The best sedan to come from a GM company in years. I wish they kept the Holden grill, but this is still good. Much better than a Charger.

Looks like they have a 6 speed in there as well. (for all the doubters)

nice car

I still can't get over those fake backgrounds.....

Since when is door spelled dor? If you can't even spell words right, how do we know that your facts and figures are right? The spelling accuracy in news reports sure has been slipping this year. Anyway the car looks sweet. In my opinion the last great American design was the Lincoln LS but this looks pretty good also. Through in a nice, upscale interior and you have a good alternative to a BMW.

CS:
Since when is door spelled dor? If you can't even spell words right, how do we know that your facts and figures are right? The spelling accuracy in news reports sure has been slipping this year. Anyway the car looks sweet. In my opinion the last great American design was the Lincoln LS but this looks pretty good also. Through in a nice, upscale interior and you have a good alternative to a BMW.

For someone who is complaining about spelling learn how to spell throw douche!

And just how can we take someone seriously when they judge someone on a single misspelling, yet their post is riddled with grammatical atrocities?

Good catch. I was just testing all of you to see if you were paying attention. I'm glad to see you are all awake. I was just pointing out that all the news entities have been getting sloppy lately. I can go to almost any webpage such as CNN or FoxNews and even Tom's Hardware and see a ton of spelling errors. I'm assuming that in a rush to get so called "news" out, they are overlooking their gramatics. Anyway, is GM actually going to produce this car or is it just a tease?

Nice car, but why cant they put a more efficient engine in there. And I dont mean in MPG terms, I mean in specific HP.
6 Litres to make 361HP is only 60HP / Litre. Thats a really low tune level. Ok it gives room for aftermarket adjustments and tuning but makes little sense. The most basic of naturally aspirated sports car engines have been making 70HP / Litre for 20 years and 80 for the last 10 years right out of the factory.

You're right on the money with your comment Tony. It seems pretty much the standard to make 100hp/liter out of an engine these days so why GM is using an engine that only puts forth 60hp/liter is beyond me.

This engine will make better low end power than one that has 100 hp per liter. With a heavy car like this you NEED low end power. In order to increase the horsepower of ANY engine, you need to generate more torque at a higher rpm. This is accomplished with longer duration camshaft timing, and/or larger intake/exhaust/cylinder head ports. The Ls2 engine already has some of the most efficient cylinder heads in the world. So in order to get 100 hp per liter, you will be sacrificing a lot of driveability. *This does not pertain to forced induction systems.

Next time you complain about specific output, which really does not matter as long as your getting good gas mileage and power, make sure you have at least a basic understanding of how engines work.

Great effort by Pontiac, as long as the quality is there it will do well. I wish Pontiac would come up with a new design scheme, though...that dual kidney grille front end treatment played out somewhere around 1985.

Why the hell does it matter how much hp/liter it makes? Who cares? It's faster and gets equal or better mileage than many other cars with higher hp/liter.

Wow, the interiors of Pontiacs has come a long way. If I didn't know better I could mistake that for an Acura or something. Even I, as often as I defend American cars from Euro hype and bias, have always thought of Pontiacs as cheap glued together plastic economy boxes. That perception is rapidly changing when I see stuff like this.

And the outside of the car isn't bad at all, it's got lines and curves that break up the light by not staying in one place for too long, and subtle pieces of strategically located trim bits to break up the continuity. Both things work to make a car look sleek and classy and not look like the body is a single piece of injection molded plastic.

And the engine is fine. Why does HP/L matter if you get the same or better mileage and power? You could argue that a smaller engine is inefficient because it has to have more valves and rev higher in order to make the same power that this one does. It's like arguing whether you call it half a dozen or six. Just different methods of engineering to achieve the same end results. You guys think it's some amazing feat to get the most power possible out of the smallest engine possible; it's not. It's just arbitrarily constraining yourself.

If a 6 liter engine can make the same power and more torque as a 2 to 4 liter engine can while getting the same fuel economy while moving what is probably a pig of a car, I'd say thats pretty damn efficient.

Dill, number 1, dont make the assumption that I do not know how engines work. I'm no expert, but I've worked on a few engines in my time and know plenty of the figures on how power is generated (and lost) in engines.
You dont have to run high cams in order to generate more power or modify intake and exhuasts. You can throw high lifting cams in and retard the engine in low revs but as you said it doesn't make for fun driving at regular speeds.... think Honda S2000. But then I never said we have to be makin 100Bhp/Litre either. The single biggest problem I see with the combustion engine is that it can only utilise around 25% of the energy available to it.
Many advances have been made in injector technology producing finer sprays that produce a cleaner more complete burn, reducing emmisions and creating more power.
The trick obviously is creating wide torque band, not pushing the torque all into a narrow high end. Also the Ls2 is only a dual cam 16 valve V8, while very durable it gives less room to vary injection timing. Maybe a quad cam 32 valve system like in the Ford Modular engine in the Cobra would be a better design. At 4.6 Litres it produces nearly the same horsepower in non supercharged form

"This engine will make better low end power than one that has 100 hp per liter."

No, it will make better low end power than an AMERICAN engine that has 100 hp per liter. Most foreign cars making 100 hp per liter or more AND have a good amount of power low down.

Also, people always want to claim that these massively over sized engines have so much more torque - but if you look at torque per liter, your beloved Z06 only makes 67lb/ft of torque per liter while a BMW M3 (the new one) makes 74 lb/ft of torque per liter. On the HP front, the Z06 makes a pathetic 72 hp per liter while the M3 makes 104 hp per liter.

Now, if BMW had those same output and bumped the engine up to a Panzer sized 7 liters it would have 728 hp and 518 lb/ft of torque.

Now, you tell me which engine has more kick relative to displacement. You say "there's no replacement for displacement" - but people who've seen engineering after 1950 know that the correct saying is "there's no replacement for good engineering".

