GM Inside News Forum banner
41 - 60 of 91 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
8,929 Posts
What will the 4.5L BabyMax return for economy? Any better than the 4.3L V6-gas? And no doubt it will out-tow, theoretically, the Ram.
If someone were to drive the 4.3 & the 4.5 calmly, I would actually bet that the TD could return better economy than the V6. It may not be by a wide margin, but that's what I think.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
512 Posts
What's wrong with using the new 2.8 liter diesel that's going to be in the Colorado/Canyon? I'm betting it will have similar output to the Ram 3.0, which I believe GM was involved with in a joint development. So GM is well aware of the 3.0 strengths and weaknesses.

If there isn't enough power, how about adding a small electric motor in a simple parallel hybrid arrangement to the front wheels to provide even more torque when accelerating and to increase efficiency with regen braking.

Another approach is to add two more cylinders to the 2.8 to make a smooth running 4.2 liter turbo inline 6. This would be my favorite.

I heard a GM guy say during an interview that the problem with diesels in general is they require upwards of $3k in pollution equipment in order to meet US standards. I also heard that the Ram 3.0 costs only $3k, if that's true, how are they making any money with this Ram diesel?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,525 Posts
SUVs along with the pickups are a must. Also more sedans as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 377Z

· Premium Member
Joined
·
12,265 Posts
I heard a GM guy say during an interview that the problem with diesels in general is they require upwards of $3k in pollution equipment in order to meet US standards. I also heard that the Ram 3.0 costs only $3k, if that's true, how are they making any money with this Ram diesel?
Ram is eating costs and buying market share, how else can you sell more and more vehicles yet make less money each quarter. Careful GM, Ram is nipping at your heals and stealing your lunch.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
23,091 Posts
Ram diesel sales would be lucky to be 2,000/mth, I'm not so sure about claims by Ram that
those sales will increase from the current 10% to 20% of total 1500 sales.

Sure Ford and GM could compete but let's take GM for a second:
- give the silverado 5.3 an 8-speed auto and you could see fuel economy jump to 25 mpg,
a brilliant result that would impact around 75-80% of GM's half ton truck buyers.

Similarly, Ford's new lightened '15 F150, set to go forth and do battle with 2.7 Ecoboost,
an engine guaranteed to shake up any notions of F Truck buyers considering a diesel.
I have a hunch that the new F 150 with 2.7 EB will be mighty close to Ram ED V6 in
all the right areas like fuel economy and yet worlds apart in others like performance.
Good points and exactly why the car companies don't just rush out there with "ooooo Ram has a diesel, we need one too" as engineering, designing, building a plant or a production line, setting up suppliers, etc are all very expensive and capital is a limited resource. Though I certainly hope and strongly suspect that GM is looking at Ram's sales.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
8,929 Posts
What's wrong with using the new 2.8 liter diesel that's going to be in the Colorado/Canyon? I'm betting it will have similar output to the Ram 3.0, which I believe GM was involved with in a joint development. So GM is well aware of the 3.0 strengths and weaknesses.
Read post #33 of this thread. Using the ratings for the Holden Colorado currently on sale, the 2.8L puts out ~195 HP/370 lb.-ft. GM sold their stake in VM Motori years ago, so GM can no longer gain access to any of those engines unless they had contracts prior to the sale.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
477 Posts
Most sensible owners don't buy a truck to tow on the max. and if we're brutally honest most of them are glorified shopping trolleys. What will be interesting is that both sets of buyers will be able to compare the features of both trucks, I'm willing to bet that Ecoboost satisfies most F150 buyers who were thinking of switching to a Ram diesel and that's all that really matters,

No one is really trying to convince genuine diesel buyers to switch back to Ecoboost.
True that, and I wonder where the 2.7EB sits versus the base 3.5L; if you are going to give up on towing capacity might as well go the full monty. Cost will play in too, do you know what is the step up cost for going 3.5L to 2.7EB?

If someone were to drive the 4.3 & the 4.5 calmly, I would actually bet that the TD could return better economy than the V6. It may not be by a wide margin, but that's what I think.
I am with you on that. But the 4.5L would still be able to tow about 5000 lbs more, and also probably cost about $5,000+ more. Thats the thing with the 4.5 DM, it'd be more of an alternative to the 5.3 and 6.2, not an all out mileage champ. Will people want to spend $5,000 more for slightly better towing and moderately better fuel economy over the V8? If towing is so important, they go to HD trucks. That's why I think the EcoDiesel idea works so well, the step up cost isn't huge (well, comparatively...) but the mileage gain is and you don't lose much capability. The 4.5 would be too much truck for most buyers, chases a smaller niche. Now once CAFE forces Tahoes/Suburbans to all be hybrids, then the 4.5 will look great!

