Any new news on GM retiring the 6.Dinosaur ?

Grumpy Bear · November 23, 2018

22 hours ago, SierraHD17 said:

Yeah a GMPP crate engine that uses the 6 bolt head architecture called the LSX 376...not a production engine in any GM vehicle. That's like talking about GM having a 383 in the lineup... because they make a performance crate. Yes they make an iron 6.2 but it shares nothing with the production variant and is not used in any production vehicle. Good block for someone wanting some cubes or to add boost though.

Point is there is no reason to not cast the block in IRON if the reason is a higher duty cycle. Look boys...there is no such thing as elfin magic.

9 hours ago, Colossus said:

Don't get me wrong, I loved the 3.8L. Yeah it had it's issues later in life with the head gaskets, like it's little brothers in the 3.4 & 3.1 and sometimes the old 2.8L, but they were good engines and would run long if you kept up on the maintenance and didn't abuse the thing. One of the funnest engines I drove was the 3.8 Supercharged in a 98 Grand Prix. Had a crappy front end, but fun engine. But I really do believe GM milked out as much as they could out of the 3.8L design. The 3.6L vvt was the next best choice to replace it and the 3.5L. Think of it like the old classic 350 5.7L block. They got as much as they could from it but tighter emissions standards meant they needed something else. Thus we had the 5.3L come into play in 99 to replace the 5.7L in the trucks. And the 5.3L proved to be just as if not more reliable and able to do more. Just like the 3.6L vs the 3.8L.

As far as the 3.8 I'm not aware of any head gasket or intake gasket issues on the Series III motors in the last few years of production. Plague of the Series II motors however. Bet the 3.6 doesn't have a 47 year life span.

Know what Japan and the Aftermarket have in common? They take what the OEM's give up on and fix the issues that got is kicked to the curb then bring it back and beat the OEM's like a red headed stepchild with it.

How about I tap out...…

SS502 · November 23, 2018

20 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Point is there is no reason to not cast the block in IRON if the reason is a higher duty cycle. Look boys...there is no such thing as elfin magic.

As far as the 3.8 I'm not aware of any head gasket or intake gasket issues on the Series III motors in the last few years of production. Plague of the Series II motors however. Bet the 3.6 doesn't have a 47 year life span.

Know what Japan and the Aftermarket have in common? They take what the OEM's give up on and fix the issues that got is kicked to the curb then bring it back and beat the OEM's like a red headed stepchild with it.

How about I tap out...…

No, no , no...don’t tap out! You always seem to point out the obvious...in a most direct way. The 6.2 iron block, well they COULD make it very easily for HD or commercial use, just because it’s performance oriented doesn’t make it less of a proven concept. Technology for technology’s sake doesn’t necessarily make it better. Man, I still use a non-powered toothbrush and I still have all my teeth.

SierraHD17 · November 24, 2018

They don't build an iron 6.2 and never have aside from a crate engine that doesn't matter. It's pretty well a guarantee the new replacement will be direct injected and based on Gen V architecture which shares nothing but some common measurements with the LS engines like the L96 is. Simple as that.

And honestly... think about it. Take an L96 and bore it 65 thou while maintaining the 9.6:1 compression and current camshaft. Voila... a 6.2 liter L96 based truck engine lol. The L96 use the same heads and intake anyhow as the 6.2 used in gmt900 half tons. That extra 12 cubic inches and the slight gain fron unshrouding the intake valve might make what.. 370 hp lol. 65 thou of bore size is not worth talking about. If you don't know that's what the difference is dimensions wise... 4.065" bore versus 4 inch. Whooptee doo lol. Bump the 6 liter to 10.5:1 and toss the L92 cam in it and watch it make within 10 hp of the "mighty" 6.2. A 6.2 is a waste of time if that's all you wanted... you wouldn't even be able to tell the two apart apples to apples in the truck. They wont use the bigger cam and half ton compression because it's not useful in an HD fleet truck especially requiring premium gas.

The new engine may very well be a 6.2 gen v cast in iron, however going larger and focusing on the new medium trucks makes more sense. Just have to wait and see.

Edited November 24, 2018 by SierraHD17

SS502 · November 24, 2018

11 hours ago, SierraHD17 said:

They don't build an iron 6.2 and never have aside from a crate engine that doesn't matter. It's pretty well a guarantee the new replacement will be direct injected and based on Gen V architecture which shares nothing but some common measurements with the LS engines like the L96 is. Simple as that.

