Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
12 hours ago, Stand By said:

I have a different experience. I tow similar to you. 5000lb boat, dru weight+trailer,fuel and gear pushing towards 10,000. Night and day from my previous 5.3 4 door. Empty, the 5.3 gets better around town. On the freeway, they're comparable, except the  6.6 HD is way more stable and accelerating to pass at speed limit+ is much quicker in the 6.6. It is doggish getting out of the hole, due to being torque sensing and not giving full torque without a load behind it. 

 

Yeah I was never a fan of the 5.3  had an 07 and 14,  moved onto Ford and Ram after those and which had better motors.  While there is some lag I feel, the 6.6 seems strong out the whole,  really just mid range sucks bad on the truck.  I expected sub par towing experience when towing compared to the duramax, but sort of disappointed in all around performance while not towing.  Definitely not as quick and nimble without a load as half ton unloaded.  

Posted

It would be great to see an actual dyno chart on power at the wheels.  What GM shows for the engine power output and how the truck feels in the real world, are two different things.  Maybe its a drive-train package/programming situation.  If I give the truck a good swift kick in the gas... pedal, it will perform.  Kind of reminds me of a lazy horse.

On the other hand, if that is what it takes to get good fuel mileage, I won't complain.  Gas prices are killing us.

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, sheath said:

It would be great to see an actual dyno chart on power at the wheels.  What GM shows for the engine power output and how the truck feels in the real world, are two different things.  Maybe its a drive-train package/programming situation.  If I give the truck a good swift kick in the gas... pedal, it will perform.  Kind of reminds me of a lazy horse.

On the other hand, if that is what it takes to get good fuel mileage, I won't complain.  Gas prices are killing us.

 

Here you go

 

https://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/topic/228184-2020-66l-gasser-dyno-pull/

Edited by vucelick
Accuracy
  • Thanks 1
Posted
1 hour ago, sheath said:

It would be great to see an actual dyno chart on power at the wheels.  What GM shows for the engine power output and how the truck feels in the real world, are two different things.  Maybe its a drive-train package/programming situation.  If I give the truck a good swift kick in the gas... pedal, it will perform.  Kind of reminds me of a lazy horse.

On the other hand, if that is what it takes to get good fuel mileage, I won't complain.  Gas prices are killing us.

What gets me is the 6.6 is has a minimal advantage over the 5.3 in hp and torque numbers.   I get the 6.6 is more HD with the iron block and all but that motor shoud be pushing 450 plus along with the torque.

Posted
6 hours ago, nards444 said:

What gets me is the 6.6 is has a minimal advantage over the 5.3 in hp and torque numbers.   I get the 6.6 is more HD with the iron block and all but that motor shoud be pushing 450 plus along with the torque.

The motor is suppose to be torque sensing, so hopefully when you truly need the power, it will compensate. Either way, the components are heavy duty, as well as the overall truck. Pulling my boat with the 5.3, I was reminded frequently it was back there. With the HD, it was more of an obtw.

Posted
7 hours ago, Stand By said:

The motor is suppose to be torque sensing, so hopefully when you truly need the power, it will compensate. Either way, the components are heavy duty, as well as the overall truck. Pulling my boat with the 5.3, I was reminded frequently it was back there. With the HD, it was more of an obtw.

 

No i get it.  But the stability portion has more to do with 3/4 1 ton frame rather than the motor.  Put the 5.3 in the HD truck short of longevity you probably wouldnt notice a large difference motor wise.  

 

These engines probably have the capability and should be pushing 450-500hp with 500-550 torque

Posted
16 hours ago, nards444 said:

What gets me is the 6.6 is has a minimal advantage over the 5.3 in hp and torque numbers.   I get the 6.6 is more HD with the iron block and all but that motor shoud be pushing 450 plus along with the torque.

There is a pretty significant difference between those two engines imo

Posted
21 hours ago, vucelick said:

 

Thanks for posting this!  I'm pleasantly surprised by that graph. 

The truck doesn't feel like the chart shows (very similar curve to the GM chart).  Which lends to what @Stand By mentioned regarding "torque sensing". 

It is also very probable that I'm gauging this engines power against my last truck which was a diesel (5.9L Dodge).  That is not in anyway a fair thing to do on my part.  

I really do like this truck.

