2017 Gas 2500 Changes

Skeld · July 10, 2016

They're under a mandate to to use a certain amount of renewable fuels in a year. So that means they can sell ethanol free gasoline if they want, but the more of that they sell the harder it's going to be to reach the number they need to reach. Where I live in Maine we are hauling in some ethanol free gasoline from Montreal, QC for some marine applications and there is non ethanol at a few airports, but if I want to get ethanol free gas for say my snowmobile or truck, it's not that easy.

Chevyguy85 · July 11, 2016

Florida thankfully got rid of the ethanol mandate in the last couple years. Doesn't matter we still have 10% almost everywhere. The newer stations being built, wawa and racetracks, have ethanol free fuel but it costs 50+ cents more than premium. The boating industry here is probably a big reason why we finally got rid of our mandate.

Cowpie · July 11, 2016

And that's the key... states are the ones that mandate not allowing ethanol free along side of E10. Everyone wants to blame Washington on this one, but it rests solely with the states. The ones to gripe at over not having ethanol free fuel is your hired help at the state capitol. Hold their feet to the fire.

But it is a supply and demand thing to some degree. It takes separate tanks to store different fuels, and some outlets just don't have the extra tank to store ethanol free and cover the other stuff. That limits the number of outlets that sell ethanol free, and they then charge out the wazoo for the stuff. Ethanol free gas is the same market price anywhere....Today's closing price was $1.377 on the exchange. Ethanol closed today at $1.58 on the exchange. So it is state manipulated nonsense that is causing what you see.

Skeld · July 12, 2016

There is no state level ban on ethanol free in Maine. It's just a business case. It makes no sense to bring in that product for a very limited use to a state with a population of 1.3 million.

Hockeylover86 · July 12, 2016

There is no state level ban on ethanol free in Maine. It's just a business case. It makes no sense to bring in that product for a very limited use to a state with a population of 1.3 million.

I agree.

Where I live here in MI there are only two ethanol free pumps within 50 miles of where I live, both out of the way for me to get to.

The pumps from what I have seen are in a location that prevents fuelling directly into a vehicle and are labeled off road only. I'm not sure if that means road taxes are not included?

The E10 stuff really tears up the small engines and older equipment not designed for it.

Hockeylover86 · July 12, 2016

Cummins did 2.5 years of on road testing with both federal and state (specifically California CARB) in the loop in commercial Freightliner delivery vans with test gross weights of 14,000 lb, so more than adequate for the pickup market. The 2.8L E85 engine is ready for regular production. Was combined with Allison 2000 transmissions in the testing. 450 lb torque out of the engine and exceeded the goal of reducing CO2 by 50% and delivered diesel equivalent fuel economy. Totally blows out the 2.8L Dmax in the Colorado / Canyon platform and doesn't need any of the SCR / DPF nonsense the diesel engine does. The engine uses diesel equivalent compression ratios with turbo charger boosting which can be done when using E85 compared to gasoline.

The Ricardo engine is 3.2L ( I misspoke earlier and said 3.6L ), it puts out 450 hp and 665 lb torque using E85. Has gone thru real testing phases that included mountains, deserts, arctic winter conditions, etc. Equivalent mpg numbers in GM 3500 dually pickups that the 6.6L Dmax delivers yet overall production weight reduced 500 lb with the 3.2L engine, again, with none of the SCR / DPF nonsense. Ricardo was hoping to have engine in vehicle production for 2015, but no OEM picked up on it. GM should have, as Ricardo has been a GM partner in engine design and building for quite some time.

Eco Motors has already finalized contracts with Zhongding Power in China to build OPOC engines, with initial production of 150,000 per year. Yet again, American OEM's failed to pick up on the technology from a Detroit based engine designer, so it had to go off shore to get the ball rolling. So not sure the risk management thing really in play. More like Corporate incompetence. But in keeping with our departure from the innovation and corporate foresight of the mid 20th Century. To their credit, Navistar has shown interest and developed a relationship with Eco Motors to start testing of OPOC engines for commercial truck use. Shows the the new leadership at Navistar is getting the corporate dead wood cleared out. They realized that 1.1 HP per 1 lb of engine weight power density, combined with 50% component reduction, add in 15-50% better fuel efficiency, lower cooling requirements, etc was worth jumping on board and getting testing out of the way. The OPOC engine that they are testing is electro turbo charged diesel variety putting out 325 hp at 3500 RPM with 664 lb torque at 2100 RPM, and total dry weight of the engine is 229 lb, with dimensions of 18.5" high, 41" wide, and 23" long. Compare the Navistar test engine to a Dmax 6.6.....

