Jump to content

GM 6.2 Ecotec numbers

chevys

By chevys
in Competing Products

 Share

Recommended Posts

jpd80

jpd80

Posted
Posted

OK, this is an impressive makeover of the 6.2. That 420 hp @5600 and 460 lb ft @4100 means that

this engine has more than enough power for a 1500 truck and still more than satisfactory in the 2500.

 

Finally, GM is giving its Silverado and Sierra Truck buyers engines that deserve recognition

bringing more Silveradoand Sierra buyers into the showroom building those sales numbers.

 

A little bit of thumb nailing here:

The 4.3 V6 gets 24 mpg, the 5.3 V8 gets 23 mpg...... can the 6.2 get 22 or 21 mpg?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
V8-X

V8-X

Posted
Posted

Love how the press release appears to be more about the power that the 6.2L delivers, but later on (as in some commercials I've seen), they brag about the 5.3L getting better mpgs than the Ford EB3.5L. Funny part, is that 5.3L doesn't have the power nor towing capability of the EB F150.

 

Also, I guess it's time for Ford to re-tune the 6.2L, EB3.5 and stop de-tuning the 5.0L to keep the ever increasing HP wars going.

 

And of course now that GM has the 12K lb trailering capacity, guess Ford will again up their figures for 2014/15.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
V8-X

V8-X

Posted
Posted
Weight reduction in the 2015 F15 will go a long way towards solving those perceived deficiencies with economy and towing.

The 6.2 is now as good as if not better than Ecoboost on paper but I wonder if the 5.3 will still remain the bulk of sales.

While I agree the weight reduction will help the economy and possibly towing figures, weight reduction can also prove counter productive in the towing figures.

 

I have no doubt the 5.3L will continue to be the sales leader in the Silverado/Sierra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jpd80

jpd80

Posted
Posted
While I agree the weight reduction will help the economy and possibly towing figures, weight reduction can also prove counter productive in the towing figures.

No one would dispute that the larger crew cab 4x4s could do with losing some serious weight.

Extra cab and Crew cabs are 95% of F150's market.

 

 

I have no doubt the 5.3L will continue to be the sales leader in the Silverado/Sierra.

You can see that GM intends for that trend to continue, not sure how many sales they intend picking up with 4.3 and 6.2,

maybe they are minor players similar to Ford's 3.7 V6 and 6.2 V8

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
fordmantpw

fordmantpw

Posted
Posted
On the spec sheet for 2014 Silverado, GM states the recommended fuel for EcoTec3 6.2L V-8 (L86) is "regular unleaded." :shrug:

 

Hmmm, interesting. I had read that it required premium. Guess my source was incorrect...thanks for pointing that out.

 

I remember reading something about it though. Maybe it's that those numbers (420/460) are using premium, but the recommended fuel is still regular. On regular, it just produces less HP/torque.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
aneekr

aneekr

Posted
Posted
Maybe it's that those numbers (420/460) are using premium, but the recommended fuel is still regular. On regular, it just produces less HP/torque.

 

Great point fordmantpw. That's a distinct possibility. Interestingly, the other two EcoTec3 engines receive a fairly significant bump in power and torque when fueled with E85.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NLPRacing

NLPRacing

Posted
Posted

 

 

Official fuel economy for 2WD 6.2 Silverado is 15/21 mpg.

 

Can't wait for the shoot out between the four trucks, the Silverado 5.3 & 6.2 Versus the F150 5.0 and EB V6

 

420 hp/460 ft lbs AND 15/21 mpg is very impressive. Too bad the truck is so ugly. Hopefully the next gen EcoBoost can beat those numbers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fordmantpw

fordmantpw

Posted
Posted
420 hp/460 ft lbs AND 15/21 mpg is very impressive. Too bad the truck is so ugly. Hopefully the next gen EcoBoost can beat those numbers.

 

Agreed, but since the EB already bests those fuel economy numbers by 1MPG, I don't think Ford will have any trouble beating them all the way around next time around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chevys

chevys

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Agreed, but since the EB already bests those fuel economy numbers by 1MPG, I don't think Ford will have any trouble beating them all the way around next time around.

