2014 GM 6.2 Ratings

Don't know about all this tech discussion, but sure am happy with the '03 6.0L truck I've been driving for 204,000 miles. Am currently 3500 miles from home (in Seattle) on a cross-country trip and have no hesitation to trust it the rest of this trip and the next, and maybe the next.

Starts first turn, burns very little oil between changes, and purrs up the hills, kicking down a gear whenever it needs it. Would certainly like a new truck, the new smell and better mileage, but this 'paid-for' work-horse still earns its keep every day. And we can buy lots and lots of fuel for the cost of a new one. Still dream about it tho' and will keep dreaming until this one gives up ... :) :) :)

BenK wrote:
In case you don't know what an LSA is it has 556 bhp and 551 lb/ft vs this
6.2L in discussion 420hp / 460tq

Might want to tell the difference in power is the fact that the LSA has this nice little device attached to it called a blower. Used in the CTS-V and Camaro ZL1

BenK wrote:

Haven't said 'can not', just pointing out the technical aspects of what the
designers 'should' have considered. Only time will tell and these comments are
of course an opinion, as is others pro & con.

:R

Have you considered cut back plugs for your 6L? Really woke up a friend of a
friend's who had a misfire (marginal plug right out of the box)...oh assume you
know what a cut back plug is...NGK sells them for +$200 per.

Oh well, hope you are happy with your choices...you seem to think no
one else has or makes intelligent choices

Ben K generally I agree with and respect what you say, but I ain't buying this time. Having been around, driven and modified LS motors since 97, you can keep your 454, glad you like it mine did the job too. I bet money the 6.2 will prove just as, if not more reliable than a 454 with a wet intake. Sleeved aluminum block, 6 bolt main designed to run at high RPM for lots of miles. It has all the improvements that started way back in 01 when the LS1 and LS6 got updated intakes and oil pumps. They have only gotten better.

RPMs to a motor are RPMs. As long as temps stay constant. It doesn't care what it is doing. Even my 6.0 doesn't vary temp, timing or other parameters as proven using HP Tuners when towing. May take longer to get to a higher RPM but once there the data logs are identical for towing at 4800 RPM or hot rodding at 4800 rpm. Now the Transmission? That is a different story.
Cut back plugs? I had to laugh sorry. If you are going to track...I have seen guys pick up maybe 1 mph. An LS based motor is not going to know the difference. Next you are going to tell me you felt the difference in the STP Dyno or seat of your pants or that he should index his plugs...

Not trying to be a D-bag, but this time I think you are missing the boat.

The original 6.2 or L92 has been out since about oh 2006ish and has proved to be a capable TRUCK motor. Escalade, Denali and various other high end trucks has been dead nuts reliable and have proved to make excellent daily drivers and tow vehicles. The 6.2 is price to make. This is the reason it limited and only goes in the top of the line packages.

Lol. Call me the dentist, cause I just hit a nerve!

In case you don't know what an LSA is it has 556 bhp and 551 lb/ft vs this
6.2L in discussion 420hp / 460tq

96 Sub is 17 years old and still capable...even takes many current SUV's getting
up to speed on the highway...of course not towing. Even though my 7.4L has lost
a bit over the +160K miles of very hard, hard driving

Even match against any full sized SUV or pickup on a slalom, or braking. Not
many understand why my LT265/75R16E's are on 16x10 alloys. Or that my track
is +10.5 inches over stock. Or that it's not lifted in any way, other than
over sized tires.

Am happy with my choice and still going to be happy years from now...will you
still have whatever you have now? Maybe, maybe not, but not of importance, as
hope you are happy with your choice...as I'm very happy with my choices

Haven't said 'can not', just pointing out the technical aspects of what the
designers 'should' have considered. Only time will tell and these comments are
of course an opinion, as is others pro & con.

Why hasn't GM put this 6.2L in higher class TV's ? Haven't had time to research
if the alu block is one or two piece, yet. So many folks talked to confused with
which 6.2L is it? One guy swore these SUV's have the LSA :R

Have you considered cut back plugs for your 6L? Really woke up a friend of a
friend's who had a misfire (marginal plug right out of the box)...oh assume you
know what a cut back plug is...NGK sells them for +$200 per.

Oh well, hope you are happy with your choices...you seem to think no
one else has or makes intelligent choices

I'm talking about speculation on new engines that SO MANY say it can't or won't last as a towing motor or they tell people that they should wait years before they give their "seal of approval" ( like it matters) when they have zero expertise on the subject. If there was never new technology and people willing to buy it, we'd all be driving, ....oh i dont know....96 Suburbans?

mooky stinks wrote:
There's never a shortage of people to say "it'll never work". Lol

As there plenty of folks with the "sure you can", or "been doing that
for decades with no problems"

I don't say 'no' nor 'yes', but provide the metrics for the OP's to
figure it out themselves...but so many...seemingly most only want
to hear what they want to hear...

There's never a shortage of people to say "it'll never work". Lol

APT wrote:

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.

the chevy website lists maximum payload at 2000 pounds.