GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
A 5.3 that develops 350hp combined with -500lb decreased curb weight could actually get you to a similar hp/weight ratio as the Dodge.

4700lb/395hp Dodge Express = 11.64lbs/hp 4100lb/350hp Silvy WT = 11.7lbs/hp.

(Note: my 2010 was supposed to be 4500lbs but maybe the 6pd and some other sundries increased weight. 2013 Express model lists at 4730lbs. 5.3 Silvy currently lists at 4640)

I think the RC is the only advantage Dodge/Toyota would have vs. GM - and that could be eliminated in hp/lb terms by 500lb weight loss. The "LS" ext cab combo that forces you into a 4.8/4spd will be gone

Then the only disadvantage would be against ExCab WT since the LT excab *theoretically* lets you order it. The only thing is you never actually see any 6.2 ex cab Silvies (not around my neck 'o the woods) - but 5.7 Dodge Quad Cabs are the mainstream norm. But then again, the weight reduction in Excabs would put you in a similar lbs/hp position. But even with the 5.3 of 350hp you'd be in a very competitive place with Dodge...

5080lb/395hp Dodge Express QC 12.86lbs/hp 4500lb/350hp Silvy ExCab 12.86lbs/hp. Now with a 425hp 6.2 which is rare but at least possible, you blow Dodge into the weeds

4500lb/425hp 376cid Silvy = 10.6lbs/hp

Now it could be that the "500lbs" weight reduction for the Kx Silvy we've been hearing about for years now would apply to the heaviest Crew Cabs and that the reduction for Reg cabs would be more like 250lbs (I could see them cutting a lot of weight out of the cab itself which would not decrease capability or strength.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
People are worried about the new 5.3L being 'only' 350hp, but DI is really only supposed to boost power about 1/8th. So 315hp x .125 = 40hp. This puts it right at 355.

America123, I'm guessing the 'stage two' will be sparkless ignition? I would think that would work better with big inch, low rpm engines that aren't running up and down the rev range all the time. That would be something. You'd think it would be perfect for series hybrids where the engine runs at one rpm or a very narrow rpm range.



But in the near term, just a 24mpg, 350hp Silvy seems like a big deal. I think despite all the kvetching we did about Eco-Boast that Silvy will be retaining that 'least expensive to own' laurel with better across the board economy.

I think the trick from the bean counter viewpoint will be that they will be selling less expensive-to-make Silvys that match Ford's DOHC V6 against a DI OHV V6, and an OHV V8 against a turbo DOHC V6.

WRT to the HEMI, I get 20mpg hwy evert time in mine - but with the AFM kicking in and holding for long periods even at 65mph. Chevy 5.3 gets that kind of mileage with the AFM only kicking in downhill. With a more 'aggressive' AFM that can go down to 2 cyls and/or have 'rolling' deactivation that might decrease the vibration factor - and factor in the 500lb weight loss - I think we may be seeing the "V8 power V6 economy" ads. 18mpg city would match the '13 V6 8spd Dodge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
Yep, pretty much most of it and pretty well said. :yup::yup::yup:

And I know you will understand what I say next and not take it the wrong way.....

Now you very likely have the basis for ..... a fully and truly world class xyz - good enough for Cadillac installation in the best sense of those terms - btw. ;):):D



Yes, the later type is all about providing - if you allow some latitude in the terms - all about getting to an HCCI....... or........ a related type combustion mode or better said, - getting in and out of something like that - it's the transitions and transients that are the really hard part for all that.

So yes, perhaps more ....... and definitely more and different modes of combustion and therefore - yet again a different combustion system.

'Imo' this LT1 and it's likely brethren address all the inherent deficiencies or limitations in all the previous sbs - that not only are 'desirable' for other reasons both generic and specific - including creation of the LT1 pkg itself but are also required for that second combustion system.

Just look at how they handle the basic wet sump oiling system and related air /oil separation - pcv.




What is absolutely clear - is you do need it for HCCI and related.


The important thing is - now it's done.:yup:
I'm wondering if the 'next thing' for AFM is closer to the original Cadillac 8-6-4 - or at least the concept that the typical V8 engine has so much 'excess' displacement that it's not a matter of sometimes shutting down 4cyls but only activating all 8cyls more like 'turbo' style when you put your foot to the wood. In other words, you'd have a 'high cylinder pressure' 6cyl for like the first half of throttle travel. Just like the current MDS or AFM, lighter weight vehicles would benefit most, but it would be more like you only have the full V8 when you have like the 'carb secondaries' kicking in in the olden days.

