Hopefully with this redesign they found a way to put a diesel in the 2500 Suburban. My '95 is will soon need a replacement.

Otherwise, I'm sure GM's new pickups will have best in class fuel economy, and a better interior. Then Fords new trucks will come along a year later and probably have best in class fuel economy with a better interior. Then a year or two later Ram will have best in class fuel economy with a better interior. Then the cycle will repeat itself.

All in all, these new truck releases are pretty predictable. Really, what gets me excited now are the special editions. The SS, the Raptor, the Power Wagon, the Lightning, the SRT-10. These are the trucks that say, "F**k fuel economy, we're making something just for the fun of it!"

Probably conservative just to play it safe, but still be very competitive. New LT1 with cylinder deactivation and direct injection will help out alot in fuel economy. Ditch the old 4.3 for the direct injected dohc 3.6 v6, I dont think the Ford 3.7 or Pentastar are direct injected so the gm might get a minor edge for efficiency on just the engines alone. They probably wont have an 8 speed. The GMC will probably be focused on higher luxury but will pretty much continue as a twin. I think Chevy may have redone the dash after the backlash at the spy picture of the one during testing to something a but more appealing, but they will probably try to keep it basic as possible.

I think GM will try to push this series as long as possible and keep it going with updates for either a TT v6 or diesel and 8 speed autos in the future and change the styling a little with those updates. That way they can iron any kinks and have a good truck in the long run.

Will the next gen Chevy be a polarizing design? I like the way it looks so far; my partner tells me he hates it. I'll bet if it had G.M.C. badge on the front end he would feel differently, though. As long as it has a sexy interior, softer seats and wifi, I am fine with it.

I liked the smooth clean design of my 2001 Chevy Silverado.
Since 2003 I haven`t liked the looks of the Chevrolet.
I think right now GMC Sierra is GM`s saving grace.
I hope GM took some of the hulk out of the half ton design.
All the half ton trucks are ridiculessly big.

Here is some side by side spy shots of the Chevy and GMC. This one you can see how different they will look from the side.(Front fenders look taller on the GMC and different shaped wheel wells) http://image.trucktrend.com/f/40724477/2014-Chevrolet-Silverado-GMC-Sierra-Side-View.jpg

This one they got little bit different taillights. http://image.trucktrend.com/f/41388448/2014-Chevrolet-Silverado-GMC-Sierra-Rear-View.jpg

And for the hell of it this is a little stating the difference between the current GM900 Chevy and GMC.http://www.chevysilveradoblog.com/chevrolet/silverado-to-sierra-comparison/

@johnny, Thanks for the photos. I don't see any difference in fender and wheel wells. The taillights are exactly the same except for the little white/clear interior section. I thought GM said these were supposed to be very different. I guess not. Same old GM. They will water down the Silverado to give us the same truck with GMC badging.

My guess about the Chevy's numbers:

3.6 V6 323 hp from the Camaro
5.3 V8 360-380 hp
6.2 V8 420-440 hp

where do you get 360-380 from a 5.3? NO WAY! unless its boosted and there goes reliability.

the 6.2 is a gas PIG so i doubt they up the power there.

the 3.6 idea reminds me of the 3.6 idea from ram and the 3.7 from Ford. a "TRUCK" engine has no business with horsepower higher than torque, torque is king in truck engines so unless your making an advertisement its useless to have more hp than torque in a truck engine. the only real v6 left in the bunch is the 4.0 from Toyota with 270 HP and 278 lb. ft of torque. if Toyota played the same stupid advertising game then they would use the 3.5 with direct injection that makes 306hp. with 277 lb ft. the problem with that is the 4.0 is a better truck engine plain and simple.

@Jack

I agree. A ~320hp v6, ~350hp small V8, and ~425hp big V8 sounds about right. Then once they get the 8-spd transmission done they'll give the engines another small power bump.

Nothing crazy, but definitely competitive with everyone else's current offerings.

@hemi lol

While torque is important, torque can be manipulated through gearing. With modern 6+ speed transmissions you don't necessarily need the torque numbers you used to. For efficiency and reliability it's actually better to have a slightly oversquare engine, rather than one that's undersquare.

How about a real competitor to the Power Wagon and Raptor?

As bubby, Bvonscott recently said over on GMI, this applies here as well.

Let's keep the thread on topic about the upcoming GM trucks. Reveal is just 2 days away.

And for the record, the information I used to start my thread a year ago was accurate at the time. Obviously as more information comes things can change.
Our patience will be handsomely rewarded.

