Dude, it's a solid axle with coil springs.
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.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.
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:
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.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
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.:rant::rant: You know better than to say that without a review or a photo. :
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 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.
It's class leading in V8 economy.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)