The 4.5 is not drastically less powerful than the big Duramax, and diesel fuel prices keep climbing. No numbers for MPG have been solidly proven. I also wonder how a half-ton drivetrain will hold up to the numbers discussed?

If GM is not going to lose another $40 billion this year, then wouldn't a 6-cyl be fine for what half-ton truck owners require, as far as power, and really make a more dramatic difference in mileage and draw more interest from potential buyers?

Is it possible that developement began without the foresight or information necessary to predict where fuel prices were going and the power races with other manufacturers was at the top of the list?

The reason I ask about this is the almost complete drop off in interest I have seen from people who were very excited in the baby DMax rumors, but now have decided that a half-ton gasser is a better choice for initial cost of the truck and cost to fuel it? If you had a 6-cyl and mid-30's MPG (if that is possible), people seem to be interested, again.

I'm very, very interested in a 4.5L Diesel in a Suburban. If Mileage is anywhere close to even just 23mpg or higher being a plus. Even if diesel stays $.50-.75 higher a gallon than gas, you'll save $$, cuz no gas Suburban getting anywhere near 23mpg. And from my situation, my Escalade ESV, getting a whopping 14-15mpg would be great to get into the 20's in mpg's from a diesel. I think a smaller V8 would be more efficient overall than a bigger V6 in a 1/2 Ton situation. Who knows how a bigger V6 deals with the emission cr@p that is going on these days with Diesels, the small V8 may be able to deliver the power while being "greener". About the powertrain, the 6spd (not Allison) in the HD trucks will be the tranny used with this diesel more than likely, it was developed to hold over 520ft/lbs, which is pretty much around the numbers given for the 4.5L so far. I think the powertrain will be similar to what the 2500LD's/1500HD's were. HD parts, on 1/2 Ton frame. Just some thoughts, but I will be owning a Sub/Yuk with this 4.5L. Chris

I think the short answer is "performance"

Its not going to sell in large numbers in the states if its a slug.... no matter what the mileage.

Who knows, if diesels really catch on, maybe the base engine could be a V6 diesel instead of lame V6 votec engine.

I'd love to see that little 2.9L V6 thats going in the CTS end up in the Colorado:)

You wouldn't pickup much fuel economy by going to 6 cylinders, assuming similar displacement, and you could end up with an engine that is less smooth (unless you went with an I-6, but then it wouldn't meet their packaging requirements).

I think they should offer two versions of this engine - one tuned for power like the one they announced, and the same engine tuned for fuel economy but makes less power. That way, those who really don't care about towing and performance and just want a full size truck with the best fuel economy could get what they want. For example, the 6.5L TD made 195 hp and 430 lbs. of torque. If you had the 4.5L make the same power, I'm sure it would get even better fuel economy due to 2.0L less displacement and modern technology.

I bet the plan was to replace the 6.6 with the 4.5 for consumers. The 6.6 would still be used for commercial apps. GM still needs smaller displacement diesel engines.

last i heard the cummins was still planning on using the I6 in the 2500+ trucks and for there 1500 using a V8 Cummins. So maybe GM is thinking staying in the same "Class" or appeal to customers. It will be interesting to see how the 1/2 ton diesel race goes with the big three.

As for the above comment i have heard that passed around on here too. Eventually replacing the 6.6 with the 4.5.

Stingray should be working for GM, that's exactly what needs to be done. I don't need a hot rod of a diesel in a Yukon, just mpg. I've got my truck for the towing we do with our 5th wheel. There are diesels getting 40+mpg in cars right now, no reason 30mpg couldn't be obtained in a tuned diesel for mpg. Maybe programmers will be available for this exact setup in the aftermarket arena. I'd buy it. Chris

i think gm should have made 4 cylinder(half duramax) years ago. gm could have stroked it, think they were scared to make exhaust manifold with turbo mounted on it. 4 cyl would have been quick and share mfgr tooling line.

I bet the plan was to replace the 6.6 with the 4.5 for consumers. The 6.6 would still be used for commercial apps. GM still needs smaller displacement diesel engines.


