Jump to content

2017 L5P Duramax horsepower/torque? Here's our guess�!

Zane

Recommended Posts

troverman Enthusiast

troverman

Posted
Posted

Some of the 2011 6.7 trucks had turbo bearing problems and a few had valve problems. They have been quite reliable since. But yeah, it will be really interesting to see and hear this new 2017 L5P engine.

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply
j-ten-ner Senior Enthusiast

j-ten-ner

Posted
Posted

...

 

The torque really only feels amazing when you have a massively heavy trailer behind you and the truck is pulling it up the hill just fine. That's when the diesel earns its money back. Commuting? Might as well get a gas.

 

...

 

Exactly.

 

Some boys drive a diesel for the same reason girls wear high heels. It is fashion.

 

so long

j-ten-ner

j-ten-ner Senior Enthusiast

j-ten-ner

Posted
Posted

That brings me to another question...

 

Soon I'll use my truck for work and for commuting/personal use.

 

At work I have to pull trailers up to 6000lbs. But I also wanna have the comfort and size of a half ton truck beside the work.

 

So where can I find the specs for the 2018 Silverado 1500 4.5l Duramax?

 

:)

so long

j-ten-ner

troverman Enthusiast

troverman

Posted
Posted

That brings me to another question...

 

 

So where can I find the specs for the 2018 Silverado 1500 4.5l Duramax?

 

You'll be able to find those specs a year or two after Ford releases its specs for the 2018 F-150 with the 3.0L "Lion" turbodiesel V6, which apparently is happening. I doubt the D-max will be 4.5L, though.

 

There is rumor Toyota will add a version of the 5.0L Cummins V8 to the Tundra in the next year or two. After its failure in the Nissan, I don't see why....but I wouldn't want either truck anyway.

 

Meanwhile, GM will continue bragging rights on the only mid-size diesel available until Nissan releases the next-gen Frontier or Ford brings back the Ranger.

mookdoc6 Senior Enthusiast

mookdoc6

Posted
Posted

You'll be able to find those specs a year or two after Ford releases its specs for the 2018 F-150 with the 3.0L "Lion" turbodiesel V6, which apparently is happening. I doubt the D-max will be 4.5L, though.

 

There is rumor Toyota will add a version of the 5.0L Cummins V8 to the Tundra in the next year or two. After its failure in the Nissan, I don't see why....but I wouldn't want either truck anyway.

 

Meanwhile, GM will continue bragging rights on the only mid-size diesel available until Nissan releases the next-gen Frontier or Ford brings back the Ranger.

As it looks like now.....New L5P is 38% quieter than previous gen! Problem solved now quieter than Ford? Looks like GM is clearly the diesel leader now....Please tell me FERD guy what other than the 250 does ford drop a diesel in for North America? Thanks from a GM guy

troverman Enthusiast

troverman

Posted
Posted

As it looks like now.....New L5P is 38% quieter than previous gen! Problem solved now quieter than Ford? Looks like GM is clearly the diesel leader now....Please tell me FERD guy what other than the 250 does ford drop a diesel in for North America? Thanks from a GM guy

 

Ford offers the 6.7L diesel in the F-250, 350, and 450 pickups; a derated commercial version in the 450, 550, 650, and 750 chassis cabs. They also currently offer the 3.2L inline-5 mini-Powerstroke in the full-size Transit vans. As I mentioned, they are currently testing the 3.0L V6 diesel (developed for Land Rover when Ford owned them, by Ford) in the F-150. It is predicted this engine will be available in the F-150 in 2018.

 

As to the LP5, it does look like a great engine. I'm very impressed with the new triple-piston HPFP which will deliver more volume albeit at slightly lower pressure. GM is now using the Ford-style connecting rod with offset big-end caps; the Duramax connecting rod looks thicker than the Ford version although looks could be deceiving since the Duramax has a shorter stroke than the Ford. I love GM's new boost-operated oil separator. When the engine is working it's hardest under heavy boost, the pressure will pull oil out of the PCV system and not attempt to re-inject carbon-building soot. I'm surprised GM put so much effort into insulating the exhaust system from the manifolds back to the turbo when it seems Ford's design (originally a GM design) of reverse-flow heads is much simpler and more beneficial. I wish GM had done away with the bridged valve design, but at the same time they haven't seemed to cause too many problems for them. I also wonder why GM did not switch to a CGI block, which is lighter and stronger than cast iron. GM's dual DOC system on the new engine is very impressive. The first DOC is right at the end of the turbo downpipe for maximum heat. This heat will burn off some soot naturally, extending the intervals between active regens. The second DOC is at the DPF - combined with the 9th injector design, it should require less diesel to accomplish a regen than the Ford design. Overall, it looks excellent.

mookdoc6 Senior Enthusiast

mookdoc6

Posted
Posted

Ford offers the 6.7L diesel in the F-250, 350, and 450 pickups; a derated commercial version in the 450, 550, 650, and 750 chassis cabs. They also currently offer the 3.2L inline-5 mini-Powerstroke in the full-size Transit vans. As I mentioned, they are currently testing the 3.0L V6 diesel (developed for Land Rover when Ford owned them, by Ford) in the F-150. It is predicted this engine will be available in the F-150 in 2018.

