Not sure who what the objective of buying the 6.2 would be. If you tow enough to need the 6.2 you should probably get a 3/4 ton diesel, if not the 5.3 is plenty with much better mileage.

That's a pretty bold estimate PUTC. I'm guessing 14/19.

I'm with uncle bud

15/21 my guess is.
I'm just amazed how much hp/tq to up if driven on E85.
For 5.3L for example:
HP go from 355 to 380 and tq goes up from 383 to 416!

Oh...and in the press release it says that 6.2L recommended fuel is regular.

I didn't know that using E85 gave you more HP and torque. 380HP and 416 torque is pretty good for the 5.3

I wonder what Meg's drop to with E85

Sorry mpg's

I don't see anything eco about a 6.2 that gets 13/18.

those towing numbers are shoddy to say the least, my first 2 chevy's couldn't handle my 3k pound boat towing around, it is a half ton, much more comes into play than a big motor when towing, the rest of the truck needs to be able to handle it.

I know this surprises everybody here but I like the new 5.3L with more power, better low end torque and good FE. The one thing I wasn't sure of was should GM have went with a reworked direct injected and turbo 4.8L that I can see making the same 420hp450lb ft. I would think that a reworked NA 4.8L would have made about 315hp/335lb ft as a NA engine and a good base for to make a premium engine. I just think GM looked at things like this and active air suspension and grille shutters and said that these are more moving parts and more moving parts are more things that can go wrong and effect your reliability rating. When your slogan is "Longest lasting most dependable trucks on the road" you make the decision to stay true to what you do but do it better than you have ever done it before and just as good as the competition. In some ways I think Toyota is the same way and I kind of like it I just think Toyota missed it completely with the 3rd Gen Tundra sadly for me as I love my Supercharged 2nd Gen Tundra.

I have to admit that if the PUTC estimate is close than you might be better off going OHV in a pickup application as they generate torque better, not as complex, lighter and because they are cheaper they allow for more FE saving tech that would make a OHC engine almost to expensive for a 35K pickup application as GM pricing is much different from the GMT 900. That was the point I was trying to make earlier http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/05/2014-sierra-denali-offers-62l-v-8/comments/page/2/#comments. This is not a shot at Ram and Ford who seem to be more revolutionary than evolutionary as their revolutionary tech will overtime become cheaper and benefit everybody.

I forgot to add my FE guess which is 15/21 2wd, 15/20 4wd and for the AWD Denali 14 or 15/20.

Yeah, more power with E-85, and burn almost 30% more.

No way will it REALLY get 16/22. Maybe if it's drafting a Ram, it has 3.08 gears and 245/70 17s that are really low rolling resitance? Going through Illinois (flatlands) @60 mph?Something to bust a whole in the air, because these Chivys just weren't made so aero.

I can just imagine he cab noise at 75 mph!

That's alot of torque, enjoy it for a year or two. That's about how long it will be before it's out done, AGAIN.

So, how long until GM gets a 1500 diesel?

I agree. There's not much eco about the highly speculative 16/22.

Yeah, more power with E-85, and burn almost 30% more.

No way will it REALLY get 16/22. Maybe if it's drafting a Ram, it has 3.08 gears and 245/70 17s that are really low rolling resitance? Going through Illinois (flatlands) @60 mph?Something to bust a whole in the air, because these Chivys just weren't made so aero.

I can just imagine he cab noise at 75 mph!

That's alot of torque, enjoy it for a year or two. That's about how long it will be before it's out done, AGAIN.

So, how long until GM gets a 1500 diesel?

Posted by: TRX-4 Tom | Jun 3, 2013 8:54:52 AM

I knew Tom would be here to troll and stir the pot before too long. Good job Tommy! Keep on trollin'!!!

Ram isn't 21 hwy mpg? It's 22 hwy mpg (2wd) lol god people try so hard to make ram look bad. Ford will end up leaving this 6.2 v8 behind in hp & tq anyway come 2015 big deal. Gm needs a lightweight duramax and a pair of balls!

AD - The 4.8 was a GOOD engine! When did GovtMotors start making Chevy engines like this says??? GovtMotors always did the transmissions and shared them around. NOT the Engines! I wouldn't drive a Chevy with a GovtMotors engine for NOTHING!

I have to agree that 16 city and 22 highway are overly optimistic. I think 14-15 city and 21 highway would be more reasonable.

I still think GM messed up not having the 8-speed ready for the Corvette or trucks upon initial release. The solid low end torque of the new gen 5 motors would allow for some fairly tall final overdrives and likely could have gotten them another 1-2 mpg on the highway and maybe 1 in the city. In the truck world those are large improvements.