"CS:

Good catch. I was just testing all of you to see if you were paying attention."

This is a pathetic response. Now you not only appear as stupid, but as a liar, as well. Suck it up. You were caught casting stones at others when you should have been casting them at yourself.

I never knew the LS2 was a dual cam engine... could have sworn it was a single cam-in-block push rod engine.

And what does number of cams have to do with "more room to vary injection timing"? More cams = more valves = higher utilization of the combustion chamber surface area for valve opening = more air flow. And technically even # of cams has nothing to do with # valves, it's just that push rods and rocker arms for a 4v single cam-in-block engine would be a nightmare to implement physically.

Injection timing has to do with crank/cam position and the start and stop of the intake valve opening and closing events (which the ECU gets from cam or crank position sensor, of which there is only 1 even if you have 100 cams since it's assumed that all cams are mechanically timed together). All intake valves open at the same time, regardless if you have one cam or four... varying injection timing has absolutely nothing to do with the number of cams...

Yeah you know all about engines... just like everyone else here who spouts off all these acronyms like DOHC that they don't even understand, those who automatically call a single cam engine inferior because some snob on a TV show said so! You just proved the stereotype.

Props to LeBeau, he's right.

I know some idiot will probably start the hp per pound argument so I'll stop that before it starts: it matters none at all how much the engine weighs but rather how much THE WHOLE CAR weighs. So what if an pushrod engine is lighter than a DOHC engine (which rarely happens anyway, only a few GM V8s have accomplished that) if the rest of the car weighs 2 tons. The engine has to not overcome just its own weight but also the weight of the car. So if a DOHC engines weighs 400lbs but the car weighs in at a total of 3000, and a pushrod engines weighs 350 but the total car weighs 3300, which car will be faster, given the same power and torque? The lighter one, the DOHC car.

As to pushrod engines making low end torque: bullshit. Look up your precious Z06: its torque comes in way over 4000 RPM! Compare that to BMW's inline 6 dual turbo, which comes in at 1800 RPM. Which one is more fun to drive if torque equals fun? The BMW.

Also, "fun to drive" does not equal torque anyway. People have been driving small foreign cars since the late seventies because they are "fun." Even though many of them DO make better low end torque, why are these cars called fun even when they do not? Because they can be thrown through corners and stopped quickly, and then they go quickly. People like G Forces, thats why Roller Coasters are so fun for kids. If it ain't true, prove to me that small foreign cars did not sell well in the late 70s early 80s due to being fun to drive, when thats the first thing the owners will tell you. Do not bring up the fuel crisis: the Embargo was in the early 70s and ended by 75'.

I always have trouble with pushrod engines producing to much top end torque. You try to downshift before a turn to keep your RPMs high (so you can upshift faster coming out of the turn) and you end up spinning the back tires out from under you. I have to wait and downshift after the turn whenever I drive a Camaro or old Corvette, but that takes much more time then if I was in the proper gear coming out of the turn.

Chris, stop spewing your crap here. Only the rednecks buy it.

Remy:

You just contradicted yourself with your comments on "no replacement for displacement".

You said: "Now, if BMW had those same output and bumped the engine up to a Panzer sized 7 liters it would have 728 hp and 518 lb/ft of torque."

That statement in and of itself is the exact meaning of "no replacement for displacement". Even when BMW runs out of 'engineering' all they have to do to make more power is bump up displacement while holding everything else constant. No matter how much technology or boost or whatever, when applied to an engine with more displacement it's going to make more power, period.

But you can play the what if game all you want. What if BMW had a 7L engine? They don't, they have a 4 liter engine. What if a LS7 had DOHC heads? It doesn't. If it did, you can bet that 4L BMW wouldn't stand a chance.

It doesn't even need the DOHC heads, it has a whole 3L advantage being untapped, something that the BMW engine can't do anything about. But you could always rebuild a N/A LS7 with the same time and money and parts quality that a BMW engine is put together with, and it would make upwards of 800 HP with things like heads, cams, valve job, etc. Just google around for some N/A 7+L fully built N/A crate motors making 800-900 HP on pump gas. Lets see BMW do that with only 2 valves per cylinder and one cam.

Put another way, you could say that a 7L engine with the same power output as a 4L engine has a lot more untapped potential than the 4L engine that has had more wrung out of it from the factory with little left on the table.

Allen:

How am I spewing crap? I corrected somebody who posted claiming to know something about engines, who then said the LS2 was a twin cam 16v engine... surely even you know it's a "redneck push rod" engine with a single cam...

So now it's redneck crap to speak truth?

Waiting to hear an explanation from you or Remy that actually involves hard facts and not insults and snobbery.

Find me a BMW M3 V8 for less than $12000.

"You just contradicted yourself with your comments on "no replacement for displacement"."

No, I didn't. I showed that good engineering negates a need for an engine the size of Texas to make the same amount of power. A two year old can tell you that increasing the size of an engine will (in the hands of an engineer with an IQ over 5) make more power. However, to increase power WITHOUT increasing displacement is something worthwhile.

"But you could always rebuild a N/A LS7"

Good god, I didn't realize it was "American cars are 'supposed' to have 700 parts replaced by the customer" Chris. Again, this is NOT about what you can MODIFY a car to do. This is about how the COMPANY engineers their cars. Of course, you'll ignore this as you did before and rattle on about how "thum Amurrican cars done be better cuz they ain't made by them thurr Japs / Krauts".

Oh and Allen, you comment on vehicle wait having a bearing on engine capacity leaves me laughing on the floor.

So that means we can put the M3 engine in a 9,000 LB armored 7 series, and then equate that it is a poorly designed engine because of the total weight, is that correct? That's what you're saying...

