Shhhh.... don't give this administration any ideas on how to get more money to spend on BS things.

I bet there would be a lot fewer fat-ass drivers out there if they were taxed everytime they "weighed in" when they started their trucks.

The other disappointing thing to me... I have been "hearing" for years that the big three should be coming out with light duty diesel trucks (like a C1500 with a smaller diesel). Honestly, very few companies actually NEED to be running the big guzzlers that they are and could benefit from smaller more efficient diesels... but they have done nothing to this. I like that Ford has placed some emphasis on fuel economy while still keeping their trucks work worthy... now it is just a matter of a couple of years to see how the other two answer this challenge.

I remember my first car had a GM 3800 series 2 in it making 200HP... I thought that car had lots of power.... and now GM has 312HP V6s running around.... back when I was 16 the Z28 only had 275HP... it brings a smile to my face to see cars advancing so quickly... too bad it didn't happen back when I was paying $0.89 a gallon and could afford to drive something that was "less fuel efficient." :laugh:

Exactly. If we had a displacement or engine size tax it would 'force' people to put their money down more efficiently, however I can't see it happening as people will rise against the government trying to regulate their freedom of choice.

The 3.8L V6 is still a fine engine, although outdated when compared to alloy 24V blocks now. Manufacturers mean well but I wouldn't call it as much advancing as it is getting out of hand. The economy will remain in poor condition for some time. Having people buy $80-120K trucks SUVs and the like don't help matters. Yes, they add to the overall cash flow, but it proves that manufacturers can make a $200K truck, and people WILL BUY IT even though the dealer will make $25K and the manufacturer will make a good $25K as well. The GM Tahoe & Yukon were plated as GM's "cash cows" because of this.

Anyway, pushing high horse out of a small engine is a good idea on paper, and used for automotive marketing purposes to help sales. I'd much rather have a 3800 V6 than say a new 2.0L Turbo Hyundai Sonata (274hp) in a front wheel drive application. I drive 5-6 months in the snow, and a turbo FWD will cause more problems than what it's worth.

Same goes for the F150 EB, it better come with a standard full time AWD system of sorts, as in 2wd in the winter...it'll barely move. When it does gain traction at low rpms, boost will kick in allowing you to lose traction once again.... Or traction control will cut power nearly entirely which can just as well hamper any forward momentum. Ick. I can't wait for some real world test results!

 

It's inevitable. Fuel prices are what they are. We'll still require vehicles to do 'work'. People that buy a truck just to haul their lardness around are the ones who should face tax premiums on fuel, etc. Obviously that can't be regulated yet (seats that weigh the driver before the vehicle starts, ha!), but I'm sure its in the works. A 400lb person puts twice the strain on asphalt that a 200lb person does, afterall.

Europe has had road tax, engine displacement tax, and emission tax for eons and I'm still rather shocked that we don't...yet.

Shhhh.... don't give this administration any ideas on how to get more money to spend on BS things.

I bet there would be a lot fewer fat-ass drivers out there if they were taxed everytime they "weighed in" when they started their trucks.

The other disappointing thing to me... I have been "hearing" for years that the big three should be coming out with light duty diesel trucks (like a C1500 with a smaller diesel). Honestly, very few companies actually NEED to be running the big guzzlers that they are and could benefit from smaller more efficient diesels... but they have done nothing to this. I like that Ford has placed some emphasis on fuel economy while still keeping their trucks work worthy... now it is just a matter of a couple of years to see how the other two answer this challenge.

I remember my first car had a GM 3800 series 2 in it making 200HP... I thought that car had lots of power.... and now GM has 312HP V6s running around.... back when I was 16 the Z28 only had 275HP... it brings a smile to my face to see cars advancing so quickly... too bad it didn't happen back when I was paying $0.89 a gallon and could afford to drive something that was "less fuel efficient." :laugh:

 

You will eventually be forced to as fuel prices become cost prohibitive. Hell my full-time job calculates full savings down to how we can save 0.5mpg due to the size of our fleet... I think the day is coming that all us NORMAL people end up doing the same thing.

It's inevitable. Fuel prices are what they are. We'll still require vehicles to do 'work'. People that buy a truck just to haul their lardness around are the ones who should face tax premiums on fuel, etc. Obviously that can't be regulated yet (seats that weigh the driver before the vehicle starts, ha!), but I'm sure its in the works. A 400lb person puts twice the strain on asphalt that a 200lb person does, afterall.

Europe has had road tax, engine displacement tax, and emission tax for eons and I'm still rather shocked that we don't...yet.

 

Another reason not to trade in!

You will eventually be forced to as fuel prices become cost prohibitive. Hell my full-time job calculates full savings down to how we can save 0.5mpg due to the size of our fleet... I think the day is coming that all us NORMAL people end up doing the same thing.

 

Basic engine dynamics... air + gas = go.

The reason the cliche "no replacement for displacement" even exists is because bigger displacement means the engine could ingest more air and therefore burn more gas. The more gas burned, the more power made. (not adjusting for thermal efficiency of said engine).

If 1L sucks in 100% of its volume, a normally aspirated engine sucks in 1L of air. If 1 liter is turbo charged to 7psi, that same engine can take in 1.48L of air.... and so on. I am sorry if you still live in 1969 when carburetors ruled the earth, but the cliche is now dead and the manufacturers are going to put it to bed. There is a reason why Ford dumped the 7.3L Powerstroke in favor of the current engine.... and why GM dumped the 5.7L for its 5.3L... it is evolution... the days of monster sized engines is dieing.

Another reason not to trade in!

 

Basic engine dynamics... air + gas = go.

The reason the cliche "no replacement for displacement" even exists is because bigger displacement means the engine could ingest more air and therefore burn more gas. The more gas burned, the more power made. (not adjusting for thermal efficiency of said engine).

If 1L sucks in 100% of its volume, a normally aspirated engine sucks in 1L of air. If 1 liter is turbo charged to 7psi, that same engine can take in 1.48L of air.... and so on. I am sorry if you still live in 1969 when carburetors ruled the earth, but the cliche is now dead and the manufacturers are going to put it to bed. There is a reason why Ford dumped the 7.3L Powerstroke in favor of the current engine.... and why GM dumped the 5.7L for its 5.3L... it is evolution... the days of monster sized engines is dieing.

