New GM TurboMax Engines | Twin Turbo V8 or V6 Coming?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 вер 2024
- Marty's Chevrolet ➡️ www.martys-che...
Marty's Buick GMC ➡️ www.martysbuic...
GM OEM Parts ➡️ www.martyspart...
Follow Me On IG ➡️ / realbrianmello
GM Vehicle Walkarounds:
New Tahoe Z71 - • New 2023 Chevy Tahoe Z...
New Sierra Denali Ultimate - • New 2022 Sierra Denali...
New Yukon Denali XL - • New 2023 Yukon Denali ...
New Sierra Elevation - • 2022 Sierra Elevation ...
New Sierra AT4X - • New 2022 GMC Sierra AT...
New Suburban High Country - • New 2023 Suburban High...
New Yukon Denali Ultimate - • New 2023 Yukon Denali ...
New Sierra Denali - • Refreshed 2022 GMC Sie...
New Sierra SLT 5.3 - • NEW Refreshed 2022 Sie...
New Sierra AT4 6.2 - • Refreshed 2022 Sierra ...
Would You Buy One? 🤔
New 2023 Silverado SS - • New 2023 Silverado SS ...
New 2023 Yukon GT - • New GMC Yukon GT | Wou...
New Acadia GT TT - • New 2023 Acadia GT Twi...
New Blazer ZR2 - • New 2023 Chevy Blazer ...
New Tahoe SS - • New 2023 Tahoe SS - Wo...
New Chevy Nomad - • New Chevy Nomad SS | W...
New Chevy Avalanche - • New Chevy Avalanche | ...
New Chevy Chevelle SS - • New Chevy Chevelle SS ...
New GMC Vandura G20 - • New GMC Vandura G20 - ...
New Chevy Nova Yenko - • New Chevy Nova Yenko/S...
New Chevy Astro Van - • New Chevy Astro Van - ...
New Cadillac Escalade Pickup - • New 2022 Escalade EXT ...
#brianmello #generalmotors #turbomax
New 6th Gen V8 Engines On The Way - ua-cam.com/video/0sg-KrRxHu8/v-deo.html
Cool, but 5.3 liter is great with this 10 speed☝️
Drop one of the V8 e engines keep the 2.7 for the small trucks only with a 24gal fuel capacity and the rest of the bigger trucks get a 34 gal capacity wether it be a 1500 or HD truck
Currently the 2021 model small trucks are given a 21 gal fuel capacity, like why not just do the 24 gal??? (That info is from the gmc website)
I like the 2.7 engine as I have the 2022 Sierra model in such configuration but it think it would best fit in the canyon/Colorado trucks
But but but.......Cadillac is going into Formula One auto racing!
Surely the dumbest idea they have ever had. Shareholders must be stupid!
This will do nothing for GM - except eat cash.
Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Saturn, Opel, Vauxhall. Hummer, Sabb and Holden! Is Cadillac next to get the axe?
@@DennisMerwood-xk8wp 2023 Saab 9-3 2023 saab 9-5 still in production Holden 2023 Colorado in production along with 20 "ev's" to come, yeah I'd say you got yourself in ah mix...
@@drofdoctors7887 The 2023 Chevrolet Colorado is due to go on sale in the US early next year. Built in the US. An Australian Holden launch is not expected. Holdens are not made in US anymore.
As for 20 "ev's" to come - don't hold your breath. October 2017, GM said they would have “at least 20 new all-electric vehicles that will launch by 2023.” GM president Mark Reuss added that “these aren’t just words in a war of press releases.” And one year ago, they upped that ante to 30 new EVs by 2025.
GM has had four years out of the five they gave themselves, and they haven’t made any progress whatsoever on their promise. They’ve launched one EV (Bolt EUV) and stopped three production lines (Volt, and temporarily the Bolt and EUV). If they had delivered on even 20% of their promise in the four years since they made it, they’d still at least have more EVs now than they did then. But they didn’t, and they have nothing.
