Half-Ton Truck Wars Include MPG Battles

Pump gas

There was a time when good fuel economy would never show up on a potential pickup customer's wish list, but times have changed. Truck buyers are getting smarter with every new generation of pickup truck, and fuel efficiency is among their demands.

According to one Automotive News writer, the fact that Ford and Ram have a strong dependence on turbocharger technology could give them an advantage (albeit Ram's turbo is on a diesel while Ford has a pair of turbos on a gasser) over the traditional, non-turbo (however high-tech) GM EcoTec3 engines.

The EcoDiesel-versus-EcoBoost debate is not likely to quiet down for a while, but it does seem to open up a good opportunity for smaller players like Toyota and Nissan (and possibly Honda), which have many high-tech options to choose from in their deep quiver of engine technologies. Saving weight with advanced, high-strength materials is a logical step for the next Ford F-150, but we like reporter Richard Truett's suggestion that Ford could also do some weight savings with an all-new rear suspension to combat some of the Ram 1500's ride advantages. We'll know more soon.

MPG Chart 1 II



@hemi lol, You can have your toyota with j2807. What does it prove? Check out putc 1/2 ton shootout. Where did toyota place towing up hill? Was the test using 10,000 lbs?

The Ram 1500 tore up the 7.2 percent grade, taking only 8.2 seconds to reach 60 mph empty, leaving everyone in the dust.

Here in Pennsylvania they just raised the gas tax by only taxing gas at the wholesale level thinking the wholesale buyers would absorb that increase and not pass that increase to the consumers,, WRONG! On Jan. 1st the price of gasoline went from $3.45 to $3.59. But they say "don't worry" cause the price of crude is going down and maybe another month they might be back down to $3.45, yea, uh huh!

OOOPS! My calculations were based on a false number in my previous post. An N/A engine loses 3% every 1000 ft and a turbo-ed engine loses less then half of that every 1000 ft. So that means at around 5,000 ft the Ecoboost and the 6.2L have the same amount of torque and anything above that the Ecoboost has more.


A country of over 300 million people and you think how many live that high above sea level? A map of the US that doesn't show major population areas is pointless because it's probably in are where not that many people live. Go through this list of the top 50 largest metro areas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas and tell me what areas you find as I see only Denver, Salt Lake City and Seattle really.

My guess would be less than 15% of the population probably lives 4,000 ft above sea level.

I already tipped my cap to the EB win at that elevation so what is your point? I gave credit for the win against the 5.7L iforce at any elevation so what is your problem? As for the 6.2L at closer to sea level you are down more than 30hp/lb ft so I said the results "may" be different because it hasn't been tested and I don't know which engine and tranny combo might be better as the EB was even with the Hemi Ram towing 8,500lbs and barely faster that the Tundra when doing payload test http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2013/06/2013-light-duty-challenge-acceleration.html.

As for the 5.3L not being the towing engine we already know that I disagree with you as I believe normal people towing try to be safe as possible and conserve as much fuel as possible so they probably do around 45-55mph which is why a 1/2 ton only has to 45 to qualify for that tow rating. Also if you are saying the 5.3L can't tow well than the Coyote F150 can't either as the new 5.3L has slightly more torque and better low end torque as the Coyote has to rev more as it doesn't have the stroke of the 5.4L Triton or 5.7L iforce. In the last PUTC test above the 14 5.3L did solid in acceleration test as that was probably what it was designed for solid performance best FE loaded and unloaded and the 6.2L is Max performance with a little FE hit. Keep in mind this is coming from a guy who had a previous screen name of 5.3L LOL.

Ive got a 14 Silverado 5.3 4x4 with 3.08 and the "EPA" numbers are dead on.. I average about 17.8 and Cuise on the Interstate at about 72mph I was averaging 22.1 MPG Ive had as High as 24.3 averaging 65MPH on Cruise.. so seems to me that Chevy did thier math correct. Just saying. Ive also got an 07 Sierra 5.3 Z71 SLE and it doesnt see any better that 18.5 if Im lucky so there is a deffinate inprovement in Fuel Economy over the GMT900's

@AD: Having lived in the Denver area myself, I have to state that you might just be surprised how many people live at or above that 1-mile altitude. The entire front range of the Rocky Mountains rides near enough to that 1-mile mark as to make no difference as Albuuerque, Colorado Springs, Denver, Cheyenne, Casper, Wyoming and every other community along I-25 meets that criteria, which adds up to around 5.5 million people. That's no small shakes for supposedly being 'remote area'.

I'm not sure why you chose to add Seattle to your list of high-altitude cities considering it's a port city at sea level. Salt Lake City on the other hand is almost a full thousand feet BELOW Denver in what is known as the Great Basin, which extends to Reno, NV.

Now, I'll grant that 5.5 million people is a dingleberry on the tail of the American lamb, but in country that is so far removed from major waterways which are STILL the most populous areas, that many people is no shakeout. That dingleberry clings and continues to grow.

But that also means that for most people, the advantage of turbocharging isn't as significant as it is at high altitude; the vast majority of Americans will never cross the Rocky mountains at all and those who do go by air far more than by four wheels. Bringing this discussion back into trucks, you find that turbos DO have the advantage for long-haul truckers and those that live at high altitudes in terms of power but lose that power advantage somewhat at lower altitudes.

