Notices
Like Tree11Likes

Future GM 1/2 ton engine thoughts...?

Old 09-19-2019, 09:46 AM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Texas
Posts: 585
Lightbulb Future GM 1/2 ton engine thoughts...?

So they claim the latest body style was designed from the ground up to house the inline 6 3.0 Duramax. They also have the 2.7 4-cyl turbo out, which to me almost seems like just a confirmation on the engineering & design of concept. What are the odds we will see a more main stream, performance oriented inline 6 based on the 2.7 design? That would work out to around 4.0L leaving the bore/stroke the same. It makes sense I just don't know if anyone at GM actually has the balls to do it.

After driving a duramax for so many years I don't think I cold go back to a naturally aspirated motor. I don't really need an HD anymore so I am very interested in GM getting more into turbo gassers.
Jonboater is offline  
Old 09-19-2019, 10:05 AM
  #2  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,749
Default

Originally Posted by Jonboater View Post
So they claim the latest body style was designed from the ground up to house the inline 6 3.0 Duramax. They also have the 2.7 4-cyl turbo out, which to me almost seems like just a confirmation on the engineering & design of concept. What are the odds we will see a more main stream, performance oriented inline 6 based on the 2.7 design? That would work out to around 4.0L leaving the bore/stroke the same. It makes sense I just don't know if anyone at GM actually has the balls to do it.

After driving a duramax for so many years I don't think I cold go back to a naturally aspirated motor. I don't really need an HD anymore so I am very interested in GM getting more into turbo gassers.
The problem with a inline 6 is packaging, they can't be fitted into transverse layout vehicles. Which is likely why they wouldn't invest money into something that can't be used across their entire product line.

It would be nice to see an inline 6 gas engine though. Mercedes just moved to I6 and BMW has used them forever.
RyanL11 is offline  
Old 09-19-2019, 10:26 AM
  #3  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Texas
Posts: 585
Default

Valid point but I doubt we would ever see the 3.0 Duramax or the 2.7 4-cyl in transverse vehicles either but they are in production. At least right now, Silverado/Sierra/Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon are 90% of their product line anyway
Jonboater is offline  
Old 09-19-2019, 10:31 AM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Dryden/Ludington, MI - Steamboat, CO
Posts: 1,487
Default

FCA's replacement to the 5.7 Hemi is a 5.0L Inline 6 which may have both a supercharger as well as a turbo, similar to Volvo's power plant.
Salmonbum is online now  
Old 09-19-2019, 10:35 AM
  #5  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 11,402
Default

Originally Posted by Jonboater View Post
So they claim the latest body style was designed from the ground up to house the inline 6 3.0 Duramax. They also have the 2.7 4-cyl turbo out, which to me almost seems like just a confirmation on the engineering & design of concept. What are the odds we will see a more main stream, performance oriented inline 6 based on the 2.7 design? That would work out to around 4.0L leaving the bore/stroke the same. It makes sense I just don't know if anyone at GM actually has the balls to do it.

After driving a duramax for so many years I don't think I cold go back to a naturally aspirated motor. I don't really need an HD anymore so I am very interested in GM getting more into turbo gassers.
Ford already has that figured out quite well. Among other things they are doing far and above better than GM.
fatfreddy and NCSUboater like this.
autobaun70 is offline  
Old 09-19-2019, 10:51 AM
  #6  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Texas
Posts: 585
Default

Originally Posted by autobaun70 View Post
Ford already has that figured out quite well. Among other things they are doing far and above better than GM.
I don't think it matters that Ford was into turbos first, good for them and their buyers. I am not interested in Ford or what they have to offer but I am glad they showed us the potential of boosted smaller displacement engines in pickups.
Joe and jtav2002 like this.
Jonboater is offline  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:03 AM
  #7  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tampa Florida
Posts: 5,455
Default

Originally Posted by Jonboater View Post
I don't think it matters that Ford was into turbos first, good for them and their buyers. I am not interested in Ford or what they have to offer but I am glad they showed us the potential of boosted smaller displacement engines in pickups.
with emissions, a diesel in a 1/2 just doesnt make sense. a 6 with a forced induction is going to be the better option. lets face it, a 1/2 doesnt not really need the low end grunt like a heavy duty does!
Rolandt03 is offline  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:08 AM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 525
Default

I don't really think you will see it until the next generation if at all
kawakx125 is offline  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:11 AM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location:
Posts: 3,391
Default

Originally Posted by Jonboater View Post
I don't think it matters that Ford was into turbos first, good for them and their buyers. I am not interested in Ford or what they have to offer but I am glad they showed us the potential of boosted smaller displacement engines in pickups.
Show us where the Ford hurt you.
Milehog is offline  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:17 AM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 525
Default

Originally Posted by Rolandt03 View Post
with emissions, a diesel in a 1/2 just doesnt make sense. a 6 with a forced induction is going to be the better option. lets face it, a 1/2 doesnt not really need the low end grunt like a heavy duty does!
I disagree, anything towing any amount of weight can greatly benefit from more low end grunt. Half tons are still an extremely viable option for those that tow lower weights regularly, lets just say up to 5000lbs for a nice even number. Were it an option, i'd pick the low rpm torque engine over the one with a bunch of hp stuffed way up in the rpm range where you rarely drive under normal conditions.

