Jump to content

Who trusts the 25's with the revamped 6.2l

MTY55
 Share

Recommended Posts

MTY55 Enthusiast

MTY55

Posted
Posted

I'm sitting on the fence looking at 25 AT4 but can't decide on the 6.2 or the babymax. I hear a lot of emission issues with the 3.0. Not liking the reputation of the 6.2's over the past couple years. I have a 23 Denali 5.3 right now, I'd rather get an AT4 this time but no 5.3 offered.

tjonesdfw Enthusiast

tjonesdfw

Posted
Posted

I've been told by an acquaintance who is a GM service manager that they have had 2025 6.2 trucks blow up already as well.  We have several recalled 6.2 trucks and they advised we either buy 5.3s for now, go to another brand, or wait until the 6.2 L87 has been discontinued and replaced by the 6th gen small block.   Time will only tell if the 6th gen likes to eat lifters, cams, and bearings like the current generation though.  

MTY55 Enthusiast

MTY55

Posted
  • Author
Posted
14 hours ago, tjonesdfw said:

I've been told by an acquaintance who is a GM service manager that they have had 2025 6.2 trucks blow up already as well.  We have several recalled 6.2 trucks and they advised we either buy 5.3s for now, go to another brand, or wait until the 6.2 L87 has been discontinued and replaced by the 6th gen small block.   Time will only tell if the 6th gen likes to eat lifters, cams, and bearings like the current generation though.  

Pretty sad GM can't get their act together. I might just bite the bullet give up a couple more MPG and get a 2500 AT4 with a 6.6 gasser

newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted

The only thing "revamped" about the 6.2 in a 2025 is the "added quality control and production enhancements".  AKA they hopefully stopped being stupid in the machining and manufacturing of the parts to build an engine that will run right.  

 

There has been 2025s though that have had these fail already so...keep that in mind to their "enhancements".  Some got built before the changes.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Silverado4x4 Senior Enthusiast

Silverado4x4

Posted
Posted

Exactly what newdude said some these 25s may still have the motors before the changes were corrected to the engine. Built shipped and gone to the dealers that's why the dealers had to do a stop sale to do the tests in there inventory before sale.

tjonesdfw Enthusiast

tjonesdfw

Posted
Posted

I guess the question is whether you trust what GM says, for example in its statement to GM Authority "A series of crankshaft and connecting rod manufacturing improvements implemented on or before June 1st, 2004, addressed contamination and quality issues.  Model-year 2025 vehicles were built after these improvements and are not included in the recall."  Its probably too soon to tell if the 2025 trucks that have failed are within the normal accepted rate of engine failure for modern vehicles, OR if they are failing in the same way as the recalled motors.  If they are failing in the same way, that tells us GM either doesn't have a clue what is causing the issue yet, or they didn't make any manufacturing changes.  Either way it tells me to stay away from the L87 for the foreseeable future.  

Atlas Senior Enthusiast

Atlas

Posted
Posted

I'd think GM is being very careful about what they tell customers at the moment seeing how the 6.2 issue is wrapped up in a recall and class-action.

 

That said, I wanted something a little better on fuel and I like the way the LZ0 turbo-diesel pulls. Emission issues don't scare me, I've owned other modern diesels, and I also don't think issues are widespread with the LZ0...

  • Like 1
MTY55 Enthusiast

MTY55

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 hours ago, Atlas said:

I'd think GM is being very careful about what they tell customers at the moment seeing how the 6.2 issue is wrapped up in a recall and class-action.

 

That said, I wanted something a little better on fuel and I like the way the LZ0 turbo-diesel pulls. Emission issues don't scare me, I've owned other modern diesels, and I also don't think issues are widespread with the LZ0...

My only concern is my driving is mostly short city drives. I'm sure longer highway drives would be better for the LZO.  The fuel cost in my area, Diesel and premium are pretty close in price. Def just adds more cost to the LZO. My 23 Denali 5.3 is a great vehicle. I should just keep it  but I get bored very easily with my vehicles. I have an oil change due in a couple weeks with too many decisions to make with these engines. This wouldn't be the first time I left for an oil change only to go back to the dealer with my title and a check, then drove home later with a new truck, Decisions decisions.