I'll note that V8s offer more responsive torque for most of the country and to be quite blunt a lot of drivers simply don't like the 'feel' of turbo lag. Even living where I do at sea level, my wife has noted that the Eco-Boost Ford Focus has a very unsettling delay when pressing the accelerator until the engine revs above 2K. Just like the old 4-barrel carb, the instant you hit those extra barrels, forget your economy. The problem is, Americans have become so used to "Powerrrr!" that there are far more Jeremy Clarksons in this country than there are Richard Hammonds or even James Mays. On the other hand, you can put all the power in the world into a rig and if it can't handle, it's almost worthless.

So with pickup trucks, you need a balance of power, economy and agility based on personal needs. The turbo 6 offers a reasonable balance for the vast majority of users, though most don't want to admit it. Almost nobody needs massive horsepower full-time or even 50% of the time. Those that do are professional haulers of goods one way or another--and that includes farmers and ranchers. Nobody else NEEDS that huge V8 power, but needs and wants are two very different things and many simply WANT that power to make themselves feel good.

I grew up in the '60s, when cars were large and engines were huge. I learned to drive behind a 425c.i.d. Wildcat engine in a 4500 pound barge of a car. Not 5 years later I drove a 3500 pound beast carrying an almost tiny V6 under the hood that made that barge look slow. In fact, it made many of the hot-rodders in my town look slow as it blew them away at the lights and on the highway. It's not that it had massive power, but that it was pushing a notably lighter car that was significantly more aerodynamic than any of theirs. It was quick, agile and surprisingly got better gas mileage than the old barge (a '66 Electra 225). That lighter car, by the way, was American made and was NOT a "sports coupe" meaning Mustang, Camaro or Firebird. It was a '71 Pontiac Tempest--the T-37 to be specific.

My point? You don't need huge engines to get good horsepower and torque. You don't need turbo to get good performance and economy. But if you need to bridge that gap, turbocharging a smaller engine offers the best compromise--as long as you can stay out of that turbo. You get the power when you need it, but have the potential for measurable improvement in economy. Of course, just like the old 4-barrel carbs, people love their speed and simply can't stay out of that boost.


I was not being negative in any way on my responce toward you and did not mean to come across that way. I was just a little surprised of how much of the US was that high after I researched it after your post. I just thought I would post the info because it thought it was interesting.

You have to be nuts today if you buy any new pickup truck for your transportation needs. If you need one for your work, buy a used truck, there are plenty out there for a reasonable price. The cost of the new pickups and the average fuel mileage they give you is not worth the money they want for these vehicles. Most of the pickups bought today very seldom have anything in the bed. They seem to be a status symbol for the individual but in the real world, that symbol is stupidity.

Tom, it's the stations gouging if they use the tax as the reason for the price jump. January 1st the wholesale tax went up $0.09, while the tax at the pump ($0.12) was eliminated. The taxes went DOWN $0.03, as should the price of gas. I didn't see it drop, but a 3 cent difference is nothing when the price fluctuates by 20 cents overnight. What the tax will be next year, I don't know, but for this year, it is less than last year. Speeding tickets will be more than doubled though.

Your entire argument is that Ford went up the hill faster, with a load, at full throttle. Who does that anyway in everyday driving? How long would your ecoboost last if you did that once a day, 5 days a week for a living?

I watched that video. You're also forgetting to mention that the Silverado went down the hill without the driver touching the break pedal once. Hill decent control worked flawlessly. Silverado also handled the best, had the best ride, quietest and most comfortable cabin in addition to best breaks. I would take that any day over the penalty of going up the hill slower.
My take from the gauntlet is that the Silverado won the test. It was the best truck out there.


You make some very good points there.

I think one major problem with the Ecoboost fuel mileage is applying N/A engine gearing mentality when making their purchase. The benefit of the Ecoboost is not needing those shorter 4.10 or 3.73 gears to tow due to it's massive amount of low end torque. Most people that only need 3.15 or 3.31 gears that get you the great mileage while still being able to easily tow 8k lbs. With the Ecoboost, if you don't tow more than 8, 500lbs then anything higher than a 3.31 geared truck is just waisting fuel. Case in point is my 3.15 Screw 2wd Ecoboost work truck. It returnsa combined 19.5 mpg at the end of each tank according to our fuel cards while still being capavle and powerful enough to tow over 8,000k lbs. In contrast, my personal 3.73 Screw 4wd Ecoboost that is capable of 11,000 lbs returns a combined 16 mpg each tank. My work truck feels just as stong ad my personal unloaded due the the low end power of the Ecoboost combined with the 6 speed transmission. The only area I can feel a difference is in 6th gear, but it not drastic. My 3.15 work Ecoboost is still more powerful than our 2009 GM 5.3L 3.42 and the new 2014 5.3L 3.42 which is why I dog on the new 5.3L so much when GM says it can tow over 9k lbs when I know for a fact it cannot do it as well as my work truck.

Even though I think most people don't need the shorter gears, I am glad Ford didn't go the route of GM in their past trucks to where they only offeed a 3.08 or 3.42 gear ratio. Because of this, most 5.3L on the road are 3.08 because GM builds alot of them to get better fuel economy, but you sacrifice performance and low end power. Ford offers a wide array of gear optuons with the Ecoboost from 3.15 all the way to 4.10. This gives you a wide range of capability options to meet fuel economy needs. Sad thing is, most don't see this and end up buying more truck then their needs becaude they apply the "I gotta have the shortest gear available to do what my old V8 did" mentality when in fact it is the quite opposite. I would recommend anyone looking for a economical truck without sacrificing power to check an Ecoboost with taller 3.15 or 3.31 gears. Think about, the Ecoboost have up to over 100 lb-ft and 50 hp than even the new Ecotec 5.3L below 3,000 rpm which is usually sold with a 3.08 rear gears so why wouldn't anyone consider a 3.15 Ecoboost? As I said in my original post before Mr. Doe hadto do his naname calling, the Ecoboost does not belong on a list in being compared to the 5.3L in anyway since the 5.3L can in no way match all it's capabilities. The Ecoboost belongs on the list comparing the 6.2L and other 5.7Ls since it matches or exceeds the capabilities of those engines.

