General Motors was not able to offer the 3.0-liter LM2 Duramax inline-six turbodiesel engine on the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado, postponing the launch until the 2020 model year.
The 3.0-liter diesel engine will soon be available when the 2020 Chevrolet Silverado goes on sale, however, so Chevy has taken it upon itself to drop some more details on the Duramax ahead of its launch.
For starters, the engine is rated at an SAE-certified 277 horsepower and 460 lb-ft of torque, delivering 90 percent of its torque at just 1,250 RPM and sustaining peak torque from 1,500 RPM to 3,000 RPM.
Much of that power comes via the variable geometry turbocharger, which has a max boost pressure of 43.5 psi and is paired with a liquid water-to-air intercooler system.
The inline-six block itself is the result of a new clean-sheet design and is “made of a cast aluminum alloy that provides the strength required to support the high combustion pressures that occur within a diesel engine, while also offering an approximately 25 per cent mass savings over a comparable cast iron engine block,” the automaker says. Iron cylinder liners are used within the aluminum block for durability, which are joined by a forged steel crankshaft, forged steel connecting rods and aluminum pistons.
Other notable features of the LM2 inline-six Duramax include a new low-pressure exhaust gas recirculation system, which allows the engine to burn spent exhaust gas that has already passed through the particulate filter, and variable intake and oil systems for optimizing engine operation at varying speeds and loads. Further efficiency gains come via GM’s 10-speed automatic transmission, standard on the 2020 Silverado with the 3.0-liter Duramax engine, and a start-stop system.
GM says the LM2 Duramax motor serves as the “no-compromise choice,” in the 2020 Silverado powertrain lineup and promises Chevy customers will find it to be “powerfully smooth and satisfying.”
Stay tuned for more details on pricing and fuel economy for the 2020 Chevrolet Silverado with the 3.0-liter Duramax engine.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more Duramax engine news and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
Hopefully we see 32mpg HWY, and something like 24mpg city.
I’m hopeful that the next generation 2021 MY Chevrolet Suburban and Tahoe will get this exciting new powertrain option.
YES! YES! YES! YES!!!!!
Ford’s 3.0 Diesel is rated at 240hp and 440lbs-ft. I knew they would have out class their performance numbers but I’m also curious how many miles per gallon it will get and how much it will tow. I know Ford usually likes to get better paper results and GM better real world results. Hopefully it won’t be too much longer since it will be here late this year. Good job GM.
I’m looking for the same key two things. Range on a tank and towing numbers. This diesel has to make its way into the SUV lineups.
It’s too bad that it was delayed, but it might work out great. They can use this extra year as a benchmark and test year. Do some heavier testing and running around to make sure it comes to market without any kinks or bugs. My biggest worry is in the cold winters. This past February was the coldest in 83 year here in my province, and we had boatloads of diesel issues. I know that it’s a once in a lifetime winter, but still, use that as a teaching point for extreme weather testing. I’m excited for this engine.
I would wait a few years or more it’s new kinda of like blazer just coming back out . never buy a new creation that’s hasent been around for years and Hasn’t been consistently produced. always stay with brands or types of vehicles that have been out for decades and continue to be produced or upgraded. I mean you really have to watch those brand new ground up cars that come out even the truck that have been out for decades are still getting major recalls its astounding to be honest its such a crap shout now days one year it amazing the next year its junk but I know on thing they get right and that’s the pricing it’s always climbing no matter the quality of the product
Work out any kinks and then put it in the Colorado/Canyon.
Whats wrong with current duramax for these midsize trucks?
Nothing, but if this could improve an already good lineup….why not? It would make sense if the MPG are good/better and if it’s either faster, or tows better or all of the above.
That wasn’t meant as a knock on the current lineup, but there is always room for improvement.
It’s too small and there have been a lot of issues with them. Especially if you city commute. Google search it
TesZr2,
What’s too small? Your dick?
C’mon, really?
An I6 is a lot smoother than an I4.
Alloy block, start/stop system, with a 43 psi turbo!! The perfect recipe for the makings of a unreliable diesel truck that won’t outlast or outperform the lower cost gas option engines. The 3L diesel ford was god awful at pulling as it took forever to get the turd up to speed with a load as it simply lacked hp. I’m a big fan of diesel power but it seems like every new diesel engine is worse then the one it replaced as they downsize old power plants and over power smaller ones.
