New Chevy Silverado Engines to Use AFM

AFM 5.3L V-8 photo II

Reports are starting to filter out about some of the possible powertrain strategies GM might use for the next-generation Chevy and GMC half-ton pickups, due out next year. 

According to Automotive News, GM engineers are saying they will continue to use the existing (though improved) cylinder-deactivation technology, called Active Fuel Management, currently used on certain V-8 options for the Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra 1500. We think GM is planning other weight-saving measures and advanced technology solutions to help the new half-tons achieve fuel economy improvements, but probably not to the extent we just saw in the 2013 Ram 1500. 

The GM strategy has been pretty clear from the start: come to the U.S. pickup market with smaller, more fuel-efficient midsize pickups for buyers who need the higher gas mileage, while leaving the more mainstream work-duty full-size trucks for bigger loads and towing. Of course, Ram Truck does not have a small pickup anymore, so it made every attempt to make the new 1500 all about fuel savings, hence the HFE model (18/25 mpg city/highway) requires the start/stop engine technology, low-rolling-resistance tires and a bed tonneau cover — all for $29,195. (It should be noted that Ram does offer the 4x2 V-6 with TorqueFlite 8 suspension in regular, quad and crew-cab configurations with 17/25 mpg.)

It will be interesting to see if GM will includes its best fuel-efficiency technology (AFM-plus?) on one specific model or make it all available across the new lineup. But we do know that the current AFM technology has quite a bit of room to allow for both more aggressive and more programmable settings if the GM engineers want to go that direction. Current AFM technology is reported to offer between 7 and 8 percent improvements compared with non-AFM models, but we could envision a selectable driver-controlled button offering both Eco and Highway settings that could change the computer-mapping programs to bias the system to be more aggressive for around-town driving or long-haul cruising. 

AFM 5.3L V-8 II
No doubt Ford will very interested in how truck customers will view the Ram and GM strategies, but it seems to be doing just fine with the continuing EcoBoost success. In fact, by year's end, Ford is likely to surpass its 250,000th F-150-equipped pickup, making the engine the most popular in its pickup truck lineup across the board. And they're getting a premium price for each one of them. 

Are you listening, GM? We hope you have something up your sleeve because just doing the same old thing — even if it's a little bit better or of a higher quality — may not be enough to attract the attention of new-truck buyers. We'll see. 

For more detailed information on how the AFM system works, download this AFM video

 

Comments

Jeff S
maybe the name thru you off, not trying to make this a political debate, but since you brought it up, no i do not agree with any party or do i support any party, this country's problems are only going to get bigger because ALL party's are so far apart, speaking of children, they are our future and need to TAUGHT right from wrong and then someday when they are put in power they can make the right decisions, the problem with this country is the people they all are living for right now, for themselves, and trying to find a way to fill their pockets RIGHT NOW, it seems no one know how to save money or live off the land, the people are all starting to depend on someone making there decisions

GM needs to come out with something that has a "wow" factor. Ford came out with the Raptor and then the ecoboost, Dodge has the HEMI's and SFA's, what the heck does the Silverado have.. plain jane vanilla.

I have had nothing but chevy trucks, still own a 10 year old S10 ZR2 that has been very dependable and never left me stuck on the side of the road. Nothing since then from GM has impressed me to make me want to "upgrade."

GM needs to come out with something good, scratch that.. something great. GM badly judged the interest in the Raptor saying it would only be a niche vehicle, when year after year sales have continued to improve. If that is not a wake up call to put something into production similiar to the GMC All Terrain concept.. well then it is hopeless for GM imo.

Until the next gen Silverado comes out, all we can do is speculate.

Guys,
Is this the most tight lipped GM has ever been about future products? Some of you might now that better than I.
I never paid any attention to that. This truck should be out on dealer lots in about 7-8 months and we know nothing about it.

Pentastar beats a GM Vortec engine any day of the week!!!!!!!!!!!

GUTS
GLORY
MUSCULAR
PENTASTAR

@Josh - Good guess! '08 GMC reg. cab 2WD, 4 spd auto, 3.42 gears, locking diff. vs. Ram 4X4 3/4 ton, should be the 390hp engine. He should have a gearing advantage, also has a cat-back to my stock truck (which I ran with A/C on) . It often comes down to hole shots. If they get a fantastic jump, I run them down, usually at top of 2nd gear I'm walking away; if I get the hole shot they see only tailgate.

@TJ, while not a Ford guy, Ford's engine is not low tech. I'm sorry, if anything it's the exact opposite. It's very high tech. It's also however very big and has quite a few extra goodies to break. To Ford's credit, they've seemed to overengineer those potential failing points. I was at a car show and there was a 90's Crown Vic with an old school blower on a 4.6 mod motor. The first thing out of my friends mouth who was with me and IS a Ford truck owner was "Wow, look at that old Big Block Ford!".. I had to chuckle a bit and then point out it was the same motor under the hood of his 08 F-150. This is what I like about the SBC. It still remains true to the original from 1955 and that means something valuable to me. Keep it simple, keep it compact. I also agree with FT1 on the old 302 Ford's, they were about the only thing to rival the SBC in terms of being simple and compact and that's what made them so popular to this very day. Look at all of the 5.0 magazines and shoot out racing fests with Fox body Mustangs. The aftermarket is Huge for old 302's.. They even revived the 5.0 emblem for the new Mustang because they knew people loved it. As I recall, they were even narrower thus more compact than the SBC. And look at all the love for not only the Gen 1-2 SBC but for the Gen 3-4 SBC (LS- whatever the heck those 2 initials even mean). LS fests and shoot outs are Huge now. The aftermarket for Generations 1-4 (or in reality Generation 1 & it's successor Generation 2 IMO are massive!)

