2014 Silverado/Sierra Release 5.3L MPG, Power, Payload and Towing Numbers

A Chevy Silverado 1 II

The General Motors strategy is clear: Release the new half-ton engine and truck specifications information in bite-sized pieces to get as much attention as possible. And as painful as it might be for truck lovers, we don't blame them one bit. There are some good bites here.

After completing all the required EPA fuel economy testing on their bread-and-butter all-new 5.3-liter V-8 engine, both Chevy and GMC are releasing more specification information on their coming half-ton pickups. No, we won't be getting all the information on the trucks and their two other optional engines (the smaller 4.3-liter V-6 or the bigger 6.2-liter V-8), but we will be getting some - not the least of which is the 5.3's power output curve, as well as maximum towing capacity and pricing.

We're told Chevy expects the new naturally aspirated all-aluminum EcoTec3 5.3-liter V-8 will be in three out of every four new Chevy Silverados. That statistic seems to contradict the current belief that many buyers could be gravitating toward more powerful and fuel-efficient V-6 choices like Ford's EcoBoost and Ram Truck's Pentastar.

Peak outputs for the middle GM engine are impressive though; the Society of Automotive Engineers rates it at 355 horsepower at 5,600 rpm and 383 pounds-feet of torque at 4,100 rpms. However, from the GM-supplied power curve (see graph below), it looks like 90 percent of the 5.3's torque output sits nicely in the towing/hauling sweet spot between 2,500 and 5,500 rpm. (It should be noted these ratings were conducted with 87-octane fuel, so it is possible those numbers could be a touch higher if run with higher-octane fuel.)

1 GM 5

Additionally, EPA fuel economy numbers for both trucks with the middle 5.3-liter V-8 are 16/23/19 mpg city/highway/combined for a two-wheel-drive regular cab shortbed. The numbers are slightly less for the 4x4 model at 16/22/18 city/highway/combined. These numbers put the 2014 Silverado/Sierra with the V-8 option just a touch ahead of Ford's EcoBoost V-6 (see chart below) and well ahead of any other half-ton V-8 option.

2 EPA FE chart

As expected, the new GM half-ton trucks will have the highest maximum towing capacity among the competition (see chart below), listed for both as 11,500 pounds, but only with a new tow package that won't be available until later this year when the full lineup of truck configurations is available. Likewise, the new GM pickups will have improved payload capacities with a maximum payload rating (also requiring a special ordering package that won't be available until the end of the year) of 2,102 pounds. Ford still owns the payload title for half-tons.

3 Towing chart

Finally, preliminary pricing for both the 2014 Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra has also been announced, with modest price increases on select models. And in some cases, there are no price increases at all when compared to 2013 pricing (see the 2013 versus 2014 chart below). No doubt there will be more to come.

4 Pricing chart

*Note: the 2013 Reg. Cab Silverado should be $24,585.  

To read the Chevy Silverado 1500 press release, click here.
To read the GMC Sierra 1500 press release, click here


B Chevy Silverado 2 II



Competiting engines are what people are buying, not what should be the competition on paper. If 75% of Chevy buyers are buying the 5.3, it is competing against what most of what Ford is selling which are the V6's.

I think this new direct injection GM engine can be compared to both Ford mid range engines (5.0 and 3.5). Want more power? Ecoboost wins. Want better economy? Then the 5.3 wins. Want more simplicity? Then the 5.0 Ford wins easily.
This new 5.3 does match Ford's 5.0 on power, and beats it on economy, but is a DI engine that runs on only 4 cylinders to save fuel. That alone will scare off many, just like the DI and turbos scare some from the Ecoboost.
IMO, it is tough to say which one of those 3 is "best". They each have advantages depending what you want in a truck.

Scaling the power/torque numbers exactly proportional.
6.2: 410hp, 442ft-lbs
4.3: 287hp, 308ft-lbs

Seeing as the 6.2 has a slightly higher compression ratio, and larger bore; apply a 2.5% positive adjustment
6.2: 420hp, 453ft-lbs

The V6 also has a larger bore, and doesn't have exhaust crosstalk; so apply a 5% positive adjustment
4.3: 301hp, 323ft-lbs

and when GM's 8 speed auto shows up, add an extra 1mpg.

Based on sales these are the 3 compeitiors:

Chevy 5.3 V8
Ram 5.7 V8 HEMI
Ford 3.5 V6 EB

If you want to get techical on positioning, Ford has 4 engines, so both the 5L and EB are in the middle range. The 6.2 is on the top. The regular V6 is bottom.

