do you think either one will come out soon ~ next 2 years or will after market come out first? that might be good if gm could make a v6 w/ more than 300 ft lbs since the 3.8 was pretty close when s/c.

3V!! Or just freshin up the 4.8L V8 instead with an alluminum block DOD and 300HP. Use the 5.3 with 350HP and MORE TORQUE as a PERFORMANCE OPT. and the 4.8L as a simple upgrade over the NA 3.9L in the big FWD non Caddy models.

Carguy, you seem to have a lot of "they should just..." ideas that seem to be a lot more then slapping a coat of lipstick on a pig. They already have trouble with the torque from the 5.3 in the FWD cars. You don't think that 350hp and the corosponding torque won't cause MORE problems? While I'm sure 350hp in a FWD Impala SS is possible, I can't imagine many people thinking of that as a good idea.

Carguy, you seem to have a lot of "they should just..." ideas that seem to be a lot more then slapping a coat of lipstick on a pig.

They already have trouble with the torque from the 5.3 in the FWD cars. You don't think that 350hp and the corosponding torque won't cause MORE problems?

While I'm sure 350hp in a FWD Impala SS is possible, I can't imagine many people thinking of that as a good idea.

[post="13124"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Honestly, I'm all for FWD cars (in the sense that I have nothing against them and will probably only own them), but if the people really want so much horsepower, wouldn't they want it in a RWD vehicle?

To un-hijack this thread... I think we'll see the 3v way before we see a s/c edition.... if we ever see a s/c edition at all. It would probably be cheaper to put a turbo 3.6vvt or 2.8vvt in there instead.

3v = better mileage and more power B)

Carguy, you seem to have a lot of "they should just..." ideas that seem to be a lot more then slapping a coat of lipstick on a pig.

They already have trouble with the torque from the 5.3 in the FWD cars. You don't think that 350hp and the corosponding torque won't cause MORE problems?

While I'm sure 350hp in a FWD Impala SS is possible, I can't imagine many people thinking of that as a good idea.

[post="13124"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Well being that ZETA is comeing back now and there have been rumbleings about a 350HP upgrade for the 5.3 I simply put the two together. I should have refered to that in my post in what it was I was trying to say. I do think the 4.8L V8 should be moved from the fullsize truck "instead of droped" and used in FWD or RWD "non Caddy" cars. It has less torque then the present FWD Imp SS/GP GXP 5.3L V8 = better for FWD and with DOD could use less fuel then a SC 3.9L V6. I also think the 4.8L should be used in the COLORADO/CANYON smaller trucks as an opt over the 3.5L I5. Why should they KILL this good V8 only becouse its not to be used in the BIG trucks in the future? They should keep the 4.8L in production by useing it in the small trucks then use it as a simple upgrade (non SS/GXP) over the 3.9L V8 first in a Buick La Crosse Ultra.

Would T 3.6 be cheaper than SC 3.9 ? Anyhow forced induction may not be on the tip of everyones tongues with current and future oil issues. I dont know what Im going to do with the LSS, we dont want to pay 3.65 for gas, hell we cant afford it, hell we cant afford regular. Anyhow, improving effeciency is more important at this time than ultra performance. So Id have to say 3 valve. I know nothing about the engines mentioned above but for once in my life carguy might make sence. Sounds like it (4.8) would still require much engineering however. Maybe smaller displacement DOD V8's would be an answer to everyone V6 gripes. V12's have been made as small as 2.6 litre (that was a guess from memory). We could have 3-4 litre 90*DOD aluminum V8's. Costly however. HMM ? Ponder that ??? Maybe some great fuel economy would come from it.

:) Hi fellows, interesting subject about the OHV 3valve cylinder head.I have not heard any more about the 3val cylinder head, i wish gm would give us more information and pictures of the cylinder head on the 3.9 V6 and s/b V8s. B)