Anyone have pics of this engine slated for 2009? I remember reading last year about them running tests on 3 engines. A "standard" OHV, a "2 in the valley" twin cam OHV, and a DOHC. All V8s mind. I forget where I read it, but I remember it says the twin cam OHV was a tester for the next Vette.

Hey, maybe this will be a new swap option for the Fiero?

This engine has not been shown but is stated at a DOHC B8 High Feature engine.

This all means Northstar replacment.

The Northstar is getting old and with the STS supercharged engine has been taken about as far as they want to go.

The new engine will a new begining and we will see it only in the Caddy and maybe Buick. I have heard that it would be 400- 600 HP + in different models from Caddy.

The 3 valve and 4 valve cam in block has not been confirmed or really spoken of by GM yet. We are still waiting on word if or when they will go ahead. We do know the LS2 is not going into the Camaro and it will get a not seen new V8. It will not be the DOHC Caddy engine so it means we will get a new enigne in the next year or so for Chevy.

The is a LS9 coming and it is a Chevy Supercharged engine with the Supercharger being the intake manifols and intercooler in one like the STS supercharged engine is today. It will produce around 650 HP in the new super Vette and has been tested over 700 HP in trials.

If looking for a swap today there is a the 5.3 303 HP V8 in the GXP GP, the 260 HP Ecotech turbo coming for the HHR and Cobalt in FWD trim. Also there is a DOHC V6 in the new CTS Caddy coming at 300 HP. This direct injection engine will make the old 60 degree DOHC V6 look like a boat anchor as it is very state of the art and will be used in many new cars that are coming. This is one V6 GM did very right.

[This message has been edited by hyperv6 (edited 01-18-2007).]

what exactly would be the benefit of having a dual cam overhead valve engine? You don't remove any valvetrain mass like in an overhead cam configuration, and gain more parts..... lose/lose...

I saw something about a dohc diesel for 2009 also.


http://www.fierocountry.us

This one? This one is a front wheel drive version. So, if GM was testing it for a Corvette they would have to change a few things including the V6 bell housing pattern. These pics came from a GM press website a while ago.

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: what exactly would be the benefit of having a dual cam overhead valve engine? You don't remove any valvetrain mass like in an overhead cam configuration, and gain more parts..... lose/lose...

I'm not a mechanical engineer but that is also the way I see it. SOHC is more efficient. Please correct me if I am wrong.

------------------
got boost? L67 in progress...

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: what exactly would be the benefit of having a dual cam overhead valve engine?

Well ... with VVT you could vary the intake and exhaust timing independently, just like a DOHC VVT setup. That should give you some ideas.

That is one oddly shaped block. It's also a lot taller than I expected. Might just be that point tho. It's not too bad looking, now, if GM can just leave off the plastic covers and other crap that engines have now. (i.e. covers with "CORVETTE" embossed on them)

Is it me, or does that look like the Duratec Ford intake manifold? Maybe a DSM intake manifold?

quote Originally posted by AquaHusky: That is one oddly shaped block. It's also a lot taller than I expected. Might just be that point tho. It's not too bad looking, now, if GM can just leave off the plastic covers and other crap that engines have now. (i.e. covers with "CORVETTE" embossed on them) Is it me, or does that look like the Duratec Ford intake manifold? Maybe a DSM intake manifold?

yep, its very similar in looks:

[This message has been edited by justa6 (edited 01-18-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: Three HUGE advantages. 1. Much more compact than dual overhead camed heads 2. Infinitely variable intake and exhaust cam phasing 3. Half the cam mass

Thanks for the the pictures! This engine never progressed much but they are still working on a similar engine and here is the most recent photo's







Don't forget less overall weight and much lower production cost. These were also sited by GM as well as your points.

DOHC has many advantages but in the real world where cost and space are factors it also has faults. With new technology arriving and new Ideas the push rod engine is once again viable and will have a great future. A low cost efficent pushrod engine would give any MFG a great advantage in the area of cost and ease on putting the engine in very tight engine compartments.

