Breaking News: 21 MPG for GM's 6.2L V-8 Option

High Country 1 II

GM has received fuel-economy ratings for the redesigned 2014 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500 pickups with the optional EcoTec3 6.2-liter V-8, we learned this morning at a breakfast meeting of the Midwest Automotive Media Association in the Chicago area.

The range-topping engine, which makes a class-leading 420 horsepower and 460 pounds-feet of torque, will also get 15/21/17 mpg city/highway/combined in 2WD configuration and 14/20/17 mpg in 4WD configuration when the EPA makes its announcements about rating certification later today.

We found the EcoTec3 5.3-liter V-8 to get exceptional fuel economy during our 2013 Light-Duty Challenge so it makes sense the bigger brother would get impressive numbers as well. Also, find out how we liked the new 6.2-liter V-8 during our drive of the 2014 Silverado 1500 High Country with the optional big V-8 under the hood. 

To read the most recently updated press release, click here

EcoTec3 6.2L V-8 II

 

Comments

HEMI V8 and myself will probably be laughing hysterically at a 1.8L quad turbo rice burners trying to push a 5,000 pound f150 while blow head gaskets and investing stock in APR as f150 owners pour into their stores for head studs. X)

Posted by: johnny doe | Oct 2, 2013 8:25:57 PM

WTF are you talking about? Put down the kool-aid and slowly walk away. A 1.8L? Really? I don't know whether to laugh at you or feel sorry.

I don't understand why they don't offer this engine with the max tow package? You would think the top engine would be able to tow the most weight, right?

Not for nothing, but if I'm paying $2000 more for a premium engine I either expect a better towing rating or better fuel economy.

As it sits right now, I'd rather have Ram's 3.0L diesel. Tows about the same and costs about the same, but at least it gets closer to 30mpg than only 20mpg.


@ALL1

Let it go Bud, just let it go. We all understand j.d's point of view. Lol!

@Dooms - I'd have to agree. What is funny is that once you mention diesel, it all of a sudden becomes a banter about "you'll never get your money out of a diesel".
The 6.2 Chevy has a price premium reported to be 1,995 in the High Country. It probably will be a more expensive option in lower trim levels.
The Ford 6.2 costs 5,710 extra in an XLT SuperCrew and 4,245 in a Lariet.
The ecodiesel is 2,800 over the 5.7 and people whine about ROI?
No one does that kind of math on Ford 6.2 or GMC 6.2.

@lou bc/dooms
There is no reason to compare the 6.2 and the ecodiesel. Apples and oranges. Totally different engines for totally different types of buyers. I don't think many people will cross-shop them. The 6.2 is about performance/ fun to drive. There is simply no other reason to buy the ecodiesel except for fuel savings so it's all about ROI. If i'm paying more money for a slower/ weaker engine it better pay for itself in fuel savings. If I'm paying more for a more powerful engine I EXPECT to pay more in fuel and have more fun driving it. If I want to tow big loads i don't waste my time with a 1/2 ton. The engine isn't the limiting factor on the tow ratings, it's the rest of the powertrain and the frame.

@Dooms You can get a max tow package with the 6.2L 12,000 pounds and as it stands right now the best MPG compare to Fords 6.2L

@Beebe - you raise a valid point but if the 21 city/28 highway that PUTC reported on their Ecodiesel video review is accurate, the payback will be there. The Ecodiesel will most likely get compared to the "mid" engines like the 5.0, 5.3, or to the 5.7 Hemi.
I doubt that V6 normally aspirated engine buyers will cross shop the Ecodiesel. If one wants economy, a NA V6 would be the best choice.
If people are buying a 6.2 (Ford or GMC) for fun, then there are people out there with deeper pockets than me.

@ALL1

Let it go Bud, just let it go. We all understand j.d's point of view. Lol!

