2014 GM Sierra/Silverado

[WilliamBos]

i heard a redone interior and sheet metal to me from the fron clip back the truck looks like a 2011 the dash likes different then my 2011 3500hd

Not true! The doors close within the cab again, and the rockers are of a better design too. Projector beam headlights, direct inje tion, 6' 1/2. Box on the crew cab models...

And a return of the 73'-87' body lines.

 

[timswi]

The upcoming 6.2 is supposed to be around 450HP...With even better mileage...I'm getting interested now.

 

[deerefan]

The upcoming 6.2 is supposed to be around 450HP...With even better mileage...I'm getting interested now.

I would really like to see the torque numbers on that. If this rings true and the torque numbers are close to the hp numbers, that would be a nice package. Hopefully it ends up in the 3/4 and 1 ton trucks too.

 

[jwstewar]

The upcoming 6.2 is supposed to be around 450HP...With even better mileage...I'm getting interested now.

That is in the new Vette with 450 ft lbs as well and doing better than 26 MPG (what the current Vette does). I bet the trucks won't seen anywhere near those numbers.

 

[timswi]

That is in the new Vette with 450 ft lbs as well and doing better than 26 MPG (what the current Vette does). I bet the trucks won't seen anywhere near those numbers.

The article i read said that this 6.2 will be shared with the GMC's...maybe a little less horsepower, but I'll bet not much..The current 6.2 has 404HP

 

[buickanddeere]

Diesel power and fuel economy. Without the price of the diesel option, extra diesel service costs, diesel complexity and higher price per gallon for diesel vs gasoline.

 

[jcmseven]

I wish this were true. I like the 6.2 L a lot but there is a big difference between 417 pound feet and 765 at much lower rpm. This point made, I do see where future higher torque numbers from gas engines with multigeared tranmissions could close the gap between gasoline and diesel power in work or pulling applications. I would not at all be surprised if gm could get an updated 6.2 to get 23-24 mpg unloaded on the highway if geared appropriately and in a more aerodynamic package. Even if trucks there is a good bit of room to improve the drag coefficient which would result in much better highway economy, regardless of engine.

John M

 

[timswi]

I wish this were true. I like the 6.2 L a lot but there is a big difference between 417 pound feet and 765 at much lower rpm. This point made, I do see where future higher torque numbers from gas engines with multigeared tranmissions could close the gap between gasoline and diesel power in work or pulling applications. I would not at all be surprised if gm could get an updated 6.2 to get 23-24 mpg unloaded on the highway if geared appropriately and in a more aerodynamic package. Even if trucks there is a good bit of room to improve the drag coefficient which would result in much better highway economy, regardless of engine.

John M

No question that my 6.2 isn't really a grunt motor...It will light the rear tires with no effort (even loaded) but makes it's real pulling power at higher RPMs than a diesel...Personally I'm good with that..It's is a gasser after all.

 

[jcmseven]

I certainly would be. That 6.2L is one hot engine. There will likely never be a gas engine that mimics the traits of a diesel exactly. That's ok though because each has its strengths and I would personally be disappointed if gm brought out a gas engine to be more "diesel-like" and lost the personality of what has become a great gasoline engine.

John M

 

[Hay Dude]

We already had lots of gas engines built to run like diesels in the 70's- 80's. They were awful.
When GM started stuffing their diesels in Fords & GM mediums way back, it improved medium duty reliability immediately.
I was fueling up today and a Ford pulled up with a 370 gasser with the typical exhaust manifold leak they all eventually got. I thought I was back in 1984 driving my F-700 with a whopping 175HP gas motor.