The wait is over, and we now know exactly the power and torque ratings of the 2019 Silverado engines, thanks to order guides (linked below) first discovered by GM Authority.
| Engine / Metric | Power (hp / kW) @ RPM: | Torque (lb-ft / Nm) @ RPM | Transmission |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5.3L V8 L84 (new) | 355 / 265 @ 5600 | 383 / 518 @ 4100 | 8-speed automatic MQE |
| 5.3L V8 L83 (old) | 355 / 265 @ 5600 | 383 / 518 @ 4100 | 6-speed automatic MYC |
| 6.2L V8 L87 (new) | 425 / 317 @ 5600 | 450 / 610 @ 4100 | 10-speed automatic MQB |
| 6.2L V8 L86 (old) | 420 / 313 @ 5600 | 460 / 624 @ 4100 | 8-speed automatic M5U |
5.3L L84 V-8
The 5.3L V-8 is assigned RPO code L84, one number greater than the 5.3L V-8 L83 in the last-gen Silverado (on the K2 platform). The motor makes 355 horsepower at 5600 RPM and 383 pound-feet of torque at 4100 RPM.
The 5.3L L84 V-8 is paired with the GM 8-speed automatic transmission (RPO code MQE).
6.2L L87 V-8
The 6.2 V-8 is assigned RPO code L87, also a number greater than the 6.2L V-8 L86 in the outgoing K2 Silverado. Rated at 425 horsepower at 5600 RPM and 450 pound-feet of torque at 4100 RPM, it’s mated to the new GM 10-speed automatic transmission (RPO code MQB).
Greater Efficiency
Though these new 2019 Silverado engines have roughly the same output of their immediate L83 and L86 predecessors (stay tuned for a comparison), both of the 2019 Silverado engines will likely result in a greater fuel efficient thanks to new fuel-saving technologies like engine auto start/stop, which automatically shuts down the engine at stop lights to conserve fuel, and Dynamic Fuel Management, which overhauls the Active Fuel Management/Cylinder Deactivation technology to allow the engine to work on only one cylinder.
Fuel economy ratings for both engines are not yet available.
Other Engines
Despite the 2019 Silverado order guides only listing these the two aforementioned motors, they won’t be the only 2019 Silverado engines available, as Chevy has confirmed that the “2019 Silverdo will be available with six engine/transmission combinations”.
We already know that the third one will be the all-new inline-six 3.0L Duramax diesel engine. That motor is not listed in the order guides. Additionally, this iteration of the order guides, which were updated April 20th, does not contain information on the base model 2019 Silverado, such as the Work Truck, Custom, or Custom TrailBoss, and it’s highly unlikely that these base models will powered by the 5.3L V-8 L84. Instead, a new base engine will likely be introduced. And something tells us that a boosted mid-level engine to slot above the 5.3L L84 will also become available, as will an electrified/hybrid model.
So in other words, this isn’t the complete 2019 Silverado engine lineup, but rather just a part (exactly 40 percent) of it.
Remember: you heard about the power for the 2019 Silverado engines first right here at GM Authority. Stay tuned to GM Authority for more Silverado news coverage and discuss the all-new Silverado in our Chevrolet forum.
Comments
It would be awesome to have the previous numbers in the same table.
Edit: the only difference I see is +5 HP on the 6.2. I wonder if these numbers are incomplete…
Well, these do come from official GM order guides… so the incomplete part is highly unlikely.
This is similar to when we broke the 2019 Cadillac XT4 specs via the order guide and many believed that the power figure for the 2.0L Turbo LSY engine… but the figures ended up being right on the money (albeit not SAE-certified).
Conclusion: the chance of these figures being incorrect is very small.
Thanks for the update, Alex.
Less torque….nice. Better not be correct
That’s pretty disappointing. The 5.3 definitely needed closer to 400 hp to be more competitive and the 6.2 now has 10 lb ft less torque. Hopefully GM at least makes the 6.2 more widely available.
Right, but the 5.3L is probably not the high-end “midlevel” engine… there’ll likely be a new boosted motor to take on the Ford 2.7L EcoBoost. This isn’t the complete engine lineup just yet 🙂
GM, needs to put both, Direct and Multi-Port Injection on their engines, like Ford did on the F-150. Ford’s 5.0L V8, has more power than the 5.3L, and the MPI deals with DI’s problems with carbon build up on the intake valves.
GM has another trick up their sleeve that is more likely however. They have submitted a patent for a engine that has a 15.5:1 compression ratio, where the valve remain open to let some gas charged air slip back into the intake to clean the valves and mix more fully with the air. The actual compression ratio was then 13:1 via said patent. Torque would be up, and better air mixture would result in reduced emissions. Pumping losses would be up a little and power would increase with torque. The decompression dynamics would be awesome with as much as a 20% increase in thermodynamic efficiency, maybe a 30% increase in efficiency overall. I really thought that Chevy would copy fords multi injection, but it adds cost and complexity for no benefit in the low end RPM range. Fords advantage is all up in the high rpm where no one pulls trailers in or does daily driving anyways. I would like to see an engine with everything from DSF, Multi injection, variable compression and mild hybrids, but there is that cost factor.
Dual fuel systems create more headaches when there’s even a minor issue (like a misfire) and it takes the manufacturer a long time to get the system tuned right for all situations. The 2018 F-150’s 5.0 has had a few issues already with tuning.
Really? I’m on the F150 sites all the time every day staying current with the new 5.0 and haven’t heard of any tuning issues. I’m debating a gen 2 3.5 ecoboost or new coyote 5.0 in my next truck. The new Ram is hideous (not to mention horrendous quality issues) so I’ll be shopping Ford and GM when the time comes. Looks like I’ll only be looking at the 6.2 GM since the 5.3 is still very weak.
