jeep-N-montero
Expedition Leader
There are some die hard Powerstroke guys who will only own the 7.3, but the funny thing is they upgrade to some of the 6.0 parts.
I just spent four hours with the new 2014 GMC Sierra....wow!
- Thread starter Kaisen
- Start date
There are some die hard Powerstroke guys who will only own the 7.3, but the funny thing is they upgrade to some of the 6.0 parts.
From your post, I'm guessing you had a chance to test drive a 6.2 -- how did it feel compared to your 8.1? Was it quicker off the line; did it pull as well throughout the range?
I guess it's not really a fair comparison since your Sub is probably quite a bit heavier than the Sierra. But I want to know more about that new 6.2 :ylsmoke:
I guess it's not really a fair comparison since your Sub is probably quite a bit heavier than the Sierra. But I want to know more about that new 6.2 :ylsmoke:
Kaisen
Explorer
I did *not* drive a 6.2L, they won't be coming out for a few months. They shared a lot of technical information about the 6.2L and I think I've got a very good sense of it. The technology is exactly the same for the 5.3L (all aluminum, direct injection, 11:1 CR, piston oil squirters, continuously variable valve timing, active fuel management, etc), it's simply a liter bigger. The other difference is ring gear size (9.76") and gearing (3.08 and 3.42 for most 5.3s, 3.73 for 6.2s).
I think even the 5.3L is significantly quicker off the line than my 8.1L Sub, but there are three things at play.
First, the weight may be a small consideration but there's a smaller weight difference than you'd think.
Second, the 8.1L and 4L85E had aggressive torque management to keep the transmission from grenading.
Third, the transmission gearing favors the 6 speeds from a launch. My Sub has 3.73:1 diffs and the 4L85E has a 2.84:1 first gear, for a 10.59 final multiplier. Even though the new 5.3L Sierra has 3.42 diffs, the 6L80E has a 4.03 first gear, for a 13.78 multiplier. With torque convertor shear the difference is amplified.
Since the new 6.2L makes more than 400 lb-ft of torque from 1800 rpm to 6000 rpm (and a peak of over 450 lb-ft at ~4000rpm), it is almost dead-on with the 8.1L in my Sub (400 lb-ft at 1500 rpm to 4200 rpm, peak 455 lb-ft at 3200 rpm) yet makes almost 100 more horsepower.
The new 6.2L's power figures have not been officially announced, they'll only say "more than 420 hp and more than 450 lb-ft"....the 6.2L LT1 Corvette motor (which uses the same pistons, valves, injectors, and head castings (but different cam and intake plenum) makes 460 hp @ 6000 rpm at 465 lb-ft @ 4600 rpm.
The 5.3L's power figures are out, at 355 hp @ 5600 rpm and 383 lb-ft @ 4100 rpm, for 67 hp/L and 72 lb-ft/L.....the Corvette LT1 6.2L at 74.2 hp/L and 75 lb-ft/L
If you average the truck 5.3 and the Vette 6.2, that's 70.6 hp/L and 73.5 lb-ft/L....that would translate to the truck 6.2L making 438 hp and 456 lb-ft
Round that down to 430hp and 455 lb-ft and I think you're pretty close to the SAE official output of the 2014 Silverado/Sierra 6.2L
ZMagic97
Explorer
I really like the new Sierra look. Thanks for sharing your input Kasien!
You sound like a guy I work with who always talked poorly of my Silverado. I usually had nothing to say to him, but when he asked me "How's that POS Chevy of yours?" on day, I just smiled and replied, "Pretty good. My one Chevy has seen 3 of your Fords come and go, all with so many issues you had to sell them."
Mind you I think Ford makes a good truck, so does Chevy, and all the other companies; it's just personal taste if you ask me.
You sound like a guy I work with who always talked poorly of my Silverado. I usually had nothing to say to him, but when he asked me "How's that POS Chevy of yours?" on day, I just smiled and replied, "Pretty good. My one Chevy has seen 3 of your Fords come and go, all with so many issues you had to sell them."
Mind you I think Ford makes a good truck, so does Chevy, and all the other companies; it's just personal taste if you ask me.
jeep-N-montero
Expedition Leader
If his ability to maintain them was as good as his tact it's no surprise he had to replace them.
Clutch
<---Pass
I am a Toyota guy too, but yeah the Tundra....yee-ow! Need eye bleach....
Not crazy about the GMC grill (it looks stoned), however the Chevy WT blacked out grill isn't too bad, the engine specs sound awesome.
Clutch
<---Pass
Regcabguy
Oil eater.
You did well. Ford spent over $550 mil addressing 60. Warranty issues. Screaming macheens when they ran right though.
Got a 2013 Silverado 3500 HD CC std bed with the Duramax and Allison transmission last October and it's solid. 798 ft-lbs of torque @ 1,600 rpm, almost 16 mpg combined with my FWC loaded, and almost never touch the brakes on steep downhills with tow mode and the engine brake engaged. No complaints about the fit and finish.
plumber mike
Adventurer
Imagine what one of these new sweet engines is capable of with a zf6 behind it and a conservative right foot. Sadly not an option. I'd love to have a new truck, but I don't want airbags, abs, computer controlled auto trans, on star, etc. These mandatory nonoptions drive the price up, and overall cost of ownership up. The only way to effectively voice my opinion is to let them rot on the lot.
Gm seems to swap ugly front ends from one brand to the other every few years. 2001-2006 I'd be a gmc man.....2007-2013 I think chevy looks better. These new ones.....I'd be a gmc man again. Ford has butchered the clean lines of the super duty and econoline in recent years IMHO, and would not buy one at any price....I just can't stomach the looks, and they all keep getting uglier(all brands) When will they apply the retro look found in camaro, challenger, and mustang to the pickup line? There is elegance in simplicity.
Sorry guys. Rant off. I will patiently wait for someone to total out one of these, so I can buy the motor and the seats.
Larry
Bigassgas Explorer
Me too, the 2007-2013 GMT900 GMC’s looked much better than the Chevrolet. Actually, Chevy has looked like a pathetic angry kitchen appliance since 2003. Now on the new 2014’s, I prefer the Chevrolet over the GMC as the GMC just looks way too over-styled.
One of my biggest pet peeves on the GMT900 trucks from ’07-’13 was the lack of a rocker panel to protect the door bottoms. When a sharp door edge runs parallel with the road surface it is extremely prone to chipping followed by rust whereas a rocker panel with larger flat surfaces do not chip as easy as a sharp edge. It was just foolish not to have rocker panels protecting the door bottoms on these trucks. Actually, all of the GMT900 exterior body panels are poorly shaped, manufactured and assembled. The truck looked like a complete vehicle assembled from counterfeit Chinese replacement body panels. Stamping divots were obvious in the doors and bed slabs not to mention that practically every GMT900 I see on the road has the front inner fenders falling down in plain sight of the fender. It was a shame too, as GM trucks have the absolute best gasoline powertrains in the market, but with the most horrible bodies. Glad to see GM fixed all of my complaints on the new 2014 K2XX trucks! I guess they do listen to customers after all.
This is looking up at the door bottom on ’07-’13 GMT900 truck. Poor design! Fixed for 2014 :elkgrin:
Clutch
<---Pass
Not liking the individual LED running lights, looks tacky...Christmas lights almost. This goes for all the new vehicles that use them.
That is good to hear, I am not minding the new look. The late model Fords and the new Tundra are just hideous. Just seem to get uglier and uglier...makes me
wonder just exactly who the target market is.
Last edited:
