Chevy Silverado V-8 Slamming Ford Eco-boost Ads

[jpd80]

Yes, the torque and HP numbers are important.

 

But, an EVEN BETTER indicator of the differences in character between the EcoBoost and either of those V8's is the engine speed at which the PEAK torque is delivered.

 

Would I rather have my torque curve peak at 2500 RPM or 4000 RPM when I'm towing a horse trailer? Hmmm...

Do we really need the torque to peak at 2,500 rpm anymore now that there's a 6-speed gearbox.....

Edited September 23, 2013 by jpd80

[akirby]

Yes.

[92merc]

Do we really need the torque to peak at 2,500 rpm anymore now that there's a 6-speed gearbox.....

If you read the review of the Dodge with diesel, even their 8 speed didn't help the fact that it still felt sluggish. I'd say that bodes well for Ford for the rumored next gen EB plus upcoming 9 speeds in the F150...

[akirby]

Because you still have to start from the stall speed of the torque converter to get going and the higher the peak torque the longer it takes to get there and the slower it is off the line before you ever get to 2nd gear.

Edited September 23, 2013 by akirby

[fordmantpw]

Do we really need the torque to peak at 2,500 rpm anymore now that there's a 6-speed gearbox.....

 

The lower torque makes it that much better with a tranny with more gears. You can keep the engine near peak torque more of the time, preventing the need to rev much past 2500 RPM...ever!

[grbeck]

White99GT, thank you for the links! Looks like the 5.3L 2014 Silverado & Sierra are holding their own against competitive trucks from Chrysler and Ford.

 

Consumer Reports released some details of its 2014 Silverado evaluation; overall it just edged out the Ram 1500 5.7L. The new Silverado delivered the best fuel economy of any full-size pickup truck tested recently by the publication.

Considering that the GM twins are the newest trucks in this class...shouldn't they beat the competition in tests?

[aneekr]

Considering that the GM twins are the newest trucks in this class...shouldn't they beat the competition in tests?

 

I think they should, and to GM's credit, their full-size pickup truck redesign was executed very well. However, it is not uncommon to find new or redesigned vehicles that fail to outrank older competitors or even their own predecessors, as noted here.

[jpd80]

The lower torque makes it that much better with a tranny with more gears. You can keep the engine near peak torque more of the time, preventing the need to rev much past 2500 RPM...ever!

The high torque peak of the F150 5.0 does not necessarily mean a complete lack of torque at 2,500,

you'll probably find that the torque produced in the lower rpm band.is similar to the 5.4 3V.

 

Still less than the 3.5 EB I know, but for linear power, the 5.0 is a great engine,

both sell well in the F150 because they do different things that please their owners.

Edited September 24, 2013 by jpd80

[fordmantpw]

The high torque peak of the F150 5.0 does not necessarily mean a complete lack of torque at 2,500,

you'll probably find that the torque produced in the lower rpm band.is similar to the 5.4 3V.

 

Still less than the 3.5 EB I know, but for linear power, the 5.0 is a great engine,

both sell well in the F150 because they do different things that please their owners.

 

Oh yes, I'm not saying that the 5.0 has no torque at the lower RPM, but the broad torque curve of the EB is more favorable and gives a better punch over the entire rev range. The 5.0 is truly a great engine, and I think would get even more accolades were it not for the EB. I haven't heard anyone that owns a 5.0 say they would like to have their 5.4 back.

[jpd80]

Oh yes, I'm not saying that the 5.0 has no torque at the lower RPM, but the broad torque curve of the EB is more favorable and gives a better punch over the entire rev range. The 5.0 is truly a great engine, and I think would get even more accolades were it not for the EB. I haven't heard anyone that owns a 5.0 say they would like to have their 5.4 back.

Agreed and if you're comparing Silverado 5.3 to the EB 35, the F150 gives so much more. Sure, the Silverado 6.2 has more torque

but Chevrolet is being deliberately coy about that engine's fuel economy. So funny when a competitor has to cherry pick

specifications of two Ford engines to look respectable, although I'd expect Ford to do the same...

[aneekr]

Here are some real world fuel economy numbers for 2014 Silverado 1500 LTZ Z71 crew cab 4x4 5.3L, courtesy of cars.com:

 

http://blogs.cars.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e2019aff4e57b4970b-800wi

[EBFlex]

Here are some real world fuel economy numbers for 2014 Silverado 1500 LTZ Z71 crew cab 4x4 5.3L, courtesy of cars.com:

 

http://blogs.cars.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e2019aff4e57b4970b-800wi

 

Now THAT is impressive.