In one hand I’m disappointed with the small 5.3 v8. On the other, with the 450lb drop in weight it should be competitive with the 5.0 and 5.7 (5.7 dropped 220lbs IIRC).
I hope the 6.2 has more availability.
Disappointing numbers for “updated” engines.
The whole key is to increase or maintain performance while increasing mpg.
GM may not jump up HP but yet the trucks are as good or better in more areas.
Weight loss accounts to not only for better MPG but better handling, braking. More payload, towing and acceleration.
While a small bump in the HP number may be sexy the weight loss with even the same Hp gains in more areas.
And the new truck didn’t sacrifice bed strength for fuel economy. The bed is actually bigger and stronger than the last one, and the last bed was far ahead of its aluminum competitor.
I’m more concerned about other omissions from the order guide like Adaptive Cruise control.
Do you think the 5.3L could fit in the Camaro? That would make for a fun new trim level, much like how the Challenger RT fits between the SXT (3.6L V6), and the SRT (6.4L V8). It probably wouldn’t work, and certainly won’t happen, but it’s a fun thing to think about. A $32,000-$34,000 5.3L V8 Camaro with 355 hp and 383 lb-ft of torque would make for a nice car for not much more than the V6.
It can definitely fit, but would be pointless.
more like pointless for the V6 sales numbers and GM’s Cafe numbers. I doubt anyone would buy a V6 when for the same price or a couple of grand more, you could get a 355hp 383lb-ft tq V8. And if history is any measure, with the way GM V8s take to cheap mods, the legendary 6th gen Camaro to look out for n the street would easily be a 5.3 one.
If they could do a 5.3L Camaro for 33-34 grand, it would become the new ‘5.0LX of our time’ over night.
There will be a 2.7 liter 4 cylinder option
I am happy if the engine/tranny combo is properly tuned. Excited to see what the other engines are. Ps- must include start/stop cancel button. 2.7 I4 turbo torque monster?! That could be cool.
I’m sorry but that cannot be correct. 10 lb/ ft. less in torque? Also, why on Earth would GM be so secretive about 5 extra horsepower? No, I’ll wait until this fall or late summer when GM themselves says what the specs are.
Order guides = “GM themselves”.
Well that sucks but I guess when you think about it, these new trucks are much lighter so towing, payload, acceleration and fuel economy are all going to go up and at the end of the day, that’s all that matters.
400lbs is no where near “much lighter” when it comes to a 4000lb truck with a 8000 lb trailer. 400/12000=3%, so it there will be little benefit to trailering economy or acceleration, and climb ability. also less weight is the opposite of what you want for trailering. Like a 400lb linebacker vs a 195 lbs wrestler, both can deadlift 300lbs, but if they knock into something (like a truck passing a semi) the more weight of the linebacker makes him much, much more stable. just another example of ford logic, please the truck wannaby and not account for what real truck people need, once again its cause the main competition, ford and ram haven’t done anything in this area for a while, chevy is still the best performing truck. I would have liked to have seen a 10% power increase all the same with the 10 speed across all models for optimum gearing.
You’re analogies don’t seem fair. Truck weighed 5500lbs, now it will weigh 5050, that’s about 9%. 450lbs should also be good for about 4 tenths in the 1/4 mile, if that’s your thing.
It appears the GVWR went down by 300lbs, so this means the payload is up by only 150lbs. They already had pretty good payload, so this is decent.
Horsepower isn’t the limiting factor for towing either and the 5.3 / 8 speed / 3.42 is a pretty good towing vehicle. The tow ratings for the 5.3 and 6.2 are barely different in max tow despite the power rating and they’re the same if you don’t get max tow.
I too would have liked to see the 10 speed used across the board, except maybe work trucks. I have noticed all the trucks seem to have a “mode” selector that includes at a minimum a regular, sport and towing. Some, maybe all, have a “off road” mode. So hopefully this is the end of the lethargic gas sipping shift patterns, assuming you use the correct mode.
that weight i was referring to was gcwr, towing a truck with a camper/toyhauler/livestock trailer behind. And i was being very conservative on the weights. If you actually consider a 4×4 crew cab of 5000, and a 10000lb trailer 400/15000=2% weight reduction. yes, weight saving increases payload by a couple pounds, but its insignificant in towing. Horsepower=work on a physics perspective. I talk about horsepower increases, but what i really want is a torque increase so i can have more power output around 3000 rpm where i am working. Finnal drives have little to do as much as the beefiness of the rear axel and the overall output ratio. I would take a 2.0 final drive if it is beefy enough for the torque and the overall ratio is designed to tow. The reason that the 5.3 and 6.2 differ in capacities has nothing to do with engine output. Its about what the frame transmission and axel can handle, and all should go up in 2019. The 6.0 has less output than the 5.3, but it has the frame and axel to work harder than the 6.2L. the 6.2 tows much better than the 5.3 as its 20% increase in torque lets it climb with more confidance.
This is full of contradictions. Like you said, this is the same HP as the 6.0 HD and probably 1000 fewer lbs. The 2019 is all new so we don’t know how much better the frame is, but I imagine it’s improved.
So if the 6.0 can pull 10k just fine, we shouldn’t have any power issues with the 5.3 pulling 10k. Frame/brakes are unknown but we do know the wheelbase is a little longer which will help.
Jake all good comments but do keep in mid that the rear axle ratio multiplies torque at the rear wheels where you need it.
That said, and too your point, we do not want a motor screaming at 4,100 rpm to get to max torque.
I bought an F250 strictly because they get mas torque @ 400 rpm less than the Chevy HD as an example
The extra gears will make those “same numbers” feel a lot stronger – the motor can stay in the peak hp/tq parts of the curve more often. To me, a flat torque curve is MUCH more important than a gain only at high RPM’s, especially in a tow vehicle. Now a pocket rocket subcompact, that’s driven to redline all the time, then you’re more interested in the peaks.
