GM's 2007 60V6 Lineup

[sharkey]

the 3.6l is a dohc vvt motor. it was designed as a global motor and used in europe in the opels, and iirc, its only in some cadillacs and buicks over here. its drasticly different that the other motors. it actualy is just a bigger version of the 2.8l dohc. why did they do back to a 2.8l??? im guessing for fuel economy, and a smaller motor works just as good for boost, being the 2.8l dohc is a turbo motor.

the original 1.8/2.0/2.2l ohv motors are no longer in production. the last year of the 2.2l was 2002, the ecotec became gm's only 4 cyl engine on everything 2003+.

[Stewart G. Griffin]

1) that's what i ASSumed too---because of the turbo.

2) It's a shame, because i loved that engine (2.2 litre)
So, i guess the 2.9 vortec thing used in the colorado and canyon is also an echotech engine?

[sharkey]

no its not. i forgot about those motors. there is one family, and its 4 5 and 6 cyl engines, the 2.8l i4, 3.5l 15 and 4.2l i6. they are all dohc truck motors. all are te same bore and stroke aswell. i dont know much about em.

i dunno about loving the 2.2l. they were prone to head gasket failures and a real dog. you could spend a pile of money and build one up. i know a few people that have, with all the bolt ons you can do, it still got walked on by a stock 2.4l twin cam, and even fully built 12.5:1 compression, huge cam, race ported head, itll just keep up with a 3400 in a j-body. its realy not my idea of a great engine.

[Stewart G. Griffin]

i meant i love it for durablilty/reliability; i've got one in my 90 cavalier. 237,000 still giving 30+ mpg, no smoke etc.

Yes, i have had the head gasket replaced.

Yes, it is a dog, but who cares?

[prophiseer]

i dunno about loving the 2.2l. they were prone to head gasket failures and a real dog.

that's the understatement of the year right there, I couldn't tell ya how many times I've pulled the head on one of those infernal motors, hell you can barely keep the heads on 'em. Coils go bad all the time, or they burn up #1 and #4 plug wires. Starters go bad about yearly, and they're a bitch to replace. I could easily go on

at least the Q4's were blowing the heads from how much power they were making stock (coupled with a really stupid head bolt design on the 2.3L twin cams - they shoulda studded those HO heads); if I ever have to drive another GM 4 - I'd prefer it to be a Q4 in really good shape, you can easily get them to pull 40+ mpg/highway without too expensive modification. IMO, I'm still unsure of the ecotec, but I'm starting to see fewer and fewer problems with them, couple more years and they should be as bullet proof as the 2.4's were.

[sharkey]

the 2.4l was never bullet broof. i couldnt cound the number of times ive seen them spin rod bearings. and lets not talk about changing water pumps.

[prophiseer]

Oh I defi agree those water pumps are a bitch; I've replaced my share of 'em and the look on the customer's face when you quoted them almost $1k in parts . . .

but I've never really seen that many problems else-wise, maybe we just had some more PM enlightened customers (in which case, maybe I've been lucky )

[Stewart G. Griffin]

Yes, i've had coil problems. Only once though.

And the ignition sensor thing that reads off the disk on the crankshaft went bad.

But that's about it.

The water pump, P/s and alt are a little tricky, but i would not say difficult.

[prophiseer]

no the water pump in a 2.0/2.2 isn't all that bad . . .



. . . compared to a 2.3/2.4

I