And honestly... think about it. Take an L96 and bore it 65 thou while maintaining the 9.6:1 compression and current camshaft. Voila... a 6.2 liter L96 based truck engine lol. The L96 use the same heads and intake anyhow as the 6.2 used in gmt900 half tons. That extra 12 cubic inches and the slight gain fron unshrouding the intake valve might make what.. 370 hp lol. 65 thou of bore size is not worth talking about. If you don't know that's what the difference is dimensions wise... 4.065" bore versus 4 inch. Whooptee doo lol. Bump the 6 liter to 10.5:1 and toss the L92 cam in it and watch it make within 10 hp of the "mighty" 6.2. A 6.2 is a waste of time if that's all you wanted... you wouldn't even be able to tell the two apart apples to apples in the truck. They wont use the bigger cam and half ton compression because it's not useful in an HD fleet truck especially requiring premium gas.

The new engine may very well be a 6.2 gen v cast in iron, however going larger and focusing on the new medium trucks makes more sense. Just have to wait and see.

You Sir are correct. My SIMPLE question was if they want to make a “new” engine why not use the as you call it “mighty” 6.2. Well you and others have answers but hey I’m all about money...yes I spend your tax dollars developing munitions for the US Military. There is nothing wrong with what you mentioned, I (out of ignorance asked a question) was just curious why GM wouldn’t use the 6.2 but you’re mention of Premium fuel makes a ton of sense.

Edited November 24, 2018 by SS502

Grumpy Bear · November 24, 2018

So you want a clean sheet gas motor to do this then?

From Truck Trend Network. http://www.trucktrend.com/features/0607-dp-10-best-used-diesel-engines/

6. GM 6.6L Duramax

* Engine Type: Four-cycle, V-8
* Displacement: 403 ci (6.6L)
* Bore and Stroke: 4.06x3.9 in
* Aspiration: Turbocharged
* Fuel Delivery: Common rail Injection
* Governed Speed: 3,250 rpm
* Maximum Power: 360 hp
* Maximum Torque: 650 lb-ft

* Why We Dig It: After playing a distant third fiddle in the diesel marketplace, General Motors finally got mad enough to do something about it. With the introduction of the Isuzu-built Duramax in 2001, it got on the right track. The newest offering (the LBZ) is a refined beast capable of out-running the other two players in the Big Three's diesel power war.

Wait, you wanted something direct injected....

3. VW 5.0L V-1

A Velvet Glove Filled With Mike Tyson's Fist

* Engine Type: Four-cycle, V-10
* Displacement: 300 ci (5.0L)
* Bore and Stroke: 3.188x3.759 in
* Fuel Delivery: Direct injection
* Aspiration: Twin turbocharged
* Governed Speed: 4,000 rpm
* Maximum Power: 310 hp
* Maximum Torque: 550 lb-ft

* Why We Dig It: Europeans have been mastering the art of small displacement turbodiesels for decades. That work translated beautifully in this masterpiece of engineering. Although 300 cubes may not be considered tiny, managing 550 lb-ft out of that displacement, in an aluminum block, and having it survive is pretty cool. Shoving a 5,000-pound SUV to 60 mph in less than 8 seconds ain't too shabby either.

So much for the questions surrounding ALLOY block durability under high percentage duty cycles.

Are answers actually what you want? OR would a good old fashion blood bath argument work?

Edited November 24, 2018 by Grumpy Bear

redwngr · November 24, 2018

I don't think anybody is saying you can't make a truck duty engine at 6.2L displacement (or larger -- lots of large cube gas engines large truck applications over the years).

Question is if the current light duty 6.2 is suitable.

SierraHD17 · November 24, 2018

11 hours ago, SS502 said:

You Sir are correct. My SIMPLE question was if they want to make a “new” engine why not use the as you call it “mighty” 6.2. Well you and others have answers but hey I’m all about money...yes I spend your tax dollars developing munitions for the US Military. There is nothing wrong with what you mentioned, I (out of ignorance asked a question) was just curious why GM wouldn’t use the 6.2 but you’re mention of Premium fuel makes a ton of sense.

Yeah it's just dollars and cents. The current pickup truck 6.2 is an 11.5:1 compression carryover LT1 from the Corvette. That will not fly with commercial users from the standpoint of fuel alone.

You guys are thinking of the 2500 and 3500 trucks but the L96 is used in a lot heavier fleet equipment than that.. as will whatever the replacement engine is.

A lot of talk has always been why the HD trucks never used the previous LS 6.2 and it's the same thing as I laid out already. By the time you made the 6.2 meet the criteria the extra 12 cubic inches fail to matter. It would make a lot more sense if they built something closer to 400 cubic inches and kept the same durability testing in place. The current 6 liter has to work in a bunch of commercial chassis's up in the 20 some thousand pound GVWR range, as will this new engine, so it's not the same requirements as a pickup truck or an SUV. Building a lower revving engine that made more low end torque would be nice. Gm went completely ass backwards on the L96 with the rectangle port heads but in their defense they do pull hard in the 4000 to 6000 rpm range and that's what they banked on. It would be nice to see an engine more low end oriented and additional cubes would do that. And by additional I mean like 40 cubes or more and not 12 haha.

