Half-Tons Gain Power, Mileage

2014-GM-V6 LF3 2 II

Ford's V-6 EcoBoost is under attack from all sides: Not only is the new Ram 1500 trying to show how strong and efficient its new Pentastar V-6 can be without twin turbos, but also GM is announcing an all-new, powerful V-6 with twin turbos that looks ready to out-power Ford's best-selling F-150 engine option. Click here for the full press release. 

General Motors has slated the new engine to go into the all-new 2014 Cadillac CTS sedan where it will offer 420 horsepower and 430 pounds-feet of torque (click here for the press release). We'll assume this engine could also fit nicely into a 2014 Silverado or Sierra (and probably several other GM products) as well, and give GM a chance to go head-to-head with the V-6 EcoBoost.

Ram is just out with EPA fuel economy numbers for its Hemi/TorqueFlite 8 combination, and the results have it playing in the same field as the EcoBoost - at least in the 4x4 configuration. According to fueleconomy.gov, mileage for the 2013 F-150 4x4 and 2013 Ram 1500 with the new eight-speed transmission mated to the MDS-equipped 5.7-liter V-8 Hemi are both rated at 15/21 mpg city/highway with a combined 17 mpg rating. But, of course, the real numbers we've all been waiting for are the two-wheel-drive numbers; those were the numbers Ram Trucks' engineers were touting as being better than the V-6 EcoBoost numbers during the press introduction of the 2013 Ram 1500s last year.

Well, a funny thing happened on the way back from the mileage calculations … .

We don't have all the pieces in place yet, and we still have a few unanswered phone calls into the EPA, but it looks like the feds are dragging their feet. We're not sure if they've decided to be cautious about their ratings or if they thought the eight-speed Ram 1500 V-8's fuel economy numbers were suspicious, but in either case, they've told Ram that they have not signed off on the exact city, highway or combined fuel economy numbers for the two-wheel-drive V-8 TorqueFlite 8 pickup. But maybe this isn't such a surprise.

Several sources have suggested that because of the widely publicized problems regarding EPA mileage rating procedures, and the wide fluctuations in results with select models from Hyundai/Kia and Ford hybrids, maybe it's not surprising the EPA is being so careful here. Combined with the fact that the Hemi has a complicated and sometimes touchy multiple displacement system, it makes perfect sense that not every driver (EPA or consumer) will be able to hit the top-tier mileage numbers.

We admit we've had some good days (when we've been incredibly patient, squeezing the throttle just right) and bad days (when we've been at altitude or cargo heavy) with the cylinder deactivation system in the Ram and just about every other full-size pickup with a similar system. Nevertheless, the publicity about these mileage disparities may result in a thorough revamping of the EPA's mathematical tests and its willingness to allow the automakers, in some cases, to conduct and calculate their own mpg numbers. No doubt we'll hear more on the subject soon.

As to how the new Cadillac motor stacks up against the F-150 EcoBoost and Ram 1500 in power, torque and fuel economy, here are two charts for some direct comparisons.

2013 Fuel Econ

2013 V-6 Comparo

2014-GM II
2014-GM-aTRANS-TL80 II

Comments

@Hemi V8

Not surprised bro makes alot of sense now why you like Ram now. I could never get a V6 just on sounds alone! Get beat that V8 sound even if its a little slower than a TTV6.

@sandman4X4

Direct injection works just fine in the 5.0L. It even already has a spot for the injector right in the casting.

It would be no different than the direct injection system they put in the Ecoboost, which is also a 4 valve engine. (Not to mention the ecoboost has even less room for the injectors than the 5.0l does.)

@howam00 Friend, you are confused. This is a truck website. We aren't interested in EPA calculations or other Green BS.

Here are the facts. Fuel efficiency is expensive! New trucks are expensive! Back when Jimmy Carter was president they tried telling us that if we drove less and paid MORE everything would get better. He lost in a landslide.

When people buy less gas, the cost of refining fuel (per gallon) goes up. When people buy more, the cost of bringing fuel to the pump goes down. Not easy to grasp but it's true.

Why would'nt a big block work with all the other modern gizmos ????

I would love to own a modern 454 that pulled in 20 mpgs!!! I think that is more then ache viable with a half ton!

Whatever. It's the 4x4 numbers that matter anyway.

