GM is ramping up to pump out more 6.2 engines

Lspangler wrote:
For 2016 isn't the 6.2 rated at 420 hp and 460 ft lb torque?

Linc

If it was used in the HD line it would likely be de-tuned for a lower power curve and longevity.

Ram 1500 5.7 395hp/410tq
2500 5.7. 383hp/410tq

Ford 150 6.2 411hp/434tq
250 6.2. 385hp/405tq

minnow wrote:
GM had a gas big displacement and towing machine engine and discontinued it. The 8.1.

The 8.1 was a reliable engine that did great towing. But it is a dinosaur that will never come back due to CAFE requirements.

And the 340hp/440 TQ rating isn't much higher than the smaller displacement engines are able to achieve with significant advantages in MPG.

And, for the record, I am happy with the 8.1 I have in my Burb. But even with the current low fuel costs, it is still hard to stomach 9 MPG around town.

GM had a gas big displacement and towing machine engine and discontinued it. The 8.1.

Lspangler wrote:
For 2016 isn't the 6.2 rated at 420 hp and 460 ft lb torque?

Linc

It has been since 2014

For 2016 isn't the 6.2 rated at 420 hp and 460 ft lb torque?

Linc

FishOnOne wrote:

RoyBell wrote:
The 6.2 is a hot rod engine requiring premium fuel. Much like the 6.4 from Dodge. The HD version of the 6.4 is detuned and rated for use with regular fuel. I don't see how the 6.2 detuned would even make sense when they have the 6.0 already out. They need more cubes imo to be an HD engine.

Why do they need more cubes? The 5.7 was in a many HD truck and did very well.

People that really tow heavy are not opting for a 5.7. My Toyota 5.7 makess better power than Dodges 5.7 and I can't imagine towing with this engine in an HD truck.

But that's not my point. My point is by the time GM detunes the 6.2 to a reliable level with regular gas, they will be at their 6.0 levels in terms of hp/tq. Would make no sense unless they just plan to abandon the 6.0 all together since it's only use is HD trucks.

RoyBell wrote:
The 6.2 is a hot rod engine requiring premium fuel. Much like the 6.4 from Dodge. The HD version of the 6.4 is detuned and rated for use with regular fuel. I don't see how the 6.2 detuned would even make sense when they have the 6.0 already out. They need more cubes imo to be an HD engine.

I think the SRT6.4 only really shares displacement with the Ram 6.4.

The Hellcat 6.2 uses the RAM 6.4 block.

jerem0621 wrote:


Why would Ford put the 3.5 Ecoboost on the SuperDuty? They make a fine 6.2 and 6.8 gas motors for the HD trucks.

Great MPG is not the objective of a HD Gas truck owner.

Thanks!

Jeremiah

It's not the power or the mpg. Believe me, my ecoboost isn't great on mpg when towing my toy hauler. It's that the 6.2 doesn't have the same type of torque curve that the Ecoboost has. I had a 250 with the 5.4 and it had to really sing to tow anything. I didn't care for it. I realize the 6.2 is a great motor and it's meant to rev. It's just personal preference. I'm going to have to step up to a diesel eventually anyway since I want a bigger toy hauler. When I do, I'll get the same low rpm high torque type of towing I get now.

But we're getting off topic. Sorry for threadjacking.

IDoMyOwnStunts wrote:

patriotgrunt wrote:

drittal wrote:

patriotgrunt wrote:


You're right. Ecoboost is a fantastic engine that actually puts down more torque to the rear wheels than the 6.2. 3.5 EB 347 lbs@4150 compared to the 6.2s 336 lbs@4200. And it uses regular fuel with an iron block. See for youself:

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2016/01/whats-the-best-light-duty-truck-for-towing-2016-texas-truck-showdown.html

3.5l Ecoboost is aluminum block and heads. the only f150 engine option with iron block is the 2.7 ecoboost.

No wonder why Ford won't put in their HD lineup. It won't last either.

Oh please. :R It's been over 5 years since the engine was introduced. Where's the huge outcry about failures like the 6.0/6.4 had?

I want an HD truck for the suspension. I'm perfectly happy with my engine.

Why would Ford put the 3.5 Ecoboost on the SuperDuty? They make a fine 6.2 and 6.8 gas motors for the HD trucks.

Great MPG is not the objective of a HD Gas truck owner.

Thanks!

Jeremiah

patriotgrunt wrote:

drittal wrote:

patriotgrunt wrote:


You're right. Ecoboost is a fantastic engine that actually puts down more torque to the rear wheels than the 6.2. 3.5 EB 347 lbs@4150 compared to the 6.2s 336 lbs@4200. And it uses regular fuel with an iron block. See for youself:

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2016/01/whats-the-best-light-duty-truck-for-towing-2016-texas-truck-showdown.html

3.5l Ecoboost is aluminum block and heads. the only f150 engine option with iron block is the 2.7 ecoboost.

No wonder why Ford won't put in their HD lineup. It won't last either.

Oh please. :R It's been over 5 years since the engine was introduced. Where's the huge outcry about failures like the 6.0/6.4 had?

I want an HD truck for the suspension. I'm perfectly happy with my engine.