PDA

View Full Version : Ecoboost or 5.3 Vortec?


joed
02-02-2011, 08:25 PM
I'm searching for a new truck. I have two offers. They are:
2011 GMC Sierra Ext. Cab 4X4, SLE
5.3 Engine
6 speed auto

2011 Ford F150 Supercab, XLT
3.5 Ecoboost engine
6 speed auto.

Both trucks are $34K Canadian on the road, including taxes. The GM includes a locking diff while the Ford doesn't.

Fuel economy wise, Transport Canada has the 5.3 Vortec listed at 14.4L/100 km in the city or about 20 mpg and 9.5L/100 km or about 29 mpg on the highway. The Ecoboost is rated at 14L/100 km city and 9.6L/100 km highway.

Performance wise the ecoboost has 365 hp and 420 lbs/ft of torque while the 5.3 has 326 hp and 348 lbs/ft of torque. Advantage Ford but it's not a big deal for me as the power is fine on the vortec.

So, with price and fuel economy being pretty much the same, the next big question is maintenance and durability. I'm not familiar with turbo charged gas engines. I keep my trucks for at least 10 years. So, which engine gives me the most durability and the least maintenance? Anybody have any idea?

bobcat_ron
02-02-2011, 09:59 PM
Go for the Ecoboost, 29-32 mpg is crazy nuts.

knox gsl
02-02-2011, 10:10 PM
For me if I traded truck every 3 to 5 years I'd go with the Ford but if 10 years then the Chevy has a proven engine. I am not devoted to a certain brand of trucks, the big 3 all make a good truck with stong and weak points.

360ci
02-02-2011, 10:19 PM
I'd give the Ford another 1-2 years on the market before looking into purchasing it. I too hang onto vehicles for a decade or longer.

GM Advantages:
- smoother ride
- proven engine
- last I checked, higher payload, providing truck configuration is the same with Ford
- parts are everywhere and rather inexpensive
- GM still holds one of the better warranties in Canada (last I checked)
- The 5.3/6 speed can get 18+mpg highway easily when using cruise control as it makes better use of the cylinder deactivation


In say, six years, Ford parts should be well into the market. However, a new turbo for instance will fetch a premium price used! On the Ford of Canada website they are torture testing an Ecoboost engine. However, they don't use the same truck to rack up all the miles in.... It's really an engine durability test rather than an "F150" test with the premium engine. Strange if you ask me. Besides, anyone can rack up over 100K on a new engine without problems. Real problems only happen as time progresses, not just miles.

Also, I don't think Ford changed it for 2011, but the wiring to the transfer case is exposed. If you crawl underneath, you'll see what I mean. If 4wd isn't important then that's not an issue of course.

unkownfl
02-03-2011, 12:56 AM
Go for the Ecoboost, 29-32 mpg is crazy nuts.

I hope you're meaning metric. No way does the ecoboost get those numbers at least not in a truck.

joed
02-03-2011, 07:51 AM
I'd give the Ford another 1-2 years on the market before looking into purchasing it. I too hang onto vehicles for a decade or longer.

GM Advantages:
- smoother ride
- proven engine
- last I checked, higher payload, providing truck configuration is the same with Ford
- parts are everywhere and rather inexpensive
- GM still holds one of the better warranties in Canada (last I checked)
- The 5.3/6 speed can get 18+mpg highway easily when using cruise control as it makes better use of the cylinder deactivation


In say, six years, Ford parts should be well into the market. However, a new turbo for instance will fetch a premium price used! On the Ford of Canada website they are torture testing an Ecoboost engine. However, they don't use the same truck to rack up all the miles in.... It's really an engine durability test rather than an "F150" test with the premium engine. Strange if you ask me. Besides, anyone can rack up over 100K on a new engine without problems. Real problems only happen as time progresses, not just miles.

Also, I don't think Ford changed it for 2011, but the wiring to the transfer case is exposed. If you crawl underneath, you'll see what I mean. If 4wd isn't important then that's not an issue of course.

Good points 360. The ecoboost seems like a nice engine but it doesn't offer much of a fuel advantage over Ford's 5.0L V8. The ecoboost is rated at 14L/100 km city and 9.6L/100 km on the highway in 4X4 mode. The 5.0L V8 is rated at 15L/100 km city and 10.5 L/100 km on the highway. So, with gas at about $1.20/litre where we live here in Canada, if you drive 20, 000 km per year, the ecoboost would, in theory, consume 200L less than the 5.0L V8 for a savings of about $240/year. Considering the ecoboost carries a $1000 premium over the 5.0L, it would take you about 5 years to recoup the initial cost. After that, the ecoboost gains but if things like the turbochargers go, that fuel advantage disappears fast.

As for GM, I really do love their trucks and would like to stick with them, as I currently own a 2000 Sierra, but their 2011 1500 is so outdated compared to Ford's. For example, they still have rear drum brakes. I know there's a redesigned 1500 coming out for 2013 but it will be way more expensive than what's there now. So, I have a tough time parting with $34-35K for an outdated vehicle.

360ci
02-03-2011, 08:18 AM
I'd go for the 5.0L V8 as well. It's a derivative of the Mustang engine so it should be more popular down the road (easier to find parts, etc). The Ecoboost means well, but to get maximum mileage out of it it's best to be treated as a commuter vehicle. If you're consistently in the higher rpm range (over 3000rpm) when hauling/towing maximum boost kicks in and mileage might actually be worse when compared to the 5.0L. If you have a tendency to idle your vehicles, then the EB will save on fuel as it's a smaller engine.

If it's any consolation around early 2013 Dodge should have a small diesel in their half ton truck line. Someone has to take the initial leap, and I'm almost certain it will be them. Ford chose smaller displacement boosted gas engines, which leaves GM and Dodge to play with smaller diesels as they don't have decent smaller V6's that consumers want. www.fueleconomy.gov I find gives you better 'real world' fuel economy numbers, try it out.

joed
02-03-2011, 10:50 PM
I'd go for the 5.0L V8 as well. It's a derivative of the Mustang engine so it should be more popular down the road (easier to find parts, etc). The Ecoboost means well, but to get maximum mileage out of it it's best to be treated as a commuter vehicle. If you're consistently in the higher rpm range (over 3000rpm) when hauling/towing maximum boost kicks in and mileage might actually be worse when compared to the 5.0L. If you have a tendency to idle your vehicles, then the EB will save on fuel as it's a smaller engine.

If it's any consolation around early 2013 Dodge should have a small diesel in their half ton truck line. Someone has to take the initial leap, and I'm almost certain it will be them. Ford chose smaller displacement boosted gas engines, which leaves GM and Dodge to play with smaller diesels as they don't have decent smaller V6's that consumers want. www.fueleconomy.gov I find gives you better 'real world' fuel economy numbers, try it out.

Thanks for the info. For me, the truck is mostly for personal use. I do do landscaping on the weekends. Very rarely do I tow. So, I wonder if the ecoboost or 5.0L V8 is better for my needs?

That diesel in the 1500 dodge seems interesting. Did GM shelve their plan to stick a 4.5L diesel in their 1500? I wonder if maintenance on a small diesel would not be greater than on a turbocharged gas one?

Sure do wish GM had an updated 1/2 ton. Their current offering is so outdated.

360ci
02-04-2011, 01:57 AM
Thanks for the info. For me, the truck is mostly for personal use. I do do landscaping on the weekends. Very rarely do I tow. So, I wonder if the ecoboost or 5.0L V8 is better for my needs?

That diesel in the 1500 dodge seems interesting. Did GM shelve their plan to stick a 4.5L diesel in their 1500? I wonder if maintenance on a small diesel would not be greater than on a turbocharged gas one?

Sure do wish GM had an updated 1/2 ton. Their current offering is so outdated.

GM knows they need to revamp their truck lines. The only problem is cash flow. They need a revamp before they can even think about adding an engine to the current lineup, let alone that engine being a small diesel.

Dodge has a better foothold here, and I think they'll jump the gun on the idea first as knowingly, this baby Cummins won't require Urea fluid for emissions, which is a bonus I think!

Diesel's can go 10-15K on an oil change today, a little longer using synthetic. The problem with diesel's and engine oil is that the higher compression ratio allows more gunk to seep past the piston rings, which is why diesel oil turns black quicker than that in a gas engine. Spark plugs help more evenly burn the fuel air mix, rather than relying on compression alone.