 

As to the LP5, it does look like a great engine. I'm very impressed with the new triple-piston HPFP which will deliver more volume albeit at slightly lower pressure. GM is now using the Ford-style connecting rod with offset big-end caps; the Duramax connecting rod looks thicker than the Ford version although looks could be deceiving since the Duramax has a shorter stroke than the Ford. I love GM's new boost-operated oil separator. When the engine is working it's hardest under heavy boost, the pressure will pull oil out of the PCV system and not attempt to re-inject carbon-building soot. I'm surprised GM put so much effort into insulating the exhaust system from the manifolds back to the turbo when it seems Ford's design (originally a GM design) of reverse-flow heads is much simpler and more beneficial. I wish GM had done away with the bridged valve design, but at the same time they haven't seemed to cause too many problems for them. I also wonder why GM did not switch to a CGI block, which is lighter and stronger than cast iron. GM's dual DOC system on the new engine is very impressive. The first DOC is right at the end of the turbo downpipe for maximum heat. This heat will burn off some soot naturally, extending the intervals between active regens. The second DOC is at the DPF - combined with the 9th injector design, it should require less diesel to accomplish a regen than the Ford design. Overall, it looks excellent.

Yes, I am aware of the 6.7 being used in 250's and up. Thought maybe transit connect not sure though. So it seems the 3.0 maybe, maybe not 2018? When GM shelved the 4.5l Duramax it was very far along and they stated it can be resurrected and finished rather quickly.

 

CGI would have been nice but costly! The Iron Blocks can dissipate heat twice as fast than CGI and saving 10% in weight for heat retaining block under heavy load does not make much sense for saving the hundreds of millions to change everything over for CGI tooling on up....though you can tool it faster CGI. Ido like the sucking oil out of the PCV system under heavy load very NICE! Not sure about connecting rods pictures can make me look fat too? Insulating from Manifolds back to the turbos it's all about controlling the temperature "cool in this aspect Ford looks silly on that way over thought/under thought Ford decision. Yes, it appears that it will use less DEF. Very Nice Rig!

troverman Enthusiast

troverman

Posted
Posted

Yes, I am aware of the 6.7 being used in 250's and up. Thought maybe transit connect not sure though. So it seems the 3.0 maybe, maybe not 2018? When GM shelved the 4.5l Duramax it was very far along and they stated it can be resurrected and finished rather quickly.

 

CGI would have been nice but costly! The Iron Blocks can dissipate heat twice as fast than CGI and saving 10% in weight for heat retaining block under heavy load does not make much sense for saving the hundreds of millions to change everything over for CGI tooling on up....though you can tool it faster CGI. Ido like the sucking oil out of the PCV system under heavy load very NICE! Not sure about connecting rods pictures can make me look fat too? Insulating from Manifolds back to the turbos it's all about controlling the temperature "cool in this aspect Ford looks silly on that way over thought/under thought Ford decision. Yes, it appears that it will use less DEF. Very Nice Rig!

 

The 4.5L Duramax won't meet current emissions standards and GM has stated it would be difficult to make that engine meet the standard now since it was not designed with aftertreatments in mind. Could be done, but they would probably start clean-sheet. 4.5L would probably use too much fuel compared to the other smaller engines, as well...even though it would be more powerful.

 

The 4.5L Duramax used the same "hot-vee" turbo location and reverse flow design Ford uses in the 6.7L. The closer the turbo is to the exhaust valves in the head, the better. The reason is heat loss. The hotter the exhaust entering the turbo, the more thermal expansion will occur which provides more boost. On top of that, the exhaust stream will be hotter exiting the turbo, meaning the DOC and DPF will be hotter for more passive regens. This is why GM spent so much effort using double-walled exhaust plumbing and inconel instead of stainless steel - to retain heat. What they have done will surely help, but their own design of a central pedestal mounted turbocharger makes more sense...because even if they can retain heat, the long exhaust manifolds mean exhaust pressures into the turbo will be less: the friction of hot exhaust flowing against the manifold walls will slow it down. Lag will also naturally be present.

 

I'm not sure the new Duramax will use less DEF, but it will probably regenerate less than before...or at the very least, use less diesel when it does regenerate thanks to the double DOCs and strategic location of 9th injector. That is a system I wished Ford used but they seem set on using the post-injection / off-stroke method.

 

Oh well, its a great engine. Can't wait to read the full tests on this setup.

mookdoc6 Senior Enthusiast

mookdoc6

Posted
Posted

You know Diesels pretty well it seems. I think GM has gained tremendously with diesels since First DMAX's. I found it comical that over the years DODGE and Ford always was touting higher numbers bigger torque etc. just to stay a smidge better than the LML. So it tells me the DMAX had the real deal and others were just trying to beat with huge numbers? I am sure this one is the REAL DEAL? I love Diesels, Hate the maintenance though.........

Jsdirt Senior Enthusiast

Jsdirt

Posted
Posted

I hope for the sake of folks shelling out $60 LARGE + for one that there aren't any surprises, like with the first D-maxes. Injectors, hit or miss cooling system meltdown in summer, water pumps, & air in the lines, just to name a few ... then as they age, wiring gremlins under the fuse panel, chaffed wires, Allison limp mode, etc, etc..

 

Then there's the rust ...

 

 

Maybe they'll have their shit together on this one? We'll see.

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • 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. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • newdude
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By newdude · Posted

      No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...