http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2014-toyota-tundra-platinum-4x4-crewmax-page-2 (http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2014-toyota-tundra-platinum-4x4-crewmax-page-2)
Even if your fave came out on top, hate away!! :lol:
I like the rear power window on the Yota. Every truck should have this standard.
Quote from: Rockraven on February 03, 2015, 09:13:54 AM
I like the rear power window on the Yota. Every truck should have this standard.
I agree.
I would take the Ram out of this bunch.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 03, 2015, 09:51:55 AM
I agree.
I would take the Ram out of this bunch.
small bed??? I'd choose ford or Yota just for decent truck engineering or expected longevity, although the chevy would make more sense than a Yota.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 03, 2015, 10:57:02 AM
small bed??? I'd choose ford or Yota just for decent truck engineering or expected longevity, although the chevy would make more sense than a Yota.
I wouldn't choose the EcoBoost Ford for longevity...
Surprising that the F-150 was a tenth quicker to 60, must have shorter gearing or something. (which would also explain the poor MPG)
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 03, 2015, 11:17:36 AM
I wouldn't choose the EcoBoost Ford for longevity...
Surprising that the F-150 was a tenth quicker to 60, must have shorter gearing or something. (which would also explain the poor MPG)
I meant Yota for longevity, Ford for decent truck (minus complicated engine + body) :lol:
Kinda sad really. Summer 2005 the Tundra hilariously crushed the F150, Silverado and Ram. Almost 10 years later? It's pretty much unchanged whilst the others have had 1-2 generation changes.
As to accel runs, note 0-30 and 0-60 the F-150 has a tenth or so advantage. Thereafter the Silverado walks it esp. in passing. This points to a traction issue with the Silverado. Also note identical 16 mpg as tested, and the Silverado needs only 87 octane (and the F-150, premium). EcoBoost = EcoWhybother.
Is there a 5-60 number? That'd be a good clue as to traction vs. gearing.
5-60 is the same at 6.2 sec each. Silverado has lower gearing - 10-20% lower depending on gear.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 03, 2015, 12:39:22 PM
Kinda sad really. Summer 2005 the Tundra hilariously crushed the F150, Silverado and Ram. Almost 10 years later? It's pretty much unchanged whilst the others have had 1-2 generation changes.
As to accel runs, note 0-30 and 0-60 the F-150 has a tenth or so advantage. Thereafter the Silverado walks it esp. in passing. This points to a traction issue with the Silverado. Also note identical 16 mpg as tested, and the Silverado needs only 87 octane (and the F-150, premium). EcoBoost = EcoWhybother.
didn't they say they ran regular in the BOOST?
Quote from: GoCougs on February 03, 2015, 12:39:22 PM
Kinda sad really. Summer 2005 the Tundra hilariously crushed the F150, Silverado and Ram. Almost 10 years later? It's pretty much unchanged whilst the others have had 1-2 generation changes.
As to accel runs, note 0-30 and 0-60 the F-150 has a tenth or so advantage. Thereafter the Silverado walks it esp. in passing. This points to a traction issue with the Silverado. Also note identical 16 mpg as tested, and the Silverado needs only 87 octane (and the F-150, premium). EcoBoost = EcoWhybother.
EcoBoost takes regular.
Spec summary page says "91 octane" for the F150. Either way distinction without a difference.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 03, 2015, 02:25:20 PM
Spec summary page says "91 octane" for the F150. Either way distinction without a difference.
91 is recommended, but 87 is just fine.
Seems like some of the manufacturers overstated to load and tow numbers...
Quote
PAYLOAD
MAX 2050 pounds 2020 pounds 1550 pounds 1575 pounds
AS TESTED 1740 pounds 2020 pounds 1530 pounds 1305 pounds
TOWING
MAX 11,800 pounds 11,500 pounds 10,160 pounds 9800 pounds
AS TESTED 9200 pounds 11,500 pounds 8000 pounds 9500 pounds
Quote from: GoCougs on February 03, 2015, 12:39:22 PM
Kinda sad really. Summer 2005 the Tundra hilariously crushed the F150, Silverado and Ram. Almost 10 years later? It's pretty much unchanged whilst the others have had 1-2 generation changes.
As to accel runs, note 0-30 and 0-60 the F-150 has a tenth or so advantage. Thereafter the Silverado walks it esp. in passing. This points to a traction issue with the Silverado. Also note identical 16 mpg as tested, and the Silverado needs only 87 octane (and the F-150, premium). EcoBoost = EcoWhybother.
No, that's the low end ecoboost torque kicking Chevy's ass... Chevy catches up on horsepower
Quote from: r0tor on February 03, 2015, 04:34:05 PM
No, that's the low end ecoboost torque kicking Chevy's ass... Chevy catches up on horsepower
....wut
Quote from: r0tor on February 03, 2015, 06:33:09 PM
Really?
Is that in reference to your own post? Because it should be :lol:
Ecoboost torque hits 500 rpm sooner but isn't as flat and ends 500 rpm sooner as well. It's a wash.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 03, 2015, 05:09:06 AM
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2014-toyota-tundra-platinum-4x4-crewmax-page-2 (http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2014-toyota-tundra-platinum-4x4-crewmax-page-2)
Even if your fave came out on top, hate away!! :lol:
Roger: and will do!
These are all stupid; not that they aren't capable or well made: but that the cheapest of them is $50,000. That's just seriously big money for a pick up truck. And look at all the dudes arguing over 0-60 times: all of which are faster than any truck ever needs to be. These aren't even some limited edition performance trucks either; just normal production with more option boxes checked off than average.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 03, 2015, 03:35:15 PM
Seems like some of the manufacturers overstated to load and tow numbers...
I don't think they actually tested those: what those are are the maximum listed payloads for that model- and the payload of the actual truck as tested (options that add weight are often deducted from the max payload rating).
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 03, 2015, 11:00:36 PM
Roger: and will do!
These are all stupid; not that they aren't capable or well made: but that the cheapest of them is $50,000. That's just seriously big money for a pick up truck. And look at all the dudes arguing over 0-60 times: all of which are faster than any truck ever needs to be. These aren't even some limited edition performance trucks either; just normal production with more option boxes checked off than average.
Fine, but the fact is these things sell.
But you do have a point
Quote from: r0tor on February 03, 2015, 04:34:05 PM
No, that's the low end ecoboost torque kicking Chevy's ass... Chevy catches up on horsepower
Oh, for the love of sweet baby Jesus cooing softly in His manager, don't do this.
