2023 GMC Yukon AT4 6.2L dead at 10K miles

To your point @Geotrash , I've done similar calculations and it never works out in favor of the consumer. That is why when I get a personal truck again it will most likely be a 2015-19 2500hd with a 6.0L. Bulletproof setup, should run for many, many miles.

When you do the comparison of mpg ratings (which there are none for these trucks, so forums/friends can help out) initially it can be a buzz kill. But, when you math it out, a drop of 2 or 3 mpg (depending on driving habits) doesn't really add up to a huge difference for low mileage use in my case.

I'm even thinking about just buying a 4x4 LMTV instead of a truck. For the money, I get something indestructible, go anywhere, cool AF for anywhere from 1/3 to 1/5 the cost of a pickup. And, no emissions stuff to worry about. If I end up pulling the trigger, I'll be sure to share.

Assuming it's the first repair, they're definitely not going to buy it back that easily. Now as it's been said before, if it goes past 30 days, they're in a position that they're required to buy it back. Replacement 6.2 engines are definitely an issue nationally. We had one that sounds like it had the same issue and waited for a couple weeks for the replacement. That was in a 2021 Tahoe High Country and at that point it seemed to be relegated to a run of late 21s and early 22s so your issue is out of the normal. From talking to GM's field service guys and techs, it's best to run premium fuel and change oil ahead of the oil life monitor in the 6.2. Running a lower octane retards the timing and puts the added strain on the lifters. Unfortunately not much can be done as far as maintenance goes to prevent the spun crank bearings.

Dangler6131 said:

With only 10K miles, my 2023 6.2L died and would not restart - conditions not ready to shift.
This is after my 2021 suburban had lifters fail after 23K miles.
View attachment 417854

Click to expand...

Time to move on to a Toyota. I just saw a Lexus SUV with 600,000 miles on it, still running perfect. Last good GMC SUV was early 1990s, sadly.

Geotrash said:

I've run the numbers a few times in a back-of-the-napkin kind of way, being generous with the fuel savings assumptions of DFM at 10%, which of course it's not that effective. At best, it might save $2000 in fuel over 100K miles. But a single failure of the system will be a minimum $5000 repair if it happens out of warranty, and costs about the same to delete it, if it were even possible on the 2021+ rigs. I would gladly pay the extra $2000 in savings to not have the fear of AFM/DFM failing (or any of the other potential failures of the fuel-saving bits like tighter main bearing clearances) while my family and I are on the road. It's the primary reason why I STILL drive an '07 (No AFM) and a '12 (AFM mechanically deleted). I can afford a newer rig but I don't want the risk.

Click to expand...

They aren't installing this stuff to save customers money on gas, they are doing it because they can not meet government standards without it. I suspect GM installed the system on all the cylinders thinking it would be less wear on the lifers, but instead they worsened the problem.
A turbo engine is better than these at this point, because a turbo failure doesn't torpedo the entire engine. I would suspect GMs large investment in the Gen 6 small block points to abandoning this architecture and moving to something else.

malba2366 said:

GM aren't installing this stuff to save customers money on gas, they are doing it because they can not meet government standards without it.
I suspect GM installed the system on all the cylinders thinking it would be less wear on the lifers, but instead they worsened the problem.
A turbo engine is better than these at this point, because a turbo failure doesn't torpedo the entire engine.
I would suspect GMs large investment in the Gen 6 small block points to abandoning this architecture and moving to something else.

Click to expand...

Gov't standards are one thing - the tests are anachronistic, and do not come close enough to represent real world driving.
CAFE MpG tests explain undergeared axles for decades, followed by smaller engines with less cylinders mated to 8- & 10- speed transmissions.

That said, my suspicion is GM went ahead with V8-V7-V6-V5-V4-V3-V2 mode because they don't want the engine to last TOO long.
That extra complexity is gonna bite them in the arse when Mexico's used car market hemorrhages into the southwestern US.

Dangler6131 said:

With only 10K miles, my 2023 6.2L died and would not restart - conditions not ready to shift.
This is after my 2021 suburban had lifters fail after 23K miles.
View attachment 417854

Click to expand...

Same thing happened to me 11,000 2023 Sukan Denali ultimate engine ceased while driving o wanting it just itself into neutral in the middle of the road. Two tow attempts then it was finally dragged via tow by roadside assistance. 28 days at the dealer they replaced the engine but zero confidence this won’t happen again. Apparently a major problem with the 6.2 cylinder engine. Good luck

malba2366 said:

They aren't installing this stuff to save customers money on gas, they are doing it because they can not meet government standards without it. I suspect GM installed the system on all the cylinders thinking it would be less wear on the lifers, but instead they worsened the problem.
A turbo engine is better than these at this point, because a turbo failure doesn't torpedo the entire engine. I would suspect GMs large investment in the Gen 6 small block points to abandoning this architecture and moving to something else.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the mansplain. I long ago gave up trying to guess every presumption someone might make to one of my posts and trying to account for it up front. Yes, of course I understand WHY AFM/DoD exists. What I'm trying to convey is that it doesn't actually result in a meaningful benefit in the real world. Ergo, the regulators are forcing this down our throats and it's a farce.

New engine arrived today…do not have much faith in power plant. Buddy had his Escalade die today.

Geotrash said:

Thanks for the mansplain. I long ago gave up trying to guess every presumption someone might make to one of my posts and trying to account for it up front. Yes, of course I understand WHY AFM/DoD exists. What I'm trying to convey is that it doesn't actually result in a meaningful benefit in the real world. Ergo, the regulators are forcing this down our throats and it's a farce.

Click to expand...

I don't think I can stand on a soap box high enough to reiterate what you said. I've been saying this for years-za. Some people get it, others like to argue about it (usually ignorant people), and some just don't comprehend it.

CAFE is a game that the EPA, oil companies, tree huggers, and auto mfg all play together. Make up "new reasons" for needed lower emissions. Auto mfg accommodate these new rules from EPA - who aren't engine designers BTW. This increases "justifiable " vehicle cost (think back to any news cast about auto mfg).

THE end result is engines burning more fuel to do the same amount of work. While "cleaner" by some contrived standards, they don't account for more fuel used (to be clean???), extra wear and tear, reduced powetrain life, costs passed on to end user after warranty, etc.

Good examples are new diesels. They could be SUPER efficient with the new technology available, but are bastardized by BS regulations. The 3.8L gm v6 was a stellar, bulletproof motor - scrapped because it wasn't clean enough. Funny though that a 2005 Impala with the 3.8L was classified as a PZEV. I owned 3 and would own them again forever.

Follow the money. Higher emission standards = more fuel to be cleaner = more $ revenue = more $ for future repairs and/or new vehicle sales because they are now disposable items.

Sorry for the rant......but ultimately not sorry. Just sorry for the people affected by this crap.

Dangler6131 said:

New engine arrived today…do not have much faith in power plant. Buddy had his Escalade die today.

Click to expand...

I was at delaer yesterday, asked my salesman what their fail rate they have seen on the 6.2.

He said the dealer as seen two of them in last 3 years, out of about 300 trucks. One was a Sierra, one was a Yukon. Both were top end/lifters.
His opinion from what they have seen and in talking to field rep and other dealers, is it is about a 1% problem. Which he said is "within the normal production expectations of GM"