Jump to content

2019 Trail Boss...Why no 6.2L


Jaywroe

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, shift_grind said:

"most powerful V8". Then Ram says "Most powerful standard V8". 

 

It's all a game. 

 

6.2 should be available in RST and Trail Boss at a minimum.  You can get a center console in the LT either. 

 

6.2 is a money maker.  How much more does it cost to make?  GM makes $2500 Everytime they sell it, but between the 6.2 over the 5.3, 10 speed and few other things, it's probably 2000 pure profit. 

Dodge 5.7 makes 395 and 410tq. Where do they mention most power V8 ?  I certainly get what your talking about but In the half tons the ford limited makes 450/510. No other half ton makes that hp or Tq.

also the 5.3 and 6.2 gas Milage is very close. This is why the 5.3 is a dog in my opinion. Same gas Milage but very much slower then the 6.2. This ain’t an insult against the 5.3 as it’s a solid motor but just missing guts 

Edited by f8l vnm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3.23 Rear end seems to give a couple more MPG over the 3.42 from all of the reading I have done here.

So it is not just the fact that the 6.2 itself "gets better mileage than the 5.3"

Gearing plays into this result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2018 at 2:35 PM, SILVER SLED said:

As as a GM fan or loyal buyer, I lovingly say with a lot of frustration, what the f**k is GM thinking.  

You'll soon stop being a loyal GM fan.  Many of us life long loyal to GM have seen the stupidity going on with them and are keeping our eyes on the likes of Ferd, Dodge, and even Crapota. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trail Boss is suppose to be available with a 6.2 at a later date.
For now you have to opt for the Sierra AT4 ( Trail Boss in GMC Clothing) to get the 6.2


Where did you hear this info? I am hoping the more and more I see the TB I really like it and want it but I can’t settle for the 5.3 option. The only option then I won’t be able to get is HUD but I could live without it.

Please GM offer the TB with the 6.2 I am begging you!




Ryan B.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RyanbabZ71 said:

 


Where did you hear this info? I am hoping the more and more I see the TB I really like it and want it but I can’t settle for the 5.3 option. The only option then I won’t be able to get is HUD but I could live without it.

Please GM offer the TB with the 6.2 I am begging you!




Ryan B.

 

A agree.  It would be a really nice ride with the 6.2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2018 at 3:35 PM, SILVER SLED said:

The Ford 5.0 makes 395 also.  And like the Ram can be had in a low level trim and in a reg cab.  

 

As as a GM fan or loyal buyer, I lovingly say with a lot of frustration, what the f**k is GM thinking.  

I think GM was tight on cash. The have had a negative cash flow recently. That cash crunch makes it tough to redesign the entire truck PLUS redesign the engines for extra power while meeting stricter fuel economy and emissions standards than the outgoing truck had to meet. The T1xx truck is a complete redesign of everything from the frame to the IFS suspension. That's VERY expensive. All plants building T1xx trucks/SUV's will need to be heavily re-tooled. I also think they didn't want to risk reliability issues by changing too many things at once. DFM is a big change compared to AFM. If you start changing nearly every aspect of an engine design, you end up with junk like Ford's 2.7 Ecoboost or the newest version of the 5.0 Coyote with all its problems. The only reason Toyota does well in reliability surveys is because they almost never make major changes to their engines and platforms. Bug changes equals lots of issues that customers deal with (GM 8-speed anybody?). It's funny to hear guys complain about GM not changing their engines for 2019 when Ram is still using the same old ancient port fuel injected iron block boat anchor they were using a decade ago. The T1xx trucks have a big weight advantage, the 5.3 trucks will either match the 2019 Ram in 0-60 and 1/4-mile times, or it will be faster. The Ram was a heavy pig before and it only lost a couple hundred pounds for 2019.

 

Not to mention, if you live near a big volume dealer like Laura GMC, you will have no problem picking up a 6.2-powered GM truck for $40k or less by next year. Fanboys used to complain about having to spend $50k+ to get a 6.2 but Laura was selling brand new 6.2 Sierras for as little as $38k lmao.

