GM Considering Turbo Six Cylinder Engine For Trucks: Exclusive
123
Sponsored Links
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.
| 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.
| 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.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a 2023 Corvette Z06 Convertible. Details here.
Sponsored Links
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.
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.
The only way you save fuel with these is to puppy it.
Hey Jonathan Lopez, it’s CSS – Cylinder Set Strategy. Not ESS. Not sure where you got that from.
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.
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.
If they want to have a turbo V-6, they need to bring back the 109 block LC2.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.