2019 Chevy Silverado 3.0L I-6 diesel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFNsg7bCtdA

Interesting video describing technical details of I-6 cut-away display engine.

jptbay said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFNsg7bCtdA

Interesting video describing technical details of I-6 cut-away display engine.

Click to expand...

The reporter in this video is a total moron. Instead of asking the guy from the factory questions that everyone interested in the design of the engine should ask, he just nods and nods. For instance, why did Isuzu decide to put the timing chains (and the rubber belt driving the oil pump) on the back side of the engine, instead of the traditional location (front)? Or, why the hell did you use steel chains that never need replacing to drive the HPFP and the camshafts, but a rubber belt that has to be replaced after 150k to drive the stupid oil pump, and which requires the transmission and the transfer case to be removed for access? What is the rationale for, and benefit of that decision? When I heard the Isuzu dude say that removing the tranny is an easy job, I stopped the video to give myself enough time for the spontaneous laughter to stop. I didn't view the propaganda any further.

Well, I think we all know the answers to the questions I posed above. The reason why any manufacturer would do all those things we are seeing here is twofold: one, they have to make sure their product fails at some point (hence the rubber belt that drives the oil pump), and, two, when it does, the failed part has to be buried so deep that labor charges alone will rival the residual value of the car, not to mention anyone attempting to DIY will have to spend 100k on a workshop equipment needed for such repair. Not so gently, the manufacturer sends you a poorly disguised message to go and buy a new vehicle.

The video, in my opinion, is very informative in that it shows some of the weak points of the engine, but more importantly, how marketing and design engineering nowadays cooperate in their efforts to maximize revenues / profits.

^^

Agree with most of the above.

All this complexity, and design choice's that lead to frustrating serviceability, mean I am less interested in diesels today, and l am careful to look for better options.

Pretty hard to not choose a V8 gasser from Chevy over this. I would happily loose some MPG to avoid this nightmare.

jptbay said:

^^

All this complexity, and design choice's that lead to frustrating serviceability, mean I am less interested in diesels today, and l am careful to look for better options.

Click to expand...

My sentiment exactly and also the very reason why I ended up with a simple, time-proven gasser in the wake of Dieselgate.

To be fair, lots of engines have OHC drives on the flywheel end of the engine (including some other GM engines).

Chains are not "forever" items, no matter what anyone tells you. They *usually* last a pretty long time, but not always. Belts actually have improved so much that they can rival some chains for longevity. I'd trust that a modern CR TDI's timing belt will hold the cams and crank in time better after 150k miles than ANY VAG engine with a chain(s).

There have been belt driven oil pumps in use now for a decade, never heard of a single one failing. And GM is not even calling out a PM interval for it, and I suspect most won't get this done, and few will fail before the truck has a 1/4 million miles on it. The gentlemen just said "minimum service life". The oil pump also being variable displacement means the load on it, and thus the oil runner belt, is minimized. This is a common thing to say for lots of items in lots of vehicles. It does suck that the transmission needs to be removed, however LOTS of the GM truck transmissions die before 150k miles anyway. We do a boat load of these, along with their newer gasoline engines... 0w20 spec keeps those DI cylinder deactivation cam-in-cam vario timing engines coming in on a hook pretty steady for us, thanks.... The local GM dealer keeps them all on the shelf. On. The. Shelf. 4.3/4.8/5.3L. If I order one in the morning, they'll have it here that afternoon.

But, given the MSRP cost of these engines, just like the F150, very few people who buy these new are going to still have it after 150k miles anyway. The turnover rate on these is quite high, which is why they sell so many new ones. So why bother to design build and sell something that "lasts indefinitely" when your core new buyer demographic wants a new truck every few years?

FWIW, that variable thermostat assembly will likely be a high failure item. The newer VAG EA888 engines have those, and they are already proving to be quite fragile, and of course expensive.

soot1 said:

The reporter in this video is a total moron. Instead of asking the guy from the factory questions that everyone interested in the design of the engine should ask, he just nods and nods. For instance, why did Isuzu decide to put the timing chains (and the rubber belt driving the oil pump) on the back side of the engine, instead of the traditional location (front)? Or, why the hell did you use steel chains that never need replacing to drive the HPFP and the camshafts, but a rubber belt that has to be replaced after 150k to drive the stupid oil pump, and which requires the transmission and the transfer case to be removed for access? What is the rationale for, and benefit of that decision? When I heard the Isuzu dude say that removing the tranny is an easy job, I stopped the video to give myself enough time for the spontaneous laughter to stop. I didn't view the propaganda any further.

