Here's Why GM Is Sticking With V8s While Everyone Else Switches to Six Cylinders

The latest car news, reviews, and features.
I published a story last week that said the V8 is no longer America's truck engine. That's because manufacturers like Ford have increased six-cylinder production drastically in recent years, and Toyota has even gone V6-only in the Tundra. V8-powered models only accounted for 38% of truck registrations in 2024 as a result; meanwhile, six-cylinder models made up 47.6%.
So, why the heck is General Motors investing $888 million into next-gen small-block V8 production?
The simple answer is that people still want it. We reached out to GM for comment on the company's recent decision to pour copious amounts of money into its Tonawanda Engine Plant in New York. A spokesperson explained that it's all to give buyers the options they prefer. 'We're making these investments to provide our customers choice when it comes to vehicles and the powertrains we offer,' the representative said.
It's no surprise that of Detroit's Big Three, GM is the one making this investment. Data provided by Chevrolet shows that half of all new Silverado 1500s ship out with a V8, whether it be the 5.3-liter (42%) or 6.2-liter (8%). Ford, on the other hand, told me it only puts V8s in about a quarter of its F-150s.
GM plans to double down on V8s with the sixth-gen small-block confirmed for 2027. The whole idea is to offer customers what they want. Ram failed to do so when it cancelled the Hemi in 2024, and now, it's on a comeback-slash-apology tour as it revives the V8 for 2026 model year trucks. With this big propulsion plant investment, GM ensures customers won't have to worry about a lack of V8 options for a while. Chevrolet
As I looked for insight on GM's decision, I turned to the same shortlist of auto industry experts who helped me with my last V8 story. Stephanie Brinley, principal automotive analyst at S&P Global Mobility, pointed out that GM uses its V8s in way more applications than just pickups.
'For GM, the V8 is important for both full-size truck and full-size SUV,' Brinley said. 'As you know, the full-size SUVs offer an I6 diesel or a V8. While Ford has gone to all V6 for Expedition and Lincoln Navigator, registrations of those models reached about 88,000 units in 2024. GM's full-size SUV registrations reached nearly 274,000 units, and about 93% of those were V8 engines. Add in the full-size trucks, and GM's scale for the V8 option is notably different from the full-size truck-based competition.'
Ah, yes. The Chevy Tahoe is king, and after it, the GMC Yukon. Even the Cadillac Escalade sells in respectable numbers for something so pricey, and guess what engine they all rely on the most? That's right: The small-block V8.
Additionally, demand for electrified trucks has cooled off tremendously. That's another area where GM has invested big-time, as it currently offers battery-only versions of the Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra as well as the Hummer EV. Sam Abuelsamid, vice president of market research at Telemetry Agency, notes that the soft EV truck market was likely enough to force a strong course correction.
'It didn't come as a huge surprise given the failure of full-size electric trucks in the marketplace,' Abuelsamid noted. 'Given that GM hasn't followed Ford, Toyota, and Stellantis down the turbo-six-cylinder path for truck engines, this is their most cost-effective way forward.'
'It's not known what they [GM] are planning for the gen-six small block, but assuming that they continue with the same pushrod OHV architecture, it has notable advantages over a turbo V6 in cost and compared to a DOHC V8 like Ford's Coyote in cost and packaging,' said Abuelsamid.
Abuelsamid even went as far as saying it was 'always inevitable' that the V8 would remain GM's core truck engine through the 2030s. GMC
Robby DeGraff, manager of product and consumer insights at AutoPacific, said it has to do almost entirely with customers' demands for variety—and, like his peer mentioned, the lack of interest in electrified pickups. 'GM making this massive investment in the future of ICE powertrains is a clear sign of the times, and the result of the consumer take rate for EVs just not being as strong as GM CEO Mary Barra and her team likely hoped for years ago,' he explained. 'While engines with fewer cylinder count continue to become more and more advanced and capable via turbocharging and electrification, there will always be some degree of robust demand for eight cylinders amongst pickup truck buyers (even though that number is shrinking).'
'I think we've seen too recently how instrumental the V8 engine is among the Detroit Three's future,' DeGraff continued. 'Ford keeps dumping money into development of it, Stellantis is reviving the Hemi for Ram, and GM can't afford to sit back and let its current crop of V8s age.'
When I made the claim before that the V8 is no longer America's truck engine, I got plenty of emails and comments from passionate drivers who insist that it is. Now, it's important to note, I wasn't asserting that based on customer preference but rather on real-life market data. It's clear that some people still want and, indeed, demand V8s in their trucks and SUVs. GM is listening to them, and it will go on providing plenty of options for those folks over the coming years.
Got a tip or question for the author? Contact them directly: caleb@thedrive.com

