Jump to content

6.2l ecotec3 mixed impressions

dodgehemi0

By dodgehemi0
in Engines & Drivetrain

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1972c10Custom Enthusiast

1972c10Custom

Posted
Posted

I have 1600+ miles on her now and to be honest it does not feel like 460ft lbs. Don't get me wrong I like the truck but I really expected more power out of her. I had a fx4 crew ecoboost that felt more like a truck in the power since. It had amazing TQ it felt like 420 but so far my 6.2l does not feel like 460 or 420 for that matter. My ecoboost was a much heaver truck to. But I am getting better MPG in the 6.2 than I did the Eco. Right now my life time average for 1600 miles is 19.00. Anyone else feel the same way about their 6.2l ecotec3? You really have to push the gas peddle far to make it go. Please if anyone else feels this way post. If you think the new 6.2 feels like 460ft lbs please say so also.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -

Mine hauls the mail..have you tried driving another one?

Jon A Senior Enthusiast

Jon A

Posted
Posted

Anyone have a dyno of the rwhp and tq of this new 6.2?

 

They'll go around 340+ RWHP and 380+ Lb-Ft stock.

ChrisNJ Enthusiast

ChrisNJ

Posted
Posted

It's all based on individual experiences. Like DoddgeHemi0, I think the 6.2 doesn't have the torque low enough in the rpm range, but it's compare to my experience of 90's big blocks, 60's muscle cars, etc....

However, I've also owned most of the truck engines since the 80's, and except the 8.1, this new 6.2 is by far the best one they've built. One thing that has happened, is the consumer (us), has pretty much demanded 100K powertrain warranties, soooo they have to make sure we can't abuse the drivetrain, and they've done that with e-nannies.

The new 6.2 is just a tad better on the low end than the older 6.2, but past 2K rpm it wakes up a lot better. You can see this on the engine performance curves too. Another thing is the numbers, 460ft-lbs? Yeah but way up in the r's. While these are good numbers, most of us will never use the 460ft-lbs at 5K rpm, so it's really just marketing, and numbers sell. GM marketing has been way too powerful for a long time. I bet that the GM engineers would have built us a greater truck, but then marketing and warrenty dept's, get in the way. Just the way it is.

My biggest positive is they've finally fixed the 6sp shifting issues, and I am finally very happy how the '14 6sp and 6.2 interact. Hands down better than the last one.

dodgehemi0 Enthusiast

dodgehemi0

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It's all based on individual experiences. Like DoddgeHemi0, I think the 6.2 doesn't have the torque low enough in the rpm range, but it's compare to my experience of 90's big blocks, 60's muscle cars, etc....

However, I've also owned most of the truck engines since the 80's, and except the 8.1, this new 6.2 is by far the best one they've built. One thing that has happened, is the consumer (us), has pretty much demanded 100K powertrain warranties, soooo they have to make sure we can't abuse the drivetrain, and they've done that with e-nannies.

The new 6.2 is just a tad better on the low end than the older 6.2, but past 2K rpm it wakes up a lot better. You can see this on the engine performance curves too. Another thing is the numbers, 460ft-lbs? Yeah but way up in the r's. While these are good numbers, most of us will never use the 460ft-lbs at 5K rpm, so it's really just marketing, and numbers sell. GM marketing has been way too powerful for a long time. I bet that the GM engineers would have built us a greater truck, but then marketing and warrenty dept's, get in the way. Just the way it is.

My biggest positive is they've finally fixed the 6sp shifting issues, and I am finally very happy how the '14 6sp and 6.2 interact. Hands down better than the last one.

This is good to hear this is my first GM so I really did not know what to expect. I agree 100% about the power, I just got spoiled with the lowend TQ of the ecoboost. I still like this truck better than the fords and even compared to the look of the 2015 ford also. In my opinion I feel that the ecoboost concept is the perfect engine for a heavy truck gas wise. Trucks should have TQ like a diesel not like a race car.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

Must people couldn't handle the tq down low, they would just blow the driveline. They have them just right for pulling. Otherwise people would be smoking the trans. You could always get a tune, then it's all yours.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

14'SilveradoLT Enthusiast

14'SilveradoLT

Posted
Posted

We could handle the lowend tq, but the only way to make it is going FI (maybe not only---but close). With that said the tq curve on the 5.3L from what I've seen is pretty awesome for a N/A----nice and flat.

 

The 6.2L definitely takes over in the upper bands with a heavy bog and load though. I wonder what will open up with some head work and LT's....

 

I think that a good custom tune, would make the OP's desire in regards to throttle response perfect.

