Jump to content

Silverado may get the i6 twin turbo charge

Silverado4x4
 Share

Recommended Posts

4banger Enthusiast

4banger

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, 1454 said:

Derail how? They are designing now for 2028 and beyond. So by making comments about 2035 being pure EV indicates the brand doesn't want ice anymore. 

 

"GM’s Mary Barra Has a Plan to Win the Electric Vehicle Race - The New York Times" https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/12/business/general-motors-mary-barra-electric-cars.html

 

Personally, I believe it is stupid and cutting off one's nose to spite their face. But this is the new gm. But whatever. I'm not sure what you thought I was getting at, but by the companies public stance, and as I stated, I could be wrong, they don't seem to value ice anymore. 

shoot sorry mate, I had to look up the ice meaning regarding vehicles...

 

well ice vehicles will be required in a lot of this continent for a long long time, when do we see electric vehicles being able to warm up at -35c, drive 500 kms (300 miles) with a spare gerry can style battery or two in the box/trunk to go another 500 km (300 miles) while idling and staying warm for stops at bathrooms and pick up some food/coffee? oh and these power cells need to deliver the same amount of energy as a 5 gallon gerry can with similar size and weight to keep practical, oh and when you get to your remote destination in the cold landscape you need to be able to top the vehicle and the two gerry can cells to full inside a half hour so you can carry on again....when electric vehicles get to that level then maybe they could make sense on this continent, these greedy lunatics have zero sense of reality, it's all for dollars between them and also control, they want your rides connected to the hive so at some point travel can be fully regulated and permissions granted etc.

  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TNTSierra
TNTSierra

GM authority had same article. I say hell no. GMs small blocks get just as good gas mileage as the turbo V6s and doesn’t strain them as much. Have had Fords with Ecoboost in the family. They don’t get

Low Elevation
Low Elevation

How about a twin turbo V8 instead 😂

diyer2
diyer2

I will avoid engines with turbos as long as I can. 

4banger Enthusiast

4banger

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, John813 said:

Turbos and less cylinders is the future for ICE, with some hybrid tech at some point this decade IMO before the full switch to EV. With maybe Chevy maybe going straight to EV skipping the hybrid tech

 

Ford beat everyone to the V6TT party and is one step ahead with the powerboost. 

 

Although through my real world testing there is no real MPG savings between a 5.7L Hemi Wagoneer vs a 3.5L Expedition with close to the same gear ratio (3.21 8 speed Jeep vs 3.31 10 speed ford). 17.3MPG vs 17.6MPG 

 

The only ecoboost full size I saw noticeable MPG improvement from was the 2.7LTT, which is a very good engine. Honestly would have zero complaints using it as a DD. Got over 23mpg driving a 2.7LTT 5 years ago as a 2 month loaner lol. 

 

No doubt in my mind Chevy will release a 3.XLTT engine that will kill off the 5.3L and possibly the 6.2 shortly after in a few years. 

 

Ford still has the 5.0, which has yet to get much R&D compared to the ecoboost in the trucks. 

Seems like Ram has rung the death bells on the 5.7L in the 1500's with the Wagoneer going 3.0LTT in both lineups. 

But the wagoneer MPG barely moved going from the 5.7./6.4 to the equivalent 3.0 engines, but they'll get boatloads of more torque. 

 

 

 

 

good post, agree

 

only 40% of USA pop living around sea level, for the other 60% living above sea level the boost keeps on winning while NA engines efficiency plummets due to 3% power loss every 1000' so boost is the efficiency way forward and while mpg for similar outputs will be similar across the board, power will not and that's harder to show benefit to as a number on paper, the 3.5 turbo vs the hemi comparison...go up in elevation and load either vehicle and while they may suck same gas the turbo will be stronger and stronger as elevation climbs, you get there sooner and with less drama, how to measure that efficiency?, a turbo loses immeasurable power up to 10,000', maybe 1-2 hp & ft/lbs...the non-turbo's are wheezing badly up there and losses in the 90-110 hp & ft/lbs range at 10,000', the NA's lose 40-50 hp & ft/lbs at 4000' where turbos lose 1 of each

 

I wonder what kind of losses one would see in battery life on ev's at -35c and then factor in heating draws required when that cold...double whammy attacking battery power, a/c draws in summer will likely be less than heating draws in winter, at least in our ptac room dorms at work they are 1100w a/c and 2900w heating as an example. Like seriously...no freaking way ev vehicles are going to work during the winters for a ton of this continent! 

TNTSierra Senior Enthusiast

TNTSierra

Posted
Posted

So here is a thought. GM already had the inline 6 Atlas motor over a decade ago in the Trailblazer. It was a 4.2L and produced 291 hp and 277 TQ.  That could possibly be a motor to develop off of.  I had 2 Atlas motors in a 2002 TB and then an 06 TB and they were both very strong and reliable. 