@Gpz85

They can't make a modern 380 cubic inch (6.2L) small block that gets 20mpg in a half-ton. What makes you think a modern 454 would get that kind of mileage?

Ford's next step in improving horsepower and torque with the 5.0L and 6.2L is direct injection. Both engines have been engineered for this technological improvement. Ford will simply add the new direct injection heads.

AS I HAVE MENTION FORD IS THE TREND SETTER( DIRECT ING INJECTION WITH TWIN TURBO TECHNOLOGY) (NOT AFRAIDED TO TRY NEW TECHNOLOGIES), GM AND RAM WILL FOLLOW IF THEY WANT TO STAY COMPETITIVE.

@ latwoods

The 2014 GM's are arriving with 3 direct injected engines.

But yes, I agree with you.

@paul810 I am not a expert on on engine tech , but I do believe the saying . There's no replacement for displacement is true.

Here's why , for example in 1993 a half truck could achieve roughly 8-10 city 12-14 highway. In 2013 a half ton roughly gets 14 city 18 highway . BUT today's trucks weigh more then a truck 20 years old.

My thinking is a modern big block could be the answer to the mpg wars . I love gm , ford and dodge v8s but due to the PC people saying smaller engines= higher mpg possible could be the wrong route.

To answer your question , as much as I love the gm 6.2 maybe it doesn't have enough nut / diplacment to bring in the 20-30 mpg range .

I would love to see the big three say f you to he PC police and make big blocks be the answers to higher mpg numbers !?!

Well, I can see the V8 crowd are trembling a little.

The direction that you guys are heading in is the same as us.

If you want to work you soon have diesels. V6s (and 4s) are for lighter stuff and V8s will be for the boy racers and the SUV style user.

The Pentastar without the 8spd is okay, but not as good as Chrysler would have hoped for, just like the EcoBoost. I do think the EPA is questioning Rams fuel figures, for me they do seem slightly optimistic.

Moving weight around uses energy and if the energy is the same the usages will be similar, gas engines are nearing their apex. Why else would you need 8spds.

The world is moving towards force inducted V6's. It not just about the power of the engine. It's the cost of making the engines and weight. Even diesels are looking closely at weight reduction.

Irrespective of what anyone prefers or what they believe is best, an engine that develops X amount and power and uses X amount of fuel regardless of the configuration or number of cylinders is the same.

If the turbo V6s can achieve what a V8 does then why have V8s? V8s will be around for the boy racer or SUV set.

Remember V8s aren't going to disappear overnight it'll take a few years or so.

@ Gregory J: Enjoy the big V8's while you can.The feds are closing in on us pickup truck drivers/owners,and the oem's.Small diesels are coming and they will be here to stay whether we like it,or want it,or not,it's happening.Ram opened the door and there is no closing it,but it was inevitable. Bio diesel is easier to make then E10/85,burns cleaner etc and the feds know that.With mandatory mpg standards for our trucks coming down the road,the days of the big V8's is limited.Oh well,I had my fun with plenty of V8's from the 60's to now.All 'good' things must come to an end,lol.

@Highdesertcat
If you want your V8s I hope Ford gets its way concerning the US aligning itself to the UNECE vehicle harmonisation regulations.

This will allow the V8 pickups to continue, but as some on this site fear midsizers will come into play more.

But, the future looks very interesting, I'm surprised at the amount of concern regarding what's going on. We never had the same levels of fear concerning changes to our vehicles.

In the end and whatever eventuates, people will buy what they need more so than what they want.

@Magnum,
Yeah GM has direct injection and variable timing (one cam) engines coming for 2014 4.3L, 5.3L, and 6.2L V-8's, but they are all push-rods motors with 2 valve per cylinder. Ford is already 2 steps ahead, with DOHC's, 4 valves per cylinder with Variable valve timing. Due to the higher efficiency of breathing thru 4 valves, combine with direct injection, and variable valve timing on 4 cams the 5.0L and 6.2L, power and efficiencies will be truely impressive.

WHEN A COMPANY WANTS TO STAY IN THE LEADERSHIP POSITION THE BEST THING TO DO IS TO GET WAY AHEAD IN TECHNOLOGY

@latwoods
What is the efficiency ratio of these new engines, over 40% or nearer to mid 20s?

Gasoline engines already are produced with direct injection and the efficiency gains of them isn't leaps and bounds in front.

The only thing attractive about gasoline engines is production costs.