Hi Chris you right, the Ls2 is a cam in block engine. My mistake, I am from europe and not much experience with american engines but then you're prob rolling your eyes right now :) You may think I am in here casting stones but I am not. I looked up a bit on the Ls2 and looks like out of the factory it should come with 400bhp and 400ft/lbs of torque. Correct me if I am wrong!
I was goin to mention the V8 in the new BMW M3 as a comparison but didn't want to compare to it as the technology and cost are miles appart.
But even the 1999 BMW M5 had a 5.0Litre V8 makin 400bhp 80 per litre.

The point is that to create more cylinder space you need more metal which adds more weight and ultimately sacrifices some fuel economy.

Also manufacturers will always release undertuned versions or engines so they can bump it up later and release it as a new model. Which is a pity for us but makes sense if you sell them as less R&D and increased engine reliability

The reason why it doesn't make that much power is it has a Cam that is designed for Displacement on Demand so it gets better fuel economy. Also these are SAE net ratings which tend to be about 3% lower then traditional ratings. Plus while it doesn't make 100/hp per liter it does make the standard for 1hp per Cubic inch which was pretty much the standard until recently. You also have to remember with a DOHC setup it costs about twice as much as a Pushrod engine. Take the Northstar engine for instance, it costs about twice as much as a pushrod engine and doesn't deliver too much more power either per liter. Another advantage is with a OHV engine you can put more liters in the same profile as an OHC engine. I had a Maxima that had an engine that takes up about the same amount of space as my 06 Impala SS. And my Impala is a lot more fun to drive so you all know.

Another great thing about american cars is they seem to use less RPMs when you are going down the highway and therefore use less gas. At 60MPH you are only using 1600RPM's vs. about 2100 for my Maxima. In the city its a different story as Mileage sucks in a larger engine. Highway on the other hand I've averaged 30MPG on trips vs about 26MPG in my Maxima. DOD works, if it worked in the city it would be awesome but it does help on the highway.

THAT'S A GODDAMN *HOLDEN*!!! Cool!

The original Holden grille does look better than that "nostril flared" Pontiac grille though.

I wonder when Holden will realise that calling their performance vehicles "HSV" is lame. "oooh *Special* Vehicle!!". Also HSV stands for Herpes Simplex Virus ;-P "G8 GT Sema Ed" at least doesn't make me think of cold sores!

To clarify "ve hef dese karz in Austria- I mean Austraylia!" Had them for a year I think. Burnt orange has been around for ages here as well. They're made here too, not sure who designed them though. I don't follow Holden much - they have improved their standards a LOT over the last 10 years compared to the previous decade.

"So if a DOHC engines weighs 400lbs but the car weighs in at a total of 3000, and a pushrod engines weighs 350 but the total car weighs 3300, which car will be faster, given the same power and torque? The lighter one, the DOHC car."

Nope. You forgot that the pushrod engine still makes an extra 100hp and an extra 150 lb/ft of torque.

Even if the whole car weighs more, and there's no reason it would weigh *300* pounds more. The G8 is a huge car with lots of features and a very sturdy frame.

"As to pushrod engines making low end torque: bullshit. Look up your precious Z06: its torque comes in way over 4000 RPM! Compare that to BMW's inline 6 dual turbo, which comes in at 1800 RPM."

So, now you have to find a car with a blower for comparison. This has nothing to do with the DOHC conversation that was started. Power per liter is completely different when you add forced induction. Not to mention that it is impossible to get this engine in a similar sized car for anywhere close to the same low price as the G8.

Power/Pound, Power/price (of the whole car and the engine), simplicity of design... the G8 has a cavernous interior and trunk, excellent suspension design, top notch interior. This car could easily resuscitate Pontiac from a near death experience. This is good for America, stop your crying.

All moot points its all about what application the motor is tuned for IE corvette all about Speed G8 four door sedan family fun not to mention its well known that no major car maker has produced as much hp out of a normal pushrod v8 as Chevy has just look at price per hp new bmw motors are way more expensive and complex go try to add 100 hp to your m3 or m5 in a weekend for under $5000 and a two year degree in auto tuning

Remy:

Give it a rest, you proved the statement "there is no replacement for displacement" by stating, all else held equal, BMW could increase displacement and get proportionally more power without doing anything else.

What did you think that statement means?

To Chris's post above:

"But you could always rebuild a N/A LS7 with the same time and money and parts quality that a BMW engine is put together with"

This hits it right on the money. At least with a BMW, the car is engineered with quality right from the factory. With GM, sometimes you have to wonder where the quality is. I speak from experience, I've owned more GMs than any other brand and I've owned BMWs. I can attest that BMWs are of very high quality, when compared to GM, however if something breaks on your BMW, you might as well sell a kidney on EBAY to cover the cost. Great engineering doesn't come cheap. BMW 3 or 5 series or Pontiac sedan - maybe a poll should be taken to see how many of the miscreants on this site would swing towards the Pontiac?

People call me a redneck because I defend push rod engines here that people perceive as low tech.

For the record, my car is a 4.6L DOHC V8 that makes around 700 HP and 700 FT/LB at the wheels. I have no particular affinity for push rod engines, call it defense of a third party coming from someone who actually understands the physics of internal combusion.

Just because I, for example, prefer apples and don't like the taste of oranges, doesn't mean oranges are inherently wrong and nobody should eat them or that I am going to go on a crusade to ban oranges.

I just feel I should step in when I can so people who might stumble across this site won't walk away with the false and outright ignorant mechanical knowledge that is sometimes propagated here.

More often than not much of the information here comes from high school kids who read high end exotic car magazines depicting cars they will never stand within a mile of much less drive, watch Formula 1 racing and shows like Top Gear, and play Gran Turismo, and don't even change their own oil. To them any car that doesn't handle like a Ferrari F1 car and have 32 cams is crap, never mind the fact that we are comparing a $4000 car to a $1 mi. car.

