Jump to content

You guys think 2022 model 6.6 GAS will get the 10A?

f8l vnm
 Share

Recommended Posts

ShotgunZ71 Senior Enthusiast

ShotgunZ71

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, f8l vnm said:

don't even get me started on gear ratios and Gm . 

Why not offer other ratios as buy up options ? I don't get that part but making you pretty go directly to 3.23 unless you get the Max Tow . 

Ford lets you have 3.13, 3.31, 3.55 and 3.73 .  Even Ram allows a 3.91 along with 2 other ratios . 

Let's don't forget (though we're talking specifially about the 6.6 gas engine) that the Duramax also got neutered with only a 3.42 rear end choice, after years of having a 3.73 gear. Sure, it's all working for 99% of applications, but a choice would be nice.

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Gagliano7
Gagliano7

If that was the case then why does Ford give you so many options.

MTU Alum
MTU Alum

GM is still investigating billions in next generation powertrains for future ICE vehicles.   ICE is still going to be a major player for a while.   #iworkforGM 

f8l vnm
f8l vnm

This is a very good point actually. Cause the base Super Duty gets 6.2 and 6 speed .  The 7.3/10A comes with added price tag , vs GM in which you get 6.6 as base and only engine 

Dunn Senior Enthusiast

Dunn

Posted
Posted

chevy prolly will offer the 10spd in a bigger gas motor......does anyone offer just transmisson upgrades without a motor change  in HD truck?....i havent heard of one aside from 5.3 in 1500s ( 6, 8 and 10spds)

 

chevy will have the 10 spd in a bigger V8 gasser as upgrade i am guessing as upcharge

 

i have the 6 spd...while mpg could be better imo its not bad at all.....

gearheadesw Senior Enthusiast

gearheadesw

Posted
Posted

It seems like the logical thing to to, after all they did change the rear gear for something, obviously not for milage, because it's the same.

 

Oh wait...... GM, no logic involved.

  • Like 1
TrailBoss1 Enthusiast

TrailBoss1

Posted
Posted

Having worked in the industry for a period of time, some of these decisions are, unfortunately, driven by Federal regulations regarding emissions and fuel economy. I was told for every 5 Evo‘S produced, GM can build one Silverado (or Vice versa I cant recall specifically). I’m thinking maybe limiting the gasser to 3.73 may have something to do with some Federal standard GM has to meet. I do realize fuel mileage isn’t required on the window sticker for HD’s which meet different criteria; just a thought. It always seemed strange to me that the Duramax was limited to only the 3.73 (now the 3.42). Or maybe just GM being conservative and fearing a change to a lower (numerically higher) rear axle would create an expectation of higher tow rating.

Gagliano7 Enthusiast

Gagliano7

Posted
Posted
On 10/23/2020 at 6:16 AM, TrailBoss1 said:

Having worked in the industry for a period of time, some of these decisions are, unfortunately, driven by Federal regulations regarding emissions and fuel economy. I was told for every 5 Evo‘S produced, GM can build one Silverado (or Vice versa I cant recall specifically). I’m thinking maybe limiting the gasser to 3.73 may have something to do with some Federal standard GM has to meet. I do realize fuel mileage isn’t required on the window sticker for HD’s which meet different criteria; just a thought. It always seemed strange to me that the Duramax was limited to only the 3.73 (now the 3.42). Or maybe just GM being conservative and fearing a change to a lower (numerically higher) rear axle would create an expectation of higher tow rating.

If that was the case then why does Ford give you so many options.

  • Like 2
OmahaBen Enthusiast

OmahaBen

Posted
Posted (edited)

I believe GM uses the 6 speed because it has a long track record of being reliable for fleet customers.  

 

Fleet customers buy gas engines and even thought the 6.6 is new the LS design is just as reliable.  

 

GM used the 6.0 gas engine in the 2500 from 1999-2019.  It is doubtful you will see a 10 speed until a body style update happens again.  2025 maybe???

 

 

 

 

Edited by OmahaBen
Delete
heymrdjCW Enthusiast

heymrdjCW

Posted
Posted

I think Ford just simply treats their HD gas customers more equal to diesel. The whole reason they took the time to create the 7.3 gasser. Ford also uses it in far more platforms than GM is using the new 6.6, from the F-250 pickup to 14,500lb E-450, to the 24,000lb F-59 chassis. And of course the F-650 as well. Since the 8.1L’s discontinuation, GM barely dips their toe into big gas powertrains until recently. Meanwhile, Ford maintained the 6.8L V10.

 

I’d like to see GM get really serious about gas. GM still won’t offer a gas motor PTO combination. But Ford has and does. I think they believe in gas powertrains more than GM does.

