2014 Sierra Denali Offers 6.2L V-8

2014-GMC-Sierra-Denali-front II

GMC has released horsepower and torque ratings for the new high-performance EcoTec3 6.2-liter V-8 available in the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500 as part of the 2014 GMC Sierra Denali option package.

The premium engine is reported to produce an estimated 420 horsepower and 450 pounds-feet of torque; final numbers from the Society of Automotive Engineers are expected later this year. Additionally, it looks like the new Sierra will offer a maximum trailering capacity of 12,000 pounds with the 6.2-liter V-8. We're guessing that will only be available when equipped with the late-availability Max Trailering Package that requires a heavier-duty rear axle and 3.73:1 ring and pinion.

The new Sierra Denali trim will be the most premium package offered on the new platform with unique grille, headlight and bumper treatments as well as numerous Denali-specific interior accents and styling details.

"The 2014 Sierra Denali has a combination of performance, capability and luxury that no other pickup can match," said Tony DiSalle, vice president of GMC marketing. "It leaves no boxes unchecked for those owners looking for the ultimate expression of 'Professional Grade.' "

Pricing has not been announced. To read the press release, click here.

2014-GMC-Sierra-Denali-rear II

2014 6.2L V8 L86 II

2014-GMC-Sierra-Denali int II

2014-GMC-Sierra-Denali-guage II


Not that it's hard to match, but the new 6.2 is now equal to the old 8.1 in torque. Hopefully the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel will have 260/450 instead of 240/420 in the GC. I want to see the Duramax figures.

What a terrible looking truck. Puke.

If they can match the ecoboost fuel economy numbers, Ford will have a serious problem on their hands!

420 hp at what rpm and 450 lf/ft at what rpm? and what kind of fuel? The last one needed premium for "big" numbers.

Nice truck but I don't like the electric shaver look of the grill.

I like the Silverado's looks better. That is a reversal for me. I used to like the looks of the Sierra more than the Silverado (actually - I hated the looks of the GMT900 Silverado).

I'd say more but I don't want to trigger Bob and a rant about fastfood burgers;)

I will take one in each color choice they come in.

FordTrucks 77, why are you here? Jealousy isn't going to make you prettier.

I am just curious is their a hp/lb ft number for 1/2 ton trucks that once you reach that number no amount of extra hp/lb ft will make a difference?

By the way Good work GM if you can get the old Hemi Ram 1500 FE rating of 14/20 for the Denali with that big 6.2L and AWD than you have done something to me.

that interior still doesnt do it for me....... still looks like plastic. and the center stack looks oversized......... unlike lou i like the exterior of the GMC better than the chev but the interiors still look lacking to me.

Those numbers look very good.

Too bad I can't get that engine in a Ram. The rest of the GMC barely looks better then a toyota.

I like the motor, but that interior is nothing short of tragic.

No flow from side to side, shapes that do not go well with others adjacent to them, etc. And those vertical HVAC vents are just as dumb as Ford's circular HVAC vents.

Not very well executed for a truck that will likely exceed $50K.

We need to have some comparo-s soon guys, the big V8 from the big three and other foreign if you would like and the V6 engines from the Big 3 as they all look greatly improved and are viable options for folks that drive unloaded or don't pull often.

Is the 420/450 on regular or premium fuel?

I like it a lot and if the power and torque curve is anything like the new LT1 it'll have over 300 lbs/ft @ 1000 rpm and at least 90% of max torque from 3000 on up. However, those are estimated numbers according to the article so I would bet the real numbers are a bit more.

If the 6.2 can swing 20mpg in a 1/2 ton truck I think it will pull alot of eco boost sales from Ford.

This looks way better than the Chevy, but I like Fords so Im not buying ether.

Those numbers don't impress me. My 5 Star custom tuned Ecoboost is sitting at an estimated 425 hp and 525 lb-ft with just spending $400 on a tuner with tunes and is still able to tow. You may be able to get more hp out of the Ecotec 6.2L than a tuned Ecoboost while spending less than $400, but you damn sure won't be able to get more torque (and at such a low 2,500 rpm) without spending thousands. Also, you will not be able to get the same fuel economy either.


Intersting, Mike @ 5 Star is great help with Tunes.