Remember 15:1 fuel air.

V-6 in a truck,is for women and old people ! And nerds,uneducated people !

Trucks need a V-8 or V-10 ..6 cyl gas in a truck lol,lol !!

You have a small,high strung v-6 that isnt going to get you 300,000 miles with no rebuilds,as many American V-8 do ,yes GM 5.3's are good their old 350's,Ford's older engines their newer ones cant their dohc cams fail 4.6,4.8,5.4 are disasters,as plug in head ect ,but the old 302 ,351,460 were a goody,Dodge Hemi's are proven reliable as their old 318 and 360's all the way back to their 440's and 400's,383's...

Trucks weigh over 5,000 pounds and twin turbo or non turbo smaller engine is going to rev higher,more strain and pop the head gaskets and overhead cams around 70,000 miles.Turbo's will fail sooner.

Ask any Diesel owner any brand if their Turbo made it with no work ,most have new turbo's around 50,000 mile mark,unless they never use it hard,just idle around as above I noted,women,old people,nerds who dont use them just cyruice gently to the store and back and live on a level road,climate always fair ect..

As a mechanic I know the disater stories of dohc,your 20 foot long timing chain that is weaker (Toyota 5.7 fans know about this and bad cams) High revving small V-6 engines dont even save you that much cash ,1 -3 mpg difference ! That isnt worth the effort to drive around in a turd sounding truck,unless you are a women/older person/nerd.

Good -Day !

I find it quiet odd that most people and automotive reviewers like compare the Pentastar V6 fuel mileage to the Ecoboost, but do not compare power in the same sentence. Chrysler's Pentastar 3.6L(305hp/269ft-lb) is a better comparison to Ford's Duratec 3.7L(302hp/278Ft-lb). The Ecoboost is a better contender versus the Hemi 5.7L. The Hemi has 30 more peak horsepower, but the Ecoboost has 13ft-lb more torque at peak with around 50ft-lbs more torque between 2000-2500 rpms. The Ecoboost has more horsepower and a lot more torque than the Hemi below 4,000 rpm which makes it great for towing & hauling, but the Hemi has more top end power which makes for a fun to let its get sideways daily driver. Neither are bad, just two different animals. The Chevy 5.3L on the other hand is just not powerful enough to keep up with neither the Hemi or Ecoboost, but gets a lot better fuel mileage than both. The Silverado's 5.3L is a better comparison the the Pentastar and Duratec V6 due to it's lackluster power numbers. As far as this 3.6 Twin turbo Cadilac motor, I would not hold my breath on it going into a truck just yet. The bean counters at Chevy have made bad decisions to run that company in the ground before so I will believe it when I see it with those guys holding the reins.

@ Mechanic

Turbos and turbo engines not reliable? Have you been living under a rock for the last few decades? Please don't try spread your ignorance about turbo V6 engines as truth. Some might actually believe you and you will be spreading the ignorance which will just put us that closer to reverting back to stupid cavemen. By your comments, I can tell that you have never driven a turbo V6 because they actually rev a lot lower than N/A V8s. They also have a lot more torque than ALL (as in each and every one) 1/2 or 3/4 ton N/A V8 truck engine below 3,500 rpm. Yes you heard right, the Ecoboost has more torque than any other N/A V8 truck engine on the market to today below 3,500 rpms. As a result, turbo V6s do not need to rev as high as other N/A V8 truck engines. Please do not take my word for it and go drive one and you will see for yourself. Better yet, go tow with one. All other competitor twin turbo V6 engines will be the same with more low end torque than their N/A counterparts when they come out with them in their trucks too. Again, please actually do some real world research before spewing ignorance. Thanks!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2b3yHRfHDk

@Mechanic
You claim to be a mechanic?

Well, we've had the 3 litre class turbo diesels for well over a decade and they will outlast the vehicle. These are 4 cylinders, with diesel the number of cylinders isn't important.

The new Cummins ISF is designed for a 500 000km lifecycle. That will outlast most of your pickups. This engine is going into the Titan and has 40% efficiency.

No gas engine ever come near that.

V8s are good, but they will become more of a want in the future. For work, efficiency and longevity you can't beat a diesel.

I'll say it one more time. The only reason a turbocharged V-6 engine can't give 300,000 trouble-free miles is because it isn't designed correctly or it has quality issues.

