General Motor's Rumorpile Reveals Some Future Truck Engine Plans

[William Maley]

General Motor's Rumorpile Reveals Some Future Truck Engine Plans

William Maley - Editor/Reporter - CheersandGears.com

August 1, 2011

GM's full-size pickups; the Chevrolet Sliverado and GMC Sierra are getting ready for a redesign for the 2014 model year and rumors are coming out dealing with the engines that will be available.

Sources at GM say that all of the gas engines will have direct-injection and come with six speed automatics. For the light duty pickups, the 5.3L V8 will stick around while a new turbocharged V6 to compete with Ford's EcoBoost V6 will be available. Also coming to the light duty trucks is a 6.0L V8 thats currently in the Silverado and Sierra HD.

Heavy Duty Pickups will keep the 6.6L Duramax diesel and 6.0L V8. GM will also offer an exclusive 6.2L V8 that is optional on the light duty Sliverado and Sierra will be available.

Source: PickupTrucks.com

[FAPTurbo]

No small diesel? I am disappointed.

[loki]

no displacement change is..nice..?

we know the DI engine for the C7 should be out so the v8's should get that quickly.

seems like 3 v8's is kind of a waste...?

they need to work on their grammar "A exclusive ".

[William Maley]

no displacement change is..nice..?

we know the DI engine for the C7 should be out so the v8's should get that quickly.

seems like 3 v8's is kind of a waste...?

they need to work on their grammar "A exclusive ".

Fixed.. this is what happens when you write without being fully awake

[loki]

Fixed.. this is what happens when you write without being fully awake

oh. sorry. lol. thought you were quoting it...

i know dwight made estimates elsewhere, but a 5.3 should 340 -350 hp or so

the 6.2L should be at least 450hp.... could be 500 in the corvette.

it does leave room for the 3.6 to slide under the 5.3. really don't know why they'd have the 6.0L still in use unless it's for the hybrids.

Edited August 1, 2011 by loki

[Cremazie]

I am eager for more Info!!

Its far too long before we get these new trucks!

[smk4565]

They should offer a smaller diesel for non heavy duty pick ups. A turbo V6 is a no brainer, I am surprised it is taking this long. My question is why is the 5.3 liter V8 sticking around? They don't need an engine that is less powerful and more thirsty than the ecoboost.

The pickups (non Heavy Duty) should be a turbo diesel V6, turbo gas V6, and the 6.0 or 6.2 liter V8 for those that want/need a V8. But like 50% of F150s are V6 sales, time to accept what the market wants and get away form dinosaur engines. GM clings to out dated engines like no other.

[Drew Dowdell]

They should offer a smaller diesel for non heavy duty pick ups. A turbo V6 is a no brainer, I am surprised it is taking this long. My question is why is the 5.3 liter V8 sticking around? They don't need an engine that is less powerful and more thirsty than the ecoboost.

Because as you've seen, some guys won't give up their V8s. 50% of the F-150 sales are V6, but that doesn't mean they're all Ecoboost V6. V8s are still dominant over the Ecoboost for now.

The pickups (non Heavy Duty) should be a turbo diesel V6, turbo gas V6, and the 6.0 or 6.2 liter V8 for those that want/need a V8. But like 50% of F150s are V6 sales, time to accept what the market wants and get away form dinosaur engines. GM clings to out dated engines like no other.

Definitely should bring a turbo-diesel V6 over.

[smk4565]

Some won't give up their V8s, but that is why the 6.2 liter V8 is there. And offered on the Tahoe/Escalade/Corvette, etc. The Turbo V6 could be put in a new (hopefully lighter) Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade as well. And CTS, ATS, Camaro can benefit from a boosted V6 also.

They need a Mercedes style diesel V6, 240 hp and 455 lb-ft of torque, that can give 25 mpg highway. The 5.3 liter V8 has become like the 3800 or those 3.1 and 3.4 V6s. GM claimed people wanted a V6, not a 4-cylinder, then Camry and Accord 4-cylinders outsell them by leaps and bounds. Pick up sales are much lower than 10 years ago, gas will probably only go up, CAFE is an issue, so they have to boost fuel economy. The 5.3 V8 doesn't help them do that, but V6s do.

