Jump to content

3.0l Duramax Inline6

Inline6DirtyMaxRST
 Share

Recommended Posts

Inline6DirtyMaxRST Enthusiast

Inline6DirtyMaxRST

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

These guys are not my favorite BUT there is a little info in here and they said they are going to be driving the i6 In the middle of June and will give a full review.?

 

edit For engine info link

This video really tells you about the engine and everything that goes into it. It even showed me a few things I didn’t know and I’m excited to get this engine tune and deleted when I can?

 

https://www.google.com/amp/gmauthority.com/blog/2019/06/gm-provides-more-detail-on-the-2020-chevrolet-silverado-3-0l-duramax/amp/

 

 

Edited by Inline6DirtyMaxRST
oldmann Senior Enthusiast

oldmann

Posted
Posted

Interesting but you will never see me spending the extra cash.  By the way, same torque as the 6.2 gas.

  • Like 1
Inline6DirtyMaxRST Enthusiast

Inline6DirtyMaxRST

Posted
  • Author
Posted
24 minutes ago, teyaroch said:

Interesting but you will never see me spending the extra cash.  By the way, same torque as the 6.2 gas.

Yeah but diesels tow better and get better mpg while towing/cruising. I’m a turbo/gas guy but the i6 just has me interested 

bshort Enthusiast

bshort

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Inline6DirtyMaxRST said:

Yeah but diesels tow better and get better mpg while towing/cruising. I’m a turbo/gas guy but the i6 just has me interested 

My 6.6 truck got 11 towing our travel trailer and the 6.2 truck gets 10.  

Inline6DirtyMaxRST Enthusiast

Inline6DirtyMaxRST

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, bshort said:

My 6.6 truck got 11 towing our travel trailer and the 6.2 truck gets 10.  

Exactly 1/2 the mpg and I’m guess you were towning less then 10k? Get 1 yard of material in the back of that truck and it will do the same. You load up that diesel bed and your might lose a couple mpg not 1/2 and your diesel truck will pull you around traffic better then a gasser with a load. I town stuff at 65-70 I don’t have time for gasser to pass people with a load lol 

bshort Enthusiast

bshort

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Inline6DirtyMaxRST said:

Exactly 1/2 the mpg and I’m guess you were towning less then 10k? Get 1 yard of material in the back of that truck and it will do the same. You load up that diesel bed and your might lose a couple mpg not 1/2 and your diesel truck will pull you around traffic better then a gasser with a load. I town stuff at 65-70 I don’t have time for gasser to pass people with a load lol 

My opinion is that the 6.2 10sp tows just as good as the 6.6 6sp did.  The 2020 6.6 10sp will be a different story.  

Inline6DirtyMaxRST Enthusiast

Inline6DirtyMaxRST

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, bshort said:

My opinion is that the 6.2 10sp tows just as good as the 6.6 6sp did.  The 2020 6.6 10sp will be a different story.  

Yes with more gears everything is better for towing having a 6.2 with a 6 speed would probably drive me crazy like our Ford work trucks when I have to tow with those once in awhile. I’m wondering how the 6.6 gasser 10speed in the HD trucks will do I haven’t seen toe ratings 

Edited by Inline6DirtyMaxRST
magnum74 Enthusiast

magnum74

Posted
Posted

They're using the current but modified 6-speed for the 2020 6.6 gas but I think it's safe to assume it'll go 10-speed for 2021. The 10-speed makes gas engines much more attractive.

Inline6DirtyMaxRST Enthusiast

Inline6DirtyMaxRST

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, magnum74 said:

They're using the current but modified 6-speed for the 2020 6.6 gas but I think it's safe to assume it'll go 10-speed for 2021. The 10-speed makes gas engines much more attractive.

Yes me too mabe 2022 depending how the 6s runs I guess over time. 10 speed is definitely going to happen it will be both gen’s go to trans think how much Time that saves. which is why I think that might be the gasser to get. Mabe they even put the 6.6 gasser in the 1500 haha But that’s a real long shot, be cool tho. 

Edited by Inline6DirtyMaxRST
Roddy8 Enthusiast

Roddy8

Posted
Posted

I considered the 3.0L D-max but with its slow release and no reviews to date (obviously) I am alot less interested now seeing that it is the same price as the 6.2L which is an all around beast. 

 

I'm assuming the 0-60 on the 3.0L might be as slow as 9 or 10 seconds. 

f8l vnm Senior Enthusiast

f8l vnm

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Roddy8 said:

I considered the 3.0L D-max but with its slow release and no reviews to date (obviously) I am alot less interested now seeing that it is the same price as the 6.2L which is an all around beast. 

 

I'm assuming the 0-60 on the 3.0L might be as slow as 9 or 10 seconds. 

With a 10 speed i think it will be quicker 0-60 then 9/10 sec 

 

The Ford 3.0 Oil burner is actually not bad when it comes to acceleration 

 

With more HP and TQ  then both the RAM and FORD, and same 10 speed , i think people will be surprised. But then again who the hell is drag racing with trucks . 

 

 

 

 

Inline6DirtyMaxRST Enthusiast

Inline6DirtyMaxRST

Posted
  • Author
Posted

From 0-60 460tq and a turbo boosting 43psi in a 5000lb truck it’s gonna take off lol It has sport mod for a reason?? but really it’s gonna pull fine too 80mph now 60-120 probably isn’t super fast but it’s not really suppose to do that haha 

Anthis is just me thinking but the turbo must be a decent size to get 90% power at under 1500rpm then keep that power all the way to 3.75k rpm

04SierraSLT Enthusiast

04SierraSLT

Posted
Posted

Two chains AND a belt on the rear of the block??? That sound like a very expensive maintenance bill. Second, I wonder if the ECM is going to be encrypted like the 19 Colorado DMax and the upcoming C8. 

 

I was waiting for this engine also, but starting to lean back towards 6.2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • 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. 
    • 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.  

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...