Anybody shopping for a NEW half ton pickup should check out the Chevy/GMC products.

Anybody willing to look at a CPO that is one or two years old will probably buy the Ram 1500--they are the kings of 1/2 ton value today.

My 2009 v8 Silverado is going to stay in my fleet for a while longer. At just under 50k miles it's still a sweet running truck and meets/exceeds my needs.

Their all new V6 will be a very competitive fleet truck option esp. in the regular cab models. I'm not convinced the V8s really present folks like me with a late model Chevy in the driveway to take on the cost of a new model yet.

The Ratings seem impressive enough. I mean I am sure the mpg's r with the 3:08 rear. A truck with that rear is not going to pull worth a damn tho. A 3.73 or 4.10 would undoubtedly net much lower ratings. But the horse and torque specs are decent. The truck is light compared to Ford so it compares. Hopefully Ford lightens it's new truck a bit while keeping it's awesome tow/haul virtues. The engines are great in the Ford, and as someone said in a recent post, has room for growth, lots (400 plus in MustangCoyote 5.0) But Chevy has a promising truck here that is probably a little less expensive so you get what you pay for. People will buy it in droves, tho I doubt it will unseat F-Series, and when the 15 F-150 is out Ford will beat it. Great attempt from Chevy, better (I said better interior, still not with Ford or Ram) And I'm sorry but that exterior styling is bland bland bland. Keep in mind I am Ford oval blue blooded, but they are all great trucks in thier own rights. I hate none of them.

It has to be a hoax, check out the Engine speed line on the graph. 25 x1000=25,000. I call hoax, no supplier or major auto company would make a mistake like that. I Call BS.


I already stated that.

Those huge squared off fender bulges look effing horrible. And here I thought the current model was bad. Why can't Chevy go back to their old style designs and clean up the side profiles of their trucks??? They look like crap anymore. I don't care who ups who on a towing rating, no way in hell am I buying a truck this ugly. Give me a Chevrolet that looks like their 2006 and prior trucks on the sides and I'm game. It could have 100 less HP and I wouldn't care. This truck looks like crap just like the last model. That's the problem with Chevy trucks, the looks. Not the tow ratings. This thing is effing ugly as hell just like the current model. Clean up your sides GM! Chevy trucks for nearly 100 years never used to look this bad. Yuck.

Long live the pushrod small block. This new engine is 90% carryover. The main difference is direct injection with a little software tweaking. And of course no more cast iron blocks. 383 for torque isnt bad.

I'm still not digging the SQUARE fender openings with round wheels.

I see a lot of bashing going on and I'm not even a GM fan.

So what if it doesn't have an 8 speed, is it much cheaper?

How does it drive?

What's the build quality finish like?

Also remember Chev has been not big on offering too much, just like Toyota.

The only problem I see is that it doesn't have a diesel alternative.

Maybe like ToxicSludge stated the Colorado will come with the 2.8. The Colorado over here seems to be a good vehicle, I hope your one is as good or better.

I really thought the 2.8 would have offered in the Chev, what a pity and a bad decision by Chev.

Let's recap the best selling engines for each brand:
5.3 Vortec V8 - 355 hp @ 5,600 RPM / 383 tq @ 4,100 RPM
5.7 Hemi V8 - 395 hp @5,600 RPM / 407 tq @ 3,950 RPM
3.5 Ecoboost V6 TT - 365 hp @ 5,500 RPM / 420 tq @2,500 RPM
5.7 iForce V8 - 381hp @5,600 RPM / 401 tq @3,600 RPM
(For sake of comparison 5.7 with factory warrantied TRD supercharger - 504 HP @ 5,500 RPM / 550 tq @ 4,000 RPM)

I agree with others, GM didn't sit the bar high enough. Look at what the 5.3 will be compared to. If the 6.2 is anything like it is now, 1/10 trucks on the lot will actually have the 6.2.

