2014 Chevy/GMC specs

[RollingsFarms]

Pricing sure is getting wild with trucks, and not just these new GM's....EVERYONE! $32,700 for a stripped down, 2wd, crew cab with most likely 3:08 gears and a v-6? Uhhh no thanks. My fully loaded TRD Tacoma that MSRP'd for $33,000 is just going to have to last me....awhile.

 

[94BULLITT]

Pricing sure is getting wild with trucks, and not just these new GM's....EVERYONE! $32,700 for a stripped down, 2wd, crew cab with most likely 3:08 gears and a v-6? Uhhh no thanks. My fully loaded TRD Tacoma that MSRP'd for $33,000 is just going to have to last me....awhile.

You can save around 10k off of a new F-150.

 

[RollingsFarms]

You can save around 10k off of a new F-150.

True but it's not across the board, it's only for certain model F-150's as I understand it. If I knew they'd knock off 10k on an FX4 super crew I might have to seriously consider it.

 

[94BULLITT]

True but it's not across the board, it's only for certain model F-150's as I understand it. If I knew they'd knock off 10k on an FX4 super crew I might have to seriously consider it.

I think this one is a FX4. MSRP for 50k, they have it listed at 38k

http://iphone.darcars.com/index.htm...-150-f363e6e00a0a00de01b8424e2943a5df_p_2Ehtm

 

[Diamondpilot]

I think this one is a FX4. MSRP for 50k, they have it listed at 38k

http://iphone.darcars.com/index.htm#new_p_2FFord_p_2F2013-Ford-F-150-f363e6e00a0a00de01b8424e2943a5df_p_2Ehtm

That's a good deal and a nice truck. Eco Boost, sharp color, leather interior, locker, trailer brake controller, ect.

Only change I would make is for 3.73 gears versus the 3.55. Even with the 3.55's its tow rating is 9,800#.

Chris

 

[sd455dan]

I'm not trying to bash GM but I just don't think they have the resources to invest in all new engines for their trucks. That has to take a massive amount of money. I also think it's why the Tundra and Titan are behind when it comes to fuel mileage. In Toyota's and Nissan's case it's more because of the number of sales are not that high to justify that big of an investment. For Ford they are all in. The F series is their bread and butter. They have to be at the front.

Gm outdated engine technology- maybe so but the engine they came up with for Indy just took first place and more than a few of the next positions....
Not bad, not bad at all for a company that can't build a competitive engine??

 

[94BULLITT]

Gm outdated engine technology- maybe so but the engine they came up with for Indy just took first place and more than a few of the next positions....
Not bad, not bad at all for a company that can't build a competitive engine??

Maybe they should have invested that money in something worthwhile like a production engine.

 

[Peacock]

How is the Gen V engine outdated?

If anything it makes the 5.0L Ford seem outdated.

 

[sd455dan]

Maybe they should have invested that money in something worthwhile like a production engine.

Maybe , but companies learn a lot by pushing the boundries- the engine is twin turbo like Fords Eco boost and also direct injected Like the Eco boost

The Indy engines push the envelope, in the power vs. fuel consumption and the efficiency difference can mean one less pit stop that wins the race. I'm sure GM will take what they learn and apply it to production engines and some of it will translate to better durability, fuel economy and power to...

 

[crazyal]

Maybe , but companies learn a lot by pushing the boundries- the engine is twin turbo like Fords Eco boost and also direct injected Like the Eco boost

The Indy engines push the envelope, in the power vs. fuel consumption and the efficiency difference can mean one less pit stop that wins the race. I'm sure GM will take what they learn and apply it to production engines and some of it will translate to better durability, fuel economy and power to...

Maybe but I wouldn't count on it. In 2003 GM introduced a dual overhead cam 4 valves per cylinder V8 engine for indy. Did an overhead cam make into their trucks? Are the using 4 valves per cylinder? What's the new engine? I thought I read it was a 2.2l twin turbo direct inject 12,000 rpm V6. GM may have used what they learned when it comes to direct inject, that would be a good thing but what else? I'm asking because I would like to know.

 

[94BULLITT]

How is the Gen V engine outdated?

If anything it makes the 5.0L Ford seem outdated.

It will be a while before GM has anything that good.

I thought I read it was a 2.2l twin turbo direct inject 12,000 rpm V6.

That would make a excellent motor for a 3/4 or 1 ton truck:laughing:

 

[sd455dan]

Well as of yet I don't think GM believes truck engines are best served by high winding V6 engines. They have always produced overhead valve engines for truck use. And in the past over head valve engines produced more torque at low rpms.
Obviously Fords twin turboed overhead cam engine proves that average torque across a wide rpm range can be accomplished with a smaller V6.
Gm knows that nobody is going to want to rev their truck engine like one for Indy to pull a heavily laden truck .. but there maybe other things that can learned for production engines...thermal barrier coatings , anti friction coatings, material sciences..

