backtop


Print 115 comment(s) - last by talikarni.. on Apr 5 at 2:41 PM

GM bests Ford's EcoBoost V6 fuel efficiency without complex, expensive turbochargers

Ford has spent a great deal of time and money developing and marketing its EcoBoost family. The company makes a wide variety of EcoBoost engines (which is basically a fancy name for turbocharging plus direct injection) ranging from a 1.0-liter three-cylinder to a 3.5-liter V6.
 
Ford's efforts have paid off, as sales of the naturally aspirated V6- and EcoBoost V6-equipped F-150s have outpaced those of the V8 models. And all along the way, Ford has thumbed its nose at the Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra, stating how its EcoBoost V6 gets V8 performance and V6 fuel economy.
 
GM, however, is hitting back today with the announcement that its new 5.3-liter EcoTec3 V8 engines manages to produce 355 horsepower and 383 lb-ft of torque. While the horsepower number compares favorably with the EcoBoost V6 in the F-150, it's down quite a bit in torque. GM says that in 4x2 trim, the EcoTec3 will be good for 23 mpg highway; checking off the 4x4 option box will result in 22 mpg on the highway.


2014 Chevrolet Silverado
 
Both of these numbers are 1 mpg better than the EcoBoost F-150. In fact, it matches the fuel economy of Ford’s naturally aspirated, 3.7-liter V6.
 
“Silverado’s available 5.3-liter EcoTec3 V8 gives customers the best of both worlds,” bragged Jeff Luke, executive chief engineer for the Silverado. “Customers get the proven power and dependability of a V-8 truck engine, with better fuel economy than a leading competitor’s smaller turbocharged V-6.”


5.3-liter EcoTec3 V8 engine
 
GM's decision to go the "tried and true" route may pay off in the end. Recent reports have suggested that while many manufacturers seem to ace the EPA's tests with turbocharged gasoline engines, most consumers aren't able to match the sticker numbers in the real world.

The Ford Atlas Concept previews the nexxt generation F-150
 
GM’s fun in the mpg sun, however, likely won’t last long. Ford is reportedly looking to trim up to 700 pounds from the next generation F-150, which will go a long way towards improving fuel efficiency. Ford showcased the use of active aero technology on its Atlas truck concept (which no doubt is a precursor to the next generation F-150), which boost highway fuel efficiency by 2 mpg.

Sources: General Motors [1], [2]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

If you want fuel economy why buy a truck?
By tayb on 4/1/2013 9:54:59 PM , Rating: 1
I don't understand the truck market. If you want fuel economy don't buy a truck. If you need to tow something go ahead and get a truck that can tow what you need. If you don't need to tow something but you still buy a truck, well, I think you're just an idiot.




By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/1/2013 10:02:50 PM , Rating: 3
So are you saying that you should just piss your money away on gas when you buy a truck? Just because someone buys a truck doesn't mean they can't also pay attention to how much money they're spending on fuel as well.


RE: If you want fuel economy why buy a truck?
By Apone on 4/1/2013 11:28:01 PM , Rating: 2
@ Brandon

I think what tayb is saying is that in the past, customers buying a truck knew it was inherently fuel inefficient but needed the towing power and off-road capability. Also, in terms of utility, tayb is saying it doesn't make sense to buy a big truck if you're not going to tow/haul anything or don't need the extra room. I would have to agree as my neighbor's commuter vehicle is a 4X4 Ford F-250 and he doesn't haul anything so I can imagine his fuel and maintenance costs are unnecessarily high.


RE: If you want fuel economy why buy a truck?
By Spuke on 4/2/2013 12:20:34 AM , Rating: 3
Truck buyers still know they're not fuel efficient but like Brandon said, why piss away your money if you don't have to? My truck gets 16 mpg on a commute. We knew that beforehand (most truck buyers do) but got the diesel because it gets better fuel economy than the gas engine. Again why piss away your money?


RE: If you want fuel economy why buy a truck?
By Apone on 4/2/2013 3:00:06 AM , Rating: 2
I might be misunderstanding yours and Brandon's posts here but if you don't want to "piss away your money" unnecessarily, then why even consider buying a pick up truck when you don't need the towing power and off-road capability for a commuter vehicle?