 

360CI
Ford is not putting the 3.7 in the 4WD model? That's terrible. How will the 5.0L V8 be for fuel economy? Any news yet on fuel economy for the ecoboost? We'll have to see if the increased fuel economy justifies the extra upfront cost and likely the extra upkeep cost for things such as the turbochargers.

Not for the first year was my understanding, as I can't build one online, but that might change, or be a mistake. If anything I'd guess that Ford thinks the 3.7L too weak when compared to other base half ton models in terms of peak torque to weight ratio perhaps?...

 

Could you provide a couple of sources? My comments are in red.

It still has less power/displacement. Yes it does, but that doesn't mean it's any less capable, Mr. GM guy.

It can have the 5.7 hemi. The platform is unibody and has independent suspension but can still tow 7k, I believe. And it has good ride quality too. Yes, but I bought my Durango originally as a hunting/trail vehicle as well as a tow machine. I need a low range. Fewer vehicles are offering it now, as they're going car based for a more compliant ride as you mentioned. If I got the new Durango I'd stick with the base V6 as it would be sufficient in everyday driving. Lifting and going with lower gears will also be hard unless the aftermarket finds that there is enough demand to warranty 'off road' performance mods.

But has less torque and the torque peaks at higher rpm. The ecoboost peaks at diesel like rpms. Yes, but at maximum boost you'll use just as much fuel, if not more depending on if you're towing anything than a N/A V8. Diesel burns more efficiently in terms of BTU output per X amount of fuel used for each engine.

What about "there is no replacement for displacement"? And you gave price as a reason why you didn't want the ecoboost; supercharger kits cost $5k+ As I said, performance costs money, and the question is How fast do you want to go? Not very, I buy trucks for what they are - workhorses. As for S'charge kits I have my connections to get them at cost, in line to the EB3.5 option here in Canada which is $2K over the 5.0L by the way. However, to get the max towing package you have to get the 3.5EB, which would have me going with a 3/4 ton if I planned to do any towing, because at that point I'm already well into 3/4 ton pricing. The EB cannot be had on XL or XTR trim, XLT and higher only.

There is no reason why it can't If it was a big V6, like the old 4.9L I6, that engine could do a lot of work that the V8 could with more reliability at the expense of noise vibration and harshness with similar fuel economy numbers as the V8.

Based on what? It has 140 ft lbs less torque Yes, but the 3.7 still makes decent torque for the engine size, and on base models where the EB cannot be optioned, you save over $5K. The old 4.2L V6 pumped out 202hp and was a decent base engine for the time also, as it was in line with Dodge's 3.7L at 215hp and GM's venerable 4.3L with 195hp.

We aren't talking about substituting a boosted engine with an engine that has even more boost; the ecoboost replaces a naturally aspirated engine and has two small turbochargers, designed to reduce lag, not produce ridiculous amounts of boost. You missed my point, as I was getting at reducing displacement. The EB does produce high boost to achieve the HP numbers on paper. Last I read it high on the two digit mark. Most boosted engines run mid to high single digits so as not to have a negative effect on engine durability.

You aren't considering that the engine has less friction and doesn't need to produce 350 hp all of the time. When you tow, you more than likely will as the 3.5L V6 will require more rpm to pull a trailer due to the small displacement where a larger engine can literally lug along in a lower gear although it's not healthy on the transmission. My 5.9L V8 produces stock 250hp at 4200rpm. It's rarely producing that amount of power. Generally I'm lucky to need more than 150hp even when towing on the highway as the engine cruises just under 2000rpm and at that speed I have all the torque I need RIGHT when I want it without the need to downshift, it just pulls.

There is no reason to have the extra displacement if the engine is turbocharged. You aren't giving a reason why there is no replacement for displacement, you are just saying that displacement is volume. Exactly, displacement is volume. We're not changing the volume of the engine because in the end, boosted or not the EB3.5 is still 3.5L. You're saying that large engines don't require turbos? You're right. They don't, unless the owner is a performance freak and wants the added power boosting brings. To each their own.

 

You still miss the point. Numbers are numbers, and yes, they can be altered in several ways, boost or otherwise. And I'm not saying that a large engine is required to pull a trailer. My 3.0L V6 in my Taurus can pull my small utility just fine (145hp).

I suppose my point is that displacement is what it is - volume. This is why there is no replacement for displacement because I would have assumed that that phrase is self explanatory. I assumed wrong. 1L of volume is still 1L of volume, no matter how you look at it. That is why there is no replacement for displacement.

I bet, if you go out and purchase a 3.5EB F150 and tow 7K with it everyday, you'll be disappointed with the mileage. 350hp is still 350hp whether you have the displacement, or boost, to achieve the power. I'm sure you'll also agree with the fact that if you work a similarly powered (and larger displacement) V8 with the same towing requirements, the engine will perform better, last longer and be more durable.

If I told my truck drivers that I was going to replace my entire fleet of 15-16L diesel engines that put out 525hp or so on average, to a 8-9L twin turbo engine running an insane amount of boost but puts out similar power levels, I'd be out of business. Engine durability is paramount to me, and a large iron block that can pull at very low rpm on its own with a single turbo and nearly no lag is my engine of choice for pulling heavy loads.

My N/A 5.9L Dodge gas V8 does a fantastic job of hauling things with ease, and again, I can climb moderate grades without requiring a downshift, and get 20mpg highway. Obviously EPA is in the way, but I'm sure Ford would do best with a small diesel in the F150 for those who 'work' their trucks, not just use them for groceries.

Again, I like the idea of the EB3.5 but it doesn't appeal to me as an owner operator as an everyday work truck. If Ford made it the base engine, instead of a $2K option here in Canada, I might consider trying it out, but I refuse to pay more for a smaller engine that will have to work harder, and more than likely cost me more in the long run as I try to keep vehicles as long as I can. If anything I'd take the base V6 with 300hp and 273lb ft of torque. It's not far off from the EB 3.5 but Ford doesn't offer it above base 2wd models here in Canada. Which is why I had mentioned that the next engine up, the 5.0L V8 would be the one I'd go with. If Ford can write for me on paper that a V6 can do the work of a V8 and give me a ten year powertrain warranty with the EB 3.5, I'd take it. However, as much as my dealer likes me as a client I can't see that happening.

