GM Powertrain's powerful Duramax 6.6L V-8 turbo-diesel engine (http://www.truckblog.com/story-935-gms_2007_duramax_66l_v8_updated#) is revised to meet new, stringent 2007 federal emissions regulations and continues to deliver the outstanding power and torque ratings customers expect.
Upgrades to the engine and a new diesel particulate filter system help ensure the engine meets government-mandated emissions regulations for diesel engines (http://www.truckblog.com/story-935-gms_2007_duramax_66l_v8_updated#) manufactured beginning in January 2007, which require a 90-percent reduction in particulate matter and 50-percent reduction in NOx.
"Maintaining power and torque leadership with the Duramax is important to us because it's the benchmark that built the engine's class-leading reputation with our customers," said Charlie Freese, executive director, GM Powertrain Diesel Engineering.
The new Duramax 6.6L V-8 (LMM) engine delivers superior performance ratings. It is offered with increased power and torque for Chevy Kodiak and GMC Topkick medium duty applications. Versions are available with 300 horsepower (http://www.truckblog.com/story-935-gms_2007_duramax_66l_v8_updated#) and 520 lb.-ft. of torque, as well as a new 330-horsepower option with 620 lb.-ft. of torque.
Final advertised ratings for the Chevrolet Silverado (http://www.truckblog.com/story-935-gms_2007_duramax_66l_v8_updated#) and GMC Sierra 2500 and 3500 HD pickups and GM's full-size vans will be released later this year.
The Duramax delivers outstanding acceleration and towing performance. Upgrades implemented in 2006 enhanced the efficiency, smoothness and quietness of the Duramax engine, which was already known as one of the industry's quietest and strongest diesels.
The new emissions standard
The Duramax 6.6L V-8 has new equipment to help it meet the government-mandated 2007 emissions standard. It requires a 90-percent reduction in particulate matter compared with the current standard, which was implemented in 2004, and a 50-percent reduction in NOx.
The use of reformulated, ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (http://www.truckblog.com/story-935-gms_2007_duramax_66l_v8_updated#) - which goes on sale nationwide this fall - is required to meet the new emissions standard. The new fuel's (http://www.truckblog.com/story-935-gms_2007_duramax_66l_v8_updated#) sulfur content is limited to 15 parts per million (ppm), versus the current standard of 500 ppm. Diesel engines manufactured prior to 2007 can continue to use the current diesel fuel.
To meet the new emissions regulation, the Duramax 6.6L V-8 engine features:

Additional combustion control, including an even more efficient variable-geometry turbocharging system, cooled (enhanced) Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) and closed crankcase ventilation to reduce NOx
Additional exhaust control, including oxidizing catalyst and new Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) to reduce soot and particulate matter
Increased-capacity cooling system
New engine control software
Use of low-ash engine oil

:blahblah: Good ole EPA...

I bet the 2007 LMM engine in the light duty trucks will have the same hp/tq ratings as the medium duty trucks.

I bet the 2007 LMM engine in the light duty trucks will have the same hp/tq ratings as the medium duty trucks.

i read somewhere they will have 360 again. Medium will have 330.

I saw those blocks running on a machining production line in January. :D

I was there looking at equipment and recognized the blocks from about 50 ft away.:eek:

So i guess the idea would be to buy a gasser and drop a nice ole LBZ in 'er. That or get one before the change-over.

So i guess the idea would be to buy a gasser and drop a nice ole LBZ in 'er. That or get one before the change-over.The thing to do is buy one built before Jan 1, 2007

My buddy Mike and i were joking about picking up a few trucks and locking them away in storage for a few years. Either we would end up using them or be able to sell them for a healthy profit ):h

I know I'm the n00b here, but all I ever see about this is *****ing and complaining about the emission standards, and unfounded predictions that the LMM won't make as much power.

Can anyone say for sure that the LMM won't make the same power as the LBZ, and back it up?

Also, if we assume that the LMM will make the same power, is there some other reason to dread it's arrival?

The thing to do is buy one built before Jan 1, 2007

You'll have to buy a 2007 Classic off a lot. I heard, all orders placed from now on will be the new 2007 with new the emissions. (?)

I like that idea of yours, Riccas. But I'm certain I couldn't resist the temptation to drive the truck for more than a couple hours! :D

Bill

You'll have to buy a 2007 Classic off a lot. I heard, all orders placed from now on will be the new 2007 with new the emissions. (?)


According to my dealer, cutoff for ordering an '07 Classic is the latter part of October.

Also, if we assume that the LMM will make the same power, is there some other reason to dread it's arrival?

If the LMM makes the same (or more) power, & it probably will, I'll betcha good money it won't get near as good fuel economy. How would you like it if you pay thousands more for all of the emissions crap, & your fuel economy drops a couple of MPGs compared to an LBZ.