On the other hand that doesn't mean I want one. To answer one question posed earlier, the reason Ford doesn't put the Ecoboost in their HD pickup is simple: they don't have to. Ford is probably subsidizing the cost of the Ecoboost to raise their fleet mileage, and 3/4 tons and heavier don't count that heavily. Yet. So they get the cheaper-to-manufacture big V-8.

Unless the stupid Obama 50 mpg directive is reversed, pickups will become prohibitively expensive. The additional cost will never even begin to pay for itself in fuel savings. We will have more diesel engines, more turbo and supercharged engines, and more hybrid engines. We will have more complicated multispeed transmissions with more computer controls. We will have extensive use of aluminum and carbon fiber and other forms of unobtanium to save weight. We will have aerodynamics that will reduce ground clearance and disintegrate the first time they hit some frozen slush.

All of that stuff will cost more to buy and more to repair. Insurance costs will rise accordingly. The manufacturers will try to spread the cost over their product lines by selling the high mileage stuff at a loss and socking it to buyers of their less efficient products, to meet complicated fleet targets.

Eventually, through all this trial and error, pickup fuel mileage will increase across the board, but we're in for a painful period.

@Big Al from Oz - You're living in diesel past. New blends of diesel fuel lack the lubricity of yesteryear and future blends will be even worse. The very idea that the longevity of current and next generation diesel (emissions) will be anything like historic pre-emissions and high sulfur fuel is completely absurd regardless of what marketing reps try to claim.

Current diesels require extreme pressures and temperatures to make impressive torque and clean emissions. Too many things can go wrong and then you're staring down the barrel of up to $15,000 for a quality rebuild. That's before 'bullet proofing' options that you'll definitely want to do.

For all those who inquired about my position on mpg/fuel economy vis-a-vis half ton pickup trucks:

Any truck is designed to be an extension of yourself as you work or perform your tasks in life. It is the most utilitarian, all-purpose vehicle. If people can only afford one vehicle for their household, it should be a four door, half-ton pickup truck with a 4X8 long bed.

If your profession or trade requires a truck to do your work, you're stuck with paying a higher fuel bill. No amount of downsizing the engine is going to make that go away because a truck used to do real work will guzzle fuel, no matter the size of the engine.

I've burned a tank of gas in my old six cylinder trucks lickety-split, actually doing work with it.

But believe this or not, that slow-turning V8 in my Tundra actually gives me much better gas mileage than my old F150 5.4 did, and even better mileage than my old Silverado 350 did, doing the same tasks these days. Seriously!

If you use your truck to look pretty or sexy or otherwise want to project to the world the image that you're a stud driving a truck, then you're buying a truck for reasons other than what it was designed for.

Putting a V6 or a nitro-injected four-banger under hood to make you look good doesn't make it anything other than a weak-sister pickup truck. All show, no tow.

The guys with V8 trucks will look over at you and smile, as if to say, "Aha! If you want to run with the big dogs, get a real truck!

People who see a guy in a Raptor are awestruck, in reverence of such an awesome sight and machine. There are plenty more illustrations but I hope you get the picture. I don't want to hog the thread.

I know plenty of people who put a hitch behind their sedan, minivan or SUV, rent a trailer at U-Haul or Penske's when they need it, and haul just as much stuff home from Home Depot or Lowe's as the guys who occasionally need the bed of their truck. Those people in sedans ARE concerned about getting good gas mileage! But they know and understand their limitations.

I'm sure that fancy six-cylinder half-ton pickup trucks are the wave of the future, brought on by government CAFE mandates. The manufacturers have to improve their fleet averages, and putting in small enigines is one way of doing it. So are 8-speed automatics. What's next? A CVT in a truck? Bwahahahaha.

But the people who want to drive real trucks will just step up to the 3/4-ton or 1-ton class. Many have already done so, if it is the last truck that they would buy in their life.

At my age, my next truck in 2015 will be the last truck I will buy in my lifetime, and I won't buy any full-size truck with a squirrel motor in it. Guaranteed!

If you have to worry about the cost of gas and want a truck, then why not buy a 4-cylinder Tacoma, or the like. They come with 6-foot beds and they can tow a respectable load.

That's my rationale. If you buy a truck, put some real muscle under the hood. Don't fool yourself into thinking that a half-ton truck with a 6 or super-charged, nitro-fed Cosworth 4-banger is anything other than what it is -- a wannabe truck. Put it under stress and your mpgs will go all to hell.