@luke - modify your Hemi I'm thinking of doing it myself. If you estimate the hp gains with a decent cat-back system (3hp or 4hp gain), high performance k&n air intake system (k&n intake illegal in California.) k&n estimates 15 to 16 hp gains. 15+3 = 18 hp. 390+18 =408 hp also, if you add nice headers maybe another 10 hp so 408 + 10 = 418 hp. now think about torque numbers Hemi (stock) = 407 adding + estimated 20 to 30 pounds more of torque (depends a pond custom tuning.) 407+20 = 427 tq or 437 tq. these esitmates are probably a good educated guess I'm not saying its accurate lol don't go crazy guys. If I say so myself, not bad for significantly smaller displacement v8 this shows that chevy doesn't really have the technology to compete with RAM and Ford with Tq & hp. remember as an example: F-150 5.0 v8 = 360 hp GM 5.3 v8 = 355hp. Not really that impressive when you compare form a non-biased perspective. I'm thinking when Ford updates their 6.2 v8 its gonna be huge making Gm's 6.2 look quite bad just by judging their smaller v8 displacement 5.0 v.s. 5.3. I 've driven a few GM trucks and I can honestly say the last time GM was on par with Ford or newer RAM's wasn't since the GMT-400 was introduced in 1988. the RAM hemi I have is already 4 years old at 390 hp vs. 420 hp doesn't sound all that impressive hope they have leading class MPG rating.

ALL1: just hope you do not have any problems with the custom tune, all I have is a CAI and the dealer would not fix a head gasket! at just over 30K! now I have a Ford truck that I cannot use and have any faith in, but I still have a Chevy that has never failed me! and if you were to look up what Trucking mag. has done with an old 5.3 they got out of a bone yard with over 160K on it, over 1200hp and 1100ftlbs with twin turbos and that was on reg gas! yep look for the Aug 12 issue, and you can even get it online! they had the thing running for over 40hrs before a lifter went out, and now they are going to upgrade the valve train some more! yes and engine out of a bone yard! with 160K on the bottom end, all they did was put some heads and intake to get over 500hp, then went with one, than 2 turbos! on a junk yard engine!! yea real junk Chevy! sure! wait till the aftermarket gets a tuner going for the newer engines, I would bet almost 500hp/ftlbs in the 6.2!

Now if GM would only put this engine in its HD pickups and add 4.10 gears they may finally have a gas engine that can actually pull something and not need the extra expense of the duramax We get half ton pickups with all this power and cant get a HD gas engine to pull a piss ant of toilet seat. But i guess thats one way to increase duramax sales.


It produces a lot more power than your 5.7L Hemi this is just the truck tune http://blog.caranddriver.com/four-hundred-and-how-many-horsepower-chevrolet-finally-announces-2014-c7-corvette-stingrays-power-figures/.

395hp current 5.7L Hemi max
460hp current 6.2L max
your down 65hp

407 current 5.7L Hemi max
465 current 6.2L max
your down 58lb ft

What I would like to know since it is now direct injected is the truck tune on 87?

@ sandman4x4

I have a great relationship with my dealer and they know I have a tune in it along with previous vehicles and I never had warranty issues. My last 5.4L went tuned for 120k miles before I traded it in. There are tones of people on Ford, Chevy, and Ram forums that have put tens of thousands of miles on their tuned trucks with no issues so what your point? I also pay to play so if a part breaks because of something I did then I will man up and fix it with my own money. Also, my point was not who can get the most power from spending their life savings to do it. You will have to spend some big money to get that 6.2L Ecotec to 500/500. My point was that a vast majority of people only do an intake, exhaust, and tune, and it would take a lot more than that to get this 6.2L Ecotec to the same torque numbers the Ecoboost can safely get with just a $400 tuner. Remember, in the truck world torque is what gets the weight moving, not HP.

Ecoboost Ecodefect,,,,ford best engine we test this engine million Mille ,,,but, what they forgot to test on this engine hummmm quality maybe ,,,,

i can squeal the tires form a dead stop in my AWD 08 Sierra Denali with just an intake, TB spacer and Hypertech Premium tune...have no clue what the numbers are.. But its a beast... so with that being said.. if this engine is just the slightest bit better... your ECOBust doesn't have a prayer... and who ever you were up there talking about tuning your ECOjunk to 425/525... how long is that going to last???? my guess it not long.. and what about your tranny??? sure its built Ford tough huh??? my guess is that you probably havn't even dyno'ed it have you???

@ Miath

If you actually do some research you will find that it is not the engine or turbo's causing any issues. It is the charge-air-cooler(intercooler) cooling the air too much to the point it condensates into water and it is being sucked into the engine causing misfires and shuddering. It does not effect everyone and Ford has had a TSB out for over a year to replace said intercooler with a new design if you are having issues.

