2014 Chevy/GMC specs

[Diamondpilot]

Glad to see every manufacturer moving up their game with improvements to power and efficiency. Three years ago Ford rocked the industry and now Ram and GM are catching back up. I am interested in seeing the new 6.2 liter and think it might have a torque curve that beats the ecoboost.

This 5.3 is 6% better in MPG but 10% less in peak torque. Nice flat curve though for NA motor.

While MPG are nice I look at total package. I still feel the F150 has this licked. The Ram is close but the payload and real world tow rating due to its suspension limitations are its only draw back.

When I bouught my last new truck in 08 I did not buy what had the best MPG, highest HP, ect. That is for the people who know very little about trucks, I bought what was the best overall package.

Bragging rights are nice for marketing but give me a truck that does everything good.


Chris

 

[jejeosborne]

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.

I can shed some light on this subject with real data. I have a SCREW ecoboost with a boost gauge.

On the interstate with level ground, no wind, I am still in a slight vacuum. If I encounter a 10 mph headwind, I am at 0 manifold pressure. Any hill with cruise control will bring boost in.

Towing my 5000 lb trailer pictures at the bottom running 70 mph I am at 5 lbs boost.

Normal starts with a light foot will yield 0 manifold pressure at upshifts. Full throttle starts will hit 15 psi in upper gear upshifts.

All this being said, you are correct. Boost is needed in a smaller displacement motor to move such a large vehicle. Your desire to have a an engine not require boost under any load is confusing to me. Of course that would be possible but you would end up with an engine that creates 500+ HP and 600+ torque and you would loose all the efficiency.

I also don't understand people's fear of boost. I enjoy seeing manifold pressure building while steaming up the hills.

 

[Peacock]

I can shed some light on this subject with real data. I have a SCREW ecoboost with a boost gauge.

On the interstate with level ground, no wind, I am still in a slight vacuum. If I encounter a 10 mph headwind, I am at 0 manifold pressure. Any hill with cruise control will bring boost in.

Towing my 5000 lb trailer pictures at the bottom running 70 mph I am at 5 lbs boost.

Normal starts with a light foot will yield 0 manifold pressure at upshifts. Full throttle starts will hit 15 psi in upper gear upshifts.

All this being said, you are correct. Boost is needed in a smaller displacement motor to move such a large vehicle. Your desire to have a an engine not require boost under any load is confusing to me. Of course that would be possible but you would end up with an engine that creates 500+ HP and 600+ torque and you would loose all the efficiency.

I also don't understand people's fear of boost. I enjoy seeing manifold pressure building while steaming up the hills.

For comparison, my '95 CTD sits at about 8psi of boost at 72mph on the interstate. This is at about 2k rpm and with side boards on the bed sides. The trucks weighs 6800lbs or so.

 

[jejeosborne]

For comparison, my '95 CTD sits at about 8psi of boost at 72mph on the interstate. This is at about 2k rpm and with side boards on the bed sides. The trucks weighs 6800lbs or so.

Interesting. I am also at 2000 rpms at 70 with 3:73 rear end.

 

[Peacock]

Interesting. I am also at 2000 rpms at 70 with 3:73 rear end.

I've got 3.54's.

Deeper OD gear for you. Mine is .73. Course my truck only has LT245/75R16 tires on it.

 

[deerefan]

I have owned both Ford and Chevy trucks. My 97 F150 4x4 has had quite a few problems, mainly electrical, and needed a new motor at 140k miles (4.6). My other 3 Fords, including 2 6.0 diesels, but for a tps sensor, were flawless. My 2005 Z71 was problematic, bad gauges, leaking windshield and towed poorly, constantly downshifting. My other 3 were flawless, including my 2011 Z71 with 30k miles. The 6 speed auto makes towing much better than the 4 speed in the 05. I like simple truck engines and GM won over Ford. The 4.6 in my 97 is a pain to work on. Otherwise, it could go either way for me. Never owned a Chrysler/Dodge so cannot comnent, but I think the Challenger is the best looking of the 3. Looks the most like its predecessor. Also, the cummins is legendary in power and effeciency. Don't see how anyone can argue that.
I have read claims of the 6.2 GM making 450 hp and 450tq, but that is just claims. 420/430 probably more realistic.

 

[Diamondpilot]

One of my customers came over last night after dinner to borrow my 7' 3000# lawn roller. He had a 2013 Chevy Crew Cab 4x4 1500. I gave him plenty of crap. Lol...

Anyway his 09 Ram was giving him fits and it needed brakes, tires, and a new tailgate due to backing it into a tree.

He said he took his wifes Buick in for service and got talking to the salesman. Long story short they gave him $19,750 for his truck as is and he got $10,500 in rebates and incentives plus his wife had a big credit on a GM credit card.

Sounds like they are trying to give away the current inventory.

Chris

 

[buickanddeere]

Looks like GM released some specs on the 2014 1500 trucks.

2014 Silverado/Sierra Release 5.3L MPG, Power, Payload and Towing Numbers - PickupTrucks.com News

V8 5.3l direct injected, normally aspirated, EcoTec making 355 HP / 383 LB.FT. burning 87 octane with no turbos or drivetrain tricks. Nice flat torque curve plus still has that V8 sound.

4x2 - 16 city / 23 highway / 19 combined
4x4 - 16 city / 22 highway / 18 combined

11,500 lbs max towing capacity
2,102 lbs max payload

The 6.2l EcoTec will be a monster!

Here come the anti-anything-but-Ford stories...

Person writing the story was way out in left field with the higher octane making more power. Does 't seem to understand the difference between port and direct injection engines.
As for people expecting great improvements in mileage. Just what exactly are you expecting? Some engineer is going to break the laws of physics? It's still a truck on a highway at 55mph burning gasoline . The old 400 four barrel 4X4 in the mid 70's made 4-5mpg on the highway. How much more improvement do you think is left? Still only 114,100btu in a gallon of gasoline. Still an internal combustion engine.

 

[deerefan]

Person writing the story was way out in left field with the higher octane making more power. Does 't seem to understand the difference between port and direct injection engines.
As for people expecting great improvements in mileage. Just what exactly are you expecting? Some engineer is going to break the laws of physics? It's still a truck on a highway at 55mph burning gasoline . The old 400 four barrel 4X4 in the mid 70's made 4-5mpg on the highway. How much more improvement do you think is left? Still only 114,100btu in a gallon of gasoline. Still an internal combustion engine.

Well said. I have always felt a strong truck getting 16-18mpg was awesome!!

 

[jejeosborne]

Person writing the story was way out in left field with the higher octane making more power. Does 't seem to understand the difference between port and direct injection engines.
As for people expecting great improvements in mileage. Just what exactly are you expecting? Some engineer is going to break the laws of physics? It's still a truck on a highway at 55mph burning gasoline . The old 400 four barrel 4X4 in the mid 70's made 4-5mpg on the highway. How much more improvement do you think is left? Still only 114,100btu in a gallon of gasoline. Still an internal combustion engine.

Making a 15% improvement in mpg in just one generation change is pretty significant in today's world but I agree, not much left until downsizing or weight reductions.