2014 Chevy/GMC specs

[crazyal]

Dodge seems to do alright being 3rd in the HP race with a six cylinder. Just how much power is required anyways? Most people here can remember the Detroit 318 as being a big engine. For semi trucks to haul 40 ton of freight from coast to coast over two mountain ranges.
Is there anybody here who has a small willy and has to compensate with extra HP ?

I have a 77 International 4wd 2 1/2" ton dump that came from the factory with a 345. It crosses the scale empty at about 12k, I have left the pit with over 18k worth of gravel. Is it slow, a little when empty, very slow when loaded. But that's not a 1/2 ton pick up. Back when i was young and doing construction I used several Chevys and Fords with a 350/ 351 in them. They were hardly slow. Even with the bed loaded they would have no problem in today's world. Sure they aren't going to tow 10k but just how many people out there do? I see more 1/2 tons with an ATV, snow machine, or a few sheets of plywood in them than ones pulling more than 5k. I see more of them at the dump with a couple of garbage bags in them that have never worked a hard day's life than one's actually being pushed anywhere near their limits.

The biggest reason we don't have a 30+ mpg diesel 1/2 ton is because too many people think they need the same power that a Kenworth puts in their T880 just to bring home a couple of bags of groceries.

 

[buickanddeere]

Crazyal It's not the HP the engine can make that uses extra mpg. You could drop in a 90HP four cylindervolkswagon TDi into a 2014 Chev picup chassis and still not break 30mpg.
Last time I looked it took 45HP to roll my 4x4 crew cab at 55mph on level ground . If it had the lift kit and big knobby tires that so many truck owners seem to need to install. Just before they complain about mileage. The HP required to over come friction would be even higher.
So just how exactly does anybody think a 1/2 ton crew cab 4x4 pickup is going to break 30mpg. 15mpg typical driving on short trips is closer to the real world. Unless you can find gasoline with 200,000 btu's per gallon.
If anybody hasn't noticed, the large and lower cost gains in mileage were used in the late 80's with fuel injection, lockup torques and OD. Along with aerodynamics and reduced weight. Any gains since have cost large $$$ in engineering and manufacturing.
If you want mileage and a pickup together, ask the easter bunny. If you want real world mileage and cargo hauling capacity that 98% of pickups are used for today? Get a VW TDi and a 3500lb flat deck trailer with elecric wheel brakes.
Mrs B&D has a GMC Terrain 2.4L 184HP AWD SLT that we are impressed to bits with . 40MPG and better on the straight and level highway and 24mpg average puttering around on short trips. Hauls a light cargo and single horse trailer just fine. Infact better than the old 148HP 350 4barrel in the 1986 4x4 farm truck.

 

[buickanddeere]

If GM dumped the Duramax name they would be in 3rd place overnight in the HD standings.

I could imagine GM with a 94X100 DOHC version of the existing RA630 engine they are selling to Dodge . Let Dodge have the lower HP version and GMC use the higher HP V6 in SUV's and light trucks. 265HP in an automotive 650-3800rpm range for drivability. Lighter/cheaper gasoline driveline too.
Won't save any money per mile for the customers but it will up the corporate mpg average. And provide a diesel for those who want a diesel for status.

 

[DJ54]

I'm seeing the latest scoop on the 1500's. I haven't seen any info on the 2500's, or even the HD series. Is it possible to get away from the cylinder deactivation in the gasoline powered heavier series..??

 

[jejeosborne]

Mrs B&D has a GMC Terrain 2.4L 184HP AWD SLT that we are impressed to bits with . 40MPG and better on the straight and level highway and 24mpg average puttering around on short trips. Hauls a light cargo and single horse trailer just fine. Infact better than the old 148HP 350 4barrel in the 1986 4x4 farm truck.

Hopefully they are hauling a poodle in that horse trailer. 1500 lb tow rating on that vehicle. I wouldn't recommend that combination at all.

 

[Peacock]

#5 best diesel of all time according to diesel power mag.

10 Best Diesel Engines Ever - Diesel Power Magazine

Nothing against the DMax and 7.3, but how in God's name are they rated higher than the B Cummins?

 

[94BULLITT]

Nothing against the DMax and 7.3, but how in God's name are they rated higher than the B Cummins?

Maybe because there are over 2 million 7.3 owners.

 

[sd455dan]

Nothing against the DMax and 7.3, but how in God's name are they rated higher than the B Cummins?

Not sure what their rating criteria is , some of these engines don't appear to be old enough for long term reliability data to be complete?? I can understand the 7.3, but the duramax puzzles me , if they count the 4 bts running around in UPS trucks and the like, this rating maybe more of a technology than reliability deal?? Not counting engines that are yet to be released, wonder how this list will be viewed in 10 or 20 years...

 

[Peacock]

Maybe because there are over 2 million 7.3 owners.

Number built has nothing to do with quality!

Don't get me wrong, I like the 7.3, but it is flat out a dog down low in the revs compared to the 5.9. Plus the ridiculous HEUI system just adds unneeded complication to the engine.

Hauled this load last weekend with this 7.3. Wished it had my 5.9 in it every time I tried to climb a hill or get moving.

 

[buickanddeere]

Hopefully they are hauling a poodle in that horse trailer. 1500 lb tow rating on that vehicle. I wouldn't recommend that combination at all.

The chassis is the same between the 1500lb 2.4L and the 3500lb 3.6L with the heavier transmission. Just a HP difference, that's all.
It's just a matter of not doing jack rabbit starts and mountain climbing with the 2.4L and 3500lbs.