Breaking News: 21 MPG for GM's 6.2L V-8 Option

High Country 1 II

GM has received fuel-economy ratings for the redesigned 2014 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500 pickups with the optional EcoTec3 6.2-liter V-8, we learned this morning at a breakfast meeting of the Midwest Automotive Media Association in the Chicago area.

The range-topping engine, which makes a class-leading 420 horsepower and 460 pounds-feet of torque, will also get 15/21/17 mpg city/highway/combined in 2WD configuration and 14/20/17 mpg in 4WD configuration when the EPA makes its announcements about rating certification later today.

We found the EcoTec3 5.3-liter V-8 to get exceptional fuel economy during our 2013 Light-Duty Challenge so it makes sense the bigger brother would get impressive numbers as well. Also, find out how we liked the new 6.2-liter V-8 during our drive of the 2014 Silverado 1500 High Country with the optional big V-8 under the hood. 

To read the most recently updated press release, click here

EcoTec3 6.2L V-8 II

 

Comments

This is worthless to me. I never buy the top trim level so it is of no value to me. Ford and Ram offer their top engines in about all configurations.

Ah, but the 4x4 only gets 14/20 MPG and will probably require premium fuel.

6.2:
420 hp @ 5,600 RPMs
460 TQ @ 4,100 RPMs
Even with the 3.73 rear end that comes with the max tow package, this engine will be running ~5,000 RPMs when towing anything near the max capacity (~12,000 pounds, which is higher than my GMT-800 2500HD with the 6,0 and 4.10 gears) up a hill in 2nd gear.

For the majority of people that buy trucks and do not tow, this should be a pretty quick truck for those that do stoplight to stoplight races.

What did you expect, GM has been kicking ass over and over.

Food for thought: GM restricted the prior 6.2L to the highest trim levels only on the last gen trucks. After 3-4 years it was available on the LS/SLE LT/SLT levels. I wouldn't be surprised if this new gen follows suit. The 8speed transmissions are likely to come in 2 years, just like before, and at that point this new motor could be available in more trim levels.

I just might have to put this one on my shopping list. It is certainly worth a hard look.

Not bad mpg at all for a 6.2L. I would like to see what it gets at Texas 75 mph highway speed instead of the 60mph that the EPA tests the highway mpg at. I have a feeling that once that truck gets into the 70 mph range, the cylinder deactivation will not kick in nearly as much as 60 mph and will make a big difference in mpg. I guess we will see as they roll out and more people are getting real world mileage.

Hopefully, the consumption problem has been solved so it doens't offset any savings in fuel.

http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/chevy-gmc-afm-oil-consumption/

That's not bad gas milage at all. My Duramax diesel 4x4 crew cab doesn't do any better than that except in the city where I get about 16 mpg. On the Hwy I get 19.5.

Beats the heck out of Ford's Coyote 6.2L V-8, and Ford and Dodges old V-10's.

Beats the heck out of Ford's Coyote 6.2L V-8, and Ford and Dodges old V-10's.

Posted by: nlp | Oct 2, 2013 11:00:24 AM


Very true. I never understood why Ford named that engine after a wild mangy dog. Tacky if you ask me.

Ford's 6.2l was codenamed "Boss."

The Coyote refers to the 5.0L, as they did a 5.0L with forced induction that they called the Road Runner.

@ nlp

Your right, that is does. Ford needs to step up it's game in the upcoming new model. Oh wait, crap. I forgot, I need to be like All American and Hemi V8 and not say anything baf about my truck choice even though the manufacturer that makes them wouldn't give to Shnits about me. I have to be dilagent and post things that I know aren't true just to make me feel better about my truck of choice even though itakes me look like a dumb@$$. I have interject and post positives about my truck choice when there is an article that makes another truck manufacturer look better.


In that case, GM, Ram, and Tundra sucks and Ford rules the world no matter what ya'll say.


(I don't have sarcasm font on my phone, so please take that last sentence as sarcasm)

I am impressed.

Now, off topic but of interest to every fanboy and troll on PUTC - Chrysler is recalling Ram trucks for an instrument panel issue. Let the trolling begin!