Reverse coolant heads IE: the only thing that really made the Gen1 into a Gen2 and some sensor relocations which is really the only thing that made the Gen3 into a Gen4 do not IMO constitute an all new engine. This is why I say (and most car guys/gear heads included say) there really is only 2 generations of the Small Block Chevrolet. Generation 1 = 1955-1996 (with old stockpiles continued to be used up to 2002 for some vans and early 99 for the GMT400 trucks) and Generation 2 = 1997 to present. I've seen dyno pulls of bone stock junk yard 4.8 and 5.3's of 1200-1500 hp with a simple turbo bolt on. We're talking Stock! And these were repeated dyno pulls with every intention of Trying to blow the engines and they couldn't blow them. Nobody and I mean Nobody can tell me the world needs anything 'More'. Not in terms of power and certainly not in terms of complication. As I said, keep it simple, keep it compact, keep it a SBC. Outside of that if you don't want a V8 just buy a 4 or 6 cylinder. For V8's though, perfection has already IMO been achieved in the Chevrolet Small Block.

As it is per this thread, I'm glad it's the good ol Chevrolet Small Block still bringing people together... There's nothing better. And yes, fix the freaking trucks themselves. I agree the trucks that carry these engines are subpar compared to Ford and Dodge trucks. And yes, no more piston slap for this 5th (or 3rd) generation. It saddens me this issue still even exists. The engine though is an American Icon. I'll also add, you'll never see a Ford engine is a Chevrolet car. There's thousands of Ford cars with Chevrolet engines though... We just need to get our trucks themselves to Ford's level and beyond. For Chevrolet enthusiasts like myself, support ChevroletPerformance! (formerly known as GMPerformance.) I'm glad they're keeping it real now. I never cared for GM itself.

One other thing, Vortec is simply a marketing name for the truck engines, not an engine itself.

Chevy has cylinder deactivation? They must not have marketed the piss out of it like Dodge did, I feel it is not nearly as well known as Dodge's system.

What is the difference between AFM and MDS?

Why does GM even waste their time? ECO Boost is the best thing going and puts the GM small block to shame in performance and durability along with superb fuel economy. I am going to take a page out of the RAM Fanboi's page.

BALLS
BRUTE POWER
RELIABLE
ECO BOOST

@Lou you said that people had more use for a muscel truck like the SS ( a lukewarm response to the SRT 10 and Lightning.)I disagree and i think ford hit the nail on the head with the Raptor (why I own one) Ford sells more of those than Honda sells ridgelines, and while they do take a hit in towing and payload they preform off road. If i want sonething to go fast, that has a good power to weight ratio, handling id get something like a mustang GT, Suburu BRZ or STI, Camaro SS etc. If i recall the SRT 10 has less payload and towing than a raptor. With Many people buying after market parts to accomidate bigger tires the raptor is a bargin when you add all the parts and labor that goes into alot of vehicle lifts.

The preformace pick ups did not sell that well and that is why they where discontinued "SVT Lightnings produced between 1999 and 2004 numbered 28,124" wikipedia in 2010 ford sold 8,614 raptors-PUTC, i dont have the numbers in fornt of me for the 2011 but a few weeks ago PUTC had an article about in increase in sales for the 2012 raptor in just its third year of production, close to the 13,000-unit mark. in three years the raptor has sold more than the lightning did in in a 6 year run. there is a demand for the raptors that will not go away, and i think the demad for sport trucks is dead, the money that it would cost to lower a ram and increase handeling and performance to keep up with a muscel car is astrinomical .

What we know is the Hemi V8 is proven reliable. Has been on Wards 10 best engine list 6 times. Fords eco and 5.0 are new.
Here is the best part.
5.7-liter HEMI® V-8 with Fuel Saver Technology and variable-valve timing (VVT) provides 395 horsepower, 407 lb.-ft. of torque and best-in-class fuel economy for V-8 trucks, beating competitive turbo V-6 engines.
Which would you want. A V6 (Ford Eco) that's worse on gas or a V8 that's better on gas and has more horsepower? I know which one I would buy. The class leading Hemi V8.

@Built with out taxpayers $$$$ --I won't disagree with you on that. Children need to be self sufficient. The verdict is still out on the GM bailout. I have bought both Fords and GMs for the past 18 years that were UAW made and for the most part all have been good. I currently have a Ford Taurus, Chevy S-10, and Isuzu I-370 (made by GM by the UAW). I think it is a sorry state of affairs when we fight over brands yet we cannot see that we are losing more and more manufacturing jobs. We are told to go into the service industry but most of those jobs are low paying and low skill jobs. It does not do any of us any good to have lots of inexpensive goods imported from China when more people are either unemployed or barely making a living.

What you say about children growing up not to know right from wrong is unfortunately true but our society's examples of successful people are overpaid sports players, politicians from both parties that are serving their contributors, CEOs that are more interested in short term profits that increase their bonuses even if it is at the expense of the company and its stockholders, and reality stars such as Snookie on Jersey Shores. It is ultimately up to the parents to take responsibility to combate these negative influences. I am not going to tell anyone what to drive, how to worship, or how to vote nor do I want to have anyone tell me as well. We all make our own choices. We all share the same planet and breathe the same air so we might as well get along and respect each other. The consumer will ultimately determine the success or failure of a product and with the current economic mood and political climate there is not going to be anymore support for bailouts or loans. Bringing up the GM bankrupcy is old news. What is done is done and we should learn from it and move on. GM has been given a new chance to survive and now it is up to them, the rest of us have lost our desire to help them out (that includes me a US citizen and taxpayer who is still gainfully employed).

for the guy who asked about a modern 454, check out gmperformanceparts.com. gen IV V8 454 cubic inches. probably not the same bore and stroke as the original and difinitely not the same block. original was a big block. new one is a gen IV small block V8. just the same cubic inches is good marketing. but the 454 LSX is supposed to be a gen IV at its best N/A. there is also a 376 LSX (6.2) set up for max forced induction.

you know most people don't know what engine families are or where they come from, no insults intended. nissans V8s most likely derive from infinity as toyotas V8s derive from lexus. ford quit its original small and big blocks for the modular engine family. 302 to 4.6, 351 to 5.4, 460 to 6.8. then came the 5.0 which is loosely based on the modular V8 family with substantual upgrades and their new 6.2 which is from what i understand to be a totally different engine family created for trucks. the 6.2 is fords answer to the hemi. very close design except ford didnt want pushrods ever again. they both have 2 plugs per cylinder. now that i think about it the 6.2 is more like the 4.7 dodge in design because of where the 2 plugs per cylinder are as well as they are both SOHC. just saying similar design, not copying anyone. i read in motor trend ford is constantly downsizing motors with ecoboost tech. and if you notice ford only incorporates DI with turbos, never by itself.