Posted by: Frank | Oct 2, 2013 9:20:02 PM

I just can't picture some of these people. I mean, you want to think that most people posting are grown adults who have reason and logic. Then I see what they post and I beg to ask the question if they aren't up passed their bed time for school tomorrow. The only way I could think that a grown man without any mental disabilities would act that way is if they actually worked for the brands they so passionately protect. If they are actually grown men, then I am speechless and it just blows my mind to think of how they are in real life.

@ALL1 - welcome to PUTC.
It was much worse for a long time but fortunately the trolls have been reigned in.

@PUTC - kudos for getting things back under control.

@PUTC - burp!!!

@All1, the Internet brings out the worst in people doesn't it? It's unfortunate. I am passionate about cars and pickups and come here to see what's new, discuss what we like and dislike. Yet some people lack the maturity to have a good conversation. I don't even care if people are biased. I like passion, just don't attack people. Anyway welcome! Mark has been working on cleaning things up. I hope they do more to prevent trolling.

What are you going to do in 2015?

Posted by: All1

HEMI V8 and myself will probably be laughing hysterically at a 1.8L quad turbo rice burners trying to push a 5,000 pound f150 while blow head gaskets and investing stock in APR as f150 owners pour into their stores for head studs. X)


Posted by: johnny doe | Oct 2, 2013 8:25:57 PM

That's funny right their i don't care who you are. Johnny, You forgot to add the all aluminum body to go with that new 1.8L quad turbo. Can you say turbo laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag.

Class leading power, with okay fuel economy, in an okay truck. GM has done pretty good at making the new trucks competitive again, but I fear what 2 years down the road will look for them.

For those who haven't heard, a new generation of Hemi is going to be released this auto show season, a S/C 6.2. Then summer of 2014 look for the 5.7 and 6.4 to move to the new generation as well. My source is saying that the 5.7 is going to get a 30-40 HP and TQ boost and a 1 MPG improvement.

That is going to make the 5.7 Ram as FE as the 5.3 GM and next gen EB, while having the sameish power of the GM 6.2 and next gen EB. IMO the only thing Ram needs to improve is getting another 300 to 400 lbs of payload out of the 1500.

I just read a press release by ZF stating they have developed a wide ratio spread 8 speed, I'm guessing to compete with the new GM/Ford 10 speed (the 9 speed that Gm/Ford is developing is for FWD vehicles guys). I have a feeling (no real evidence to this statement) Chrysler will be using this new wide ratio spread 8 speed about the same time the 10 speed is released.

@Hemi V8

How does this suck to be a Ford fan? You keep saying that but the EcoBoost engine has the highest customer satisfaction in consumer reports surveys.

Plus there is a new Ram recall... That makes like 6 recalls this year for Ram, and none for Ford and GM.

Also, to ever said that the 6.2L was called "Coyote", it's not, it's called "Boss".

I don't know if Ram will bring the 6.4l to the 1500 or if they'll bring in a more powerfull 5.7l. Rumor has it the current Hemi is getting direct injection.

"Fred the Girl" of course it doesn't pertain to you, you can never afford a new truck or a quality truck. Stick to your old rams and fords from Buy here Pay here joints.

@Lou BC--Mark needs to breakout the pacifiers, very little has changed with the immature comments.

Jeez, how much power do people need with these trucks? 300hp, 350hp, 400hp and now 420hp. Where does it all end. 1000hp? 2000hp? Ridiculous.

I can understand the need to be competitive, but they need to start slowing down with the HP wars and start thinking about fuel economy, real fuel economy. Sure, 21mpg looks good on paper, but how often are you going to be V4 mode on level ground traveling 60 mph? If you drive at that speed (or whatever unrealistic speed they're rating this engine) around here, you'll get run off the road and that includes big rigs as well. I think they should to concentrate on getting close to 25 mpg combined. The premise of the Ram Eco diesel fits this bill.

I don't like the fact you have to run premium fuel to get the rated power figures either . What kind of HP/TQ do you get running 87 with 10% ethanol in it? Are they running that when they rate them for MPG? All we can get here is gas with at least 10% ethanol in it. The bad thing about it is that it reduces MPG and in some cases, like with the winter blend formulations, quite significantly.