There's place for them, to be sure. Just don't pass them off as real half-ton trucks. You're not fooling anyone but yourself. The automakers want you to buy them to improve their corporate fleet averages.

Little engines in big trucks are bogus!

@Montesa_VR
The reason the Eco Boost doesn't go into HDs is due to durability and CAFE.

Montesa_VR has a point.

Right now, CAFE says light duty trucks with a typical half-ton footprint need to average about 17mpg combined on the EPA sticker. Which, they more or less do. In 10 years they have to average 21mpg combined. About a 24% increase.

Ram's 3.0L diesel will likely come pretty close to hitting this as is. However, gas engines are a different story. The only trucks that come close are 2wd naturally aspirated V6 trucks.

So where will they see the gains? Well, smaller turbo 6 engines seem to gain about 1 or 2 mpg over similar power V8's, so that helps. The EPA doesn't yet recognize gains from stop/start or air-ride technology, so that's out. There aren't big gains to made from gearing anymore either, as the new wave of 8 and 9 speeds are pretty close to a theoretically perfect transmission.


Seems like the next biggest move is going to be reducing weight (though not necessarily size, as that would effect footprint). I think we'll also see more in the way of active aerodynamics too(things like the grill shutters all the manufacturers are doing now, or air dams that can raise and lower).

Will the V8 go away completely? I doubt it. However, it wouldn't surprise me if manufacturers deliberately pushed consumers towards other options. It makes a lot of sense from a business standpoint. I mean, think about the Ecoboost. They can charge a premium for it and it slightly helps out their CAFE rating over the 5.0L. It's really a win-win for Ford.

It's just more OEMs chasing their tail. The Ford EcoBoost under delivered and now this GM TT V6 promises to offer same the HP, Torque, MPG, weight as the upcoming GM all-aluminum 6.2 V8.

These TT engine are completely pointless unless it's just domestic OEMs preparing for possible harmonization with European Union emissions standards and taxes. The EU obsesses with engine volume and curiously (if not stupidly) disregard power boosters. Whatever.

CONGRATS EVERYONE!

Is this a very civil thread for PUTC. Few exceptions.

Did the troll patrol finally kick in? If not, I'm really proud of all who posted. It is refreshing to read a thread that I don't have to skip over half the posts to get to the meat of the discussion.

If I'm wrong, Bless you Mr. Moderator and welcome aboard.

@Paul810
Weight reduction will cost bucks to meet CAFE mpg regulations.

This will make diesels again more attractive.

The easiest way to reduce fuel consumption is to make the vehicles more aerodynamic, but not with shutters etc, but changing shape.

The aero efficiencies gained by the Ram is more expensive and are achieving smaller gains than by changing shape.

The Transits and Ducatos traybacks will start to eat into some pickup sales, but for the working vehicles. Looks aren't that important for a work truck.

@Highdesertcat

"Put it under stress and your mpgs will go all to hell."

Not for nothing, but that's EXACTLY the point. Most 1/2 ton truck owners DO NOT drive around in loaded trucks all the time pulling trailers. Most drive around unloaded or maybe lightly loaded. If the 'squirrel motor' gets better mileage than a V8 unloaded and similar mileage to a V8 loaded, it's doing exactly what it should be doing.

As you said, most people that actually use their truck for work use 3/4 and 1+ tons. 1/2 tons are what the average Joe Schmo buys to drive his family around, do Home Depot runs, and maybe pull a sub-5000lb trailer a couple time a year. These 'real half-tons' spend most of their time doing the daily work commute around town or down the highway with only one occupant inside.

Basically, the 1/2 tons are the perfect candidates for the 'squirrel motor.' Especially now that these small engines actually make good power and get matched to good wide ratio transmissions.

This is not like it was just a few years ago when you had both an extremely underpowered 6-cyl and only 3 or 4 gears to work with, which was a recipe for disaster. These new naturally aspirated 6 cyls are making more power and torque than the 350 V8 I had in my K5 Blazer. Ford's 3.7L is rated as 302hp/278tq vs the Blazer's earth shattering 175hp/275tq.

Hell, they've got little turbo 4cyls making those kinda numbers now. Blow that engine up beating on it? Who cares? You can carry a spare long block under your back seat. HAHA! Would have saved me the time I spent on the 3 or 4 rebuilds of that old 350.