If you drive light on the throttle I think the 5.0L V8 would be the better buy. Less cost than the EB 3.5 and if you plan to modify it in the future with some go fast goodies, you'll more than likely see a better option line for the V8, as it's similar to that in the new Mustang. With the EB engine, you might get away with increasing boost slightly, but then you have to worry about engine durability, or mostly head gasket and piston burn problems.

I don't always need my 5.9L V8 engine in the Durango, but when I get a heavy enough load I'm glad its there even if it gets so-so mileage overall when towing, or not. If I had to replace my 360 cubic incher with anything, I'd pick up a 2.7 I5 or 2.8L diesel to swap in there. I'd do it mostly for the additional driving range when I hit the bush. I had a 4.0L V6 lined up through a contact with Detroit Diesel at the time, however they cleaned house and my contact moved to an alternate company and the engine program never made it as far as me! Arg!

DavidNJ
02-04-2011, 03:53 AM
The GM is an antique and I doubt the company will be around in 10 years. There product pipeline, post-Lutz, is hopeless.

The Ford is a newer design (still a few years old) and the engine is a newer design. The official milage numbers are alway gamed. The 6 cylinder engine will have lower friction losses; those loses consume half the power made from combustion.

The Dodge has the most advanced chassis in this group with a coil spring rear suspension. It was going to be used by Renault-owned Nissan until Chrysler was acquired by Fiat.

I've owned 2 Suburbans, now drive a QX56, and wouldn't consider any GM product.

Note: Buick only exists because the brand name is used in China. Virtually none of the Chinese market products have anything to do with the US products.

joed
02-04-2011, 07:59 AM
GM knows they need to revamp their truck lines. The only problem is cash flow. They need a revamp before they can even think about adding an engine to the current lineup, let alone that engine being a small diesel.

Dodge has a better foothold here, and I think they'll jump the gun on the idea first as knowingly, this baby Cummins won't require Urea fluid for emissions, which is a bonus I think!

Diesel's can go 10-15K on an oil change today, a little longer using synthetic. The problem with diesel's and engine oil is that the higher compression ratio allows more gunk to seep past the piston rings, which is why diesel oil turns black quicker than that in a gas engine. Spark plugs help more evenly burn the fuel air mix, rather than relying on compression alone.

If you drive light on the throttle I think the 5.0L V8 would be the better buy. Less cost than the EB 3.5 and if you plan to modify it in the future with some go fast goodies, you'll more than likely see a better option line for the V8, as it's similar to that in the new Mustang. With the EB engine, you might get away with increasing boost slightly, but then you have to worry about engine durability, or mostly head gasket and piston burn problems.

I don't always need my 5.9L V8 engine in the Durango, but when I get a heavy enough load I'm glad its there even if it gets so-so mileage overall when towing, or not. If I had to replace my 360 cubic incher with anything, I'd pick up a 2.7 I5 or 2.8L diesel to swap in there. I'd do it mostly for the additional driving range when I hit the bush. I had a 4.0L V6 lined up through a contact with Detroit Diesel at the time, however they cleaned house and my contact moved to an alternate company and the engine program never made it as far as me! Arg!

Good points. I was reading yesterday that GM's 5.3L engine still only uses 2 valves per cylinder. Yet, its fuel economy matches the ecoboost engine and beats the 5.0L V8 from Ford which uses 4 valves per cylinder. Makes you wonder that if GM would wake up and even modify or play with the 5.3, they'd get fuel economy figures that surpass Ford's offerings.

Sometimes I think I should just wait until GM brings out this new 1/2 ton in 2013 before making a purchase choice. I even looked at their new HD pickups. They're really nice but that 6.0L V8 really eats up gas.

When you compare a V8 to a turbo V6, beyond the turbochargers, what other increased maintenance would need to be done?

360ci
02-04-2011, 08:20 AM
In terms of maintenance I'd bet that it'd be wise to clean the injectors more on a turbo,

Even then don't forget that the difference in weight between a half ton and 3/4 ton is a good 1000-1200lbs for a gas engine, another 900+lbs on top of that for a diesel engine.

I'd still get the GM 6.0 HD. Don't forget either that Dodge HEMI uses 2 spark plugs per cylinder, and they recommend changing them every 30K.... that's $240 or so every $30K! You can verify Ford's maintenance schedule with the EB, but last I checked the GM trucks can go close to 100K without worrying about tune up, etc. To me that's a big factor as well. During that 100K, you can easily spend $1K in additional maintenance on a Dodge...

Deori
02-04-2011, 07:21 PM
I'm probably going to be looking for a new truck in the next year and was planning on looking at a GM. I've seen several people on this site say how they're so outdated though. Care to expand on that? The 5.3 is over 300HP and has held the best in class fuel economy the last 4-5 years. I'm driving a 2001 F150 now, but am looking to probably switch teams. I'm just curious as to how they're so outdated?

The GM is an antique and I doubt the company will be around in 10 years. There product pipeline, post-Lutz, is hopeless.

joed
02-04-2011, 09:12 PM
In terms of maintenance I'd bet that it'd be wise to clean the injectors more on a turbo,

Even then don't forget that the difference in weight between a half ton and 3/4 ton is a good 1000-1200lbs for a gas engine, another 900+lbs on top of that for a diesel engine.

I'd still get the GM 6.0 HD. Don't forget either that Dodge HEMI uses 2 spark plugs per cylinder, and they recommend changing them every 30K.... that's $240 or so every $30K! You can verify Ford's maintenance schedule with the EB, but last I checked the GM trucks can go close to 100K without worrying about tune up, etc. To me that's a big factor as well. During that 100K, you can easily spend $1K in additional maintenance on a Dodge...

360,
Thanks for the info. Wow, I didn't know that the Dodge requires so much maintenance.

I got a quote for a 2011 Sierra HD 2500 from the dealer today. $44k on the road with a 6.0L gas engine, ext. cab, SLE, 4X4. That compares to the $34K on the road I got for the F150 and Sierra 1500. The duramax diesel is another $10K option. Do you know anything about fuel mileage for the duramax?

mowerbrad
02-04-2011, 09:31 PM
360,
Thanks for the info. Wow, I didn't know that the Dodge requires so much maintenance.

I got a quote for a 2011 Sierra HD 2500 from the dealer today. $44k on the road with a 6.0L gas engine, ext. cab, SLE, 4X4. That compares to the $34K on the road I got for the F150 and Sierra 1500. The duramax diesel is another $10K option. Do you know anything about fuel mileage for the duramax?

For the new duramax engines in the 2011 trucks, GM had reported about 19mpg's on the highway, haven't heard from any users to confirm that number though.

360ci
02-04-2011, 11:07 PM
GM is 'reporting' 19mpg only because the EPA will soon decide if they should rate HD vehicles, or not. That 19mpg is knowingly in a reg cab long box diesel with only a driver. Real world fuel economy numbers will be much lower, as always.

joed
02-04-2011, 11:14 PM
GM is 'reporting' 19mpg only because the EPA will soon decide if they should rate HD vehicles, or not. That 19mpg is knowingly in a reg cab long box diesel with only a driver. Real world fuel economy numbers will be much lower, as always.

So, unless you need a HD 2500 or 3500 for work, the 1500 equipped with the 5.3 gives better fuel economy.

How much does that 6.0L gas consume?

360ci
02-04-2011, 11:24 PM
So, unless you need a HD 2500 or 3500 for work, the 1500 equipped with the 5.3 gives better fuel economy.

How much does that 6.0L gas consume?

Weight ultimately affects mileage. You can't tow 12K with a half ton, but you can with most 3/4 gas trucks when properly equipped. Towing similar weight of say 7K, a 3/4 will more than likely average (with mostly city driving) 10-11mpg, compared with a 5.3 half ton that will get 12-13. Highway is totally different in respect to mileage, so I won't even begin to speculate on that matter as there are many conditions that separate the 3/4 from the 1/2ton models.

Either you need the added beef of the 3/4ton or you don't.

DavidNJ
02-05-2011, 03:34 PM
Car and Driver test, http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/09q1/dodge_ram_vs._ford_f-150_and_chevy_silverado-comparison_tests, from March 2009. The Chevy hasn't changed.

Spark plugs are a cost issue? GM does a nice job with antiquated engine technology. That doesn't stop it from being antiquated. Dual OHC are necesary to get independent intake and exhaust valve timing. Engines with that get a very broad power curve and nearly flat torque curve.