Jake –
First of all, you would never consider the trailer weight in a calculation for weight reduction of a truck and the efficiency as a result. Your 2% figure is inaccurate. Second – weight reduction of the truck is very important when towing as you are moving less weight in the truck and thus allowing for more weight moved in the trailer.
Third – Let me correct you on your “physics perspective”. Torque = work, Horsepower = power. Power is how fast work is accomplished. You can do the math with the equation H = T x RPM/5252. H=horsepower T=Torque
Fourth – Final drives or gear ratios are very important when towing. Torque is force applied at a distance. A higher gear ratio will increase the distance at which force is applied thus making it easier for the vehicle to work. (gear ratios multiply the torque that the engine makes as it is transferred to the wheels) Your statement “I would take a 2.0 final drive if it is beefy enough for the torque and the overall ratio is designed to tow.” This statement doesn’t make sense… You are saying you would take an overall gear ratio of 2.0 if an overall gear ratio of 2.0 is designed to tow… which it isn’t.
Finally – you contradicted yourself again with your last statement “The reason that the 5.3 and 6.2 differ in capacities has nothing to do with engine output…. the 6.2 tows much better than the 5.3 as its 20% increase in torque lets it climb with more confidence.” You said the difference has nothing to do with output but at the end you admitted that output of +20% is the reason the 6.2L tows better.
Im disappointed that there is no advantage with the new trucks when it comes to towing. sure the 6.2 still tops fords power specs buy a big margine, but i might as well buy a 2018 model as 400bls lighter and 5 more horses does nothing for us who go cross country with a camper and a gvcw of 15000 lbs. i rather have that 400lbs back and trade it for more power. In trailering i wont see any fuel economy increase either. DSF wont do much when your running on all 8 for the increased power output, and with the cost of desiel, the new 3.0 inline would have to make more than 35MGP to give me a reason to switch from gas. I was really hopeing a high compression engine with variable engine intake to increase power and efficiency at full throttle as well as city cruising. Still have more time for the other 3 setups. However, the real culprit for the lack of innovation here is ford. The ecoboost line does little to impress with the 5.0 being their most powerfull engine, yet still not outdoing the 6.2. the others have turbo lag and low upper end torque. Chevy has little competition and as such they are just buying their time. Wish they would blow the competition out of the water.
You’re objectively wrong on the 5.0L V8 being Ford’s most powerful engine. The 3.5L EcoBoost produces 375 HP and 470 LB-FT of torque at far lower RPMs. Sure, you lose a little bit of horsepower versus the V8, but you get 70 more LB-FT of torque that comes in at 2250 RPMs. The EcoBoost can be, as Ford themselves has proven, easily tuned to well above 600 HP and well above 500 LB-FT of torque as well without changing any major components.
I’d also like to comment on the fact that Ford’s 5.0L V8 blows most of the competition out of the water despite having, in most cases, significantly smaller displacement. It really goes to show what a properly updated and properly modern V8 can do. 395 HP, 400 LB-FT of torque out of a 5 liter engine? One that kicks the ass of GM’s larger 5.3L and basically matches FCA’s 5.7L? I’ll take it.
Plus, it’s got a 10 speed to stay at peak torque.
Ford’s DOHC 5.0 is larger, heavier and more complex than GM’s 5.3 pushrod. It does outclass the 5.3 when it comes to power, but it comes with tradeoffs- the comparison is far more complex than more power with less displacement.
You’re correct, there are a lot of factors. One of them is the fact that pushrod V8s are an ancient design dating back to the very first days of the automotive industry. A reliable one, sure, but only when kept basic and properly designed in the first place.
GM keeps throwing more and more cylinder/fule management tech onto their pushrod V8s to achieve better fuel economy, instead of just designing a well-made modular V8 with DOHC, direct+port injection, and other technologies proven to both increase power and improve fuel economy.
Because of all this tech, including the highly advanced fuel management, dynamic skip fire, stop-start, so on and so forth, I’m frankly not any more confident in the reliability of the new GM engines as I am in Ford’s EcoBoost line or Ford’s 5.0L V8.
I’d also like to say that packing size really doesn’t matter in a truck. They’re massive and almost comically oversized vehicles in literally every way, certainly the new ones are. They’re designed to be able to handle a very, very wide range of engines in terms of engine type, fuel types, and engine size. Having a slightly larger engine (and it usually is only slightly) by having a modern modular V8 shouldn’t be a problem of any reasonable degree.
Invest in a dictionary and learn what the word “modular” means.
Most modern OHC/DOHC V8s are modular engines. I’m quite well aware of what they are and how they work. I’m aware that modular was originally a simple brand name in the Ford lineup of V8s, but have seen the name proliferate to generally referring to large-displacement, 8-12 cylinder engines that rely on newer OHC/DOHC technologies.
GM’s Ecotec/LS-based V8s are still older-style Pushrod OHV engines, and as such, are known to the world as “pushrod” engines.
Anything else you want to add, Dick?
I’m begging you, man, go buy a dictionary.
“GM’s Ecotec/LS-based V8s are still older-style Pushrod OHV engines, and as such, are known to the world as “pushrod” engines.”
If you really knew what you were talking about, you’d know that OHV pushrod v8s are actually a NEWER design than OHC engines….like wyatt says, buy a dictionary and learn a little about engine history and engineering terms.
Except for modern post 40s American V8s, most “pushrod” engines are old, side valvers. Which is as old as OHC design. There is nothing modern or high tech about OHCs. They have been around since the beginning. The do flow more efficiently though – a few Jag and the original early Ford Modualr v8s excepted.
