What's GM's Plan To Solve The MPG Problem With Trucks?

There's no reason to doubt that the next small block will match the Ecoboost in fuel economy and hp/tq,

Ecoboost requires premium to get its lofty numbers. IMO the 5.0 is the better engine to buy if you're shopping for an F150.

Still, it's probably a good idea for GM to test the waters with a turbo'd V6 in the next ful sizers, if nothing else than to have something to market against the Ecoboost.

would the 2.5L and a turbo 3.0L work well in the "colorado" for people that want a small truck that can actually be used?

dwight- have you thought about this and come up with numbers before?

it's known the 4.3L as is won't cut it, it'd have to be majorly reworked.... even an 8 speed wouldn't help it THAT much...

I know it make little sense to pay that much more for a Turbo V6 when the Coyote is a very good engine with only 1-2 less MPG but people are. This is not a case where you reason with the customer. This is a case were you give the customer what they want and if they are paying more for it all the better.

The Turbo V6 has taken with a large segment of this market and GM needs to offer something similar no mater what the V8 is.

The other trick is the Turbo engine is much easier to tune in many cases and the power increases are far easier.

4 Banger Diesel baby or maybe a v6

You can have your awesome Torque for pulling, Awesome Fuel milage as only Diesels do.

ford's base v6 is good. the ecoboost is good also. yet ford has the v8 side covered also.

It's probably high time GM looked at a six cylinder for the truck line that is more powerful and fuel efficient, turbo or not...i think the market will move to a fair size of units sold with v6.

perhaps chevy can develop the 5.3 into two states of tune....one for lesser power but more mpg and one just balls out power and all the vvt and stuff.

too bad the 4.2 inline never made the silverados.

chevy needs to deveop a new mid size truck line that is far better than the colorados. i'd like to see a full size with both a six and an eight diesel. a smal;l-mid truck with a 4 diesel would rock.

F150 is the #1 selling pick up, and they sell more V6 than V8. Dodge is also putting a V6 Ram on sale (I just realized it isn't Dodge anymore, but to me it is). So GM has to look at what the top 2 competitors are going, and think we need a V6 also.

I would look seriously at diesel power to get fuel economy up. A Mercedes ML350 diesel gets 20/27 mpg, and that is a 5,000 lb truck, I think it possible to get similar numbers out of a Silverado, especially with 8 gears to work with. And if they can remove weight out of the Silverado, that obviously helps.

I do think they need a smaller pick up, the Colorado seemed too big, and also too expensive. It was like half as good as a Silverado at 90% the price. A smaller pick up for people that don't want a huge or thirsty vehicle makes sense. I still believe they can do that off an Equinox platform because that type of buyer is looking for easy to drive, with some versatility. They aren't looking to tow 10,000 pounds or haul payload.

Equinox pickup? That BLOWS.

Hopefully the next Colorado will have a front clip to reflect a family resemblance to the new fullsize trucks. And I'd like to see the Canyon front take some things from the '13 Acadia. That embryonic 4 cylinder Duramax will make these trucks HOT.

I agree with z... the 5.0 is a more suitable engine for the F-150. And these new smallblocks with 8-speed should be pretty darn economical without resorting to a potentially problematical turbocharger.

Both midsize and fullsize GM trucks need a killer naturally aspirated V6. And the new 2.5L should be the base motor for the midsizers.

Rumor is the Ram is getting a 3.0 liter diesel V6 with over 400 lb-ft of torque. The General should be looking at that.

Pickups are about torque; the Mercedes diesel V6 puts out more torque than the 6.2 Vortec, the Hemi or Ford's Ecoboost, the 5.0 V8, even the 6.2 V8 in the Raptor. Why make a 6 liter engine to get 400 lb-ft when a 3 liter engine can make 450 and get 5-7 mpg more and be more durable.

1500s definitely need a diesel, whether small 8 or a 6.

Diesel V6, more torque than any of these V8s and it would crush the ecoboost in fuel economy. 455 lb-ft and 27 mpg are the stats on Mercedes V6, GM could copy that, but I think Ram will beat them to it.

Baby Duramax needs to be revived. It should be also put in Suburban and Tahoe. As much as I love the big Duramax, it is just excessive for most of people's needs.

