310 hp and 520 lb.-ft, that thinks this is too close to a current duramax, I mean from a sales standpoint it is gonna eat at the higher priced 2500 market,

Does anyone know anything about cost? I am gonna guess atleast a $5,000 option

I like the idea of a small diesel for the 1500 I think that is long overdue, but they should make a v6 diesel, that way if fits in the canyon and smaller sedans and suvs.

There really gonna play with the numbers A diesel in the 1500 could weigh over 2000 pounds less then a 2500 with a duramax freeing up gvwr, which is a limiting factor on silverados.

This is the reason they killed off the camaro it had the same engine as the corvette, but somehow was rated 30 hp less, and the camaro was lighter, but when at the track they were just as fast as there higher priced brother the corvette, why would chevrolet sell a $26k car that was faster then a $50k car?

To me somthing is not adding up, that small engine which is gonna be alot lighter is too close to the performance of a lmm, isn't it on par with prior duramax's? And then factor it in a lighter truck this thing is gonna haul ass with just a programmer this thing will be in the 12's and fuel economy could be in the 30's.

It is too good to be true unless it carries a hefty price.

What do you think

310 hp and 520 lb.-ft, that thinks this is too close to a current duramax, I mean from a sales standpoint it is gonna eat at the higher priced 2500 market,

Does anyone know anything about cost? I am gonna guess atleast a $5,000 option

I like the idea of a small diesel for the 1500 I think that is long overdue, but they should make a v6 diesel, that way if fits in the canyon and smaller sedans and suvs.


From one of the publised articles: "the 4.5-liter achieves 29-mpg while carrying a $5,700 price premium over the gas engine".

I would like to see the mpg on a 6-cyl, too.

310 hp and 520 lb.-ft, that thinks this is too close to a current duramax, I mean from a sales standpoint it is gonna eat at the higher priced 2500 market,

Does anyone know anything about cost? I am gonna guess atleast a $5,000 option

I like the idea of a small diesel for the 1500 I think that is long overdue, but they should make a v6 diesel, that way if fits in the canyon and smaller sedans and suvs.

There really gonna play with the numbers A diesel in the 1500 could weigh over 2000 pounds less then a 2500 with a duramax freeing up gvwr, which is a limiting factor on silverados.

This is the reason they killed off the camaro it had the same engine as the corvette, but somehow was rated 30 hp less, and the camaro was lighter, but when at the track they were just as fast as there higher priced brother the corvette, why would chevrolet sell a $26k car that was faster then a $50k car?

To me somthing is not adding up, that small engine which is gonna be alot lighter is too close to the performance of a lmm, isn't it on par with prior duramax's? And then factor it in a lighter truck this thing is gonna haul ass with just a programmer this thing will be in the 12's and fuel economy could be in the 30's.

It is too good to be true unless it carries a hefty price.

What do you think

there is no doubt that a few peeps will go form a 3/4 ton to a 1/2 ton, but I don't think that will be a huge number. I would expect the potential new diesel owners to far exceed the few pulled away form the 6.6.

BTW, the reason GM stopped selling the Camaro was that they were barely selling any.

While I love the hot rod aspects of a 4.5 in a Colorado/Canyon..... and it should work since the 4.5 is designed to fit in the space of a small block and the Canyon is getting a V8 option for 08.... it'll never happen.

However, a 3.4 duramax (4.5 w/2cyl lopped off) with 230hp and 35+mpg would still be pretty awesome as well:cool:

i agree, it does seem almost too good to be true, i know ill be checking them out when they hit the lots. i dont really need a 2500 but i got it cause it was the only way to get a duramax. and the power ratings of the 4.5 are almost identical to the stock numbers of my LB7. i just hope its not priced so high that its not affordable, if its a $7k option like it is on the HD's then im not very confident that it will draw too many people cause ya the milage advantage will be nice but thats a big pill to swallow as far as initial cost goes. also, with the price of diesel right now i dont think too many people will be running out to spend an extra $7k plus 50 cents per gallon more than 87 gas just for better milage. i dont know, as much as i want to see diesels in more and more vehicles i just dont think America is ready to accept it and it doesnt seem like the government is doing anything to help that either.

there gonna canabolize the 2500 market, and they would lose money, there not gonna sway people in the market that are looking at cars or suv's into a diesel 1/2 ton, people that would normally buy the 2500 but don't need a 2500 will move to the 1500, price wise it should be right at $25k to start, unless they bundle it with an lt3 type package.


Can you imagine a 1500 worktruck package with an option of the 4.5? That would be the truck to buy if you had a business.

It would also not surprise me if it had bigger tow rating than the 2500 becuase of the gvwr, a 2500 with a duramax weighs about 6500 pounds 4 people 600 more pounds, tools, fuel and misc can easily be 200 pounds now your up to that is 7300 pounds gvwr is 9200 pounds that leaves 1900 pounds for pin weight.

I can easily see that new silverado with the smaller 4.5 weighing 2-3000 pounds less, and that would put it in the same towing class as current 2500's.

