GM Inside News Forum banner
1341 - 1360 of 1780 Posts

·
Firebird Concept (the turbine one)
Joined
·
15,356 Posts
That may be true against a l92 with 6l80 but then here comes the genV 6.2 with about 60 ftlbs more compared to the l92 at 2000rpm and a truck that is way lighter at the same time ram comes with the 8spd so that will make the difference in the 2 more gears down low. An 8spd is basically just a crutch for no low end tq. Then wait gm throws in an 8spd later alone with alot of low end tq then we have our selves a stump puller :yup:
The 5.7 VVT Hemi does not need an 8 speed automatic because it suffers from a lack of low end torque, and truth be told it's torque curve is the only reason that the wide ratio NAG1 5 speed auto does not conspire to effectively neuter it. I do believe that GM will shade the RAM notwithstanding a desire to again limit 6.2 engine availability as they do today but the Hemi 5.7 is a strong engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Until official ratings for the Hemi/8A come out, the fuel economy arguement comes down more to driver than powertrain. As for the torque curve, you may feel free to post some graphs so that we may have an equal comparison.
Im comparing 2011 ram hemi vs my 2011 silverado max FE. I dont believe the 8spd will help FE on highway much unless the tranny has way less parasitic loss then now because the final ratio is the same in the 8-6spd. The thing that will help is the aerodynamics and if you order the 1500 dollar air ride that lowers the truck at cruising speed. Thats just my opinion though
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,930 Posts
Maybe on some trim levels. But that's what GMC and Cadillac are for. Sorry if that makes your blood pressure high, but it's all about GM, not Chevy.
I don't know where people get off saying GMC is better than Chevy. Go compare a fully optioned Silverado LTZ and a Sierra Denali. Minus the stupid AWD system on the Denali, they're virtually identical.

So is Ford's. So is Ram's. Styling is subjective. GM sells nearly as many trucks as Ford, so your point is irrelavant.
Good point. I think Ford's grille is hideous and I've never been a huge fan of the Ram's "big-rig" styling. I also don't care for the Silverado, but love the Sierra.

Another lie. My 2003 Yukon still has the frame coating and has not rusted.
The frame coating on my Avalanche is perfectly intact, though its only 3 years old.

Hey, you guys just continue making excuses for poor quality... The fact is Chevrolet's interiors ARE cheap compared to Ford's.
The Ford was just redesigned. Ford's interiors were **** compared to Chevy when the GMT900's launched.

The fact is Chevrolet's are NOT on anyone's radar in the offroad community because they don't have a SFA nor a Raptor or RamRunner competitor.
And Ford and Dodge are just blips on the radar. Jeep owns this market. Why compromise the on-road towing and ride quality of your HD truck (which is how 99% of owners will use it) just for a few offroaders who will just buy a Wrangler anyways?

The fact is they DID use parts bin drum brakes on the GMT900.
False. My GMT900 Avalanche has four wheel disc brakes.

The fact is their bowtie emblems on the tailgates of the Silverado DO wash out from rain Very quickly.
The front grille emblem on my Avalanche did wash out; I got it replaced under warranty. The replacement bowtie was a different design so address the washout issue.

And sales of both of those trucks tell the story. That's what HD guys want.
Is it sales or is it reputation? I'm not saying I disagree, but remember Ford invented the "HD" light truck market. GM has powerful dominance in the full-size SUV market simply due to the Tahoe and Suburban's brand equity. Maybe a similar thing is happening with Ford?

Spin again. What are you, a commentator for MSNBC? I never once said that. All I Ever asked for is equality. Not for Anything to be liquidated.
I'd argue there is equality. What can you get on a Sierra Denali you can't get on a Silverado LTZ minus the stupid AWD system (which has no place on a truck)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
Im comparing 2011 ram hemi vs my 2011 silverado max FE. I dont believe the 8spd will help FE on highway much unless the tranny has way less parasitic loss then now because the final ratio is the same in the 8-6spd. The thing that will help is the aerodynamics and if you order the 1500 dollar air ride that lowers the truck at cruising speed. Thats just my opinion though
The 8HP is a PT 'engineer's' dream.... in all ways possible.

And yes, it uses less power internally...... although by what amount varies considerably as you cycle each one through a regime. The net is a hugely favorable number.

There is much more to how a an 8HP contributes to a better 'highway' number although there is always the question of what the OEM wants do with it.

