GM Northstar V8 (largest displacement DOHC engine) will end production next month.

[Statistical]

After nearly two decades on the market, General Motors' Northstar V8 engine series is finally being put to rest. Northstar V8 engines have been in service since 1993 when the 295 hp L37 Northstar made its debut in the Cadillac Allanté.

GM's Northstar engines were conceived as a high-tech, DOHC (dual overhead cam) alternative to the company's venerable pushrod engines and made their way into numerous Cadillac models (and later in Oldsmobile and Buick models). However, advances in modern V6 engines along with the incredible power gains of GM's small block V8 engines over the years has left little room for the Northstar program. As a result, the final Northstar V8 will roll off the assembly line next month reports Inside Line.

Today, the Northstar V8 is available in two configurations – the 4.6-liter L37 produces 292 hp and 288 lb-ft of torque, while the 4.6-liter LH2 ups those numbers to 320 hp and 315 lb-ft of torque respectively. In its most potent form, a supercharged 4.4-liter LC3 variant of the Northstar was made available on the Cadillac STS-V. The engine produced 469 hp and 439 lb-ft of torque.

However, the power output of the naturally aspirated Northstar V8s has been nearly matched by GM's latest 3.6-liter V6 engines. In its most potent form, the LLT V6 produces 312 hp and 278 lb-ft of torque in the 2011 Chevrolet Camaro. GM is also expected to release a more powerful turbocharged variant of its modern V6 engines to rival the EcoBoost V6 found in many Ford Motor Company products.

http://www.dailytech.com/GMs+DOHC+Northstar+V8+Production+Ends+Next+Month/article18688.htm

Part of me is sad but part of me sees this as "doing more with less". As carbon taxes become reality and gas prices go higher and higher (I think I will see $10 per gallon gas before I die) I think even small displacement V8 will become niche products.

It is rather amazing what can be done with modern V6 even more so with turbocharged one.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. I have a 1993 Buick Roadmaster. V8. 5.7 Liter Corvette Engine..

The pickup is fantastic. The mpg is horrendous..

[MidwestRick]

2. How many union jobs

will be lost because of this. How many supplier shops will shut down? I'm all for greening the auto industry, but at what cost? The V6 they are talking about is already being built, I doubt they will retool another plant to mirror what another is already doing.

-MR

[Statistical]

4. If the V6s will replace the V8 won't they need to build MORE V6?

i.e instead of
1 million Northstar V8
3 million V6

it would be something like
4 million V6

[MidwestRick]

Of course...

they will make more V6 engines. No doubt, but do you honestly think GM will be able to recreate all of the jobs the plant that will shut down will be losing?

-MR

[EOTE]

8. I don't believe GM makes big blocks any more.

Even their heavy duty trucks use a variation of the LSx small block (or a Duramax diesel). And while their new V6 is proving to be a decent alternative to V8s in certain sedans and sports cars, I doubt it will ever see duty in large trucks. It should be noted that GM makes a number of very powerful, yet fuel efficient V8s (and no, the NorthStar isn't amongst them).

[EOTE]

3. Large displacement compared to what?

I'm fairly sure it's the smallest NA V8 that GM makes. All of GM's OHV engines have greater displacement. I think a 4.8 is the smallest OHV V8 that GM makes. That said, I do think the engine is a dinosaur and needs to go. As mentioned in the article, GM's own direct injected V6 makes more power with a liter less displacement. Also, GM's "low tech" OHV V8s often make more power and get greater fuel economy (while weighing less as well). I find it rather funny that GM offers this V8 in their large Buick sedans as an "upgrade" even though in it's 275hp form, it makes about 30 less HP than the DI V6. I think a good reason it's still available is that people still really like having a good amount of low end torque.

[Statistical]

5. I updated title. largest displacement DOHC engines. n/t

[flvegan]

6. Finally embracing what they knew 20 years ago.

GMs turbo V6 cars were wiping the floor with any V8 on the lot in the very end of the 1980's. You either waited until 1990 to buy a ZR1, or you had to take your spankin' new Corvette to Callaway to beat the Grand Nationals and Turbo Trans Ams of the time. The IROC-Z and GTA cars were laughable to pull up next to at a stoplight.

[EOTE]

10. There are trade offs in everything. Turbo lag sucks.

And with the big power turbo V6 setups, turbo lag sucked incredibly. Of course there are ways to tame that, twin turbo setups and variable geometry turbos, but the problem isn't completely eliminated. And all that comes at a price when talking about the complexity/reliability of the vehicle as well. So, turbo cars are having a bit of a renaissance now, but these engines won't be as reliable as their NA brethren for a very long time. If you want direct evidence of this, check out used car prices on Audis and compare the resale value of the V6 and V8 Audis to the turbo 4s and twin turbo V6s. The turbo engines can easily and cheaply be modified to produce more power than their NA counterparts, but turbo Audis depreciate so quickly because their engines don't last as long (as the owner of two 1.8Ts, I can attest to this).