Side note: I'd like to see a diesel V6 put in the CTS also, forget that torqueless 3.0 liter, a diesel would offer nearly twice as much torque and at least 5 more MPG.

Edited August 2, 2011 by smk4565

[Lamar]

So the 4.3 is finally being put out to pasture?

[Drew Dowdell]

Some won't give up their V8s, but that is why the 6.2 liter V8 is there. And offered on the Tahoe/Escalade/Corvette, etc. The Turbo V6 could be put in a new (hopefully lighter) Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade as well. And CTS, ATS, Camaro can benefit from a boosted V6 also.

They need a Mercedes style diesel V6, 240 hp and 455 lb-ft of torque, that can give 25 mpg highway. The 5.3 liter V8 has become like the 3800 or those 3.1 and 3.4 V6s. GM claimed people wanted a V6, not a 4-cylinder, then Camry and Accord 4-cylinders outsell them by leaps and bounds. Pick up sales are much lower than 10 years ago, gas will probably only go up, CAFE is an issue, so they have to boost fuel economy. The 5.3 V8 doesn't help them do that, but V6s do.

Side note: I'd like to see a diesel V6 put in the CTS also, forget that torqueless 3.0 liter, a diesel would offer nearly twice as much torque and at least 5 more MPG.

The 6.2 is too expensive for most buyers needs.

The 5.3 is a no muss, no fuss engine that can tow. Look at where the torque peak RPM is on the 3.6.. utterly unsuitable for towing without a turbo. But there is still some turbo fear out there. 5.3 fills that slot.

[balthazar]

6.2L is 403 HP - offering a 315 HP option for those that don't want/need the 6.2L's power allows the Silverado to appeal to more consumers.

Edited August 2, 2011 by balthazar

[loki]

it'll be interesting how they tune these upcoming engines.

edit. and will they perform tricks like they did for the Cruze?

Edited August 2, 2011 by loki

[z28luvr01]

All engines are getting direct injection. I'd expect significant improvements in both power and economy despite the fact that they're keeping the same displacements.

[smk4565]

The 6.2 is too expensive for most buyers needs.

The 5.3 is a no muss, no fuss engine that can tow. Look at where the torque peak RPM is on the 3.6.. utterly unsuitable for towing without a turbo. But there is still some turbo fear out there. 5.3 fills that slot.

I never said without a turbo. I think the base Silverado should be turbo V6, turbo diesel V6 as maybe a $1,000 extra. Then for V8s, it seems redundant to offer a 6.0 and 6.2 liter, but isn't the new Chevy V8 supposed to be 5.5 liters. Regardless, they only need one V8 for the light duty trucks.

[Z-06]

I think people had slow news day. Given that engineers have went on record of reducing displacement for new LS family, I will take the news with grain of salt.

I agree having a V6 turbo diesel as well as the baby Duramax in the truck lineup.

[balthazar]

I think the base Silverado should be turbo V6, turbo diesel V6 as maybe a $1,000 extra.

Completely unrealistic. DuraMax is $7200 (then you get to add the Allison cost on). Even VW charges $4700 more for the TDI.

V6 TD would be every bit of a $5000 option.

[loki]

Given that engineers have went on record of reducing displacement for new LS family, I will take the news with grain of salt.

I agree having a V6 turbo diesel as well as the baby Duramax in the truck lineup.

i would think it's one or the other... for the diesel.

displacement reducing...i remember the same thing, i think. still don't think they'd only have a "5.5L" only for trucks. i could see a 5.0 and a 6.0 maybe, but they may want to keep them the same to fight ford's 5.0 and 6.2, maybe. time will tell

[smk4565]

I think the base Silverado should be turbo V6, turbo diesel V6 as maybe a $1,000 extra.

Completely unrealistic. DuraMax is $7200 (then you get to add the Allison cost on). Even VW charges $4700 more for the TDI.

