2014 Silverado First Drive

[chevys]

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/05/first-drive-2014-chevrolet-silverado-1500.html

 

Impressive initial gas mileage. Seems they have the V4 transition figured out.

[Bryan1]

From Auto Blog's first drive review of the interior:

 

"the Silverado comes up short with a cheap-feeling, rubbery dash and arm rest covers.

Add in a few unsightly gaps between bits of plastic trim and a slow, unresponsive MyLink screen,

and it would seem there are still some specters of the old truck floating around inside."

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/05/09/2014-chevy-silverado-review-first-drive/

 

[jpd80]

This Silverado is intended to encourage existing GM owners back into the show room, I hope it is successful for GM

and that Ford and Ram have similar increases with showroom leather when their respective new trucks arrive.

 

I subscribe to the belief that all three Detroit companies can increase sales without serious conquest sales from each other..

[BORG]

It's clearly a great truck, but nowhere near great enough to overcome what Ford is about to unleash.

[fordmantpw]

It's clearly a great truck, but nowhere near great enough to overcome what Ford is about to unleash. other than fuel economy and tow ratings, cannot match what Ford has had on the market for 3 years.

 

FTFY.

Edited May 15, 2013 by fordmantpw

[meyeste]

I have to respect that GM has done with their 5.3L, given I am not a fan of cylinder deactivation efforts, and would probably try to get that disabled if I had one. On the other hand, given mounting issues with the EB 3.5 I am thinking I'd prefer the 5.0L vs. the 3.5, I keep my vehicles 15-20 years and have learned the hard way - simpler is usually better. And therefore, if GM's 5.3L - a larger displacement engine can get a 22 mpg rating on a 4WD platform well it seems to me job 1 came up a little short on the 5.0L. If the 5.0L was getting 22 mpg would anyone be buying the 3.5L EB?

[fordmantpw]

I have to respect that GM has done with their 5.3L, given I am not a fan of cylinder deactivation efforts, and would probably try to get that disabled if I had one. On the other hand, given mounting issues with the EB 3.5 I am thinking I'd prefer the 5.0L vs. the 3.5, I keep my vehicles 15-20 years and have learned the hard way - simpler is usually better. And therefore, if GM's 5.3L - a larger displacement engine can get a 22 mpg rating on a 4WD platform well it seems to me job 1 came up a little short on the 5.0L. If the 5.0L was getting 22 mpg would anyone be buying the 3.5L EB?

 

You need to compare the 6.2 to the 3.5 if you want apples and apples since they are the closest in torque and towing numbers. If the 6.2L got the same fuel economy as the 3.5L, then the 3.5L wouldn't sell at all. The 3.5L beats the 5.0 in fuel economy AND towing, which is why it sells

 

I think you will really see the advantages of EB with the '15 F150. I think the 2.7L EB V6 will have MUCH better MPG numbers than the 5.0L, while towing similar amounts.

[92merc]

I do respect what GM has been able to do with the 5.3. It's been around longer than the 5.4 was.

 

But I still chuckle to myself every time I see the commercial with the truck pulling out a stump. What was it, 383 ft/lbs? Anyway, far short of the 420 the 3.5 EB has. I'm sure Ford could have dropped the 3.5EB down in power to match the new 5.3 fuel economy. But instead, Ford went for a more middle of the road approach. Give the torque that "most" of the truck buyers want, and only lose 1-2mpg over the competition. I'm sure the second generation EB will fix the FE issue.

 

Now, whether or not "most" truck buyers actually need 420, or even 383 ft/lbs, is another argument...

[CKNSLS]

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/05/first-drive-2014-chevrolet-silverado-1500.html

 

Impressive initial gas mileage. Seems they have the V4 transition figured out.

It should be noted that when I purchased my new 2011 Silverado w/the 5.3 the cylinder deactivation was very smooth (I wouldn't call it seamless). Now at 34,000 miles it's extremely "clunky" and outright annoying. If you check the Chevy forums, most guys purchased a "Tune" to disable the 4cylinder mode (and risk their 100K powertrain warranty). Now a company called Range Technology has developed a "black box" that sends a message thru the ECM will out overwriting the ECM to always keep it in 8 cylinder mode. This sounds more of a viable solution.

