Watch out all you 6.2 gas folks, we're comin for ya!!!

[HighTechPauper]

Pretty impressive for an engine that makes over 100 HP and 165 pound feet of torque PER LITER from LESS THAN half the displacement of the 6.2, has no chance of DFM lifter failure, has had no record of main bearing failure, and, oh, I'm getting 26 MPG now on average with some care using the skinny pedal

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2024/09/chevy-silverado-1500-to-get-high-diesel-engine-production-mix/

I think I my have beaten @securityguy to the first GM Authority post of the day

 

[RCF71]

Nice mpg but s…l…o…w…

I woulda had interest if it was like 3.8-4.0 with 0-60/60-80 being a good bit quicker.

 

[DNZR2]

300 horsepower is so 1980. 6.2 for guys who want to go fast in a truck and 3.0 for those who want to milk mileage.

 

[MO_ZR2]

I went from the 6.2 in a 22 zr2 to the 3.0 in a 24 zr2. It’s not nearly as seat of the pants “slow” as many make it out to be. I’ve driven HD diesels for 20 years and they do have a different throttle input/output. The ”performance” was one of the major concerns I had making the switch and can honestly say I’ve not missed it. I’m not dragging from light to light, if one was maybe it’s more of an issue. My main issue with the 6.2 was the small fuel tank given the lackluster MPG. I got to feeling like I couldn’t pass a gas station. In the end, I am really glad GM offers both options as they meet two different use cases pretty well.

 

[DNZR2]

I went from the 6.2 in a 22 zr2 to the 3.0 in a 24 zr2. It’s not nearly as seat of the pants “slow” as many make it out to be. I’ve driven HD diesels for 20 years and they do have a different throttle input/output. The ”performance” was one of the major concerns I had making the switch and can honestly say I’ve not missed it. I’m not dragging from light to light, if one was maybe it’s more of an issue. My main issue with the 6.2 was the small fuel tank given the lackluster MPG. I got to feeling like I couldn’t pass a gas station. In the end, I am really glad GM offers both options as they meet two different use cases pretty well.

You are absolutely correct regarding the small gas tank. I had a 26 gallon in my 2017 with a 5.3 and now I have the 6.2 with a 24 gallon. Some dumb engineer decided hey we can save 16 pounds with a smaller tank.

 

[bobo57]

No diesels for me EVER...............

 

[securityguy]

No diesels for me EVER...............

Party Pooper.....

 

[MO_ZR2]

No diesels for me EVER...............

Cool

 

[ZR2BIZON]

Yeah but does it sound Kewl?

 

[wutang61]

The 3.0 is selling because the 5.3 is a dog. The 3.0 is at least a more fuel efficient dog.

Although I do find irony in the purchase of a lifted 80k dollar off-road vehicle with fuel economy as a main consideration.

If it wasn’t locked down under Global B and you could turn up the wick…No doubt that 400/600 would be attainable with a few mods if you didn’t live in Biden’s America.

Put me in the “put a bigger F-ing gas tank in the truck club” so I can post pictures of my range and feel superior

 

[AXE]

This 3.0L diesel has entered the chat!

If you're using reliability as an adverb to describe GM, you deserve to drive a Ford!

 

[RCF71]

Regarding the small gas tank size… when I had my 6.2L AT4, I used to fill a 5gal race jug to carry with me to my hunting lease (towing utility trailer with 2 seat side-by-side) to keep from having to stop on the way home for gas! Only about a 350 mile round trip…

This 36gal tank in the HD is awesome! About the only thing I missed from my F150!

 

[LSnTX]

[QUOTE="wutang61, post: 36530, member: 44"
Put me in the “put a bigger F-ing gas tank in the truck club” so I can post pictures of my range and feel superior
[/QUOTE]
There is absolutely no reason these blow molded tanks can’t be 3-4 gallons bigger

 

[AXE]

[QUOTE="wutang61, post: 36530, member: 44"
Put me in the “put a bigger F-ing gas tank in the truck club” so I can post pictures of my range and feel superior

There is absolutely no reason these blow molded tanks can’t be 3-4 gallons bigger
[/QUOTE]
Easily room for 30-32 gallons.

 

[LSnTX]

True, my Ram had the 33, and there was plenty of room underneath

 

[wutang61]

Tinfoil hat comment incoming.

I truly believe the lack of larger tank sizes at least in the GM portfolio is to normalize 300 miles of range. They way when the EV comes out with a higher number people are impressed at a marketing figure.

 

[HighTechPauper]

Nice mpg but s…l…o…w…

It’s not nearly as seat of the pants “slow” as many make it out to be. "...they do have a different throttle input/output"... I’m not dragging from light to light. In the end, I am really glad GM offers both options as they meet two different use cases pretty well.

I think it runs pretty good if you roll into it and don't trounce it until the turbo has had time to react, but then that 10 speed and that 495 lbft can get you moving pretty quick... if done right. 600 miles a tank helps me justify a ZR2 instead of a High Country or Denali to the wife, not erybodi got it like some y'all. LOL

 

[ZR2BIZON]

Your village needs you bruhh

 

[ZR2NYC]

300 horsepower is so 1980. 6.2 for guys who want to go fast in a truck and 3.0 for those who want to milk mileage.

its a work truck motor.

 

[NullNomad]

Tinfoil hat comment incoming.

I truly believe the lack of larger tank sizes at least in the GM portfolio is to normalize 300 miles of range. They way when the EV comes out with a higher number people are impressed at a marketing figure.

View attachment 16053
Your village needs you bruhh

I’ve been busy on AND off the road enjoying my BabyMAX!!!