That may be true against a l92 with 6l80 but then here comes the genV 6.2 with about 60 ftlbs more compared to the l92 at 2000rpm and a truck that is way lighter at the same time ram comes with the 8spd so that will make the difference in the 2 more gears down low.
The choking time comes..... after the 8HP comes out ..... with an updated Hemi.

- and perhaps........... some other things.



An 8spd is basically just a crutch for no low end tq. Then wait gm throws in an 8spd later alone with alot of low end tq then we have our selves a stump puller :yup:
An 8sp CAT outside an 8HP is either an expensive but useful improvement - but of a lesser sort than an 8HP - or a gimmick with a dose of 'we don't want to buy from ZF thrown in'.


You really should not run them all together like that.


Unlike any other , the 8HP has what it takes to stand up to all other 'rwd' offerings - whether with 6,7, 8, '9' or '10' and regardless of type ie CVT, DCT, CAT, etc etc



_________________________



One of the ( really ) 'cool' things 'imo' concerning the LT1 announcement is the inclusion of an ( intake air ) active relative humidity sensor - for more reasons than one.

Hope this makes into all the 'trucks'.


Not sure anyone else here likes to shall we say.... 'play with water' including steam injection but on the face of it...... hey, they got a sensor in play now......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
The 8HP is a PT 'engineer's' dream.... in all ways possible.

And yes, it uses less power internally...... although by what amount varies considerably as you cycle each one through a regime. The net is a hugely favorable number.

There is much more to how a an 8HP contributes to a better 'highway' number although there is always the question of what the OEM wants do with it.



The choking time comes..... after the 8HP comes out ..... with an updated Hemi.

- and perhaps........... some other things.





An 8sp CAT outside an 8HP is either an expensive but useful improvement - but of a lesser sort than an 8HP - or a gimmick with a dose of 'we don't want to buy from ZF thrown in'.


You really should not run them all together like that.


Unlike any other , the 8HP has what it takes to stand up to all other 'rwd' offerings - whether with 6,7, 8, '9' or '10' and regardless of type ie CVT, DCT, CAT, etc etc



_________________________



One of the ( really ) 'cool' things 'imo' concerning the LT1 announcement is the inclusion of an ( intake air ) active relative humidity sensor - for more reasons than one.

Hope this makes into all the 'trucks'.


Not sure anyone else here likes to shall we say.... 'play with water' including steam injection but on the face of it...... hey, they got a sensor in play now......
What makes the 8hp so much better then an ordinary 8spd? Any idea what the new improved hemi will be and when it arrives
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,218 Posts
I haven't followed the pages and pages of discussion on the trucks but does anyone think that GM will offer an air suspension option on the 1500 trucks like the 2013 Ram has? I just recently learned that the 2013 Ram has an adjustable air suspension and that seems like a really awesome option to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
I haven't followed the pages and pages of discussion on the trucks but does anyone think that GM will offer an air suspension option on the 1500 trucks like the 2013 Ram has? I just recently learned that the 2013 Ram has an adjustable air suspension and that seems like a really awesome option to me.
I would say no because gm and ford do not have rear coils and a 4 link suspension meaning they cant just get rid of the coils and put air bags in. They could put air helper bags on them to prevent sagging with heavy loads
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts
Which off-road community are you referring to? I've taken my 1996 Z71 off-roading in Colorado several times and had no problems. Most people in the off-road community use Jeeps. You're searching for excuses - lame excuses.
Oh yeah, which trails? I run up in Colorado a couple times a year. Most of the trails (note I said most) can be run with a stock IFS GMT400 with 285/75R16s and a good rear diff (good, not Gov-Loc). I've given water to Mtn Bikers up there. Makes me feel like a tool running in 4-hi. Most of the regular trails up there are pretty tame, but a F350 or a GM2500 crew-cab long bed is going to long day on the most mild trails. SFA or not, on switch backs, long wheel base stinks.

I prefer China over union made on many things.
Dangerous thinking. First, Union jobs are still jobs. Secondly, those Union pensions would be honored by the Gov't, which means you, me and every other tax payer. Finally, the best example of this is Milwaukee tools. Their quality took a noticeable and significant impact when their production was moved to China. Might as well go buy a Dewalt. Union or not, they used to make great tools, now they make good ones. I was a UAW worker in 1994 on the line, so I've seen both sides.

