GM Announces Performance Specs and Pricing for 2014 K2XX Trucks

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6

The 2014 Silverado launches later this spring with crew cab models equipped with the all-new 5.3-liter EcoTec3 V-8, which is expected to power three out of four Silverado 1500s.

Chevrolet today announced EPA estimates of 23 mpg highway for 2wd models, and 22 mpg highway for 4x4 models. That is better than any V-8 competitor, and beats the EPA estimates for the 2013 Ford EcoBoost turbocharged V-6 for both 2wd and 4x4 models.

YES!! I've been speculating about this for weeks in the N/A vs FI threads. That line is in the signature forever.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

YES!! I've been speculating about this for weeks in the N/A vs FI threads. That line is in the signature forever.

GM's philosophy for trucks. Not so much for cars.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

GM's philosophy for trucks. Not so much for cars.

Corvette?

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

YES!! I've been speculating about this for weeks in the N/A vs FI threads. That line is in the signature forever.

Yeah, I've been saying something similar for quite some time.

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

GM's philosophy for trucks. Not so much for cars.

Seems to hold true in their cars as well. CTS TTV6 has the same power, torque, weight, and fuel economy as the Camaro SS -while having an extra 2 gears.

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

You can thank at least part of that to direct injection. The Torque curve on even the Camaro DI V6 is very flat from around 2,000 rpm to 5,5000

I think the VVT has more to do with it than DI. Usually engines have a cam profile thats geared more towards the higher end of the RPM range, giving better max hp numbers. That ends up costing you torque at the low end. But with variable valve timing, you can have a profile that works well at low RPMs as well, giving a very broad torque band. Direct injection helps more with how thick the curve is, although I have heard of some low RPM benefits as well.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Corvette?

I mean GM's more accepting of using turbo 4 to replace V6s in cars than using turbo 6s to replace V8s in trucks.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

YES!! I've been speculating about this for weeks in the N/A vs FI threads. That line is in the signature forever.

....you mean V8s with cylinder de-activation don't you??

Otherwise...it wouldn't happen.

Also, I know a certain hopped up Turbo V6 on here that will run low 11s and likely gets as good or better MPGs as your GT.

Not trying to start anything, or de-rail a thread. All I'm pointing out is, is that its really more dependant on the application your using it for.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I think the VVT has more to do with it than DI. Usually engines have a cam profile thats geared more towards the higher end of the RPM range, giving better max hp numbers. That ends up costing you torque at the low end. But with variable valve timing, you can have a profile that works well at low RPMs as well, giving a very broad torque band. Direct injection helps more with how thick the curve is, although I have heard of some low RPM benefits as well.

Now that I think about it...I agree with you. I should have known, as I'm aware of the VVT as well. I'm thinking the DI does help, but likely helps across the entire RPM range, along with efficency.

[Scrappy Doo]

I was expecting more out of the 5.3.

Granted can't get too concerend about the hp #, but more of how it drives.

An ecoboost f150 is a lot of fun to drive.

[King Sun]

They really trying to go at the eco boost ford trucks by the v6-v8 argument

[Brian 1LE SS]

Now put the 6.2 in a RCSB with an upgraded interior like Dodge does with the R/T and sport models. Chevy would have had a sale if they did this, but I bought a Dodge instead.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

....you mean V8s with cylinder de-activation don't you??

Otherwise...it wouldn't happen.

Also, I know a certain hopped up Turbo V6 on here that will run low 11s and likely gets as good or better MPGs as your GT.

You really dislike like AFM don't you. This V8 beats TTV6 efficiency with cylinder de-activation. Without, I bet it would still match it. For the record, I'm only against turbos in cases when they provide no performance or efficiency advantage for the extra cost and complexity. I'm not against turbos in cases when they provide significant performance and/or efficiency benefits that justify their cost. In fact, family members have bought 2 turbo cars in the last year based on my recommendations.

Low 11s? Could you elaborate?

Stock vs. modded is a pointless comparison. Anything will run anything if cost and durability are no object. Since you asked, my GT gets around 29-30 MPG on the highway consistently as long as I use ethanol-free gas. My best tank last summer broke 31.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by Brian 1LE SS

Now put the 6.2 in a RCSB with an upgraded interior like Dodge does with the R/T and sport models. Chevy would have had a sale if they did this, but I bought a Dodge instead.

Those RCSB Hemi's are FAST. Something similar from Chevy, with the new 6.2 would be even faster.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

You really dislike like AFM don't you. This V8 beats TTV6 efficiency with cylinder de-activation. Without, I bet it would still match it. For the record, I'm only against turbos in cases when they provide no performance or efficiency advantage for the extra cost and complexity. I'm not against turbos in cases when they provide significant performance and/or efficiency benefits that justify their cost. In fact, family members have bought 2 turbo cars in the last year based on my recommendations.

Low 11s? Could you elaborate?

Stock vs. modded is a pointless comparison. Anything will run anything if cost and durability are no object. Since you asked, my GT gets around 29-30 MPG on the highway consistently as long as I use ethanol-free gas. My best tank last summer broke 31.

No no...actually I don't dislike AFM V8s. I like V8s lol. But I like turbos too!

All I was saying is that, its the ability of the V8 to run in 4 cylinder mode that allows this type of efficiency. Whereas on the other hand, it is the turbos for the V6 that allow it to have the power of a V6, but when not in boost, will get better efficency than the V8 would with all 8 cylinders pumping.

As for this low 11s V6...it might even be good for 10s lol...but we don't know yet. 11s for sure. Its a 600+HP V6. You can read more on it here The good info isn't until a few pages or so in though. Its forged, so he could push higher power still, but a stock engine would be good for 500+ HP.

Sorry not trying to de-rail thread.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Those RCSB Hemi's are FAST. Something similar from Chevy, with the new 6.2 would be even faster.

an extended cab 6.2 or CCis faster than a RCSB hemi already.just wait until the 6.2 ecotec come out.