Generation IV Internal Engine 2005-2014 LS2 | LS3 | LS7 | L92 | LS9

New Denali w/ 6.2 motor

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-23-2006, 08:59 AM
  #1  
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
David Gordon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Granbury Texas
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default New Denali w/ 6.2 motor

My wife bought a new 07 Denali last week and I thought I would chime in with my thought on its new found power. We traded a 03 Yukon w/3.73 gears for it as well as the 5.3 motor.
Well as for power goes the old Yukon would have stamped a mud hole in this slow responding loud Denali. It sounds like it is fixing to take off but it never really starts pulling hard at anytime. And as far as gas mileage goes it read 9.7 average. I know it still only has a couple hundred miles on it but wow it really sucks gas and is a disapointment in the power department.
Old 06-23-2006, 09:01 AM
  #2  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (14)
 
383ss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 2,893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

doesn't that have DoD?
Old 06-23-2006, 11:05 AM
  #3  
On The Tree
iTrader: (1)
 
jmarsa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Your talking about a 300 HP 5.3 vs. a 400 HP 6.2

There should be a major difference. Does the Yukon/Escalde have torque management like the GTO?

--JMarsa
Old 06-23-2006, 12:47 PM
  #4  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (15)
 
DrkPhx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: St. Michael, MN.
Posts: 4,519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

I just traded my 04 Denali with the standard 6.0L engine and it moved pretty good for a full size SUV. Average mpg was 14, so I think yours just needs some break in. The DOD should disengage at WOT.
Old 06-23-2006, 12:54 PM
  #5  
TECH Fanatic
 
gun5l1ng3r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Laguna Niguel, CA
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Wow, I thought a 100HP and 100TQ bump would make it damn quick, like Trailblazer SS quick. I guess not.
Old 06-23-2006, 01:14 PM
  #6  
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (4)
 
MrDude_1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 3,366
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by gun5l1ng3r
Wow, I thought a 100HP and 100TQ bump would make it damn quick, like Trailblazer SS quick. I guess not.
weight has its ways of slowing things down.... thats my #1 fear for the new camaro..

combine the high weight with traction control, acceleration control and abuse modes, and you end up with a soft accelerating vehicle that never feels fast.

jsut because you floor it, doesnt mean the throttle snaps open...
Old 06-23-2006, 03:40 PM
  #7  
LS1 Tech Administrator
iTrader: (14)
 
Patrick G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Victoria, TX
Posts: 8,244
Likes: 0
Received 32 Likes on 28 Posts

Default

Running 87 octane in your Denali? They're supposed to be really fast for their size. Sorry to hear your's is not. I guess I'll take one off my shopping list. My '02 Suburban is not THAT fast.
__________________

2013 Corvette Grand Sport A6 LME forged 416, Greg Good ported TFS 255 LS3 heads, 222/242 .629"/.604" 121LSA Pat G blower cam, ARH 1 7/8" headers, ESC Novi 1500 Supercharger w/8 rib direct drive conversion, 747rwhp/709rwtq on 93 octane, 801rwhp/735rwtq on race fuel, 10.1 @ 147.25mph 1/4 mile, 174.7mph Half Mile.
2016 Corvette Z51 M7 Magnuson Heartbeat 2300 supercharger, TSP LT headers, Pat G tuned, 667rwhp, 662rwtq, 191mph TX Mile.
2009.5 Pontiac G8 GT 6.0L, A6, AFR 230v2 heads. 506rwhp/442rwtq. 11.413 @ 121.29mph 1/4 mile, 168.7mph TX Mile
2000 Pewter Ram Air Trans Am M6 heads/cam 508 rwhp/445 rwtq SAE, 183.092 TX Mile
2018 Cadillac Escalade 6.2L A10 Pat G tuned.
LS1,LS2,LS3,LS7,LT1 Custom Camshaft Specialist For custom camshaft help press here.
Custom LSX tuning in person or via email press here.
Old 06-23-2006, 03:59 PM
  #8  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (15)
 
DrkPhx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: St. Michael, MN.
Posts: 4,519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

My Denali had lower compression than the Escalade so 87 was recommended. I'm pretty sure the new Denali motor is rated less than the Escalade because of lower compression as well.
Old 06-23-2006, 04:09 PM
  #9  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (15)
 
DrkPhx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: St. Michael, MN.
Posts: 4,519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by gun5l1ng3r
Wow, I thought a 100HP and 100TQ bump would make it damn quick, like Trailblazer SS quick. I guess not.
The 07 Denali is rated at 380hp and the previous version was rated at 325hp.
Old 06-23-2006, 04:27 PM
  #10  
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
David Gordon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Granbury Texas
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

The Denali is rated @ 385 hp and the Escalade is like 411 hp. I thought is was like when the LS1s came out and the Corvette was 345 and the Z was 305. Just a factory rating.
I hope the Denali just needs some break in miles.
Old 06-23-2006, 04:40 PM
  #11  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (15)
 
DrkPhx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: St. Michael, MN.
Posts: 4,519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by David Gordon
The Denali is rated @ 385 hp and the Escalade is like 411 hp. I thought is was like when the LS1s came out and the Corvette was 345 and the Z was 305. Just a factory rating.
I hope the Denali just needs some break in miles.
According to GMC and Cadillac's website the Denali is rated at 380hp and the Escalade at 403hp. GMC also increased the hp to 335 on 2005 for the previous version.

