2019 V8 Horsepower ratings.

Ron.s · May 11, 2018

There is no reason that the 6.2 and lower gears shouldn’t be available in more trim levels and might make a big difference for some. But the horsepower numbers are misleading, IMO.

I read the reviews for the 2014 6.2 by several mags like Car & Driver and the 0-60 times, etc. I owned a 2014 & now a 2016 6.2 and neither came close to working like the reviews until I did a Black Bear tune. I test drove several other 6.2’s and they were mediocre too. I’m wondering if GM has one tune for intro and another for production. The engine is a beast with a lot of torque but my issue (besides gearing) is the sluggish performance at anything but full throttle. I doubt that the B.B. tune adds much power but it does give crisp throttle response at part throttle and makes the truck more driveable & quicker! Lower gears and better power delivery stock and we might not be asking for more power.

AgDoctor · May 12, 2018

I am still of the opinion that those numbers are well engineered propaganda. I know those aren't the real figures. I'm sure some of you will disagree but I wanted to at least be the voice of hope.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

amxguy1970 · May 14, 2018

On 5/11/2018 at 6:07 PM, Ron.s said:

There is no reason that the 6.2 and lower gears shouldn’t be available in more trim levels and might make a big difference for some. But the horsepower numbers are misleading, IMO.

I read the reviews for the 2014 6.2 by several mags like Car & Driver and the 0-60 times, etc. I owned a 2014 & now a 2016 6.2 and neither came close to working like the reviews until I did a Black Bear tune. I test drove several other 6.2’s and they were mediocre too. I’m wondering if GM has one tune for intro and another for production. The engine is a beast with a lot of torque but my issue (besides gearing) is the sluggish performance at anything but full throttle. I doubt that the B.B. tune adds much power but it does give crisp throttle response at part throttle and makes the truck more driveable & quicker! Lower gears and better power delivery stock and we might not be asking for more power.

They gave you 10 speeds so that takes care of the gears part. Throttle response is all driver preference. Some prefer it much softer to be smooth, others prefer it extremely quick. It all depends on the situation, which is why sports sedans and cars change how quick it reacts based on the mode...

Tyler

therapy · May 14, 2018

On 5/11/2018 at 9:28 AM, shift_grind said:

But why not keep that the way it is and offer the option of more agressive gears like everyone else? They don't need the 5.3 to be a powerhouse, that's not its purpose. But why not offer the 6.2 on mid level trims ? It will only result in more sales and profits.

The logic is that if somebody wants that specific feature, then you force them to buy all the other stuff they may not necessarily want. For example, on my 07 Sierra, I wanted bucket seats but not leather, which was a huge pain in the ass, because there was like one trim line that made that possible, and it also required you to have power adjustable pedals and backup sensors, which I didn't give a shit about.

They do bundles to force the average selling price of the truck higher. I always had the 5.3 in my Sierra, my Tahoe, my Suburban. Now I have the 6.2L and the difference is shockingly noticeable. I really like it. Which is gonna screw me when my wife's 2010 Suburban finally shits the bed because the only way to get a Suburban/Yukon XL with the 6.2L is on a luxury package like Denali.

And the Suburban REALLY could use that 6.2L. It's heavy as hell, especially fully loaded. That 6.2L would be awesome.

Imcrazy · May 15, 2018

3 hours ago, therapy said:

The logic is that if somebody wants that specific feature, then you force them to buy all the other stuff they may not necessarily want.

They do bundles to force the average selling price of the truck higher.i.

Actually no: the logic behind option packages and limiting all out 'customization' of trucks is that it would be too labor intensive, slow down production and you'd actually wind up with less for your money because it would take more hours to produce less trucks if they just let us order with every option piecemeal, can you imagine how long it would take if every Tom, Dick and Harry could select each little option they wanted in their trucks? GM wants to setup and run 2000 trucks the same at a time not 1 for you 1 one for me how I want and so on... I was in manufacturing for over a decade and setup costs are huge, setting up to run a bunch of custom trucks would run all of our prices up.... Large scale manufacturing is pretty complicated and things add up fast... With that said I don't see how this applies much to power train choices, seems like they ought to be able to drop any ole motor in there but, maybe I am wrong.

Ron.s · May 15, 2018

7 hours ago, amxguy1970 said:

They gave you 10 speeds so that takes care of the gears part. Throttle response is all driver preference. Some prefer it much softer to be smooth, others prefer it extremely quick. It all depends on the situation, which is why sports sedans and cars change how quick it reacts based on the mode...

Tyler

What I’m talking about isn’t soft or quick but more incremental-not hesitating and more power as you give it more throttle.. Both of my 6.2’s have almost had a hesitation more like “turbo lag”. Several others I tested were similar. It’s even worse when it has to decide to downshift 2 gears. At first I thought it might be related to DI but the Black Bear tune fixes it so it’s the GM fuel map, IMO!

shift_grind · May 15, 2018

3 hours ago, Ron.s said:

What I’m talking about isn’t soft or quick but more incremental-not hesitating and more power as you give it more throttle.. Both of my 6.2’s have almost had a hesitation more like “turbo lag”. Several others I tested were similar. It’s even worse when it has to decide to downshift 2 gears. At first I thought it might be related to DI but the Black Bear tune fixes it so it’s the GM fuel map, IMO!

