Jump to content

Chevy up gas motor power?

dcrouse

By dcrouse
in Future GM News & Rumors

Recommended Posts

BlackZ71Silverado Senior Enthusiast

BlackZ71Silverado

Posted
Posted

Gonna make it hard for me to consider buyin another Chevy gasser then.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well good luck with whatever brand you go with because you are going to get less power, torque, and overall performance ditching the GM 6L in the 2500's. It outperformed all others in the TFL-Truck towing tests and MPG's........Enjoy your new truck.

dcrouse Enthusiast

dcrouse

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

Well good luck with whatever brand you go with because you are going to get less power, torque, and overall performance ditching the GM 6L in the 2500's. It outperformed all others in the TFL-Truck towing tests and MPG's........Enjoy your new truck.

Haha not saying I wouldn't own another. The 06 I have now has been outstanding b

Cowpie Senior Enthusiast

Cowpie

Posted
Posted

One thing that escapes most folk's analysis of this, is that the bulk of the 2500/3500 market is commercial users, 3 to 1 over private users. Commercial users don't want "fancy" latest stuff, they want dependability, reliability, cost effectiveness. And the L96/6L90 combination of the HD pickups offers that. GM has to take their commercial buyers into account more than weekend warriors when it comes to HD pickups. They mess with success, and things go wrong, they can end up dissing their commercial users so bad that it takes years to recover from. I can understand the desire for more power by the general user, but I have not seen a significant outcry by the commercial sector for something more. Even the 6.2L would have to be derated to a 87 regular octane fuel all the time, with a flex fuel capability like the 6.0L. No commercial users are going to buy something they have to use premium fuel in most of the time. Guess it was the business owner in me that used the same commercial methodology when I got my 2500. I live rural and don't need fancy. I need dependability and longevity with more payload than a 1500 offers. The 6.0/6L90 in a 2500 has that in spades.

dcrouse Enthusiast

dcrouse

Posted
  • Author
Posted

One thing that escapes most folk's analysis of this, is that the bulk of the 2500/3500 market is commercial users, 3 to 1 over private users. Commercial users don't want "fancy" latest stuff, they want dependability, reliability, cost effectiveness. And the L96/6L90 combination of the HD pickups offers that. GM has to take their commercial buyers into account more than weekend warriors when it comes to HD pickups. They mess with success, and things go wrong, they can end up dissing their commercial users so bad that it takes years to recover from. I can understand the desire for more power by the general user, but I have not seen a significant outcry by the commercial sector for something more. Even the 6.2L would have to be derated to a 87 regular octane fuel all the time, with a flex fuel capability like the 6.0L. No commercial users are going to buy something they have to use premium fuel in most of the time. Guess it was the business owner in me that used the same commercial methodology when I got my 2500. I live rural and don't need fancy. I need dependability and longevity with more payload than a 1500 offers. The 6.0/6L90 in a 2500 has that in spades.

Very Well said. I too live rural and don't need fancy.

C/K Man Enthusiast

C/K Man

Posted
Posted

Another consideration is the number of L96's that are sold to other OEM's. Most all of the new UPS trucks in my area are L96 powered now, they are built on a Freightliner chassis. Isuzu sells a lot of NPR's with L96's in them too. Even if the L96 is eventually replaced in nthe HD pickups, I would not be surprised if it stays in production for a long time to come.

Cowpie Senior Enthusiast

Cowpie

Posted
Posted

I just wish they would get on the ball and totally break the mold and come out with a whole new ball game. Something like the Opposed Piston Opposed Cylinder (OPOC) engine. More power, more efficiency, easier to meet advancing emission requirements, no valve train, no cylinder heads, lighter weight, less space, and comes in sections and cylinder sections could be totally disengaged when reduced power can take care of things. Not some sort of cylinder shutdown nonsense like they use now.... total disengagement of entire cylinder sections from the rest of the operating engine. Can be re-engaged in just a few revolutions automatically.

 

http://www.ecomotors.com/opposed-piston-opposed-cylinder-engine

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Sugar Bears 2015 GMC Terrain SLE-2 2.4 AWD

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      286,740 Mile Services   8/6/2026   New AC Compressor. Refrigerant oil and dye, evacuate and charge system.  New exhaust system from cat back.  New Iridium plugs plus replace #3 coil Repair/rewire headlamp wiring (passenger side) and replace all forward bulbs. Polish lenses of both assemblies.  Pull rear rotors, clean and adjust parking assembly. Inspect, clean and grease front calipers. Check pads and shoes.  4 wheel power bleed of brake system. Dot 4 Reset idle speed 50 rpm higher New Serpentine belt.    Will need new pads in the rear in about 5K more miles.    Tax Title and License out the door just short of a grand.    AC clutch had bitten the dust. 1 year warranty on the pick and save replacement. Thing will make a Polar Bear cry Uncle.  He spent quite some time on the wiring. It was in the harness and he does nothing half. I got off cheap. I have considerable more light down the road. Sylvania Silver Star replacements.  Gas seal between the porcelain and shell of plug #3 was blown, cooked the coil. That was the cold miss.  Love the new exhaust. I can sneak into the neighborhood again.  Nice to have a working parking brake again. Belle Tire never got it done. That was disappointing.    This was one of her bigger bills and still way cheaper than a payment even given the oil consumption. This thing cost me under a hundred a month in repairs and normal routine costs. What is my incentive to replace it? 🤔           
    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...