2014 Chevy/GMC specs

[timswi]

I don't think a diesel 1/2 ton truck is worth it. Maybe 10 or 20 years ago it would have been. With todays technology a gas motor is hard to beat in that platform. If the diesels did not have to meet these stupid emission regulations things may different.

In the current EPA environment, that's certainly true.

 

[sd455dan]

Ok...You've made your loathing of GM abundantly clear over the last 4+ years and I think everyone is very aware of your position on the matter..Time to let it go..It's worn out it's welcome to be honest.

That being said..What's wrong with the updated 5.3?...Gets the same or better mileage with a relatively simple normally aspirated V8 as opposed to multi turbos on a V6 to accomplish the same thing....A 400+ HP Corvette can easily get mid 20's, however a similar drivetrain in a 5000# truck can't produce the same results at this point...The GM powerplants are fuel efficient on their own, it the brick aerodynamics and sheer weight or the trucks hold them back, same problem that everyone has...With an aluminum frame, 2:73 gears, a sloped front end and no 4wd along with a 500# tow capacity could easily produce mid to high 20'sMPG...No one would buy it as it would be useless.

What innovative drive train were you expecting?...GM sticks with what works...Not what infatuates people..Ergo the 350ci that is still the most popular motor ever built....Improve what works, don't keep throwing things at the wall hoping something will work..That's not innovation.

I didn't buy my truck for MPG anyway...I'll take the average 16mpg with 403HP that I get.

As far as design is concerned I think it maybe a matter of preference, GM in the past was always known for parts interchangeability it got them a huge following in the hot rodding community and I for one am thankful for the fact that many parts could be interchanged, and pushrod over head valve engines are simpler, and being normally aspirated , when the day comes to rebuild it the cost is going to be less.. so if GM can get similar mileage and performance without resorting to 4 valves per cylinder, twin turbos and overhead cams..it's ok with me, and when those vehicles-engines reach 150k miles I might still consider purchasing one, but a twin turboed 4 valve per cylinder engine with those miles that hadn't been rebuilt -not going to happen...

 

[timswi]

As far as design is concerned I think it maybe a matter of preference, GM in the past was always known for parts interchangeability it got them a huge following in the hot rodding community and I for one am thankful for the fact that many parts could be interchanged, and pushrod over head valve engines are simpler, and being normally aspirated , when the day comes to rebuild it the cost is going to be less.. so if GM can get similar mileage and performance without resorting to 4 valves per cylinder, twin turbos and overhead cams..it's ok with me, and when those vehicles-engines reach 150k miles I might still consider purchasing one, but a twin turboed 4 valve per cylinder engine with those miles that hadn't been rebuilt -not going to happen...

I fully agree....When I was broke, I bought a variety of GM V8's with at least 100k and ran them to around 140k and sold them for what I paid for them..I would see the ones I sold running around for years after...Don't know many gas turbos that last that long..That might change, I'll keep an open mind.

As a recovering and soon to be again restorer, I certainly appreciated the interchangeability of the GM's...Even putting a SB GM in a Ford was fairly simple.

 

[94BULLITT]

Keep in mind that a turbo motor does not make boost all the time. It is basically a naturally aspirated engine til you stick your foot in it.

 

[crazyal]

While turbos (if not maintained well) may have a limited life span multi-cams and 4 or 5 valve per cylinders engines have been around for decades. There is no proof that they need any more work than the standard 2 valve pushrod design. On top of that high pressure direct gas injection is more of a worry for longevity than an overhead cam. It's use over the last century has been limited to a handful of vehicles. I do think it's time is here thanks to improvements in technology but never the less how long the injectors will last may not be as long as the rest of the engine.

 

[crazyal]

I don't think a diesel 1/2 ton truck is worth it. Maybe 10 or 20 years ago it would have been. With todays technology a gas motor is hard to beat in that platform. If the diesels did not have to meet these stupid emission regulations things may different.

I think there is a place for a diesel in a 1/2 ton truck. But it means putting one in that is equal in power to the base model V6 engine. Something that's not designed to pull a 14,000k load. A 200 hp diesel would be more than enough and could get a high enough MPG improvement to justify the extra cost.

 

[94BULLITT]

I think there is a place for a diesel in a 1/2 ton truck. But it means putting one in that is equal in power to the base model V6 engine. Something that's not designed to pull a 14,000k load. A 200 hp diesel would be more than enough and could get a high enough MPG improvement to justify the extra cost.

With these gas trucks getting close 23-24 MPG I don't think a diesel will do much better. It may get 28 MPG but with the higher initial cost, higher fuel price, and higher maintenance cost it would make the gas truck tough to beat. Usually a gas motor is cheaper to do repair work to also.

 

[timswi]

Keep in mind that a turbo motor does not make boost all the time. It is basically a naturally aspirated engine til you stick your foot in it.

In a pickup, you'd have your foot in it much more than you would in a car...Basic lack of displacement moving 5000# plus any load. The turbo(s) are working to make up the difference..Just physics..I have no dog in this fight..Until a turbo'd motor can carry itself without boosting constantly under any load, I'll stick with base displacement...That may well change someday..But not today. Talking gas, not diesel.

 

[aczlan]

Don't know many gas turbos that last that long..That might change, I'll keep an open mind.

Volvo cars have been running to 200k or more miles with 4 cylinder turbos since at least the 80s and 5 cylinders turbos since the 90s. Dad had an 1998 S70 that had 210k miles on it and it was just starting to leak at the turbo oil seals when it met up with a telephone pole thanks to some black ice.
Turbos dont worry me much. Dont hypermile all the time (ie: get out and stomp on it from time to time), run Synthetic oil and they will be fine.

Aaron Z

 

[sd455dan]

Volvo cars have been running to 200k or more miles with 4 cylinder turbos since at least the 80s and 5 cylinders turbos since the 90s. Dad had an 1998 S70 that had 210k miles on it and it was just starting to leak at the turbo oil seals when it met up with a telephone pole thanks to some black ice.
Turbos dont worry me much. Dont hypermile all the time (ie: get out and stomp on it from time to time), run Synthetic oil and they will be fine.

Aaron Z

I have to say that it is because it's a Volvo IS part of the reason the cars run so long , and of the Volvo's I have seen that needed expensive repairs- the majority were turbo charger related problems... The earlier Volvos didn't have turbos and I know of at least 2 that have run in excess of 350,000 without a major repair