You think the future 2500HD and 3500HD trucks are going to get a 4.5 liter engine? :eek:

Ben

I bet the plan was to replace the 6.6 with the 4.5 for consumers. The 6.6 would still be used for commercial apps. GM still needs smaller displacement diesel engines.

You think the future 2500HD and 3500HD trucks are going to get a 4.5 liter engine? :eek:

Ben

Even though they make similar stock power numbers, IMO there'd be way too much strain on a 4.5 when towing heavy, which is the main selling point for trucks that size. That motor wouldn't last 100,000 miles at that rate. There'd be no point putting the baby Dmax in a 2500/3500...but then, GM has made many decisions that make a person wonder.....

Most of us never needed a 6.6L HD. It wasn't that long ago that everyone drooled over the 175hp/420ft-lb Dodge Cummins diesels. I think those were 4 speed autos. Heck, with more gears and better ratios a 4 cylinder diesel could do a reasonable job. The future looks like HD sales plummeting, truck costs rising, and GM needing to make changes in-line with demand.

i can't see GM taking the 6.6 out of the HD and putting in the 4.5 it just wouldn't be able to hold up to any kind of towing that the trucks of this size are made for

I think they should offer two versions of this engine - one tuned for power like the one they announced, and the same engine tuned for fuel economy but makes less power. That way, those who really don't care about towing and performance and just want a full size truck with the best fuel economy could get what they want. For example, the 6.5L TD made 195 hp and 430 lbs. of torque. If you had the 4.5L make the same power, I'm sure it would get even better fuel economy due to 2.0L less displacement and modern technology.

Stingray, I think you are on to something there, but try this on for size for one engine:

I'm not sure if they still do this in the smaller cars, but remember the buttons that were for "Performonce" and "Economy"? I don't understand why they can't program something similar to this in to the ECM. For example: When in regular driving mode, everything is tuned for "Economy". Hit the T/H button and boom, it's in "Performance" mode and kicks up the ponies a little and you get the towing enhancement.

Sure, now someone from GM is going to read this, get his million dollar bonus and I'll still live in a van down by the river!

i can't see GM taking the 6.6 out of the HD and putting in the 4.5 it just wouldn't be able to hold up to any kind of towing that the trucks of this size are made for
The "kind of towing that the trucks of this size are made for" is going to become a lot less popular as fuel prices keep rising, especially for recreational use by the general public.

Given that the 4.5 is slated to have as much or more horsepower and torque as the original Duramax 6.6, I can see it becoming a viable option in 2500HDs IF it costs less than the 6.6, and delivers higher fuel efficiency and/or lower overall operational costs (incl. urea, etc.).

The days of increased pickup truck sales, promoted by higher and higher payload & towing capacity, are over. That goes for passenger cars, too. In terms of the 'over-the-top' moment, the new ZR1 supercharged Corvette is roughly analogous to the ZL1 Corvette of nearly four decades ago. Expect at least a full decade of lowered horsepower expectations from here forward.

You wouldn't pickup much fuel economy by going to 6 cylinders, assuming similar displacement, and you could end up with an engine that is less smooth (unless you went with an I-6, but then it wouldn't meet their packaging requirements).

I think they should offer two versions of this engine - one tuned for power like the one they announced, and the same engine tuned for fuel economy but makes less power. That way, those who really don't care about towing and performance and just want a full size truck with the best fuel economy could get what they want. For example, the 6.5L TD made 195 hp and 430 lbs. of torque. If you had the 4.5L make the same power, I'm sure it would get even better fuel economy due to 2.0L less displacement and modern technology.

I think your first sentence sums it up nicely. A V8, of any size, has much less vibration than a V6 inherently due to the even firing crankshaft. A 60 degree V6 wouldn’t provide enough room of the plumbing and like you mention an I6 package won’t fit the engine bay without modification. Besides displacement has less to due with mileage than does vehicle weight and aerodynamics.

I appreciate the replies. Very thought provoking and some things mentioned that I had not considered.

I guess what I was considering was if you take people who have always owned half-ton gas trucks and tried to provide them with something that gets much better mileage and no less useability, a six would be better. Not coming from the point of how to entice a true 3/- or 1-ton owner to drop back to a lower level of HP and torque.