Like I said it's pretty well a guarantee that at least in the 2500 and 3500 the new engine will be direct injected and have some form of cylinder deactivation. The cylinder deactivation is how they could build a 400 cube engine and still meet fuel economy requirements. It is what it is.

And for clarity no you don't spend my tax money, just that of some of the other fine folks in the thread haha.

Edited November 25, 2018 by SierraHD17

Grumpy Bear · November 27, 2018

What it is, is something GM already gave up on. BBC ending in 2006 in favor of....drum roll please....low torque, high reving, deeply geared small cube engines.

diyer2 · November 27, 2018

There's no replacement for cubic inches no matter the trend.

Old school, you bet.

K2xxSteve · November 28, 2018

Nothing like a good engine debate!

I personally loved the Buick 3800 and thought it was shame they killed it off. Biggest reason they did? Marketing. Once the Japanese started making competitive 200hp class V6 engines, you couldn't read a single car rag review without them gushing over the Japanese 3.0L V6 engines and their "horsepower per liter", in contrast to the "antiquated low-tech pushrod" 3800. Except most of those Japanese engines either didn't make the power they claimed due to gaming the previously lax SAE standards, or required premium fuel to get there, or both! Meanwhile the 3800 made advertised power and then some on regular grade fuel, worked beautifully with the 4-speed automatics of the time, and got great fuel efficiency while also being very refined and reliable.

There's no reason why GM couldn't have evolved the 3800 design, recast the block in aluminum to save weight, and given it some LS head and port treatment to make easily 250+ hp naturally aspirated. Why didn't they? Customers wanted a "High Feature" V6 engine with DOHC and 24-valves and independent cam-phasing and blah blah blah, and wouldn't accept the "antiquated low-tech pushrod" engines after so much brainwashing, so that's what they got. I'll never forget the first auto rag review I read of the new "HF 3.6L DOHC VVT engine. After bashing the 3800 for years, they then had the galls to complain that the new 3.6L DOHC engine didn't have the torque of the 3800 and they missed the feel of the 3800!!!!!!

To be fair, needing to make 300+ horsepower for a naturally aspirated V-6 engine, it probably made the most sense for them to go with the new DOHC V6 engine architecture, and it's a huge cost savings to just have a SINGLE V-6 architecture that can cover all the bases rather than three, so I get it, but the 3800 was a truly great engine. Never owned a vehicle with one myself, but I had most of those over-rated Japanese V-6 engines, and the 3800 was a masterpiece in comparison.

As for HD truck engines, out of my league, but I get both sides of the argument. Don't mess with something that isn't broke, and the 6.0L definitely isn't broken and works quite well. A stone cold reliable engine that just goes is something of value, but at the same time there's people that want more, and competitors are offering more, so there's definitely an opening for another engine option.

avalonandl · December 2, 2018

On 11/1/2018 at 4:43 PM, i82much said:

The most recent news suggests a direct injection 6.6 liter replacement with AFM. I think I'll keep my 6.0, thankyouverymuch.

AFM makes no sense since the 2500 series is exempt from CAFE...

In regards to the 3800 V6, it was a great engine. The LS cylinder head is better with its cathedral shape and revs better. The 3800 was EFFICIENT, but at low rpms.

Edited December 2, 2018 by avalonandl

SilveradoX2 · December 2, 2018

On 11/22/2018 at 1:23 PM, SS502 said:

Agreed, I’m sort of partial to my ZZ502 and I believe the 502 started life intended for Marine use but sits nicely in a 70 Chevelle engine bay ? I love having options ?

Thought about putting my 502 in a 70 Chevelle (my favorite body). I had a 502 built for drag racing, Super Street or Super Gas, depending on the size of the car it was in. Found some articles how to, just need to do it.

#Iamjealous

SilveradoX2 · December 3, 2018

My sister has a 2003 Silverado 2500HD with the 8.1L to pull a fifth wheel. She doesn't want a diesel. When I told her that there might be a 6.6L for the 2500HD she's definitely interested in getting that combination. It's going to come down to how many market segments want a large gas motor in a 2500 or 3500.?

SS502 · December 3, 2018

10 minutes ago, SilveradoX2 said:

Thought about putting my 502 in a 70 Chevelle (my favorite body). I had a 502 built for drag racing, Super Street or Super Gas, depending on the size of the car it was in. Found some articles how to, just need to do it.

#Iamjealous

It fits nicely...PM sent ?

scphilli · December 3, 2018

GM does make iron block LS crate motors and blocks that support big block cubic inches. They could easily offer those in a production vehicle but clearly there is not a business case to support it. This forces you to take matters into your own hands. I wanted a little bit more than the aluminum 400hp/tq LS2 that was shoehorned into my GTO, so I jammed in a GMPP LSX iron block built to 454ci/7.4L that put over 600hp to the rear wheels.

My wife complains that it is too loud, idles like crap, shakes and jerks at low speeds, and stinks of raw fuel. I told her those were all options I paid extra for!