6.2l ecotec3 mixed impressions

dodgehemi0 · May 9, 2014

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

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -

1972c10Custom · May 9, 2014

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?

dodgehemi0 · May 9, 2014

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

No I will try tomorrow

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -

Jon A · May 10, 2014

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 · May 10, 2014

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 · May 10, 2014

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 · May 10, 2014

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 · May 10, 2014

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 · May 10, 2014

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 · May 10, 2014

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 · May 11, 2014

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 · May 11, 2014

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 · May 12, 2014

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 · May 12, 2014

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 · May 12, 2014

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.