Modular has to do with components that are easily swapped between one another by design. ALL GM ohv pushrod v8s have been “modular” from day one. For Ford it was a family of new OHC V8s and V10 that shared major design architecture allowing major components to be easily swapped or adapted depending on the need. The new Ford V8s are not “Modular” in traditional Ford parlance if you will. For example, the newer Coyote and Vodoo V8s are not interchangeable.
Hi, think we got our wires crossed but I’ll answer nonetheless. The designs themselves are about the same age, the widespread usage of them is not. I am wrong in using the term modular to refer to OHC/DOHC V8s, and I’ll admit that – I have simply heard the term used by technicians and around the ‘net to describe the OHC/DOHC design, and applied the term here.
Anyway, OHC/DOHC have a number of benefits over the “pushrod” OHV design – namely, as you mentioned, more efficient flow of air and exhaust gases (generally because of both different head designs and because of, in the case of DOHC, greater valves per cylinder). OHC designs can also support greater compression ratios, higher RPMs, and generally, run a bit cooler. They also save some weight in the valvetrain components themselves by not requiring the aptly-named pushrod, heavier valve actuators, and heavier springs – this can help control some of the extra weight from the OHC design.
However, the OHC design wasn’t widely adopted in really any engine until a good 50-60 years ago – mainly due to the complexity and, most importantly, cost.
Obviously, each of the engine designs has its own set of pros and cons. Pushrod OHV engines are, generally speaking, much smaller and a bit lighter than an equivalent-displacement OHC/DOHC design. There’s also just something classic about a pushrod V8, most certainly brings that little bit of nostalgia to the party.
OHC engines, on the other hand, are the clear go-to when you need a higher-revving engine, more compression, or want to turbocharge/supercharge the engine more efficiently and effectively. Generally speaking, you’ll also see more power per liter of displacement out of OHC/DOHC engines even without forced induction. I believe this is because of the additional valve timing, duration, and lift control those engines can implement due to the OHC (often DOHC) design.
I believe the only legitimate reason GM hasn’t switched to an OHC/DOHC design yet is the cost per engine. According to GM’s own chief engine designer, they save about $400 per 5.3L V8 by keeping the same old 2-valve pushrod design.
Good points.
Peak torque comes in at 3500 RPM with the 3.5L Ecoboost. The smaller 2.7L EB, which doesn’t get configured with anything close to max towing or max payload version of their pickup, which makes sense seeing that the smaller twin turbo is more of a middle duty choice with decent mpg, but loses any mpg advantage that it could have over the larger TT at a certain level of work, comes in 400 ft-lbs at 2750 RPM (almost diesel like). Same torque as the 5.0 V8 but 1750 RPM lower. That’s right! The updated 5.0 doesn’t reach peak torque until reaching 4500. That’s 1650 higher RPM than the 2017 model but gained only 13 ft-lb. Haven’t seen the curve, so it doesn’t tell the whole story, but that makes the newest F150 V8 the highest revving for peak torque in the class.
It’s also notable that the 2.7L tweaks for 2018 changed only three things about the specs. (1) Torque comes in 25 ft-lb higher; from 375 to 400; (2) Peak torque comes in 250 RPM lower; from 3,000 to 2750; and (3) Peak horsepower comes down to match the larger TT at 5,000 RPM. By comparison, the base 3.3 reaches peak power at a screaming 6500 RPM, the V8 at 5750, and the diesel at 3250. I don’t know about the HO version of the 3.5L Ecoboost and don’t really care, since it’s available only in a monster truck.
Though I do think it says something good that Ford believes their little 3.3L V6 can handle being pushed to 6500+ RPMs on a semi-regular basis. Companies tend to set redlines so engines don’t get to “dangerous” RPMs, so if that little V6 has peak power at 6500 RPMs and likely redlines at a couple hundred RPMs higher, that’s a pretty good sign IMO.
I think it’s great they took a focus on MPG, gas prices aren’t going to stay low, Canada is already seeing the summer price bumps. $4.75US per gallon in some places.
BUT numbers on paper mean a lot the truck market. They should have bumped the 5.3 to around 380hp and the 6.2 to 440hp.
Its a real let down in my eyes. I don’t think spending $60k on a truck and then knowing you need a tune to wake them up for that seat of your pants performance you get from rivals right out of the box.
Dynamic skip fire for GMs application wont allow the engine to run on just one cylinder. Its going to fire the most efficient cylinder, or ‘skip fire’ on cylinders not needed given the driving conditions load demand. The company that dev’d the tech shows it off at running on 1 cylinder under low load, but thats not how GM programmed it for trucks. They are using it to change the firing order on demand. Current AFM drops down to V4 and fires the same 4 cylinders. GM V8s firing order is 1-8-4-3-6-5-7-2, DSF might skip 8, fire 4, skip 3 and 6, then fire 5 7 2, skip 1, fire 8, and so on
Easiest way to think of t is like a transmission. Getting on the highway you might run out 2nd geat to 5500rpm and hit 60mph, then let off and the trans skips all the way to the top gear for highway cruising. Where as in the city casually driving youll shift 1-2-3-4 accelerating slowly up to 40mph, then when you back off and maintain 40mph it will shift up to 6th to get revs down to an efficient 1000rpm. Stomp on it and it drops from 6 to 2. The DSF engine works the same.
Seems like neat technology that might actually improve longevity and efficiency over afm trucks. Wonder if it will finally get rid of the lifter issues found on afm trucks? Or maybe bring a whole new set of issues? I’ll stick with my current-gen 5.3 with a range disabler for now.
I think it’s more likely to bring its own set of issues, though I’m curious what will actually happen if the DSF system fails. Will it cause real problems with running the engine, or will the engine just revert to a more “classic” full-time V8 mode and throw a code?
Just looked through the entire 2019 Silverado order guide.
