445 horsepower and 910 pound-feet of torque: those appear to be the official numbers of GM’s new 6.6L L5P Duramax turbo-diesel V-8 engine destined for GM’s 2017 model year heavy duty Chevy and GMC pickup trucks.
The figures come to us from a rather unexpected and surprising source: General Motors’ 2017 global propulsion product guide.
The more detailed specs include:
- Bore x stroke: 103.0 x 99.0
- Power: 445 hp (332kW) @ 2800*
- Torque: 910 pound-feet (1234 Nm) @ 1600*
That little asterisk by the power and torque numbers? It means that the figures are SAE J1349 certified.
Set to be manufactured at the GM-Isuzu D-MAX plant in Moraine, Ohio, USA, the new Duramax 6.6L L5P engine will be available in the Heavy Duty variants of the 2017 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra. It will continue being paired with the Allison 1000 transmission.
Update: an announcement from General Motors has officially confirmed these figures as part of the unveiling of GM’s 2017 model year Heavy Duty pickup trucks.
Comments
Very impressive numbers indeed.
That puts Ford and Dodge on notice.
I think it’s the other way around. Ford put everyone else on notice, and GM finally stepped up. Good for them.
You are both partially wrong. Ford announced their new numbers with the release of their 2017 MY a few weeks/months back. Torque for the new powerstroke is listed at 925, which is still higher than the 910 GM. At that time, GM already was almost complete with their powertrain updates, but had not released their number. I wouldn’t say “finally” stepped up since it was planned all along. Manufactures don’t wake up one day and decide to build a new powertrain because a competitor has a higher HP or Torque number. With that said, both motors are close enough in power that there will not be significant differences. That will depend on power delivery and overall package. While GM “stepped up”, they did not blow Ford away. Duramax HP is up 5 HP to the Powerstroke but Torque is down 15. Again, within a margin of error and should still compete and preform nicely.
Dyno tests of both reveal that the Duramax has more power.
5 HP more and 15 FPT less that’s not what I would call putting Ford on notice. But then real world testing will tell the whole story.
I say have some fun with the marketing of this particular diesel:
“Porsche Cayenne V6 Diesel Customers: Here’s a premium car that will only land you in hot water, with the speed limit.”
When will this be unveiled officially? Isn’t this week the State Fair of Texas truck unveiling week?
Yes, State Fair kicks off on Friday
I am very impressed with the numbers. I was hoping for 500 hp 1000 ft lbs. Just to be the first ones there. But the duramax held its own just fine with the lower numbers so I think it will be fantastic.
Impressive, but was hoping for 450/950. But, the LP5 should outperform its counterparts, if the LML is anything to go by.
Lol when ford was 400/800 the duramax at 397/765 was kicking it’s ass not on the stat sheet doing the talking when they tested them then ford had to go to 440/860 to get a ahead barely lol can’t wait to watch that L5P whoop it’s ass when they go to the battlefield “Ike gauntlet”??
Is it known if the LP5 is a new design or a tweaked LML? Supposedly, the LML was topped out already and 145 lb-ft of torque bump is pretty significant one suggesting a new design.
Pardon my ignorance .. but what is the difference between this engine and a regular/TT/supercharged v8? I’m assuming they can’t just drop this in a ct6 V?
This engine is designed specifically for heavy duty truck applications. You would never be able to fit it into the CT6 and the weight would be prohibitive in an automotive application. Based on what I have read the combined weight of the engine and Allison transmission is 1400+ pounds.
How do you know you wouldn’t be able to fit this in a Cadillac?
People have put Duramaxes in everything from Classic and current Camaros, to Chevelles. to even a ‘current’ Dodge Charger.
Somebody somewhere WILL drop this motor into a car.
You haven’t seen the video on YouTube of the dmax Camaro and Cummins challenger
This is a diesel engine, it works at low RPMs, it probably redlines around 4000 rpm. It’s designed to pull 20,000+ pounds around.
