Jump to content

Any new news on GM retiring the 6.Dinosaur ?

f8l vnm

Recommended Posts

SarahsGMC Senior Enthusiast

SarahsGMC

Posted
Posted
On ‎6‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 10:02 AM, gearheadesw said:

Don't get why some are so hung up on numbers. Does the truck work for you when you're in the drivers seat? Is everyone passing you flipping you off? Dated engine that flat out works, want a fast truck? Why? I work in my truck not race. Trucks have capabilities, not speed performance.

I like having a big lifted fast work truck

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply
i82much Enthusiast

i82much

Posted
Posted
On June 12, 2018 at 9:27 AM, C/K Man said:

If the primary application for the rumored new engine will be HD pickups and medium duty trucks, a low r.p.m. large displacement naturally aspirated engine would be the logical choice.  Notice that Ford has not offered an Ecoboost engine in any Super Duty?  There are good reasons for that. 

Ford hasn't gotten around to it yet, but smaller forced induction gas engines will arrive in HD trucks eventually.  Recall the HD segment did not affect CAFE standards, that is why no ecoboost hd engine.  A boosted 4.5 liter engine would handle HD applications just as well as a v8 and do better at elevation.

C/K Man Enthusiast

C/K Man

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, i82much said:

Ford hasn't gotten around to it yet, but smaller forced induction gas engines will arrive in HD trucks eventually.  Recall the HD segment did not affect CAFE standards, that is why no ecoboost hd engine.  A boosted 4.5 liter engine would handle HD applications just as well as a v8 and do better at elevation.

Not sure about that.  Work an Ecoboost and the fuel economy is worse than a GM 6.2L.  There would also likely be durability issues.  Fleets like simple and cheap.  Not to say forced induction gasoline engines may eventually show up in larger commercial trucks, but the current trend seems to be back to large displacement naturally aspirated.  Ford's 7X, GM's 6.0L replacement, and I am now hearing that FCA may be looking at a larger Hemi for the Ram HD's. 

i82much Enthusiast

i82much

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, C/K Man said:

Not sure about that.  Work an Ecoboost and the fuel economy is worse than a GM 6.2L.  There would also likely be durability issues.  Fleets like simple and cheap.  Not to say forced induction gasoline engines may eventually show up in larger commercial trucks, but the current trend seems to be back to large displacement naturally aspirated.  Ford's 7X, GM's 6.0L replacement, and I am now hearing that FCA may be looking at a larger Hemi for the Ram HD's. 

Right, I tend to agree with your comment.  If I am looking to buy a box van to move containers all over town, I want a big V8.  But I think consumers will see a lot of benefits to a boosted, smaller-displacement engine in an HD platform.  I think the real question is whether commercial buyers will ever decide the smaller boosted engines are reliable enough under tough use conditions to fully replace the naturally aspirated V8.

 

I guess the big distinction is there are a lot of HD consumer owners that are unloaded 90% of the time.  That's not really the case for commercial users.  Also, consumers tend to do things with their HD trucks like pull a big trailer through the mountains, where the boost can mitigate the effects of altitude on power output. 

 

And of course the big 3 will have to think about how many diesel sales they will lose in the HD market if they offer boosted gas engines as well.  Personally, I think they are coming and they will be successful, but at the same time, I'd buy a big naturally aspirated V8 over a smaller boosted engine myself.  I'm pretty slow to jump on the new technology train, I bought a 4.3 Silverado in 2007 because I just didn't quite trust those newfangled LS engines yet :)

C/K Man Enthusiast

C/K Man

Posted
Posted

You are typical of many medium duty box van users.  Good chance GM will have a gasoline engine in the new Silverado 4500/5500/6500 in 2020 or 2021.  Not everyone wants a diesel anymore. 

i82much Enthusiast

i82much

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, C/K Man said:

You are typical of many medium duty box van users.  Good chance GM will have a gasoline engine in the new Silverado 4500/5500/6500 in 2020 or 2021.  Not everyone wants a diesel anymore. 

Just think about how cheap it would be to live in a box van with an engine that never died!

f8l vnm Senior Enthusiast

f8l vnm

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 6/1/2018 at 7:02 AM, gearheadesw said:

Don't get why some are so hung up on numbers. Does the truck work for you when you're in the drivers seat? Is everyone passing you flipping you off? Dated engine that flat out works, want a fast truck? Why? I work in my truck not race. Trucks have capabilities, not speed performance.

I'm hung up on numbers because GM is last in this category .  

As I mentioned before the 6.0 is a fine great motor , a rock . Only issue i have is that its super dated . 

Last time i checked no one is flipping me off but I do appreciate your concern for me. 

Who said anything about a fast truck ? Who said anything about racing the truck ? 

While i agree its a truck and its all about capabilities , there is also something to be said when your last in every performance category when it comes to your competitors. With or without the truck loaded the 6.0 was inferior compared to its counterparts. 

The below is a nice report :) 

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2017/03/whats-the-best-34-ton-work-truck-for-2017.html

Daly Senior Enthusiast

Daly

Posted
Posted

As long as theres no AFM, DFM, or start/stop... But the way GM is playing with this technology, I wouldn't be surprised if they do start introducing that shit into the HD's.

i82much Enthusiast

i82much

Posted
Posted

i just wanted a basic steel truck with no fuel economy gimmicks something that would last forever.  the few extra ponies on the ram and ford never weighed into my decision one bit.