Bikerjon Enthusiast

Bikerjon

Posted
Posted
On 7/14/2025 at 4:27 PM, MTY55 said:

I'm sitting on the fence looking at 25 AT4 but can't decide on the 6.2 or the babymax. I hear a lot of emission issues with the 3.0. Not liking the reputation of the 6.2's over the past couple years. I have a 23 Denali 5.3 right now, I'd rather get an AT4 this time but no 5.3 offered.

I do and I'm driving one right now. The crankshaft/bearing issue has been resolved according to GM. My Service Manager has assured me that there are no further issues and mine is running great. I personally would never own a diesel. I've worked on many diesels and cant stand them. I also think the fuel stinks. If your worried about the 6.2 engine don't test drive one because if you do you will buy it!

 

Good luck on your decision.

  • Like 2
  • 2 weeks later...
MTY55 Enthusiast

MTY55

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 7/15/2025 at 11:35 PM, Bikerjon said:

I do and I'm driving one right now. The crankshaft/bearing issue has been resolved according to GM. My Service Manager has assured me that there are no further issues and mine is running great. I personally would never own a diesel. I've worked on many diesels and cant stand them. I also think the fuel stinks. If your worried about the 6.2 engine don't test drive one because if you do you will buy it!

 

Good luck on your decision.

Bikerjon. you are absolutely right I test drove a 25 Denali 6.2 yesterday. Was so impressed I'm picking it up in about an hour. I guess the old guy in me told get the Denali and not the AT4. I like comfort and don't need the offroad capablities

  • Like 1
Z45 Senior Enthusiast

Z45

Posted
Posted

According to internet gossip they 6.2L issue revolved around crankshafts that were OUT-SOURCED to a supplier in Mexico, to save $$. Since mid 2024 production shifted back to the GM engine plant in Tonawanda, NY. 

 

 

BIGDOGx Senior Enthusiast

BIGDOGx

Posted
Posted
On 7/30/2025 at 6:08 AM, Z45 said:

According to internet gossip they 6.2L issue revolved around crankshafts that were OUT-SOURCED to a supplier in Mexico, to save $$. Since mid 2024 production shifted back to the GM engine plant in Tonawanda, NY. 

 

 

 

 

Shocker that using 5 dollar per hour Mexican slaves would yield piss poor results.

 

And it's not gossip here is a picture of a brand new engine tear down showing the crank shaft journal looking like it was finished with a coarse metal file. 

1752079328850.png

Z45 Senior Enthusiast

Z45

Posted
Posted (edited)

My brother's been driving a 2025 Sierra SLT CC 6.2L since last fall and its going strong.   I don't believe rumors that cranks made at Tonawanda are just as bad. If that was the case, all the Vette engines, 6.6L and 5.3L cranks they produce would be bad.  That BS is from people with an axe to grind with GM so they make stuff up.  

 

GM was doing everything to reduce the US workforce so the contracted out to foreign companies and it came back in bit in the you know what.  

Edited by Z45
  • Like 1
Jus Cruisin Enthusiast

Jus Cruisin

Posted
Posted

At this point I wouldn't be concerned with a 2026 6.2l. But, right now I'm really happy with this 3.0l Duramax. I ran across the state (Michigan) yesterday to check out a street rod and both ways the current trip showed 30+ mpg. Diesel is less than premium and better mpg. Yeah, the 6.2l sounds better, though. 

PunchT37 Enthusiast

PunchT37

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 7/31/2025 at 9:45 AM, BIGDOGx said:

 

 

Shocker that using 5 dollar per hour Mexican slaves would yield piss poor results.

 

And it's not gossip here is a picture of a brand new engine tear down showing the crank shaft journal looking like it was finished with a coarse metal file. 

1752079328850.png

Brand new engine tear down? Wonder why that one was chosen? That engine wouldn`t make it off the assy line and definitely not last the 1`st  PDI test drive. If that pic is real.

