The problem is you can only get a 6.2 in a crewcab short bed in the high end SLT or LTZ.

If you want a standard bed or long bed or a noncrewcab you have to go with the 5.3

Ford wins. 1 to nothing.

Tim,
Unless I misunderstood, which is possible, the 6.2 should be available on more trim packages since the 6.0 is going away on 2010 models. Currently the 6.2 is available on 2009 LTZ, SLT, and Denali trims with the crew cab only.

If GM does not offer the 6.2 in a standard bed size or a long bed I refuse to buy it. The 6.2 is nice but the 5 foot short bed ruins it. Why is it so hard to get a standard size bed with a 6.2? And I do not understand why it has to be a crew cab. Makes no sense but this is what GM does best.

Don't care, rather have the raser tech drivetrain or a small block diesel, GM trucks = fail until they get their heads outta their rears.

Tim, Mark and Andrew - What is your problem? Just buy the 6.0 Hybrid! Problem solved. Dont like it go buy your crappy Ford! GM makes the best trucks on the road.

Well whoop de do!
Call me when the 4.5 liter Duramax is available.
And to Ford one to nothing score HAHAHAHAHA! Ugliest truck on the road(close race with Turdra) and wanna be Super Duty styling. Better check the board again.

GM needs to think about replacing the 6.0L in the HD's too. They need to be competitive with the Ford Boss and 6.4L Hemi.

I raced a 6.0L in a 01 GMC 2500, and a tug or war, the 4.2L in my old truck won each time.

GM wants to drop the 6.0 from the half-ton trucks and replace it with the new 6.2? But then leave the 6.0 as the only gas engine for the heavy-duty trucks? So they would rather have the bigger engine in the half-tons and leave the heavy-duties with the small engine? And offering the 6.0 liter as the "only" gas engine for the heavy-duty pickup? Ever since GM has been operatng off government loans, they've been making some stupid decisions about their fullsize truck lineup.

This all proves why Ford is still #1!!!! Chevy has the ugliest front of all of them. I like the GMC design much better. However, with GM now being Obama Motors, it's really going to go downhill now. Speaking of limited options, GM also doesn't offer a bench seat for it's "upper level" models either. They should be like Ford and Dodge and offer a "40/20/40" split front seat so that if someone needs additional passenger capacity, it's available.

6.0L in 3/4 ton is iron block as I understand it (in 1/2 ton alum block) and the 6.2L is only alum block, so thats the diff.

Remember 6.2L prefers prem fuel so I understand 6.2L on reg fuel is down to @ 384hp, so not that big a gap. Not sure about tq diff on reg fuel.

Mike,
For the 2010 GM trucks, do you have a breakdown of what engines are available for the RCStdB, RCLB, ECSB, ECStdB, ECLB, CCSB and by 4x2 and 4x4.

RC=Regular Cab
EC=Extended Cab
CC=Crew Cab
StdB=6.5' box
SB=5.75' box
LB=8' box

Thanks.

Checked the Sierra, The 6.2 is avail on the Ext Cab reg bed. Not sure if that requires SLT or whether you can now get it in the SLE also. From what I gathered it seems to replace the 6.0 in all the trims it was available. Order guide will be up eventually.

The 6.2L will be available with the "max towing" package, even at the SLE trim level from what I understand. As for the 6.0 in the HD trucks, it's a different engine than the 6.0 in the 1/2-tons. Iron block and different HP/torque ratings. IMHO, the 5.3 is the better "all-round" option, except for heavy towing on a frequent basis or racing.

I'm ready to do my part to save GM, but they don't offer the truck I want. Is it too much to ask for a 2500 Crewcab long bed 4x4 with the top trim line and the 6.2? I cannot figure out the logic of offering a HD pickup with a lesser (6.0) gas engine than the 6.2 available in the 1500. Does anyone know if this will ever be available? If not, I'll just rebuild my trusty '79 again.

Had no idea GM was discontinuing the 6 litre for 2010. I just bought a new sierra with the Max trailering package. Loads of power, but with a huge fuel tag. My last truck was an '01 with a 5.3 litre and a 4:10 rear-axle. I was getting around 650 to 700 km's to a tank in the city. Lucky to get 550 km's with the 6 litre in the new truck. Both trucks have the same fuel capacities I never thought by going from a 5.3 litre to a 6 litre that it would use so much more fuel, even with the 6 speed auto- tranny and their so-called active fuel management (what a joke). GM better get their act together or this loyal GM owner of 25 years will move to UGH Ford.

my 2008 with the 6.0 and 3" exhaust with a chip still preforms 19-21 mpg with pushing 403 hp. we pull major loads with the truck and run high octane fuel.. while driving the new 6.2 stock. i wasnt empresses. more of a gas hog without the power.

Hopefully the 6.2 litre is a better engine. My '09 Sierra with a 6.0, after only 7300km's is spewing white (not blue) smoke from the exaust. I know its a head problem, but the so called "experts" are trying to tell me its blue smoke and that I should just monitor the oil consumption, as GM will not rip open an engine due to a "little blue smoke". I was getting around 550km's to a tank in the city, now I'm getting around 450km's to a tank on the highway. I started the truck with the shop foreman and the service manager present. I put my nose in the exhaust and smelled only coolant. When started, this truck looks like an old steam engine leaving the train station. They now admit there is a problem, but don't know how to fix it!! If they can't fix it....who can?? I've been a loyal GM driver for 25 years and if I have to battle GM on this they'll leave me no choice but to tell everyone about this problem. Not sure if I could drive a Ford. Dodge is totally out of the question.

Hi there is it possible to have gmc sierra 1500 single cabin with 6.0 or 6.02 letters..????? Pleas answer me