GM's 6th Gen V8 ! What would you like to see?

[INGMWETRUST]

Obviously get rid of cylinder deactivation.

IMO in 2024, These engines are dinosaurs, with okay reliability at this point.

Well, the 5.3L is tried & true, and definitely gets the job done, but is a little underwhelming.

And the 6.2L is just a "flex", not really sure why. Mediocre at best. Not worth the upcharge, or the dreaded fuel economy.

Duramax 3.0 is nice, boring but smooth.

Too many older heads claiming no V8, no man card. But have most likely not given anything else a chance.

 

Having driven the 3.5 Ecoboost (non-hybrid), this truck will definitely surprise you, i just hated the transmission tuning.

Now even though still in the beginning stages, that Tundra 3.4L (Non-hybrid), with that smooth 10 speed is definitely a blast, you would be very surprised.

Haven't been able to try that new ram hurricane yet. But everyone sleeping on anything with a 6 Cylinder with a turbo should go test drive one.

 

I don't think GM or any other manufacture cares about our opinions when it comes to engines (we can always dream though right?), EPA calls the shots so why not work with it?

GM should dump both V8's. Add a new engine with similar specs to rams new engine

 

Inline 6 (no cylinder deactivation)

10 Speed (3.55 Gears are fine)

420 HP/500TQ

18MPG City/ 22 HWY (GM trucks are light this should be very realistic)

5 Year/100K Mile warranty

 

I think that would make a lot of people happy

 

 

[Gangly]

I don't believe the V8 is preferred because of the "man card" mindset.  Its preferred because of its inherent simplicity and perceived reliability.  There are several million mile 4's, 6's, and 8's, but I dont know of any that had turbos or superchargers.  

[Brian O.]

I would like to see just what I first read from gm about the next, 6th gen, V8 they had planned - More powerful, more efficient! 

It seems many times GM is playing catch up, would be nice to see an efficient power leader to look up to! Just might make sales. lol

[Colossus]

I'd like to see better reliability.  The reliability ratings of most of the GM products have dropped significantly over the past 4-5 years.  Other manufacturers have suffered too but GM is really taking a beating here. 

[TheRiver]

Manual transmission..................

[Chevyguy273]

I would like GM to give me a na V8 with 500 horses and 600ft lbs along with a TH400 auto in a new Silverado 1500. Along with a non leaking sliding rear window. 

[Z71-K9]

I think to be any where close to competitive in 2025, GM needs to have 500hp.  Then ontop of that a supercharger option.

 

A manual transmission even in the higher trim would be high on cool factor.

[ScathaTheWorm]

 

DOD IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE. It will be to stay, and maybe you do not realize that IF they removed it, they would be FINED HEAVILY...so they have to keep it. Only thing I would ask is a better and stronger bearings and tighter and more robust lifters.  DOD is a maintenance issue...neglect it and it will make you pay. Even in Qatar here we have it...and it is illegal to disable it.

 

Other manufacturers such as Toyota have had PLENTY of debacles....and GMC/Chevrolet is no different from them. They still sold large numbers in the Middle east, even with the beating they took. 

 

1. Make the 5.3 V8 with 380-400 hp minimum

2. The 6.2 must be updated to have 440-470 or just under 500 hp. 

 

 

[Gangly]

2 hours ago, ScathaTheWorm said:

 

DOD IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE. It will be to stay, and maybe you do not realize that IF they removed it, they would be FINED HEAVILY...so they have to keep it. Only thing I would ask is a better and stronger bearings and tighter and more robust lifters.  DOD is a maintenance issue...neglect it and it will make you pay. Even in Qatar here we have it...and it is illegal to disable it.

 

Other manufacturers such as Toyota have had PLENTY of debacles....and GMC/Chevrolet is no different from them. They still sold large numbers in the Middle east, even with the beating they took. 

 

1. Make the 5.3 V8 with 380-400 hp minimum

2. The 6.2 must be updated to have 440-470 or just under 500 hp. 

 

 

GM would not be fined for removing DOD from their engine lineup.  The EPA doesn't care how a manufacturer squeezes out the required mpg, as long as it does.  VVT, cam phasers, variable rate compression ratios, etc.  are all viable options, and there are probably a few more that the manufacturers are testing out that we haven't even considered.

Edited September 5 by Gangly

[ScathaTheWorm]

11 hours ago, Gangly said:

GM would not be fined for removing DOD from their engine lineup.  The EPA doesn't care how a manufacturer squeezes out the required mpg, as long as it does.  VVT, cam phasers, variable rate compression ratios, etc.  are all viable options, and there are probably a few more that the manufacturers are testing out that we haven't even considered.

I disagree.  Unfortunately the situation is larger than you think it is, and adding VVT would NOT have met EPA standards, otherwise they would be having it now instead of DOD. You cannot just criticize them since they probably would have tested that in around 2007...but it would NOT have met EPA standards... CAFE standards are there...otherwise why does Auto Start Stop exists. The only option I see personally is to live with it, simple. And if I had a DFM truck, I would change the oil regularly and use the correct filter, fuel type and driving style. 

