New GM TurboMax Engines | Twin Turbo V8 or V6 Coming?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 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 - ruclips.net/video/0sg-KrRxHu8/видео.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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why not a turbo V-8. Even mild boost on a 6.2 would make close to 600hp
That would be my choice!!
Oh my gosh a twin turbo 5.3 sounds like pure heaven.
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
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.
Gas 3.0 inline 6 turbo, that’s what’s up.
good perspective. what is certain that GM will never depart from the 4.4in bore spacing.
Twin turbo 4.3 V6 please!
Be so cool 4.3 twin turbo
In a CrOssOvEr, lol
twin turbo everything and go out with a bang 🤘
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!!
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 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
Drop the 2.7 4 cylinder turbo from the Silverado, it will live on in the Colorado/Canyons.
🙏 for a twin turbo 6.2 v8…..unfortunately I know that won’t happen 😩
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!
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.
Twin turbo straight 6 👌
Sturdy.
where did you get the footage for the v6 engine at 0:26. thank you
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.
Watch it be a Twinturbo 4cylinder
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.
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.
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.
Totally off topic, but how u liking ur hummer so far?
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.
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.
What’s wrong with the two twin turbo v6 they already have?
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 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.
What it they were to bring back the syclone as a last goodbye
GM already makes a twin turbo v6. I have one in my Cadillac
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.
If it offers a benefit over the 5.3 or the 3.0, sure, I'd look at it.
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!!!!!!
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
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.
Why wouldn’t GM drop the motor with the least amount of sales??
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.
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?
I wanted to buy a 14 ats and the reviews aren't good with the turbo engine problems
I would be 100% ok with a twin turbo inline 6
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.
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.
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.
Turbo 8 to put ford out on the turbo 6s they have
Twin turbo V6 - nope! Twin turbo V8 - yessir!
Twin turbo I6!!!!!
TURBO V8 😂👍👍👍👍
GM haven’t mastered the push rod engine….
I wouldn’t trust em with anything complicated
Twin turbo’d V8 in a truck??Pfffttt…take my money. Never gonna happen but damn that’d be cool.
Drop 2.7 4 cyl.
Drop the 4 cylinder from the trucks
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
Nobody wants a turbo 6!
Drop the 5.3
Turbo V8 yes, 6---no!
Interesting 👍✌️🇨🇦
You know what’s funny…and sad. We are talking about “internal combustion engines” like it’s some novel concept no one’s heard of. It’s just a motor…that’s it. No one has said ICE since the early 1900’s.
Not true. I’ve heard them being called that my entire life.
@@alexs3187 I’ve been around gear heads my whole life and never heard anyone use it in normal conversation. That’s my point.
@@ElectricBlueIX that’s a bit different than saying “nobody has said it.” We certainly referred to them as internal combustion engines in my automotive class in 1997.
Way to copy Ford with a turbo v6.
Let go of the turbo 4 cylinder
Drop 5.3 the 2.7 is better
Drop the 2.7, and twin turbo the 5.3 and 6.2 because they Don't have enough power to get groceries. Lol
Just go back to making lsx engines and put them in every car
Everyone going to TTv6. Toyota, ford. . . . . . .Garbage. BMW or Toyota straight 6 is worthwhile. The rest ....nah.
Gm will have to go backwards to work with Ford
Drop the diesel
Take out v4
Twin turbo V6’s are garbage the eco boost is a shining example
Get rid of the 4 banger
It doesn't allow you to compensate enough without a loud sound?
GM is out of the race when it comes to gas engines in there trucks there last in diesels and last in gas engines for Trucks
Ford has dominant in Both Gas/diesel
The Godzilla 7.3 Nobody Can Meet That Engine
When are they going to realize EV isn’t possible everywhere. I live in Northern Canada. -50 winters and long commutes . Going camping wouldn’t be possible anymore. No way to keep a charge to go and get fire wood , fish other lakes away from the main camp and use a truck for what a truck is needed and used for . I’ll need I high amp gas generator to charge my EV truck just to make it through my camping trip and then return home . WHAT A SCAM 😂. Anyone figure how to go and plow snow all day and night with an EV yet ? Operating the plow and lights and heat non stop for hrs on end 🤣😂🤣😂. Idiotic thinking . And government pushed as always 🖕
Dump the four ! - no matter what years to come are going to be interesting
I say get a set of balls, drop the EV crap and twin turbo everything.
lol at bmw engines being built in this video.
The 5.3 is useless and is just there for guys who want a v8, can definitely drop it as the 2.7 is better in every way except perhaps 0 to 60 WOT. The 3.0 diesel is exceptional, better not drop that. GM doesn't have the stones to do a turbo v8, that's not going to happen. Mopar has been the goto for years now if you want tire shredding v8's in absolutely anything worth driving.
Turbo max?!?
GM and their 6 year old childish name's for engine's 🤣🤣
GM! Stop playing games and turbo the 5.3!
v-6 👎
Not Diesel please!! Diesel sucks ass!! They should diesel trucks
No 4 cyl in full size truck, please
Like all GM engines since 2004 they look good on paper but im reality are pieces of crap
who cares gm has been making junk for years.
6.2 liter diesel v8 twin
I would prefer a twin turbo inline. 6
These turbocharged 4 cylinder and 6s are probably a joke when you start hauling things. They suck more fuel than a V8 and lack the power to get the job done well enough. This is what govt regulations gets you. Shit vehicles
It's a twin turbo inline 6 not V
dump the 2.7
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.
I’m a huge fan of the 6.2 especially mated to the 10 speed auto. Up the 6.2 to about 500hp
TURBOMAX HAHA
Scrap the 2.7 leave that for the car applications
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.
they need to drop the 4 cylinder in the full size pickup
what were they thinking
Drop the 5.3.
GM is WAY LATE to the TURBO HP trucks & SUVs. Ford is kicking their asses !! New Blazer is a JOKE !!
Make something to compete with Ford's Bronco !!