And then the individual PCV and oiling - as perhaps a 'rolling' AFM would be able to better hold up under the the strains of being a 'high pressure' V4 or V6 *most of the time* rather than the current idea of it being a 4cyl with high pressure only when loafing and a regular low cyl pressure v-8 most of the time because of limits in the current design which count on the engin not being pushed to its limits most of the time.

WRT to sparkless - I suppose that under 'cruise' conditions maybe the individual spark/coil would just shut down and the individual cylinder - and helped along by the 12:1 compression allowed by Direct injection - could go into a sparkless ignition mode. For some reason I imagined the benefit being an engine that doesn't have an ignition system at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
That's your opinion. FACTS show that GM truck frames last just as long as Ford and Dodge. Doesn't GM have the "the longest lasting, most dependable trucks on the road"? How can that be if their frames are crap compared to F&D? Your wanna-be macho-truck-man opinion is just that. Show us statistical proof that GM frames don't last as long. How about this - GM trucks have a 6 year corrosion warranty, Ford and Dodge only have 5 year corrosion warranties. Why aren't their warranty periods longer if their trucks are so much better?

Proof? Have any facts to back that up?

What's wrong with drums besides cosmetics? REAL TRUCKS (big rigs) use drum brakes. I quickly did a search for half ton trucks stopping distances, and according to a PickupTrucks.com review of 2009 1/2 tons, the Silverado had the shortest stopping distance compared to Ford and Dodge. What's more important than stopping distances?

You are so full of crap. I just did a search of ground clearances and breakover angles of HD Crew Cab trucks and this is what I found:

........................Ground Clearance (in)...Breakover Angle (deg)
2011 Chevy HD....8.2............................19.3
2011 F-250.........8.1............................18.1

:
There is also the fact that if the cab rockers don't hang so low, they won't get dented in off road running. I recently took a trip on some brutal high elevation trails near the Wind River range in Wyo. The 2011 Chevy 3/4 dragged the frame on some hill- overtopping and the bumpers in some deep ravines (it's an 8ft ex cab going on trails he usually takes with an ATV) but the sheetmetal - including doors and base of fenders came through fine. Now if they lowered the rockers to frame level they'd be all banged up.

I was once convinced FOD (Just think if it was "Fan Of Retro Durant" then it would be F.O.R.D.) was some kind of FoMoCo sock puppet forum drone but I've come to at least take him at his word that he is trying to somehow exhort GM to step up the Silvy's game.

In all of this kvetching about having the thickest leather in the seats or whatever, I often come back to a basic precept about GM pickups: They cost less to own. Less to buy and less to feed and maintain. You can complain that everything should be thicker and more expensive, and then you will have a pickup that costs more to buy and more to run. It's funny how emotional people get about trucks that are at least ostensibly supposed to be utility vehicles. If you have a business, all the money you would save on a lower priced, lower maintenance vehicle is called PROFIT. That goes into your bank account instead of your F-150.

As I pointed out a few pages back, Silvy will be matching an OHV V6 against a DOHC Ford V6 - that will be less $ to produce and at least part of the savings can go to the buyer since GM could maintain the same profit margins with a potentially lower base price. And thought it will have 300hp and likely better mileage than the Ford won't we still see these arguments about 'class leading' engineering? "I don't want a Chevy with i's goddang pushrods! Look at Ford's neato DOHC - just like a FERRARI man!

And then when Ford is forced to make an mostly aluminum body F 150 because they've boxed themselves into a chassis that's 700lbs heavier than the GM, what will the base price be? $30K? A lot of this thread is dominated by comments on how Silvy should be bigger, heavier and more ostentatious - more like the Ford - but what about pickups actually purchased for business where the bottom line matters?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
I've wondered if the OHV V6 might change to be based on the 325 AKA 5.3 - making it a 244 or 4.0L.

We've heard it's going to be "50% more powerful" than the current 195hp - making it 293hp. But if it has the same HP/inch of the DI 5.3 (which we think is 350hp or 1.08hp/inch) then the 262cid would only get you 283hp. To be 293hp the 262 would have to have 1.12hp/cubic inch. Now 1.12hp/inch would make the 325cid pump out 363hp. This is plausible since the 6.2 376 is supposed to make 425hp or 1.13hp/inch

Another interesting possibility is they base it on the 6.2 376 V8 - then it would be a 4.6L or 282cid V6 and with 1.08hp/inch it would yield 305hp or 319hp at 1.13hp/inch. OTHOH, it seems quite likely that the 376 would have greater hp/inch ratio as the expensive top engine, so a 1.08hp/inch 305hp 282 to me seems highly possible.

