In looking around the Motor City, General Motors may have noticed the success Ford has found with its 3.5L EcoBoost V6 in the very popular F-150 pickup. With 365 horsepower, 420 pound-feet of torque and 23 highway miles per gallon, it’s easy to see why the twin-turbocharged mill caught on. In fact, 53 percent of all F-150 sales in 2012 featured a V6; alas, we’ve been told not to expect a rival to the EcoBoost powertrain with the all-new 2014 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500 pickup trucks.
Even so, GM pulled the sheet off its new LF3 engine today — a twin-turbocharged 3.6L V6 engine with 420 horsepower and 430 pound-feet of torque set to first be available in the third-generation Cadillac CTS, with other models following shortly after. The power output and the promise of minimal sacrifices in fuel economy has definitely intrigued us to entertain the thought of such an engine in GM’s all-new half-ton trucks.
We’re sure GM has something up its sleeve to become the next segment leader in pickup truck fuel economy, with or without the use of the LF3. But those very V8-like power numbers in the new engine make a compelling case to actually use the new boosted mill in the trucks. So, if GM did offer the LF3 twin-turbo V6 in its latest line of pickups, would you be happy with that? Or would you find it to be moot?
Take our reader poll, and elaborate in the comment section below.
Comments
Seems to me that the current 5.3 is as economical as the Ecoboost Ford engine and nicely powerful too.
So does the engine need to go into the Silverado? No. Would the marketing folks like it? Yes.
Yes, they should adapt it for the trucks. V8 power with the V6 like economy is good. My only qualm would be, does it has the endurance for the product it would be going in ?
I agree about endurance, the twin turbo will wear out a lot sooner than the 5.3.
i know gm is pushing the ecotec3 motors but I mean come on! look at those power numbers! and if they could get the mpg numbers above the ecoboost gm might have a winner. however a diesel might not be a bad idea either.
I’m leaning toward no at this point. But then, we dont know what the performance numbers for the Ecotec3 engines are yet. Remember, these V8s (and the V6) were based on the LT1, the same engine that was chosen over a TTV6 in the Corvette for both the power, feel, AND fuel economy. Its not that I dont think the LF3 isnt good, but I think the Ecotec3s are going to be that much better.
“The power output and the promise of minimal sacrifices in fuel economy has definitely intrigued us to entertain the thought of such an engine in GM’s all-new half-ton trucks.”
I want to see those fuel economy numbers in the CTS before the LF3 finds its way into the heavier GMT’s.
It’s not official yet, but look for an estimated 25 mpg highway. They could probably get higher with taller gearing on that eight-speed.
GM can do whatever it feels like to these trucks, I couldn’t care less, frankly. Listen to what was said at the launch of the Silverado/Sierra earlier this year and see just how much bashing turbocharged engines (built for cars) got and how much praise the pushrod V8 (built for truck applications, no less) got. Wouldn’t it be just ironic if not even 6 months later GM announces that a turbocharged engine (built for cars, no less) would be introduced in its trucks. [smdh].
Well no GM was not watching Ford, They have been planning a TT-V6 for a while. GM did a Jay Leno 400HP TT-V6 a few years back. Turn that into a 4.8L V8 and you get 558.6HP/571.9Foot Pounds, pretty sweet!
That would make a great world class motor for the Cadillac brand!
That Leno car was a Camaro by the way!
I’d like to see what options would be available with the twin turbo, like a standard 4l70e and 3.73 rear end….or at least offer it.
Requiring premium would wipeout any gains in fuel economy so I say no.
SILVERADO Sierra Colorado lacrosse super Impala SS Cruze missile Malibu AWD and even an E rod LF3.
As many said above, MORE data is needed to make this kind of decision.
How can you make a decision with little data?
Data needed:
HP of both engines.
Torque
MPG
weight
And most important COST. We are talking two turbos and all the plumbing. This ain’t cheap.
So until this is released we really cannot make an informed choice.
I will say though that requiring premium fuel would knock the turbo engine from consideration for almost all truck buyers. So unless there was a HUGE gain in MPG the turbo would be just a low running option.
I believe the GM strategy is NOT to put turbocharged car engines into trucks. They said that their strategy is to put fuel-efficient higher displacement “truck engines” with cylinder de-activation into their truck lineup. Turbos tend to have a 100km life, and like to have clean oil (in their cooling) and a short cool-down period at idle after a long trip at highway speeds. At least that’s the case with the Garrett Turbo in my Buick Grand National. Maybe today’s turbos have more longevity to them, I don’t know. “Strategy” is not something you change on a frequent basis. Your business or technology strategy drives long-term investments, design, engineering, and product development. I’ve never driven the F-150 with the twin turbo V6 rated at 365 hp. The numbers are impressive and I’ve read all the Ford hype about product testing – consecutive hours of towing at Daytona International etc..etc. But I share the opinion that there is no replacement for displacement. I think GM should stick with a range of V8 options for their trucks and full-size SUV; and diesel motors for their heavy duty products. Give their trucks the 8-speed transmissions that are emerging. Lets leave the twin turbo 3.6L for the Cadillac. If it gets 420 hp it will be a real competitor to the BMW M. Maybe the twin turbo will be base engine in the CTS. Offer it as the engine in the ATS-V with the base engine being the existing 318 hp 3.6L. Continue to stuff a variant of the new LT1 in the CTS-V or continue to use the LSA motor for those that want the 556 hp premium top-of-the-line sports sedan, coupe, or wagon in the CTS-V.
Local ford dealer allowed me to hook my loaded trailer to f150 ecoboost. 70 mph down the road transmission stayed in high gear, I was impressed! 422 ft. Lbs. of torque @ 2,500 rims and you could really feel it!
It’s a waste putting anything less than a six-ho in a truck, period.