from what I've seen, cylinder deactivation doesn't work that well. GM had lots of issues with theirs. Honda got sued. I read an article from one of the service tech trade mags (lost the link to a failed drive), they aren't sold on it either. walked thru all the ins & outs, what is wrong with the concept. The EcoBoost isn't top dog anymore, but it's towards the top. The turbo tech has come so far the last 20 years, mature vs. all this computer controlled CD. I'm interested in seeing how Ram does with the v6 TD. but the report I saw on the Titan getting some 5L TD is just stupid. Unless they are building a 3/4 ton, their current platform won't hold it. the cost of Diesel & maint. where I live isn't cheap, to the point Dad will be selling off his 96 powerstroke (over 200k mi) when the new F150 comes out next fall with an Eco (he test drove mine & was impressed). We're an F-Series family, switched from Chevy some time ago & haven't looked back. They've been good to us & hold up well. Ford had teething issues with the Eco, all the auto makers do with new stuff. Took Ram forever to figure out how to build transmissions & GM decades to build a decent frame. If I had to buy a new truck tomorrow it would be another EcoBoost F150, hands down.

The folks we know that own ford eco-boosts bought them primarily for the perceived increase in gas mileage. Unfortunately for them, and the all are saying the same thing, the gas mileage is terrible and it has crushed their expectations they had prior to the actual purchase.

@ Tom Wilkinson

That's why small turbo diesels are about 10 years too late.
It was a nice gesture, really, but it doesn't do much for me in my state unless I run used veggie grease through it.

@ mark - I know 2 camps forming around the Ecoboost 3.5. You either love the mpg or hate it. It is a driver sensitive engine. I know one guy who routinely gets 25 mpg highway and another who gets similar if not worse than my 5.4. If you delve into how they drive, one trys to be smooth and out of the boost empty and the other is a lead foot. Both love the power and its ability to tow or haul.

I have a 2010 Supercrew 5.4 and my brother in law has a 2009 Supercrew 5.4. They found it hard to believe that I could get 20.5 mpg(USA) out of my truck. I am smooth and stick to the 60 mph limit and he and his wife are leadfoots.

The EcoBoo is a farse, the Epa Highway numbers are achieved when the turbos are not spooling, in real world driving the turbos would be active in which case it would get much worse mileage.

I bought a 5.0 F-150, and I love it.


I have Torque app screenshots of my boost gauge at 75 mph that will prove what you just said as incorrect. In my 3.15 ratio work truck that averages a combined 19.5 mpg at 75 mph on a level road I am at -3 to -1 psi, and rarely do I get above 7 psi unless it is over a grade 2 hill. With my personal that has over sized aggressive tires I am around -1 psi while still not going above 7 psi unless on a steep 2+ grade hill and I average 16 mpg combined at the end of each tank on that truck. Keep in mind my personal truck can do something your 5.0L can't which is tow 10K lbs with ease so you have to factor that into your equation of comparing the two. You can't just compare fuel mileage and not capabilities. That would be like what GM does when they compare the mpgs of the 5.3L to the Ecoboost when they are in no way the same league in capabilities and performance. That is like comparing the 5.0L to the Boss 6.2L on fuel mileage only, and not on performance.

I live in a high elevation mountain area where we get "snowed in" from drifting snow in the winter. I have learned 4x4 is worthless without the heavy weight of the vehicle behind it. Everybody else owns these gas saver small SUV's and just because they are 4x4 they think they will go thru any deep snow! Wrong! These SUV's get hung up on unplowed roads cause their 2 wheel drive traction control kicks in before the 4x4 and with the light weight of the SUV they just don't get the traction.
I understand long before I bought my full size truck that it weighs 5000 lbs and gas mileage would suffer cause it simply takes more engine power to move that higher weight around! Also I haul, I have a wood-coal burner, 2 trailers. I have to accept poor gas mileage to meet what I need!
I also own motorcycles and people ask me what gas mileage I get, I tell them I don't ride motorcycles for the good gas mileage, I ride them cause I enjoy them. The same can be said for pickup trucks, if you don't haul or tow, you drive one cause you enjoy driving one!

I would like to add my opinion about the difference between the F-150 , 3.5 Eco-Boost and the 5.0 V8. I did test drives on both, yes the EB does feel more powerful, but only in acceleration from a dead stop, but the transmission is programed different where the EB the transmission stays in a lower gear longer giving you that feeling of quicker acceleration.
I chose the 5.0 V8 cause I simply didn't trust the twin turbo's that they would be trouble free in the future, in my opinion nobody makes a turbo that's dependable, turbo's have been tried before back in the 1980's and 90's and they failed, I don't see any improving technology or new design in a turbo that makes them reliable.

@Tom: The argument that refutes your conclusions is the simple fact that a lightweight Jeep TJ or YJ does as well or better than your truck in most deep-snow situations. This isn't to say *you* don't need your truck for other purposes as well, only that you're grouping too many vehicles in your "lightweight SUV" category. Deep snow or mud is almost the ONLY situation where sitting 10" off the ground is an advantage.