Plus, identical 5-60 times tells you it's a launch/traction issue.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 03, 2015, 11:23:48 PM
Fine, but the fact is these things sell.
But you do have a point
The wonders of seven year financing...
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 03, 2015, 11:00:36 PM
Roger: and will do!
These are all stupid; not that they aren't capable or well made: but that the cheapest of them is $50,000. That's just seriously big money for a pick up truck. And look at all the dudes arguing over 0-60 times: all of which are faster than any truck ever needs to be. These aren't even some limited edition performance trucks either; just normal production with more option boxes checked off than average.
I don't so much mind the idea of a luxury truck as I mind that so many people think they need a truck at all and equivocate their truck to their dick size.
Quote from: Rupert on February 04, 2015, 01:12:26 AM
I don't so much mind the idea of a luxury truck as I mind that so many people think they need a truck at all and equivocate their truck to their dick size.
I'm not in the habit of inspecting random stranger's dicks, so I'll stay out of that one.
It's all the rage these days.
"Hey bro, lemme see your dick", is basically "what's up" for the 2010s.
Quote from: Rupert on February 04, 2015, 01:16:27 AM
It's all the rage these days.
"Hey bro, lemme see your dick", is basically "what's up" for the 2010s.
It's scary how plausible that actually is.
Sometimes, I'm glad I'm an old fart.
Nah, guys are way too insecure about their dicks for that to happen, especially young guys.
Quote from: Rupert on February 04, 2015, 01:32:47 AM
Nah, guys are way too insecure about their dicks for that to happen, especially young guys.
You know what will fix that?
A nice big truck.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 04, 2015, 12:41:55 AM
Oh, for the love of sweet baby Jesus cooing softly in His manager, don't do this.
Plus, identical 5-60 times tells you it's a launch/traction issue.
From a standstill, apply the brakes + gas in the ecoboost and you are launching with the turbos spooled and only a couple hundred rpms away from peak torque (2500 rpms). The Chevy doesn't hit peak torque until above 4000 rpms.
Its not exactly rocket science to understand that the Ford is putting more power to the pavement for the first half of first gear and will pull on the Chevy. Eventually the advantage turns as the Chevy will go down the strip with greater power and pass the Ford.
In a truck, its the down low power that matters and why ecoboost is awesome.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 04, 2015, 02:43:22 AM
You know what will fix that?
A nice big truck.
A diesel with a lift kit. And stacks.
Quote from: Rupert on February 04, 2015, 01:12:26 AM
I don't so much mind the idea of a luxury truck as I mind that so many people think they need a truck at all and equivocate their truck to their dick size.
The same can be said for the AMG, M, S crowd who don't track their cars (95%) of them. Or the GT, SS, SRT crowd.
It's always been about boys and their toys. Jim Bob needs his 50 thousand dollar truck just as much as Bruce needs his 100 thousand dollar AMG Merc.
One thing that was pretty silly in the review was "why is Toyota bothering to make a vehicle that only sells 100,000 a year?" How many FR-Ses did they expect to be sold, or pretty much any other fun car ever?
Quote from: GoCougs on February 04, 2015, 12:41:55 AM
Oh, for the love of sweet baby Jesus cooing softly in His manager, don't do this.
His manager? There's a lot I don't know about the bible.
:lol:
Quote from: ifcar on February 04, 2015, 07:43:39 AM
One thing that was pretty silly in the review was "why is Toyota bothering to make a vehicle that only sells 100,000 a year?" How many FR-Ses did they expect to be sold, or pretty much any other fun car ever?
That, and its clear how far the writing in C/D has fallen when something as mundane as legroom is called "epic."
Quote from: Rupert on February 04, 2015, 01:16:27 AM
It's all the rage these days.
"Hey bro, lemme see your dick", is basically "what's up" for the 2010s.
See? First they legalize gay marriage, and now dudes are checking out each others dongs. What's next? Guys greeting each other by grabbing the other guys cock?
Quote from: Submariner on February 04, 2015, 10:02:02 AM
See? First they legalize gay marriage, and now dudes are checking out each others dongs. What's next? Guys greeting each other by grabbing the other guys cock?
I can see you weren't at the last carspin g2g
Quote from: r0tor on February 04, 2015, 05:36:22 AM
From a standstill, apply the brakes + gas in the ecoboost and you are launching with the turbos spooled and only a couple hundred rpms away from peak torque (2500 rpms). The Chevy doesn't hit peak torque until above 4000 rpms.
Its not exactly rocket science to understand that the Ford is putting more power to the pavement for the first half of first gear and will pull on the Chevy. Eventually the advantage turns as the Chevy will go down the strip with greater power and pass the Ford.
In a truck, its the down low power that matters and why ecoboost is awesome.
If your theory held the F150 would walk away in 5-60 and 30-50 passing, but that is not true.
The Silverado's new 6.2L has GM's new pooprod VVT. I can't find a dyno curve of it but there are plenty of the Corvette. The Corvette 6.2L has ~90% peak torque at 2,500 rpm, so for the Silverado 6.2L that says 460 * 0.90 = ~415 lb-ft at 2,500 rpm. (Note that this is generous as the Corvette has its peak torque RPM pushed up by 500 rpm.)
"Oh, wait!" you might say, "the EcoWhybother has 420 lb-ft at 2,500 rpm." Well, as we know, rpm is irrelevant, it's torque per unit of road speed, and the Chevy has ~10% lower gearing in 1st and ~25% lower gearing in second. So, at launch from standstill at 2,500 rpm, the Silverado is putting ~10% more torque (transformed into thrust force) to the street.
(http://carrolodex.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/2014-chevrolet-corvette-stingray-with-performance-exhaust-sae-certified-chart.jpg)
The EcoWhybother simply doesn't deliver. It doesn't perform any better (esp. "down low"), it doesn't get any better mpg, and it's gonna have a huge repair bill come ~150,000 miles. Perhaps Ford will evolve it but for now GM's ancient pooprod in 6.2L guise is the better motor in every wa.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 04, 2015, 08:48:10 AM
His manager? There's a lot I don't know about the bible.
I'm biased of course, but if I were you, I wouldn't worry so much about auto complete issues I'd be worried as to why GM's ancient pooprod motor is better than the EcoBoost.
let it flow
Quote from: GoCougs on February 04, 2015, 01:19:41 PM
If your theory held the F150 would walk away in 5-60 and 30-50 passing, but that is not true.
