mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

2022 Chevy Silverado And GMC Sierra To Drop 4.3L V6 And 5.3L AFM V8

Currently, the 2021 Chevy Silverado 1500 and 2021 GMC Sierra 1500 offer six different powerplants. However, looking ahead to the 2022 model year, two of those powerplants will be dropped.

According to a recent GM presentation during the 2021 Work Truck Show, the naturally aspirated 4.3L V6 LV3 gasoline engine and naturally aspirated 5.3L V8 L82 gasoline engine will be dropped from the Chevy Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500 lineup for the 2022 model year.

GM Authority was the first to question the longterm prospects for the 4.3L V6 LV3. Back in December, we compared the LV3 to the turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B gasoline engine, illustrating how the four-cylinder L3B bests the V6 LV3 in a variety of metrics, including power, torque, fuel efficiency, max trailering, payload, and 0-to-60 mph acceleration. While the transmissions used with each powerplant (eight-speed automatic for the L3B and six-speed automatic for the LV3) play a role here, there’s no question that the turbocharged engine and high-tech valvetrain are the defining factor.

More information on the engine changes can be found in the graphics below:

As a reminder, the naturally aspirated 4.3L V6 LV3 is rated at 285 horsepower at 5,300 rpm and 305 pound-feet of torque at 3,900 rpm, while the naturally aspirated 5.3L V8 L82 is rated at 355 horsepower at 5,600 rpm and 383 pound-feet of torque at 4,100 rpm.

Meanwhile, the turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B is rated at 310 horsepower and 348 pound-feet of torque. Other options include the naturally aspirated 5.3L V8 L84, which, like the L82, produces 355 horsepower and 383 pound-feet of torque. However, the L84 features Dynamic Fuel Management, as opposed to the L82’s Active Fuel Management.

The rest of the Chevy Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500 powerplant lineup includes the naturally aspirated 6.2L V8 L87, which is rated at 420 horsepower and 460 pound-feet of torque, and the 3.0L I6 LM2 turbodiesel Duramax, which is rated at 277 horsepower and 460 pound-feet of torque.

Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevrolet Silverado news, GMC Sierra news, Chevrolet news, GMC news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.

[nggallery id=1113]
[nggallery id=1122]

Jonathan is an automotive journalist based out of Southern California. He loves anything and everything on four wheels.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. Sounds like a risky move? Time will tell.

    Reply
    1. Yep, though it is impressive to see 2.7 Liter 4 with far more Horsepower and Torque than that of the V6, but the overall Fuel Economy is really no different than that of the 4.3 or 5.3 Liters, which in opinion should have seen refinement for better EPA Numbers at this point.

      Reply
    2. The 2.7 turbo will not be an easy sale to companies. Especially, those with Ford F-150 turbo experience.

      Reply
      1. I disagree, right now we are having a good success rate with with customers and companies on the 2.7. They’re impressed with the availablitly of the torque at lower RPM’s, and in the city the fuel mileage is quite a bit better than the two older engines. Smart move by GM, now, if they would have some sort of plug-in hybrid option or mild hybrid powertrain to the current trucks that would be a winning combo.

        Reply
  2. The 4.3 is dying mostly due to emissions. There is little more they can do to make them any more efficient without losing in other areas. You can only drop so many cylinders.

    The greatest issue is to get customers to forget the piston count and just drive the 4 cylinder. I was the same way and never wanted a Turbo 4 till I owned one of the more recent engines. They are not what they used to be. The torque is amazing.

    Besides the 4.3 was a small percentage of the sales. The few people I knew that had one sold or got a new lease for a V8.

    Reply
    1. Friend has 2.7 Ecoboost V6 and when i drove it towing our atv’s and side by sides i was suprised how much better is was than the v8 Ford truck he had. The review i’ve seen on the 2.7t in these trucks has been very good and those in the ct4 have been good also. If you not into towing a lot and just need a truck the 2.7t will be fine for most.

      Reply
      1. Yep GM set up this 2.7T quite well. Diesel like torque band. Being related to its big 3.0 I6 Duramax brother helped for sure (both are part of the Cylinder Set Strategy or CSS engine family).

        Reply
      2. We have the 2.7 in our 20 RST and it’s been great, have not missed our 5.3 or 4.3 Silverado’s we had previously.

