Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Been thinking about this a 5.3L with a PHEV battery would be an okay option.  Its just GMC has low Gwvr.
 

 

My 2020 AT4 6.2L only has 1398lbs pounds

of payload.  Chevy/GMC with a 2.7L could save 300lbs about the mass of a 25kwh battery aka 40 miles electric range.  They would have to increase the gwvr to 7500 pounds to add probably the other couple hundred pounds of electric motor, regen equipment, inverters, computers, wiring etc.

 

i get 14mpg.  With a 2.7L one would probably only on the above 500+ lbs get 16 to 17mpg (realistic). With regen add 45% lets say 24mpg rounding up with recouped electricity.  With alot of short trips this would be about 50% EV and 50% gas for me; as the solar panels are making free electricity.  As well could buy 87 instead of 91.  So my price for fuel would end up being 25% to 33% now.

 

it sure doesn’t make sense adding a out a $400 a month new vechicle payment; probably the difference between this current paid off truck and a new one to save $100 in fuel.

 

but excited about the PHEVs.  This is really the only forum thread out there.

 

Ford has higher GVWR ratings on its f150 i think they were like 7800 a couple years back with the high payload option.  Give the PHEV a dynamic suspension option.   It will all work out.

Edited by Elpresidente
  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

Some other people are finally talking about this topic.  Is it looking like it will now be 2 more years until we have the product I want :)

 

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2024/11/2027-silverado-sierra-engines-what-will-the-powerplant-lineup-look-like/

 

There are good set of comments talking about this same topic at the bottom of this link.

 

I have come around.  Done a couple months of youtube reviews on the 2.7L and I think I like it.  I mean I love my current 6.2L although with supporting a family of 5 the 2.7L PHEV option would be a great option.

We have solar panels, and enough electricity for about 18,000 miles per year on a VW ID4/Chevy Blazer sized SUV.  So really looking forward to this PHEV option.  I think the 2.7L is probably the only platform that will allow PHEV option, one needs the weight savings or your not going to have any payload in a 1500.

Additionally hoping they drop this 2.7L PHEV in a Suburban as well.  With 5 people in the family as of next year; want to buy an 7 seater as we always end up driving multiple vehicles. Chevy for 2025 is dropping the current 2.7L in the Suburban for China, so there is a good chance in the next release the US will get it as well.  I know its going backwards from an EV to a PHEV; but if I get 2 PHEV then we can use the electricity from the solar panels wisely.

 

Been reviewing the 3.0L diesel; didnt know the Chevy required "Top Tier" Diesel; and it is no where near me; 60 miles away is the closest.  By the time one buys DEF, and then fuel lubricant for each tank; plus the higher maintenance costs and the exhaust system risks.  Its just not worth it.

I usually consider myself open minded; I really wanted the 3.0 Diesel when I bought my truck just it was brand new and didnt want to take the chance.  the 6.2L is amazing to drive but I have gotten 14.0 -> 14.5mpg over 50K miles; and it uses 91.  In California its just to much $ per mile.

 

Come on GM.  Tell us a little about the future!
 

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Elpresidente said:

I have come around.  Done a couple months of youtube reviews on the 2.7L and I think I like it.  I mean I love my current 6.2L although with supporting a family of 5 the 2.7L PHEV option would be a great option.

Been reviewing the 3.0L diesel; didnt know the Chevy required "Top Tier" Diesel; and it is no where near me; 60 miles away is the closest.  By the time one buys DEF, and then fuel lubricant for each tank; plus the higher maintenance costs and the exhaust system risks.  Its just not worth it.

I usually consider myself open minded; I really wanted the 3.0 Diesel when I bought my truck just it was brand new and didnt want to take the chance.  the 6.2L is amazing to drive but I have gotten 14.0 -> 14.5mpg over 50K miles; and it uses 91.  In California its just to much $ per mile.

 

Come on GM.  Tell us a little about the future!
 

 

 

 

GM has always for years now recommended Top Tier fuels.  They are not a requirement.  Gas and diesel.  Shouldn't have let that impede your purchase decision.

 

I think the 2.7 makes the most sense to hybridize or PHEV.  Its light, makes V8 horsepower and diesel torque, with a nice electric motor strapped in with it?  Would be a rocket ship. 

