PickupTruck.com
has uncovered some really interesting news. Apparently in shuffling through some of the many links pertaining to the new UAW/GM contract there was a link that mentioned future products. Within that link an all-new "Gen V" 6.2L DOHC V8 that's slated for 2011 was mentioned. The engine was mentioned in conjunction with the C3XX (code for full-size trucks) program...
Wow! Has the General found religion, and is now about to join the rest of the world's flock with cam-in-head-four-valve engines?
OHV fans don't give in yet, as there is also reported a new smaller OHV V8 in the works too, but displacement as of now is still a bit up in the air.
Full story here.
OHV fans don't give in yet, as there is also reported a new smaller OHV V8 in the works too, but displacement as of now is still a bit up in the air.
Full story here.
ateixeira says:
08:44 AM, 10/ 2/07
I wonder why they finally gave in? Emissions?
estreka says:
09:39 AM, 10/ 2/07
Next thing you know, GM will have variable valve timing. Can you imagine a Silverado with VVT?
iskch says:
12:18 PM, 10/ 2/07
The pushrod engine is running out of options againts the competition.
firstwagon says:
12:24 PM, 10/ 2/07
Oh I don't know.
GM's pushrod V8's are powerful, reliable, inexpensive to build and get the best mileage in their class.
The only real advantage of mutivalve engines is high rev operation and that's not a high priority in a truck. Low end torque is.
Sounds like they are doing it for marketing purposes.
They should stick with what they are best at.
jsmilesrmhs says:
12:50 PM, 10/ 2/07
The Pushrod engine does offer VVT. If you get the GMC Sierra Denali
iancar says:
06:32 PM, 10/ 2/07
Doesn't worth to toss out the pushrod, unless it produces more than 475 horsepower as Mercedes-Benz 6.2 V8.
hondacura4 says:
06:29 AM, 10/ 4/07
Actually the Mercs 6.2 is a great comparison to GMs higher powered 6.2-7.0L V8s offered in the Corvette. The Mercs 6.2 can match the hp of the 7.0L and its torque rating is only 5lb ft less despite having 8/10ths less displacement. Its about the same physical size and similar in weight. The only real/significant advantage the GM V8 has over the Mercs 6.2 is cost as the GM V8 is widely used in a wide variety of cars and trucks and the Mercs 6.2 is a low production AMG only piece.
firstwagon says:
03:35 PM, 10/ 4/07
Interesting way of looking at it.
I would see it as .... "for all of it's enormous cost and complexity, the Mercs 6.2 has no advantage in power or weight."
I'd bet the GM V8 would even beat it in mpg.
hondacura4 says:
09:03 AM, 10/ 5/07
I'm sure the 6.2 could deliver similar mileage if it were geared the same as a Z06 as 6th gear is virtually useless. People tend to forget GM isnt aggressive with gearing (like most imports) and thats where the mojority of the "high" fuel economy ratings come from. Another thing is that the Merc 6.2 isn't offered in anything light like a Corvette so thats another reason for the "low" economy.
But the fact that the Merc 6.2 compares favorably to the larger 7.0L is an accomplishment in itself. So in the end wouldn't that make the Merc more efficient? Its getting the same power/torque out of less displacement.
firstwagon says:
02:13 PM, 10/ 5/07
It would be an accomplishment if Hyundai did it but not Merc. They are a world leader in engineering and if their premium high tech V8 can't outdo a pushrod mass production engineer that is only 0.8 litre bigger in size then I don't see the advantage in it.
hondacura4 says:
11:18 AM, 10/ 6/07
I consider 0.8L to be quite an advantage. Also these pushrod engines have always been touted for thier torque output but when you do the math they really dont put out anything spectacular in relation to their displacement.