The new 2007 LMM Duramax will have exactly the same power as the current 06 LBZ motor.
The 2500 HD LMM will still have 360 Horsepower and 650 foot pounds of torque.:ro)


Im happy about that for sure!!!
:exactly:


Read this:

http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=3&docid=28148

FOR RELEASE: 2006-08-24 GM'S 2007 Duramax 6.6L V-8 Turbo-Diesel Delivers Class-Leading Torque While Meeting New Emissions Requirements



MILFORD, Mich. - GM Powertrain's powerful Duramax 6.6L V-8 turbo-diesel engine is revised to meet new, stringent 2007 federal emissions regulations and continues to deliver the outstanding power and torque ratings customers expect.
Upgrades to the engine and a new diesel particulate filter system help ensure the engine meets government-mandated emissions regulations for diesel engines manufactured beginning in January 2007, which require a 90-percent reduction in particulate matter and 50-percent reduction in NOx.
"Maintaining power and torque leadership with the Duramax is important to us because it's the benchmark that built the engine's class-leading reputation with our customers," said Charlie Freese, executive director, GM Powertrain Diesel Engineering.
The new Duramax 6.6L V-8 (LMM) engine delivers superior performance ratings. It is offered with increased power and torque for Chevy Kodiak and GMC Topkick medium duty applications. Versions are available with 300 horsepower and 520 lb.-ft. of torque, as well as a new 330-horsepower option with 620 lb.-ft. of torque.
Final advertised ratings for the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra 2500 and 3500 HD pickups and GM's full-size vans will be released later this year.
The Duramax delivers outstanding acceleration and towing performance. Upgrades implemented in 2006 enhanced the efficiency, smoothness and quietness of the Duramax engine, which was already known as one of the industry's quietest and strongest diesels.
The new emissions standard
The Duramax 6.6L V-8 has new equipment to help it meet the government-mandated 2007 emissions standard. It requires a 90-percent reduction in particulate matter compared with the current standard, which was implemented in 2004, and a 50-percent reduction in NOx.
The use of reformulated, ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel - which goes on sale nationwide this fall - is required to meet the new emissions standard. The new fuel's sulfur content is limited to 15 parts per million (ppm), versus the current standard of 500 ppm. Diesel engines manufactured prior to 2007 can continue to use the current diesel fuel.
To meet the new emissions regulation, the Duramax 6.6L V-8 engine features:
Additional combustion control, including an even more efficient variable-geometry turbocharging system, cooled (enhanced) Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) and closed crankcase ventilation to reduce NOx
Additional exhaust control, including oxidizing catalyst and new Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) to reduce soot and particulate matter
Increased-capacity cooling system
New engine control software
Use of low-ash engine oil
How the DPF works
The 6.6L engine's DPF is based on GM-patented technology and proven supplier components. It traps diesel particulate matter in a honeycomb-like ceramic "brick" after it travels through an oxidizing catalyst. Remaining exhaust gases are routed out through the exhaust system. To ensure optimal performance, the system must undergo periodic "regeneration" to release accumulated soot from the filter. The regeneration process uses heat to burn off the soot and, in most cases, is performed automatically.
An onboard computer controls fuel injection and oxygen content to adjust the exhaust energy to the appropriate level to clean the particulate trap. Periodic servicing of the filter is required to remove accumulated ash. The DPF and corresponding components will change the exhaust system length and/or outlet design, depending on the vehicle model. Also, an expanded underbody heat shield is added. Vocations such as sweepers, airport ground support, municipal and refuse trucks will likely be most affected by the changes.
Duramax 6.6L V-8 details
Revised for 2006, the Duramax diesel uses a variable-geometry turbocharger to optimize boost performance over a wide range of operating conditions. This provides the customer with seamless and immediate response, while simultaneously helping to reduce emissions. The turbo, which spins up to 120,000 rpm, is high-speed-balanced for minimal noise and vibration, while contributing to the engine's overall smoothness and refinement. Maximum boost is 20 psi. Additional details of the Duramax 6.6L V-8 engine's '06 enhancements include:
Cylinder block casting and machining changes to provide stronger structures with increased reliability and durability
Upgraded main bearing material increases durability
Revised piston design lowers compression ratio from 17.5:1 to 16.8:1
Cylinder heads revised to accommodate higher peak cylinder firing pressure
Maximum injection pressure increased from 23,000 psi to more than 26,000 psi
Fuel delivered via higher-pressure pump, fuel rails, distribution lines and all-new, seven-hole fuel injectors
Improved glow plugs heat up faster through an independent controller
Revised variable-geometry turbocharger is aerodynamically more efficient to help deliver smooth and immediate response and lower emissions
Air induction system re-tuned to enhance quietness
EGR has larger cooler to provide for cooler exhaust gases going into the system
First application of new, 32-bit E35 controller, which adjusts and compensates for the fuel flow to bolster efficiency and reduce emissions
The engine also features a rigid cast iron cylinder block with induction-hardened cylinder bores; four-bolt, cross-drilled main bearing caps; forged steel, nitride-hardened crankshaft; aluminum pistons with jet-spray oil cooling; aluminum cylinder heads with four valves per cylinder; integrated oil cooler and a charge-cooled turbocharging system. Features, such as easy-access fuel filter and timing gears, reduce maintenance time and effort.