 

Knowing GM though, they'll probably 5.3 it like 2 of the 3 hybrid trucks they did.  

Edited by newdude
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

3.0 is the mileage king.

I had a 5.3 NHT and 6.2 that both got 19-20

Life of vehicle, one is in the 29's

image.png.38b7cb6b007f8e5f4eda3a203c5cbdd5.png

  • 1 month later...
Posted

Have gone back and read the press releases a couple times about the investment in the 6th gen V8 and the phev drivetrain.

 

it sounds like they will hybridize a v8.  Just wondered how other read it.

 

anouncements is the 6th gen will get about a 6% fuel efficiency gain which is really not very much probably 1 mpg combined.

 

true hybrid with regen brake and a electric motor assist will increase by 45% the mpg.

 

gm get this right.  I dont want to buy a RAM.  But free fuel for 7 years or 80% from my solar panels will make the difference 

Posted

I think the best solution is...

The EV Silverado is not the same truck as the ICE Silverado. It should be. Just like how Ford converted the lightning. They should have taken the ultium battery packs and squeezed them in around the frame rails. Throw the front and rear drive motors in and call it a day. That storage compartment at the front? Totally encapsulated prepackaged range extender. It doesn't matter what it is use the 1.2l 3 cylinder. All it does is sit up there and hum away at fixed RPM recharging the batteries, when the grid, regenerative braking, etc. isn't recharging them. The ultium battery pack that is so big and heavy - halve it. 100 miles of chargeless range is fine. Especially, if I know that my little generators is going to pick up the slack. The generator is going to re-use all the refueling infrastructure in place too. Waiting at a charger for hours, nope, re fuel the generator in 15 minutes and go on. The generator will never directly power the wheels, its power output can be minscule. You never need all 400+ hp of any engine all the time now. Coasting, idling, cruising, parked - it recharges batteries; as long as it can keep the batteries from fully depleting.

 

 

Posted
10 minutes ago, asilverblazer said:

I think the best solution is...

The EV Silverado is not the same truck as the ICE Silverado. It should be. Just like how Ford converted the lightning. They should have taken the ultium battery packs and squeezed them in around the frame rails. Throw the front and rear drive motors in and call it a day. That storage compartment at the front? Totally encapsulated prepackaged range extender. It doesn't matter what it is use the 1.2l 3 cylinder. All it does is sit up there and hum away at fixed RPM recharging the batteries, when the grid, regenerative braking, etc. isn't recharging them. The ultium battery pack that is so big and heavy - halve it. 100 miles of chargeless range is fine. Especially, if I know that my little generators is going to pick up the slack. The generator is going to re-use all the refueling infrastructure in place too. Waiting at a charger for hours, nope, re fuel the generator in 15 minutes and go on. The generator will never directly power the wheels, its power output can be minscule. You never need all 400+ hp of any engine all the time now. Coasting, idling, cruising, parked - it recharges batteries; as long as it can keep the batteries from fully depleting.

 

 

My 8750 watt inverter will run 15 hours on 6 gallon of gas. How many watts will it take to put in more power than you draw out. That would determine what size batteries you would need. The efficiency of the charging vs battery draw is the determination of the battery range. I could live with 300 miles of range with a 20 minute charging time for an additional 200 miles of travel. Of course they cost too much anyway. 

Posted
1 hour ago, asilverblazer said:

I think the best solution is...

The EV Silverado is not the same truck as the ICE Silverado. It should be. Just like how Ford converted the lightning. They should have taken the ultium battery packs and squeezed them in around the frame rails. Throw the front and rear drive motors in and call it a day. That storage compartment at the front? Totally encapsulated prepackaged range extender. It doesn't matter what it is use the 1.2l 3 cylinder. All it does is sit up there and hum away at fixed RPM recharging the batteries, when the grid, regenerative braking, etc. isn't recharging them. The ultium battery pack that is so big and heavy - halve it. 100 miles of chargeless range is fine. Especially, if I know that my little generators is going to pick up the slack. The generator is going to re-use all the refueling infrastructure in place too. Waiting at a charger for hours, nope, re fuel the generator in 15 minutes and go on. The generator will never directly power the wheels, its power output can be minscule. You never need all 400+ hp of any engine all the time now. Coasting, idling, cruising, parked - it recharges batteries; as long as it can keep the batteries from fully depleting.