chevys motors date back to 1955 when they needed a v8 to put in the corvette and to keep pace with the competition. chevy has small blocks and big blocks which have went out of production. big block v8s always have a distinctive sound compared to small blocks and you will know if you hear one say in a 2500 HD (8.1 compared to 6.0). there are 4 generations of small block and small blocks are definitely still in production with the 5th generation coming out soon. 1st generation is carbeurated, electronic carbeurated, throttle body fuel injection, and tuned port fuel injection (oh yeah mechanical fuel injection on the old corvette fuelies. not sure how it works though. anyone know). 2nd generation is what survived the first automotive apocolyse in when emissions and gas prices arose. these motors are LT1, LT4, L98 (260 cubic inch destroked LT1 in caprices), and the first vortec motors given their name because of their heads with a swirling effect. 5000 (5.0 305ci), 5700 (5.7 350ci). vortec 7.4s and 8.1s are big block and not in the same engine family and 4.3s are a part of the small block family (in gen 1 it was 262ci V6 and throttle body fuel injection vortec. gen 2 4.3s are only vortec and have central multiport fuel injection like the vortec 305 and 350. central multiport has the fuel injectors hidden in the plenum, ever tried to find them on a vortec 5700 lol? but it is more like a spider as the fuel lines separates into 8 on top of the motor and no fuel rails.) all gen 2 small blocks are known for their flat top destributors, 4 points on one side 4 on the other. the points go through the cap to the correct place they would be if the wires were plugged in the top, but you plug the wires in the sides of the cap on gen 2s. gen 2 s are not really hot rodded except mainly for bolt ons as they have limitations that keep parts from being interchangable with gen 1s. most people build a gen 1 and put it where a gen 2 used to be. vortec and LT heads won't fit carbeurated or TBI. generation 3 was chevys 2nd attempt to replace the outdated originals besides semi-modernizing them (gen 2). the 1st attempt was the LT5, not related to any chevy motor at all. it was designed by british sports car company Lotus, built by mercury marine and installed in 1990 to 1995 corvette ZR1s because it was an experiment to see if DOHC was good for the future of chevy like fords modular V8s and europeans (gm took the safe route for years by keeping small blocks and using the northstar use DOHC tech. finally gm decided it wasn't worth the cost and they were better at small blocks so the northstar is dead. again proof that the gen V V8 will be cam in block pushrod.)

gen 3 v8s are 4.8, 5.3, 5.7 (346 LS1/LS6, not gen 1 and 2 350, LT1/LT4 and definitely not 348 LT5 oddball!), and 6.0. trucks are vortec, cars are LS. most of these motors are mid to high rpm strong compared to previous gens. they have no distributor, just coil near plug (see picture above). iron block aluminum heads for trucks (maybe iron heads for some?) aluminum block and heads for most cars. anything up to 5.7 is interchangable. after that (6.0) you have to modify your 4.8,5.3,5.7 to adapt 6.0 parts. gen 4 is basically the same thing a gen 3 except 3 major things; relocation of cam sensor from back to front, VVT (i have heard this is called cam in cam by some and always thought it to work by havin play in the cam sprocket at the end of the cam where the timing chain is to achieve low end torque and high end hp), and AFM which uses solenoids and oil pressure to close up 4 valves so there is no drag on the motor when the computer cuts fuel to those 4 cylinders (every other cylinder in number or firing sequence?). gen 4s are 4.8, 5.3 (no 5.7), 6.0, 6.2, 7.0. these are the second most agravtiing chevy motors to hot rod (gen 2 being the worst) because you have to buy new pushrods if you have AFM and you have to buy a new cam if you have VVT. all of this if you want carbeurated with engine controller for the coil near plug. or you have a lot of money and can get AFM and VVT to work in your hot rod. or you can stay fuel injected by buying engine controller for fuel injection and coil near plug but get rid of the afm and vvt. comp cams does make high performance vvt cams now, but the affects are not as phenomenal. gen V is what we are waiting for now. it will have afm and vvt (don't know why this article questioned that!), direct injection (turbos?) corvettes get 7 speed manuals (yes 7 Like porsche) a new combustion sequence (don't know what chevy means by that yet new firing order maybe?) aluminum block and heads across the board. this may also be the last real small block V8 chevy fans think about it, it can't get any better without going DOHC.