[Gangly]

8 hours ago, ScathaTheWorm said:

I disagree.  Unfortunately the situation is larger than you think it is, and adding VVT would NOT have met EPA standards, otherwise they would be having it now instead of DOD. You cannot just criticize them since they probably would have tested that in around 2007...but it would NOT have met EPA standards... CAFE standards are there...otherwise why does Auto Start Stop exists. The only option I see personally is to live with it, simple. And if I had a DFM truck, I would change the oil regularly and use the correct filter, fuel type and driving style. 

The situation is not larger than I think it is.  The EPA requires manufacturers to meet certain fuel efficiency goals, but leaves them to figure out how best to achieve those goals.

 

Heads up, GM was testing the AFM system in the late 90's and early 2000's.  They completed testing and announced the introduction of AFM sometime in 2003, to be released in 2005 year model vehicles.  Around 2010, GM introduced VVT to their gas engines utilized in their truck platforms that allowed for 50+ degrees of combined time advancement and retardation.  So contrary to what your rebuttal states above "adding VVT would NOT have met EPA standards", GM decided it would, and introduced it AFTER their DOD (AFM) system was released.  GM truck engines now utilize both DOD and VVT.

 

Side note:  A quick internet search shows that DOD can account for up to a 7% increase in fuel efficiency, and VVT can typically account for up to a 6% increase in fuel efficiency.  One is not particularly better than the other.  However, GM uses both in several engines.

 

CAFE and EPA requirements are present, but how a manufacturer choses to achieve them is variable and up to the design team.

[ScathaTheWorm]

On 9/6/2024 at 7:29 PM, Gangly said:

The situation is not larger than I think it is.  The EPA requires manufacturers to meet certain fuel efficiency goals, but leaves them to figure out how best to achieve those goals.

 

Heads up, GM was testing the AFM system in the late 90's and early 2000's.  They completed testing and announced the introduction of AFM sometime in 2003, to be released in 2005 year model vehicles.  Around 2010, GM introduced VVT to their gas engines utilized in their truck platforms that allowed for 50+ degrees of combined time advancement and retardation.  So contrary to what your rebuttal states above "adding VVT would NOT have met EPA standards", GM decided it would, and introduced it AFTER their DOD (AFM) system was released.  GM truck engines now utilize both DOD and VVT.

 

Side note:  A quick internet search shows that DOD can account for up to a 7% increase in fuel efficiency, and VVT can typically account for up to a 6% increase in fuel efficiency.  One is not particularly better than the other.  However, GM uses both in several engines.

 

CAFE and EPA requirements are present, but how a manufacturer choses to achieve them is variable and up to the design team.

I am aware they planned to introduce it in MY05, but delayed it. RAM had it in MY06...with their MDS. 

Still, I am pretty sure the EPA had some specific requirements which they HAD to meet in a set timeline....and would have tried other techniques as well. 

 

I would reason with an engineer as well...but the unfortunate thing is...IT IS HERE to stay, with the increasingly stricter standards. Would you prefer a V6 TT Tundra that can cost 25k+ to repair out of warranty, or this? My point is neither. 

[newdude]

43 minutes ago, ScathaTheWorm said:

I am aware they planned to introduce it in MY05, but delayed it.

 

 

Nitpicking but GM debuted AFM (DOD at the time was the name) in 2005.  GMC Envoy Denali was the first application.  

[Gangly]

41 minutes ago, ScathaTheWorm said:

I am aware they planned to introduce it in MY05, but delayed it. RAM had it in MY06...with their MDS. 

Still, I am pretty sure the EPA had some specific requirements which they HAD to meet in a set timeline....and would have tried other techniques as well. 

 

I would reason with an engineer as well...but the unfortunate thing is...IT IS HERE to stay, with the increasingly stricter standards. Would you prefer a V6 TT Tundra that can cost 25k+ to repair out of warranty, or this? My point is neither. 

Nobody has stated that the EPA restrictions/requirements are going anywhere.  They are here to stay, and its a good thing.  The argument was, and has been, that the manufacturers are not governed on how they meet the requirements, only that they meet them. 

 

Also, RAM and GM utilize the same lifters, and are currently dealing with the same issues.

 

What does Toyota's V6 TT engine failure issue have to do with the EPA or this argument?  Absolutely nothing.

 

I am starting to think I am wasting my time here. 

[newdude]

27 minutes ago, Gangly said:

Nobody has stated that the EPA restrictions/requirements are going anywhere.  They are here to stay, and its a good thing.  The argument was, and has been, that the manufacturers are not governed on how they meet the requirements, only that they meet them. 

 

Also, RAM and GM utilize the same lifters, and are currently dealing with the same issues.

 

What does Toyota's V6 TT engine failure issue have to do with the EPA or this argument?  Absolutely nothing.

 

I am starting to think I am wasting my time here. 

 

 

I "think" what Scatha's angle with the Toyota TT engine isn't quite what he's aiming for. 

 

Toyota's recall hits on a known manufacturing defect, which has nothing to do with it being a small displacement twin turbo V8 replacement, which would be the EPA argument side of V8s are a dying breed to an extent and are being replaced with turbo or twin turbo powerplants.  But the "reliability" aspect, these Toyota engines aren't failing because of being a 3.4 V6 with two turbos, they are failing because of manufacturing.  Just like the 6.2s from GM for 2022-2024 are, as are the 5.3s they just recalled in 2024s, manufacturing issues.

 

Also, at the end of the day, NEITHER engine should be having failures at low mileage, no matter the engine design.  

Edited September 12 by newdude