Emissions does suck on diesels, I will give you that all day every day, but properly executed (unlike the ecodiesel ram that was plagued with issues) i think it would be an awesome option. Ford has done well with the ecoboost too. I just wish GM and Ram would quit sticking all the HP and torque so far up the rpm range on their v8's. Not to say they are slacking in current form, but all average joe cares about is the 400hp marketing scam. Less HP and torque would suit me just fine if it were placed lower in the rpm range
Bamby likes this.
kawakx125 is offline  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:40 AM
  #11  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Texas
Posts: 585
Default

Originally Posted by kawakx125 View Post
I disagree, anything towing any amount of weight can greatly benefit from more low end grunt. Half tons are still an extremely viable option for those that tow lower weights regularly, lets just say up to 5000lbs for a nice even number. Were it an option, i'd pick the low rpm torque engine over the one with a bunch of hp stuffed way up in the rpm range where you rarely drive under normal conditions.

Emissions does suck on diesels, I will give you that all day every day, but properly executed (unlike the ecodiesel ram that was plagued with issues) i think it would be an awesome option. Ford has done well with the ecoboost too. I just wish GM and Ram would quit sticking all the HP and torque so far up the rpm range on their v8's. Not to say they are slacking in current form, but all average joe cares about is the 400hp marketing scam. Less HP and torque would suit me just fine if it were placed lower in the rpm range
I pretty much agree 100% with this. I don't really care much about wot high RPM power. I don't think they have any other choice. There is only so much you can do natty to bring HP up without raising the RPMs or displacement. Obviously displacement kills economy beyond a certain point.

Originally Posted by Milehog View Post
Show us where the Ford hurt you.
I have had a couple Fords, not going to get into it but I didn't have the greatest luck with them. I am sure they are great. I don't mind admitting I am brand loyal though.
Jonboater is offline  
Old 09-19-2019, 12:10 PM
  #12  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tarpon Springs, FL
Posts: 7,761
Default

My thoughts are they should have made a 5.0L V-8 turbo diesel for the 1/2 ton.
mikefloyd is offline  
Old 09-19-2019, 12:28 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Texas
Posts: 585
Default

Originally Posted by mikefloyd View Post
My thoughts are they should have made a 5.0L V-8 turbo diesel for the 1/2 ton.
I agree though I am confused on why the Nissan/Cummins 5.0 diesel isn't better at the pump. It should be getting 25 or more mpg hw but it doesn't. The 3.0L size is targeting maximum fuel economy but with functional power.
Jonboater is offline  
Old 09-19-2019, 12:38 PM
  #14  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Wendell, NC
Posts: 2,480
Default

Guys, low end grunt doesn't matter for towing or doing truck stuff.


It's all about the horsepower.


But anyone threatening a sweet inline 6 gasser I'm willing to listen to, because that's about the perfect engine.



Except GM. They'll just screw it up and talk about how many cupholders or cameras or tailgate configurations it has while the engine eats timing chains.

I'm kidding....maybe.
NCSUboater is offline  
Old 09-19-2019, 06:55 PM
  #15  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 172
Default

Originally Posted by Salmonbum View Post
FCA's replacement to the 5.7 Hemi is a 5.0L Inline 6 which may have both a supercharger as well as a turbo, similar to Volvo's power plant.
that sounds like an absolute nightmare out of warranty lol
dawgsfish is offline  
Old 09-19-2019, 07:50 PM
  #16  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,340
Default

Originally Posted by NCSUboater View Post


But anyone threatening a sweet inline 6 gasser I'm willing to listen to, because that's about the perfect engine.
I'd rather have a Tundra than a Chevy, any day.
Time Machine is offline  
Old 09-19-2019, 07:58 PM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Wendell, NC
Posts: 2,480
Default

Originally Posted by Time Machine View Post
I'd rather have a Tundra than a Chevy, any day.
I'd rather have just about anything than a Chevy.
NCSUboater is offline  
Old 09-19-2019, 08:11 PM
  #18  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,203
Default

Originally Posted by NCSUboater View Post
I'd rather have just about anything than a Chevy.
I too am not a Chevy truck guy. But don't expect to pull away from a 6 cylinder Colorado at a traffic light. They're good for 6.1 seconds 0-60 mph and a quarter mile under 14 seconds. Most Supercars of the 60's couldn't compete until 90 mph and above.
Bamaman is offline  
Old 09-19-2019, 08:16 PM
  #19  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Wendell, NC
Posts: 2,480
Default

Originally Posted by Bamaman View Post
I too am not a Chevy truck guy. But don't expect to pull away from a 6 cylinder Colorado at a traffic light. They're good for 6.1 seconds 0-60 mph and a quarter mile under 14 seconds. Most Supercars of the 60's couldn't compete until 90 mph and above.
Depends on what you're in I guess. My 4Runner or 7.3 ain't pulling away from much of anything.

NCSUboater is offline  
Old 09-19-2019, 08:35 PM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Northern British Columbia
Posts: 1,021
Default

Have both an '08 2500 Duramax and a '12 F550 Powerstroke in the driveway. Would never own Cummins though. To each their own....
fishbum69 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.