Jeff S
well said

and now to chrysler, the company after my own heart lol. i used to be the biggest chevy fan as you can tell but realized it ain't all its made out to be. chrysler has 4 different V8 familys. small block (first A series, later redone and lightened to become LA series - light a series), big block (B series later to become RB series - raised block), hemi (known by its head configuration not by size. there were also polyspherical heads alongside hemispherical heads.), and the crappy 4.7 which i am not a fan of which is rumored to have been tech started by amc when chrysler took over (amc had their own v8s as well but don't think they are considered chrysler. LAs and RBs are hot rodders favorites, besides the hemis. LAs include 273,318,340,360. RBs include 383,426 (max wedge not hemi!),440,and maybe a couple more. hemis come in 3 generations first from the 50s second from the 60s (426 made famous) and the modern hemi. like the gen 3 and 4 chevys there is a revised gen 3 hemi so i designate the first 5.7 and 6.1 gen III A and the revised gen 3 second 5.7 and 6.4 gen III B. gen III As have MDS incorporated in the block (but not all have it installed such as the 6.1 for instance) and thats it. gen III Bs have MDS, VVT, AIM (active intake manifold), Fuel Decel and Start/Stop are coming all incorporated into the motor. but not all 5.7s and 6.4s get all this. a 6.2 supercharged is rumored (turbos would be better but have you seen how the manifolds are on a hemi?). all gen III hemis have 2 plugs per cylinder and iron block aluminum heads (aluminum blocks are rumored). the reason i prefer the hemi over a gen 3 or 4 chevy is because they never get under 330 hp and just about every chevy i get into at work has the service engine light on (no kidding or brand bashing i got into a 2011 with the service engine light already on!) hemis have no mass air flow sensor and the hemi has less parts than a chevy as well. they are both cam in block but hemis have unique heads. i know hemis dont have true hemispherical heads and pistons anymore but you can't have a 104 octane fire breathing race motor on the highway for a daily driver. however it still incoporates the signature valvetrain. raised cam, lifters that lay flat, shorter and thicker pushrods, roller rockers or rocker shafts for some, that look like DOHC cams almost. imagine 2 shafts divided into sections. each section has 2 hooks on them one at each end. one hook is attached to the the pushrod and when the pushrod pushes it the rocker shaft twists and makes the hook at the other end push the valve spring down. the 2 plugs per cylinder are where the valves are in a small block chevy or any other wedge head (old school small block by chevy, ford, or chrysler) and the valves are side ways like OHC motors. all of this is why a modern hemi is still a hemi and most guys think it is not because of the lack of domed pistons and completely hemispherical heads. but if it was a true hemi no one would want it because it would run poor on cheap gas and have horrible emissions and mpgs. it would never make it to production. but the valvetrain is pure signature chrysler hemi. you simply cant have a hemi in a cam in block V8 without the unique valve train. yes you can have a hemi OHC and no chrysler definitely did not create the tech, but they made it famous on a cam in block V8. the benefit of the hemi is low end torque of cam in block, simplicity of a cam in block, but high performance of OHC because the valves are sideways and are cross flow not reverse flow. and just to mention i love cam in block and if you ever change the oil in a ford 4.6 or 5.4 that doesnt use synthetic oil (which coates or lines the insides of the motor) you will hear how long it takes for the oil to circulate through the motor because of the long ass timing chain that has to dip down into the oil pan and bring it all the way back up. imo because OHC has more parts synthetic is definitly a must, but all this is just my opinion. the biggest downside to cam in block is that they rev slower. i would also say that DOHC produces hp more easily but cam in block produces more max hp. in nascar and drag racing there has to be a reason they still use cam in block. and the reason a hemi design is used in top fuel is because it is a positive compromise between both. flow of OHC but simplicity of cam in block. this is why hemis put out more power than a comparable chevy small block and not criticized as bad as the chevy. but what will become of the cam in block hemi and chevy small blocks in the future as they are the living dead so to speak.

I have AFM on a '11 Yukon. Completely seemless, and the vehicle gets better than 20 m.p.g. consistantly. The best I ever got out of my old 5.7L Tahoe was 17.

lol i talk a lot. and i did not copy and paste any of this. i read or learned it all. when it comes down to it the 3 leanest motors on the market to me are ford 5.0, chrysler hemi 5.7, and toyota i-force 5.7. nissans v8 is behind on hp. chevys 6.2 is competitive but i feel it is behind because of the peaky power band (which is contradictory to cam in block), it runs on 93 to achieve the 400 hp and 2 5.7s are right behind it in hp and almost the same in torque, which you feel first. fords 6.2 is big and the 5.0 has the same potential with less size. fords 3.5 is the leanest truck motor yet, but not a v8 and not what i am in to. i like v8s but hate the sterotypical big motor not enough power bad gas mileage thing. i love to see a good v8 defy the odds. 5.0,5.7hemi,5.7i-force

LOL5.3: how can you compare a MB V-8 engine that cost over 45K to a GM LS engine that you can buy for under 8K? the MB SLK AMG that the 5.5 in the link cost over 90K! and you can get a 5.3 in a truck for as little as 22K, I see no comparison at all, the only thing they have in common is they ar both a V-8. Josh::: a little history on the Mopar 4.7 engine, it is a 3gen removed Mercedes Benz engine design! past over to Chrysler when Chrysler was perchased by Merc/Benz

Posted by: Michigan Bob - August 27,2012 7:14:31 AM

"You hit the nail RIGHT ON THE HEAD MaXx. These days the RAM/Fiat clowns are thinking like the Ford fanbois are. As long as THEY think it looks good or it is the "best seller", it does not need to change. Even if another manufacturer has something good going with a product they call it outdated, crap, etc. It looks as though they have fried what brain cells they had left on the Ford and Fiat flavored Kool Aid."

@Michigan Bob - Who's drinking who's Kool Aid???

I don't necessarily have a problem with push rods, but they require bigger engines to make up for pathetic power levels per cubic inch. The 6.2 should be the base V8 and a resurrected 8.1, the upgrade. There's no same in that. These engines are light weight and compact for their displacement, so who really cares? It just looks bad, is all. They would actually sip fuel because you would barely touch the gas pedal. That plus the use of AFM etc.

GM is also running the wrong rear end ratios for such low power levels. These gears are more economical, in theory, but when combined with weak engines, you end up having to floor it all the time.

It's backwards thinking. GM continues to neglects their #1 best sellers AND money makers while bragging about being on the forefront of cutting edge technology on their #1 and #2 loss leaders, the Volt and Corvette.

GM Death Watch part what?

@ sandman i thought that too until i read somewhere it was a design amc was working on and chrysler took over development and eventually finished it. of course you could be right, not ruling that out because it sounds appropriate. i think i read what i read on allpar but can't be sure. i know the code name was corsair. i also know it was scary when they came out with that to replace the 5.2 and made wonder if the days of mopar were officially over. thank god the hemi replaced the 5.9!

Jeff S. No problem. My feelings were not hurt.

And for everyone else, if anyone remembers the Cadillac HT 8-6-4 you would readily recognize that AFM descended from that exercise in futility.

The only difference is that instead of 8-6-4 it is now 8-4. And you sure do miss the "6" portion unless you're coasting down hill.

It's also nice to have some fans tell us that the current system is seamless. That was far from the case with the 8-6-4, and even the Chrysler systems were not seamless.

My son owned a 300 with the V8 and coming down the mountain near Lake Tahoe, with me as a passenger, it transitioned badly when he partially pressed the gas pedal. It shook, it shuddered, it was far from smooth, but a person could live with it. It felt like a big wet dog shaking itself.

To me the bottom line seems to be that if you have to worry about mpg and fuel economy, you really should not buy a truck -- any truck! No truck is an econobox. A truck is a utility vehicle.

There's always going to be trade-offs. And watcha gonna do when your AFM decides to go on strike in the middle of nowhere?

The more you immerse yourself in electronic gadgetry, the more you're just begging for trouble. The fancier things get, the more things to go wrong.

And they do go wrong. Happens all the time.