I was wrong on Saab
A twin-turbo V8 would be great. Make it a 4.2l to replace the 5.3 with 500 hp. Keep the 6.2 but up the power on it as well.
They already manufacture a 4.8 liter
@@beowulf885 That's in the commercial vans only. GM stopped using the 4.8 in 2014.
I've owned an EcoBoost and the 5.3 V8. After doing the math, I see that I get better mileage with the 5.3 than I ever did with the Ecoboost.
Which ecoboost did you have? I just uploaded a video where I drove around 285 in Atlanta @ 55 mph and got 36 mpg in my 2016 F165. I know damn well a 5.3 is not getting 36 mpg @ 55 mph.
@@blackericdenice I had a 2015 Expedition with the 3.5
@@blackericdenice by the way, what is a F165? Please enlighten me.
@@donaldhenderson3495 You don't put a 3.5 vs 5.3. The 3.5 has 420 lbs.-ft torque vs 383 lbs.-ft. A 3.5 ecoboost is like having a 7 liter v6 when it on full boost. You need to put the 2.7 375 lbs.-ft next to the 5.3. A 2.7 will out pull it and burn less gas when you are not towing.
@@donaldhenderson3495 A F165 is a F150 with a 165 cuin aka 2.7.
A F213 is a 3.5 ecoboost, a F302 is the 5.0 and the F330 is a F150 with the last 5.4 v8.
I personally don't think they would build a twin turbo V8 because it would make too much sense. I have had quite a few high HP GM engines but had to build them myself.
They're going to do a twin-turbo version of the LT6 Z06 engine for the upcoming ZR1 version of the Corvette. 850 hp. It will be called the LT7.
I've driven a few inline 6 many years ago. Something that sticks in my mind is how smooth they were. Inline 6s are inherently balanced, with little vibration.
I'd be interested in one.
We talkin V6...not a inline...
@@drofdoctors7887 : at 44 sec, 1:37 and 1:44, they're showing an inline 6. Oh well, I won't be buying a GM anyway.
3.0 duramax is an in-line 6
Still driving my I-6 Oldsmobile Bravada, 4.2 liter; yep, smooth.
GM already had a twin turbo v8 they released it in the 2018 Cadillac ct6 v black wing but discontinued shortly after at the end of 2020 so it is a very rare engine but was highly rated from the reviews I read. Hopefully they improve on it and bring it back. I Never understood why they spent all that money developing that engine only to use it in one model and for a very brief time .
The Cadillac Blackwing twin turbo 4.2 is the best engine GM ever made. Now in the Ct4 and Ct 5. Originally hand built, but can be mass produced.
Drop the 2.7, Definitively keep the 5.3.
Lmao clown the 2.7 is quicker and better then The 5.3 the 5.3 is pathetic
Turbo the 5.3!
AMEN!!
That's not happening, if anything i feel like they'd drop the 6.2, while it's probably the best towing of all the half tons a V6 Turbo would be in the same power range leaning the 5.3 in the same class it's already in, they could rework it a bit and boost the output closer to the Hemi and Coyote 5.0. but that 2.7 is staying. It has a place in the entry level trucks and is a rather impressive motor
Should of never dropped the LV3, if anything Kill DOD/AFM
No automaker is ever going to completely switch to EV's. That is, ones that want to stay in business.
When I worked at GM, I advocated for developing a twin-turbo version of the LV3 V6. I don't know if GM will bring that engine back, but a gasoline version of the 3.0 Duramax seems feasible.
So by that logic, Tesla won't stay in business unless they make ICE cars?
How will ICE car companies stay in business once sales of them are banned?
Additionally as the price of batteries decline EVs will become cheaper than ICE cars...so market forces would doom ICE vehicles anyway. EVs already are cheaper once all costs are considered.
Yes ICE manufactueres hope there are enough die hard enthusists to keep them going but that is a short lived proposition.
@@Goldsteinphoto You will please notice my careful phrasing. Since Tesla started out as an EV-only car maker, they don't have to switch to them.
And you have confirmed my suspicion that EV believers are really socialists. What other segment of the population talks about banning certain products that used to be perfectly legal.