        Reply
  3. That should mean an EPA fuel economy bump, even without knowing of a transmission change, since the advanced/higher end engines are going into lighter, lower content trucks. True?

    Reply
  4. I get the numbers. I get the decision. I get it, but I have owned so many of these 4.3 V6’s over the years and they have been absolutely bullet proof! In our fleet today we still have several with over 250k and we typically never sell them till they get well over 300k on them! I remember as a boy seeing the print adds for the first Vortec 4.3 V6’s and I have to say they never let my company down! Hate to see it go.

    Reply
    1. I purchased a 2019 GMC Sierra with the V6 Option, and I told myself that this engine is certainly reliable, it’s Heartbreaking overall for just about every Engine Option that is currently available for these trucks because after the 2024 / 2025 Models come out, most of the I.C.E’s will be phased out by the end of this Decade for the transition to All Electric Platforms.

      Reply
    2. Yeah, the biggest factor for me in a truck is reliability. I have a hard time beleiving the turbo 4 will be as reliable as the v6.

      Reply
      1. It seems that planned obsolescence is rearing it’s ugly head. I don’t think a turbo 4 will have the life span of a naturally aspirated V6 or V8 engine.

        Reply
  5. gm’s 3.1, 3.4,3.8, and 4.3 v6 engines are great…sad to see them all go…love the 4.3 v6, sorry to see it go…i guess we are all going turbo 4 cylinder then eventually all electric….i had a turbo 4 cylinder in my camaro, (i did like the torgue) but i hated the turbo lag, then the turbo would kick in down the road, I just didnt like it. plus, I had that transmission shutter,..so I traded for a 3.6 v6 naturally aspirated motor, with the 10 speed transmission, love it. To me its like night and day..love my v6 camaro…

    Reply
    1. Yeah I really like the NA 3.6 V6 also. I tuned it on my Colorado and love the power.

      Reply
  6. I could see why GM kept the 4.3 v6 for the last redesign, people would be skeptical of the new 4 banger, but now it earned its reputation so the 4.3 is being dropped. But I’m not sure why the 5.3 afm was kept. GM should just keep the 10 speed no need for 8.

    Reply
  7. Just get rid of the fuel management system crap all together. Just like the DEF system on all diesels, get rid of the crap.

    Reply
    1. That stuff makes a lot of money, that’s why it’s there in the first place, and not for any other reason.

      Reply
      1. You don’t actually believe that, do you?

        Reply
  8. Bad move IMHO. Both engines are proven to be reliable. The 4.3 is a relic and it’s the last remnant of the 350sbc. Very reliable. My 2018 Silverado got great MPG on the highway. I have the 5.3 in my current truck and it’s not as great on fuel but, it’s still a solid engine. The issue I have with 4 cylinder turbos is what happens when there’s a problem with the turbos? What kind of stress is being put on the engine under load? The diesel was tempting but, then there’s the cost of fuel/urea. I don’t think this is a good idea. At the very least I feel they should keep the 5.3. Just my opinion.

    Reply
    1. 5.3 is still there, but with DFM, and not AFM.

      Reply
      1. And any time GM can kill off AFM and swap DFM in instead is a major win.

        I’ll miss the venerable old 4.3, but not the AFM 5.3.

        Reply
        1. I’ve had 4 Chevy trucks with the 5.3, 1 non-dod, 2- afm, and 1 DFM. There was no real-world fuel savings with AFM over the non-dod truck. The latest one was better on fuel, but there were too many other problems with it (particularly the transmission and cheap uncomfortable interior) that we dumped it fairly quick.

          Reply
    2. The current LV3 4.3l v6 is an LT based engine, new in 2014. The 4.3l sbc based v6 stopped production in pickups in 2013my at end of gmt900. Other than displacement, there was nothing in common between the two v6 engines.

      Reply
  9. Guess I could be looking at ram for my next truck. I won’t buy a turbo 4 truck, the diesel is already having reliability problems, and the belt drive oil pump makes it a no go.

    Reply
  10. We are quite pleased with the 2.7T in our ’19 Silverado. It towed our 24ft Jayco White Hawk from Ohio to Utah with a terrible head wind through the plains. The only thing out of the ordinary was that it needed a quart of oil on the turnpike in Colorado.

