General Motors investing $854 million to build V8 engines amid EV shift

supton said:
IMO, while ECU's got cheap, what really shifted was public opinion. For a decade or more, people just weren't looking for power. 55mph, oil price problems, economy up and down. For whatever reason the OEM's weren't competing with each other--until they were. Software to model every aspect of the drivetrain surely helped, getting better combustion chambers along with freer flowing intake and exhaust. But I think for a few years people just were not buying. People say they wanted power back then--but it was a bit like the manual trans station wagon in color brown with no options. No one buys those new, but lots of people on the web insist they'd buy it--but only used, apparently.
Click to expand...


This is true. The mindset of most owners for quite a while was focused on fuel economy. Value was another big consideration as prices of automobiles went up.
 
CKN said:
On

Just bought a slightly used F150 with the EcoBoost. I had three GM trucks in a row with the 5.3. The EcoBoost out performs it in every respect except for highway mpg. There is a 2 mpg hit. I take the F150 over the 5.3 any day.
Click to expand...

The 5.3 is always scoffed by Ford guys, but it's the wrong comparison. The 5.3 is just a comfortable engine for guys who want a reliable v8, it's not the performance option. Even the 2.7 turbo outperforms the 5.3 these days in all metrics other than WOT performance.

Did you try the 6.2 with the 10 speed? You get performance, durability (lifter issue notwithstanding, 3.5's have issues too like cam phasers), and that glorious v8 sound. Probably similar MPG unloaded and definitely better MPG towing heavy.

If I could pick and choose components to build my truck: it would be my current ram, with the 6.4 SRT (the one found in the Wagoneer/Challenger, not the 6.4 in the 2500), and the GM 10 speed. Not a fan of stressed out turbos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wtd
hemioiler said:
The 5.3 is always scoffed by Ford guys, but it's the wrong comparison. The 5.3 is just a comfortable engine for guys who want a reliable v8, it's not the performance option. Even the 2.7 turbo outperforms the 5.3 these days in all metrics other than WOT performance.

Did you try the 6.2 with the 10 speed? You get performance, durability (lifter issue notwithstanding, 3.5's have issues too like cam phasers), and that glorious v8 sound. Probably similar MPG unloaded and definitely better MPG towing heavy.

If I could pick and choose components to build my truck: it would be my current ram, with the 6.4 SRT (the one found in the Wagoneer/Challenger, not the 6.4 in the 2500), and the GM 10 speed. Not a fan of stressed out turbos.
Click to expand...

Can you get the 6.4 in a half ton?
 
UncleDave said:
Can you get the 6.4 in a half ton?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately no, and it literally boggles my mind. They stuff that engine in the challenger, the wagoneer, even the Jeep Wrangler which makes literally no sense whatsoever.

But not in the 1500 and likely never as they're getting ready to release the 3.0 inline 6.
 
hemioiler said:
Unfortunately no, and it literally boggles my mind. They stuff that engine in the challenger, the wagoneer, even the Jeep Wrangler which makes literally no sense whatsoever.

But not in the 1500 and likely never as they're getting ready to release the 3.0 inline 6.
Click to expand...
Thats a drag - the 6.4 puts out great power and torque.
Pretty close to 500/500 If I recall which is absolutely PERFECT for a big half ton, a old square body SUV or a modest boat.

I built a dozen or so SB400(6)'s for my own applications and friends. It was what we called a 500/500 mill.
It was great config for guys with old suburbans that towed boats to and from their Arizona houses.

406 dyno chart.jpeg
 
Not surprising. GM HD trucks will still have gasoline/diesel options past 2035. Probably close to 20 years of V8 sales to come.
 
While the performance of the ecoboost is excellent, for my use a simple old school 5.7 Hemi fits the bill for low maintenance and repair cost. 120,000 miles and no engine repairs, just replaced an alternator at 100K miles.
 
E365 said:
Not surprising. GM HD trucks will still have gasoline/diesel options past 2035. Probably close to 20 years of V8 sales to come.
Click to expand...
Probably more than that. The energy density & convenience of hydrocarbons ensure they will be around for a very long time.

How else will the people wrecking everything for the rest of us get to Davos every year?
 
BMWTurboDzl said:
Nope it was smog emissions coupled with gas shortages which killed off the old inefficient iron.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree. First, nothing was "killed off." Only vastly improved. The Chevy 350, GM 3.8L, and dozens of others still live. Just redesigns, stronger and more efficient. It was emissions and gas shortages that chocked these engines that actually CREATED the anemic inefficient engines.