According to them, the average $10-20,000 daily commuter is a BMW M5 and AMG Mercedes, so a Dodge station wagon or a Chrysler minivan is crap if it isn't exactly like a McLaren F1. Yet they think they have some credibility to say that only one particular brand of engine is greater than all else and then proceed to spew out buzz words and acronyms without even knowing what they mean.

I'm betting half the people who comment here couldn't point out a valve lifter for me if they had a completely disassembled engine in front of them, but they will talk about and promote things like variable valve lift and timing till their face turns blue.

The fact of the matter is that GM's simple pushrod engines strike a good to excellent balance of performance, fuel economy, cost, and durability. Looking at all of the key metrics in a real world environment, they are still very competitive.

But some people prefer different priorities than GM's. You might favor higher specific output, higher redlines, more technology, whatever. Every car person knows someone who demands that their car have a DOHC engine despite not really understanding what it means.

This is okay, and people that understand the aspects of developing and producing a powertrain appreciate these different approaches and realize the auto world would be a pretty boring place without it.

Engaging in simple specific output, architecture, or general "mine's better than yours is" argument is rather pointless.

The new G8 is a perfect step for Pontiac to continue to be a real player in performance. Up until recently, Pontiac was all flash and no real aspiration for true performance. First the Solstice and now the G8, Pontiac seems to really be the performance division of GM. The only hiccup in Pontiac's plans for all RWD vehicles is the G6. It has sold better than anticipated and is a commendable vehicle in its own right

If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that to a European, only things from their country is ever any good. I post because the comments here exemplify this.

I'll use beer as my example, as I'm rather well versed.

Ask a German what country makes the best beer in the world, and I guarantee they'll say Germany. Myself, as an American, I say German beer is boring and dull, almost as bad as the American macro brews, and consider Belgian beers far superior, with American craft brews coming in second. Most Europeans will now chime in that American beer is crap. The founding of this is based on that they've only ever had Bud as an American beer, and assume all is like that. And then in their bemoaning of Bud, show yet more of their ignorance, because actually for the style, Bud is fairly good, not great, but good. The problem is, the style is rather limited, and that's how it's supposed to be, and Bud thinks all beer should be pilsner.

The same thing comes with chocolate. Every country makes the best chocolate, as long as you're from that country.

I don't understand it, but somehow, Europeans, being crammed into close proximity to many different cultures, are some of the most closed and narrow minded individuals out there. If it's not theirs, it must be crap. And of course when you point out that Ford outsells many brands even in Europe, they're quick to point out that it's a different division. Well, I work for a Swedish company, in the American division, we still must get the go ahead from Sweden on almost everything. I'd imagine Ford is the same.

I spend much of my time in BMW's, as several of my co-workers own them, and they always drive to lunch. How about we talk about the fact that BMW has problems with keeping their windows rolled up? The latches that roll them up and down routinely break, causing the window to fall into the door, sometimes breaking the glass. If you ask BMW about their reliability, they shoot off "BMW is about the ultimate driving experience" to divert the fact that your godly BMW is not known to be reliable. How about the fact that they use soft rotors so every time your pads need replaced you need to replace the rotors as well? Now, you're going to all shoot off this and that in defense, but this is what people who OWN them say about them, and many of them are so let down with their purchases, they vow never to buy another one.

Different Chris:

I'm an auto mechanic in the US Air Force and I just spent the last 4 years in Germany and I think your view of Europeans is completly wrong. I asked many Germans who made the best cars and a surprising number of them said Japan. Many of the Germans said their own cars were to expensive and that the Japanese cars were more affordable and reliable. Also the European car of the year last time around was a Ford. The Europeans love Ford as well as Mazda and even Kia is becoming popular. I'll vouch for their view of Ford. I've owned a Ford Escort, Contour, and Mustang and never had a single issue with any of them.

For all you people talking about hp/liter, they're going for power AND economy. A 6.0L V8 Corvette makes 400 hp and 400 lb. ft of torque, and gets 18-19 mpg city and 29-30 highway.

And the Z06 makes 505 hp/425 lb ft and gets 16 mpg city/26 highway.

So lets start comparing the 6.0L V8 of the Vette to the 335i's twin turbo I6. Horsepower and torque are at 300. MPG they don't list on their site but the internet says 19/29. Same as the Vette.....that has twice the engine size....and the Vette performs better while costing not too much more($starts at 39,000 vs 46,500). Even if we go to the new G8 GTs numbers of 361 and 385, we still have an engine that will get the same efficiency, makes more power, the vehicle will cost less than a 335i(likely around $28-30,000), and the vehicle's performance will be quite close. I'd also say given that the 335is MPG numbers are based on nice driving, when you get on it, it'll likely suck even more fuel than the V8 due to those two turbos kicking in. Turbos are hardly fuel efficient when at max boost.

So now I'll go to the M5 and compare it to the Z06 since they put out the same horsepower. The M5 has a 5.0L 500 hp/383 lb ft engine. It's MSRP is $83,000. It gets 12 mpg city and 18 mpg highway.

The Z06 makes the same horsepower, more torque, costs less(around $75,000 MSRP), and blows it away in mpg and performance. So do you think I would really care that the M5 has more horsepower per liter? Sure one is a sedan, and one is a coupe. But you're comparing them, so so will I.

So yes, the BMW engines make more horsepower per liter. But when it comes to having power and maintaining fuel efficiency, they suck. Thats what happens when you want both, you don't get it. Yes there's the Honda engines too that make 200 hp out of a 2L engine and get good MPG. But they have no torque and are still slow. And your Ferrari's out there that make 500 hp out of a 4L engine, again, horrible MPG. Sure you might not care since you have the money to buy a Ferrari, but I don't, so I care about MPG while still wanting power. Chevy's V8s deliver that. 19/29 is around the same mileage a V6 Camry or Accord gets. And the G8 GT won't cost that much more than a V6 Camry or Accord.