What's wrong with using the new 2.8 liter diesel that's going to be in the Colorado/Canyon? I'm betting it will have similar output to the Ram 3.0, which I believe GM was involved with in a joint development. So GM is well aware of the 3.0 strengths and weaknesses.

If there isn't enough power, how about adding a small electric motor in a simple parallel hybrid arrangement to the front wheels to provide even more torque when accelerating and to increase efficiency with regen braking.

Another approach is to add two more cylinders to the 2.8 to make a smooth running 4.2 liter turbo inline 6. This would be my favorite.

I heard a GM guy say during an interview that the problem with diesels in general is they require upwards of $3k in pollution equipment in order to meet US standards. I also heard that the Ram 3.0 costs only $3k, if that's true, how are they making any money with this Ram diesel?
The guy must have been talking about the big HD diesels when DPF and SCR first came out, I'm sure the smaller diesel engines have lower costs due to smaller equipment, higher volumes, and increased development. The Ram 3.0ED is an almost $3k step up from the Hemi, not $3k by itself, so they are making money on it. Plus the CAFE boost is probably worthwhile!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
196 Posts
There are 4 types of truck buyers:
1. People who want a big car and never use it as a truck
2. People who make a living using their truck
3. People who are strong "hobbyists" and haul a lot of stuff or tow toys around
4. Idiots.

Reasons for a Diesel in a 1500:
1. Fuel Economy
You are not going to save money driving a diesel, sorry the numbers don't work out.

2. Bragging Rights
I suspect the reason for a lot of RAM Diesel sales

3. Too much money
From a business perspective, this is a great group to go after, but you could just sell them the badge because they would not know the difference.

4. Performance
What most people think will be the biggest buyers, but I doubt this is the biggest group.

So knowing this, why are people going for a 1500 Diesel? Marketing. People think they will save money driving it, but they will not recoup the cost of the option for 10yrs if they are lucky, and that is far beyond what most will keep it for.

Ford is a little better, it will only take a few years to recoup the cost of the EB, but most people only look at the gas savings, not the cost of the option.

GM has some of the best trucks out there, with some of the worst marketing. Marketing should be able to sell a s**t taco to a lady in white gloves...I am not sure GM marketing can sell white gloves to here.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
196 Posts
One other note, the 4.5L would be a great engine...for HD trucks. Too big for light duty to really make a business case, but start going after Ford on HD trucks with better economy and you may be shocked by the response from the self employed/corporate buyers, that would make a lot of sense to them, and the customers who never use the HD truck they buy as a truck.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,083 Posts
I do not know if the new family of Duramax engines could have an increase in the number of cylinders.

For example, start with the Duramax 2.5L and make it a 3.1 L 5-cylinder or a 3.8 L 6 cylinder.

Or better yet, start with the Duramax 2.8L and make it a 3.5 L 5-cylinder.

But what would be really interesting is to adapt the eAssist technology to the SmallBlock. Having 80 pound-feet of torque available from 0 to 3000 rpm could certainly help the Silverado to stand out, both in terms of fuel consomption and performance.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
604 Posts
Day late and a dollar short as they say. Ram is gaining sales by being bold and grabbing attention/headlines, as well as Ford with the aluminum body. I really like GM's trucks and I personally don't mind their overall evolutionary approach, but they don't have any revolutionary items (or at least their marketing team doesn't approach it as such (think EcoBoost marketing), to grab the headlines and be perceived by the average consumer as having a superior or equal product.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 377Z and lohchief

· Registered
Joined
·
6,277 Posts
One other note, the 4.5L would be a great engine...for HD trucks. Too big for light duty to really make a business case, but start going after Ford on HD trucks with better economy and you may be shocked by the response from the self employed/corporate buyers, that would make a lot of sense to them, and the customers who never use the HD truck they buy as a truck.
The 4.5 was developed to fit exactly into the space of a Chevy ohv V8. Hence the turbo between the cylinder banks. It was tested in the Trailblazer SUV at the time and was always intended to be light duty.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,960 Posts
Day late and a dollar short as they say. Ram is gaining sales by being bold and grabbing attention/headlines, as well as Ford with the aluminum body. I really like GM's trucks and I personally don't mind their overall evolutionary approach, but they don't have any revolutionary items (or at least their marketing team doesn't approach it as such (think EcoBoost marketing), to grab the headlines and be perceived by the average consumer as having a superior or equal product.
If GM goes with an aluminum body or adds a diesel, they will be seen a copycats because Ram and Ford have already grabbed the headlines. GM really grabbed the headlines with the original diesel in pick-ups but the same engine later grabbed headlines for a different reason. If GM had only gotten the original diesel right..........................................
 