I know you see crazy things going on, but most 1/2-ton trucks pull utility trailers with lawn equipment, ATV/UTV's, trailers with firewood, bass/ski boats and smaller loads that a larger truck is not needed to tow or carry.

How many 3/4 and 1-ton owers even have a trailer hitch? The larger truck was the only diesel option. With the 4.5, although not able to do what the 6.6 can do, needs to be aimed more at the true 1/2-ton owner's needs of :1-being able to do what the 1/2-tons always do and, 2-get the really enticing mpg.

As mentioned, I think the days of hottodding diesels is not so desired by as many (although the hardcore will always be there, like muscle cars) as a couple of years ago. People want better mpg and still be able to do the things with their truck that they bought it for in the first place. To many people, 15 mpg can mean picking to go do a few things and, unfortunately not do some things they used to do. If 30, or even 30+ mpg was a reality, even with the higher cost of diesel, that would be reason to buy.The only thing I cannot factor in to that is the cost of maintenance of the newer diesel emission systems and the cost of oil, filters for oil and fuel, etc.

Thanks again for the input.

Here's also another couple of reasons. Now, GM will be able to advertise "THE FIRST V8 TO GET 30 MILES TO THE GALLON!!!!"

Plus, more people will buy the V8 rather than anything else for power. And if you really want to get technical, that's 2 more cylinders that are revolving and ready to fire and light up when you step on it.

I think they could offer the baby duramax in two sizes and tunes, just like in the ls series gas engines run from 4.8 - 6.2. How about a 4.0 with about 260hp and 450ft pounds of torque. With the lighter configurations it would still be a great performer and it should be even more economical and probably smoother and quieter to. It would work well in the Tahoe too.

Is the new 4.5 V8 designed so they could make it a 3.4 liter V6 version? The V6 would have a place in lighter, smaller vehicles. It'd just depend on how smooth they could make it run...

Is the new 4.5 V8 designed so they could make it a 3.4 liter V6 version? The V6 would have a place in lighter, smaller vehicles. It'd just depend on how smooth they could make it run...

I believe there is a 2.9L(?) diesel that is going in the Cadillac CTS and im sure in other small vehicles.

Is the new 4.5 V8 designed so they could make it a 3.4 liter V6 version? The V6 would have a place in lighter, smaller vehicles. It'd just depend on how smooth they could make it run...

Designed to become a V6? Not likely. The unique intake and exhaust packaging would be tough to engineer from a V8 to a V6. Not to say with enough willpower it couldn't be done. The 4.3L V6 is a 350 V8 minus two cylinders (over simplified). They are great running motors as far as durability but they are not the smoothest around for sure.

I believe there is a 2.9L(?) diesel that is going in the Cadillac CTS and im sure in other small vehicles.

Yeah there is talk of the 2.9 Motori diesel being dropped in the CTS. Now how about a CTS-V version with the 4.5L. That would be awesome.

When y'all speak about differing "tunes"...and I doubt this will ever be seen as an OEM thing....but, it would be nice to have a choice as needed. Meaning, let the driver have a switch or control that allows for maximum mileage or maximum performance. More likely to have an offering of a cup holder or under hood lamp (like they did away with). Oh well.

Yeah there is talk of the 2.9 Motori diesel being dropped in the CTS. Now how about a CTS-V version with the 4.5L. That would be awesome.


Awile back in "Diesel Power" they had a section of potential diesels that could be put into differnt vehicles. I don't remember any specifics off the top of my head but if any of you have that issue i think they mentioned the 2.9L in there and a few others that might make it into GM products

Awile back in "Diesel Power" they had a section of potential diesels that could be put into differnt vehicles. I don't remember any specifics off the top of my head but if any of you have that issue i think they mentioned the 2.9L in there and a few others that might make it into GM products

Yeah I remember that issue. Going to have to pull it out and see what they wrote about the 2.9L.

Is the new 4.5 V8 designed so they could make it a 3.4 liter V6 version? The V6 would have a place in lighter, smaller vehicles. It'd just depend on how smooth they could make it run...