What do you think is going to happen to the price of batteries and electricity once real cars are banned? With no competition, the prices will go out of sight. Batteries are already expensive and their manufacture depends on strategic materials such as lithium and cobalt. Copper is already a semi-precious metal, and it will turn into a precious metal if real cars are banned.
@@andyharman3022
"Real cars" ??? That definitely shows a veey ridiculous viewpoint that undercuts anything you say. Sort of like putting your head in the sand and pretending they will go away.
Banning something has nothing to do with socialism. Heck some Republicans want to ban all kinds of things.
The timeline for phasing out ICE vehicles has been established by many countries. Huge battery factories are being built. Biden just said that the IRA will fund construction of 500,000 chargers. It's a done deal.
The cost of batteries has been steadily declining.
ICE vehicles waste about 80% of their fuel as heat. EVs use about 90% of their energy for motion and recapture and store energy via regenerative braking.
@@Goldsteinphoto Yes. Real cars. Ones that Americans have been driving for more than 100 years. Ones that can be refueled in 5 minutes, not 5 hours, and can drive 300+miles at 75+mph. Ones that start once the temperature goes below zero and provide comfort to the occupants in the form of heat, without sacrificing driving range.
If electric cars were so obviously better, governments wouldn't find it necessary to ban real cars because people would buy them without being bribed with tax incentives or forced because no alternative is available. Remember when the gummint went on their big crusade to ban incandescent light bulbs? The ban went into effect, but you can still buy incandescent bulbs. Why? Because the people still want them.
If you want to live in tyranny, move to Cuba or Venezuela. Leave America to people who love freedom.
You really have no clue about the magnitude of the problem when you say 500,000 chargers are going to be built. (By proven liar Joe Biden, so they'll probably never come to be.) If those chargers can recharge 12 vehicles a day (2 hours for a full charge, 24 hours per day) that's a capacity of 6,000,000 a day. Sounds pretty good. But there are about 1,300,000 gas pumps in the USA, and each is capable of refueling 288 cars a day (12 per hour x 24 hours per day), that's a capacity of 374,400,000 a day. There are 270 million cars in the USA, and there is more than enough capacity to refuel them every day. But on the average, people only have to refuel every 5 days. That's why it's always convenient to refuel.
The electricar con is all about getting people to lower their expectations, and you have bitten on it, hook, line, and snker.
@@andyharman3022 What a lot of people don't realize is:. There isn't enough lithium on our planet to keep making these new, expensive batteries. Also, digging for the lithium does more harm to our environment than the environmentalists realized. Let's not forget our old power grid won't be able to handle all of these EVs having to be charged all of the time. The combustion engines are not going away anytime soon.
All we'll probably get is the 3.6 tt from Cadillac tuned for truck duty.And in typical GM fashion it'll only be available on the highest trims with the steepest price.
They should make a twin turbo 3.0 I-6 similar to the Hurricane.
Oh my gosh a twin turbo 5.3 sounds like pure heaven.
Why not a turbo V-8. Even mild boost on a 6.2 would make close to 600hp
That would be my choice!!
Gas 3.0 inline 6 turbo, that’s what’s up.
I’m a huge fan of the 6.2 especially mated to the 10 speed auto. Up the 6.2 to about 500hp
Twin turbo 4.3 V6 please!
Be so cool 4.3 twin turbo
In a CrOssOvEr, lol
I’ve had a 2.7 for about a year now…. So far so good! Great little engine!
Add an in-line 6 cylinder with variable geometry single turbo. Make the displacement 4.0L, keep the 2.7L and the 6.2L.
Might as well scrap the 2.7 and have the 4.3, 4.8, 5.7, 6.6 only.