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/2/2013 8:41:44 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, you're totally misunderstanding us here. Someone who buys a truck normally does it for a specific purpose, be it towing, hauling, whatever.

Trucks are a big part of American business as well. Businesses use trucks for service calls, deliveries, etc. Fuel costs are a big part of any business where a fleet of vehicles is used. When it comes time to replace an older vehicle in the fleet, saving 2 to 3 mpg per vehicle adds up over time.

Same goes for regular consumers. If I am to the point where I'm going to need a dedicated vehicle to handle my towing/hauling needs, fuel costs would definitely be a big factor for me. If it were down to a vehicle that got 12/18 versus one that got 17/23, all other things being equal, I'd go with the latter.


RE: If you want fuel economy why buy a truck?
By Spuke on 4/2/2013 1:02:33 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks Brandon.

quote:
then why even consider buying a pick up truck when you don't need the towing power and off-road capability for a commuter vehicle
Who said I didn't need the towing or hauling capabilities?


By Apone on 4/2/2013 4:31:15 PM , Rating: 2
I never said you didn't need towing or hauling capabilities; just saying for the folks who don't require it for personal or work reasons, it just doesn't make sense financially. If you need it, more power to you!


RE: If you want fuel economy why buy a truck?
By Apone on 4/2/2013 4:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
Sure I get that and call me pessimistic here but it just seems like these new numbers that advertise 17/23 MPG, etc. sound a bit exaggerated for a workhorse truck; I'd like to see real life MPG numbers when the auto maker also factors in realistic mild-to-consistent cargo/trailer towing and hauling in addition to stop & go city and freeway cruising.


RE: If you want fuel economy why buy a truck?
By Spuke on 4/2/2013 4:30:04 PM , Rating: 2
My stepson's and a friends Ecoboost F150's do get about the rated mpg on the freeway. My stepson gets 24 and my friend gets 23. Don't know their city or commuter mileage.


By Kazinji on 4/3/2013 6:19:56 AM , Rating: 2
Actually tow anything with the ecoboost, heard it was horribad. 6 mpg... guy was pissed ford wouldn't take it back.


By SAN-Man on 4/3/2013 10:18:13 AM , Rating: 3
I agree.

What about all the craftsman and trade workers who use these trucks day in and day out? They're just supposed to suck it up and pay?

Just this morning at the gas station I saw an F250 4 door with six guys in it and the truck was pulling a concrete mixer. In the truck bed were the gear and concrete finishing tools for all six guys. Yeah, it's not going to get 50 MPG but why should they have to settle for 10 MPG?

These guys have costs - whoever runs that crew has costs. Companies aren't made of money. Going from 10 MPG towing/hauling to 20 MPG towing hauling is an enormous fuel bill reduction. Maybe enough to: Hire another guy - give another guy a job. Invest in new equipment or better equipment. Expand the capabilities of the crew and in turn, make more money and provide MORE jobs.


By Fleeb on 4/1/2013 11:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry. Somebody here in DT years ago defended his Hummer - because then he can transport his 50" TV with it.


RE: If you want fuel economy why buy a truck?
By lagomorpha on 4/2/2013 6:43:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you don't need to tow something but you still buy a truck, well, I think you're just an idiot.


The truck market makes a lot more sense when you realize that 80% of the market of new truck buyers fall into the categories of "short people that want to feel tall for their commute" and "people who want to pretend they do manly work".


By Spuke on 4/2/2013 1:15:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The truck market makes a lot more sense when you realize that 80% of the market of new truck buyers fall into the categories of "short people that want to feel tall for their commute" and "people who want to pretend they do manly work".
Do you have any statistics to back up this BS? Or is this another "because I say so" moment?


By 91TTZ on 4/2/2013 5:04:36 PM , Rating: 3
This is totally illogical reasoning. Many people buy trucks because they use them for work, and the fuel expenses detract from their bottom line. Why would you not want better fuel economy in a truck?