Look closely at the the guage pics up there... Looks as if the center portion is all digital and projected in the second pic and you can make out the anolog guages behind the projection...looks pretty cool...

It will be interesting to see the results of the LD shootout. Any hints as to which engine from Ford that they used? I suspect EB3.5. Ram will obviously have the 5.7. Nissan 5.6, Chevy 5.3 (6.2 not out?), Toyota 5.7.

Wow, I guess with the maturity of some if you can't beat it then call it names and say it won't last even though they have not done any testing or have any experience to make such a claim. I would be surprised but this is PUT.com after all.

@ Jason

Yes, I did dyno. After tune, it was 372RWHP and 467RWTQ. I am not worried about the engine since it has a stout bottom end, and the trans can handle a lot more torque since it is the same trans in the previous years diesel Superduties.

This 6.2 is a truck engine and the ecoboost is a car engine in a pickup. No comparison between these two engines. More horsepower and torque then anything offered by Ford. You Ford boys bragging about a V6 that is a car engine with numerous problems already. There is a good chance the 6.2 will get over 20 mpg on the highway. I just hope it is offered on the HDs or a 7.0. These new GM trucks are awesome and I love reading all the crying from the Ram and Ford boys.

Is this the top of the GM truck line? Well, it's nice, but compared to the top shelf Ford trims and one of the Dodges it doesn't seem as premium.

I guess I'm disappointed because the Sierra Denali is not differentiated too much from a SLT model. I think the 6.2L V8 should have remained as the exclusive engine, the exterior should have received some additional trim (such as the foglight housings being of a different shape), and the interior receiving additional attention so that it not have the same look as the SLT model.

The 1st gen had a separate look from the other Sierra models, and even the current model can easily be seen as different from the SLT (maybe more exterior than interior). As far as I can tell, the grille and Denali badging along with the body-colored bumpers are the big differentiators. Those rims are available on the SLT and All-Terrain models, so they're not Denali-exclusive.

I guess the Denali is the model for people that want all the bells & whistles with body-colored bumpers now. I would stick with the SLT model for myself.

Another thing that amazes me is this: at the December reveal great attention was given to the "man step" rear bumper. But the All-Terrain model and the Denali do not receive this feature!

Are they saying those buyers do not use the bed of their truck? Of course you can get the "man step" bumper on the All-Terrain if you upgrade to chrome bumpers, but I know many choose that trim/package to get the body colored bumpers. I'm at a loss over GM's thinking of this feature and it's inclusion on ALL models/trims.

I think this looks pretty good, and I have to date disliked everything I have seen from Chevy and GMC. Here's to hoping they have turned over a new leaf.

The peak torque and HP numbers do not matter much in and of themselves. Can we at least have accompanying RPMs? Ideally a torque curve.

To all of you trying to pull this power output / displacement card. Just stop. You look foolish and are only demonstrating your ignorance. The power/displacement is only relevant in over taxed countries that tax via displacement instead of any number of other criteria.

OHV engines are *much* smaller and *much* lighter for the same displacement as an OHC engine. I would not be surprised if the 5.7L hemi V8 were smaller than the Ford 5.0L Coyote. They are both great engines and both have similar hp/tq numbers. They just generate them differently.

All1. How can you make all these statements about prohibitive money involved in tuning the new 6.2? They aren't even out yet. No one has looked into the tune from the factory yet. And, no one has seen the dyno graph of the truck engine. Nobody knows how the truck engine will lay down the torque in the low rpm's. Please post independent proof of your claims!

"that no other pickup can match," said Tony DiSalle, vice president of GMC marketing. "It leaves no boxes unchecked for those owners"

Except for no bumper step and no HID headlamps. Is this a joke? Ford's 2013 F-150 has it available. Give the Acadia Denali HID headlamps, but give a more expensive Sierra Denali standard halogens? Unreal!

Eh. When they show Chevrolet's Denali I'll care to compliment it. GMC is a pathetic marketing exercise for GM-GMC. Always has been. It is what it is. A fag truck. Give me a Ford anyday over this. Even a Dodge. I think I'd even rather drive a stripped out Chevrolet and keep my integrity in tact.

Yall keep ur little gas engines lol diesel is where its at with torque a gas engine would just dream of . A 1st gen dodge with the cummins came stock with 440 ftlb of torque with only 5.9 liters and that was around 20 years ago, and capable of 600 ftlb with almost free mods on the pump now that is torque. Oh and 20+ MPG .now wait for the ram diesel it will cover eny torque shortage haha.
Torque king

420 hp better be on regular, or you might as well get the high compression corvette engine with 450hp if you're going to run hitest gas.

