Actually all the numbers are right on except for the 5.3L. The HP/tq #s are right, but the displacemnet is wrong. 355HP/380tq is for the 1500 6.0L, not the 5.3L (which is now 320HP). 355HP seemed too good to be true for the base 5.3L and it looks like it was.

No across the board 6 speed autos is a disappointment, but as production capacity increases the more trucks we will see with them instead of just 6.2L Yukon and Escalades getting it.

I'm very happy with the MPG figures considering they still use 4 speeds. 16/22 for the 2WD Tahoe and 15/20 for the 4x4 Avalanche with a 320HP V8. That's only 1 mpg less than Honda/Toyota midsize trucks and the same Nissan Frontier V6 and better than Ford and Dodge V8 midsizers.

GMT900 Avalanche is the only Full Size 4x4 pickup that gets 20mpg hwy!! Everyone else does 18 hwy, some with 5 speeds.

 

I also remember talking about this in another thread, where I kept seeing 5.3 "HO" thrown about, with 355 hp. I was fairly certain that the 5.3L was not going to have a significant power increase (not that it really needed it). I'm glad that the 5.3 is being at a reasonable power/torque level and still offering class leading fuel economy, even with a 4 speed auto. I figured the 355 number we were seeing had to be a 6.0L.

Also, do not bet the farm on the expensive 4.2L inline 6 being the new base/work truck V6... :blah: Of course, the 4.8L will probably offer fuel economy on par with any competition's V6 (), so the only real reason to get a six cylinder is if you are buying a stripper/fleet work truck and want as basic as you can get, or if you really need an extra 1-2 mpg.

I agree that I wish the 6 speeds were more across the board already, but with the 900 SUVs having class leading fuel economy ratings without them, adding the six speeds as capacity comes online will give them more room to improve, especially since the competition won't be sitting still, though I'm only really concerned about Toyota from a fuel economy rating standpoint when their new trucks come out. Ford, Dodge, and Nissan have rather pitiful fuel economy from their trucks, IMO.

 

They're all right except the 5.3? The 5.3 was way off - the 6.0 was right in regard to the premium/HO model in the Caddy but not the 'standard' 6.0.

I don't think we've seen a 4.8L in a 900 yet have we? Considering the 5.3L only gained 5 pounds of torque I have a hard time believing the 4.8 is going to be gaining something like 40-50 pounds of torque at the same time... if it is, they must be changing the cam profile pretty drastically from the previous 4.8

4.2L power figures may or may not end up being correct but whether or not it even shows up in the 900 series is the bigger question mark. I'm leaning toward no and preparing to acquire a new farm if I'm right.

 

Wow just itching for a flame war today huh? Had to dig up a thread from almost a year ago!

Sorry I ain't biting that one. Have a good day drama queen.

 

Yes the 5.3L part is wrong, who ever gave GMI those #s got the HP right, but the displacement wrong... but the 355HP 6.0L isn't a HO Caddy engine, that engine is the "Low output" 6.0L for regular 1500s like the Tahoe and Avalanche. Caddy now has the 403HP/417tq L92 6.2L.

I agree about the torque, I'll be suprised if it is over 310, but I can see HP being 300 since it is already 285. Although Fords 4.6L puts out 320tq+ so who knows

The 900 went from rumors of getting a 5cyl. to 4.2L standard to many saying V8 only. I believe the HP you quoted above because the 4.2L 6 cyl. is already putting out 291HP in the TrailBlazer.

 

Flame war? I never flamed you. You wanting to flame me?

Well.. I guess, but you can flame me all you want after you retain your farm in that bet you made.

 

You can have the farm, but you have to find me first!

 

I am shocked at how many of you fell for this BS.

First of all its under the "Rumour mill" secrion.

Secondly, that link is over 1 year old. Expect a near copy of the SUV engines.

Now way a 5.3L could crank out 380lbs-ft without some serious work--and high rpms.

 

When do the GMT900's come out? Or are they out already? Anyone have any pics or links to see some pics. Thanks

 

P&W sucks. Lets stick a god damn GE90 on it and see what happens.

 

The easiest way to get more torque would be to increase the CR and tune for premium fuel. But who wants a truck that needs premium?