They wont beat the L86 in power. Not going to happen. Ford better chose their fights wisely and I am sure they will. The 5.3 is what they need to go after and they need to get better mileage. Power is good on the EB but it just needs more mpg. Say what you will about the L86 being a new engine against Fords 3 year old xyz but the L86 stomps a mud hole in Fords 6.2.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fordmantpw

fordmantpw

Posted
Posted
They wont beat the L86 in power. Not going to happen. Ford better chose their fights wisely and I am sure they will. The 5.3 is what they need to go after and they need to get better mileage. Power is good on the EB but it just needs more mpg. Say what you will about the L86 being a new engine against Fords 3 year old xyz but the L86 stomps a mud hole in Fords 6.2.

 

Yes, the GM 6.2L gets drastically better fuel economy than the Ford 6.2L. I don't think anyone has ever said the 6.2L is fuel efficient, and I think that is a very good reason that the 6.2L won't be available in teh '15 F150. You don't think the EB can beat the 6.2L V8 in the next iteration? I don't know that they will have to, but if Ford chooses, I don't think they will have a problem.

 

Don't worry about Ford choosing their fights wisely. There is a reason the F Series has been the best selling for nearly 40 years. Ford knows trucks, whether they are tops in power or not! Remember, Ford has historically had less HP than GM and done quite well.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fordmantpw

fordmantpw

Posted
Posted

OK, so GM DOES recommend premium for the 6.2L, and based on this from the owner's manual, the HP/torque numbers are based on premium. So, since premium costs ~7% more than regular fuel, wouldn't it be safe to say that, cost wise, the GM 6.2L gets ~7% less fuel economy than the stated numbers?

 

http://www.gmc.com/content/dam/GMC/global/master/nscwebsite/en/home/Owners/Manuals/01_Images/2014-GMC-Sierra-1500-Owner-Manual.pdf Page 9-70

 

Recommended Fuel
For all vehicles except those with
the 6.2L V8 engine, use regular
unleaded gasoline with a posted
octane rating of 87 or higher. If the
octane rating is less than 87, an
audible knocking noise may be
heard. If this occurs, use a gasoline
rated at 87 octane or higher as soon
as possible. If heavy knocking isGMC Sierra Owner Manual (GMNA-Localizing-U.S./Canada/Mexico- Black plate (71,1)
5853626) - 2014 - 1st crc - 3/7/13
Driving and Operating 9-71
heard when using a higher octane
rated gasoline, the engine needs
service.

If the vehicle has the 6.2L V8 engine
(VIN Code J), use premium
unleaded gasoline with a posted
octane rating of 91 or higher.
Regular unleaded gasoline rated at
87 octane or higher can be used,
but acceleration could be reduced,
and an audible knocking noise may
be heard. If the octane is less than
87, a heavy knocking noise may be
heard. Use 87 octane rated gasoline
or higher as soon as possible.
Otherwise, the engine could be
damaged. If heavy knocking is
heard when using a higher octane
rated gasoline, the engine needs
service.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EBFlex

EBFlex

Posted
Posted (edited)
So, since premium costs ~7% more than regular fuel, wouldn't it be safe to say that, cost wise, the GM 6.2L gets ~7% less fuel economy than the stated numbers?

 

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

Yeah, no. That makes no sense at all.

 

I had a Taurus SHO with the proper Yamaha engine and that never saw a drop of premium while I owned it...but it was recommended.

 

And it's funny that the new Taurus SHO has premium recommended to get 365 HP yet the same exact engine in the truck doesn't.

 

Regardless of fuel type, GMs 6.2L V8 gets 1 mpg less than Ford's 3.5 V6 while being far more powerful and more capable.

 

Frankly, gear heads everywhere should rejoice that you can indeed get great gas mileage out of a V8 while not having to resort to tiny little squirrel engines to achieve somewhat decent numbers.

Edited by EBFlex
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fordmantpw

fordmantpw

Posted
Posted
Bwhahahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

Yeah, no. That makes no sense at all.

 

I had a Taurus SHO with the proper Yamaha engine and that never saw a drop of premium while I owned it...but it was recommended.

 

And it's funny that the new Taurus SHO has premium recommended to get 365 HP yet the same exact engine in the truck doesn't.

 

Regardless of fuel type, GMs 6.2L V8 gets 1 mpg less than Ford's 3.5 V6 while being far more powerful and more capable.