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

2 hours ago

• Yahoo

Teen Drivers Behind the Wheel? Here's How Parents Can Actually Get Through to Them

Handing over the car keys to a teenager can be a proud moment, but let's be honest, it's also a nerve-wracking one. If you've got a new driver at home, chances are you've spent time worrying about speeding, distracted driving, or the group of friends fighting to ride shotgun. But here's the thing: while parental lectures often go in one ear and out the other, new research suggests that conversations about safe driving do have a lasting impact when handled the right way. Ahead of summer, a season known for a spike in teen driving accidents, safety experts are urging parents to open the dialogue. A recent campaign, supported by Ford's Driving Skills for Life program and the Governors Highway Safety Association, offers five smart strategies to help parents connect with their teen drivers and, hopefully, keep them safer on the road. According to the experts, driving safety isn't a one-and-done talk; it's actually a series of ongoing conversations. Start before your teen gets their permit, and continue well into their first year of solo driving. The more normal you make it to talk about driving risks and good habits, the more likely they are to absorb it. Yes, your teen is watching when you speed through that yellow light or check your phone at a red. In fact, studies show that parents' driving behaviors have a major influence on their kids' habits behind the wheel. If you want your teen to drive safely, your own driving should match the message. Creating household rules about curfews, passenger limits, and phone use can go a long way. But be prepared to explain why these rules matter. For example, letting them know that having just one peer in the car doubles their crash risk makes the rule about no friends during the first few months feel less random and more rooted in real data. Teens are more likely to respond to real-life examples than blanket warnings. Instead of just saying 'don't text and drive,' share actual stories of local accidents or near-misses, things that hit closer to home and feel tangible. It's simple, but often overlooked: more time behind the wheel with a calm parent builds skill and confidence. Just because your teen passed their test doesn't mean they're ready for every scenario. Weather changes, highway merges, nighttime driving — these are the areas where extra supervised practice really matters. Safe teen driving isn't just about passing a test or obeying the speed limit, but actually it's about consistent communication and real-world preparation. As the summer driving season heats up, parents have an opportunity (and a responsibility) to shape the kind of driver their teen becomes. And it starts with how you talk, not just how you drive. So the next time you hand over the keys, take a breath and just start the conversation. It just might be the most important one you have all summer.