Posted
4 hours ago, Pryme said:

There is a pretty significant difference between those two engines imo

 

No I get that.  But doubt you notice the difference on the average given the performance specs for both.   50hp more isnt doing much 

Posted
5 hours ago, nards444 said:

 

No I get that.  But doubt you notice the difference on the average given the performance specs for both.   50hp more isnt doing much 

Hp doesn’t mean as much as torque and there is way more torque with a better curve and better gearing to utilize that power better. 

  • Like 1
Posted
On 9/23/2022 at 5:16 PM, Pryme said:

Hp doesn’t mean as much as torque and there is way more torque with a better curve and better gearing to utilize that power better. 

For sure,  but your talking minimal numbers here.  And if you look at the dyno numbers of the 5.3 vs 6.6 they are very close.  At 2500 the numbers are identical and at 4k-4500rpm the 6.6 is minimally better by 30-40 ft lbs.

 

Again not going to argue longevity between the two, but I can promise you will not notice the difference between the two in practical applications.  

 

Only GM puts a motor in a truck that has less juice then the dodge 6.4 that has been out for 7-8 years and the ford 7.3 tremor.  Then again GM is usually playing catch up

 

Only hope in the 24 model, GM mates the 6.6 with the ten speed and programs the motor to put out more power, which would probably make the power pack satisfactory or better in class, which as of now its not. 

Posted
2 hours ago, nards444 said:

For sure,  but your talking minimal numbers here.  And if you look at the dyno numbers of the 5.3 vs 6.6 they are very close.  At 2500 the numbers are identical and at 4k-4500rpm the 6.6 is minimally better by 30-40 ft lbs.

 

Again not going to argue longevity between the two, but I can promise you will not notice the difference between the two in practical applications.  

 

Only GM puts a motor in a truck that has less juice then the dodge 6.4 that has been out for 7-8 years and the ford 7.3 tremor.  Then again GM is usually playing catch up

 

Only hope in the 24 model, GM mates the 6.6 with the ten speed and programs the motor to put out more power, which would probably make the power pack satisfactory or better in class, which as of now its not. 

They already announced it will have the 10spd

Posted

The 6.6 is essentially a beefed up, but detuned version of the 6.2. 6.2 being one of the best recent engines introduced. But if you want better numbers than the other guys, you could go this route. https://www.enginebuildermag.com/2021/01/gms-6-6l-lt-iron-block/

 

Without researching the 6.4 or 7.3 for longevity myself, I'm inclined against the 6.4 at least. The 6.6 suits my needs, and has a lot o new features to preserve it long term, hopefully. 

Posted
On 9/28/2022 at 11:02 PM, Stand By said:

The 6.6 is essentially a beefed up, but detuned version of the 6.2. 6.2 being one of the best recent engines introduced. But if you want better numbers than the other guys, you could go this route. https://www.enginebuildermag.com/2021/01/gms-6-6l-lt-iron-block/

 

Without researching the 6.4 or 7.3 for longevity myself, I'm inclined against the 6.4 at least. The 6.6 suits my needs, and has a lot o new features to preserve it long term, hopefully. 

 

6.4 is a really good motor,  been out for 8 years now.  But has aluminum parts and coated rods and such.  

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    342,758
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Randy Ginoza
    Newest Member
    Randy Ginoza
    Joined
  • Who's Online   3 Members, 1 Anonymous, 1,532 Guests (See full list)