I was the one who called it on mpg http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/06/2014-silverado-also-gets-ecotec3-62-liter-v-8.html and more power than 3rd gen Tundra http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2014-chevy-silverado-unveiled/#comments.

I love my 2nd gen Tundra but unlike the Tundra Headquarters fanbois I have my eyes open and don't just regurgitate the gospel of Mike Sweers. The 2nd Gen Tundra was 14/18 and on the 3rd Gen Tundra power stayed the same and FE is 13/18 so the 3rd Gen Tundra FE went down but on the new GMT's the power and FE both went up. The new GM 6.2L has the same 17mpg combined rating of the 2014 Tundra V6. The new GMT's beat the Tundra across the board in power and FE 6.2L>5.7L, 5.3L>4.6L and 4.3L>4.0L but at least your engine is more sophisticated as Mike Sweers says or as they say in the Navy you nuked it. The reason I am after them is they said they laid into a journalist from autoblog who said the 2014 Tundra had poor FE when it does but I guess "if it ain't broke don't fix it."

Not bad considering Ram still offers the 5.7 six speed with 19 mpg 4x4 hwy.

Pointless article if the engine isn't available in the lower trim levels. Not everyone wants to blow $50,000 for a truck.

Charlie, it might be pointless to you, but thier are people who are interested and will buy these. If it doesn't interest you don't read it. I don't read any of the Ford Articles because I don't like Fords but I don't go and bash on them for no reason.

@Charlie

You can get into a double cab LTZ now for 38K. That means a 6.2 would be around 40K or 42K for a crew cab. Not cheap but to be honest even the LTs I've seen loaded with what I'm looking for run 40K+.

Now I have a good reason to trade my trucks in after the new year. That beats mine by miles, time to upgrade the gm and ford trucks to these.

Congrats to GM, I am sure it's with the useless 3.08:1, however 20 is still pretty good for a 6.2 in a truck. (4x2 doesn't count). I wouldn't even consider the 5.3. However I want a real truck for my next one: turbo-diesel!!! Also how easy is it to get a realistic 20? I CAN get 20 in my old 5.4 with a 3.55 axle, but I typically get about 16-17 on the freeway.

Good news for GM fans. I'm sure Ford or Ram will come up with something sooner or later. It's funny how one manufacture puts a stamp like eco in front of it and everyone follows suit. Either way all car companys are the same. Buy our product but after wards they could give a damn about you. It all depends on what has worked for you.

Very impressive! With a 'dated' 6-speed too! It would be cool if the 6.2 was available on the lower trims.

ACTUALLY, ACCORDING TO CHEVROLT, THE 6.2 LITER ENGINE WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE LT AND LTZ TRIM LEVELS AS WELL.

UNFORTUNATELY, PREMIUM fuel costs on average about 10% MORE than regular unleaded.

Take into account the extra cost and you adjusted fuel economy would be more like 14/20/16 which is NOT as impressive as it would seem.

Does this truck require premium unleaded???

Yes, it requires Premium unleaded

The truck does not require premium, but recommends it for optimal performace, so basically yes unless you want to buy a 6.2 that preforms like a 5.3

That's better than the ecoboost, way to go!

No need for premium fuel in the 6.2 if you want you can run regular fuel.

that is one ugly truck. inside and out.

MPG sounds impressive for a 6.2. GMC knows how to make a powerful motor that is easy on fuel.

This must be better than the 6.4 Hemi since the usual Guts, Glory, Rambo gang is quiet (so far).

Its too bad it isn't going into the 3/4 and 1 ton trucks too. GM goffed here but my guess is that there is limited supply and they will put them in for 2016 when the 8/10 speed tranny is ready and fuel regs come into play for the larger trucks.

Has a truck with over 400 hp ever had a 20+ mpg epa hwy rating before?

I read somewhere that using regular was perfectly fine but would drop the power output by around 8%, which you would never notice unless towing a heavy load or towing in the mountains.

@ nlp,

Not the 04-06 RAM SRT-10 505 c.i 8.3 L Viper engine,510 hp,535 torque.(advertised as 500 hp,505 hp and 525 torque but it had 510 hp/535 torque,very restrictive exhaust and exhaust manifolds,only vehicle i've owned and added headers,exhaust and actually picked up real seat in the pants performance and .5 1/4 mile faster.