The 5.0L V8 pumps out 360hp, in line with the EB3.5. If I wanted a 'performance truck' that gets decent mileage, I'd slap on a supercharger and be near the 500hp mark, or I'd do the same with the larger 6.2L engine and make it worth my while. As the EBV6 is already boosted, the engine is as far as it can go power wise except for throwing on perhaps a programmer and some bolt on mods, but an increase would be minimal at best.

Who knows, if the price is right a 3.5EB might be in my future, but for now, the 5.0L remains tops on my list from Ford. Unless they do come out with a diesel in line with GM's 4.5L mill due out (finally) in the next two years. The only downside to diesels is the Urea fluid. Of which the Ram doesn't need for it's 6.7L, TD but it uses slightly more fuel to compensate which to me is a good compromise, let alone I can order one with the manual transmission. I won't though, only because I don't need a truck with that capability, yet.

I've owned kinds of vehicles from the Big 3 over the years. Pontiac, Chev, GMC, Ford truck and car, Buick, Dodge truck, SUV, and cars. I had a Tundra as a rental once, and looked in the manual to realize a 4x4 5.7L long box has a payload of 1280lbs!!! Terrible for a full size reg cab!

Dodge has a new Durango, but it's not for me. It's car based for 2011. All to gain better **** numbers, they offer it with their new 3.6L V6.

Oh, GM's 6.0L also makes 360hp. It makes 322hp (as you listed) in one ton trucks for GVWR reasons (read: durability).

360CI
Ford is not putting the 3.7 in the 4WD model? That's terrible. How will the 5.0L V8 be for fuel economy? Any news yet on fuel economy for the ecoboost? We'll have to see if the increased fuel economy justifies the extra upfront cost and likely the extra upkeep cost for things such as the turbochargers.

 

Could you provide a couple of sources? My comments are in red.

You still miss the point. Numbers are numbers, and yes, they can be altered in several ways, boost or otherwise. And I'm not saying that a large engine is required to pull a trailer. My 3.0L V6 in my Taurus can pull my small utility just fine (145hp).

I suppose my point is that displacement is what it is - volume. This is why there is no replacement for displacement because I would have assumed that that phrase is self explanatory. I assumed wrong. 1L of volume is still 1L of volume, no matter how you look at it. That is why there is no replacement for displacement. There is no reason to have the extra displacement if the engine is turbocharged. You aren't giving a reason why there is no replacement for displacement, you are just saying that displacement is volume.

I bet, if you go out and purchase a 3.5EB F150 and tow 7K with it everyday, you'll be disappointed with the mileage. Prove it. What sources do you base this on? 350hp is still 350hp whether you have the displacement, or boost, to achieve the power. You aren't considering that the engine has less friction and doesn't need to produce 350 hp all of the time. I'm sure you'll also agree with the fact that if you work a similarly powered (and larger displacement) V8 with the same towing requirements, the engine will perform better, last longer and be more durable. Have you heard of Ford's ecoboost durability test? Perhaps you should read up on it. Again, why don't you provide any proof?

If I told my truck drivers that I was going to replace my entire fleet of 15-16L diesel engines that put out 525hp or so on average, to a 8-9L twin turbo engine running an insane amount of boost but puts out similar power levels, I'd be out of business. Engine durability is paramount to me, and a large iron block that can pull at very low rpm on its own with a single turbo and nearly no lag is my engine of choice for pulling heavy loads. We aren't talking about substituting a boosted engine with an engine that has even more boost; the ecoboost replaces a naturally aspirated engine and has two small turbochargers, designed to reduce lag, not produce ridiculous amounts of boost.

My N/A 5.9L Dodge gas V8 does a fantastic job of hauling things with ease, and again, I can climb moderate grades without requiring a downshift, and get 20mpg highway. Obviously EPA is in the way, but I'm sure Ford would do best with a small diesel in the F150 for those who 'work' their trucks, not just use them for groceries. So you would like a small turbocharged diesel engine but not a small turbocharged gas engine?

Again, I like the idea of the EB3.5 but it doesn't appeal to me as an owner operator as an everyday work truck. If Ford made it the base engine, instead of a $2K option here in Canada Is that 2k above the 3.7 or the 5.0? It is a $750 upgrade over the 5.0 in the United States., I might consider trying it out, but I refuse to pay more for a smaller engine that will have to work harder Please give some proof., and more than likely cost me more in the long run It should get better fuel economy. as I try to keep vehicles as long as I can. If anything I'd take the base V6 with 300hp and 273lb ft of torque. It's not far off from the EB 3.5 Based on what? It has 140 ft lbs less torque. but Ford doesn't offer it above base 2wd models here in Canada. Which is why I had mentioned that the next engine up, the 5.0L V8 would be the one I'd go with. If Ford can write for me on paper that a V6 can do the work of a V8 There is no reason why it can't. and give me a ten year powertrain warranty with the EB 3.5, I'd take it. However, as much as my dealer likes me as a client I can't see that happening.

The 5.0L V8 pumps out 360hp, in line with the EB3.5. But has less torque and the torque peaks at higher rpm. The ecoboost peaks at diesel like rpms. If I wanted a 'performance truck' that gets decent mileage, I'd slap on a supercharger and be near the 500hp mark, or I'd do the same with the larger 6.2L engine and make it worth my while. What about "there is no replacement for displacement"? And you gave price as a reason why you didn't want the ecoboost; supercharger kits cost $5k+ As the EBV6 is already boosted, the engine is as far as it can go power wise except for throwing on perhaps a programmer and some bolt on mods, but an increase would be minimal at best.

Who knows, if the price is right a 3.5EB might be in my future, but for now, the 5.0L remains tops on my list from Ford. Unless they do come out with a diesel in line with GM's 4.5L mill due out (finally) in the next two years. The only downside to diesels is the Urea fluid. Of which the Ram doesn't need for it's 6.7L, TD but it uses slightly more fuel to compensate which to me is a good compromise, let alone I can order one with the manual transmission. I won't though, only because I don't need a truck with that capability, yet.