I just had a thought what if chevrolet did away with the 2500, becuase the 1500 with the 4.5 would fill that void and it doesn't make sense to have 2 different truck lines competing against eachother and chevrolet beefs up the 3500?

that makes more sense which would you rather have? A $25k 1500 that got 30MPG and had 500+ ft/lbs or a $40k f-250, that gets 15mpg and has just slightly more of power?

Do you think chevrolet is that bold?

And the thing about the camaro, if you were chevrolet and you had 2 cars same engine same transmission in both, one was selling for 25k the other was selling for 40k and the performance was the same and the cost to build then had to be pretty close, which would you put on the chopping block? The camaro was just like I said above, canabalizing the corvette market.

Could you imagine going into a chevrolet dealership to buy a corvette and seeing the camaro and thinking, I could just buy the camaro which has the same ls1 and 6 speed as the corvette and save the 15k and put that into the camaro and have a car that would spank anything on the road.

Gm did away with all rear wheel drive cars except the corvette, I know they said it was becuase of the camaro wasn't selling. And beleive they have said it was a mistake.

There's no way a 1500 will replace a 2500. A 2500 is rated at 22k GCW. A 1500 is maybe 16k. I seriously doubt a 1500 with even a gasser weighs 2k lbs less than a similar bodied DMax. There's no way it's 3k less. My S10 I used to have weighed just a little over 2500 lbs less than my current truck. As was stated earlier I see the engine drawing in more sales than it pulls away from the 2500. It may even benefit the 2500 because there will be more people who actually use the truck for what it was intended giving feedback to GM rather than people who bought it for the diesel but only use it as they would a 1500.

And the performance is not the same on a Camaro compared to a Corvette. They are very close at the dragstrip, but, with equal drivers, the Vette is slightly faster because of the ligher weight.

I would love to see the diesel in the half ton for the MPG. But I hate to think what it is going to do to safety. I can only imagine how overloaded some people are going to run those trucks just cause they have a diesel, and not take in consideration the lighter brakes, springs, frames etc.

I am looking forward to seeing the new 1/2 ton diesel. I have been very impressed with my neighbor's duramax, but have no need for the HD chassis or crappy ride. I would love to see the smaller diesel in my sub. I only need to tow about 2800lb boat or my snowmobiles. Would love to do that while getting 20-30 miles a gallon rather than 13-16 I get now. Plus, the motor will outlast anything in a gas motor. I think GM will have a convert after 4 v8 powered trucks.

gcw doesn't mean anything, that is not what is limiting the towing capacity it is the gvwr regardless of configuration a 2500 has a gvwr of 9200 pounds the truck itself with minimum cargo can weigh over 7300 pounds, that only leaves 1900 pounds for tongue weight, fifth wheels are designed to have 20-25% of there weight on the tongue that limits you to a 7600 pound trailer.

Standard trailers the tongue weights can vary.

In my glove box my 07 lmm says I am limited to a 1528 pound camper.

Chevrolets have the smallest gvwr of the big 3, I think there addressing this with the 4.5 in the 1/2 ton.

I can hardly wait. I will be waiting for the diesel suburban. We have an expedition that will be going bye-bye. I am hanging on to the p.o.s ferd till then. It gets 15mpg w/ the lil v-8. It's like an alcoholic,drinks too much and does too little. The wife is jealous of my d-max, " it goes when you step on it!" so, new baby d-max asap!

and by the way the CAMARO is on it's way back! ! ! ! ! 2009 and it looks B A D A $ $ !!

I am sure it will take some of the 2500 market.

But remember is is not only the 1500 truck it will go in. It will go in the Yukon, Yukon XL and the Chevy versions. There are many who would much rather have the 4.5TD than the 5.3 gas. I bet it finds its way into the Escallade too.

So what GM may loose in 2500 sales they will more than gain in SUV sales.

I also think the only 2500 's that will move down are those ones who bought the truck to get a diesel, not for the ability of a 3/4 ton.

I also think many gas 1500 owners may want to get the diesel 1500.

Then think about company trucks, say construction, electrical work and so on. How many will switch to 4.5 diesel from gas for the longevity aspect and fuel economy...

gcw doesn't mean anything, that is not what is limiting the towing capacity it is the gvwr regardless of configuration a 2500 has a gvwr of 9200 pounds the truck itself with minimum cargo can weigh over 7300 pounds, that only leaves 1900 pounds for tongue weight, fifth wheels are designed to have 20-25% of there weight on the tongue that limits you to a 7600 pound trailer.



Standard trailers the tongue weights can vary.



In my glove box my 07 lmm says I am limited to a 1528 pound camper.



Chevrolets have the smallest gvwr of the big 3, I think there addressing this with the 4.5 in the 1/2 ton.Actually GCW does mean something. It's what the manufacturer rates a vehicle to weigh combined with a trailer. How can you say it doesn't mean anything? Using that logic adding the diesel will detract from what it can tow because I doubt the engine will weigh less than any gas engine. You don't think a modern gas engine can tow a significant amount of weight? I would say that GVWR is is less important when towing than GCWR is.



