Jump to content

6.2/6L80/3.73 vs 6.2/8L90 vs ???

tdc5152
 Share

Recommended Posts

Transient Senior Enthusiast

Transient

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, M1ck3y said:

Interesting fact. A lot of people complain about the gearing being so low compared to competitors. But if you pick the correct (Taller tire) for your application you can reduce your 0-60 mph etc.

 

For ex. I put on slightly larger tires changing the axle ratio to 3.19 from 3.23. I know, small change. But enough that it now shift's just after 60mph and the 1/4 mile making better time. A lot of factors in this. But if you're traction limited a taller tire could be the way to go. 

 

That is, if you use trucks for things they weren't intended for 😜

 

And taller tire's cover more ground. Less rpm for distance traveled so.. quicker at higher speeds

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to make this work wouldn't you want to same width tread?  Wouldn't going wider increase fiction with the road, thereby decreasing mpg via making the powertrain work harder to cover the same ground?  I've always wondered about this, but never got a solid answer. 

swathdiver Senior Enthusiast

swathdiver

Posted
Posted
On 10/15/2021 at 7:51 PM, tdc5152 said:

I’m in the market for a 14-18 Silverado or Sierra 1500. Ironically

 

So did you decide on anything yet?  I would be for the 2014 NHT.  Those 8-speeds are a pain.  The 6-speeds ills in the K2 are easily remedied.  One mod is to "flip the pill" to lower the temps which kill them, the other is to replace the torque converter pro-actively with an improved unit.  From 2017 on the transmission's computers are locked and cannot be tuned.

M1ck3y Senior Enthusiast

M1ck3y

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Transient said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to make this work wouldn't you want to same width tread?  Wouldn't going wider increase fiction with the road, thereby decreasing mpg via making the powertrain work harder to cover the same ground?  I've always wondered about this, but never got a solid answer. 

 

Yeah, width is definately one factor of many. End goal is to influence where you are in the powerband at a desired speed or distance to improve e.t Or speed.

 

Depending on the application you may be able to increase just width, or just height. Or quite possibly you might want to go with a smaller tire.

 

I was just mentioning how it worked in my application. I didn't have traction from a dig in 2wd with the oe tires. The extra 5 pounds per tire, friction from a larger contact patch, and slightly reduced gear ratio was just enough to give me traction without greatly affecting power to the ground. And put me in an rpm range that improves et because of a later shift.

 

But I'm actually waiting on some new wheels that are 2lbs lighter. Where that weight is on the wheel could have a big effect.

 

So all of this could potentially go out the window 😋

 

I'm sure Grumpy or someone will be along shortly to correct anything I may have stated incorrectly :idiot:

Transient Senior Enthusiast

Transient

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, M1ck3y said:

 

Yeah, width is definately one factor of many. End goal is to influence where you are in the powerband at a desired speed or distance to improve e.t Or speed.

 

Depending on the application you may be able to increase just width, or just height. Or quite possibly you might want to go with a smaller tire.

 

I was just mentioning how it worked in my application. I didn't have traction from a dig in 2wd with the oe tires. The extra 5 pounds per tire, friction from a larger contact patch, and slightly reduced gear ratio was just enough to give me traction without greatly affecting power to the ground. And put me in an rpm range that improves et because of a later shift.

 

But I'm actually waiting on some new wheels that are 2lbs lighter. Where that weight is on the wheel could have a big effect.

 

So all of this could potentially go out the window 😋

 

I'm sure Grumpy or someone will be along shortly to correct anything I may have stated incorrectly :idiot:

Thanks.  I'm not very knowledgeable about the engineering in all this.  I've often wondered how it all works, among other questions such as how it would affect towing, etc. 

 

Don't worry about Grumpy.  Push any issue far enough with him and you'll have the same honor bestowed upon you that he bestowed upon me.  I'm on his ignore list. 

M1ck3y Senior Enthusiast

M1ck3y

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Transient said:

Thanks.  I'm not very knowledgeable about the engineering in all this.  I've often wondered how it all works, among other questions such as how it would affect towing, etc. 

 

Don't worry about Grumpy.  Push any issue far enough with him and you'll have the same honor bestowed upon you that he bestowed upon me.  I'm on his ignore list. 

 

Oh, by no means do I consider myself knowledgable on this topic. Just something I picked up.

 

Not worried about Grumpy. What I said was meant more as a jk.

 

Grumpy would actually do a great job of explaining this. 

M1ck3y Senior Enthusiast

M1ck3y

Posted
Posted
On 12/11/2021 at 1:52 PM, pokismoki said:

has anyone tried a comparision test between the Ford version of the GM 10 speed?  any difference in their shift tuning vs. GM's?

 

Just the tuning.

Transient Senior Enthusiast

Transient

Posted
Posted
On 12/11/2021 at 12:52 PM, pokismoki said:

has anyone tried a comparision test between the Ford version of the GM 10 speed?  any difference in their shift tuning vs. GM's?

I've had many Raptor owners tell me they hate the 10-speed.  Apparently they thunk shifting into 4th and 7th on the Fords.  No issue to date with my Chevy.  I have 21,4xx miles on the odometer.  I did read an article once that they valving is different for GM and Ford 10-speeds.

shakenfake Senior Enthusiast

shakenfake

Posted
Posted

The only 10-Speed I've seen out of the Fords is from single cabs and those guys love the 10-speed matched with the 5.0

 

I'm actually a little jealous cause those trucks perform stupid good.

Transient Senior Enthusiast

Transient

Posted
Posted
On 12/14/2021 at 6:01 AM, shakenfake said:

The only 10-Speed I've seen out of the Fords is from single cabs and those guys love the 10-speed matched with the 5.0

 

I'm actually a little jealous cause those trucks perform stupid good.

So do ours

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...