If they really have changed every part of the Gen V V8, I really couldn't see them retaining unique bore and stroke based on ye olde 350. What's the point of that? It would make more sense, since *IF* it really is just a 3/4 cut down Gen V V8 and it will have all this extra power, direct injection and probably AFM, that it would be based on the contemporary Gen V engine bore and stroke and not retain BxS that Chevy hasn't made for 15 years.

Essentially a 282cid V6 *could* be replacing the 293cid V8 with exactly the same power - but with 'aggressive' AFM operating as a 3cyl or maybe 4cyl it would offer 25mpg hwy instead of IIRC 19mpg for the current 4.8L . Veeeery intereeeesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
:rant::rant: You know better than to say that without a review or a photo. :p:



We've discussed this already. The Gen 5 is keeping bore & stroke for the 5.3 & 6.2, but the new 4.3 is going to be the update (change in bore & stroke) that should have happened with Gen 3 or 4. Since the V6 will need it's own block, the crank will be exclusive to that engine. So, they can share the bore of one of the Gen 5 engines, & then make the stroke enough to retain the 4.3 liter displacement. From a marketing standpoint, it's a good decision. From a business cost decision, being able to share pistons with one of the V8 engines is a good idea. Plus, the design probably has enough breathing room built into it to have a sales life as long as the current (soon to be "old") V6.
I would hope they increase the displacement on the V6. That would be cool to bring back the 'big six' idea like the GMC 305 or Ford 300.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
Extreme evokes F.O.D. with his "I've never seen a Ford that was dented or rusty" line of remarks.

When I was in Wyo recently, I was struck by how much the hunting equation had changed. EVERYBODY has the ATVs now - and the ATV makers must have an in with the BLM, since they changed the little "Jeep" brown plastic signs to have a little ATV or cycle on them. So that means the pickup is not even allowed on those trails anymore. Truth is, if it's wet, the ATVs will tear up the trail too. If it's dry you could run a tank over it and not hurt anything IMO.

But for the rock crawling in the high country, the 3/4 and 1 tons are absolutely TERRIBLE. We joke about kidney jarring ride, but the 3/4 ton 2011 Silvy was just brutal. You really do worry about things getting shaken out of place in your mid-section.

WRT to the old solid axle. My Dad has the last year of the vaunted 'semi' Dodge of 94-2001 with the solid axle and it wanders on the highway something terrible. Yes the SFA is easier to lift but have you looked at a GM 3/4 ton lately? They are already jacked up pretty high.

One last thing on the awesomness of Dodge - have you ever noticed the way tires on the Dodge stick out ever so slightly beyond the fenders? You know what neat trick this does? It covers the sides with dirty road spray whenever it rains. That's the whole problem with building your products based on what 17 year old boys think is toooootally cool.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
For the life of me I can't understand why GM has a 6.0 and then also a 6.2. In terms of horsepower, the V6 will be making what the 6.0 made six years ago. Why not just offer a std V6 with a 4.10 axle on 3/4 tons like they used to do with the 292 in the 70s and 80's. Get yourself some HD cooling and you're set. You've got all the torque multiplication in the world with the 6spd's 4:1 first gear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
4.56s to get them moving, but I see your point.
I believe it is about the over 8600 GVWR emissions certifications.

Really though it isn't about horsepower as much as Torque and the emissions in these HD applications.
The Duramax was 300hp too, elevation issues aside, I'd still take the 520 lbs.ft. 300hp Duramax over the 6.0 and 300+ hp V6.
With the 4:1 first gear you would be getting about 16:1 breakaway torque multiplication with 4.10s. With the older 3:1 first you would get about 12:1 breakaway torque multiplication with 4.1 axles. I'm just thinking many fleet buyers like highway depts might be tempted by a 3/4 ton that could pull down 20mpg. It would potentially cost GM less to make AND offer a niche in the 3/4 ton commercial market that others aren't covering. Even cooler would be a 282 'big six' based off the 376 V8 - but apparently that's not happening.

Also, little known fact is that the above 8501 GVWR vehicles will have to start improving gas mileage for the first time per latest CAFE regulations. It's not under the old CAFE "average" but is instead an index of the payload capacity so that lower payload trucks will need to get higher gas mileage. It's more complicated than the old CAFE regime (although even now that's not really an average anymore either but based on 'footprint' index of wheelbase x thread width) but they will be coming under at least minimal fuel economy regs where they haven't before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
Pfft. A REAL TRUCK GUY wouldn't settle for less than a 15 inch lift and 42" tires.