Edited by HondaHawkGT
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, HondaHawkGT said:

I think GM was tight on cash. The have had a negative cash flow recently. That cash crunch makes it tough to redesign the entire truck PLUS redesign the engines for extra power while meeting stricter fuel economy and emissions standards than the outgoing truck had to meet. The T1xx truck is a complete redesign of everything from the frame to the IFS suspension. That's VERY expensive. All plants building T1xx trucks/SUV's will need to be heavily re-tooled. I also think they didn't want to risk reliability issues by changing too many things at once. DFM is a big change compared to AFM. If you start changing nearly every aspect of an engine design, you end up with junk like Ford's 2.7 Ecoboost or the newest version of the 5.0 Coyote with all its problems. The only reason Toyota does well in reliability surveys is because they almost never make major changes to their engines and platforms. Bug changes equals lots of issues that customers deal with (GM 8-speed anybody?). It's funny to hear guys complain about GM not changing their engines for 2019 when Ram is still using the same old ancient port fuel injected iron block boat anchor they were using a decade ago. The T1xx trucks have a big weight advantage, the 5.3 trucks will either match the 2019 Ram in 0-60 and 1/4-mile times, or it will be faster. The Ram was a heavy pig before and it only lost a couple hundred pounds for 2019.

 

Not to mention, if you live near a big volume dealer like Laura GMC, you will have no problem picking up a 6.2-powered GM truck for $40k or less by next year. Fanboys used to complain about having to spend $50k+ to get a 6.2 but Laura was selling brand new 6.2 Sierras for as little as $38k lmao.

I think the 2014-2018 already matches the heavy Ram 5.7 in acceleration.  The 19s should be quicker. 

 

I wouldn't think it would be any more expensive to certify the 6.2 in a different trim level.  Like a Custom crew cab vs LTZ.  Also I don't think it would be all that expensive to certify a diff cab configuration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No but if they offered the 6.2 in lower trims they wouldn't be able to even give the 5.3 away and their average fuel economy would take a big hit. It's the same reason why Ford doesn't offer the HO 3.5 Ecoboost across all trims and FCA doesn't offer any of their bigger V8's in the Ram. GM also leverages the big V8 to get people to pay a little extra for a higher trim level.

 

That being said, if GM wants $50k+ for an LT Trailboss it better have the 6.2 in it. The TB is WAY overpriced for what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HondaHawkGT said:

No but if they offered the 6.2 in lower trims they wouldn't be able to even give the 5.3 away and their average fuel economy would take a big hit. 

One thing that often gets overlooked is the 6.2 requires premium fuel to get the performance and economy. Until they can figure this out it can never be a volume engine because the only way they can justify it right now is by limiting it to higher and top end units. How many people will pay the premium to buy a WT or base LT that needs princess fuel? I don't think many but I do agree they need to step it up and at the very minimum allow the buyer to choose some gearing options on their driveline. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HondaHawkGT said:

No but if they offered the 6.2 in lower trims they wouldn't be able to even give the 5.3 away and their average fuel economy would take a big hit. It's the same reason why Ford doesn't offer the HO 3.5 Ecoboost across all trims and FCA doesn't offer any of their bigger V8's in the Ram. GM also leverages the big V8 to get people to pay a little extra for a higher trim level.

 

That being said, if GM wants $50k+ for an LT Trailboss it better have the 6.2 in it. The TB is WAY overpriced for what it is.

I totally agree with the over priced.

 

Oddly my 6.2 truck gets better gas mileage than my 5.3 did. 

 

But at least in a Ford you can get the regular turbo 3.5 and the 5.0 in any trim level.  And for what its worth, unfortunately for GM, the Raptor starts out at $55k.  It's all of the sudden a bargain compared to a lot of '19 GMs.  And although my 5.3 truck drove fine, my 6.2 truck is a lot less cumbersome to drive, almost sporty and nimble.  I can only imagine the entry level trim turbo 3.5 and the 5.0 with 10 speeds drive much better than the GM 5.3 and maybe as well as a 6.2 GM if not better even. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Trail Boss was available with 6.2L, that's what I would purchase when in the market to buy.  Combined with the Red Hot exterior it ticks all the right boxes for me.  Unfortunately no 6.2 and GMC doesn't offer the AT4 in Red Hot color.:(