Wonder how long the 2300 psig two stage fuel pumps will last, and how much $ it takes to replace them @ 150kmiles.

only two fuel pumps here, not twin turbos with four cams, and a leaking inter-changer causing drivability problems.

On a Chevy you can actually see the spark plugs and wires; to change them is not major surgery. But we have lost the trans drain plug and the accessible fuel filter, and the $40 dollar fuel pump. Although belt driven fan is gone so frontal access is improved.

Overall a good looking truck, but those wheel well gaps are hideously large.

That's funny Greg, I thought the 6.2 was made for cars? Like Vettes and Camaros?

These power numbers aren't so awesome. If it's on 87 octane, well then it's pretty good. But if it needs 91, same old story. The 6.4 Hemi already puts out about the same torque per inch. Yeah, it needs better gas.

It's got to have direct injection to do this???

The Hemi doesn't.

The rpm it's at is most important.

Of course this is what, three years later then the 6.4 Hemi? So when Ram ups it in a year or two, GM goes back to being behind. They are already behind on the transmissions, and 2 to 3 years before you see your 10 speed.

Hope the Ram diesel doesn't get into this torque pissing contest. I believe if they did a 6.4 Hemi truck, it would be limited numbers, but maybe not so much on the diesels, if they get the real good mileage. Yes, I know there are only gonna be 10,000 1500 diesel Rams.

Now, here comes trolling Tyler, bitching cause I commented on a GMC.

@ Clueless

Physics and experience my friend. A naturally aspirated(N/A) motor will never have the low end torque of a forced induction(FI) engine which is why the Ecoboost makes more power than ANY half ton engine before 4,000 rpms.

FI engines also respond to tuners better that N/A engines. For example, the current Silverado 6.2L Diablo performance tune gets you an extra 25 hp and 25 lb-ft. at the rear wheels, and the basic canned SCT performance Ecoboost tune gets you an extra 50 hp and 108 lb-ft at the rear wheels. Same goes for things like exhaust and intakes to where you would see more of an increase on the FI engine. Getting BIG gains on N/A engines requires BIG money like $6,000 for a Supercharger kit for the current Silverado 6.2L that adds 120 lb-ft at the rear wheels. When you compare the $325 for a tuner to get an extra 108 lb-ft at the wheels in the Ecoboost with the basic non-custom canned performance tune, an extra 120 lb-ft at the wheels for $6,000 is a lot of money for almost the same gain in torque. The gain in HP is a lot more more though.

It is what it is and there is nothing that will change that unless Chevy comes out with some magic engine never seen before or adds forced induction. If they don't add forced induction then it will take you a lot of money to see the kind of gains an FI engine would.

@Mark Williams or PUTC -

What will it take to restore order and civility in these articles/discussions? Something, please. Article to article is filled with chaos that follows suit. Very few seem interested in civil and constructive conversation. I can almost promise that when I compliment GM for the 6.2 and its numbers, that someone is going to make a negative remark for this very post that I just made. Constructive and civil discussion doesn't seem relative here anymore (with the current community), and that is very disappointing.

Thank you for your time.

@AD - yeah I wasn't insinuating that the Hemi could beat the 6.2 in hp & tq figures all I meant was ford & RAM will eventually beat GM either come 2015 or 2016 it's inevitable. my point is GM had to make a huge 6.2 v8 just to surpass a 5.7 v8 (345) a significantly smaller engine. I think even though GM went from 403 hp (in current GMT-900) to 420 hp ( K2XX) its nothing compared to what Ford and RAM can do. I know RAM & Ford don't have the numbers to prove what I'm saying although, just judging by their outgoing 5.0 coyote & 5.7 Hemi hp/tq ratings they technologically are more advanced than GM engines. direct injection is great but, only as good as the engine design. don't get me wrong has a reliable track record its just old technology spiced up with modernization of electronics.

@ Bigman

The first gen Cummins 5.9 in the '89 Ram was 400 lb-ft, not 440 lb-ft.. It did not reach 440 lb-ft until 1996 and only in the manual transmissions. the automatics were 420 lb-ft..

@ALL1 Oh my bad, thanks for correcting me. but my point is simple mods and a diesel turns alive almost doubling the torque of a gas engine.