# # #
SPECIFICATIONS
2007i Duramax Diesel 6.6L V-8 Turbo ( LMM )

Type:
Duramax 6.6L V-8 turbo-diesel
Displacement:
6599cc
Compression ratio:
16.8:1
Valve configuration:
overhead valves (4 valves per cylinder)
Assembly site:
Moraine, Ohio
Valve lifters:
mechanical roller
Firing order:
1 - 2 - 7 - 8 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 3
Bore x stroke:
103 x 99mm
Fuel system:
direct-injection diesel with high pressure common rail
Applications:
Horsepower: hp ( kW )
Chevrolet Silverado HD
360 hp ( 268kW ) @ 3200 rpm*
GMC Sierra HD
360 hp (268kW) @3200 rpm*
Chevrolet Kodiak Medium Duty ( LYE option )
330 hp ( 246kW ) @ 3000 rpm
GMC TopKick Medium Duty ( LYE option )
330 hp ( 246kW ) @ 3000 rpm
Chevrolet Kodiak Medium Duty ( LRX option )
300 hp ( 224 kW ) @ 3000 rpm
GMC TopKick Medium Duty ( LRX option )
300 hp ( 224 kW ) @ 3000 rpm
Chevrolet Express
250 hp ( 186 kW ) @ 3200 rpm*
GMC Savana
250 hp (186 kW) @ 3200 rpm*
Applications:
Torque: lb-ft ( Nm )
Chevrolet Silverado HD
650 lb-ft ( 881 Nm ) @ 1600 rpm*
GMC Sierra HD
650 lb-ft (881 Nm) @ 1600 rpm*
Chevrolet Kodiak Medium Duty ( LYE option )
620 lb-ft ( 841 Nm ) @ 1600 rpm
GMC TopKick Medium Duty ( LYE option )
620 lb-ft (841 Nm) 2 1600 rpm
Chevrolet Kodiak Medium Duty ( LRX option )
520 lb-ft ( 705 Nm ) @ 1600 rpm
GMC TopKick Medium Duty ( LRX option )
520 lb-ft (705 Nm) @ 1600 rpm
Chevrolet Express
460 lb-ft. ( 624 Nm ) @ 1600 rpm*
GMC Savana
460 lb-ft (624 Nm) @ 1600 rpm*
Fuel shut off:
3250 rpm Kodiak and TopKick (medium duty)
3450 rpm Silverado and Sierra (heavy duty), Express and Savana
Emissions controls:
cooled exhaust gas recirculation, catalytic converter, diesel particulate filter (DPF) & intake throttle
MATERIALS:

Block:
cast iron
Cylinder head:
cast aluminum
Intake manifold:
cast aluminum
Exhaust manifold:
cast nodular iron with steel pipe extension
Main bearing caps:
cast nodular iron
Crankshaft:
forged steel
Camshaft:
steel
Connecting rods:
forged steel, stress fractured
Additional features:
charge air cooling
recommended oil change interval: Per the computerized Oil Life System. Requires CJ-4 engine oil to Maximize Life
recommended coolant change interval: 5 years or 150,000 miles

Also, if we assume that the LMM will make the same power, is there some other reason to dread it's arrival?

I can think of a few good reasons.
1. Higher maintenance cost due to the particulate filter.
2. Lower MPG due to more emissions stuff
3. Lower BTU content of the ULSD fuel also equals less mpg
4. Higher initial cost due to the new emissions and filter.

If the LMM makes the same (or more) power, & it probably will, I'll betcha good money it won't get near as good fuel economy. How would you like it if you pay thousands more for all of the emissions crap, & your fuel economy drops a couple of MPGs compared to an LBZ.

As stated, I'm looking for facts. It's this fearful speculation that's got everybody in a frenzy over finding the last LBZ's. I just don't see it.

Truthfully, personally, it wouldn't bother me that much if fuel economy did drop off a mile or two per gallon. Everybody's gotta make their sacrifices. My company burns thousands of gallons of fuel each month, so my personal vehicle is just a drop in the bucket. Even for someone who has to purchase the fuel out of their own pocket, the extra cost of a couple of mpg isn't really that high. If they're driving so much that it is, odds are they're making a living with the truck and can pass the added fuel costs on to their customers/clients.