Doesn't have to just be Europeans. More often than not they are liberal elitist America hating Americans that just have some kind of import snobbery or something.

Case in point every car I see with a "John Kerry" sticker (STILL!) is a BMW, Lexus, Mercedes, or something similar. And it's always some little twit with her Aquafina bottle in one hand and cell phone in the other, or "a camel sucked my head and I use my dad's credit card for everything" metro sexual with a Starbucks latte.

You know, the guys that thinks his "made in Taiwan" Italian leather seat is superior to all else because he paid big bucks to import it. After all it cost a lot, it must be better than yours.

Meanwhile some hole in the wall upholstery company in Italy who makes their leather the same way as everyone else is laughing all the way to the bank.

There is a lot of different opinions and arguements on this motor and that motor and a lot of off topic discussions, but I bet almost all of us can agree that this Pontiac looks pretty fricking sweet when compared to the old Grand Prixs and Bonnevilles. Without the badge, it could easily pass as an expensive european brand of car. GM has definitely come a long way. Just as an extra tidbit of info, my 1986 Chevy Camaro with a 5.0 liter V8 got 28 miles to the gallon on the highway. This is better than some current V6s.

The idea that bmw, and europe in general, some how engineer's better cars, is just elitest garbage, of those trying to justify their namebadge purchase.

Now if you want to say, that some european designs tend to be more complex than american designs, I can give you that. However complexity does not always=better engineering.

The nasa pen vs the cosmonot pencil is a good example of this.

Some people like to propogate the idea that the ibc is an old antequated design, and that some how the ohc is the new and better idea. Unfortunately the ibc came along 40 years after ohc engines were used in cars from fiat to mercedes.

Some people look at these hp/liter numbers, and believe it really says something. But when you look at fuel economy, power, and cost, of the car the motor goes into, the argument of hp/liter of the "engineered" motor vs the "pig" motor, doesn't hold up.

higher hp/liter doesn't even = better fuel economy.
Since hp is a function of rpm & torque, it is not surprising that a ohc motor has higher hp/liter. But it doesn't really mean anything unless you're comparing 2 similar engines.

Ultimately higher rpm and higher hp/liter are characteristics of the ohc engines, just like higher torque, and bottom end horse power are characteristics of ibc engines.

If you want to just compare motors, the ls3 series has slightly more power, more torque, and slightly worse fuel economy, but for probably 1/3 the cost of the bmw motor.

All this garbage about european, american, ibc, ohc, they don't mean anything.

Performance, reliablility and cost. Engines alone the win goes to GM because of cost.

"The reason why it doesn't make that much power is it has a Cam that is designed for Displacement on Demand so it gets better fuel economy."

No, that is NOT the reason. What makes me say this? The fact that GM's always had crappy engine tuning. Don't believe me? Look at all their V8's pre-Displacement on Demand.

"Give it a rest, you proved the statement "there is no replacement for displacement" by stating, all else held equal, BMW could increase displacement and get proportionally more power without doing anything else."

I did the math to show you how BMW using the same displacement would have 223 more hp and 48 more lb/ft of torque. Therefore to make the same power BMW would need LESS displacement than GM. That completely upholds my point - that engineering and finesse is superior to brute force.

"But when it comes to having power and maintaining fuel efficiency, they suck."

You mean like a couple years ago when BMW changed their valve timings on their regular inline 6 engines and got a 12% increase in power AND a 13% increase in mpg?

***************************************************************

I'm not saying that this car is BAD (my uncle is definitely planning on getting one when they come out...again, partly because our family gets the GM discount on everything we buy). All I'm saying is that it could easily be BETTER.

No ones doubting GM sat on their hands while everyone else was creating better technology. How many years did they sell that standard 4 speed auto, like 27 years? What about that 3.0-3.4L V6 that just got minor modifications over the last 20 years and resold under some marketing genious' campaign. Pontiac excitement? Hell yes, finally. The G8 is actually something to get excited about! The interior quality is even a step up from the GTO which was like going from a 78 firebird to an LS2 vette. As far as the front end goes vs. the Holden I think that it's just fine and they wanted to seperate the looks from the GTO which is also a good thing. Otherwise everyone will just say, nice 4dr. GTO which its far more than that.

wow, this actually looks half decent. Like a mid-90's Euro-saloon.
Pity about the plastic crap sprinkeled around it.
I guess they couldnt resist.

ReRemy LeBeau:

You can use all the math and engineering in the world to take a fixed amount of aluminum or tin and make a container that yields the maximum possible volume with the least amount of material. But after you prove via the peak of a graph of the infinite possible combinations that you have achieved the most possible volume out of that amount of material, the only way you can increase the volume from that point is to allow for more material.

You can deny that you said what you said all you want, which was:

"Now, if BMW had those same output and bumped the engine up to a Panzer sized 7 liters it would have 728 hp and 518 lb/ft of torque."

Again, if they needed/wanted that kind of power they wouldn't be able to wring it out of a 3.2L inline 6. They would be increasing the displacement. The M3 went from a 4 cyl, to a 3.xL 6 cyl and now a 4.xL V8. Why didn't they stick with the original M3 4 cyl and through more technology and engineering tune that 4 cyl to provide the 400+ HP for the 2008 M3? Because even BMW knows there is no replacement for displacement.

American engines that have 6-7L and only put out 3-400 HP are simply wasted potential, like taking up the space of a 24 pack in the fridge when you know you are only going to drink 1.

As for the reason GM likes to do that, it's probably so they can use one engine for everything and keep costs down. A 4 cyl turbo engine would be fine for many applications that only have 300 HP. But it wouldn't fly in a Corvette, GTO, trucks, heavy luxury sedans, etc. It's cheap and easy to take a 800 HP engine and put it in anything from a 150 HP to 800 HP car, but you can't take a 300 HP engine and expect to cover that same wide range of needs. How many different engines does BMW have? Seems like one or two engines for every lineup and completely new even every few years. How efficient is that on the assembly line in logistics and cost terms?