By EricMartello on 4/2/2013 6:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't understand the truck market. If you want fuel economy don't buy a truck. If you need to tow something go ahead and get a truck that can tow what you need. If you don't need to tow something but you still buy a truck, well, I think you're just an idiot.


The average joe who buys a pickup because that's what his neighbors gots probably isn't too concerned about fuel economy...but you'd be missing the point.

The pickup truck is intended to be a work/utility vehicle and as such is used by businesses and municipalities. It's often a "fleet" vehicle, one of many, and so seemingly minor improvements in fuel economy can represent a substantial cost savings to the owner of the fleet.

You are postulating that being a truck means no attempt to improve fuel efficiency should be made since it's always going to be less than the most fuel efficient vehicles available...while it may be true that a pickup is never going to rival a VW TDI for fuel economy, it does not mean there should be no attempts to improve their fuel economy.

One thing that Ford doesn't tell people about their turbo V6 is the price premium over comparable V8 options - both Ford and GM. You would have to make up a deficit of nearly $4,000 in 'fuel savings' before the V6 provides any benefit in terms of operational costs, and even then, that is assuming the V6 is achieving its listed ratings.


By talikarni on 4/5/2013 2:41:32 PM , Rating: 2
You do not understand it, ok hows this:
People buy trucks for the purpose they are designed for: towing and cargo. It is that simple. Manufacturers are now understanding that truck buyers will always be truck buyers so they may as well improve their fuel economy.

Just because they may not use it to tow or haul cargo every single day or even every week does not mean they should not own a truck or are an idiot as you claim. If anything they are the smarter buyers. Much smarter than these real idiots in a 4 cylinder Ford Escape towing a 3000 pound camper, then wonder why they have trouble stopping or get into a wreck with it. Oh but hey at least they get good gas mileage huh?

Every vehicle segment has its purpose. Not everyone will buy an appropriate vehicle for their needs. Some may buy a truck just because they like them and never haul cargo or tow anything, when a 4cyl car will do just fine.

Here in reality land, a majority of us buy the vehicle that suits our need whether its 15mpg city SUV/truck or a 50mpg car.


Favorably ?
By M'n'M on 4/1/2013 8:36:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
new 5.3-liter EcoTec3 V8 engines manages to produce 355 horsepower and 383 lb-ft of torque. While the horsepower number compares favorably with the EcoBoost V6 in the F-150, it's down quite a bit in torque.

Let's see the new V8 makes 355 HP @ 5800 RPM. The boosted V6 make 365 HP @ 5000 RPM. I might say comparable but certainly not favorably.

I would agree that 383 lb-ft @ 4100 RPM vs 420 @ 2500 is "quite a bit" for those few who really use their trucks as trucks.




RE: Favorably ?
By SeeManRun on 4/1/2013 10:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
That's the beauty of the turbo over naturally aspirated. The torque is generated at a much lower rpm. Would be interesting to see the torque curve. I hear the ecoboost has a nice big range of lots do torque.


RE: Favorably ?
By BRB29 on 4/2/2013 8:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
That's also the problem with turbos. You get a big rush of power which is annoying a lot of times when you want linear power. It then peaks early and dies down faster depending on turbos. Still, I like turbos and a good set up(like the bmw 335) will still be very usable every day. Volkswagen have their 4 cylinder turbo down pretty good too.


RE: Favorably ?
By Spuke on 4/2/2013 1:04:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You get a big rush of power which is annoying a lot of times when you want linear power.
No turbo car built in the last 20 years gives a big rush of power. Do you know how a turbo works?


RE: Favorably ?
By 91TTZ on 4/2/2013 5:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
He's right. I'm very familiar with how turbos work and I'll admit that they give a big rush of power.

When you see a car without that rush of power it's usually because they're artificially limiting the power in order to give a "smoother" power delivery.

Turbochargers use centrifugal compressors, and centrifugal compressors have a nearly exponential flow increase as RPM increases. This differs from a positive displacement supercharger or naturally aspirated engine which has a linear increase in flow as RPM increases.