· Registered
Joined
·
15,663 Posts
Roughly 300 hp and what, 500 pd ft ? or a little less means 300 - 310 hp / 4.5L = about 67 - 69 hp per litre and then say 480 - 520 pd ft / 4.5L = about 107 - 115.6 pdft per litre.

Likely would have allowed some applications with a non SCR fitment and a smaller one for good effect on the others.

Would depend on what kind of loads were provided for though.

If they matched the Ram EB 3.0 per litre outputs then you would have 360 hp and 630 pdft.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,854 Posts
GM needs to come out with a diesel for the 1500 that is more competitive in pricing. $4000 premium on the Ram for a v6 diesel would make me not want to choose the option. i would rather put that money towards leather heated seats and other features. with the high cost of the motor and cost for fuel, does it really pay?
Bet the ROI on 'leather heated seats and other features' is a lot worse then the 4Gs on diesel. And it's not like you can't buy both.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9,812 Posts
There are 4 types of truck buyers:
1. People who want a big car and never use it as a truck
2. People who make a living using their truck
3. People who are strong "hobbyists" and haul a lot of stuff or tow toys around
4. Idiots.

Reasons for a Diesel in a 1500:
1. Fuel Economy
You are not going to save money driving a diesel, sorry the numbers don't work out.


2. Bragging Rights
I suspect the reason for a lot of RAM Diesel sales

3. Too much money
From a business perspective, this is a great group to go after, but you could just sell them the badge because they would not know the difference.

4. Performance
What most people think will be the biggest buyers, but I doubt this is the biggest group.

So knowing this, why are people going for a 1500 Diesel? Marketing. People think they will save money driving it, but they will not recoup the cost of the option for 10yrs if they are lucky, and that is far beyond what most will keep it for.

Ford is a little better, it will only take a few years to recoup the cost of the EB, but most people only look at the gas savings, not the cost of the option.

GM has some of the best trucks out there, with some of the worst marketing. Marketing should be able to sell a s**t taco to a lady in white gloves...I am not sure GM marketing can sell white gloves to here.
#1 WILL pay out IF your usage is high and your LOADS are LOW
#3 same as #1 the PAY OUT is WAY down the road
I know Farmers run 50+K a YEAR and a 1/2 Tonner as a second truck pay for them selves over using the HD trucks to drive into town/check the fields ETC so a ECO Diesel/ Eco boost 2.7L WOULD pay for them selves
I personally think there is a 5th buyer and that is the "large car" / weekend project type - one that needs "some" truck capacity but NOT the 10K+ offered in a full sizer - ITS this group that IMHO are buying the EB/ED and WILL consider the colorado's
 

· Registered
Joined
·
196 Posts
#1 WILL pay out IF your usage is high and your LOADS are LOW
#3 same as #1 the PAY OUT is WAY down the road
I know Farmers run 50+K a YEAR and a 1/2 Tonner as a second truck pay for them selves over using the HD trucks to drive into town/check the fields ETC so a ECO Diesel/ Eco boost 2.7L WOULD pay for them selves
I personally think there is a 5th buyer and that is the "large car" / weekend project type - one that needs "some" truck capacity but NOT the 10K+ offered in a full sizer - ITS this group that IMHO are buying the EB/ED and WILL consider the colorado's


I can see a 5th group, had them in with #3.

Did a calc for a $4K investment into Diesel based on my mileage and current Diesel/Gas difference, It would pay back in about 13.3yrs. If you run 50K miles a year, you would pay back in 4 years. The fuel economy savings are more a marketing thing than actual payback if you figure the option price, that's not to say it won't sell.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,277 Posts
Bet the ROI on 'leather heated seats and other features' is a lot worse then the 4Gs on diesel. And it's not like you can't buy both.
The resale would be higher and if we are being fair, it factors in. But then you get into the perverse incentives of "buying a car to sell it" it ten years.

By that measure I should only buy a crew cab even if I only carry one or maybe two people max.

And as twinpeaks mentioned, to recoup your investment you have to keep it a long time - how much does resale really amount to in ten years? And if you trade it in four years then you haven't come close to recouping the fuel costs.

Back when GM was having so much success with the 379 "6.2" diesel, people were paying for the extra power - low rpm torque that is - of the big inch diesel.

Having said all that, I wonder what kind of case you could make for putting the Colo 4cyl TD in the Silvy.

They used the 195hp Vortec for - what 20 years? Seems like a 200hp, 350lb/ft diesel could get the job done in any of the configurations if you just watch the axle ratios.

IF, and its a big if, IF people are paying up front for fuel savings down the road, the smaller cheaper I4 would be in a perfect position. But again, it's an IF that I don't think has yet been proven.
 
41 - 60 of 91 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