The 4.5 has a 72 degree bank angle.
It will have perfect primary balance in a V10 configuration.
It has 2 turbine-driven superchargers.
Imagine variable valve train technology -- like exists already
in the 90 degree V8 motors -- to turn off cylinders.
Think about something like the Workhorse chassis with a 5/10
turbo diesel.

the 2.9 is in colorados in europe

I think we could give up some power for mileage. It wasn't that long ago that I had a 1989 2500 4x4 suburban w/ H.D everything. It was rated at a whopping 190 hp and 300 ft.lbs. It got maybe 11mpg driving like my foot was allergic to the go pedal. It towed like shit was always running hot, and was slow. So, I think this new 4.5 would be great even at lower power levels. It would still have more power than my old sub. My wife currently has an expedition w/ the 4.6 V8. (slow poke) It gets average mileage 16 or so. I am very intersted in a diesel tahoe or sub that could have more power and better mileage.

I think the 4.5 could tow in the HD's just fine. As long as it is designed to keep cool then it could easily tow heavy and still last a long time. I remember when Ford dropped the 7.3 and replaced it with the 6.0 and everyone thought it could never hold up to the stress since it was smaller. It did have allot of bugs but the structure was strong. I just want the same power as my 02 Duramax with allot better mileage. It has plenty of power compared to the 94 Ford Turbo 7.3 IDI that I used to drive but I wouldn't mind getting up in the 20's for fuel mileage. I think the power wars should be over now and they should all focus on having the most fuel efficient engines. The public would buy the most efficient engine before they would buy the biggest. I know I would.

I would expect the 4.5 could work just fine in the HD models if it was designed to do so from the beginning. Which I don't think is the case. I also doubt it is built with the bearing surfaces of the current D-Max required for durability with heavy towing.

Very interested to see how the 4.5 evolves over the next few years

http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/chevy/0706dp_2008_cadillac_cts_v6_diesel/index.html

I believe there is a 2.9L(?) diesel that is going in the Cadillac CTS and im sure in other small vehicles.

m.p.g is whats going to make or break this new motor,with the fuel prices the mileage is going to be a big factor.
and i think the 8 is a great way to go.
my truck can hit the 18mpg real easy if i,m easy on it.speed is what kills the mileage.
reset your dic,shifts into 6th gear at about 48mph,go down a country road set cruise at 50 and see what you get.bet its high 18 to mid 19.
turning less than 1500 rpm.if its a flat road will go into 20,s
so now they but the baby max in a lighter truck,gear it to cruise at say 60,at 1500,maybe a 355 gear or 342? dont need a 373 not going to tow near the weight we can with 2500hd
with this in mind i can see 30 plus in mpg for the new dura and might be a real hit .

just going to knock the heck out of resale on our bigger truck as everyone will be tradeing them in.and there not a hot seller now .
if all goes well in the half ton think you will see it offered in alot more gm cars and suvs

Forgrt the V-6, go with a I-6. I had a 97 dodge cummins (the last year they didn't have electronics) and it was a horse! Does not pull as good or as fast as my Duramax, but it did it. Remember too, when you say make two or three of this and that, overhead and engineering is very expensive.

THe 5.9 or 6.7 Cummins is too long for what they want to build these days. WOnder if they went with a smaller stroke and bore if they could get the mass and size down enough to make it work. The inline Supra did a good job. But I think the Italian V-6 is the way to go. Seems to provide good numbers in a smaller design. As a Holden fan I hope they put the V-6 in the G8 ST but then I like El Caminos. Other than 2 dogs and the Misses I don't have a family so I don't need a large truck most of the time. Someday I'll have a house and won't need a big truck to haul a 5th wheel.

m.p.g is whats going to make or break this new motor,with the fuel prices the mileage is going to be a big factor.
and i think the 8 is a great way to go.
my truck can hit the 18mpg real easy if i,m easy on it.speed is what kills the mileage.
reset your dic,shifts into 6th gear at about 48mph,go down a country road set cruise at 50 and see what you get.bet its high 18 to mid 19.
turning less than 1500 rpm.if its a flat road will go into 20,s
so now they but the baby max in a lighter truck,gear it to cruise at say 60,at 1500,maybe a 355 gear or 342? dont need a 373 not going to tow near the weight we can with 2500hd
with this in mind i can see 30 plus in mpg for the new dura and might be a real hit .

just going to knock the heck out of resale on our bigger truck as everyone will be tradeing them in.and there not a hot seller now .
if all goes well in the half ton think you will see it offered in alot more gm cars and suvs

All excellent suggestions for increased mpg IMO. Is it possible to have a fuel management system in a diesel truck? Like the gas GMC 1500 have?