I can think of a few good reasons.
1. Higher maintenance cost due to the particulate filter.
2. Lower MPG due to more emissions stuff
3. Lower BTU content of the ULSD fuel also equals less mpg
4. Higher initial cost due to the new emissions and filter.


All legitimate concerns, to be certain.

I'd like to see just how much 1 and 4 actually end up being. I'd bet it really won't amount to much. 4 in particular seems a bit silly as anyone who's buying a Duramax is already committing to paying $6-$8k more than any truly "economical" truck costs, and most here are then gonna pour another coupla grand into accessories. Unless the sticker for an LMM jumps another $4k, I can't see that being much of an issue.

Again though, I'm curious if anyone's got any actual facts about this.

I reckon the facts will be apparent after it arrives on the market. Go on over to the "green diesel" sites and check out their "solutions" to those nasty diesels that the tree-huggers hate so much.

Would seem apparent that this engine is going to run hotter yes? Now speaking from the personal experience of having to fight a peugeout diesel for a while (it kept blowing open the next weakest link in the cooling system after the previous one was repaired) I am partial to an engine that does not run at the upper limit of water boiling at 1 std atm. So they're gonna up the normal operating temp on the block/aluminum heads...

Then it would seem that you couldn't just plug a shop-vac into the soot trap - that would be too easy. One of these new diesel engines have to taken in so the dealer can use his "special" shop vac to reclaim the soot/ash because us good old boys/gals shouldn't handle such "dangerous" materials.

Finally, I read (and believe) that SULPHUR was the lubricant for the fuel system, epecially on the older diesels (since they already reduced the sulphur levels at least once so far). Now they're reducing the lubricating ability of the fuel by a factor of 33 (ish).

My first diesel got a MINIMUM of 45 mpg in the early 80's. Of course, and riding lawn mower could beat in a drag race BUT name any other diesel built today with their new hippie-power technology that could back up that claim. They've had 25 years to do it. Instead, they come up with these candy-a$$ solutions that do nothing but ADD MORE COST to maintain a vehicle and entertain these liberal jackasses who want nothing more but to regulate and govern your entire existence as an American.

That last line is an undisputed fact my friend... -

Would seem apparent that this engine is going to run hotter yes? Now speaking from the personal experience of having to fight a peugeout diesel for a while (it kept blowing open the next weakest link in the cooling system after the previous one was repaired) I am partial to an engine that does not run at the upper limit of water boiling at 1 std atm. So they're gonna up the normal operating temp on the block/aluminum heads...

I'm not trying to be argumentative, mind you, but where do you get that information?


Then it would seem that you couldn't just plug a shop-vac into the soot trap - that would be too easy. One of these new diesel engines have to taken in so the dealer can use his "special" shop vac to reclaim the soot/ash because us good old boys/gals shouldn't handle such "dangerous" materials.

Does anyone know just how often GM's thinking this service will have to be done?


Finally, I read (and believe) that SULPHUR was the lubricant for the fuel system, epecially on the older diesels (since they already reduced the sulphur levels at least once so far). Now they're reducing the lubricating ability of the fuel by a factor of 33 (ish).

I could well be waaaay off on this, but isn't B100 devoid of sulphur?


My first diesel got a MINIMUM of 45 mpg in the early 80's. Of course, and riding lawn mower could beat in a drag race BUT name any other diesel built today with their new hippie-power technology that could back up that claim. They've had 25 years to do it.

How much power did that 45 mpg motor make? If you had to guess, what percentage of 360 hp would you estimate it made?

I can think of a few good reasons.
1. Higher maintenance cost due to the particulate filter.
2. Lower MPG due to more emissions stuff
3. Lower BTU content of the ULSD fuel also equals less mpg
4. Higher initial cost due to the new emissions and filter.

It's loooking like the LMM option will be another $2-4k which puts it at lose to a $10K price premium. Meanwhile diesel is now priced higher then premium gasoline and fuel economy is dropping to the low teens due to LSD.

I think the Vortec 8.1 is starting to look very very attractive. Will it still exist as a HD engine option for '07???

Take it for what it's worth, but my dealer told me that the particulate filter would need to be replaced every 15,000 miles at a cost of roughly $200 and that the new engines would be $3000 more than the LBZ.

Take it for what it's worth, but my dealer told me that the particulate filter would need to be replaced every 15,000 miles at a cost of roughly $200 and that the new engines would be $3000 more than the LBZ.


$3,000 is a little steep for something you'd rather not have, but the $200/15k doesn't sound bad at all. That's two (3 in a SB, I guess) extra tanks of fuel per 15k. No big deal . . . if that's all there is to it.