Edited by PunchT37

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

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • richard wysong
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By richard wysong · Posted

      I had an 88 K1500 with a 5.7 that had those symptoms, I know totally different, it ended up being the ECM. Once you get the fuel system fixed if it still runs lousy you may want to investigate that. it didn't set any codes, stalled ,ran rough at times etc
    • James Beyer
      Trading 7.3 (Godzilla) for G.M.C gas

      By James Beyer · Posted

      Congratulations Isttype, on your gmc. Really like my 2024 2500hd sle doublecab now with 85,500 miles.  I checked the oil today at 4800 miles since last oil change and barely reading on the stick.  I don't care if GM says it's Acceptable adding a quart every 2000 miles because that is 100% BS, It is not a 1966 Harley Shovelhead! Sounds like it's setting up a future failure like I had with my 1500 6.2l. Other than oil consumption problems, I really like the 6.6l gas and 10 speed is really nice.  Towed a light 4000 pound trailer last week and averaged 14 mpg.  I was pretty impressive that a 7300 pound gas truck did 14mpg towing, Later-
    • Grumpy Bear
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Long Term Cold Cycle Limited Testing   Back to the 1990's and XOM's million mile test. Since then there have been others and there will be more. Schaeffer's, AMSOIL to name two. Of these Schaeffer's is the stand alone which I will explain in a bit later.    http://papers.sae.org/600190/:   http://papers.sae.org/850215/:   Up to 75% of  engine wear occurs on cold starts. These two links (above) provide the technical reasons for engine wear. In a nut shell, and by a large margin, cylinder wear is what takes out most motors and even with a pre-oiling system that part of the engine is dry enough on cold starts and cold warm up to pierce Stribeck.   So when you put a motor, or a car, on a dyno for a million miles stopping only for oil changes, (yes fuel is uninterrupted) or break down maintenance, you are depriving the test of the most important part of it's wear cycle. Yes a million is then a pretty easy walk even for a mineral oil under those conditions.    How about cleanliness during the long test cycles? Same thing. Varnishes that stick rings and insulate parts are laid down by repetitive 'heat cycles'. It's the cool down the precipitates the varnishes. These long runs also hinder acidic attack caused by cold start richness and less than optimal cold start ring sealing. They hinder water formation and enhance breathing of the crankcase; the petri dish of acid formation, the first step in sludge formation, amalgamation and precipitation. These motors are also monitored and controlled for water and oil temperatures to within the "normal operating range".      https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-iiih-test.pdf Note the test sequence in some boutique oils literature for testing, API IIIH, is not the standard used for the ILSAC G7 testing. Does that mean it is irrelevant? No, not as used. As used as a 'visual guide' it makes it's point. The G7 weighted piston deposit minimum is lower.      Back to Schaeffer's. That was a cyclical test of an engine in fleet service and not a dyno mule and if you saw the video it was not mirror clean but wear was low.    There are oils like BioSyn and other 'Renewable" source oils that taught cleanliness and have proven themselves in fleet testing. Havoline an other example.    The newest ILSAC G-7 test prioritize cleanliness, LSPI mitigation and fuel economy OVER WEAR. In comparison Porsche C30 Specification Verses ILSAC G-7 Specification below:      Some will balk that this graph isn't apples to apples and I will challenge that in that this graph represent the SPECIFICATION and not the any One Oil Performance.   It is absolutely possible to minimize wear, maximize cleanliness and mitigate LSPI etc., It just isn't cheap and currently I see none that are not walking toward profit over performance.     
    • asilverblazer
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By asilverblazer · Posted

      I don't think you will need a split, separate product, etc., the OBD port should be able to deliver everything you need. Since your device would be plugged into it all the time, it wouldn't miss anything.    Hardware in this case will be the easiest part of your project - ELM 327 devices will already deliver all the data you need. Reporting/software is where your advantage/marketability is.
    • Coastie05
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Coastie05 · Posted

      I do too. I’ll never be stuck again 😂

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...