Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

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

  • Like 3
Posted
4 minutes ago, 4banger said:

Yes I agree they can handle it but would 600 hp and 8-900 ft/lbs in the half tons survive the durability testing? There wouldn't be a point of the 2500/3500 trucks once you boost the v8's...the engine is a rockstar (minus the dfm stuff) and it can handle the power but can the transmission, driveline, axles, brakes etc? They still need to keep the two segments of half tons and the super duty stuff. And we consumers need the lighter duty better mileage options also.

 

I do see the shift away from NA V8's though and once you boost you don't need that many cylinders anymore so it's going to be 4's and 6's. There will be a need for the base engines and high power engines...just as we've always had but gm is early to the game with one helluva a base engine which looks to make the 5.3 irrelevant so they need a boosted 6 to do the same to the 6.2 and surely it will be coming. Then one good diesel option and you're all set for your half ton motors. The average guy motor, the Tim the toolman Taylor motor for those who eat their wheaties, and the diesel....all of them will be boosted.

 

We have to keep in mind the masses not the enthusiasts in these discussions, plus the durability testing that the manufacturers need things to pass so they know they don't release a dud to market.

The masses are probably rethinking large truck and SUVs purchases with these gas prices. I was driving my 92 Chevy 383 whipple powered 12 mpg truck happily just two years ago. I owned it 12 years just doing maintenance. I’m a lead foot. In contrast I’m mostly driving an CRV. My current 15 mpg Avalanche is currently driven once a month. I’m always going to have a V-8 around. The V-8 sound is a nice antidote to what being forced on us now. A drug I’m unwilling to live without.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, diyer2 said:

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

Well if I hadn't had the experience I did when younger with the early dodge cummins trucks then I would be with you, and in all reality I am with you except that gm basically built a small gas cummins and it could be a game changer.

 

I like things designed to last, and grunt, but not drink like it's at an open bar, and this is the first gas engine to come along that appears to have that formula.

 

It's had 3 years to prove itself and it's done well enough that gm has gone all in as base motor and upped the power rating. Not hearing any flies on it. So if you're forced to go boost one day...gm may have you covered with the best of the options. They already got me covered as that's far more grunt than I need, shouldn't work hard for me and my needs, live at 4000' and pull 3000 lb trailer for fun stuff.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, KARNUT said:

The masses are probably rethinking large truck and SUVs purchases with these gas prices. I was driving my 92 Chevy 383 whipple powered 12 mpg truck happily just two years ago. I owned it 12 years just doing maintenance. I’m a lead foot. In contrast I’m mostly driving an CRV. My current 15 mpg Avalanche is currently driven once a month. I’m always going to have a V-8 around. The V-8 sound is a nice antidote to what being forced on us now. A drug I’m unwilling to live without.

well with more than one vehicle then you can afford those choices, I used to get that drug from v-twin motorbike on the side, when I got my manual gladiator I did intake/exhaust so I could hear/feel shifting etc. and had so much fun again I sold the bike and put in couple thousand watts of boom boom into the jeep as trade off and didn't regret it one minute, that's a unicorn vehicle aside from the dang engine that shat the bed at 78,000 kms (saga ongoing)

 

as a single vehicle only for this single dad so my ride has to be the mini-van, grocery getter, and hunting and fishing vacation machine also, the kids will be driving soon so those will be the cars added to the fleet taking up space on the street, I'll need to remain one vehicle only that has to be as versatile as possible

 

I've been watching, dreaming of a 4bt like power plant that's modern and emissions friendly with all those simple attributes and contemplated building one and dropping into the gladiator but there's just too much involved there and likely wouldn't pass any inspection lol. This gm 2.7t is perfect other than I can't get a manual transmission...I'd about die if I could...absolute dream truck right there with that motor and a stick. Would give me everything I loved about those gen 1 cummins in a modern lightweight efficient clean gas package.