You also ignore the fact that many of today's mid-sized SUVs have a selectable 4WD system--though I won't argue that many owners really don't know how to use them, expecting the automated system to know what's best for every situation. However, I've seen 2WD drivers who know what they're doing out-drive many 4WD owners even in moderate snow up to 6". It is far too easy to get overconfident with a full-time 4WD vehicle. Even your truck isn't the best choice--unless you load up the bed with a few hundred pounds.

And the 3.42s are the most common gears in GM trucks not 3.08s nice try on trying to bash GM some more you Ford Slappie!

@johnny doe

Okay, prove me wrong that the 5.3L and Ecoboost are comparable in their capabilities and performance. I am not talking about you just calling the Ecoboost an Ecobust or just saying it is junk because your word hold not weight without real proof. Everything that I have provided like the PUT.com 2013 light truck shootout or the Ike Gauntlet test have proved that the Ecoboost is far superior to the 5.3L in performance and is closer to the 6.2L and other 5.7L engines. If you believe otherwise then show me why believe that way with real facts and not just by what you claim as fan boy. Put up or shut up.

@Tom: Your argument about turbocharging used to be very true--when everybody was trying to get maximum horsepower out of maximum boost. Most of the turbos you're complaining about don't run at 13-14# of boost any more; they operate at more around 7# which doesn't stress the vanes or the engine itself nearly as much. Remember, 18-wheelers have been running turbochargers on their big engines for a couple decades now and if those were nearly as fragile as you're trying to make them out, those 18-wheelers simply wouldn't be using them any more.

That's the difference between the EcoBoost and other modern factory turbocharged engines--by running lower boost you still get a performance improvement without sacrificing reliability. Granted, Ford's system seems to be having issues but they seem to be more due to intake design rather than to any fault of the turbo itself. A turbocharger needs a clean airflow or it will... stall; spinning too fast to let air get back into the vanes. If the issue is due to humidity, then quite simply air density will cause such a stall if the intake curves enough to create eddies.

It's like the cavitation you get if you spin a boat propellor too fast. Even WWII combat aircraft discovered that all the horsepower in the world is useless if the props simply can't bite air. The P-47 Thunderbolt was almost useless in Europe until they re-installed the "ferry" props (called 'paddle blades') at which point it competed favorably even against the renowned Spitfire VI.

@ALL1 I have proven it to you, I've posted few links with my proof strait from 3 different Ford forms not all that long ago but I guess you got short memory.

You're a tool.

strait from you're post earlier

( the Ecoboost does not belong on a list in being compared to the 5.3L in anyway)

And what have you been doing for the past 4 or 5 months, trying to compare the the Eco bust and the 5.3L

@johnny doe

I never seen one post of your with links that prove that the Ecotec 5.3L is just as CAPABLE and POWERFUL as the Ecoboost in any real world test. Why? Because there isn't one due to the fact that it is not as capable or powerful. You posted forum pics of engine failures. Well gues what, I can do the same for the 5.3L when it was in its infancy as I can for any engine. You keep calling me names and saying I am lying yet you cannot prove that I am lying. Like I said before, PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Show me tests you have that proves the 5.3L as powerful as the Ecoboost. If your next post doesn't then that just proves that every name you have been calling me should be said when you look in the mirror.

@All1: A very interesting chart there and yes, you do demonstrate that peak horsepower and torque are higher on the EcoBoost than the V8 and even that the torque curve remains fairly flat for a longer period from lower revs.

On the other hand, that 75 foot pounds difference shrinks rather quickly to a mere 20 to 30 difference while a mere 10 horsepower at peak is hardly significant. The two engines do seem quite comparable in overall capability with the turbocharger really only offering superior acceleration torque. What I don't know and I'm not sure how well the power curve would show this, is how does that torque stand up once you let off the gas just to maintain speed? Yes, at 1500 rpm you've got a good jump on the V8, but once you let that turbo spool down for the economy phase, I could see a significant drop in power. Having driven a more aerodynamic vehicle with a V6 that cruised very nicely at about 1300 rpm and 65mph, I'd worry that the EcoBoost Ford might need to rev closer to my Jeep's 2100 rpm at 65 just to keep power up.

This could also be one reason why the EcoBoost doesn't get better fuel mileage in the States because the body simply isn't aerodynamic enough to let less power be more economy. Honestly, that EcoBoost should be doing a lot better and with the global Rangers this seems to prove it. That Ranger isn't doing any better WITH turbo than my Jeep Wrangler without turbo carrying 0.3L more engine. The only difference seems to be acceleration and peak power. Why, if the EcoBoost is so good, does it do so poorly on economy?

Error on my part: I meant F-150 with EcoBoost, not Ranger. The global Ranger appears to be proving my point about aerodynamics while the F-150 with EcoBoost is proving my point about the lack of aerodynamics.

@Tom - My wife or I get around in all but the deepest snowfalls in her Sienna. The key is good winter tires and thinking ahead. I use 4x4 in my truck only when I absolutely have to. When you talk about plowing through deep snow it all depends on the texture and density of snow and how deep it is. If it isn't too deep or too dense, a heavy truck with ground clearance and good tires will plow through it. If it is extremely dense and extremely deep, it ain't gonna work. In that case light weight and wide tires to float on top is what you need. You can't make broad generalized statements about what works best. I've owned small, 1/2 ton and 3/4 ton trucks and they all have areas of superiority in winter conditions.

Actually, the aero part is overrated in most situations, respective to fuel economy.

Unless you do a lot of driving at steady speeds north of 60 mph the bigger factor is the weight of the vehicle, the gear ratios and the displacement of the engine (and the amount of stop/go driving).

Aero is a factor for someone who does all their driving under Interstate conditions, but is much less a factor in average driving.