IFS on HD is not crap. What's wrong with it? Be specific.
With the GMT-400/800 IFS? EVERYTHING. bump steer, weak tie-rods, banjo diff housing, low-strength components, deflection, etc. It is TERRIBLE by comparison. I'd take an 8-lug, 30 spline 8.5 10bolt over the first gen IFS any day.
I wouldn't say the 900-HD IFS is crap, but it isn't golden gem of awesomeness either.
First, linear-rate torsion bars are more than enough reason. To get a 6k GVWR front axle capacity, the torsion bar rate was increased significantly. Because they are linear and not progressive like Dodge and Ford, the suspension is stiffer. Fine when you're hauling around a plow, but a bit much empty. Secondly, while the individual suspension travel is similar to Ford and Dodge, what the SFA crowd has to benefit is the lever effect of the beam axle. With similar spring rates, this benefits the SFA in terms of articulation, the IFS in terms of ride.
However, where as the IFS may have a design advantage in terms of ride, it suffers by comparison because each tire is independent, there is no effective lever across BOTH springs and thus a higher spring is required.
But most importantly, and this is often where the PRO-IFS and ANTI-IFS crowd but heads, the GM IFS has too many negatives in terms of off-road. Tire size capacity is too small, strength of the axle housing, half-shaft strength and steering component strength are all too light for large tires, on a heavy truck in a moderate to heavy off-road situation.
That's not to say that IFS in general is terrible off-road. That is not true, it is just more expensive and difficult to build.
The GM 1/2ton coil spring suspension is a better design for off-road, but they still need to facilitate larger (heavier) wheel and tire combinations.

It isn't a question of IF IFS can be good off-road, it is the truth that the GM IFS ISN'T that so many cannot accept.

Well good for you - REAL truck folk. What a joke. I won't be hurt if GM loses you as a customer.
Each GM customer is important. Let's take the Jeep example: The Grand Cherokee is IFS/IRS but the Wrangler Unlimited is SFA/SRA. Both have impressive sales numbers, for entirely different reasons.
The idea that GM can afford to lose a customer is foolish. It is easier to keep a customer than win over a new-one.

Ground clearance at the frame (and especially the differentials) is the important stat. And the only reason frame clearance is important is for cross-over angles, not field ruts. Rut depth is completely dependant upon tire size. So you really appear to not know what you're talking about.
The lowest part on ANY HD GM truck is the bottom of the 14 bolt full-float. The issue with IFS is the wide, low hanging front cross-member. While it isn't lower than a super Dana 60, the width of a front pumpkin is pretty narrow and near one tire, thus pretty easy to avoid stuff. FYI, I've wheeled with a DANA 60 SFA and 30.5" tires and didn't hit a single rock on the diff cover.

You cannot point to HD IFS and frame cosmetics alone as to why GM lags Ford. Most of your complaints are typical wanna-be machoisms that most people don't care about.
Look, sales number don't lie. Ford has been beating GM in HD sales with lousy gas engines, a problematic diesel since 2003, lower fuel economy and 2nd place performance. Perception is an amazing sales tool.

If, and this is a BIG IF, GM were to revamp the IFS to a coil-over system, that supported a much larger tire (Safely) with wider fender/quarter openings, a better rear locker, a front torsen/locking diff, stronger front half-shafts, much stronger steering components, and a longer travel suspension with sway-bar disconnect, the GM IFS could easily hang with the Raptor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
What makes the 8hp so much better then an ordinary 8spd?
Yes.

In regards to the 'first' A - AW / 'A' ....'TL'xxxxx and Hyundai's whatever they call it + an approximation for the HD A - AW / 'A' 'TR'xxxxx.


Over simplified......... the first two appear to be technically speaking, modified 6sp ATs and the TR still has at least a really big piece of that in it.

ZF on the otherhand, started with a strong Management commitment, a design staff, a highly motivated and 'helpful' ? 'first' customer ( BMW ), a big or big enough budget - and timeframe, some seriously kickass 'design' process software ( at the time ) and ....... a clean sheet.

They do say they evaluated thousands of configurations.........

Hyundai and 'Aisin' / Toyota were motivated to have 8 gears quite arbitrarily - so they could 'attempt' to lord over MB's 7G on gear count marketing wise.Or perhaps better said, that was what happened with Aisin / Toyota, and then in part because of that, Hyundai wanted to at least match Lexus while pulling out in front of MB on gear count.