Yahoo

3 hours ago

• Yahoo

Better EV Stock: Ford vs. Tesla

Robotaxis aren't an optional extra for the car industry; they are the future of mobility. One company stands best placed to deliver affordable electric vehicles. The two companies could potentially become partners. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › -The comparison between Ford (NYSE: F) and Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) is valuable and valid because it speaks to where the auto industry is headed and highlights the relative position of each company as it moves toward electric vehicles and robotaxis. Whether it's a legacy automaker (Ford) or a dedicated battery electric vehicle company(Tesla), the key opportunities and challenges are the same. So, which company is better placed to thrive in the future? Tesla's launch of its full-self-driving (FSD) robotaxi is sometimes seen as a tactical move as its electric vehicle (EV) sales and market share come under pressure in 2025, but nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that major automakers, including Ford, and leading technology companies have invested billions in robotaxis and autonomous driving, and it's an integral part of the future of the auto industry. The reason behind the investment is a recognition that robotaxis have huge profit potential, not least because they offer a long stream of recurring income from ride-per-mile revenue. Another reality is that EVs are not cheap, and if they are the future of the auto industry, automakers need to make them more affordable. They also need to offer robotaxis to make mobility more affordable. However, don't take my word for it. Here's Ford's CEO Jim Farley in 2019 on autonomous driving and robotaxis: "The self-driving system is incredibly important to develop, but it's just one part of building a safe and scalable self-driving service that consumers can trust." Farley went on to outline a timeline for a "commercial self-driving service" in 2021, which Ford would fail to achieve. As for affordable EVs, last year, Farley reiterated the need to offer smaller and more affordable EVs to achieve profitability as an EV maker. The two things are strongly connected. You can't have robotaxi EVs if the vehicles aren't affordable. That's a point that resonated during a recent CNBC interview with Waymo, which has a robotaxi service already in place, yet co-CEO Tekedra Mawakana declined to outline a timeline for the company's profitability. Waymo's lack of profitability means its owner, Alphabet, is going to have to invest significant sums, at a loss, if it wants Waymo to build scale. That creates a huge opportunity for a company like Tesla that is just entering the market and potentially offers a much more commercial and scalable service. Tesla's advantage in scaling robotaxis lies in its ability to transform existing Tesla vehicles into robotaxis, as well as its capability to produce a dedicated robotaxi, the Cybercab. Unlike Waymo, Tesla doesn't need to partner with automakers to build scale. Moreover, Musk has disclosed that Tesla has been in discussions about licensing its FSD to other automakers -- another route to long-term profitability. I'll cut to the chase. If Tesla can make automated driving and robotaxis work, then there's only one winner here, and it's Tesla. First, Ford is a long way from having a profitable EV business. For example, its Model E segment lost $5.1 billion in 2024, and then $849 million in the first quarter of 2025. Ford sold 22,550 EVs in the first quarter, implying it lost almost $38,000 on every EV sold. Moreover, its EV models, the Mustang Mach-E, the F-150 Lightning, and the E-Transit, are far from being affordable EVs. In contrast, Tesla generated $7.1 billion in operating profit in 2024. Despite losing market share amid declining sales, it still dominated the U.S. market, holding 43.5% of the market in the first quarter of 2025. Ford was a distant second with 7.7%. Both Ford and Tesla are planning to release low-cost models in the future, but given Ford's ongoing losses, Tesla's profitability, and its ability to lower its average cost per car, down from above $38,000 in early 2023 to below $35,000 in late 2024, the latter looks far better positioned to do so sustainably. Ford backed off its robotaxi/FSD plans in 2022, following the shutdown of Argo AI by Ford and Volkswagen after years of heavy investment. The company had been created to develop the technology and received billions of dollars in investment from Ford and Volkswagen. For reference, General Motors has also ended robotaxi development. In contrast, Tesla is preparing for the official launch of its unsupervised FSD/robotaxi service in Austin, Texas, this month, and it may be live by the time you read this article. While the launch will be small and highly contained, it still marks the birth of Tesla's robotaxi offering. Musk believes Tesla will have a dedicated, low-cost robotaxi, the Cybercab, in volume production by 2026. Indeed, Ford may end up licensing FSD from Tesla, and to his great credit, Farley has indicated an openness to partnering on FSD. There is no guarantee that Tesla's robotaxi or FSD will be successful, and investors need to closely monitor events. Moreover, Musk has a history of being overly optimistic on such matters. That said, the major automakers have been and are still pursuing the idea of lower-cost EVs and robotaxis and automated driving, and currently, Tesla remains the best-positioned company to meet those aims. It's where the industry wants to be, and Tesla is in pole position. Ever feel like you missed the boat in buying the most successful stocks? Then you'll want to hear this. On rare occasions, our expert team of analysts issues a 'Double Down' stock recommendation for companies that they think are about to pop. If you're worried you've already missed your chance to invest, now is the best time to buy before it's too late. And the numbers speak for themselves: Nvidia: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2009, you'd have $373,066!* Apple: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2008, you'd have $38,158!* Netflix: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2004, you'd have $664,089!* Right now, we're issuing 'Double Down' alerts for three incredible companies, available when you join , and there may not be another chance like this anytime soon.*Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Lee Samaha has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet and Tesla. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Better EV Stock: Ford vs. Tesla was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio

Car and Driver

4 hours ago

• Car and Driver

1981 Ford Escort XR3 Test: The Grass Is Definitely Greener

From the November 1981 issue of Car and Driver. If one needed any reassurance that a new day has dawned at the Ford Motor Company, the fact that Ford president Don Petersen has been seen tooling around in this lovely little red street rac­er ought to provide it. This is a type of car that is unthinkable in most of De­troit's board rooms today. It is exciting, aggressive, compromised entirely in the direction of driving fun, and—within the Procrustean confine of Detroit's automotive orthodoxy—frivolous ... "We can't wast our time on stuff like that," goes the litany. "People will think we're not serious about fuel economy. Tell the guys in Research and Development that we need a full status update on the new decal package!" There are two Ford Motor Companies, one in North America and one ev­erywhere else. The one in the United States is and has been taking gas lately, and it has been decided by the people who preside over Ford's fortunes to bring the two closer together, to make the North American one more like the Everywhere Else one. The Fiesta was an early step in that direction. The Escort/Lynx was another. The Escort has been a resounding success in the market ­place, but less so among the critics. It won the coveted European Car of the Year Award in spite of the fact that au­tomotive writers (the people who vote this particular prize) both here and abroad had serious reservations about its ride and handling. But there is a truth in the automobile business, truer than other truths: it says that the good cars are the ones that sell. The Escort sells. Now we have driven one that also goes. View Photos Aaron Kiley | Car and Driver The XR3 (shown here) that we man­aged to borrow from Mr. Petersen is the sportiest Escort Europeans can buy. It weighs 2000 pounds, while our own long-term-test (American) Escort weighs 2140 pounds, and its 1598-cu­bic-centimeter engine produces 96 horsepower at 6000 rpm, 98 pound feel of torque at 4000 rpm. This ratio of weight to power results in zero-to- 60 times on the order of 10 seconds and a quarter-mile time of 17.2 at 79 mph, considerably faster than any­thing an American could buy in the same size and price class. It's wonder­ful. You'll find the hood release on the underside of the steering column. Pop the hood and look inside. What you see is a neat little overhead-cam four with a two-throat Weber carburetor, a smooth cast-iron exhaust manifold feeding twin downtubes, the necessary cooling and electrical gizmos, and that's all, folks. Hardly, any of the stuff that the EPA has forced us to cram under the hood of our cars so that we may breathe from our exhaust pipe in relative safety; just the important bits. View Photos Aaron Kiley | Car and Driver But the engine compartment is only about the third thing you admire on the XR3. First there's the exterior. Ford­-Europe opted for a much cleaner, more discreet overall look for its Escort, and the XR3 benefits from that, especially at the front. Then there's a nice deep air dam under the narrow European bump­er, and a rubbery black "What'll it be, fellas" serving-tray spoiler on the rear deck. Fat Pirelli P6 tires on wide-rim 928-ish alloy wheels complete the pic­ture. As a visual experience, the XR3 attracts a lot of attention. Overtaking, waiting at crosswalks, stopped at traffic lights, it never failed to capture the hearts and minds of the overtaken and/or bystanders. And it isn't just a matter of zoomy looks, either. The aerodynam­ic aids bring the drag coefficient down to 0.38; a stock U.S. Escort's is 0.40, which was already an excellent aerody­namic performance. (Though how this is possible, with the enormous outside mirrors that jut out from the XR3's doors, will forever remain a mystery of modern science.) One's next impression is of the interi­or, which would look good in a Porsche and would be a quantum leap upward for most American cars. Gray cloth with red stripes covers the seats; the rear be­ing a folding bench for extra load space, and the fronts being Recaro look-alikes for extra creature comfort and security. The steering wheel is very small in di­ameter, padded, and almost as fat as the Pirelli outside. Everything about these furnishings exhorts one to sit down, start the engine, and bury the loud ped­al in the floorpan—which one invariably does, at least the first couple of times. But there's more. The windows go up and down electrically, and the Whit­man's Sampler-sized outside mirrors are adjusted the same way. The sunroof is as nearly perfect as one of those can be. It features tinted glass, it is manually operated, and it both slides fore-and-aft and pops up at the rear, depending upon whether you want sunshine or ventilation. There is also a sliding lou­vered screen to blank it off completely, if that