  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • I thought I would use your thread and add to it as I just did my first longer drive with my truck in the last couple of days. I drove from the Grande Prairie area of Alberta down to Edmonton and most of where I drove in the city was the ring road so fairly free flowing but a bit of stop and go as well in the city. Stayed the night and returned home and not too many stops along the way each way but every restart and certainly every cold start sets it back for fuel mileage. Why I say that is I see some people will cherry pick a fuel mileage leg after the vehicle had been warmed up driveline wise before hand and its a forgiving ( easy rolling drive leg for example ) and call that their fuel mileage which can give a false perception of reality. I was not heavily loaded at all but never the less the flip bak cover, rubber bed mat, various tools etc and extra jerry cans of fuel all way up to a few hundred pounds of dead weight so its not an empty truck. The cold inflation tire pressures are set more near the freezing point so once they are warmed up driving I was showing 45 front and over 40 rear and realize high inflation pressures would help a little in fuel mileage but certainly not the ride on our crap sections of highway. The weather was good so was not raining as that can really drag mileage down, in fact I had a bit of a tail wind on average driving home. Most people on here would never have driven on that freeway to visualize it but its got a fair bit of rolling type of landscape with numerous river valleys. For the most part I had it on cruise set to 62 although kicking it off if I caught it in time before it started down shifting and self braking going down the grades. Most of the more substantial grades its shifting into 7th I believe as 8th just doesn't have it. Total distance round trip was 643 miles and my overall average and I did refuel three times in all, figured out to 17.65 miles per US gallon. My best fuel mileage section refuel within all of this figured out to 18.46 and these are all hand calculated figures. I find if anything that the trucks computer can be over optimistic, sometimes its pretty close but other times its stretching it. On paper persay in theory the truck would have just about made it on fumes for that whole drive without refueling once.    Which made me think of the topic thread of the wonder if these trucks could do 20 mpg and that is a good question, certainly would have to be on an easy going flat highway, no head wind, the right temperature, not packing around a bunch of dead weight and puttering along even slower than I was I would suspect and going steady and not stopping to smell the flowers or take a piss !. It probably is possible but not without effort to attain that with the wind resistance and weight of these trucks. Of course on my drive most people are passing me if they have the power as per loaded highway tractors, never mind a lot of speedy vehicles but the speed limit is 68 and most are at or well over that. 
    • Monday looks like a good day for the dealer to test an ac issue. Hopefully it all turns out good.
    • Paid $2.72 for E85 today.
    • Welcome back! No, it definitely doesn't pass the sniff test. Even "ceasefire" needs an alternative definition these days.    $5.29 at Kroger today
    • That makes sense, and I think you are describing the real product problem. Capturing data is the easy part. If the owner or technician has to manually dig through five minutes of millisecond-level logs, the product has already failed. The device would be at the ECM harness, not at the OBD port, so I agree that data retrieval and event marking need to be thought through carefully. The way I am thinking about the architecture is: The recorder itself should not depend on a phone, app, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or cloud connection to capture the event. It should always keep a local rolling buffer and lock the event locally. A button, phone app, or small cabin device would only act as an event marker. If the driver feels a stumble and presses the button 10–30 seconds later, the pre-buffer has to already contain the useful data. For data retrieval, the practical options would be a sealed service USB lead, Wi-Fi download, or a phone/cabin companion device. I would not expect the owner to remove the ECM-side module or work with raw files directly. The cloud or AI side would be for interpretation, not for capturing the event. The truck may have no connection when the issue happens, so the evidence has to be saved locally first. After that, cloud processing could help decode the data, compare it against baselines, and generate a readable report. For the first version, I would keep the automatic triggers conservative and objective: driver event marker bus-off error passive voltage drop / brownout device reset FIFO or queue overflow a normally periodic message disappearing side-to-side communication mismatch, if the topology supports that For “learning normal,” I agree with your point, but I would not want to overclaim it as automatic root-cause diagnosis at first. A realistic first step would be learned baseline comparison for that specific vehicle and operating condition. For example, a value would only be compared against similar conditions: RPM range load / MAP throttle position gear / vehicle speed coolant and oil temperature battery voltage AFM/DFM state, if decoded and validated Then the report could flag things like: this periodic message disappeared compared with its normal timing this value deviated from this vehicle’s normal range under similar conditions the same abnormal pattern repeated after the same type of event the anomaly occurred together with voltage, oil-pressure, misfire, or communication changes But I would still call that “abnormal pattern detected,” not “replace this part,” unless there is enough validated repair data behind it. So the intended product would not be “here is a huge log.” It would need to be an event package: what triggered the capture how much pre/post data was preserved what changed before and after the event whether the device itself reset, overflowed, or saw a bus error selected graphs around the event raw data only as supporting evidence From your perspective, what would make this kind of report useful instead of just another datalog? For example: What are the top 5 parameters or events you would want highlighted first? Would you trust a learned baseline for that specific vehicle, or would you prefer fixed thresholds? How much false-positive flagging would be acceptable before you stopped looking at the reports? What would a one-page report need to show for an independent shop to take it seriously? For misfire, AFM/DFM, oil pressure, or U-code complaints, what would you want the tool to flag automatically?
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...