The Silverado's new 6.2L has GM's new pooprod VVT. I can't find a dyno curve of it but there are plenty of the Corvette. The Corvette 6.2L has ~90% peak torque at 2,500 rpm, so for the Silverado 6.2L that says 460 * 0.90 = ~415 lb-ft at 2,500 rpm. (Note that this is generous as the Corvette has its peak torque RPM pushed up by 500 rpm.)
"Oh, wait!" you might say, "the EcoWhybother has 420 lb-ft at 2,500 rpm." Well, as we know, rpm is irrelevant, it's torque per unit of road speed, and the Chevy has ~10% lower gearing in 1st and ~25% lower gearing in second. So, at launch from standstill at 2,500 rpm, the Silverado is putting ~10% more torque (transformed into thrust force) to the street.
(http://carrolodex.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/2014-chevrolet-corvette-stingray-with-performance-exhaust-sae-certified-chart.jpg)
The EcoWhybother simply doesn't deliver. It doesn't perform any better (esp. "down low"), it doesn't get any better mpg, and it's gonna have a huge repair bill come ~150,000 miles. Perhaps Ford will evolve it but for now GM's ancient pooprod in 6.2L guise is the better motor in every wa.
Ecobooooost doesn't walk the 5-60 because the turbos need to spool. It also tows better with a higher capacity and gets better mileage ratings.
And other then HP bragging right, wtf good does it do to have an engine in a truck with peak power at redline and peak torque at 2/3rds of redline.... Like the truck owner will ever see those rpms - especially for when using a truck for truck like things (towing, hauling, offroading)
OH, AND THATS A DYNO OF A MODIFIED ENGINE :facepalm:
Quote from: GoCougs on February 04, 2015, 01:23:32 PM
I'm biased of course, but if I were you, I wouldn't worry so much about auto complete issues I'd be worried as to why GM's ancient pooprod motor is better than the EcoBoost.
More gears, lower gearing through all ranges and it poops out at the top end. GM may have worked wonders with obsolete technology, but it's 80% down the line. Their next series will have a TTV6.
Quote from: r0tor on February 04, 2015, 01:59:26 PM
Ecobooooost doesn't walk the 5-60 because the turbos need to spool. It also tows better with a higher capacity and gets better mileage ratings.
And other then HP bragging right, wtf good does it do to have an engine in a truck with peak power at redline and peak torque at 2/3rds of redline.... Like the truck owner will ever see those rpms - especially for when using a truck for truck like things (towing, hauling, offroading)
OH, AND THATS A DYNO OF A MODIFIED ENGINE :facepalm:
No that's the sae certied dyno
Quote from: r0tor on February 04, 2015, 01:59:26 PM
Ecobooooost doesn't walk the 5-60 because the turbos need to spool. It also tows better with a higher capacity and gets better mileage ratings.
And other then HP bragging right, wtf good does it do to have an engine in a truck with peak power at redline and peak torque at 2/3rds of redline.... Like the truck owner will ever see those rpms - especially for when using a truck for truck like things (towing, hauling, offroading)
OH, AND THATS A DYNO OF A MODIFIED ENGINE :facepalm:
Better EPA ratings? Useless.
Even if that's a modified dyno graph, torque curve shape is the same. I found a truck 6.2L dyno before my previous comments, but I'm too lazy to find it again.
FoMoJo, if GM goes to TTV6 for the next gen, it will be to better meet government regulations, not because they're superior.
Quote from: 68_427 on February 04, 2015, 02:10:57 PM
No that's the sae certied dyno
Of a "Corvette with a PERFORMANCE EXHAUST"
:rolleyes:
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 04, 2015, 02:14:12 PM
Better EPA ratings? Useless.
Even if that's a modified dyno graph, torque curve shape is the same. I found a truck 6.2L dyno before my previous comments, but I'm too lazy to find it again.
FoMoJo, if GM goes to TTV6 for the next gen, it will be to better meet government regulations, not because they're superior.
As tested the Ford will tow its max rated capacity. The Chevy will not. Add several hundred pounds of upgraded axles, springs, hitch, radiators and see what happens to its fuel economy and performance...
(http://m.quickmeme.com/img/02/02b4419f5e8c5a153baf4b4f34e6f555ea138a6e47bb4b2e1d2684fa9b2c96db.jpg)
Quote from: GoCougs on February 04, 2015, 01:23:32 PM
I'm biased of course, but if I were you, I wouldn't worry so much about auto complete issues I'd be worried as to why GM's ancient pooprod motor is better than the EcoBoost.
I don't like the EcoBoost. I never have. So, I'm not worried about it.
Quote from: r0tor on February 04, 2015, 02:16:34 PM
Of a "Corvette with a PERFORMANCE EXHAUST"
Yeah the one that's on the corvette ordering sheet.. You know from the factory
Quote from: r0tor on February 04, 2015, 01:59:26 PM
Like the truck owner will ever see those rpms - especially for when using a truck for truck like things (towing, hauling, offroading)
Trucks have so much horsepower and torque today who cares if they ever see redline or not.
Quote from: r0tor on February 04, 2015, 01:59:26 PM
Ecobooooost doesn't walk the 5-60 because the turbos need to spool. It also tows better with a higher capacity and gets better mileage ratings.
And other then HP bragging right, wtf good does it do to have an engine in a truck with peak power at redline and peak torque at 2/3rds of redline.... Like the truck owner will ever see those rpms - especially for when using a truck for truck like things (towing, hauling, offroading)
OH, AND THATS A DYNO OF A MODIFIED ENGINE :facepalm:
The "good" that it does is the GM 6.2L is as good or better when it comes to performance and MPG, is far less complicated and will have far less maintenance $$$. It's just the better motor.
C'mon, dude, that's GM's official SAE chart for the Corvette. "Performance exhaust" is an option on the Corvette (whereby it opens up at higher RPM) and engines so equipped are rated at 460 hp factory stock. Corvettes not so equipped are rated at 455 hp factory stock.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 04, 2015, 02:07:28 PM
More gears, lower gearing through all ranges and it poops out at the top end. GM may have worked wonders with obsolete technology, but it's 80% down the line. Their next series will have a TTV6.
So how exactly does it "poops out" at the top end, given it makes significantly more power at higher RPM?
EcoBoost 3.5L: 365 hp @ 5,000 rpm
GM 6.2L 420 hp @ 5,600 rpm
Quote from: 68_427 on February 04, 2015, 02:29:01 PM
Yeah the one that's on the corvette ordering sheet.. You know from the factory
Didn't know that was on the order sheet for a silverado
Quote from: GoCougs on February 04, 2015, 02:31:56 PM
The "good" that it does is the GM 6.2L is as good or better when it comes to performance and MPG, is far less complicated and will have far less maintenance $$$. It's just the better motor.
