2014 Chevy Silverado V8 beats EcoBoost Fuel Economy

[sullynd]

But more expensive. The rear discs on our Flex had to be replaced at 50k (and they weren't cheap).

Ours barely made it past 40k, and ouch.

[Deanh]

Ours barely made it past 40k, and ouch.

stay clear of BMW then....my ex had to routinely replace hers at less than 20k....it was the ON LY time the front wheels had the black dust removed............

[silvrsvt]

But more expensive. The rear discs on our Flex had to be replaced at 50k (and they weren't cheap). I was shocked, but have heard from several folks that the platform has very rear-biased brakes that tend to wear the back brakes out quickly.

 

My parents '08 Sable had issues with the rear brakes also. I've also heard the first gen SHO's have brake issues, but that has been corrected in the '13 models...I'll see what happens.

 

I had issues with the passenger side rear caliper hanging on my 2006 Mustang GT. I got a rebuilt unit and it seems to be good now, but the caliper looks like crap since its rusty vs the rest of them (guess they took whatever protection on it off when they rebuilt it)

[fordmantpw]

My parents '08 Sable had issues with the rear brakes also. I've also heard the first gen SHO's have brake issues, but that has been corrected in the '13 models...I'll see what happens.

 

I had issues with the passenger side rear caliper hanging on my 2006 Mustang GT. I got a rebuilt unit and it seems to be good now, but the caliper looks like crap since its rusty vs the rest of them (guess they took whatever protection on it off when they rebuilt it)

 

Time to take off all of the calipers and paint them to match the car.

[silvrsvt]

Time to take off all of the calipers and paint them to match the car.

LOL something else to add to the list of things to do with it, maybe I'll put aftermarket ones on

[NickF1011]

maybe I'll put aftermarket ones on

Ugh. If they weren't so ridiculously expensive! The SSBC, Wilwood, and Alcon kits for my car are absurd.

[92LX302]

Don't cry boys, you have 5 lugs and 4 calipers.


If you want to talk bad brakes, come try my HCI fox with the stock front disc/rear drums. You'll remember what 'good brakes' and 'bad brakes' are However, when I bought it in in 2009 with 105 000 kms, it still had it stock brakes and they were still good when I changed them.


Why did FRPP stopped selling the Cobra brake conversion!

Edited April 3, 2013 by 92LX302

[NickF1011]

Don't cry boys, you have 5 lugs and 4 calipers.

 

 

If you want to talk bad brakes, come try my HCI fox with the stock front disc/rear drums. You'll remember what 'good brakes' and 'bad brakes' are However, when I bought it in in 2009 with 105 000 kms, it still had it stock brakes and they were still good when I changed them.

Ohhh my stock Cobra breaks are adequate for sure, but with pretty much everything else on the car modified at this point, having better stopping power would be good insurance to go with the additional going power.

 

 

 

Why did FRPP stopped selling the Cobra brake conversion!

Late Model Restoration sells a pretty decently priced 5 lug conversion kit: http://www.latemodelrestoration.com/item/LRS-4234K/1987-1993-Mustang-5-Lug-Conversion-Kit Still has rear drums, but those can be swapped...

 

LMR also sells this SVE kit that's basically identicaly to the FRPP Cobra kit: http://www.latemodelrestoration.com/item/SVE-2300AK-B/1987-92-Mustang-Black-SVE-5-Lug-Conversion-Kit-28-Spline?utm_source=criteo&utm_medium=retargeting&utm_campaign=criteo

Edited April 3, 2013 by NickF1011

[twintornados]

How is that any different than you vomiting all over 'fan boys'?

 

By the way, you have 4 more posts on this thread before the meter starts running.

 

 

GM engineers on new Corvette chose to keep the pushrod, small block V8 because of its comact design and low center of gravity so important to the Corvette's prowess on the race track. Corvette is no slouch on the race track taking on all comers and winning its fair share.

 

 

Two left.

 

Also, compact design & low center of gravity are clearly the reasons why Ferrari have continued to use pushrod engines as well.

Bu...bu...bu...but, how can he mention his Porsche and Metro Detroit when so constrained??

[jpd80]

In the conference call, (I think) Ken Czubay fielded a question on GM comparing and beating the fuel economy of the Ecoboost F150.

He seemed accepting that's what manufacturers do but that Ford hs found that Ecoboost delivers the best power-torque-fuel economy

balance of F150, the customers like it so much so that 40% of Retail sales are Ecoboost.....

 

I guess the point is that it was GM falling behind the mark in both power and fuel economy, since it has only just eclipsed what F150 has

been doing for the past three years and that achievement was done with engines back then, not a whole new truck....

And there you have the true cost of diverting funds from Silverado to Cadillac's BMW quest, especially when

GM admits that the average transaction price of Silverado is $4,000 lower than F150

[7Mary3]

Not sure if low center of gravity is the main selling point of a pushrod engine. I would rather tout the fact that every pushrod V8 that GM makes is rather compact in size (dimensionally smaller than their DOHC V6 family).

