2019 Trail Boss...Why no 6.2L

[RyanbabZ71]

If the Trail Boss was available with 6.2L, that's what I would purchase when in the market to buy.  Combined with the Red Hot exterior it ticks all the right boxes for me.  Unfortunately no 6.2 and GMC doesn't offer the AT4 in Red Hot color.[emoji20]
Silver Sled locally there are no 2018 Raptors available for 55K. All have 10K+ in options with ADM of 5K more or less.  My family dentist purchased one a few months ago.  To order the truck as he specd it, he first had to trade in his pristine 2014 Raptor with 27K miles and sign a purchase order at MSRP plus 4K markup.   The MSRP for his truck was $72,980, so $76,980 in total for his loaded Raptor.  At least they "gave" him free oil changes as long as he owns the truck.
 

Raptors are plentiful around here. Sounds like he has more more money than he knows what to do with. I would never pay markup. Buddy of mine recently got a raptor (blue) for less than MSRP. Deals are out there you may need to shop around or travel for it


Ryan B.

[SILVER SLED]

46 minutes ago, HondaHawkGT said:

Good point on the premium fuel. I don't see why they can't make a milder tune that would let it get by with 87 octane. Call the 6.2 that requires premium fuel the 6.2 Max or 6.2 HO or something like that. Ford manages to do with with their 3.5 Ecoboost. Ford actually says the exact same thing GM does about octane requirements. Both say it's okay to run on 87 octane but knock might occur but for best performance 91 octane is recommended.

 

I absolutely agree about gearing options. I didn't believe GM when they unveiled the truck this past winter and claimed that the big change with the 2019 trucks would be "more customer choice". I was right, we got the *illusion* of customer choice when in reality there's less customer chance than before. Two axle ratios to chose from is unacceptable. Especially if choosing the Z71 package eliminates any choice in which axle ratio you get.

 

It's pretty widely known on here that the EPA estimates for the 6.2 and 5.3 are way too conservative. Before I started modding my truck I was getting high 23 and even low 24 MPG with the cruise set at 65 MPH. There are a ton of guys on here that get great fuel economy with the 6.2. One thing to keep in mind is that if you went from 2014-15 truck to a 2016-18 truck, the body styling was changed for a reason - aerodynamics. The 2014-15 trucks sacrificed aerodynamic drag for styling. For 2016, they smoothed the front of the truck and added stuff like active shutters in the front grille to bring the drag coefficient down. It's obvious that when the EPA revised their testing procedures a couple years ago, the fuel economy estimates became so conservative and inaccurate that it unfairly penalized GM's trucks. It seems like their test procedures rewarded turbo gas engines like the 2.7 Ecoboost but penalized naturally aspirated V8's. Ram cut 200+ lbs out of their trucks, added an active air dam that nearly drags on the ground it's so low, and made the truck even more aerodynamic but the fuel economy ratings are identical to the 2018 truck. GM cut around 400 lbs out of their trucks, added an even more aggressive cylinder deactivation system, auto start/stop, tons of aerodynamic improvements, and made the 8-speed standard in the LT and up trims. Yet the EPA says the fuel economy is the same as a 2018 truck except for a 1 MPG improvement in the city (thanks to start/stop). What a joke.

 

The Raptor starts at $55k but the truck is so stripped out at that price, it's a joke. You don't even have the standard 8" touchscreen at that price. If you want the standard touchscreen, the price jumps up to around $60k. If you re-equip the Raptor with the stuff that comes standard in most XLT's or Lariats, the price climbs up past $65k fast.

Oddly my '15 5.3 truck got better highway mileage (3.42 ccsb LTZ 6 speed), like with the cruise set on 80 on the interstate and turn pike...than my 6.2 does.  However around town and country roads with stop signs.... where aerodynamics don't come into play, my 6.2 is much better than my 5.3 was, often getting over 20 mpg. 

 

If I could get a no frills Silverado Custom trim with a 6.2 I would, so I'd take the stripped out Raptor no problem. 

 

 

[pronstar]

 
It's pretty widely known on here that the EPA estimates for the 6.2 and 5.3 are way too conservative. Before I started modding my truck I was getting high 23 and even low 24 MPG with the cruise set at 65 MPH. There are a ton of guys on here that get great fuel economy with the 6.2. One thing to keep in mind is that if you went from 2014-15 truck to a 2016-18 truck, the body styling was changed for a reason - aerodynamics. The 2014-15 trucks sacrificed aerodynamic drag for styling. For 2016, they smoothed the front of the truck and added stuff like active shutters in the front grille to bring the drag coefficient down. It's obvious that when the EPA revised their testing procedures a couple years ago, the fuel economy estimates became so conservative and inaccurate that it unfairly penalized GM's trucks. It seems like their test procedures rewarded turbo gas engines like the 2.7 Ecoboost but penalized naturally aspirated V8's. Ram cut 200+ lbs out of their trucks, added an active air dam that nearly drags on the ground it's so low, and made the truck even more aerodynamic but the fuel economy ratings are identical to the 2018 truck. GM cut around 400 lbs out of their trucks, added an even more aggressive cylinder deactivation system, auto start/stop, tons of aerodynamic improvements, and made the 8-speed standard in the LT and up trims. Yet the EPA says the fuel economy is the same as a 2018 truck except for a 1 MPG improvement in the city (thanks to start/stop). What a joke.
 