  • Like 2
Gangly Senior Enthusiast

Gangly

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, TNTSilverado said:

So here is a thought. GM already had the inline 6 Atlas motor over a decade ago in the Trailblazer. It was a 4.2L and produced 291 hp and 277 TQ.  That could possibly be a motor to develop off of.  I had 2 Atlas motors in a 2002 TB and then an 06 TB and they were both very strong and reliable. 

GM had a skunk works project with the Atlas 6 platform, specifically their 4.2L where they strapped on 2 turbos , dropped the compression down to 8.5:1, and made 400 HP and 400 TQ.  That was before DI and cylinder deactivation so I would assume they could easily pull more power from that platform now.  The problem with the Atlas motors was their length and engine mounting requirements.  They simply didn't fit in anything but the singular Trailblazer platform.  Absolutely great motor and like you, I would be interested in seeing its transition to a modern platform, but unfortunately I don't think its likely.

Edited by Gangly
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
TNTSierra Senior Enthusiast

TNTSierra

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Gangly said:

GM had a skunk works project with the Atlas 6 platform, specifically their 4.2L where they strapped on 2 turbos , dropped the compression down to 8.5:1, and made 400 HP and 400 TQ.  That was before DI and cylinder deactivation so I would assume they could easily pull more power from that platform now.  The problem with the Atlas motors was their length and engine mounting requirements.  They simply didn't fit in anything but the singular Trailblazer platform.  Absolutely great motor and like you, I would be interested in seeing its transition to a modern platform, but unfortunately I don't think its likely.

Ya. I remember reading an article back in 2005 when GM was developing the SS Trailblazer and they did talk about “throwing turbos” on the inline 6, and it made good power, but they stated in the article they wanted that “robust V8” engine rumble and put in the out going 6.0L  corvette motor. Which I’m glad they did because man I loved the vehicle. Sometimes you look back and say to yourself…..”why did I ever get rid of it”?    If we only knew!!!  

  • Like 1
KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TNTSilverado said:

Ya. I remember reading an article back in 2005 when GM was developing the SS Trailblazer and they did talk about “throwing turbos” on the inline 6, and it made good power, but they stated in the article they wanted that “robust V8” engine rumble and put in the out going 6.0L  corvette motor. Which I’m glad they did because man I loved the vehicle. Sometimes you look back and say to yourself…..”why did I ever get rid of it”?    If we only knew!!!  

I’m with you I had a blast with mine. Our tractor sales went way up because I couldn’t wait to get on the road. On sales calls. 100K miles in two years. 

  • Thanks 1
TNTSierra Senior Enthusiast

TNTSierra

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, KARNUT said:

I’m with you I had a blast with mine. Our tractor sales went way up because I couldn’t wait to get on the road. On sales calls. 100K miles in two years. 

I sold mine with 99k in 2014 for a loaded GMC Acadia.  Loved the ride of the Acadia and needed a more “family hauler” back then. Man I wish I would have just kept it and bought the Acadia out right but wife and I were not financially set like we are now. Sure to miss the SS though.  Man glad u enjoyed yours. 100k in two years is a $h!t ton of miles and smiles!!!  😂🤣😂

  • Like 1
1454 Enthusiast

1454

Posted
Posted
On 6/13/2022 at 12:37 PM, 4banger said:

shoot sorry mate, I had to look up the ice meaning regarding vehicles...

 

well ice vehicles will be required in a lot of this continent for a long long time, when do we see electric vehicles being able to warm up at -35c, drive 500 kms (300 miles) with a spare gerry can style battery or two in the box/trunk to go another 500 km (300 miles) while idling and staying warm for stops at bathrooms and pick up some food/coffee? oh and these power cells need to deliver the same amount of energy as a 5 gallon gerry can with similar size and weight to keep practical, oh and when you get to your remote destination in the cold landscape you need to be able to top the vehicle and the two gerry can cells to full inside a half hour so you can carry on again....when electric vehicles get to that level then maybe they could make sense on this continent, these greedy lunatics have zero sense of reality, it's all for dollars between them and also control, they want your rides connected to the hive so at some point travel can be fully regulated and permissions granted etc.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe the tech is remotely ready for mass market outside of select circumstances. Trucks they definitely aren't ready. But we still seem to be running headlong into poor policy. So, I guess we will see what shakes out in a few years. 