My point: buy the truck you really, really want, that suits your needs. If that is a full-size half-ton, try to keep it as simple as possible without any gadgetry and mimicry. My recommendation would be a standard V8. A normally aspirated V6 for those who rarely tow or haul may also work.

But a truck is a truck is a truck and will always be a truck. And in my book there is no replacement for displacement.

has any one with DOD/AFM or MDS besides me ever changed out the muffler? lol! sounds like a honda then a hemi! i put true dual exhaust with an x-pipe and 2 thrush glasspacks 18in long 2.25 diameter piping. kind of rude sounding with gurgles and but no popping (i think the x pipe solved that). when i am cruising down the road it sounds horrible! but it isn't too loud just 4 cylinderish. u know mds on gen III A hemis isn't supposed to work over 70 mph but i can get mine to work a 90mph! i am not sure if the dual exhaust, k@n air filter, royal purple/k@n combo, and the fact that someone before me swapped the 20inchers for 17inchers off another truck contributes to this. i have the 3.92 rear end, 265/70-17 cheap general grabber stx tires that are supposed to be less rolling resistance and our interstate highways get flat towards the coast down here. maybe all this helps it cruise easier. idk if it was true or not but one time my trip computer in the ceiling/roof said i was averaging 18.6 mpg. my truck is epa rated for 17mpg highway!

@rr7mc gm could possibly do 4 valves per cylinder with cam in block pushrod. just look at a duramax. or a powerstroke. or a cummins.

can someone explain "reverse flow cooling" on gen 2 small block chevys to me?

Josh,
I think here is why your Hemi sounds "4 cylinderish" now after your mods.
Quote:
"In order to preserve the characteristic rumble of the V8 engines, Chrysler and Eberspaecher North America designed a special exhaust system for MDS-equipped vehicles. This includes four separate mufflers, two large central ones for V8 mode and two smaller ones near the tailpipes for four-cylinder mode".

its only 4 cylinderish when cruising in mds. when i get on it is sounds like a mufflerless corvette.

I don't even care for a V8 unless its a diesel. I want to see a 1500 with a 4.5L V8 Duramax and the 3.0L V6 motori. That would offer the mpg increase needed and keep the towing capacitys of a full size truck.

I think becuase you're missing the last 2 mufflers that were designed to make the trucks sound V8-ish in 4 cylinder mode.

@latwoods

I made mistake..I meant 3.5 V6 Ecoboost....but dont drink the koolaide about turbos not having problems....I have owned class 8 trucks....sure the are more realiable because they mostly run all the time...but in everyday work mode like most pickups are used...turbos and all the complicated hardware to run them...do give trouble....6.0 Ford Diesel is one...also Ecoboost in F150s is already give problems..just Google it....and the Ford V6 in Ecoboost form is not much better on fuel and horsepower that would make me be a ginny pig for this ...I would pay extra for the 5.0 V8....PS I on a business that depends on trucks..vans F 700, F 150s....when they age..the simplier the better..

@Lou,
The Holden Ute does already have AFM on the 6.2 V8. They are looking at offering Supercharged versions as well.

http://www.caradvice.com.au/99182/hsv-maloo-r8-review/

http://www.caradvice.com.au/50810/holden-commodore-ss-ute-review-road-test/

The Ford FPV Ute gets the Supercharged 5 Litre Modular V8.
http://www.caradvice.com.au/185969/fpv-gt-rspec-fastest-ever-falcon-launches/

Since GM bailout has been hashed and rehashed on all the comments on this website and the US manufactured trucks are the best in the World I thought I would include a link about the Chicken Tax and its origins which @Big Al from Oz is always talking about and how our truck market is artificially protected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

Some excerpts

U.S. intensive chicken farming led to the 1961–1964 "Chicken War" with Europe.
The chicken tax was a 25% tariff on potato starch, dextrin, brandy, and light trucks imposed in 1963 by the United States under President Lyndon B. Johnson as a response to tariffs placed by France and West Germany on importation of U.S. chicken.[1] The period from 1961–1964[2] of tensions and negotiations surrounding the issue, which took place at the height of Cold War politics, was known as the "Chicken War".[3]

Eventually, the tariffs on potato starch, dextrin, and brandy were lifted,[4] but over the next 48 years the light truck tax ossified, remaining in place to protect U.S. domestic automakers from foreign light truck production (e.g., from Japan and Thailand).[5] Though concern remains about its repeal,[6][7] a 2003 Cato Institute study called the tariff "a policy in search of a rationale."[4]

As an unintended consequence, several importers of light trucks have circumvented the tariff via loopholes—including Ford (ostensibly a company the tax was designed to protect), which currently imports the Transit Connect light trucks as "passenger vehicles" to the U.S. from Turkey, and immediately strips and shreds portions of their interiors in a warehouse outside Baltimore.[1]

Largely because of post-World War II intensive chicken farming and accompanying price reductions, chicken, once internationally synonymous with luxury, became a staple food in the U.S.[9] Prior to the early 1960s, not only had chicken remained prohibitively expensive in Europe, it had remained a delicacy.[10] With imports of inexpensive chicken from the U.S., chicken prices fell quickly and sharply across Europe, radically affecting European chicken consumption.[10] In 1961, per capita chicken consumption rose 23% in West Germany.[10] U.S. chicken overtook nearly half of the imported European chicken market.[10]

Subsequently, the Dutch accused the U.S. of dumping chickens at prices below cost of production.[10] The French government banned U.S. chicken and raised concerns that hormones could affect male virility.[10] German farmers' associations accused U.S. poultrymen of artificially fattening chicken with arsenic.[10] In fact, U.S. chicken farmers, with Food and Drug Administration approval, had treated chicken feed with antimony, arsenic compounds, or estrogen hormones to stimulate growth.[10]

Coming on the heels of a "crisis in trade relations between the U.S. and the Common Market,"[10] Europe moved ahead with tariffs, intending that they would encourage Europe's post-war agricultural self-sufficiency.[11] European markets began setting chicken price controls.[10] France introduced the higher tariff first, persuading West Germany to join them—even while the French hoped to win a larger share of the profitable German chicken market after excluding U.S. chicken.[3] Europe adopted the Common Agricultural Policy, imposing minimum import prices on all imported chicken and nullifying prior tariff bindings and concessions.