Any idea if the filter's gonna be something the owner can replace himself, or if it'll be a dealer/shop service item?

I just did a quick build for a 2007 D/A SLE4 EC LB 4x4:

Base MSRP: $36,710.00
Color & Options Total: $13,699.00
Total MSRP (Payment Calculator) (javascript:getZip();): $50,409.00


I would say the price has gone up!

I just did a quick build for a 2007 D/A SLE4 EC LB 4x4:

Base MSRP: $36,710.00
Color & Options Total: $13,699.00
Total MSRP (Payment Calculator) (http://javascript<b></b>:getZip();): $50,409.00


I would say the price has gone up!


Did it give you the invoice price?

Take it for what it's worth, but my dealer told me that the particulate filter would need to be replaced every 15,000 miles at a cost of roughly $200 and that the new engines would be $3000 more than the LBZ.

My understanding is the vehicle must meet emissions requirements for 100K miles w/o the owner needing to do any emissions maintenance like replacing the particulate filter. Every article I have seen indicates the particulate filter is self cleaning and will go at least 100K w/o any maintenance.

I just priced the same exact GMC truck I had priced back on 2/26/06

GMC Sierra EC/SB D/A SLE1

Model Yr:___2006_Sierra__2007 Sierra (Classic)___
Date:_______02/26/06_____08/30/06_____Difference_
MSRP:_______$41,779.00___$48,184.00___+$6,405.00_
GMS:_________35,831.20____40,567.85___+ 4,736.65_

This price for the 2007 Sierra Classic is with the LBZ engine. I am sure that there will be an additional price increase for the new LMM engine after Jan 1, 2007.

My 2006 LBZ is looking better and better all the time.

No, just MSRP, on review I did notice that the 6.6l was (LBZ) designated. But, the web page specifications have been known to not be current.???

On Edit, I guess we need someone to "go fishing" to a dealer and build a vehicle for order and see what engine code is listed.

There was / is something wrong with the GMC website. It adds the engine again on top of the heavy duty power pack. I just did a Chevy LT2 and the sticker was correct at 44k and some change.
Todd

As soon as I can get enough details to order one, I plan to order the 2007 LMM. On the one hand I figured I should buy before the change, but after thinking about it, I'm going to buy all the emissions crap so we can have it when tuning.

Economy drops due to ULSD will be nationwide and all engines as I seriously doubt we'll see stations carrying both varieties of fuel.

As soon as I can get enough details to order one, I plan to order the 2007 LMM. On the one hand I figured I should buy before the change, but after thinking about it, I'm going to buy all the emissions crap so we can have it when tuning.


Beautiful! I'll be watching.

Also, if we assume that the LMM will make the same power, is there some other reason to dread it's arrival?

1) The new particulate filter has been extensively tested and works fine under all tested conditions. In real speak... they ain't seen 1/4 of the actual conditions that will be the real test by real daily operators. That spells dollars and lost time...

2) You won't be able to lay down a proper cloud of smoke on some zit faced idiot in a Jap tuner car with some rap crap thumping loud enough to piss everyone off!

I'm sure there will be more...

1) The new particulate filter has been extensively tested and works fine under all tested conditions. In real speak... they ain't seen 1/4 of the actual conditions that will be the real test by real daily operators. That spells dollars and lost time...

Again, speculation.


2) You won't be able to lay down a proper cloud of smoke on some zit faced idiot in a Jap tuner car with some rap crap thumping loud enough to piss everyone off!

We all know how important that really is.






Btw, nice '70 (or is it a '71?) .

I have done a lot of looking around to get information on the Diesel Particulate Filters because I wanted to invest in the people making them (hey you gotta make hay outta this crap somehow) and it seems the company with the patent on the product GM and Ford are using is a company in Knoxville called ICS (industrial ceramic solutions) and they are having Corning supply the honeycomb.

My understanding is that the design essentially eliminates the muffler. Here is a government pamplet from testing in 2002 http://www.osti.gov/fcvt/deer2002/nixdorf1.pdf on a PSD 7.3. Any version that would be used on vehicles will probably be self cleaning but who knows. Lots of interesting reading on this stuff but the conclusion I came is this "addition" will probably eliminate the ability to even put a cat back exhaust on the trucks.

Lots of good reading out there on google when you search this term! Either way I agree it just plain STINKS-:t

2) You won't be able to lay down a proper cloud of smoke on some zit faced idiot in a Jap tuner car with some rap crap thumping loud enough to piss everyone off!



and thats why i'll be keeping my LLY.