C'mon, dude, that's GM's official SAE chart for the Corvette. "Performance exhaust" is an option on the Corvette (whereby it opens up at higher RPM) and engines so equipped are rated at 460 hp factory stock. Corvettes not so equipped are rated at 455 hp factory stock.
Your comparing performance and mileage of a Silverado that does not have the tow package installed. Again, that's a several hundred pound advantage...
Quote from: 68_427 on February 04, 2015, 02:29:01 PM
Yeah the one that's on the corvette ordering sheet.. You know from the factory
lol as if some tuner shop or aftermarket exhaust manufacturer is gonna get their stuff SAE certified...
(And not incuriously none of them do, because their numbers wouldn't pass muster, but that's a different thread.)
Quote from: r0tor on February 04, 2015, 02:38:34 PM
Your comparing performance and mileage of a Silverado that does not have the tow package installed. Again, that's a several hundred pound advantage...
Well, first, beware that premise - more weight would slow it down - only validates the superiority of the GM 6.2L. Either way that premise does not exist.
On the 6.2L Silverado, per GM's site, the "Max Trailering Package" and bigger diff are standard equipment. The limitation on towing for the 6.2L Silverado is the rear axle ratio (http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado-1500-pickup-truck/specs/capabilities.html?%3Fseo=goo_%7C_GM+Chevy+Retention_%7C_GMNA%7CUS%7CCHV%7CGOOG%7CS%7CBP%7CA%7CBMM%7CRTN%7CSIL%7CLPU%7C%28null%29%7C%28null%29%7CGG-RTN-Silverado-BMM_%7C_Sitelinks_%7C_+silverado++chevy). The Silverado in this test has the 3.23:1 diff and 9,800 lb rating. With the 3.42:1 diff towing capacity increases to 11,800 lbs. Thus, there is zero weight penalty for the higher towing capacity.
Would probably be quicker with the other gearing as well
Quote from: GoCougs on February 04, 2015, 02:35:22 PM
So how exactly does it "poops out" at the top end, given it makes significantly more power at higher RPM?
EcoBoost 3.5L: 365 hp @ 5,000 rpm
GM 6.2L 420 hp @ 5,600 rpm
Top speed.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 04, 2015, 02:56:55 PM
Well, first, beware that premise - more weight would slow it down - only validates the superiority of the GM 6.2L. Either way that premise does not exist.
On the 6.2L Silverado, per GM's site, the "Max Trailering Package" and bigger diff are standard equipment. The limitation on towing for the 6.2L Silverado is the rear axle ratio (http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado-1500-pickup-truck/specs/capabilities.html?%3Fseo=goo_%7C_GM+Chevy+Retention_%7C_GMNA%7CUS%7CCHV%7CGOOG%7CS%7CBP%7CA%7CBMM%7CRTN%7CSIL%7CLPU%7C%28null%29%7C%28null%29%7CGG-RTN-Silverado-BMM_%7C_Sitelinks_%7C_+silverado++chevy). The Silverado in this test has the 3.23:1 diff and 9,800 lb rating. With the 3.42:1 diff towing capacity increases to 11,800 lbs. Thus, there is zero weight penalty for the higher towing capacity.
So it needs to be geared down to equal the towing capacity of the Ford resulting in even worse mileage and lower top end speed. May as well get a John Deere.
With an overdrive transmission and over 400 HP you're not gonna see much a MPG penalty for slightly lower rear end gears. And you'll actually get improved city mpg as long as you don't go crazy with the go-pedal.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 04, 2015, 03:09:23 PM
So it needs to be geared down to equal the towing capacity of the Ford resulting in even worse mileage and lower top end speed. May as well get a John Deere.
The Ford has a 3.55 rear end... Even higher than the optional one on the Chevy
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 04, 2015, 03:06:01 PM
Top speed.
I see. Well, that's likely not the case either. The Silverado had a notable advantage in 1/4 mile trap speed and that advantage would likely build as speed increased. Given that each truck is governed to ~100 mph the test was incapable of addressing anything faster.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 04, 2015, 03:09:23 PM
So it needs to be geared down to equal the towing capacity of the Ford resulting in even worse mileage and lower top end speed. May as well get a John Deere.
Yes, the Silverado has lower gearing as I had stated; yet, there it is, getting identical MPG and being as quick or quicker.
Quote from: 68_427 on February 04, 2015, 03:19:42 PM
The Ford has a 3.55 rear end... Even higher than the optional one on the Chevy
It's got a 6 spd. Still gets a higher top speed, not that it's important in a pick-up, but it just shows the limitation of a pushrod engine. Even the VVT acting on all valves simultaneously, only has 80% of the efficiency of a DOHC with VVT acting independently on intake and exhaust.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 04, 2015, 03:06:01 PM
Top speed.
Both trucks are electronically limited (the Chevy at 99 mph, the Ford at just over 100).
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 04, 2015, 03:18:16 PM
With an overdrive transmission and over 400 HP you're not gonna see much a MPG penalty for slightly lower rear end gears. And you'll actually get improved city mpg as long as you don't go crazy with the go-pedal.
Doubt if it gets much time in the overdrive gears in the city.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 04, 2015, 03:21:12 PM
Seriously? In a truck?
It's about as important as 0-60 times and quarter mile times :huh:.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 04, 2015, 03:27:54 PM
Yes, the Silverado has lower gearing as I had stated; yet, there it is, getting identical MPG and being as quick or quicker.
It would be interesting to see real world mileage/gas consumption over a year or two of working trucks. As long as the power is needed for hauling or heavy loads, both are gonna burn more gas. It's the off times when traveling without any load that the TTV6 is going to save...small displacement V6 with minimal boost vs. large displacement V8 slogging dead weight.
Quote from: MX793 on February 04, 2015, 03:49:50 PM
Both trucks are electronically limited (the Chevy at 99 mph, the Ford at just over 100).
I wonder why the Chevy is limited so low compared to the other 3?
Quote from: 68_427 on February 04, 2015, 03:19:42 PM
The Ford has a 3.55 rear end... Even higher than the optional one on the Chevy
Comparing just Rear-end/final drive ratios of vehicles with different transmissions (and transmission ratios) is meaningless. My V6 Mustang with a 3.31 rear end has shorter overall gearing in certain gears than a Mustang GT with 3.55s.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 04, 2015, 03:50:00 PM
Doubt if it gets much time in the overdrive gears in the city.