I fully expect to see these transmissions in the 2015 models but maybe they'll try and hold them for two model years to help them compete with the new Ram, Titan and Ford.

still no J2807 method on towing. tells me they still cant compete with Toyota's numbers or they would go ahead and use the method already. far as i've seen STARING at the frame on that truck it hasnt changed at ALL! yet here we go with the one upmanship of towing numbers again..................

@MoparMadness

I am not sure what you are getting at but I was speaking hypothetically that if GM had reworked the 4.8L the same way they did the Eco Tec3 it would probably could get the same power as the outgoing 5.3L but better FE possibly 16 or 17/24. Which would have made it a good base for a for a turbo motor that would give it the same 420/450lb ft as the 6.2L but peak torque at a lower rpm, a V8 sound compared to the competitions turbo engine and better FE than the new 6.2L and tie the competition @ 16/22. I would think GM would look at an idea like that given the competition but would say to themselves that is more complexity than we like and more moving parts than we like so no go for our pickup application.

Everyone talks about the old 4.8L, whats so wrong with the new 4.3L V6, its numbers are nothing short of amazing, if you only need a RWD and you dont tow just haul stuff, the new base 4.3L is great on paper so far. If you tow and will get a crew cab 4x4 the new 5.3 is amazing and only for $900 more bucks.
You can't have to many engines overlapping increasing production sales and cannibalizing sales.
My 2 cents, Cheers!

Considering the current 6.2 can't touch the current 5.3 in terms of cith/hwy mileage I don't get PUTC estimates on the new 6.2 only getting 1MPG worse on Hwy. Doesn't add up...

Chevy did a good job with the New Impala Sedan, seems like they should have put some more time into their truck redoes.

i agree a little overly optimistic. Won't it be sweet if the 6.2 gets 22 mpg highway though? By the way, does anyone know when ford might reveal the next f-150? they are redesigning it for 2015 for sure? I think pickuptrucks.com is kind of slacking lately on pickup news. I feel like I don't know what is going on with pickups. They need to refresh us sometimes as to what is going on with the trucks. I don't want to have to go back and read all the past articles. Just little overviews/reminders would be nice for me. Like weren't there some big updates to the Tundra? When is the 1500 ram diesel going to be available? What is new or will be new with titan?

I don't like that grille on those LTZ's. I like the Z71 grille better. You can't beat a SBC though when it comes to being durable and reliable. No matter what the mpg's are. I will give them that.

@beebe - Ford's strategy of late has been to dribble out tidbits of information. I suspect that they do that to keep Ford at the front and centre. There always is a Ford tidbit everytime we see a RAm or GMC story.
I bet that once the new 2014 GM's hit the streets and around the time Ram starts offering information on their next gen truck, we will see Ford spoonfeeding bits to the press.

My guess is that once we see how well the Ram VM diesel sells, Ford will take the diesel out of the Transit and put it in the F150.

if the economy estimates are correct, GM is solidly proving you can have your cake and eat it too with the 6.2V8, I would bet it also gets way better gas mileage towing than the EB... Ecoboost consider the gauntlet thrown.

@Joe

I don't think anybody is trying to make Ram look bad and you are correct Ram is 22mpg hwy. The problem is I don't see where PUTC got 17 city as I read only 15 city for a Hemi 8-speed auto RWD http://www.trucktrend.com/features/news/2013/163_news130503_2013_ram_1500_rwd_v_8_mpg/index.html. The 4wd is only 1 mpg worse highway at 21. So if the 1/2 a liter larger displacement without all the new tech and new tranny is closely rated what does that mean about the return on the investment of all the new tech Ram added?

I keep reading where people are talking about all the future Ram and Ford tech but I have to ask how much is it going to cost and who will pay for it Ram and Ford or you?
Some companies from a dependability, reliability and cost of ownership don't see it as a worthwhile investment so I don't blame them for not going down that road. http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2013/02/07/qa-mike-sweers-toyota-chief-engineer-tundra/

So we're saying the EcoBoost is an expensive paperweight. Wow!

Bring on the EPA numbers for the 6.2. GM will likley implement the 8 speed transmissions in 1-2 more model years, just like the delayed release on the GMT900 generation trucks with the 6speed transmissions. And 22 mpg from the 6.2? I'd be impressed.

@TRX-4 Tom It'll be interesting I think GM sitting in a good spot. About the time the new Ford and Ram come out GM's 8 speed will be out. With my thinking GM could kick up the HP/TQ and to match or pass what the other truck makers have done like they done right now, and be still efficient. Then not long after that the Ford/GM 9 and 10 speed transmission will be out.

