mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

GM Considering Turbo Six Cylinder Engine For Trucks: Exclusive

General Motors is currently considering developing a new twin-turbocharged six-cylinder gasoline engine for its pickup trucks and SUVs. Although the decision to develop such an engine is far from finalized, such a configuration is currently on the table for future GM vehicle powertrains.

If GM does move ahead with the development of a new twin-turbo six for its trucks and SUVs, the powerplant would be similar to the turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B gasoline engine currently in use in various GM vehicles. The new engine would follow GM’s Cylinder Set Strategy (CSS), which seeks to optimize engine development and production via economies of scale, although it bears mentioning that the The General’s CSS has been scaled down considerably since GM’s pivot towards all-electric vehicles and AV technology. It’s worth noting that the 2.7L I4 L3B, along with the 3.0L I6 LM2 turbodiesel Duramax, form the foundational elements of GM’s CSS.

At present, several of GM’s rivals have made the switch from big-displacement V8 gasoline engines to boosted six-cylinder units. A few examples would include Ford with its range of EcoBoost engines, as equipped in the F-150, Bronco, and Bronco Raptor, Stellantis (Ram) with its Hurricane engines, as equipped by the Wagoneer, and Toyota with its i-Force engine, as equipped by the Tundra.

Ford, Stellantis, Toyota Turbocharged Six-Cylinder Engines
Manufacturer Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Stellantis Stellantis Toyota
Name EcoBoost EcoBoost EcoBoost EcoBoost EcoBoost Hurricane Hurricane i-Force
Configuration Twin-Turbo V6 Twin-Turbo V6 Twin-Turbo V6 Twin-Turbo V6 Twin-Turbo V6 Twin-Turbo I6 Twin-Turbo I6 Twin-Turbo V6
Displacement 2.7L 2.7L 3.0L 3.5L 3.5L 3.0L 3.0L 3.4L
Power (hp @ rpm) 325 @ 5,000 330 @ 5,500 418 400 @ 6,000 450 @ 5,850 420 @ 5,200 510 @ 5,700 389 @ 5,200
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) 400 @ 3,000 415 @ 3,100 440 500 @ 3,100 510 @ 3,000 468 @ 3,500 500 @ 3,500 479 @ 2,400
Applications Ford F-150 Ford Bronco Ford Bronco Raptor Ford F-150 Ford F-150 Raptor Wagoneer L Grand Wagoneer L Toyota Tundra

To note, the Ford EcoBoost 2.7L engine is also found in the Ford Edge ST and Lincoln Nautilus, while the EcoBoost 3.0L V6 is also found in the Ford Explorer ST and Lincoln Aviator. Meanwhile, the Ford EcoBoost 3.5L engine is also found in the Ford Expedition, Ford Transit, and Lincoln Navigator.

GM’s engine lineup, both past and present, already includes several twin-turbocharged V6 engines. A few modern examples include the 3.0L LGY, as equipped with the Cadillac CT5 and Cadillac CT5-V, as well as the 3.6L LF4, as equipped by the Cadillac CT4-V Blackwing and (previously) the Cadillac ATS-V. A few examples of this engine configuration from past GM vehicles include the 3.0L LGW, as found in the Cadillac CT6, and the 3.6L LF3, as found in the Cadillac CTS V-Sport and XTS V-Sport.

GM Turbocharged Six-Cylinder Engines
RPO Code LGY LGY LGW LF3 LF4 LF4
Configuration Twin-Turbo V6 Twin-Turbo V6 Twin-Turbo V6 Twin-Turbo V6 Twin-Turbo V6 Twin-Turbo V6
Displacement 3.0L 3.0L 3.0L 3.6L 3.6L 3.6L
Power (hp @ rpm) 335 @ 5,400 360 @ 5,400 404 @ 5,700 420 @ 5,750 464 @ 5,850 472 @ 5,750
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) 405 @ 2,350 to 4,000 405 @ 2,350 to 4,000 400 @ 2,500 to 5,100 430 @ 3,500 to 4,500 445 @ 3,500 445 @ 3,500
Applications Cadillac CT5 Cadillac CT5-V Cadillac CT6 Cadillac CTS V-Sport, XTS V-Sport Cadillac ATS-V Cadillac CT4-V Blackwing

Another option currently under consideration is the continued development of GM’s Small Block V8 range. However, when the turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B gasoline engine makes almost as much torque (430 pound-feet) as the flagship atmospheric 6.2L V8 L87 gasoline engine (460 pound-feet), the continued development of the naturally-breathing eight could be seen as a questionable move.

Stay tuned as we bring you more exclusive information on GM’s upcoming engine range, and be sure to subscribe to GM Authority for more GM business news, GM technology news, GM production news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.