  • 3 weeks later...
wowens79 Enthusiast

wowens79

Posted
Posted

Ford is killing GM in the HD gasser lineup.  Not only with a bigger stronger motor, but have the 10 speed tranny, and in the 250 a choice between 3.55 and 4.30 rear ends.  In the 350 it is 3.73, and 4.30. 
I’ve been driving my 6.0 for 18 years and it has been great, but decided to wait on the 2020’s to get a bigger engine, but was disappointed with the 6spd, so I’ve decided to wait a little longer and see what they do for 2022.  If they still have the 6spd and no axle ratio options, I will go with the either the Ram or the Ford.  I’m planning on going to about a 12k lb 5th wheel in a couple of years, and while the Chevy would pull it, the For and Ram will do it better. 

  • Like 1
C/K Man Enthusiast

C/K Man

Posted
Posted

The L8T/6L90 combination is a fine base gasoline powertrain for the Silverado/Sierra HD's.  I do think GM really needs to offer a gas engine option in the Silverado medium duty 4500/5500/6500 and 6500XD LCF as well, and the L8T might not be big enough for those applications.  Before Covid there were a lot of rumors that a much larger 8L+ V-8 was in the works for the medium duty commercial trucks, and there was some speculation that such an engine might find its way into the Silverado/Sierra HD's.  However, I have not heard anything about a larger V-8 since earlier this year, so maybe the project was dropped or it was just a rumor to begin with. 

TrailBoss1 Enthusiast

TrailBoss1

Posted
Posted

Having driven the L8T with 6 speed for a few weeks, I’m entirely satisfied. I had the 8 speed in my 2019 Trail Boss 5.3 and have found the 6 speed to be equally smooth (I know the 8 speed has had some issues but mine was fine). In addition to being a proven design, for my use, the ratios in the 6 speed are pretty well matched to the torque band of the motor. I agree a choice of axle ratios would be nice; but, because I don’t tow heavy, I’d likely stay with the 3.73 as a good compromise between capability and economy. The GM/Allison 10 speed is getting high marks; but with a torque rating of 1000 lb-ft, it would be overkill mated to the L8T and add significant cost. The ten speed from the 6.2 could handle the torque but may not meet HD durability requirements without upgraded components.

  • Like 1
L8T Enthusiast

L8T

Posted
Posted

Eventually we will see more gears as an option at least behind the 6.6 gas but if won’t be an Allison. The internals of that trans are so much heavier that it would be counter productive as far as fuel economy and wheel hp are concerned. Even if it was an 8 speed it would be better than what’s in it now IMO. I’d be happy with Ford’s 10 speed in it. 

 

We have two F-550’s at work with the 7.3 gas and 10 speed. These trucks are touching 10k plus with service bodies and the 10 speed makes them feel like they have more power than the v-10 6 speed they replaced even though it isn’t much higher in the hp and tq dept. No issues with the trans but the engine is junk. It’s super picky with fuel quality where the v-10 would drink anything, constantly eats plug wires, we’ve blown out several spark plugs, and had multiple injectors changed already in 20000 combined miles. I wouldn’t recommend the ford till they get it sorted. 

C/K Man Enthusiast

C/K Man

Posted
Posted

I have heard the 7.3L needs higher octane fuel.  With that large bore it probably needs dual ignition like the 6.2L Ford.  Are the spark plugs coming out of the heads like the old Ford Modulars?  I wonder how the head gaskets will hold up on the 7.3L long term.

newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted
On 10/22/2020 at 7:53 PM, ShotgunZ71 said:

Let's don't forget (though we're talking specifially about the 6.6 gas engine) that the Duramax also got neutered with only a 3.42 rear end choice, after years of having a 3.73 gear. Sure, it's all working for 99% of applications, but a choice would be nice.

 

Sure it went to 3.42 but it gained 4 gears.  1st gear in the 10L1000 is 4.54:1 vs. 3.10:1 in the Allison 1000.  The 10L/3.42 gear multiplication in 1st through 8th gears is higher than the Allison/3.73 combo is 1st through 5th.  Could they put 3.73 in it?  Sure.  Would it be necessary?  No.  See 36,000lbs max tow rating.

 

The 6.6 gas is the one that got neutered here.  GM even got rid of the 3.73 on 2015-2019 trucks for a reason with the 6.0/6A.  It was the better pairing.  2007-2014 trucks with 3.73 gears on average saw a 3500-4000lbs tow rating loss over the 4.10 trucks.  GM went backwards on the 6.6 with 3.73 and 6A.  Needs either to go back to 4.10 or they just man up and do the 10L90 and leave the 3.73.  I still think that the joint venture had something to do with it that's why Ford got to do the gas with 10 speed HD trucks first.      

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

    • 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...