On the other hand, you can design one engine that meets the highest most demanding requirements, then detune it and underutilize it's potential in everything else and keep your assembly lines all unified.

Sure you end up with a few smaller cars with oversized engines not putting out the full power an engine of that size should be. But the fact that I see more Pontiacs and Chevys on the street than I see BMWs tells me the cost savings theory is valid.

Ok, if you want to include turbo cars, The 2008 Chevrolet Cobalt SS that is coming out next year makes 260 HP on a 2.0L engine. The new HHR SS is the same thing, so is the Solstice. This is my own personal opinion of Turbos though, they suck because you have to do a whole bunch of crap like letting the turbo cooldown before turning the motor off. I personally think that forced induction is foolish for everything except for Diesels. Where you could get 250K out of a engine you may get 100K out of one with forced induction. My car also is coming out with a turbo kit next year that puts 10 PSIs of Boost and makes my 5.3 put out over 500HP, not that I would want it or need that much. You have too look at it this way my car makes about 320HP from the factory(the car is a little underated due to SAE net) or about 60 efficiency. The standard BMW NA 3.0 makes 230 HP or about 75% efficiency, but it has to rev 1000 RPMs higher to get that performance therefore without the proper gearing it would make about the same percentage of power per RPM as the other engine(say it makes about a 190 at 5600 RPMs)

There is one major disadvantage to Cam in block engines that keeps them from being able to rev high. At higher RPMs Valve float can occur which is why they don't rev out that high. Not due to any engineering. Also cars with DOD have to use an unusual milder cam in order to be able to deactivate the bank of cylinders in the car. If it had a more aggressive cam like on non DOD engines it would make probably closer to 340, ie why the engine on the G8 makes only 361HP vs. the 400HP of the older LS2 engine. There really is no replacement for displacement when it comes down to it as unless you have forced induction you have to wind out the engine so much in order to get the power, which is why the fuel efficiency of the cars are practically the same in each car.

Uhm valve float occurs on any engine that relys on springs to close the valves, it has nothing to do with where the cam is.

The disadvantages with cam in block is less breathing capacity due to being physically restricted to 2 valves per cylinder due to the impractical feasibility of cramming 32 valves and pushrods in the space of a single cam and cramming all that under the valve cover with 16 rocker arms, etc.

And it's the reciprocating mass that has inertia that limits RPM. Even with powerful springs, the extra mass that has to stop and accelerate in the opposite direction imposes a 'reset time' on the valve train.

The advantage of cam in block pushrod engines is the inherent torque that results from the high port velocity and intake stream momentum that comes with less valve area, which is the drawback for 4v engines that limits torque at low RPM. On the other hand, 2v engines run out of breath at high RPMS where a 4v engine begins to stretch it's lungs.

SOHC 2v engines however, with equal bore, stroke, and valve sizes, should be no different than a push rod engine on the low side. The reason for the Ford 4.6 SOHC engine being outperformed by the LS1 is because it's not only smaller displacement, but the smaller bore additionally restricts valve size and since both have 2 valves, LS1 wins. Ultimately we should be comparing the tradeoffs of 2v vs 4v, because really, again with same bore x stroke and valve size, a push rod or SOHC engine should perform identically. The slight RPM advantage of the SOHC engine would be negated by the same lack of breath up top as the push rod engine so realistically you'd never use that extra rev headroom.

IMO overhead cam should only be employed when you are taking advantage of the physical possibilities of overhead cam, namely 4-5v per cylinder. No reason to pay the drawback costs of overhead cam if you aren't going to employ the possibilities that OHC opens up.

"Again, if they needed/wanted that kind of power they wouldn't be able to wring it out of a 3.2L inline 6. They would be increasing the displacement."

Good god, do any of you READ? I showed how using the same size they can have MORE power. Therefore, to get the same power they need LESS displacement. I know I didn't have a huge blinged out sign screaming that and I relied on you to have an IQ over 5 to figure that simple concept out for yourselves, but apparently I over estimated you.

I never said that you can get infinite power out of a given size. I said that you can make the SAME power with LESS size by using good engineering (and as a result you can make more power with the same size).

Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing people.

Thanks for clearing that up for me Chris, I kind of figured that about OHC engines, due to the fact that if you put a free flowing exhaust system on a car you tend to lose torque, but wasn't sure. Cleared up a lot for me actually.

My point:

1) what if more power with a smaller engine is still not enough power period?

2) more power from the same size engine is still not enough

And you agree, that despite all the technology and engineering in the world, you will have to increase displacement at some point.

You just don't want to bruise your own pride and own up to the fact that you believe, albeit indirectly, something that you previously called a 'redneck' belief. Even BMW understands there is no replacement for displacement. If technology and engineering was a substitute for displacement, the 2008 M3 would have a 2L 4 cyl making 400+ HP not a 3L V6 or 4L V8.

Spin it all you want so you don't have to say those words, but everything you've argued could be summed up as: there is no replacement for displacement, when everything else is the same.

You are one of those people who say "oh an efficiency improvement, now we can get the SAME power with a smaller engine"

I'm one of those people that says "no, keep the bigger engine, and use the efficiency gains to make even MORE power with it.

@Remy

Same size of what?
Internally sure the bmw motor is smaller. Externally i'm not so sure.

Why?
Because the ls3 weighs about 25lbs less than the m3 motor.

Why does it matter?
I don't think it does. It is just 2 ways of trying to reach the same goal. I would say it probably takes just as much engineering to get the 6.2L engine to have good fuel economy as it takes the 4L enginer to have good hp.