Ford and GM are actually teamed up to build 9 and 10 speed transmissions. And if I remember correctly, both intend or intended on skipping 8 speeds altogether.

@johnny doe & @kemo - essentially my point is if GM haphazardly trows a 9/10 speed transmissions like they did with their 6 speed tranny on the GMT-900 they could take a huge hit in MPG ratings compared to the newly redesigned Ford or RAM (2015 & 2016).

If the 5.3 HP goes from 355 to 380 and tq goes up from 383 to 416 running E-85, I wonder what the numbers will be for the 6.2? I know it's not a very scientific way of doing it, but If one uses the 5.3 increases as a base, then the 6.2 would be about 445hp and around 485 tq!

I bet it will be more like 15/20 MPG.

@aj,
Some say that SAE certified numbers will be even higher than 420hp/450tq.
The 5.3L goes up 7% in hp and 8.6% in torque. If the 6.2L goes up the same percentage it would be around 450hp and 490tq. Of course, it's a the cost of worse fuel economy. But I'm sure for some mpgs don't matter.

@Jerry, you're looking at the current (2013) 6.2 L v8 403hp/417ft-lb torque that gets 13/18 cit/hwy mpg according to the EPA. The new EcoTec3 6.2 (2014) 420hp/450ft-lb torque is rumored to get 16/22 cit/hwy mpg according to the PUTC team.

What I want to know is do they still come with piston slap?

I am very excited to see this engine. The torque is right on par with the 8.1L when it was out. At 11.5:1 compression this engine will be excellent on premium fuel or E85. Trust me when I say this it will make more power on better fuel. The tuning system on this will base timing on fuel octane and higher octane will bring on more power (ECM calibration is my job). My main problem is that they never put the good engine in the regular cab. This engine in a Regular cab would be a damn fun truck and the first reason I've seen in a while to consider replacing my 06' Silverado that I bought new. The fuel milage in this will be nearly as good as the 5.3L since the bigger power will allow this engine to run in 4 cylinder mode alot more frequently and stay in 4 cylinder mode under heavier load situations.

NO Piston Slap Zippy,

But probably big brother's 95 mph speed governor and monitoring GPS & Audio, courtesy of OnStar, just like my 2011 Avalanche.

this doesn't surprise me at all. I have a 98 Camaro with a 5.7 ls1 put out 395hp and 401 fttq to the wheels with out direct injection. which was dynoed on 87 octane.

If the 6.2 is what PUTC estimates, why get the 5.3? Now, as soon as GM gets the 8 speed in there, like Ram has, then we have a show stopper.

6.2l in single cab short bed with base trim. Super sport sleeper. Concentrated badassery. Maybe throw in the 6 speed and some paddle shifters and a locker or a propper limited slip diff. Ditch the old gov-loc and put in something like a power trax no slip or a torsion type diff.

i do hate the fact that they got rid of vortec... i wonder if swapping out cams and heads will be as easy as they where before.. i would love to get my hands on a 5.3 and swapping that cam shaft and giving it a custome tune. 95mph yaa No

If youre worried about gas mileage buy a Prius.

Or even better, buy a Ram EcoDiesel!

Dodge sucks..

Chevy & Ford make the best trucks :)
just a bit skeptical about the ecoboost issues being blogged and recorded/ reported.

Get a tuner for the Ecoboost and it will eat all the other truck's lunch. Feel free to tune them as well though. Not likely you'll strap a turbo or supercharger on those big v8s so don't bring it up lol.

I couldn't agree more with this. This 6.2 will was worth the wait. I was thinking of the 2500 with the durmax, but with the 2500's extra weight, I don't need that. I want this which will be crisper.

I am very excited to see this engine. The torque is right on par with the 8.1L when it was out. At 11.5:1 compression this engine will be excellent on premium fuel or E85. Trust me when I say this it will make more power on better fuel. The tuning system on this will base timing on fuel octane and higher octane will bring on more power (ECM calibration is my job). My main problem is that they never put the good engine in the regular cab. This engine in a Regular cab would be a damn fun truck and the first reason I've seen in a while to consider replacing my 06' Silverado that I bought new. The fuel milage in this will be nearly as good as the 5.3L since the bigger power will allow this engine to run in 4 cylinder mode alot more frequently and stay in 4 cylinder mode under heavier load situations.

Have owned a 3.5T ecoboost from ford and walks away from the GM 5.3 quite eqsily time and time again so makes me wonder if GM likes to BS about their numbers as in the past

I love my 2012 6.2l but the advertised 405hp is a joke. I had my oem truck dyno'd at 205 rwhp. Not sure where GM got 405?