Baby Duramax needs to be revived. It should be also put in Suburban and Tahoe. As much as I love the big Duramax, it is just excessive for most of people's needs.

Yes, and the Duramax isn't that economical. Excellent idea on Tahoe and Silverado. A diesel V6 could get those to 24 mpg highway I bet, that is as good as a Traverse. I guess while we are at it, it could go into the Traverse also, but that much torque would probably rip the transmission apart. GM would have to make a new one, I don't think and FWD transmission they have can handle over 300-350 lb-ft.

Baby Duramax needs to be revived. It should be also put in Suburban and Tahoe. As much as I love the big Duramax, it is just excessive for most of people's needs.

Yes, and the Duramax isn't that economical. Excellent idea on Tahoe and Silverado. A diesel V6 could get those to 24 mpg highway I bet, that is as good as a Traverse. I guess while we are at it, it could go into the Traverse also, but that much torque would probably rip the transmission apart. GM would have to make a new one, I don't think and FWD transmission they have can handle over 300-350 lb-ft.

Do you know that engine hauls a 7,200 to 8,400 lbs truck and still returns 22 mpg on highway? To me that is more efficient than the MB engine you are humping.

While Diesels will help the issue is most buyers still want gas so they still need to address that.

GM has forgotten the V6 for way too long.

The Colorado in the new form will improve on the old issues of design and quality but will it fix the price issue. Today you can still buy a full size truck on sale for less or the same as a Colorado. The price it just too high and too close to the half ton truck that ends up being a better value.

I wish they would have move the Colorado to the dize the S-10 was and get back to a smaller truck. The Ranger as old as it was did so well at a lower price in a smaller size. I think that speaks volumes on what the maket wants. Imagine if Ford had done a new Ranger in that size I think it would have dominated the market.

A GM version of an EcoBoost V6 in the trucks is mandatory. The free(ish) market has spoken. Full size pickup + turbo v6 = more profits and more sales.

Diesels appropriate for the Colorado/Canyon as well as the Silverado/Sierra are great too. GM should NOT foreclose an opportunity to make more cash, even if the consumer is not 100% rational.

MPG gains aren't just about the engines, though..the automakers needs to work long term at reducing the obesity of their trucks...

MPG gains aren't just about the engines, though..the automakers needs to work long term at reducing the obesity of their trucks...

Lighter trucks and cars would be best, but that would cost $$$$$$.

4 Banger Diesel baby or maybe a v6

You can have your awesome Torque for pulling, Awesome Fuel milage as only Diesels do.

I agree with this...

MPG gains aren't just about the engines, though..the automakers needs to work long term at reducing the obesity of their trucks...

...and I agree with this also...but the market seems to be full of people who want a truck the size of a 1950's starter house.

I'd like to see a modern inline 6 in the trucks.

Baby Duramax needs to be revived. It should be also put in Suburban and Tahoe. As much as I love the big Duramax, it is just excessive for most of people's needs.

Yes, and the Duramax isn't that economical. Excellent idea on Tahoe and Silverado. A diesel V6 could get those to 24 mpg highway I bet, that is as good as a Traverse. I guess while we are at it, it could go into the Traverse also, but that much torque would probably rip the transmission apart. GM would have to make a new one, I don't think and FWD transmission they have can handle over 300-350 lb-ft.

Do you know that engine hauls a 7,200 to 8,400 lbs truck and still returns 22 mpg on highway? To me that is more efficient than the MB engine you are humping.

EPA doesn't rate that engine, but Car and Driver got 14 mpg average from it (on a 2500, not a heavier 3500). You could get a Silverado diesel that weighs 5900 lbs, if it is 4 door, dually, long bed, then yes it probably is near 8,000 lbs. So weight reduction is an area for Chevy to look at. But the Duramax is an $8400 option, and I am not suggesting getting rid of it, it is a good engine for the 3500 trucks. I am saying add a 3 liter V6 diesel for the 1500 trucks and dump the 4.3 V6 and 4.8 V8s. That 4.3 V6 is from the 80s, time to say goodbye already.

The GM trucks are the lightest of the Big 3 already. I think Ford and Dodge should be the ones substituting lighter materials.

Baby Duramax needs to be revived. It should be also put in Suburban and Tahoe. As much as I love the big Duramax, it is just excessive for most of people's needs.

