Spied: 2014 Chevrolet Silverado

[69Z/28Camaro]

i like the front end from what i can see which obviously isnt much. i hate to say it, but the back of the cab looks a little like the Ram

[Kyle2k]

If GM builds a truck that I can get a short bed with an extended cab- this very well be my next vehicle purchase.

[a_Username]

4.5L Duramax or die.

[Brokinarrow]

Current models are definitely plain looking, and non-aggressive when compared to the Rams.

[Silverlsinva]

Yea i dont agree with the whole femineme comment i like the look of the current trucks and i hope there isnt more chrome cause i am not a fan of it i hope there is a option of a mono color scheme like how the dodge has a body color grill and what not. But im more interested in the powertrains i hope for a 4.5 diesel when the come out.

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by Apex Chase

Lets get a sport model in there this go round. Regular cab, short bed, BIG POWER!!!!

+1, i've got an xtreme Colorado reg cab and wish I had the V8 option at the time with a manual transmission.

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Why keep the old 6.2L when you can have a Gen V V8?

What changes in the Gen V?

[radz28]

The look and feel for the current trucks, to me, feels too fat. Sitting inside, it's nice there's so much space and everything but it doesn't look strong.

I'm not digging the cab on that truck... It's not girly, but it needs some character. I don't like the Fords at all (except the Raptor), and the Dodge looks good, but I think GM really needs to give Silverado/Sierra (I like Sierra better actually) some stronger lines.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by snizzle

What changes in the Gen V?

Supposed to be a bit higher revving, feature direct injection, variable valve timing, and improved AFM. So more power, more torque, fatter torque curve, and better fuel economy.

[FenwickHockey65]

Silverado/Sierra are both supposed to go off in separate design languages. No longer direct rebadges.

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Supposed to be a bit higher revving, feature direct injection, variable valve timing, and improved AFM. So more power, more torque, fatter torque curve, and better fuel economy.

Still pushrod OHV? Or do we know yet?

[FenwickHockey65]

Details are still pretty sketchy.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by snizzle

Still pushrod OHV? Or do we know yet?

One rumour said pushrod for cars, OHC for trucks. Another said they could be going with a 3 valve pushrod design, to get the best of both worlds. But I don't put much stock in those

[snizzle]

Found this snippet at LS1tech:

http://ls1tech.com/forums/texas-memb...rformance.html

"OHV configuration is almost the best bet. There are talks of a "revised" camshaft location for better valvetrain geometry."

Same thread, a good comparision between the two major options:

(1) Pushrod OHV = More Power + Less Weight + Smaller Engine Compartments. An OHV engine is smaller and lighter because its heads are so much smaller than the wide and fat DOHC heads. Eg. A GM LS3 6.2 liter V8 -- despite its larger displacement -- is more powerful, more compact and lighter than a BMW S65 4.0 liter V8. How much more powerful? 430 hp / 424 lb-ft for the LS3 vs 414 hp / 295 lb-ft for the S65. How much lighter? 183 kg for the LS3 vs 202 kg for the S65. Hence, if you want the most power in the smallest, lightest package, the Pushrod OHV design is superior. And, had the M3 gotten Smallblock Pushrod power it'll be a faster car.

(2) Pushrod OHV = Better Fuel Economy. A Pushrod V8, 1/4 has many camshafts, 1/4 as many cam sprockets and bearings and 1/2 as many valves. Hence, a Pushrod engine tends to have lower frictional loses. Aspiration losses is about the same at cruise simply because no matter how well an engine breathes (and DOHC motors do breathe better), at cruise the engine is being choked by the throttle body. This restricts airflow to the minimum amount needed to burn a given amount of fuel to produce just enough power to maintain speed. All of this is compounded by the fact that lower torque DOHC motors of smaller displacements tend to need to operate at higher rpms at cruise -- which further increases frictional losses. Eg. Despite a nearly 4,000 lbs weight and blocky areodyamics, a Camaro SS gets an EPA rating of 16 mpg (city) / 25 mpg (hwy) with a 6.2 liter 400 hp motor, whereas a BMW M3 gets 14 mpg (city) / 20 mpg (hwy) from its 4.0 liter 414 hp engine and a C63 AMG gets 12 mpg (city) / 19 mpg (hwy) with its 451 hp 6.3 liter M156 DOHC V8. This is despite both Germans having 7-speed transmissions to the Camaro's ubiquitous 6-speed 6L80.

(3) Pushrods can incorporate VVT or even Independent VVT. You can put a cam phaser on the in-block cam just as easily as you can on a SOHC motor. You are looking for independent Intake and Exhaust phasing, you can still do it on an in block cam pushrod engine -- you'll simply use a concentric cam-in-cam setup. In fact, this has already been used in the Dodge Viper 8.4 liter V10.

(4) Pushrod OHV = Lower Cost. Less parts, less complications, lower costs. Not much to explain here.