Well, I think we all know the answers to the questions I posed above. The reason why any manufacturer would do all those things we are seeing here is twofold: one, they have to make sure their product fails at some point (hence the rubber belt that drives the oil pump), and, two, when it does, the failed part has to be buried so deep that labor charges alone will rival the residual value of the car, not to mention anyone attempting to DIY will have to spend 100k on a workshop equipment needed for such repair. Not so gently, the manufacturer sends you a poorly disguised message to go and buy a new vehicle.

The video, in my opinion, is very informative in that it shows some of the weak points of the engine, but more importantly, how marketing and design engineering nowadays cooperate in their efforts to maximize revenues / profits.

Click to expand...

What? You didn't agree with the comment that "dropping the tranny to get to the belt is a simple procedure"?

I agree that if you're going to interview someone, then ask questions. Otherwise, it's a lecture.

oilhammer said:

, however LOTS of the GM truck transmissions die before 150k miles anyway.

Click to expand...

My Chevy Luv "Isuzu Pup" diesel was on transmission rebuild #4 at 100k miles.
too much torque for the light 5-speed they put in it.
first was at 78k miles, then every 13 months or 1500 miles after that.

oilhammer said:

But, given the MSRP cost of these engines, just like the F150, very few people who buy these new are going to still have it after 150k miles anyway. The turnover rate on these is quite high, which is why they sell so many new ones. So why bother to design build and sell something that "lasts indefinitely" when your core new buyer demographic wants a new truck every few years?

Click to expand...

It hits more than the Light truck market.
There is a whole disposable car market too, the Chevy cavalier had factory welded front tie-rods so you could not adjust the alignment unless replacing the tie-rods and ball joints. That car had several things that made it a "drive it 150k miles and toss it away" car. A coworker found that out (beyond the oil filter being located above the catalytic converter.)

That sort of thing is common, though. Lots of instances of non-adjustable things from the factory, so if (or WHEN) an adjustment is needed, a part gets replaced that allows for this. The upper rear control arms on Civics/ CRVs/ Elements come to mind.

Then we have blower motors that literally need to be cut out of the HVAC case along a perforated line, and a new one screwed in place into screw holes that are already there.

Or plastic housing thermostats that are one integral piece, but the replacement is a two piece aluminum part that has the thermostat itself a replaceable element inside (Chevrolet Aveo/Pontiac G3... which was a Daewoo Kalos).

woofie2 said:

My Chevy Luv "Isuzu Pup" diesel was on transmission rebuild #4 at 100k miles.
too much torque for the light 5-speed they put in it.
first was at 78k miles, then every 13 months or 1500 miles after that.

Click to expand...

I only had to replace the fly wheel on my 82 S10 once around 60,000 when it stopped going into reverse. The mechanic that did the work said it was missing a lot of teeth. I blamed the 2 previous owners that must have treated the poor little thing like a normal farm truck. Of course, I wasn't much better...

kjclow said:

I only had to replace the fly wheel on my 82 S10 once around 60,000 when it stopped going into reverse. The mechanic that did the work said it was missing a lot of teeth. I blamed the 2 previous owners that must have treated the poor little thing like a normal farm truck. Of course, I wasn't much better...

Click to expand...

The 82 Chevy Luv (Isuzu pup) diesel had a quick track record of eating transmissions. Largely the bearings in 3rd or 5th gear, mechanic said it was due to the vibration of the diesel engine and extra torque. (the truck did not have any! idle or full throttle it was about the same speed)

oilhammer said:

That sort of thing is common, though. Lots of instances of non-adjustable things from the factory, so if (or WHEN) an adjustment is needed, a part gets replaced that allows for this. The upper rear control arms on Civics/ CRVs/ Elements come to mind.

Click to expand...

