read my post - I said its on par with ford for direct injection.

UD

You act like there was no way GM could develop a twin turbo application (or small diesel, etc) that wouldn't match or better Ford in the real world (maybe not EPA) if these powertrains were not a better application for power/efficiency/cost/durability......

The 5.3 is the ecoboost competitor by the way. The 6.2 is beyond it in power, etc. Consider where an LS3 is today to a ecoboost without DI.

Actually GM could make anything they collectively decided to.

They just didn't. They chose to massage what they had incrementally. This is why I said they didnt go far enough.

The 5.3 isnt even close to the EB

The 6.2 is very nice but I dont think it will make 400lb ft at 1900RPM at 4000ft in 100+ degree heat like the EB will.

maybe it will- well all see soon enough.

Id have rather seen a 4.3 TT with deactivation- THAT would have been new.

I tow in Arizona a lot and the heat combined with altitude annihilate NA vehicles.
Watch the EB tow my boat on the parker climb out up the hill in 100+ degree heat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfCEO6ipltA

UD

It wasn't done as a compromise or without investigating a TT options. It was done because gen V will be more powerful/efficient/durable than a FI car motor.

High heat and altitude is not a typical scenario, but it will be seen what the actual towing and driving reports say for that scenario. For all other situations gen V should be better.

Oh, and to indicate gen V is just an "incremental massaging" is vastly understating the tech. There is essentially nothing in common w/ the LS motor of today other than displacements.

Did I miss any tech in my prior post? Its great tech- its just two model years late.

What do you mean FI car motor? Or do you mean TT/DI/4VDOHC "car motor" (actually they are engines not motors)

Does that imply the vette has a "truck" engine?

I love my Chevies, but Ford beat Chevy to punch almost all the headline grabbing stuff direct injection , variable cam phasing, electric steering, and a 6 speed box.

Ford gives you a 4 valve DOHC top end with twin turbos- with a forged rotating assembly and side bolted mains.

Chevy has the active fuel management which looks really slick we'll see how it holds up as its been tried before, but I think they'll get it right.

Uncle Dave

Ford has a major advantage for about 3 years now, IMHO.

I'm not a Ford or Chevy guy either, and even I appreciate what Ford has done here in truck wars.

Actually only was looking for a 1500 and every single GM truck I looked at was Silao, Mexico from stripper 2 dr/long box 1500 to SLT/LT Crew. I was on a GMC/Chevy combo lot also (they sell both).

Ford has crap from Mexico as well. Shhhhhhhhh

Ugh Its ugly, I will Keep My Old 2500, (6.0l 4l80e and a 14b) Ford and Dodge build better looking trucks Period.(I love gm) 4.3l Needs turbos to compete with the Eco boost. Um call it a ecotech? ( why the hell wasn't there a v6 version of Gen3/4 engine?)Why the hell Is the new vette engine called LT1? Confusing to say the least. And Dammit make the wheels wells bigger! Ford's And dodges fit 35's with a leveling kit. I have 4in lift and cut fenders to barley fit, cause the wheel wells are so small. Come on Gm 10 bolt rear end still? I hope to hell that they have a 14b semifloat in the half tons by now. ( probably not thats why the put the tiny wheels wells to keep the crappy axles alive) Gm has the weekest axles. And why The hell did toyota tow the space shuttle? WTF. End Rant.

No kidding, wtf is with calling it an LT1? It's one thing to come out with an LS6 decades after the original. It's another when original LT1s are all over the place. There's seriously got to be plenty of other letters and numbers to pick. WTF does it have in common with an LT1 either?

Drives me crazy too. It also sounds like garbage from the videos I've seen.

<disclaimer, I'm a huge LSx fan...two Trans Ams and a Z06>