@lol hemi

Its just a matter of what engines the manufactures have. Ford has the 3.7 v6, and the 3.5 TT. Thats it. It wouldn't be very logical to make a totally unique v6 to only put into the base F150, instead have a v6 to cover for the broad range of models. As far as torque goes, it matches the Tundras 4.0. Seems good enough.

As far as the 6.2 goes, GM's newest engine, the LT1, is a 6.2, direct injected with cylinder deactivation. In corvette tune it makes 450 hp and 450 lb-ft of torque. Now GM may change the tune to it or make an iron block version for truck use but that HP estimate is pretty much correct.

While I don't have any inside info, I don't see GM making massive changes to these trucks. First, they sell well as-is - incremental improvements are all they need to hold their market share.

Second, GM was strapped for cash when this new truck was on the drawing board. Not sure they had a lot of money for innovation...they're probably just tweaking the same old motors with the latest technology and working on cutting weight a little bit.

Third, I think the big changes are coming in 2016 when the new CAFE rules hit.

Still:

- updated styling that's more aerodynamic
- more fuel efficient engines (similar to the improvements GM made to the Vette)
- more alloys and composites will be used throughout the truck to save weight (magnesium and aluminum will be used throughout the body I think)
- electric steering

should all be expected.

@ paul810

so if what you say is true then WHY is fords engines look like this?
1. 3.7 302hp 278lb ft.
2. 5.0 360 hp 380 lb. ft.
3. 3.5 EB 365hp 420lb. ft.
4. 6.2 411hp. 434 lb. ft.
notice only ONE is the way YOU say is ok. looks to me like its an advertisement. ok lets look at rams new lineup
1. 3.6 305hp 269lb.ft.
2. 4.7 310hp 330 lb.ft.
3. 5.7 395 hp 410lb. ft.
see a trend here yet paul? i do the 2 engines they are using to "advertise" fuel economy mysteriously are ALSO the two with more hp than torque but neither the ram nor the ford v6 tows too awful much in that config. the ram will only tow 4750lbs LOL and the ford is 5500lbs. JUST A FUN FACT the Toyota Tacoma tows 6500lbs. so on to GM
1. 4.3 195hp 260lb.ft.
2. 4.8 302hp 305lb.ft.
3. 5.3 315hp 335lb.ft.
4. 6.2 403hp 417lb.ft.

Paul i dont know about you but EVERY engine so far has more torque than hp except for the advertisement highlights from ford and ram......... on to Toyota
1. 4.0 270hp. 278lb.ft.
2. 4.6 310hp. 327lb.ft.
3. 5.7 381hp. 401lb.ft.
EVERY engine here again just like GM has more torque than hp. i rest my case, how and why would you argue the point toward it being a good idea when EVERY manufacturers engine that is serious about towing has more torque than hp??

Chevrolet's website will provide a link to live video of the unveling, just go there (if you can) at 9:30am ET on Thursday.

http://www.chevrolet.com/culture/article/2014-chevy-silverado-reveal-event.html

As for the trucks. They're couple years overdue, but with all the turmoil GM has gone thru in recent past we'll welcome the new Silverado to the party with open hearts.
As Chevy's facebook site says:
STRONGER. SMARTER. MORE CAPABLE.
Can't wait.

P.S.
Let's have a true truck discussion for once. Let's talk about something we love. TRUCKS!

We haven't had much in the way of clear body photos but it does look like GMC is going down the path of "evolution not revolution". Photos show that they have fixed one thing I did not like about the Silverado and that was the huge fender flares on the box. I am surprised that the two siblings look amazingly alike. GMC kept saying that the 2 trucks would have more distinct personalities. A different grill, badges, and taillights don't count. Are they going to offer the Sierra in mid to high end and the Silverado mid to low end?
I do hope that they will offer competitive interiors. Design orthodoxy from this decade would be a big improvement.
I like the fact that they have gone with a bigger crew cab and a 6.5 box.
I don't think that GMC will be fuel economy leaders with the next gen trucks. They keep saying that the new Colorado is for people who want mpg and the 1/2 tons for those who want capability.

I do suspect a V6 from one of their other models will end up in the 1/2 ton like Ford and Ram. The 5.3 is supposed to remain BUT in displacement only. The rest of the engine is supposed to share virtually nothing with the old 5.3. There is a rumour of a 7.0 finding its way into the 1/2 tons. That would kill any bragging rights for Ram and any fanboi wet dreams about the 8 speed ensuring 5.7 supremacy.