I inherited a '90 something Escort wagon that had one adjustable and one fixed rear upper control arm from the factory. I had to replace the fixed one when the car wouldn't track straight. The best thing about that car was the non-interference engine. I blew the tb out climbing a steep grade and had it replaced and running in twenty minutes.

turbobrick240 said:

I inherited a '90 something Escort wagon that had one adjustable and one fixed rear upper control arm from the factory. I had to replace the fixed one when the car wouldn't track straight. The best thing about that car was the non-interference engine. I blew the tb out climbing a steep grade and had it replaced and running in twenty minutes.

Click to expand...

Digressing a little bit here - 20 minutes was also about all it took to replace the TB on my 1986 Jetta diesel (oh, the good ol' days). The only "special tool" required was a chisel I used to lock the camshaft in place. And look at them now - disconnect the driveshafts, lift the engine with the $500 rail you have to buy, remove the fuel lines and all other stuff that is in the way, remove the engine mount.......................................In short - make it as complex, expensive and difficult as possible so that only a handful of owners will ever attempt that job (drive the revenues!!!!). This new Isuzu inline-6 follows the same strategy, but takes the timing chain replacement (I know, it's supposed to be a "forever" item) and the oil pump belt replacement to a whole new level, where you must pluck out the transfer case and the tranny to get to the belt, and possibly the entire engine if you are after the chains.

oilhammer said:

To be fair, lots of engines have OHC drives on the flywheel end of the engine (including some other GM engines).

Click to expand...

I know, I know. Even such companies as BMW jumped on that bandwagon. Greed is universal.

oilhammer said:

I'd trust that a modern CR TDI's timing belt will hold the cams and crank in time better after 150k miles than ANY VAG engine with a chain(s).

Click to expand...

I am not a professional mechanic, but I subscribe to that statement 100%. The belts are still made in Germany (last time I checked), and the manufacturers know how to make them well. The chains, on the other hand, are made in places like Romania or Zimbabwe (or some other place where people wipe their asses with rocks), and it shows in their quality. VW was recently hit with a class-action suit over the crappiness of their timing chains and settled the case. I do not recall anyone suing them due to defective timing belts. Enough said.

oilhammer said:

The gentlemen just said "minimum service life".

Click to expand...

Minimum service life is really nothing more than GM's estimate of how long the belt should last, and at what intervals they should be replaced. Yes, they may last much longer than that, but they may not. Under no circumstances does that mean warranty period. If the warranty on the engine is 5/60, and the belt snaps at 65k, the idea of minimum service life is meaningless and you will pay for the 5-minute job of removing the tranny. How likely is that to happen? Only time will tell, and let's hope GM's estimate is right.

Well we'll soon be seeing some VAG diesels cross 150k miles with the oil runner belts, I stand by my statement they are not likely to be a problem at all. I know some that have hit 130k miles already.

oilhammer said:

Well we'll soon be seeing some VAG diesels cross 150k miles with the oil runner belts, I stand by my statement they are not likely to be a problem at all. I know some that have hit 130k miles already.

Click to expand...

I am glad to hear that they are capable of going that far. Does VW specify their replacement interval, or is that not listed in the service schedule? The main point in case of the new Duramax I-6, though, is that, unlike the timing chains, GM does specify their minimum service life as 150k. If I were an owner, I would interpret that statement as a preventive maintenance milestone (same as oil and oil filter change every 5 or 10k), and I would proceed with replacing the belt at that mileage. However, I think this engine is somewhat different from its gasser counterparts in that those consumers who will opt for this powertrain will have higher expectations in terms of the engine's durability as compared to the gas options, and the need to replace something inside the engine after "only" 150k may be viewed as a liability, especially if we consider the expense of removing the transmission / transfer case. You may be right that the 10-speed auto tranny will likely be dead long before it reaches 150k, giving the owner an opportunity to have the belt replaced "free of charge" when the tranny is removed, but I am trying to judge the engine separately from the rest of the mechanicals.

"Minimum" service life does NOT mean "service life". The "maximum" is not defined. It could very well be 500k miles of normal use for all we know. I think you are reading too much into that.