Some things that really tick me off.
6.2 is confirmed to ONLY be available in LTZ and High Country
3.23 gears standard on everything, even 5.3. Unless you upgrade to Max Tow then it’s 3.42
GM is still has their head to far up their ass to let people decide what THEY want.
@ Arctic dog GM has decided if you want an extra 70 hp with the 6.2 L they want an extra $12,000. Unless it’s a Tahoe then they want an extra $20,000. If they ever put the 5.3 L In the Colorado it will be a $ 60,000 truck.
This is the most disappointing thing about GM manufactured pickups. Almost every power train they build that is really advanced and that people want, they limit them to so few people. Until the PowerStroke came in that starts at $46.4K, one could get any of Ford’s 4 engines in any configuration and trim level downward. They instead limit the power trains upward. For instance, a customer can choose a base work truck F150, standard cab, 2WD and add only a long bed and get it with a 3.5L Ecoboost (their top-tiered engine) for under $33K. The other three engines can be had with even the short bed, standard cab, 2WD and lowest trim; adding 1 grand each step upward in power train. All under $30K.
They do limit on the upside, however. The Lariat comes standard with the 2.7L Ecoboost and you can order up from there. So that means you can’t get a Lariat (3rd trim level up) with a base engine. When you step up to King Ranch, now you get the V8 standard and can order it with the 3.5L Ecoboost, so that means you can’t get a King Ranch with a 2.7L Ecoboost or the base engine. At Platinum or Limited (I can’t remember which), that $60K truck comes only with the 3.5L Ecoboost.
Can you provide a link to that? I can’t find what you’re referring to anywhere.
http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/chevrolet/silverado/2019-chevrolet-silverado/2019-chevrolet-silverado-order-guide/
6.2 is “available” for only LTZ and High Country.
3.23 is standard for all trucks
3.42 listed as available with the note of only with Max Towing.
And I thought I had it bad being stuck with 3.42 on my Z71. It always annoyed me that 3.73 was only available with the elusive max-tow package in the current-gen trucks. I wonder how 3.23 (or even 3.42) gears will work on the trailboss trucks with those big tires. GM must have a lot of faith in their transmission gearing…
Y’all are too caught up in the axle ratio, which is only half of the equation. Back in the Turbo 400 days a 3.73 or 4.11 axle was important, because 1st gear ratio was only 2.48, resulting in a net ratio of 9.25 or 10.19, respectively. When the TH700 (4L60) came along, the 1st gear ratio went to a 3.06, so in first gear you would achieve the same torque multiplication with a 3.33 axle as you would have with the TH400 and a 4.11.
The 6L80 took it even further with a 4.03 1st gear, and the 8L90 further still with a 4.56 1st gear. To put that in perspective, an 8L90 with a 2.50 axle has the same effective torque multiplication as a 4L60 with a 3.73 axle, or a TH400 with a 4.60 axle. Put in other terms, an 8L90 with the 3.23 that everyone is freaking out over is the net equivalent of a 4.81 axle with a 4L60.
What about the 10L90? Well, it goes even further with a 4.70 1st gear ratio. So, if someone were do something silly like put a 3.92 axle (dodge guy) in a truck with a 10L90 and stock (32″ tall) tires, the engine would be bouncing off of its rev limiter at under 25 mph in 1st gear (or about 15 mph with the diesel). Pointless.
Remember, the Corvette ZR1 that will run 0-60 in 2.85 seconds with the 8L90 does it with a 2.41 axle.
In model year 1997 with the introduction of the LS1 Engine. The firing order was changed it is now 1-8-7-2-6-5-4-3.
well either way, the engine will cycle cylinders in that order but DSF won’t necessarily fire in that order.
I just hope GM is down rating the power numbers, if not they are very disappointing.
I was expecting little improvement , but that’s ok, with aluminum
treatment the pick up lines will be so fine because High output ecoboost is only available on the Raptor and GM doesn’t have an answer for that trim yet , but the important question Mr.Alex, Is GM planing to leave the Yukon Denali and Cadillac Escalede behind the Platinum Expedition and a Navigator ? i mean those two are equiped with high performance engines , and GM s SUVs get thier powertrain form the pickup lines and it apperas nothing has changed there , if so, i would be really disappointed ! 🙁
What interested me was the statement “And something tells us that a boosted mid-level engine to slot above the 5.3L L84 will also become available, as will an electrified/hybrid model.” If GM is to take advantage of the $7500 Federal Tax credit for their trucks, they have to do it in the 2019 model year. After that it’s gone but their competitors at Ford, Ram, and Toyota will still have a few years before they hit their expiration point.
So what could a GM hybrid truck like? My guess is it will be an outgrowth of their existing electric extended range propulsion systems.
1. A rear drive system based on the CT6 Plugin Hybrid. This used a turbo 2 liter 4 cylinder ICE coupled to a beefed up gen 2 Voltec transmission. Combined power output of 335 HP and 432 lb-ft of torque drawing power from a 18 KWH battery.
2. An AWD system using the standard Voltec propulsion to drive the front wheels and the traction motor from the Bolt to drive the rear wheels. The Voltec uses a 1.5 l ICE coupled to a transmission with two motors providing 5 model of operation, 2 all electric and 3 hybrid. Power output is about 150 HP and 260 lb-ft of torque. The Volt traction motor is 200 HP and 400 lb-ft of torque. The extended range Voltec driving the front wheels would be the main drive with torque assist from the Bolt motor on the rear wheels when more grunt is required to accelerate from a stop, go up steel inclines or just speed up. Since their is an ICE no need for a huge battery pack so the Volt 18 KWH battery should be suffient, but the Silverado could easily accommodate the 60 KWH Bolt battery between its frame rails.