If they could only redesign the looks of it.

fact, this is the best 5.3 yet. also consider, this 5.3 makes 5 less hp than the 5.0 ford, but has 3 more lb-ft. does anyone remember the 5.3 vs the 5.4? the 5.3 always had more hp while the 5.4 had more torque. now it has flipped with the 5.0 vs 5.3. also, this new 5.3 as well as the latest 5.0 are in the same ballpark of what the original Gen III Hemi put out in 2003. that is normally a hp range hardly touched until recently because most just go over to 400hp plus or around 300hp. the biggest difference between a 2003 hemi and the 5.3 and the 5.0 is the transmisson. 5.0 and 5.3 have 6 speeds with 2 overdrive. the 2003 hemi had a 5 speed with 2 overdrive.

opinion, this is good, just not good enough. like i said before, instead of 4.3, 5.3, 6.2 this should have been 3.6, 3.6 di tt, 4.8, and 6.0. if they kept the 4.8 and it made the numbers of the 5.3, now that would be very impressive.

the 5.0 and the 5.3 impress about as much as when the 2003 hemi came out. they do perform better because of 6 speeds. (V8s that put out power in this hp/lb-ft range are usually my favorite as this is really all you need.) there is a big gap in the hp number and the torque number (by today's standards). also this trumps the legendary LS1. it would be interesting if gm would put this motor in a camaro to replace the 3.6 because if you are gonna get a muscle car you want a V8 and it gets good mpg's and had decent power. the old 5.3 vs 5.4 war is back, just the next generation. 5.0 vs 5.3. if gm changed the 325 cid into a 327 cid and it became a 5.4, then it could be 302 vs 327. i want to see 5.0 vs 5.3 vs 5.6 vs 5.7 vs 5.7. i wonder how smooth this motor will be with di? (5.3).

why does everyone keep comparing the 5.3 to the 3.5? because of DI? lets get something strait, the more direct the fuel, the higher the pressure on the motor and the higher the torque and flatter torque curve. just look at a 454 LSX gm crate motor on port fuel injection vs carbeurated. the more time for fuel and air to mix, the better the hp. the more pressure and change from cool fuel to extremely hot causes more torque and a flatter torque curve. motors tuned more to richer torque vs max power tend to get better mpgs (less downshifting) so what about turbos? well more heat, because turbos turn so many more rpms than the motor thereselves. turbos also force air in creating more power. that allows for downsizing. turbos also love pressure so di and turbos go hand in hand. turbos allow downsizing and di helps responsiveness especially with a turbo. but the di and turbos DO NOT increase fuel economy, just the downsizing allowed from the DI Twin Turbo setup. fords ecoboost 3.5 is a unique all around special feature new option motor as well as fords attempt to "diesel on the cheap" so to speak. people compare the 4.6, 5.0, 5.3, 5.6, 5.7, 5.7, 6.2, 6.2 to the ecoboost 3.5, but why? they are not direct comparisons, but rather other alternatives. so what is the competition to the ecoboost 3.5? the closest thing so far is the 3.0 ecodiesel coming out next year. compare di tt to di tt. the only difference between these 2 being different fuel consumers (diesel vs gasoline) is hp. and that will be ram's excuse for not having it. other than that, rating these 2 on low end torque (the main reason for di tt) they favor considerably. oh yeah, i am pretty sure the 8 speed will make up for the loss of hp, evening out the comparison.

Pickuptrucks.com get up off your ass! we are calling you out this year! new V6 truck comparison, new small V8 comparison, new premium V8 comparison, & most of all the DI TT V6 comparison. in fact, let the new small V8 comparison be regular cab, standard bed, two wheel drive trucks, and let the premium V8 comparison be crew cab standard bed (not short bed unless only configuration avaliable) 4x4. let the DI TT V6 comparion between ecoboost vs ecodiesel be quad cab standard bed 4x4 trucks. v6 comparison idc as long as they are all the same. how about all of you guys? do all of you feel the same? if so, let'em know!

can't wait to see the 6.2 stats.

Kind of a disappointment for me. I was hoping for little more from the new gen 5.3 I was hoping for at least 400hp but that would push the 6.2 into Corvette territory and we can't have a truck as strong as a Corvette that might mean that we too are running gimmicky car based engines in our trucks.

I used to bleed GM but I just can't anymore, too many disappointments.

The Ford F-150 EB is the best power train combo in a 1/2 ton truck I have ever driven. It never runs out of power and at high altitude it is not a dog, it always feels like it has a little left for more.

1 MPG will take a long time to make a huge difference in the average owners cost of ownership.

Further most people trade their vehicles 36-48 mos after purchase so 10 year durability isn't really an issue here. With that said though the F-150 EB is the first truck I've had since the late 90's that feels like it will go 10 years.

Before EB best I ever had was a 98 GMT 400, last great GM truck. Had several GM's in between that one and the EB, each one (GM) was a disappointment. Kept buying them because I was loyal to a fault.

@ Josh (The Real Josh) Everything gets compared to the 3.5 ecoboost because it is Ford's best selling engine. Just like the 5.3 for the GM truck, and the 5.7 for Ram and Toyota.