Last edited by DrkPhx; 06-23-2006 at 04:52 PM.
Old 06-23-2006, 04:44 PM
  #12  
LS1 Tech Administrator
iTrader: (14)
 
Patrick G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Victoria, TX
Posts: 8,244
Likes: 0
Received 32 Likes on 28 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by DrkPhx
My Denali had lower compression than the Escalade so 87 was recommended. I'm pretty sure the new Denali motor is rated less than the Escalade because of lower compression as well.
The L-92 motor in the Denali has 10.5:1 compression and the GM literature states " premium fuel is recommended, but not required". To me that means you're allowing the knock sensors to rob you of the missing power. Add some 93 octane and see if the performance picks up.
__________________

2013 Corvette Grand Sport A6 LME forged 416, Greg Good ported TFS 255 LS3 heads, 222/242 .629"/.604" 121LSA Pat G blower cam, ARH 1 7/8" headers, ESC Novi 1500 Supercharger w/8 rib direct drive conversion, 747rwhp/709rwtq on 93 octane, 801rwhp/735rwtq on race fuel, 10.1 @ 147.25mph 1/4 mile, 174.7mph Half Mile.
2016 Corvette Z51 M7 Magnuson Heartbeat 2300 supercharger, TSP LT headers, Pat G tuned, 667rwhp, 662rwtq, 191mph TX Mile.
2009.5 Pontiac G8 GT 6.0L, A6, AFR 230v2 heads. 506rwhp/442rwtq. 11.413 @ 121.29mph 1/4 mile, 168.7mph TX Mile
2000 Pewter Ram Air Trans Am M6 heads/cam 508 rwhp/445 rwtq SAE, 183.092 TX Mile
2018 Cadillac Escalade 6.2L A10 Pat G tuned.
LS1,LS2,LS3,LS7,LT1 Custom Camshaft Specialist For custom camshaft help press here.
Custom LSX tuning in person or via email press here.
Old 06-23-2006, 04:55 PM
  #13  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (15)
 
DrkPhx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: St. Michael, MN.
Posts: 4,519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Patrick G
The L-92 motor in the Denali has 10.5:1 compression and the GM literature states " premium fuel is recommended, but not required". To me that means you're allowing the knock sensors to rob you of the missing power. Add some 93 octane and see if the performance picks up.
Good to know. That is exactly what they recommend for my Trailblazer SS.
Old 06-23-2006, 05:12 PM
  #14  
12 Second Club
iTrader: (13)
 
Ru2n00n3er's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belleville, MI
Posts: 1,027
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Patrick G
The L-92 motor in the Denali has 10.5:1 compression and the GM literature states " premium fuel is recommended, but not required". To me that means you're allowing the knock sensors to rob you of the missing power. Add some 93 octane and see if the performance picks up.
If the new 6.2 engine hasn't been rated using the new standards, the automakers used to use the phrase "premium recommended, but not required". If the literature says that the power level they state was achieved with the premium fuel, but you'll make less power with non premium. When the standards changed they only test with the fuel that will be advertised as required with the engine.
Old 06-23-2006, 05:27 PM
  #15  
9 Second Club/LS1TECH Sponsor
iTrader: (14)
 
Speartech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Anderson, Indiana
Posts: 1,707
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by 383ss
doesn't that have DoD?

No. I don't think the 6.2's have DOD.
__________________

91 Z28 LS2 408CI, LS9 Supercharger, LPE GT7 cam, Yank3000, 3450 raceweight.
Latest numbers: 9.71 ET, 141.42 MPH, 1.40 60' , 610 RWHP Mustang Dyno

www.speartech.com
Old 06-23-2006, 05:38 PM
  #16  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (15)
 
DrkPhx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: St. Michael, MN.
Posts: 4,519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Ru2n00n3er
If the new 6.2 engine hasn't been rated using the new standards, the automakers used to use the phrase "premium recommended, but not required". If the literature says that the power level they state was achieved with the premium fuel, but you'll make less power with non premium. When the standards changed they only test with the fuel that will be advertised as required with the engine.
I pulled this from GM Powertrain's website:

"Special Note: Several General Motors horsepower and torque numbers have been certified by the Society of Automotive Engineers (i.e. SAE certified). A new voluntary power and torque certification procedure developed by the SAE Engine Test Code committee was approved March 31, 2005. This procedure (J2723) ensures fair, accurate ratings for horsepower and torque by allowing manufacturers to certify their engines through third-party witness testing. GM was the first auto manufacturer to begin using the procedure and expects to use it for all newly rated engines in the future."