"Lou BC" I agree some small SUV's Subaru and Jeep Wranglers do very well in deep snow. The SUV's that are worthless are the Suzuki's Toyota Rav4, Honda's, Kia's cause they have no control over the traction control and 4x4, when I see them stuck in the snow all I see is the front wheels spinning, the traction control always kicks in long before the 4x4. I am talking about unplowed roads and drifting snow banks . I understand the wet snow is the worst like white mud, that's where wide tire tread and weight makes the better difference, also when the deep snow melts on the road driving thru deep slush the heavy weight of the vehicle is everything. A heavier weight 2 wheel drive vehicle would do better than many of these small SUV's,, seen way too many SUV's stuck in the snow and I am sick and tired of pulling them out or being called a SOB when I don't stop and help them.


I regularly tow a 30 foot Jayco, and I love the power from my 5.0, especially when merging, I traded up from a 99 5.4 Triton, and it is a big difference in power. The reason I didn't buy an EcoBoost is nothing can match the smoothness and control of a Naturally Aspirated engine, Ford tried to combat turbo lag by using two tiny turbos, but you can't loophole the laws, of physics. Secondly, the Ecoboost is a clean-slate design, the 5.0L is the evolution of engine design and engineering over several decades, a vast improvement over the older 5.4L, and 4.6L's.


I live here in Washington state and I visit ORV parks regularly, I have had a stock Jeep XJ, and it was hell, I just couldn't get traction, and it was annoying, and sometimes a nightmare asking ofther people to towhook, or winch me out, people would keep telling be that I dont have enough weight on the tires. I ended up adding a bullbar, a rear steel bumper, and a winch and it did wonders.

@ALL1 I never once said the 5.3L would beat the Eco Boost so why should I provide a link to something I never said, you're trying to put words in my mouth that I never once said. I only said it beat the Eco Boost in MPG and repectively close in the PU TRUCK SHOOT OUT with 3.42s.

Far as I know no one has tested a 3.73 5.3L Truck to an Eco Boost. At close to see level the 5.3L with 3.42s isn't to far behind a Eco Boost with 3.73s


If we go by the test idea of you're favorite test you like to point out where the Chevy had 3.08s and Ford had 3.73s. Change the Chevy to 3.73s and put 3.15 in the Ford close to sea level then it might have a chance at beat the Eco Boost.


The difference between what GM is doing in their adds and the others are not, it GM is calling out specific engines while the others say "best in class". GM is specifically calling out the Ecoboost knowing full well that it cannot match it in anything besides fuel economy. This is what misleads ignorant GM fan boys and I it is starting to get old correcting them when they bring it up. Ever since those ads started coming out I have already had 8 GM fan boys that I know giddy as a little school telling me how the new 5.3L tops the Ecoboost in the GM adds. Which I kindly tell them yes the 5.3L tops the Ecoboost in fuel mileage and I will never deny that because it is a fact. However it does not even come close in power and capability. When I tell them this then it throws into a frenzy and on the defensive claiming that GM would never compare the two if they knew it wasn't just as capable and that there is only a 10 hp difference. Then I have to go into explaining how it is torque that pulls a trailer and show them the dyno I had posted earlier from my phone because they cannot rap their head around the concept of two engines power bands being completely different. Even after I show them they try to say that the 25-30 hp and 75-80lb-ft difference between 1,500-3,000 rpm doesn't make that much of a difference. In try to remind them how when the last time I saw them they were raving over how much of a difference the new tuner they got that added only 25 hp and 25 lb-ft made on their truck and to picture adding 80 lb-ft to their current ride. They also get pissy when I tell them that the same SCT tuner for the Ecoboost add OVER 50hp and 100lb-ft and the custom tuners add more then that are 65hp and 115lb-ft in their tow tunes making it around 420hp and 530 lb-ft with just an 11,000 lb tow tune. They eventually do what most fan boys do when they know their favorite brand is beat which is make excuses and start calling people & things names which makes them look even more like an idiot. I try to refrain from stooping to their level and calling their truck make or them names.

The difference between me and the those fan boys is I an not above giving other makes their credit where credit is due. Even though the Ecoboost beat the 6.2L in high altitude, I have no doubt that it will not be the same at lower altitudes. Also, when I had my old 5.4L and the I-Force and Hemi were smoking the Fords at the track and pulling the weight then I also gave them their props then too. A fan boy could not even fathom giving another truck make their credit where credit is due.

Although one thing that I wish Mark Williams would find out for us is what is the 6.2Ls power numbers on regular fuel since the 420hp / 460 lb-ft was with premium fuel according GMs 6.2L specs ( http://www.gmpowertrain.com/VehicleEngines/PowertrainProducts.aspx ). I know if you add premium fuel to the Ecoboost then it bumps it's power numbers to 385hp and 430 lb-ft of torque according to Mark Williams. So I wonder how much of that power (if any) is lost with regular fuel in the 6.2L. With premium in both, there is only a 35hp and 30lb-ft difference with the Ecoboost being more powerful below 3,250 rpm and the 6.2L be more powerful above that which is even the case with the Ecoboost on regular fuel.