RE: Favorably ?
By Spuke on 4/2/2013 5:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
But that's all controllable with the right foot. He implies that turbo's are inherently out of control and incapable of getting smooth power delivery. I say BS. I have no such nanny controls on my vehicle and power delivery is very smooth all controllable with ye ole right foot. Same with my wife's BMW (with the new 4 cyl).


RE: Favorably ?
By EricMartello on 4/2/2013 6:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No turbo car built in the last 20 years gives a big rush of power. Do you know how a turbo works?


Yes, the turbine needs to accelerate or "spool up" before it's able to generate boost. The spool up duration is perceived as "lag", where the engine feels sluggish, followed by the boost where you feel a surge of power.

Your statement is backwards; it was this power surge that kept average consumers away from turbos since it had a tendency to surprise complacent drivers, causing them to lose control or feel like the vehicle was going out of control.

Modern turbos have been able to reduce lag and provide a more linear delivery of power, making the car more user friendly.


RE: Favorably ?
By sprockkets on 4/2/2013 7:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
The current Kia SUV does just that, either is sluggish or out of control.

Read about it at C&D.


RE: Favorably ?
By M'n'M on 4/3/2013 8:48:23 AM , Rating: 2
It's all in how the turbo is sized and tuned. Lot's of truck use turbos where the boost comes on early in the RPM range and with little lag. As a general rule you don't make max HP with such a setup. Cars aiming to have some sporting credentials may use a system that's intended to maximize power which means you've got to have exhaust flow which in turn means RPMs and WOT. Add in a large turbo (which takes time to spin up) and you've got the sudden-surge-of-power when-I-didn't-expect-it "problem".

I think most cars today lean towards the less boost, wide torque band side of things than cars of yesteryear did. My 93 MR2 leaned more towards the peakier, max power side.


Time?
By Apone on 4/1/2013 11:40:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ford has spent a great deal of time and money developing and marketing its EcoBoost family.


I think EcoBoost is fantastic but I can't believe it's taken Ford this long to get its butt in gear. Variable valve timing and Direct Injection have been around since the late 80's/early 90's (via Honda's VTEC and Mitsubishi & Volkswagen => Gasoline Direct Injection). It's also not rocket science that vehicles by Honda, Toyota, and VW from the 80's and 90's, which pioneered and demonstrated the practicality of VTEC and GDI, could have been a roadmap for Ford to innovate considering the imports' rise in popularity during that time period.




RE: Time?
By Spuke on 4/2/2013 1:01:10 AM , Rating: 2
Honda's VTEC is NOT direct injection, it's variable valve timing and lift. That's all. VW is the first to mass market DI (meaning sell a bunch of cars with the tech).


RE: Time?
By Apone on 4/2/2013 2:41:21 AM , Rating: 2
I never said in my post that VTEC is the same as Direct Injection; I was making the connection that VTEC is to Honda as Direct Injection is to VW and Mitsubishi.


RE: Time?
By Spuke on 4/2/2013 1:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I never said in my post that VTEC is the same as Direct Injection; I was making the connection that VTEC is to Honda as Direct Injection is to VW and Mitsubishi.
So when did Ford start using both of those technologies that warrants your post?


RE: Time?
By Apone on 4/2/2013 4:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
I believe Ford started using their version of VTEC and Direct Injection in their EcoBoost engine lineup's introduction (circa 2008-2009 when Ford declared it had to "re-innovate" and not take government bailout money in order to survive); their VTEC is just called Ford's variable valve timing. This is why traditionally, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc. have all been able to remain competitive against the domestic auto makers in terms of offering relatively smaller engines (but still have solid horsepower & torque) in their vehicles. T


RE: Time?
By Spuke on 4/2/2013 6:03:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I believe Ford started using their version of VTEC and Direct Injection in their EcoBoost engine lineup's introduction (circa 2008-2009 when Ford declared it had to "re-innovate" and not take government bailout money in order to survive)
Ford started using variable valve timing in cars in 2003 and trucks in 2004 although I think the first use in cars in the US was in 2005. As far as DI, Ford first used it in Europe in the early 2000's sometime (don't remember exactly).