No one could imagine a 500+ pushrod V8 getting neat 30 MPG on the higway 15 years ago. Today we have the LS 7

The added cost and weight of even the Northstar is great but in an expensive car people expect a high feature engine, So GM builds it. As for the small displacment engines DOHC is not as much a penalty on a 4 cyl as it is on a V8 since it is a smaller package to start and adds much less parts vs a V8 with DOHC.

[This message has been edited by hyperv6 (edited 01-18-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: Three HUGE advantages. 1. Much more compact than dual overhead camed heads 2. Infinitely variable intake and exhaust cam phasing 3. Half the cam mass

Compare apples to apples - pushrods to pushrods...

1) It's going to be taller (less compact) than a standard OHV pushrod/single cam

2) Okay, granted... They'll be able to eliminate the EGR and gain some torque

3) How do you figure? It would have double the cam mass

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: Compare apples to apples - pushrods to pushrods... 1) It's going to be taller (less compact) than a standard OHV pushrod/single cam 2) Okay, granted... They'll be able to eliminate the EGR and gain some torque 3) How do you figure? It would have double the cam mass

1) the block only has to be taller a couple of inches. and engine tallness isnt the problem its the width thats the problem

3) 2 cams vs 4 also the extra weight of the 2nd cam is lower centered than the extra weight of 4 cams up top.

pushrod technology isnt more primitive or lower performance than OHC
Dohcs just make more power because of Hemispherical shaped heads.

I used to be a huge OHc proponent but the LS series just proves that pushrod works just as well. Its about intake and cumbustion chamber design.

SOHC isnt nessicarily better either. you need many rocker arms for a hemi
more rocker arms = weight

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: Compare apples to apples - pushrods to pushrods... 1) It's going to be taller (less compact) than a standard OHV pushrod/single cam 2) Okay, granted... They'll be able to eliminate the EGR and gain some torque 3) How do you figure? It would have double the cam mass

1) I don't see how it will be taller, but I can see wider. I remember reading GM wanted the tuning of individual int and exh cams, yet, keep the low profile of a OHV engine for a Corvette.

2) Nothing to say about that

3) I think he's comparing it to a 4 total camshaft equipped V8 (2 for each bank)

This "concept" twin cam v8 is the same size as a LSx engine and for the same size it packs in a HUGE try pack of advantages.
Don't forget that this IS a front wheel drive engine. The High Out put "Corvette" engine may be much more "modified"

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: Compare apples to apples - pushrods to pushrods... 1) It's going to be taller (less compact) than a standard OHV pushrod/single cam 2) Okay, granted... They'll be able to eliminate the EGR and gain some torque 3) How do you figure? It would have double the cam mass

The engine grows very little if any.

Even with the extra pushrods and rockers it is lighter than many DOHC V8 set up 2 cams vs 4, Rockers vs followers, larger head mass to bolt all the hard where too.

You may get a little more HP loss in the valve train and lose a small bit of efficentcy with a push rod but it is so small that the other factors far out weight them.

Just look at the engine under the hood of a Mustang Cobra. Comare this to a Z06 engine and see the differance in size. Also compare the cost of buliding each and you would find the DOHC is a much more expensive engine to build. If your selling a Caddy that is not a big deal but if you selling a low cost Pick up, Camaro or Mustang it is a big factor in retaining cost and making a profit.

Both engines are great and have a place in the industry so I expect both will be around for a good while.

GM upgrading NY engine plant to build new V8
Posted Jan 18th 2007 11:59AM by Sam Abuelsamid
Filed under: Plants/Manufacturing, GM


The current Northstar supercharged DOHC V-8

The General Motors Tonawanda Engine Plant near Niagara Falls, NY will be getting more money from the mothership in order to tool up for another new engine. Tonawanda currently builds 4, 5, 6 and 8-cylinder engines ranging from the 2.2L EcoTec to the enormous 8.1L big-block V-8. GM is now going to invest another $300 million to add a line for a new dual overhead cam (DOHC) V-8 engine, that has Job 1 scheduled for sometime on 2009. The engine is targeted for future luxury cars and will presumably replace the NorthStar V-8 which first appeared in 1992.