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. they should put this in a RWD /4wd jeep grand Cherokee competitor.

    Reply
    1. They have the Blazer that sells well in that size class, no need to develop another that would sell in lower numbers. If they could put this in the Blazer that would help.

      Reply
      1. Great justification to keep GM making boring rental cars like the Blazer lol.

        Reply
      2. The Blazer does not sell that well.
        So drunk on the Barra look aid.

        Reply
        1. They are all over the place! Dealers cannot keep them on the lot, even before the shortag!

          Reply
          1. Someone is smoking crack when commenting.
            Seek help for your drug problem.

            Reply
      3. No one cross shops a Wrangler and a Blazer. They are very different vehicles. One is a tall car, the other a rugged off-road capable SUV. GM ruined the made in Mexico Blazer.

        Reply
        1. Nobody cares other than beerbelly militiamen that can’t afford one new if it was a real 4×4. Sales dictate otherwise, get a Bronco (if you can find one) and be happy..

          Reply
      4. New Blazer wouldn’t make for a trusted class 3 hitch towing vehicle.

        Reply
      5. Here is a rethink, GM or Toyota or any large automaker. Develop a large displacement a high compression in line 4 cylinder of about 2.7 litres, 220hp and 200lb.ft of torque, that is plenty. Then an in line 6, 3 litres, 250hp and 220lb.ft of torque both coupled to 6 manual or 8 auto. Entirely possible with today’s technology. Hybrid optional, of course.

        Reply
        1. David Parkin:

          The big issue with in-line four and in-line six large displacement gasoline engines is balance and vibration leading to decreased engine life. The V engines have a beautiful self working balance providing optimum life. Henry Ford saw this in 1931 and said we are going from a 4 and 6 in- line to his famous V8.

          Also, that’s why the V6 has come into play. American V8 automotive engines are the best on the planet. The V engine design will outlast the in-line engine design 10x’s due to optimum elegant balance and minimal vibration.

          Reply
          1. Inline 6`s are the most balanced engines ever created. Why do you think many of the longest lasting 6 pots have all been inline motors? Chryslers slant 6, ford’s inline 6s…the 4.9 L was bullet proof, jeep 4.0 inline 6, and pretty much every long haul diesel on the road today are all inline 6s. Oh yeah gm had their inline 6 atlas platform

            Reply
            1. Jake: Six cylinder engines are built for size, efficiency and costs. I disagree with your comment that the six cylinder engine is the most balanced. Henry Ford would also concur.
              My argument: About 40 years ago in Durango, Colorado a rental car outfit that rented beaters at economy prices, Garlick’s Rent-A-Wreck, hosted a contest event one Sunday afternoon. The event consisted of several of Garlick’s retired beaters drained of engine oil and run flat out with bricks on the gas pedals. The goal was to guess which vehicle lasted the longest to engine failure. Great promotion by Garlick as it attracted a huge crowd. The contest winner who determined which vehicle survived the longest won a dinner for two at the local steakhouse in Durango, The Ore House.
              The vehicles were fired up and screamed flat out. About a dozen beaters were in the event. An old time Caterpillar diesel and heavy mechanic, Raymond Fiorini, told me that the big V8 in a Caddilac limousine would outlast all other engines running without engine oil for at least two hours. Raymond submitted his estimate on the contest card.
              As the engines screamed without crankcase oil the Asian four cylinders failed first after about 10 to 15 minutes. Next came a variety of six cylinders both US and foreign made that lasted around a half hour. After all the four and six cylinder engine failed, the Cadillac V8 screamed along during the second hour. The crowd watched along with anticipation and excitement. After a little over two hours and 10 minutes the V8 failed. The crowd roared.
              Raymond standing next to me said that the V8 is the most balanced internal combustion engine built. Raymond and his wife won the contest and enjoyed a steak dinner.

              The V8 when fuel costs were reasonable was the most popular and longest lasting engine built by the big three. Cummins had a difficult time developing a successful V8 diesel. Caterpillar was hugely successful with their 3208 commissioned by Ford Motor and Caterpillar developed the 1099 cubic inch on highway truck engine 3408 with offset crankshaft to fit into truck noses. Just look at the lifes of GM’s 350 V8 and Ford’s 351 Windsor’s and Cleveland’s. Also the famed Chryler Hemi’s and Magnum’s.
              Six cylinder engines are built for cost, fit and fuel economy. An eight properly maintained and driven will outlast a six. I have 560+K on a 6.5 diesel in my 1998 Suburban getting 25 mpg average, original block and heads and nothing done to the internal guts, I wouldn’t trade it or sell it for the world.

              Reply
    2. 4.1L I6 based off the 2.7L I4. 465 hp, 645 lb-ft
      These numbers are based off of a 6 cylinder version of the 2.7.

