GM Files To Trademark Turbomax As Potential Engine Family Name24
GM has filed to trademark the Turbomax name, GM Authority has learned. The trademark may be used as a new engine family name.
The trademark was filed on January 24th, 2023 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and is assigned serial number 97766047. The application carries a Goods and Services description of “Engines for motor land vehicles.”
At present, it’s not totally clear exactly what the new trademark will be used for. However, it’s possible that the new Turbomax trademark may be used in conjunction with a new family of turbocharged gasoline engine. It’s also worth noting that the Turbomax name draws certain similarities to the Duramax name that GM uses in conjunction with its family of diesel engines.
As GM Authority exclusively covered last May, GM is considering the development of a new twin-turbocharged six-cylinder gasoline engine to be used in various GM pickup trucks and SUV models. If GM does end up moving forward with the development of this new boosted ‘six, it would likely be similar to the turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B gasoline engine currently cradled by various GM vehicles, and would follow GM’s Cylinder Set Strategy, or CSS.
For those that don’t know, GM’s CSS is intended to optimize engine development production processes by economies of scale, although GM CSS has been scaled down considerably since GM made the pivot to all-electric vehicles and autonomous vehicle technology. The foundational elements of GM’s CSS including the turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B gasoline engine and the 3.0L I6 LM2 turbodiesel Duramax.
GM certainly wouldn’t be alone with regard to switching from big-displacement V8 gasoline engines to smaller turbocharged six-cylinders. Just a few examples include GM crosstown rival Ford, which offers its line of EcoBoost engines in models like the F-150 and Bronco, and Stellantis, which offers its Hurricane engine in the Wagoneer. There’s also Toyota, which offers its i-Force engine in the Tundra.
We’ll keep an eye on this story and report any updates as we receive them. In the meantime, subscribe to GM Authority for more GM trademark news, GM business news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a 2023 Corvette Z06 Convertible. Details here.
They just come up with the worst names. Turbomax? Gawd. Their powertrains are usually solid, but man do they need an injection of competent marketing and PR.
That said, a choice of a 6th gen small block v8 or boosted i6 would make their next gen trucks very compelling. Hopefully they get everything else right and offer a decent sized fuel tank (please) to really cover their bases. Like it or not, Ford offers two great boosted 6’s and an awesome v8. GM made very questionable choices in the current gen that have only been partially remedied. I’ve bought GM my entire life but my experience with my 2018 and what they were selling 2019-2022 led me to a 2020 5.0 and 2022 3.5EB.
But you support the use of Ecoboost as branding?
Reality is this term fits well with the Duramax label which has caught on with customers and it provides a positive image. Customers can simply say they have a Duramax.
The Ecoboost name is comical.
You can have Eco or Boost but not both.
Hmm, seems pretty sensible to me. They’re using the smaller engine for the Eco, and boosting it when needed.
I mean, that’s the whole point.
It’s kind of a cheesy sounding name, but at least it doesn’t sound like TJ Maxx.
Considering how your average American drives the fuel economy savings with a Turbo is null.
You really see it with GMs 2.7 Turbo VS the V8 in the trucks for fuel economy.
Or like TurboTax.
Weird. I get better mileage than my 5.3 Silverado got and I can go 0-60 in 5.3 seconds. 19.2mpg average on the dash. My Silverado was always low 16s. I do more city driving than highway.
Ecoboost rolls off the tounge nicely. Turbomax sounds like an 80s video game.
Don’t be so sensitive. It’s ok to admit it’s a silly name and not defend everything they do.
It also sounds lame but, I guess it’s all in how you roll your tongue.
GM regularly trademark’s potential names so they have them on the docket in the event that they want to use them and they don’t need to buy royalties from someone who already has. It’s a whole industry to patent ideas that haven’t happened yet so ass to cash out when they do get invented.
That said, this will likely be used if it does in the “tripower” family. Currently there’s no branding of the 2.0/2.7’s in any GM vehicle. Using the “Max” name from the world renown Duramax family.
This won’t be used on a turbo 6. GM isn’t producing a turbo 6 and that coming from the horses mouth. Here on GMA over a year ago, an engineer said and I quote “we considered the path of a turbo 6, but when with large displacement 4’s and 8’s” key word is considered. The 6 never got off the drawing board. There’s no plan to add 2 cylinders to the 2.7 as it would be longer than the 3.0 Duramax which already has packaging limitations, so no I6. It also seams that the GM high feature V6 is being phased out by the tripower family, so no V6 turbo ins in the works either.
The immediate future of GM power trains is the small block V8 family and the tripower I4’s/I3’s. The one exception I might say for this name might be a new turbo 5.3 as GM’s premium truck engine, but they’ve made too much a name with the 6.2 to let go of that
Lol GM isn’t making a turbo V8. you can go ahead and take that out of the “horses mouth” too.
I know, that was my one yet unlikely exception. They’re more likely to make an aluminum block version of the 6.6 L8T. the 6.2 has been an insane hit and they won’t want it overshadowed
You received a number of downvotes, but I think that you’re spot-on.