I do not want to insult your knowledge at all, but I am not sure you fully understand how rpm and speed work based on your comment. I am not trying to negative or anything, but like I said it just seams that I should clear some things up. The RPM of your engine at a certain speed is dependent on the gearing of the vehicle and not necessarily the power output unless the power output is not enough to maintain speed and the vehicle has to downshift to me at a certain rpm. The formula for finding out an engines rpm at a certain speed is 336.13 x gear ratio x axle ratio x mph / tire diameter in inches = rpm. If you plug in the specs for a 2013 F-150 Ecoboost 4wd 3.55 with stock 34.2 inch tires cruising 65 mph in 6th gear(0.69:1 ratio) then it will be 336.13 x .69 x 3.55 x 65 / 34.2 which will give you 1,564 rpm which the Ecoboost is putting out about 370 lb-ft of torque at that rpm which is plenty to move and unloaded truck. Now, if I was loaded going up a hill at 65 mph and need more power that what 6th gears rpm has available then the truck would down shift to 5th gear (0.86:1 ratio). That would look like 336.13 x .86 x 3.55 x 65 / 34.2 which is 1,950 rpm and the Ecoboost makes about 390lb-ft at that rpm. Dropping down to 4th (1.14:1 ratio) at that same speed would put the engine at 2,729rpms which the Ecoboost is making about 420lb-ft at that point of its powerband. So you see, gearing puts the engine at a certain rpm and not the other way around. If you knew this then discard and if you didn't then we all learn something new everyday.

@ALL1 and Johnny Doe

I think both you are right in certain areas like the EB has better performance than the EcoTec 5.3L and the Coyote F150 as lets be honest not much compares to a twin turbo engine as they usually make peak torque below 3000 rpm. The EcoTec 5.3L is almost similar in power into the 6.0L Vortec in the Silverado HD which with paired to a 4.10 axle ratio can tow more than a Supercrew FX4 EB with a 4.10 axle ratio. The new 5.3L with its max tow package may have all the power needed in a 1/2 ton to achieve a tow rating over 10,000lbs the rest is frame and chassis http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/chevrolet/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2013/May/Silverado-May-5/0505-silverado-chassis.html. I would say the new 5.3L does not compare directly with either the EB or Coyote F150 as when it comes to towing that new high compression 5.3L V8 will get better FE than the EB or Coyote which is probably what matters most to people who tow a lot. The torque band on the 5.3L is less than the the EB but the low end is stronger than the coyote but all 3 can tow over 8,500lbs so which for most 1/2 ton users is enough as most 11,000lbs+ towing is more than likely to be done by 3/4 ton. Power alone does not equal capability.


In the case for those that do not tow more than 8,500 lbs then I would recommend them getting the EB 3.15 2wd or 3.31 4wd. Out work salesman Screws EB 3.15s (7 of them) all return a combined 19.5 mpg at the end of each tank. Our Regular Cab 3.15s EBs (5 of them) vary depending on the driver (young kids fresh out of high school) are between 18.5 to 20 mpg each tank. That is with the Texas 75 mph highway speeds. The problems with most people that buy them opt for the shorter gear ratios(3.55 and 3.73) because they think a small V6 needs them when in all actually a turbocharged vehicle does better with taller gears (to a point) to take advantage of the broad torque curve. Case in point on the forums is the 1/4 miles times of more 3.55s being quicker than the more 3.73s ( http://www.f150forum.com/f70/ecoboost-quarter-mile-times-mods-162637/ ). I think this is majorly due to peoples misunderstanding of how FI engine power bands are and think they are just like N/A engines on their power delivery.

Another thing is the fact that not every manufacturers towing standards are the same. One manufacturers towing standard might be being able to tow 8,500 lbs only being able to do 45 mph going up the hills without power to spare. Other manufacturers standard might be being able to tow 8,500 lbs while being able to do 65 mph if needed with plenty of power to spare. Case in point is a 2014 Tundra 5.7L 4.30 max tow(10,000 lb rating) with the 2014 GM 5.3L 3.42 (9,600 lb tow rating). Yes, they have different power numbers and different rear ratio so to some they would say it is unfair, BUT both makes rate them about the same in their tow rating capabilities. You as a Tundra owner knows damn well that a Ecotec 5.3L with 3.42 axle will not tow 9,000 lbs like how your Tundra would going up the 7 mile Davis Damn hill. Not even a GM Ecotec 5.3L with 3.73 gears that GM claims can tow 11,000+ lbs would not even be able to tow the same as your considerably more powerful and extremely shorter for towing 4.30 geared Tundra. So one can only conclude that GMs idea or standard of towing is a lot different than Toyotas, Fords, or Rams. This is what misleads ignorant people. They look at two trucks that both the same claimed tow rating thinking that they will tow that weight the same when in fact that is far from the truck. Anyone like you and I who has enough knowledge about towing powertrains and gearing could see right through some of these manufacturers claims.

@Mark Williams.

Why are my post's responding to the Mr. Retard's questions (that is the name he chose) keep getting deleted that are not breaking any rules yet there are posts still here that a calling other posters names. I can see that first post you deleted because I basically told someone who said I should shut up to come make me, but there was nothing bad in the second. Is it because I keep responding with "@ retard"? If so, I can't help it because that is his name. Tell him to change it if you don't like it being used. I would like an explanation of why they were deleted.

@All1 - I suspect that PUTC is trying some sort of software program the will delete posts if key words are detected.

I do find much irony in the fact that a guy named R_tard is claiming that the new 5.3 is superior because the EB 3.5 is "marginally" better.

@R_Tard - define marginal.

PUTC challenge:
7.2% grade 0-60 mph Empty
- EB 3.5 = 0.9 seconds faster

7.2% grade 0-60 mph 8,500 trailer
- E.B. 3.5 = 2.3 seconds faster

Flat ground 0-60 empty
- E.B. 3.5 = 0.4 seconds faster

Flat ground loaded 1,200 lb.
- EB 3.5 = 0.5 seconds faster

Flat ground loaded 8,500 lb trailer
- EB 3.5 = 1.1 seconds

I cherry picked the data in favour of GMC since the Silverado and Sierra had very different times.

