Reuss: Never Say Never, But GM Won’t Rely On Twin-Turbo V6 In Its Trucks24
In a recent interview, General Motors President of North America Mark Reuss was asked whether the automaker was planning on using GM’s new 3.6 liter twin-turbocharged V6 engine (production code LF3) in its new range of pickup trucks — the 2014 Silverado and 2014 Sierra. Reuss’ answer isn’t necessarily news, but it does confirm what some have suspected, and the reasoning behind it, as well:
“Never say never. That’s [the turbocharged V6 LF3] a really high-output engine. It is designed to beat BMW power-density-wise, and it does. If the market tells us that someone would want something like that in a truck, we’d certainly look at it. We’ve got three technologies in a V8 that beat it from a fuel-efficiency standpoint at a much different price point. That’s value. I wouldn’t say we’re never going to do that. That would be foolish. Is that something we’re going to rely on as our play? No.
GM has been an ardent supporter of the idea that boosted engines (such as the six-cylinder LF3) have no place in trucks, which get used and abused repeatedly. Instead, GM believes that nothing can replace the durability, toughness, and low-end torque of a V8.
What’s noteworthy here is that the decision to not use the boosted V6 LF3 in the new trucks, but rather a line of redesigned V6 and V8s, is likely as much about the image (rather than the actual real-world benefits) of using an eight-cylinder engine where it’s believed to be most appropriate (in trucks), rather than shoehorning a powerplant primarily designed to be used in cars. But with Ford’s 3.5L turbocharged EcoBoost engine enjoying relatively positive results in the F-150, we do wonder if the stigma associated with using a V6 in place of a V8 in trucks has been over and done for.
Either way, GM has the ability to offer both, a naturally-aspirated eight-cylinder engine alongside a boosted six it its trucks — if
it ever so desired the market told it to.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a 2023 Corvette Z06 Convertible. Details here.
I think what they could have done is that since the F150 does have 4 engines, they could put this head to head with it and maybe if equipped with the 8 speed to get better fuel mileage
Reuss is talking nonesense. I would like him to tell me what is more rugged than a big displacement six cylinder turbodiesel in a rig like a Freightliner or a Kenworth? This proves that turbos can and do take a pounding, regardless of application. The next bit of nonsense is that the LF3 was designed to beat BMW power-density-wise. When since have BMW engines been power-dense? Does he call a twin turbo 3.0L I6 that puts out 300hp or a turbo 2.0L I4 that puts out 240hp power-dense? Or is he just using BMW’s name to gain some kind of traction? All the random angles that these guys are using to promote these also-ran “new” trucks is irritating me to no ends.
@Richard If you’re getting that “irritated” then stop reading articles on the new trucks I, as I’m sure quite a few more people are as well, am getting tired of having to see you b*tch about everything on here. Seriously guy just take your mustache somewhere else I can’t stand looking at it anymore.
As far as the trucks go I like em! I hope that they don’t just throw in the made for a car TT V6 but if you really want to have a twin turbo six power these trucks make a 4.3L version and keep the “built for a truck” standards in place.
Turbos don’t last as long in gas engines for 2 reasons egts and the way people drive them. You need to let it warm up and cool down. Most people start the engine and take off then shut it down as soon as they stop. Turbos don’t like that they need to cool down first especially in a gas engine. Look at fords video of the ecoboost testing, the turbo is glowing red.
Stop spreading false info.
Todays modern turbo engines are not the old 3.8 Turbo engines by any means. Todays engines are build to meet the demands of a Turbo as well as todays modern Honeywell turbo units.
Todays engine have things never considered in the early turbo engines, Forged rods and cranks, Oil cooled pistons, Sodium Valves, Turbo units with better water cooled bearings and metals. Add to that the modern Synthetic oils and you have the formula for engines that can be used and driven like any other engine and still go hundreds of thousands of miles.
Yes you no longer have to wait for the cool down at shut off and you can drive them right away. These issues are only true of past engines and GM and Ford do not recommend either.
I would recommend reading up on the changed and the things in todays engines that make them live long lives with 23 PSI.
The day is here where a Turbo engine can and will last as long as nearly any other engine with no issues.
Only time will tell. No one predicted that the ford 6.0 diesel would be a problematic engine. My bet is the new 5.3 will far outlast the ecoboost.