I've owned kinds of vehicles from the Big 3 over the years. Pontiac, Chev, GMC, Ford truck and car, Buick, Dodge truck, SUV, and cars. I had a Tundra as a rental once, and looked in the manual to realize a 4x4 5.7L long box has a payload of 1280lbs!!! Terrible for a full size reg cab!

Dodge has a new Durango, but it's not for me. It's car based for 2011. All to gain better **** numbers, they offer it with their new 3.6L V6. It can have the 5.7 hemi. The platform is unibody and has independent suspension but can still tow 7k, I believe. And it has good ride quality too.

Oh, GM's 6.0L also makes 360hp. It makes 322hp (as you listed) in one ton trucks for GVWR reasons (read: durability).It still has less power/displacement.

 

You still miss the point. Numbers are numbers, and yes, they can be altered in several ways, boost or otherwise. And I'm not saying that a large engine is required to pull a trailer. My 3.0L V6 in my Taurus can pull my small utility just fine (145hp).

I suppose my point is that displacement is what it is - volume. This is why there is no replacement for displacement because I would have assumed that that phrase is self explanatory. I assumed wrong. 1L of volume is still 1L of volume, no matter how you look at it. That is why there is no replacement for displacement.

I bet, if you go out and purchase a 3.5EB F150 and tow 7K with it everyday, you'll be disappointed with the mileage. 350hp is still 350hp whether you have the displacement, or boost, to achieve the power. I'm sure you'll also agree with the fact that if you work a similarly powered (and larger displacement) V8 with the same towing requirements, the engine will perform better, last longer and be more durable.

If I told my truck drivers that I was going to replace my entire fleet of 15-16L diesel engines that put out 525hp or so on average, to a 8-9L twin turbo engine running an insane amount of boost but puts out similar power levels, I'd be out of business. Engine durability is paramount to me, and a large iron block that can pull at very low rpm on its own with a single turbo and nearly no lag is my engine of choice for pulling heavy loads.

My N/A 5.9L Dodge gas V8 does a fantastic job of hauling things with ease, and again, I can climb moderate grades without requiring a downshift, and get 20mpg highway. Obviously EPA is in the way, but I'm sure Ford would do best with a small diesel in the F150 for those who 'work' their trucks, not just use them for groceries.

Again, I like the idea of the EB3.5 but it doesn't appeal to me as an owner operator as an everyday work truck. If Ford made it the base engine, instead of a $2K option here in Canada, I might consider trying it out, but I refuse to pay more for a smaller engine that will have to work harder, and more than likely cost me more in the long run as I try to keep vehicles as long as I can. If anything I'd take the base V6 with 300hp and 273lb ft of torque. It's not far off from the EB 3.5 but Ford doesn't offer it above base 2wd models here in Canada. Which is why I had mentioned that the next engine up, the 5.0L V8 would be the one I'd go with. If Ford can write for me on paper that a V6 can do the work of a V8 and give me a ten year powertrain warranty with the EB 3.5, I'd take it. However, as much as my dealer likes me as a client I can't see that happening.

The 5.0L V8 pumps out 360hp, in line with the EB3.5. If I wanted a 'performance truck' that gets decent mileage, I'd slap on a supercharger and be near the 500hp mark, or I'd do the same with the larger 6.2L engine and make it worth my while. As the EBV6 is already boosted, the engine is as far as it can go power wise except for throwing on perhaps a programmer and some bolt on mods, but an increase would be minimal at best.

Who knows, if the price is right a 3.5EB might be in my future, but for now, the 5.0L remains tops on my list from Ford. Unless they do come out with a diesel in line with GM's 4.5L mill due out (finally) in the next two years. The only downside to diesels is the Urea fluid. Of which the Ram doesn't need for it's 6.7L, TD but it uses slightly more fuel to compensate which to me is a good compromise, let alone I can order one with the manual transmission. I won't though, only because I don't need a truck with that capability, yet.

I've owned kinds of vehicles from the Big 3 over the years. Pontiac, Chev, GMC, Ford truck and car, Buick, Dodge truck, SUV, and cars. I had a Tundra as a rental once, and looked in the manual to realize a 4x4 5.7L long box has a payload of 1280lbs!!! Terrible for a full size reg cab!

Dodge has a new Durango, but it's not for me. It's car based for 2011. All to gain better **** numbers, they offer it with their new 3.6L V6.

Oh, GM's 6.0L also makes 360hp. It makes 322hp (as you listed) in one ton trucks for GVWR reasons (read: durability).

 

There really is no replacement for displacement.

This is an antiquated argument that really needs to be put to bed. The current trucks line up looks like this:

Ford 6.7L: 400HP... 800ft/lb
GM 6.6L: 397HP... 765ft/lb
Dodge 6.7L: 350HP... 650ft/lb

Ford 3.5L: 365HP... 420ft/lb
Dodge 5.7L: 390HP... 407ft/lb
Toyota 5.7L: 381HP... 401ft/lb
Nissan 5.6L: 317HP... 385ft/lb
Ford 5.0L: 360HP... 380ft/lb
GM 6.0L: 322HP... 380ft/lb
GM 5.3L: 315HP... 335ft/lb
Dodge 5.9L: 245HP... 335ft/lb (2002)
Dodge 4.7L: 310HP... 330ft/lb
Chevy 5.7L: 255HP... 330ft/lb (1997)
Toyota 4.6L: 310HP... 327ft/lb
GM 4.8L: 302HP... 305ft/lb
Ford 3.7L: 300HP... 275ft/lb

If the argument is that you need displacement to pull a trailer, then you are dead wrong. Technology can AND will replacement displacement. You can see Dodge's and GM's largest engines (5.9L and 5.7L) have been WELL replaced with more modern designs. You will also notice that the largest engine (GM's 6.0L) is eclipsed by 5 engines with less displacement. On the diesel side of things, the larger engine does not necessarily make more power/torque.