I forgot to add that if one were to compare the Ford 5.0 to the Chevy 5.3 then I would agree that the 5.3 is most likely a better performer but I have yet to see a 5.0 versus 5.3 shootout.
I've never been one to be a fanboy of the EB3.5 because the conservative side of me distrusts "new" tech but performance numbers do not lie.

@Lou BC
Based on the test results, we can agree that for someone who expects to do a lot of heavy hauling a turbo optimizes torque across a broader rpm band, even if the engine has less displacement, up to a point anyway.

The extreme powerplants we see in top fuel drag racing, or in circuits like Formula One are built to live a short but glamorous life.

Truck motors, on the other hand, are required to give years of great service.

For those of us who don't do a lot of heavy hauling, GM's 5.3 offers a nice combination of performance and being easy to live with.

@papa Jim

Are you saying the Ecoboost is as an extreme powerplant as a top fuel dragster that has up to 8,000 hp 496 ci going full blast to its 8,250 rev limit? Really? I am not even going to comment on that one.

In all actually, your argument goes against the 5.3L. One of the things that wears an engine down is being in the high revs a lot. Seeing that the Ecoboost has a lot of low end torque, it does not need to rev as high as the 5.3L to do the same work. Case in point is the 5.3L 383 lb-ft of torque that it takes the 5.3L 4,100 rpm to achieve and then it quickly looses it going down. That some 383 lb-ft of torque is achieved at just 1,750 rpm in the Ecoboost and it keep it above 383lb-ft all the way until around 5,00rpm. So essentially the Ecoboost has (more than) the 5.3L max torque about put from 1,750 rpm to 5,000 rpm to where the 5.3L has to rev up to 4,100 rpm to achieve that number and then quickly loses it. The argument can be made that the 5.3L will wear out quicker due to the factor that it needs to rev higher to do the same work as a lower reving Ecoboost.

If you ever driven one, which I encourage you to do just for the sake that you will have a little more knowledge, then you would see that you hardly every see the rpms past 2,500 in normal driving. Even getting up to 3,000 rpm will get you going pretty good. For the sake of knowing your enemy, go drive one and try to drive it like you do normally do your own truck keeping it between 1,500 and 3,000 rpm. Also, there are already guys on the forums that have already gotten up to 150k miles out of their Ecoboosts and some of our work trucks are slightly passed 100k. So saying that it won't last is proving to be a false statement backed up on no real data and just assumptions.

For the sake of this article, this is how I see how these engines should be compared.

4,500 lbs
Tundra 4.0 (only capable of towing 4,500 lbs per Toyota)

5,500 lbs - 6,500 lbs: very light towing with good fuel efficiency
Ford 3.7L
Ram 3.6L
Ram Eco-Diesel (3.55 rear axle)
GM 4.3L
Tundra 4.0L
GM 5.3L (with 3.08 rear end)
Tundra 4.6L (only capable of 6,500 lbs.)

7,500lbs - 9,000 lbs: moderate towing with middle of the road fuel efficiency.
Ford 5.0L
Ford 3.5 Ecoboost (with 3.15 and 3.31 rear ends)
GM 5.3L (with 3.42 rear end)
Ram 5.7L (3.21 rear axle)
Ram 3.0L Eco-diesel (3.92 rear axle)

9,500 lbs + : Heavy tow (For a half ton) and not winning any awards on fuel economy
Ford 3.5L Ecoboost (3.55, 3.73, and 4.10 axles)
Ford 6.2L
Ram 5.7L Hemi (3.92 rear end)
Tundra 5.7L I-Force (4.30 rear end)
GM 6.2L

This is just my take on it, and i am sure others will have their own opinion on it. Also, one the I thought was funny when looking these up, GM says that the 5.3L with a 3.42 axles has a higher tow rating than the 6.2L with a 3.42 axle. Seriously, look it up. I thought that was kind of funny. I think they are over exaggerating the 5.3L numbers to say it can compete with "you know what" engine.

@ALL1 - the company my brother works for just bought a fleet of Ecoboost F150's to replace their fleet of 1500 Chevies. It will be interesting to see how they hold up. The trucks don't haul or pull heavy but are used by flield operations staff. They went to the Chevies because they thought they would be more economical to run and now are trying Ford.
My brother needs 3/4 tons so he won't get to drive them but he is on his 3rd Crewcab 2500 GMC. Someone pointed out that the new 5.3 has similar power numbers to the 6.0. He describes the same problems with the 6.0 pulling a 10k trailer in the mountains as seen in the Ike gauntlet with the Chevy 6.2. The truck revs shifts and bogs. This cycle repeats itself over and over whether or not the truck is in tow/haul. He had the local dealer check tow/haul on his first truck and they said nothing was wrong with it.
He did say that he liked the Ram 2500 with 5.7 much better than the Chevies he drives now. He hasn't had a chance to drive a 6.2 Ford HD yet but others say that the Ford and Ram HD (not the new IRS trucks) ride better than the Chevy.

I've had a 5.3, it's a joke of an engine. No torque whatsoever. Leave it in the front-wheel-drive Impala SS that nobody wants.

Take a breath.

I simply said that introducing compressed air into the intake side is the method used to optimize engine displacement, which is exactly what superchargers and turbos do. As RPM increases it gets harder to draw air into the cylinder, hence the pump becomes useful.

A peek at the results of old Indy races during 1970s--when normally aspirated Cosworth (and Ford/Chevy) V8 engines competed against 1000 horsepower Offy turbo engines. The Offy's had the edge for qualifying, but they struggled to finish races.

