Well, I'm disappointed if these numbers are right.

[Daly]

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/04/2019-silverado-engines-power-and-torque-ratings-revealed/

 

GM Authority has posted HP and TQ numbers for the two V8's. Looks like the 6.2 gets a 5HP raise and falls 10ft/lbs. And the 5.3 stays the same. I really hoped GM would've bumped these two engine up some more. I would've like to have seen a 390+hp 5.3 and 480+ft/lbs out of the 6.2. 

 

The numbers aren't bad, just underwhelming.

[NOVA99]

What a joke.  I have only had 6.2L and they are great, but for them to go backwards is asinine.   Only reason I purchase GMC is for the 6.2L and they go backwards...Back to Ford it is.  And BTW - You can keep those stupid looking mirrors that have been relocated for "visibility."  Must have put the summer interns on the this truck platform.  So Disappointed.

[AgDoctor]

Those numbers are not right I can assure you of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Logan Lanfear]

Gotta remember theyre using a different system for economy.  Their skip fire.  Not sure how this one works but its probably why. 

Thats if theyre right. 

[Jeffro19]

30 minutes ago, AgDoctor said:

Those numbers are not right I can assure you of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why wouldn’t they be right? I assure you they are correct. Plain as day in the order guide. 

[NWI Denali]

Torque isnt up 5 on the 6.2. It's actually down 10. Weird. Eventually there has to be an end in sight for the power wars. Power numbers have to plateau and hit a ceiling sooner or later. Maybe this is it.

[swathdiver]

Y'all can't feel a 5 or 10 horsepower difference, only measure it at the track or on a dyno.  Jump to Ford because of this?  Plumb silly if you ask me. 

 

In the 1980s the '87 Grand National had larger horsepower and torque numbers and yet, at the track, the '86s were usually faster.  In the 1960s and 1970s horsepower figures were all over the place to comply with company regulations and insurance regulations and then government regulations.  They only way to know for sure how much horsepower an engine made was to run it down the track or put the engine on a dyno.

 

Getting back to the new engines, how much is that 5 or 10 horsepower and torque going to matter once BlackBear and other tuners get their hands on these engines?  NONE!  "Ford it is..." LOL 

[newdude]

Remember, the trucks are up to 400lbs lighter now too.  If you keep the power the same, the weight loss and added gears will add performance. 

[swathdiver]

18 minutes ago, newdude said:

Remember, the trucks are up to 400lbs lighter now too.  If you keep the power the same, the weight loss and added gears will add performance. 

400 pounds can be felt and that 5-10 horsepower and torque will never be missed.  Won't make a hill of beans difference anyway after a tune.

[Nanotech Environmental]

54 minutes ago, swathdiver said:

In the 1980s the '87 Grand National had larger horsepower and torque numbers and yet, at the track, the '86s were usually faster. 

Several factors at play. The 86's weren't actually faster & apples to apples were slower by a bit. I had an 87, bought new. The biggest issue with stock tires was getting them to hook up consistently. They'd usually be fine just off the line, even with a full launch, but once the turbo fully spooled, the tires were toast. Put both cars apples to apples, in pure stock form, stock factory tune,  stock boost profile, same weights, same fuel, on the same drag slicks, same time, same track & the 87 will prevail 9 times out of 10. 
These were some of the first cars that the techies could mess with the tuning profiles via computer & they did. Back then, if the person knew how, they could keep the car looking bone stock, but easily up the boost by 3-5lbs and improve the fuel map, getting an extra 50+ hp. Even 20-30 hp is all you need to fool and mess with people at the strip. 

[SILVER SLED]

Totally agree with newdude and swathdriver, these new trucks will feel a lot quicker/powerful even with the new HP ratings.  Too bad their so dang ugly.

[Donstar]

It is funny how important those hp/tq numbers are to most of us who  take pride in our vehicles.  Intellectually we know these numbers are only part of the performance equation.  Many of us have spent decades driving full sized pickups (V8 and L6) boasting significantly less than 200 hp. We still bragged about our trucks, raced them and carried ridiculous loads.  The only factory numbers that are truly important, in my opinion, are those that state load and towing capacity.  If you keep within these limits, your truck will perform well in all normal (safe and legal) driving situations.

[silveradonationfan15]

There is still another engine to be shown, It says under the fleet order guide  that the 5.3L is standard on the LT trailboss and above trim levels, and LT and RST models it says the 5,3L is a option but below in small print "Base engine not available at launch"

[frenchsquared]

Remember this isn't all up to GM. Our wonderful government is limiting everything GM does. From fuel economy to bumper height, tire size, and mirror location. If you don't like what the new cars are becoming maybe you need to vote differently.

['01LS1]

18 hours ago, Daly said:

 

 

GM Authority has posted HP and TQ numbers for the two V8's. Looks like the 6.2 gets a 5HP raise and falls 10ft/lbs. And the 5.3 stays the same. I really hoped GM would've bumped these two engine up some more. I would've like to have seen a 390+hp 5.3 and 480+ft/lbs out of the 6.2. 

 

The numbers aren't bad, just underwhelming.

See update from today.