We were reading about a twin-turbo, relatively small displacement, GASOLINE powered, high-revving V6. The engines in highway trucks like Kenworths and Freightliners wrap out under 3,000 RPM, are inline 6, and are DIESEL powered. There’s alot of differences there
And my 2.0 Turbo can reach 315 FL LBS at 2000 RPM and no need for hi RPM. It can hold it to 5300 RPM if needed. Max torque in a 2.0 Turbo is from 1900-5300 RPM and is as flat as a board.
GM’s choice to use the V8s and 6 cylinders is a good one. They already perform great and are more efficient. The fuel efficiency matches or beats the competition who are using turbos (Ford) and 8 speeds (Ram). These engines can only get better considering that the GM 8 speed is on the way.
GM Authority said that Ford and GM are working together on building 9 and 10 speeds.
GM has a great engine lineup now, all turbo gas engines don’t seem to last as long as non turbo gas engines, as they age they wear more with constant boost, i would think especially in trucks which get pushed harder than cars.
Again please stop spreading false info as this is no longer 1985 and we are not talking 1.8 Turbo engines.
Boost is not constant and generally -6 to 5 PSI under normal driving conditions. The low end torque does not require high RPM or high boost unless called for. Normal driving levels are low and max torque is on tap low down for better MPG.
Well from what I can see there are many people who do not understand todays modern Turbo engines in how they work, perform or their durability. I would recommend reading up on them and just find out how they are put together and just how well they work today.
I lived through the Turbo engines of the 80’s and understand the concerns and misunderstandings of todays engines if you did not keep up on the new technology.
The stuff in the 80’s was pure crap and it was crap from everyone. THey just tried to bolt on turbo units on ill prepared engines and tried to take the easy way out and cheap way out. The GN engine was the first real attempt to do it right but it should have even been better. The Water Cooled housing and intercooler helped but the computer and FI system were not were they really needed to be.
Today VVT and DI fuel systems with the new computers can make for a very well running and protected engine. Even on the Ecotec engines GM did not cheap out and has built an engine that can be durable an powerful. I got to hang out with John Lingenfelter before he passed and he was all about Turbo engine V8 and 4 cylinders. He was using a stock block and head on a Ecotec and would see 1500 HP before the would hurt the head. Much of the other parts also prove durable.
In the stock LNF only a change of pistons and rods are needed to make 500 Reliable HP. Rys Millen used one in a Solstice for a whole season in Pro Drift with nary a break down or tear down. The same was done a year later.
I see this two ways. GM is leaving money on the table as Ford has prove there is a large market for a Turbo V6 truck to the point people will pay over a grand more for it over a V8. This is lost income.
But on the other hand is GM working to keep the TT V6 a Cadillac item only till they can come up with something new or different for them. Since Cadillac has no real engine of their own the TT makes for a appealing different package and putting the same engine in a truck would hurt the Cadillac Image. It is not the same as a Taurus and F150 association.
This latter reason may be what is in play. But at some point I see a turbo V6 in a full size truck as the V8 will have more and more difficulty meeting future government regs.
One other thing that is coming is Honeywell has a new Turbo that has two small impellers and one turbine. This gives you the performance of a TT unit but in one turbine housing. It is more efficient and much easier to package. Also it is cheaper since you only use one unit. Ford will use it first on the powerstroke but I suspect the gas unit will not be far behind and I could see GM using it on a V6 even the 4.3.
I was not a turbo guy till just a few years ago and the more I learned and drive one the more I love it. I get 25 MPG city with 290 HP and 315 FT LBS. The car runs 13 second 1/4 miles if you can hook up the tires. All this and I do not have to drive it hard to get around town.
There is a place for all these engines and I just see the Turbo V6 as an engine if done right for the truck could make a lot of income for GM. Many said the F150 Ecoboost would fail and it did just the opposite. Too many underestimated it.
I just think GM has other issues with using the present engine.
The only thing wrong with the 4.3 is unless you dig into it the engine just seems like a refresh and just does not generate a lot of excitement. The truth is it is a very good and advanced engine but it just does not grab your attention unless you really look at it. The least they could have done is changed the displacement to give it the impression of being a new engine like it is.
scott, thanks for all the good info, todays engines should be alot better with new metals and new oils, getting back to the 4.3, it is not last years 4.3 it is all new aluminum LS style motor,which should be a hellava motor, but they could have called it a 4.4 to sound newer
That is the only real issue I have with the 4.3 is the appearance to the casual shopper that the engine is the same and nothing really stands out that screams new till you read the spec sheet.