Silver Sled locally there are no 2018 Raptors available for 55K. All have 10K+ in options with ADM of 5K more or less.  My family dentist purchased one a few months ago.  To order the truck as he specd it, he first had to trade in his pristine 2014 Raptor with 27K miles and sign a purchase order at MSRP plus 4K markup.   The MSRP for his truck was $72,980, so $76,980 in total for his loaded Raptor.  At least they "gave" him free oil changes as long as he owns the truck.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magnum74 said:

One thing that often gets overlooked is the 6.2 requires premium fuel to get the performance and economy. Until they can figure this out it can never be a volume engine because the only way they can justify it right now is by limiting it to higher and top end units. How many people will pay the premium to buy a WT or base LT that needs princess fuel? I don't think many but I do agree they need to step it up and at the very minimum allow the buyer to choose some gearing options on their driveline. 

Good point on the premium fuel. I don't see why they can't make a milder tune that would let it get by with 87 octane. Call the 6.2 that requires premium fuel the 6.2 Max or 6.2 HO or something like that. Ford manages to do with with their 3.5 Ecoboost. Ford actually says the exact same thing GM does about octane requirements. Both say it's okay to run on 87 octane but knock might occur but for best performance 91 octane is recommended.

 

I absolutely agree about gearing options. I didn't believe GM when they unveiled the truck this past winter and claimed that the big change with the 2019 trucks would be "more customer choice". I was right, we got the *illusion* of customer choice when in reality there's less customer chance than before. Two axle ratios to chose from is unacceptable. Especially if choosing the Z71 package eliminates any choice in which axle ratio you get.

1 hour ago, SILVER SLED said:

Oddly my 6.2 truck gets better gas mileage than my 5.3 did. 

 

But at least in a Ford you can get the regular turbo 3.5 and the 5.0 in any trim level.  And for what its worth, unfortunately for GM, the Raptor starts out at $55k.  It's all of the sudden a bargain compared to a lot of '19 GMs.  And although my 5.3 truck drove fine, my 6.2 truck is a lot less cumbersome to drive, almost sporty and nimble.  I can only imagine the entry level trim turbo 3.5 and the 5.0 with 10 speeds drive much better than the GM 5.3 and maybe as well as a 6.2 GM if not better even. 

 

It's pretty widely known on here that the EPA estimates for the 6.2 and 5.3 are way too conservative. Before I started modding my truck I was getting high 23 and even low 24 MPG with the cruise set at 65 MPH. There are a ton of guys on here that get great fuel economy with the 6.2. One thing to keep in mind is that if you went from 2014-15 truck to a 2016-18 truck, the body styling was changed for a reason - aerodynamics. The 2014-15 trucks sacrificed aerodynamic drag for styling. For 2016, they smoothed the front of the truck and added stuff like active shutters in the front grille to bring the drag coefficient down. It's obvious that when the EPA revised their testing procedures a couple years ago, the fuel economy estimates became so conservative and inaccurate that it unfairly penalized GM's trucks. It seems like their test procedures rewarded turbo gas engines like the 2.7 Ecoboost but penalized naturally aspirated V8's. Ram cut 200+ lbs out of their trucks, added an active air dam that nearly drags on the ground it's so low, and made the truck even more aerodynamic but the fuel economy ratings are identical to the 2018 truck. GM cut around 400 lbs out of their trucks, added an even more aggressive cylinder deactivation system, auto start/stop, tons of aerodynamic improvements, and made the 8-speed standard in the LT and up trims. Yet the EPA says the fuel economy is the same as a 2018 truck except for a 1 MPG improvement in the city (thanks to start/stop). What a joke.

 

The Raptor starts at $55k but the truck is so stripped out at that price, it's a joke. You don't even have the standard 8" touchscreen at that price. If you want the standard touchscreen, the price jumps up to around $60k. If you re-equip the Raptor with the stuff that comes standard in most XLT's or Lariats, the price climbs up past $65k fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, HondaHawkGT said:

The 2014-15 trucks sacrificed aerodynamic drag for styling

This is probably why my Brick Front '14 Sierra with the 3.42 only averages 16-18 mpg!

I never get over 22 on the highway and that is with no headwind. But I do prefer the look better than the 16-18's :thumbs:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    245.8k
    Total Topics
    2.6m
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    333,236
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Lightning123
    Newest Member
    Lightning123
    Joined
  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 693 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.