Which unit btw, they miscalculated in terms of it's ZF inspired improvement program.

The second gen 7G is 'better' to have than either of those two - although down 1 gear for marketing purposes. It may be - key phrase " may be " a different story with regard to the TRxxxxx in it's HD torque range and or in certain kinds of vehicles.


*****


So..... the first 8 speed from A - AW for Toyota / Lexus ie the A -AW or 'A' TL80SN comes as a modified 6 sp - still using a Lepelletier gear train concept ( common on almost all 6 sp CATs ) ie a single basic planetary gear set connected to a now augmented Ravigneaux gear set but with a slight twist. And that is the terrible mistake of using a double planetary gearset in first position. The TR series corrects this error although that does not make it all right - just better than the failed TL series.

Which Ravigneaux assembly is as always, in this 'L' gear train concept - 'R' gear set - composed of two interconnected planetary gear sets via shared planet gears. So, a total of three planetary gear sets ie one double planetary connected to a paired Ravigneaux set.

What they did was to - the other thing was to - within one of the planetary sets in the Ravigneaux 'section' - was to pair up the existing shared planet gears - with an additional 'brother' - not shared.( And then fiddle with the control elements. )

Total gear spread is about 6.709x vs approximately 7.04x for the ZF 8HP.

I cannot remember the details of the second 8 speed under discussion ie from Hyundai although we have had big parts of it posted previously.

Since GM is not potentially buying 'that one', it will suffice to say that although it does vary from the TL80SN and also the details of how it falls short from the 8H P........ it does not matter.

Basically, it ends up the same sort of difference with a little plus and minus variation here and there.

Then we come to # 4 ( 8HP IS #3 ).

Which is the one of most interest in terms of the topic - or so we can hope.

That would be the second A - AW / 'A' unit aka the TR80SD - and formally in words as the " High Torque Capacity Rwd 8 Speed Automatic Transmission ".

As suggested previously, this one is both an improved derivative of - and also separately a higher torque capacity unit derived from the earlier TL80SN ( aka @ Toyota / Lexus as the 'AA80E'. )

Also per previous , it's also appears to be 'better' than the Hyundai unit - in it's original form...... so this is the one to find out about.


It is in essence a redo with a significantly different gear train and function.

VAG..... may have helped....


*****


Anyway.....



ZF started with the number of gears as a variable to be solved for.

Could've been, one supposes based on the way they speak about it....... 'somewhere' between '1' - 10 +.


So....... ZF ends up with.........

1. ) A wider gear spread, better apportioned.

2. ) Critically, a better type of gear train composed of one relatively simple Simpson gearset with it's two planetary elements, and then the mind blowing aspect ie two simple planetary gearsets ( thought to be obsolete at this point ) for a total of four planetary sets -

Then mind blower #3 - controlled by only five shift elements of which only two are open in any given gear. The thing of it is...... it is that combination + the specifics within that combination that are so different and so powerful - and so efficient.

In otherwords, the type of gear train, the arrangement of that gear train, and then how you use it - and control it - which is all very much - completely interdependent is different - and better - all around for everything or every consideration.


There is also with the HP8 some super clever eh, benefits from the exact details of the shift element designs........


It is a more balanced box in all ways possible and this plus all the other means it ends up, lighter, cheaper, stronger, more efficient, faster, and more adaptable.

And that is not the whole list.

Torque converter - pump etc ie all of it and again with even an extra dose because of the synergistic effects.


In comparison.......


The twenty / twenty plus year old WA580 / 5G that was at intro the cat's meow - gets 5 ( forward ) gears out out of 3 planetary sets - arranged as a less efficient Simpson plus a simple - which is pretty good except ..... it has 8 control elements of which 3 or 4 are always open - which means among other things more mass / dynamic 'spinning mass' / more fluid volume / pressure requirements / fluid drag ......although second gear may just be 2 - I always screw that one up for some reason.

The A -AW 'A' TL has 3 planetary sets but of of a more expensive yet less efficient/ higher friction type - with a lower gear spread less ideally split that requires 7 shift elements to control and eh, I cannot remember but does run with 3 or 4 open often....... maybe 2 or 5 once or both or something like that.