And before you say something about the turbo engine not being good due to turbo lag... remember, the big, bad diesels have all been running turbo for a long time... you won't see a normally aspirated engine pulling a 50K pound trailer down the highway

As emission and mileage requirements go up, you will see all the manufacturers finally put to rest the idea of "no replacement for displacement" and join what foreign car makers have known for a long time... technology and boost are the ways to go. With Ford dtepping up their product line and making an engine like the EB for a truck, the other makers will now have to step up. Once people start seeing the joy of getting 20+mpg out of their work trucks and the cost savings associated, fleets will start changing over to them and if GM and Dodge don't keep up, they will get left behind.

Disclaimer: I ma not a Ford lover. Quite the opposite, I grew up in a GM family... but now with the new engines from Ford, I would NEVER buy one of GM's antique-like 5.3/4.8L engines.

 

Airways Transit group here in Ontario has older 3500 Dodge vans with the 5.9L engine with over 750,000kms on them, and they still run them at 75mph on the highways here!

Still, if towing isn't an everyday thing for you, it'd be worthwhile to check out the 3.5EB. I know I would, but I tow regularly so a small engine will be overworked. If I wanted a blower, I'd throw one on my Durango and easily push out over 400hp and oh-my-gawd torque numbers, but I don't need that. Even then, mileage would be worse. Speed (or HP) equals money, and the question is how fast can you go financially?

I agree, the 4.8L engine would be well matched to the 6 speed auto for GM, however I think the transmission would hunt quite a bit unless GM adds the 3.42 ratio and gets rid of the ridiculous 3.21 axle ratio!

 

Yeah the article said that the 150 with the Ecoboost can see 21-23 mpg and the hypermillers can see 30 mpg. Not bad for a fullsize. The wife just got a new Ford Edge and it getting something like 27mpg, I was pretty surprised when I looked on the systems computer and the average was 27, not bad and the thing is fast! The Edge is certainly my favorite SUV I have ever owned, I actually really enjoy driving the Edge.

The edge is built on the Crown Victoria body. It's enormous inside.

The shuttle van that took me to Parris Island on a cold January many years ago had 688k miles on it. I was shocked... that old guy ran it at 85 the entire trip out there.

Ford builds a good truck.

 

I had a 2003 GMC 2500 diesel and it was OK, but around 215,000kms I started to have some engine woes and electrical gremlins. I had an older Dodge (1989) after it could no longer pass the safety without requiring extensive work I kept it at the farm. It had 542,000kms when I sold it five years ago. I really didn't look too much at mileage, as both trucks were purchased used. I know I could get a good 650km out of each truck.

I'd prefer a new 6.7L TD, but I really don't need that engine for what I do. Us Canucks get whipped big time with diesel prices on new vehicles. $12-13K for GM and Ford. At least the Dodge can be had with a 6 speed manual so I can save $1400 and the diesel engine alone is just over $8.5K, which is a relative bargain. I6 design, manual trans, lowest price by over 2K... can't top that.

If you go on the MotorTrend website, they have an article on a long term 2500 Dodge diesel. With 5500miles on it they mentioned it averaged 15.3mpg, and most of the time the press vehicles are abused, so I'd expect an average in the 16mpg range.

If GM decides to get the 4.5L TD rolling and put it into the 2500 truck, I think they'll have a winner on their hands there. I'd guess (depending on gearing) upwards of 19-21mpg highway, which is VERY good for a 3/4 ton truck. It's all speculation of course, but the best thing to do is to match a truck to the job(s) you want it to do. A lot of folks think going big right away is the best course, but it brings ten times more debt after they've locked themselves into a lease, or payments they later realize they cannot afford.

I had good luck with my old '90 C1500 GMC with the 5.0L V8 and I'd gladly pick up a new 2500 HD GMC 6.0L V8 gas to replace my aging Durango. However, the Durango still runs like a top, ha.

I went out and looked at the Ford, Dodge, and GM diesel trucks today. Wow, the price is insane. For a double cab 4X4, they all want about $60K + HST. That's insane. All 3 trucks look excellent. The GMC looks incredible.

I also saw a new 2011 Dodge. The hemi has been improved for fuel economy to 15.8L/100km in the city. I guess that mean in real life it should get about 18 or so. Can't wait to see what the ecoboost or 3.7L get in the Ford. I think the 5.3 in the GM will also get a boost in hp and fuel economy. Very tough decision to make. If GM would redesign their trucks quicker, I'd take theirs. I also don't know why the 4.8 engine isn't offered with a 6 speed tranny.

 

Thanks for the input 360. I think I'd like to take a look at the ecoboost in the f150 when it comes out in January or so and then make my choice. Do you have any experience with the duramax/allison combo or the cummins in the dodge? What's the fuel economy on those?

I had a 2003 GMC 2500 diesel and it was OK, but around 215,000kms I started to have some engine woes and electrical gremlins. I had an older Dodge (1989) after it could no longer pass the safety without requiring extensive work I kept it at the farm. It had 542,000kms when I sold it five years ago. I really didn't look too much at mileage, as both trucks were purchased used. I know I could get a good 650km out of each truck.

I'd prefer a new 6.7L TD, but I really don't need that engine for what I do. Us Canucks get whipped big time with diesel prices on new vehicles. $12-13K for GM and Ford. At least the Dodge can be had with a 6 speed manual so I can save $1400 and the diesel engine alone is just over $8.5K, which is a relative bargain. I6 design, manual trans, lowest price by over 2K... can't top that.

If you go on the MotorTrend website, they have an article on a long term 2500 Dodge diesel. With 5500miles on it they mentioned it averaged 15.3mpg, and most of the time the press vehicles are abused, so I'd expect an average in the 16mpg range.

If GM decides to get the 4.5L TD rolling and put it into the 2500 truck, I think they'll have a winner on their hands there. I'd guess (depending on gearing) upwards of 19-21mpg highway, which is VERY good for a 3/4 ton truck. It's all speculation of course, but the best thing to do is to match a truck to the job(s) you want it to do. A lot of folks think going big right away is the best course, but it brings ten times more debt after they've locked themselves into a lease, or payments they later realize they cannot afford.