Turbo technology today in gasoline engines is a world apart from old Indy racing but the illustration works.

Turbo is more complex and more expensive to build. There is still a place for gasoline V8 engines in half ton trucks.

@papa jim

Actually the direct injection and variable valvle time found in both engines is newer and way more complex than a turbo with bearings and two wheels. Turbis have been on engines since the 1920s so saying it is new tech versus everything else on these engines is a far stretch. I understand people hesitation towards it like I was, but that doesn't mean you can just throw out assumptions that you don't know as fact about it.


They will like them if they are 3.15s or 3.31s for fuel mileage. The 3.55s onup will give you more capabilities than the competition fuel sipping V8s, but will not match the fuel economy. I was hesitant too when it came me getting my first when I got my company truck Ecoboost. I was just like mostvof the guys here with these falls assumptions. It did not take long for all my hesitations fly out the window after just one day of driving it and especially after towing with it. Is it the best engine ever? No, but it is still pretty impressive on how much low end torque such a small gaser engine puts out while not sacrificing much at top end. At the time I bought mine, no ther engine had as much torque below 3,000 rpm. Hell, even todays most powerful gaser engines in a half ton, the GM 6.2L, doesn't have as much torque as the Ecoboost before 3,000 rpm. All I got to say to the doubters is drive one and and feel what it does before 3,000 rpm which is where all of us usually ldrive.


I'm going to ignore the superior attitude and focus on your message.

I've driven the 6.2 Lariat 150 which is a very sweet truck. I like GM's 6.2 better but there's only a slim difference. The Platinum and King Ranch upgrades are fine but the Lariat really impressed me.

Now for the Turbo. Turbos are great, but the driveability of turbo engines sucked so bad in the past that many people were turned off. I'm talking the 1980s turbo. Today's is more complex because of the electronics, but the computer also makes it much more driveable.

Turbo will be the future of gas and diesel passenger car engines. We are already there with the premium brands like Audi, Cadillac and Lincoln. Mercedes and BMW too.

The Gen 4 and Gen 5 GM engines are great motors. My 09 Silverado is the best car or truck I've ever owned.

I'm so old that I can remember watch Ronald Reagan on Death Valley Days, so that means I've owned a LOT of cars, tractors and trucks.

@papa jim

I will agree with you that the turbos of the 80s are not the same as today. The old turbos were only oil cooled so you had to know how to take care of them and let them wind down before shutting off the engine after running it hard or you would coke the bearing. If you didn't do this (which most didn't even know you were supposed to) then the lifespan of your turbo is dramatically reduced. With today's turbos being water and oil cooled, there is no need to do that anymore since the turbos uses physics to act as a thermal siphon to run water through them even with the engine off. This greatly increases the life and reliability of the turbos to the point where you are more than likely to have something else fail first.

You are right that the Ecoboost is computer controlled and without the ECM telling it what to do then nothing can happen, but so is every other modern engine. Long gone are the days of trucks like my old 82 Chevy C/K 350 V8 or my 86 Ford F150 300 I6. Then again, the 350s in the C/Ks were not even making 170hp back then and the it's unheard of not to make above 300hp in a V6 now. Although I still wish GM would drop the 5.3L and go back to the 350(5.7L), but they probably never will to keep up with tighter fuel mileage regulations.

@PapaJim: "Aero is a factor for someone who does all their driving under Interstate conditions, but is much less a factor in average driving."
That's where you're wrong. Any time you exceed about 45mph, your gas mileage starts to drop through aerodynamic drag. Vehicles with very square faces will realize it as slow as 30mph. And I did say ANY time you go faster than 45mph. You just don't notice it as much because usually at those slower speeds you're in stop-and-go traffic which, as you say, is far more power-intensive.

But even if you only drive a couple miles at some speed over... let's say 50, aerodynamic drag can cost you a measurable amount of fuel. However, the typical farm-truck driver has to drive 4 miles or more just to get to the local town and in some parts of the country that might be 10 miles or more. I know dog-gone well that if they have to drive that 10 miles they're going to run at or push the speed limit and not run at a measly 45mph if they don't have to. With even today's trucks that's a minimum of a gallon of gas round trip. A more aerodynamic shape could save them 25% to 50% of that--maybe burning half the fuel even if all other aspects of the truck remain the same.

Sure, the effect is far more visible at freeway speeds of 65mph or greater, but that doesn't mean it has NO effect at lower speeds.

@Ford 5.0: I HAVE a stock JK on Bridgestone light truck tires (Dueler Revo 2) and have gone through our local ORP with no difficulty--in fact, surprising lifted TJ and YJ owners by the fact that I was taking obstacles stock that they had to lift as much as 3-4" to conquer. However, that's not why I bought the JK, that's just a fun capability. I bought it in order to let me drive when weather conditions effectively prevented me from driving any other type of vehicle.

@Vulpine Please stick to what you know.

My remark about Aero is on the money. A much bigger factor for the average driver is a cold motor.

Driving a fully warmed-up engine is a much more fuel efficient vehicle than one that's in the warmup phase, where most of us spend all our time. Just because the thermostat has opened doesn't mean the engine's fuel management and spark control are fully optimized. I doubt that even fifty percent of my driving is with a fully warmed up motor.

It's even more significant for people in cooler climates.

Aero does become a very big factor at speeds over 60 or so. Less than 60 it is very heavily influenced by other factors like surrounding traffic and tailwinds, etc. However, because our transmissions are mostly in OD on the highway the vehicle gets its best mileage, even with the losses that come from aerodynamic drag.

Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2017 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us