 

Frankly, gear heads everywhere should rejoice that you can indeed get great gas mileage out of a V8 while not having to resort to tiny little squirrel engines to achieve somewhat decent numbers.

 

So, the SHO makes 365/350 whereas the F150 makes 365/420, and they are the exact same engine? Ummmm, OK.

 

Here is the quote from Ford on premium [sic] (http://www.ford.com/cars/taurus/specifications/engine/):

 

87 Octane - minimum; 91 Octane - reccomended

 

Right there, it says the minimum is 87. GM specifically says "use premium". Let's give GM a pass on the recommended premium fuel (whether you like it or not). There is a reason the 6.2L has premium recommended but the 5.3 doesn't. Otherwise, GM wouldn't recommend it. It is true, that by increasing the cost / gallon of gas, you do increase the cost / mile traveled. Whether you like it or not.

 

OK, yeah, the 6.2L can tow an extra 700 lbs more than the EB. Technically, yes, I guess that is more capable. But the 11,300 lbs of the F150 is more than anyone should be towing with a half ton anyway.

 

Sure, you can get great mileage and power out of a V8, I'm not disputing that, but to say the 6.2L is worlds ahead of the EB is really not true.

 

Let's mention the turbos being complex, but let's forget about AFM on the V8. Especially since, you know, turbos are such new technology and AFM has been around forever! Oh no, turbos are complex! Ahhhh!!!

 

Why have I even wasted my time typing this up. I should have just said "OK" and been done with it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jpd80

jpd80

Posted
Posted (edited)

90% of F150s sold come with either the 5.0 V8 or the EB V6, no one seems that concerned about an extra 700 lbs of towing at the top end.

Traditionally, 80% of all Silverados sold are equipped with the 5.3 V8, I don't see anything more than high end sales for the 6.2 Silverado.

 

Part of me wonders whether a rebirth of the 5.7 as the main Gen 5 engine in Silverado would have covered nearly every contingency..

An engine that gets say, 22 mpg but gives 420 lb ft of torque - an engine that most GM fans historically identify with.

Yes, good fuel economy is important but you also have to make the trucks impressive to buyers, a 350 does that.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EBFlex

EBFlex

Posted
Posted
So, the SHO makes 365/350 whereas the F150 makes 365/420, and they are the exact same engine? Ummmm, OK.

 

Here is the quote from Ford on premium [sic] (http://www.ford.com/cars/taurus/specifications/engine/):

 

Yeah, amazing what a computer tune can do. The SHO makes 365HP on premium and 355 on regular...or at least it did when it came out.

 

Sure, you can get great mileage and power out of a V8, I'm not disputing that, but to say the 6.2L is worlds ahead of the EB is really not true.

 

Who has said it's "worlds ahead"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chevys

chevys

Posted
  • Author
Posted
90% of F150s sold come with either the 5.0 V8 or the EB V6, no one seems that concerned about an extra 700 lbs of towing at the top end.

Traditionally, 80% of all Silverados sold are equipped with the 5.3 V8, I don't see anything more than high end sales for the 6.2 Silverado.

 

Part of me wonders whether a rebirth of the 5.7 as the main Gen 5 engine in Silverado would have covered nearly every contingency..

An engine that gets say, 22 mpg but gives 420 lb ft of torque - an engine that most GM fans historically identify with.

Yes, good fuel economy is important but you also have to make the trucks impressive to buyers, a 350 does that.

Toyota and Dodge seem to thing the 5.7 size is the sweet spot. I think GM opted for a smaller size for fuel economy and to differentiate more to their top dog 6.2 even though it is very efficient. Too bad its so limited. I agree that 700 lbs is not a big deal and I honestly dont trust any of the manufacturers on their tow ratings. I think its more for marketing than anything else. All trucks are so capable today its ridiculous compared to what we had a decade or two back. I think the most power a 350 small block ever made was something like 260/330 or there abouts and they had plenty of power.

 

I know the EB is Fords flag ship engine but I would like to see some serious work done on the 5.0 as well. We know the weight loss is coming but I wonder what tweaks Ford has in store for the engines. I just dont see bumping up the power on the EB much but may be wrong. I think fuel economy will take top priority. In the meantime, Gm has put out imo a very competitive line of engines and they are only going to be better when placed with a 8 or 9 speed eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...