Twitter headlines« QuantumSphere NiFe Nanoparticle Electrodes Push Electrolyzer Efficiency to 85% | Main | EEA Report: EU Fails to Curb Transport GHG Emissions; Focus on Vehicle and Fuel Technologies is Not Enough, Demand Must Be Constrained »
GM Invests $69M In Ohio Diesel Engine Plant to Build T2B5 6.6-Liter Engine
3 March 2008
General Motors Corp. is investing $69 million in its DMAX plant in Moraine, Ohio to manufacture the 2010 model year 6.6-liter V-8 Duramax diesel. The 2010 Duramax will use a selective catalytic reduction NOx after-treatment system with a diesel particulate filter to help achieve the 2010 Tier 2 Bin 5 and LEV 2 emissions standards, and it will be compliant in all 50 states.
The investment includes renovations to the plant, new machinery and tooling to support manufacturing of the new diesel engine. Renovations are expected to begin immediately.
The current Duramax 6.6-liter V-8 is a four-valve high pressure common rail direct injection diesel currently equipped with a diesel particulate filter to meet 2007 emissions requirements. Available in GM’s Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra heavy-duty pickups, the engine delivers a segment-leading 365 horsepower (272 kW) and 660 lb-ft of torque (895 Nm). It is also offered with increased power and torque for the Chevy Kodiak and GMC TopKick medium-duty applications. Versions are available with 300 horsepower and 520 lb-ft of torque, as well as a new 330-horsepower option with 620 lb-ft of torque. The Duramax is also available in GM’s full-size vans, Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana.
DMAX Limited is a joint venture between GM and Isuzu Motors Limited and was established as a diesel engine company in 1998. In the DMAX joint venture with Isuzu Motors Ltd., GM owns 60% and Isuzu 40%.
March 3, 2008 in Brief | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
Posted by: gary | March 03, 2008 at 05:30 AM
The sanity of building a passenger vehicle which needs a 6.6 liter diesel is questionable at best. I've seen 15-ton vehicles running on a 7-liter Cat.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | March 03, 2008 at 10:16 AM
I was all excited when they first talked about a smaller hp diesel. Then the news came in about just how large it was. What a let down. Why don't they just cut some cylinders off like Cummins and other engine manufactures do.
Posted by: C Dell | March 03, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Engineer-poet,
They probably don't envision a heavy duty pickup as a "passenger vehicle".
Though I do wonder if the capacity of the engine outstrips the capability of the frame to carry/tow a load equivalent to the max of the engine.
Posted by: Patrick | March 03, 2008 at 02:27 PM
I guess nobody commenting has owned or even driven a 7,500+ lb gross weight 4WD Suburban 2500 that is lucky to get 10 mpg/city with it's pathetically small SBC V-8. And I think any tractor trailer rig using a 7L diesel comes with at least a 21-23 speed transmission folks.
Posted by: gary | March 03, 2008 at 05:55 PM
Nope, just a 6-speed ZF automatic.
As everyone probably knows by now, I drive a 3400-lb vehicle with a 1.9 liter diesel. It has gone up mountains at more than 6000 lbs total vehicle towing a boxy (draggy) trailer without downshifting. There's no way that anyone needs more than about 4 liters of displacement to haul less than 12000 pounds.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | March 03, 2008 at 09:50 PM
Engineer-Poet,
You didn't mention the speed you sustained, % grade or the altitude/ambient temp.
Please elaborate.
I drove the older version (2002 to 2006) of the Mercedes (Dodge/Freightliner) Sprinter van (2.7L turbo-diesel/5 spd auto) from 5K to 10K feet up a 6-7% grade. It was close to it's 8500 lb gross weight limit, and it managed 62 mph (max).
A heavy-duty pickup may have a 12000 lb trailer and 6000 lbs vehicle - 18K lbs gross combined weight or more. A 6.6L diesel would be about the right size for that job.
Posted by: shane | March 04, 2008 at 07:02 PM
65 MPH, 5% grade, up to ~3300 ft MSL, temperature around 80-85°F IIRC. It does lose torque at 5000 ft and up, and requires a downshift in more situations.
Near as I can calculate, the car was only producing about 95 HP at the time. I could have maintained the same speed with a smaller engine turning at 3500-4000 RPM, and improved fuel economy in all other situations. People hauling heavy loads should probably not expect to run faster than about 60 MPH just for safety's sake, and climbing mountains faster than 45 MPH is a luxury, not a necessity.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | March 04, 2008 at 11:57 PM
In a free market, the buyers decide what attributes are most important - and the balance of those. You, of course, are free to choose for yourself. If you propose that you are the one to choose for all people - then you are proposing something more ominious.
Posted by: shane | March 05, 2008 at 01:44 PM
You could say the same thing about speed limits and pollutant emissions, and you'd be just as wrong.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | March 05, 2008 at 09:21 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00e5509228268833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GM Invests $69M In Ohio Diesel Engine Plant to Build T2B5 6.6-Liter Engine:
I never could understand GM's decision not to offer this engine as an option in their large Suv's where it is desperately needed to improve the horrendously poor MPG