 

 

I agree 1 chassis.  I agree a range extender.  For the PHEV and ICE options for 2027 hoping its the other way around.  
 

Fit the ICE powertrain in modern EV chassis.  They are stronger better in alot of ways.

 

although there is alot of talk now that ford will cancel the lightning.  And in a couple years build a EV range extender like you said above with 50% of the batteries 

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, KARNUT said:

My 8750 watt inverter will run 15 hours on 6 gallon of gas. How many watts will it take to put in more power than you draw out. That would determine what size batteries you would need. The efficiency of the charging vs battery draw is the determination of the battery range. I could live with 300 miles of range with a 20 minute charging time for an additional 200 miles of travel. Of course they cost too much anyway. 

Did the math in my head.  I was going to say 9kWh per hour would be the draw for a 1500 sized pickup with 7000lbs to 8000lbs of trailer behind on flat ground.  

 

In the most extreme Rocky Mountains uphill scenarios 10 or 11kWh would probably be the engineering requirement with a little safety overhead.


after i wrote this looked up the ram charger spec.  Confused on why its so high? 130 kilowatts..

 

Edited by Elpresidente
  • Like 1
  • 1 month later...
Posted (edited)

Probably everyone saw this.

 

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2025/03/next-gen-2027-chevy-silverado-prototype-spied-testing-photos/amp/
 

I doubt gm will do this.  But i really hope the phev comes with the 3.0L disesel and the toeing package is standard with this configuration.  Aka a little more spring and D instead of C rated tires.

 

i dont tow alot; but i have a travel trailer and its 30 Feet long and 6300 lbs unloaded.

 

day to day my 6.2L is fun; but the fuel bill is brutal/irresponsible.

 

GM a PHEV 2500 with a 6.6L gas would be great.

Edited by Elpresidente
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Elpresidente said:

Probably everyone saw this.

 

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2025/03/next-gen-2027-chevy-silverado-prototype-spied-testing-photos/amp/
 

I doubt gm will do this.  But i really hope the phev comes with the 3.0L disesel and the toeing package is standard with this configuration.  Aka a little more spring and D instead of C rated tires.

 

i dont tow alot; but i have a travel trailer and its 30 Feet long and 6300 lbs unloaded.

 

day to day my 6.2L is fun; but the fuel bill is brutal/irresponsible.

 

GM a PHEV 2500 with a 6.6L gas would be great.

 

 

A diesel PHEV is unlikely but would be wild if they did it.  Expect a gas PHEV if they do it.  5.3 (or whatever rumored displacement change base V8) or 2.7 are the most likely candidates IMO.  

Edited by newdude
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, newdude said:

 

 

A diesel PHEV is unlikely but would be wild if they did it.  Expect a gas PHEV if they do it.  5.3 (or whatever rumored displacement change base V8) or 2.7 are the most likely candidates IMO.  

2.7 de rated makes sense and I expect them soon. 

Posted
2 hours ago, newdude said:

 

 

A diesel PHEV is unlikely but would be wild if they did it.  Expect a gas PHEV if they do it.  5.3 (or whatever rumored displacement change base V8) or 2.7 are the most likely candidates IMO.  

The new V8s GM keeps talking about are max 6% more fuel efficient; that is their marketing pitch which really means that on a 5.3L they get 18mpg in the city vs the current 17mpg.  (+1mpg better).

Not sure they can make a PHEV hybrid V8; even with the max trailering package. 1500 does not have the payload.  Adding a 20 kwh battery is going to be 300lbs with all the electronics (estimating about 40 miles of EV range).  My AT4 now only has 1390 lbs payload.  A pickup with 1090 payload (like the F150 raptor cannot tow anymore; cannot pull a normal sized travel trailer with a family of 4)  Say about 6500lbs empty weight 30 feet long.  A standard Bunkhouse model with 2 bunk beds for kids in the back.

https://www.gmc.com/content/dam/gmc/na/us/english/index/about/download-brochures/2024-models/GMTR23CT300_2024_SIERRA_LD_FO_011024_FINAL.pdf

 

A lower trim maybe a elevation or LT with a 2.7L and the max trailering package maybe one can get it to 1500lbs payload with a PHEV.  Although all the money is made with Denali models.  No manufacturer today even tries to add functionality to anything other than the most profitable trims.