Now why would I want a high compression premium price TT V6 with less horsepower then a V8 with the same m.p.g? Doesn't add up in my book. High compression means high octane fuel.

I agree with highdesertcat. Because I tow a heavy trailer I want a V8. I do not worry so much about m.p.g. My truck has 35's a lift and 4.56 gears. All are not good for m.p.g. I want capability over m.p.g. My next truck I want a 390 cubic inch engine. 430 horse 450 torque. Lift and 37's and 4.56 gears or higher.

@HEMI V8

"High compression means high octane fuel."

That is not necessarily the case when you've got direct injection.

@BigAl,What do you think of this? 2014 Concept diesel v6 jeep.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv07QWKxHeY

@highdesertcat

Are you drinking mechanic's ignorance in a bottle?

As we all know, horsepower means beans in a truck meant to tow and it is torque that gets your trailer moving. If so. where is this "real muscle" that you are talking about that you need in a truck that your I-Force V8 has over the the Ecoboost. This "squirrel motor"not only has more peak torque than the current IForce 5.7L, but it also has over 75 more ft-lbs at 2,500 rpm. You would have to rev your I-Force V8 all the way up to around 3000 rpm to get the same torque you get in this "puny little" V6 at just 1700 rpm. At just 2,200 rpm this "not to be passed off as a real truck" V6 puts out more torque then your "manly" V8 does at ANY point in it's power band. YES, YOU HEARD RIGHT. AT JUST 2,200 RPM THE ECOBOOST MAKES MORE TORQUE THAN THE I-FORCE DOES AT ANY POINT IN IT'S POWER BAND. I think the real question is why your "real truck" V8 have LESS pulling power than a little V6? I mean, if it were such a "big dog" it would have more, no?


I will place a $1000 bet with you that a stock 3.73 ratio V6 twin turbo Ecoboost will tow 9,000 lbs easier in the lower revs going up hills than your N/A Tundra V8 even with it's 4.30 tow package gear ratio at anytime time, any day, and any scenario, period.....

Also, slap a $450 custom tune on an Ecoboost like the 5 Star tune I have on mine and you around 425hp and over 525 ft-lbs of torque without loosing the ability to tow 10,000 lbs. How much money do you have to throw into your "manly" V8 to get those numbers and still be able to tow that much?

@BigAl,What do you think of this? 2014 Concept diesel v6 jeep.
Sorry wrong video the first time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP0VG14kkQQ

@HEMI V8,
There are a lot of Jeep Diesels running around here.
http://www.caradvice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2011-jeep-grand-cherokee-3-625x439.jpg

As far as your first Video goes have seen two Prowlers, the one below come from another State Victoria.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ninecats/379108377/sizes/z/in/photostream/

@HEMI V8

where are you getting a 390 cid V8 from? don't you mean 392 by chrysler standards or 391 by real life standards (car and driver tested the 2011 challenger srt8 and found the 6.4 hemi to really be 391 ci's i guess by asking chrysler themselves or either doing the math).

My next truck will be my last.I'm in my 60's and just need a 1/2 ton to do what it does best,tow a pontoon boat where ever the wife and I want to take it.I won't waste my money on anymore V8's either.I will go with a diesel,and the only game in town right now is the Ram 1500 diesel.My better half and I decided to wait one year and see what else will be available for a diesel 1/2 ton.At the end of one year we will pick one that best suits our long term needs and buy it.If it is still just the Ram that's out there,that will then come home with us.

@josh, 6.4 liters = 390.551962 cubic inches.

Mechanic,
Sorry, but you could not be more wrong about turbos.
My 2002 Duramax has 250,000 miles and the only mechanical issue I have had is the injectors.
My brother has a 2001 Duramax with 452,000 miles, on his 3rd set of injectors but NO turbo issues at all.
I have NEVER heard of a Cummins or Duramax losing a turbo. Ford had some turbo issues with it's 6.0L engine.
Water-cooled will last the life of the engine. Old turbos from the 1970's-80's were typically oil-cooled, some with there own oil reservoir (but no oil filter). Those turbos had problems.
All long-haul trucks have turbos, most of them go 1,000,000 miles before rebuild.