      Reply
      1. Develop a new V8. GMs small blocks have always performed as well or better than fords boosted V6s.
        My 4 GM trucks have gotten better gas mileage than my fathers 5.4L and stepdads ecobust 3.5L. He could barely squeeze 17 mpgs out of it and drives like an 80 year old.
        Hell my old 1997 5.0L averaged 16.5mpgs before I sold it before pandemic. Wish I had that back! Had it since I graduated school.

        Reply
        1. “He could barely squeeze 17 mpgs out of it and drives like an 80 year old.”

          That’s the problem. Apply moderate throttle and accelerate quickly to cruising speed, then keep it there. Gas engines are most efficient at high torque at highish (3000-4000) RPMs. Minimizing transient operation, particularly at low powers is important for turbocharged engines.

          Reply
      2. If you go to an In-line 6 layout it would be a 3.0.
        A .5L displacement per cylinder is the most efficient size and there’s a reason the vast majority of engines today follow that displacement.

        Reply
        1. Yea, if i was basing it off of a 2.0 I4. I was basing the comment above based off of adding 2 cylinders to the 2.7. Ok now, do the math with me: 2.7÷4=0.675. 0.675×6=4.05. 4.05 rounded to the nearest tenth is 4.1.

          Reply
        2. You got that backwards. You want as big of a cylinder as possible as it has the smallest volume to surface area ratio. The smaller the surface area, the more heat is lost to the engine instead of the power stroke. If .5L was the ideal size, the Cummins X13 would be a 26 cylinder engine, not a 6.

          Engine cylinders are chosen to maximize smoothness and packing. Ideally a 1 cylinder engine would be the most volumetrically efficient, but you see how Harley’s ride with even 2 cylinders.

          I6, V8, I8 and V12 are all naturally balenced.

          V12’s while smoothest loose too much heat to their cylinder walls

          I8’s suffer from extreme long and their crankshaft flexes too much

          I6’s are great, but can’t fit transversely, and require long Noses

          V8, are a good compromise between I6 and V12’s thermally, but are superior in weight and packaging. Their crankshaft also is shorter and can withstand significantly more abuse and torque without twisting out of control. They also allow for really large displacement without making a car that’s 80% engine bay.

          V6’s suck. They aren’t balenced, require a ton of extra shafts to keep semi smooth, but fit anywhere so are great transverse power plants. Also your limited to being a higher RPM power plant. Because their balence issues, you can’t bore them out to 7 liters and have them chug at 1200 RPM. They would rattle to smithereens. They need to work at 3000+ RPM’s when running hard

          I4’s have most the advantages of the I6, but aren’t as naturally balenced so must run a little higher and have V6 valence shafts

          I3’s and I5’s are terrible and only fit where nothing else is appropriate

          It’s all about what compromises your willing to make.

          Reply
          1. You can always shrink the bore and elongate the stroke to get the same displacement.
            Mercedes did just that with their awesome M256 engine.
            I6 s are much more efficient than a V6 and honestly V6’s need to be banned.

            Reply
            1. Agreed on V6’s, but their superiority in transverse mounted applications is undeniable. They’ll stay around for that reason

              Reply
          2. All great points. I was wrong about 4 cylinder engines because years ago, most of them were rough and crude. I had a 1987 FORD TAURUS with the 4 and while it wasn’t that high of a revving engine, it didn’t have much highway power so it was louder on the freeway since it was running faster and not very well insolated. Therefore the whole car wasn’t that pleasant and it’s easy to see why most had the V6 which was much better in terms of smoothness since I had both a ’94 and ’00 TAURUS respectively. But now as of last year, I have a ’21 NISSAN ALTIMA with the 2.5L 4. I can’t believe how smooth and quiet this thing is so they have improved them a great deal and are hardly the noisy little monsters like they were many years ago. While many hate the CVT, it’s so smooth and that engine purrs along at less than 2000rpm at 70 mph. Plus it has more power than my V6 TAURUS’s had. I was skeptical since I had an ’04 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS from new before I bought the ALTIMA. That 4.6 V8 was a great engine. While I loved my GRAND MARQUIS, this ALTIMA has surpassed pretty much all my expectations.

            Reply
            1. Update. My ’21 ALTIMA got rear ended earlier this month and subsequently totaled. So once everything was settled, I decided to buy another ALTIMA this time a ’23. Just about the same as the other one. I seriously considered a CHEVROLET MALIBU in the event I couldn’t find another NISSAN ALTIMA sub model I wanted. The MALIBU is a nice car too and I had one as my rental after the accident as well as my last vacation. But the thing I noticed with the MALIBU, is while the engine has 28 less HP than the ALTIMA, it did have the same performance around town and same MPG as the ALTIMA. However, the 1.5L turbo didn’t have the highway power I learned to appreciate. At 70mph that 1.5L was always poking at or above 2000rpm. My ALTIMA almost never got over 2000rpm unless I pushed it. Given that and the added concern about turbo engines in general, it was no contest but another ALTIMA with a non turbo 2.5. It runs nice and slow with no extra turbo heat. That engine should obviously last long under those conditions.