Overdrive is for the highway mileage. Lower (higher numerical) gearing in the city is better - easier engine loads. Assuming you have enough gears to not be wringing the engine out over 3k rpms all the time, the higher numerical gearing is helpful.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 04, 2015, 02:29:46 PM
Trucks have so much horsepower and torque today who cares if they ever see redline or not.
Bingo!
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 04, 2015, 03:58:37 PM
It would be interesting to see real world mileage/gas consumption over a year or two of working trucks. As long as the power is needed for hauling or heavy loads, both are gonna burn more gas. It's the off times when traveling without any load that the TTV6 is going to save...small displacement V6 with minimal boost vs. large displacement V8 slogging dead weight.
My bet is totally on the N/A engine - not only is the empirical data there when not on boost turbo motors are running at a lower compression ratio then their N/A counterparts, and so goes compression ratio so goes efficiency.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 04, 2015, 03:51:01 PM
It's about as important as 0-60 times and quarter mile times :huh:.
Not really. 0-60 is far more usable than 1/4 mile, but top speed in a pickup is never usable.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 04, 2015, 02:56:55 PM
Well, first, beware that premise - more weight would slow it down - only validates the superiority of the GM 6.2L. Either way that premise does not exist.
On the 6.2L Silverado, per GM's site, the "Max Trailering Package" and bigger diff are standard equipment. The limitation on towing for the 6.2L Silverado is the rear axle ratio (http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado-1500-pickup-truck/specs/capabilities.html?%3Fseo=goo_%7C_GM+Chevy+Retention_%7C_GMNA%7CUS%7CCHV%7CGOOG%7CS%7CBP%7CA%7CBMM%7CRTN%7CSIL%7CLPU%7C%28null%29%7C%28null%29%7CGG-RTN-Silverado-BMM_%7C_Sitelinks_%7C_+silverado++chevy). The Silverado in this test has the 3.23:1 diff and 9,800 lb rating. With the 3.42:1 diff towing capacity increases to 11,800 lbs. Thus, there is zero weight penalty for the higher towing capacity.
A). Your first statement makes no sense. It has an advantage without having a tow package in terms of eight and fuel economy over the ecobewwwwwst
B). Per general mess's website, the tow package is...
The available NHT max trailering package includes a 9.76-inch rear axle, heavy-duty rear springs, revised shock tuning for increased control, enhanced cooling, and an integrated trailer brake controller. Also included is an automatic locking rear differential, trailer hitch, and bumper-mounted 4- and 7-pin connectors.
...or otherwise known as stuff that will add weight and kill fuel economy
Quote from: r0tor on February 04, 2015, 05:59:10 PM
A). Your first statement makes no sense. It has an advantage without having a tow package in terms of eight and fuel economy over the ecobewwwwwst
B). Per general mess's website, the tow package is...
The available NHT max trailering package includes a 9.76-inch rear axle, heavy-duty rear springs, revised shock tuning for increased control, enhanced cooling, and an integrated trailer brake controller. Also included is an automatic locking rear differential, trailer hitch, and bumper-mounted 4- and 7-pin connectors.
...or otherwise known as stuff that will add weight and kill fuel economy
The larger rear axle is at most 25 lbs, the heavy duty leaf springs is another 25 lbs, revised shock tuning is 0 lbs, enhanced cooling is the addition of a relatively small radiator for another let's say 50 lbs including coolant, integrated brake controller is less than 1 lbs since the truck is pre-wired, the trailer hitch is about 50 lbs, and the wiring harnesses are another 1 lbs since the truck is pre-wired. That is, at most, 152 lbs. Not gonna make a lick of difference on a truck.
:popcorn:
Quote from: GoCougs on February 04, 2015, 05:48:41 PM
My bet is totally on the N/A engine - not only is the empirical data there when not on boost turbo motors are running at a lower compression ratio then their N/A counterparts, and so goes compression ratio so goes efficiency.
I'm assuming the 6.2 has cylinder deactivation, right?
Quote from: veeman on February 04, 2015, 06:18:24 AM
The same can be said for the AMG, M, S crowd who don't track their cars (95%) of them. Or the GT, SS, SRT crowd.
It's always been about boys and their toys. Jim Bob needs his 50 thousand dollar truck just as much as Bruce needs his 100 thousand dollar AMG Merc.
Well, tracks aren't required to enjoy a sports car.
But I don't like it any more when people buy any car because they think need to compensate. Truck owners are really just easy pickins.
Quote from: r0tor on February 04, 2015, 05:59:10 PM
A). Your first statement makes no sense. It has an advantage without having a tow package in terms of eight and fuel economy over the ecobewwwwwst
B). Per general mess's website, the tow package is...
The available NHT max trailering package includes a 9.76-inch rear axle, heavy-duty rear springs, revised shock tuning for increased control, enhanced cooling, and an integrated trailer brake controller. Also included is an automatic locking rear differential, trailer hitch, and bumper-mounted 4- and 7-pin connectors.
...or otherwise known as stuff that will add weight and kill fuel economy
Yes, my first statement makes sense - you have validated the equivalent/better mpg and performance of the 6.2L by saying the only way it gets worse is by adding this (phantom) weight (by pushing the burden onto the truck itself).
Like I said, any of the 6.2L Silverados have the trailering package as standard - the ONLY option is 3.23 vs. 3.42 gears in the same diff (= no weight difference) for the ~2,000 lb towing difference.
You wracked up so many losses on this one it's (almost) unbelievable. The GM's 6.2L is the better motor - not because "it catches up on horsepower" and not because the truck is lighter (?). It's the better motor because it provides equivalent or better performance and mpg, is much simpler and won't need $3,000+ in turbos in ~150,000 miles.
Chevy configurator won't let me get the 3.42 gears with the 6.2L/8 speed transmission.
Nor does it show any sort of "max trailering package" as an option.
Lies man, its all a bunch of lies...
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 04, 2015, 09:14:09 PM
Chevy configurator won't let me get the 3.42 gears with the 6.2L/8 speed transmission.
Nor does it show any sort of "max trailering package" as an option.
Annotated for clarity.
Trailer package as standard equipment:
(http://s24.postimg.org/pbak5wvid/Silverado_trailer.png)
6.2L towing capacity based only on rear axle ratio:
(http://s4.postimg.org/syshedv7x/Silverado_towing.png)
LOL :clap:
I saw the 3.42 gears on that page but in the build and price section it wouldn't let me choose 6.2L and 3.42 gears for some reason. Might just be a configurator error.