General Motors has already invested $1.2 billion in Tonawanda over the last decade, tooling up for all the other engines currently built there, and there is no indication if this will replace one of the current engines or will be added to the current lines. The Tonawanda plant has built almost 67 million engines since 1938, and previous products have included the 2.8L V-6, from the original X-Cars (now evolved into the 3.5/3.9L "High Value" engines) and the "legendary" 2.5L Iron Duke. The full GM press release is after the jump.

[Source: General Motors]Tonawanda Gets $300 Million To Build GM's Newest Engine


Buffalo, NY – General Motors today announced it will invest $300 million in its GM Powertrain Tonawanda engine plant to manufacture an all-new, technically advanced dual overhead cam (DOHC) V-8 engine, slated to begin production here in 2009.

"This all-new engine will play a critical role in GM's exciting future luxury vehicle portfolio," said John Buttermore, GM Powertrain vice president of global manufacturing. "As one of the most technically advanced engines in GM, its power and smoothness will be among the world's best, and yet more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly."

The investment includes renovation to part of the plant, new machinery and tooling to support the new engine production. Renovations are expected to begin this fall. As a result of this new work, Tonawanda will retain 150 jobs.

"On behalf of General Motors, I commend the United Auto Workers, UAW Local 774, and local and state leaders for helping to provide the business case and securing the necessary incentives to support this investment and the future of the GMPT Tonawanda engine plant," said Bill Shaw, GM Powertrain manufacturing manager.

New York Governor Elliot Spitzer said, "GM's $300 million investment is welcome news for Western New York and exhibits the company's faith that issues affecting the business climate of this state can and will be successfully confronted. GM's willingness to invest in the area is an early sign of the state's economic development prospects and is a testament to the great value of our highly skilled workforce."

Today's announcement brings GM's total investment in the GMPT Tonawanda plant to $1.5 billion over the last ten years.

"This is a significant investment from the standpoint of expanding production here at Tonawanda and providing greater job security for UAW Local 774's members whose dedication helped win this new work," said Wally Wedington, UAW Local 774 shop chairman.

"General Motors' continuing investment in Tonawanda and Erie County demonstrates the strength of our partnership," said Joel Giambra, Erie County executive. "We are thrilled to be able to protect jobs at the GM Powertrain plant through cooperation with GM management and UAW Local 774 leadership."

The GM Powertrain Tonawanda engine plant has produced nearly 67 million engines since its opening in 1938. The plant employs 1,860 people and provides an annual payroll of $198 million. GMPT Tonawanda currently produces the 4-cylinder, Ecotec 2.2-liter engines for the Chevrolet Cobalt, HHR and Malibu and the Saturn Ion; High Value, V-6 3.5- and 3.9-liter engines for the Chevrolet Impala and Monte Carlo, and the Pontiac G6; Inline 4- and 5-cylinder engines for the Chevrolet Colorado, GMC Canyon and the Hummer H3; Vortec 8100 8.1-liter engines for the Chevrolet Kodiak, GMC TopKick and sold outside GM for various marine applications.

General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM), the world's largest automaker, has been the global industry sales leader for 75 years. Founded in 1908, GM today employs about 284,000

people around the world. With global headquarters in Detroit, GM manufactures its cars and trucks in 33 countries. In 2006, 9.1 million GM cars and trucks were sold globally. More information on GM can be found at www.gm.com.

quote Originally posted by ChopTop: Tonawanda currently builds 4, 5, 6 and 8-cylinder engines ranging from the 2.2L EcoTec to the enormous 8.1L big-block V-8.

Excuse me while I crawl out from under my rock but a 5 cylinder engine??

quote Originally posted by tstroud: Excuse me while I crawl out from under my rock but a 5 cylinder engine??

I5's are in the trucks. Belive it or not, but yea - inline 5 cyls.

quote Originally posted by tstroud: Excuse me while I crawl out from under my rock but a 5 cylinder engine??

Yeah the H3 has a 5 cylinder engine. Kind of wimpy if you ask me.

