Diesel Place banner

1 - 20 of 156 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,680 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So rumor has it the van will get the 6.6 gas for 2021 to replace the 6.0. Looks like the transmission will still be the 6 speed. I am wondering if this combo will push 20 MPG on the highway ? The highest I have seen so far in 4x4 trucks with the 3.73 gear is 16-18 MPG highway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LCAC_Man

·
Registered
Joined
·
847 Posts
it should be a great upgrade to the 6.0...20mpg would probably be pushing it but even at 18mpg it would be a considerable gain. I just can't believe they haven't come out with a factory hightop...it's got to be killing their fleet sales..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
I think it would need a lower rear gear than 3.73 to hit that kind of mileage. The vans have pretty large frontal area. A factory high top would make that worse.

I'll believe the rumor when it happens... The 6.6 uses a new forged crank, new iron block casting and a few other specific parts, so it's significantly more expensive than the 6.0/6.2 that are used in all other GM truck apps.

Given that the vans are hardly cash cows for GM and sales are under so much pressure that they dropped the 1500 model, I don't think GM would spend the money to put that engine into the vans.

Also, the 6.6 is a gas engine for heavy towing, like the 8100 used to be, and intended to compete with Ford's new 7.4 for heavy towing. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Allison transmission optional with that engine in pickup truck apps. That's not the market the vans sell into, so given that and the cost, I'd be quite surprised if GM replaced the 6.0 with the 6.6.

Although since the 6.0 is already an optional engine, maybe replacing it with the 6.6 allows GM to charge more for that option and tack a little more profit onto van sales. The 4.3 is currently the base engine for both passenger and cargo... so maybe the 6.6 makes sense?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,680 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
it should be a great upgrade to the 6.0...20mpg would probably be pushing it but even at 18mpg it would be a considerable gain. I just can't believe they haven't come out with a factory hightop...it's got to be killing their fleet sales..
The high top is probably my #1 thing I would like to see on my list. Personally I really like the layout and body/frame Nissan but I have concerns about it also. I do not want a Euro unibody van. I read somewhere that Ford sells more vans than everyone else combined.
 

·
LLY Guy
Joined
·
11,950 Posts
I’d love to see the 6.6 gas V8.
My ‘19 Express 6.0 regular wheelbase is a thirsty girl. And to be honest the 6.0 has never felt as powerful as I thought it would given the power ratings it has. But light years ahead of my old ‘11 E250 with the 4.6L V8.
But all in all I like the package. I’ve driven the Eurovans from Ford and Ram and don’t like either of them. Feels like your driving in a fish bowl up on top of the vehicle, rather then in it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,680 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I think it would need a lower rear gear than 3.73 to hit that kind of mileage. The vans have pretty large frontal area. A factory high top would make that worse.

I'll believe the rumor when it happens... The 6.6 uses a new forged crank, new iron block casting and a few other specific parts, so it's significantly more expensive than the 6.0/6.2 that are used in all other GM truck apps.

Given that the vans are hardly cash cows for GM and sales are under so much pressure that they dropped the 1500 model, I don't think GM would spend the money to put that engine into the vans.

Also, the 6.6 is a gas engine for heavy towing, like the 8100 used to be, and intended to compete with Ford's new 7.4 for heavy towing. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Allison transmission optional with that engine in pickup truck apps. That's not the market the vans sell into, so given that and the cost, I'd be quite surprised if GM replaced the 6.0 with the 6.6.

Although since the 6.0 is already an optional engine, maybe replacing it with the 6.6 allows GM to charge more for that option and tack a little more profit onto van sales. The 4.3 is currently the base engine for both passenger and cargo... so maybe the 6.6 makes sense?
Starting in 2010 when GM first put the 6 speed in the van they dropped gears to 3.54 - 3.42 unless you got a cutaway. Large frontal area of the van ? Have you not seen the 2020 trucks ? The have the frontal area of a COE.

The rumor came from a GM fleet guy at the 2020 work truck show that is currently going on in Indianapolis. This is the first time I have heard it from someone at GM.

GM has dropped the 6.0 and the van is the last vehicle to get it. Dollar wise is does not make sense to keep it around for 1 vehicle. GM makes money on the vans because they have literally put no money into them for the past 17 years. When GM eventually drops the 6 speed they might go with the 8/10 or whatever they come out with in the future. Until they switch over to little engine Euro unibody junk the van will continue to slowly get the same engines/trans as trucks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Starting in 2010 when GM first put the 6 speed in the van they dropped gears to 3.54 - 3.42 unless you got a cutaway. Large frontal area of the van ? Have you not seen the 2020 trucks ? The have the frontal area of a COE.

The rumor came from a GM fleet guy at the 2020 work truck show that is currently going on in Indianapolis. This is the first time I have heard it from someone at GM.

GM has dropped the 6.0 and the van is the last vehicle to get it. Dollar wise is does not make sense to keep it around for 1 vehicle. GM makes money on the vans because they have literally put no money into them for the past 17 years. When GM eventually drops the 6 speed they might go with the 8/10 or whatever they come out with in the future. Until they switch over to little engine Euro unibody junk the van will continue to slowly get the same engines/trans as trucks.
Right, the van is the last to have the 6.0; I would think the $$$ decision is to use the 6.2 like the trucks rather than the 6.6, which is a lower volume more expensive engine for the reasons I outlined above.

GM makes money on the vans... but not a lot. Remember they dropped the 1500 because the competition got a lot better. They've also severely curtailed the available options on the vans, which is a "safety" move in a shrinking market share.