Edited by 4banger
  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, 4banger said:

well with more than one vehicle then you can afford those choices, I used to get that drug from v-twin motorbike on the side, when I got my manual gladiator I did intake/exhaust so I could hear/feel shifting etc. and had so much fun again I sold the bike and put in couple thousand watts of boom boom into the jeep as trade off and didn't regret it one minute, that's a unicorn vehicle aside from the dang engine that shat the bed at 78,000 kms (saga ongoing)

 

as a single vehicle only for this single dad so my ride has to be the mini-van, grocery getter, and hunting and fishing vacation machine also, the kids will be driving soon so those will be the cars added to the fleet taking up space on the street, I'll need to remain one vehicle only that has to be as versatile as possible

 

I've been watching, dreaming of a 4bt like power plant that's modern and emissions friendly with all those simple attributes and contemplated building one and dropping into the gladiator but there's just too much involved there and likely wouldn't pass any inspection lol. This gm 2.7t is perfect other than I can't get a manual transmission...I'd about die if I could...absolute dream truck right there with that motor and a stick. Would give me everything I loved about those gen 1 cummins in a modern lightweight efficient clean gas package.

My wife has two, I have two. The newest is 7 years old. If I only had one it would be the Avalanche 

Posted
13 minutes ago, KARNUT said:

My wife has two, I have two. The newest is 7 years old. If I only had one it would be the Avalanche 

show off 😉

Posted
33 minutes ago, 4banger said:

show off 😉

We just been around awhile accumulating stuff 

Posted
8 hours ago, 4banger said:

Well if I hadn't had the experience I did when younger with the early dodge cummins trucks then I would be with you, and in all reality I am with you except that gm basically built a small gas cummins and it could be a game changer.

 

I like things designed to last, and grunt, but not drink like it's at an open bar, and this is the first gas engine to come along that appears to have that formula.

 

It's had 3 years to prove itself and it's done well enough that gm has gone all in as base motor and upped the power rating. Not hearing any flies on it. So if you're forced to go boost one day...gm may have you covered with the best of the options. They already got me covered as that's far more grunt than I need, shouldn't work hard for me and my needs, live at 4000' and pull 3000 lb trailer for fun stuff.

I say this acknowledging I may be 100% wrong, but I have a hard time seeing the gas engine last in a gm vehicle past 2030 outside of super duties. I say this because if they were committed to the tech, they would have, imo, retried hybrid first before all ev. I think even Mary has stated much. Heck, Ford has a full hybrid and dodge has a mild hybrid. Again, I could be completely wrong. It just reads to me, given some of the comments they have made publicly, ice is dead. 

  • Like 1
Posted
15 hours ago, 1454 said:

I say this acknowledging I may be 100% wrong, but I have a hard time seeing the gas engine last in a gm vehicle past 2030 outside of super duties. I say this because if they were committed to the tech, they would have, imo, retried hybrid first before all ev. I think even Mary has stated much. Heck, Ford has a full hybrid and dodge has a mild hybrid. Again, I could be completely wrong. It just reads to me, given some of the comments they have made publicly, ice is dead. 

ooh, this looks like it could be a dandy derail, who's Mary and who said publicly what? and ice is dead? Is that meant to reference global warming?

 

I'm down if you are...gas and diesel are here to stay, especially in 4wd things that go remote and once we get over the lies on climate and 'Dino juice' it will be easy to see, most of these 'new directions' are manufactured so certain pals can make more money, they get all the patents lined up years in advance and get the contracts ready to pass around to their pals and then create the narrative to start the money train, free electricity will be coming since it's all around us and has been tried to offer to us before but the money hungry wouldn't let happen and for a bulk of transport it will be used but the 4wd peeps who get far away from civilizations we will still always have gas, at least until they can squeeze an equal amount of energy into a battery for similar size and weight to gas in a gerry can then maybe we can get away from the second most common constantly regenerating fluid found on earth(oil), I say this acknowledging that everything we once thought to be true may 100% be wrong as we watch the veil of this grand scale deception being lifted on the daily, but really lifted the past 2 1/2 years. 😉

 

committed to the tech? 33 years ago a 5.9 liter cummins did 160 hp and 400 ft/lbs torque and was, still is, one of the most desirable engines, the new gm 2.7 liter does 310 hp and 430 ft/lbs, the first one a 1200 lb motor so had to be in 3/4 & 1 tons..the 2.7 is about 375 lbs and can fit in half tons and mid-size trucks and even cars...sounds pretty committed to tech to me, makes a lot more sense when we know the truth about oil, not Rockefeller's made up narrative about it

  • Like 1
Posted
8 hours ago, 4banger said:

ooh, this looks like it could be a dandy derail, who's Mary and who said publicly what? and ice is dead? Is that meant to reference global warming?