Anyone who tows super heavy with a half ton is being irresponsible and reckless.

yes gcw means somthing, but gvw is what limits your towing ability, neither can be exceeded, back up your post with some info don't just say it, prove it, as I did, I showed gvw will limit your towing to about an 8000 pound trailer on a current 2500 to be legal.

gcw on a 2500 with a duramax is 22,000 pounds, how can you tow a 16,000 pound trailer without the tongue weight exceeding the gvw? 99% of the time gvw is what limits you ability to tow not gcw.

Actually GCW does mean something. It's what the manufacturer rates a vehicle to weigh combined with a trailer. How can you say it doesn't mean anything? Using that logic adding the diesel will detract from what it can tow because I doubt the engine will weigh less than any gas engine. You don't think a modern gas engine can tow a significant amount of weight? I would say that GVWR is is less important when towing than GCWR is.



Anyone who tows super heavy with a half ton is being irresponsible and reckless.

I would say that is incorrect, especially with a 3/4 ton truck.

Lets take a 2500HD crew cab duramax 4x4. It has a GVWR of 9200 pounds and a GCWR of 22,000 pounds.

The truck weighs just over 7000 pounds, with no body in it.

Now let only put two average people in the truck, a man and a wife. 220, for the man and 130 for the wife. Lets throw in a fifth wheel hitch at 150.

GVWR 9200- 7000 - 2200 pounds of usuable payload or rating left.

2200 - 350- 150 = 1700 pounds left of pay load or hitch weight.

Now a fifth wheel puts 20 to 25 percent on the tounge. A 10,000 pound fifth wheel should have a 2000 pound tongue weight.....Well over the remaining pay load of the truck. But more than 3000 pounds under the GCWR:eek:


Lets use a travel trailer. Hitch is less, mine is 100 pounds.

So we have 1750 pay load. Factory hitch is limited to 12,000 / 1200 hich.

12000 pound travel trailer plus 7450 is 19450, or 2500 pounds under combination again:eek:

Sure looks like the limiting factor in towing with a 3/4 truck is the GVWR, not the GCWR cause you cant get there.

So, you add a Reese titan hitch, it is rated for 14,000

14000 plus 7450 is 21,450 or 650 under GCWR

Lets get a Supper hitch, rated for 20,000 pounds.

16,000 pound RV, hitich weight is usually 12% on an travel trailer. Ops thats 1920 pounds of hitch, over the GVWR

15000 pound RV, oops that is 1800 pounds of hitch, still over GVWR

14500 pound RV, 1680 hictch, we good on GVWR

7450 plus 14500 is 21950 still good on GCWR.

This also goes to show the advertised 15900 pounds trailer it can pull is nothing but advertisment.....

you explained it better then I could

Alright, here you go. With the exception of the 2500 weight I got everything from Chevy's website. Here's why I used 10% for tongue weight. I figured it using 15% until I saw the 1500 lb thing: NOTE: Trailer tongue weight should be 10 to 15 percent of total loaded trailer weight (up to 1,500 lbs. on HD models).

I know my truck weight right at 7100 lbs with a full tank of fuel and me in the truck so for a 2500HD CC/SB:

Truck-7100
GVWR-9200
GCWR-22000
Maximum trailer weight-14900
Tongue weight at 10%-1490
GVW-8590
GCW-22000

1500 EC/SB with Vortec MAX and MAX trailering package (highest capacity I could find on a 1500). Truck weight is curb weigh listed on website plus me (220 lbs).

Truck-5570
GVWR-7200
GCWR-16000
Maximum trailer weight-10430
Tongue weight at 10%-1043
GVW-6613
GCW-16000

I seriously doubt a 1500 with even a gasser weighs 2k lbs less than a similar bodied DMax. There's no way it's 3k less.




straight from chevrolet

curb weight 1500 : 4,453 to 5,379

yours weighs: 7100

so current 1500 weighs 2600 pounds less than your 2500? It is gonna be intresting to see how much the 4.5 weighs

I bet the new 4.5 will be very light, it is slightly different then current diesels, The lighter it is the more towing capacity it will have and better fuel economy

It will definitely be interesting. I'd like to get one in a light weight RC/SB and set up a sweet little race truck.

the possibilites are endless, there are already people doing engine swaps with the current duramax, the 4.5 is gonna be smaller which will make it even more attractive for engine swaps, like a colorado.

straight from chevrolet

curb weight 1500 : 4,453 to 5,379

yours weighs: 7100

so current 1500 weighs 2600 pounds less than your 2500? It is gonna be intresting to see how much the 4.5 weighsYeah, I also said similar bodied meaning RC/LB to RC/LB, EC/SB to EC/SB, etc. They don't even offer a configuration like mine, but a CC short bed half ton to my CC standard bed 3/4 ton is less than 2k lbs difference stock to stock.

Alright, here you go. With the exception of the 2500 weight I got everything from Chevy's website. Here's why I used 10% for tongue weight. I figured it using 15% until I saw the 1500 lb thing: NOTE: Trailer tongue weight should be 10 to 15 percent of total loaded trailer weight (up to 1,500 lbs. on HD models).