To Remy:

You stated: "This is a pathetic response. Now you not only appear as stupid, but as a liar, as well. Suck it up. You were caught casting stones at others when you should have been casting them at yourself"

If I knew who you were I'd probably be casting stones at you. I never claimed to be a perfect speller. I was only making a point that individuals that are in the profession of journalism ought to at least spell check along with fact check their work before posting it. Since you seemingly think you know a lot about vehicles, for the sake of all of us here why don't you list your credentials so you have some credit to back up your smack.

actually the ls2 is a ohv engine which means it only has 1 cam for the entire engine. the lt5, cadillac northstar and the olds aurora v8 are the only overhead cam v8s gm makes. technically the lt5 is close to the ls2 but was designed by lotus and built my mercury marine.

Remy:

For what it's worth, yes BMWs are generally higher quality vehicles from the factory, in terms of machining, tolerances, etc. That seems to be changing though as I see cars like this.

But quality and engineering choices are not the same thing.

My whole debate on this blog has been that an engine isn't automatically high or low quality because of it's valve train.

Case in point, if BMW can build a smaller OHC engine that has more power than a larger OHV engine, I'm sure they could build their own push rod engine that would be better (and more expensive) as well.

So when judging quality of a GM car, I want to hear about cheap parts that break or limit the engines potential, etc. Blurting out "oh it has push rods, instant fail" doesn't cut it because there isn't anything inherently low tech or low quality about OHV vs. OHC, it has to do with the manufacturer *period*.

Personally, I'd take a I6 M3 over a modern Pontiac or Chevy as a daily beater, for many different reasons (most related to bland plasticated styling). The GM cars having push rod engines is not one of those reasons and it wouldn't change my choice one bit if the M3 had a push rod engine or the Impala had a variable DOHC engine.

CS:

There is a lot of different opinions and arguements on this motor and that motor and a lot of off topic discussions, but I bet almost all of us can agree that this Pontiac looks pretty fricking sweet when compared to the old Grand Prixs and Bonnevilles.

Absolutely agree. You can bet that the interior quality is going to be on par with any other car made in North America, "import" or domestic. (What an outdated term). Solving interior and exterior quality problems is a relatively simple fix. You talk to the company supplying you with tooling and parts and you tell them you want the same quality that they're providing Honda or Toyota.

As for engine technology, GM and Chyrstler have mastered pushrod engines. You get simpler, cheaper and generally lighter engines at the cost of fuel efficiency and ability to easily add advanced technologies. GM's experience with DOHC engines with variable valve timing and direct injection is lacking compared to Toyota, Honda, Ford(Mazda), BMW etc.

Being able to compete by offering advanced engines is something that GM needs to work on. They'll eventually get there.

Overall, its a nice car thats deserving of the Pontiac badge unlike some older models.

"To Remy:

You stated: "This is a pathetic response. Now you not only appear as stupid, but as a liar, as well. Suck it up. You were caught casting stones at others when you should have been casting them at yourself""

Never said that at all. I'd never use that lame casting stones line. The guy who wrote that used the name "To CS".

"Blurting out "oh it has push rods, instant fail" doesn't cut it because there isn't anything inherently low tech or low quality about OHV vs. OHC, it has to do with the manufacturer *period*."

I never said that as well. I'm complaining about GM not having decent engineering. The Germans, Italians, Swedes (yes, they have a few sweet super cars out there), and Japanese have learned how to do more with the same amount (or less), so why do people tolerate American engineering being so far behind everyone else? True, with engines like GM's 2 liter turbo 4 in the Solstice GXP / Saturn Sky / next years Cobalt SS, the American companies are showing that they've FINALLY started to learn. However, a good many of their engines, such as their V8's, are still horribly under powered for what they're capable of with that size (and as such over sized for the amount of power they're putting out). My mom has a '99 Grand Am SE with the 3.4 liter V6 - back in high school my friend has an '81 BMW 528i with a 2.8 liter straight 6 that had more hp and torque (at roughly the same rpm) than my mom's car. Things like that where they could obviously make things more efficient are why I get annoyed with American car companies.

To Remy,
My bad, I apologize. Anyway to get back on track about this Pontiac, I'm glad to see GM is making some sweet looking cars. Since Pontiac is supposed to be the performance division, I think this ride will fit in quite nicely. I'm glad to see GM is on the right track in their design studio.

Hi Remy,

I've read too many of your over numerous, opinionated, wanna be, self confessed 'tech pundit' postings. Get a life man and stop acting like the auto god you feel you are.

Calling out people 'cause they incorrectly spelt a work (oops sorry word) - isn't this a 'comment area' of an auto blog...didn't realise we were now Journalists...hey LeTool, where’s my pay cheque?

Big dong, little dong...don't they all make babies?

LeLoser.

"Calling out people 'cause they incorrectly spelt a work (oops sorry word) - isn't this a 'comment area' of an auto blog...didn't realise we were now Journalists."

Hey genius, that was CS who complained about the typo, not me. And you wonder why I have no respect for Americans when they repeatedly can't even figure out how to read the name at the bottom of the comment?

@ Remy

My mommas grand am is slower than an older 528i blah blah blah GM sucks because the displacement of their motors is bigger blah blah.

Remy:Wow I just fit an entire 6 page manual on 4 sheets of paper!

Reason:Doesn't the regular manual work exactly the same?

Remy:Well yes.

Reason:Then whats the big deal?

Remy:Well mine uses fewer sheets of paper so it must be better!

Reason:But your margins are bigger. It doesn't seem like you used any less paper.

Remy:Well no, but I used less sheets so its better!

Reason:Your manual costs more too!

Remy:Because it uses less sheets.

Reason:I'll stick with the old one.

Remy:Redneck!

Yea, exactly mf. *rolls eyes*

Here's a better analogy --

You make a manual that takes up 10 pages and uses a crappy printer that wastes ink in the process so you use up two cartridges of ink. You also use a crappy cover and binding for you manual so you charge $20 for it.