My Trailblazer SS did the same thing and the issue there was very low timing that's slow to ramp up. I fixed it by getting a lot more aggressive with timing in the lower rpms.

therapy · May 24, 2018

On 5/14/2018 at 6:43 PM, Imcrazy said:

Actually no: the logic behind option packages and limiting all out 'customization' of trucks is that it would be too labor intensive, slow down production and you'd actually wind up with less for your money because it would take more hours to produce less trucks if they just let us order with every option piecemeal, can you imagine how long it would take if every Tom, Dick and Harry could select each little option they wanted in their trucks? GM wants to setup and run 2000 trucks the same at a time not 1 for you 1 one for me how I want and so on... I was in manufacturing for over a decade and setup costs are huge, setting up to run a bunch of custom trucks would run all of our prices up.... Large scale manufacturing is pretty complicated and things add up fast... With that said I don't see how this applies much to power train choices, seems like they ought to be able to drop any ole motor in there but, maybe I am wrong.

You're right as well, it's about efficiency.

But that's not mutually exclusive with ASP. There's a double benefit for the manufacturer - they save time by bundling "popular" packages together (ie - rear backup sensors and power adjustable pedals) but that also benefits them by raising the price of the vehicle.

And of course they have to do the bundles with all the feature options now. When my dad bought his first car in the 70s, there was a single option column - automatic or manual, color, power windows and door locks package, and cloth or vinyl basically. About 8 different things you could pick. Now there are hundreds.

Donstar · May 25, 2018

5 hours ago, therapy said:

When my dad bought his first car in the 70s, there was a single option column - automatic or manual, color, power windows and door locks package, and cloth or vinyl basically. About 8 different things you could pick. Now there are hundreds.

The good old days! ;-) Actually your dad would have had other choices like power brakes, power steering, radio, intermittent wipers and a real luxury - air conditioning. My first two pickups were V8 F100's. Neither had power steering or brakes but I insisted on a factory push button AM radio in both. The big improvement from my '69 to my '72 was I went from the standard manual three on the tree to the optional manual 4 on the floor.

therapy · May 25, 2018

13 hours ago, Donstar said:

The good old days! ;-) Actually your dad would have had other choices like power brakes, power steering, radio, intermittent wipers and a real luxury - air conditioning. My first two pickups were V8 F100's. Neither had power steering or brakes but I insisted on a factory push button AM radio in both. The big improvement from my '69 to my '72 was I went from the standard manual three on the tree to the optional manual 4 on the floor.

Well my dad's first "new" car was a 72 Dodge Dart with the slant six, so I don't think there were tons of sexy options but that was a few years before my time...

The past 40 years for cars has certainly been interesting - from the mid 70s to the early 90s most American cars seemed like garbage. Luckily the trucks have stayed pretty good for the most part.

Big_D · May 25, 2018

I'm slightly disappointed with the HP numbers on the 6.2 as well. However, it will have the new 10spd attached and drive select mode, sport/tow/cruise etc. So if they get the tuning right on it, and the truck doesn't feel like a slug unless you're WOT I'd be happy.

Payton34 · June 1, 2018

I am thinking GM didn't do much to change the 5.3 and 6.2 because they will probably be replaced in the next 2-3 years with the smaller V8s they are developing on the new Vette and for Cadillac. Cadillac has a new 4.2 V8 and the Vette has a 5.5V8 naturally aspirated and as twin turbo coming on the mid engine car. I am betting the 5.5 V8 will be going into the trucks when they get a midcycle refresh around 2021 or 2022. Hopefully they put an all new interior in also. Overall I really like the new GMC AT4 exterior design, engines and chassis. Only let down was the interior.

ExFordGuy77 · June 16, 2018

I bet the emissions regulations part of CAFE is making it hard for GM to tune the engines too aggressively. Don't forget the CARB is involved with upcoming CAFE regulations.

And the guys complaining about GM not changing the V8's for 2019 -- just be glad GM didn't pull a Ram. The new 2019 Ram's 5.7 hasn't been changed in 10 years. Pretty soon Ram will have to make every 5.7 truck a hybrid unless they come up with a new V8.

WilliamBos · July 4, 2018

On 2018-06-16 at 5:02 PM, ExFordGuy77 said:

I bet the emissions regulations part of CAFE is making it hard for GM to tune the engines too aggressively. Don't forget the CARB is involved with upcoming CAFE regulations.

And the guys complaining about GM not changing the V8's for 2019 -- just be glad GM didn't pull a Ram. The new 2019 Ram's 5.7 hasn't been changed in 10 years. Pretty soon Ram will have to make every 5.7 truck a hybrid unless they come up with a new V8.

Ram does the powertrain updates 2 years after the truck release.

And dont knock the Hemi - with 395HP/410 torque, I get better mpg than my friends with their 5.3 GM’s. And unlike GM, Ram does not choke the life out of them with torque management.

After owning a Hemi, stepping back in a GM V8 powered truck would be a huge step back.

But GM likes lagging behind the others!

shift_grind · July 5, 2018

16 hours ago, WilliamBos said:

Ram does the powertrain updates 2 years after the truck release.

And dont knock the Hemi - with 395HP/410 torque, I get better mpg than my friends with their 5.3 GM’s. And unlike GM, Ram does not choke the life out of them with torque management.

After owning a Hemi, stepping back in a GM V8 powered truck would be a huge step back.

But GM likes lagging behind the others!

Interesting as most report their hemi hets far far worse than even the trip computer suggests as well as EPA numbers.

Perhaps you're comparing it to a much older GM 5.3 as anything after 2014 absolutely destroys the hemi in MPG. Acceleration tests by various mags indicate the hemi is 1 or 2 tenths ahead, so I guess you're right there. I'd trade 2 tenths for 4mpg though.