 

At the same time I looked at the F150 w/the new V8 and liked it. At the time, the Chevrolet SIlverado was $5,000.00 cheaper. With that being said, I will admit my mistake and that I should have bought the F150.

 

I am going to keep the truck as I don't wish to come up with the better part of 10grand to get out of it.

Edited May 17, 2013 by CKNSLS

[papilgee4evaeva]

It should be noted that when I purchased my new 2011 Silverado w/the 5.3 the cylinder deactivation was very smooth (I wouldn't call it seamless). Now at 34,000 miles it's extremely "clunky" and outright annoying. If you check the Chevy forums, most guys purchased a "Tune" to disable the 4cylinder mode (and risk their 100K powertrain warranty). Now a company called Range Technology has developed a "black box" that sends a message thru the ECM will out overwriting the ECM to always keep it in 8 cylinder mode. This sounds more of a viable solution.

 

At the same time I looked at the F150 w/the new V8 and liked it. At the time, the Chevrolet SIlverado was $5,000.00 cheaper. With that being said, I will admit my mistake and that I should have bought the F150.

 

I am going to keep the truck as I don't wish to come up with the better part of 10grand to get out of it.

Great info. Sorry your purchase didn't work out better for you.

 

Also, for GM's own sake, I hope they figured out how to smooth out the AFM for longer than what amounts to a little over 2 years' worth of driving miles...

[jpd80]

The 2014 F150 will be a "get through" model for Ford, I doubt the 2014 Silverado will really impact the F Truck juggernaut sales machine.

For the last three years Ford's rucks engines have lead GM, the latest Silverado is a catch up and slight pip thanks to AFM

[meyeste]

You need to compare the 6.2 to the 3.5 if you want apples and apples since they are the closest in torque and towing numbers. If the 6.2L got the same fuel economy as the 3.5L, then the 3.5L wouldn't sell at all. The 3.5L beats the 5.0 in fuel economy AND towing, which is why it sells

 

I think you will really see the advantages of EB with the '15 F150. I think the 2.7L EB V6 will have MUCH better MPG numbers than the 5.0L, while towing similar amounts.

I would not consider the 6.2 in a 1/2 ton, while it's very good engine, other than for bragging rights it's just not necessary in the F150 excepting perhaps the Raptor. The 3.5L beats the 5.0L on achievable mpgs unloaded, however if you load them both up with say a 7,000 lb load the 3.5 will need to call up a good about of boost and it's mpg's will drop quickly. A turbo is not magic the same rules of physics apply, it's making more power by shoving more air & fuel into the combustion chamber. The fuel savings in the EB come when it's not loaded and it's using little boost if any, during those times it is consuming gas as if it were a 6 cylinder and that is how it achieves fuel savings. If you were to hot-rod a 3.5 EB around town you'll find the 12 mpg ratings some are crying about will show up in a hurry.

If you're constantly towing the 5.0L engine is going to turnout about the same mpg as the 3.5L. Sure if you're towing and drag racing the EB is the way to go, but is any sane individual doing that? All I'm saying is I believe it's a mistake to intentionally hobble the 5.0L simply to make the 3.5L engine look better, I don't see how else a engine that by independent dyno tests is making north of 430 HP in the Mustang GT form gets knocked down to 360 - conviently 5 HP below the 3.5 EB, unless a constraint was made that it get less HP than the 3.5, or do you not find that suspicious?

Edited May 17, 2013 by meyeste

[akirby]

I would not consider the 6.2 in a 1/2 ton, while it's very good engine, other than for bragging rights it's just not necessary in the F150 excepting perhaps the Raptor. The 3.5L beats the 5.0L on achievable mpgs unloaded, however if you load them both up with say a 7,000 lb load the 3.5 will need to call up a good about of boost and it's mpg's will drop quickly. A turbo is not magic the same rules of physics apply, it's making more power by shoving more air & fuel into the combustion chamber. The fuel savings in the EB come when it's not loaded and it's using little boost if any, during those times it is consuming gas as if it were a 6 cylinder and that is how it achieves fuel savings. If you were to hot-rod a 3.5 EB around town you'll find the 12 mpg ratings some are crying about will show up in a hurry.

