GM's answer to the ECO Boost

[RubenZ]

I agree on the last part. We need more small diesels in our cars!!! and small trucks. And why the hell is the Suburban only offered in a 6.0 in the 2500HD version that vehicle needs a diesel.

[acadianbob]

I'm not sure diesels are going to happen in the "1/2 ton" segment. Diesel fuel is at least 15% more expensive and the maintenance costs are higher. If you look at the Ecoboost objectively, it is putting out diesel torque for its size. 420 lbs out of the 3.5 liters would be 840 at 7 liters. Very competitive with the big diesels on a ft lb/liter perspective. I saw the Car and Driver issue that mentioned the Caddy V-6. That same issue had the 2013 Chevy Silverado projected to be 500 lbs lighter, direct injection; but same pushrod V-8. Fuel mileage should be up which is a big deal.

These trucks are all going to have to get lighter and more efficient while still being able to "do the job".

Rumor is that the next generation Ecoboost is already under development. No surprise there. Smaller in displacement (heard 3.3L); matching or exceeding current output for HP and torque, fuel milesage +5%. 8 speed auto and 500 to 700 pounds lighter. The weight reduction should help in-town mileage considerably.

They are all going to have to do this if they want to keep selling trucks. The good news is that EVERYONE's product will continue to improve to the benefit of all of us.

I would also expect the current trend of bigger and heavier RV trailers will have to reverse itself. Trailers will have to become lighter and more aero to be a viable industry as energy costs continue to rise due to global demand.

[transamz9]

If people would buy as many Diesels as they do gas then diesel fuel would be cheaper than gas. Diesel cost less to make than gas. Diesel engines get better fuel mileage than a gas motor of the same cu/in. Maintenance don't cost any more than the gas motors do even though some people think they do.

The government wants people to use less fuel so I see diesel being the fuel of the future.

[onetonford]

Just saw Fuel sign on I-5 in central california The sign read 4.30 gal for gas and 4.29 for diesel. So I guess that is making it cheaper??????

[padave65]

Many GM trucks are assembled in Mexico........Ford...Kansas City and Dearborn, MI...I saw it right on their stickers...

[crocus]

"If people would buy as many Diesels as they do gas then diesel fuel would be cheaper than gas."
====================================
Say what?
Diesel often costs more because of higher demand. More diesels on the road would make the supply even tighter, with higher prices yet.
In Canada, the situation is reversed, and diesel is usually cheaper.

[acadianbob]

Originally Posted by crocus

"If people would buy as many Diesels as they do gas then diesel fuel would be cheaper than gas."
====================================
Say what?
Diesel often costs more because of higher demand. More diesels on the road would make the supply even tighter, with higher prices yet.
In Canada, the situation is reversed, and diesel is usually cheaper.

Yeah, the problem with diesel prices is the requirement for the new low sulphur fuel and the huge global demand for diesel. More diesels would just drive prices higher. While refining costs are lower, you get fewer gallons of usable fuel from each barrel so that keeps the price up.

There is no real magic to diesels. They have torque because of the turbos; just like the Ecoboost. And the fuel mileage is enhanced because there is more energy content in a gallon of diesel than a gallon of gas. Diesels DO have an advantage in fuel economy under load however.

[transamz9]

Originally Posted by acadianbob

Yeah, the problem with diesel prices is the requirement for the new low sulphur fuel and the huge global demand for diesel. More diesels would just drive prices higher. While refining costs are lower, you get fewer gallons of usable fuel from each barrel so that keeps the price up.

There is no real magic to diesels. They have torque because of the turbos; just like the Ecoboost. And the fuel mileage is enhanced because there is more energy content in a gallon of diesel than a gallon of gas. Diesels DO have an advantage in fuel economy under load however.

My personal diesel gets as good if not better fuel mileage loaded , unloaded, city ,or highway than the Eco. They are great little pullers but they have a long way to go to get up to true tow engines. From what I've seen they aren't doing much better than their V8 engines. If they were to make a 6-7 liter Eco it would suck the gas. It would be one bad motor for sure but still not a gas sipper for sure.

[RubenZ]

Originally Posted by acadianbob

There is no real magic to diesels. They have torque because of the turbos; just like the Ecoboost. And the fuel mileage is enhanced because there is more energy content in a gallon of diesel than a gallon of gas. Diesels DO have an advantage in fuel economy under load however.