I know my truck weight right at 7100 lbs with a full tank of fuel and me in the truck so for a 2500HD CC/SB:

Truck-7100
GVWR-9200
GCWR-22000
Maximum trailer weight-14900
Tongue weight at 10%-1490
GVW-8590
GCW-22000

1500 EC/SB with Vortec MAX and MAX trailering package (highest capacity I could find on a 1500). Truck weight is curb weigh listed on website plus me (220 lbs).

Truck-5570
GVWR-7200
GCWR-16000
Maximum trailer weight-10430
Tongue weight at 10%-1043
GVW-6613
GCW-16000

Your example of the 14900 trailer....if you could possibly find one with a 10% tongue would work to get to GCWR.....but

you will be hard pressed to find an rv with only 10% on the hitch. I have owned five Travel trailers.....my current on has the lowest percent of trailer weight on the ball I have ever owned at 12%

So you find one that fits your discription with tongue weight

You forgot the hitch that goes in the reciever weighs in at 100 pounds.

You are going to change the factory hitch correct? It's not rated for that much wieght...so you will be adding a much heavier reciever also.


Also how many people with an RV that big have only one person in the truck?

Last I checked, in my 06 manual gm limits tag trailers to 12000 pounds period....to go more it needs to be a fiver or goose neck...


Just out of curriosity have you ever pulled a trailer with a light tongue weight as a percentage? They tow like crap

My current RV came with a 12% tongue weigh...it towed much worse than the other four I owned with 14% and 15% tongue weights. I have actually moved stuff forward in the RV to get 13% tongue weight...it tows better.

I never said anything about RVs or bumper pull trailers. That note was listed for all types of trailering, not just bumper pulls. If you have a problem with it you can argue with GM. I have pulled lots of trailers and even gone over the GVWR when towing :eek: and not had any problems. I'm not going to sit here and argue about this so I guess you guys can work it out amongst yourselves.

I know for sure that I will be getting out of my 2500 for the 4.5 diesel. I dont need the H/D ability other than towing. To tell you the truth these trucks cant turn into a parking space worth crap. The versitility of a diesel in a Suburban is what I needed all along. Wish it would come out sooner so I could put mine on the market. Dont get me wrong I love my truck, but these trucks are made for more extreme conditions than it will ever get from me. I have 3 kids and a wife. We cant go anywhere together without putting our baqs and strollers in the bed in the truck. Kinda sucks when it rains or its cold out. The Suburban will cure that problem for us and get great mileage.

Well you guys are all going by the book.

Heres my REAL WORLD SCENARIO.

Call me reckless, but hey they works gotta get done.

Truck: 02 GMC Sierra 2500HD EC/LB SLE DMax/Ally.

Mods: Edge J/A, Prodigy Controller and gooseneck ball rated for 33,000lbs.

Weight Of truck:Id put it at 7,000lbs with all of the crap in the back.

Example 1:

Trailer weight empty:6500lbs give or take.
Trailer: 32ft Featherlite Tri Flexalite Axle Gooseneck

Cargo: 30 Bales of hay.

Weight per bale:1,000lbs.

Total weight of load: 36,500lbs

GCW:43,500lbs.

Now I just looked at the manual and it said do not exceed 23,000lbs GCW. Whoops Im 20,500lbs over.

Example 2:

Same truck and trailer.

New cargo

6 Concrete Blocks Weighing 4,000lbs each

GCW:37,500.

Whoops Im 14,500lbs over.


The truck has 110,000 miles on it. And about 40,000 of them have been towing the above two payloads.


The end result, A gooseneck hitch that has moved back an Inch and slightly leans.


Many, many sets of tires.

And a tranny thats starting to have hard shifts and not want to shift out of 3rd gear Locked TC when you have it to the floor, anything less than 95% throttle and it will shift.


So there you have it, real world examples of pushing the DMax to the Max.

Oh I forgot to mention that I cruise at 62mph on 55mph roads too.

And 74mph on 65mph roads.

Brakes have been replaced once On truck. I try to never touch them and usuallu dont have to.

In order to do this I set the trailer brakes really hard and manually downshift if required.

Trailer brakes have been replaced 3 times since it was bought new in 2001.

To tell you the truth these trucks cant turn into a parking space worth crap.

That's why I have such a hard on about trying to drop a 4.5 into my Denali...

Well you guys are all going by the book.

The end result, A gooseneck hitch that has moved back an Inch and slightly leans.


Many, many sets of tires.

And a tranny thats starting to have hard shifts and not want to shift out of 3rd gear Locked TC when you have it to the floor, anything less than 95% throttle and it will shift.


So there you have it, real world examples of pushing the DMax to the Max.
Did that make anyone else let out a nice big "Holy crap!"?

Ya you should see the bed of the truck. You can see the original goosneck ball and safty chain hook hook holes, then you see tore sheet metal back to where the ball and hooks are now.

Maybe ill have to snap a pic for ya.

round bales can weigh over 1500 pounds, how about post a pic.