But the absolutely MOST important aspect to any REAL truck is that the frame cannot be visible from even under the truck. Every inch must be galvanized, crome plated, powder coated, and then covered in sheet metal or else it's inferior to whatever Ford has. End of story.
I said before I'm willing to take FOD at his word, but the frame thing seems so much like a purely aesthetic concern. Some of this other stuff will just make it more heavy and/or expensive - like you say here. Sometimes I just feel like "FOD go to the truck you think is best." Embrace the superior vehicle, go to Fordinsidenews.com or F-150.net or whatever and get it over with.

Like for example, my favorite thing about the Silvy is the 133" WB RC 8ft bed. Just the best proportions, and most utilitarian - and a FOOT shorter than the F150. I argue that with FOD and he's just like 'what a foot? That's nothing!' Really? a FOOT is nothining? Well, OK but it makes a difference in the city where actual work is sometimes done - and where actual Silvies are doing it because they make sense to buy and run as, gosh actual utility vehicles and not luxury barges.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
The pickuptrucks.com videos from yesterday were informative in reguards to the longer rear doors and how they achieved the additional rear seat leg room. They moved the B-pillar and lengthend the rear door and shortened the front door and increased the angle of the rear seat to more upright position. Not really what I would have expected. I am now concerned about the room inside the already cramped regular cabs. For some reason I doubt they designed 2 different front doors, and the spy pics are not indicating much if any space change behind the seat.
Notice how the doors on the RC spy shot have a different frame that curves on the back corner instead of the right angle cuts of 4dr models. Now see how the frame arcs back and down as the glass cut line goes straight down. Seems to indicate that the window is the same as the EC and CC, but the door frame - and therefore also the door - is wider on the RC. This is not unlike what Dodge does - having a wider door on the RC. To me not always good in tight lots where you can't open it as wide.

But I guess if they move the B pillar forward for the CC, maybe they want to have a wider door on the RC so you can access behind the seat space better.

The different, longer doors on the RC would mean the the theory that the regular cab is now shorter because it shares new shorter doors with the CC is therefore false.