@ALL1,
I will place a $1000 bet with you that a stock 4.30 ratio 5.7 V8 will tow 10,000 lbs easier near or at redline going up hills than your tt3.5 V6 ecoboost even with it's 3.73 tow package gear ratio at anytime time, any day, and any scenario, period.....

There's a reason ford didnt pit the tundra 5.7 against it up davis dam hill climb in ford's comparo. ford chose the tall gears 1st to 2nd shift ram 5.7 n a weaker 5.3 gm to go up against. by the time the eb f150 reached the their designated finish line, the ram was on its ass. charged engines heat up fast n when u heat up, u lose pwr. ford chose their course specifically to finish before the ram can pass n beat them in their own test. the 5.7 tundra wouldve easily passed the f150 just shortly after starting and continue to gap the distance.

the ec f150 though great for day to day short term towing is not ideal for long duration towing such as sustain uphill climbs as evident by their own test....

i wouldnt mind something similiar like the eb for day to day short term towing but for much more than that, i'd take a big v8 any day.

Oh wow, where to begin. I'll start at the top with Papa Jim.

Jim: yes, this is a truck website. Yes, the EPA matters since it has a major effect on automaker decisions on all vehicles (including trucks). Green matters since transportation (of people and goods) is one of the single biggest polluting sources.

Secondly, fuel efficiency is expensive in the sense that there is some increased cost to attain better efficiencies. That said all current and near future proposals to address mpg's are not more expensive than the benefit received. Sort of like CFL or LED lights replacing old incandescent bulbs. Do they cost more to buy, yep do the reduced operating costs make the them worth the increased price, hell yes!

Efficiency is the lowest hanging fruit on fuel saving tree so we might as well pick that first

Mechanic: Last time I checked I do have a Y chromosome, I am 30 (I take that to be not old at the very least), I do consider myself a nerd because I am educated and like learning. That said 4 and 6 cylinder engines have been in heavy haulers for decades. Just look that the Cummins that Dodge/Ram has used for at least 25 years. It has only 6 cylinders AND a turbo. Isuzu has had smaller 4 cylinder engines in their NPR trucks for years. They seem to fit the bill quite well.

Will a 5000 lb truck need more power to move, of course it will. That is a lot of weight to push around. Can a V-6 handle this loan, sure. Will it get bad mpg's at max tow, sure...but so will a V-8, 10, 12, whatever. Put a load on any motor and it will use more fuel but virtually no one uses a truck at 90% capacity 90% of the time. If you are one of those 1 in a million cases then please opt for a larger and/or more powerful motor to handle the workload. That is why we as consumers have choices. Since I do not do this I will happily take a mpg rise of 3 since that is about a 20% reduction in fuel costs. Thank you for subsidizing the 90% of other buyers like me who want more efficiency. We appreciate it.

Montesa: I generally agree with most of your post but please keep in mind the CAFE increases were mandated by Bush Jr long before Senator Obama even chose to enter the 2008 Presidential race. Bush just left the final figure up to the new administration. But as noted a 20-25% increase in real world fuel economy isn't that big of a hurdle and will likely be met with the coming generation (2015-2016 trucks)

Highdesertcat: I like V-8's too. My last 3 trucks had them, sports cars I have owned had them but there is no reason why a smaller engine with forced injection can't outperform them. As noted the Ecoboost has more useable torque (e.g. at low RPM) than any naturally aspirated motor put into a truck. Is it the same a diesel? no. But it is very similar, costs less and is a generally good compromise at this point in time. Turbos and superchargers effectively increase the air pumping capacity of a motor on demand. That attempts to make the best of both worlds. Case in point a F1 1.6 turbo motor, even with all of its restrictions, would make mincemeat out of a NASCAR V-8. More power and less fuel use is a win-win. (not exactly an apples to apples comparison I know but generally proves my point)

Denvermike: Although most current diesels have gone to extreme pressures this likely isn't the best way forward. Mazda went the opposite route and dropped compression significantly so they could reduce emissions without the cost of SCR and since they did this the block cane be made out of aluminum instead of CGI so it is cheaper but as durable (not to mention a lot lighter). Internals can now follow suit since there is less stress and the shape of the combustion chamber can be fine-tuned to still produce the power because they can time the injections better to ensure a more complete burn (producing power, less heat and fewer emissions). I personally believe that this will be the low hanging fruit for diesels in the future.

Did I miss anybody?

