One of the most consistent complaints about the current-generation Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban full-size SUVs has been the lack of the 6.2L V8 L86 engine.
Alas, the duo of full-size SUVs makes due with the standard (and only) 5.3L V8 L83, which makes 355 horsepower and 383 pound-feet of torque compared to the larger and more powerful 6.2 L86, which makes 420 horses and 460 pound-feet of torque. In fact, L86 is essentially the same engine as the 6.2L V8 LT1 from the C7 Corvette Stingray, albeit with a different tune.
| Engine: | 5.3L V8 L83 | 6.2L V8 L86 | 6.2L V8 LT1 (Corvette) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Power (hp) | 355 | 420 | 455 |
| Torque (lb-ft) | 383 | 460 | 460 |
Interestingly, the Tahoe and Suburban are the only GM vehicles based on the K2XX platform in which the 6.2L V8 L86 is not available. And that brings us to our question: should the motor be offered in the Tahoe and Suburban, at the least as an option? Vote in the poll below, and then share your thoughts in the comments section.
| Model | Standard Engine | 6.2L V8 L86 Available? |
|---|---|---|
| Chevrolet | ||
| Silverado 1500: | 4.3L V8 LV3 | Yes (optional) |
| Tahoe: | 5.3L V8 L83 | No |
| Suburban: | 5.3L V8 L83 | No |
| GMC | ||
| Sierra 1500: | 4.3L V8 LV3 | Yes (optional) |
| Yukon: | 5.3L V8 L83 | Yes (standard on Yukon Denali) |
| Yukon XL: | 5.3L V8 L83 | Yes (standard on Yukon XL Denali) |
| Yukon Denali: | 6.2 V8 L86 | Yes (standard) |
| Yukon XL Denali: | 6.2 V8 L86 | Yes (standard) |
| Cadillac | ||
| Escalade: | 6.2 V8 L86 | Yes (standard) |
| Escalade ESV: | 6.2 V8 L86 | Yes (standard) |
Comments
Whoever votes for it not to be offered as an option is a fool.
Chevy loyalists will not switch to GMC. GM itself knows this and has admitted it a few times.
So it makes sense to offer it an an option to satisfy customers and make more on each vehicle.
That’s why I think it’s GM’s largest problem after making Cadillac top the luxury performance market.
GM MUST find a way to differentiate GMC and Chevy’s CUV, SUV, and truck-based offerings. There has to be certain traits other than appearance that sets the two apart and justifies GMC’s higher price tag.
Should be offered as an option on the ltz trim. Nobody is cross shopping a Yukon or Tahoe just based on the engine. So give the consumer an option
That’s exactly what’s wrong with GM today. You only get a real engine if you pay out the nose for unnecessary options. What if you want power but no leather? Over at Ford you can get top shelf turbo power no matter the trim line, i’ve seen XLs with that front license plate off centered, which signals Ecoboost. Two years ago, I thought the 6.2 would trickle down to the less expensive models eventually, but now it doesn’t look that way.
Cobalt, I mean Cruze, is the same way: yeah you can get a diesel, but only if you’re ready to fork over $30k for a small car.
I kind of agree with you in that’ll ford you can pretty much get any car/truck in almost any trim with an Eco boost engine. Thing is GM doesn’t have a eco boost type line up of engines. Ford however does have there own 6.2 and it’s kept for the highest trim levels king ranch/platinum/limited/Harley
There is no longer a 6.2 in the F-150.
The point is that the EcoBoost 3.5L is the top-of-the-like engine and it is available across any trim level. The 6.2L is GM’s top-of-the-like engine and it should be available across any trim level.
I think GM should offer the 6.2, as an option, on ALL their vehicles, including the Cruze, Sonic, Volt and Spark.
Comment of the day. I am ROFLOLing, SR-72. Literally 🙂
But if we’re asking for the 6.2 in the Spark, Sonic/Aveo, Volt, etc., why not just go all out and for the Supercharged 6.2L LT4?
I suspect that if you asked GM why they don’t offer the 6.2 V-8 on the Tahoe and Suburban, the company’s excuse would be something regulatory: namely, those damnable Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that are an ongoing and increasing blight on the auto industry as a whole. Fuel-economy regulations the world over are infamous for increasing costs to consumers and restricting their choices, while offering little or no real environmental benefit. But in this case, GM is in a good position to say hang it all, and offer a 6.2-liter Tahoe and Suburban anyway. The truth is that trucks and SUVs with the 6.2-liter V-8 aren’t the hungry beasts they once were. Improvements to the technology of both the engine and transmissions have seen to that. The automatic transmission paired with the 6.2 currently offers eight speeds, and a 10-speed automatic is due out over the next few years. So fuel economy becomes less and less of an argument against the 6.2. Meanwhile, it’s a smooth, powerful engine with an expansive power band and a soothing exhaust note. It should be more widely offered, not less. So, how about it, GM?
I agree with you in theory, Chris. But I think that the biggest reason for not offering the 6.2L is related to production constraints at the Arlington plant in Texas. The plant is notoriously production-constrained, and is being expanded, which can’t come fast enough. All that I understand.
What I don’t understand is GM’s seeming lack of desire to increase ATPs and ultimately make more per vehicle while improving customer satisfaction by offering the 6.2 in the Tahoe/Suburban. It’s not a big change to the line. In fact, it’s quite simple and quite small. So that’s where I am confused myself.
The reason they may not be is that the next model is not that far out and I expect weight reduction to be major like it has been on the cars. This way they would get the performance and the MPG all with the reduction of mass.
Just a hunch that may be what is going on.