Thanks guys!
Note the * on the stats.
Giving the fact that the lp5 is held to the higher sae testing standards. That can mean that the new duramax get more “honest numbers” which could further open the gap. Not saying that Cummings and ford a dishonest in reporting, but favorable conditions and rounding up do make pretty figures. I would like to see a head to head comparision for just the engines.
What’s a Cummings?
Maybe Cummings are the lemmings who will blindly follow a Cummins diesel off a cliff… 😉
Cummins!
Always great to be on top of the heap! The Duramax has proven itself over the years. Only wish GM would make their HD’s more distinctive from the 1500’s like Ford does. They are very impressive when you meet them on the road. I’m GM all the way.
Is this engine compacted graphite iron like they said the 4.5 was?
you know what I would have taken more than the horse and torque figures would be relocation of that def tank hanging like a unwanted appendage. hope they fixed the cp4 fuel pump issues as well.
The def tank location has proven not be a problem for 99.99% of people. The tank has a skid plate and I think it’s just the skid plate that hangs past the frame the tank is pretty well protected and if are the .01% that does have problems then do a delete and get rid of it.
Its been a huge issue for me and many other duramax owners. Its gotten hit and hung up many times. On the duramax forum there are some instances of breaking the whole unit losing the def fluid. Its an issue for your more than your incorrectly stated statistic.
I agree Matt. I have numerous friends with these and I have one as well. We all live and play in Idaho, both the mountains and the Dez and not one of us has had an issue with it.
When I first saw one parked in a hotel parking lot I was staying at I could not believe how awful that looked! Along with making it the most vulnerable appendage of the whole truck hanging down like an afterthought like that.
The Def tank location was designed with a purpose. If off-roading, vehicles straddle larger rocks and other things between the wheels, not drive the wheels directly over them. Placing the tank right behind the front wheel outside the frame means a less likely chance of ever hitting an object with the tank. The tank is inside the protective shell we all see, with a space between the two to absorb minor impacts if there is one. It is the protective shell that hangs slightly below the frame; not the tank. As for being unsightly, a large percentage of owners add some type of running board to climb in and out of these trucks, which all but makes it disappear.
Finally! I’ve been waiting to here about these numbers for months now. I wasn’t expecting to see them until mid-October at best. So 910 lb*ft of torque eh? I’m sure I’m not alone in saying I was hoping it would be a little bit more just to pass the Powerstroke, but hey, 910 lb-ft is a hell of a twist. Can’t wait to see how they perform!
They perform extremely well. It won the Ike Gauntlet test already against both the Dodge and the Ford. Mine has about 1500 miles on it now and I can tell you that it has a lot more torque to the ground than my ’13 LML had and it’s much more responsive, quiet, and refined.
Hear Gale Banks words on FaceBook
There’s some head room on these power numbers, we’ve been getting serious with this engine for more than a year now and the foundation is there for much more.
I’ve been developing our Banks Marine, Military and Motorsports versions in parallel
with their production version.
.
“
Another from Banks FaceBook.
Jaiden Bauer:
How would you say it stacks up to the others in the market?
Gale Banks
Very, very competitive
Next thing I’m trying to discover is whether or not they’ve increased both the size of the DEF tank as well as the fuel tank. I’ve heard rumors of a 44-gal fuel tank in the 2017’s, but would like official confirmation. With 445/910, this new truck is more than I really need (397/765 was probably enough), but since I’m coming from a 1500 gasser with 403/417, this should pull our trailer up and over our local passes just fine. I’m ready to place my order as soon as all specs are released…
Will it be announced this Friday or next week?
Since Ford went with a bigger fuel tank, I would not be surprised if GM did too.
Professional Grade.
From GMC Facebook
See the debut of the next level of GMC Professional Grade. Watch our Facebook Live coverage from the State Fair of Texas tomorrow around 11 am EST.