V6 TD would be every bit of a $5000 option.

The Duramax is a heavy duty engine though, and they wouldn't need a special transmission for 425 lb-ft of torque. Mercedes charges $1,000 extra for a diesel engine, so it must be possible.

[balthazar]

mercedees has tons of markup in their cars- they can afford the shell game of offering a $1000 diesel. VW can't, because that car has far less markup.

And I didn't say the V6 TD would require a HD trans, just noting that the cost of getting a DuraMax is more than $7200, because you cannot get the motor without the trans and GM breaks out the cost separately. $7200 is the comparative cost of the diesel motor alone.

Edited August 3, 2011 by balthazar

[smk4565]

mercedees has tons of markup in their cars- they can afford the shell game of offering a $1000 diesel. VW can't, because that car has far less markup.

And I didn't say the V6 TD would require a HD trans, just noting that the cost of getting a DuraMax is more than $7200, because you cannot get the motor without the trans and GM breaks out the cost separately. $7200 is the comparative cost of the diesel motor alone.

And Silverados don't have a lot of mark up? So maybe it is $2-3,000 extra, but a 3 liter diesel V6 can't be all that much more expensive than a gas V8. It can't cost more than the Hybrid system, and it would be more effective. If they can put a diesel in the Cruze and make it cost effective, they can do it with the Silverado.

Edited August 3, 2011 by smk4565

[Sixty8panther]

I will agree that GM needs to invest in the turbo-diesel end of the market!

[balthazar]

>>"And Silverados don't have a lot of mark up?"<<

Not as much as mercedees mainstreamers do.

Again I ask: why doesn't VW make it 'cost effective' ?

I'm just saying, if GM is getting $7200 for the 6.6, they're going to ask closer to $5000 for a V6 version, not $1000.

I could be wrong, but it's not logical to assume such a tremendously low figure.

Edited August 3, 2011 by balthazar

[smk4565]

54 mpg CAFE is coming. In 15 years time they will probably have an electric Silverado. But for now, they have to combat the Ecoboost engine, and for the a V6 diesel would make the Silverado stand out. GM needs to be a leader for a change, rather than wait for Ford to do it, have success then 3 years later offer it.

[balthazar]

Interesting that the 3.5L EB is $1750 more than the 3.7L V6- and we're still not talking diesel yet. Wonder why Ford didn't make it 'cost effective' ??

EcoBoost --tho a compelling package-- competes with it's own 5.0L brother, gets the same mileage (OK: 1 MPG better) and is still $750 more.

I wonder if in the long term if Ford will do what Lincoln is doing, and offer the EcoBoost as a zero cost option.

[walter36]

why not just use the 3.6L DOHC V6 from the Camaro as the base engine?? Im guessing maybe it dont have enough torque?? I have the 3.6L in my camaro and I love it. plenty of power.

07 Chrysler Pacifica

06 Pontiac G6 GT

10 Camaro LS

[walter36]

So the 4.3 is finally being put out to pasture?

[/quote

yes, 2012 is the last year for the 4.3L. thank god. The 4.3L is used in the Express van also. I wonder if they plan on using the new V6 in it also?

[LS1POWERED]

I don’t know why people think GM must have a v6 turbo. Why bother with a v6 with v8 power? Why not make a V8 with v6 Economy, Best of both worlds IMO.

[hyperv6]

I don’t know why people think GM must have a v6 turbo. Why bother with a v6 with v8 power? Why not make a V8 with v6 Economy, Best of both worlds IMO.

It is simple, people are paying a extra cost over the V8 for the Turbo V6 in the Ford. As of right now the V6 has taken over 50% of the Ford F150 market. The power is more than enough in the V6. Note too the V6 just gets a little more MPG but people want and are willing to pay for it.

For GM not to offer a better V6 would be leaving a lot of buyers going to Ford to get what they want. The time is coming where most 1/2 ton trucks will be V6 and to get a V8 it will be offered in only higher end trucks or heavier chassis.

