here is the link

[URL=http://motortrend.com/future/spied/112_0509_spy_chevy_silverado/

B)

already posted under Chevy Trucks (click here)

i think you are wrong because that is a diferent picture in your link the truck looks gray and in this is white and also have some specs and possible new engines like the 4.6l v6 B)

i think you are wrong because that is a diferent picture in your link the truck looks gray and in this is white and also have some specs and possible new engines like the 4.6l v6

B)

[post="15607"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

i read from camaroz28 it was going to be a inline6 4.2... but who knows

It's quite interesting to read that the 3-valve and the IRS technologies were at least IN the program at one point in time. Hopefully they aren't pushed off too far (or eliminated). I think they each have their appropriate application-place within the GMT9xx programs.

i think you are wrong because that is a diferent picture in your link the truck looks gray and in this is white and also have some specs and possible new engines like the 4.6l v6

B)

[post="15607"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I have read somewhere about a 4.6l v6. I'm guessing a chopped 6.0 like the 4.3 was a chopped 5.7. If you hear more about this 4.6, send a link. I've searched the web, but nodda, and even nodda 3. lol It would be a good cost effective move for GM, and the 4.3 proved itself over the yrs. Especially when they added the ballance shaft which is where I believe they got the idea of where to put the extra in-block cam for the upcoming 3 valve design. Let's hope they get that out before Ford goes to a 4 valve.

I have read somewhere about a 4.6l v6. I'm guessing a chopped 6.0 like the 4.3 was a chopped 5.7. If you hear more about this 4.6, send a link. I've searched the web, but nodda, and even nodda 3.  lol It would be a good cost effective move for GM, and the 4.3 proved itself over the yrs. Especially when they added the ballance shaft which is where I believe they got the idea of where to put the extra in-block cam for the upcoming 3 valve design. Let's hope they get that out before Ford goes to a 4 valve.

[post="39738"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The 4.3 was designed in the 70s and certainly paid for itself time and time again. A tall deck version of the 60° HV V6 would probably be cheaper and have better characteristics than a 90° V6 based of the LS motors. It could also be used in other products like a base Camaro. The upcoming 3 valve OHV motors are actually still 1 cam. The design uses a split rocker arm to control 2 valves with 1 pushrod.

The 4.3 was designed in the 70s and certainly paid for itself time and time again.  A tall deck version of the 60° HV V6 would probably be cheaper and have better characteristics than a 90° V6 based of the LS motors.  It could also be used in other products like a base Camaro.  The upcoming 3 valve OHV motors are actually still 1 cam.  The design uses a split rocker arm to control 2 valves with 1 pushrod.

[post="39759"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Upcoming? Like when? During our lifetime? The 3-valve heads have been nothing more than GM press-release material for 2+ years. I'm get discouraged when GM refuses to put their best-foot-forward. 3valve designs could push performance and gas mileage higher on a mediocre-performance-wise 3.5l or a mediocre-gas-mileage-wise 3.9l. How about what it could do for the new GMT900's?!? GM needs to stop producing "good enough" material. It's why I'm encouraged when I hear about the 6-speed transmissions -> it keeps my hopes high that GM is finally getting it's priorities right.

Upcoming?  Like when?  During our lifetime?  The 3-valve heads have been nothing more than GM press-release material for 2+ years.  I'm get discouraged when GM refuses to put their best-foot-forward.  3valve designs could push performance and gas mileage higher on a mediocre-performance-wise 3.5l or a mediocre-gas-mileage-wise 3.9l.  How about what it could do for the new GMT900's?!?  GM needs to stop producing "good enough" material.  It's why I'm encouraged when I hear about the 6-speed transmissions -> it keeps my hopes high that GM is finally getting it's priorities right.

[post="39761"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

GM isn't really behind in V8 hp or torque power numbers or fuel economy so they don't need 3 valve heads yet. The 60° V6s could use 3 valve heads in performance models, like the 3.9, but the 3.5 VVT puts out good numbers in terms of value to dollar comparisons. For example the 3.5 in the Malibu gets fuel economy numbers almost as good as the 4 cylinder Camry and kills it in performance. The 3.9 in the SS slaughters the V6 Camry in power and probably is close to it in fuel mileage. The only thing that would make sense to me right now is 3 valve heads on the G6 GXP, Saturn Aura, and a mid model Lacrosse with the 3.9 2 valve being standard since it is a luxury car.

I agree that GM isn't behind, but it isn't a clear-cut leader either - and GM needs items to define itself by. GM doesn't have the reputation for quality that affords it to be only marginally better. If GM wishes to garner conquest sales, then it needs to be noticably better in some or multiple areas. Take a look at Nissans VQ motor; that engine garned Nissan a "performance" aura that has permutated into their very design philosphy. The 3valve heads could provide a way for GM to "jump out ahead" of it's competition. It could also go aways to quieting the automotive press that complain about GM's "wheezing" pushrods. Didn't Edmunds have a review of the G6 where they compared the 3.5l to a bathroom fan? I've driven the 3.5l in a Malibu and while it isn't the industry benchmark for refinement, it certainly isn't bad. Edmunds declaration is flat-out ridiculous. The sad fact remains that Edmunds (and others like it) are well-read by the public - and the perceptions hurt GM's ability to recover (and retain) sales.