I had good luck with my old '90 C1500 GMC with the 5.0L V8 and I'd gladly pick up a new 2500 HD GMC 6.0L V8 gas to replace my aging Durango. However, the Durango still runs like a top, ha.

 

I don't have a 3/4 so I really can't do much other than guess based on what a friend of mine gets, but he has an older 4 speed trans and 4.10 gears. I'm not sure if I'll get the 3.73 or 4.10 gears yet but his truck gets similar mileage as you, about 19L/100 average mostly highway driving.

It's 1000lbs less weight, but my full time 4wd Durango R/T with 30" tires, 3.92 gears and 4 speed auto averages about 17L/100km, so I'd assume that I'd get similar mileage with the newer modern GM 2500 with the 2 extra gears. Keep in mind my highway speeds rarely exceed 65mph. If you're used to cruising at 70+, then you'll get worse mileage.

I test drove a 3.73 geared truck with the 265/70R17 tires ( stock are 245 width) and the engine churned over about 1800rpm at 100km/h. I'll guess again, and say that the 4.10s will bring that up to a good 2K rpm, which is what my Durango runs with the shorter diameter tires.

Keep in mind that the Ford EB3.5L will demand a premium price as it's an all new power train combo. As the GM models are the oldest, they should command more rebates than a similar Dodge.

Also, I had an old cube van 3500 with a 5.7L and ran it mostly highway and even with proper regular maintenance I was hard pressed to get anything better than 26L/100km not going over 105km/h (box on wheels). If I ran with a diesel engine on a skid in the back, I'd get in the 30-32L/100km range. It had no tach but I retired it after 328,000kms as the frame was rusting through and wouldn't pass safety in 2004.

Thanks for the input 360. I think I'd like to take a look at the ecoboost in the f150 when it comes out in January or so and then make my choice. Do you have any experience with the duramax/allison combo or the cummins in the dodge? What's the fuel economy on those?

 

I don't have a 3/4 so I really can't do much other than guess based on what a friend of mine gets, but he has an older 4 speed trans and 4.10 gears. I'm not sure if I'll get the 3.73 or 4.10 gears yet but his truck gets similar mileage as you, about 19L/100 average mostly highway driving.

It's 1000lbs less weight, but my full time 4wd Durango R/T with 30" tires, 3.92 gears and 4 speed auto averages about 17L/100km, so I'd assume that I'd get similar mileage with the newer modern GM 2500 with the 2 extra gears. Keep in mind my highway speeds rarely exceed 65mph. If you're used to cruising at 70+, then you'll get worse mileage.

I test drove a 3.73 geared truck with the 265/70R17 tires ( stock are 245 width) and the engine churned over about 1800rpm at 100km/h. I'll guess again, and say that the 4.10s will bring that up to a good 2K rpm, which is what my Durango runs with the shorter diameter tires.

Keep in mind that the Ford EB3.5L will demand a premium price as it's an all new power train combo. As the GM models are the oldest, they should command more rebates than a similar Dodge.

Also, I had an old cube van 3500 with a 5.7L and ran it mostly highway and even with proper regular maintenance I was hard pressed to get anything better than 26L/100km not going over 105km/h (box on wheels). If I ran with a diesel engine on a skid in the back, I'd get in the 30-32L/100km range. It had no tach but I retired it after 328,000kms as the frame was rusting through and wouldn't pass safety in 2004.

 

Both are on par. However, I've always been a fan of Dodge products. My buddies were either Ford, or GM guys. As I didn't want to get into a battle with no outcome, I bought my Durango R/T. It's treated me well, however, it has the 5.9L block that dates back nearly four decades - so it's a proven design. Similar to GM's 5.7L if you will.

It really comes down to personal preference. As I'd get a 3/4 ton truck, I'd get the GM 6.0L 6 speed over the 5.7L 5 speed even though both are similar performers, but the GM when towing up grades will pull using less rpm (4th gear is taller than Dodge's 4th gear). I test drove a 2500 Suburban last fall and the only downside was the price. I can get a 2500 crew 4x4 for $10K less similarly equipped minus the third row seat.

My Pontiac G6 GT has the 3.5L engine, and I must say, it's by far the BEST engine to do maintenance on. Oil filter is vertical, not on some weird angle where it's hard to access like my Durango (through the wheelwell or around the front suspension!). I also have a '99 Taurus and the oil filter is horizontal! Making it harder to fill slightly before installing, and it's not in an easy to reach location either. I haven't seen under the 5.7L engine in terms of accessibility for routine maintenance items, but the GM 6.0L looks wonderful to work on! I can't say the same for the 5.3 1500 but I hold it in high hopes.

I do as much of my own maintenance as I can mostly to save on time, not necessarily costs. I can work all day, then work on the truck throughout the night so it's back on the road for the next day. Instead of taking it into a shop, getting a rental unit...etc...

Anyway, whichever engine you choose is up to you. You might even be able to haggle (if you buy new) with a dealer to include maintenance costs such as oil changes, etc, for a certain period. Anything and everything can be negotiated within reason if you think you can outsmart the salesman, or if the salesman is decent, they'll provide you with some options and then you can better one of those option in particular to see what else you can get from it.

How good is the 6.0L for fuel on the new 3/4 tons? I saw a 2011 3/4 ton last weekend and it looks like a really good truck but the price is over what I can spend. My current 6.0L averages about 22L/100km in the city and around 17 or 18 on the highway. I was hoping a 5.3L/6 speed combo, a 5.7L/5 speed combo or perhaps the 3.5L ecoboost/6 speed combo would significantly reduce the fuel consumption.

 

Both are on par. However, I've always been a fan of Dodge products. My buddies were either Ford, or GM guys. As I didn't want to get into a battle with no outcome, I bought my Durango R/T. It's treated me well, however, it has the 5.9L block that dates back nearly four decades - so it's a proven design. Similar to GM's 5.7L if you will.

It really comes down to personal preference. As I'd get a 3/4 ton truck, I'd get the GM 6.0L 6 speed over the 5.7L 5 speed even though both are similar performers, but the GM when towing up grades will pull using less rpm (4th gear is taller than Dodge's 4th gear). I test drove a 2500 Suburban last fall and the only downside was the price. I can get a 2500 crew 4x4 for $10K less similarly equipped minus the third row seat.