 

Up until recently, though, GM's engines were lighter than the competitors' DOHC V8s, but I think the Coyote broke that trend. Now that that's done, GM is going to begin to suffer for not figuring out how to use 3v or 4v heads in the production engines. If the new LT1 had even 3 valves, it would blow past 500/500 easily.

Remember that 3 valve heads were a 'band-aid' to get the Mods. to breath better. The bore of the Mods was so small that a single large intake valve would have shrouding issues because the opening would be so close to the cylinder wall. The large bore 6.2L 'Boss' is proof, it does very well with a simple 2 valve head. Pleanty of room for large valves, but more importantly a large unobstructed 'window' when the valve is open. The Mod engines were horribly compromised by the fact that the original application was to be front wheel drive cars, which dictated very close bore spacing. The only way to get the 5.4L was a very long stroke and the only way to get to 6.8L was 2 more cylinders. The GM LS doesn't need 3 valves in the same way the 6.2L 'Boss' does not, there is enough room for adequate sized valves. Particularly in a low r.p.m. truck engine.

 

One small side benefit of pushrod V-8's is small packaging. You are starting to see LS's everywhere, from boats to U.P.S. trucks.

[jpd80]

Without the need for a V8 in trucks, I very much doubt that we would be seeing any V8 cars from Ford, GM or Chrysler.....

Except for Mustang, Ford has given up putting V8s in cars, that market is going to feel the pinch with tightening CAFE.

Edited April 3, 2013 by jpd80

[papilgee4evaeva]

Without the need for a V8 in trucks, I very much doubt that we would be seeing any V8 cars from Ford, GM or Chrysler.....

Except for Mustang, Ford has given up putting V8s in cars, that market is going to feel the pinch with tightening CAFE.

Corvette and Viper (V10).

 

And Ford no longer has a V8 that can fit into its FWD sedans, so it's a different situation there as well.

[jpd80]

Corvette and Viper (V10).

 

And Ford no longer has NEEDS a V8 that can fit into its FWD sedans, so it's a different situation there as well.

Fixed...

 

Ford is not interested in Corvette-Viper section of the market

Edited April 4, 2013 by jpd80

[White99GT]

Remember that 3 valve heads were a 'band-aid' to get the Mods. to breath better. The bore of the Mods was so small that a single large intake valve would have shrouding issues because the opening would be so close to the cylinder wall. The large bore 6.2L 'Boss' is proof, it does very well with a simple 2 valve head. Pleanty of room for large valves, but more importantly a large unobstructed 'window' when the valve is open. The Mod engines were horribly compromised by the fact that the original application was to be front wheel drive cars, which dictated very close bore spacing. The only way to get the 5.4L was a very long stroke and the only way to get to 6.8L was 2 more cylinders. The GM LS doesn't need 3 valves in the same way the 6.2L 'Boss' does not, there is enough room for adequate sized valves. Particularly in a low r.p.m. truck engine.

 

One small side benefit of pushrod V-8's is small packaging. You are starting to see LS's everywhere, from boats to U.P.S. trucks.

 

I was speaking with a GM PEA the other day. GM is apparently still playing with the idea of going 3V with a cam-in-cam VCT in the next several years.

 

The simple fact of the matter, with GM using larger 2.16" intake valves, even in the large bore 6.2s, they are still suffering losses from valve shrouding. More valve area for a given bore size, if utilized correctly, will result in improved performance even in lower RPM ranges relevant to trucks.

 

When the Coyote 4V head is flowing more on a 3.63" bore than the canted valve Boss 6.2 head is on a 4.02" bore (confirmed by Mike Harrison), ya gotta realize the 4V/pent-roof layout is flat out superior. The LS, especially given its current wedge/inline valve layout, would benefit from a 3V setup...and GM knows it.

Edited April 4, 2013 by White99GT

[jpd80]

I was speaking with a GM PEA the other day. GM is apparently still playing with the idea of going 3V with a cam-in-cam VCT in the next several years.

 

The simple fact of the matter, with GM using larger 2.16" intake valves, even in the large bore 6.2s, they are still suffering losses from valve shrouding. More valve area for a given bore size, if utilized correctly, will result in improved performance even in lower RPM ranges relevant to trucks.

 

When the Coyote 4V head is flowing more on a 3.63" bore than the canted valve Boss 6.2 head is on a 4.02" bore (confirmed by Mike Harrison), ya gotta realize the 4V/pent-roof layout is flat out superior. The LS, especially given its current wedge/inline valve layout, would benefit from a 3V setup...and GM knows it.

They will drag their feet until they absolutely have to, don't ask me why but GM really allowed the Silverado's engines to fall behind

That's silly in such a critical product, you gotta give buyers steady improvements...as well as CAFE.

 

GM is using DI and VCT as easy ways to improve efficiency instead of as you say, improving breathing,

that should be the first consideration but maybe DI was cheaper and easier (quicker to do)?

Edited April 4, 2013 by jpd80

[Extreme4x4]

Don't cry boys, you have 5 lugs and 4 calipers.

 

 

If you want to talk bad brakes, come try my HCI fox with the stock front disc/rear drums. You'll remember what 'good brakes' and 'bad brakes' are However, when I bought it in in 2009 with 105 000 kms, it still had it stock brakes and they were still good when I changed them.