I then found this link which indicates the new 6.2L engine is SAE certified (see below) listed next to the hp rating, but does not include the J2723 number above.

http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en...k/2007_L92.xls


So I then found this on the SAE website:

About SAE J1349 Certified Power



Power and torque certification provide a means for a manufacturer to assure a customer that the engine they purchase delivers the advertised performance. This SAE Standard has been written to provide manufacturers with a method of certifying the power of engines to SAE J1349 or SAE J1995. Document SAE J2723 specifies the procedure to be used for a manufacturer to certify the net power and torque rating of a production engine according to SAE J1349 or the gross engine power of a production engine according to SAE J1995. Manufacturers who advertise their engine power and torque ratings as Certified to SAE J1349 or SAE J1995 shall follow this procedure. Certification of engine power and torque to SAE J1349 or SAE J1995 is voluntary, however, this power certification process is mandatory for those advertising power ratings as "Certified to SAE J1349".



SAE Engine Rating Standard Prevents Numbers Fudging (an article on how GM will use SAE J1349 Certified Power, AEI May 2005, Vol 113 No.5, p 59 )

General Motors has become the first manufacturer to certify an engine's power and torque ratings using a newly adopted SAE standard (J2723), James Queen, GM Vice President, Global Engineering, announced during his keynote address at the SAE World Congress and Exhibition in April 2005. The world's largest automaker plans to certify all of its engines to the voluntary standard, and is encouraging its competitors to do the same. The LS7 engine for the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 was certified under the new standard this month. The 7.0-L V8 unit produces 505 hp (377 kW) at 6300 rpm and 470 lboft (637 Nom) at 4800 rpm. "The new voluntary SAE power and torque certification procedure ensures fair, accurate ratings for horsepower and torque as it uses third-party certification," said Queen. "SAE technical standards level the playing field, and this certification procedure is just the latest example of the value SAE has offered over the past century." To tout power and torque ratings as "SAE-certified," engine manufacturers must have an SAE qualified witness watch over the entire testing procedure to ensure that it is conducted in conformity to SAE standard J1349. Third-party witnessing is the main provision of J2723. An existing SAE standard, J1349, spells out how the actual testing is to be done. J1349 was updated last year to eliminate some ambiguities that allowed engine makers to cite power and torque ratings higher than the engine's actual capabilities. Engine makers are free to cite power and torque figures drived from testing conducted outside the scope of the SAE standards, but they may not claim the figures are SAE-certifed. "We feel that both the consumer and industry are well served by having accurate, consistent ratings from all manufacturers," said David Lancaster, a Technical Fellow in GM Powertrain and Chairman of the SAE Engine Power Test Code Committee that updated J1349 and wrote J2723. Data from a wide array of parameters (e.g., air:fuel ratio) will be collected during testing conducted to the SAE standards. SAE will create a database and offer it to industry in different packages and at different price points

Old 06-23-2006, 05:41 PM
  #17  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (15)
 
DrkPhx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: St. Michael, MN.
Posts: 4,519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Speartech
No. I don't think the 6.2's have DOD.
It does. From the GMC website for the Denali.

Available Active Fuel Management

A masterpiece of innovation, Active Fuel Management allows the engine to seamlessly shift from 8 to 4 cylinders temporarily whenever less power is needed. The result is an impressive improvement in fuel economy. Helps makes Yukon among the most fuel-efficient full-size SUVs in the industry
Old 06-23-2006, 07:28 PM
  #18  
9 Second Club/LS1TECH Sponsor
iTrader: (14)
 
Speartech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Anderson, Indiana
Posts: 1,707
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts

Default

5.3 Yukons have DOD.

6.2 Denalis do not.
__________________

91 Z28 LS2 408CI, LS9 Supercharger, LPE GT7 cam, Yank3000, 3450 raceweight.
Latest numbers: 9.71 ET, 141.42 MPH, 1.40 60' , 610 RWHP Mustang Dyno

www.speartech.com
Old 06-23-2006, 07:44 PM
  #19  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (15)
 
DrkPhx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: St. Michael, MN.
Posts: 4,519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Speartech
5.3 Yukons have DOD.

6.2 Denalis do not.
Yep, you're right. For some reason I thought the 6.2L has DOD.
Old 06-23-2006, 07:45 PM
  #20  
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (18)
 
01350ss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: central east coast florida
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

'03 yukon was primarily rear wheel drive
'07 denali is all wheel drive - meaning that extra drag may also be slowing you down correct if I'm wrong here though


Quick Reply: New Denali w/ 6.2 motor



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:18 AM.