You don’t have to buy it. The gas option is still available. This will just make Chevy have more engine options and more versatile than the competition! Go GM!
How does this make them have more engine options than the competition? Where is their twin turbo v6 gasser with massive power? I think you are confusing them with Ford.
Looks good to me.
We really need to see some “real world” mpg and towing tests to compare against the 5.3 and 6.2. This is going to be an expensive option to get that DURAMAX badge. Much cheaper to just buy the badge on eBay and stick it on. BTW start/stop should really be stop/start.
It’s the same price as the 6.2 upgrade from the 5.3. $2500 I believe. I think that’s reasonable especially since it’s available on most trim levels
A diesel with Stop/Start? Hope there is a deactivation switch.
My buddy who has a shop says that all that particulate crap is killing these diesels. Can all that stuff be removed to improve performance and mpg? Let’s discuss the hypothetical as I know it’s illegal.
Of course it can be removed, just like any emissions component – only with the consequence of waving goodbye to your warranty. And sure it may improve power and fuel efficiency, but as the old saying goes the chain is only as strong as its weakest link, an engine being no different as certain components in that engine are going to fail under those new increasingly strenuous conditions. Now, I’m a fan of deleting emissions components, but you’ll have to be prepared to build the engine to last under those conditions or you’ll be putting your pedal to the carpet enjoying the plume of black smoke behind you until something lets go and your stuck with a bigger headache than pouring some DEF in the tank hahaha.
It’s possible to remove the DPF system on most diesel vehicles. Costs around $1300 in parts/tune to do it to a 2014-2016 Cruze 2.0 turbo diesel and $5000-$7000 parts/tune to do a 2017+ Duramax L5P engine.
You can do the Cruze 2.0 TD delete and retune in about 4 hours if you are mechanically inclined. The cost for the L5P will go down in the near future as it is still a relatively new engine.
Obviously this is something you would only do to a diesel that is in a state with no emissions testing.
43.5 psi of boost? Seriously?
I think people are missing a big piece of the GM statement that says “43.5psi absolute”, meaning its total pressure not the psi over air pressure. Air at sea level is 14.7psi so subtract that from 43.5 and you get a hair under 29psi which seems to be about the norm for modern diesels.
Its a very low 15.0:1 compression ratio, ford 3.0l runs 16.0:1 and the ram 3.0l ecodiesel is 16.5:1 which is still low, those engines both run near 30psi I’m guessing.
Then the Duramax also has water to air intercooling which should keep the intake temps lower. This with the 15:1 compression would make it seem like the engine is going to have a fairly easy life. Another thing is the egr takes exhaust from AFTER the dpf. This means cooler air and far less soot entering the intake. Also has split cooling between block and head.
I am excited for most of what I’ve heard but there are somethings I’m also un easy of. Like the aluminum block. Only time will see if it holds up, I think CGI would’ve been a more HD material. At least its iron caps with deep skirt block and cross bolts and forged internals. I’m concerned about the rear drive timing chain. Dual chain setup, one from the crank to injection pump and one from pump to cams. I’m guessing they will be a lot of work to service if ever needed. The oil pump is belt driven :/
CGI would be “more HD” if manufacturers weren’t using CGI to remove weight from the block. Every manufacturer that has switched from regular iron to CGI have done so because it allows them to make the block thinner while remaining as strong as the gray iron block would be. This is so even with gas engines with a CGI block.
