8.1L Vortec is back for 08?

[smith7629]

I was browsing GM's media website and clicked on their truck engine lineup for 2008 and noticed the 8.1L was listed. I then clicked on 2007 lineup and noticed it was missing, which it should be. So my question is, "Is GM bringing back the big block 496 vortec for 2008 trucks?"

Here's the link:
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en...owertrain.html

[caddycruiser]

I'd say that's a big no...just some kind of a peculiarity in the site being set up, and it listed.

[MelvinJ]

The 8.1L never left the truck lineup. It's always been available in the Kodiak/Topkick medium duty models. If you click on the 8.1L on that page, it states that it's still available on those models. Don't look for it on the GMT900's ever again though.

[caddycruiser]

The 8.1L never left the truck lineup. It's always been available in the Kodiak/Topkick medium duty models. If you click on the 8.1L on that page, it states that it's still available on those models. Don't look for it on the GMT900's ever again though.

Ah, there's the detail I forgot...and we have an answer

http://www.chevrolet.com/mediumduty/kodiak/

etc., etc...

[smith7629]

Thanks. Well that closes this thread early.

[C/K Man]

Yup, I hear there's a big shot at G.M. that says no more big blocks, no SFA 4X4 HD's, no manual transmissions, and LT245/75R-16 is the only tire you will get (the guy loves the small wheel-big fender look!).

[nailhead425]

They go up to 265/70-17s, "E" rated too, on HDs.
Which is better, but like going from a 32A to 34A. Functional.

The rest of the items are pipe-dreams at best.
The 8.1 won't come back because of fuel economy, emissions, and cost.
Customers who need the 8.1 will generally opt for a diesel, the big bore of the 8.1 (and all BBCs) is notorious for emissions issues, and it costs alot to build a MD engine for a small percentage of pickup buyers. The same cost analysis applies to manual transmissions and transfer cases.

BTW, there is more than one person of influence at GM that doesn't want SFA and manual transmissions. Only if Toyota comes out with a SFA HD truck will GM potentially take notice. At least, that's what I heard...

[titanguy]

Yup, I hear there's a big shot at G.M. that says no more big blocks, no SFA 4X4 HD's, no manual transmissions, and LT245/75R-16 is the only tire you will get (the guy loves the small wheel-big fender look!).

Yep, he seems to really be having his way. What's next a "Z-71 off road" truck with less than 4 inches of ground clearance and a plastic air dam two inches off the ground? SFA is the ONLY way to go period but especially on HD's.(I understand its gone for good on half tons) I would never buy a GM heavy duty because of this. Wouldn't mind swapping in the Duramax into an F-250 though.
Somebody also needs to tell them that they make tires bigger than 245/75's. This type of BS is what forced me to buy a Nissan Titan. At least I have 11 inches ground clearance with 285/70's stock. C'mon GM please start making trucks for real truck guys and kill the grocery getter low riders!

[newdude]

also you could take a gm HD and get a Dana 60 swap kit, grab an axle form somewhere, i.e. boyceequiptment.com and there you go.

[C/K Man]

Well, to be totally honest..... Let's start with the 8.1L. Ever wonder why GM only rated it at 340 h.p.? Pretty lame for something nearly 500 cubic inches. 4.25 bore and cast iron heads, that's why. If they pushed it any more, they would have had detonation and NOX problems. The new VVT 6.0L gives us 353 h.p. out of 368 cubes. Much better, though it does give up some torque. Durability? I would have to give it to the 6.0L. The bottom end is good for 500+ h.p., stiffer block, aluminum heads run cooler, better coolant flow, much more modern design. I just wish GM would give us a tall deck long stroke LS of about 7L. Manual transmissions? I don't need one, but I know there's a few that still favor them. In 2006, somewhere around 5% of the GM light trucks were ordered with manuals. Tough to make a business case for that few buyers. Front suspension. Not button topic since mid-'87. For those that plow snow, want a cheap lift kit, or maybe get into some extreme off road adventures, a SFA 4X4 is better. But for me personally, I prefer independent. 4X4 Super Duties, both coil and leaf, handle like dookie. Ride bad, too. Durability? Might surprise you! Where I work, we use trucks in a lot of off road situations. It doesn't snow here, so plowing, slow actuators, and frozed CV joint boots are not an issue. No half-engineered lift kits, either. Guess what, the GM IFS trucks are less trouble. The Super Duties have non-greasable plastic ball joints that wear fast (particularly with a heavy diesel). They have inner needle bearings that need to be repacked often. If you don't service them when you are supposed to, you get to buy expensive new hubs. GM's sealed wheel bearing assemblies last a long time and require no service (yes, they are expensive too but they are not an issue every 30,000 miles). The downside? Suspension travel isn't enough. Steering linkage could be stronger. Not a bad trade-off if you ask me. Much better ride, feels more stable at speed. Now, if GM would hike up the frame rails a bit, and offer some decent sized rim/tire combinations.......