Good article. I had no idea they were going to reveal the new twins so soon. This is exciting, but looking at the spyshots I'm a little worried we're in for a letdown. I don't think they'll go with a tt v6 but who knows. If they really want to turn heads there will be a half ton diesel option. I hope whatever they reveal will be impressive, but I'm sort of expecting another let down. My worry is nothing really exciting and the beginning of the end (again) for general motors. Judging by the spy shots it's going to take a very very impressive set of drivetrains to sway me from wanting a new Ford. Even all the improvements of the new ram just don't convince me until they have proven reliability (which I SERIOUSLY doubt due to my experience with my 09 Ram)

@hemilol

Toyota's V6 in the Tundra is rated to tow 4900lbs max. Ford's V6 in the F150 is rated to tow 6100lbs max. Ram's V6 in the 2013 Ram is rated to tow 6500lbs max.

Sounds like Toyota's V6 ain't doing so hot, even though it has the same or more torque than either of the other two.

As I said, while torque is important, as far as performance is concerned, HP is more important. It isn't necessary to have more torque than horsepower as long as the engine is properly sized and geared for the application.

Paul,

Ford's 2013 V6 is rated to tow 6700 lbs, besting Ram's 6500.

@beebe - there is part of me that feels that the next gen GMC trucks will be a "let down". The drivetrains had better be kick ass since the body styles aren't much different than the current trucks. The nose of the Sierra/Silverado twins will be the deciding factor for me in relation to liking the looks of the truck.
If they go with the interior that was captured in the spy shots, they will fail big time.
What is left?
They had better deliver some new engines that are a big step ahead of Ford and Ram.

@ paul810

ok you asked for it..... I was hoping you might say that about the tundra's v6 towing capacity........ .FYI Toyota does NOT offer a towing package on the v6 for the tundra. WITH the towing package (when they offered it) was 6500lbs. AND GUESS WHAT, the Tundra is THE ONLY TRUCK THAT IS SAE J2807 rated for towing so FORD and RAM'S towing numbers MEAN NOTHING! they are apples to oranges ESPECIALLY Ford's since they were the ones that backed away from it. Ram couldve saved face but they chose not to and therefore have ZERO credibility either. ALSO the 4.0 in the Tundra still has a 5 speed trans AND is J2807 rated. i'm sure that number will go up come this summer when the redesigned Tundra comes out. you sir are the reason why these companies get away with this false advertising you just read it and believe whatever they tell you lol.

J2807 is a joke. Lots of GM's tow figures either stayed the same or went up under it.

@ jason

you think so? then why didnt GM go ahead with it? because some of their packages dropped 4500lbs! OTHERWISE they wouldve published them to shame the others into complying....

BTW do you know what the Society of Automotive Engineers consist of? an engineer from EVERY MANUFACTURER help decide those testing procedures further making me laugh harder when they rejected it! believe what you want, some of us know the REAL TRUTH

@paul810

Why do say that an oversquare engine is more reliable and more efficient?

I have actually heard the exact opposite--generally speaking, undersquare/long stroke engines make more torque and are more efficient.

"There is a rumour of a 7.0 finding its way into the 1/2 tons. That would kill any bragging rights for Ram and any fanboi wet dreams about the 8 speed ensuring 5.7 supremacy. "

That sounds a lot like the rumor that a 6.4 Hemi will find it's way into a 1/2 ton Ram.

I just don't see it happening in either truck. 3/4 tons maybe...

We're talking half tons. There was a larger drop in one 3/4 ton which Tundra doesn't have and most people do not buy because it is a regular cab diesel 3/4 ton. Compare apples to apples, was there a 1,100 drop in GM half ton crewcabs? GM said there was only a 200-300 lb drop. The diesel 1 tons increased the max under J2807. Overall it was a wash and much adoo about nothing.

The real truth? Go ahead and believe the consipracies and what they government engineers want you to believe and believe that they are going to save you. The engineers just come up with tests so they can put food on the table, just like marketers do their job to put food on the table. J2807 isn't making trucks any better.

GM didn't go ahead with it because they saw how little their figures dropped and they realized Ford's numbers would have increased due to the new engines. GM follow's Ford.

Either way, if I had a choice between an engine with 300hp/278ft-lbs tq and an engine with 270hp/278ft-lbs tq, I know which one I'm taking. Just because one has more torque than hp doesn't necessarily make it a better engine or an engine more suited to truck use.

