2017 Gas 2500 Changes

15slvrDbl · February 17, 2016

If they put the 6.2 into the 2500/3500 lineup it will be a detuned version that can run on 87 octane. For the reasons stated commercial users and business owners would not want the higher cost of fueling.

Cowpie · February 21, 2016

That would most likely be true. Totally different markets between commercial and consumer users and commercial is where the lion's share of 2500/3500 pickups get used. So that most likely explains the reasoning for staying with 6.0 thus far. What is the HP/Torque of a 6.2L Ecotec when neutered to primarily run 87 octane and made flex fuel like the 6.0L now? No clue, just asking. And how would that compare to the L96 cast iron 6.0L already in the HD's? We don't really have any appreciable longevity trends established yet for the 6.2L in a commercial type environment like we do the 6.0L.

SMiller · February 21, 2016

Let's hope for a 7.0 DI motor! The mileage would not be worse but the power would be much better, the motor would not have to lug as much and would make more power on the same amount of fuel requiring less throttle and better mileage, PLUS you know it would get a 8-speed which requires less power to spin and more gears keeping the motor in the powerband.

We can only hope...

Big Whiskey · February 21, 2016

That would most likely be true. Totally different markets between commercial and consumer users and commercial is where the lion's share of 2500/3500 pickups get used. So that most likely explains the reasoning for staying with 6.0 thus far. What is the HP/Torque of a 6.2L Ecotec when neutered to primarily run 87 octane and made flex fuel like the 6.0L now? No clue, just asking. And how would that compare to the L96 cast iron 6.0L already in the HD's? We don't really have any appreciable longevity trends established yet for the 6.2L in a commercial type environment like we do the 6.0L.

I agree. I would be curious to know the HP and TQ numbers of a "heavy duty" version (iron block, direct injection, and capable of running on regular gas) 6.2 as well. I wonder if they could get 400hp and 450tq out of it...and still have the reliability of the 6.0?

Let's hope for a 7.0 DI motor! The mileage would not be worse but the power would be much better, the motor would not have to lug as much and would make more power on the same amount of fuel requiring less throttle and better mileage, PLUS you know it would get a 8-speed which requires less power to spin and more gears keeping the motor in the powerband.

We can only hope...

Yeah, that would be the berries! Like you said, it would probably have gobs of torque down low, and be very suitable for a truck engine. A 7.0 with the 8 speed, and 4:10 gears would be a towing beast!

Cowpie · February 21, 2016

Does sound interesting.

Sirspeedy · February 29, 2016

I'm watching this closely. Driving a 02 with 257k miles and will be buying a new truck soon. Will wait to see what the 2017 model year brings.

redhot1.4 · February 29, 2016

I had a 6.0 no matter what I did

To it,, or how I drove it

Mpg sucks

15slvrDbl · March 2, 2016

I had a 6.0 no matter what I did

To it,, or how I drove it

Mpg sucks

So did the old 454's you got about 10mpg empty loaded it didn't matter. They just plugged along.

Cowpie · March 2, 2016

My '98 454 and my 2015 6.0 actually are right in line with each other on mpg. My '98 averaged about 14 for all miles and my 2015 is in the same area. Pretty sad, huh? 16 years have passed, the engine is smaller and supposedly more advanced, and GM couldn't get the 6.0L motor to do any better than my 454. I think I would lay off the R&D folks and hire someone who knows what they are doing.

SMiller · March 2, 2016

6.0 is under load at all times as it is to small for the application, a bigger motor gets the same mileage as it doesn't have to work as hard.

Give us a big motor!!!

Sirspeedy · March 2, 2016

Here is to hoping GM goes for a bigger motor as GM has done on the Camaro and Corvette appose to AFM like the half-ton trucks.

kstruckcountry · March 2, 2016

Those old 454's burned more fuel to get less power. In an HD the concern is reliability and then power, and IMO the 6.0 delivers.

As far as the "apples to oranges" comparison of the 6.0 gasser to the 5.9, I honestly think it's pretty close in terms of reliability. I haven't been impressed with the LD Cummins at all I've been around.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

SouthpawHD · March 2, 2016

That old 454 put out way less than 300HP too (I think it was even closer to 200HP than 300). So while fuel mileage is the same, HP is way up and the reliability is improved. Sounds like an overall improvement to me.

Big Whiskey · March 2, 2016

6.0 is under load at all times as it is to small for the application, a bigger motor gets the same mileage as it doesn't have to work as hard.

Give us a big motor!!!

Exactly! That's why the 6.2 is returning such good MPG in the 1500's...it doesn't have to work hard at all!

Big Whiskey · March 2, 2016

That old 454 put out way less than 300HP too (I think it was even closer to 200HP than 300). So while fuel mileage is the same, HP is way up and the reliability is improved. Sounds like an overall improvement to me.

I agree. Same deal with the old TBI 350. Their MPG was about the same as my 5.3 now, but they had about 100hp less, haha.