1106dp_02+navistar_ecomotors_diesel_engine+dyno_shot_2.jpg

Meanwhile, we will deal with our naturally aspirated, asthma sucking gas engines and bloated, heavy Dmax engines while the rest of the world takes a lead.

Regarding the Ricardo testing, some hot/cold and elevation tests do not make full DVP&R. Done wrong that technology could make the 6.0 Powerstrokes look like a minor warranty issue.

We can't even get the diesels here that benefit drivers in Europe because the OE's don't think they will sell. Well that and the tighter CO standards...

Bottom line is, if you make the leap to market E85 specific tech, it better sell or you are done for. This is the risk assessment (business case) I was talking about.

And its not just the automotive OE's ignoring it, its the agricultural, OTR truck mfg's, and off road mfg's too.

Who will be first to try it on a large scale?

kstruckcountry · July 12, 2016

I'm lucky to have 2 local stations with pure 91, one of which I can use grocery points at.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

gmcleer · July 13, 2016

A bit off topic, but where are the current 6.0s produced? USA? Any idea where the next gen would be produced?

Cowpie · July 18, 2016

Romulus, MI and Silao, MX from what GM Authority has on it's information pages for the L96 6.0L

http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/l96/

newdude · July 18, 2016

A bit off topic, but where are the current 6.0s produced? USA? Any idea where the next gen would be produced?

Next Gen could be one of three places. The current Gen 5 small blocks roll out of three plants. Tonawanda, NY, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada and they are adding 6.2 extra capacity out of Spring Hill, TN come 4th quarter 2016.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2016/02/gm-to-make-more-62-liter-v-8s-for-pickups-and-suvs.html

If anything, that Spring Hill move could be for adding a version of the 6.2 to the HD lineup as well as building 6.2's for 1500 applications.

Other than the new hood intake and the Duramax being confirmed, there are still no details on either gas or the diesel for the 2017 HD trucks.

2016 L96 is Silao, Mexico, along with the L20 4.8 (Express/Savana), the LC8 CNG 6.0, 6.2 LS3 (SS Sedan), and the 6.0 L77 (Caprice).

Hockeylover86 · July 18, 2016

Ford just showed their hand with the 6.2 gasser in the 2017 SD today, 440lb/ft torque.

6.7 Diesel announced at 440hp/925lb/ft torque.

Maybe now GM will announce 2017 specs.

Cowpie · July 19, 2016

Well, the additional 6.2 plant capacity could be for bringing over to HD's. But it will have to be neutered to accept daily fills of regular fuel or GM will loose a lot of commercial business. And since about 3/4 of the HD pickups are bought for commercial use, that can hurt them pretty bad.. It will even affect their sales of 1500's that are bought by commercial users. My guess is the additional plant capacity will be more targeted to performance cars and broader 1500 offerings.

Cosmic Charlie · July 19, 2016

Well, the additional 6.2 plant capacity could be for bringing over to HD's. But it will have to be neutered to accept daily fills of regular fuel or GM will loose a lot of commercial business. And since about 3/4 of the HD pickups are bought for commercial use, that can hurt them pretty bad.. It will even affect their sales of 1500's that are bought by commercial users. My guess is the additional plant capacity will be more targeted to performance cars and broader 1500 offerings

Here in New England the 6.2's are for the most part hard to find ...(very popular ?)

redwngr · July 19, 2016

GM Powertrain info sheet, listing 2016my manufacturing locations for engines and transmissions.

http://gmpowertrain.com/product_guide/R_2016_Information_Guide_010516.pdf

Here's the press release regarding investment to be able to build 6.2's at Springhill

http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2016/apr/0427-springhill-investment.html

newdude · July 19, 2016

Ford just showed their hand with the 6.2 gasser in the 2017 SD today, 440lb/ft torque.

6.7 Diesel announced at 440hp/925lb/ft torque.

Maybe now GM will announce 2017 specs.

I'm willing to bet they are bluffing...