Like some have said before start/stop on a diesel is stupid. I had a duramax lly way better longevity than most my buddies powerstrokes even the 6.7. GM was smart to use Inline 6. It works for Cummins and they have been at it for a long time. Caterpiller only uses inline power. It is known to be smother. With the advancements in Aluminum Alloy I believe that it can be used for a diesel application. Working with proper adjustable flow water pumps and also a liquid cooled intercooler will make it better. Anyone who has had a diesel pickup knows that it is not the horsepower but torque to move the vehicle. A class 8 Kenworth can have 520 horsepower and around 1200 ft pound torque. this is a example. I will be putting my order in if GM gets rid of start/stop
The number one thing that has to happen, more important that out horsepowering and torqueing and towing and payloading and fueleconomying the competition is to plant a good diesel in a full size half-ton pickup truck that is CHEAP. By cheap, I mean to find a way that makes the economics work for customers and still give us a fuel economy benefit and not too big a sacrifice in performance, capability, and refinement versus their other premium power train choices. The second most important thing for a half-ton diesel is to engineer and build something that will get the diesel reputation back up to where it should be; used to be that a diesel was thought of as a superior engine choice for reliability and durability, but not so much as for power. The ANSWER to both of these current dilemma in all light-duty segments under 8600 GVWR is to find a more simple and cheaper way to certify emissions that is also less bulky and less weighty and less customer intrusive and fewer service requirements and fluids/filiters needed to change. A Ford PSD 3.0, for instance, the lightest configuration in a Lariat Super Cab 2WD is listed in F150 sepcs as being at least 600 pounds heavier than their base 3.3L power train, at least 500 pounds more than Ford’s 2.7L and 5.0L V8, and more than 350 pounds heavier than Ford’s heaviest gas power train in F150; their 3.5L twin turbo V6. This huge weight penalty is quite amazing considering that the diesel engine itself is no more than 100 pounds heavier than the 2.7L Ecoboost. Most of that weight penalty comes from all the exhaust treatment add-ons and DEF requirement.
With respect to this engine, I do NOT like compression ratio continually going down on diesel engines with each generation, because high compression is one of the advantages of a compression-ignition engine making that type of ICE a superior efficiency choice. NA gas engines are now up to 12.2:1 in pickup trucks; diesels are now getting down to just barely above what a gas engine can be designed at (about 14:1). I also don’t like the idea of aluminum block for two reasons. Number one, it is a cost increaser over GCI and certainly over cast iron. It is also worrisome as for durability. It may, however, be a weight saver, but I’d guess that it’s thickness necessity makes it not that much lighter than what a GCI block could be. I actually don’t like the horsepower number. I think that’s awfully high for a diesel this size in a pickup truck application.
There is a lot to like though. I like that it is an all-new design; designed and built in America for mostly North Americans. I like that they went with a more simple inline design; less parts, easier maintenance, naturally more smooth. I like that they used solenoid injectors to reduce cost, although they’ve done the same with their 2.8 I4 and 1.6 I4 but did not seem to pass those savings to their customers. I like that they are going to offer it in as low as the LT trim, but considering that GM has become the new premier diesel provider in North America light duty segments, and they’ve gone through a much larger investment for this segment with an all new, specific engine that will need much more volume sales to recoup that investment, they could really bust through and offer this engine down to the work truck trims and the regular cab; the only place a consumer like me would ever shop in a half-ton pickup.
“Other notable features of the LM2 inline-six Duramax include a new low-pressure exhaust gas recirculation system, which allows the engine to burn spent exhaust gas that has already passed through the particulate filter”
The words “burn” and “spent” are somewhat mutually exclusive in this context and the benefit of this technical approach is lost in your characterization. It might be beneficial to read some technical papers, dissertations and thesis posted on the web by automotive engineers. There’s much more to low-pressure, cooled EGR, not only for diesels but also for spark ignition engines as well.
The chief FCA engineer for the new Ecodiesel program said that low-pressure EGR was also a new feature on their new 3.0 V6 engine as well. Ford better go back to work, because their PSD design is suddenly ancient by comparison.
nutty
I wish I could know how much equipping a Silverado 1500 with a Duramax adds to the vehicle total curb weight with equal trim and configuration, etc. I know that, by comparing the spec sheet, with respect to Ford’s F150 that adding a PSD to an F150 adds at least 600 lbs versus the base engine (even though you never get a choice between those two due to trim and configuration limitations), and that adding the PSD versus the 2.7L Ecoboost or the 5.0L Coyote adds at least 500 lbs and adds at least 400 lbs over a similarly-equipped 3.5L Ecoboost. The engine itself is not the big culprit to adding weight. I think that difference is around only 100 pounds from what I’ve found (PSD versus 2.7L and 5.0L), so I guess what adds so much weight is all the exhaust treatment equipment, but 400-500 pound weight penalty, while also giving up 75-145 horsepower is one of the things that makes a diesel a tough sell; but even more than that, it’s the extra cost of that 400-500 pounds worth of equipment to make a 1/2-ton diesel pickup compliant with the EPA. With this new Duramax being so revolutionary in so many ways including an aluminum block and compact/combined DEF/SCR systems right there in the engine bay, I wonder how much weight they’ve saved compared to the comparatively antique designs by FCA and Ford?