2017 Gas 2500 Changes

C/K Man · March 30, 2016

There is a little information (and a lot of speculation!) on the 2017 L5P Duramax, but I have seen NOTHING on gas engines. I suspect that the L96 continues if for no other reason than it can be easily converted to alternate fuels. From time to time there have been rumors about a 7.0L LS under development, one story said the engine would go into the joint GM/Navistar medium duty trucks in 2018.

No F-bdy Bs · April 13, 2016

I would kill every person in this thread to get an all iron, long rod, 7.0 gasser!

newdude · April 13, 2016

There is a little information (and a lot of speculation!) on the 2017 L5P Duramax, but I have seen NOTHING on gas engines. I suspect that the L96 continues if for no other reason than it can be easily converted to alternate fuels. From time to time there have been rumors about a 7.0L LS under development, one story said the engine would go into the joint GM/Navistar medium duty trucks in 2018.

L5P eh? Honestly maybe the first time I've heard of that for the RPO code for the new dmax.

It would suck also, if they wait for the next full HD redesign to drop a new gas engine. I love my 6.0s but...it is time for a change of some sort. They are super hush about anything with these HD's so far and it sucks lol.

C/K Man · April 13, 2016

Over on the Ford sites, they are saying that the 2017 Super Duty order banks are opening this week, and the order guides should be out this week. From what I understand, we will have to wait until June or so.

newdude · April 13, 2016

Over on the Ford sites, they are saying that the 2017 Super Duty order banks are opening this week, and the order guides should be out this week. From what I understand, we will have to wait until June or so.

Sounds right. Ordering opens 8/18/16 for fleet. Initial retail consensus is 9/1/16, DOSP cycle 9/15/16. Plants go live 10/17 for crew and 10/24 for all other body styles.

1500 trucks start things about 2-4 months earlier with fleet orders starting 4/28, retail consensus 5/2 for crew, 7/1 for double and reg, DOSP 5/26 for crew, 7/28 for double and reg. Crew starts 7/11, and the rest 9/12.

SMiller · April 14, 2016

I would kill every person in this thread to get an all iron, long rod, 7.0 gasser!

Same here.

Catch can and a tune, it would be heaven!

C/K Man · April 14, 2016

I have also heard some interesting rumors about the next generation of AFM. Word is that it will no longer need the lifter mechanism that closes the valves, it will be able to shut a cylinder down by just cutting off spark and fuel. Also, it will be able to shut down any individual cylinder at any time depending on requirements.

newdude · April 14, 2016

I have also heard some interesting rumors about the next generation of AFM. Word is that it will no longer need the lifter mechanism that closes the valves, it will be able to shut a cylinder down by just cutting off spark and fuel. Also, it will be able to shut down any individual cylinder at any time depending on requirements.

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/gm-tula-technology-boost-v-194303840.html

http://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/topic/168117-new-technology-makes-software-only-afm-possible/

Should be just in time for a Generation Six Small Block...Heck GM probably has powertrain prototypes rolling with this in them already.

Cowpie · April 14, 2016

Should be interesting to see. Without valve shutdown, it would seem there would be wasted effort to still intake air, compress it, and shove it out. And with valve shutdown, there is still the problem of oil buildup and coking in rings, especially with the more frequent use of low tension rings. Thus far, I am just fine having all cylinders working. Probably the old Army Sergeant in me that expects everyone to pack the gear and pull their weight. I am not interested in government or union sponsored smoke breaks for any of the cylinders. There just seems to be better alternatives that can be used to increase efficiency combined with better performance. The opposed piston opposed cylinder (OPOC) engine comes to mind. No valves and cylinders can be disengaged as needed. Simpler design, less space, and lighter weight.

Cosmic Charlie · April 14, 2016

cool -

opposed piston opposed cylinder (OPOC) engine

Hockeylover86 · July 8, 2016

Should be interesting to see. Without valve shutdown, it would seem there would be wasted effort to still intake air, compress it, and shove it out. And with valve shutdown, there is still the problem of oil buildup and coking in rings, especially with the more frequent use of low tension rings. Thus far, I am just fine having all cylinders working. Probably the old Army Sergeant in me that expects everyone to pack the gear and pull their weight. I am not interested in government or union sponsored smoke breaks for any of the cylinders. There just seems to be better alternatives that can be used to increase efficiency combined with better performance. The opposed piston opposed cylinder (OPOC) engine comes to mind. No valves and cylinders can be disengaged as needed. Simpler design, less space, and lighter weight.

I think you have to keep the valves closed/shut down for cylinder deactivation, otherwise the unburned air charge cools down the cats too much messing up emissions.

Cowpie · July 8, 2016

I suppose. I avoided this AFM and whatever cylinder shutdown nonsense. Not a part of my current pickup design and I like it like that. GM and the others are like poor marksmen, they keep shooting but they never can seem to hit the bullseye. The OPOC engine does that in spades. Lighter, less space, and true cylinder shut down that even disengages the pistons in cylinders shut down. No parasitic loss of power keeping a bunch of parts moving that aren't needed. The video shows a single bank of pistons on the OPOC engine, but additional banks can be added end to end with no real limit. A 2 bank OPOC engine would replace a V-8. disengage one bank and re-engage as needed. Simpler, lighter, etc.

Hockeylover86 · July 8, 2016

I suppose. I avoided this AFM and whatever cylinder shutdown nonsense. Not a part of my current pickup design and I like it like that. GM and the others are like poor marksmen, then keep shooting but they never can seem to hit the bullseye. The OPOC engine does that in spades. Lighter, less space, and true cylinder shut down that even disengages the pistons in cylinders shut down. No parasitic loss of power keeping a bunch of parts moving that aren't needed. The video shows a single bank of pistons on the OPOC engine, but additional banks can be added end to end with no real limit. A 2 bank OPOC engine would replace a V-8. disengage one bank and re-engage as needed. Simpler, lighter, etc.

From an Engineering standpoint it looks like there could be lots of issues with it.

Outboard pistons will slap like crazy, uneven lubrication, can't vary valve timing, what crazy vibration issues will it have?

When you turn a corner will you fill a cylinder with oil and starve the other?

Neat concept but its going to take tens (hundreds?) of millions of $ to prove it out, then will it sell over the proven V8?

Cowpie · July 8, 2016

What valve timing? The OPOC doesn't use valves or any similar associated stuff like a typical inline or V engine. It is similar to two stroke design. Did you even see the video or look up anything about the OPOC before commenting? The horizontally opposed engines like the Subaru boxer don't have the oil issues you describe. Turning the corner and filling one cylinder with oil while starving another? What, you think that the cylinders are splash fed oil instead of oil pump? And why would pistons "slap" in this design worse than anything else?

And the "proven" V8.... let's look at that one. V8 diesels were tried in heavy commercial trucks in the past. Not a single HD commercial V8 diesel can be found anymore except as a collector engine. Not one OEM is producing a V8 commercial HD diesel larger than the little pickup diesels. All are inlines. So I guess the V8 wasn't so proven. Sure, there are smaller V8 diesels, but the designs are such that the OPOC could easily compete.