Jump to content

PHEV

Elpresidente
 Share

Recommended Posts

Elpresidente Enthusiast

Elpresidente

Posted
Posted (edited)

What are everyone’s thoughts on what engine and kWh battery size they will use for the PHEV 1500 pickup.

 

2.7L makes sense as its the smallest and lightest.  As well it can be used in the Colorado platform and others. 

 

3.0 diesel would be the most efficient pickup in the world.  This is truly what i hope is happening.  This way it can be cross shared with the tahoe, yukon, escalade.

 

6.2L could share the corvette erays parts?

 

what are your thoughts?

Edited by Elpresidente
More thoughts
  • Like 1
  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Elpresidente
Elpresidente

What are everyone’s thoughts on what engine and kWh battery size they will use for the PHEV 1500 pickup.   2.7L makes sense as its the smallest and lightest.  As well it can be used in the C

newdude
newdude

My thoughts are it will be rushed and full of quality control issues.   That said...   It will probably be a 5.3 just like the last one was, the Silverado/Sierra eAssist.    

Elpresidente
Elpresidente

No one knows any details yet.  I have looked online and the link seems like the most informed thing out there.   These are going to be normal body on frame trucks with a battery.  

Posted Images

newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted (edited)

My thoughts are it will be rushed and full of quality control issues.

 

That said...

 

It will probably be a 5.3 just like the last one was, the Silverado/Sierra eAssist.  

 

2.7 would be pretty cool though as before you even add electric power the engine already puts out 430 ft.lbs torque.  And like you said, lightest engine choice which makes for a light truck to start with.  

Edited by newdude
  • Sad 1
Elpresidente Enthusiast

Elpresidente

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This will be a phev.  And the least beneficial engine to invest in is the 5.3.

 

i want it to be the diesel.  But the 2.7L will work in the colarado.  And probably other platforms eventually.

  • 6 months later...
revrnd Senior Enthusiast

revrnd

Posted
Posted

Maybe pull out the design for the hybrid GMT900...

 

I was a tool & diemaker at the Oshawa Truck Plant & we had just completed adding tooling in the Body Shop for the hybrid program when the 'brain trust' (I use that term very loosely) decided to shut us down. That was in 2008. Since then Mary Barracuda has been on a crusade to convert GM to an EV producer building product nobody wants. 

 

Has nobody thought of producing a hybrid in the ensuing 16 years?

Elpresidente Enthusiast

Elpresidente

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

https://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gmc/sierra/2027-gmc-sierra/
 

they are building phevs half tons.

 

what i want and not sure if it will get built is a 2500 with a 6.6L gas with a PHEV battery.

 

we know we will get the 1500s. And probably only with the 4 cyclinder.  I hope with the 3.0L diesel.  But it wouls probably end up with a pickup with only a 1000 lbs of payload.  Not much more than a sedan.

Edited by Elpresidente
revrnd Senior Enthusiast

revrnd

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Elpresidente said:

https://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gmc/sierra/2027-gmc-sierra/
 

they are building phevs half tons.

 

what i want and not sure if it will get built is a 2500 with a 6.6L gas with a PHEV battery.

 

we know we will get the 1500s. And probably only with the 4 cyclinder.  I hope with the 3.0L diesel.  But it wouls probably end up with a pickup with only a 1000 lbs of payload.  Not much more than a sedan.

 

When I first saw pics of the production Silverado EV, it reminded me of the Avalanche. This week my nephew messaged me saying he'd seen one, 'It looks like an Avalanche...'.

 

Does it have a frame or is it unibody? When the concept drawings came out I said to a friend, 'I bet this is what is going to become of the 1/2 ton market, glorified grocery getters that wont have a box big enough to carry an ATV or pull a PWC on a trailer'. Sucks for those that use a half ton as a truck, but don't need a 3/4 ton.

Edited by revrnd
Elpresidente Enthusiast

Elpresidente

Posted
  • Author
Posted
28 minutes ago, revrnd said:

 

When I first saw pics of the production Silverado EV, it reminded me of the Avalanche. This week my nephew messaged me saying he'd seen one, 'It looks like an Avalanche...'.

 

Does it have a frame or is it unibody? When the concept drawings came out I said to a friend, 'I bet this is what is going to become of the 1/2 ton market, glorified grocery getters that wont have a box big enough to carry an ATV or pull a PWC on a trailer'. Sucks for those that use a half ton as a truck, but don't need a 3/4 ton.

No one knows any details yet.  I have looked online and the link seems like the most informed thing out there.

 

These are going to be normal body on frame trucks with a battery.

 

On your other topic yes the GMC EV vs the Chevy EV truck looks better; there is less avalanche "butress" angle or material.

  • Like 1
revrnd Senior Enthusiast

revrnd

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Elpresidente said:

No one knows any details yet.  I have looked online and the link seems like the most informed thing out there.

 

These are going to be normal body on frame trucks with a battery.

 

On your other topic yes the GMC EV vs the Chevy EV truck looks better; there is less avalanche "butress" angle or material.

The only Sierra EV I've seen was on a car hauler going the opposite way on I'75 south of Detroit earlier this month. I just noticed the GMC on the 'grille' panel.