All excellent suggestions for increased mpg IMO. Is it possible to have a fuel management system in a diesel truck? Like the gas GMC 1500 have?

I would think with common rail injection it is theoritically possible but it would be very complicated for certain. Of course the special AFM lifters would be required also to reduce pumping losses of the dormant cylinders.

I don't think it would be too complicated. Wouldn't it just shut of the injectors on the dormant cylinders?

I don't think it would be too complicated. Wouldn't it just shut of the injectors on the dormant cylinders?

That sounds about right but remember that the rail pressure is 26,000 psi so I don't know if shutting down the injectors would be as simple as it is is with the gasoline versions. Also without the special lifters the frictional pumping losses of the dormant cylinders would offset any gains of shutting off the fuel. It has successfully been done with several gasoline engines. With the computing power available in cars today and the low rpm torque produced by diesels it certainly is possible and I would think that mileage improvements of more than 10% would be realized.

I'm very, very interested in a 4.5L Diesel in a Suburban. If Mileage is anywhere close to even just 23mpg or higher being a plus. Even if diesel stays $.50-.75 higher a gallon than gas, you'll save $$, cuz no gas Suburban getting anywhere near 23mpg. And from my situation, my Escalade ESV, getting a whopping 14-15mpg would be great to get into the 20's in mpg's from a diesel. I think a smaller V8 would be more efficient overall than a bigger V6 in a 1/2 Ton situation. Who knows how a bigger V6 deals with the emission cr@p that is going on these days with Diesels, the small V8 may be able to deliver the power while being "greener". About the powertrain, the 6spd (not Allison) in the HD trucks will be the tranny used with this diesel more than likely, it was developed to hold over 520ft/lbs, which is pretty much around the numbers given for the 4.5L so far. I think the powertrain will be similar to what the 2500LD's/1500HD's were. HD parts, on 1/2 Ton frame. Just some thoughts, but I will be owning a Sub/Yuk with this 4.5L. Chris
trust me i would be all over a diesel yuk/tahoe as well
but the fact of the matter is that the soccer moms think diesels are nasty and clacky and wont accept that they develope much more stock tq at the rw than a 6.2 gas
it sucks they should of had a small diesel out by now
plus the damn emmisions too has a role

http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/chevy/0706dp_2008_cadillac_cts_v6_diesel/index.html

400 lb ft in a caddy! scary! u could tow something with that (not that you would want to!)

400 lb ft in a caddy! scary!


the new escalades already have 417 ft lbs. ;)

In my opinion, if they could tune the 6 cylinder to get a decent amount of power and torque it would be nice to see an inline 6 duramax. Those inline engines last forever. Dosent Gm use an I6 in their bigger commercial trucks? Its about time they thought about making a smaller displacement diesel engine. I saw a post on this thread saying that an I6 would not meet their packaging requirements, what does that mean?

This is just the start of the new family of Duramax engines for the US market. The preme is the 1.3 L used in Europe that will be here soon.

I hope your right, all the foriegn countrys are using smaller turbocharged more efficient diesel engines in cars so its about time gm develops a new line of smaller duramaxes to run anything from cars all the way up to the 6.6L used in pickups and suv's. But i think the diesel market would really have to take off before that happens.

I just want to point out that the idea of having two different tunes is completely unecesary. The way modern ECM's work you already have the best mileage you can get and the most power possible and it's all selected by your right foot. There is nothing you can do in a "economy" tune that you can't do in a power tune. Those two conditions occure in two seperate areas of the fuel and timing maps. Now you can make an economy tune that just plain removes any chance of making power, but all you are doing is putting a block of wood under the pedal.

Keep in mind that the best mileage possible and the most power possible were not the only goals the OEM's had in mind. They had to hit super stringent emissioins standards and also stay under a pre-determined safety factor to keep from having too many warrantee issues. There should be no problem finding some extra fuel mileage in the tune.

Just a second brain storm on the subject.

Fuel mileage is determined by a couple of factors the two biggest being how much power a vehicle requires to be pushed down the road at a given speed and how efficently the engine turns that fuel into power.

Diesels are the most fuel efficent internal combustion engines on the road today. Going to a smaller engine most of the time allows you to be more efficient at making small ammounts of HP. The average car only needs 15 hp to maintain highway speeds. Our big trucks probably require at least 30. So the goal would be to make an engine that makes 30 hp the most efficiently. Our 6.6 liter giants aren't the best in this area but they do better than most gas engines because they don't have the fuel suspension issues.

A good analogy would be to compare a stock small block chevy to a cammed up race motor. The stock small block will run all day at 1500 rpm and be happy. The race motor won't even idle that low, let alone be the most efficent there. We have the same situation with our diesel engines....you can only really have peak efficiency at one rpm and load range, everything else is a compromise. It's basically all boils down to BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) the "brake" part being HP. Really we should all be sitting around comparing BSFC charts instead of dyno graphs......which is probably whats going on at GM right now.

Just a second brain storm on the subject.

Fuel mileage is determined by a couple of factors the two biggest being how much power a vehicle requires to be pushed down the road at a given speed and how efficently the engine turns that fuel into power.

Diesels are the most fuel efficent internal combustion engines on the road today. Going to a smaller engine most of the time allows you to be more efficient at making small ammounts of HP. The average car only needs 15 hp to maintain highway speeds. Our big trucks probably require at least 30. So the goal would be to make an engine that makes 30 hp the most efficiently. Our 6.6 liter giants aren't the best in this area but they do better than most gas engines because they don't have the fuel suspension issues.

A good analogy would be to compare a stock small block chevy to a cammed up race motor. The stock small block will run all day at 1500 rpm and be happy. The race motor won't even idle that low, let alone be the most efficent there. We have the same situation with our diesel engines....you can only really have peak efficiency at one rpm and load range, everything else is a compromise. It's basically all boils down to BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) the "brake" part being HP. Really we should all be sitting around comparing BSFC charts instead of dyno graphs......which is probably whats going on at GM right now.

:confuzeld

In my opinion, if they could tune the 6 cylinder to get a decent amount of power and torque it would be nice to see an inline 6 duramax. Those inline engines last forever. Dosent Gm use an I6 in their bigger commercial trucks? Its about time they thought about making a smaller displacement diesel engine. I saw a post on this thread saying that an I6 would not meet their packaging requirements, what does that mean?


Thats unrealistic in almost every way.

Way too long; wouldnt fit.

Probably wouldnt meet crash test regulations with the long engine.

Probably wouldnt fit under the hood.

Big NVH issues with an inline diesel.

The list goes on. Save the inlines for the tractor trailers. You dont need one (for the reasons that people like inline engines, torque etc) in a half ton truck or SUV.

The idea behind the 4.5 was that it fits into any GM that had a gas V-8 without modifing the unit. That way they just drop it in as an option when you order. It satisfies the boards conscerns about the unperdictable public demand.

The idea behind the 4.5 was that it fits into any GM that had a gas V-8 without modifing the unit. That way they just drop it in as an option when you order. It satisfies the boards conscerns about the unperdictable public demand.

I didnt know that was what they were going for, but thats a better idea i the 4.5L happens it would get more people into buying diesels.

I read some very interesting posts containing insights on this subject I hadn't thought about, one being the smoothness of v6 (or lack of), but it seems to me that GM should start working on that so the technology will be there to put diesels (4 or 3 cylinders) in other vehicles like the Impala and the Cobalt, and hopefully a small people mover with a diesel-hybrid, like say the Aveo. People have to get used to the idea that diesel is a great stop gap or possibly even a medium-range solution to fuel costs.

I read in a previous post about a small 2.9 or 1.3 litre diesel showing up here in the States, that would be great. I think when folks start seeing 40 or 50 miles per gallon in a little econobox all the scary stuff about diesels will go away....mostly.

And GM better hurry up too, because Mahindra will be here next year (2010 model) with their diesel powered truck and SUV, and diesel-hybrid.
JP

Saw current issue of Diesel Power on stands at grocerythis Sunday. Can't remember exact numbers, so don't hold my feet to the fire on them, but these are close from memory. Article on GM diesels for 2010 will likely include a 6 cyl version with approx 250hp and 420ftlbs tq, the 2010 8cyl with new EPA compliance was stated to be back down to around 310hp and high 500's on the ftlbs of torque.

Looks like the EPA is going to sqaush the "power race" between the Big 3's oil burner lineup. Check it out, the short article is near the front of the issue in the technical and "what's new" type of sections.

I didnt know that was what they were going for, but thats a better idea i the 4.5L happens it would get more people into buying diesels.


Can someone say VW Jetta TDI? Any logical person already has one. Too bad the rest of the world is stupid. VW has a waiting list for the new TDI's so I've been told.

I would expect the 4.5 could work just fine in the HD models if it was designed to do so from the beginning. Which I don't think is the case. I also doubt it is built with the bearing surfaces of the current D-Max required for durability with heavy towing.


Thank you.

It takes beefy parts to last. Get this my trackhoe has a 7.5L engine but only 195hp and 470Lb/ft of torque!!! But it will last 20,000 hours at full tilt. This is due to the heavy build of the engine relative to the hp. I dont think the 4.5 was built heavy enough for real towing. If you think about it, it couldnt have been since GM is claiming MPG figures as high as they are. Beefy engines with a lot of wear surface dont get good MPG.:)

Can someone say VW Jetta TDI? Any logical person already has one. Too bad the rest of the world is stupid. VW has a waiting list for the new TDI's so I've been told.


No doubt man. 50 mpg stock...who wouldn't want one? Try injectors and a little timing. We have one getting close to 75mpg on old farm fuel!

Can someone say VW Jetta TDI?

Been on the hunt for a good used 2001-2003 Pre Deuze IP. Still some avail up here in the $13,500-16,000 range. Gotta wait till the wife gets workin again....But yea, 60mpg on a good days run at 65mph. Yowzer.!!

When you're paid mileage, these look units awfull damned good..!! Bout the only issues I read about are:timing belt/water pump/tensioners ever 80k or so. say 500 bucks all told every year and a half for me...not too shabby for the mileage i figure..!! ..might be a while but I am so going to buy one of these..!!


GM on the other hand like their Detroit cousins seem to have their collective heads up their arse. A V8 Camaro in 2008...??? WTF were they thinking.? And really, a 4.5L 350 hp Diesel in a 1500.?/ hmmm I cannot see diesel pricing go below 1.00 per litre or say 3.25 a gallon...so why would ya want one as a daily driver. The main stated reason for buying a truck with the power of our dmaxes is for towing for the most part.

GM needs to look at a 2.4 to 3.4 litre 4 banger diesel that can achieve 50 mpg combined city and hwy. THAT would stand a chance of winning. As I do not see the Japanese doing much in diesel.??

We need to keep in mind that there are 1.25 BILLION Chinese + 1.1 BILLION E Indians too.... and they all want the American Dream: part 1 of which is a car. Gas and Diesel, while cooling a bit now for pricing, will eventually rise well beyond what we pay now....likely sooner than later.

stk

my opinion only.
stk

The 6 would cost to much to R&D at this time, with GM being so cash strapped and all.

The Duramax 6600 V8 is used for Heavy Duty applications, it is considered a medium duty diesel. The new Duramax 4500 V8 is considered a light duty diesel, becuse of its smaller displacement and power ratings. GM has just released a released news that the Duramax 6600 V8 will undergo an update woith better emssions and more power. GM is making the investment to both motors. will be offered in the Silverado 1500, Sierra 1500, Suburban, Yukon XL, Express, Savana, Hummer H2, H3, and some Cadillac vehicles. The Duramax 6600 will be offered in the Heavy Duty and Medium Duty vehicles.

even if the 4.5 has near the same power rating it wont pull even close to as good as the 6.6.

My BMW Diesel with OEM Twin Turbos....gets 55mpg on the run....

320hp thought.. wich is awful nice...

This is ofcourse done with aerodynamics + good engine engineering..

My BMW Diesel with OEM Twin Turbos....gets 55mpg on the run....

320hp thought.. wich is awful nice...

This is ofcourse done with aerodynamics + good engine engineering..

Yep and the damn EPA over here wouldn't approve it for use in the US because it doesn't meet regulations. Stupid isnt' it. We need to stop using as much foreign oil yet yet the EPA ensures that we use more through over-regulation,. :mad:

I feel there is another reason that I think no one has addressed yet. I think that a V8 configuration is a good idea for the fact that this engine will be more oversquare than the same displacement 6 cylinder, and with that said GM can keep the rev limiter higher(4500 or so)to help the transition of non diesel owners to diesel trucks. just my opinion

I feel there is another reason that I think no one has addressed yet. I think that a V8 configuration is a good idea for the fact that this engine will be more oversquare than the same displacement 6 cylinder, and with that said GM can keep the rev limiter higher(4500 or so)to help the transition of non diesel owners to diesel trucks. just my opinion

very true, its one of the ways auto manf. are trying to get soccer moms to do diesel.

Also I feel that people who don't understand the power that a diesel can produce may be more likely to relate with a V8 rather than any form of a 6 cylinder. again just my opinion

I heard in 2010 duramax will be a 6.9l??

The average "NON Truck enthusiast" has become used to very quiet and smooth running rigs. Stick them in a vehicle that has a 6 cylinder long stroke diesel and they are going to be very unhappy with the "feel"

The short stroke big bore engine will be smooth and responsive and with the current design of diesel enjection it will be quiet too.

The Orginal Power Stroke was an abomination as far a noise goes. You could hear them coming a mile off. The GM 6.2/6.5 family was not much better

The noise levels are a real issue with the "soccer Mom Ideology" "OH GEEEZ what are my friends going to think if I pull up in this noisy TRUCK"

The same thought processes are the reason we have the electronic shift on the 4x4 instead of a Johnson Bar on the floor as we have had for the last 50 years.

Creature comforts and the lack of "Look like a truck" mentality has taken control of the design parameters.

Best

MGW

A V8 Camaro in 2008...??? WTF were they thinking.? And really, a 4.5L 350 hp Diesel in a 1500.?/ hmmm I cannot see diesel pricing go below 1.00 per litre or say 3.25 a gallon...so why would ya want one as a daily driver.


:D

I just read the release on the 6.9L V-8, being called the "UMAX." It looks like a redesign of the 6.6 LMM.

It does fit in the afore mentioned theories about 4.5 and 6.6 product placement. If the 4.5 is considered light-duty then it will replace the current 6.6 in light-duty, C/K 3500, and below. The 6.9 would then be used in medium-duty, C/K 4500 and up. Right now we have the 6.6 or the Isuzu 7.8 I-6 for the medium-duty line. This all gets thrown out the window when you cosider GM is trying to sell-off it's medium-duty line. International handled that for a year but decided not to continue and Isuzu looks like the prime runner to buy the line. Isuzu would not replace the 7.8 unless it had to.

Personally the 4.5, with power and torque numbers close to the LB7, would be great for 1500-series trucks and SUVs as well as most 2500-series Subs and YukXLs. We can't pull 5th wheels with those SUVs. The 4.5 as an option on the 2500 and 3500-series along with the 6.6, or 6.9 if it ever comes out, would make sense. This would be counterpoint to GM's new down-sizing of lines so don't expect it. The 2.9L Motori is said to be an interim fix until the 2.5L that will be built in Thailand comes on line. Who knows what will happen with that.

Right now there are so many irons in the fire there is no way to make intelligent speculation about that we will actually see. Until GM comes up with more interchangeable lines there is little to anticipate for better diesels or more diesels available in smaller or more affordable GM products.