Get engine poor marketing. In years past GM would play with displacement to relate a rehashed engine as a new one. Here they have a new one and it appears old in name.
The name of the game is fuel economy. Yes, horsepower and torque figures are great, but people want MPGs.
Ford’s Ecoboost, GM’s older Vortec and new Ecotec3 engines, Ram’s Hemi and Pentastar engines all provide more than enough HP and torque for what people are going to do with trucks.
Right now GM has the best fuel economy in a 1/2 ton crew cab pickup with the new Ecotec3 engine in the 2014 Silverado.
My 2013 Silverado get about 21MPG driving on the highway, and GM bumped that figure up to 23MPG highway with more horsepower and torque with the new Ecotec3.
In the end trucks are not for racing, but for towing and hauling. GM has stayed with pushrod engines (pushrod engines are known to give better low end torque than OHV engines) and given better fuel economy.
Instead of making ANOTHER gas engine, I was really hoping that GM would have put a small displacement turbo diesel in the new Silverado 1500. Something like a 4.0L turbo diesel with 300HP and 500ft-lbs of torque getting 27MPG, that would have been sweet.
I agree with Bob. A smaller displacement diesel between 4.0 – 4.5 would be great, while giving GM a competitive edge over the competition.
I expect they will Chrysler is there now and they will have to follow. This is once class of vehicle that Americans will jump all over to buy a Diesel and they had better take advantage of it.
Don’t get your hopes up! Mark Ruess says ‘never say never’ a lot, like he did 3 years ago about medium duty trucks. We are still waiting. Maybe he should clear things with Ackerson first……….
I think this engine would make for a neat Silverado SS!
I just wish the shoe was on the other foot. With GM TTV6 being one of the first GM engines to truly demand premium fuel, that low-torque, abuse-friendly V8 (that doesn’t require premium) makes more sense for many car buyers…
… especially in CA where we’re stuck with 91 octane and pay through the nose for it.
Agreed, pushrod V8s are known for low end torque and GM has given them best in class fuel economy.
If they do put the LF3 TTV6 in the Silverado they would need to do some optimizing for trucks. From the look at the graph that was posted a couple of days ago it has it’s peak torque at 3500-4300 rpms. The Ford’s TTV6 has it’s peak torque at 2500 rpms.
There are some facts that get left out too often in debates like this on the web.
First off The CAFE laws are not very well know or understood by the web people. The coming changes will affect the 1/2 ton trucks much but have much less affect on the 3/4 ton and 1 ton. This has lead to many people in the know about the market to speculate some radical changes could be coming but no one knows what or which.
Take for example that GM could offer the Colorado as a light smaller half ton and then move the present 1/2 ton full size to a light 3/4 ton rating. Ford has already pointed out they plan to use smaller engines and the next F150 will lose a lot of weight. Dodge has not show or hinted much on their future. To be honest I don’t think they all know for sure where they will be 10 years from now. This segment is too important to muck up so I expect many more changes and ideas to present them selves as time goes on.
As for never say never. We all have to understand GM has changed and for the most part the guys in the white hats are in power. But there are still factions in GM that like to snipe and try to get things back to the old ways. As of now it is a losing cause but they can still have some affect on things. Case in point there has been a great argument over the price and quality of the door handles on the LTS. Also there have been some who even after the success the Cruze has proven to be that would like to cut quality and content on the car. They still like to think dollars per unit made vs. higher volumes making as much or more in volume due to demand.
The changes Lutz put in on quality and styling have not been lost on Mark and Dan but they still have to fight to get what they want and what GM needs. I expect things will continue to improve but similar fights are in all companies as there is always a faction of others who think bottom line only.
The biggest key is Lutz enable engineers to engineer and designers to style as they can and should. No longer is there a chain of 15 people that have to make a call on a door gap or quality issue or just common sense issue. In other words do you job and do what you think will sell the car better.
I would recommend Lutz book on Car Guys and Bean Counters as it will open you eyes to what was really going on and the changes he had set in place to continue the changes at GM.
Lets face it a car like the ATS would never had happen with out the changes he and others have put in place.
Mark has been winning more than he loses so I think we will be ok in the long run. Many not win them all but he will win most as he has proven sales volume wise his ideas and approvals have been the correct ones. He just needs to make sure he has few misses as this would give the others ammunition to attack.