The power figures are impressive and the fuel economy figures are very optimistic. Hmmm, makes me wonder if they programmed the AFM to run more aggressively on this engine compared to the mid level 5.3L.


@Mike, I'd love 2000HP!!!! Especially if it was from an electric motor.

@ the real Mike

I tend to agree with you Mike. I think the next "war" should be in weight savings since 10 lbs is roughly equal to 1 hp. A 600 lb reduction would allow higher payloads and add the equivalent of 60 hp which would curb stomp any 10-20 hp gains we see in each new generation of engine.

With BMW getting CFRP up and running we may see some of this in the trucks to help weight wise. Hopefully not on exterior panels (maybe the hood and roof) but throughout the rest of the cabin and reinforcing members.

Ford keeps promising big things in terms of weight loss in the next F150 and I figured GM would have already started down this road but everything they have made from the Corvette to the trucks are all heavier than the last generation.

On a side note I think the EPA needs to do another fuel economy update for real world highway tests at 70-75 mph since so much of the country has moved to these limits. I bet we'd see a 10% reduction in MPG's from the stickers on the window but it would be realistic.

why can't this engine run on E85?
Please GM explain me this issue!

^Chevyuser,
The 6.2L is a Corvette engine. I'm sure the e85 thing has to do with costs. e85 capability means hardening parts, more chemical resistant hoses, more sophisticated engine management software, etc. In a perfect world, every gasoline engine sold in the US should be e85 capable, but there are manufacturing costs, and food crop politics involved in a decision like that.

I'm asking about E85, because i'm from Germany and 1L gas costs 1,60€ and E85 costs 1,05€.

BTW, for those who have never owned a diesel engine.
Just because GM's new 6.2L has more hp and torque than the Ram 3.0L turbo diesel, it doesn't automatically mean the 6.2L is a better towing engine. Diesels get far better mpg while towing than gas engines do. Diesels generally also don't hunt for gears while towing. The best non-technical way to describe towing with a diesel is it's a "leisure activity." Diesels pull loads with leisure, not a lot of engine or exhaust noise, it's effortless. V8 gas engines, rev, growl, hunt for the correct gear while towing. It's just a different towing experience. Would a 6.2L when a 0-60 race pulling 6000 lb trailer verses the Ram 3.0L turbo-diesel? Absolutely. If I were towing my 6000lb boat 100 miles to the coast and back over a weekend, which would I probably want to drive? Give me the turbo-diesel, every time. If I were towing in the mountains or hill country there wouldn't even be a discussion...turbo diesels rule the hills. I've owned 3 gas v8 trucks, 1 Ford, 1 Dodge, 1 Chevy (Tahoe), and 1 Duramax diesel. There is no gasoline engine one planet earth in a truck that can outperform any Duramax, Cummins, or Powerstroke towing. Period, end of story.

And I bet this motor will get a lot better mileage then the ECOboost towing.

@ nlp

I'd take the diesel too. I am not trying to win a 0-60 race in a truck so the difference between 6.5 seconds and 8.0 seconds is meaningless to me. The only thing keeping me out of a Ram with the 3.0 is the low payload figures. If they would have bumped those up for 2014 I'd seriously be looking but for now my old truck with a 2000 lb payload will continue to suffice for what I need it to do.

im sure the real world mpg numbers will be under the 16 of the 5.3l. which means its no better.

Here is something else to think about. My 2500 HD Duramax/Allison has 260,000 miles (I bought it with 18,000mi).
I have towed my 6000 lb boat countless times over the 10 years I have owned the truck. I don't EVER remember the transmission downshifting to accelerate. Think about that gasoline truck owners....acceleration while towing without the transmission downshifting. That just another turbo-diesel advantage. And that's without using tow-haul mode.