The V8 will not go away but it will be limited and more expensive.

[Cremazie]

I don’t know why people think GM must have a v6 turbo. Why bother with a v6 with v8 power? Why not make a V8 with v6 Economy, Best of both worlds IMO.

It is simple, people are paying a extra cost over the V8 for the Turbo V6 in the Ford. As of right now the V6 has taken over 50% of the Ford F150 market. The power is more than enough in the V6. Note too the V6 just gets a little more MPG but people want and are willing to pay for it.

For GM not to offer a better V6 would be leaving a lot of buyers going to Ford to get what they want. The time is coming where most 1/2 ton trucks will be V6 and to get a V8 it will be offered in only higher end trucks or heavier chassis.

The V8 will not go away but it will be limited and more expensive.

Yes sir, thats also because V6s are putting down over 300hp. and that is 90hp more than my dad's 1995 GMC with a 350 V8

[hyperv6]

I don’t know why people think GM must have a v6 turbo. Why bother with a v6 with v8 power? Why not make a V8 with v6 Economy, Best of both worlds IMO.

It is simple, people are paying a extra cost over the V8 for the Turbo V6 in the Ford. As of right now the V6 has taken over 50% of the Ford F150 market. The power is more than enough in the V6. Note too the V6 just gets a little more MPG but people want and are willing to pay for it.

For GM not to offer a better V6 would be leaving a lot of buyers going to Ford to get what they want. The time is coming where most 1/2 ton trucks will be V6 and to get a V8 it will be offered in only higher end trucks or heavier chassis.

The V8 will not go away but it will be limited and more expensive.

Yes sir, thats also because V6s are putting down over 300hp. and that is 90hp more than my dad's 1995 GMC with a 350 V8

That was my thoughts too. I can remember 180 HP V8 used to be enough for most people to do just what they are doing now.

I can remember the big deal on the 1990 454 SS pickup when they came out with 230 HP and 385 FT-LBS if torque. Today my 2.0 betters the HP by 60 HP and just falls 70 FT LBS short on the torque.

I too think today people like new things and the turbo V6 engines and advanced engined have captured the customers imaginations. These are not the boat anchor 4.3 or inline 250 engines of the past. I think the new technology and marketing has really sold these engines at Ford and they have taken what was once a base engine and made it one in demand that is also making money.

It will be interesting to see in the future if and when we get the new Colorado. Also is Ford going to offer the new ranger here as a F100 like truck at some point to help on MPG? I suspect there are going to be a lot of changes with this segment. It is too profitable and too competitive to ignore.

[regfootball]

I don't know why people think GM must have a v6 turbo. Why bother with a v6 with v8 power? Why not make a V8 with v6 Economy, Best of both worlds IMO.

V8'S HAVE BECOME the kiss of death in car buying transactions these days....most of my shoppers in fact are even dictating 4 cylinder as an absolute.......even when you should them the epa ratings on two vehicles, one with a 6 and one with a four, and their epa is like 1 mpg apart, or the 6 might have better numbers, most folks are still hung on the notion of 4 cylinder is better mpg real time.

gas has become the biggest operating cost of a vehicle so that is why everyone wants 4 poppers now.

a 6 in trucks is like 4 in cars now. as longas the 6 can muster the pulling...............

I don't know why people think GM must have a v6 turbo. Why bother with a v6 with v8 power? Why not make a V8 with v6 Economy, Best of both worlds IMO.

It is simple, people are paying a extra cost over the V8 for the Turbo V6 in the Ford. As of right now the V6 has taken over 50% of the Ford F150 market. The power is more than enough in the V6. Note too the V6 just gets a little more MPG but people want and are willing to pay for it.

For GM not to offer a better V6 would be leaving a lot of buyers going to Ford to get what they want. The time is coming where most 1/2 ton trucks will be V6 and to get a V8 it will be offered in only higher end trucks or heavier chassis.

The V8 will not go away but it will be limited and more expensive.