4banger Enthusiast

4banger

Posted
Posted
On 6/16/2022 at 8:23 AM, Gangly said:

GM had a skunk works project with the Atlas 6 platform, specifically their 4.2L where they strapped on 2 turbos , dropped the compression down to 8.5:1, and made 400 HP and 400 TQ.  That was before DI and cylinder deactivation so I would assume they could easily pull more power from that platform now.  The problem with the Atlas motors was their length and engine mounting requirements.  They simply didn't fit in anything but the singular Trailblazer platform.  Absolutely great motor and like you, I would be interested in seeing its transition to a modern platform, but unfortunately I don't think its likely.

 

good to see the inline love, gm can be a little too soon for the public and likely that was the case, I have to think the packaging and design from the get go to be around a turbo in a truck platform that the L3B would be better to start with for a 6 cylinder version, maybe it will fit more vehicles? chances are an inline 5 won't fly after the 3.5 they did (I had one), but reality is they are getting like 77 hp and 120 ft/lbs per cylinder...that would put the L3B up to 3.4 liter displacement and 390 hp and 550 ft/lbs...maybe that's the answer, it would fit in everything that could handle that power likely

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

    • James Beyer
      Trading 7.3 (Godzilla) for G.M.C gas

      By James Beyer · Posted

      Congratulations Isttype, on your gmc. Really like my 2024 2500hd sle doublecab now with 85,500 miles.  I checked the oil today at 4800 miles since last oil change and barely reading on the stick.  I don't care if GM says it's Acceptable adding a quart every 2000 miles because that is 100% BS, It is not a 1966 Harley Shovelhead! Sounds like it's setting up a future failure like I had with my 1500 6.2l. Other than oil consumption problems, I really like the 6.6l gas and 10 speed is really nice.  Towed a light 4000 pound trailer last week and averaged 14 mpg.  I was pretty impressive that a 7300 pound gas truck did 14mpg towing, Later-
    • Grumpy Bear
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Long Term Cold Cycle Limited Testing   Back to the 1990's and XOM's million mile test. Since then there have been others and there will be more. Schaeffer's, AMSOIL to name two. Of these Schaeffer's is the stand alone which I will explain in a bit later.    http://papers.sae.org/600190/:   http://papers.sae.org/850215/:   Up to 75% of  engine wear occurs on cold starts. These two links (above) provide the technical reasons for engine wear. In a nut shell, and by a large margin, cylinder wear is what takes out most motors and even with a pre-oiling system that part of the engine is dry enough on cold starts and cold warm up to pierce Stribeck.   So when you put a motor, or a car, on a dyno for a million miles stopping only for oil changes, (yes fuel is uninterrupted) or break down maintenance, you are depriving the test of the most important part of it's wear cycle. Yes a million is then a pretty easy walk even for a mineral oil under those conditions.    How about cleanliness during the long test cycles? Same thing. Varnishes that stick rings and insulate parts are laid down by repetitive 'heat cycles'. It's the cool down the precipitates the varnishes. These long runs also hinder acidic attack caused by cold start richness and less than optimal cold start ring sealing. They hinder water formation and enhance breathing of the crankcase; the petri dish of acid formation, the first step in sludge formation, amalgamation and precipitation. These motors are also monitored and controlled for water and oil temperatures to within the "normal operating range".      https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-iiih-test.pdf Note the test sequence in some boutique oils literature for testing, API IIIH, is not the standard used for the ILSAC G7 testing. Does that mean it is irrelevant? No, not as used. As used as a 'visual guide' it makes it's point. The G7 weighted piston deposit minimum is lower.      Back to Schaeffer's. That was a cyclical test of an engine in fleet service and not a dyno mule and if you saw the video it was not mirror clean but wear was low.    There are oils like BioSyn and other 'Renewable" source oils that taught cleanliness and have proven themselves in fleet testing. Havoline an other example.    The newest ILSAC G-7 test prioritize cleanliness, LSPI mitigation and fuel economy OVER WEAR. In comparison Porsche C30 Specification Verses ILSAC G-7 Specification below:      Some will balk that this graph isn't apples to apples and I will challenge that in that this graph represent the SPECIFICATION and not the any One Oil Performance.   It is absolutely possible to minimize wear, maximize cleanliness and mitigate LSPI etc., It just isn't cheap and currently I see none that are not walking toward profit over performance.     
    • asilverblazer
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By asilverblazer · Posted

      I don't think you will need a split, separate product, etc., the OBD port should be able to deliver everything you need. Since your device would be plugged into it all the time, it wouldn't miss anything.    Hardware in this case will be the easiest part of your project - ELM 327 devices will already deliver all the data you need. Reporting/software is where your advantage/marketability is.
    • Coastie05
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Coastie05 · Posted

      I do too. I’ll never be stuck again 😂
    • KARNUT
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By KARNUT · Posted

      It has happened to me a few times. I carry a jumpstart-tire inflator with me.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...