A diesel will pay for itself with highway driving and heavy loads. They have no throttle induced pumping losses (gas engines are at part throttle on the highway, squeezing the air past a small opening) and their torque curve favors low engine speeds which have lower friction losses. To get the rated power on those small gas V8s you need to spin them pretty fast.

The supercharger on the Ford (and all current diesels) would be a big advantage at higher altitudes. It also lets a relatively small engine produce power with a broad power curve (the forced induction minimizes the effects of intake/exhaust tuning to prefer a specific rev range).

The Dodge Hemi is way more sophisticated than the Chevy. It has a very elaborate valve train to get canted valves and a direct shot on the intake into the cylinders.

If you get a pickup now there are lots of factory widgets to make life easy. Steps on the side and off the tailgate; barriers on the tailgate for long loads, bed liners, tool storage in the sides. The Dodge 1500 is seminal because it uses a coil spring rear suspension. For reference the 1938 Buicks were the first production sedans with a coil spring rear suspension; we have one in our garage.

joed
02-05-2011, 07:13 PM
I had an opportunity to take out an Ecoboost V6 Ford F150 today. The engine is very nice. No problems moving the truck quickly and getting up to full speed. Fuel economy was good. Over our 40 km test drive, the truck averaged about 15L/100 km in the city and 11.5L/100 km on the highway. I think that translates to about 15 mpg city and 21 on the highway. That matches the 5.3L Sierra. Only odd thing I noticed was that when we stepped out to look at the outside of the truck, the engine made a consistent ticking sound. It almost made the engine sound like a diesel. I'm not experienced with turbocharged gas engines, but is that normal?

360ci
02-05-2011, 10:54 PM
I had an opportunity to take out an Ecoboost V6 Ford F150 today. The engine is very nice. No problems moving the truck quickly and getting up to full speed. Fuel economy was good. Over our 40 km test drive, the truck averaged about 15L/100 km in the city and 11.5L/100 km on the highway. I think that translates to about 15 mpg city and 21 on the highway. That matches the 5.3L Sierra. Only odd thing I noticed was that when we stepped out to look at the outside of the truck, the engine made a consistent ticking sound. It almost made the engine sound like a diesel. I'm not experienced with turbocharged gas engines, but is that normal?

To begin, you state in 40km you drove X amount of those kms in the city, filled up, and then drove X amount on the highway, and filled up again? Don't rely on the overhead computer for mileage. They can be +/- a good 20%. Let alone the fact that as much as the vehicle is electronically controlled, it can't compensate for low air pressure in the tires, headwind, tailwind, weight in the vehicle, etc.

Now, for the engine tick, this is my other peeve with the EB35, is that Ford states it can run on regular (87 octane) petrol. Now, even with advancements in electronics and computer aided software to run these electronic engine management programs, when you boost an engine by either a supercharger or turbo, the engine is more susceptible to engine knock, or ping. Generally it's heard under mid to hard acceleration but at times can be heard when in a high or lower gear while giving the engine maximum fuel without it downshifting from a taller gear. History shows that these boosted engines require a higher octane fuel to help quell the engine knock. In say 120,000kms, the engine might require you to use a higher octane fuel, 89, or even 91 (most common with boosted engines) due to age. Not in all cases of course, and knowingly all dealers will fuel with 87 octane as that is what Ford recommends, but it's also the least expensive fuel you can purchase. It's really a judgment call on what fuel you want to use. Personally I'd stick with the higher octane, even 89 and see how that goes. Of course you'd need to get a truck on fumes, throw in a few gallons of 91 or 93 octane mixed with the remaining regular fuel to at least get a close 90 octane mix in the tank and see how the engine runs on that.

doubleedge
02-06-2011, 11:55 AM
The ticking is most likely not engine knock; ticking is commonly caused by high pressure direct injection systems and sometimes is caused by the valves. For example, many Ford 5.4 engines develop a ticking noise (my dad owns one, so don't tell me I'm wrong), and that is a naturally aspirated engine. Additionally, modern engines are equipped with knock sensors, which prevent engine knock.

Why have you limited your choices to the Chevy 5.3 and the Ford Ecoboost 3.5? Have you considered the new Ford 5.0? Either way you go, I would recommend Ford because the F150 has many advantages over the Chevy 1500.

For example:
Electronic power steering to increase efficiency.
A fully boxed frame (the strongest in it's class).
Disc brakes all around.
Integrated trailer brake controller with trailer sway control.

360ci
02-06-2011, 12:18 PM
GM has the integrated trailer brake control and sway control as well. I will agree that Ford frames are superior. Again, if you plan running heavy trailers or loads on a regular basis, the Ford is the way to go. Otherwise, stick with a lighter overall weight truck like GM. Dodge is in the middle, but the 5 speed auto is getting old and the HEMI is a maintenance hog (tune ups every 30K to name one!).

I know I'd choose the 5.0L V8 over the EB. Lower cost upfront, and V8's are proven to outlast most 6cyl designs unless of course you don't plan on keeping the truck until the frame rots.

DavidNJ
02-07-2011, 07:54 AM
The Dodge 1500 advantage is in the suspension. A lot of development went into that chassis; it was a joint Nissan(Renault)/Chrysler(Mercedes) project. Nissan bowed out when Fiat bought Chrysler.

Is you are lugging around a 5-10k# trailer, only a V8 or supercharged/turbocharger 6 would do. I can say from personal experience that a 300hp 6L GM engine has trouble maintaining 65mph in highway uphills (I-80 in the Poconos) towing 9000#, 16000# GCVW.

360ci
02-07-2011, 10:22 AM
I think Dodge was right to go with a better (aka modern) suspension for the 1500. They had good reasoning behind it; where most people who did in fact tow heavy, often went for a 3/4 ton truck to begin with.

unkownfl
02-07-2011, 05:55 PM
Here sums up the rear suspension between the two Dodge vs Ford. The guy is kinda a dick but if you can put that to the side theres a reason why other stay with the leaf style. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMDQ8Yl7Ndk

Also, another feature I like about the Ford is the trailer sway control and it works. I'm not sure if other manufactures have this option but I hope they do and would seriously consider it with a half ton. I never came across a situation that I would have needed it in the 1 ton+ trucks.

dishboy
02-09-2011, 10:54 AM
http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/experiencef150/

Check out the head to head pulling test.

mowerbrad
02-09-2011, 11:23 AM
http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/experiencef150/

Check out the head to head pulling test.

Have you ever noticed that all the videos on manufacturers websites make their vehicle(s) look good and make their competition look sub-par?

Ford had videos between their super duty trucks and GM's HD's, those videos made the ford look tons better, even though they were testing 2011 fords and 2010 GM's. Then GM came out with their 2011's and did their own videos which made the GM HD's look much better than the Ford super duties.

I don't trust the videos from manufacturers, especially when it comes to capabilities of trucks. Of course the manufacturer is going to make their truck look best. These tests need to be done by an independant company that has no ties to any manufacturer

DavidNJ
02-09-2011, 11:28 AM
Supercharged engines aren't common because they are bad. Traditionally, they are more expensive to build and blowby past the rings causes increased maintenance and more frequent oil changes.

However, this is 2011.

The Ecoboost engines are the only direct injection engines in this group. Coupled with twin superchargers and double ohc variable camshaft timing, it produces the flat torque curve of direct injected Audis while the NVH levels are low enough to make it the optional engine in Ford's top of the line Lincoln. (Note: the only way I'd end up with the Lincoln is of someone gave it to me; even then I doubt I'd drive it much.)

What about durability? Again, this is 2011. First, driven by emission laws with 100k mile durability requirements, improvements in metallurgy and manufacturing have much tighter tolerances and reduced wear. Additionally coatings applied to nearly everything contain heat, keep oil flowing, and reduce friction. Piston ring technology coupled with the tighter clearances allow less blowby. Synthetic lubricants holds up under the higher pressures and temperatures. Additionally, Ford apparently water cooled the turbochargers.

Net, the performance of the turbo V6 will be more diesel like than any of its competitors. In real life fuel economy has to be higher; reduced friction surfaces plus much more efficient combustion (a 4v ohc head is light-years better than virtually any 2-valve ohv design, then add the direct injection).

Net, the engine probably gives the Ford the edge here. Although the Dodge has to ride better.