 

 

Why did FRPP stopped selling the Cobra brake conversion!

 

This is why I had 12" Baer Claws on my '91 GT. I used the pads that were one step below racing pads, as the car was a daily driver. Still, you would wear out the rotors before the pads. That car would pull 60-0 in 115ft, and that was with no anti-lock. They were fabulous.

 

The Explorer Sport has fantastic brakes. We have been really impressed.

 

As for what GM is doing with the Silverado.................... basically, as little as they can. GM has decided that Chevy is a second class citizen, and Buick and Cadillac is where all the money should go. It doesn't matter that Chevy carries the burden of financing everything.

[chevys]

At the end of the day, this will have hardly any effect on the sales of the Ford F-Series or Chevrolet and GMC pickups.

 

The Ford and GM pickups both have legions of loyal buyers, and they will keep buying their preferred brand, unless something really awful happens - such as the wheels falling off at 70 mph on a regular basis, or the engines exploding just after the warranty ends.

 

That pretty much sums it up I think. I cant wait to see the real world results. I know in the Eco camp very very few ever get rated mpgs. I doubt the new Gm engines will either. Too many variables like lower geared rear ends and heavy foots. I am not a fan of the DOD either. I honestly thing a great deal of engineering and tuning goes into "tricking" the epa tests in both camps. Then, real world results suffer accordingly. Ford and Gm are both going to play both ends against the middle to what ever suits them in a favorable way. There is really not a bad choice out of any of the big 3's trucks. I am more interested in the new GM4.3. This engine is going to wipe the floor I think against Dodge and Ford. God knows its been long enough coming.

[jpd80]

That pretty much sums it up I think. I cant wait to see the real world results. I know in the Eco camp very very few ever get rated mpgs. I doubt the new Gm engines will either. Too many variables like lower geared rear ends and heavy foots. I am not a fan of the DOD either. I honestly thing a great deal of engineering and tuning goes into "tricking" the epa tests in both camps. Then, real world results suffer accordingly. Ford and Gm are both going to play both ends against the middle to what ever suits them in a favorable way. There is really not a bad choice out of any of the big 3's trucks. I am more interested in the new GM4.3. This engine is going to wipe the floor I think against Dodge and Ford. God knows its been long enough coming.

Do you know who I see the 4.3 really hurting?

Tacoma.

If GM marhets the V6 Silverado properly, I think a lot of Toyota's mid sized Truck buyers may just switch to Chevrolet and GMC..

[silvrsvt]

Do you know who I see the 4.3 really hurting?

Tacoma.

If GM marhets the V6 Silverado properly, I think a lot of Toyota's mid sized Truck buyers may just switch to Chevrolet and GMC..

 

I find that doubtful...I think Toyota owners are perhaps the most blind sheep followers out there

[chevys]

I find that doubtful...I think Toyota owners are perhaps the most blind sheep followers out there

 

LOL, they really are. But, this is where it gets a little more complicated and discussed and beaten to death many times over. Why would I pay 24-25K for a Gmc when I can buy a Tacoma that will do the job for me for 17 grand? Even if the gas mileage is the same I dont need or want the bigger truck. And I save 7 to 8 grand to boot. See, I just made a case for a Ranger again.

[fordmantpw]

LOL, they really are. But, this is where it gets a little more complicated and discussed and beaten to death many times over. Why would I pay 24-25K for a Gmc when I can buy a Tacoma that will do the job for me for 17 grand? Even if the gas mileage is the same I dont need or want the bigger truck. And I save 7 to 8 grand to boot. See, I just made a case for a Ranger again.

 

...for the buyer who wants a bottom dollar truck, but not for Ford that wants to make money on every vehicle they sell.

[chevys]

...for the buyer who wants a bottom dollar truck, but not for Ford that wants to make money on every vehicle they sell.

So toyota is not making money on the Tacomas? What did they sell last month? 15K I believe it was. I know its not a fair comparison but thats over double of the entire Lincoln division. Yeah, they are making money on them. The platform is old to boot but what choice does anybody have now. Gm is taking forever to get their small trucks to market.

Edited April 4, 2013 by chevys

[NickF1011]

So toyota is not making money on the Tacomas? What did they sell last month? 15K I believe it was. Yeah, they are making money on them. The platform is old to boot but what choice does anybody have now. Gm is taking forever to get their small trucks to market.

With Tacoma being the last real player in the segment, of course they sold a decent amount. Chop that tiny segment into pieces with more competitors and the case gets a lot more difficult to make.

 

It would be like Toyota trying to enter the pony car market.

[White99GT]

They will drag their feet until they absolutely have to, don't ask me why but GM really allowed the Silverado's engines to fall behind

That's silly in such a critical product, you gotta give buyers steady improvements...as well as CAFE.

 

GM is using DI and VCT as easy ways to improve efficiency instead of as you say, improving breathing,

that should be the first consideration but maybe DI was cheaper and easier (quicker to do)?

 

I think they've been drinking their own Kool-Aid regarding the LS family for so long they just got caught flat-footed.