I just don’t see a boosted 6-cylinder in GM’s immediate future (5-7 years) — and I wish that was wrong, because I would like a turbo six in the 3-row crossovers. I believe the HFV6 and its variants have to be on the way out. There is just no reason for its continued production when the L3B exists and has better numbers across the board. I think this is going to be the drop in for all previously HFV6 propelled vehicles.
… and I don’t see GM making all of its recent investments into a new, modernized V8 small-block just to turn around and launch a competing powertrain. Especially with the whole EV focus swirling around the company.
I agree that it’s unlikely, but a boosted variant of the new small block makes way more sense strategically than ramrodding a forced air 6-cylinder between the L3B and forthcoming updated V8. Assuming they hit ~400 HP/400+ lb-ft on the new V8, they can boost that if warranted/needed to ~500/550+ lb-ft by just designing a turbo system for it, rather than engineering and producing a whole other power plant.
The EV picture clouds things, but the assumption has to be that GM is going to take what is in-house TODAY and update/tweak it, rather than flying off in a new direction and wasting resources it wants to prioritize for EVs.
What ever Steve…Mr know is All
Well I hope they keep the 3.6 V6 in the portfolio. I have this (yeah I know there’s an alphabet soup of variations in the last 10 years) but it’s a great engine with reasonable fuel economy. My 2015 GMC Acadia has well over 100k and the engine doesn’t burn a drop of oil. Took 2k and a 3k road trips last fall measured dip stick before and after and no discernible level difference. Had to replace the oem Mitsubishi sourced starter at 85k but nothing else.
They have discussed a branding name for the 2.7 turbo I4 so my guess is this is it. Could be extended to other turbo motors going forward.
I have wondered for a long time why GM don’t have a V-6 Turbo.
I have a 2021 6.2 with 3.42 axle and I love the power.
I would have bought a V-6 Turbo but of coarse GM don’t make one.
Why ding around with a 4-Cylinder Turbo in a big truck when a V-6 Turbo would probably make most people Happy Campers !!!!
I think GM is over due for a V-6 Turbo but a Turbo V-8, OMG, that would be dreaming.
We have a 2.0 Turbo and I love the response. I think in performance the Turbo is where it is at.
Because a 5.3 costs less to make than fords 2.7 turbo V6 and is the same weight. The 2.7 EB starts with a compacted graphite iron block to take all the boost, adds 4 cams, 3 timing chains, 4 cam phasers, 6 direct fuel injectors, 6 port fuel injectors, and 2 turbos. That’s why GM opted not to turbo the 3.6V6 and replace it with a turbo 4. It’s lighter, cheaper, less parts to fail and makes equal power. The LB3 has 2 cams, 2 phasers, 1 timing chain, only direct injection so 1/3rd the injectors, and 50% less pistons and their associated parts. Even the V8 pushrods are simple, cheap and powerful compared to the ecoboosts.
Yes GM made the LF4 3.6 turbo, but it was pricey like the ecoboosts and thus was only used in Cadillacs. Google the history of the GM “high feature” engine in general. They were very exspensive, highly refined engines destined for Cadillac and Buick with the intention that economies of scale would allow them to be used by Chevy and GMC.
My wife is interested in a small suv like Encore gx, Trailblazer, Mazda Cx-30 (2.5NA) , Jeep Compass (with 2.0T), Ford Bronco Sport (1.5t though hoping for a 2.5 hybrid) . The GM 1.2 and 1.3T I3s are not competitive in power and fuel economy. Compare horsepower/torque and epa ratings amongst these suvs. GM needs to fix this with maybe a 1.5 I3T (or just use the nice 1.5t i4) More power and probably better fuel economy.
A six-cylinder version of the L3B would be awesome-basically a a turbo Atlas.
A V8 using the L3B head would fantastic, though I don’t know if the bore centers would be compatible with an LT block.
How about a 3 cylinder with two opposed pistons per cylinder. Six turbo pistons in a small package that will fit most vehicles. Cummings just built some diesel two strokes, 1000 horse power in a small engine.
It a strange looking engine but has a lot of potential.
For all the talk about the Achates opposed motors, I’m surprised we never saw them in anything. They had them testing in F150’s, so they weren’t exactly vaporware.
Maybe it will be a H.O Duramax diesel option.
Condidering that the L3B is related to the Atlas LK5 Vortec 2800 family of engines, it would be a no-brainer to reintroduce the Atlas LL8 Vortec 4200 I6.
Your statement that any I6 version of the L3B I4 would be larger than the dimensions of the Duramax LZO 3.0L I6 might be erroneous. The LZO dimensions are 35.7in Len, 36.0 wid and 35.6in hgt. It’s obvious that the L3B is based on or is a modernized and updated Atlas LK5(Vortec 2800). So, any I6 version would be related to the LL8 (Vortec 4200). The dimensions of that engine are, from the front of the water pump pulley to the back of the bell housing 32 inches, widest part of the engine with the power steering pump 27 inches, top of the front of the valve cover to the bottom of the crank pulley 24 inches, and top of the front of the valve cover to the bottom of the oil pan 30 inches. So any I6 version of the L3B/LK5 would be dimensionally less than the LZO 3.0L I6