Beginning in 1962, the U.S. had accused Europe's Common Market of unfairly restricting imports of American poultry. By August 1962, U.S. exporters had lost 25% of their European chicken sales.[10] Losses to the U.S. poultry industry were estimated at $26–28 million[3] (over $1.8 billion in 2007 U.S. dollars).

Senator J. William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Democratic Senator from Arkansas, a chief U.S. poultry-producing state, interrupted a NATO debate on nuclear armament to protest trade sanctions on U.S. chicken,[3] going so far as to threaten cutting U.S. troops in NATO. Konrad Adenauer later reported that he and President John F. Kennedy had a great deal of correspondence over a period of two years, about Berlin, Laos, the Bay of Pigs Invasion, "and I guess that about half of it has been about chickens."[3][10]

U.S. sales of Volkswagen Type 2 vans in pickup and commercial configurations were curtailed by the Chicken Tax.
Diplomacy failed after 18 months,[4][12] and on December 4, 1963[13], two weeks after taking office, President Johnson imposed a 25 percent tax (almost 10 times the average U.S. tariff)[4] on potato starch, dextrin, brandy, and light trucks.[4]

With Johnson's Proclamation no. 3564,[4] the U.S. had invoked its right under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT),[11] whereby an offended nation may increase tariffs by an equal amount to losses from discriminating tariffs. Officially, the tax targeted items imported from Europe approximating the value of lost American chicken sales to Europe.[14]

In retrospect, audio tapes from the Johnson White House, revealed a quid pro quo unrelated to chicken. In January 1964, President Johnson attempted to convince United Auto Workers' president Walter Reuther not to initiate a strike just prior the 1964 election and to support the president's civil rights platform. Reuther in turn wanted Johnson to respond to Volkswagen's increased shipments to the United States.[14]

The chicken tax directly curtailed importation of German-built Volkswagen vans in configurations that qualified them as light trucks—that is, commercial vans and pickups.[14]

In 1964 U.S. imports of "automobile trucks" from West Germany declined to a value of $5.7 million—about one-third the value imported in the previous year. Soon after, Volkswagen cargo vans and pickup trucks, the intended targets, "practically disappeared from the U.S. market."[4]

Chevrolet LUV: imported from 1978–1987 in chassis-cab configuration (less truck bed) to circumvent the Chicken Tax

U.S. bound Ford Transit Connect: pieces of its interior are shredded to circumvent the Chicken Tax

The tariff directly affected any country (such as Japan) seeking to bring light trucks into the U.S. and effectively "squeezed smaller Asian truck companies out of the American pickup market."[15] Over the intervening years, Detroit lobbied to protect the light-truck tariff, [14] thereby reducing pressure on Detroit to introduce vehicles that polluted less and that offered increased fuel economy.[14]

As of November 2010, the 1964 tariff of 25% still affects importation of light trucks. Robert Z. Lawrence, professor of International Trade and Investment at Harvard University, contends the chicken tax crippled the U.S. automobile industry by insulating it from real competition in light trucks for 40 years.[16]
Initially, Japanese manufacturers found they could export "cab-chassis" configurations (which included the entire light truck, less the cargo box or truck bed) with only a 4% tariff.[4] Subsequently, a truck bed would be attached to the chassis in the United States and the vehicle could be sold as a light truck. Examples included the Chevrolet LUV and Ford Courier. The "cab-chassis" loophole was closed in 1980.[4] From 1978–1987, the Subaru Brat carried two detachable rear-facing seats (with seatbelts and carpeting) in its rear bed, to meet classification as a "passenger vehicle" and not a light truck.

In 1989, the U.S. Customs changed vehicle classifications, automatically relegating two-door SUVs to light truck status.[4] Eventually, in response to the tariff, Toyota Motor Corp., Nissan Motor Co., Suzuki (through a joint venture with GM), and Honda Motor Co. built assembly plants in the U.S. and Canada.[1]

From 2001 to 2006, cargo van versions of the Mercedes and Dodge Sprinter were manufactured in Düsseldorf, Germany, partially disassembled and shipped to a facility in Gaffney, South Carolina, where they were reassembled.[17] The cargo versions would have been subject to the tax if imported as complete units, thus the disassembly and subsequent reassembly.[18]

Ford currently imports all of its Transit Connect models as passenger vehicles by including specific items, e.g., rear windows, rear seats and rear seatbelts.[1] The vehicles are exported from Turkey on cargo ships owned by Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics (WWL), arrive in Baltimore, and are converted back into light trucks at WWL's Vehicle Services Americas Inc. facility by replacing rear windows with metal panels and removing the rear seats and seatbelts.[1] The removed parts are not shipped back to Turkey for reuse, but shredded and recycled in Ohio.[1] The process exploits the loophole in the customs definition of a light truck: as cargo does not need seats with seat belts or rear windows, presence of those items automatically qualifies the vehicle as a passenger vehicle and exempts the vehicle from light truck status. The process costs Ford hundreds of dollars per van, but saves thousands in taxes.[1]

In 2009, Mahindra & Mahindra Limited announced it will export pickup trucks from India in complete knock-down (CKD) kit form, again to circumvent the chicken tax.[5] CKDs are complete vehicles that can be assembled in the U.S. from kits of parts shipped in crates.[5][19] The export plans were later cancelled.

Light trucks manufactured in Mexico and Canada such as the Ram series of trucks manufactured in Saltillo, Mexico are not subjected to the chicken tax despite being totally manufactured in Mexico. This is due to the North American Free Trade Agreement


I thought I would include a history lesson for those that say we have a free market and that our trucks are competitive against anything else in the World. This protectionism is not too much different than a government bailout because we as a supposed free market are not playing a fair game when it comes to our trucks and how can we honestly point a finger at other countries and accuse them of protectionism when we do it ourselves. Let's be honest. I am just presenting the facts.


@sandman4X
I am not trying to compare any engine I was just wanting to know what the 5.7L iforce would be like if it had start/stop and AFM. The only reason mentioned the M152 engine was the fact that it is a 32 valve DOHC like the 5.7L iforce and I wondering what it would be like if it had D4 or D4-S direct injection, start/stop and AFM. The other thing I wanted to know is what is the difference between AFM and MDS are they the same thing or is the result the same (cylinder deactivation) but they do it differently?