@Jim... thanks for stealing my comments posted on another forum and passing them as yours!! LOL you got caught red handed dude.

I do think that the GMC 6.2 will be a beast but as a few others have pointed out, it will be upstaged soon enough. I am surprised that it didn't take a huge step ahead of the competition.
Did they have their eyes just on Ford and the EB3.5 and 6.2?
and made the assumption that Ford was stuck with no room to grow? (Like the end of life 5.4).
It won't take Ford much to surpass it.
The 5.7 Hemi is almost as powerful, the IForce 5.7 isn't going to have much sand kicked in its face either.
Rumours are still floating around about the 6.2 Hemi and there is the 6.4 Hemi.

Toyota tends to be very conservative but how much tuning do they need to do to beat it?

I really like the new line of GMC/Chev trucks but they didn't set any new benchmarks for the competition.
The LD shootout will be telling but I doubt that there is a 6.2 under the hoods of any of the test trucks.

The GMC twins spent some time in the gym and like Hans and Franz, it is mostly padding under a sweat shirt.

The Ram 1500 diesel will beat that 6.2 in the real world because it won't have to stop for fuel nearly as much. Wishes for 20mpg out of a 6.2L V8 pickup? Keep dreamin'!

ALL1 you must have missed that tsb from Ford a while back basically saying any tuner even those that plug in in-line now will leave a digital fingerprint on your ECM and dealers are required to check before any warranty work is completed. My guess? You are lying about your dealership knowing, or they alternatively are jeopardizing there status with Ford by knowingly accepting a truck with a tune which since the 6.0 fiasco has been a huge no-no with Ford.

I agree a tuner won't do anything but Ford coughed up for too many toasted 6.0's that had the p*ss tuned out of them that popped but then the owners reflashed before bringing them in just because of the recall, so now they have closed that loophole and people like you and the rest of us can suffer. Personally ecoboost is way more than I will ever need but you or anyone who wants to play roulette with a 50k truck well you must make more money than me.

Toyota Tundra.
Supercharged 5.7 liter force engine from TRD.
505 HP 551 foot pounds of torque.
Full factory warranty.
Has been available since 2008.
Its nice to see GMC is still trying to catch up.

The 6.2 should be available across all GM 1500 models and trim levels, except for the shortest wheelbase, regular cab/2wd. What the hell, it's the base V8 in Camaros.


No, I am not lying and I don't appreciate you calling me one. My family members and I have been using the same dealership for years for out vehicle purchases and to do routine maintenance. When I first put a tuner on my first 5.4L I spoke with the service manager about it first. He told me that the tuner will not just up and completely void my warranty like most people think. If their technician finds that the tuner did not cause the issue then it will be covered under warranty. If they found that the tuner may have caused the issue then I would have to man up and pay to play. He told me he that my family has been doing business with him for decades and would not do something to jeopardize that, but he would not lie to Ford for me if it was my fault. I found that to be reasonable and fair. They know I have my trucks tuned and have even called to make sure was returned to stock when the were doing an update while my truck was in for an alignment.

If I increased the boost to 25 psi and the engine blew then that would be my stupidity and I would expect to pay for it. I datalog all of my tunes before I use them extensively to make sure everything like cat temps, AFR, and intake manifold pressure are within safe perimeters. I also only use reputable tuners like Mike at 5 Star whom I trust.

The problem with the 6.0L is that you had all these new wannabe garage tuners coming out making tunes for more power only and not giving a flip about reliability and longevity of the motor. People like my brother were increasing boost to dangerous levels and not concerning themselves with things like EGTs and would use only one tune for every purpose not knowing he was just frying his internals when towing. It was those first few years when tuners first became mainstream that gave the reputable companies that know what they are doing a bad name.

I frequent many vehicle forums and asked throughout every one them how many times they had warranty issues or engine issues when dealing with a reputable tuning company. I only had one person respond with a legit case where he had to pay for a $60 sensor. I have personally known a few people(one being my brother) that have had to cough some cash for something his shady garage tuner did, but have almost heard no issues from a reputable tuner

Also, please don't call me a liar again as I find it offensive.

Competition is good. I have owned many brands of trucks from all the manufacturers and to be honest all have their strong and weak points.... bottom line is no matter the brand today ...all the brands have very decent trucks.

reading the comments here and the cut downs on this or that brand is borderline retarded..... I like choice and competition as it would be a awfully bland world if we only had one choice and nothing to push that choice to improve.

Be proud of your truck or the brand you like but why cut down what others prefer?

The comments to this entry are closed.