    It was thirsty, but not unusually so according to friends that also own campers and V8 pickups.

    Reply
  11. I pull trailers with my Trucks … I will happily take the 6.2 over any of the V6 or I4’s … I have a 2015 with the 6.2 … Gets 17 mpg without trailer and 14 with

    Reply
  12. Good move. I was a V8 guy until I owned the 2.7EB. Amazing engine.

    If Chevrolet made an RCSB with the 2.7 I would buy it immediately.

    Reply
  13. They should have just turbocharged the 4.3 and saved the development cost.

    Reply
  14. I was honestly surprised they kept the v6 the 5.3 afm and the six speed. I’m glad to see them go. Hopefully GM will take the savings they will realize and put it back into the next generation truck.

    Reply
  15. I personally don’t get the attraction to at 2.7 turbo 4 cylinder in a truck. I know it produces a good amount of torque for its size, but in my opinion why work the hell out of a small engine. Long term I don’t see good results in terms of longevity of engine life, especially for trailer towing of any size. The 5.3 has been a decent engine for years; I’ve had one in two trucks. I also think the 6.2 is a good engine except for the fact it requires premium fuel. I was really liking the 3.0 diesel until I read all the crap about a wet belt for the oil pump that requires the transmission to be dropped for inspection at 150,000 miles. GM seems a lot like Barney Fife in many respects, shooting their only bullet into the floor attempting to get their gun out of the holster. Sad.

    Reply
    1. In this case the 2.7 replaces the 4.3, neither is a prime engine for towing, I agree that you’re wearing out a small engine faster when towing that’s why v8’s are still available. And for customers that don’t often tow, but perhaps use the truck more for payload, the 2.7 will be plenty with good life span.

      Reply
      1. I am taking it as custom trim will be 4t only? That is a shame for fans of that low cost trim that want a 8,it seems they are pushing those people to a higher cost LT or pound sand.

        Reply
  16. The advantage of a turbo engine is you can instantly raise the torque and HP ratings just by using medium grade or high octane gasoline. GM figures show an 8.5 percent increase in torque when E85 fuel in the non turbo engines. With a turbo engine, when E85 is used, the torque and HP increase will be more like 12 to15 percent increase.

    Reply
    1. Provide a source for the GM data you cite to support this. I have never seen GM published information on this for the current model truck engines.

      Reply
      1. phoey

        Reply
        1. I think you mean phooey.

          Reply
        2. Agreed Phoey. Less choice but I am sure the trucks will cost more. What else is new

          Reply
    2. Not sure I understand this comment… E85 is 85% Ethanol, which has less energy available than mixtures with higher proportions of gasoline. Are you speaking of 91 or 93 octane non-ethanol gasoline?

      Reply
      1. I had an 97 Avalanche, and at that time, the HP was rated higher with E85, but mpg’s took a big hit – because of less available energy, I had to burn more. I think it’s because it runs cooler, they can get a little more out out of the engine.

        Reply
        1. There was no Avalanche in 97, and no flex fuel then either. I have not seen GM rate HP and torque to SAE standards and publish with E85.

          Reply
      2. While E85 has less energy, it also has the advantage of running cooler. This in turn leads to less issues with knock. That allows you to advance your timing a little more and also push more air into the engine which allows for more fuel. This gives you more power.

        Reply
      3. As Cole says, E85 has higher AKI octane ratings than premium, around 96. That’s why ethanol serves as a lead substitute, and is added to race fuels like what NASCAR uses.

        Reply
  17. Sorry what is America coming to and who puts a rubber band engine like the 2.7 in a full-size truck. What have we become a country full of yuppies. I know a young kid who bought the 2.7 in his Silverado. I wasn’t impressed one bit by it. They can keep them on the dealer lots. Thanks but no thanks.

    Reply
  18. I have had a 305 ( 5.0)sbc to 454 ( 7.4)sbc and I feel that they are hard to beat! Sure the new 2.7 turbo is powerful and all but I just can’t see maintenance being better than the older engines. I see red flags I believe under constant load the 2.7 will be a nightmare. Long live there is no replacement for displacement.!!!!!

    Reply
    1. The 2.7 will actually be under less load because it is making more power at less RPM.