I tried to find a 6.2 Chevy and a 6.2 non-Raptor on the dealers lots, not luck. I did find tons of 5.3's and 3.5 ecoboosts.

Can someone explain the thinking that this is a 5.0 killer? Because while it lacks some torque, it really appears on paper to match the gas mileage of the eco boost, and hp. So I'm thinking its more like a NA version of an ecoboost, if it can pull off those MPGs.


the popular engines are sold to the public because that is what is on the lot, the "propaganda" shoved down our throats. we should do research on what people order from the factory. the "propaganda isn't too bad though because the bread and butter motors usually are compromise for no compromise motors.


next year ram will have only one V8 UNLESS the 6.4 emerges. meaning the 5.7 will be the base V8. after seeing this and calculating the 6.2's output ram will surely produce the 6.4 as a truck engine in 2014. it is really a no brainer to put all 4 of the grand cherokee's powertrain in the ram for 2014.


i am the real josh because i don't bash that bad and describe sounds, such as "eh". i also know of the ecotec3 motors but not the ecotech.

@Josh (The Real Josh) - I agree, but I'd like to the heaviest truck everyone makes ie. crewcab long box 4x4 fully optioned, with the highest possible GVW and tow ratings with every possible engine available in that configuration.
I'd like to see a crewcab 4x4 shootout with the Ford 5.0, 3.5 EB, 6.2 versus GMC and Chevy (bring both brands as they tend to be tuned slightly different) 5.3, 6.2, versus Ram 5.7, VM 3.0, versus Toyota 5.7, and Nissan 5.6.

The normally aspirated V6 engines usually aren't available in the heaviest trucks so it makes more sense to test them in the lightest possible trucks available. A reg cab shortbox 4x2 or 4x4. Test the Ford 3.7 versus GMC and Chevy 4.3 versus Ram 3.6 versus Toyota 4.0. I don't think there is a V6 option for the Titan. In Canada, there isn't a V6 option for the Tundra.

Drop that Brick nose down a bit maybe round the fenders out and you could get another 2MPG.

lol, if big al saw that first post (from the other guy), he would surely call me a troll.

V8 vs. V8 ford is dead!

If they could only redesign the looks of it.

@whofan, amen to that. What an ugly ass truck.

cant wait to try one out in a regular cab! really would like to hear about the 4.3 in a short box.

Don't count on the Colorado being a good seller and what it does sell with take away from their other vehicles.

Not to knock the Colorado but nameplate heritage plays a big role here. I'm sorry but it's true. The Colorado had a piss poor nameplate heritage. It didn't have 20 years of work under it's belt like the S-10. Everyone I know myself included just considered it an Isuzu. Not a real Chevrolet S-10. It was a horrible looking truck. And the new model looks even worse going by the Australian pictures. I'm sorry but the name F-150 has FAR more pulling power in the marketplace over that of the Colorado... GM screwed up Bigtime by not giving an American facelift to the Colorado and calling it an S-10 back in 04. They have damaged their small truck reputation in the market and frankly have damaged their large truck reputation in the market as well. The Silverado in the 2013 marketplace is Nowhere near worth what it was in the 1998 marketplace when I bought my last Silverado.

And sorry but they need to either ditch or downplay the "cost conscious" mindset. People will pay for quality, resale value and luxury. My old company has dumped all Chevrolet products and switched to Ford trucks and vans now over all 3 of these issues. These items are tax deductable right off the bat for any decent sized business. Here's the thing, guess what my old boss and his family drive now? All Ford's. And he was a Chevrolet man like myself since we were kids. Guess what most of the employees drive now?? Ford's. They drive durable, quality built and luxurious Ford's all day at work, they become loyal to the Blue Oval. It broke my heart when my childhood friend of nearly 40 years dumped Chevrolet for Ford trucks. After he dumped Chevrolet for his trucks in favor of a King Ranch Super Duty, within a years time he dumped Chevrolet racecars for Ford racecars on both dirt circle tracks and straight 1/4 mile tracks. Within no time his wife's Tahoe was traded in on a new Expidition....

This is serious business guys. If I totaled up all of the money GM lost at the hand of Chevrolet vs. Ford over the time I had until I retired at the company the loss would be in the millions.

@ george

you're a smart man with those numbers. i wouldn't doubt it if you were right or very close.