The Raptor starts at $55k but the truck is so stripped out at that price, it's a joke. You don't even have the standard 8" touchscreen at that price. If you want the standard touchscreen, the price jumps up to around $60k. If you re-equip the Raptor with the stuff that comes standard in most XLT's or Lariats, the price climbs up past $65k fast.

The EPA doesn’t test cars, the carmakers do, and the results submitted to the EPA.

So if the numbers aren’t realistic, it’s on GM...and that would be the equivalent of shooting themselves in the foot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[magnum74]

59 minutes ago, HondaHawkGT said:

Good point on the premium fuel. I don't see why they can't make a milder tune that would let it get by with 87 octane. Call the 6.2 that requires premium fuel the 6.2 Max or 6.2 HO or something like that. Ford manages to do with with their 3.5 Ecoboost. Ford actually says the exact same thing GM does about octane requirements. Both say it's okay to run on 87 octane but knock might occur but for best performance 91 octane is recommended.

 

I absolutely agree about gearing options. I didn't believe GM when they unveiled the truck this past winter and claimed that the big change with the 2019 trucks would be "more customer choice". I was right, we got the *illusion* of customer choice when in reality there's less customer chance than before. Two axle ratios to chose from is unacceptable. Especially if choosing the Z71 package eliminates any choice in which axle ratio you get.

 

It's pretty widely known on here that the EPA estimates for the 6.2 and 5.3 are way too conservative. Before I started modding my truck I was getting high 23 and even low 24 MPG with the cruise set at 65 MPH. 

I had a 2015 Denali 6.2/speed and the difference between 87 and 91 was noticable. Throttle response was immediately noticable and then gradually the mileage would be noticed. I've been hand calculating for years and saw a best of 23.6mpg with the 6.2 but that was optimum on a good long commute to the oilfield in perfect weather and crusie set at around 100kph. Under normal circumstances I could get 19-21 with regular driving on summer fuel.

Edited October 8, 2018 by magnum74

[magnum74]

Ford has registered 'FX4 Max' as a trademark http://fordauthority.com/2018/10/trademark-filing-signals-new-ford-fx4-max-package/

 

There is no other information but it's presumed it's in response to the Trailboss and AT4. WIth Ford's ability to offer multiple driveline configurations it's pretty much a given it'll either include aggresive gearing or at least the choice to configure your gearing. It also wouldn't be a surprise if they allow engine choice with a premium automatic like they do on almost all of their models. 

 

GM may be doing well on transaction price but is going to have a tough time maintaining market share.

 

 

 

[shift_grind]

1 hour ago, HondaHawkGT said:

Good point on the premium fuel. I don't see why they can't make a milder tune that would let it get by with 87 octane. Call the 6.2 that requires premium fuel the 6.2 Max or 6.2 HO or something like that. Ford manages to do with with their 3.5 Ecoboost. Ford actually says the exact same thing GM does about octane requirements. Both say it's okay to run on 87 octane but knock might occur but for best performance 91 octane is recommended.

 

I absolutely agree about gearing options. I didn't believe GM when they unveiled the truck this past winter and claimed that the big change with the 2019 trucks would be "more customer choice". I was right, we got the *illusion* of customer choice when in reality there's less customer chance than before. Two axle ratios to chose from is unacceptable. Especially if choosing the Z71 package eliminates any choice in which axle ratio you get.

 

It's pretty widely known on here that the EPA estimates for the 6.2 and 5.3 are way too conservative. Before I started modding my truck I was getting high 23 and even low 24 MPG with the cruise set at 65 MPH. There are a ton of guys on here that get great fuel economy with the 6.2. One thing to keep in mind is that if you went from 2014-15 truck to a 2016-18 truck, the body styling was changed for a reason - aerodynamics. The 2014-15 trucks sacrificed aerodynamic drag for styling. For 2016, they smoothed the front of the truck and added stuff like active shutters in the front grille to bring the drag coefficient down. It's obvious that when the EPA revised their testing procedures a couple years ago, the fuel economy estimates became so conservative and inaccurate that it unfairly penalized GM's trucks. It seems like their test procedures rewarded turbo gas engines like the 2.7 Ecoboost but penalized naturally aspirated V8's. Ram cut 200+ lbs out of their trucks, added an active air dam that nearly drags on the ground it's so low, and made the truck even more aerodynamic but the fuel economy ratings are identical to the 2018 truck. GM cut around 400 lbs out of their trucks, added an even more aggressive cylinder deactivation system, auto start/stop, tons of aerodynamic improvements, and made the 8-speed standard in the LT and up trims. Yet the EPA says the fuel economy is the same as a 2018 truck except for a 1 MPG improvement in the city (thanks to start/stop). What a joke.

