Very interesting design info. 72 degree V. Reversed intake and exhaust ports/valves. Suzuki or Yamaha has been doing that on an outboard for several years now.
Also interesting that GM developed this one alone, with no help from Isuzu. I am not sure that's a good thing, though!

I agree with Billy here...I smell disappointing reliability and economy coming...

The good news here is...It isn't a Ford, so it might not be a reliability problem like the 6.0 and 6.4.

LOL

The last time GM tried to go solo and create a diesel, they horribly failed in the US. Think of the old junker 6.5L diesel. Gross!

But, your right, the 6.6 Duramax was tagged unreliable on it launch...but has turned out to be one of the best LDD's around.

You would think they would be able to do this on their own without problems. After all, GM used to own EMD, Electro-Motive Diesel, which built the engines for most passenger train diesels in the 50s and 60s. But that didn't stop them from foisting off the terrible Olds V-8 converted gas to diesel engine in the late 70s, or the 6.5.

Just something about this product sounds very complicated, therefore unlikely to get it "right" after the first go around.

72* V is not a popular design, switching the airflow, putting the turbo in the "V" would seem to create thermo problems, and then to meet the nice and strict 2011 emissions....idk folks. That's asking plenty.

I STILL do not understand the point of a small V8 diesel. I rather see a mid-sized V6 diesel but what do I know? nothing!!

Whoa whoa whoa, the 6.5 or the 6.2 that proceeded it were not necessarily junk D-Rod. They just didn't have any power compared to the 5.9Cummins and 7.3 International.

Still, I always worry when any company creates a whole new engine, with different specs from any other engine that they have ever built. If GM has ever made a 72 degree engine, it sure wasn't in any cars/trucks that I've ever heard of. I also agree, having the hot exhaust and the hot turbo in the valley of the V concerns me. I guess it has to go somewhere, though, right?!

I wouldn't count GM out. They design and manufacture some of the finest powertrains in the world - always have.

This is the company that produced the Chevy small-block V8, the Cadillac Northstar and the current 496. So they do a lot of things right.

This engine is different - The reverse flow idea is interesting, but it seems like it will be difficult to get exhaust out, and turbo air to the intakes.

Ah, it's just piping like on a normal engine arrangement, Indy. But the no separate intake and exhaust manifold thing is interesting. I believe, but am not sure, that Caterpillar has been doing that for a while on their C15 (old 3406). MAybe that makes routing of air easier???

I don't count them out either. But, it seems more complex than the usual project....and the complexity is for a limited/small number of resources. One question I have is did they divert enough resources to the project to make something of this magnitude an immediate success?

Time will tell. Where is the engine being developed at? At a USA facility or at an overseas one?

I read about 1 year ago, that the production was going to be at the Tonawanda, NY plant, where the 496 used to be made (among other things).

That's half the equation. Anyone know the design/engineering site?