LTZTom Enthusiast

LTZTom

Posted
Posted

After it's all said and done I'm thrilled with my 6.2L. I've always used premium since I had it so I don't know what the other grades make it run like. It say's "Premium fuel recommend" and that's what I've done. Why would you run another fuel grade or, even worse, E85 in a vehicle that says it needs premium. I paid for the 6.2L option and I want to get all I can get out of it. To me it's a no-brainer.

dodgehemi0 Enthusiast

dodgehemi0

Posted
  • Author
Posted

After it's all said and done I'm thrilled with my 6.2L. I've always used premium since I had it so I don't know what the other grades make it run like. It say's "Premium fuel recommend" and that's what I've done. Why would you run another fuel grade or, even worse, E85 in a vehicle that says it needs premium. I paid for the 6.2L option and I want to get all I can get out of it. To me it's a no-brainer.

I agree 93 or 91 which ever is available.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -

Jon A Senior Enthusiast

Jon A

Posted
Posted

I'll have to disagree with a couple things here. With a torque peak at 4100 RPM, anybody who tows something moderately heavy in hills is certainly going to put that to good use. In these situations the engine actually will spend quite a bit of time there or close to it so it is a very real and usable attribute.

 

I don't see small gas turbo engines as the ideal for trucks at all. An argument can certainly be made for diesel, but the gas are at a big disadvantage. Under boost, gas engines need to run really rich or...they'll blow up. That's sort of just a fact of life. When you're running so rich, the economy goes into the toilet. Such engines can manage reasonable mileage numbers when unloaded, but when being worked even just at medium throttle levels (when you're actually using some of that awesome torque) you're under boost and pouring gas on the ground. Well, I'm exaggerating a bit but you get the idea. Great torque right off idle but really poor mileage when actually working it...sounds much like the old big block gas engines nobody wants in trucks anymore except with the advantage of better mileage when being driven unloaded (like a car).

14'SilveradoLT Enthusiast

14'SilveradoLT

Posted
Posted

I'll have to disagree with a couple things here. With a torque peak at 4100 RPM, anybody who tows something moderately heavy in hills is certainly going to put that to good use. In these situations the engine actually will spend quite a bit of time there or close to it so it is a very real and usable attribute.

 

I don't see small gas turbo engines as the ideal for trucks at all. An argument can certainly be made for diesel, but the gas are at a big disadvantage. Under boost, gas engines need to run really rich or...they'll blow up. That's sort of just a fact of life. When you're running so rich, the economy goes into the toilet. Such engines can manage reasonable mileage numbers when unloaded, but when being worked even just at medium throttle levels (when you're actually using some of that awesome torque) you're under boost and pouring gas on the ground. Well, I'm exaggerating a bit but you get the idea. Great torque right off idle but really poor mileage when actually working it...sounds much like the old big block gas engines nobody wants in trucks anymore except with the advantage of better mileage when being driven unloaded (like a car).

 

Basically yes, but they don't have to run any "richer" really. They just require more "fuel" to reach your desired lambda. My 2005 SS with AWD was a great tow vehicle IMHO, having owned the ecoboost I can tell you the lowend power was a nice attribute towing though, especially in the mountains of WV.

 

Towing with the Ecoboost with a about 5K lbs in tow + gear + two adults in WV mountains, yielded 11mpg's. Towing 5Klbs with just me the 5.3L yielded 13mpg on flat ground....I'm sure it will net 10-11 mpg under the same conditions in WV.

 

There are def problems turbos face, a big one in the Ecoboost is the condensation in the CAC.

 

BIG ADVANTAGE the 6.2L and smaller 5.3L have is engine braking....phenomenal----EcoBoost sucked hairy monkey balls.

 

I personally think the 6.2L>EcoBoost in towing. But small turbos aren't a "Bad" idea.

 

EDITED: engine braking.

fondupot Senior Enthusiast

fondupot

Posted
Posted

 

BIG ADVANTAGE the 6.2L and smaller 5.3L have is exhaust braking....phenomenal----EcoBoost sucked hairy monkey balls.

 

 

Its not really exhaust braking is it? Its more like engine braking.

14'SilveradoLT Enthusiast

14'SilveradoLT

Posted
Posted

Yeah, I re thought that after it was typed and just let it ride, lol.

 

The engine braking is one area that the the v6 EB had none of it...it would go, just not slow (without brakes, lol). It did have a good brake set-up though.

Jon A Senior Enthusiast

Jon A

Posted
Posted

 

Basically yes, but they don't have to run any "richer" really. They just require more "fuel" to reach your desired lambda.

 

I didn't mean they were running richer than desired or needed, just richer than stoichiometric. Yes, N/A engines do as well at WOT but to a much lesser extent. With stock programming, the 5.3/6.2 don't enter PE mode until you have the throttle open 90% or more--basically putting your foot all the way to the floor. Even towing a pretty heavy load in some hills, the chances are you won't spend that much time with your foot all the way to the floor, but lots of time at 50%, 75% etc, throttle. All that time the 5.3 and 6.2 will be running right at 14.1:1 (10% Ethanol).