If you're constantly towing the 5.0L engine is going to turnout about the same mpg as the 3.5L. Sure if you're towing and drag racing the EB is the way to go, but is any sane individual doing that? All I'm saying is I believe it's a mistake to intentionally hobble the 5.0L simply to make the 3.5L engine look better, I don't see how else a engine that by independent dyno tests is making north of 430 HP in the Mustang GT form gets knocked down to 360 - conviently 5 HP below the 3.5 EB, unless a constraint was made that it get less HP than the 3.5, or do you not find that suspicious?

 

You're missing the point. The 3.5EB has a lot more power than the 5.0 so you can't compare them directly. As for the HP difference between F150 and Mustang - the F150 tops out at 5500 rpm and the Mustang at 6500 - torque is virtually the same except the mustang was tested with premium fuel so it's about 10 ft/lbs higher. The truck engine is tuned for more low end torque.

[92merc]

The big thing to consider on towing with the 5.0 vs 3.5EB is what is the load? Yes, the 3.5EB will probably drink more gas than the 5.0. But that's partly because it has more torque. So if you are towing "near" the towing limits, I think you'll find most people would rather pay the gas penalty to get the more torque.

 

Now if you tow maybe 5k lbs max, you may not need the EB engine.

 

Personally, even with the current tunes, I'll still choose the EB over the 5.0. I tow very seldom. I'd rather have the better economy.

 

Now when the new 2.7EB comes out, odds are I'd go for that one over the two current engines, again because of FE and I don't tow much.

[meyeste]

You're missing the point. The 3.5EB has a lot more power than the 5.0 so you can't compare them directly. As for the HP difference between F150 and Mustang - the F150 tops out at 5500 rpm and the Mustang at 6500 - torque is virtually the same except the mustang was tested with premium fuel so it's about 10 ft/lbs higher. The truck engine is tuned for more low end torque.

I got off point there; I don't believe for a second the EB buyers went for that engine choice because it's a turbo engine, they did it because of the mpg's. Now myself, having lived nearly a half century am a believer in the adage "the simplest solution is the best one", I've seen it proven too many times - often at a cost to me. So someone my age sees a V-8 vs. a turbo six that gets the same mpg numbers, they are going for the simplier solution and that would seem to be the V-8, though I am not a big fan of cylinder deactivation technology.

Sure the EB has more torque, I hear that but until Ford puts the 3.5 EB into a super-duty, I and just about everyone else is going to assume this is because when it comes down to it the 3.5 EB isn't up to the task.

In any case, the decision is simple here, Ford can either market a 5.0L that gets similar mpg numbers to the 3.5 EB and get those that like the idea of having a V-8 and high mileage or give up those sales to GM.

Edited May 27, 2013 by meyeste

[fordmantpw]

Sure the EB has more torque, I hear that but until Ford puts the 3.5 EB into a super-duty, I and just about everyone else is going to assume this is because when it comes down to it the 3.5 EB isn't up to the task.

 

So, does that mean that since the 5.0 isn't in the Super Duty that it isn't up to the task either? What about putting the 3.5 in a medium duty? Does it need to go there to prove it is up to the task? Seriously, there are different tools for different jobs. The F150 is a tool that isn't quite as strong as the Super Duty, the same as the 3.5 is a tool that isn't as strong as the 6.7L diesel. Doesn't mean the 3.5 isn't up to the task in the F150. I guess since the 2.0L isn't offered in the Super Duty that it isn't up to the task in the Escape? Come on, you're comparing apples and oranges here.

 

If you don't realize that you need different engine sizes in different size trucks, then you don't need to be a part of a conversation about trucks.

 

At any rate, the 3.5L EB would be under boost too much in the SD due to it's weight (empty) that the fuel economy improvements would be negated. Plus, it's not built for the SD, it's built for the F150 and lower vehicles. Just like the 6.7L is built for the F250 and up.