Ford defines the brake fluid as not needing any service, and placing it at 150k miles too. Does that mean the brakes just stop working on all Ford products at 150k miles? Of course not. Does it mean one could expect a longer, less costly brake system if it WAS flushed periodically like most other carmakers specify? Absolutely.

Transmission fluid is another one. Most manufacturers now say the fluid is "lifetime", and that lifetime is either specified at some number (like 150k miles) or not specified at all.

No manufacturer that I know of in the automotive world/light truck world specifies things beyond 150k miles except Mercedes-Benz. The Sprinter has PM services listed at 20k mile intervals, and some are "every ninth service", which means, they actually have things like the rear differential fluid changeout at a whopping 180k miles, and I think there is even something they want done "every 12th service", which is 240k miles.

GM and most everyone else knows that the expected service life of a new car buy the person that purchases it is about 150k miles, so that is why so many of these items show up at that stage. It doesn't mean it needs to be changed, it just means it will last at least ("minimum") that long.

Many of us here in the TDI world certainly think differently, but I assure you this is not the normal method of thinking in terms of automotive life for the general public or 99% of any of the fleet operations out there. We service a BOATLOAD of fleet vehicles, and the vast majority of them are taken out of service well before 150k, and many if they need a big ticket item before 120k (like a transmission) are taken out early.

Absolutely true we think differently here. I know very, very few people other than diesel owners (TDI and M-B in particular) who think nothing of taking their cars well past 250K miles. I suspect M-B has those high mileage intervals on Sprinters because they frequently go 400K + in commercial use. But a light duty truck in private ownership? Not likely.

Couple of us were talking this AM about how as cars get more complex they're becoming disposable, because repairs are getting more expensive. Both Volvo and Lexus now have "subscription" programs where you make a monthly payment and it covers everything in the car except fuel. After 2 years you get another. They probably then sell those cars as CPOs, and after that if one major component fails the car will probably get crushed. Who wants to put a $10,000 transmission in a 100K car that may not be worth $10K? Probably no one.

So if this is the trend, why would manufacturers invest in cars that can have a drivetrain life that's longer than the time anyone will keep the car? No point.

The Duramax 3.0 I6 was designed in large part by my former employer FEV.
https://www.fev.com/en/press/press-...th-global-development-involvement-of-fev.html

Isn't the minimum service life on the CP4 HPFP stated to be 150k miles?

I think I remember reading something not too long ago that said the movement of the timing mechanism to the rear of German engines was driven by rules around pedestrian injury - not sure I quite understood that 100%.

jck66 said:

I think I remember reading something not too long ago that said the movement of the timing mechanism to the rear of German engines was driven by rules around pedestrian injury - not sure I quite understood that 100%.

Click to expand...

That makes no sense, since lots of engines are mounted transversely.

Also, VW's been doing rear timing chain since the VR6 came out in 1991, whereas the European pedestrian safety regulations came into force for 2010.

And the EA888 family, which is used in longitudinal applications, is front timing chain.

Audi did move towards rear timing chain in their V engines, though, around when they decided to cram V8s into A4s and V10s into A6s, but that seems like an overall length issue in general, rather than specifically a pedestrian safety issue.

I don't see how it would make any difference in safety anyhow. You're already in a world of hurt as a pedestrian if you're making contact with that area.

Yeah, maybe I'm mixing it up in my head with the "no pop up headlights" and "high snouts" styling that is currently coming out of Europe.

It looks like the first specimens started arriving at dealers' lots.

Chevy and GM will have the 277HP i6 Duramax option for the Surbruban&Tahoe in 2021-
https://www.dieselarmy.com/news/the-2021-chevrolet-suburban-tahoe-will-have-a-277-hp-duramax-option/

https://jalopnik.com/the-2021-chevy-suburban-and-tahoe-are-getting-a-duramax-1840351366

soot1 said:

It looks like the first specimens started arriving at dealers' lots.

Click to expand...

You are correct Sir, my son just took delivery of his this week, nice truck indeed.

Kirk

These inline duramax's seem to be working out pretty well.

Any stories to share? Might consider a new pickup with this engine.

Just so darn expensive.

oilhammer said:

Just so darn expensive.

Click to expand...

Car bubble, wait it out its about to burst according to experts.