Regardless of many of the factors I've read in this post, the one thing that still seems to hinder all of our efforts to convert some of the nice to have motors is the electronics, ECM, PCM, whatever you want to call it. Although I'm not quoting Archie, in a conversation with him once I asked about a fairly new engine in the GM stable and he replied something to the effect that no one had been able to crack the codes in the computers to allow this particular engine to be swapped into a Fiero.
The engines may have great potential, size, horsepower and torque, ect.... but until someone (much smarter than me) cracks the computer for these motors, we can wish and drool all day over them but it ain't gonna happen till the codes are cracked.

------------------
Ron
Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

The I5 and I4 engines are just shorter varients of the I6 in the Trail Blazer.

You won't need to 'crack' the OEM computers much longer,
there is a DIY completely open EFI computer you can use to control the engine, pretty soon it will be able to do sequential fuel injection and coil-on-plug style ignicion, those things really help with modern engines. It will already do batch fire injection and ignition via GM HEI or Ford EDIS type setups..
links: www.msefi.com and http://www.megasquirt.info/
this is the route I plan to go for my swap, assuming I can ever get the budget together..

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Regardless of many of the factors I've read in this post, the one thing that still seems to hinder all of our efforts to convert some of the nice to have motors is the electronics, ECM, PCM, whatever you want to call it. Although I'm not quoting Archie, in a conversation with him once I asked about a fairly new engine in the GM stable and he replied something to the effect that no one had been able to crack the codes in the computers to allow this particular engine to be swapped into a Fiero. The engines may have great potential, size, horsepower and torque, ect.... but until someone (much smarter than me) cracks the computer for these motors, we can wish and drool all day over them but it ain't gonna happen till the codes are cracked.

This is not true. It just wont be done his/your way. I did my S* conversion and the electronics to control it are every bit as complex as the N*. And I have it smog certified in the worst state there is for engine transplants. How it is done and how much time and resource you want to spend on the swap will determine the engine you "can use" NOT how new or modern or electronically complex it is from the factory. Yes I am sure we all wish for easy drop in modern engines, but if I want an engine bad enough, I will get it done and so can a lot of other people.

quote Originally posted by miztic: You won't need to 'crack' the OEM computers much longer, there is a DIY completely open EFI computer you can use to control the engine, pretty soon it will be able to do sequential fuel injection and coil-on-plug style ignicion, those things really help with modern engines. It will already do batch fire injection and ignition via GM HEI or Ford EDIS type setups.. links: www.msefi.com and http://www.megasquirt.info/ this is the route I plan to go for my swap, assuming I can ever get the budget together..

Can it control cam phasors?

Didn't think so..... That's why you'll never see one running a VVT northstar, like the 4.4 supercharged...

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: Can it control cam phasors? Didn't think so..... That's why you'll never see one running a VVT northstar, like the 4.4 supercharged...

As far as I know, the new GPIO board could possibly control those, pwm modulation etc. shouldn't be much of a problem..

Maybe not now, but I'm sure soon enough. I'm sure they're waiting for the "fan base" to warrant them to make it. You know, supply/demand theory here. I'm sure they are working on cam phase controllers right now.

quote Originally posted by AquaHusky: Maybe not now, but I'm sure soon enough. I'm sure they're waiting for the "fan base" to warrant them to make it. You know, supply/demand theory here. I'm sure they are working on cam phase controllers right now.

If I understand it correctly, their goal for the GPIO board was to control a 4L60-E transmission, but they made it very generalized so it can controll all kinds of things, make it flexible, so in my optimistic mind, with a little configuration it should be able to control cam phasers.

I have to add that I haven't been able to find ANY info on what kinda signal a cam phaser takes, I assume it would be some kinda pwm or a timed pulse or something along those lines, from my reading, the GPIO board will let the MS easily do that sort of thing..

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: This is not true. It just wont be done his/your way. I did my S* conversion and the electronics to control it are every bit as complex as the N*. And I have it smog certified in the worst state there is for engine transplants. How it is done and how much time and resource you want to spend on the swap will determine the engine you "can use" NOT how new or modern or electronically complex it is from the factory. Yes I am sure we all wish for easy drop in modern engines, but if I want an engine bad enough, I will get it done and so can a lot of other people.

