It will be a while before GM has anything that good.
That would make a excellent motor for a 3/4 or 1 ton truck:laughing:
2014 Chevy/GMC specs
- Thread starter Dmace
- Start date
- Views: 23046
It will be a while before GM has anything that good.
That would make a excellent motor for a 3/4 or 1 ton truck:laughing:
sd455dan
Elite Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2012
- Messages
- 4,782
- Location
- North Idaho
- Tractor
- Rhino 554, Ford 550 TLB (JD X500, MTD, Gilson riding mowers) Ford 3000-Sold
Well as of yet I don't think GM believes truck engines are best served by high winding V6 engines. They have always produced overhead valve engines for truck use. And in the past over head valve engines produced more torque at low rpms.
Obviously Fords twin turboed overhead cam engine proves that average torque across a wide rpm range can be accomplished with a smaller V6.
Gm knows that nobody is going to want to rev their truck engine like one for Indy to pull a heavily laden truck .. but there maybe other things that can learned for production engines...thermal barrier coatings , anti friction coatings, material sciences..
I think it shows that they are learning new things, and can build a successful Indy engine in cooperation with another company, just like they are working with Ford on new transmission designs... Who Knows where it will all lead..
Obviously Fords twin turboed overhead cam engine proves that average torque across a wide rpm range can be accomplished with a smaller V6.
Gm knows that nobody is going to want to rev their truck engine like one for Indy to pull a heavily laden truck .. but there maybe other things that can learned for production engines...thermal barrier coatings , anti friction coatings, material sciences..
I think it shows that they are learning new things, and can build a successful Indy engine in cooperation with another company, just like they are working with Ford on new transmission designs... Who Knows where it will all lead..
crazyal
Super Member
Lower RPM torque is not a function of OHV vs OHC.
My point is that, IMO, GM is continuing to use a pushrod design because they had to choose where to put their limited research funds. I have to believe GM engineers made the choice to focus on direct injection. I'm not saying it was a mistake, I think if GM doesn't stay out front with direct injection technology they will find themselves in a hole to other brands. But lets be honest, the OHV head is a simple design. Not much work is needed to redesign it to work with the injection system.
Lt CHEG
Platinum Member
Maybe I'm old school but I much prefer OHV engines to overhead cam engines, particularly in a truck. An overhead cam engine is in no way inherently superior to an overhead valve engine. An OHV engine might take more effort and expense to perform to the standards that some of these overhead cam engines that are already pushing the envelope but that doesn't make them inferior. It's just easier and cheaper to push an overhead cam engine towards its theoretical potential limits to reach higher performance numbers. With GM's LS OHV engines dominating the aftermarket performance segment, powering more modern performance cars than any other style, they must be doing something right and I can't be the only one that likes OHV engines.
Peacock
Platinum Member
How is the 5.0 better? It makes similar peak power, less low end torque and has substantially lower fuel economy.
Ryan03
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Messages
- 657
- Location
- Chardon Ohio
- Tractor
- Farmtrac DTC270, Kubota G5200hydro, Honda recon 250, Suzuki King Quad 450 4x4, 2003 2500 DMax/Allison 4x4
I am betting that a push rod v8 is cheaper to manufacture and assemble than a dohc engine. I considered waiting for the 2014 model GM trucks and purchasing one, but decided that I would rather not own the first model year of a new engine, trans, body etc. I settled on a 2013 since i know what to expect out of this aged model.
RollingsFarms
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 2,258
- Location
- South Carolina
- Tractor
- Few John Deere's and one Ford 3600 diesel.
I will have to see real world numbers from owners before I go believing GM's claimed fuel numbers. The two Z71's I owned both got 16mpg on average, nowhere close to no 19,20,22 or anything like that. Not saying all GM trucks are like this but the two I owned sucked the gas.
Peacock
Platinum Member
They go through the same rating process as the Ford trucks.
RollingsFarms
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 2,258
- Location
- South Carolina
- Tractor
- Few John Deere's and one Ford 3600 diesel.
I've never owned a Ford but I know my two GM's never got their rated mileage. I guess because I wasn't driving a 2wd truck with 3.08 gearing which would have been next to useless to me.
sd455dan
Elite Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2012
- Messages
- 4,782
- Location
- North Idaho
- Tractor
- Rhino 554, Ford 550 TLB (JD X500, MTD, Gilson riding mowers) Ford 3000-Sold
I stand by my statement about (IN THE PAST) ohv engines vs. ohc.
In many cases ohv are lower revving they also in many cases produce more total torque than total horsepower. I know of very few normally aspirated ohc engines that can make that claim...
Ohc engines generally will rev higher producing more peak horsepower, but do not generally produce as much torque at low rpms.
A good example of these normally aspirated ohv engines are my favorite Pontiacs.
Like some of the versions Butler performance builds- the basic 455 cu producing 580 hp 625 ft. lbs. also average torque far exceeds average horsepower.
Many ohv engines produced more average torque than horsepower.
If ohc head designs produce as much or more low end torque, you would think they would be in use on more than half the diesel tractor engines and over the road diesels.. I believe its all about low end torque...
I maintain that in general - in the past normally aspirated ohv engines produce more low end torque than ohc engines