Would make sense to carry over the 1500 MAXpower package from the 6.0L before the 6.2L was available in the 1/2 trucks. That was a V8 platform so TurboMAX should retain the V8 brand already established by GM
twin turbo everything and go out with a bang 🤘
Historically modern V6's in work vehicles ie trucks can put out good power - for awhile. But running the balls off of a little V6 in a work vehicle with one or two turbos usually drastically shortens its lifespan as its grossly over worked. Its a known fact that a small engine working harder never lasts as long as a bigger engine doing the same work under lower stress. Engineers know this, but govt. pressure for better gas mileage and emissions ALWAYS trumps common sense, the government emission and mileage mandates have seen to that - its also why car manufacturers were forced to resort to delicate and EXPENSIVE rocket science like multiple computers, fuel injection, variable valve timing and gangs of sensors to satisfy big brother. We dont pick what vehicles we buy anymore - the government does - and they charge PLENTY.
Just thinking about having a twin turbo v8 option on a 1500 series truck makes me harder than Chinese algebra.
Who doesn't dream of a 6.2L twin turbo power plant??
For what to drop, lose the 4 banger.
🤣😂🤣 I'm with ya!!
The 5.3 is bulletproof. I would stick with the v8s. Or the baby max too
Non DOD/AFM engines are bullet proof
5.3 bulletproof? had one in a 2019 silverado junk motor! on my third engine gm had to replace in my truck,had to sue them to replace the second engine!
good perspective. what is certain that GM will never depart from the 4.4in bore spacing.
I'd opt for a factory turbo-charged V6 or inline 6 over N.A. V8s. Living at altitude you can feel the lack of power in N.A. V8s (minus the 6.2L).
So put a turbo on the V8.
Drop the 2.7 4 cylinder turbo from the Silverado, it will live on in the Colorado/Canyons.
Twin turbo straight 6 👌
Sturdy.
TT v6 in Denali canyon with 400hp/500tq/28mpg @ $50k. I’m in!
🙏 for a twin turbo 6.2 v8…..unfortunately I know that won’t happen 😩
Turbo v6 makes sense for improved fuel economy and power on demand. Of course we want a a turbocharged V8! And put it In the AT4x to compete with the TRX.
As much as it saddens my heart to say this I believe logically you have to drop the 5.3 the new 2.7 basicly makes the same power, just gets better mileage doing it. You keep the 6.2 for all the people who really want a v8 and that higher performance option. Then I think they need to do a tt inline 6 for the higher touqe numbers it could put out and the reliability of the I6. I belive the power numbers they could get from an engine like that would blow away a base 5.3. And work nicely in a truck or suv set up.
I wouldn't mind a small displacement. V8 with twin turbos instead of a medium large V6 turbo
Until the expensive repair bills on a highly over stressed engine come rolling in--lol
If they were to drop one engine for a tt v6 I think it should be the 5.3. This way you have your budget truck engine (i4) the standard every day engine (ttv6) the premium power making monster (6.2 v8) and then the diesel.
6.6 v8 4.8 v8 5.3 v8 6.2 v8 7.0 v8 the new 6.6 v8 would amazing with a twin set up
Honestly the old addage still hold today. There is no replacement for displacement! But turbo the big boy v8 and you get the best of both worlds. Turbos add more air, not more power. To get more power you need more fuel. I've personally seen really hot 4bangers that burn more fuel than my 6.2. Gimme a turbo for a 6.2 or 6.0 and you'll know what real power is, plus if your not spooling you won't burn the excessive fuel all the turbo 6 and turbo 4s are going through.
Watch it be a Twinturbo 4cylinder
i know this is an old video but the zr1 corvette is supposed to be a twin turbo version of the z06 motor. idk if it will classify as a turbomax though, but it could be a turbo small block
I'd like to see those engines in a Skylark GS OR GRAND NATIONAL from Buick!
I currently have a 6.2 in my '15 Sierra and while I like its power and the sounds it makes I don't like filling up with premium fuel now that many stations are really upping the price on premium compared to lesser grades. I also don't like being concerned about engine failing due to the cylinder deactivation setup - add to that the potential failure of the 8 speed trans. This is my first GM vehicle and will likely be my only gas 1/2 ton GM truck. If the new engine is competitive in power, efficiency and durability I don't care how many cylinders it has. I just want it to work and work for a long time.