Yes, and the Duramax isn't that economical. Excellent idea on Tahoe and Silverado. A diesel V6 could get those to 24 mpg highway I bet, that is as good as a Traverse. I guess while we are at it, it could go into the Traverse also, but that much torque would probably rip the transmission apart. GM would have to make a new one, I don't think and FWD transmission they have can handle over 300-350 lb-ft.

Do you know that engine hauls a 7,200 to 8,400 lbs truck and still returns 22 mpg on highway? To me that is more efficient than the MB engine you are humping.

EPA doesn't rate that engine, but Car and Driver got 14 mpg average from it (on a 2500, not a heavier 3500). You could get a Silverado diesel that weighs 5900 lbs, if it is 4 door, dually, long bed, then yes it probably is near 8,000 lbs. So weight reduction is an area for Chevy to look at. But the Duramax is an $8400 option, and I am not suggesting getting rid of it, it is a good engine for the 3500 trucks. I am saying add a 3 liter V6 diesel for the 1500 trucks and dump the 4.3 V6 and 4.8 V8s. That 4.3 V6 is from the 80s, time to say goodbye already.

Car and Driver observed 19 mpg for the ML320 cdi that was rated 18 27. The numbers I have quoted are real life numbers of actual people who drive the truck. You just bolstered my point by pointing the lighter truck will be more efficient than the real numbers I quoted for heavier truck. The Baby Duramax 4.5L V8 has already been developed 4 years ago, why waste money on a new engine?

For trucks, in general, I think Reuss' strategy of looking at bigger picture makes sense. Variety has always been a spice of life for truck buyers. Discontinuing one of the three V8s, replacing a V6, adding a diesel and a turbo (since market has spoken) for powertrain will make sense for the 1500s. Adding a smaller Colorado with two four bangers and one V6 will be good.

As far as style and utility is concerned, this is where GM needs to be the most innovative to keep the buyers and increase its market share.

Car and Driver observed 19 mpg for the ML320 cdi that was rated 18 27. The numbers I have quoted are real life numbers of actual people who drive the truck. You just bolstered my point by pointing the lighter truck will be more efficient than the real numbers I quoted for heavier truck. The Baby Duramax 4.5L V8 has already been developed 4 years ago, why waste money on a new engine?

So put the baby duramax on sale already. I don't think developing a new engine is a waste of money. (and a diesel V6 can be used in cars and suvs) Ford did the Ecoboost, Ram is about to do Pentastar V6 and a diesel V6 in the pickup.

I think gas and diesel V6, then a gas V8 obviously and duramax diesel. They could do 2 gas V8s if they feel need to have one for more regular trucks and one for HD.

For the second pickup, I like the idea of doing one closer to S10 size. They need separation from the Silverado's size and price.

Lighter trucks are a given and we will see them cut weight in the next two gens at GM.

As for power The V6 Turbo is a give just because the public has taken to them. Ford proved it with their risk and even made a buck. They made the V6 an option people really wants.

Diesels still have issue. There is a goup of buyers who will consider them but GM will still have to take that step out on faith that they can market them in a half ton. It is a risk like Ford took but in a truck it still may pay off. I still fear that a Diesel Cruze will still be a hard sell. The average Americans do not like or understand Diesels. GM has to change this to make it work in the cars.

Diesel is a really good option (the Duramax is a fantastic engine), but it has three problems.

1) the perception gap - not as bad as it once was, but still there (though unwarranted).

2) cost - the premium to buy a diesel is just plain too high.

3) fuel - Diesel prices are not falling along with gasoline, and are absurdly high.

I have to go back to the idea of an inline 6. They have attributes that (I think) are worth considering.

1) They are an inherently smooth-running design

2) They make great torque which is key in a truck engine

3) MPG

4) And finally, an inline 6 would set the trucks apart from the crowd a little - and nothing says that it couldn't be turbocharged. The recent Atlas engines were quite well thought of, so the tech is there.

Diesel is a really good option (the Duramax is a fantastic engine), but it has three problems.

1) the perception gap - not as bad as it once was, but still there (though unwarranted).

2) cost - the premium to buy a diesel is just plain too high.

3) fuel - Diesel prices are not falling along with gasoline, and are absurdly high.