@Highdesertcat--By today's standards my 99 S-10 extended cab 2.2 4cylinder 5 speed is pretty basic except maybe the power steering, power brakes, and air (but all those items are standard on econboxes). As for mechanics it is extremely reliable. It even has a steel timing chain. The body hardware and interior hardware are subpar with a few pieces being replaced but it is very solid. I remember the 4-6-8 Cadillac V-8s in 1979. One of the oil executive's cars at the oil company I worked for in Houston had a 80 Seville which was always having problems with the activation of the cylinders. I thought 33 years later they might have perfected it but from what you are saying it appears not. The other executive had a Vette which I would have rather had. As all cars get more and more features it is getting harder and harder to find a totally reliable vehicle. Just wait till our cars and trucks drive themselves. When they get that they will have to have a warning label not to text when auto pilot is engaged.

You should have seen my granddad's 63 International 1000 stepside with staight 6 cylinder, 1 barrel Holley carb, manual choke, oil bath filter, and three on the tree. You could not kill that truck and it was easy to work on. Big mistake selling Old Blue 17 years ago it hardly had any rust and it was all original with 58k original miles. That was a real truck.

@Charles Google any engine you want. Hemi, Vortec, Ecoboost. They're all on there with problems so whats your point??

I must say I am surprised. I went to PUTC and a discussion about trucks broke out.
@Josh - thanks for your information.
The Ford 6.2 SOHC has always been a bit of a puzzle to me. An engine without a real home or clearly defined product purpose. I've always believed that it was going to be an engine for medium duty and HD pickups and Ford put it into LD's as a plan B for the EB 3.5. I was puzzled by the recent story where Ford put the V10 in its medium duties. Isn't that what the 6.2 was made for? I thought that the 6.2 was a small block engine but I do recall someone saying that the bore spacing makes it a true "big" block.

I think that even Ford has been suprised by the take rate on the EB 3.5.
Ford still seems to have a love for the modular family of engines because the 6.2 shares many similarities with that line. Even the new 5.0 seems to carry some of that DNA.
I grew up with FE engines. It seems that most experts refer to that line as a "mid" block or mid-sized engine line in between big blocks and small blocks. I did not recall anyone "back in the day" refer to them as "mid" blocks. We always called them big blocks and the Windsor line were the small blocks. I don't recall anyone refering to the 260 or 289 as Windsors even though some sources I've read lump all of those engines under that name. The 351 Cleveland was a different animal that IIRC morphed into the 351M and 400M. A lot of guys feel that the small block Ford lost a lot of its soul when it transitioned from 302 to 5.0. It may of been related more to the emmisions systems that killed engine performance and MPG in the 70's and into the early 80's.

@Jeff S - I do remember reading a similar story in relation to the Chicken Tax. It does make me wonder how things would of evolved without that tax. I suspect that we would of seen the automotive crisis of 2008 occur in the 70's with the oil embargo, emissions, poor vehicle quality and the burgeoning Japanese auto industry.
The story mentioned NAFTA as responsible for Mexico and Canada being chicken tax exempt. NAFTA came into effect Jan.1, 1999 but Canada and the USA had what was called the "Auto Pact" signed in 1965. That allowed Canadian cars/trucks to enter the USA as USA products. I believe that also covered parts.

@Robert Ryan - I'd like to see the Holden utes find there way here.

@Carilloskis - I do think that a street oriented "muscle truck" would serve Chevy well as a "halo" vehicle. One big negative for trucks like the SRT10 was the abysmal fuel economy. The Ford Lightning seemed to have its share of quirks as well.
A well tuned "muscle truck" that could function as a LD 1/2 ton with decent mpg probably would be a decent seller. If one looks at the Raptor it does have reduced cargo capacity and towing capacity. The RamRunner probably would have almost zero cargo capacity and probably zero towing ability.
Look at the Holden Commodore utes or the Ford Falcon utes. I am sure that Robert and Big Al can post some stats on those vehicles. They can tow and haul decent loads and still haul ass. No reason why a current NA 1/2 ton couldn't be tweeked for similar performance with a minimal loss of capacity.

The Raptor has enjoyed great sales but that doesn't mean that people are buying them for offroad ability. Most of the ones I've seen, just like most of the Power Wagon's I've seen fall into the "look at me" product category. Their offroad capabilities are wasted on the "mall crawler" crowd. Before I set off a maelstrom of replies, one could argue that the capabilities of most full sized trucks are under-utilized by their owners therefore making them "mall-crawlers as well. I do not begrudge anyone's purchace choice as the one behind the wheel is ultimately the only one that needs to be happy with that purchase.

Here are two performance trucks. http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2012/07/world-exclusive-2013-ram-1500-rt-exposed.html

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/11/sema-video-ram-quicksilver-concept.html

You can also get an Ram Express for 23,000. Add super charger
etc...

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/04/ram-formally-names-adventurer-sport-truck-the-ram-1500-express.html

Ram has the sport truck market covered.

AFM if properly programmed, ought to be able to idle on 2-4 cylinders, instead as it is in its current form, it idles on all 8.

Had a Ford 5.4 with SOHC and changing spark plugs was major surgery, much to remove to get access, and were in a well accumulating a lot of dust/dirt that could fall into the cylinder and ruin. Be nice if plugs would go to 200K.

Beauty of a small block is that I can get to everything and do maintenance easily my self. Not what dealers necessarily want these days. Since they got rid of the fan blets front of the engine is really accessible.

I will just wait and see what the new GM trucks have to offer. All this guess work is just nonsense.

@Lou

The 6.2L definitely has a purpose. It's Fords competitor for when Ram brings out their HD 6.4L and GM brings out their new HD 6.2+L engine. The Boss engine platform was designed with future growth in mind.

Once the competitors surpass Ford's 6.2L with their new HD trucks, we'll see more changes to that engine. The gap between it and the 5.0L/3.5L will grow further.