I'm not sweating the soon to be modifications. I remember when, in the first efforts to clean up exhaust, that a small rubber tube ran from the valve cover back into the air cleaner. Sort of rebreather. You'd have thought the automotive world was comming to an end. It didn't. Todays engines are good for at least 200K miles, vice generally needing a rebuild at 40K in the good old days and are far more efficient in producing more power with less fuel and cubic inches. I will wait until about 2009 before buying a new one so that the bugs will hopefully worked out.

I'm not sweating the soon to be modifications. I remember when, in the first efforts to clean up exhaust, that a small rubber tube ran from the valve cover back into the air cleaner. Sort of rebreather. You'd have thought the automotive world was comming to an end. It didn't. Todays engines are good for at least 200K miles, vice generally needing a rebuild at 40K in the good old days and are far more efficient in producing more power with less fuel and cubic inches. I will wait until about 2009 before buying a new one so that the bugs will hopefully worked out.

ya but in 09 they will start talking about a new motor with more new emissions.

No kidding...the LLY lasted two years and the great LBZ is gonna last two. WTF? Like I said in the second post...

GOOD OLE EPA

well, seein all the emission BS on the new LMM i was just thinking....will the world of diesel performance programmers/chips ever be able to make something that will bump up hp in the LMM's????(even no there still working on stuff for the LBZ's)

ya but in 09 they will start talking about a new motor with more new emissions.
In fact, GM's current plan includes the use of a 5 to 7 gallon tank of urea solution that will be injected into the exhaust in order to meet the even more stringent 2010 standards. The tank will have to be refilled every few thousand miles, with the idea being that those refills will typically coincide with oil changes.

So just how much will the total operational cost of these new diesels be?

Looks like the 8.1L is dead for the GMT-900 trucks, so you are going to have to opt for the LMM for real towing power. The LMM's power is rated at 365/660 with all that emissions "crap". I suspect they will have some problems with the particulate system as they are with the EGR, but if GM had a choice I am sure they would omit the emissions equipment from their design. The fact is emissions are an EPA requirement that no manufacturer can ignore, so if you are unhappy with the added equipement then keep driving your older truck and STFU or design a new way to meet emissions requirements and give it to GM as a gift.

In fact, GM's current plan includes the use of a 5 to 7 gallon tank of urea solution that will be injected into the exhaust in order to meet the even more stringent 2010 standards. The tank will have to be refilled every few thousand miles, with the idea being that those refills will typically coincide with oil changes.

So just how much will the total operational cost of these new diesels be?

Hopefully GM will buy licensing from Honda and move away from the urea injection.

Urea is highly corrosive, if I am not mistaken, sounds like a ad idea to me. Instead of trying to figure out how and what kind of mods will be compatable with the LMM maybe we should be trying to figure out how to get rid of the EPA. The EPA will never be happy as long as we are driving autos around, they would rather we all be Amish and drive a horse and buggy. I think it is pretty egotistical to think that man could destroy the earth by polution from burning petrolium products. No mater what you believe( in creation or evolution) do you really think that we could destroy the earth that god created or that just radomly appeared from a big bang?,I think not. And the whole idea of global warming is just rediculous,if it was happening like they say it is than our beaches would be noticeablly be farther inland every year from all the polar ice melting. Natural accurances in nature(like volcano eruptions) cause more polution than man with all his inventions have since the begining of time

these liberal jackasses who want nothing more but to regulate and govern your entire existence as an American.

That last line is an undisputed fact my friend... -
:exactly: -:t

Rest assured, DPF's will NOT need to be replaced every 15k miles. They are not really filters or traps that need replaced or cleaned. They simply collect particulate matter (soot) and then when the "filter" reaches high enough temperature it burns it off. The only reason it would need replacement is if you poissen them by running high sulfer fuel or oil that is high in ash.

I speculate that the reason the new cummins 6.7L engine now comes with a throttle in the intake is to reduce fresh air flow and raise exhaust temps to clean the appropriate exhaust aftertreatment systems.

Urea is highly corrosive, if I am not mistaken, sounds like a ad idea to me. Instead of trying to figure out how and what kind of mods will be compatable with the LMM maybe we should be trying to figure out how to get rid of the EPA. The EPA will never be happy as long as we are driving autos around, they would rather we all be Amish and drive a horse and buggy. I think it is pretty egotistical to think that man could destroy the earth by polution from burning petrolium products. No mater what you believe( in creation or evolution) do you really think that we could destroy the earth that god created or that just radomly appeared from a big bang?,I think not. And the whole idea of global warming is just rediculous,if it was happening like they say it is than our beaches would be noticeablly be farther inland every year from all the polar ice melting. Natural accurances in nature(like volcano eruptions) cause more polution than man with all his inventions have since the begining of time



Its nice to see that I am not the only one who thinks this way:exactly: .

The EPA is even cracking down on off road engines as well, i.e. My Excavators:(

What do you expect GM will allow the new EPA standards to do to this engine?