Rick,
You are 100% correct, after all, we did put a man on the moon so anything is possible. My point was that "most" of us don't have the resources or knowledge to accomplish most of these swaps. I whole heartedly agree with your statement above. Your last satement sums it up pretty well. "Yes I am sure we all wish for easy drop in modern engines, but if I want an engine bad enough, I will get it done and so can a lot of other people." Well said, just not everyone can do that. But then again, that's what the world is all about.

------------------
Ron
Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

is the GPIO even out yet? they've been promising it for a couple years now.....

I don't know what the phasors use for a signal either, however - my understanding of it is that the ECM needs to monitor the position of all cams simultaneously, which is CPU intensive. One of the reasons why the 4.4 N* PCM has one of the fastest 32 bit PCM's out there... In other words, a 10mhz 8 bit CPU might not be capable of handling it, regardless of whether the hardware is there to control it.

Now, don't quote me on this, but I think cam phase controllers use a few things to control hydraulic pressures to the cam gears. I think it reads TPS, MAP, intake temps, load, RPMs and a couple other things and adjusts pressures accordingly. I think that is what I was told how it operate. Like VTEC, only smarter and better.

the GPIO isn't out (they're in testing right now) so any day how hehe, but you're right, it's been 2 years at least..
the Router board for cop & sequential fuel injection has been in development that long too, I got the sense that it would be available this summer, but who knows for sure..

I'm sure an OEM ECM does all this complicated stuff to make the cam phasers run at maximum reliability and performance.. however, I'm thinking what if you take a bit of a shortcut and phase the cams based on engine rpm for example? would that work 90% as good as the OEM one? i'd take it
Maybe I'm thinking of this wrong, but wouldn't the cam phasing work sorta like spark advance? that'd be easy enough to manage..

It just occurred to me that I'm getting a little off topic of the thread..

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: is the GPIO even out yet? they've been promising it for a couple years now..... I don't know what the phasors use for a signal either, however - my understanding of it is that the ECM needs to monitor the position of all cams simultaneously, which is CPU intensive. One of the reasons why the 4.4 N* PCM has one of the fastest 32 bit PCM's out there... In other words, a 10mhz 8 bit CPU might not be capable of handling it, regardless of whether the hardware is there to control it.

I suppose this is where I make a point simce you mention 8-bit microcontrollers. Monitoring the cam phase isnt intensive for a coprocessor, provided the sensors dont need some sort of funny handshaking to work properly. Table lookups, even 3-dimenstional lookups, are not hard to do either, supposing that he tables are symmetrical and the derivation is quick.

I dont see much of a need with the cam controller to even need to talk to the CPU and only needing a few sensors to operate properly: throttle position, RPM, VSS (for power limiting in 1rst gear), MAF, and maybe a couple more.

Your thoughts?

Re: VVT -

Here is what Allen Cline sent me in regards to the VVT system on the *northstar*. This may or may not apply to other engines.

"The VVT control is a bit more complicated. It relies on constant feedback of cam position from the cam position sensors for control. The cam phasers do not have any preset "stops" or reference settings in them for timing control. The control of the phaser is based on the spool valve on the front face of the head being pulled in or out to control the oil flow to the two chambers in the phaser. The spool valve and control has no way of knowing where the cam timing is at without constant feedback from the cam position sensors. The position feedback just tells the system whether to advance or retard to achieve the desired cam timing. Since each cam phaser and spool valve will operate a little differently there is no "absolute" control features built into the system. It is purely based on feedback from the position sensors to tell the spool valve control software whether to advance or retard to achieve the desired result.

It is not a PWM control nor simple in any fashion. You'll need 4 channels of cam position sensing capability as well as 4 channels of cam phaser spool valve control to begin to feed the software."

Ah I get it, so you can't even slave the two exhaust cams together because they may not neccessarily move the same for a given input right?
I can sorta see a custom cam controller that takes MS commands via the CAN bus and adjusts the cams accordingly..

Thanks a lot for the insight, I was definately oversimplifying things a lot..

Why even have CAMs in the first place? Why not just open and close the valves directly using solenoids and computer control?

quote Originally posted by jscott1: Why even have CAMs in the first place? Why not just open and close the valves directly using solenoids and computer control?

Like Toyota has been working on for years? Electromagnetic valve operation I think is what they called it.