Sure the cast iron truck 1994-2003 488 ci,8.0 L V-10 310 hp,450 torque at 2400 rpm.That engine had the most torque for years,beat everyone,left Gm in the dust for decade or so,then the HEMI made all the trucks step up.Good for GM with the 6.2 only problem you cant get it in every trim level..,

I hope the RAM 1500 gets the 6.4 HEMI,not the detuned 410 horse in the heavy duty trucks ! Thanks to GM,maybe Mopar will continue to lead in the power game..

"This must be better than the 6.4 Hemi since the usual Guts, Glory, Rambo gang is quiet (so far)."
DON'T FEED THE MISERABLE TROLLS.

This is good for G.M. fans.The 5.3 is gutless. Ram is going to have to drop the 6.4L Hemi their 1500 next year. ;)

@Paul it's 1 mpg shy of the EcoBoost both city and highway, but still a really good effort.

That's better than the ecoboost, way to go!

Posted by: Paul Hill | Oct 2, 2013 3:14:43 PM


Um no. The Ecoboost is 16 city / 22 hwy for a 2wd and 15 City / 21 hwy for a 4wd. Although this is very impressive fuel mileage for a 6.2L, I will have to say your statement is false.

What's up with these premium fuel statements that people are posting? Are these power numbers on premium fuel like they post for the Camaro's 6.2L or are they on regular 87 octane? If these power numbers are on 91 octane or higher, what are the power numbers on 87 octane.

Alex,
Unless there is some fairly significant power upgrades to the 2nd Gen Ecoboost (which everyone expects), that engine (the Ecoboost) really isn't comparable to the 6.2L GM engine.

@nlp

The current Ecoboost is majorly derated from the way it sits now. Tuners are easily bringing the Ecoboost to 420 hp and 530 lb-fy of torque out of their tow tunes. Just ask Mike, the owner at 5 Star tuning, who uses the 2012 Ecoboost HD payload package he tests tunes on to tow his 10k RV to trade shows all across America. I have seen the CAT temps, AFR, as well as other temps and they are all within spec while towing thw 10k I tow so all it would take from Ford is to sprinkle their magic tuning dust to bring it to more torque than the Ecotec 6.2L with the same hp.

Ego boost who? lol Ram's Hemi and 8 speed smoked the ego boost. I am sure this 6.2 vortec will do the same. Suck's to be a Ford fan.lol

@Hemi V8, where have you been the last 4 years? Ford has a 6.2L V8! Does getting beaten by a Ford V6 really cause that much of a threat to you? The only Ram 1500 engine that I would consider is the 3.0L diesel. I wouldn't buy any of the gas engines. Bring on the Titan 5.0!

@HEMI V8

What are you going to say in less that two years when the new 9-speed F150 Ecoboost comes out? When it was 6-speed versus 6-speed, the Hemi could hang with the Ecoboost. The only edge the Hemi has now is the 8-speed. What are you going to do in 2015?

****When it was 6-speed versus 6-speed, the Hemi COULDN'T hang with the Ecoboost.

There is no 9 speed. It's a 10 speed!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who needs a diesel? GM rules again!!!

The 6.2 runs on regular unleaded fuel. Ford and Ram better get back to the drawing table. I can not wait for a shoot out! The GM trucks will eat the Ford and Ram trucks. I cannot wait to hear the Ford and Ram cry babies.

This 6.2 is disqualified from shootouts because it is more than $45,000.

What are you going to do in 2015?

Posted by: All1

HEMI V8 and myself will probably be laughing hysterically at a 1.8L quad turbo rice burners trying to push a 5,000 pound f150 while blow head gaskets and investing stock in APR as f150 owners pour into their stores for head studs. X)

It's not bad but I don't think it's great. 14 mpg city is not good, but the highway mpg is pretty good considering how large and powerful this engine is. I definitely wouldn't call this "breaking news". It is better than the ford 6.2, but that isn't saying much. This is about what I expected. Not a lot to be excited about.



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 | © 2014 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com