Interesting
By lagomorpha on 4/2/2013 6:34:30 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
GM says that in 2x2 trim,


They're selling a 2 wheeled version? Will it be like a motorcycle with 2 driven wheels or will the wheels be side by side? :P




RE: Interesting
By icrf on 4/2/2013 9:28:36 AM , Rating: 2
Didn't you hear? GM is partnering with Segway. Towing and cargo capacity are way down, but executives think that the increased efficiency will resonate with consumers.


RE: Interesting
By Bad-Karma on 4/2/2013 4:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
I heard it was going to be a Diesel version of the Dodge Tomahawk lol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Tomahawk


RE: Interesting
By lagomorpha on 4/4/2013 9:13:58 AM , Rating: 2
But the Dodge Tomahawk had 4 wheels... they were just close together.


Ecoboast=Ford
By Richard875yh5 on 4/2/2013 4:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
GM is already working to reduce the weight of it's vehicles. They hold a patent in spot welding aluminum to other metals and this will make it hard for Ford and other car builders.

I've always had the feeling with Fords bragging, it would hit them in the butt and it will happen.




Makes sense.
By 91TTZ on 4/2/2013 5:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
Contrary to popular belief, having a lower displacement engine revving higher or using boost is not more efficient than a larger engine that can rev lower.

The physics of engine design have been known for a very long time. If you wanted to design an engine with optimum efficiency, you'd make it larger in displacement, lower revving, 2 stroke, diesel, and turbocharged.

That would address the main sources of efficiency loss in an engine and the specific fuel consumption would decrease. The problem would be meeting emissions regulations.




What's the diff!
By macca007 on 4/2/2013 3:14:07 PM , Rating: 1
Some people on here are like those in graphics cards debates of AMD vs Nvidia, Seriously stop the bragging. It's a car it is made by people just like you and me at some plant around the globe, Guess what they all have recalls from time to time get used to it. Recently it was Toyota and Honda, Lately it was Mazda with some safety issue, You people buy imports think it's better cause of the badge? ridiculous. As for Ford and GM, Get one that does the job for you, Worrying about which has a lower exhaust temperature? Are you fkn serious? How does that matter in real world. People bag the shit out of Holdens over here where I am yet I thrash the crap out of my V8 and it still keeps going and going and going, I see all these newer turbos broken down on the side of the road. It's all great going to a smaller engine and turbo charging but really all it's doing is making the engine work harder which will wear it out quicker. I see a crap load of older V8's on the road some are rusted out but still drive, I don't see a lot of older 4cylinder turbos on the road. Sure you can get the same or more power out of smaller turbo engine but it has to work twice as hard to make that same power, You will soon learn about it from your wallet later on. The old Push rod tech still has some life in it yet, Cheap and powerful,reliable and so easy to mod. Just buy a car for the look/features and stop worrying about 1mpg more than some competitors for fucks sake, It's not even a Mc Donald's meal worth of fuel savings.




Ecoboast=Ford
By Richard875yh5 on 4/2/2013 4:08:41 PM , Rating: 1
GM is already working to reduce the weight of it's vehicles. They hold a patent in spot welding aluminum to other metals and this will make it hard for Ford and other car builders.

I've always had the feeling with Fords bragging, it would hit them in the butt and it will happen.




GM.... bleh.
By retrospooty on 4/1/13, Rating: -1
RE: GM.... bleh.
By sprockkets on 4/1/2013 7:39:07 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not sure about GM's new engines, but Ford's are an abomination. Read up on how some have the VVT mechanism just flat out break, causing complete engine damage. Or better yet, their piss poor new diesel engine. My friend has had his spend more time in the dealership than in his driveway. The engine seized up 3 weeks out of warranty, requiring $10000 in repairs. Later, for the third time, the engine flywheel broke, which also destroyed the transmission.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By gerf on 4/1/2013 9:34:12 PM , Rating: 2
Ford is working on a new super-small engine. I don't think that these specs are spot-on for displacement, but I've heard from Ford guys that it's going to have about that much HP.
http://www.ford-trucks.com/article/idx/6/768/artic...