Now if I was getting the Ford I'd like to forget the Ecoboost and get a Raptor, even if the rear suspension is not quite right (it should have been 3-link IMHO).

http://media.ford.com/images/10031/EcoBoost.pdf

dishboy
02-09-2011, 12:18 PM
Have you ever noticed that all the videos on manufacturers websites make their vehicle(s) look good and make their competition look sub-par?

Ford had videos between their super duty trucks and GM's HD's, those videos made the ford look tons better, even though they were testing 2011 fords and 2010 GM's. Then GM came out with their 2011's and did their own videos which made the GM HD's look much better than the Ford super duties.

I don't trust the videos from manufacturers, especially when it comes to capabilities of trucks. Of course the manufacturer is going to make their truck look best. These tests need to be done by an independant company that has no ties to any manufacturer

Hey, they raced up a hill with loaded trailer and the Ford got their first. If that made the Dodge and Chevy look bad I'm sorry.:rolleyes:

DavidNJ
02-09-2011, 12:34 PM
I just found a reason not to get the Ecoboost...it is up to a $4650 option! Diesel performance with a diesel price.

In the end, it seems the Dodge with the Hemi may be $3-5k less expensive than the equivalent Ford.

dishboy
02-09-2011, 01:58 PM
I just found a reason not to get the Ecoboost...it is up to a $4650 option! Diesel performance with a diesel price.

In the end, it seems the Dodge with the Hemi may be $3-5k less expensive than the equivalent Ford.


Actually you are wrong, the cheapest 2 wheel drive Hemi is 29,000, the cheapest Ford ecoboost is 28,000 which included the 3.73 limited slip RE.

doubleedge
02-09-2011, 07:05 PM
Supercharged engines aren't common because they are bad. Traditionally, they are more expensive to build and blowby past the rings causes increased maintenance and more frequent oil changes.

However, this is 2011.

The Ecoboost engines are the only direct injection engines in this group. Coupled with twin superchargers and double ohc variable camshaft timing, it produces the flat torque curve of direct injected Audis while the NVH levels are low enough to make it the optional engine in Ford's top of the line Lincoln. (Note: the only way I'd end up with the Lincoln is of someone gave it to me; even then I doubt I'd drive it much.)

What about durability? Again, this is 2011. First, driven by emission laws with 100k mile durability requirements, improvements in metallurgy and manufacturing have much tighter tolerances and reduced wear. Additionally coatings applied to nearly everything contain heat, keep oil flowing, and reduce friction. Piston ring technology coupled with the tighter clearances allow less blowby. Synthetic lubricants holds up under the higher pressures and temperatures. Additionally, Ford apparently water cooled the turbochargers.

Net, the performance of the turbo V6 will be more diesel like than any of its competitors. In real life fuel economy has to be higher; reduced friction surfaces plus much more efficient combustion (a 4v ohc head is light-years better than virtually any 2-valve ohv design, then add the direct injection).

Net, the engine probably gives the Ford the edge here. Although the Dodge has to ride better.

Now if I was getting the Ford I'd like to forget the Ecoboost and get a Raptor, even if the rear suspension is not quite right (it should have been 3-link IMHO).

http://media.ford.com/images/10031/EcoBoost.pdf

The words supercharger and turbocharger aren't interchangeable. A supercharger is driven by a belt from the engine; a turbocharger is driven by exhaust gas from the engine. The supercharger has quicker response and the turbocharger is more efficient.

South Florida Lawns
02-09-2011, 07:56 PM
Easy one there Chevrolet makes some of the best gas motors. I have owned a few GM's and nothing but satisfactory.

Give that Eco Boost a year or two till they work any bugs out, first year is always like the guinea pig there could always be issues that arise.

DavidNJ
02-09-2011, 08:31 PM
Supercharger and turbocharger are both forced induction. One is exhaust driven and virtually always coupled with a centrifugal compressor; the other is usually belt driven off the crankshaft and is used with a variety of compressors although a rotary is popular.

Once upon a time turbos were plagued with significant lag; These days, computer controlled valve timing and direct injection pretty much eliminates that at street boost levels.

There isn't a car guy anywhere near the GM leadership. If you thing that shell of a company will still be healthy through the lifetime of your purchase, more power to you.

I priced the Dodge and Ford online. I used 4WD regular cab long bed models. After working it to the minimums the Ford XL was $32,410, the Dodge Longhorn was $29,410.

DavidNJ
02-09-2011, 09:28 PM
This shows the torque curves of the different F-150 engines. Note, from any sort of practical standpoint, the Ecoboost 3.8 is more powerful than the 6.2 V-8. Note that HP is always torque in lb-ft * 5252/rpm. The 6.2 does make more power above 4000rpm; but how often are you at WOT (wide open throttle, the only time these maximum power levels mean anything)?

Meanwhile, if you are in Denver or other high altitude location, the forced induction engine will have a huge advantage, easily besting the 6.2 V8.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/F150_Torque_Curves.jpg

joed
02-11-2011, 09:55 PM
I'm probably going to be looking for a new truck in the next year and was planning on looking at a GM. I've seen several people on this site say how they're so outdated though. Care to expand on that? The 5.3 is over 300HP and has held the best in class fuel economy the last 4-5 years. I'm driving a 2001 F150 now, but am looking to probably switch teams. I'm just curious as to how they're so outdated?

Like you, I've been looking for a new truck over the last month. When I took out the Sierra, what I thought was outdated was:
Rear drum brakes
The dash
The small interior space (on the ext. cab)
A 6 speed tranny that constantly shifted and never seemed to find the right gear.
Thin sheet metal for the body
Only acceptable crash safety ratings from the insurance institute for highway safety.

I've always loved my GMC trucks. My current truck is a 2000 GMC 2500 Sierra. It's been very good. GMC has really dropped the ball on their 1/2 ton offerings.

360ci
02-11-2011, 10:00 PM
Hey, they raced up a hill with loaded trailer and the Ford got their first. If that made the Dodge and Chevy look bad I'm sorry.:rolleyes:

The Ford trailer wasn't loaded up ready for the road with dishes, gear, fluids and the like.

As mentioned, don't believe what you see.

DavidNJ
02-11-2011, 10:20 PM
This shows that the Dodge matches the peak of the Ford EcoBoost, and would beat it on a racetrack (probably), but would seem weaker in real life. At high altitudes it would be a lot weaker.

360ci
02-11-2011, 10:55 PM
Don't forget here, the 3.5L V6 is boosted. You boost that HEMI to match (similar boost pressure), and it'll run all over that puny 35EB.

Obviously this would increase the cost substantially in aftermarket parts for the Ram, but any decently sized V8 boosted to similar PSI as the Ecoboost will spank it. Displacement still rules. People who buy TRUCKS for fuel economy purposes should get their heads checked. Everyone wants power without having to pay at the pump. You want the power, it'll eat the fuel. The old phrase I used to use when I raced "If speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?". For some, excessive money = ego funding. Back to the engine, people have to compare boosted to boosted. That's like comparing a Mitsu EVO to a Fusion AWD. HEMI is a $1150 option here in Canada, and can be had on the lowest trim level. To get that EB engine in the F150 you have to get no less than an XLT trim and even then it costs $2000 over the 5.0L V8. Price is another determining factor to consider. Ford will compare their EB engine with the top trim levels from both Ford and GM so the EB looks like a better deal. For a 'work truck', the EB engine again comes in XLT or higher trim.

On the platinum and Harley models, the 6.2L is the standard engine, NOT the EB! Buyers who are paying over $60K for a loaded half ton want the larger displacement engine for bragging rights (which is why it's the only engine available), and for all we know the 6.2L can probably get similar real world mileage as the EB35 as it doesn't have to rev as high to get moving, to pass, or to keep speed when towing or not, as power is always on tap generally without needing a downshift.

Stay tuned for the upcoming front wheel drive F series soon to arrive at a dealer near you! - Ha, had to say it.

Not to mention that in nearly all similar configurations, the Ford variants weigh more than both Dodge, and GM.

I thought the 4V 4.6L 6 speed was a good configuration in the F150. My engine of choice is still the 5.0L V8!

unkownfl
02-11-2011, 11:06 PM
Don't forget here, the 3.5L V6 is boosted. You boost that HEMI to match (similar boost pressure), and it'll run all over that puny 35EB.