Example 1:

Trailer weight empty:6500lbs give or take.
Trailer: 32ft Featherlite Tri Flexalite Axle Gooseneck

Cargo: 30 Bales of hay.

Weight per bale:1,000lbs.

Total weight of load: 36,500lbs

GCW:43,500lbs.That's crazy. I'm not going to say I haven't heard of anyone towing that much behind a pickup before, but that's a lot of weight. Out of curiosity, what size bales are you hauling and how do you stack them? My dad hauls a lot of hay on 32' goose neck trailers. He usually hauls 4x5 bales and stacks them two rows of 6 on bottom and one row of 5 on top. He has on ocassion stacked a 6th on the neck of the trailer, but even then that's only 18 bales.

here is a pic of a semi with 20 bales, how did you get 10 more?

http://www.equityphotographic.com/acatalog/6002-tn.jpg

I never said anything about RVs or bumper pull trailers. That note was listed for all types of trailering, not just bumper pulls. If you have a problem with it you can argue with GM. I have pulled lots of trailers and even gone over the GVWR when towing :eek: and not had any problems. I'm not going to sit here and argue about this so I guess you guys can work it out amongst yourselves.

Only 3 types of trailers...Bumper pull like RV or utility or such...Fifth wheel like RV or car hauler or such....gooseneck...like hores or such

Then their are Farm use wagon style trailers that put little to no weight on the truck...but not legal on interstate or primary roads

You said

Originally Posted by JoshH http://dieselplace.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2186326#post2186326)
Actually GCW does mean something. It's what the manufacturer rates a vehicle to weigh combined with a trailer. How can you say it doesn't mean anything? Using that logic adding the diesel will detract from what it can tow because I doubt the engine will weigh less than any gas engine. You don't think a modern gas engine can tow a significant amount of weight? I would say that GVWR is is less important when towing than GCWR is.


I was pointing out that most the time with 2500 trucks you exceed the GVWR first when hitched properly, pre trailer makers recomendations...now granted with a farm wagon style trailer the GVWR means nothing as none of the weight goes on the truck.

These are 3x3x8 Hay bales.

The pic of the round bales is nice, but I dont mess around with those. WAYYY TOO MUCH WORK.

When you feed three semi loads of hay per month, its much simpler to feed Square bales.

Heres how we stack them;

Two high three rows across. Thats six bales.

Then we do that three more times for a total of 24 bales.

Then across the top we stack a two bales. Thats 8 bales. These are stack like your making a pyramid. So I guess my math was off, its 32 bales.

Id get a pic, but I dont have any and its kinda snowing out so maybe next year.

But it truelyy is what we do, and haave done since we bought it.

As for the concrete blocks, if you want proof of that I can give you the number of the Redi-Mix facilities we get blocks from.

Just ask them about the crazy guy that tears around the plant and loads his truck up way too much. Theyll know exactly who your talking about.

Ill admit its hard on these trucks, but hey, its what we bought them for.

Forgot to mention all of the blowouts as well. Every tire on the gooseneck has blown out at least once.

Now that we have upgraded to 14 ply tires we rarely have blowouts but on those 90* days, every once and awhile you'll have one. Thats why we carry two spares at all times.

I was thinking you were talking about round bales, I don't doubt you, I work for ups freight and pull double trailers 80k pounds with a semi that has about 300 hp, I have seen things alot crazier than that.

The numbers of the 4.5 are definitely impressive, but I am curious to see how the 6-speed auto holds up long-term under stock power. I'd buy one if it were $10K less than a comparably equipped 2500, but I doubt that's going to be the case.

GM is NOT going to be giving these things away. They need to add "consumer valued items" to the vehicle so they can raise the pricing of the vehicle. Thats how they make money. From the positive responses so far on this website, it would appear this diesel option is desired. Expect GM pricing to reflect this.

If the pricing is the same as the 2500, Why would someone buy the heavier 2500 and get less fuel eonomy, I still say the 1500 with the 4.5 will have a similiar tow rating as the 2500, chevrolet can beef the frame rails up a little.

If they sell for a similiar price that would hurt profits, why make 2 lines of trucks that they make the same profit on.

The pricing was already posted on here somewhere it is $5200 or somting like that.

Guys don't forget that the 4.5 will be atleast 310hp and 520lbft of torque. But we are still in 07 and haven't touched 08 but barely.

This motor isn't scheduled to release for a while yet.....like 2 years.

What your not thinking is that the 6.6 currently will likely be a 6.9 and could very easily be the same caliber of design being light weight and much higher hp than the current LMM. It will likely be will well over 400hp and 800lbft of torque. Not to mention the transmission could easily be something completely new to the market......Hopefully an IVT (Infinately Variable Trans) or CVT (Continuously Variable Trans). Believe me thinking is still happening. You just think 300hp is high ..... the WAR is on like it or not. We could see 500hp from the factory in just a few years if things keep up at this rate.

In 2000 diesel had 250hp? then 6 years latter the LBZ came out with 360. Thats 110hp in 6 years. We have been at 360+ now for 3 years (o8) By 2010 it time for another hp jump not to mention a redesign anyway for emissions BS.