3. ) A bunch of other from the specifics of the torque converter to the mechtronics to the hydraulic pump etc etc etc. Much of these parts can be duplicated elsewhere to at least some extent - eventually. For example many have already incorporated much of the torque converter improvements although again because of other differences ( gear train / gear splits ) they cannot do that as strongly.

4. And then the other biggy. The integration factor ie all of this decided pretty much simultaneously. So..... a unique amalgamation of many 'common or somewhat common elements - resulting in an extra dollop of synergy.

Think - like - a block of stone representing all possible AT design space.

Then think of Michelangelo's 'David' - that kinda' catches the essence of it.


So if we crudely sum up just the most important main parts of it, it uses less power to run itself, reacts quicker and with a higher quality, has a better geartrain in all ways possible - with a wider and better apportioned set of gear splits, weighs less, and cost's considerably less - and pound for pound can handle more torque while also generating less heat.

One has to wonder.... if GM is still sore about the ZF second gen 6HP / BMW.......dirty play...... which kinda' helped fund the somewhat simultaneous 8HP development program.......


Any idea what the new improved hemi will be and when it arrives
No, not really....... I've my list like everyone else but .....

I expect them for certain to bring 'more active tech' to it than GM is going to for the LT1.


You will notice that GM is kinda' strongly in the mode of doing as little as possible for the conventional stuff ala the last DM update - and the LT1.

Great - even superlative results for sure but ...... there was more to be had if the teams hadn't of been so constrained ( and yes, they should have their own flavor of something special in the pipeline - that flows like sludge on a really cold day - ) Others...... like Chrysler are not going to let that mid game space go by like GM is - to shift resources to the electrification efforts.

I hope it is clear that I am complaining as one who wishes and wants them to do well - and not as a 'nother brand spin doc.


Finally worth remembering, the 8HP program is so good, so strong that ZF is going to drop the world's best rwd 6speed CAT in or around mid 2014........Which, besides being quite quick - and therefore early, is mostly about their 8HP production capacity - and perhaps their customer's timing - it is not about technical merit in any aspect - or cost.

Notice also - although coming much much later than the all other 8sp CATs, the 8HP is fully dominating the volume space - which will increase even more as each day goes by. As far as speed of rollout, it's a bit like a man leading a small donkey all loaded up who had a big head start - vs an F14 for coast to coast travel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
.
.
.
Well, we can feel better in some aspects and worse in others about this potential GM purchase.

'Toyota Motor Corporation' ie the big enchilada, does in fact net ( much ? ) more than a 50 % ownership interest in the Aisin business unit that makes this box.


_________________


Technically speaking, this transmission the TR80SD while still short of the 8HP especially when cost, simplicity, weight etc etc is considered - does come a useable amount closer in terms of certain functional aspects - while trading just a bit in other.

Simply put, A -AW has been feverishly fiddling with this unit in addition to tryin' to catch up @ inception.

Interestingly enough, although employing the same basic gear train / gear train concept or system as the TL, they have widened the gear spread considerably - past in fact, the 8HP. < No, that is wrong - it is a redo with a significantly different geartrain although somewhat similar. >

No, that will not overcome all the other, and no, it will not beat much less fully match, but it will really help make up some of it - especially for highway mpg rating and use. In light of what A - AW says about it along with ZF's info and proven record, if one had to guess - should end up providing somewhere between eh........ 30 - 60 % of the total 8HP FE improvement.

Currently seems to be several splits and spreads available somewhere between about 7.12x , 7.17, 7.20/ 7.20x.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,040 Posts
If the event happens on the 13th (we expect it to), then it will be a day of wait & see. If the press has already been given material on them (not expected) & an embargo expires at midnight on the 13th, I'll be late to the party. Gotta be at work @ midnight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
858 Posts
Let's see-GM: 5.3L (335 lb.-ft.), 6.2L (417 lb.-ft. on premium fuel)
-Ford: 5.0L (380 lb.-ft.), 6.2L (434 lb.-ft. on reg. gas)
-Ram: 4.7L (330 lb.-ft.), 5.7L (407 lb.-ft.)