is your pleasure. There is an AM/FM-radio/cassette system as well, but it plays through two raspy speakers and doesn't really measure up to the other interior appointments. View Photos Aaron Kiley | Car and Driver On the road, the XR3 is a mixed blessing. It is quick, but not really fast. Ten-second zero-to-60 times and a 108-mph top speed aren't go­ing to separate anybody's retinas, but they're certainly brisk in a car of this type. The handling is sort of standard front-wheel-drive-with-fat-sticky-tires understeer—which is a vast improve­ment over the soft-riding American Es­corts—and the roadholding, on smooth surfaces, is excellent. We generated a lateral acceleration of 0.75 g on the Chrysler Proving Ground's 282-foot skidpad, and the car felt stable and reas­suring. Lift-throttle or brake-induced oversteer was still there, but to a useful degree: a good driver can correct his line by steering the rear wheels with his right foot. Only on bumpy roads does the XR3 behave like an American-made Escort—but even then there is a differ­ence. The same vigorous pitching and uncontrolled vertical body movements tried to upset the car, as they would on a regular Escort, but the XR3's Bilstein shocks are just as vigorous in their con­trol of those movements. The result is that the XR3 stays on course, but the rear wheels patter over the rough stuff, occasionally lose contact with the pavement, and are snubbed rather viciously whenever they threaten to leave the ground entirely, as on the far side of a frost heave taken at, say, 50 or 60 mph. As unpleasant as this occasionally is, it is a vast improvement over the bump-induced instability and gener­al rough-road raggedness that we've found so troublesome in U.S. Escorts. That this he-man version of our Escort should share its bad habits at all was apparently unavoidable, given the basic similarity of chassis and suspensions. View Photos Aaron Kiley | Car and Driver The combination of unassisted steer­ing, small steering-wheel diameter, for­ward weight bias, and fat, sticky tires makes for very heavy steering in the XR3. A few minutes on our slalom course or a lot of parallel-parking prac­tice every day would be a real upper­-body builder. The car goes where it's pointed without a moment's hesitation, but it makes you work for every degree of steering deflection. In this sense it is decidedly sporty. The brakes are good, but not great. The disc-drum combina­tion suffers from premature rear lock­up, which lengthens stopping distance appreciably. The car's personality and general level of performance certainly cry out for discs at all four corners. The clutch, unlike the one on the XR3's American cousin, is a good one. It's smooth, it takes up predictably and gradually, and it accepts heavy-footed driving and quick shifts without protest. As in most front-wheel-drive cars, the shift linkage is less than perfect, but as front-wheel-drive cars go it is accept­able. The engine is strong and smooth, but noisy, starting off at a reasonable noise level and becoming increasingly tiresome as one approaches the 6300-rpm redline. This, however, is a small price to pay in a country where we are afflicted with so many little engines making lots of noise and not much horsepower. View Photos Aaron Kiley | Car and Driver The bad news about this little XR3 that Mr. Petersen lent us is that you and I will never be able to buy one, unless we sell the farm and move to Europe. The good news is that our friends at Ford are going to build an American version that we can probably buy in 1984. It will have the U.S. car's clunky grille, headlamps, and bumpers, unfor­tunately, and it will suffer to some de­gree from the horsepower drain that drags down the performance of all American engines these days, but we'd expect much of the character of the XR3 to survive. Equally good news—as reported in the other parts of this Es­cort/Lynx extravaganza—is that much of the lamentable ride and handling be­havior we've complained about in these cars is being set right in 1982. Perhaps the best news of all is that cars like the XR3 are beginning to show up in De­troit's corporate parking garage at last, and just in time. View Photos Aaron Kiley | Car and Driver Specifications Specifications 1981 Ford Escort XR3 Vehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door hatchback PRICE Base: $10,900 (Great Britain) ENGINE inline-4, iron block and aluminum head Displacement: 98 in3, 1598 cm3 Power: 96 bhp @ 6000 rpm TRANSMISSION 4-speed manual DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 94.4 in Length: 159.8 in Curb Weight: 2000 lb C/D TEST RESULTS 60 mph: 10.0 sec 90 mph: 28.2 sec 1/4-Mile: 17.2 sec @ 79 mph Top Gear, 30–50 mph: 8.9 sec Top Gear, 50–70 mph: 8.9 sec Top Speed: 108 mph Braking, 70–0 mph: 195 ft C/D FUEL ECONOMY Observed: 27 mpg EURO CYCLE FUEL ECONOMY City: 33 mpg C/D TESTING EXPLAINED