This TT Cadillac engine is not NEW news. There have been stories about it for several years now. what is new is the fact that it is finally under the hood of a GM product. It is ironic that someone had mentioned 5.4 and 5.3 engines. The Caddy motor sounds like the 5.3 (less torque but more hp with revs) versus the EB which in some respects reminds me of the 5.4 (more torque and less revs). Odd how that kind of comparison surfaced - the more things change the more they stay the same. LOL

MPG - I'd rather have better mpg and pay a bit more for the technology. If you pay too much it isn't worth buying.

@Josh - HemiV8 is trying to push buttons with the 390 remark? I keep calling the 6.4 a 390 because it is a Ford motor size (and we al know how HemiV8 loves Ford). I do think that you are correct. Chrysler is just rounding off numbers so the 6.4 math isn't exactly correct. Several sources say 392 ci which translates to 6423.73 cc. 6423 doesn't sound as cool as 6.4 ;)

I do agree with many when they have said that Ford downplays the 5.0 to make the EB 3.5 look good. The 5.0 was designed with turbocharging in mind. We most likely will see a 5.0 turbo in the Shelby Mustang because their isn't enough clearance for the 5.4 derived engine used by Shelby.

Whoops, I forgot my usual; "there is no bad motor/engine type, just the wrong application applied."

There!

@HEMI V8 Tick tick tick tick tick knock bang tick tick tick you know what that is? That is the symphony of sounds from your precious pentagram V6! Hey just read a big article about another dodge flop. I see that Challengers are bursting into flames! Yeah it is so bad that i heard one Fiat exec wanted to rename them "Chariots of Fire"!

Hemi 6.4/392

Bore (103.9 mm (4.09 in.)
Stoke (94.6 mm (3.72 in.)

If my math is correct based on the "inch" numbers, it would be 391.
Using cc = 6416.6

Unless the numbers I found are wrong or my math is wrong.
I had to clear out a few cobwebs from the attic to remember how to calculate it.

Please note: the last line in the fuel economy chart has errors. The Ram should be 21 hwy and 17 combined.

It is really interesting that Ram doesn't have the guts to get he 2wd 8 speed numbers out and thus has no glory. It's been a year already. Ram, if you're scared, say you're scared!

Fordtrucks, yeah challenger had 4000 vehicle recalled, how many Ford 1.6 EB where recalled last year for bursting into flames?

You should do research before you try to troll.

Don,

Ram hasn't released 2WD Hemi numbers yet because they haven't made any yet. The 8 speed is still ramping up production and they can not keep up with demand of the Grand Cherokee and Rams, so 2wd was put on the backburner until they can keep up with demand.

Let's get one thing straight...

Lou is a smelly pirate hooker!


@Lou
That sounds like 6.4 litres.

When in school we were taught about rounding off.

In Australia we don't have 1c and 2c pieces anymore so rounding off to the nearest 5c when purchasing is normal, by everyone.

I'm hoping they get rid of 5c pieces. They hold less value than 1c did 30 years ago.

@Big Al From Oz - Yes, it sounds like someone at Chrysler thought 392 sounded more manly than 391 and as you have pointed out, its 6.4 litres. No one officially uses Imperial/Customary units of measurement anymore. I think that the USA, Burma, and Liberia are the only holdouts in the world.

Looks like the stutter to your posts have been solved. I suspect someone was using false IP address software to hide their identity and flame you and this site.

@ToxicSludge
Hopefully by the time you want a new vehicle both Ford and GM will have suitable engines. The Cummins going into the Nissan looks quite nice as well. It will not be a drag car, but it will tow as much as any V8.

I would like to hear from Ford and see if the 3.2 Duratorque is going into the F-150 and the 2.8 baby GM diesel is going into the Silverado.

The VM from Ram will most likely use more fuel than the Cummins/Duratorque/GM diesels. That's the case here for those engine types we have in our midsizers.

But they work exceptionally well and return good reliability and service in any conditions from very cold to extremely hot.

Once at highway speeds the torque makes them feel similar to a V8. Around town they use about as much fuel as a 4 cylinder car.

Plus, the V6 diesels tend to be a lot more expensive than an I-4 or 5 in he initial cost of purchase.

The turbo gas engines will be as good as the V8s, but fuel usage will be high even when you guys start getting more direct injection.



The comments to this entry are closed.