[V8-X]

From what I've gathered from EB F150 owners here in CO. They like the power the turbos provide here at altitude where N/A motors many times run out of breath. But they complain they do not bring home nearly the EPA ratings in mpg when empty, and much much worse with a load. On even the slightest of incline and babying the skinny pedal, they complain the turbos kick in too often and soon which kills their mpg. The few 5.0 owners I've spoken with, appear to be bringing home relatively the same mpgs as the EB owners. Maybe in lower altitude and flatter land the EB's mpgs show through more frequently, but just doesn't seem to here from those I've have the pleasure to speak with.

 

And I'm sorry, but I've heard the stock exhaust and a performance exhaust on an EB F150, and those trucks sound horrible. Not a sign of a trucks capabilities, but they sound in need of a tune-up.

[fordmantpw]

From what I've gathered from EB F150 owners here in CO. They like the power the turbos provide here at altitude where N/A motors many times run out of breath. But they complain they do not bring home nearly the EPA ratings in mpg when empty, and much much worse with a load. On even the slightest of incline and babying the skinny pedal, they complain the turbos kick in too often and soon which kills their mpg. The few 5.0 owners I've spoken with, appear to be bringing home relatively the same mpgs as the EB owners. Maybe in lower altitude and flatter land the EB's mpgs show through more frequently, but just doesn't seem to here from those I've have the pleasure to speak with.

 

And I'm sorry, but I've heard the stock exhaust and a performance exhaust on an EB F150, and those trucks sound horrible. Not a sign of a trucks capabilities, but they sound in need of a tune-up.

 

I've highlighted a few important things in your post. I don't see what there is to complain about. First off, you should not expect to meet EPA ratings living in the mountains. Secondly, the EB owners like the extra power at altitude, and the engines return similar fuel economy numbers to the 5.0. To me, that's a win-win for EB owners. You get the same fuel economy, but you get the extra power to boot.

[V8-X]

I've highlighted a few important things in your post. I don't see what there is to complain about. First off, you should not expect to meet EPA ratings living in the mountains. Secondly, the EB owners like the extra power at altitude, and the engines return similar fuel economy numbers to the 5.0. To me, that's a win-win for EB owners. You get the same fuel economy, but you get the extra power to boot.

My current and previous 5.4L and those I've spoke to with the 5.0L, meet or exceed EPA ratings consistently here at altitude. So to not expect it, come on now. Lived here nearly all my life and nearly every vehicle I've owned could meet/exceed EPA ratings even in the mountains. None of the EB owners I've spoken with have, which the increased mpg's was one of the selling points of opting for the EB. And the extra power they referenced was when climbing some of the highway/interstate passes that can exceed 10K+ feet, not in city day to day traffic. And of course those highway/interstate passes consumed tons of fuel for the added power.

Edited May 29, 2013 by V8-X

[fordmantpw]

My current and previous 5.4L and those I've spoke to with the 5.0L, meet or exceed EPA ratings consistently here at altitude. So to not expect it, come on now. Lived here nearly all my life and nearly every vehicle I've owned could meet/exceed EPA ratings even in the mountains. None of the EB owners I've spoken with have, which the increased mpg's was one of the selling points of opting for the EB. And the extra power they referenced was when climbing some of the highway/interstate passes that can exceed 10K+ feet, not in city day to day traffic. And of course those highway/interstate passes consumed tons of fuel for the added power.

 

Reading your previous post, EB users were taking advantage of that extra power at altitude, which would lead to not meeting EPA ratings. The EB does make more power at altitude than the 5.0 due to FI, so yes, it will use more fuel to make that power. But, EPA ratings aside, you can't compare drivers A, B, and C with the 5.0 to drivers D, E, and F with the 3.5. They don't all drive identically, so you can't compare them as apples to apples. Comparing you meeting EPA ratings to comparing others meeting the ratings is the same thing...driving style makes a HUGE difference, especially with the EB. Too much foot calls for too much boost, which calls for too much fuel, which drops MPG.

 

And, realistically, even if they do get the same fuel economy, they are only rated at 1 MPG difference between the two, and due to rounding, it could be as little as 0.25 MPG difference. Using your foot to enjoy the power will make the EB look worse. I really don't think that's bad for having an extra dose of power on tap when needed.