 

I'm down if you are...gas and diesel are here to stay, especially in 4wd things that go remote and once we get over the lies on climate and 'Dino juice' it will be easy to see, most of these 'new directions' are manufactured so certain pals can make more money, they get all the patents lined up years in advance and get the contracts ready to pass around to their pals and then create the narrative to start the money train, free electricity will be coming since it's all around us and has been tried to offer to us before but the money hungry wouldn't let happen and for a bulk of transport it will be used but the 4wd peeps who get far away from civilizations we will still always have gas, at least until they can squeeze an equal amount of energy into a battery for similar size and weight to gas in a gerry can then maybe we can get away from the second most common constantly regenerating fluid found on earth(oil), I say this acknowledging that everything we once thought to be true may 100% be wrong as we watch the veil of this grand scale deception being lifted on the daily, but really lifted the past 2 1/2 years. 😉

 

committed to the tech? 33 years ago a 5.9 liter cummins did 160 hp and 400 ft/lbs torque and was, still is, one of the most desirable engines, the new gm 2.7 liter does 310 hp and 430 ft/lbs, the first one a 1200 lb motor so had to be in 3/4 & 1 tons..the 2.7 is about 375 lbs and can fit in half tons and mid-size trucks and even cars...sounds pretty committed to tech to me, makes a lot more sense when we know the truth about oil, not Rockefeller's made up narrative about it

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. 

Posted

Not making excuses for GM since they were heading down this path for years before. But now they are really getting their arm twisted by these ridiculous new CAFE standards, and of course the fuel prices under the Brandon admin.
 

The plan has always been EV, by force. And if the public still rejects them, I predict government bailouts for GM, and a golden parachute for Mary Barra.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Posted

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. 

 

 

 

 

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, OnTheReel said:

Not making excuses for GM since they were heading down this path for years before. But now they are really getting their arm twisted by these ridiculous new CAFE standards, and of course the fuel prices under the Brandon admin.
 

The plan has always been EV, by force. And if the public still rejects them, I predict government bailouts for GM, and a golden parachute for Mary Barra.

 

 

Its a form of Cash for Clunkers 2.0 with this EV push at the expense of the people as usual (gas prices).  I'm all for EVs existing, but its being done all wrong and too fast.  There needs to be a coexisting period of new ICE and EV to ensure that the rest of the US infrastucture can be rebuilt to handle mass EV charging.  People keep saying "charge at night when the grid is low!".  That's great, until the grid can't handle that even.  

 

At the rate the automakers are going, there will be shortcuts made on battery packs, motors and other controlling electronics, with recalls and possibly worse to follow.  The Ultium tech that GM JUST launched already has a Gen 2 that's not far behind it.  

Edited by newdude
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
50 minutes 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. 

 

 

 

 

The Powerboost was a great move on Ford's part.  I watched a couple of TFL's videos on it as Andre has an F150 Powerboost.  

 

To be fair on the Jeep, the Grand Wagoneer is 6400-6500lbs, not exactly light.  They went from 13mpg city to 14mpg city, 18mpg to 20mpg highway and from 15mpg combined to 17mpg combined, and those ratings are with the HO 3.0TT so 500hp.  When viewed that way, the "small" gains are of a descent size considering its heft and the big power bump.  

 

For whatever reason Stellantis/FCA seems to not use alot of composites or aluminum?  If they can only step up their weight loss game, it would help them immensely with fuel economy.  

  • Like 1
Posted
On 6/11/2022 at 11:00 AM, KARNUT said:

My wife has two, I have two. The newest is 7 years old. If I only had one it would be the Avalanche 

Same here, my EXT is by far the most comfortable ride.  That generation of truck rides well and has a very comfortable interior.

  • Like 1

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

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • 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. 
    • 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.  
    • Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • 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.  
    • 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...