My Pontiac G6 GT has the 3.5L engine, and I must say, it's by far the BEST engine to do maintenance on. Oil filter is vertical, not on some weird angle where it's hard to access like my Durango (through the wheelwell or around the front suspension!). I also have a '99 Taurus and the oil filter is horizontal! Making it harder to fill slightly before installing, and it's not in an easy to reach location either. I haven't seen under the 5.7L engine in terms of accessibility for routine maintenance items, but the GM 6.0L looks wonderful to work on! I can't say the same for the 5.3 1500 but I hold it in high hopes.

I do as much of my own maintenance as I can mostly to save on time, not necessarily costs. I can work all day, then work on the truck throughout the night so it's back on the road for the next day. Instead of taking it into a shop, getting a rental unit...etc...

Anyway, whichever engine you choose is up to you. You might even be able to haggle (if you buy new) with a dealer to include maintenance costs such as oil changes, etc, for a certain period. Anything and everything can be negotiated within reason if you think you can outsmart the salesman, or if the salesman is decent, they'll provide you with some options and then you can better one of those option in particular to see what else you can get from it.

 

The plans aren't shelved yet, they're back on but not at full speed yet. It'll take a while before the 4.5 diesel is approved by the EPA. I'd get a Ram if the price was right over the other 1/2 tons. I refuse to get a Tundra only because in 4x4 models, the max payload is a mere 1200lbs, when compared to the 1600-1800lb payloads in similarly spec'd domestic trucks. The HEMI is a good engine. It had some earlier problems with valve lifters wearing out before 100K, but it's been remedied since then. The only thing that turns me away from newer Dodge models are the short and double the price maintenance intervals, when compared to Ford and GM.

I'd rather get a 3/4 ton for the added capability despite the mileage penalty over the 1/2 ton trucks. But that's me!

The maintenance issue on the Dodge is one reason I'm not sure I want to get that truck. Which is the better engine: the 5.7 Hemi or the 5.3 Vortec on the GM?

 

Thanks 360ci for the response. I appreciate your input. I need to get a new truck in the next little while. I currently own a 2000 GM 3/4 ton with a 6.0L gas engine. I'm giving this truck to my dad as his truck is getting too old and broken down. I'd love to get a duramax/allsion combo or a cummins/dodge combo but they're too expensive for my budget. I only do part-time lawn care so I figured getting a more fuel efficient 1/2 ton might be alright for me. The Ford F150 is an excellent truck but I don't like the height on it; too tall. However, this new ecoboost engine has me thinking about it. Yet, 2 turbochargers sounds like trouble down the road. The Dodge Ram 1500 is nice too but I don't know much about the truck nor the 5.7L Hemi engine and whether it's reliable and fuel efficient. The 5.3/6 speed combo on the GM is the most fuel efficient on paper, not sure about real life stuff but the GM truck is outdated. It won't be redesigned until 2013. It's too bad they shelved the plans to stick a 4.5L duramax in the 1/2 ton. So, I'm stuck as to which one to go with.

The plans aren't shelved yet, they're back on but not at full speed yet. It'll take a while before the 4.5 diesel is approved by the EPA. I'd get a Ram if the price was right over the other 1/2 tons. I refuse to get a Tundra only because in 4x4 models, the max payload is a mere 1200lbs, when compared to the 1600-1800lb payloads in similarly spec'd domestic trucks. The HEMI is a good engine. It had some earlier problems with valve lifters wearing out before 100K, but it's been remedied since then. The only thing that turns me away from newer Dodge models are the short and double the price maintenance intervals, when compared to Ford and GM.

I'd rather get a 3/4 ton for the added capability despite the mileage penalty over the 1/2 ton trucks. But that's me!

 

If you want to run a reg cab, or ext cab 2wd, the base V6 will be more than adequate for that load.

I can't speak for mileage as I don't own either truck. I'd take the GM over the Dodge, only because the Dodge still offers the 5 speed auto versus GM's 6 speed unit. First gear is lower for more off the line torque when towing/hauling on a regular basis. For everyday driving I can imagine you'd see better mileage with the GM, mainly because it has an extra gear, is lighter (in nearly every configuration when compared to a similar Dodge variant).

Weight, gearing, tire size, engine size, altitude, driver input, all depend on if you get good, bad or decent mileage under any given driving condition. Hence the EPA states "your mileage will vary".

Another thing to consider is maintenance. Dodge has 30-40K between spark plug changes, where as GM has up to 100K as they use iridium plugs which last twice as long, and then some. The 4.7 and 5.7L Dodge engines also require 2 spark plugs per cylinder, so factor in a $200-250 tune up every 30K versus a $170 tune up every 80-90K for a similar GM truck.

There are a lot of factors to consider. As the GM should be the better mileage runner due to lighter weight, more gears, taller final drive (3.42 versus Dodge's 3.55) SHOULD net better mileage as well as be lighter in maintenance costs down the road.

Another key is buying price. If I could buy a similar Dodge truck for $3-5K less, I'd take it because the possible mileage deficit and slight increase in maintenance costs will still make it the better deal over the next 10-15 years depending on total miles driven. Then again, the GM will hold slightly better resale value, but not so much that it would make a huge difference.

I've had good luck with my Dodge Durango over the last decade and I'm hesitant to trade up for anything new as it still runs excellent. Which is saying a lot as I abuse it regularly! Ultimately it comes down to what you can afford, and your own personal preference on what YOU want to drive that is equally capable of doing the work you ask of it.