[Statistical]

11. What about the high efficiency NA 6 cylinders?

I mean when you can get 250-300 hp and better gas mileage out of NA V6 is there any reason for V8?

Other than lots of low end torque for trucks/towing?

Honestly I want to know my knowledge of engines is rather limited?

I just think when they started getting reliable V6 with 250+ hp (not just GM but Ford, Toyota, Honda too) it made V8s an endangered species except for heavy duty trucks and some niche applications. right?

[EOTE]

16. Well, HP is just one relatively meaningless statistic for an engine.

You've got an entire torque curve to consider when evaluating engine performance and max HP is just a tiny little snap shot of when the engine is performing the most work ((pound feet of torque x engine RPM)/5252). So, this number doesn't mean very much for applications where great amounts of low end torque are required (as in trucks designed for towing) or for accelerating large sedans from a stop. V8s excel at low end torque and without turbos, V6s still can't match V8s in that category.

And six cylinder engines have been putting out that kind of power for a while now. Porsche makes either the GT2 or GT3 (I forgot which) which is a normally aspirated, horizontally opposed 6 cylinder which makes about 420 hp. So max output is only one reason why V8s continue to be made. As far as fuel economy goes, GM's V8s (other than the NorthStar) already set the world standard for fuel efficiency in V8s. Many competitors' V6s get worse fuel economy while making less power. Owners of the C5 and C6 Vette (as well as the Z28 and Trans-Am when they were still being made) would regularly get 30+ MPG out of their V8 vehicles. So it's a mistaken assumption to assume that most V6s get equal or better fuel economy than these V8s.

One last thing. Let's compare GM's NorthStar V8 to their more modern "High Tech" DI V6. Both make about the same amount of HP, yet the V6 does so with a liter less displacement. Because torque in normally aspirated engines almost entirely corresponds with that engine's displacement, in order for the V6 to make as much power as the V8, it needs to do so at higher RPMs (remember, TORQUExRPM/5252). So, if you're going to drive the V6 like you were to drive the V8, you're going to spend more time in the upper rev ranges than you would in the V8. More time at higher revs generally means that the engine isn't going to last as long. Of course you can add turbo(s) to increase low and mid-range torque, but that adds a whole new level of complexity to the engine and is yet another thing that can break (also, turbo lag sucks).

So, there are a large number of characteristics which determine which engine is best for a particular application. Fuel economy, torque curve, max power, reliability, smoothness and vibrations all factor in the decision making process. V6s are definitely getting better, but so are V8s. I certainly think there is less of a need for V8s nowadays, but they're certainly not defunct.

[Statistical]

22. Makes sense. Thanks for the insight. What do you think higher CAFE standards are going to do to V8

market outside of larger trucks?

Also if/when hybrids ever start appearing in large SUV and trucks wouldn't an electric motor with lots of low torque be a good complement for V6 engines.

Similar to I4 + electric motor in Prius but a V6 + larger electric motor for large SUV & trucks?

[EOTE]

24. I don't think the market for V8s is going to be effected very much.

Outside of larger trucks, V8s make up a very small percentage of vehicles, so they're not going to throw off the averages very much.

And yes, electric motors are very well equipped to supplement the torque of large hybrid vehicles. This is evidenced very well by the current 25mpg Tahoe Hybrid. 25mpg might not seem all that great, but it's a vast improvement over the 16mpg of the standard Tahoe. GM didn't see fit to use a V6 in that application because even with the electric motor, a V8 was required to get the amount of torque they'd need to get the vehicle moving around town. And even though the 3.6 V6 puts out a good amount of power, it's really best suited for smaller vehicles as there are torquier OHV V8s that GM has which get equally good fuel economy when used in larger vehicles.

Another quick note, a vehicle's size is a far greater determinant of fuel economy than the engine inside it. A V6 that needs to be revved like crazy to perform generally won't get better fuel economy than a V8 with a far more relaxed torque curve.

[NoNothing]

7. This is how I feel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgZlpRdQlRI

[BrklynLiberal]

9. niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice

[leveymg]

12. Wall St has wanted GM to kill multivalve engines for years. It's a cost-cutting thing.

All those camshafts and castings are expensive to make and assemble. Back to the future. The Bean Counters won, again.

And, it's not likely we'll see the Volt anytime soon, either.

[Statistical]

13. They are keeping multvalve Inline 4s,5s, 6s and V6. n/t

[leveymg]

14. They have to in order to compete. Even Kias have 16 valve DOHC heads.

[Statistical]

15. Correct me if I am wrong isn't having 2 V8 engine lineups an expensive overhead?

One the smaller GM can't afford?

GM uses DOHC v8 for most passenger vehicles, and SUV.
However they aren't beefy enough for their truck lineup so they have OHV V8 on truck lineup and some SUV.