              Reply
    3. The Blazer is more like a Cherokee, not the Grand Cherokee.

      Reply
      1. No, the Equinox is the rival to the Cherokee. Both are compact mainstream crossovers.

        The Blazer goes against the two-row Grand Cherokee while the Traverse goes up against the three-row Grand Cherokee.

        Reply
        1. I’d say the Equinox is more like a Compass. But nothing lines up perfectly.

          The Grand Cherokee comes with a V6 and available V8.
          The Blazer is kind of a pretender SUV, but that’s ok. It’s what people want.

          Reply
        2. Oh my god in what world does the Blazer compete with a Grand Cherokee?? If they offered the Cherokee with a 3.6 it would compete. Maybe they do?

          Blazer competes with a 2013 grand Cherokee, somewhat.

          Reply
          1. Anyone who thinks the fwd blazer crossover with it’s cheap interior and awkward looks is competition for the rwd Grand Cherokee, even it’s old form – is a complete dillusional fan boy.

            I don’t like Jeep one bit but let’s just be honest here.

            Reply
        3. There is no way that the Blazer competes with a Grand Cherokee. First, the Blazer is AWD/FWD where the GC is 4×4/RWD. You can’t get a V8 in the Blazer, and you can’t get a 4cyl in a GC. I have a ’22 Durango which is basically the GC with a 3rd Row. My wife’s Blazer is not in the same league as my Durango. Her Blazer rides like a car with a lift kit. You step down into it. My Durango rides like a taller SUV…plus there is more interior room in the GC than there is in the Blazer. The Blazer is just a sporty looking mall crawler. You would have to go up to an RS Blazer to get decent options, otherwise, you feel like you are driving a base model. My Durango is a GT, so just one step above the base SXT. The fit and finish, especially on the interior, is miles ahead of her Blazer. The only option I like in her Blazer is the wireless CarPlay…mine requires a USB cord. I would take a Durango/GC over a Blazer/Traverse any day…no hesitation.

          Reply
  2. No thanks, No replacement for displacement. tired of the 6’s and 4’s that sound like pissed off weed whackers.

    Reply
    1. That and unless you haven’t been keeping track, the 2.7 guzzles as much has as the 5.3 for less power, and the 5.3 is an older engine by almost a decade. Wow! Talk about a failure!

      What they need to do is take the LT4, increase the compression ratio to 16 and convert it to a miller cycle. Make 500HP, 550TQ and 15% better fuel economy.

      Minimal changes, proven reliability, and sounds way better than the 2.7 turbo

      Reply
      1. The smaller displacement turbo engines would get better mileage but that turbo is just to much temptation, that’s where the mpg suffers.

        Reply
        1. Look up miller cycle. Turbos are “efficient” because they have a bypass valve. At “cruising” when the bypass is open they are effectively an NA engine running at WOT. So at cruising the 2.7 is basically the 5.3 in 4 cylinder mode without 4 extra cylinders worth of friction. However, the current Silverado is so big the 5.3 AFM almost stayed in V8 all the time and the 2.7 stays in the boost range. The 2.7 should be way happier in the Colorado.

          A 5.3 miller cycle engine would benefit from an Atkinson cycle in cruising mode as it would have a supercharger bypass, allowing it to be as thermally efficient as a Prius or Malibu hybrid. When that bypass closes under load it would be approximately 10-15% more efficient due to the increased compression ratio.

          Also, research entropy in compression. Positive displacement compression has ~90% entropy efficiency while turbos/turbines only have ~80%. That’s why the LT4 is a better endurance engine than the 3.5EB SHO in the ford GT.

          I think that the V8’s are here for another generation or 2, as GM’s engine patent filings in the last 3 years have all mentioned OVH and V8 engines. The most glaring one describes a miller cycle as mentioned above

          Reply
      2. It’s actually isn’t for fuel economy as much as emissions that these small engines are taking over. The 2.7 has more torque, it’s just behind on hp because hp is higher rpm and higher rpm is higher emissions. The 2.7 can beat out the 5.3 in hp. Idk why no one will do any research on anything. That’s just like people ask why these manufacturers just don’t make any product a certain way but they fail to do their research on manufacturing facilities and production constraints. And I’m NOT talking about Brandon’s FAKE chip shortage. If you want to make an argument for a V8 nowadays it’s going to have to be some atmospheric hp, high profit margin, low production engine for a low production vehicle. And the engines that you hate so much will offset it with CAFE AND the EPA. I don’t make the rules, but I do my best to understand them with research. Maybe some of you should do the same or at least ask or suggest rather than stating something. Don’t get butthurt if I’m not talking to you either, if the shoe fits, wear it.