Thanks 360ci for the response. I appreciate your input. I need to get a new truck in the next little while. I currently own a 2000 GM 3/4 ton with a 6.0L gas engine. I'm giving this truck to my dad as his truck is getting too old and broken down. I'd love to get a duramax/allsion combo or a cummins/dodge combo but they're too expensive for my budget. I only do part-time lawn care so I figured getting a more fuel efficient 1/2 ton might be alright for me. The Ford F150 is an excellent truck but I don't like the height on it; too tall. However, this new ecoboost engine has me thinking about it. Yet, 2 turbochargers sounds like trouble down the road. The Dodge Ram 1500 is nice too but I don't know much about the truck nor the 5.7L Hemi engine and whether it's reliable and fuel efficient. The 5.3/6 speed combo on the GM is the most fuel efficient on paper, not sure about real life stuff but the GM truck is outdated. It won't be redesigned until 2013. It's too bad they shelved the plans to stick a 4.5L duramax in the 1/2 ton. So, I'm stuck as to which one to go with.

 

Wow, that would be really great if GM could stick in the 4.5L duramax diesel in a half ton. I understand they're coming out with a new design for their 1500 series in 2013 and it will include brand new engines that all use direct injection? How does the 5.3/6 speed combo do for gas consumption in a GM 1/2 ton and the 5.7L Hemi in the dodge 1500? The ecoboost sounds like a nice engine but twin turbochargers is what scares me. If those things ever go, it's going to be a lot of $ to fix. I personally only use my truck for my part-time lawn business. Only carries a few mowers. I actually think the 3.7L might work out well on that Ford for my uses.

If you want to run a reg cab, or ext cab 2wd, the base V6 will be more than adequate for that load.

I can't speak for mileage as I don't own either truck. I'd take the GM over the Dodge, only because the Dodge still offers the 5 speed auto versus GM's 6 speed unit. First gear is lower for more off the line torque when towing/hauling on a regular basis. For everyday driving I can imagine you'd see better mileage with the GM, mainly because it has an extra gear, is lighter (in nearly every configuration when compared to a similar Dodge variant).

Weight, gearing, tire size, engine size, altitude, driver input, all depend on if you get good, bad or decent mileage under any given driving condition. Hence the EPA states "your mileage will vary".

Another thing to consider is maintenance. Dodge has 30-40K between spark plug changes, where as GM has up to 100K as they use iridium plugs which last twice as long, and then some. The 4.7 and 5.7L Dodge engines also require 2 spark plugs per cylinder, so factor in a $200-250 tune up every 30K versus a $170 tune up every 80-90K for a similar GM truck.

There are a lot of factors to consider. As the GM should be the better mileage runner due to lighter weight, more gears, taller final drive (3.42 versus Dodge's 3.55) SHOULD net better mileage as well as be lighter in maintenance costs down the road.

Another key is buying price. If I could buy a similar Dodge truck for $3-5K less, I'd take it because the possible mileage deficit and slight increase in maintenance costs will still make it the better deal over the next 10-15 years depending on total miles driven. Then again, the GM will hold slightly better resale value, but not so much that it would make a huge difference.

I've had good luck with my Dodge Durango over the last decade and I'm hesitant to trade up for anything new as it still runs excellent. Which is saying a lot as I abuse it regularly! Ultimately it comes down to what you can afford, and your own personal preference on what YOU want to drive that is equally capable of doing the work you ask of it.

 

No no no. You speak of cars... we can no longer tow a decent trailer with a car, so there's no need for such a large engine, like the old 505ci. It was overkill, even for back then, and it produced moderate power at best , however the strong point here is the torque to weight ratio.

Most newer boosted engines have little to no lag time, but if you get the chance, take say, a new Saab 9-5 2.3 or a Subaru WRX for a spin and if you're wafting along in top gear (Ford Autos are biased toward fuel economy - if it can upshift, it will!), and you put the hammer down what do you have? Nothing. Except extremely slow acceleration and lag because the engines are turning 1500-1700rpm, forcing the driver to downshift (manual) or pushing the pedal down to force a downshift to gain momentum (automatic). So your sacrifice to gain slightly better mileage is offset by having to consistently put more throttle down to get moving.

AGAIN, if I didn't tow anything, or very rarely and decided to buy an F150 just for the size of it, I'd go for the Ecoboost, and yes, it is a ripoff at $2K here in Canada, but it's a decent engineering feat and as my current truck uses 91 octane I can keep that trend going. Unless my dealer offers me some sort of lifetime powertrain warranty on paper for as long as I own the vehicle, I'll run 91 octane in it, as I keep my vehicles until repair costs outweigh the resale value.

Alas, if you were to tune a Ford 7.3 versus the Dodge 5.9L, and all gear and axle ratios were exactly the same right down to the tire size, the 7.3L can out torque the 5.9L based on sheer size, yes. However, I'd take the 5.9L I6 for it's inline design versus a diesel V8.

I never said that a gas engine is better for towing than a diesel. It depends what you want to tow. I said that if you plan to tow over 8K, a F150 isn't the best choice as an everyday tow rig. A F250 would be the optimum choice, whatever engine you choose is entirely up to you. With the current emissions crap on the Ford and GM diesels it made the price push slightly over $10K (Canadian) where as the Dodge can be had for under $10K with auto, and under $9K with manual (my choice!). It might burn more fuel when it does filter regenerations but that's a small price to pay in convenience and maintenance stops as Urea is not yet available outside the dealerships (in Canada, that I know of).

If you really want to know my choices for a 3/4 gas, I'd get the 6.0LV8, for 3/4 diesel I'll take the Dodge I6. For half ton I'd take the ford 5.0L unless GM decides to unleash it's twice shelved 4.5L diesel, I might wait and consider that as I need a vehicle that's not only a DD, but a work vehicle as well. latest 'gossip' mentioned that GM might put the new 4.5L into the 2500HD truck as well, as it puts out the '01 HP and TQ numbers of the old 6.6DMAX. So it should make for some very interesting comparison tests over the next year or two.

Wow, that would be really great if GM could stick in the 4.5L duramax diesel in a half ton. I understand they're coming out with a new design for their 1500 series in 2013 and it will include brand new engines that all use direct injection? How does the 5.3/6 speed combo do for gas consumption in a GM 1/2 ton and the 5.7L Hemi in the dodge 1500? The ecoboost sounds like a nice engine but twin turbochargers is what scares me. If those things ever go, it's going to be a lot of $ to fix. I personally only use my truck for my part-time lawn business. Only carries a few mowers. I actually think the 3.7L might work out well on that Ford for my uses.