I rented one of those FWD "RAM" vans to move into my current house a couple years back. It definitely has a lower load floor and more interior headroom than my Express 3500, and probably was at least price competitive with the Express 1500, since it shared powertrains with a bazillion cheap FWD cars
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,680 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
The 6.2 was never offered in the 2500/3500 truck and is not a work truck engine.

GM makes a lot of money on the vans because they have literally spent no money upgrading or doing anything with them. By dropping the 1500 they are putting more money in there pocket because there is very little difference between 2500/3500.

GM is no doubt losing sales due to the fact they are not upgrading like the competition. I am guessing the ROI is not feasible and they do not want to take a gamble. They are going to have to spend literally millions of $$$ to come up with a new design, tooling, parts, etc. The 17 year old tooling they are using right now is paid off making them $$$.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
By that standard, how much of a work engine is the 2.8 diesel in the vans now? I think the fact that they switched the diesel option to the 2.8 speaks volumes about the kind of work they expect van buyers to be doing with their vans... and it's not heavy towing.

Good point about the 6.2 no longer being available in the 2500/3500 trucks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,680 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I would say the 2.8 is for the 1500 crowd. If they still offered the 1500 I could see that engine only being available for it.

The 6.2 gas engine was never put in 2500/3500 trucks.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,171 Posts
I thought that GM dropped the 1500 vans because of mileage requirements of anything under 8500lb gvw?
Id also agree that the 6.6 going in the vans is cost, why have the 6.0 around for one line. It needs more gears in the HD trucks though and options for better gears for towing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShopSpecialties

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,171 Posts
The high top is probably my #1 thing I would like to see on my list. Personally I really like the layout and body/frame Nissan but I have concerns about it also. I do not want a Euro unibody van. I read somewhere that Ford sells more vans than everyone else combined.
My buddy just got a new NV 3500 with the 5.6 and 7spd trans, it has a ton of power and drives good. Not sure on MPG’s yet but I’ll keep checking it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShopSpecialties

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,680 Posts
Discussion Starter #13 (Edited)
I thought that GM dropped the 1500 vans because of mileage requirements of anything under 8500lb gvw?
Id also agree that the 6.6 going in the vans is cost, why have the 6.0 around for one line. It needs more gears in the HD trucks though and options for better gears for towing.
I did not even think about the guvment and MPG but that makes sense. Also I totally agree about the extra gears. I think GM should have just came out of the gate with the 10 speed behind it just like Ford did.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joey D

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,171 Posts
I did not even think about the guvment and MPG but that makes sense. Also I totally agree about the extra gears. I think GM should have just came out of the gate with the 10 speed behind it just like Ford did.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk
It was a mistake for sure, look at the TFL hill climb with the GM 6.6 gas vs the ford 7.3, it gets killed on the hill climb
I like that Ford still lets the buyer pick rear gears based on how it’s going to get used.
The 6.0 with 4.10 gears was such a great combo vs the 3.73 gears.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,680 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Here are some numbers I did not expect. GM is claiming that all commercial fleet sales are up 67% since 2013. I am guessing that has more to do with trucks than vans. Then 70% of all vans sold come with the 6.0 so that number could possibly go up with the 6.6.

I have talked to a few guys with trucks that have bumped up to the 6.6 from 6.0 and they all like it much better but every single one wishes GM would have put the 10 speed behind it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
GM went to a ~3.850" stroke with the 6.6. They have previously used a 4" stroke in the 7.0 Corvette engine. I'm curious about why they didn't go all the way to 4" in the 6.6, making it a 6.8 and better able to compete with Ford's 7.3.

I don't think it's durability, as the Corvette 7.0 turned 7000 RPM with a warranty, so for an engine that's redlined at 5600, durability with the 4" stroke shouldn't be a problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,680 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Corvettes and work trucks are 2 totally different vehicles performing 2 totally different jobs so therefore the engines should be different to perform those tasks.

Put the 10 speed behind the Chevy and have optional rear end gears like Ford and the results will be much closer. When TFL did the MPG test between the 2 Chevy won by 1 MPG towing and empty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
And check what just popped up in my feed:
https://www.motor1.com/news/402385/2021-chevy-express-new-engine/
which linked to:
https://gmauthority.com/blog/2020/03/2021-chevrolet-express-receives-new-6-6l-v8-gas-engine/

By dropping the 6.6 diesel in 2017, GM was able to finally get rid of the Big Block/Diesel body with its specific engine by opening and doghouse... must have made production significantly easier since that reduced an expensive difference that in production lines. Since the body was different, that configuration was basically a different line, since it started with a different shell. Early differentiation incurs a lot of extra production costs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,171 Posts
GM went to a ~3.850" stroke with the 6.6. They have previously used a 4" stroke in the 7.0 Corvette engine. I'm curious about why they didn't go all the way to 4" in the 6.6, making it a 6.8 and better able to compete with Ford's 7.3.

I don't think it's durability, as the Corvette 7.0 turned 7000 RPM with a warranty, so for an engine that's redlined at 5600, durability with the 4" stroke shouldn't be a problem.
GM loves under square motor designs, and are very successful at it, if they increased the stroke they would have increased the bore. I’m sure they targeted a specific cubic inch design based off usage, emissions and economy. I keep hearing they have a large gas motor in the works as an alternative to the D Max, they need one for the 4500-5500 trucks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,171 Posts
Will GM give it full power or de rate it like the 6.0 in the vans vs trucks?
 
1 - 20 of 156 Posts
Top