      Reply
  19. I am concerned how the 2.7l actually stands up long-term. Producing 310hp in a 4 cyl engine really requires flogging it to death with extremely high internal pressures. I would like to see some numbers after a couple more years to see how that engine really holds up after 100k miles.

    Reply
    1. They should warranty that engine for 100,000 miles and see if it works out for them! No 4 banger for me!

      Reply
  20. Sad to see the 4.3 go I have one in my 1996 Chevy Blazer that still runs like a champ, I also have a 2010 Chevy Equinox with 3.0 V6…both are great reliable engines that are no longer made…as for Ram my friend had a 2015 or 2016 fully loaded Ram with the cummins diesel engine…the only good part about that truck was the engine after recall after nightmare recall he got rid of it it’s a shame but when you spend anywhere from $50 to $90 grand on truck you want reliable transportation. I will always buy GM!

    Reply
    1. The 4.3 you are referring to was SBC related and disc. in 2013

      Reply
  21. Just turbo the 4.3 and the 6.2 and everyone should be happy!!

    Reply
  22. I get what others have mentioned about keeping the 4.3 around until the 2.7 proved itself, but keeping the AFM around only made the bean counters happy that they saved a couple dollars on the lower models, but they completely ignored the extra costs of producing all these different variations, and all the extra combinations for the dealers to stock. This will reduce manufacturing complexity, and allow for cost savings from greater volumes of the remaining engines. I think dealers and customers will appreciate the reduced number of engine/trim/trans combinations.

    Remember when FCA took over Chrysler? They threw out the 3.3, 3.8, 4.0 – and put the 3.6 V6 in everything. And that was after Chrysler already stopped the 2.7, 3.7, 3.9. At that time, people though putting a “car” V6 in a truck was stupid, but it seems to be doing well in the Ram. The higher volume of the single V6 saved enough to justify building 2 new high tech plants to produce it, and shutdown multiple old lines making all of the old variations. Also, huge simplification on the supply chain and what it takes to maintain that. Basic engineering economics, a course that some decision makers may have missed….

    Reply
    1. Those cost savings will never pass on to the consumer. I love GM but they have a problem with building way to many non viable long-term options into their product lines. That why we lost so many iconic brands from them. They need to change their culture and lean up their manufacturing processes and payroll.

      Reply
    2. What you’re missing is that reducing supply chain complexity = spending less money = paying less in labor = firing workers, and that’s very difficult by UAW contracts. You can’t just cut production, you need to draw down by transferring some capacity over to other projects, coupled with waiting until people quit.

      Reply
      1. The UAW needs to stay out of the business of running GM and other auto manufacturers. Stick to fair wages, benefits and working conditions. The only place I support them interfering in operations is when they want to move existing jobs overseas.

        Reply
  23. So, looking at things pragmatically….what is Ford doing with their Light Duty Trucks with V6 engines? Check it out.
    The Ford F150 has two V6’s…both are turbocharged (twin turbo’s?) and produce a lot of torque, amazing horsepower and so far, I’d think that if they both were not reliable, that’d have stopped producing them.
    Although I love the 5.3 in my Silverado Z71 4X4, I’ve driven my buddies late model F150 with a 3.6 Liter Twin Turbo and it’ll flat leave my 5.3 in the dust…and to throw insult to injury, the 2.7 Ford V6 also with a (twin?) turbo also produces more torque and horsepower than my 5.3 V8.
    I’m no fan of “power added” options like turbochargers, and even though “they work” amazingly (my wife’s new 1.5 I-4 Turbo GMC Terrain SUV has all the power she’ll ever need) I question the reliability of “power added” small displacement light duty truck engines…however Ford is making their V6’s work for them (the Mighty Fort GT has a twin turbo V6 that produces over 600 horsepower!) and although I’d never buy a Ford product personally (they are good products, amazing top selling truck every year too!) and have always been a Chevy/GMC guy, I’m going to question the long term reliability of the 2.7 Inline turbocharged engine in a full sized pickup as it is “as complicated as a Moon shot”, check it out, no lie!
    Better that engine be installed in the smaller Colorado/Canyon pickups (like Ford does with it’s smaller turbo 4 cyl. Ford Rangers) where the added power and torque of that engine would make that option in those trucks something to garner some much needed attention to, as their sales have fallen off a bit, at least here in SoCal. not sure about other states.
    In closing…I guess I’m just an old fashioned “Chevy V8” guy, and I have driven the (2020) 2.7 turbo Silverado and it does perform quite well, but…(don’t laugh) the sound of that engine just leaves me loving my V8 even more! Sheesh!

