Chevy Impala 2004 Redesign - READ ONLY

233 messages, Last post on Sep 10, 2003 at 7:13 PM

You are in the Future Vehicles - Archived Discussions Forum. Your Host is kirstie_h

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Future Vehicles Host for Directions! discussion.

What is this discussion about? Chevrolet Impala, Sedan

Outline

Messages Page 20 of 24: 1; ...; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; Prev; Next; Last

#184 of 233 by 02lssport Mar 18, 2003 (4:59 am)
Damn I don't remember that engine. What car was that in? But you are right - car makers can do many things. It about what makes sense at the time and is cost effective. I can't wait to see what they in store too. Its sounds like they have some great engines coming soon.
#185 of 233 GM 3.4L DOHC by vcjumper Mar 18, 2003 (5:06 am)
I thought it only made 215.. Was a rework of the 3.1L OHV with new heads.
#186 of 233 DOHC by atbear Mar 18, 2003 (9:05 am)
It wasn't put into cars in that incarnation due to not having a FWD automatic tranny that could handle 275HP. The engine was ready, but no tranny, so they detuned it to 210HP 215TQ for production. Go here: http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/34Performance/dohc.html Here's some quotes: "The 3.4 was concepted as a V6 version of the Olds 2.3L "quad 4"." "The 3.4L DOHC was actually the forerunner of many current motors. The Cadillac Northstar 4.6L 32 Valve V8, and later the Aroura 4.0L 32-Valve V8, were sons of the V6 program." "Well, the GM engine gurus went to their counterparts at GM Hydramatic, with a challenge. Build a FWD auto trans, that will take 275 HP. You have 2 years to be in production. In a car." "and it was by far, the BEST motor that GM engineers could build for its application. Emission certification verifed an honest 281HP on the sheets. Emission 7000RPM screamer. This was in early 1990, January I believe. Transmission? Anyone? Hydramatic had its own challenges to conquer." "Hydramatic went to the market with their finished product just days before the deadline. Will it take 275HP? NO! Will it take 250HP? NO! How bout 225Hp? Maybe. GM engine ground was peeved! All this effort, just to be cut down at the flywheel....225HP? I want 275! Well, the rest is corporate decision making at its worst. Cut the horsepower of the 3.4L to 200 with an automatic. You can have 210 on a stick. Makes a guy want to cry, don't it?" It's a damn shame they couldn't get it out then... but at least we have good trannies now... GM and Ford are even now working on a 6 speed FWD tranny right now together. Should be good. Now all we need are some manual trannies!!! Also, for more GM DOHC, check out the Northstar, and the ZR-1 Corvette.
#187 of 233 by regfootball Mar 18, 2003 (3:28 pm)
that 3.4 twin dual cam was designed to adapt the 3.1 pushrod motor into a DOHC in order to utilize some existing tooling and factories. In other words, a half butt approach to engine design.
#188 of 233 by atbear Mar 18, 2003 (9:02 pm)
Sorry, but that's just not true.... It was designed from top to bottom to be a fully performance engine in FWD form... You are wrong.
#189 of 233 by regfootball Mar 18, 2003 (11:42 pm)
no, you are. I'm gonna have to dig through my old car and drivers to find that article. I think if you look you will find the bore centers are exactly the same which is part of what enabled them to utilize some existing tooling from the pushrod version. A way to cheap out on the design in other words.
#190 of 233 by atbear Mar 19, 2003 (8:48 am)
Are you saying that this engine was supposed to be anything other than a full out performance engine? If you are then you are way off. This engine was based off a quad four, not a pushrod six.
#191 of 233 by magnetophone Mar 19, 2003 (11:59 am)
I don't believe that's the case. The 3.4 DOHC is a separate engine, one that evolved from the Quad 4 and was used in several other cars in the late 80's and early 90's. The 3.4 pushrod in the Impala is based off of the 3.1, 2.8 pushrod series which is a completely different engine that I believe debuted in 79 with the Citation.
#192 of 233 by atbear Mar 19, 2003 (6:18 pm)
Yeah... I didn't even think he could be talking about the wrong engine... LOL... I'm talking about the DOHC 3.4L V6, not the 3.4L Pushrod V6 which is based pretty much on the 3.1L Pushrod V6.
#193 of 233 3.4L DOHC by vcjumper Mar 19, 2003 (7:44 pm)
Here is some info.. Too bad the engine was practically stillborn with the reliability issues and unsuitable trannies. 3.4