Just some ponderings.

Guys don't forget that the 4.5 will be atleast 310hp and 520lbft of torque. But we are still in 07 and haven't touched 08 but barely.

This motor isn't scheduled to release for a while yet.....like 2 years.

What your not thinking is that the 6.6 currently will likely be a 6.9 and could very easily be the same caliber of design being light weight and much higher hp than the current LMM. It will likely be will well over 400hp and 800lbft of torque. Not to mention the transmission could easily be something completely new to the market......Hopefully an IVT (Infinately Variable Trans) or CVT (Continuously Variable Trans). Believe me thinking is still happening. You just think 300hp is high ..... the WAR is on like it or not. We could see 500hp from the factory in just a few years if things keep up at this rate.

In 2000 diesel had 250hp? then 6 years latter the LBZ came out with 360. Thats 110hp in 6 years. We have been at 360+ now for 3 years (o8) By 2010 it time for another hp jump not to mention a redesign anyway for emissions BS.

Just some ponderings.

This is OT, but I seriously doubt that. CVT's have a hard time dealing with power and weight because they are essentially a metal belt between two pullies. My wife's Murano has a CVT and Nissan had loads of problems with longevity when they first came out. Talk about expensive also. They have their place, but not in a vehicle intended to tow 10k#. JMO.

This is OT, but I seriously doubt that. CVT's have a hard time dealing with power and weight because they are essentially a metal belt between two pullies. My wife's Murano has a CVT and Nissan had loads of problems with longevity when they first came out. Talk about expensive also. They have their place, but not in a vehicle intended to tow 10k#. JMO.

Actually CVTs are amazing at handling power, keeping speed on hills and getting amazing fuel economy.

As long as GM takes advice from Fendt and not Toyota, they will have a great tranny.

Ive driven many tractors with CVTs and all I can say is wow, what a blast, they just trasfer power so well, and efficiently.

f it is a 2009 model then it will be on dealer lots in october of 2008, that is 10 months.

This is the reason they killed off the camaro it had the same engine as the corvette, but somehow was rated 30 hp less, and the camaro was lighter, but when at the track they were just as fast as there higher priced brother the corvette, why would chevrolet sell a $26k car that was faster then a $50k car?

Camaro was never lighter than the Corvette. The last generation of the Camaro weighed about 3,600 lbs., versus 3,200 lbs. for the C5 Corvette. They did handicap its power so that it wouldn't have as much as the Corvette, but even if it had the same power as the Corvette it would still be slower due to the 400 lbs. weight difference. The only Camaro that could touch the Corvette in the 1/4 mile was the SLP SS with 330hp, but it was still heavier and less powerful than the 350hp base Corvette, and cost almost as much. Somewhat pointless as the Corvette was never a 1/4 mile track car anyway - its a sports car that just happens to post some good 1/4 mile times as a side effect of the power to weight ratio it inherently has.

The reason the Camaro and Firebird were killed was because they weren't selling well, in particular relative to the Mustang. The Mustang out-sold both cars combined 2 to 1. Why? I think it had more to do with driving position. The last gen F-bodies had great styling and steeply raked windshields, but that same styling made the driving position very low and intimidating for many drivers, especially with a 3 foot deep dashboard, and doors that opened into the next zip code. There was no easy way to get in and out of a last gen F-body in a parking lot. It was very sporty, but too intimidating for most, especially the female V-6 buyers, which make up most of the sales. Contrast this with the Mustang, which had a more friendly, upright driving position with smaller doors, smaller dashboard, and better visibility. There was nothing intimidating with the driving position of the Mustang. Female V-6 buyers felt right at home in it.

Back on topic, I'm not convinced the 4.5L will be a $5k+ option, considering GM has already stated they intend to keep production costs down and are engineering this engine to be relatively inexpensive to produce. Also, it won't need the expensive Allison transmission, so that will shave at least $2k off the current premium charged for the big Duramax in the HDs. My guess it will be a $3k-$4k option for the diesel.

Actually CVTs are amazing at handling power, keeping speed on hills and getting amazing fuel economy.

As long as GM takes advice from Fendt and not Toyota, they will have a great tranny.

Ive driven many tractors with CVTs and all I can say is wow, what a blast, they just trasfer power so well, and efficiently.


They are cool to drive, I will say that. Nail the throttle at a dead stop and it stays at 6 grand from 0-100 MPH. Put ATF in it and it'll be dead by the time you back out of the garage however.

Fendt knows CVT's they have had them for years in tractors, now Deere, Agco, and the rest are following suit. I hope they come out with them. They are sweet and would make drag racing and truck pulling a dream IF we could make them hold up. I know stock they could make them hold up.

BTW just because dodge can't make an auto tranny, and Geoge Washington couldn't make a light bulb, it doesn't mean it couldn't be done.

