Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

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! 

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
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
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
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
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
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. 

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

  • 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...