6.2 V8 and 6 speed auto available in the 1500 GMT900 trucks/SUVs
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,600
From: Pewee Valley, KY
Because it's the old "I want the most expensive powertrain for the cheapest price" syndrome that most manufacturers want to avoid. It's the same reason they don't sell complete stripper cars anymore.
There's a cost of entry for horsepower and transmission, you can't expect them to give you this powertrain for the actual cost of the option and nothing more. I don't blame GM. I'd expect that any regular cab 6.2/6 speed would be branded and sold as an 'SS'....with the appropriate markup.
There's a cost of entry for horsepower and transmission, you can't expect them to give you this powertrain for the actual cost of the option and nothing more. I don't blame GM. I'd expect that any regular cab 6.2/6 speed would be branded and sold as an 'SS'....with the appropriate markup.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,647
From: Jupiter, FL
Reading farther down, it looks like the Suburban and Avalanche are 6 speed auto across thte board, but for some reason it does not list this change (deletion of 4 speed and addition of 6 speed) for the Tahoe.
BUT, it does list the 6.2L as an addition for the Tahoe, and I highly doubt they are putting that in front of the old 4 speed...
Maybe just an oversight on the list.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,817
From: O-Town
Because it's the old "I want the most expensive powertrain for the cheapest price" syndrome that most manufacturers want to avoid. It's the same reason they don't sell complete stripper cars anymore.
There's a cost of entry for horsepower and transmission, you can't expect them to give you this powertrain for the actual cost of the option and nothing more. I don't blame GM. I'd expect that any regular cab 6.2/6 speed would be branded and sold as an 'SS'....with the appropriate markup.
There's a cost of entry for horsepower and transmission, you can't expect them to give you this powertrain for the actual cost of the option and nothing more. I don't blame GM. I'd expect that any regular cab 6.2/6 speed would be branded and sold as an 'SS'....with the appropriate markup.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,817
From: O-Town
Ture, but you can't get the 6.1 in the trucks to begin with so that says something. Besides, the 6.2 in anything but a Caddy and Denali is new so it was more along the lines of getting the 6.0 in a std cab/bed in a GM pickup. Sure its no the best version out there, but its a huge step up from the 5.3. GM makes the LS7, but you'll never see it in the trucks, likewise the 6.1.
West South Central Moderator
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,371
From: Kilgore TX 75662
What I was saying (even though I was incorrect) is that if GM *doesn't* (which they do) have a 5.3L in the reg cab trucks, it makes no sense that they would drop the 6.2L in it.
A 6.2L would be a sweet truck in a RCSB, but I doubt many people would want to pay for a 13/18 mpg truck that will probably cost 25-30K. It would be a very small market. The Tundra has been out for a year and I honestly think I've only seen 3 reg cab trucks. I hardly ever see any NBS RCSB silverados either.
A 6.2L would be a sweet truck in a RCSB, but I doubt many people would want to pay for a 13/18 mpg truck that will probably cost 25-30K. It would be a very small market. The Tundra has been out for a year and I honestly think I've only seen 3 reg cab trucks. I hardly ever see any NBS RCSB silverados either.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
Consider that in this day of increasing CAFE standards, GM likely will not be building many light trucks with the 6.2. The ones they do build will need to be highly-profitable, since they'll have to be offset somehow by a more-economical - and likely less profitable - truck elsewhere in the showroom.
And if I'm not mistaken, the new light-truck fuel economy standards are based on the footprint of the vehicle - the smaller the truck, the higher the required average fleet economy.
And if I'm not mistaken, the new light-truck fuel economy standards are based on the footprint of the vehicle - the smaller the truck, the higher the required average fleet economy.
West South Central Moderator
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,371
From: Kilgore TX 75662
Consider that in this day of increasing CAFE standards, GM likely will not be building many light trucks with the 6.2. The ones they do build will need to be highly-profitable, since they'll have to be offset somehow by a more-economical - and likely less profitable - truck elsewhere in the showroom.
And if I'm not mistaken, the new light-truck fuel economy standards are based on the footprint of the vehicle - the smaller the truck, the higher the required average fleet economy.
And if I'm not mistaken, the new light-truck fuel economy standards are based on the footprint of the vehicle - the smaller the truck, the higher the required average fleet economy.
In your second paragraph makes me think that trucks are going to get larger and larger so they'll be able to get away with poorer fuel economy. But it kinda makes me question putting the 5.3L into the Colorado...
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 4,320
From: Memphis
The LTZ 2WD extended cab currently has a sticker of $33,790 with no extra options except for the 6.0
I'm sure more often than not they're closer to 40k with options, 4WD, crew cab, etc... but I said 35k because I wanted to give a minimum baseline figure for about the cheapest you could expect to be able to acquire a 6.2L 6-speed Silverado for, and then compare that to the price that the Sierra Denali has already been out for.
I'm sure more often than not they're closer to 40k with options, 4WD, crew cab, etc... but I said 35k because I wanted to give a minimum baseline figure for about the cheapest you could expect to be able to acquire a 6.2L 6-speed Silverado for, and then compare that to the price that the Sierra Denali has already been out for.
(Why only 2WD and why do you have to get top line LTZ) only going to reach a few customers that way
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,600
From: Pewee Valley, KY
It is to pay for the cost of EPA certification and crash testing while staying within the limited volume of the engine that is being built.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 4,320
From: Memphis
They really should drop the 4.8 and just stick with the 5.3 and 6.2
The 4.8 has no place in anything IMO... it gets worse gas mileage than the 5.3, makes less power, and I really doubt it's much if any cheaper to produce than the 5.3 aside from the difference in cost of the 4speed to 6pseed auto.
The 4.8 has no place in anything IMO... it gets worse gas mileage than the 5.3, makes less power, and I really doubt it's much if any cheaper to produce than the 5.3 aside from the difference in cost of the 4speed to 6pseed auto.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 681
They really should drop the 4.8 and just stick with the 5.3 and 6.2
The 4.8 has no place in anything IMO... it gets worse gas mileage than the 5.3, makes less power, and I really doubt it's much if any cheaper to produce than the 5.3 aside from the difference in cost of the 4speed to 6pseed auto.
The 4.8 has no place in anything IMO... it gets worse gas mileage than the 5.3, makes less power, and I really doubt it's much if any cheaper to produce than the 5.3 aside from the difference in cost of the 4speed to 6pseed auto.