3. An entirely new extended range serial hybrid system using single or dual motor (2wd/4,wd) like the Workhorse W-15 with a 1 or 2 cylinder Achates opposed engine driving a generator only. http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/02/2019-silverado-engines-rumored-opposed-piston-powertrain-to-enter-testing-with-ford-f-150/
It’s highly likely that this guide is showing 4 of the 6 available engine/transmission combinations. We know the diesel was the big news at the reveal, so that will likely be with the 10 auto, leaving one more choice?
I’m confused as this guide is showing 2 of the 6. 5.3 8 speed and 6.2 10 speed. We know the I6 diesel is coming with the 10 speed.
That’s 3 of the 6. I’m thinking there will be 2 more engines available.
What would really be sweet is if they did a boosted 5.3 and a hybrid 5.3.
GM says there will be 6 engine/trans combinations, not 6 engines. This order guide shows 2 combinations for the 5.3L and 2 more for the 6.2L, that’s 4 combinations.
I know what GM says. I only see 1 combination for the 5.3 and 1 for the 6.2. That’s 2 of the 6.
What 4 combinations are you seeing? Perhaps I’m missing something.
The article clearly states 4 drivetrains.
This article clearly identifies two of those drivetrains listed as “old” – as in current generation, and two as “new” – as in the forthcoming/new model. Everyone else has recognized that. Only two NEW drivetrains are identified here, leaving four yet to be identified.
The answer to this topic is key, folks.
Chevrolet has stated that there will be “six powertrain” combinations. The press documents sometimes use the word “powertrain” interchangeably with the word “engine”… but I do not know whether that’s the case here.
So theoretically Chevy’s wording could mean one of the following:
1. There will be a choice of six engines, or
2. There will be a choice of six combinations that include engines and transmissions
The first option is rather easy to decipher. If there will be six engines, there will be six engines… and these:
1. Confirmed 5.3L L84 gasoline
2. Confirmed 6.2L L87 gasoline
3. Confirmed 3.0L Duramax diesel
4. Rumored new gasoline base engine
5. Rumored new gasoline turbo engine
6. Rumored hybrid-gasoline model
The second option of actual “powertrain combinations” is a big more complex to run through, but let’s try:
1. Confirmed 5.3L L84 gasoline + 8-speed automatic
2. Confirmed 6.2L L87 gasoline + 10-speed automatic
3. Confirmed 3.0L diesel + 10-speed automatic
4. Rumored new base gasoline engine + 8-speed automatic?
5. Rumored new boosted gasoline engine + 10-speed automatic?
6. Rumored new hybrid-gasoline engine + whatever transmission would be mated to this….
Now, it’s possible that item #6 above doesn’t happen, so the sixth choice could be that the 8-speed transmission in the engines it’s mated to is updated to a 10-speed in some packages. That’s the best I can do right now.
5.3 is 8spd standard with 10spd optional. 6.2 only has the 10spd. That’s 3 options. The 3.0d is only 10spd, that’s 4. I’d bet we see 2 more engines on the 8spd
I bet we see a naturally aspirated V6 to slot under the 5.3, and a twin turbo V6 in the same HP range as the 6.2 but more torque
Nope. The 8-speed auto is mated exclusively with the 5.3L while the 10-speed is mated exclusively with the 6.2L.
Evidence look at page 57 at the line that starts with MQB, followed by:
Transmission, 10-speed automatic, electronically controlled with overdrive and tow/haul mode. Includes Cruise Grade Braking and Powertrain Grade Braking
The footnote reads:
1 – Included and only available with (L87) 6.2L EcoTec3 V8 engine.
So, 10-speed can not be had with the 5.3L L84…
These power ratings are very disappointing after all that anticipation. Seriously GM! The 6.2 should’ve been more like 445 bhp and 475 lb-ft, with the 5.3 at 375 bhp and 395 lb-ft. Unfortunately, GM is more willing to disappoint rather than impress when it comes to engine mid-life updates as it relates to performance.
I too am disappointed in the HP and TQ rating of the Engines. Hopefully they will have a TTV6 comparable to Fords TTV6. With all the teasing and exceptions I still think GM didn’t go far enough. Seems they forgot about the promise of underpromising and over delivering , but instead chose the opposite and over promised and under delivered.
I was anticipating more out of GM this time around since their trucks have been quite disappointing since 1999. As far as the motors go I think to be fair to GM we will have to see the dyno graphs to see what might be hiding under the curves.
Soooooo no change for the 5.3 Liter, which has pretty much been the same since 2014, this is disappointing, Ford will observe and more than likely take advantage of GM’s setback when they introduce the 2020 F-150!!!!
More of the same from GM in regards to the diesel. Tease us for months about something that is in the pipeline with little or no info and no specifics as to when it will be available! I think in 2019 GM is going to get it’s head handed to it by the new RAM which is already in dealer lots and getting great reviews.
GM has been on a dissapointment roll lately. The 237 HP all new Cadillac 2.0. The lame Malibu, Cruze and Camaro refreshes. The same old low powered engines with no performance variants. Taking away the stick on the Cruze. Sticking 2.0T’s in Traverses. And now this. I wouldn’t be surprised if GM loses market share for 2019 and the Ram will be forever nipping at the heels of these two GM trucks
Yes, Ram has a very interesting 48V lithium battery assist through an 8 cog belt that also works as the starter when the engine is warm, standard on their V6 and optional on the Hemi. On the Hemi it adds 130 ft lb torque for a short time plus charges on braking.
Jeep Wrangler JL will have it also if you order the I4 turbo motor.
I’m going to buy a Wrangler but wait a year to see how reports come in on reliability.
Great, I need my ears screaming to get the torque at 4,100 rpm.
Give me a turbo Ford, quick please.