Yes sir, thats also because V6s are putting down over 300hp. and that is 90hp more than my dad's 1995 GMC with a 350 V8

That was my thoughts too. I can remember 180 HP V8 used to be enough for most people to do just what they are doing now.

I can remember the big deal on the 1990 454 SS pickup when they came out with 230 HP and 385 FT-LBS if torque. Today my 2.0 betters the HP by 60 HP and just falls 70 FT LBS short on the torque.

I too think today people like new things and the turbo V6 engines and advanced engined have captured the customers imaginations. These are not the boat anchor 4.3 or inline 250 engines of the past. I think the new technology and marketing has really sold these engines at Ford and they have taken what was once a base engine and made it one in demand that is also making money.

It will be interesting to see in the future if and when we get the new Colorado. Also is Ford going to offer the new ranger here as a F100 like truck at some point to help on MPG? I suspect there are going to be a lot of changes with this segment. It is too profitable and too competitive to ignore.

people at my ford stores have said the F100 is on the way......it's just been well concealed.....

my guess is the F100 gets a four, a turbo four, a six and prob not a turbo 6.....

[hyperv6]

We must remember many buyers in the market grew up on 4 cylinder inports. Most came from families that never owned a V8 and many may have seldom if ever drove one.

In this day where you can get approx 300 HP from a 4 cylinder and a little more than that out of a V6 most find it will do all they need and they are happy with the extra MPG or two.

I know the 2010 I have been driving while it is a great truck sucks on MPG. I have been getting 16 MPG with it. I asked my buddy who had the same 5.3 in his and he is spending $90 a week driving. In fact he just traded it in for a Cruze Eco and is thrilled to death.

If I could get a New Colorado like we have seen with a Eco Turbo I would have no issue with it.

The market today is about results and technology. With each generation cylinder counts mean less and less and and they just focus on performance. The V8 today is becoming more like the 454. There was a time it too was needed but today a 6.0 can do the work. Now the V6 Turbo can do the work of a 5.3 and gain 1-2 MPG.

The market had completely changed and the companies need to give the people what they want and still gain a MPG where ever they can find it.

[Drew Dowdell]

I think the base Silverado should be turbo V6, turbo diesel V6 as maybe a $1,000 extra.

Completely unrealistic. DuraMax is $7200 (then you get to add the Allison cost on). Even VW charges $4700 more for the TDI.

V6 TD would be every bit of a $5000 option.

Incorrect on the VW. When you match all of the other options up, the TDI is about a $2,100 price premium.

[balthazar]

I looked via Edmunds, and there are a few upgrades over the gas Golf, but it doesn't look like thousands to me. The way OEMs run the game today, you're prolly right tho- I'm not going to tally it up.

And that's a degree of gouging; you want better mileage, you're ALSO going to have to pay for leather-wrapped wheel, floor mats and better infotainment... like those trifles are anyway connected to having a TD.

They know you can afford the TD engine, so you can afford a few more things (without having the choice).

Still, to get a stripped version of both --and I think the TD is #1 thru 10 of the purchase factors here-- the consumer is still forking out nearly $5K more to get said TD.

Powertrain alone might not be that much, but you'll pay that much anyway.

To the point at hand: if VW is charging $2100 for a 4-cyl TD specifically, GM is not going to be charging $1000 for a 6-cyl TD.

Well; they can, but they'd be losing money hand over fist on it, and who knows how many years it's take to break even on volume.

Edited August 15, 2011 by balthazar

[Drew Dowdell]

I was looking at the Jetta, so that may account for some of the different there since the Jetta is now built with added cheapness unlike the Golf.

What I don't understand is why a TDI costs that much more to build. I mean GM was able to do it by taking an Olds 350, stopping up the plug holes and adding stronger head bolts

Looking at the Chevrolet.co.uk and Chevrolet.de websites, it looks like going from a Cruze Saloon Gas 4-cylinder 5-speed to a Cruze Saloon Diesel 4-cylinder 6-speed is a $2,300 upgrade give or take some currency exchange fluctuations.