@ evan

an ecoboost 5.0 V8 is interesting and may be closer than you think. ecoboost (di tt) replaces non turbo port fuel so what do you think will replace the 6.2 (no sarcasm intended)? gm and ford will most likely use twin turbo charging on the mustang and camaro as well because supercharging has parasitic losses and direct injection (what everyone is going too) vastly benefits twin turbo charging. supercharging is a fading trend now days considering di tt. these current mustangs and camaros are the last supercharged ones we will see imo. i talk a lot about cars on here because "one store, one floor" to the engineers and they have to share tech among the cars and the trucks.

imo, i tend to favor the latest hemi's numbers against the 5.3 even though i am impressed with the 5.3. especially considering the eight speed. but 383 lb-ft of torque from 5.3 liters is really good, almost as good as the 5.0 with 380 lb-ft of torque (size to torque output). lol, ford might increase the 5.0's output for 2014.

I don't go by sales I go by what the engines were designed for. In terms of design it would appear the 5.3L was designed for head to head with the 5.0L. would say the GM 6.2L was designed for head to head with the Ford 6.2L, Ram 5.7L Nissan 5.6L and Toyota 5.7L all V8 engines. The thing is Ford designed a universal engine in the EB and now guys with a V6 (Pentastar) think their new engine was designed to go head to head with the EB because they are both V6 engines, guys with a company designed mid range V8 think they were designed to go head to head with the EB because of near similar FE and guys with big V8 think they were designed to go head to head with the EB because of similar torque and towing numbers. All of this is my personal opinion but I don't believe anybody other than Ram (new diesel) has a engine designed to compete with the EB as I don't see another universal engine being developed for a pickup unless GM decided to put the new twin turbo 3.6L in a pickup. If that happens everybody will say that is the new twin turbo 3.6L engine was designed to compete with the EB the improved 5.3L engine.

@ ad

true. i agree. i said that just above. the ecodiesel vs ecoboost. the difference between these two different fuel consumers (diesel vs gasoline) is hp. and ram's excuse for not having hp is the fact that it is diesel. everything else is as close as it will get. di, tt, v6's with low end torque. 100 hp difference won't be as noticable with the ram eight speed either.

I will bet that the 5.3L will NOT be the engine that is in there 11,500lbs towing package and it will be the 6.2L like it is now. The Ecoboost is in F-150's max towing package of 11,300lbs along with Ford's 6.2L.

So essentially you have a 5.3L that tows less than the Ecoboost, has less peak horsepower than the Ecoboost, has less peak torque than the Ecoboost (also almost 100lb-ft less 2,000 rpm), but we are only comparing fuel mileage to say the 5.3L is the winner. Huh!

Back in my day, it was expected that the engine that was less powerful and had less towing ability to get better fuel mileage than one that was more powerful and towed more.

If you want to compare apples to apples then compare them by their ability which is why we buy said towing packages. The ONLY 1/2 ton engines in the 11k lb towing club is Ford's 6.2L, the 3.5L Ecoboost, and soon to be the Chevy 6.2L. I have towed slightly over 10k lbs with my Ecoboost up hills, and can tell you from experience that it will reliably & safely tow more if needed.

The current 5.3L in my F150's 4 door 4x4 cab configuration cannot do that and neither will this new one so why are they even compared to each other if they can't do the same thing. That is like comparing an pro football player to a high school football player and saying the high school player wins because he eats less with out going off of abilities.

The chevy truck is just ugly.No engine combo or mileage combo would make me buy it. The side view of the truck is horrible.

The ecoboost is in a class by itself.Its just a awesome motor to drive around in.The torque will sit you back in the seat and pulls hard.Towing it pulls like a v8.The torque is awesome and still gets better mileage then a v8 and tow's just as good.

The new ran diesel is going to be interesting.If it can get 28 mpg's then it will fly off dealer lots and it should pull better then any 1500 series truck being a diesel.

Ford and rams interiors are so much better then anything gm dodge or nissan offer.There over all styling is also superior.

The chevy is just ugly. The tundra was always bass fish looking and the elephant looking doors don't help any. The titan has aged well but needs a update badly and the titan interior was never that great looking.

If the new dodge diesel can hit 28 mpg's to 30 mpg's my next truck will be a ram.If not then i'll be in another ford. With the looks of gm's new truck I can't say I would buy one if it got 30 mpg's and cost half as much.Its just that friggin ugly and who thought the new interior looked good.The person who ok'd the new gm truck should be fired!