I don't expect all the changes to be half-tested/last-minute ideas. Not that they will all work perfectly. There will always be bugs to work out -

I believe that GM has too much invested in the HD line to let Ford or Chrysler get ahead in the game. There's just way too much competition among them.

I believe that there is a plan for the Duramax over the next couple years. A small slip-up could destroy D-Max's reputation. GM knows they can't afford this.

I read a short article in Truck Trend magazine some months back. It was about the new EPA standards and what the Duramax, Cummins, and Powerstroke had to do to meet these: The Duramax was farther ahead than the other two and the Powerstroke was extremely behind-almost to the point of going back to the drawing board.

Just my two cents: I don't think we'll be too disappointed. We'll soon see.

I'm with Meathead, it ain't no big deal.

The particulate filter isn't any worse that the gasser CAT, except that in addition to the ULSD fuel, you gotta use low-ash engine oil meeting the API CJ-4 specification, lest you gum up the trap with ash from the oil.

I'm concerned with the lack of lubricity in the ULSD so I add a good quality diesel additive at each fillup, one that improves CETANE and adds lubricity. So far I use Primrose 405 as recommended by Nicktane, but there are many available. That Nicktane filter is just as important, as any ittsy-bitsy particles of dirt in the fuel turns the fuel system into a hydraulic saw at 26,000 psi.

If you are worried about loosing power from ULSD just remember that gasoline is worse, where all new formulations contain ethanol or some gosh awful oxygenate, and produce up to 10% less mileage than our old regular unleaded gas. When I recall the old 100+ octane leaded super premium gas of my youth - well, you wouldn't believe the difference.

One last note: No matter how closely you read the Constitution one can not find authorization for the EPA, Department of Education, the Federal Reserve Bank, or a host of other boondoggles; how to get rid of them is the question. Magic wand anyone?

How much polution goes into making the ultra low sulfur diesel or urea?

How much polution goes into making the ultra low sulfur diesel or urea?


that polution is too far away for the enviromentalist or EPA to see it there for it is not on their mind and dont realy care about it per say


on the horse and buggy remark the EPA would b!tch and whine about all the amonia and menthan gas the come from manure. not to mention the undesirable smell the that the cityslickers would whine about.

on the horse and buggy remark the EPA would b!tch and whine about all the amonia and menthan gas the come from manure. not to mention the undesirable smell the that the cityslickers would whine about.


They would really complain about running through all the horse sh!t on the road with their hybrid piece of sh!t .

They would really complain about running through all the horse sh!t on the road with their hybrid piece of sh!t .

Hey, hey! Watch it! I drive a hybrid Civic....as often as I can stand to part from my truck that is. :eek: For me it's all about fuel mileage and $$$ in my pocket, I'm not a tree hugger.

:cool2:

Hey, hey! Watch it! I drive a hybrid Civic....as often as I can stand to part from my truck that is. :eek: For me it's all about fuel mileage and $$$ in my pocket, I'm not a tree hugger.

:cool2:

Nothing wrong with trying to save a little green:D

I was excited for the new LMM, before I read up on it. Looks like I may try to get a couple more years out of my 05.

Quick question, why does the silverado HD have more HP and torque than the medium duty trucks? (360 vs 330) That seems backwards to me.

I was excited for the new LMM, before I read up on it. Looks like I may try to get a couple more years out of my 05.

Quick question, why does the silverado HD have more HP and torque than the medium duty trucks? (360 vs 330) That seems backwards to me.

Check the torque numbers. That is what counts.

I was excited for the new LMM, before I read up on it. Looks like I may try to get a couple more years out of my 05.

Quick question, why does the silverado HD have more HP and torque than the medium duty trucks? (360 vs 330) That seems backwards to me.You can thank the EPA for that. Emissions regulations and emissions control equipment are different between the two types of trucks.

I believe ULSD fuel has the same energy content as any other diesel #2, just less sulphur... sulphur doesn't add energy, just lubricity. Its been running in Europe for many years now. It should also have less dirt in it, so thats at least a good thing...
I also believe they de-rate this engine in med-duty trucks, because they spend a much larger percentage of their lives running heavily loaded. This has an obvious effect on engine life, so they are slightly detuned to survive...

txguppy... you are correct, orders have been filled, and changeover begins next month.

I can think of a few good reasons.
1. Higher maintenance cost due to the particulate filter.
2. Lower MPG due to more emissions stuff
3. Lower BTU content of the ULSD fuel also equals less mpg
4. Higher initial cost due to the new emissions and filter.