 

Was excited about this option.  But it now says the PHEV will become available in the first 2 years of launch so its probably going to be a 2028 or 2029 model.  Crazy that it takes 4 to 5 years to add a battery to a power train when the truck doesnt change and the power train really doesnt change.  (the major packaging).  In the article below is says 2 more years.
https://gmauthority.com/blog/2025/03/next-gen-2027-chevy-silverado-prototype-spied-testing-photos/

If they do release a V8 PHEV version; maybe they will release a 6.6L gas PHEV version.  Would get a 6.6L up to about 21mpg combined in real world driving on 87 octane.

Posted
32 minutes ago, Elpresidente said:

The new V8s GM keeps talking about are max 6% more fuel efficient; that is their marketing pitch which really means that on a 5.3L they get 18mpg in the city vs the current 17mpg.  (+1mpg better).

Not sure they can make a PHEV hybrid V8; even with the max trailering package. 1500 does not have the payload.  Adding a 20 kwh battery is going to be 300lbs with all the electronics (estimating about 40 miles of EV range).  My AT4 now only has 1390 lbs payload.  A pickup with 1090 payload (like the F150 raptor cannot tow anymore; cannot pull a normal sized travel trailer with a family of 4)  Say about 6500lbs empty weight 30 feet long.  A standard Bunkhouse model with 2 bunk beds for kids in the back.

https://www.gmc.com/content/dam/gmc/na/us/english/index/about/download-brochures/2024-models/GMTR23CT300_2024_SIERRA_LD_FO_011024_FINAL.pdf

 

A lower trim maybe a elevation or LT with a 2.7L and the max trailering package maybe one can get it to 1500lbs payload with a PHEV.  Although all the money is made with Denali models.  No manufacturer today even tries to add functionality to anything other than the most profitable trims.

 

Was excited about this option.  But it now says the PHEV will become available in the first 2 years of launch so its probably going to be a 2028 or 2029 model.  Crazy that it takes 4 to 5 years to add a battery to a power train when the truck doesnt change and the power train really doesnt change.  (the major packaging).  In the article below is says 2 more years.
https://gmauthority.com/blog/2025/03/next-gen-2027-chevy-silverado-prototype-spied-testing-photos/

If they do release a V8 PHEV version; maybe they will release a 6.6L gas PHEV version.  Would get a 6.6L up to about 21mpg combined in real world driving on 87 octane.

 

 

From a weight aspect in terms of added PHEV weight but keeping a strong payload, that's the best case for the 2.7 as its the lightest powertrain right now.  Its 80lbs lighter than the 4.3 it replaced which is approximately 400lbs.  My 2.7 crew cab 4x4 has a payload of 1980lbs.  Take 300lbs out that goes to 1680lbs.    

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted
On 2/18/2025 at 3:38 PM, asilverblazer said:

I think the best solution is...

The EV Silverado is not the same truck as the ICE Silverado. It should be. Just like how Ford converted the lightning. They should have taken the ultium battery packs and squeezed them in around the frame rails. Throw the front and rear drive motors in and call it a day. That storage compartment at the front? Totally encapsulated prepackaged range extender. It doesn't matter what it is use the 1.2l 3 cylinder. All it does is sit up there and hum away at fixed RPM recharging the batteries, when the grid, regenerative braking, etc. isn't recharging them. The ultium battery pack that is so big and heavy - halve it. 100 miles of chargeless range is fine. Especially, if I know that my little generators is going to pick up the slack. The generator is going to re-use all the refueling infrastructure in place too. Waiting at a charger for hours, nope, re fuel the generator in 15 minutes and go on. The generator will never directly power the wheels, its power output can be minuscule. You never need all 400+ hp of any engine all the time now. Coasting, idling, cruising, parked - it recharges batteries; as long as it can keep the batteries from fully depleting.

Meanwhile, Ram has released the new ram hybrid, using the 3.6 pentastar as the range extender. The overall package is exactly what I've been waiting for.

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...