Y like about ford is they over rate the truck..payload towing,,,,and you look stupid on the road,,,,

Ford850: What you said about the Chevy vs. Ford V-8&EB makes sence, but when you said "and take the 5.0 for simplicity", that makes me think, how can an engine with 4 cams, 48 valves, be more "simple" than the 5.3 with 1 cam and 8 valves? just asking.

Just one more thought, I am realy waiting to see how a reg cab 4x4 Chevy, with a 355hp engine, will drive and perform like, as I know now, it will be between either an F-150 Ram 1500 or Chevy.GMC reg cab 4x4 with the V-8 of either manuf. that will be my next truck, I will have to see what either of the brands dealers will give me for my F150 reg cab 4x4 8' Eco-Boost truck in trade later this yr. I am leaning towards the Chevy/GMC, but we shall see what the 3's say, I am willing to spend another $1,000-$1500 for the Chevy/GMC over either of the others most recent offerings, like fi it is the Ford, a reg cab 5.0 4x4 XL with P/W/L and trailer-tow and skid plate package, or a Ram 1500, w/Hemi/8spd 4x4 with the same or equal equipment, or the Chevy GMC, 5.3 6spd 4x4, with the smae or equal equipment, and see who wants to deal, and I now know of one Ford dealer who NOT to go to, unless he is willing to give ma a deal I just can't refuse, as I do know, and have dealt with either a local Ram/Dodge/Chr/Jeep dealer, and a couple of Chevy dealers, I have never bought a GMC yet, so I have no dealers to go to with any experiance, but a nice light truck, with 355+hp would be realy nice! all black, no chrome! work truck all the way.


looks like the engines are peaky. chevy curve looks strong. seat of the pants back to back driving is the only real way to know whats stronger.

@Sandman, the Chevy has 16 valves (not 8), the Ford has 32 valves (not 48).

oops!!!! my bad;(, but even though it is still a lot simpler.

The 5.3 has solid numbers Chevy doesn't try to be the trendiest, glitziest or offer the latest fad. They built their reputation on dependable hard working trucks, my 1995 S-10 had a 4.3 with a TBI, still managed 15mpg in the city and the only part it ever needed were ball joints, after 220,000kms and being 12 years old it went into plowing duty. I'm excited for the 4.3 in an extended cab 4x4 to replace my taco in a few years.

I'll just say look at the * next to the max tow rating. 11,500 is more than any other half ton but it is for double cab (ie extened cabs) ONLY. GM also mentions this in the press release.

So AT LEAST for now the Max Tow won't be available in the crewcabs. Max Tow crewcab will be in the 6.2 only which won't be on the lots. GM is sneaky.

@ Brandon

Do me a favor. Look at the new 5.3L dyno numbers at the flywheel posted in this article. Then in another tab, look at the Ecoboosts dyno numbers at the wheel in that PUT.com article you just posted. Get a good look at 2,500 @ 3,000 rpm on the torque numbers and plot them on each others graph.

Yeah, it is at that moment that you realize that the Ecoboost makes more power at the WHEELS between those rpms than the new Chevy engine does at the flywheel without parasitic drive line power loss. Amazing isn't it.

Why no Dodge Pentastar EPA figures as the ford V6 is shown then the Ram V6 which gets 17/25 which cleans chevy's clock ...maybe if they rounded the wheel wells that would give them extra mpg

Check this

The best truck just keeps getting better and it will cost less to drive then Ford or Ram because of their high repair record. Just wait for the new 8 speed and watch the MPGS go up. I am buying the 6.2 in a 3500 dually for my new Chalet truck camper.

General Motors continues to lead and will continue to win more awards than any other car company from StingRay to the Z28 and now a new Silverado/Sierra. GM powertrain division is the best in the business from NHRA pro stock to Nascar GM design's the best powertrains in the business.Period. GM DuraMax the list just goes on and on.Do not be surprise that most of the new powertrains coming out in the next couple years will all end up on Ward's 10 best.Hats off to the entire Silverado/Sierra team that work on this product.I have a 2011 Silverado and I usually drive these truck till around 300,000 miles but you are making it hard.You have taken the 6.2L as well and added active fuel managament.Congratulation's General Motors.

@ Bravo25

So what department do you work at General Motors. I am guessing marketing.

I wonder how the aluminum block will hold up. It must have steel cylinder liners. Question is are they press fit or do they have a "wet cylinder". By this I mean do they have solid contact with the aluminum from top to bottom, or only at the top and bottom, allowing collant to circulate against the steel cylinder. What about expansion rates between aluminum and steel. I want to know these answers before I laydown my hard earned dollars.

The comments to this entry are closed.