Obviously this would increase the cost substantially in aftermarket parts for the Ram, but any decently sized V8 boosted to similar PSI as the Ecoboost will spank it. Displacement still rules. People who buy TRUCKS for fuel economy purposes should get their heads checked. Everyone wants power without having to pay at the pump. You want the power, it'll eat the fuel. The old phrase I used to use when I raced "If speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?". For some, excessive money = ego funding. Back to the engine, people have to compare boosted to boosted. That's like comparing a Mitsu EVO to a Fusion AWD. HEMI is a $1150 option here in Canada, and can be had on the lowest trim level. To get that EB engine in the F150 you have to get no less than an XLT trim and even then it costs $2000 over the 5.0L V8. Price is another determining factor to consider. Ford will compare their EB engine with the top trim levels from both Ford and GM so the EB looks like a better deal. For a 'work truck', the EB engine again comes in XLT or higher trim.

On the platinum and Harley models, the 6.2L is the standard engine, NOT the EB! Buyers who are paying over $60K for a loaded half ton want the larger displacement engine for bragging rights (which is why it's the only engine available), and for all we know the 6.2L can probably get similar real world mileage as the EB35 as it doesn't have to rev as high to get moving, to pass, or to keep speed when towing or not, as power is always on tap generally without needing a downshift.

Stay tuned for the upcoming front wheel drive F series soon to arrive at a dealer near you! - Ha, had to say it.

Not to mention that in nearly all similar configurations, the Ford variants weigh more than both Dodge, and GM.

I thought the 4V 4.6L 6 speed was a good configuration in the F150. My engine of choice is still the 5.0L V8!

No 4v 4.6 engines in a f150. Ecoboost isn't made to compete against a hemi that's what the 6.2 is for. The 6.2 comes in the xl model line too.

Coming soon IRS for a Dodge...

360ci
02-11-2011, 11:35 PM
No 4v 4.6 engines in a f150. Ecoboost isn't made to compete against a hemi that's what the 6.2 is for. The 6.2 comes in the xl model line too.

Coming soon IRS for a Dodge...

3V, close enough.

Canada spec here: the 6.2L is only available in higher model ranges or the SVT off-road variant.

Edit:

You Yanks get all the decent options in the lower trim levels as well as better workhorse engines. Must be nice.

unkownfl
02-12-2011, 12:16 AM
3V, close enough.

Canada spec here: the 6.2L is only available in higher model ranges or the SVT off-road variant.

Edit:

You Yanks get all the decent options in the lower trim levels as well as better workhorse engines. Must be nice.

The 6.2 isn't on the website for the base model f150 but they're out there on the lots. There isn't even an eco boost on the lot yet here and we have like 10 dealerships within 10 miles when I look two weeks ago.

I have the 3v wish I would have waited one more year to get the v6 non eco boost. I only tow a 3500lbs trailer about 20% of the time the rest is empty driving. city with the trailer I get like 12-13mpg highway around 16-17 depending how fast I go over the speed limit :hammerhead: all with the a/c on full blast here. I raced my friends wifes 1500 dodge with the 4.7 and beat him by three tenths with the same 60ft pretty much. His Hemi Wore my ass out though. I like the 3v its gets like 21mpg on the highway empty and has 300hp which is plenty for a 1/2 ton IMHO.

unkownfl
02-12-2011, 12:25 AM
Actually you are wrong, the cheapest 2 wheel drive Hemi is 29,000, the cheapest Ford ecoboost is 28,000 which included the 3.73 limited slip RE.

Lets not add inflation now. It's $27,065 in an xl or $24,650 in a XLT with the rebates which is the better option.

http://bp2.ford.com/2011-Ford-F-150#page=/Models/

DavidNJ
02-12-2011, 07:22 AM
The Ford 3.5 L EcoBoost significantly bests all of its competitors below 4000 RPM including Ford's own 6.2 L. About 3000 or 4000 feet altitude, it would even have higher power above 4000 RPM. It is a new generation of technology with direct injection and double overhead camshafts that provide variable intake and exhaust valve timing. The turbochargers provide additional control over the intake air volume while the smaller displacement V-6 configuration reduces internal friction. The only significant feature missing is variable valve lift featured on some BMW and Nissan models.

The question is: how often are you what flat to the floor above 4000 RPM? It is frequently with a trailer out back maybe a 1500 isn't the right size truck for you. Otherwise, the 3.5 L EcoBoost would be the best engine in this class by a comfortable margin.

However engine isn't everything. The recent test, Edmonds rated at 3500 GMC narrowly above Ford F350. Although the Ford had more power and a nicer cab, the GMC had a new chassis under old sheet metal for 2011 which gave it lighter weight and better steering. The Ford was also tall enough to make parking a bit of a problem. In a similar manner, the Dodge's coil spring rear suspension could be considered a bigger advantage.

Adirondack L&L
02-12-2011, 01:15 PM
For anyone that hasn't driven a DI/Turbo engine, they're nothing short of amazing. If the name of the game is real world, usable torque it will own all but the largest V8s and diesels. Reliability and longevity is another story, that will take time to sort out.

doubleedge
02-12-2011, 04:53 PM
For anyone that hasn't driven a DI/Turbo engine, they're nothing short of amazing. If the name of the game is real world, usable torque it will own all but the largest V8s and diesels. Reliability and longevity is another story, that will take time to sort out.

Technically, new diesels are DI and turbocharged too :).

360ci
02-12-2011, 05:32 PM
David, I agree. If I wanted a truck for sheer size to drive around in without using it for anything else, I'd spend the bucks and get the most fuel efficient engine, not necessarily for the fuel economy itself, but the range you can get. However, I checked online, and the 35EB only comes with the 98L tank (26 US gals), wtf???

Again, I buy trucks for what they can do for me, and in this case the EB isn't the right engine to have in the F150 when you tow every day. V8's do similar work, at lower engine speeds which increases durability. I can see the EB transmission consistently hunting for gears when towing, and as it's a smaller displacement it'll be regularly in or above the 3000rpm range. The higher the boost, the more fuel you use....

If Ford wants to win the performance game, they should blow the 6.2L. If anything, it'll make the 'Harley' guys happy when they tote around their show bikes. ha

doubleedge
02-12-2011, 08:29 PM
David, I agree. If I wanted a truck for sheer size to drive around in without using it for anything else, I'd spend the bucks and get the most fuel efficient engine, not necessarily for the fuel economy itself, but the range you can get. However, I checked online, and the 35EB only comes with the 98L tank (26 US gals), wtf???

Again, I buy trucks for what they can do for me, and in this case the EB isn't the right engine to have in the F150 when you tow every day. V8's do similar work, at lower engine speeds which increases durability. I can see the EB transmission consistently hunting for gears when towing, and as it's a smaller displacement it'll be regularly in or above the 3000rpm range. The higher the boost, the more fuel you use....

If Ford wants to win the performance game, they should blow the 6.2L. If anything, it'll make the 'Harley' guys happy when they tote around their show bikes. ha

The idea that the Ford Ecoboost will have to rev higher because it has lower displacement is baseless; just look at the numbers, it has more torque in the low rpm range than v8 engines. I don't see why you keep arguing against the numbers, saying that displacement is better than anything.

And yes, it will have v8 like fuel consumption when it is being boosted, but when it is at a steady speed with low boost, it will have far less pumping and friction losses, which will increase fuel economy.

DavidNJ
02-12-2011, 09:47 PM
The EB is a LOWER engine speed than the current V8s. In 2011 the way it was is history. In order to meet emissions and fuel economy regulations while still meeting safety regulations and consumer feature desires which add weight, the manufacturers have all gone fairly exotic to achieve performance with longetivity and reliablity.

Note, F1, where qualifying is usually everything, limits the teams to 8 engines per season, and they can't change engine or gearbox after qualifying. One lap of fuel can add 1 or 2 tenths of second to lap times. Reliability, fuel efficency, and performance are not separate; reliability and fuel efficiency are parts of performance.

The new engines use better metals, tighter quality control, and different coatings to achieve levels of performance, efficency, and reliablity unheard of just a few years ago. Knock sensors let them run at peak performance without ever damaging the engine from exceeding it. The diesels in 3/4 and 1-ton models are pushing 800 ft-lb peak torque.

The EcoBoost is far and away the best performing 1/2-ton truck engine, ESPECIALLY for towing. The Dodge probably has the better the chassis. The GMC/Chevy 1/2 ton is less than compelling.

Note: the diesel are most definitely direct injection turbos. Not only that, their VERY expensive injection systems run at 25,000psi, 10x higher than the gasoline DI.