[Z-06]

VW hegemony on the diesel will end soon courtesy GM.

[Sixty8panther]

Threads like this remind me just how the new car industry is getting depressing.

V8'S HAVE BECOME the kiss of death in car buying transactions these days....most of my shoppers in fact are even dictating 4 cylinder as an absolute.......even when you should them the epa ratings on two vehicles, one with a 6 and one with a four, and their epa is like 1 mpg apart, or the 6 might have better numbers, most folks are still hung on the notion of 4 cylinder is better mpg real time.

People are stupid & ignorant. One $1000 repair in a 4 cylinder car that you can avoid in a V6 can buy you

$1000 worth of gasoline, that's 250 gallons. Think about it.

The government should concentrate on fixing itself & trimming the fat, not sticking a flashlight up the rear

end of the Automotive industry!

[balthazar]

What I don't understand is why a TDI costs that much more to build. I mean GM was able to do it by taking an Olds 350, stopping up the plug holes and adding stronger head bolts

Don't kno if it was every year, but the Olds diesel was a new, much stronger block. Guy I knew coveted them to build Olds performance 350s- said you couldn't break them.

[Drew Dowdell]

What I don't understand is why a TDI costs that much more to build. I mean GM was able to do it by taking an Olds 350, stopping up the plug holes and adding stronger head bolts

Don't kno if it was every year, but the Olds diesel was a new, much stronger block. Guy I knew coveted them to build Olds performance 350s- said you couldn't break them.

The stronger block started in late 81 for the MY'82 cars. Other added goodness arrived for MY84 just in time to be canceled at the end of MY'85. The DX blocks of '85 are pretty much bullet proof (and for some reason still available) even if they aren't fast. I've always wondered what the result would be if someone out there put a relatively mild turbo and intercooler on on of the DX block diesels. It would probably change the whole character of the engine.

[Robert Hall]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that drag racers used to use Olds diesel blocks to build race engines.

[SAmadei]

The stronger block started in late 81 for the MY'82 cars. Other added goodness arrived for MY84 just in time to be canceled at the end of MY'85. The DX blocks of '85 are pretty much bullet proof (and for some reason still available) even if they aren't fast. I've always wondered what the result would be if someone out there put a relatively mild turbo and intercooler on on of the DX block diesels. It would probably change the whole character of the engine.

It started earlier than late '81, as they did find their way into 1981 cars. I had always heard all '81 models got the DX... but I know for certain our '81 Cutlass had the DX. I'm not sure what its build date was.

DXs still had problems, at least for '81. Blown head gasket prompted a switch to a gas engine in our case. Then my friends clamored over the 350DX block. Dad recognized the value of the DX parts and IIRC, sold it mostly for the fuel system.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that drag racers used to use Olds diesel blocks to build race engines.

Definitely. The racers were on that early. IIRC, they were boring and stroking the 350DXs into 455s.

[daves87rs]

6.2L is 403 HP - offering a 315 HP option for those that don't want/need the 6.2L's power allows the Silverado to appeal to more consumers.

+1

[2QuickZ's]

I thought GM already had a light duty 4.5L V6 turbo diesel pretty much fully developed and ready to go but they killed the program shortly before or during their bankruptcy? Hopefully it gets resurrected for the next generation pickup.

[Z-06]

4.5L V8 was almost ready - rated 315 hp or so (preliminary) till bankruptcy put it into hibernation. Many would like it to be resurrected.

[2QuickZ's]

For some reason I was thinking it was a TD V6. Not sure why. 320 hp and 520 ft-lbs estimated. That would have been nice!

From June 2010 article:

“The 4.5-liter V-8 is fully developed and ready,” said Mark Cieslak, GM’s full-size truck chief engineer. “[if we decided to offer it] we could launch it in a heartbeat.”

Edited August 20, 2011 by 2QuickZ's

[Drew Dowdell]

There was both. There was a 4.5 V8 Diesel for trucks and a 2.9 V6 Diesel for cars. The 2009 CTS was supposed to get it for European launch