H3 V8 and Diesel for 2007

[f5fstop]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jersey Guy:
first chance i get i will trade my slow tank in for the 07 the I5 was good to me when i first bought it because i was so happy to get one but after 7000 miles and getting stuck on some off road hills that could have made it up no problem with more power this I5 is not! strong enough for this H3 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guess what, the '07 will also have an I5. I'm also curious, there is one guy on this forum who went all the way to Alaska and had no problems. Honestly do not believe the extra HP in the '07 will help all who think the current I5 is too slow.
These things have been tested offroad at Windrock and the Moab area and go with no problems.

[timgco]

The I5 has pleanty of power to off road with! ...even at 12,000ft! For someone to say "and getting stuck on some off road hills that could have made it up no problem with more power this I5 is not! strong enough for this H3" sounds like they don't know how to off road! I have had this H3 on hills that are straight up and down, on hard packed and loose rock, boulder fields and yes mud and have not needed more power to make it through. I would like some MT's to help out in that mud dept, and yes I would like another 100hp, but it is not needed. The kind of person that "NEEDS" more power to make it through something or get stuck, more than likely "needs" to learn more on how to handle their truck.

[BigBill]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by f5fstop:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DWPC:
Frankly, I'd rather have the I5 than that 5.7 (350) cast iron dinosaur. My father's Olds had that engine. GM really needs to take those 50-yr old push-rods out back and put 'em out of their misery. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Hummer H3 will NOT have the 5.7L V8.

As for pushrod engines, yes, they are antiquated and cannot achieve much performance. I mean, just look at the LS2/LS7, only 400/505 HP (400 lb-ft/470 lb-ft torque) from those antiquated pushrod engines; damn, GM should be ashamed. (Cast iron is going out in many engines, but durability wise, it is still one of the best materials.)


Getting serious, pushrod engines tend to develop more low end torque, than overhead cam engines, in addition, if you have a very low profile front end (Corvette), pushrod is the way to go. OHC engines are lighter, create more RPM. OHV engines tend to float valves at a lower rpm due to valvetrain inertia, but that has not been a problem...let's not forget Penske winning the 500 with a pushrod engine, and the rest of the field was OHC engines.

OHC in an in-line engine tends to be less expensive, while in a V-block it tends to be a lot more expensive. In addition, displacement on demand is more expensive on OHC engines than on OHV engines. On OHV engines all you have to do is bleed oil pressure from the lifters using a simple solenoid controlled by the PCM. Displacement on demand on OHC engines requires more parts, thus more cost, which we know is pushed off on the customer.

This might be a bad comparison, but let's look at some figures:
GM pushrod engines:
4.8L-2V = 300 HP
6.0L-2V = 325 or 390 hp
Ford OHC engines:
5.4L-3V = 300 hp
6.8L-2V = 310 hp
6.9L-3V = 355 hp
There are applications for both, OHC and OHV engines. But to say OHV is antiquated, is funny. Especially since mass produced overhead cam engines have been around since 1912 (Fiat) and mass produced overhead valve engines were first produced in 1917 (Chevrolet).

The 5.3L mentioned in the article is rated about 335 lb-ft or torque at or around 4000 rpm, with 295 hp. It is a two-valve, overhead cam engine.
There are currently two versions of the 5.3L the LM7 (truck) and the LS4 (car).

And yes, the 5.7L cast-iron dinosaur is gone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since we are on the subject of this latest GM endeavor, the 2nd generation of the Displacement on Demand cylinder valve functionality is based on hydraulics, thus a quality oil viscosity should be used. Why would GM rely on oil as opposed to exhaust for this functionality? I would think that exhaust would be more reliable. If I am not mistaken, much of the diesel engine works on combustion and exhaust.

Bill

[Surferjo]

If I knew for sure that a V8 would be available next year I'll cancel my order today.

Talk about gas mileage and how the H3 is adequately powered all you want. Ill take a V8 without hesitation.

Tree Huggers be dammed. I support retail.

[canucksnaphook]

300 hp eh? Well that sounds like one for me. But then there is the gas mileage difference cause you know it will be driven harder ...whats a guy to do????

C.

[f5fstop]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by timgco:
The I5 has pleanty of power to off road with! ...even at 12,000ft! For someone to say "and getting stuck on some off road hills that could have made it up no problem with more power this I5 is not! strong enough for this H3" sounds like they don't know how to off road! I have had this H3 on hills that are straight up and down, on hard packed and loose rock, boulder fields and yes mud and have not needed more power to make it through. I would like some MT's to help out in that mud dept, and yes I would like another 100hp, but it is not needed. The kind of person that "NEEDS" more power to make it through something or get stuck, more than likely "needs" to learn more on how to handle their truck. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very well said...

[TimJ]

This is exciting news!!!

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=107776