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Manch on 4/2/2013 3:47:47 AM , Rating: 2
Fords diesel is much more reliable than the international they had in the truck before. It's sucks your friend had a bad experience, but that purely anecdotal. Those engines were overbuilt and have been quite reliable and popular for good reason.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By sprockkets on 4/2/2013 9:36:26 AM , Rating: 2
He actually has that diesel truck as well, and while just last week the turbo blew up and leaks oil, it's been more reliable than the new one.

It's ironic, because the new diesel had the same problem as the old one, IIRC. I say that because it is hard keeping up with all the different stories of why he doesn't have his newer super duty truck today. Once this past winter was his truck couldn't start; his new battery from the dealership crapped out within a year and was replaced under warranty.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Manch on 4/2/2013 10:44:52 AM , Rating: 2
Is he just beating the hell out of it? or not taking care of it? He may have a lemon but two in a row? My pops has a 250 and we tow a 5th wheel, car trailer and havent had any issues what so ever. Maybe he spent all the money on the truck and cant afford the gas! :D


RE: GM.... bleh.
By sprockkets on 4/2/2013 1:48:26 PM , Rating: 2
He does brick work and construction, so to him some of it is normal for the heavy duty work he does with it.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Spuke on 4/2/2013 1:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly, unless he needs the increased fuel economy or really heavy duty towing, the gas V8 is cheaper to operate. We only picked diesel because my wife was going to have to commute in it for a while and my friends with the Ford V10 were only getting 12 mpg in similar commutes. We got 16-17 with the diesel which, interestingly, was the exact same as our old 2004 Tundra.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Argon18 on 4/2/2013 12:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
I don't buy it. The only way your friend could have had such misfortune, is abuse and/or neglect of the vehicle. Brand new batteries don't just "die" for no reason. He left an interior light on, or some other accessory. Rather than own up to his mistake, he blames the product for being faulty.

It's a common occurrence. People who crash their cars frequently blame it on fictional mechanical problems (unintended acceleration, anyone?) rather than own up to their incompetence.

Pro Tip: Don't ever let your friend borrow your car, unless you want to see it develop mysterious unexplainable failures as well.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By sprockkets on 4/2/2013 1:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
The dealer diagnosed it as bad because it couldn't produce enough cca, not due to a mistake of leaving on a light.

The truck is used for actual work. He expects it to work without issues for more than 2 months after having literally a new engine put in.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Bad-Karma on 4/2/2013 5:02:11 PM , Rating: 2
Ford does have a known issue with the Superduty trucks. For some reason the twin battery system on the diesels will sometimes fail to charge one or both of the batteries. Or one battery will drain a bit and then the other will drain trying to balance it. Other times it has been pinned on the control unit built into the alternator Ford uses.

No knows why for sure but the Forums over on FTE.com are rife with these issues. It has been an ongoing issue at least since the transition to the new body style back in 99'. It's not every truck but it happens, albeit infrequently.

Either way trying to start a large diesel with under performing batteries in the cold is a real pain in the a**.

Manch, you should tell your friend to use the built in block heater, it puts less strain on the batteries trying to start in the cold.

As for blowing the engine Me thinks something else is afoot.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By euclidean on 4/2/2013 5:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know man...if you read the reliability reports out there (at least for the F250 SuperDuty) you don't find a clean record...
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Reliability.aspx...

I have a couple buddies who have owned that series, and one is regretting that he still owns his (2009). Nothing but problems. He's also a "car guy" who's main hobby is working on vehicles - favorite being the Mustang - and works as a Transmission specialist in a Call Center for a supplier for Ford...So I tend to listen to his advice..

Still, this story and thread is talking about the Big 3 mostly...and I refuse to own one...If I had a need for a large truck, the Tundra would be on the top of my list :)


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Spuke on 4/2/2013 6:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
Typical internet mixing and matching of engines and drivetrains and calling it all the same thing. The old 6.0L V8 had some problems early in it's life that were taken care of by the end of 2005 but the ignorant police keep perpetuating those problems into entirely different drivetrains. There are literally millions of Ford trucks on the roads and if they were really pieces of junk, Ford would NOT be able to keep the number one selling spot for 30 years straight without fail. Seriously, think about that for a second. How many 6.0L diesel commercial vehicles do you see on the roads STILL to this day when Ford has moved onto two different engines since?