 

 

gearheadesw Senior Enthusiast

gearheadesw

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, f8l vnm said:

I'm hung up on numbers because GM is last in this category .  

As I mentioned before the 6.0 is a fine great motor , a rock . Only issue i have is that its super dated . 

Last time i checked no one is flipping me off but I do appreciate your concern for me. 

Who said anything about a fast truck ? Who said anything about racing the truck ? 

While i agree its a truck and its all about capabilities , there is also something to be said when your last in every performance category when it comes to your competitors. With or without the truck loaded the 6.0 was inferior compared to its counterparts. 

The below is a nice report :) 

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2017/03/whats-the-best-34-ton-work-truck-for-2017.html

 

 

That was an interesting read, thanks. When I test drove the top three, just a quick test drive didn't reveal  a drastic difference in power between the trucks. Obviously there is this disparity, with the GM product being the oldest and least powerful of this bunch. I'm happy enough with the capabilities of my 2500, if I was disappointed enough, I'de switch, but I like my truck, the ride, looks, power are all good in my eyes. I agree with some of the previous statements saying that all the start stop, cylinder deactivation, direct injection, etc, just seem to increase maintenance just as much as power. I dunno. Put turbo's on this engine and see what the factory could do with that, not just on the 4 bangers and 6's, this proven engine could make a lot more easy hp and torque. Seems easy and economical, again, I dunno.

  • 2 weeks later...
C/K Man Enthusiast

C/K Man

Posted
Posted

Funny rumor, Ford's upcoming 7X engine is said to 'borrow' many LS features, particularly cylinder head and combustion chamber design.

Cowpie Senior Enthusiast

Cowpie

Posted
Posted

The L96 is going nowhere.  Maybe dropped from future 2500/3500 offerings, but Fuso is putting the L96 6.0 into its mid range cargo trucks starting this year along with the Allison trans behind it.  

 

And GM or any other OEM for that matter, must calculate in how much they will screw themselves over with their primary market for the HD pickups.... fleets.  The L96 6.0 is one reason fleets buy so many GM HD pickups.  If GM starts monkeying around with engine changes and starts moving in the direction their 1/2 ton engines have gone, it is likely to cause many fleets to jump ship and shop elsewhere.  

 

That article about work trucks was interesting, but not really much in the way of informative.  And different segments of the country tend to favor different brands.  In Iowa where I live, GM HD pickups are the majority by far.  And the bulk of those business and fleet trucks are 6.0L.    Like the local Key Cooperative that caters to the farm sector.   Those guys have no problem pulling around double anhydrous ammonia tank trailers with the lowly Chevy 2500 6.0.  Those anhydrous trailers, when the tanks are full, go well beyond the 13,500 lb towing capacity of the 2500.   The key there is that there is no tongue weight to speak of.  Those trailers are the draw bar variety.  I myself have pulled double grain wagons with a 2500 6.0 and it did the job just fine.  Both of those trailers, by themselves, exceeded the total GCWR 20,500 lb of the pickup. And each trailer was equivalent to the typical 5th wheel travel trailer in size.  

 

If individuals don't like the performance of the stock L96 6.0, then supercharge the dang motor and quit fussing about not having any performance edge.  Turn that "dinosaur" L96 into a modern thoroughbred.  The L96 has strong enough guts to easily deal with a supercharger.  Why should GM have to come up with something for the smallest market segment for their HD pickups when one can just do it themselves and make sure it is done right.

C/K Man Enthusiast

C/K Man

Posted
Posted

The latest I am hearing is that the L96 will indeed continue, but there will be another larger gas engine option.  Very true about Fuso now using the L96, along with Freightliner and Isuzu who have been offering it for years.

 

From what I understand, need for a larger gas engine is being driven by the new Silverado 4500/5500/6500.  Where the L96 would probably be fine for the 4500, it is limited to around 20,000#'s GVW.  I believe GM wants to match Ford in offering a gas option in trucks over that GVW.

 

Keep in mind the Ford 7X will not replace the current 6.2L.  

 

By the way, the company I work for has been flogging L96 6.0L's for years.  We own 100's of them, vans, HD pickups, and 3500 HD dually cab and chassis.  Very rarely do we have any issues with them, and about the most common problem is the occasional broken exhaust manifold bolt.  My experiences with the L96 at work is why there is one in my garage.    

magnum74 Enthusiast

magnum74

Posted
Posted
On 7/9/2018 at 9:44 PM, Cowpie said:

If individuals don't like the performance of the stock L96 6.0, then supercharge the dang motor and quit fussing about not having any performance edge.  Turn that "dinosaur" L96 into a modern thoroughbred.  The L96 has strong enough guts to easily deal with a supercharger.  Why should GM have to come up with something for the smallest market segment for their HD pickups when one can just do it themselves and make sure it is done right.

Simply removing the nannies found with the current programming makes a world of difference in performance and feel, too. I'd like to see them continue with the L96 but I'm also curious about the new option.  My replacement will happen around timing of the 2021's. An L96 with more gears maybe? Or a new GM 7.X torque monster? Could possibly end up being a tough decision depending what they do and how they configure them. I don't now that I could resist old fasioned GM big block-like torque on 87 octane with modern comfort and driveability. 

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...