Quote:
Originally Posted by euromodder
But does anyone really need a 6L engine - even in a pick-up ?
Over here, we put that kind of engine in trucks. Real trucks that is, lorries.
|
In this case, yes you do. It may be 6.2ltrs but it is also only 120-165hp depending on varient. It allows monstrosity cars to do very well in terms of FE.
Its a heavy, lumbering diesel, that is very capable of high efficiency in its lower power areas. AKA most of its power is near idle spanning through about 1800rpms.
Its CHEAP, reliable and simple. Repairs are cheap and simple.
To get a diesel as popular as gas here in the US I have no doubt that it has to be
1. As cheap as or less expensive than a gasser, (the 6.2 is less complex than most modern gassers)
2. Cheap, reliable and simple to repair (it is also this)
This motor despite its added mass was able to power heavy vehicles at roughly the same fuel economy that a VW 1.9tdi would in the same application and at under half the cost. Unlike a 1.9tdi it can run near its full throttle constantly without overheating issues (for obvious reasons) It also has no timing belts, computers, failing harnessses, fuel rail issues, etc etc.
The same was true of the 4.3 diesel and the 5.7 diesel once it was fixed up correctly.
I have always believed in the KISS principle, the 6.2 is about as simple as it gets and if GM would have pulled their heads out and offered a 3.1ltr 4 banger based on the same motor in a car I would have bought it anyday. I have no doubt my cobalt would be a 50+mpg car driven normally (not hypermiling) with such a 4 banger contraption, but it would also weigh 300lbs more while still getting better FE. (albeit slower)
The thought of a big unaero car getting around 40mpg (which is what VW's in the auto varient also seem to get) is quite impressive, even the 30mpg the 3sp autos got with these caddy's was impressive (not even lockup). All it took was the right gears.
Also these came with pollution controls optionally, I have no doubt they could be cleaned up pollution wise with the same type of mods going on for other motors. My C code motor never smoked, (except when it was 20 below)
In other words the 6.2 provides the same fuel economy a very small engine would provide, it would be cheaper to produce than a high tech smaller motor and it would allow americans to drive their dream giganto cars while still getting roughly the same FE as so called Econobox's. Since many americans won't change this would be a valid option for the folks who just absolutely must drive something big because of emotional issues all the while getting the same 30-40mpg that our economy cars seem to get..
Maybe we could wean them off 600hp motors in large vehicles if they saw the same vehicle getting 35-50% better FE at the same price point or less.
If I could fit it in my cobalt (or in the former buick) I would use the 6.2 as is with a nice 4 or 5 speed stick or column setup.
If the 6.2 gets the same FE in the same vehicles as a smaller turbo diesel why not use it? Just need to beef up the front end a bit (oddly the 6.2 is lighter than a 3.9 cummins) Having a wimpy 6.2 would also appeal to machismo, I have no doubt people would ooh over the plain displacement if they were put in our "compact" 3500lb cars.
As you can see some of the above is sarcastic but most of it is completely accurate as well. In my case my craft mobile (5sp suburban) getting 30ish loaded up is definately a welcome change. I also wonder why GM didn't offer it with the XMSN and rearend I have stock.
Many so called fuel efficient cars only get about that, Heck the FIAT 500 here is only about 35mpg, makes you wonder why 30 year old tech in large unaerodynamic vehicles can outperform modern marvels?