Impossible is only one inventor away from reality. A quote I just come up with by myself....... On that note I am going to bed....Maybe. lol

I'm not convinced the 4.5L will be a $5k+ option, considering GM has already stated they intend to keep production costs down and are engineering this engine to be relatively inexpensive to produce. Also, it won't need the expensive Allison transmission, so that will shave at least $2k off the current premium charged for the big Duramax in the HDs. My guess it will be a $3k-$4k option for the diesel.
I agree that GM certainly intends to make the new 4.5L less expensive than the 6.6L will be at the same time.

But as it stands now, they will both need urea-injection to meet the third (and hopefully final) phase of stricter emissions regs, which were implemented in three-year steps (2007, 2007 & 2010).

IIRC, the price increase for the LMM over the LBZ was somewhere around $2,100 @ MSRP. With the introduction of the LMM, the invoice/MSRP ratio went up to the same as all the other options (it had been a significantly lower ratio on the LBZ as a part of the PDN package), so for those who base what they pay on invoice price, that made it even worse.

So don't be too surprised if the 2010 regs cause another big jump in prices.

Fendt knows CVT's they have had them for years in tractors, now Deere, Agco, and the rest are following suit. I hope they come out with them. They are sweet and would make drag racing and truck pulling a dream IF we could make them hold up. I know stock they could make them hold up.

BTW just because dodge can't make an auto tranny, and Geoge Washington couldn't make a light bulb, it doesn't mean it couldn't be done.

Impossible is only one inventor away from reality. A quote I just come up with by myself....... On that note I am going to bed....Maybe. lol

Ya Fendt has had the CVT for quite some time noow, and they have it down to a perfection.

The Agco, Massy, CAT CVTs are all the same tranny, since Fendt is part of that family.

John Deere Just copied them, because they copy everybody. Like their cornplanters, directly copied from Kinze.

Anyways, Ive pulled in the 24,000lb MFWD class quite a few times. Even with my Beast of an MX240 with 80hp over injectors and a 30% over chip(its at just over 350hp versus 204hp stock), the stock fendts would still outpull me.

Then I got the chance to pull a Fendt. All you do is hit the TMS Button, and tap the lever to the right. Thi engages cruise control and the tractor will do whatever it has to do to get to the preset speed. However it keeps itself within the preset lugging percent(1-30%).

Its pretty amazing, they just fly. However at top speed theyre quite annoying cause they will surge then limit then surge then limit............. Unless you set the cruise, but you can only set the cruise at 32.9 whereas if you go through the annoying surging you can stay at about 34mph.

Im sold On CVTs, they truely are amazing.

However the mechanic told me that once you have a major problem in one of the Fendt trannies, they just throw it away and put in a wwhole new unit.

And it might take awhile for the aftermarket to figure out how to build them for racing.

Ya Fendt has had the CVT for quite some time noow, and they have it down to a perfection.

The Agco, Massy, CAT CVTs are all the same tranny, since Fendt is part of that family.

John Deere Just copied them, because they copy everybody. Like their cornplanters, directly copied from Kinze.

Anyways, Ive pulled in the 24,000lb MFWD class quite a few times. Even with my Beast of an MX240 with 80hp over injectors and a 30% over chip(its at just over 350hp versus 204hp stock), the stock fendts would still outpull me.

Then I got the chance to pull a Fendt. All you do is hit the TMS Button, and tap the lever to the right. This engages cruise control and the tractor will do whatever it has to do to get to the preset speed. However it keeps itself within the preset lugging percent(1-30%).

Its pretty amazing, they just fly. However at top speed theyre quite annoying cause they will surge then limit then surge then limit............. Unless you set the cruise, but you can only set the cruise at 32.9 whereas if you go through the annoying surging you can stay at about 34mph.

Im sold On CVTs, they truely are amazing.

However the mechanic told me that once you have a major problem in one of the Fendt trannies, they just throw it away and put in a whole new unit.

And it might take awhile for the aftermarket to figure out how to build them for racing.

I agree 100%. Fendt pioneered the IVT/CVT, released in 1996, and have been leading ever since. The differences between an MF and Fendt ( other than being 1/3 cheaper, and Better looking..... Yeah, MF Die hard here!! :D ) is that the MF's have 21 speeds programmed in, whereas the Fendt is stepless.

I would love to see one in a DMAX powered pick up, as long as GM gets assistance from AGCO, and not Toyota or Nissan.

That would be awesome.

Camaro was never lighter than the Corvette. The last generation of the Camaro weighed about 3,600 lbs., versus 3,200 lbs. for the C5 Corvette. They did handicap its power so that it wouldn't have as much as the Corvette, but even if it had the same power as the Corvette it would still be slower due to the 400 lbs. weight difference. The only Camaro that could touch the Corvette in the 1/4 mile was the SLP SS with 330hp, but it was still heavier and less powerful than the 350hp base Corvette, and cost almost as much. Somewhat pointless as the Corvette was never a 1/4 mile track car anyway - its a sports car that just happens to post some good 1/4 mile times as a side effect of the power to weight ratio it inherently has.