Note 2: a CDI turbo diesel of maybe 4L or slightly smaller would be a great 1/2 ton engine. Now is someone made one...

360ci
02-13-2011, 12:42 AM
The idea that the Ford Ecoboost will have to rev higher because it has lower displacement is baseless; just look at the numbers, it has more torque in the low rpm range than v8 engines. I don't see why you keep arguing against the numbers, saying that displacement is better than anything.

And yes, it will have v8 like fuel consumption when it is being boosted, but when it is at a steady speed with low boost, it will have far less pumping and friction losses, which will increase fuel economy.

I look at it plainly. A 3.5L V6 is still a 3.5L V6. A 5.0L V8 is still a 5.0L V8. Again, you boost a modern N/A V8 and the EB35 will be nothing more than a modern V6.

Ford should keep its boosted engines on light passenger vehicles, such as the 20EB; soon to be out in the latest Explorer iteration. People who want bigness in a vehicle and have the money for it, but want decent fuel economy for the size and weight of the vehicle although they'll mostly never use the vehicle to even 1/4 of it's real work capacity. I'm not against the EB engines here. A V8 is still prime for everyday work in a pickup. One thing however that I'm not entirely fond of is Ford telling people that you can run 87 octane in a boosted engine where 91 is commonplace. Even the best knock sensors can't always be as efficient running regular fuel. After 100K miles with my luck, I'll develop an engine knock and have to run 91 octane to quell it. Making the $2K engine purchase over the 360hp 5.0L V8 even more irrational. The EB35 and the 5.0L V8 are nearly identical for highway mileage, so there's no benefit there. From what I've read Ford has done a good job on eliminating the turbo lag, but with a V8, there is no lag at all.

For the record, I bought a 2000 Saab 9-5 with the high output turbo I4 engine and manual transmission. It's still in the family as my father uses it as a second vehicle as a weekend toy as it's cheap on fuel when he rev's the crap out of it. It has 296,000kms on it and still runs great, burns 0 oil. As I was the only occupant in 90% of the miles and commuting was the strong point at the time, it was the obvious choice. Highway average still remains a frugal 6.5L/100km. Not bad for a 230hp engine. If I loaded the car up with three other adults and luggage, performance suffered noticeably and that was the only downfall. Turbo lag was ZERO over 2100rpm which was the determining factor in the purchase. Price wasn't a factor. Again, I don't use trucks to commute, even if they get better than 'average' mileage when compared to other trucks. A truck is a truck is a truck and should be spec'd accordingly to the WORK at hand.

The EB is a LOWER engine speed than the current V8s. In 2011 the way it was is history. In order to meet emissions and fuel economy regulations while still meeting safety regulations and consumer feature desires which add weight, the manufacturers have all gone fairly exotic to achieve performance with longetivity and reliablity.

Note, F1, where qualifying is usually everything, limits the teams to 8 engines per season, and they can't change engine or gearbox after qualifying. One lap of fuel can add 1 or 2 tenths of second to lap times. Reliability, fuel efficency, and performance are not separate; reliability and fuel efficiency are parts of performance.

The new engines use better metals, tighter quality control, and different coatings to achieve levels of performance, efficency, and reliablity unheard of just a few years ago. Knock sensors let them run at peak performance without ever damaging the engine from exceeding it. The diesels in 3/4 and 1-ton models are pushing 800 ft-lb peak torque.

The EcoBoost is far and away the best performing 1/2-ton truck engine, ESPECIALLY for towing. The Dodge probably has the better the chassis. The GMC/Chevy 1/2 ton is less than compelling.

Note: the diesel are most definitely direct injection turbos. Not only that, their VERY expensive injection systems run at 25,000psi, 10x higher than the gasoline DI.

Note 2: a CDI turbo diesel of maybe 4L or slightly smaller would be a great 1/2 ton engine. Now is someone made one...

I'll vote Ford for the BEST chassis. Dodge has the better one and GM is average.

Dodge will knowingly be the first in the half ton diesel market. Cummins requires no Urea fluid limiting build complexity and a 4-4.5L V6 is doable. I think GM has held off not only for funding purposes on getting their 4.5L diesel to market, but because they don't want to be the first one with a half ton diesel. The problem with North American manufacturers is that they wait to see what the import guys do before they implement something similar into their vehicles. By the time this happens, the import guys take the majority of the market share! Fools. They need a small diesel, and it will sell.

DavidNJ
02-13-2011, 04:53 AM
There is a misunderstanding about what a modern automotive engine has.

1) Variable intake and exhaust valve timing: absolutely essential to control the intake valve closing based on the air flow. Impossible to do correctly without separate intake and exhaust camshafts.

2) Direct fuel injection: typical fuel injection can be spraying into the intake port the entire time the valve is open. Excess gets pushed back into the intake. The higher pressure is directly into the chamber at a finer atomization.

3) Variable intake manifold length: The optimal length changes over the engine speed range. Forced induction eliminates this issue.

4) Variable valve lift: It allows a change in cam profile aggressiveness depending on engine demand. Long ago Honda and then Toyota and Porsche attempted to address this with an alternate intake cam lobe: Honda's VTEC. They continue this, no having added variable valve timing: iVTEC. BMW and Nissan vary the rocker arm ratio; this provides a broader range of adjustment but doesn't change the duration. However, varying the rocker ratio is sufficient to allow BMW to let it replace the normal throttle restriction.

5) Stiff valvetrains: valvetrains flex and that flex reducing the accuracy of the valve timing. The flex is reduced by reducing mass, number of components, and increasng stiffness. Pushrod designs are very flexible. To overcome this racing setups use shaft rocker arms and monster size pushrods. OHC designs have a lot less mass; older designs had the camshaft acting directly on the valve stem through a bucket. They were a PITA to adjust as were pushrod systems that used a rocker arm stud girdle.

NONE of the US V8s have these. Only the Fords are OHC. The new 6.2L is only a single OHC. The EcoBoost is one of the first US engines with DI.

Second, a manufacturer's full warranty EPA certified engine tested in extreme's of climate and for durability for years and supported by their entire dealer network is a different proposition than an aftermarket kit. Again, no US manufacturer sells a forced induction gasoline V8 truck; GM has a few in cars though (Cadillac CTS-V, Corvette ZR1).

Third, for street use do you really care what peak hp is? The issue is accelerating the heavy load which requires a broad torque curve. That is suited to direct injection and forced induction. It is one reason diesels work so well. It is also the reason the EcoBoost is so good a design. In real life it is better than a variety of older, high peak HP designs.

Sidebar: when MB introduced the 201hp diesel E320CDI magazine commented that it was faster to 60mph than the 221hp gasoline version. They attributed it to the 369 ft-lb. peak torque rating. They were wrong; in the standing start 0-60 run the engine virtually never was below 3000rpm where peak torque had already dropped significantly.

What they missed was that the average power in the 3300-4400 range used in foot to the floor acceleration averaged about 195hp while the gasoline engine with peaked torque and power curves averaged about 188 in its 4500-6200 range.

The GM 6.2L isn't a half bad design. GM has been doing a lot of research in combustion chamber design and as made wonders out of their performance pushrod engines. In this case they get 6.2L to almost match a modern 3.5L V6 turbo:

http://eogld.ecomm.gm.com/images/lightduty/graytabs/powercurves/2009_62l_l9h_tahoe20ltz.jpg

Net: the EcoBoost is a class leading and expensive engine. However, the engine is only part of the total package.

joed
02-13-2011, 09:12 AM
Great discussion going on here. I'd like to ask a question. When it comes to maintenance over say a 10 year period of truck ownership, which engine will likely be more costly to maintain:
1. Ford's Ecoboost
2. Or a hemi V8 or GM 5.3 which uses cylinder deactivation to achieve fuel economy?

360ci
02-13-2011, 09:55 AM
Great discussion going on here. I'd like to ask a question. When it comes to maintenance over say a 10 year period of truck ownership, which engine will likely be more costly to maintain:
1. Ford's Ecoboost
2. Or a hemi V8 or GM 5.3 which uses cylinder deactivation to achieve fuel economy?

Currently the GM will be cheaper as parts are everywhere. The EB35 is still relatively new. If you have engine problems shortly after the 3 year warranty they will be expensive, as parts won't be as easy to find. In 6-7 years parts for both engines should be relatively on par. As GM doesn't consider their 5.3L a premium engine, parts are currently no longer at a premium price. As much as the 5.3L engine dates back nearly a decade already, it works for what it is.