What HEY! Then there is this...WHY LOOKIE HERE! Not bad at all. I'll take the 8ft bed please...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
Yes, the mid-'68-'72 Chevy Longhorn (and GMC had one too, Sierra Grande?) had a 8.5' box. The truck used a C-30 cab and chassis frame (6" longer wheelbase) and the box had a 6" section added to the front. There were also 9' Step Side boxes available on C-30's as well.
Yes - the 9ft bed was once a 'standard' for the bigger models - Ford had a 9ft stepside F 350 bed as well. And they used to have a 120" wheelbase F-100 4wd with an 8ft bed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
And anything with the Max trailer package on it wont have 50 series tires. Cant wait to see the power/economy numbers, along with the new weight ratings.
We don't know curb weights and payloads, but you can already see the new GVWRs by looking at the "order guides" that are floating around - certain engines and the trailering options list the GVWR.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
GVWR, 6900 lbs. (3130 kg)
1 - Requires 2WD models and (LV3) 4.3L AFM SIDI Variable Valve Timing,
Flex Fuel V6 aluminum block engine.
A1 A1 A1
2013 GMC (2014) Sierra 1500 EQUIPMENT GROUPS
Published October 12, 2012 Page 12
ADDITIONAL OPTIONS
Free
Flow
RPO
Code
Ref.
Only
RPO
Code
Description
Sierra SLE SLT
1SA 3SA 4SA
C5W GVWR, 7000 lbs. (3175 kg)
1 - Requires 2WD models and (L83) 5.3L AFM SIDI Variable Valve Timing,
Flex Fuel V8 aluminum block engine or (L86) 6.2L AFM SIDI Variable Valve
Timing V8 aluminum block engine. Not available with (NHT) Max Trailering
Package.
A1 A1 A1
C5Y GVWR, 7100 lbs. (3221 kg)
1 - Requires 4WD models and (LV3) 4.3L AFM SIDI Variable Valve Timing,
Flex Fuel V6 aluminum block engine.
A1 A1 A1
C5Z GVWR, 7200 lbs. (3266 kg)
1 - Requires 4WD models and (L83) 5.3L AFM SIDI Variable Valve Timing,
Flex Fuel V8 aluminum block engine or (L86) 6.2L AFM SIDI Variable Valve
Timing V8 aluminum block engine. Not available with (NHT) Max Trailering
Package.
A1 A1 A1
C6C GVWR, 7400 lbs. (3357 kg)
1 - Requires 2WD models and (L83) 5.3L AFM SIDI Variable Valve Timing,
Flex Fuel V8 aluminum block engine or (L86) 6.2L AFM SIDI Variable Valve
Timing V8 aluminum block engine. Requires (NHT) Max Trailering
Package.
A1 A1 A1
C6G GVWR, 7600 lbs. (3447 kg)
1 - Requires 4WD models and (L83) 5.3L AFM SIDI Variable Valve Timing,
Flex Fuel V8 aluminum block engine or (L86) 6.2L AFM SIDI Variable Valve
Timing V8 aluminum block engine. Requires (NHT) Max Trailering
Package.
A1 A1 A1
GU4 Rear axle, 3.08 ratio
1 - Standard and only available on (L83) 5.3L AFM SIDI Variable Valve
Timing, Flex Fuel V8 aluminum block engine.
A1 A1
GU6 Rear axle, 3.42 ratio
1 - Standard on 4WD V6 models. Available with (L83) 5.3L AFM SIDI
Variable Valve Timing, Flex Fuel V8 aluminum block engine.
2 - Standard with (L86) 6.2L AFM SIDI Variable Valve Timing V8 aluminum
block engine.
1 1 A2
Z71 Suspension Package, Off-Road, includes monotube Rancho brand
shocks and (K47) air cleaner, (JHD) Hill Descent Control, (NZZ) Skid
Plate Package on 4WD models and (V76) recovery hooks on 2WD
models
1 - Included with (GAT) All-Terrain Package. Includes (G80) locking rear
differential on 2WD models.
2 - Included with (GAT) All-Terrain Package.
-- A1 A2
Z82 Trailering equipment, heavy-duty, includes (G80) Locking rear
differential on 2WD models, trailer hitch, 7-pin and 4-pin connectors
1 - Included with (GAT) All-Terrain Package or (NHT) Max Trailering
Package.
A A1
JL1 Trailer brake controller, integrated
1 - Requires (Z82) Trailering Package.
2 - Requires (Z82) Trailering Package. Included with (NHT) Max Trailering
Package.
3 - Included with (NHT) Max Trailering Package.
A1 A2 A3
2013 GMC (2014) Sierra 1500 EQUIPMENT GROUPS
Published
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
The only question I have, how much for comparably equipped models of the Ecoboost vs the 5.3L Ecotec3? That will be the difference maker as I assume the 5.0L is the 5.3L Ecotec3's competition in price. GM is showing they don't need the Ecoboost idea of TTV6's to get better fuel economy and retain towing performance.

I swear Germeezy and Andretti are married sometimes with the way they argue.
Hahaha. The Bickersons. I think we should remember that GMI has a very big 'loyal opposition' or maybe not so loyal opposition. Andretti is not the only Ford fan here and we should try to hold on to our vaunted civility whomever posts.

The thing about the Ecoboost is that it made the 379cid Ford V8 a dead letter. There is really no reason to have it other than to just burn a lot of fuel and make cool noises. EB would probably do great in the Raptor by making the front end lighter and better for dune jumping.

Ford should give up on V8 pickups and just offer a standard DI V6 and a turbo DI V6 and call it a day.

BTW, the GMC presser says....

The new 5.3L EcoTec3 V-8 combines its leading fuel efficiency with performance and capability. With an SAE certified 355 hp and 383 lb-ft of torque – increases of 40 hp and 48 lb-ft compared to the 2013 model – Sierra’s new 5.3L offers a class-leading towing capacity of up to 11,500 pounds.

Most GMC owners – three out of four last year – will opt for the 5.3L V-8 engine, which is an $895 option.

So that's $155 dollars LESS than the 8spd V6 Dodge which is a $1050 option. You can get a 355hp Chevy for $155 LESS than a 300hp Dodge and in 4wd form it will rate 16/22 vs 4wd V6 Dodge at 16/23.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
My source information was dead on. I said the new 5.3L would be about 350HP and not beat the Ford engines (it doesn't). FYI the 6.2L numbers as it will be installed in very limited numbers of trucks hasn't been put out yet. Not have the 4.3L V6 numbers.

BTW this advice might help you... try to look at things objectively and evaluate facts not your own delusions. Class leading means to be ahead of the others in the class. It doesn't mean to selectively compare with caveats. Let me make it simple for you. The horse power of the "new" 5.3L is behind the Ford 5.0L AND the Ford Ecoboost and almost three years late to the party to boot. There is no objective way to spin that the 5.3L is class leading. (i will refrain from referring to you as a snot nosed GM shill)
It's class leading in V8 economy.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top