 

The Raptor starts at $55k but the truck is so stripped out at that price, it's a joke. You don't even have the standard 8" touchscreen at that price. If you want the standard touchscreen, the price jumps up to around $60k. If you re-equip the Raptor with the stuff that comes standard in most XLT's or Lariats, the price climbs up past $65k fast.

Maybe I'm losing my mind but I thought you were just fine with the 3.23 /3.42 gears available? In the "disappointed in 2019s" thread you said 8 speed / 3.42 was more than enough.  

 

While I still want a 2019, a lot of GMs choices are a let down.  Z71 trucks need the 3.42s standard.  3.73s should be an option on 5.3 trucks.  

[HondaHawkGT]

38 minutes ago, shift_grind said:

Maybe I'm losing my mind but I thought you were just fine with the 3.23 /3.42 gears available? In the "disappointed in 2019s" thread you said 8 speed / 3.42 was more than enough.  

And 3.42's are more than enough when combined with the 8-speed or 10-speed. What I'm saying is that GM took away what little choice they once offered. Startong this year, if you want the 3.42's, you can't have a Z71 package and you don't get the option of a 2-speed transfer case. If you want a Z71 or Trailboss, they tell you okay you get 3.23's and you cannot have 3.42's. They have both axle ratios available so let us chose between between the two. It's even worse with the Custom Trailboss because they take the 8-speed away and give you the 6-speed, but only offer one axle ratio: 3.42's. A truck with the 6-speed should have the option of 3.73's. Even the 8-speed with 3.23's has a better final drive than the 6-speed with 3.73's. They basically crippled the Custom and WT trucks.

Edited October 8, 2018 by HondaHawkGT

[f8l vnm]

1 hour ago, RyanbabZ71 said:

 

Raptors are plentiful around here. Sounds like he has more more money than he knows what to do with. I would never pay markup. Buddy of mine recently got a raptor (blue) for less than MSRP. Deals are out there you may need to shop around or travel for it


Ryan B.

 

Can you let us know which Dealership is offering Raptors for less then MSRP ? 

I would be all over it 

[Lgetz]

No one around here is selling Raptors for <= MSRP.  Did a quick search and in Houston looks like MSRP+ $3,500 ADM is the going rate  Agree with a previous poster for MSRP of 55K you are buying an XLT trim Raptor.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Lgetz
Repeated words

[Jon A]

3 hours ago, pronstar said:

The EPA doesn’t test cars, the carmakers do, and the results submitted to the EPA.

So if the numbers aren’t realistic, it’s on GM...and that would be the equivalent of shooting themselves in the foot.

 

 

No.  Every last detail of the tests are dictated by the EPA.  How well they do or do not reflect real-world use is entirely on the EPA.  https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml

[AgDoctor]

Call Spring Creek Ford in Colquitt, GA. They sell Raptors at MSRP. I don't know if they advertise them at that but I know several people who bought them at MSRP or lower. Raptors in SW GA are everywhere. Honestly before I bought my 17 I looked at one- I couldn't get over a $68K with a V6 so I passed; I was close though.


Sent via Morse code

[TXGREEK]

The funny thing about that is it seems in real world driving that the 6.2 gets better fuel mileage than the 5.3. 
 
 
I still wish there was a regular cab option with a 6.2.  

You’re correct, my 6.2 not only gives me much more smiles per mile but gets much better mpg’s than my 5.3 did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pronstar]

 
No.  Every last detail of the tests are dictated by the EPA.  How well they do or do not reflect real-world use is entirely on the EPA.  https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml

So are you saying that there’s a bigger delta for Silverado 5.3 and 6.2 real-world numbers, versus EPA ratings, compared to other vehicles?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Jon A]

Certainly, it all depends upon the use.  Under different usage (or different tests), the results of different vehicles will not be proportional to the results on the EPA tests.  One vehicle can be higher than another for one type of use, but lower for other uses or tests.

 

A good example of this is the Ford Ecoboosts...they do pretty fantastically on the EPA tests, but drive lots of hills/mountains, tow a trailer and their mileage drops like a rock (you can have "Eco" or you can have "Boost" but not both at the same time).  The 5.3 and 6.2 are a lot more similar so the difference between them won't be as dramatic, but for different uses don't expect the mileage difference between the two to remain exactly proportional to the ratings.  For some use, the 6.2 can actually do better than the 5.3.

[Gagliano7]

On 9/29/2018 at 11:22 PM, shift_grind said:

"most powerful V8". Then Ram says "Most powerful standard V8". 

 

It's all a game. 

 

6.2 should be available in RST and Trail Boss at a minimum.  You can get a center console in the LT either. 

 

6.2 is a money maker.  How much more does it cost to make?  GM makes $2500 Everytime they sell it, but between the 6.2 over the 5.3, 10 speed and few other things, it's probably 2000 pure profit. 

The 6.2 doesn't cost anymore to make than the 5.3. Maybe $100. THat $2600 option is all profit for gm. Don't understand why you can't get the 6.2 in all truck models.