The reason the Camaro and Firebird were killed was because they weren't selling well, in particular relative to the Mustang. The Mustang out-sold both cars combined 2 to 1. Why? I think it had more to do with driving position. The last gen F-bodies had great styling and steeply raked windshields, but that same styling made the driving position very low and intimidating for many drivers, especially with a 3 foot deep dashboard, and doors that opened into the next zip code. There was no easy way to get in and out of a last gen F-body in a parking lot. It was very sporty, but too intimidating for most, especially the female V-6 buyers, which make up most of the sales. Contrast this with the Mustang, which had a more friendly, upright driving position with smaller doors, smaller dashboard, and better visibility. There was nothing intimidating with the driving position of the Mustang. Female V-6 buyers felt right at home in it.

Back on topic, I'm not convinced the 4.5L will be a $5k+ option, considering GM has already stated they intend to keep production costs down and are engineering this engine to be relatively inexpensive to produce. Also, it won't need the expensive Allison transmission, so that will shave at least $2k off the current premium charged for the big Duramax in the HDs. My guess it will be a $3k-$4k option for the diesel.


I hope your right about it only being a 3K-4K thousand dollar option, I have been begging for this type of truck for a while now, and finally it may be coming. Since I found out about it, I have been telling people that I am putting my order in, hahaha.

Oh and just to add to the camaro, I had a 4th generation camaro and I loved the seating position compared to mustangs (roommate had one at the time) but your right about woman liking the upright position well.

And I think the overall benefit to the vette was the overall refinement and handling, it was just a nicer car. But there was no difference between the motors other than maybe intake lid and exhaust they both dynoed very close to each other, and I was one of the lucky ones my camaro only weighed about 3350 (definately on the light side)

10/4 on the cvt love it!!!!!!!!

The premium for the 4.5L that will be in the Burban, 1/2 ton, etc, will not be as much as getting the 6.6L Duramax with the Allison, for one reason; no Allison Trans. GM will be putting in the new 6 speed auto trans and that right there will knock off a good chunk of that extra price tag.

All I know is that my wife has been bugging me for a Suburban, the impala is to small. I don't want a Suburban, cause I don't want to pay that much gas, not that it would be much different in town than the impala. A diesel Suburban though would have my interest peaked and I'd have no choice, but to purchase 1.

I would love to see the diesel in the half ton for the MPG. But I hate to think what it is going to do to safety. I can only imagine how overloaded some people are going to run those trucks just cause they have a diesel, and not take in consideration the lighter brakes, springs, frames etc.

I wouldn't touch an early 1/2 ton diesel from Chevy with a 10 foot pole. Can you imagine the transmission/drivetrain troubles that are going to crop up stuffing an engine like that in current half-ton running gear and then towing > 10 - 11K up through the rockies? They are going to have to address some serious shortcomings in the rest of the current 1/2 ton truck.

I love the idea, but I'll wait to see how well this is implemented before jumping on that bandwagon. Until then, I am sticking to my 3/4 ton.

I would have to agree with the previous poster regarding the $5700 diesel option and the price of diesel now. Diesel is $1.00/gal more expensive at this time than it was a year ago, that trend is not going to stop. So say this comes out in 2009, $5700.00 for the diesel option and say conservatively diesel is only $4.70/gal. The price of a loaded tahoe with the diesel will be damn near 60k. I just don't see many people swallowing that pill, I mean Ford quit making the diesel excursions for a reason, just too expensive. Unless the government does something about the rediculous prices of diesel I think the oil companies will just kill the technology with their price gouging. I love diesel technology and I love the MPG increase, I also love the idea of being able to run biodiesel in both my vehicles. In my area biodiesel is only .10 cheaper than regular diesel, where is the incentive in that? I just have a hard time believing the oil companies are not somehow manipulating all of this.

Might be a bad decision since guys who want diesels want the hughest loudest meanest truck. GM is doing this because they make lots of markup on a truck....try and buy a stripped durmax diesel. And they must meet mileage standards. with 4 buck diesel cost just around the corner and the extra cost of UREA or fertilizer which is what it is....this might be a flop since someone wanting a true diesel will want a big mutherd and not a little engine. The guy who really does not need a diesel will not want to pay I bet a 15,000 premium for a diesel after the dealer screws us buyers.
Time will tell.....but if it is too expensive which I guarantee..... I just see no reason to buy one on cost savings..... OK, some will chip it and ad another turbo... but the aluminum heads will just melt. Plus the UREA models will now have to pass tail pipe emissions and bigger injectors with a turbo and disconnecting the UREA injector and gutting the converter will guarantee a flunked emissions test. Wish GM the best but they better not price it too high. I just do not see a market for an under powered price diesel engine.

Right which is why the aluminum heads on the 6.6L are melting with 2,000*+ EGTS. Mine havent melted yet and I hit between 2,000 and 2,100 about 10 times this summer.

With the exception of me and my cousin, everybody else in my family that owns a DMax doesnt want the biggest loudest truck. There are 6 other DMaxes in my family and all they do is work and work an work. 2 of them are chipped simply so that they pull better. And thats it.

i would like to see the option and see how well it does in the market. hopefully gm made a winner.

im going to keep my 6.6(for towing) , buy the wife a 4.5 ,tune it, then beat the piss out of it on sunday afternoon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D