@ jason

LISTEN CAREFULLY....... SAE is NOT THE GOVERNMENT! matter of fact the original Vice Pres. of the SAE was HENRY FORD HIMSELF!!!! yet Ford wont adopt it........ why is it do YOU think that it isnt a good idea other than making an argument against me? Let me clear things up for you in saying what would happen IF SAE DIDNT regulate how horsepower and torque were measured? I suppose maybe you didnt know thats where that came from. AGAIN its at least 1 engineer from each manufacturer that comes up with this..

OH PS Ford withdrew from it because the EcoBoost CANNOT COMPLETE THE DAVIS DAMN TEST UNDER THE SPECIFIED CONDITIONS BECAUSE THE TURBO'S OVERHEAT AND THE TRUCK FALLS INTO LIMP MODE HALF WAY UP AND THEN CANNOT KEEP THE MINIMUM 40MPH THE REST OF THE WAY UP THE GRADE. THAT JASON is why ford withdrew. sorry to bust your bubble about fords failure....... again

They've kept this truck such a secret for such a long time I don't even know if I trust all the spy shots especially the interior. I really have to see them in full as production models before I say good or bad. It does like they've been fairly conservative with the exterior.

It's a given powertranes will need to have outstanding choice and be true upgrades from the current model. Like Lou said, they have the mid size strategy and they won't be going for overall fuel economy crown. A 3.6 would be great upgrade for light use, though.

I'm sure they'll have features galore and likely some unique if not innovative ideas.

I know a lot of sheep on here need to be force fed packages but I'd prefer to pick my own options and color trims. I look forward to the day when we have this option again. I don't hate all packages and am not suggesting they cease to exist.

I'm looking forward to finally seeing them. So far, i'm not blown away appearance-wise but that's not my main criteria for potentially buying one in the future. If it's innivative, has usefull configurations and slick power I could be sold in the future.

@ paul810

if one engine is built by ford and one built by Toyota i know which one i'm taking....... the one that will run past 100k without needing rebuilt.

OH and if its a truck i will take the one with MORE TORQUE as a truck engine is designed for. again YOU are the reason these advertising gurus have a job.......... they lead and you follow

@Dav, @Paul810, @hemiLOL - oversquare versus undersquare is along the same lines as the argument of torque versus HP.
IIRC-
A longer piston stroke produces more torque but due to that long stroke, it will hit terminal piston speed earlier and therefore cannot rev high.
Short stroke motors are the opposite.

There is a long list of famous short stroke (undersquare) engines, but what made those engines famous?
Racing.
That is a domain that favours higher revving engines.

Case in point - an inline 4 sport bike will slaughter any long stroke V twin, but which one do you see "two up" and towing a trailer?

@ Lou

I would argue the V-twin vs I4 is not due to engineering merits... .

I would also guess that many of the "great" truck engines (and many diesels) are undersquare.

My liter bikes' engine is grossly oversquare--but I wouldn't want that setup in my pickup.

@dav

An oversqare engine can typically breath better due to larger valves and has less frictional losses due to the shorter stroke. Better breathing means a flatter power band and more power, and less friction means less energy lost to heat.

The big downside to an oversquare engine is detonation, but modern direct injection has a cooling effect on the piston head, which can be used to help prevent detonation at higher compression ratios.

In the half ton class, the GM half ton max towing only dropped a net of 50-150 lbs when taking into account the addition of a 150 lb passenger added into the weight ratings (which by the way you may or may not have and should have accounted for to begin with.)

I don't need engineers to tell me to account for passengers. That's what is wrong with society today everyone needs someone else to tell them what to do.

Take off 150 lbs from Ford's current ratings, it still tows the most.

"OH PS Ford withdrew from it because the EcoBoost CANNOT..."

Any proof of that? No, you're just like every other troll on this site making things up so you can feel better about your oudated truck.

@Jason,
You got one thing wrong.
GM released their J2807 tow ratings.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2012/05/tow-ratings-adjust-for-2013-gm-pickups/comments/page/2/

Two weeks later they pulled them back because they learned Ford and to some extent Ram wouldn't commit to them like they earlier said they would.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2012/06/general-motor-waits-to-implement-j2807.html

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2012/07/j2807-tow-ratings-may-be-off-for-years.html

@paul810

I fully understand the bore size for head flow--but that is why a 4-valve head is superior to a 2-valve head. The 2-valve head HAS TO have a big bore to get good flow.