RE: GM.... bleh.
By StevoLincolnite on 4/2/2013 4:47:41 AM , Rating: 3
I've got a Holden Commodore VE ute (What the American's call a "Truck") currently. Before that a Holden Commodore VX Station wagon, before that a Holden Commodore VN Sedan... All under "GM". - Just "Holden" is the Australian arm.

All have been flawless, never had a problem with any of the vehicles mechanically.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/1/2013 7:48:16 PM , Rating: 3
I don't know about you, but I'd take a GM OHV engine over a turbo'd EcoBoost in durability (at least for truck duty).


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Reclaimer77 on 4/1/2013 8:45:34 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah I'm not a huge GM fan, but it's common knowledge their V8's, especially their small blocks, are just legendary.

No way a boosted engine, especially a twin turbo like EcoBoost, is going to beat this in reliability.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By retrospooty on 4/1/2013 10:12:23 PM , Rating: 1
That may be true about the engine's reliability... I was referring more to the rest of the GM automobile. Starter, alternator, and several other parts that are known for constant failures for decades now. Any one of them will leave you stranded. Resale value drops like a rock GM vehicles for a good reason. They fall apart. OF course not all of them, but a much larger percentage than it should be, thus the resale value sucks.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Spuke on 4/1/2013 11:33:04 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed, GM knows how to make a reliable, fuel efficient, and powerful V8. But nevermind that. What perplexes me is why people think turbo's in diesel engines are cats meow but when that same turbo is moved to a gas engine, it's now crap?? LOL! This isn't 1980 folks, turbo tech is VASTLY improved. My turbo'd engined Solstice has 120K, daily driven miles on it (300 miles per week). Quite frankly, this is THE most reliable car I've ever owned. What I accepted before as great quality was actually sh!t compared to this car. See the other Solstice/Sky owners too. They don't complain about reliability, they complain mostly about lack of features (well there was the rear diff seal problem when the cars were new but was fixed with a recall).


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/2/2013 12:37:28 AM , Rating: 2
Your Solstice doesn't weigh 5,000+ pounds, tow a boat, or haul anything (it can't because you can barely fit anything in that "trunk").

In a non-stressed application, a turbo gasser is great. I'm just not completely sold on it in half-ton truck duty.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Spuke on 4/2/2013 12:58:35 AM , Rating: 1
It ALREADY works in the 3/4 and 1 tons Brandon. MUCH heavier vehicles AND highly stressed applications. The exact same tech is used in gas engines (and sometimes the same turbo manufacturers). When I'm towing, my truck is in boost 90% of the time. If you see a 3/4 or 1 ton towing, they're probably in boost. Hours on end in boost. Seriously, this is old news. Back in the 80's when turbo's weren't oil/water cooled and didn't use ball bearings and didn't use charge coolers and didn't have direct injection (which provides cylinder cooling...it's why compression ratios are higher nowadays) and engines didn't have forged rods and crankshafts, yeah, a turbo motor was going to live a short life. Today is different, WAY different. Shit, it was different 15 years ago. It's even better now.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Manch on 4/2/2013 4:18:17 AM , Rating: 2
There's a big diff between turbo diesels and gas turbos.

Turbos for diesels have a much much narrower rpm range to work under. They also experience lower temps, and less back pressure , less surging, and typically don't spin more than 50,000ish rpms and are relatively low boost.

Gas turbos have to operate in a wide rpm range, and they tend to spin anywhere from 50-125Krpms,are high boost, experience a significant change in volume, extremely hot exhaust temps(makes them prone to coking) and surges/back pressure.

That's why turbos diesels have been around for much much longer and are far more reliable. The work loads on them are much less severe and more consistent.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Bad-Karma on 4/2/2013 5:45:06 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
They also experience lower temps, and less back pressure , .......and are relatively low boost.