Ok, so you all missed this, but we will ALL have to run the Ultra Low Sulphr Diesel, so that will affect all engine types. -:t

John

According to this, they lowered the CR again, this time to 16.4:1
(the interim LMM engine specs sheet didn't mention that)

http://media.gm.com/us/gm/en/news/press_kits/07%20fs%20pickups/hd/07_HD%20Trucks%20Powertrain.html

GM Powertrain’s powerful Duramax 6.6L V-8 turbo-diesel engine is revised to meet new, stringent 2007 federal emissions regulations, while delivering increased horsepower and torque. It is rated at a segment-leading 365 horsepower (272 kW) and 660 lb.-ft. of torque (895 Nm).

Revised for 2007, the Duramax diesel uses a variable-geometry turbocharger to optimize boost performance over a wide range of operating conditions. This provides the customer with seamless and immediate response, while simultaneously helping to reduce emissions. The turbo, which spins up to 120,000 rpm, is high-speed-balanced for minimal noise and vibration, while contributing to the engine’s overall smoothness and refinement. Maximum boost is 20 psi. Additional details of the Duramax 6.6L V-8 engine’s ’07 enhancements include:

Cylinder block material strength enhancement provides increased reliability and durability
Revised piston design with low 16.4:1 compression ratio
Cylinder heads revised to accommodate higher peak cylinder firing pressure
Fuel delivered via larger fuel lines and a new, six-hole injector nozzle
Improved glow plugs heat up faster through an independent controller
Revised variable-geometry turbocharger is aerodynamically more efficient to help deliver smooth and immediate response and lower emissions
Intake throttle control is added to enhance combustion and DPF control, as well as provide improved engine smoothness
EGR has larger and more efficient cooler to provide for cooler exhaust gases going into the system
32-bit E35 controller, which adjusts and compensates all engine control parameters to bolster efficiency and reduce emissions
The engine also features a rigid cast iron cylinder block with induction-hardened cylinder bores; four-bolt, cross-drilled main bearing caps; forged steel, nitride-hardened crankshaft; aluminum pistons with jet-spray oil cooling; aluminum cylinder heads with four valves per cylinder; water-cooled turbocharger; integrated oil cooler and a charge-cooled turbocharging system.

According to this, they lowered the CR again, this time to 16.4:1
(the interim LMM engine specs sheet didn't mention that)

http://media.gm.com/us/gm/en/news/press_kits/07%20fs%20pickups/hd/07_HD%20Trucks%20Powertrain.html

GM Powertrain’s powerful Duramax 6.6L V-8 turbo-diesel engine is revised to meet new, stringent 2007 federal emissions regulations, while delivering increased horsepower and torque. It is rated at a segment-leading 365 horsepower (272 kW) and 660 lb.-ft. of torque (895 Nm).

Revised for 2007, the Duramax diesel uses a variable-geometry turbocharger to optimize boost performance over a wide range of operating conditions. This provides the customer with seamless and immediate response, while simultaneously helping to reduce emissions. The turbo, which spins up to 120,000 rpm, is high-speed-balanced for minimal noise and vibration, while contributing to the engine’s overall smoothness and refinement. Maximum boost is 20 psi. Additional details of the Duramax 6.6L V-8 engine’s ’07 enhancements include:

Cylinder block material strength enhancement provides increased reliability and durability
Revised piston design with low 16.4:1 compression ratio
Cylinder heads revised to accommodate higher peak cylinder firing pressure
Fuel delivered via larger fuel lines and a new, six-hole injector nozzle
Improved glow plugs heat up faster through an independent controller
Revised variable-geometry turbocharger is aerodynamically more efficient to help deliver smooth and immediate response and lower emissions
Intake throttle control is added to enhance combustion and DPF control, as well as provide improved engine smoothness
EGR has larger and more efficient cooler to provide for cooler exhaust gases going into the system
32-bit E35 controller, which adjusts and compensates all engine control parameters to bolster efficiency and reduce emissions
The engine also features a rigid cast iron cylinder block with induction-hardened cylinder bores; four-bolt, cross-drilled main bearing caps; forged steel, nitride-hardened crankshaft; aluminum pistons with jet-spray oil cooling; aluminum cylinder heads with four valves per cylinder; water-cooled turbocharger; integrated oil cooler and a charge-cooled turbocharging system.



Does anyone know what differences the turbos have when comparing the 2006 LBZ to the all new 2007 LMM Duramax diesels???

Based on the previous thread by Elvis, it says that Revised for 2007, the Duramax diesel uses a variable-geometry turbocharger to optimize boost performance over a wide range of operating conditions. This provides the customer with seamless and immediate response, while simultaneously helping to reduce emissions. The turbo, which spins up to 120,000 rpm, is high-speed-balanced for minimal noise and vibration, while contributing to the engine’s overall smoothness and refinement. Maximum boost is 20 psi.

How is all this different from the current turbo on the 2006 LBZ???