Not So! remember the reports on the LT1 6.2? it holds 90% of its torque across 90% of its RPM range. The truck versions of these motors dont have the high output intake, so they will loose torque after 5000 rmp, but exspect 90% of that torque from 800rpm-5000 rpm….. that’s at least 345tq from 800-5000rpm and 95% from 2500-4800rpm or 365tq from 2500 to 4800 rpm.
i hate fords turbos cause past 3000 rpms they tank on tq meaning when you need to climb a hill they become somewhat anemic, slowing you down and causing a backup of cars behind you. Its fun to feel that heavy torque while scooting around downtown and to say you got a turbo truck, but the numbers dont do ford any favors.
Just a one word answer to what you need my brother! HEMI!
Couldn’t agree more. I’ve actually always been a GM fan but once I decided to buy my 2018 ram 1500 sport, I may never go back to GM again, unless they ever decide to wake up and see what they’re competitors are doing. Don’t get me wrong, I do really like the design of these new GM trucks, even better than some trim levels of the new ram 1500. The more monotone packages look really nice but I’m not a huge fan of the ones that have a ton of chrome on them. Regardless, the fact that I can get a hemi on every trim level, not just the higher end ones like with the 6.2 in the gm trucks, and a 3.92 gear ratio, instead of just a 3.23 or 3.42, makes a huge difference.
Justin, just ran across a Ram for $29,700, Hemi, 3.92 axle, 20 inch wheels, u-connect, limited slip diff plus more in the pkg, something similar at GM is going to be much more expensive. I’ve been a GM buyer since 1969 but I am not going to purchase a vehicle that has terrible throttle response and has tranny shifts that are terrible, not to mention the “chevy shake”, I thing GM has finally figured out the vibration problem stems from the torque convertor clutch shudder, took awhile.
new 6.2 gets 450tq, new hemi gets 400tq + whatever torque e-torque gives at 3500 rpm. new 6.2 gets 425 hp, new hemi gets 395+ 12 e-torque horsepower=407hp. 6.2 still is the most powerful truck motor excluding raptor. i need to go to GMC and get the 6.2 in an SLT is what i really need
For the minimal to hardly no changes for the 5.3 and 6.2 Liters, there shouldn’t be much change in that Price Tag either…just saying!!!!!!!
The fact that they’re using more aluminum now will almost certainly equal a higher price tag.
Astounding. “Here’s our new awesome Trail Boss off road truck. Which is only available with an engine weaker than almost every other major truck line.”
Kudos Chevy. You’ve pinpointed what little enthusiasm I had left for the new Silverado and eliminated it with laser-like efficiency.
Disappointing. Seriously, GM just can’t do its best when it comes to trucks. First that mediocre interior, and the 6.2 should be best-in-class.
Even more with the 2020 F-Series.
A bit of a disappointment on these engines. I’m not a fan of start/stop and a V-8 running on one cylinder……that doesn’t thrill me either and I’m pretty sure I won’t purchase that first year out.
What the hell is the deal with the big mystery on the V6 and diesel specs? With all due respect, I don’t give a damn about the 6. whatever in the 60k Ultra High Country. Meanwhile ’19 Fiat RAM is out with full drive reviews from all the YouTube channels.
Because the new Ram has been entirely released. You can go buy one right now, and it’s frankly a great truck. Fuel economy isn’t quite up to part with the rest of the class, even now, but it’s a joy to drive, exceedingly comfortable, the best interior in the class, and still very very capable.
I also believe that the interior quality and tech available in the new Ram gives it a much better value too.
Wyatt, I too was impressed by the Ram, the 2018’s are great on the pocket book also.
Was really hoping this was an April Fools joke. It should be and GM should be very ashamed of themselves. All this time to reveal identical 5.3 power figures and LESS torque on the 6.2! Meanwhile Ford has somehow managed to increase both power and torque on every one of it’s engines from 2016 to 2018 while also increasing MPG. I’m also worried about the 5.3 8 speed combo. It currently is only rated at 15/20 for 2018 or 1 less city and 2 less highway than the 5.3 with the older 6 speed transmission. So they are starting with a much lower point so I’m not anticipating any great news in that department.
Lets hope they at least partially make up for it by whatever twin turbo engine they are offering and that the diesel can at least match Ford’s magic 30 highway figure.
So it’s a little strange that no other outlet has picked up on these order guides. It should be newsworthy on every auto news site and blog. Not questioning GMA, but I am questioning the source of these order guides and the accuracy.
I don’t think we’ve seen the end of specs for the 5.3 and 6.2
hmmmm….that’s actually a very good point, Andrew. You would think that Car & Driver, Fast Lane Truck, etc. would be jumping all over this. GM has always increased the horsepower and torque ratings for their engines with every single new design. Hard to believe they wouldn’t continue with this new design.
Well, the GM Fleet order pages are very much there and clearly state the mechanical and engine/transmission options for the all-new Silverado 1500. I believe these numbers are accurate as I was able to independently verify them.
Yeah and Fast Lane Truck just recently did a video on this so the numbers are indeed accurate.
Interesting. I wonder if the new 6.2/L87 had to be de-tuned for the new “Dynamic Fuel Management.” Either way, it doesn’t really bother me- I never found the 5.3 L83 in the ’14-’18 trucks to be a slouch. In my opinion, there are far more important factors to consider than the differences in horsepower and torque ratings between modern, V8-powered half-tons; they all make even the HD trucks from a generation or two ago look anemic. Also, there’s a theory out there (backed by the folks at Black Bear Performance, among other self-accredited forum-combers like myself) that current-gen 5.3/L83 owners can squeeze a little more power and efficiency out of their stock high-compression motors by running higher octane fuel, resulting in the knock sensors not pulling quite as much timing as they would if running regular 87 octane fuel. I would assume the same logic would apply to the next-gen 5.3/L84.