        Reply
        1. The chip shortage Ain’t Fake. Too many very difficult to replace employees died during the pandemic because mainland China, trying to hide the extent of Covid, let it get to Taiwan and S. Korea where most chips are made.

          Reply
        2. Using that logic why aren’t we all driving Diesels then? You won’t beat a Diesel in efficiency and low end power. Emissions are also cleaner too than the GDI crap.

          Reply
      3. It makes 430 ftlbs of torque. I wouldn’t call that “less power”. An i6 wouldn’t need to be in boost all the time and I think we will see similar fuel mileage with a 3.5ish Liter version. Which would walk all over the 6.2 in power as well.

        Reply
      4. I have the 2,7l HO in my new 2022 Silverado (4×4) and my best was 28.8 and currently averaging 27.6

        Reply
    2. Uh, cylinder count does not correlate to displacement, particularly with direct injection and stratified-charge type things.

      And displacement doesn’t correlate to power, considering engine speed and turbocharging.

      Whats a Cummins X15? 15 liter… inline 6.

      Reply
    3. GM is the only company that knows how to properly do a big V8. If they take that away then the truck industry is screwed.

      Reply
      1. Ummm the lifters blowing up day otherwise.
        Only Toyota & Mercedes make good reliable V8s today.

        Reply
        1. Toyota doesn’t make V8s anymore

          Reply
          1. They still do around the world but yes they are going away.

            Reply
        2. Mercedes doesn’t make a truck for the US market. They have the x class in Mexico, but it’s basically a rebadged Nissan Frontier wrapped in leather.

          Reply
        3. lol @”Mercedes makes good reliable V8s”

          Reply
          1. The M113 and all its variants including the legendary M113K supercharged V8.
            The M273 after 2008
            The M278 and AMG M157 after 2014
            And most recently the M177 family of V8 engines.
            Mercedes has a strong history and track record of building powerful & reliable V8s. No other German brand can say that.

            Reply
      2. Turbo engines feel great WHEN they work and in a cool climate, but test them in a hot climate and stuff goes wrong.Blasting hot outside air into an engine leads to shortened engine life.Out here in AZ we see the Frauds suffer with their Cheepoboost engines, no thanks.There is a supercar and hypercar junk yard in Dubai full of turbo cars with less than 5K miles just sitting there with cooked engines from their extremely hot weather. I will continue to drive old school V8’s as long as possible.

        Reply
  3. Explain this since they can’t even fit a turbo 3.0 Inline engine in an AT4X/ZR2 or the SUV AT4/Z71s due to Bs tubing needs

    Reply
    1. The diesel fits, it just doesn’t fit in the current configuration in the high approach front fascia and they haven’t made a business case to invest in changes. But this new gas engine would be designed to fit from the start and since it would be the bread and butter motor, it would be designed to work with whatever fascia (the business case is there, unlike for the already low volume diesel going into low volume trims like Z71).

      Reply
      1. Ummm the Duramax I6 is not small volume. Especially with current fuel prices. You save over a thousand dollars a year in fuel costs thanks to the Duramax’s 50% better fuel economy.

        Reply
  4. A 4.0L inline 6 version should have been on the drawing board at the same time as the 2.7 4-cyl.

    Reply
  5. I’m pretty sure this would be a premium engine like the FCA 3.0tt and Ford 3.5EB and the v8 will stick around . The base Hemi and 5.0 are the workhorses.

    Reply
    1. This can’t just now be dawning on them. It needs to be in the works and ready for 2023 trucks. A bigger 2.7 with 6 cylinders is exactly what they need. And better fuel range and a better ride while they’re at it.

      They only need one V8. Bring back the 5.7 for a compromise between the 5.3 and 6.2 and offer the turbo 6

      Reply
  6. How about updating the tried and true? GM trucks sell because of the V8 and more recently the little duramax. This is a winning combo and with both the Sierra and Silverado “trims” together they own the market.

    The F-150 has been TT V6 for almost 10 years now. The market saturation is negligibly different.

    GM sells its trucks because they are V8’s and contrary to popular belief. Many many people prefer that over a high stress Turbo engine.

    You can be as Woke as old Twitter wants you to be with your product line. Don’t screw up the bread and butter.

    Reply
    1. They’re not changing anything. This report correctly states that they are considering it but nothing has been decided yet. But there is only so much more they can do with the small block until they run out of options or until it gets too expensive to eek out more power, torque or efficiency. Can’t argue those Toyota and Ram turbo engines sound incredible.

