Forum Discussion
44 Replies
ib516 wrote:
From the article, it will be a 1500 series chassis with stiffer rear springs and a beefier rear diff.
When young and still learning (even though designing big stuff and
'thought' knew everything) put in a Dana 60 front end (along with
positive arched leaf pack), GM 14 bolt rear (along with new leaf
pack) to 'think' my half ton K5 Blazer was now a 1 ton truck...no
way and learned lots from that experience.
It was still a half ton truck...
Ditto my 1980 C10 Silverado...it is the 'big ten' (AKA HD version
of that era, so higher GVWR of 6,200). Put in 1 ton helper coils
on the rear axle. It 'can' haul over 3,000 lbs in the bed, but it is
still a 6,200 GVWR truck no matter the 1 ton spring on top of the
OEM leaf springs, or that it has 33/12.5R15LT load range C tires
It is still a half ton truck...
PS...'can' haul over 3,000 in the bed, but note that I've had to replace
the outer axle bearings several times...so many times don't remember
exactly how many times...- The 6.2L is an all aluminum engine and is more 'car' than 'truck' engine
Hasn't proven itself, yet, for towing
Why it is only in 'half ton' pickups and SUVs, for now.
Ditto the viscus coupling for the AWD of these, not proven for towing heavy, yet
Towing for hours and hours with several tons hooked up to your tail
in severe ambient (incline, altitude, temp, humidity, etc, etc) is
way tougher than boulevard blasting from stop lite to stop lite.
Some say the stresses are the same...kinda sorta...for a few seconds
to maybe minutes, but try that with a boulevard cruiser for hours
on end at those stress levels WITHOUT towing anything and see how
well that 'car' engine does over the long haul
These higher HP numbers is for sure fun to drive out on the boulevard, but for
towing, it is more than just HP numbers
If it just HP numbers, then stuffing a forced fed mega liter into a Pinto would
tow anything...well and for thousands of miles...right? :) Kip81 wrote:
TQ moves your trailer not HP, gassers still have along ways to go to even try to keep up with a diesel pulling. I hate these HP numbers that they all put out. It means nothing if your not getting to the ground.
I agree with the first part, but I have spent a lot of time on the dyno watching a lot of different vehicle go through. On average most manual vehicles lose about 14 to 17 percent through the drivetrain and most automatics lose about 18 to 22 percent throught the drivetrain based on avertised horse power. A lot depends on your converter/clutch/flywheel/flexplate and rearend but it is good average that has been proven.
So if you figure a 22 percent loss for the 6.2 GM truck should lay down right around 327 HP and 358 Ft/lbs of torque. Not to shabby.
Take a Ford 6.7 diesel with a 22 percent loss. You are putting down 312 HP and 624 ft lbs of torque. I don't think that is any big suprise. The torque is where the diesel shines and gets the job done.
Of course the numbers are also going to be put down at different RPM, which to me, is not a big deal if I have to let the small block sing, but for some people, and I understand why, it is unnerving.
Infact when pickuptrucks.com tested a 6.7 this is what they got.
With the transmission in 4th gear (1.15 transmission gear ratio), maximum torque was measured at an average of 643.9 pounds-feet at 2,000 rpm, and horsepower peaked at 306.8 hp at 2,800 rpm. Both measurements were made at the rear wheels instead of at the crank, which is about 20 percent below Ford’s official figures.
about 20 percent right on target for an automatic transmission.
Most new automatic transmission are fairly effiecent and to see more than a 20 percent loss through the drivetrian in one is rare and unless you swapped out the converter for a higher stall.
I guess what I am trying to say is, if you make more power/torque at the crank, you are going to put more down at the wheels.jeshoffstall wrote:
Did not see anything mentioned on Payload.
I do not know what it will be for the 6.2L, but the 2014 Silverado went on a diet. Comparable trim/equipment for 5.3L crew cabs have about 300 pounds more than the outgoing 2013. The 4WD LTZ with some options with 1595 pounds for example. And GM offers the NHT package on both the 5.3L and 6.2L for 2014 which bumps up payload by another 250 pounds.
12k 5er is still questionable, even 8k. But I think it's a step in the right direction for half tons.- TQ moves your trailer not HP, gassers still have along ways to go to even try to keep up with a diesel pulling. I hate these HP numbers that they all put out. It means nothing if your not getting to the ground.
- From the article, it will be a 1500 series chassis with stiffer rear springs and a beefier rear diff.
- Yep I understand tow ratings just fine thank you, its just an observation point that I am making. The normal everyday common joe does not understand payload, GVWR, ect.. The only thing that I can possibly think of concerning this new confirguration is that it will be the new version of the old 1500HD. Very simular to the truck that I just sold a month ago. I can see it with the 8600GVWR package, semi floater, 14 bolt rear. However the 1500HD is a 3/4 ton just like the standard 2500 non HD. I really liked that truck, so maybe this newer truck will be badged same/ differently? If not and its a regular classified 1/2 ton then I am interested in seeing specific configurations payload, GVWR ect...
mooky stinks wrote:
Your statements are completely incorrect. I bought my 2012 1500 LT with the 403hp 6.2 off the lot. There is absolutly no way you had to get the "$50,000" model. It's been offered in LT models for years with and without the Max Tow option. 2014 is a different story.
Well there wasn't a single GM dealer in the DC area that offered the 6.2 in a base model GM 1500 when I looked. I researched trucks for over a year before I finally settled on one. I couldn't even "build" one with the 6.2 without going way high in the trim levels. Maybe its a regional thing? Either way, its a poor design that you cannot get the "big engine" in the base level. I wonder why GM has such a hard time making money...ib516 wrote:
Will GM offer this engine in the 2500hd?
So far, it looks like 1500 only, so those wanting a head-to-head between the F250 6.2L, Ram 2500 6.4L Hemi, and the GM 6.2L mentioned here might be disappointed.
They only offered the high hp 6.2L gasser in the 1500s when it was 403hp.
I didn't realize the engines being discussed were half-ton only.
:o
That's what happens when I post before actually reading the article.
As Emily Litella would say...
Never mind.- Will GM offer this engine in the 2500hd?
So far, it looks like 1500 only, so those wanting a head-to-head between the F250 6.2L, Ram 2500 6.4L Hemi, and the GM 6.2L mentioned here might be disappointed.
They only offered the high hp 6.2L gasser in the 1500s when it was 403hp.