The GM V8s were designed to run 87, look at the 6.6L.
@@shadowopsairman1583 the GM 6.2 specifically either recommends or requires premium gas. The GM gas 6.6 is on my radar too especially now that it will be paired with the “Allison” 10 speed.
I gave my 09 avalanche a heart transplant from the 5.3 to the 6.2. with very little tuning, mostly just cleaning up the fuel map, I ended up losing about 1/4 mpg for this swap. Granted I can't drive it hard or else she's THIRSTY but oddly enough my towing millage improved by about 3mpg.... Proving that there is no replacement for displacement.
@@redracerproductions to my knowledge (and I could be wrong) the only 6.2s that require premium are in the high performance category. The Vette, Camaro or CTS-V to name a few. The truck versions recommend premium because the tune is optimized for it and the knock sensors will pull timing. For everyday normal truck use, regular 87 won't hurt the truck engine at all.
How many people have actually driven a 4-cylinder turbo Chevy believe me I understand the thought is kind of crazy. but the other day I test drove a truck that hasn't been available for a while a short bed standard cab half ton Chevy this is a hell of a work truck and if that 4-cylinder with 430 pounds of torque down low RPM doesn't impress you in that truck something's wrong. It'll blow the tires off for 200-350 down the road but I need more
More plastic more sensors more emissions components more money and smaller this is exactly what I wanted
they need to drop the 4 cylinder in the full size pickup
what were they thinking
Let's speculate using stuff we know. 2022-23 2.7L I4 Turbos make nearly V8 power and diesel torque; so make that a 3.6-.8L V6 twin turbo [small to keep the spool time very quick] and 500HP and 500LB/ft torque are easy all day numbers. Hopefully, GM will use the tech from the 2.7L turbo (DOHC, the multiple profiles the camshaft can 'slide' between, and run on 2 cylinders at cruise). I would expect same highway cruise MPG numbers at the 2.7Turbo, and perhaps a 1MPG less in city ratings; with power that exceeds the NA 6.2L V8. Oh, and stick the V6 Turbo in a car and call it a Grand National. 😃
Street wouldn't that be similar to a Cadillac ct4 v that is already in production? 3.6 twin turbo V6.
@@davidryder5082 Might, but with the lessons learned building the 2.7L, a V6 based on the would not really be suited for smaller cars. The 2.7L is, shall we say, 'hardened' for truck workloads, with more engine block material, and tuning for torque vs. high RPM HP, making it easily handle the toughest workload. I encourage everyone to seek out the tech videos on the 2.7L turbo to get a real feel for the level of grunt that I4 puts out, then translate that to V6. It seems like logical progression of engine complexity. Since GM now has several model years of experience with what that engine can do and what needs to be better; I would expect such a V6 to be next. In addition, the packaging into a V6 means it should fit into many of the smaller SUVs, full-size SUVS, and light trucks/vans that GM produces while giving each of those vehicles a boost in performance and economy.
Personally I think this is the dumbest idea suggested or put forward by GM… here is why. Ford has already experimented with the V6Twin Turbo Eco-boost configuration touted to replace V8s in their 1500 series with a modicum of success, and many blown up engines that could take the pressure. The market quickly learned their is no replacement for displacement when wanting combined pulling, and hauling performance balanced with drive train reliability, the Ford EcoBoost is nothing more than a novelty vehicle.
Fast forward to GMs current line up: take the 2020 introduced gas 6.6L and tune to 475 easy horses, naturally aspirated and mate to the ten speed Allison with 4:10 rear end, and you’ve got the next best thing to the Duramax. Retain the 6.2 with increased performance mated to a ten speed for half ton market, Drop the 5.3, and if your were going to turbo anything investigate the 3.0L inline six Duramax and diminutive 2.7L Gasser. That’s it!
The rest is likened more so to fantasy football.