I think it shows that they are learning new things, and can build a successful Indy engine in cooperation with another company, just like they are working with Ford on new transmission designs... Who Knows where it will all lead..

 

[crazyal]

Well as of yet I don't think GM believes truck engines are best served by high winding V6 engines. They have always produced overhead valve engines for truck use. And in the past over head valve engines produced more torque at low rpms.
Obviously Fords twin turboed overhead cam engine proves that average torque across a wide rpm range can be accomplished with a smaller V6.
Gm knows that nobody is going to want to rev their truck engine like one for Indy to pull a heavily laden truck .. but there maybe other things that can learned for production engines...thermal barrier coatings , anti friction coatings, material sciences..

I think it shows that they are learning new things, and can build a successful Indy engine in cooperation with another company, just like they are working with Ford on new transmission designs... Who Knows where it will all lead..

Lower RPM torque is not a function of OHV vs OHC.

My point is that, IMO, GM is continuing to use a pushrod design because they had to choose where to put their limited research funds. I have to believe GM engineers made the choice to focus on direct injection. I'm not saying it was a mistake, I think if GM doesn't stay out front with direct injection technology they will find themselves in a hole to other brands. But lets be honest, the OHV head is a simple design. Not much work is needed to redesign it to work with the injection system.

 

[Lt CHEG]

Maybe I'm old school but I much prefer OHV engines to overhead cam engines, particularly in a truck. An overhead cam engine is in no way inherently superior to an overhead valve engine. An OHV engine might take more effort and expense to perform to the standards that some of these overhead cam engines that are already pushing the envelope but that doesn't make them inferior. It's just easier and cheaper to push an overhead cam engine towards its theoretical potential limits to reach higher performance numbers. With GM's LS OHV engines dominating the aftermarket performance segment, powering more modern performance cars than any other style, they must be doing something right and I can't be the only one that likes OHV engines.

 

[Peacock]

It will be a while before GM has anything that good.

How is the 5.0 better? It makes similar peak power, less low end torque and has substantially lower fuel economy.

 

[Ryan03]

I am betting that a push rod v8 is cheaper to manufacture and assemble than a dohc engine. I considered waiting for the 2014 model GM trucks and purchasing one, but decided that I would rather not own the first model year of a new engine, trans, body etc. I settled on a 2013 since i know what to expect out of this aged model.

 

[RollingsFarms]

How is the 5.0 better? It makes similar peak power, less low end torque and has substantially lower fuel economy.

I will have to see real world numbers from owners before I go believing GM's claimed fuel numbers. The two Z71's I owned both got 16mpg on average, nowhere close to no 19,20,22 or anything like that. Not saying all GM trucks are like this but the two I owned sucked the gas.

 

[Peacock]

I will have to see real world numbers from owners before I go believing GM's claimed fuel numbers. The two Z71's I owned both got 16mpg on average, nowhere close to no 19,20,22 or anything like that. Not saying all GM trucks are like this but the two I owned sucked the gas.

They go through the same rating process as the Ford trucks.

 

[RollingsFarms]

They go through the same rating process as the Ford trucks.

I've never owned a Ford but I know my two GM's never got their rated mileage. I guess because I wasn't driving a 2wd truck with 3.08 gearing which would have been next to useless to me.

 

[sd455dan]

Lower RPM torque is not a function of OHV vs OHC.

My point is that, IMO, GM is continuing to use a pushrod design because they had to choose where to put their limited research funds. I have to believe GM engineers made the choice to focus on direct injection. I'm not saying it was a mistake, I think if GM doesn't stay out front with direct injection technology they will find themselves in a hole to other brands. But lets be honest, the OHV head is a simple design. Not much work is needed to redesign it to work with the injection system.

I stand by my statement about (IN THE PAST) ohv engines vs. ohc.

In many cases ohv are lower revving they also in many cases produce more total torque than total horsepower. I know of very few normally aspirated ohc engines that can make that claim...

Ohc engines generally will rev higher producing more peak horsepower, but do not generally produce as much torque at low rpms.

A good example of these normally aspirated ohv engines are my favorite Pontiacs.

Like some of the versions Butler performance builds- the basic 455 cu producing 580 hp 625 ft. lbs. also average torque far exceeds average horsepower.

Many ohv engines produced more average torque than horsepower.


If ohc head designs produce as much or more low end torque, you would think they would be in use on more than half the diesel tractor engines and over the road diesels.. I believe its all about low end torque...

I maintain that in general - in the past normally aspirated ohv engines produce more low end torque than ohc engines