I have no doubt it will end up replacing the 6.8L V10 as well, even in the F650. However, it will definitely be with a greater displacement (and possibly even a taller deck height for a greater stroke with more torque). The reason you didn't see that version right away is because it costs a lot for testing and certifying a new engine. Better to use the already paid for V10 as long as possible than to have to release another new engine. Especially in the F450/F550/F650 trucks, which sell in very low volume compared to the F250/F350.

@Paul810 - you are correct that the 6.2 is designed for room to grow. It has a 15 mm wider spacing than the modular engines. SOHC heads can easily be swapped out for DOHC without an expensive block redesign. The rest of Ford's engine lineup is at the beginning of their development cycles and therefore can be improved or modded to match or beat the competition.
I believe that Ford has played their cards well. The competition has taken aim at Ford but that target isn't going to stay still.
I'm just saying that in Ford's current lineup of 1/2 tons there isn't any clearly defined need for it.
As Josh pointed out earlier, we are seeing 5.0's from Ford with 444 hp and the aftermarket claims that 500 hp is easy to obtain. The 5.0 could easily replace the 6.2 in 1/2 ton applications. Guys who like the sound of a V8 could get a SVT 5.0 and others could get a 3.5 EB in SVT trim. We are already seeing guys pining for the EB 3.5 in the Raptor.

@HemiV8 - one of those trucks you mentioned is a concept. The other 2 "sport" stock engines. That doesn't really count as a sport truck just like the Harley F150 doesn't really count as a sport truck. If the 6.4 was found under the hood then that would count as a sport truck or "muscle" truck as long as Chrysler doesn't stick that engine in everything else. Muscle/sport trucks are supposed to be above and beyond what is available. A 6.2 Ford and a 5.7 Ram engine are commonly available in other models. There are enough badge engineered performance vehicles out their without adding a few more to the pile.

@ Josh Its good to see there are some normal Chrysler gear heads on this site other than me. If you want to prevent the MDS from coming on, just press the tow/hual button. Or if you have a 09 or newer 1500 just press the tap shift button and select "5". This will also prevent the MDS from coming on.

@ everyone else who thinks that MDS is trouble some. The best thing for these systems is good clean proper weight engine oil. Same goes for variable vavle timing. The oil galleries are small and if you're lazy with your oil changes you'll have problems.

Josh::: all you need to do is pop the hood on any v-8 benz from the 90's and take agood look at the valve covers, they look allmost interchangable with the Dodge 4.7! and the cam chains are in the same place the bore is diff. because the MB engine was 4.5, but I was told this by a engineer that wirks for Chrysler, but you can see the simularities between the 2. There are some diff. thou. like the benz has mechanical F.I. the Chrsler E.F.I. and the Benz was all alum.

I really appreciate what you'v posted here. I will recommend it to my friends. Thank you for sharing.

@Lou

Why did they put it in the 1/2 ton? Probably because GM has a 6.2L in their half-ton and if Ford didn't offer one too they would hear all about it from both GM guys and from the no-replacement-for-displacement folks.

I'm sure that's the main reason, but there is one little thing the 6.2L can do now that the 3.7l/5.0L/3.5L ecoboost can't do. For 2013 the 6.2L in the F150 is available with a plowing package, which isn't available with the other engines. Not a huge selling point, but if you want a factory supported plow package in an F150 it's the only way to go.

The Raptor has enjoyed great sales but that doesn't mean that people are buying them for offroad ability. Most of the ones I've seen, just like most of the Power Wagon's I've seen fall into the "look at me" product category. Their offroad capabilities are wasted on the "mall crawler" crowd.

@Lou, I agree with you 100%... Mall Crawlers are still big bucks though and is that not the name of the game? My issue is that those "Mall Crawlers" while generally only talk the talk, can Also walk the walk when put to the test. That's when everything get's an A-OK by me.. The Raptor, RamRunner, Super Duty and Power Wagon get it done in the dirt and off road.. Money is money man. Most ZR1 Corvette's are only taken out on sunny days and hand polished on Saturday's. They aren't being raced every Saturday at some track only to get scratched up.. For the company, for the shareholders and for simply just giving your loyal customer what they want, companies like Ford and Dodge are doing everything right. I can see as clear as day why the Chevrolet crowd feel so dumped on by GM. They got the money and want to spend it, Take It fools! I laughed at those Howie commercials on Chevy trucks bragging about how Chevrolet only gives you the bare basics. Hey Howie, listen up moron, guys drop 50-120 grand on Chevrolet Corvette's, guys drop well over 50 grand on Chevrolet Tahoe's, Barret Jackson and Mecum auto auctions bring in more money on Chevrolet's than almost anything else out there in existence.. Is this really money you idiots want to throw away? Are these really the loyal Chevrolet customers you just want to walk right out your door down to the Ford or Dodge dealer?? Is this (Chevrolet) really the brand you want to devalue just to hang onto a few GMC or Buick buyers? I heard the new Impala won't even have AWD as an Option like the Ford Taurus gives you for heaven's sake. WTF is up with that??

Ford and now Dodge have proven time after time that people will spend big bucks on trucks with high end interior packages and serious off road capabilities. Everyday, all day long. If you offer cheap basics, you earn cheap basic money and by default make your nameplate look like something from K-Mart only devaluing your entire brand from the cheapest product 'A' (Spark,Sonic,Cruze,Malibu) to the most expensive product (Corvette,Silverado,Camaro,Impala,Tahoe) 'Z'. GM is full of fools and run by fools. Like many, I don't care for GM any longer either... They simply don't grasp the power of Chevrolet and given they took my tax money to save themselves, it really torks me off. Chevrolet rocks. Or at least the old ones did. GM though blows. Ackerson and Reuss are driving Chevrolet into it's eternal grave. Given this thread is originally a SBC thread, I stand by my earlier statement. Give me a Chevrolet powered Ford truck and it would be the best truck in the world. Screw GM and Screw GMC. Long live Chevrolet and Long live Ford. Maybe Dodge too.. Though I'm not a Mopar kind of guy.

@Paul810 - you raise some valid points. I can see why Ford did what they did. They feel that they are filling a void in their line up. It is almost as if they have decided to "over-compensate" for all those years of just getting by with the modular V8.

What is the configuration for the plow package? Would that be available in any truck? I can see the hot rod guys drooling over the thought of a 6.2 in a reg cab short box;)



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2017 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us