@NLP, your post reminded me of a Chevy Duramax promo video on YouTube. Supposedly a real owner has a 3500 long-bed Duramax that he attaches a 2-ton camper to. On the video he says he uses the tow haul mode and feels like its not pulling anything. Man, I wouldn't even touch the tow-haul mode for anything under 10,000 lbs on a huge diesel like that. No matter how good gas V8s get, they will never outperform a diesel like you said. Disappointing that Chevy did not raise the bar for the 2015 Duramax. So I am guessing 2016 will be the year that Ford has the new body style and Chevy has a new Duramax engine.

GM ShmeeeeEM. Where's Chevrolet? Bring IT ON Chevy. If Big BROTHER gm will let you play.

Poor little bowtie.

Poor little bowtie.


@MM, The bowtie is controlled by govt motors and the feds. I still say free Chevrolet.

@Alex, Chevrolet is always disappointing anymore. Looks, interior, power et all........ I'm with the rest in that GM wrecked them. And on purpose. It really was a waste.

OK, the Impala was decent at best.

@ASE Certified - I have to agree that GMC didn't take a big enough step foreward with these new trucks. They have basically matched or slightly surpassed what the competition currently has to offer. Giive it a year or two and they'll be back to 3rd place when it comes to Ford and Ram (I'm not refering to sales).

@Jeff S - yes, at least they have started to get a handle oon the fake posts and outright trolling.

@howam00 - I agree that HP wars need to be replaced by MPG wars.
@nlp - the main thing that would kill the 3.0 VM diesel in the Ram are people's expectations. A diesel is not manic like a gasser. People tend to treat the gas pedal like a light switch, all on or all off. You need to thing ahead when driving a small diesel just like when driving a small gaser but like my dad used to say, "most people don't see much further than the hood ornament".

^ I agree. Look diesels in trucks are not a panacea. If you never tow and you like your truck to accelerate like a sports car, stick with gas. If you tow 1000 miles or more per year, at least borrow someone's diesel and try it. Nothing tows like a diesel.

@nlp

"I read somewhere that using regular was perfectly fine but would drop the power output by around 8%, which you would never notice unless towing a heavy load or towing in the mountains."

If what you're saying is true:

420hp x .92= 386hp on regular fuel
460tq x .92 = 423tq on regular fuel

Still good numbers for 20+mpgs but you'd feel the difference power wise more than just towing

probably needs 91 octane, 3.42 or 3.08 gears, low rolling resitance tires, and the powers all at a higher rpm then the Hemi 6.4, (and I don't mean the just 100 rpm differance in max torque, I'm talking about the power at 2000 rpm and up...) It will probably be like the last one, which barely had more power then the 5.7, and what it had was higher in the rev range, and it needed 91 octane.

It's obviously not a heavy duty type engine, or they woulda put it in the HDs. What, 300 or 500 more pounds towing copacity then the 5.3? LOL!

Wont be long people will be comparing them to air ride Rams 1/4 or 0-60 times, of course air ride Rams don't squat, so they don't get as much traction. If anybody actually read Motor Trend's Truck of The Year testing, it said they couldn't get traction. Maybe the people that do the testing will be sure to show us more numbers of what they test, not just 0-60, instead, break it down. It seems they always test the highly equiped trucks.

FWIW, In 3.5 years that I owned my Ram, never once drag raced it. A few times I needed the power to get off onramps, I'm sure there is alot that do buy a truck just to race. Why bother tho? I got a little 340 that puts out 420 hp, and less torque then this, yet in a 3100 pound car, well it's no contest. I mean, if you really wanna race, quit screwing around with 5500 pound trucks, lol!

My next truck? I just aint figured out if it will be diesel 3.0 or Hemi. But it will probably get custom plates that say NOGM4ME or NOFORD.

Doesn't matter what Chevy does with their trucks, with 8th graders making tow ratings, a nasty ol 6 speed, a steering wheel not even centered, low slung, more electrical device hookups then it's low output alternator can handle, oh, did I mention it's ugly? (inside and out) No thanks.