 

Now that doesn't mean that's the best setup, it's just the way they are tuned from the factory. Personally I think this is another area GM went for better mileage at the cost of performance. I put mine back down to around 65% which may cost a little mileage when towing, but it sure feels more ballsy at 75% throttle! Anyway, my point was GM can get away with doing that with these engines, but I don't think you could tow something up a hill at 80% throttle at 14.1:1 with an EB or similar and expect it to last very long.

 

BIG ADVANTAGE the 6.2L and smaller 5.3L have is engine braking....phenomenal----EcoBoost sucked hairy monkey balls.

 

 

That's a really great point. If you watch those Gauntlet videos, the EB's brakes were really, really hot at the bottom but with the 6.2 he didn't even need to touch the brakes the whole way down so they were cold. This is another area I'd say the 6.2 will do better than the 5.3 as well--larger displacement and higher CR means more engine braking potential.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • asilverblazer
      Slate Electric Truck

      By asilverblazer · Posted

      I like the idea.  I would pick diesel if I had a choice. I need pictures though.
    • newdude
      Help purchasing a touch screen digitizer

      By newdude · Posted

      I've installed cheap eBay new aftermarket digitizers before.  They work.  Did a bunch of Cadillac CUE (aka Cadillac's MyLink) for someone years ago.  They all worked fine after the repair.    That number 22740886, that is a component part # for GM.  You can use it to search, but its not something that's obtainable at the dealer level.     So pretty much any of these will work - 2015 Colorado Digitizer for sale | eBay
    • asilverblazer
      give me some tips to make my truck look better

      By asilverblazer · Posted

      Black bumper and the later years Z-71 style color matched grille.
    • fondupot
      Exhaust heat while towing!

      By fondupot · Posted

      You can install tailpipes that direct the exhaust sideways vs the OEM one that goes straight back. There are several on the market, do you own research. HOWEVER, you need to make sure the Venturi vents are still intact, otherwise it will throw a engine code. There is a sensor somewhere that detects back pressure on the exhaust. And if it doesn't collect the correct metrics, it will throw the truck into limp mode. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      "Teardown" is complete. Head surfaces are clean and ready, new intake is prepped and ready. Coolant drained and water pump is removed, radiator is removed, new hoses and pump are ready.   The replacement intake is also from a '95 (with I think 260k, the odometer said). Noticeably less pitting where it covers the rear coolant passages. I'm not sure if that's a tribute to more frequent use, more frequent coolant changes/upkeep, or if the intake was machined at some point. But it appears I found a good one.   My coolant hoses were original, and the lower hose still retained the factory spring inside. It's not really rusty, but it's got deposits all over it. Unsure if I should re-install it (will thoroughly clean it first). Someone said hose technology has gotten better since 1995 (has it?) and I don't need the spring. I think modern EPDM is what made those hoses last from 1995-2026, so it's a question of how much suction can the water pump really pull, and will it collapse the hose without a spring?   I'm stopped and waiting for parts, however.   When I first brought the truck home, the fan was intermittently hitting the radiator shroud. I could see someone had monkeyed with the shroud (put a bunch of cardboard as a spacer between the upper/lower shroud halves. Someone said the motor mounts have likely failed and the engine has sagged. I wasn't sure I believed that. The engine is really solid in its mounts: To remove the old intake I *just* nearly permanently welded to the heads with freshly cured RTV and gasket snot two weeks ago, I literally had to use the arms on my lift and a chain with a bolt attached to the intake to pull it loose. It almost picked the front of the truck off the ground before ....scuuuuuuuuuuup.... I could actually hear the gaskets tearing and it broke loose and the whole truck settled back down. Motor barely moved.   SO, those parts I'm waiting on... The lower radiator mounts/bushings had completely failed. The radiator needs to be insulated from the rad support, and the bushings help the rad stand at the correct height. The plastic "baffle" was also destroyed at some point. Someone had attached the shroud to it incorrectly, overlapping a joint that should have been underlapped, creating another suspect issue potentially causing things to hit the fan. Broken tabs, side is busted off, and it's perma-formed/bent where it was jimmied incorrectly.   The baffle? Unobtainum. Long since discontinued from GM, of course. Aftermarket/capa/chinese? Also unobtanium. In GM's infinite wisdom, it appears there are at least two different variations whether the Blazer is 2 or 4 door, and I can't yet tell if they shared the same part with the S-pickups. Plan B, if I can't find a viable used one, will be to create a bracket to re-assemble the critical joint I need to seal a gap with the shroud. But that will bug me, it won't be...perfect.   The water pump bolts appear to have been installed with...plumber's putty. I guess, sure, if it works...? I've found a few "backyard fixes" like that. Someone's been here before....   If I can't find someone to jam bamboo under my fingernails to fill my free time this week I think I'll install the driver's power window motor and replace the rear door speaker that's inop. I've got a genuine GM "9.5" ohm working replacement. Why GM used a non-standard resistance....nevermind. Of course they did, you can get more sound from a cheap factory amp that way.   And the saga goes on...

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...