    Reply
    1. Here is the problem, the Ford V6’s are stressed to the max, with little or no room for improvement … You can add a turbo or supercharger to your 5.3 and without question blow the fords away …
      Secondly … A friend of mine boasts about his 2013 Ecoboost 3.5? (Not sure on engine size) and what great power it has and yet he peaks at 17 mpg … I have a 2015 silverado with the 6.2 .. dual exhaust and slightly tuned for power to pull and I peak at 19.6 mpg … And my duals sound incredible
      So tell me what is the advantage of the Ecoboost??

      Reply
  24. I would still like to see a turbo gas I6 for the full size trucks. I believe it would have good MPG on the highway and V8 power with all of the tech of the 2.7T I4.

    Reply
  25. VERY GLAD to see GM drop the 5.3 AFM. Have you guys been following the problems and the Class action Law suit? Nothing but trouble. For every one who did not have a issue, there must be 20 who have. Like I said, glad to see it go.

    Reply
  26. No not the 4.3 instead of getting rid of it turbo it nobody what’s a 4 cylinder in there truck

    Reply
  27. I’m kinda surprised the in line 5 should have been the pick but today’s tech the 4 cyl is taking ground compared to 20 years ago the 1.6 or 2.0. Anyway in still a Chevy man or gmc Yukon driver

    Reply
  28. Rework the 4.3 with turbo option, drop the 4 banger and the AFM 5.3. Keep the DFM 5.3 and the 6.2. The new diesel is still sketchy by design.

    Reply
  29. My experience is that these engines with turbos after high mileage they got out or leak and are pricey to change. Wouldn’t grt the 5.3 out of production. The 4.3 I do agree. I don’t like these engines peronally. Had trouble with mine speciallu when you turn on the AC on it.

    Reply
  30. What a bonehead move by GM… I will never have a 4 cylinder in a full size truck
    Dont care how much more power and torque it makes it wont get any better mileage if you are towing or hauling.
    I would rather get a 2.7 twin turbo v6 f150 or the 3.0 inline 6 diesel

    Reply
  31. Sounds like it may be time to revisit the 292i. the folks over at power nation built a engine with after market parts, turbo charged it, and got 396 hp and 510 ft. lbs of torque. I’m sure the folks at gm could get a little more, with all the resources they have. would love to the the i6 back.

    Reply
  32. It beats it in all the metrics except for reliability a guarantee won’t get 400000 kmeters out of a 2.7 liter inline Turbo 4 cylinder…. Not without some heavy duty maintenance, I know my 4.3 did all of those kilometres on oil changes alone

    Reply
  33. Esse logotipo pequeno no lado esquerdo, não ficou legal.
    O tchan da GM era o logotipo gigante no centro… 👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻

    Reply
  34. No Turbos for me either. Please don’t drop the 5.3. I guess I may be looking at a Ram also. If GM does drop the 5.3

    Reply
  35. I have a 2002 silverado 2500HD with an 8.1 liter horse in front a five speed Allison. (Crew cab). Has 210,000 miles and never been in the shop except for tune up and brakes at 170,000 miles. Runs like new and drive as good as day I bought itLew Disbrow

    Reply
  36. I’ll miss my 2015 5.3L AFM-V8 . It’s been very good , with great gas millage and i love to sqawk the rear tires now and again when taking off .. Thanks

    Reply
  37. YES, It happens to all of out favorite workhorses sooner or later they get sent out to pasture being replaced by some younger, stronger, faster more efficient powerplant.
    rest in peace my friends.

    !

    Reply
  38. Over the past 31 years ive had all of these engines. The 4.3 was very reliable and powerfull. The 5.3 iron block was the best of them all. The minute they went to allum. Block with low tension piston rings they lost me. 2 quarts of oil burned in between oil changes etc… Moved on to the 6.6 gas with real 5w30 oil. ROCK SOLID! People are shocked when they see 18 to 23 mpg out of a 2500HD animal like mine. Then again, i dont hotrod my truck like most idiots trying to get to the next traffic light.