Need a twin v8 lol I’m about to twin turbo my 08 Silverado
Drop the 4 cylinder turbo. Get a V6 turbo and I'll buy one. I'm currently looking at Ford's because of the 3.5 Ecoboost. I don't need a 3/4 ton truck, I don't want a diesel with all the emissions crap to deal with and my 5.3 is a little lack luster in the power department when it comes to towing especially compared to the 3.5 Ecoboost.
The best way to increase the fuel economy of the V8 is boost . A twin turbo 5.3 with low boost numbers would amazing. I will never buy a gas 6 banger , sorry GM. Build the turbo V8 Please!!!!!!
I’m sure they’ll drop the 5.3 and keep the 6.2 eventually phasing out the 6.2 also. That 2.7 isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.
What would make sense is to just add 2 cyl to the 2.7 turbo 4 which would be about 4L and turbo charge that. could easily make 450 hp and 500+ lbs of torque then get rid of both v8s
GM already makes a twin turbo v6. I have one in my Cadillac
Whether we want to accept it or not, the fact is big V8s are on the way out. If manufacturers can produce smaller engines that put out big power and burn less fuel, isn't that a good thing?
The 2.7 can stay with the Mid Sized Trucks, a Twin Turbo V6, if finalized, for example would be suitable for the GMC Sierra PRO and optional for the SLE along with being standard for the Canyon AT4 and Denali Trim, while the Elevation through the Denali Full Sized Trucks would obtain the new 5.3 Liter as the standard Powertrain, this scenario would follow suite respectfully between the Colorado and Silverado based on select Trim levels, what I'm also wondering is; if gm will put out 3 optional Torque and Horsepower Ratios from this new V8 the same way they did with the recently refined 2.7 Liter, the Horsepower could range from 450 Horsepower for the first option and take it up higher between 500 to maybe even 550+ HP for the last two options especially when adding in the AT4, Z-R2, High Country and Denali Trims, just my guessing, no solid facts here.
Personally, I think inline 6 twin turbo would be great because the grunt of the inline 6 for when you're in turbo lag. They already have great low ene
new ram engine is one
@@mikethetoolman8776 inline 6 engines are fantastic truck engines actually always have been always will be my F-150 had a 300 cubic inch in line 6. That was great. Ran forever that seem little 300 was also in large dump trucks.. had different intake manifolds and exhaust manifolds are slightly more horsepower and torque. I'm talking like 175 horsepower and a huge triaxial dump truck
Yes!
I'm pretty sure GM is dropping both V8s for one in the next gen small blocks. So probs the Turbo 4, twinturbo 6, new V8 and the diesel. Be my guess where the 4 is entry the 6 is pushed to make most sales and the V8 and diesel are premium engines.
I would prefer a twin turbo inline. 6
Twin turbo V6 - nope! Twin turbo V8 - yessir!
Totally off topic, but how u liking ur hummer so far?
where did you get the footage for the v6 engine at 0:26. thank you
TURBO V8 😂👍👍👍👍
Maybe put the twon turbo 6 in some of the smaller s u v's. The truck's and large s u v's have enough enigine options. IF general motors built right hand drives right across their range for Australian and New Zealand markets, their smaller s u v's, some cars and maybe the vans would do well here.
TURBOMAX HAHA
Scrap the 2.7 leave that for the car applications
I had an Ecoboost. A twin turbo 6 is not what I would be interested in. I got a Silverado 1500 with the 5.3, when I traded trucks. The Ecoboost f150 I had fell flat up top where the V8 I have now seems to pull all through the rev range.
Twin turbo I6!!!!!
In the 1930s aircraft engines were manufactured with such close tolerance there was no need for gaskets. Ever think that will happen in the US car industry.
How about one that won't Blow up would be nice!
What kind of HP would V-6 twin turbo have? Thanks for the great channel
Get rid of the 5.3 . It has served its purpose. Time for a change. A turbo v8 would be cool
Replace the 6.2L NA V8 with a twin turbo 4.8L V8, and replace the 2.7L turbo I4 with a 3.6L turbo inline 6.
