• Sign in to follow this  

    What's GM's Plan To Solve The MPG Problem With Trucks?


    William Maley

    Editor/Reporter - CheersandGears.com

    June 8, 2012

    Ford has been having a resounding success with the EcoBoost option one the F-150 pickup truck. With new full-size trucks on the way, you would think GM would be heading down the same route.

    Not so fast.

    "I wouldn't say that's a huge priority. I think there are other answers to that, which they don't have, for us that make a lot more sense," said GM North America President Mark Reuss.

    Reuss believes the full-sized pickup can't be all things to all buyers. He figures that fuel economy isn't that big of a concern for people who rely on them for a living.

    He puts its this way: if GM was to downsize from the current V8 engines used in the Silverado/Sierra while still offering power and towing capacity, GM would have to significantly reduce the truck's weight and powertrain.

    "So what have you really done? You've made a mid-sized pickup," Reuss said.

    GM's strategy is to offer a mid-size (Colorado) and a full-size truck (Silverado/Sierra).

    However, Reuss didn't say no the idea of a turbocharged V6 for its next generation pickups. GM is rumored to be developing one, but no one knows if that is to be the case or what vehicles this engine will go in.

    Regardless if the turbo V6 is part of the lineup or not, the next generation of GM pickups will be on a diet, get the next-generation small block V-8 engine with direct injection, and a eight-speed transmission.

    Source: Autoweek



      Report Article
    Sign in to follow this  


    User Feedback



    Recommended Comments

    The Ecoboost does just fine when you keep out of the Turbo. People want their cake and to eat it too... if you use more pedal, you use more gas, why is that hard to understand?

    I got 27MPG out of an AWD MKS Ecoboost on the highway. That is a great number for a big, heavy, AWD sedan, with 350 hp and gobs of torque.

    Beat that with the LS1 in my 2002 Firehawk - just sayin.

    Technical question:

    What is the height measurement of a fully-dressed ecotec?

    And of an LSx?

    And your Firehawk is a good 1,500 lbs lighter, not a giant sedan, and not AWD..... just sayin.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I still think boost eats gas. I mean, people are reporting similar fuel mileage out of the 5.0 and Ecoboost V6 in the F-150. Why are people not realizing that the simpler, relatively understressed engine is the way to go, especially in a pickup truck?

    Stay out of the pedal and you'll save gas. That's the rules with turbo or not. I think people are enjoying the turbo a bit too much and then complaining about it when they get to the gas pump. Even in the staid MKS, it was addicting to use.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The Ecoboost does just fine when you keep out of the Turbo. People want their cake and to eat it too... if you use more pedal, you use more gas, why is that hard to understand?

    I got 27MPG out of an AWD MKS Ecoboost on the highway. That is a great number for a big, heavy, AWD sedan, with 350 hp and gobs of torque.

    Beat that with the LS1 in my 2002 Firehawk - just sayin.

    Technical question:

    What is the height measurement of a fully-dressed ecotec?

    And of an LSx?

    And your Firehawk is a good 1,500 lbs lighter, not a giant sedan, and not AWD..... just sayin.

    Quite true, but ten years later I'd expect better.

    Especially from a car that can't also do sub 13 second quarter mile runs out of the box.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think I posted an Ecoboost MKS drag race vid after the car had been tuned. I think it was in the 13s, but I forget now, it's been many moons.

    Question: if you have to stay out of the throttle, what's the point in springing for the better motor? I'd buy it precisely for the fun factor.

    You can buy a Sonic with the granny 1.8... or you can step up to the 1.4T with 6 speed manual... I know which one I'd want.

    I was able to thrash my little Fiesta with 1600 motor and still get stellar mileage. What're folks getting out there in a Sonic 1.4T, I wonder...

    When we're speaking of trucks though, a simple mule of a V8 is the real deal.

    Edited by ocnblu

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The Ecotec in the HHR with the upgrade GM tune will dips into the 13's and does an easy 32 MPG highway Even driven hard it easily stays in the mid 20 MPG range.

    The trick the GM Performance engineer told me is the low end torque. With so much low end torque you can still get into the boost and get up to speed quickly but then you have much more off gas time. The DI kills the fuel if left in gear and coasting down the road. The increase with the Turbo Upgrade added not just more power but 2 MPG highway. This was confirmed buy the engineer as accurate.

    The key to the turbo engines with DI and VVT is that the torque range starts low and is as flat as a table top. This give great power and torque at nearly any speed. To be honest there is normally no need for high revs to get into the power band as I have to with a my LS, 3.0 or 3.6 powered cars. Even my old 3800SC has to rev to get anywhere compared to my 2.0.

    As for stressed engine? If an engine is properly built there is no stress. Power is stress and if the sum of the parts are built for the task ther is no stress. In the past many Turbo engines were stressed as they were never built proplerly as companies tried to bolt on a turbo but neglected the engine. The Ecotech block and head will take over 1000 HP and most of the rest of the engine will take more than most parts on many of GM's other engines.