On the other hand, there were no rumors about upgrades to the I4 and I5, yet 2007 sees an updated 3.7l I-5 that outpowers the Toyota truck V6 and D-C 4.7V8, even though it's down .3l/1l and one/three cylinder(s).

I suspect that once Nissan 'fesses up to the new SAE net HP ratings, their 4.0 truck V6 will be down in the 240 range itself. Btw, am I the only one that noticed that the GS430 makes less HP in Europe and Australia where they use DIN rules (it's more like 275-280). That's the only Toyota engine that wasn't adjusted for the new HP ratings

 

The new 2007 GM 3.7L I5:
Horsepower: 242@5600
Torque: 242@4600

The current Toyota 4.0L V6 (which has been in use unchanged since the 04 model year):
236 hp @ 5200 rpm
266 lb.-ft. @ 4000 rpm

So it's 6 ponies short, but 24 pounds of torque higher, and at a bit lower RPM to boot.

Sounds to me like the two are a relatively close match-up.

I'm relatively certain Toyota announced all of their motors from 2005 onward were SAEII compliant in ratings. The Lexus LS lost 10 horsepower in its ratings (down from 290 to 280) but nothing happened with the GS which was already rated 10 ponies higher due to a few more aggressive tweaks over the LS from the factory. Could be that they just didn't over rate it as much as they did the LS?

I dunno. The GS350 will be replacing the GS300 this fall, going from ~245hp to ~300-310hp, and the GS460 will be replacing the GS430. The 460 will be rated somewhere between 380 and 400hp (ratings not officially released yet) w/ 8-speed auto, and will definetly be rated by SAE II standards.

 

Yes, close. But the 3.7l is ahead. You may or may not know that given equivalent displacement, an engine with more cylinders generally makes more power than one with fewer, since it can rev higher. That makes the power of the 3.7l pretty impressive.


Unlikely. Let's see. The LS430 after adjustment is the same in Europe and the U.S. The GS430 in the U.S. somehow makes 20hp more than anywhere else in the world. It's also the only Toyota engine with a significant difference between Europe and the U.S. I don't buy it.

Check out the HP of various 3.5l Nissan products in Australia: Maxima is 228; Murano is 231; 350Z is 276, except hiperf version is 296.

 

Yes there have been rumors going around of the 3.7. There have even been pics of the engine in an H3 with the Vortec 3700 engine cover. There just hasnt been any definite word of the power output until recently.

It would have been nice if GM could have kept the torque peak at or around the 2800rpm peak of the 3.5.

 

Actually I'd rather have 24 more pounds of torque in a truck and sacrafise the 6 horsepower. I said before that they seem to match up pretty evenly but if I was forced to call one more powerful based on those specs, especially in a TRUCK, I'd defintely have to give the Toyota motor the nod.

And yes I understand the concept of the mass of the rotating assembly and with all other things being equal the one with the lighter rotating assembly (which can be achieved by less displacement or many other factors) will typically have a higher redline which can often times serve to its benefit. However simply having less displacement per cylinder doesn't always gaurentee a higher redline and/or higher specific output per displacement/cylinder, although it often times does and that's why it has always been the favorite arguement for ricers through the years.
BTW my Audi make 100hp per liter and 103.5 torque per liter in stock form - with a simple upgraded program (costs about 500 bucks, can be disabled or enabled on the fly, it bumps stock boost and remaps fuel curves and such) it gets safely up to 140hp and 145tq per liter (280hp, 290 tq total from a 2.0 turbo). So is that even more impressive or does it not count because of the turbo?

Personally I've always been of the school who doesn't give a damn how you make the power as long as you can make it and make it smoothly, reliably, and with good fuel economy.

Interesting... well, like I said, even if that were the case and for some reason they left one of their models (and one with pretty close to the same motor as their other V8 models) with the old SAE rating - it will be adjusted properly come this fall with the 4.6 liter. The GS has historically always made 10 to 20 more ponies than the LS with the same basic motor and the LS is already rated at 380 so expect to see at least that, up to 400, which is pretty darned good for a car meant to compete price wise and feature wise with the non V-series STS, non M-series BMW 5, and non-AMG E-class.