      Reply
      1. Hard to back up Toyota with their sales record. They just took the V6 out of the sienna, increased block wall thickness and slapped on a turbo. They should have named it the white flag engine, cause that what they be waving

        Reply
        1. No turbo, they added batteries and an electric motor.

          Reply
          1. Tundra is a V6 turbo. IDK if you can even order the hybrid version right now

            Reply
  7. Yes. Yes I can actually. The engine sound they pump through the speakers is not what it sounds like.

    If that sounds good to you, we agree to disagree.

    Reply
  8. GM never an original idea. Always following FORD.

    Reply
    1. Except to the mechanic….

      Founders Of Reliability Defects….

      Reply
    2. You realize GM produced the first production turbocharged car sold in the US? 1962 Oldsmobile F85

      Reply
      1. GM’s original success was actually the invention of OHV. The Buick strait 6’s and Chevy I4’s were legendarily powerful in the day being the first engines that could actually breath.

        Cadillac then brought the V engines to market with the first commercial V8 (the only other V8 recorded before that was an airplane engine that never flew)

        The hydramatic transmission

        Air ride in the 57 caddie

        Bell air fuel injection

        Rear mounted transmission for sports cars

        Quadrasteer

        They beat ram to market with the 48v mild hybrid

        First hybrid truck

        No…. GM never was leading edge 😂😂😂

        But they do have the same problem Harley Davidson has. GM customers are very conservative buyers who want a old school reliable product and can’t attract those buyers who have loads of cash and will fund dream machines. I’ve never understood the point of Porches.

        Reply
        1. That must be the reason Ram is eating Chevys lunch then in the market

          Reply
          1. Yes, sell an 2012 pickup along with your current truck, hide numbers of you doing it = eat lunch…..

            Reply
          2. News flash, GMC + Silverado sells more than ram and ford….. not even counting Colorado or MD sales.

            Reply
        2. “But they do have the same problem Harley Davidson has. GM customers are very conservative buyers who want a old school reliable product…”

          You’d think most would understand the gist of that. But, I do recall a patent for a input shaft mild hybrid, and think that would be an accepted gearbox evolution.

          Reply
          1. Don’t forget, they pioneered the gear reduction starter motor beginning in 1962. Could always tell when a CHRYSLER engine was starting from a distance.

            Reply
    3. Actually Chrysler for many years was the technological leader. First with an alternator. First with power assist brakes, etc.

      Reply
      1. First with power steering.

        Reply
    4. GMC was to the first to bring a turbo v6 into trucks back in the 90’s. I guess Ford followed GMC, but before that, Toyota had a turbo 4 in the mid 80’s with their truck. Hell even Subaru had a turbo 4 with their Brat truck in the early to mid 80’s. But as far as turbo v6’s go, the Syclone is the earliest one that I’m aware of. If there was an earlier turbo v6 than the Syclone, please feel free to correct me.

      Reply
  9. Turbo 4L inline 6 as scaled up from the 2.7 with 480hp 550lbft

    Naturally aspirated 5.5L V8 420hp 480lbft

    3.0 diesel 285hp 475lbft

    2.7 I4 320hp 430lbft

    Then some kind of hybrid going for perfect synergy of pulling power and efficiency and not just big peak spec numbers. Or better yet, a 10spd trans with electric motor like the hybrid F150 but have it standard on every engine with a small battery, and have an option for a large battery. Like 30kwh standard and 50kwh option.

    Reply
  10. Hmmm could be good or could be really bad. Ford sells a sh*t ton of Ecoboost because they intentionally held the 5.0 option back on power to make you have no choice. Surprised they even still put V8s in their trucks, but my point is ppl buy the GM twins because they are the last of the dying breeds when it comes to purchasing a Quality V8 in a pick up/suv. But I will say even though I am a fan of the V8s, Gm hasn’t given them much of an update the 5.3 still at 355hp and the 6.2 liter is at 420hp, both of these motors are down on power compared to TTV6 rivals. I’m shocked GM didn’t have a truck version of a LT2 for this new Gen of Suvs and trucks!

    Reply
  11. GM is late to the party. Make it hybrid!

    Reply
    1. Hybrids are dead.
      Who wants to maintain two powertrains in one vehicle, especially in the northern states.

      Reply
      1. Ummm Toyota and Honda beg to differ. The wait time for a new Hybrid vehicle from them is over a year due to strong demand.
        Getting 50 mpg is nice with gas prices the way they are and I have to laugh at anyone that drives a guzzler.

        Reply
        1. Toyota does differ 😂😂😂😂 currently you can’t order them!!!!

          Reply
    2. GM tried hybrid trucks in the early ’00s, nobody bought them

      Reply
  12. I’m confused. I thought they said their future was electric.