    No matter what the perspective by us here the public has made it known they have an interest in a turbo V6 with a broad torque range and Ford can sell it for more than the V8. THis is a no brainer for a company who has coming soon a TT V6 that could be shared with many different vehicles. Just the numbers sold in the trucks would reduce the cost per unit built by GM and increase the profits even more.

    We can sit here all day and argue about this but the reality is GM will have a new Gen V V8 and will offer NA and Turbo V6 engines in the new trucks. They will make money and more money on each. These profits lowering of unit cost with shared engines will create the cash flow to fix the rest of GM. That is is the key to the truck make money and more money and they will.

    Edited by hyperv6

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    You've gotta stay out of the throttle on a V8 just the same. I didn't get 12mpg out of the CTS V coupe by driving it like grandma. "Give it gas" means just that, so don't complain when you need to fill up more often.

    The point of ecoboost is V8 power when you want it and V6 economy all other times. It fills that mission well.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hyper and Olds you both make valid points and I hope the quality plus fit and finish stay for the long haul as the profits go up. I hope they all remember the history of what happens when you build a crappy car.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I never said that I was married to the idea of the Atlas in particular.

    But I think what we've discussed here in this thread shows a surprising potential viability for an inline 6 of some sort.

    As for the dream vs. reality thing, GM had better start setting itself apart from the crowd right now if it wants to survive.

    "Me too" will never get them there.

    GM Will do just fine with building a better ME TOO for a while. Right now GM is in the mode where they have no great need to take any silly multibillion dollar risk. They have good product and better coming.

    The Me Too thing is all industries anymore. we get one Reality show on the life of cross dressing Amish then we get 5 more from other networks. It is just a sign of a tight market in an even more tight economic time. The difference of being here is just one failed project for many anymore. My company has bailed out many companies in the perfromce area because they took a great risk and failed.

    Once GM gets things done like a Flagship for Cadillac. More produce for Buick and Chevy fully revamped then they can take a look at some risks once the economy improves. Till then they need to put some profits under their belts.

    Even then the risks need to be calculated.

    The bottom line is the Atlas is an old engine that would need a lot of investment, would have limited use and too few people crying for it let alone know about it.

    On the other hand the Cruze Diesel is a risk but is calculated. It is already in great use in Europe and elsewhere. They plan a slow roll out in a Cruze to test the waters and educate the public. Things like this may or may not work but you can still take a risk and limit the damage if it failes or gather the profits if it works.

    The idea of an inline 6 in a FWD is just a poor one right now with most cars getting smaller and smaller. The packaging just has little chance to work even in coming cars like the Impala. Why re engineer all your cars for something that is more difficult to fit when you can come out with the best TT V6 on the market and put it in anything you build now and in the future win no need to redesign anything.

    GM (dat) already is the FWD transverse inline 6 master!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    2009-suzuki-verona-photo-105625-s-429x262.jpg

    Edited by regfootball

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hyper and Olds you both make valid points and I hope the quality plus fit and finish stay for the long haul as the profits go up. I hope they all remember the history of what happens when you build a crappy car.

    they got the crappy car part right, i can tell you those fornzas were not good...lol

    didn't some volvo's have in line 6's plus fwd?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Those Forenzas and Veronas were two major reasons Suzuki lost what few customers they had here in America... and they were not Suzuki products, they were GMDAT products forced on Suzuki by GM. "Real" Suzuki products were not nearly as utterly horrible. I remember reading that the Suzuki chairman was very angry with GM for ruining their reputation in the US over those two models... and after Suzuki supplied GM with the plucky little Sprint and Metro...

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hyper and Olds you both make valid points and I hope the quality plus fit and finish stay for the long haul as the profits go up. I hope they all remember the history of what happens when you build a crappy car.

    They did not forget and with each new model GM makes they have repaired much of what was wrong. I expect the ATS to show that with the right money and less short cuts that they are making a car on par or better than most others.

    For the most GM is getting it pretty much right now on quality. My Terrain has been defect free with perfect paint., My Maliubu has only had an issue with a TPM valve in one wheels and the SS has only had issues with effects from the accident and none were directly related to a factory installed part. The SS issues were limited to moving the IC so the Map did not hit the AC compressor. The IC was reinstalled a little more back than it should have been. Also the replacment intake tube blew the MAP out when I installed the upgrade. The higher presure made the plastic weld fail. The new tuber has been there for about 20,000 miles and no issues.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hyper and Olds you both make valid points and I hope the quality plus fit and finish stay for the long haul as the profits go up. I hope they all remember the history of what happens when you build a crappy car.

    they got the crappy car part right, i can tell you those fornzas were not good...lol

    didn't some volvo's have in line 6's plus fwd?

    They still do. The S60 and S80 have up to 3.2 liter turbo inline 6es mounted transversely available.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.