In my opinion, Ford has the competition beat if you compare the entry level V8s against each other & then the top of the line V8s head-to-head. But, GM & Ford have a tendency to reserve the top V8s for their top trims. Want an F150 with a 6.2? Buy a Limited, Raptor or King Ranch. Want a Silverado with the 6.2? An LTZ or Denali is in your future. Want a Hemi? Ok, just pick what trim you want. Stripped entry model? Here you go. Top of the line Longhorn? Hell, we'll just give that to you automatically. As stated before, the Gen 5 GM engines will improve, but Ford will give the 5.0 DI & increase HP & torque & I'm sure if Ram wants to use the bore or crankshaft stroke size, they can resurrect the 6.1L Hemi or surprise everybody by offering a truck duty style 392 Hemi. It's a game of one-upsmanship that everybody knows how to play.
Owning a Ford 6.2L and a GM 6.2L they both have great power, but the Ford feels stronger in towing and everyday driving, it may just be all the computer power nanny's GM uses. I am really looking fwd to trying out the new GM GenV 6.2L. They both sound geat but the GM 6.2L sounds much better at idle, and a little better accelorating.

I know when GM and Ford first offered these 6.2L they were limitted to there top of the line models. GM changed that I believe in 2011 MY, maybe prior to that. I have a friend with a ext cab 2011 GMC SLT with cloth bucket seats, and another friend that has a 2012 SLE Crew cab 6.2L GMC with cloth bench seat. Ford has improved their 6.2L availabilty every year since it hit the market in 2010. 2010 was raptor only, 2011 was Platinum, Larriat, Raptor, LTD, and HD. Now for 2013 I believe they have it expanded to not only Raptors and elite trim Crew cabs, but also ext. cabs and opened it up to be availble down to XLT trim. Its a lot better now but still not availble down to the WT pkg trucks, in those WT trims I think only Dodge and Toyota have the top HP powertrains availble.
 

·
Firebird Concept (the turbine one)
Joined
·
15,356 Posts
I sincerely hope that GM offers the 6.2 as an available option in every trim level because that is a huge incentive for those who consider Dodge.
 

·
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
·
5,344 Posts
Lets take a 2013 Tahoe that has 320 hp and weighs 5500lbs in rwd.
Now take a 2014 that is all new, has 360hp and weighs 49-5000lbs in rwd trim.
It's still not going to be a speed demon. Will probably 0-60 in the 6.6-7.0 range and get 2mpg better.
I think we are going to need to see another 5-700 lbs in weight reduction before Dynamics and fuel economy get interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Lets take a 2013 Tahoe that has 320 hp and weighs 5500lbs in rwd.
Now take a 2014 that is all new, has 360hp and weighs 49-5000lbs in rwd trim.
It's still not going to be a speed demon. Will probably 0-60 in the 6.6-7.0 range and get 2mpg better.
I think we are going to need to see another 5-700 lbs in weight reduction before Dynamics and fuel economy get interesting.
HP doesnt have the affects on MPG like TQ does and the new genV has way more low end then they do now so thats what will contribute to the way better MPG. By having more low end TQ it will allow them to maintain 4 cylinder mode much longer along with the 500 lb weight drop. Just my opinion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,105 Posts
Owning a Ford 6.2L and a GM 6.2L they both have great power, but the Ford feels stronger in towing and everyday driving, it may just be all the computer power nanny's GM uses. I am really looking fwd to trying out the new GM GenV 6.2L. They both sound geat but the GM 6.2L sounds much better at idle, and a little better accelorating.

I know when GM and Ford first offered these 6.2L they were limitted to there top of the line models. GM changed that I believe in 2011 MY, maybe prior to that. I have a friend with a ext cab 2011 GMC SLT with cloth bucket seats, and another friend that has a 2012 SLE Crew cab 6.2L GMC with cloth bench seat. Ford has improved their 6.2L availabilty every year since it hit the market in 2010. 2010 was raptor only, 2011 was Platinum, Larriat, Raptor, LTD, and HD. Now for 2013 I believe they have it expanded to not only Raptors and elite trim Crew cabs, but also ext. cabs and opened it up to be availble down to XLT trim. Its a lot better now but still not availble down to the WT pkg trucks, in those WT trims I think only Dodge and Toyota have the top HP powertrains availble.
still not available on an extended cab long bed though....im hoping it is for the next gen trucks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,484 Posts
The new 6.2L should be available in any trim. A regular cab long bed with 6.2L would have a pretty good take rate IMO. The 5.3L in the regular cab long bed is a rare find, let alone the biggun.
 
1341 - 1360 of 1780 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