[FordFanForEver]

Every once in a while, Ford needs a kick in the pants to improve things. The 6.2L needs some serious work especially it is wants to play in the over 10K GVWR Class 3, 4 and 5.

 

And I still can't believe that Ford is going with the, now "ancient", 6.8L 3 valve V10 in the F650/750. Worse the 6.8L 2 valve will be the only engine available in the E350/450 stripped chassis/cutaway for the foreseeable future ! I can't believe that a V10, even with 2 valves is cheaper to build than a V8 !

 

The F-53 motorhome chassis still uses the 6.8 V10... The 6.2 produces less horsepower and torque. Class A gas motorhomes are selling well for the segment. I'd like to see Ford improve in that area but the 6.8 V10 is the only option they have for a gas motorhome.

[V8-X]

I haven't heard anyone that owns a 5.0 say they would like to have their 5.4 back.

I've actually seen a few on a couple F150 forums. Not a huge number of owners, but there are some that admit they preferred the low end torque on their 5.4L versus the 5.0L. Can't tell you how much is the individuals perception versus reality.

[jpd80]

I've actually seen a few on a couple F150 forums. Not a huge number of owners, but there are some that admit they preferred the low end torque on their 5.4L versus the 5.0L. Can't tell you how much is the individuals perception versus reality.

It's a perception thing, the 5.0 replaces the old 4.6 while the Ecoboost V6 replaces the old 5.4

The 5.4 was getting beaten in towing comparisons with the Dodge and Silverado 1500 trucks.

Ecoboost effectively silenced those comparison tests done by Dodge and GM......

Edited September 27, 2013 by jpd80

[V8-X]

It's a perception thing, the 5.0 replaces the old 4.6 while the Ecoboost V6 replaces the old 5.4

The 5.4 was getting beaten in towing comparisons with the Dodge and Silverado 1500 trucks.

Ecoboost effectively silenced those comparison tests done by Dodge and GM......

I agree the 5.4 was being beat by the Dodge 5.7 in testing, and the 6.2L equipped Silverado. But both of those were much newer or updated motors with more power.

 

Yes the 5.0 replaces the 4.6 and EB the 5.4. But how can you say it's truly and only perception? Keep in mind they had a 5.4, so opting for the 5.0 in a sense is downgrading to the 4.6 in the new trucks. The 5.4 had 365 ft-lbs (@ 3750rpm), so the new 5.0 has 380 ft-lbs (@ 4250 rpm), a small increase in both ft-lbs and rpm range, but not a significant jump. The big difference between the 5.0 and 5.4 is the HP (300/310 to 360).

 

http://www.f150forum.com/f38/torque-curves-all-motors-but-4-6l-2v-110234/

 

Here's a listing of what members there listed at the torque curve.

 

5.4L

 

1500 rpm = 260# ?

2000 rpm = 315#

2500 rpm = 340#

3000 rpm = 356#

3500 rpm = 365#

4000 rpm = 365#

4500 rpm = 363#

5000 rpm = 350#

5500 rpm = 297# (Redline)

6000 rpm =

 

5.0L

 

1500 rpm = 275#

2000 rpm = 302#

2500 rpm = 315#

3000 rpm = 327#

3500 rpm = 350#

4000 rpm = 362#

4500 rpm = 379#

5000 rpm = 356#

5500 rpm = 348#

6000 rpm = 315# (Redline)

[V8-X]

Regarding my above post. The gearing for each, 5.0 or 5.4 could potentially be a factor and play into the drivers perception as well. If their 5.4 had 3.73 and the 5.0 had 3.55, I'm sure their perception and experience could be a factor.

[jpd80]

Regarding my above post. The gearing for each, 5.0 or 5.4 could potentially be a factor and play into the drivers perception as well. If their 5.4 had 3.73 and the 5.0 had 3.55, I'm sure their perception and experience could be a factor.

Thanks for the above information I agree that it looks like Ford tried to replace both the 4.6 and the 5.4 with the 5.0

those torque reading in the lower end show Ford's excellent work in port size and low speed flow optimization.

,

I think that Ford succeeded with that but the Ecoboost was the surprise of the decade, I don't think Ford was truly

expecting such a strong response but gladly took the win. With roughly 50/50 sales split, it's clear that buyers

appreciate the difference between the two engines which seem to complement each other rather than competing..