That def tank is a problem for me as well. Not only the look but you cant put the nice new folding running boards on the diesels because its in the way!!! They sure needed to relocate it!!!!
Impressing
PR
http://www.gm.com/mol/m-2016-sep-0928-world-records.html
The new Duramax 6.6L represents a next-generation redesign, featuring an all-new, stronger cylinder block and rotating assembly
When towing 23,000 pounds, in 110-degree Fahrenheit ambient temperature, the Silverado climbs the Davis Dam grade 40 seconds quicker than the previous model (3500HD crew cab 2WD with DRW).
BUT
At present, there are only two V-diesel engines in the market that are not based on CGI cylinder blocks: the Mercedes 3.0L V6 (aluminium) and the General Motors 6.6L Duramax V8 (grey cast iron). CGI has effectively become the standard material for V-diesel engine cylinder blocks.
With CGI they could upgrade easily. Now they can´t.
No CGI. Taken as a whole, there is nothing here to make the ground move. Ford engineers at Dearborn will not be too worried. Better luck next time GM.
Towing a flag. Not even a Texas Lone star flag.
Here is a good summary that was stated by a Ford enthusiast on another very influencial truck forum:
“There are some things that are very impressive. First, the triple-piston fuel pump should be able to supply a higher volume of fuel than the CP4.2 pump could (as used on previous D-max and current Powerstroke) albeit at slightly lower pressure. They are now using a connecting rod that looks an awful lot like the Ford unit with offset cap bolts on the big end…except the D-max rod appears thicker. However, the D-max has a shorter stroke than the Powerstroke. I *love* the idea of the turbo-boost powered oil separator. Excellent idea, and should improve reliability of high duty-cycle engines. It seems GM has gone to great lengths to insulate and redesign exhaust mainfolds and plumbing from the exhaust valves back to the turbo. In my mind, it seems infinitely simpler and superior to use the Ford design of reverse-flow heads (which was originally a GM idea) with a centrally mounted turbo and very short-flow exhaust tubes to turbo. I also noticed GM is using twin DOC’s…one immediately post turbo downpipe and one far downstream at the DPF. I think its an ingenious design…the early DOC is going to get very hot and be able to reduce a fair amount of emissions and probably cook off quite a bit of soot naturally. Finally, the DOC located right at the DPF, combined with the 9th injector design, will most likely require significantly less additional diesel fuel to accomplish a regeneration than the Ford system.”
Yes they could have gone to CGI block to lighten the engine by 10 lbs but why if the cast block can handle the stress, especially since CGI blocks are more costly (which I am sure you wouldn’t be willing to pay for).
They beefed up the block and rotating assembl made big improvements to oil system, 19% more power, and 38% quieter idle.
It’s a mostly new design and so far sounds good. If the block is strong and engine is quiet then what are we missing out on by not having cgi block?
I would rather see stuff like electric power steering, air / linked rear suspension, axle ratio options, etc
For now it seems OK
But It will not be upgradable so easy in coming years as the powerwar continues.
The advantage of CGI is weight. You can create a block that weighs similar to aluminum because you can make thinner cylinder walls but has the strength of cast.
That being said, how do you know the current cast block won’t handle an upgrade? A CGI block and a cast block can have exactly the same tolerances for output stress but the CGI will just weigh less because it is thinner for weight reduction.
Yes, if you make the CGI block just as thick as the cast, it will take more abuse/stress than the same thickness cast block, but most manufacturers don’t keep the CGI block the same thickness; they make it thinner for weight reduction.
It must not save weight if you have the same dimensions.
At the same dimension CGI it will turn out being at least 75% higher tensile strength, 45% higher stiffness and
approximately double the fatigue strength of conventional grey cast iron, CGI satisfi es durability requirements and
also provides the dimensional stability required to meet emissions legislation throughout the life of the engine.
Made in CGI from the beginning and the engine will stand more stress.
I’m just gonna stick with my LMM TT.