So far, GM is outclassed by Ford in powertrain options, who offers a multitude of engines at all trim levels. Where is GMs answer to the 3.5 Ecoboost? Rehashed previous motors aren’t going to cut it. I can only hope that something better has yet to be announced.
So, nobody has picked up on the fact that the power specs are listed at the exact same rpm as the peaks before? Same displacement, yet some how more hp is made at the exact same rpm as before, but torque output is lowered also at its same rpm? It doesn’t work that way… with the relationship of hp being a function of torque, these numbers do not add up. What the actual numbers will be, I have no idea. But, these are not accurate numbers…
I’m a Ford guy. I’m sort of amiss at what Ram has done so far, or better said not done with respect to power train strategies in “all new-from-the-ground-up pickup”. However, looking at GM’s work so far, with three power trains still left to announce, and with some really good news coming with the I6 Duramax (almost for sure, as it is 100% 2018 American diesel with lots of opportunities to save on cost versus these older designs from Ford and VM); I think the chart is not all that disappointing.
We have to remember that some configurations of these pickups will be up to 450 pounds lighter than the current generation, but even the regular cab 2WD will most certainly be at least a 200 pounds lighter; most of them likely over 300 pounds of curb weight saved or more. There is a good indication that all transmissions and the software will be reworked, and I’m sure refinement and throttle response, zero-to-sixty and all those parameters will be greatly improved considering the whole package and the expectation, so the same power and torque ratings in my mind, with a lighter and more aerodynamic truck will translate to a faster and more capable truck. I think that probably, considering the peak numbers and the cut weight and likely optimized gearing, that this new truck will seem a whole lot better performing than before, and I’d also expect that GM’s adoption of the next-generation cylinder deactivation that is far beyond where Ram went for cylinder deactivation, which incidentally came out with the same exact peak performance numbers, and the same exact mpg as their previous-designed pickup; is going to put GM way out in front along with Ford in advanced power trains for 1/2-ton pickups.
And all of this advancement that GM is taking with power trains in which Ram skipped with an all new truck so far, GM still has 3 power trains still left to go. We can all probably assume that one of those three is going to be the 5.3L Ecotec3 with eAssist, which is GM’s branding of starter-generator and slight torque add via the belt just as they have today, except that the new generation will likely also have the next-generation dynamic fuel management applied for a double mpg advantage but with no performance sacrifice.
The 2nd power train choice not yet announced is going to be the base engine mated to an unknown transmission. There is lots of speculation about what the base might be. Will it be the 4.3L NA V6? If so, will it be advanced in performance and/or FE? will it be another, different-displaced NA V6? a 4 cylinder turbo charged engine? Will it have eAssist standard or as an option as Ram has done? will it also have advanced dynamic fuel management? The suspense is exciting. Ram will use eTorque standard with the same V6 with the same performance numbers (3.6L Penstar V6 8-speed with 305/269 hp/torque). Ford has a new base engine for 2018, but it has only a traditional start-stop system and dual fuel injection as advancements over the previous base for Ford. It’s numbers are 290/265, but it is the mpg leader for base engines and 2nd place overall for gas engines at 19/25/22, which equals a Honda Ridgeline for comparison of how far full size trucks have come for mpg.
IF the 3rd power train choice not yet announced does not include a rehashed version of one of the already-announced engines with an optional transmission or a rehashed version of one of the other engines but with eAssist, then that means we’ve got two more engines left to go. A base engine and an unknown engine. If this scenario turns out to be the case, I would expect that the 2nd engine left to go will have to be some sort of turbo charged gas engine. There would be no reason for a third V8 or a second NA V6; and a second, larger diesel would be logistically challenging within the 8500 GVWR class. So if the 3rd one left to go is in fact another engine (remember GM spokespersons used the words “3 power trains”), it’d almost have to be a turbo gas engine.
No matter what is left to come for GM, it has already, based on what we know that GM is going to bring us so far, absolutely become obvious that GM is going out way ahead along with Ford to leave the competition behind when it comes to Power train advancements for 1/2-ton pickups. Ram has done almost next to nothing with power trains with an all new pickup. Nissan had promised V6s to come but have not done anything since introduction, and it’s been a couple years. It’s looking like the 1st generation Titan all over again. They put out a pretty competitive product to start, but then just leave it to die out in the market in just a few years. Market share will begin to fade for them unless they decide to jump in all the way, which they have never done. Toyota is much worse than that these days. They’ve got the two biggest gas guzzlers in the segment and added to that, their falling behind in performance capability with trucks that use the most gas, and they’re going no where with the domestics moving ahead. As for Ram and power trains, there arerumors on the horizon. Inline six gas and diesel engines, so there is hope for them, but to simply plant the same two engines in to a brand new designed pickup and add a starter-generator into the mix was really disappointing on the power train side of things for the new Ram truck, but as long as their customers are happy, they’ll be fine; at least for a while. But the up and coming generation will see these higher mpg numbers from GM and Ford and see comparable performance, and they’ll lose market share over time if they don’t get going with something new; even if it’s just added optional engines so as not to lose those loyal Hemi customers.
I looked at GM.com and they still rate the 6.2 at 420HP and 460 TQ. Not the 425 HP and 450TQ on this site.. So which one is correct?
As far as I understand, the new numbers are going to be for the 2019 Silverado that will debut in January 2019; however, I have seen some conflicting reports, so there is error one way or another coming from the GM camp. Until the new-styled truck arrives with dynamic fuel management, my best guess is that’s it’s the lower hp number combined with the higher torque number; and then the new truck will have the new numbers. Since these numbers are so close, I’m not sure what difference it would make for real-world driving and for max towing, etc.
Here’s the new official information.
http://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/home.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2018/may/0518-2019-silverado.html