  • 1 month later...
alexshafi1330 New Member

alexshafi1330

Posted
Posted
On 2/26/2024 at 7:13 PM, Elpresidente said:

What are everyone’s thoughts on what engine and kWh battery size they will use for the PHEV 1500 pickup.

 

2.7L makes sense as its the smallest and lightest.  As well it can be used in the Colorado platform and others. 

 

3.0 diesel would be the most efficient pickup in the world.  This is truly what i hope is happening.  This way it can be cross shared with the tahoe, yukon, escalade.

 

6.2L could share the corvette erays parts?

 

what are your thoughts?

Great points! The 2.7L would certainly help in keeping the weight off and add flexibility in the applications the car would be used in. As for the 3.0 diesel, I can still understand it for efficiency, especially if it could piggy back on some parts from the Tahoe and Escalade—it could do so much while consuming as little fuel as possible.

In respect to the 6.2L application of parts from the Corvette E-Ray could offer some nice performance characteristics to the PHEV 1500. I wonder how they manage to share power and range in that configuration thou. All in all, it seems that both efficiency and sheer performance is set to become important prerequisites for the development of PHEV market in the future. Hope to see what they come up with!

Elpresidente Enthusiast

Elpresidente

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

With the ram ev/procharger and scout ev extender specs out.  
 

The 1500 will be like a 1500 hd from years ago.

 

For sure it will have the heavy duty springs with a battery option.  These trucks above are more of a 2500 by default.  It might be necessary to comply with emissions laws; to be a heavier class by spec but still sold a a light duty truck.

Edited by Elpresidente
revrnd Senior Enthusiast

revrnd

Posted
Posted

Has any of the tech from the GMT900 hybrids been retained from 2009? 

Elpresidente Enthusiast

Elpresidente

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Not a member of the auto industry but almost absolutely no.  
 

it was not a successful high volume product.  No one would be producing replacement parts except in rare batches to have just enough replacement parts in stock for repairs.  If anyone makes it.

 

as well the technology has important so much in 15 years not worth it.

 

one thing GM is good at is power train engineering.  I really bet the product in the pipeline is going to be best of breed.  They have kept completely silent about it except they are investing in it.  Therefore one can assume/infer that when announced to the marketplace it will be a marketing buzz.  They know it will generate excitement.

 

2 more years.  Already been waiting for this for 2 or 3 :)

 

 

revrnd Senior Enthusiast

revrnd

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Elpresidente said:

Not a member of the auto industry but almost absolutely no.  
 

it was not a successful high volume product.  No one would be producing replacement parts except in rare batches to have just enough replacement parts in stock for repairs.  If anyone makes it.

 

as well the technology has important so much in 15 years not worth it.

 

one thing GM is good at is power train engineering.  I really bet the product in the pipeline is going to be best of breed.  They have kept completely silent about it except they are investing in it.  Therefore one can assume/infer that when announced to the marketplace it will be a marketing buzz.  They know it will generate excitement.

 

2 more years.  Already been waiting for this for 2 or 3 :)

 

 

Then again you had a certain CEO w/ a singular EV mindset, while other automakers WERE developing & selling PHEVs.

Edited by revrnd
  • 2 weeks later...
revrnd Senior Enthusiast

revrnd

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, jamesmary12 said:

 

In my view, the project might feel rushed and could face some quality control challenges.

That said, it’s likely to feature the 5.3L engine, similar to the previous Silverado/Sierra eAssist.

The 2.7L option would be an exciting choice, though. Even before adding electric power, this engine delivers an impressive 430 ft-lbs of torque. Its lighter weight also makes for a more agile truck, which could be a strong selling point.

I actually saw 1 of the old Tahoe hybrids the other day...

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,914
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    AidenVorpagel
    Newest Member
    AidenVorpagel
    Joined

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 1,213 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Sugar Bears 2015 GMC Terrain SLE-2 2.4 AWD

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      286,740 Mile Services   8/6/2026   New AC Compressor. Refrigerant oil and dye, evacuate and charge system.  New exhaust system from cat back.  New Iridium plugs plus replace #3 coil Repair/rewire headlamp wiring (passenger side) and replace all forward bulbs. Polish lenses of both assemblies.  Pull rear rotors, clean and adjust parking assembly. Inspect, clean and grease front calipers. Check pads and shoes.  4 wheel power bleed of brake system. Dot 4 Reset idle speed 50 rpm higher New Serpentine belt.    Will need new pads in the rear in about 5K more miles.    Tax Title and License out the door just short of a grand.    AC clutch had bitten the dust. 1 year warranty on the pick and save replacement. Thing will make a Polar Bear cry Uncle.  He spent quite some time on the wiring. It was in the harness and he does nothing half. I got off cheap. I have considerable more light down the road. Sylvania Silver Star replacements.  Gas seal between the porcelain and shell of plug #3 was blown, cooked the coil. That was the cold miss.  Love the new exhaust. I can sneak into the neighborhood again.  Nice to have a working parking brake again. Belle Tire never got it done. That was disappointing.    This was one of her bigger bills and still way cheaper than a payment even given the oil consumption. This thing cost me under a hundred a month in repairs and normal routine costs. What is my incentive to replace it? 🤔           
    • 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. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...