[C/K Man]

Only if Toyota comes out with a SFA HD truck will GM potentially take notice. At least, that's what I heard...

Then don't bet on it! The Tundra has been a disappointment for Toyota. The heavy duty concept Tundra that has been around at the various auto shows was not production based (in fact, it had no HVAC- the firewall had been moved back to within 1.5" of the outer dash surface!). If Toyota does offer a HD Tundra, my guess is it will be a beefed up work truck version of the current truck with few changes. Maybe a small diesel, but not that 8L Hino!

[ChevyRacing48]

want a cheap lift kit.

Now, if GM would hike up the frame rails a bit, and offer some decent sized rim/tire combinations.......

I agree on most of your points. I still think there is no excuse for the small, crappy stock tires and they could up the ride height of their HD's, even with the IFS.

To me, since I paid more for my truck than a comparable Ford or Dodge, it was sort of a kick in the balls the amount of money I had to spend just to get my truck to basically look like a stock Superduty or Ram 2500. I might sit an inch or two higher at the very most.

There is a GM HD all terrain truck out there, but I think the code is for the military only or something cause I can't find it anywhere for the normal consumer. It comes stock with a 2" higher ride height and 285's. That's how they all should be coming stock.

The Super Duties have non-greasable plastic ball joints that wear fast (particularly with a heavy diesel). They have inner needle bearings that need to be repacked often. If you don't service them when you are supposed to, you get to buy expensive new hubs.

For an anecdote, like I said before, my uncle's trenching business runs an F350 fleet and says he spends so much on the front ball bearings he will never run a Superduty fleet again.

[nailhead425]

Well, to be totally honest..... Let's start with the 8.1L. Ever wonder why GM only rated it at 340 h.p.? Pretty lame for something nearly 500 cubic inches. 4.25 bore and cast iron heads, that's why. If they pushed it any more, they would have had detonation and NOX problems. The new VVT 6.0L gives us 353 h.p. out of 368 cubes. Much better, though it does give up some torque. Durability? I would have to give it to the 6.0L. The bottom end is good for 500+ h.p., stiffer block, aluminum heads run cooler, better coolant flow, much more modern design.

The 8.1(496) is a much more robust block. From GM's standpoint, it was emissions.
From a marketing standpoint, it was cost vs. benefit.

The 6.0(364) is a great engine, but it does not have big-block torque. Credit the 6-speed automatic for making up the difference. Empty the 6.0 gets better mileage, the 6-speed keeps it reving in the torque band, and the lower O/D brings the RPM with 4.10s down to 3.73 range with the 4L85e.

For what it's worth, a 4" stroked version of the 6.0 is a pretty stout torque machine, especially with the L76 heads.

4X4 Super Duties, both coil and leaf, handle like dookie. Ride bad, too. Durability? Might surprise you!

That's very subjective, but I've driven leaf-spring SFA GM, IFS-GM, Coil-sprung SFA Dodge, leaf-spring SFA Ford and coil-spring SFA Ford. All 3/4 and 1 ton trucks ride poorly.

Where I work, we use trucks in a lot of off road situations. It doesn't snow here, so plowing, slow actuators, and frozed CV joint boots are not an issue. No half-engineered lift kits, either. Guess what, the GM IFS trucks are less trouble. The downside? Suspension travel isn't enough. Steering linkage could be stronger.

We all know about the Ford SD front end issues, but those are supplier, not design flaws.

I submit: where are the AAM Dodge axle problems? The AAM 925 in the front of the Dodge trucks is everything that should be in the GM trucks. A truely HD front end.

The downsides of the GM IFS are fundamental design flaws. In '88 it was revolutionary and better than the leafs in my Suburban, but today, it is sub-par. IFS can be made to work, but the question seems to be if it is worth the development.

[C/K Man]

The 8.1(496) is a much more robust block.

Strip them both all the way down to a bare block, and compare an 8.1L with a 6.0L. I was skeptical of the LS until a had one apart. Sure, the 8.1L is very strong, but there's a lot about the 6.0L that is better. The main bearing caps and the deep skirt for one. An iron 6.0L block is pretty heavy, too. The real shame is that GM didn't persue the LS-1 V-10.

[nailhead425]

I've been into both of them. Numerous Gen III/IVs. The deepskirt block is a huge advantage but the overall robustness of the Big Block is superior.

Don't get me wrong, the Gen III/IV LS series are the best weight per horsepower.

I'm confident the V-10s would have been a NVH nightmare without a different block design. Regardless, clean turbo diesels and ultimately diesel-electric hybrids are the wave of the future for trucks.