I would like to see the take rate at GMC just to know how many step up to the larger engine. Unless you are doing some major towing most soccer moms don’t need the big engine anyways.
Make it an option at a price that gives it to those who want it and limits the sales to save the CAFE. This way everyone wins.
To be honest anyone who really wants one would not have any issue buying the GMC version as they are nearly identical.
Also it is clear GM is using it to set the Denali apart too. the Denali is part Cadillac and part Chevy so playing the middle ground is obvious here.
“Make it an option at a price that gives it to those who want it and limits the sales to save the CAFE. This way everyone wins.”
Exactly.
“To be honest anyone who really wants one would not have any issue buying the GMC version as they are nearly identical.”
Financially speaking, you are right. But a Chevrolet customer ≠a GMC customer. There is a lot at play as it relates to brand, image, etc. and it’s very difficult to get customers to jump ship form Chevy to GMC, or from GMC to Chevy. This was one of the reasons GMC was kept around (outside of financial profit per unit figures) during bankruptcy… by killing GMC, GM would essentially lose most GMC sales to Ford (similar to Pontiac and Saturn customers not staying with GM). So it’s not a matter of funneling Chevy customers to GMC… especially at the retail/dealer level.
Make it optional on LTZ trim. We had a one year only available 6.2 in an 09 Tahoe and honestly it got better mileage than any 5.3 Tahoe we’ve ever had and even better than our current 15 that we traded this 09 for. The 6.2 in 09 Tahoe did without DOD for some reason also. Let me tell you it was pretty hard to trade an 09 with 6.2 that we absolutely loved for a 15 with 5.3. I’ve heard the reason it was only available in Tahoe one year was because it wasn’t a very popular option.
I might be the only one campaigning the idea of the 4.3 V6. I’d like a 6.2 Tahoe with an 8 speed but I’d like a 4.3 with an 8 speed even more.
Meh, as mentioned above, the 6.2 trickled out when the 2014 new trucks were launched. I had a friend that waited from Oct when ordered, to April when delivered, to get a Sierra with the 6.2. That plant can’t produce them fast enough.
That said, for full size SUV’s, the brand loyalty isn’t quite as fierce, and the looks of the vehicles are even more similar than the trucks are.
I think having them on the GMC version is fine, and allows one brand to have proper inventory available to sell, rather then Chev and GMC both, but buyers frustrated with limited inventory.
I know this is a little off topic but I really want to see them bring back the 2500 suburban and throw in the duramax. And bring back plans to use the 4.5 duramax in the 1500’s. that would be what I would push for.
the 6.2 hurts the MPG so GM wants to sell as little of them a possible. they know of it was available across the line just about everyone would order one
I just bought the 2015 GMC Yukon Denali because I wanted the 6.2. I would have preferred the Tahoe I like the looks better. If my wife finds out that the Tahoe will be coming out with the 6.2 she will be ticked that we have the Yukon.
Just one example, ladies and gents. GM will get the sale (Yukon), but at the expense of customer satisfaction.
This engine option is worth every penny in the Sierra/Silverado. It has a better exhaust note, way more power, and since it is combined with the 8-speed auto, not much worse fuel economy than the 5.3L 6-speed combo. It should definitely be optional.
My 2015 Silverado LTZ with the 8spd and 6.2 actually gets better mileage than all of my buddies with the 5.3 of same year. Just cruising along on the highway at 71 on my way to Florida I got 604 miles out of 25.2 gallons of fuel. That’s 23.96mpg. I was insanely surprised.
My average for city and highway is right around 18.0-18.5 mpg. This L86 Ecotec3 works really well in this platform.
Truck is completely bone stock in every single way.
A 6. ls3 is a must have, Also in the trucks in Australia
It’s an L86, which is more powerful, fuel efficient, and more refined than the LS3. But yes, 6.2L V8 for the win!
I would hope Chevy would make it optional on the LT and LTZ. Also, GM needs to Adapt the new center console shifter in the 2016 Equinox to its full size SUVs. Maybe on the Tahoe, have it come with the Luxury package on the LT and standard on the LTZ.
GM needs to offer the Duramax on the Suburban for the family’s that have bigger needs or the working guy that doesn’t want a pickup…just saying!
I have a 2011 Silverado Z71 with the 6.2. It averages 15-16 mpg, comparable to my previous 2002 Sierra 2 wd with the 5.3 and it has a lot more hp and torque!
General Motors can cheat as they can also make the hybrid module of Cadillac’s CT6 (with stop and go) available in the Chevy Tahoe and Suburban meaning the Tahoe and Suburban can have high performance with high fuel mileage at the same time.
We have a Yukon SLE 5.3 on order and wanted a 6.2…without paying the $25K plus delta for a Denali. Back in the day you could scratch off the 5.3 and pencil in a L86…send to the Central Office Production Order department and get what you want (e.g. 1965 Impala SS with a 427 that my Dad bought 50 years ago!).
Things are a lot more complicated now. Our 5.3 SLE is coming with Max Towing which gets a 3:42 Eaton rear gear…maybe that will make up the difference. I’m going to probably go with a Magnuson Blower after a few thousand miles of break in time.
We drove a 2016 Denali 6.2 with the 8 speed…what a sweet set up !! Just can’t justify an extra 25K~30K when $6500 and a week end will give me 500+ HP and TQ from the 5.3…stay tuned.
They need to make the Suburban/Yukon XL in a 2500 HD series for pulling trailers. The 1500 just doesn’t make it. Need to tow 10,000 lbs.
In Russia they already sell Tahoe with 6.2l – http://www.chevrolet.ru/avtomobili/crossovers_suvs/tahoe/obzor.html#engine