As an example, my Durango R/T with the 5.9L block, dates back to the 1970s, and parts are everywhere. Same goes for the GM 305/350 mills.

Now, cylinder deactivation works best when using the cruise control on the highway, even then you won't see above 19/20mpg. GM has been known for better mileage, as their trucks weigh more than the competition. Rear axle ratio will also play a factor with mileage, and how the vehicle performs when towing.

The HEMI V8 is a maintenance hog. 30K tune up intervals (16 plugs), to the tune of $240 or so at the dealer.... Too rich for me. I'm not sure of the EB35 maintenance schedule, but GM V8s can go upwards of 100K before a tune up. If the EB can match GM then it's a few bucks back into your pocket.

In ten years it's a bit of a mixed bag really on which engine will cost less to maintain. If GM stops production of the 5.3L in 2-3 years, in ten years parts should still be fairly easy to find, but cost might increase.

integrityman
02-13-2011, 10:04 AM
Every once in a while a great thread comes to be on lawnsite. This is one of them.

DavidNJ you have some outstanding insight, keep the posts coming!


I too have a 5.3 Silverado. I am extremely satisfied with the durability. 151k hard fought miles of towing, plowing and not one single failure. Its lacking in the power department when towing mowers, nursery stock etc.

Yesterday I was at the Buick/ GMC/ Dodge dealership with managements minivan :cry: and took the time to test drive some trucks.

I drove a Silverado diesel, a 6.0 liter Sierra, and a Dodge Ram with the 5.7 Hemi.

If I had to decide today what to buy, the Dodge Ram wins hands down. The engine engineering is outstanding, (390 hp and 407 lbft torque) the ride quality is excellent, and it offers the auto 4wd feature that the GMC models no longer do.

The Sierra/ Silverado design is good but outdated and underpowered.

joed
02-13-2011, 10:06 AM
Currently the GM will be cheaper as parts are everywhere. The EB35 is still relatively new. If you have engine problems shortly after the 3 year warranty they will be expensive, as parts won't be as easy to find. In 6-7 years parts for both engines should be relatively on par. As GM doesn't consider their 5.3L a premium engine, parts are currently no longer at a premium price. As much as the 5.3L engine dates back nearly a decade already, it works for what it is.

As an example, my Durango R/T with the 5.9L block, dates back to the 1970s, and parts are everywhere. Same goes for the GM 305/350 mills.

Now, cylinder deactivation works best when using the cruise control on the highway, even then you won't see above 19/20mpg. GM has been known for better mileage, as their trucks weigh more than the competition. Rear axle ratio will also play a factor with mileage, and how the vehicle performs when towing.

The HEMI V8 is a maintenance hog. 30K tune up intervals (16 plugs), to the tune of $240 or so at the dealer.... Too rich for me. I'm not sure of the EB35 maintenance schedule, but GM V8s can go upwards of 100K before a tune up. If the EB can match GM then it's a few bucks back into your pocket.

In ten years it's a bit of a mixed bag really on which engine will cost less to maintain. If GM stops production of the 5.3L in 2-3 years, in ten years parts should still be fairly easy to find, but cost might increase.

360,
Is maintenance on Dodge's 4.7L V8 any cheaper than that Hemi? I found a pretty good deal on a used 2011 Ram with the 4.7L engine? Don't know much about it though.

360ci
02-13-2011, 10:10 AM
360,
Is maintenance on Dodge's 4.7L V8 any cheaper than that Hemi? I found a pretty good deal on a used 2011 Ram with the 4.7L engine? Don't know much about it though.

I believe the 4.7L shares the same 30K maintenance interval, and since Dodge upped output from 245 to 300hp, it now uses two spark plugs per cylinder as well. Ford's new 6.2L also utilizes two plugs per cylinder.... Gotta love new emission regs!

That's not to say you can't put in better plugs, such as platinum or iridium, instead of the standard copper core but make sure you can do this as it might void warranty. Dealers make their $ in service!

DavidNJ
02-13-2011, 11:23 AM
One off the issues is matching your truck to your need. There are people who use a 3500diesel crew cab duelly to go to the supermarket.

First, a 5L pushrod NA engine is not the equivalent of the EB. The Ec0Boost is an alternative to the Ford and GM 6.2L V8s and bests them in all areas except peak power.

The EB definitely has more expensive parts for long term maintenance: turbos, direct injection, etc. The question is how many modern cars get to the point where they need maintenance on those items? Gone are the day when 60k engines needed a valve job and new springs. The low speed nature of the engine will further reduce wear there.

Over 100k miles, is $500-1000 in scheduled maintenance really the biggest maintenance cost? Non-regularly scheduled stuff could easily exceed that: brakes, shocks, exhaust, driveline maintenance, tires, etc..

GM parts should be around even after the company goes under, so parts and maintenance facilities won't be an issue.

360ci
02-13-2011, 12:00 PM
One off the issues is matching your truck to your need. There are people who use a 3500diesel crew cab duelly to go to the supermarket.

First, a 5L pushrod NA engine is not the equivalent of the EB. The Ec0Boost is an alternative to the Ford and GM 6.2L V8s and bests them in all areas except peak power.

The EB definitely has more expensive parts for long term maintenance: turbos, direct injection, etc. The question is how many modern cars get to the point where they need maintenance on those items? Gone are the day when 60k engines needed a valve job and new springs. The low speed nature of the engine will further reduce wear there.

Over 100k miles, is $500-1000 in scheduled maintenance really the biggest maintenance cost? Non-regularly scheduled stuff could easily exceed that: brakes, shocks, exhaust, driveline maintenance, tires, etc..

GM parts should be around even after the company goes under, so parts and maintenance facilities won't be an issue.


Technically, GM did go under, and was saved by the taxpayers, ha.
As much as it's been problematic considering I hardly drive it, my Pontiac g6 GT still has plenty of parts available at dealers, including the aftermarket.

Routine maintenance such as brakes, tie rods, tires etc, is regular maintenance overall, not engine related as it's similar for all variants of say the F150, despite the different engines. To be frank, if I could get the 3.7L V6 in other than a 4x4 longbox config I'd knowingly stick with that engine over the 5.0L V8. However, even an extended cab short box 4wd you have to get the V8 or option up to the EB35. Ford had better update their E-Series with a couple of the lower trim engines on the new F150.

Geeze. I keep forgetting to tune and clean my carburetor!

DavidNJ
02-13-2011, 01:49 PM
New GM is still in business, but I doubt it has any legs. The company is run by people who don't understand cars and the new product pipeline is hammered.

The auto industry is a product centered business. When it is run by non-product people, such as the Roger Smith era, it is never good. Do you remember the 1982 Corvette? it used a basically 15 year old body (introduced in the fall 1967) on a 20 year old chassis (introduced in the fall of 1962) with an emaciated engine that produced 16.8s@88mph 1/4 mile times.

Now GM is selling or working on totally absurd products. For the few years before the government takeover, GM's new product introductions were competitive or even class leading: CTS, revised Corvettes...a Chevy Cobalt's handling had gotten good enough to produce faster lap times than a Mitsubshi Evo in a Car and Driver test (http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/29f64c2ec07fa8aef3548a5d3c4cd280.pdf).

Now, the new Cruze is not considered that impressive. It is priced with competitors mid-sized cars; a problem the new Focus will also be burdened with. Meanwhile, GM is building it into a half-baked serial, plug-in hybrid that has a price of over $40k and relies on government subsides to get it to a still uncompetitive $33k.

Other products languish. Buick only lives because GM needed the brand in China, although not the US Buicks. Barack Obama will be lucky if it doesn't need new subsides before the 2012 election.

360ci
02-13-2011, 01:59 PM
Obama...now you've said too much!

integrityman
02-13-2011, 02:05 PM
DavidNJ-

What are your thoughts on the Dodge Hemi 5.7?

And your are 100% correct, your truck needs to match your needs.

DavidNJ
02-13-2011, 10:36 PM
The Hemi is a nice engine in its context; it is a very sophisticated 2-valve pushrod engine. The combustion chamber is an advanced design, the valves canted (like a Ford Cleveland, Boss 302, Boss 429 (now in production by Kasse), and the Engine Masters multiple time winner CHI heads from Australia). To that it adds 2 plugs per cylinder. On this engine it allowed a particularly straight intake port.