    Reply
    1. I knew it was a political show, they still have to cover their base in case Slow Joe & Co. environment crusade was successful but billions already had been spent so might as well make some EVs..

      Reply
  13. Monkey see, monkey do.

    Reply
  14. So long V8, it was nice to have worked with ya.
    Just a few weeks ago DODGE Ceo stated ‘The V8 engine is fast approaching END of LIFE. If you want a Hemi or a Hellcat, better get it now, while you still can.’
    And suddenly, those crate engines are no longer avail. and MOPAR has introduced a I-6 twin turbo performance engine to replace those V8 with. Is GMs I-6 too?

    !

    Reply
    1. Stellantis (why FCA-Peugeot why!?!? That’s so long to say!!! So Stella) is crunched for cash. They don’t have any money for more than 3 powertrains. All are based on the 2.0 tornado. They are dropping the hemi, pentastar, tiger shark, everything. It’s due to cash flow only. The 3.0 Stella 6 barely matches the pentastar in fuel economy. It’s not that efficient do an engine, but will cover their butt

      As for no more doge V8’s???? Bull… we’ll sort a. I bet in 5-8 years as they get back on their feet and the new GM V8’s kick the tornado to the curb, they will make a 4th gen hemi.

      Reply
    2. The V8 is/was a great American iconic engine design. They are smooth and have an unique sound. My ’04 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS had one and I really hated to give it up. But I believe the time to worry about the number of cylinders is becoming a thing of the past. These new 4 and 6 cylinder engines are smooth and powerful enough now. Do we really care what type of jet engine powers our airliners compared to decades ago? I suspect if FORD was still building the CROWN VICTORIA and GRAND MARQUIS twins, it would have had some sort of turbo 4 or 6 perhaps a non turbo 6 for a lower power lower cost option. They don’t even put a V8 in the EXPEDTION and full sized vans.

      Reply
  15. Jeep had a 4.0 ,Ford had a 300 ci ,gm 292 ci in line 6 ,that where 200-300 k engine ,id buy a one …if I knew it would last 200,000 miles

    Reply
  16. I wanted a Colorado 4×4 for 2 reasons, didn’t need a large hauler, and the big gas tank to fill.

    But, the powerplants were 4&5 cylinder engines and no way for me. In 2009, I bought a Colorado with a 5.3 v8 from Chevy. That engine bay was engineered for a v8 so replacing or upgrading was already done.

    Since all LS engines are interchangeable and can be crazy modified with a unlimited resources and parts.

    Many Colorado owers have single and twined turbos, put various superchargers on the OEM 5.3 with block hp over 650hp.

    We all know the reliability of the 5.3 and potential.

    I have 118k miles on the clock and no issues.

    My point, I wanted a v8.

    But, I always WANTED a big truck but couldn’t justify my reasons to pull the trigger but never say never… Today’s big trucks are awesome. I don’t need more hp than the 6.2 right now but it’s a work horse and reliable.

    IMO, in the big truck, nothing less than 4.3 turbo and twin turbo should be considered to for towing and hauling for hp/tq purposes, if not, v8 all the way…

    Reply
  17. Its about time, I have been saying GM needs an inline six version of the 2.7 liter four cylinder since it came out.

    Reply
  18. GM is going to need IC engines in pickups for the oilfield, logging, mining, farming, construction crowds. If the IC engine vehicle fuel tank runs low or out of fuel in the field, jobsite, forest and mine, you can readily replenish fuel with containers or the auxiliary in bed fuel tank. Electric pickups in these industries will be problematic.

    Henry Ford, RIP, aka, Mr. V8, is spinning in his grave.

    Reply
    1. Yeah, but that market is largely diesel today. That’s likely to become even more popular with second-gen biodiesel (renewable diesel) that can be run up to 100% without fuel system modifications.

      With diesels, there’s only a narrow range for V-8s, at least in the US. Outside Ford and GM pickups, the rest of truck diesels are overwhelmingly I-6s.

      Reply
  19. Why not bring back the 4.8L displacement V8, but add a couple turbos to compliment DFM, DI, VVT?
    The best of both worlds IMO.
    My biggest complaint with the newer turbo engines is that they are always too much turbo, not enough engine.
    That’s why the ecoboost is worse on fuel than the 5.0L, the Chevy Traverse 2.0T is worse on fuel than the 3.6L etc…
    Turbo a larger engine and it becomes a very low stress engine most of the time, but pull like a locomotive when the need is there.

    Reply
    1. Look up miller cycle above. You might get your wish 😉, but also new advancements that would make it more efficient than even a 4.8 V8 would.