    Reply
  39. In 2030, most of the naturally aspirated models will still be on the road, but more than 95% of the tiny turboed units will be in a landfill. In 2030, all of the 6 speeds will still be on the road, but more than 70% of the 8 speed transmission will have failed completely… Just my two cents as the manager of a transmission and engine rebuilding shop. Whenever I hear “my ecoboosted car is making a weird noise” I shake my head. Destined for the landfill… My 03 Suburban, having been manufactured nearly 20 years ago, and requiring no major repairs or replacements in it’s entire life, has vastly offset it’s carbon footprint, and I have calculated that in order to match the carbon footprint of the average prius, it would take nearly 17 MORE years. When considering the lifespan of hybrid batteries relative to their environmental impact. Also don’t get me started on fyel cost vs. battery replacement cost lol

    Reply
    1. an informed comment by someone in the trenches that will have his retirement funded by 8 speed trannys. see your local dealer and order up a new one today.

      Reply
    2. Right on I agree I have a 2010 Chevy Equinox with V6 and six speed transmission.. it’s never given me and trouble although I have heated of transmission trouble with them i maintain mine. And Prius are garbage my friend used to have one the back seat is cramped you can’t fit much in it and the way it rides is horrible I would like to own an EV car next as long as I can 400 mile range or better. Nice job with your Suburban may I ask you how many don’t maintain there cars? And then blame the car company? And Ecoboost are garbage no Ford in my family.

      Reply
  40. So now we will loose the 5.3 and the 4.3 liters for a 2.7. My question is does the price go down drastically too? I doubt it. And the 5.3 is and option now so I have to pay more for what I got standard before. Talk about screwing the consumer. Anyone that likes this doesn’t haul anything heavier than a box!!!

    Reply
  41. Does anyone know if the 2022 Custom Silverado will have the L84 5.3 or will it just have the 2.7 option?

    Reply
    1. 2.7 will be factory

      Reply
  42. I would rather see the 8 speed being dropped than the 4.3 and 6 speed!

    Reply
    1. They haven’t made a good transmission since the 4L80e. The six is probably adequate behind the 4.3, but it doesn’t hold up well with the 5.3 at all, and is a fortune to rebuild.
      I do agree with you though. GM seems to always refine their engines until they get them right (like the 4.3 and the 3800), but then they drop them and start over. I don’t get it.

      Reply
  43. Turbo is not the best for 4x4s and turbos require a lot more fixin. Definitely be rebuilding my 4.3 when the time comes. And I’m thinkin a lot of people will be stuck in the driveway waiting for electricity when we go to all electric cars. No common sense. Get rid of coal, gas, hydro and it’s going to be a mess. No chance to change your mind. It’ll take years to reverse.

    Reply
  44. In Poker there are particular hands of playing cards which might be nicely really worth more than other people. Men like genres related to action, think about shooting, journey, sports activities and racing.

    Reply
  45. When / What month was it decided to drop the v6 out of the sierra 1500 pickup

    Reply
  46. As a mechanical engineer the proof is in the pudding. If some one can point to a 2.7T that is well maintained and can pass smog at 250k miles that has been pulling a load for that time then ok. My bet is GM is counting on the 80% of soccer mons driving the 2.7T never loaded. If it is so great, let them warranty the engine for 125k miles.

    Reply
  47. I’ve been very happy with my 2.7 Turbo with the 21 Silverado Custom far as some of your concerns go with towing I don’t have issues with it I’ve literally Hooked up A uhaul car hauler and towed a 5000 jeep. The 2.7T are rated at 9600 pounds for towing/hauling. I use mine to pull a utility trailer occasionally and never have an issue.

    Reply
  48. From what I understand the 4.3 can go but so should that 8 speed tranny. Why is GM hanging on to that piece of crap. They are keeping the 5.3 DFM but hooking it to the 8 speed…sad.
    The 2.7T will be fine for soccer moms but not for people that pull 5000 lb plus every day

    Reply
  49. ..Why have they not added 2 cylinders to the 2.7 to create an inline 6?..that should be a beast!..besides, an inline 6 is ideal for truck use…I heard Ram is going to be offering a gasoline inline 6 in their trucks, and maybe the Grand Wagoneer?…

    Reply
  50. Premium fuel only gonna cost more to fuel up as well.Doesnt make sense.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel