This what I know right know. The 4.5 duramax is all gm built, it has 9 injectors (the 9th for the fuel in the exhaust for dpf), engine only has 1 turbo, and as of right know the truck has a 6 gal. urea tank. This is what I was told.

I like the injector in the exhaust for the DPF. I haven't seen anybody report the problem with the Duramax 6.6 but I've read reports on both the Ford and Dodge forums with users getting diesel in their oil. They seem to be claiming it's from blowby during the regen. This would eliminate that as a possibility.

Also the rpo for engine is LMK

I like the injector in the exhaust for the DPF. I haven't seen anybody report the problem with the Duramax 6.6 but I've read reports on both the Ford and Dodge forums with users getting diesel in their oil. They seem to be claiming it's from blowby during the regen. This would eliminate that as a possibility.

diesel in oil is one of the drawbacks

diesel in oil is one of the drawbacks


squirting fuel out the exhaust pipe is another drawback....

I imagine this is something that EFI live could cure?

I imagine this is something that EFI live could cure?
We'd need to get an ECM and determine if we can access it first.

Cheers
Cindy

IDK who brought up the fact that it was twin turbo in one of the original posts but by looking at the first pictures of the engine it was obviously not a TT. Who ever said that needs to give me what they are smoking cause it is WAY to good!

Sounds good man. I still am a believer that at 25 mpg's this thing will be a total hit. Really hoping the price tag on it doesn't go stupid.

Lets hope it will get 30 MPG.

I have 8 injectors and a straight exhaust. Got to love the old oilers!!!:D

IDK who brought up the fact that it was twin turbo in one of the original posts but by looking at the first pictures of the engine it was obviously not a TT. Who ever said that needs to give me what they are smoking cause it is WAY to good!

Sounds good man. I still am a believer that at 25 mpg's this thing will be a total hit. Really hoping the price tag on it doesn't go stupid.

Somebody posted a link to an article and the article was incorrect in saying that it was a twin turbo.

Sounds good man. I still am a believer that at 25 mpg's this thing will be a total hit. Really hoping the price tag on it doesn't go stupid.

i bet with EFI Live we could get some GREAT highway mpg. ive gotten 26 out of my truck. but that 9th injecter might come into play. all i know this would be better then those jeeps with the little diesel in em. buy the wife a little dmax

Any word if this is just going in 1/2 tons or will it be available in 3/4 tons? From the old initial articles on the 4.5 they state it will be used in trucks under 8600 GVWR which means only 1/2 tons. :mad: GM, give me a 3/4 ton with a 4.5L diesel that gets in the upper 20's mpg and I'll buy it!

Any word if this is just going in 1/2 tons or will it be available in 3/4 tons? From the old initial articles on the 4.5 they state it will be used in trucks under 8600 GVWR which means only 1/2 tons. :mad: GM, give me a 3/4 ton with a 4.5L diesel that gets in the upper 20's mpg and I'll buy it!


BINGO - I want a replacement for my LB7, none of this 'heavy half' stuff either, I hope they offer it in the 2500HD frame.....

BINGO - I want a replacement for my LB7, none of this 'heavy half' stuff either, I hope they offer it in the 2500HD frame.....
I personally would be fine with a heavy half. Give me the 3/4ton axles and brakes on a half ton frame and I'm good. I pull a 6000lb car trailer (with race car) with about 800 lbs of tires and tools in the bed. While a half ton can certainly handle that weight, I live in a very mountainous part of the country. When coming down a 7% grade the 3/4 ton brakes are worth their weight in gold. I have no need for the beefy 3/4 ton frame. However, I do want a crew or at least ext cab with an 8' bed and the 1/2 tons only have a crew with a short bed. :(

ditto on the heavy half. It's perfect for what i need and it can be built using parts already on the line. My gas 6.0 15hd has 105k on the original brakes-and I sometimes pull a small 14k gooseneck.
I really dont want anything but the availability of more power without having to go to the 8.1.

I just hope a soild front axle is possible in a heavy half ton option.

i doubt you will ever see that. if they dont put a sfa on 3/4 and 1 ton why would they put in on a heavy half.

I just hope a soild front axle is possible in a heavy half ton option.


no..

i doubt you will ever see that. if they dont put a sfa on 3/4 and 1 ton why would they put in on a heavy half.

they wont its just something id like to see. you can dream cant ya?

haha oh yea dreams are very nice. i dream to have a twin turbo 7.1L dmax one day.

I work in the oil fields, I know for a fact if GM would have put a SFA in their pickups thats all that would be out here. There are tons of duramaxs now but not as many as the powerstrokes. GMC biggest mistake....IMO

Ain't that the truth,Matt. Make an even better work truck with a solid axle. Too bad this little sucker can't be had with a solid axle and a 6spd manual. Make a great shop truck/run-about field pickup.

I work in the oil fields, I know for a fact if GM would have put a SFA in their pickups thats all that would be out here. There are tons of duramaxs now but not as many as the powerstrokes. GMC biggest mistake....IMO

Ain't that the truth,Matt. Make an even better work truck with a solid axle. Too bad this little sucker can't be had with a solid axle and a 6spd manual. Make a great shop truck/run-about field pickup.


for you and....who else...??

I feel like a broken record.

Wouldnt it also be sweet if they came from the facotry with a built trans and motor?? Dude that would kick ass! I would totally buy one, I think they would sell like hot cakes.

:p

ben

i think GM would sell even for work trucks if they had a option to have a SFA for the guys that do need it oh and why take away the manual trans i say that ford is losing theirs too

i think GM would sell even for work trucks if they had a option to have a SFA for the guys that do need it


they should also have an "engine delete" option package RPO. That would be a great idea and would sell really well for the guys who want to do a cummins swap or soemthing like that.

Now Ben I warned ya already :eek:. Don't push me, Lol ):h. Just giving ya crap.
We need more options. I'm on the 3rd set of tires ruined by IFS since it's so easy to mes up.
Heck 25yrs ago we could had 4 gear ratios to order from, now we have 1 :mad:. GM needs to relize options sell trucks.

SFA isn't all it's cracked up tp be... at least not the latest versions.... I put more front whl bearings and ball joints in Super Turds than GM IFS trucks

Once put both whl bearings on a F250 7.3 with <25K mi on it..... bone stock truck

This what I know right know. The 4.5 duramax is all gm built, it has 9 injectors (the 9th for the fuel in the exhaust for dpf), engine only has 1 turbo, and as of right know the truck has a 6 gal. urea tank. This is what I was told.


And an additional injector for the urea !!

for you and....who else...??

I feel like a broken record.

Wouldnt it also be sweet if they came from the facotry with a built trans and motor?? Dude that would kick ass! I would totally buy one, I think they would sell like hot cakes.

:p

ben


All thats being said is options sell. Ben, you wouldnt like options? you would rather have GM say ok, this year we are only building 1/2 diesels with a 4 speed. Also only avaiable in the LT1.. take it or leave it.

Well put Matt :cool:.

All thats being said is options sell. Ben, you wouldnt like options? you would rather have GM say ok, this year we are only building 1/2 diesels with a 4 speed. Also only avaiable in the LT1.. take it or leave it.

All thats being said is options sell. Ben, you wouldnt like options? you would rather have GM say ok, this year we are only building 1/2 diesels with a 4 speed. Also only avaiable in the LT1.. take it or leave it.


oh come on you know what I mean. :rolleyes:

having such drastically different options such as solid front axle vs. IFS is rediculous and not cost effective at all. I bet you 90% of the people buying these trucks dont even know or care what front suspension they have. If it bothers you guys that much then go buy a dodge. :)

Before there was even any mention of the 4.5, everyone complained that GM didnt have a half ton diesel. Now that a half ton diesel is actually coming, people find something else to complain about. So say 5 years down the road, gm gives us this "solid front axle package", then I bet people would complain you cant option it with fold-out wings that would make it fly. :D :p:

haha I know what you meant :)

Id say for every 100 powerstrokes there are 25 duramaxs and 5 dodges in the rifle oil fields, in the HD class. Now gassers are different, they are pretty even.

I aint buyin a SFA without wings :lol:

haha I know what you meant :)

Id say for every 100 powerstrokes there are 25 duramaxs and 5 dodges in the rifle oil fields, in the HD class. Now gassers are different, they are pretty even.

I aint buyin a SFA without wings :lol:

What would the benefits be with a diesel in your extreme cold climate? I always see diesels being used in the extreme cold climates for just light carrying tools and just hauling people around. I would think a gas would be easier to keep warm and easier to keep running with no issues of fuel gelling and all the other things a diesel does in the cold conditions. Just curious of why diesels are more common then gassers since the majority of work is light hauling and no extreme weights and hills to climb.

What would the benefits be with a diesel in your extreme cold climate? I always see diesels being used in the extreme cold climates for just light carrying tools and just hauling people around. I would think a gas would be easier to keep warm and easier to keep running with no issues of fuel gelling and all the other things a diesel does in the cold conditions. Just curious of why diesels are more common then gassers since the majority of work is light hauling and no extreme weights and hills to climb.

Good point, we run heavy equipment and dont haul anything.

I think its a wear and tear issue, diesel engines last so much longer. And the low cost to maintain at a fleet price.

Also its really hard to find a gas pump up on location, and its alot easyer to find fuel (all your big engines run on diesel) And us operators carry a 140 gal fuel tank with us.

I think its just a diesel thing?! haha

What would the benefits be with a diesel in your extreme cold climate? I always see diesels being used in the extreme cold climates for just light carrying tools and just hauling people around. I would think a gas would be easier to keep warm and easier to keep running with no issues of fuel gelling and all the other things a diesel does in the cold conditions. Just curious of why diesels are more common then gassers since the majority of work is light hauling and no extreme weights and hills to climb.


Why carry two different types of fuel? Your big engines all run on diesel or fuel oil. It just makes it easier esp. when you are in BFE.

Hope so for the 30 mpg to

the first thing i would wanna do is straight pipe it, screw emissions DPF, Cat and muff. I wanna hear my engine. Would it be possible with that 9th injector?

This was an article in Autoweek on-line. I'm not sure I want to be the guinea pig on this one.

Bill

GM's new diesel opens up, loses weight
By RICHARD TRUETT, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS (http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/personalia?ID=ANTRUETT&category=contact)

http://cwimg.sv.publicus.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=CW&Date=20081020&Category=FREE&ArtNo=810199988&Ref=AR&Profile=1530&maxw=340 (http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081020/FREE/810199988/1530/FREE&template=zoom&Site=CW&Date=20081020&Category=FREE&ArtNo=810199988&Ref=AR&Profile=1530&CRED=) http://www.autoweek.com/graphics/zoom1.gif (http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081020/FREE/810199988/1530/FREE&template=zoom&Site=CW&Date=20081020&Category=FREE&ArtNo=810199988&Ref=AR&Profile=1530&CRED=) In the crankcase of GM’s 4.5-liter diesel, smaller, stronger main caps enable air to circulate in the bottom of the engine. The design increases efficiency.




Henry Ford once said the best engineering is to "simplicate and add lightness."

Charlie Freese and Gary Arvan don't work for Ford Motor Co. But the new diesel V-8 they designed for General Motors is simple and light. On paper, at least, it has the potential to be the first great engine of GM's second century.

GM plans to install the new Duramax 4.5 in its Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra light-duty pickups and several SUVs next fall.

Last year, GM revealed the innovative top half of the new engine, with its turbocharger nestled between the cylinder heads where the intake manifold normally would be.

Now, GM is showing the bottom half of the engine. The innovations there are just as extensive.


Mass death spiral
Arvan is chief engineer for GM's Duramax diesel engines. Freese, GM's executive director of diesel engineering, said reducing the weight of the engine was one of the design team's top goals. Another was to make the diesel indistinguishable from the gasoline engine it will replace.

"If I add mass that I don't need, I need bigger mounts to mate the engine to the vehicle. Now I need bigger springs to suspend the truck. The brakes need to be bigger," he said.

"So a little increase in the powertrain means big increases in the rest of the vehicle. As I increase the mass to deal with it, now I have to go back to the powertrain and make sure the powertrain is sized big enough to move all that mass. It's a death spiral."

Open up the bottom half of the Duramax 4.5 and you'll see things GM has never done in the crankcase of a regular production engine.

Start with the crank journals, the center section of the engine block that holds the crankshaft. They are cast into the block, but not in the usual way. GM used the same type of process, fracture splitting, for the main journal bearing caps that it uses on its connecting rods.

The result is greater precision, higher strength and lower costs on two fronts. The process needs less of the expensive compact graphite iron material for the block and bearing caps. Machining costs drop because the engine uses two bolts per bearing cap, not four.

It's a novel design for a diesel engine. A diesel's high compression ratio puts the crankshaft and bearings under tremendous stress and strain. Most diesels have heavily cast crankshaft bearing journals. GM's may be the lightest ever, with open spaces where you'd normally see thick metal.


Open air
The design of the crankcase also led to better circulation of air between the banks of cylinders. Because the sides of the bearing journals are not cast into the wall of the cylinder block, air can circulate freely as the pistons move. That reduces what engineers call pumping losses that sap performance as the engine turns over.

"One of the big issues for these modern diesels is the ability to handle the exchange of pressures through the crankcase itself," Freese said.

Because GM has not built a gasoline or diesel engine with a similar design, Freese declined to say how much weight or machining costs the new engine saves. But he said it was substantial and that some of the 4.5-liter engine's features likely would be used in future gasoline and diesel engines.

The lower engine's design helps meet two other design goals: Deliver at least a 25 percent fuel economy gain over a similar-sized gasoline engine, and meet the toughest emissions standards on the books. GM plans to build the engine tuned just one way, with one emissions system, and offer it in all 50 states.

Some other unique features of the engine include:

-- A hollow balance shaft with a gear-driven center section that transfers internal noise to the rear of the engine near where the transmission is mounted. The noise is muffled by the heavy transmission housing.

-- An aluminum cradle or upper oil pan that mounts between the engine block and the lower oil pan that stiffens the engine block. Said Freese: "We get a 30 percent stiffness improvement compared with any other benchmark design."

the main caps looks a little undersized, but im no engineer, so I cant really say that "for sure".

Remember that the oil pan also holds everything together, acting as a girdle of sorts, so that should make up for the lost strength going from cross bolted mains to two bolt mains.

IDK who brought up the fact that it was twin turbo in one of the original posts but by looking at the first pictures of the engine it was obviously not a TT. Who ever said that needs to give me what they are smoking cause it is WAY to good!

Sounds good man. I still am a believer that at 25 mpg's this thing will be a total hit. Really hoping the price tag on it doesn't go stupid.


It doesn't have twins because I don't have one yet :D.

Should make for some good carnage pics when an overly aggressive tuner gets loaded, doubling the hp/tq over stock and the factory reciprocating assy. along with everything below it ends up deposited at the last stoplight!:eek:






If all the good things forecasted come true I'll end up getting a 2nd or 3rd year model:) -with a small tune?

the main caps looks a little undersized, but im no engineer, so I cant really say that "for sure".

Remember that the oil pan also holds everything together, acting as a girdle of sorts, so that should make up for the lost strength going from cross bolted mains to two bolt mains.

The aluminum gurdle in the article is not in the picture. I'm impressed to see GM tieing all the main caps together which should really improve stiffness and strength without have to use big, bulkly, and heavy main caps. The more and more I read about this engine the more I want one.

i heard a couple of days ago that chrysler might be buying out GM. i know its been going on for a while but they said it might actually happen now. do yall think it will?

i heard a couple of days ago that chrysler might be buying out GM. i know its been going on for a while but they said it might actually happen now. do yall think it will?

no its the other way around

no its the other way around

X2 Right now it looks like chrysler only has to options and that is either get GM to buy them are file for bankruptcy. GM is the only company that looks like it might be willing to buy them.

Oh my bad. Would that put duramax engines in the dodges now? or what?

I just hope a soild front axle is possible in a heavy half ton option.that wont hapen, gm will not go bck in time for sure, i had an 85 with a solid front axle, hated the ride...

:badidea: HELLS no! A duramax in a dodge is i SIN! Just the thought... :shootself As far as any diesel mechanic ( a sensible/knowledgeable one) and i am concerned, the duramax is only inferior to the cummins in every way. I know you will have your defenses, on how the duramax is better, but they will be wrong. I'm sure there would be large groups of people in mob like protests going to blow up duamax plants if that happened, but don't worry, it won't.:laugh_exp

Why would you want to put a Duramax in a Dodge anyway just buy a Chevy are GMC and get a better truck too.

:badidea: HELLS no! A duramax in a dodge is i SIN! Just the thought... :shootself As far as any diesel mechanic ( a sensible/knowledgeable one) and i am concerned, the duramax is only inferior to the cummins in every way. I know you will have your defenses, on how the duramax is better, but they will be wrong. I'm sure there would be large groups of people in mob like protests going to blow up duamax plants if that happened, but don't worry, it won't.:laugh_exp
Don't know if they are superior or inferior - but the sound like carp, I wouldn't own one! :)

for you and....who else...??

I feel like a broken record.

Wouldnt it also be sweet if they came from the facotry with a built trans and motor?? Dude that would kick ass! I would totally buy one, I think they would sell like hot cakes.

:p

ben

they should also have an "engine delete" option package RPO. That would be a great idea and would sell really well for the guys who want to do a cummins swap or soemthing like that.


Agreed Ben. I am mainly interested in the mpg's if I can get 32mpg out of my little diesel project truck then GM should be able to get at least 30 out of this thing. I cant see it being that big of a deal otherwise. Has there been a release date set?