.  If you came up with an engine with as few moving parts as possible, like say a Wankel, it would surely be reliable......

[Grumpy]

I am old school here to. Funny to consider a 86/87 Buick turbo old  I have a Lincoln MKS. V6 twin turbo.. Car goes very good BUT I just can't get "involved" with it as I have done with the Buicks. I can get an easy 6/700 rwhp out of them an be reliable. I am just to old to keep moving forward in technology