I have to go back to the idea of an inline 6. They have attributes that (I think) are worth considering.

1) They are an inherently smooth-running design

2) They make great torque which is key in a truck engine

3) MPG

4) And finally, an inline 6 would set the trucks apart from the crowd a little - and nothing says that it couldn't be turbocharged. The recent Atlas engines were quite well thought of, so the tech is there.

I agree with all but there are a few issues.

GM will want to use an engine or in this case a 6 cylinder that could be used in more than one platform and vehicle other than a truck or SUV.

The Atlas was a pretty good engine but there were issues with it too. While it ran great and had good power it never got the MPG the others in class got. They even played with a Turbo on the I 5 with good results but again no MPG. Add in the cost of the Atlas vs the V8 and GM just could never consider it. It was heavy and to get the front axles in they had to go through the pan.

I would love to see a well built I 6 but right now there are too many factors against it.

I get the packaging concerns, and MPG would change with new transmissions and DI. I think it's still worth looking at and I hope GM does.

Seems to me that it was a mistake not to offer the Atlas in the Silverado and full-size SUVs, No volume or packaging problem if you did that.

...And what's BMW's secret?

Not only have they used an inline 6 for years, but they fit it in a 3-Series and were able to offer AWD!.

Has to be do-able.

Yes, plus there would be oodles of room on either side of the engine, so it'd be easy to get at it when you have to (a good thing for "work trucks")

With all the money they spent on that engine, it was a shame for them not to invest in it.

They did flirt with turbocharging it. The '02 Bel Air concept had a turbo'd Atlas I5 that put out 315hp (big news back then when most cars were fortunate to have over 200)

I think BMW resolves much with laying the engine over to reduce height of the engine. Also they use a much shallower pan.

The real issue was more to do with cost. At one time they said how much that engine was to build per unit vs the V8. It would do no good to have the cost of your entry level engine cost more than the V8. It would be even worse if it could not be used in any other vehicle other than a truck.

Now if they could do a slant 6 that would fit in the VF and keep the cost down while getting good power andf economy it would be do able.

I wonder how much a Ecotech I6 would cost and if they could do a reliable 300 NA HP.

Whoa, hyper has an idear! An Ecotec inline 6 would be sweeter'n honey.

A GM version of an EcoBoost V6 in the trucks is mandatory. The free(ish) market has spoken. Full size pickup + turbo v6 = more profits and more sales.

Diesels appropriate for the Colorado/Canyon as well as the Silverado/Sierra are great too. GM should NOT foreclose an opportunity to make more cash, even if the consumer is not 100% rational.

I have to Dis-agree with you and others here about a GM EcoBoost V6 version. I remember the last time the industry tried to put V6 into trucks, Ford blew actually, terrible engine. Dodge has not had a pretty history either. The V8 with Auto in the Dakota was just as fuel efficient as the so called V6 with manual and if you kept your foot out of it was even better. I know as I bought a V6 with 5 speed manual and the milage sucked, for the 250K miles I had the truck, I never got better than 16 and this is a fact well known.

A truck is a work vehicle and right now the history of V6 powered either Natural or Turbo is terrible for the US. I would rather trust a 4 Banger Diesel or V6 Diesel in a full size truck before a V6 Gas powerplant.

I DO NOT see the V6 being better than a small block V8 in a full size truck.

The people buying up the F150 will prove this point as I predict the engine will die of much shorter miles life than a small block V8 and the fuel efficiency will not live up to the over blown EPA numbers.

You know, it occurs to me that with the noses on cars getting taller, packaging an inline 6 might be getting easier.

Maybe designing to that parameter will again be more viable.

You know, it occurs to me that with the noses on cars getting taller, packaging an inline 6 might be getting easier.

Maybe designing to that parameter will again be more viable.

I could see an inline 6 in RWD cars, but in FWD models which are probably 90% of GM's output an inline 6 would be too wide for a transverse engine installation...

You know, it occurs to me that with the noses on cars getting taller, packaging an inline 6 might be getting easier.

Maybe designing to that parameter will again be more viable.

I could see an inline 6 in RWD cars, but in FWD models which are probably 90% of GM's output an inline 6 would be too wide for a transverse engine installation...

Of course that's true.

I just dismiss FWD because I couldn't care less about it.