      Reply
      1. I wasn’t meaning the OLD 4.8L, just that size with the modern ECOTEC3 LT based engine mods. I’m positive that a well tuned larger engine can be more efficient than one that is too small and therefore works too hard. (my old 3800 series 2 was way better on gas than several other smaller engined cars I had)

        Ford’s ecoboost isn’t better on fuel in real world driving than the 5.0L because it almost always needs the turbos to be spooled at least a little bit.
        A little more engine would allow no need for turbos under light load.
        I have a friend with an ecoboost and one with a 5.0L. They get almost exactly the same mileage empty (into a headwind the eco does worse) and the eco is way worse towing. (obvi has a bit more power)

        Reply
  20. I have a Fort Transit van with the twin-turbo EcoBoost 3.5L V6. Bought new in 2015, it still runs strong and gets consistent 18-19mpg.

    Reply
    1. I still believe there is a good market for naturally aspirated small displacement V8’s. From the small 4.0L V8 that was an option in the Oldsmobile aurora, to the current 5.3L V8 found in most full size GM trucks.

      Reply
  21. For their full size trucks, GM should seriously consider developing a new Buick 215 V-8.

    This engine became the Rover V8. I would guess most here have no idea what an awesome engine this is.

    Reply
  22. Hate to say it but with EPA future emission standards, MPG requirements, cost of gasoline or diesel fuel, and cost to design and manufacture is what is going to drive what direction engine development will go, not what the customer wants. The days of bigger and more HP have long died but getting more HP and torque from a smaller displacement is a strong driving factor.
    Ice vehicles will be around for a long time so GM and others have to balance development money for EV and ICE.

    Reply
  23. The only way you save fuel with these is to puppy it.

    Reply
  24. Hey Jonathan Lopez, it’s CSS – Cylinder Set Strategy. Not ESS. Not sure where you got that from.

    Reply
  25. A turbo inline 6 would be nice. I doubt GM would design a whole new ICE engine at this time though. It will probably be a crappy current V6 with a turbo bolted on.

    Reply
  26. Small displacement boosted gasoline engine for a truck… Great. This only works if you don’t actually use your truck for truck things. Heavy load at low rpms on a small gas boosted engine is terrible. Any benefit you gain from the smaller displacement is immediately removed under load. If you want an economy truck buy a diesel and suffer $5 per gallon while getting 26mpg. Or buy a hybrid car because 90% of you don’t need a truck.

    Reply
  27. If they want to have a turbo V-6, they need to bring back the 109 block LC2.

    Reply
  28. What I said every day seems to be running now. GM needs to put the 3.6 LF4 engine in Tahoe, Suburban and Silverado. The 2.7 L3B engine can only be put in Colorado.

    Reply
  29. Eh, they’re following years behind everyone else…again. With a few exceptions most of their products are rated mediocre at best in their respective segments. The ones they still compete in that is.

    I had high hopes for Reuss but he’s been a huge disappointment both on the planning and execution side of the business. Hopefully the EV thing will go better for them but I wouldn’t count on it given what we’ve seen the last ten years he’s been in charge of operations including product development.

    Reply
  30. Just say no to 6 cylinder turbos. If your pulling a trailer the fuel milage suffers and your in High RPM’s. No thanks. I could have bought a ford if I wanted that

    Reply
  31. Now GM?

    Using the example of the Stellantis Huricane Inline-6 3.0L Biturbo, we know that turbocharged engines really drink the gasoline.
    The Hemi V8 (5.7, 6.2, 6.4) are technically simpler but still just as economical as the Hurrican biturbo, which is only half the size.
    I experience this every day with my CARS, which all have naturally aspirated engines and are very economical. The service life is also far longer than with turbos.
    And now GM is coming up with an inline-6 just because the EPA requires it!

    Using the GM 2.7L Turbo as an example, it is known that this engine is particularly important for EPA certification. In real life driving it guzzles more fuel than the 5.3L and 6.2L V8 N/A engines.

    Where is the progress when you develop and produce supposedly technically complex turbo engines, but bring nothing to the customer?

    Reply
  32. IMO it’s a waste of money to produce a brand new ICE when they are going all electric in 5 thru 10 years. It took them 5 years to develop the 5.5. If it takes them that long to develop the I6 that would be at or near the ICE life. That being said what’s with the insults and name calling. This is suppose to a site where one could express his or her opinion without being called names. I don’t mind if you don’t agree with me but I am not going to call you names or insult you and I would expect the same if I don’t agree with you.

    Reply
    1. Agreed. I don’t think however that we will be all electric when they say we will. There are electrical generation and distribution issues everyone is ignoring.

      Reply
  33. There’s no point to this. The four doesn’t get any better fuel mileage than the 5.3 V8. A six would get even worse mileage. There’s nothing to gain with this.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel