1. Welcome To GMTruckClub.com!

    The #1 Chevy Truck Forum Online
    Online since 2004, we are the #1 Chevy Truck & SUV forum and user community. If you have any questions about your Chevy or GMC Truck, SUV or Crossover, or just want to connect with other GM owners and enthusiasts around the world, you've found the best place on the internet to do that.

    Join Today ~ It's Free
    Registering is Free and Easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon!

Was wondering

Discussion in 'The Coffee Shop ~ Chit Chat' started by Ridyn, Aug 28, 2012.

  1. Ridyn

    Ridyn New Member 100 Posts

    Is there a reason why they haven't implemented a smaller diesel into the 1500 model trucks? I don't mean just GM, I'm also talking about Chrysler and Ford as well. What's the purpose of leaving these without the diesel option when they're used for work as well? I think putting a smaller diesel intended for what the 1500 does now is a more economical decision due to just what the motor could be capable of without the heavy consumption of fuel in the process.

    Just curious of course!
  2. Conlan Rose

    Conlan Rose Super Moderator 1000 Posts 100 Posts

    For a long time GM was working on a smaller Duramax that would be a 4.8L V8 they stopped development after the price of diesel went up assuming no one would want to buy it. It would've been a cool engine only put out like 260 HP but lots of torque I don't remember the actual # but it was around 450-500 ft/lbs.
  3. phoebeisis

    phoebeisis Active Member 1000 Posts 100 Posts

    Yes-that is about it.
    Diesel fuel is too expensive-so a diesel MPG advantage isn't that much of an actual Fuel Economy advantage
    And Turbo Diesels are EXPENSIVE-and kindy finicky-especially fuel systems-and expensive to repair.
    Beside Dodge has come out with a plain non turbo 3.6 V-6 300 hp and 280 LB FT TQ- and a 8-yes 8 speed Auto Trans!!
    18/25 EPA on a 1/2 ton PICKUP!!!
    So why bother with diesel when plain cheap spark ignition gasoline motors can get you 18/25!!
    Ford has the twin turbo V-6 400 LB FT 370 HP- diesel like numbers- 16/22 EPA- and their base 3.7 17/23 EPA
    So smaller V-6 gasoline motors are just tooo good- just gear the heck out of them to make up for the loss of lower RPM TQ

    Oh-GM somehow has to respond to Dodge and Ford-
    I'm guessing GM put their R&D $$ into cars Cruze(good car) Sonic (GREAT CAR best in class) Spark(actually a Daewoo- but good car)
    and the VOLT-the Volt family might eventually be a money maker-and it was originally intended to gets its electricity from a Hydrogen fuel cell-not a 1.4 gasoline engine-someday we might figure a way to make H2 cheaply- but for now the Volt is a good vehicle- but a money drag.
    Yeah-GM put $$ into developing actual cars that could be built and sold in the USA- for a profit-they let truck R&D slide-didn't have the $$ for both
    Guessing they will now have to get going on a response to the Dodge Pentastar-and the Ecoboost Ford.
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2012
  4. Conlan Rose

    Conlan Rose Super Moderator 1000 Posts 100 Posts

    The GM response isn't a V6 its a new V8 that will change V8 trucks forever. It will have even more active fuel management tech and the ability to diactivate cylinders when not needed. This combined with variable valve timing and amazing computer processing will give the next gen Silverado V8 a possible 23MPG hwy from a 5.3L V8.
  5. SurrealOne

    SurrealOne Former Member 1000 Posts 100 Posts

    And the AFM will piss its owners off even more than the current AFM does. Frankly, I won't own a truck with AFM... or TPMS. Both are farking annoying.
  6. Conlan Rose

    Conlan Rose Super Moderator 1000 Posts 100 Posts

    Agreed I'm just stating what GM is doing next. My truck gets as good gas mileage Hwy as its new competitors who have all kinds of new tech. Heck my truck almost gets the same MPG as the new 4X2 Ram 1500.:sign0020: Sadly I don't drive hwy much wish I did.
  7. Ridyn

    Ridyn New Member 100 Posts

    Interesting, I'm somewhat disappointed that they discontinued the 5.7 vortec that they once had like my old 98. I loved that motor, but I guess they know more about what they're doing than I do!

    It's also crappy that they're going with V6's these days and getting away from having the good old stuff we've all grown to love. I'm probably going to end up scrapping this 5.3 and just throwing in a duramax with an allison...idk yet, i just really want a diesel but i'm not willing to spend 62k on a truck!
  8. phoebeisis

    phoebeisis Active Member 1000 Posts 100 Posts

    Gm HAS to match Ford and Dodge in 1/2 ton FE.
    EPA 25 mpg hy-means at 60 mph-it gets 28 or 29 mpg!!
    My EPA 17 mpg hy 98 Suburban actually gets 20 mpg at 60 mph-gets better than that at altitude on long trips-21.2 mpg 3000 mile trips-141 gallons 3020 miles-twice
    So that Dodge- 28 mpg at 60 mph!!Now it has a low CD .375- most pickups over .4 cd-
    The Ram has a fancy grill closing louvers-and 8 freakin speeds!!
    Yeah GM will certainly come out with a high mpg motor-probably a 6- I suspect it will be awhile because they put $$ into car R&D not the trucks.Heck who knows- it could be a big turbo 4-they make plenty of them now-a 2.5 or 2.6 turbo could get 250 hp-maybe the same TQ?? Plenty of gears??? My Suburban only makes 255 hp-granted makes plenty of TQ-350 LB FT??
    Yeah-GM will match the Dodge with "something"
  9. Conlan Rose

    Conlan Rose Super Moderator 1000 Posts 100 Posts

    Personally i find it more impressive for a V8 to get good gas mileage then a turboed V6. Of course the V6 will get better MPG it has a much smaller displacement. But yes i think GM needs to spend money on a really good tranny for their next gen trucks that helps save gas. But it seems that GM doesn't want more than a 6 speed tranny I don't know why but that's the most they currently make. The 6 speed actually has a tendency to search for which gear it wants when at about 70 it keeps shifting all the time. My truck got its best MPG going about 68 with the cruise control on. If i was driving at 55 it would prob get about 22 mpg
  10. phoebeisis

    phoebeisis Active Member 1000 Posts 100 Posts

    Yes- it would be impressive for a 5.3 V-8 to match the Turbo V-6 Ford in FE and performance
    but it doesn't!
    It is 1 mpg down vs the Ford twin turbo 3.5 6-and about 40 hp 60 lb ft down. Granted a Twin Turbo is FEAKIN' complicated.
    Many GM fans ae hoping expecting that Ford to have reliability problems down the road.
    And GM has to kinda sell-softly -sellthat aspect- "reliable 5.3 V-8 power etc"
    They-GM- can't push too hard on the turbo suspect reliability- because
    GM makes plenty of turbo cars now-Cruse Sonic etc-and the turbo 4's are going in the crossover SUVs soon.
    So GM can't scream "Twin Turbo!??-are you kidding me-that complicated POS will break as soon as it clears warranty-and cost you $2500 per turbo to repair"
    We can think that- but GM can't say that!!
    We'll see-
    I'm guessing GM is 2 years from a big engine update- probably a 6 cyl- but maybe even a big turbo 4.

Share This Page