You know, it occurs to me that with the noses on cars getting taller, packaging an inline 6 might be getting easier.

Maybe designing to that parameter will again be more viable.

I could see an inline 6 in RWD cars, but in FWD models which are probably 90% of GM's output an inline 6 would be too wide for a transverse engine installation...

Of course that's true.

I just dismiss FWD because I couldn't care less about it.

Agreed, but unfortunately 99% of car buyers prefer FWD or don't care...

With the volume of full-size trucks, compact trucks, SUVs and RWD cars, the FWD thing really isn't important as a factor here.

Still, a non-transverse FWD application would be possible.

Now you have me thinking, Cubitar.

Non-transverse FWD would be interesting as a way to make Buick distinctive in the market.

With the volume of full-size trucks, compact trucks, SUVs and RWD cars, the FWD thing really isn't important as a factor here.

Still, a non-transverse FWD application would be possible.

Yes, but GM hasn't had a non-transverse FWD platform in nearly 30 years. Seems theoretically possible, but given the length of an inline 6, the front overhang would be substantial....I know there have been non-transverse FWD cars built w/ V8s, V6s, inline 5s, and 4cyls, but don't know of any inline 6 cyl ones...

Anyway, as far as straight 6s, I'm a fan of them, having owned two vehicles w/ them (BMW and Jeep) and spent time driving a Mercedes w/ one..

Back on topic, as I mentioned earlier, I think weight reduction is a criticial area that needs addressed w/ future trucks..the lightest full size trucks are around 5-6,000 lbs these days, which is insane..

Where's the 2.9 V6 diesel that was developed for Cadillac? That had 400 ft-lb of torque.

The 3.0TT is coming to the cars wouldn't take much work to make a 3.6TT for the trucks. The hardware is basically the same but use lower boost numbers. I do think that Chevy needs a turbo V6 or Atlas I6 Turbo as an option.

But mostly l would like to see Chevy do a broad spectrum diesel release. Cruze, 'Nox, Impala, Colorado, and Silverado should all be available with diesel and in the Silverado specifically, a diesel that isn't a $7,000, Heavy Duty upgrade.

Camino LS6, on , said:

Diesel is a really good option (the Duramax is a fantastic engine), but it has three problems.

1) the perception gap - not as bad as it once was, but still there (though unwarranted).

2) cost - the premium to buy a diesel is just plain too high.

3) fuel - Diesel prices are not falling along with gasoline, and are absurdly high.

I have to go back to the idea of an inline 6. They have attributes that (I think) are worth considering.

1) They are an inherently smooth-running design

2) They make great torque which is key in a truck engine

3) MPG

4) And finally, an inline 6 would set the trucks apart from the crowd a little - and nothing says that it couldn't be turbocharged. The recent Atlas engines were quite well thought of, so the tech is there.

I agree with all but there are a few issues.

GM will want to use an engine or in this case a 6 cylinder that could be used in more than one platform and vehicle other than a truck or SUV.

The Atlas was a pretty good engine but there were issues with it too. While it ran great and had good power it never got the MPG the others in class got. They even played with a Turbo on the I 5 with good results but again no MPG. Add in the cost of the Atlas vs the V8 and GM just could never consider it. It was heavy and to get the front axles in they had to go through the pan.

I would love to see a well built I 6 but right now there are too many factors against it.

DI , full VVT, and a turbo or two would address those issues in the Atlas and make it more than a match for the Ecoboost.

You know, it occurs to me that with the noses on cars getting taller, packaging an inline 6 might be getting easier.

Maybe designing to that parameter will again be more viable.

Suzuki and Volvo did it in FWD vehicles right up until recently.

Even an I6-Turboed-DI Camaro could be an interesting proposition if they can slant the engine.

I agree with Cubical that I do love the straight 6, I had good experiances with Jeep, but V6 I have not had good experiances with.

It would be cool to have small 6 or 4 cylinder CNG engines or Diesels.

You know, it occurs to me that with the noses on cars getting taller, packaging an inline 6 might be getting easier.

Maybe designing to that parameter will again be more viable.

Suzuki and Volvo did it in FWD vehicles right up until recently.

Even an I6-Turboed-DI Camaro could be an interesting proposition if they can slant the engine.