Twin Turbo V8 in the 2024 Truck :)
If it offers a benefit over the 5.3 or the 3.0, sure, I'd look at it.
I hope its an inline 6!
What it they were to bring back the syclone as a last goodbye
How about a new 4.8 V8, with a med pressure turbo, not overly stressed or boosted, just enough to create a nice broad torque curve and decent hp peak, without a thirst for gas. Use the LS architecture with all aluminum block and heads, composite oil pan and valve covers, with forged internals. Tied up to a 10 speed, with a novel 2 speed rear end, for rwd highway cruising at 75 mph at 1,200 Rpm’s right under the tq peak. With a low range built in for when it’s needed, for use with 4x4 and inclement weather. That would give a great tow rating, save weight using a one speed transfer case. Maybe even slip a electric motor between the engine and trans, for a plug in 30 or so mile range of EV transport. Of course it goes without saying available across all trim levels!
Have you ever asked an Eco-boost owner about their honest fuel mileage? I get better empty milage from my 6.2 (l9h truck model) 6.2l AND better towing millage! I get about 24-25 empty and roughly 14-15 towing my 8000lb rv. Many of the eco boost honors I've talked to have to drive like a grampa to get 21 empty and it's single digits towing. If GM would give us a big boy turbo 8 we would have the displacement AND the boost for more towing power.
High costs to repair? Engine longevity?
New unproved engine set up at high cost new vehicles? We will see.
Every engine that we have was new at some point with everyone predicting issues. Until they realized it was OK. Calm down.
Both current v8s for half ton trucks will be dropped at some point. Probably the 5.3 will be the first to go provided they are not both dropped at the same time. It's becoming a turbo world
I would be 100% ok with a twin turbo inline 6
What’s wrong with the two twin turbo v6 they already have?
Why wouldn’t GM drop the motor with the least amount of sales??
Turbo 8 to put ford out on the turbo 6s they have
GM haven’t mastered the push rod engine….
I wouldn’t trust em with anything complicated
I don't think they will ever make a twin turbo gas V8 because the power and torque that engine would make would outcompete their diesel engines, especially with those extra RPM's.
Drop the 5.3.
With "max" in the name, I suspect they'll be a replacement for diesels since writing on the wall suggests diesels might be severely impacted by regulations over the next few years. I would bet 4 and 6 cyl for 1500's and *maybe* something like a small block V8 size for the heavy duty pickups to replace the big-block size displacements they have now.
But even with that said I kind of suspect that if they were to go to a for 24 and a half liter twin turbo straight 6 in the HD is that would be better than a twin-turbo small block V8. Something that does strike me as interesting those if they were to take the Pistons and heads from the 2.7 and install them in a 90-degree V bank with two turbos... Won't be a stoner for fuel economy but that could make a ludicrous amount of torque and power.
The 5.3 v8 can go. It has been around long enough and it can now be retired.
Need more dual overhead cam
Drop the four cylinder keep the six an the eights
Drop the 4 cylinder from the trucks
Why don’t they just do a joint venture with Ford ???
Well as a tuner i can see big HP numbers with a simple tune. Idk if gm plans on using the 3.6 in say the camaro for a power plant. Thats a stout engine already making 333 hp with twin turbos watch out ford 😂
I wanted to buy a 14 ats and the reviews aren't good with the turbo engine problems
Twin turbo’d V8 in a truck??Pfffttt…take my money. Never gonna happen but damn that’d be cool.
Gee whiz guess who already came out with a twin turbo straight 6 FCA! Are we copying FCA?
This is the right move. It’s hard going to a naturally aspirated engine, when you have owned a turbo.
And it turns out gm is just naming the 2.7 the turbomax
👍👍👍👍
Nobody wants a turbo 6!
Get rid of the 5.3 it's not great at anything. And do a turbo 4.3 twin.
Let go of the turbo 4 cylinder
Way to copy Ford with a turbo v6.
Interesting 👍✌️🇨🇦
Drop that 4cyl and keep for the mid size as well as drop the 5.3 to add a twin turbo v8 but gm isn’t going to do that