Hmmm. My POS PC won't install a newer version of Flash or w/e so config sites don't work for me...
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 04, 2015, 08:17:20 PM
I'm assuming the 6.2 has cylinder deactivation, right?
Yes it does.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 04, 2015, 10:13:47 PM
Annotated for clarity.
Trailer package as standard equipment:
(http://s24.postimg.org/pbak5wvid/Silverado_trailer.png)
6.2L towing capacity based only on rear axle ratio:
(http://s4.postimg.org/syshedv7x/Silverado_towing.png)
Tell your boys to get their shit together
http://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2014/Jun/0619-silverado1500.html (http://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2014/Jun/0619-silverado1500.html)
From the looks of it the Tow Package is standard with the 6.2.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on February 05, 2015, 05:36:26 AM
From the looks of it the Tow Package is standard with the 6.2.
Need "max trailering package" to be equivalent
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on February 05, 2015, 05:36:26 AM
From the looks of it the Tow Package is standard with the 6.2.
Yup - why else put a 420 hp V8 in a 1/2-ton truck?
r0tor's hanging his hat on a dog that just don't hunt.
Lol. This thread is jam packed full of great internetry.
:internetry:
Quote from: GoCougs on February 05, 2015, 08:15:42 AM
Yup - why else put a 420 hp V8 in a 1/2-ton truck?
r0tor's hanging his hat on a dog that just don't hunt.
Explain to me why the as tested max towing was 9,200lbs and not 11,800 lbs
3.23 axle instead of 3.42.....
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 05, 2015, 12:03:52 PM
3.23 axle instead of 3.42.....
= No max trailering package
Anyway you cut it, ecobeast does it job in a truck - higher towing capacity than any of the almighty V8s along with better fuel mileage
Quote from: r0tor on February 05, 2015, 12:06:12 PM
= No max trailering package
= only difference is the gears. No weight difference. Good try, you fail.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 05, 2015, 12:44:38 PM
= only difference is the gears. No weight difference. Good try, you fail.
Gears plus more cooling, larger rear end, locking differential, and uprated hitch. Reading comprehension on what the max trailering package is?
Shouldn't a "vastly superior" engine in a lighter duty truck beat an ecoboosted F150 rated to tow 3000 more pounds??? Sad GM fans.
:facepalm:
Now I don't know what is going on. All I know is the GM 6.2L is the better motor.
Again the premise is broken so this diversion about trailering package stuff adding weight is a loss either way. By stating adding more weight would make the Silverado slower is validation of the superiority of the GM 6.2L.
Quote from: r0tor on February 05, 2015, 12:28:07 PM
Anyway you cut it, ecobeast does it job in a truck - higher towing capacity than any of the almighty V8s along with better fuel mileage
Do you have any idea how many Class 2-5 trucks with towing capacities of 20,000 - 40,000 lbs have well less than 365 hp?
lol - you've racked up three losses on this, maybe even four - I'm biased of course but I'd stop there.
I do find it halarious the splash page for the Silverado mentions the "max trailering" package to give it "class leading towing" yet the builder offers no way of selecting the package or even that it exists.
LOL
Quote from: GoCougs on February 05, 2015, 12:57:41 PM
Now I don't know what is going on. All I know is the GM 6.2L is the better motor.
Again the premise is broken so this diversion about trailering package stuff adding weight is a loss either way. By stating adding more weight would make the Silverado slower is validation of the superiority of the GM 6.2L.
I love superior engines that tow less and get worse mileage
Lol you've gone off the deep end.
To bring the Ford DOWN to GM towing capacity, one would need to select the 2.7L Ecobeeeast which gets an additional 2mpg over the class leading tow monster 3.5L EcoBEAST
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 05, 2015, 01:08:54 PM
Lol you've gone off the deep end.
I think it was my annotations.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 05, 2015, 01:08:54 PM
Lol you've gone off the deep end.
Hey, I'm comfortable with the heavier duty Ford having the same mileage as a lighter duty Chevy -shrug-
(http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/bitches-be-trippin.jpeg)
Maybe this is more your comprehension level
I've never seen someone so mad over a V8 being a little bit better than a TTV6.
But wait...
Quote from: GoCougs on February 05, 2015, 12:57:41 PM
Now I don't know what is going on. All I know is the GM 6.2L is the better motor.
(http://www.gaypatriot.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/bizarro_world_race.jpg)
:lol:
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 05, 2015, 01:53:04 PM
(http://www.gaypatriot.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/bizarro_world_race.jpg)
:lol:
i lol'd
Sad puppy
Oh... Also... where's da torqs?
LOL
Quote from: r0tor on February 05, 2015, 02:32:19 PM
Oh... Also... where's da torqs?
Yeah the ford 6.2l is pretty worthless isn't it
Quote from: 68_427 on February 05, 2015, 02:51:31 PM
Yeah the ford 6.2l is pretty worthless isn't it
Nice try
Torque doesn't win races.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 05, 2015, 03:20:16 PM
Torque doesn't win races.
Neither does a 99 mph top speed. :huh:
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 05, 2015, 03:30:18 PM
Neither does a 99 mph top speed. :huh:
Neither does rolling your pickup down a ravine when do something stupid like go 100+ mph with a center of gravity 5 feet off the ground. :huh:
Guys, guys...
The argument was already lost when r0tor said this:
Quote from: r0tor on February 03, 2015, 04:34:05 PM
No, that's the low end ecoboost torque kicking Chevy's ass... Chevy catches up on horsepower
That's right up there with "Horsepower sells cars, but torque wins races." Both show a complete lack of understanding of torque and horsepower.
(Argument lost)2 since the GM 6.2L produces quite a bit more torque than the EcoBoost.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 05, 2015, 04:44:59 PM
(Argument lost)2 since the GM 6.2L produces quite a bit more torque than the EcoBoost.
That's true, but it just shows up a little late in the game to be as effective as EcoBoost.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 05, 2015, 04:30:49 PM
Neither does rolling your pickup down a ravine when do something stupid like go 100+ mph with a center of gravity 5 feet off the ground. :huh:
Neither does tiptoeing through the tulips, but that's besides the point. :lol:
Hey let's go rent some trucks and race them
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 05, 2015, 06:05:54 PM
Hey let's go rent some trucks and race them
All i know is I'm not letting any of these guys borrow my truck; and especially not if they're going to be towing with it.
epic pwnage itt
Quote from: MrH on February 05, 2015, 04:39:14 PM
Guys, guys...