You know that such vehicles wouldn't really be my thing - But I see too much logic in the possibilities to ignore this idea.

You could get your E-body back...

You know, it occurs to me that with the noses on cars getting taller, packaging an inline 6 might be getting easier.

Maybe designing to that parameter will again be more viable.

Suzuki and Volvo did it in FWD vehicles right up until recently.

Even an I6-Turboed-DI Camaro could be an interesting proposition if they can slant the engine.

You know that such vehicles wouldn't really be my thing - But I see too much logic in the possibilities to ignore this idea.

You could get your E-body back...

You may have misunderstood me. Suzuki and Volvo did transverse I-6 FWD cars. Technically, so did VW, with a twist.

In terms of packaging, the VR design is really the solution to the problem. 15 degree V, V6 makes it smooth like an inline, but not much longer than an I-4.

You know, it occurs to me that with the noses on cars getting taller, packaging an inline 6 might be getting easier.

Maybe designing to that parameter will again be more viable.

Suzuki and Volvo did it in FWD vehicles right up until recently.

Even an I6-Turboed-DI Camaro could be an interesting proposition if they can slant the engine.

You know that such vehicles wouldn't really be my thing - But I see too much logic in the possibilities to ignore this idea.

You could get your E-body back...

You may have misunderstood me. Suzuki and Volvo did transverse I-6 FWD cars. Technically, so did VW, with a twist.

In terms of packaging, the VR design is really the solution to the problem. 15 degree V, V6 makes it smooth like an inline, but not much longer than an I-4.

Seems I may have. But then, FWD Suzukis and Volvos are in my "beneath notice" category. I do find it interesting the Chrysler's LH cars used a north-south configuration though. Those were some of the best-looking FWD designs of their time.

A slightly taller hood, and they could have used an I-6.

You know, it occurs to me that with the noses on cars getting taller, packaging an inline 6 might be getting easier.

Maybe designing to that parameter will again be more viable.

Suzuki and Volvo did it in FWD vehicles right up until recently.

Even an I6-Turboed-DI Camaro could be an interesting proposition if they can slant the engine.

You know that such vehicles wouldn't really be my thing - But I see too much logic in the possibilities to ignore this idea.

You could get your E-body back...

You may have misunderstood me. Suzuki and Volvo did transverse I-6 FWD cars. Technically, so did VW, with a twist.

In terms of packaging, the VR design is really the solution to the problem. 15 degree V, V6 makes it smooth like an inline, but not much longer than an I-4.

Seems I may have. But then, FWD Suzukis and Volvos are in my "beneath notice" category. I do find it interesting the Chrysler's LH cars used a north-south configuration though. Those were some of the best-looking FWD designs of their time.

A slightly taller hood, and they could have used an I-6.

I agree. I've always wondered what an LH coupe, probably a Chrysler branded one, would look like. Given GM's stumble with the E-body starting in '86, Chrysler could have snatched that market away with something like that. Technically, the drive layout is an AMC/Renault derived design going back to the Monaco.

Another interesting North/South arrangements. The 1996 - 2005 Passat. Available with 1.8 liter 4-cylinder, a 2.8 liter V6 or a 4.0 liter W8.... all longitudinal.

You know, it occurs to me that with the noses on cars getting taller, packaging an inline 6 might be getting easier.

Maybe designing to that parameter will again be more viable.

Suzuki and Volvo did it in FWD vehicles right up until recently.

Even an I6-Turboed-DI Camaro could be an interesting proposition if they can slant the engine.

You know that such vehicles wouldn't really be my thing - But I see too much logic in the possibilities to ignore this idea.

You could get your E-body back...

You may have misunderstood me. Suzuki and Volvo did transverse I-6 FWD cars. Technically, so did VW, with a twist.

In terms of packaging, the VR design is really the solution to the problem. 15 degree V, V6 makes it smooth like an inline, but not much longer than an I-4.

Seems I may have. But then, FWD Suzukis and Volvos are in my "beneath notice" category. I do find it interesting the Chrysler's LH cars used a north-south configuration though. Those were some of the best-looking FWD designs of their time.

A slightly taller hood, and they could have used an I-6.

Interesting...didn't know Suzuki or Volvo had I-6 FWD cars...I know Volvo had I-5s (as did Audi).