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

[Gangly]

4 minutes ago, newdude said:

 

 

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.  

I agree. 

 

I am well versed with the Toyota issue, I just couldn't see the correlation between the argument and the statement used to support the argument.  I understand if the statement was made to outline an alternative to larger displacement gasoline engines, but the reliability of the TT V6 engine has nothing to do with CAFE requirements.  

 

I kind of look at the pushrod V8 in the same light as older diesel engines.  They are uncomplicated, simple to work on, and reliable (for the most part) which should keep them around for the foreseeable future.

[Gangly]

54 minutes ago, newdude said:

 

"as are the 5.3s they just recalled in 2024s, manufacturing issues."

 

 

I hadn't seen or heard of this, what's the issue?

Edited September 12 by Gangly

[ScathaTheWorm]

57 minutes ago, newdude said:

 

 

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

The Trailblazer had it that time as well. The 5.3L V8 especially. Only engine that did not get it was the Atlas I6. 

To be fair, I have not heard about widespread failures of the AFM/DFM here in Qatar aside from very isolated cases...and the trucks we get also have the system on them. Only one 6.2 case recently due to main bearing issues....

Edited September 12 by ScathaTheWorm

[ScathaTheWorm]

14 minutes ago, Gangly said:

I agree. 

 

I am well versed with the Toyota issue, I just couldn't see the correlation between the argument and the statement used to support the argument.  I understand if the statement was made to outline an alternative to larger displacement gasoline engines, but the reliability of the TT V6 engine has nothing to do with CAFE requirements.  

 

I kind of look at the pushrod V8 in the same light as older diesel engines.  They are uncomplicated, simple to work on, and reliable (for the most part) which should keep them around for the foreseeable future.

I fully agree with regards to the pushrod engines. 

 

My point, is that with regards to the Toyota, being a twin turbo engine that REQUIRES cab off access and turboes being at the very back...does not make it very user friendly if you like to work on it yourself.....

 

I did drive a 2019 Land Cruiser GXR V8 as a rental and the engine almost took up the entire space...We get the 4.6L V8 as well...that was what I had.

[ScathaTheWorm]

30 minutes ago, newdude said:

 

 

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.  

I do agree. 

I recently saw one case a an MY24 Tahoe 6.2 that failed a 320 miles...but I DO NOT know if it its true or not, or whether it had some issues prior to being bought that caused the failure...

 

Build dates of the 6.2s that are failing would be a good start, as we know the issue started from MY22.5 and continues to MY24 models (not sure if the dealers have early MY24s on their lots made in late 2023..or MY24s made in January)....I have heard also they AGAIN had a supplier change and a new part number.