You are here: Forums Sedans Chevrolet Impala Chevrolet Impala 2006

Chevrolet Impala 2006

3460 messages,  Last post on Sep 05, 2009 at 6:21 AM

You are in the Chevrolet Impala Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Chevrolet Impala, Sedan

Messages Page 13 of 346 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 346 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#120 of 3460 Re: Umm, ... [jae5] by alpha01 Jan 13, 2005 (12:13 pm)
Replying to: jae5 (Jan 13, 2005 11:25 am) "And frasierdogg, you forgot to mention that you have to REV those DOHC to the high heavens to get that high-torque number, along with the horsepower. Whereas the ohv make torque at low-mid rpm, mostly building right off idle. I will agree that there are a few DOHCs that start making decent pulling power near-right off idle and have o.k. mid-range torque, but they are few and very far between. And who wants to buzz their engine to the high side 5-grand to reach that pulling power?"   That is a really old stereotype. Yes, it may have been this way in the first days of DOHC, but in today's world, its more than 'few and far between' that DOHC engines have good low and midrange torque.   Witness the Camry 3.3L: PEAK of 240lbs 3600 RPM. The Malibu 3.5 peaks but 400 Revs lower, and with 20 fewer pounds. Or, we can use a Honda as an example. The Acura TL 3.2L produces 90% of its torque peak of 238 foot pounds by 2500 RPM. That means 214 pounds are on tap at that point. Is that not good low-end grunt?   ~alpha Replies to this message: jae5 (Jan 14, 2005 5:35 am) alpha01 (Jan 14, 2005 9:17 am) alpha01 (Jan 14, 2005 11:08 am)
#121 of 3460 Re: Why a DOHC and not OHV? [frasierdog] by 1487 Jan 13, 2005 (2:38 pm)
Replying to: frasierdog (Jan 13, 2005 8:23 am) You are wrong on a few points.   First of all OHV engines are lighter than DOHC engines of comparable sizes. On top of that they have lower center of gravity, no timing chains and modern OHV engines are just as good on emissions. As old as OHVs are supposed to be I find it amazing that they can still get the same, or better, mileage as modern DOHC engines and also qualify as low emissions vehicles. When I first started coming to Edmunds people were saying that GM had to phase out OHV engines because they coundnt meet the upcoming emissions standards. That was about six years ago.   Ford's new engine will not be out until calendar year 2006. By that time GM's 3.6 will in the Saturn Aura, Lacrosse and most likely the replacement for the Lesabre.
#122 of 3460 Re: Umm, ... [alpha01] by jae5 Jan 14, 2005 (5:35 am)
Replying to: alpha01 (Jan 13, 2005 12:13 pm) You are correct with those two engine but you also make my point on few and far between. You only listed two that made decent power, but you don't state that there are motors, 4s, 6s & some 8s, that need to be revved into the high rpm-range to make the grunt, if they have decent torque at all. Again, there are far more OHC engines that need to be revved high to hit a their torque range than those that don't. Sorry but this is not a stereotype, it's fact. As stated in my post, I acknowledged there were DOHC & SOHC designs that made decent torque numbers at a usable RPM, even mentioned that some of these designs start making good numbers a little above idle, as well as in the mid-range, just as you pointed out. Assuming that you really read the post, wonder why you forgot to mention that point as well when you were trying to make yours ;}.   The response was to fraiserdog in that even though there are upsides to OHC layouts are there are downsides as well. And second, just because it's an OHC design, it doesn't make it automatically BETTER than OHV. Replies to this message: alpha01 (Jan 14, 2005 9:17 am) alpha01 (Jan 14, 2005 11:08 am)
#123 of 3460 Re: Umm, ... [jae5] by alpha01 Jan 14, 2005 (9:17 am)
Replying to: jae5 (Jan 14, 2005 5:35 am) Time prohibits me from naming every engine thats OHC or DOHC, I just used two that popped into my head. Note they are even went smaller displacements than the Chevy 3.5L.   Going with the same size displacement, the Nissan 3.5L and Toyota 3.5L also post impressive torque figures. Since the Nissan 3.5L is sold in the U.S. alone in over 500,000 cars and SUVs annually, thats not "few and far between". With regard to the Toyota, the peak of 260 is fairly high- at 4700 RPM, but the curve is said to be fairly even, so Id have a hard time thinking that that engine is not making the same 220 foot pounds at 3200 RPM as is the pushrod GM engine of the same displacement. And the DOHC engine won't be completely winded by 5000 RPM.   Since we're talking about examples, can you cite an OHC design that posts low torque for its size?   ~alpha Replies to this message: alpha01 (Jan 14, 2005 11:08 am)
#124 of 3460 3500-VVT by z9z9z9z9 Jan 14, 2005 (9:50 am)
Hey, anyone know the details on the 3500 VVT?   According to the Chicago press release this engine has a 99x76 mm bore x stroke, so it's NOT the same as the non-VVT engine in the Malibu, which is 94x84 mm. The 3900-VVT is a bored version (99x84 mm) of the Malibu 3500, and it seems like they "de-stroked" the 3900 for the 3500-VVT.   The Impala press releases suggests looking at the "powertrain" press release for more details - does anyone know where this is? Sorry if this has already been posted, but I don't have the fortitude to read through any more of those "OHV sucks" threads...
#125 of 3460 Re: go ahead-- laugh! [stormdavy] by malibu99 Jan 14, 2005 (9:51 am)
Replying to: stormdavy (Jan 12, 2005 2:59 pm) I actually love that!!...how about changing the middle one to be clear ( back up )?
#126 of 3460 2006 Dodge Charger by hvan Jan 14, 2005 (10:24 am)
Quick, take a look at the ad banner on top of this page. That is a nice looking car. Why can't those boneheads from GM design something that looks great?!!
#127 of 3460 Re: Umm, ... [alpha01] by alpha01 Jan 14, 2005 (11:08 am)
Replying to: alpha01 (Jan 14, 2005 9:17 am) OOPS, I included total Altima sales in my statement   "Since the Nissan 3.5L is sold in the U.S. alone in over 500,000 cars and SUVs annually, thats not "few and far between"."   Its over 300K, I believe.   Sorry!
#128 of 3460 Engines by frasierdog Jan 14, 2005 (9:49 pm)
I have driven the 3.6L in the LaCrosse and the 3.5L in the G6.   The 3.6L is quite and has a very smooth power band all the way to the top. This is a nice motor.   The 3.5L is not nearly as smooth and does not have as flat a power band.   I really wanted to see the Impala with the same engine as the LaCrosse.   Oh well, when the Impala hits the showroom, I will try the 3.9L and see if I like the whole package.
#129 of 3460 Impala LTZ, Big discounts on '05s by bh628 Jan 16, 2005 (6:10 pm)
Hi, I am a newbie, but I have heard the name "Lutz" mentioned a lot. Is he a CEO or major officer of GM? The reason I ask is that I saw the new Edmunds newsletter, where they rated the new Impala. They said that there's a new 2006 trim level, LTZ, and I wondered if he named it after himself.      Also, I looked at the discounts on the '05s and they look more generous this month. $2500 rebate, plus $1500 if you can prove ownership (I'm not sure if it's just current) and $500 for auto show promotion. I am not sure if that last one is just for cities having the auto show, though.      So you probably will be able to pick up a good deal on the '05s, hvan.

Messages Page 13 of 346 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 346 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Sedans Chevrolet Impala Chevrolet Impala 2006