However, all of these gymnastics come with every overhead cam engine like the new Ford 6.2L. You need separate intake and exhaust cams to fully control valve timing; this is important in controlling overlap and intake valve closing. The flexibility in intake valve closing allows a higher static compression allowing a higher expansion ratio without exceeding the maximum dynamic compression.

Direct injection dramatically extends that functionality. Multiple valves improve the breathing dramatically without requiring aggressive cam profiles. Etc. etc. etc.

Net, compared to other 2-valve V8s, especially pushrod or single OHC engines, it is a very strong contender. I've never heard anyone complain and their are lots of people who focus on it in their Dodge Magnums, Challengers, and Chrysler 300s.

Note, the Ford V8s are single overhead cam so they DON'T allow separate intake and exhaust timing. The EcoBoost has everything except variable valve lift.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF66aVPhPfc

360ci
02-13-2011, 10:49 PM
F150 5.0 http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/02/road-test-review-2011-ford-f-150-xlt-50-liter-v-8.html

360ci
02-13-2011, 10:51 PM
V6 test http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2010-v-6-work-truck-shootout.html

unkownfl
02-13-2011, 11:27 PM
The Hemi is a nice engine in its context; it is a very sophisticated 2-valve pushrod engine. The combustion chamber is an advanced design, the valves canted (like a Ford Cleveland, Boss 302, Boss 429 (now in production by Kasse), and the Engine Masters multiple time winner CHI heads from Australia). To that it adds 2 plugs per cylinder. On this engine it allowed a particularly straight intake port.

However, all of these gymnastics come with every overhead cam engine like the new Ford 6.2L. You need separate intake and exhaust cams to fully control valve timing; this is important in controlling overlap and intake valve closing. The flexibility in intake valve closing allows a higher static compression allowing a higher expansion ratio without exceeding the maximum dynamic compression.

Direct injection dramatically extends that functionality. Multiple valves improve the breathing dramatically without requiring aggressive cam profiles. Etc. etc. etc.

Net, compared to other 2-valve V8s, especially pushrod or single OHC engines, it is a very strong contender. I've never heard anyone complain and their are lots of people who focus on it in their Dodge Magnums, Challengers, and Chrysler 300s.

Note, the Ford V8s are single overhead cam so they DON'T allow separate intake and exhaust timing. The EcoBoost has everything except variable valve lift.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF66aVPhPfc


You're wrong about the 5.0.

DavidNJ
02-14-2011, 01:09 AM
You're right...Ford has been active. I didn't realize the 5.0 had new heads. DOHC, 11:1 compression, although still port injection and a pretty limp torque curve for a truck. I guess it does better in the Mustang where it produce more torque and more HP.

11:1 with port injection and regular gas shows the advantage of the independent intake and exhaust cams.

If you want state of the art in a 1/2 ton engine: EcoBoost.

After that it doesn't seem like there is much difference. I wonder when it will make it to the Expedition.

dishboy
02-14-2011, 10:19 AM
you're right...ford has been active. I didn't realize the 5.0 had new heads. Dohc, 11:1 compression, although still port injection and a pretty limp torque curve for a truck. I guess it does better in the mustang where it produce more torque and more hp.

11:1 with port injection and regular gas shows the advantage of the independent intake and exhaust cams.

If you want state of the art in a 1/2 ton engine: Ecoboost.

After that it doesn't seem like there is much difference. I wonder when it will make it to the expedition.

5.0 = 10.5:1

DavidNJ
02-14-2011, 11:05 AM
5.0 = 10.5:1

I must have read Mustang data.

360ci
02-14-2011, 11:07 AM
Yep, the 'stang is 11:1.

PMASON718
02-14-2011, 12:53 PM
E c o b o o s t

DavidNJ
02-14-2011, 02:35 PM
Reworked for peak power at say 6500 rpm, I wonder if the EcoBoost would be around 500-550hp.

Ford has a 'Boss 302' version of the 5L planned. Some detail work raising it to just under 450hp. However a high performance auto engine needs its power in the 30-40% range where it has the most power under the curve. Typically that is 5-10% beyond the power peak on the high end. So, if our 6500rpm had a redline at 7000, the power band on a typical shift would drop it to 4000-4400, the bottom end of the range.

For our trucks we probably prefer a relatively flat torque curve. My hypothesis is that that passenger cars prefer a low peaked, declining torque curve, similar to a diesel, that has little torque change at the rear wheels between shifts and no power advantage from being rev'd.

dishboy
02-19-2011, 08:56 AM
I bought the STX 5.0 in a Regular cab 6.5ft bed last night. We went to dinner and home last night, city driving getting into it once getting on and then immediately off the freeway. OBC says 18.5 mpg .

DavidNJ
02-22-2011, 09:04 PM
BMW just announced a state-of-the-art engine. It is a 2L turbocharged 4-cylinder. It has a nearly flat 260-265 ft-lb of torque for 1300 rpm until its 245hp power peak at 5000rpm. It has a variable valve timing, variable valve lift, direct injection, a computer controlled oil pump, electric water pump, and start/stop function that turns off the engine at idle.

It is an indicator of what the next generation of engines past the EcoBoost could be.


http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=477882

360ci
02-22-2011, 09:37 PM
Good young' BMW!

Capemay Eagle
02-23-2011, 10:33 PM
The Ecoboost is outpulling the Hemi and the Vortec by what 11 seconds with 9K on the trailer? And getting great milage, 20+mpg. I drove one and the thing is lighting fast! I love this engine!! I wish I would have waited another year, but I still like my 5.4, Good solid engine and has plenty of power for me, with my upgrades of course Thumbs Up

Capemay Eagle
02-23-2011, 10:42 PM
BMW just announced a state-of-the-art engine. It is a 2L turbocharged 4-cylinder. It has a nearly flat 260-265 ft-lb of torque for 1300 rpm until its 245hp power peak at 5000rpm. It has a variable valve timing, variable valve lift, direct injection, a computer controlled oil pump, electric water pump, and start/stop function that turns off the engine at idle.

It is an indicator of what the next generation of engines past the EcoBoost could be.


http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=477882Ford already has the I 4 Ecoboost? How is this past the Ecoboost?

360ci
02-24-2011, 07:02 PM
I bought the STX 5.0 in a Regular cab 6.5ft bed last night. We went to dinner and home last night, city driving getting into it once getting on and then immediately off the freeway. OBC says 18.5 mpg .

sexy :clapping:

DavidNJ
02-25-2011, 01:14 AM
Following up on the new BMW engine, GM had a few direct injection DOHC engines, but that seems to have whithered to one, a 2.4L 4-cylinder, on some Buick models. For 2012 it will offer 'e-assist' which is a 15hp motor (like a big starter motor) and a small lithium-ion battery (a total waste, lead acid would have worked fine), on some Buick models. Only capable of 25mpg city, 37mpg highway (not much different than a similarly sized Hyundai Sonata), it does turn off the engine at idle.

What is funny is how GM talks about regenerative breaking. 15hp? Are they kidding? 15hp for stopping is like using a small pruning scissors to cut a two acre lawn (brakes can generate around 1200hp).

The EPA city test is bogus though; it has only two short idle periods more than a couple of seconds. Must rush hour commutes have at least a few choke points which much more consecutive idle time. In reality, turning off the engine at idle should produce much bigger real world improvements than the EPA city numbers indicate.

dishboy
02-25-2011, 03:35 PM
sexy :clapping:

Not so sure if I would call it sexy, in fact my wife doesn't like the Race Red I got. I do though, and I could not find a white, silver or gray 5.0 shortbed/limited slip within 600 miles of here. I am loving this truck, the motor pulls way harder than my 04 5.4. Ford has got it together on this truck , I like everything:usflag: about it. I hooked up the trailer and mowers (2500lbs) and towing with the 3.55 will be fine with this weight.

360ci
02-25-2011, 09:34 PM
Not so sure if I would call it sexy, in fact my wife doesn't like the Race Red I got. I do though, and I could not find a white, silver or gray 5.0 shortbed/limited slip within 600 miles of here. I am loving this truck, the motor pulls way harder than my 04 5.4. Ford has got it together on this truck , I like everything:usflag: about it. I hooked up the trailer and mowers (2500lbs) and towing with the 3.55 will be fine with this weight.

Common, it's only sexy when I drive it!

Did you choose the colour of your wife? Tell her your not happy with her colour, then watch her turn red to match the truck.