(Did Ford have early shortages of coyotes and instead offered the EB as an alternative that buyers embraced?)

 

I sometimes wonder what the difference in fuel economy between the 5.0 and say, a "coyote" based 5.4 or 5.8 would have been,

something tells me that the highway mileage may have been similar of 1 mpg worse with a lot more usable torque there....

.

All speculation on my part but still interesting to understand the thinking behind selecting engine capacities, the scale of economy

with just one small block was probably the compelling factor -

Edited September 28, 2013 by jpd80

[EBFlex]

Regarding my above post. The gearing for each, 5.0 or 5.4 could potentially be a factor and play into the drivers perception as well. If their 5.4 had 3.73 and the 5.0 had 3.55, I'm sure their perception and experience could be a factor.

 

Gears play a far bigger role in drive-ability than anyone here will admit to. It affects everything from fuel economy to towing ability (or whatever the manufacturer decided it can tow).

[aneekr]

Gears play a far bigger role in drive-ability than anyone here will admit to. It affects everything from fuel economy to towing ability (or whatever the manufacturer decided it can tow).

 

Well said, EBFlex. Savvy pickup truck customers understand this, and study spec sheets for various powertrain and gear/axle ratio combinations very carefully.

 

Using 2014 Silverado 5.3L 2WD double cab as an example, going from the standard 3.08 axle ratio to 3.73 increases max towing capacity by 4,600 lbs!

[fordmantpw]

Well said, EBFlex. Savvy pickup truck customers understand this, and study spec sheets for various powertrain and gear/axle ratio combinations very carefully.

 

Using 2014 Silverado 5.3L 2WD double cab as an example, going from the standard 3.08 axle ratio to 3.73 increases max towing capacity by 4,600 lbs!

 

Good point, but keep in mind that it's all relative. Going from 3.08 to 3.73 is a 21% change in gearing. Going from 3.55 to 3.73 is only a 5% change.

 

Gears play a far bigger role in drive-ability than anyone here will admit to. It affects everything from fuel economy to towing ability (or whatever the manufacturer decided it can tow).

 

Again, taking the attitude that you know more than anyone else and talking down to everyone on the forum. Why do you even bother coming here? Geez! Seriously, why do you think no one here will admit rear end ratios make a difference. Most here know that, especially those of us, as aneekr mentioned, are 'savvy pickup truck customers'. Does it make a difference? Sure. Will going from 3.55 to 3.73 or vice versa be a huge change noticeable by many? No. Personally, i wish my Super Duty had 3.55 since I don't tow that heavy (less than 10k lbs) and would like the extra highway fuel economy that comes with the 3.55. However, since a lot of my driving is slow speed, stop and go driving, having 3.55s, my typical drive would probably net fuel economy slightly worse than what I get with my 3.73s.

[EBFlex]

Well said, EBFlex. Savvy pickup truck customers understand this, and study spec sheets for various powertrain and gear/axle ratio combinations very carefully.

 

Using 2014 Silverado 5.3L 2WD double cab as an example, going from the standard 3.08 axle ratio to 3.73 increases max towing capacity by 4,600 lbs!

 

And probably lowers fuel economy by......well, we don't know, another loophole that should be closed. Because a truck with 3.15 gears will not have the same fuel economy (or towing ability) as a truck with 4.10 gears.

 

 

Again, taking the attitude that you know more than anyone else and talking down to everyone on the forum.

 

But it's ok when you do it?

 

---------------

 

And with that, fair, open, and honest discussion has ended for this thread. I can be locked now.

Edited September 29, 2013 by EBFlex

[jpd80]

And probably lowers fuel economy by......well, we don't know, another loophole that should be closed.

And how do you propose that manufacturers do that, test every permutation of engine, truck, gearing and load?

 

 

Never gonna happen.

[fordmantpw]

But it's ok when you do it?

 

Did I say that it is? Find the post of mine where I took the same condescending attitude toward everyone on the forum that you did and regularly do and I will apologize to everyone for my comments.

 

Go on, we'll wait.

[Edstock]

Gears play a far bigger role in drive-ability than anyone here will admit to.

 

Bullshit, dude; you really are full of yourself. Maybe you should get an AMG to match your ego. Gearing is incredibly important to performance and economy, which is why GM doesn't make the old 2-speed Powerglide anymore.