The argument was already lost when r0tor said this:
That's right up there with "Horsepower sells cars, but torque wins races." Both show a complete lack of understanding of torque and horsepower.
I feel sorry for you alma mater
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 05, 2015, 06:13:58 PM
All i know is I'm not letting any of these guys borrow my truck; and especially not if they're going to be towing with it.
:lol:
You don't put a trailer on that's exactly the max towing rate and keep the accelerator floored all the time???? :lol:
----------------------
stock truck racing would be epic.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 05, 2015, 05:21:58 PM
That's true, but it just shows up a little late in the game to be as effective as EcoBoost.
Then why is the Silverado the quicker truck - esp. look at those passing numbers.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 06, 2015, 08:01:20 AM
Then why is the Silverado the quicker truck - esp. look at those passing numbers.
Oops, let me help you with that
So how exactly is it that the Silverado is out in front of your laughably covered-up 1/4 mile and way out in front in 30-50 and 50-70 passing?
(And no, for the love of the sweet baby JESUS, it is NOT horsepower overcoming torque or w/e you keep carrying on about.)
Quote from: GoCougs on February 06, 2015, 08:40:14 AM
So how exactly is it that the Silverado is out in front of your laughably covered-up 1/4 mile and way out in front in 30-50 and 50-70 passing?
(And no, for the love of the sweet baby JESUS, it is NOT horsepower overcoming torque or w/e you keep carrying on about.)
Gearing and power curve shape.
Holy fuck. Trucks no longer use gears, just final drives!!!
Edit... Lol. Cougs just deleted his incriminating p0st
This is worse than Camaro vs Mustang. I love it.
Quote from: r0tor on February 06, 2015, 05:02:40 AM
I feel sorry for you alma mater
Swing and a miss. Strike 2!
Quote from: MX793 on February 06, 2015, 08:42:15 AM
Gearing and power curve shape.
Probably not. Despite my prognostication to the contrary the F150 has a slight advantage at this magical 2,500 rpm launch rpm but from ~20 mph till top speed the Silverado puts more torque to the street, far more so past ~4,000 rpm - just look at that red line. For 1st gear:
Silverado:
@ 2,500 rpm: ~400 lb-ft * 4.56:1 * 3.23:1 = 5,892 lb-ft
@ 4,100 rpm (max torque RPM): 460 lb-ft * 4.56:1 * 3.23:1 = 6,775 lb-ft
@ 5,750 rpm red line: 375 lb-ft * 4.56:1 * 3.23:1 = 5,523 lb-ft
F150:
@ 2,500 rpm: 420 lb-ft * 4.17:1 * 3.55:1 = 6,217 lb-ft
@ 2,500 rpm (max torque rpm): 420 lb-ft * 4.17:1 = 6,217 lb-ft
@ 6,000 rpm red line: 275 lb-ft * 4.17:1 = 4,071 lb-ft
Given the Silverado has a far meatier torque curve and pulls ahead after launch (esp. 1/4-mile trap speed) =
the classic hallmark of traction issues. The EcoBoost isn't terrible it just doesn't match the new GM 6.2L pooprod.
(http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm291/p38fln/ecoboostchart.png)
(http://gmpowertrain.com/2014_images/charts_lg/2015_L86_6_2_V8silSie.jpg)
Let me help you again...
...oh and thats right, the corvette with performance exhaust dyno is actually different! Who the hell would have guessed a car engine with an optimized intake and exhaust would have more torque and power then a truck equivalent.
In conclusion, bazinga bitch
Quote from: GoCougs on February 06, 2015, 09:48:01 AM
Probably not. Despite my prognostication to the contrary the F150 has a slight advantage at this magical 2,500 rpm launch rpm but from ~20 mph till top speed the Silverado puts more torque to the street, far more so past ~4,000 rpm - just look at that red line. For 1st gear:
Silverado:
@ 2,500 rpm: ~400 lb-ft * 4.56:1 * 3.23:1 = 5,892 lb-ft
@ 4,100 rpm (max torque RPM): 460 lb-ft * 4.56:1 * 3.23:1 = 6,775 lb-ft
@ 5,750 rpm red line: 375 lb-ft * 4.56:1 * 3.23:1 = 5,523 lb-ft
F150:
@ 2,500 rpm: 420 lb-ft * 4.17:1 * 3.55:1 = 6,217 lb-ft
@ 2,500 rpm (max torque rpm): 420 lb-ft * 4.17:1 = 6,217 lb-ft
@ 6,000 rpm red line: 275 lb-ft * 4.17:1 = 4,071 lb-ft
Given the Silverado has a far meatier torque curve and pulls ahead after launch (esp. 1/4-mile trap speed) = the classic hallmark of traction issues. The EcoBoost isn't terrible it just doesn't match the new GM 6.2L pooprod.
(http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm291/p38fln/ecoboostchart.png)
(http://gmpowertrain.com/2014_images/charts_lg/2015_L86_6_2_V8silSie.jpg)
You're looking at a single point. You need to plot power vs vehicle speed in each gear and compare. Given its arched torque curve, ecoboost has a narrower power band than the 6.2. Ford also has 2 fewer gears. The may have done a better job at gearing for 0-60 than Chevy, but gave up some acceleration performance at higher speeds, where extra cogs and a fatter power band give Chevy more flexibility.
Quote from: MrH on February 06, 2015, 09:42:19 AM
Swing and a miss. Strike 2!
Do you need a spreadsheet to show you the truck with more torque for half the rpm range has more power as well, which means faster acceleration for half of the rev range, which means it will leave faster and eventually get caught by the more powerful engine.
I will break out a spreadsheet colored with green paint if needed
Or you could just admit that a TTV6 isn't some magical thing and save a lot of effort. But go ahead with that green paint splattered spreadsheet.
Quote from: MX793 on February 06, 2015, 09:57:34 AM
You're looking at a single point. You need to plot power vs vehicle speed in each gear and compare. Given its arched torque curve, ecoboost has a narrower power band than the 6.2. Ford also has 2 fewer gears. The may have done a better job at gearing for 0-60 than Chevy, but gave up some acceleration performance at higher speeds, where extra cogs and a fatter power band give Chevy more flexibility.