I know I have read engineering articles stating that undersquare engines are more efficient. I think because despite having more frictional loss for a given RPM, it doesn't NEED as many RPMS, hence the oversquare engine actually has more loss due to higher RPMS.

@Hemi lol
And to everyone else that posts on this site. I see a lot of horsepower and torque figures quoted. This is all well and good, but it doesn't paint an accurate picture of the engines performance characteristics.

Where does the torque band lie in these numbers you give? When is peak power? What is the power and torque at mid and lower rpms?

These are the figures that you live with when driving everyday.

Alot of those figures are meaningless, just like 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. Are these trucks as you call them or are you just banging dix quoting figures you guys can't comprehend.

Just because its bigger doesn't mean its better, just like real life, its how it is used and worked.

Hahahaha, hemi lol acting like he knows what he is talking about is making my sides split.

@ jason

the proof is from engineers that tested it. GM played it close to the correct ratings the problem is Ford didnt. Here is some proof for you. Have you ever wondered why when ford picked on the Ram 5.7 and the GM 5.3 at davis dam with ecoboost with 9k why they didnt include the 5.7 Tundra? because the Tundra will SPANK the 3.5 ecoboost all over the place in towing up a grade thats why. if not they would have had a field day with it AND YOU KNOW IT! lol

Noone said you need someone to tell you to account for passengers. Your starting to remind me of the idiot consumer with your belief in the manufacturers published towing numbers. thats exactly what they want you to believe and YOU ARE REINFORCING THAT IDEA. For gods sake man pull your head outta your butt! your either a ford fanboi or completely missinformed

Getting back on topic of the next gen GM trucks, I don't think GM's truck will as much of a dissapointment as Ram's trucks have been....

- coil springs reduce capability
- new air bags don't increase capability but cost cost $1600. and may lead to repairs down the road
- Interiors still have smaller crewcab than Ford and next gen GM
- smaller beds
- Ram reliability is the lowest

GM's trucks are supposed to lose weight, so any of that 150 lbs loss in towing, will not be a factor.

The only benefit of buying a Ram is the supposed mpg of the 8 speed, but Ram still has not revealed the mpg for the V8.

GM is supposed to have better mileage, too. So unless you are a die hard Ram fan, I really cannot recommend buying a 2013 Ram over a current Ford or next gen GM.

IMO.

@ doug

your right i know nothing

@Jason- SAE is the "Society of Automotive Engineers".
This is who they are:
"SAE International, formerly the Society of Automotive Engineers, is a US-based organization for engineering professionals in the aerospace, automotive, and commercial vehicle industries. The Society coordinates the development of technical standards based on best practices identified and described by SAE committees and task forces comprising engineering professionals in the relevant fields. SAE International has over 120,000 members globally. Membership is granted to individuals, not through companies. Aside from standards development SAE International also devotes resources to projects and programs in STEM education, professional certification, and collegiate design competitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAE_International

They are a body that defines "best practice" standards. They cannot force the automotive companies to comply. They can develop standards that members have to follow. That would be like the "American College of Physicians". They can regulate the practice of their members but they can't force rules upon pharmaceutical companies.

The reason why they came up with J2807 wasn't to make lame, and simplistic rules but to provide a unified rating system that provides the consumer with a uniform measure for all of the trucks on the market. An apples to apples rating system.

Kudo's to Toyota for complying but engineers have to prove that the trucks they design can do what they say they can do. That is how they ethically do their job.
Currently an F150 EB can tow 11,300 lbs but by the standards set by Ford and THEIR engineers.
They are not lying or falsifying data.
I'd just like to see the test criteria they use.
I personally do not care if it takes me an extra minute to climb a hill while under load.
What I do care about is being able to fairly compare one brand to another.
I am in favour of J2807.

Hemi lol,
Your mindless babble about tq and hp ratings prove it. I'm glad you are a big enough man to admit it.

@ big al from oz

I'm glad you mentioned that. the toyota 4.6 v8 is 327 lb ft at only 3400 rpm and the 5.7 is 401 lb ft at only 3600 rpm and 90% of that is on tap from 2200-5500 RPM.