We have more stringent emissions today than any prior time, and fuel is more available, and we're putting out monster V8s and V6s unlike anything commonplace before. So much so I think a reasonable person would agree they are about 2x what is reasonably needed to motivate a typical class of vehicle down the road. I'm not complaining, just pointing it out.

It's purely a progression of decades of tech and innovation to design workarounds from those choking 1970s and beyond standards. Which BTW have the thumb on the scale to hinder ICE in favor of EVs, the latter just moves the pollution from the wealthy neighborhood's tailpipes, to poor city coal plants and slave labor strip mining camps. NIMBY.
 
leadcounsel said:
I respectfully disagree. First, nothing was "killed off." Only vastly improved. The Chevy 350, GM 3.8L, and dozens of others still live. Just redesigns, stronger and more efficient. It was emissions and gas shortages that chocked these engines that actually CREATED the anemic inefficient engines.

We have more stringent emissions today than any prior time, and fuel is more available, and we're putting out monster V8s and V6s unlike anything commonplace before. So much so I think a reasonable person would agree they are about 2x what is reasonably needed to motivate a typical class of vehicle down the road. I'm not complaining, just pointing it out.

It's purely a progression of decades of tech and innovation to design workarounds from those choking 1970s and beyond standards. Which BTW have the thumb on the scale to hinder ICE in favor of EVs, the latter just moves the pollution from the wealthy neighborhood's tailpipes, to poor city coal plants and slave labor strip mining camps. NIMBY.
Click to expand...
The coal miners at Sparwood, BC make over $100K/yr. The rest of your post I agree with. EVs let people feel good about themselves and an instant membership to Club Greta.
Compare the power and fuel effiency of a 1970 350 sbc, 10.25 cr with no emission controles to a 1975 8.5cr 350 with egr and a cat restricting the exhaust flow. The 1975 "smog" engine uncorked fuelled with lpg or cng would run cleaner, last longer and cheaper to operate than in its stock form running on gasoline.
I havea collection of rebuilt LPG SBCs and BBCs collecting dust on my shop floor that outlasted old square body trucks, suburbans and station wagons my kids drove into (or off) the ground.
 
leadcounsel said:
I respectfully disagree. First, nothing was "killed off." Only vastly improved. The Chevy 350, GM 3.8L, and dozens of others still live. Just redesigns, stronger and more efficient. It was emissions and gas shortages that chocked these engines that actually CREATED the anemic inefficient engines.

We have more stringent emissions today than any prior time, and fuel is more available, and we're putting out monster V8s and V6s unlike anything commonplace before. So much so I think a reasonable person would agree they are about 2x what is reasonably needed to motivate a typical class of vehicle down the road. I'm not complaining, just pointing it out.

It's purely a progression of decades of tech and innovation to design workarounds from those choking 1970s and beyond standards. Which BTW have the thumb on the scale to hinder ICE in favor of EVs, the latter just moves the pollution from the wealthy neighborhood's tailpipes, to poor city coal plants and slave labor strip mining camps. NIMBY.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about iron from the 70's.
 
Here’s a quick rundown of the top sellers in the USA. EV’s have a pretty good percentage increase mostly by increases in California. ICE trucks completely dominate in the USA. There’s really little connection between increases in EV sales vs declines in ICE trucks. Sure, the Tesla truck will be popular in Cali, but don’t expect much inroad in 90% of the USA.

5D6CE321-6C7E-4B72-A58F-362125EDA0BE.png
 
Last edited:
userfriendly said:
The coal miners at Sparwood, BC make over $100K/yr. The rest of your post I agree with. EVs let people feel good about themselves and an instant membership to Club Greta.
Compare the power and fuel effiency of a 1970 350 sbc, 10.25 cr with no emission controles to a 1975 8.5cr 350 with egr and a cat restricting the exhaust flow. The 1975 "smog" engine uncorked fuelled with lpg or cng would run cleaner, last longer and cheaper to operate than in its stock form running on gasoline.
I havea collection of rebuilt LPG SBCs and BBCs collecting dust on my shop floor that outlasted old square body trucks, suburbans and station wagons my kids drove into (or off) the ground.
Click to expand...
To be fair, The coal from Sparwood is metallurgical coal exported to Asia for steel making.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
GM: 300 million investment in Flint
2
Replies
36
Views
11K
steve20
T
  • Locked
GM To Invest $540 Million In Mexican Engines Plant
2
Replies
35
Views
13K
LS2JSTS
S
  • Locked
For all of us CORVETTE lovers out there
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
30K
GMBoy
dave1251
  • Locked
Exxon Mobil
Replies
19
Views
13K
MolaKule
T
  • Locked
Ford's EcoBoost Engine Excites Marketer
Replies
11
Views
3K
Steve S
Back
Top