Lots of overhead right?

Compare that to Toyota for example.
They only make 2 V8 (4.6 and 5.7L 32 valve DOHC) and they are used on both truck lineup and SUV lineup.

Seems like to compete GM needs to simplify their engine lineup right? If not the Northstar then where do you simplify? Conver engine truck lineup to DOHC?

[EOTE]

18. The DOHC V8s initially were Cadillac only.

In all the Cadillac Sedans, you'd get the NorthStar. Cadillac's Escalade (Yukon/Suburban clone) always had an OHV V8 borrowed from Chevy/GMC. The NorthStar didn't make it's debut in a SUV until the SRX came out and that only lasted a few years (now the SRX is smaller and has only NA and turbo V6 options).

As of now, you can only get the NorthStar in the Caddies and in the Buick Lucerne, I believe. But seeing as GM makes superior and cheaper OHV engines, there's really no point in the NorthStar aside from pleasing people who wouldn't sit in a vehicle with "old" and "outdated" technology.

[Statistical]

27. Well if the OHV lineup is so pervasive and tehcnologically superior to GM DOHC V8

it really does make little to now sense to keep Northstar lineup.

Kinda shows the difference in car companies though.

GM has always had a large Truck component and the OHV specialty that goes with it.

Take Toyota & Honda on the other hand. Started as small car company. Most of their engines small I4 then some V6. Really only got into V8 when SUV craze hit. As such most of their engine models are lower number of cylinders. Honda has no V8 and Toyota only has 2 V8. Neither company has any OHV engines.

I guess it never made sense for them to branch into OHV for trucks given that all their engine expertise has been on OHC. Likely Honda & Toyota will NEVER make an OHV engine again.

[EOTE]

28. Just as Honda makes the best OHC engines, GM makes the best OHV engines.

For the money, anyway. For Toyota, who introduced their V8s relatively recently, OHC was an absolute no brainer. For GM, with their extensive history in OHV designs, a move to OHC was far less obvious. GM has proven just how much life remains in the OHC design. They've even managed to incorporate technology like variable valve timing into OHV engines when no one thought it was possible.

It's an odd situation being that GM is pretty much the only company making OHV engines right now. But considering the quality of their OHV engines, it's not hard to see why they still make them. There are 6 important factors to consider when developing an engine, power, economy, smoothness, noise, vibration and harshness. If you achieve good power economy and smoothness while limiting noise, vibration and harshness, I don't care which technologies were used to make it.

Anyway, I'm heading home now and won't be available for a bit. I'll be back tomorrow, though.

[taught_me_patience]

17. There is really no need for v8s anymore... period (for cars).

300hp V6s provide plenty of power for 99.999% of the population.

[EOTE]

19. And what if you could have a V8 that weighs less, makes more power and gets better fuel economy?

GM has such engines in their line up already. So why would there be no need for V8s anymore?

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. My Aurora has a northstar motor.

Love It. Thinking of swapping it into my Chevelle when the electro-crap on the Aurora goes south.

[EOTE]

21. I had an Aurora as well. Great car.

Sucks that they had to destroke that engine from the version used in the Caddy, but it still made a good amount of power. Mine had terrible torque steer, but I loved almost everything else in the car. It had, without a doubt, the most comfortable seats I've ever sat in. I got a Lincoln LS after the Aurora and the seats couldn't come close to the Aurora.

Good luck with your swap, sounds like you've got a lot of work ahead of what. Whatcha got in the Chevelle? My dream car is a 1970 454 SS.

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. 70 Malibu

350 currently.

http://www.chrfab.com/

The challenge is making it rwd. The 700r4 auto trans in a v6 S10 truck is bellhousing compatible.

[EOTE]

26. Doesn't that 350 output more than the 4.0 in the Aurora?

Yeah, the conversion to RWD, the fuel injection and all the electronics sound like a major pain in the ass. I'd love to see the final result, though. Good luck with that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. Not much more.

The 4.0 is capable of 350hp easy - maybe a lot more. The current engine puts out maybe 300hp @ 14mpg.

Honestly, the main goal is cool factor. I might just put in a 454 but they're pretty commonplace. I'm a color outside the lines kind of guy.

[EOTE]

30. If you have any luck, I'd love to see pics.

With either the NorthStar or the 454. The big block might be a bit more conventional and lack a bit of the cool factor, but without forced induction, the Northstar won't come close to making that much torque. Big blocks rule.

[old mark]

25. When I was a little kid, a neighbor had an old LaSalle with a V-12.

I think it was a 1936 coupe...

My dad had an Auburn Boat tail V-12 when he lived in Brooklyn in the 1930's - something like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWGD59tQQc


I love the old cars, even the recently departed, like Olds and Pontiac...


mark

ADDED...Oh, and here's a 1940 Cadillac V-16....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I2KKbSkrBc&feature=related