Actually, I "looked" at three points in 1st gear for each truck ;). At anything past ~3,200 rpm the GM 6.2L produces more torque and when at full boil the Silverado is never below ~3,900 rpm (at least in the first 4 gears). Thus, from ~20 mph till top speed the Silverado is putting more torque (= thrust force) to the street.
Quote from: r0tor on February 06, 2015, 09:58:26 AM
Do you need a spreadsheet to show you the truck with more torque for half the rpm range has more power as well, which means faster acceleration for half of the rev range, which means it will leave faster and eventually get caught by the more powerful engine.
I will break out a spreadsheet colored with green paint if needed
So what point does the horsepower catch the torque and wins the race? :wtf:
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 06, 2015, 10:06:29 AM
Or you could just admit that a TTV6 isn't some magical thing and save a lot of effort. But go ahead with that green paint splattered spreadsheet.
Not magical, not perfect...but the best of the rest. Besides, the old Chevy pooprod is at the end of its development cycle. EcoBoost is just at the beginning.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 06, 2015, 10:06:29 AM
Or you could just admit that a TTV6 isn't some magical thing and save a lot of effort. But go ahead with that green paint splattered spreadsheet.
This is going to be good; definitely better than plagiarizing my annotation Internetry.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 06, 2015, 10:11:04 AM
when at full boil the Silverado is never below ~3,900 rpm
This fact alone is all ya need.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 06, 2015, 10:12:15 AM
Not magical, not perfect...but the best of the rest.
At most I'd say it's a tie. Especially considering maintenance.
Quote from: r0tor on February 06, 2015, 09:56:28 AM
Let me help you again...
...oh and thats right, the corvette with performance exhaust dyno is actually different! Who the hell would have guessed a car engine with an optimized intake and exhaust would have more torque and power then a truck equivalent.
In conclusion, bazinga bitch
What?
Quote from: GoCougs on February 06, 2015, 10:11:04 AM
Actually, I "looked" at three points in 1st gear for each truck ;). At anything past ~3,200 rpm the GM 6.2L produces more torque and when at full boil the Silverado is never below ~3,900 rpm (at least in the first 4 gears). Thus, from ~20 mph till top speed the Silverado is putting more torque (= thrust force) to the street.
Must have one hell of a high stall torque converter
Oh, and who the help cars about top end on a truck???
Quote from: MrH on February 06, 2015, 10:11:55 AM
So what point does the horsepower catch the torque and wins the race? :wtf:
When torque > hp. Duh.
I had no idea that this forum cared about trucks enough to go six pages discussing them! :huh:
Quote from: MrH on February 06, 2015, 10:11:55 AM
So what point does the horsepower catch the torque and wins the race? :wtf:
I'm sure your Walmart engineering degree could figure this out.. So I saved you the time
JESUS.
Quote from: r0tor on February 06, 2015, 10:19:31 AM
Oh, and who the help cars about top end on a truck???
who the help cars about 0-60 on a truck?
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 06, 2015, 10:47:37 AM
who the help cars about 0-60 on a truck?
Probably more people then the number that care about 65-98 mph in a truck
5.6 seconds vs. 5.7 seconds.
Such a tiny difference it's laughable.
The more important stat is 30-50 and 50-70, where the Chevy trounces the Ford by 0.4s and 0.7s, respectively.
I heart this thread.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on February 06, 2015, 11:04:22 AM
I heart this thread.
can I get some kudos? :lol: I called it in the title. :mrcool:
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 06, 2015, 11:03:04 AM
5.6 seconds vs. 5.7 seconds.
Such a tiny difference it's laughable.
The more important stat is 30-50 and 50-70, where the Chevy trounces the Ford by 0.4s and 0.7s, respectively.
Why is it I care. Redneck racing?
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 06, 2015, 11:06:25 AM
can I get some kudos? :lol: I called it in the title. :mrcool:
:golfclap:
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 06, 2015, 11:06:25 AM
can I get some kudos? :lol: I called it in the title. :mrcool:
It's just so interesting r0tor raged on the Chevy.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 06, 2015, 11:26:55 AM
It's just so interesting r0tor raged on the Chevy.
Butt hurt that badly the ecoboost wins?
I'm fine calling the motor that tows more, accelerates better, all while getting better fuel mileage.
Quote from: r0tor on February 06, 2015, 11:47:35 AM
Butt hurt that badly the ecoboost wins?
I'm fine calling the motor that tows more, accelerates better, all while getting better fuel mileage.
Unless the Chevy has the 3.43 gears and kicks Ford's trash at all 3 of those. :dance:
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 06, 2015, 11:53:15 AM
Unless the Chevy has the 3.43 gears and kicks Ford's trash at all 3 of those. :dance:
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, Chevy would grow a pair
Quote from: r0tor on February 06, 2015, 11:58:44 AM
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, Chevy would grow a pair
:cry:
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 06, 2015, 11:53:15 AM
Unless the Chevy has the 3.43 gears and kicks Ford's trash at all 3 of those. :dance:
It would probably top out at 88 mph then...and get about 12 mpg :lol:.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 06, 2015, 12:06:19 PM
It would probably top out at 88 mph then...and get about 12 mpg :lol:.
The speed limiter should know the gear difference and still allow up to 99 mph. :huh:
And as already stated, 3.43s should improve city MPG in normal driving conditions and minimally affect highway (you'll just be able to utilize 8th gear more often)
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 06, 2015, 12:06:19 PM
It would probably top out at 88 mph then...and get about 12 mpg :lol:.
:clap:
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 06, 2015, 12:09:57 PM
The speed limiter should know the gear difference and still allow up to 99 mph. :huh:
And as already stated, 3.43s should improve city MPG in normal driving conditions and minimally affect highway (you'll just be able to utilize 8th gear more often)
Looking at specs the Silverado would hit ~270 mph in 8th gear at the 6,000 rpm red line so ~6% more gear probably won't be a problem ;).
Given that the Chevy is a bit faster with 3.23 gears 3.42 gears would be a :0.
EcoBoost just fails to deliver - it's a distinction without a difference + lag + big repair bills. Maybe EcoBoost Gen II will be different but for now, GM's pooprod wins the day.
While we are discussing fairies and pixie dust, if ford would outfit the Ecobooster Rockets, the booster rockets could come online after the torque curve dies down on the class asskicking ecoboost 3.5L V6TT and then the engine driveling could disconnect and the F150 could be puddling along at 80mph at 0 rpms :o
Quote from: r0tor on February 06, 2015, 11:58:44 AM
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, Chevy would grow a pair
(https://theweekendtestdrive.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/truck_balls2.jpg)