Fords 5.0 is 380 lb ft at 4250 rpm and the 6.2 is 434lb ft at 4500 rpm and the ecoboost that (they claim) is 420 at 2500 rpm BUT (all tests have shown its peak at OVER 4000 rpm)

Rams 4.7 is 330 lb ft at 3950 rpm the 5.7 is 407lb ft. at 3950 peak.

gm's 5.3 is 330 lb ft at 4000 rpm and the 6.2 is 417 at 4300 rpm.

so NO MATTER how you cut and slice it the Toyota engines make their PEAK torque at a lower RPM than ALL of its competitors in the v8 and turbo v6 world PERIOD. they ALSO have a flatter broader power curve as well and i'm NOT taking time to post seventeen links to prove it. look it up if you doubt it.

@ doug

your the smart guy why dont you tell us all how everything should be, then we will all know what you do and we will be so much better off for it....... said noone ever....

speak up if you have something intelligent to say otherwise dont post. if you believe i need to look at something differently then post it, and your reasons why. BELIEVE ME when i say you had better DOUBLE check your thoughts before you post. i will admit if i made a mistake as many will attest to, however i WILL know and call you out when you bull***t

Hemi lol,

It isn't hard to point out your ignorance. You post peek numbers, and then act like they are the only important information about the engine.

If you, or I, could post overlapping dyno graphs of the engines you want to compare, that were taken on the same day on the same dyno, I could school you all day long about what your posting being B.S.

But without that happening, I'll be content making it known that you have know idea what you are talking about, and watching you trying to defend your "thoughts."

I really wish you would live by the same rule you told me to do, you know, "speak up if you have something intelligent to say otherwise DON'T POST."

You and the other Fanbois like Hemi V8 make this place unbearable to read sometimes.

@ doug

ok big buddy heres some info for you. the Dual independent variable valve timing on the 5.7 tundra is able to advance or retard the intake cam by 30 degrees either direction and the exhaust camshaft by 15 degrees either direction. between that an extremely efficient torque converter the ONLY transmission that has a variable lockup converter and the only one with fluid to fluid heat exchangers on not only the engine but the trans, the only trans that can not only tell what your doing but even ADJUST itself for wear and tear its clear which one is capable of putting its POWER TO THE GROUND.

YOU are even STUPID enough to call me out as if i'm like the hemi v8 child. its funny that you all the sudden know everything saying nothing.

SO I SAY TO YOU point out some comment of mine that is ignorant, that is without calculated thought or facts. you might be suprised how dumb you end up looking at the end of the debate. show me how smart you are oh wonderful one....

@ doug

maybe i was harsh......... you must think that I am the same person as Hemi V8 or one form of his idiotic names. I DO NOT LIKE HEMI'S my name says HEMI LOL not Hemi i'm better than you. NOW, if you knew that i dont like Hemi's and you knew i wasnt just tryin to troll like them than my above post reads correctly.

I grew up around GM's, started building lowriders at 16 years old, for nearly 10 years i helped build world championship hoppers, worked as a professional electronics installer on cars and shops and homes and UL fire alarms for more than 10 years, not to mention many other things. i have a VERY good understanding of electrical and mechanical goods and i dont post empty stupid thoughts with no points behind it.

@hemi lol, How many times has that P.O.S 5.7L Toyota been on wards 10 best engine list?

Chrysler HEMI =6x 5 in a row.

Chrysler Hemi engine wins award
Big-shouldered V8 takes the biscuit

Chrysler Hemi 5.7-litre V8Chrysler's 5.7-litre Hemi engine, as found in the Chrysler 300C and a whole bunch of huge vehicles not generally found in the UK including Dodges Charger, Durango, Magnum and Ram, has won an award. For the fifth year running, it's won the Wards's 10 Best Engines in the US.
Part of the reason was its economy, due to the multi-displacement system (MDS), which improves fuel economy by as much as 20 per cent, according to Chrysler. The system alternates between high fuel-economy four-cylinder mode when less power is needed, and V8 mode when you put your foot down.

"There's nothing more American than the V8, and we think the modern Hemi is the best of the breed,” said senior technical editor for Ward’s AutoWorld Bill Visnic. “The Hemi is power-dense, perfectly sized and incorporates sophisticated-yet-straightforward efficiency-enhancing technology to help it stay relevant in a market that is becoming increasingly conscious of fuel economy. But above all else, the Hemi is just plain fun."

A higher-performance 6.1-litre version of the Hemi V8 can be found in the Chrysler 300C SRT8. The 6.1 uses strengthened components – including a reinforced engine block, forged steel crankshaft and high-strength connecting rods – and generates additional power with more capacity, higher compression ratio, higher engine speed and enhanced breathing, courtesy of special cylinder heads and manifolds.