All1: first you tell me to manup over using a Cold Air Intake, and then when the Ecco-Burst blow not one but two head gaskets!!! then I have trouble getting my dealer to fix it, you tell me it is my fault for having a CAI, now you are talking about 450hp and over 500ftlbs, with a tuner? you can not have it both ways! no I would rather have a 6.2 with real hp and tq, and if I were to find E-85? I will be able to match the "tuned EB", with a warrantee, a longer warrantee!

@Lou BC, Howman00 and nlp,
You are seeing the beginnings of a FE war. Diesel doesn't have the hp, but it has the torque and FE. But the diesel hp deficiency will be resolved very soon from what I've read.

It will become very exciting. Ford are best placed to drop the 3.2 Duratorque into a F-150. And I bet they have already tested a prototype. They have the Ranger/BT50 to provide a lot of engineering and components.

Or just sell the diesel Ranger. The Colorado and Taco would has some serious challenges. Even the 1/2 ton trucks would be overlooked if someone is going to use it offroad.

You also have the Vans.

But I will give Fiat/Ram credit, they have taken the leap and I hope it works out for them.

To the guys that buy a diesel. Don't rev the sh!t when driving them. It's pointless.

Learn how to drive and use the vehicle and the torque.

A 4x4 Ram diesel would be the best option. A smaller diesel powered vehicle offroad it awesome.

@Lou BC (the real Lou)
Are you going back to your original tag?

It makes for easier typing, you now have to many symbols to contend with :-)

@Big Al from Oz - I probably should. The Fake Lou has been using multiple IP addresses so that is why he has been so tough to stop. I'm sure that he will surface again under a different name or with a different strategy to disrupt this site.

@Lou
I've sensed he's still with us.

I can feel the 'Force', from the Dark Side.

I've decided to be a Jedi Knight :-)

Not a Mormon.

This is breaking news?!?!

Breaking news would be a truck that got 40mpg like they do in every other continent on the planet.

LOL ALL 1! The Hemi 6 speed has a much lower (numericaly) 1st gear set a gears, and not well spaced, most of us know that. Had they just wanted to barely beat the Egoboost, the 6 speed used in the 2500s since 2012 which has a better set of ratios (never tested by Mark Williams, until he drove the 6.4s, lol) but now the 8 speed totally smokes the Egoboost, as we seen in the last shootout. And once again, Mark Williams couldn't figure out that you can put the Ram out of tow haul (as per the manual) when not in hilly terrain, as it was in their last test, so the Ram towed in a 2.98 ratio (which will do fine in a hilly area, while the GMs hunt gears, but not needed in a flatland) while GMs towed with a 2.29, Ford with a 2.49. There is your bit of gas mileage.

I heard Mike Rowe will do a special Dirty Jobs episode where he helps fix head gaskits on Ford Egoboost trucks.

Having owned Dodge V10's I found they pulled as good as the CTD 5.9 and got 11-14 pulling(2010 Explorer on U-haulfrom Van.Island to Edmonton up the Kokahalla(will outpull any gas and now have a ford squeekoboost that will out pull the first gen. dodge diesel and will handily blow the doors of anything stock.HaHaHa

I have a 2015 solverado 6.2 has 1500 miles on it
and town I have gotten17 to 18 in town
and the best on highway 26.8 can show you on the milage
screen in the truck I am playng around with it and I think I can get better in town and on higway

I have a 2013 chevy silverado z71 1500 ecsb with 5.3 (326HP flexfuel) 6spd auto 342 gears. I bought the truck new and hâte it its under powered and vert vert vert hard on fuel I get 11.7 combined mpg i get 12-13mpg at 110km/h highway. I Will Never Buy a truck again with the 5.3 my ram Hemi got better mpg and way way more power.

If you drive conservatively, the 6.2 will definitely get better than 20 mpg highway. I consistently get better mileage than the EPA ratings. And premium fuel is recommended but not required. Mine (a 2017 Sierra) runs fine on 87 octane. It's a fantastic truck!

And my 6.2 Sierra cost significantly less than $50,000!

Great Grizz, but do you realize this is a 4 year old story?



The comments to this entry are closed.