I make a manual that is 8 pages long (by using better spacing and a different font) and a fully functional printer that only uses up one cartridge of ink to print the manual. I also spend money to get a nicer cover and binding for it, so I charge $25.

You then claim that just because I charge more than you (because I made a nicer product that people desire more) that your method is somehow more efficient when the price difference had nothing to do with the efficiency of how the manual was printed (meaning the amount of paper and ink used).

What do you do then when, as is with the average cars, both use the same number of pages and the same amount of ink, only one is in red on white paper and one is in green with black paper.

Is green ink more efficient than red ink?

The stuff that irks me is when two engines put out the same power and have the same mpg, but one is somehow inferior because it is bigger displacement.

Truth is GM couldn't make a push rod engine make power in small displacement for the same reasons BMW can't make a small displacement engine make power with anything less than 4 valves per cylinder. Each engine type has its pros and cons for their various implementations and markets.

Again if performance is identical but one engine uses more valves and one engine uses more displacement, why does it bother people so much? When is the last time a push rod enthusiast complained that 4 valve engines are inefficient over complicated expensive wasteful designs that use too many moving parts and crusaded against any DOHC engine out there?

Like I've conjectured numerous times, "ewww push rods" and "girder suspension" bias comes from ignorant snobby elitist Jeremy Clarkson fanboys who mostly want to hate on something for being American to boost their own pride talking about things they know nothing about. It's as simple as that.

Most people on this site will promote all sorts of stuff that they perceive to be superior or more advanced because their favorite overpriced over hyped status mobiles happen to favor that stuff over alternatives, so everything else must suck. And these very same people that talk about 'advanced engineering and technology' wouldn't know a valve or a lifter if it hit them in the face, and probably couldn't tell the difference between the two engines in the same car even if they popped the hood (as evidenced by people on this site that think intake runners are where the pistons are or think the LS2 has two cams).

Same thing with handling, you guys put so much emphasis on handling, calling any car that doesn't handling as well as a McLaren F1 worthless. Those people are guaranteed to own cars worth $5,000 or less that handle like crap, have solid rear ends, who drive to work and back in rush hour traffic in a straight line and who will never ever take their car to a drag strip OR a road course. But they know all about cars and what cars have bad handling because they read a biased European or American or whatever auto magazine.

"for the same reasons BMW can't make a small displacement engine make power with anything less than 4 valves per cylinder."

Mmmm....I'm afraid history is going to have to disagree with you there. I actually have a book on the history of BMW and they had nice engineering long before people started using more than two valves and DOHC (hell, I think even before they had overhead cams).

However...

"Each engine type has its pros and cons for their various implementations and markets."

Very true. Thats why when my friend was complaining about how the RX-8 gets such bad mpg and I was explaining to him how that's a fact of using a rotary and that IF you're going to use a rotary, you ARE going to have bad mpg. Granted, the RX-8 gets better mpg than previous rotaries, but it's still significantly lower than comparable cars using a more conventional engine design.

Hey I got an HSV clubsport.
The G8 is what we call the Commodore SS and it has the same 361 HP of the G8.

The clubsport has bigger better everything and 307KW, Thats about 415hp.

This engine has only one cam!!!!! for all of you who think it has 2.

My car does the standing 1/4 in 13.2 at calder park drags. Absolutely stock running on Shell V-Power 98.5 octane and standard rubber.

This is my 5th HSV clubsport and wont be my last. Check it out below

http://www.hsv.com.au/index.asp

nice car but why didnt the allow buick to come back in 2007 with something hot like the new grand national rear wheeldrive v6 twin turbo 6speed auto or is gm scared it might take sales from the corvette again. 20 years is a long time to go exstint for a car that changed automotive history dont you think

I just have to say one thing...you guys were earlier comparing the BMW M3 and some American cars...but the BMW is about---Wat, say $30-50k more than thee cars you were comparing it to. (besides the ZO6-Z06 is pricey too)

The pontiac G8 looks great. Its better than the Dodge Charger and the Ford mustang. GM has been around my whole family all there lives and they keep on getting better and better. Keep up the good work. GM for life!!!!!

Very interesting to see so many people, on so many forums, comparing/defending/attacking the G8. It seems to definatly get peoples emotions going no matter which way you slice it. I'd like to testdrive one.

HEY. All you seppos. How you doin? Just to burst the bubble on your over inflated American egos. This Pontiac G8 "is NOT AMERICAN". The powerplant is Chevrolet yes. BUT . This car is 100% designed and built AUSTRALIAN. It is an Australian built Holden VE Commodore with a left hand drive and exterior cosmetic changes. Which frankly should have been left alone. The VE GM Holden SS Commodore or HSV kills the G8 in looks. Why do you guys have to bastardise everything you get your hands on? Go and have a look at the VE Commodore SS or a HSV R8 Clubsport which we in the land of Aus have had for nearly 2 years. This is Australias best selling car. Has been for 20 years.. If it aint broken dont fix it.

Some of you sound like little bit#@es! Arguing about grammar and spelling. Then you snobby pencil neck euro nutsu@#ers that try to reason about efficiency, and your opinion of great engeneering. American auto makers build many cars with smaller displacement and higher HP & torque / displacement ratios, but when will you guys get it that many of us like good old fashion big, loud motors like the muscle cars had in the 60's? It's not always about squeezing the most out of a V6...GET IT!? GM knows that many people want a 7.0 litter motor under the hood, regardless of its efficiency. And they could easily modify that corvette motor at the factory to have 700+ HP, but I believe they would consider that a bit much, and there would probably be legal issues as well. They leave that option up to the buyer, providing an excellent platform for aftermarket parts. BTW, I have seen a few of the new G8's on the road, and they look (and sound) great. Another good bang for you buck, and I can hardly wait until the new Camaro hits the streets. You idiots!

i like this car, it is very nice and im planning on getting one lol