Not just because of Turbo. They have thicker blocks because they have Higher Compression. They are all around stronger. I'm sure there are other reasons. If all the magic of a diesel was just the turbo you would see Ford putting ECO Boost in their F450's LOL.

[acadianbob]

Turbo'd engines have stronger blocks whether gas or diesel in most cases I believe. I guess the point I was trying to make is that it is the turbo's that are the key to torque creation.

[RubenZ]

Originally Posted by acadianbob

Turbo'd engines have stronger blocks whether gas or diesel in most cases I believe. I guess the point I was trying to make is that it is the turbo's that are the key to torque creation.

Actually LOL its the cylinder pressure and stroke length. But yes Turbo boos is also a key point.

Read here: Banks Power | Why Diesels Make So Much Torque

[RubenZ]

Trucks have been doing this a while but now its from factory: http://www.forestriverforums.com/for...tml#post166824

[Gquist]

I have been in the car repair business my whole life, My father started a independent repair shop in 1965 and I now own and operate it, I have seen the best and worst of most all vehicles and used to be a total GM fan, Until the 80's that is, GM has gave me and my tech's a decent living, they have had so many different problems with the vehicles that it is no suprise that the foreign cars gained market share.
We would have 5-15 GM trucks in our lot with transmission failures most of the year, if not that it was the fuel pumps or the car sized rear axle failed or numerous electrical problems, Sure, Ford and Dodge has had many issues also but not near to the scale of GM's
As for the mileage issues, I agree the GM has generally been better on fuel but mostly due to it having lighter built componets that take less power to rotate or move, The GM engines have been pretty good, the ls series being the best but while they seem to perform well unloaded soon as you hook a heavy trailer to them the rest of the truck fails.
I just traded my 2006 5.4 F-150 for a Eco and can't beleive how good of a powertrain Ford has going on with thier new trucks, Awesome towing power and 21-23 mpg in a Crew Cab 4x4 truck, and after driving my last 4 F-150's over 100,000 miles each and having no failures with the powertrain of them I have no reason to think the ECO won't do the same,
The others will need to turn to turbos or new technology also to match this powertrain and the EPA's demands.

[F22]

Originally Posted by acadianbob

It will take GM awhile to tear down an Ecoboost, examine it, and try to duplicate it. By then, Ford will have moved on.

I'm neither partial to GM or Ford, have owned both over the years. But here is a relevant bit of info -- I bought a 2002 top of the line Buick Regal new, and the squirrel cage was a supercharged V6. I drove that car for 6 years and 84,000 miles before I sold it. It got as good a mileage as a non supercharged V6, and if you stepped into it, I mean it was jack rabbit quick gone, with no lag. The torque was also quite impressive. The vehicle was a real sleeper. And I never had any problems with the engine or the supercharger. It was quite reliable.

So GM does have some experience with this type of technology, if they choose to put some similar technology as the Ford Ecoboost, in their truck line.

[transamz9]

Has everyone forgotten about the Buick Regal Grand Nationals??? That was and still is one badazz motor. What about the Cyclones and Typhoons that had a turbo charged 4.3 V6. GM has played with turbos for a looong time.

[crocus]

Any backyard mechanic can put a turbo on a motor to make horsepower, but it is quite another thing to be able to put out the torque that Ford has done with the Ecoboost. That is what is impressive with that motor.

[Gquist]

Originally Posted by transamz9

Has everyone forgotten about the Buick Regal Grand Nationals??? That was and still is one badazz motor. What about the Cyclones and Typhoons that had a turbo charged 4.3 V6. GM has played with turbos for a looong time.

They were ahead of the game back then, they would out run Mustangs, Camaro's and even Corvette's, but they are low tech in this day of modern engines.
The EcoBoost engine has 11 to 1 compression with twin turbo's and runs on 87 octane fuel, the variable cam timing for both intake and exhaust cams, and direct injection make it all possible, There is nothing on it that hasn't been done before other then putting it in a reliable package and a 1\2 ton pickup truck. In the past that technology was used in high end German vehicles only.
Gm has the 3.6 engine they use in a bunch of their vehicles, They have had some issues with it but will get it panned out, I would bet you will see that engine in the all new Silverado in a similar package as the EcoBoost but they will generate slightly better numbers, Bring it on! Competition brings us consumers better products.

[TURBS]

Squires Turbo Systems - Fullsize GM Truck Turbo Systems