That's strange, the Garret Turbos that came with both of my T444Es runs anywhere from 800F-1400F degrees, and it stays under 1400F only with water & methanol injection when under heavy loads. That measurement is taken from a pyrometer located just before the Turbo in the Up-pipe. Much more heat, and the steel impeller vanes tend to soften and fold over. I know this, as I went though two different impeller wheels before the water injection was installed.

And the Garrets ran anywhere from 5lbs of boost at no load cruising speed ;to 26+lbs if under load or you punch it.

I now have a H2E Turbo on my F550 T444E that pushes the boost to just under 60lbs. What's the numbers on your gassers?

So I find your statement a bit confounding.....


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Manch on 4/2/2013 6:15:05 AM , Rating: 2
I guess I could have been more clear. A typical diesel exhaust temps (500-800) compared to gas 1k-1.4k.

When you say 26+lbs are you talking about inches of manifold pressure? A lot of peple switch the two around but they arnt the same.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Spuke on 4/2/2013 12:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess I could have been more clear. A typical diesel exhaust temps (500-800) compared to gas 1k-1.4k.
His measurements aren't typical? How so?


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Manch on 4/3/2013 2:17:34 AM , Rating: 2
His measurements are fine. I was referring to typical exhaust gas temps in my reply to you, not the temp of the turbos itself under load but I wasn't very clear.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Bad-Karma on 4/2/2013 4:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A typical diesel exhaust temps


My T444Es were originally the more well know 7.3PSD that came with the trucks. That is until I removed every piece of Ford equipment and reverted them over to the IH spec and tune. When I finished up I took her to a heavy wheel dyno in Tucson and now she'll turn just over 800Hp and 1080Ft/LBS of Torque with the flip chip all the way up.

quote:
When you say 26+lbs are you talking about inches of manifold pressure?


My pillar pre & post boost gauges are in PSI and max out at 60PSI. So you're right about manifold pressure. However, Ford original equipment used a "MAP" sensor that measured in LBS. That original sensor would alert the CCU which would automatically defuel the engine if the boost pressure reached 25LBS.

I have a by-pass element on there now that fools the CCU and lets higher levels pass. The gauge under my dash reads from that by-pass sensor and reads the actual pressure in lbs.

Oh and Spuke......Those powder forged rods(PFR) that Ford uses were one of the first things to go. Went with machined titanium. Too many of my friends cracked/broke/bent those PFR when they went over about 450+HP.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Spuke on 4/2/2013 4:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh and Spuke......Those powder forged rods(PFR) that Ford uses were one of the first things to go. Went with machined titanium. Too many of my friends cracked/broke/bent those PFR when they went over about 450+HP.
Nice mods! Is that 800 at the wheels?


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Bad-Karma on 4/2/2013 4:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, that at the wheels. But I don't dare do that kind of power output for very long. Other things will start to fail...

Had to have a custom R4100 built by BTS down in Lead Hill AR to handle everything. According to the spec the new Trans will handle up to 2K HP.

But we have a 1/3-up-1/3-down gear splitter and a diff locker from US gear installed just to help protect that tranny from any damage.

Spuke, When I'm going through the Rockies with my cattle or horses you should see the look on the face of the trucker and camper crowd when I pass them at full speed on a incline. It's priceless! Of course downhill I still have brake over heating issues but the jake brake helps even things out.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Spuke on 4/2/2013 6:19:37 PM , Rating: 2
VERY nice rig Karma. I can only imagine those looks LOL!!! I've thought about selling my truck in a few years but modding it would be soooo much fun although since CA started smogging diesels, I'm thinking twice about that. Maybe when I move to AZ.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By robertgu on 4/2/2013 5:57:18 PM , Rating: 3
Again stop it. Stop spreading inaccurate statements.

Gas engines run lower exhaust temps than diesels. You can find tons of resources on this but I link just one simple one: http://www.ehow.com/facts_7819560_exhaust-temperat...


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Manch on 4/3/2013 12:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
again Because the burned gases are expanded further in a diesel engine cylinder, the exhaust gas is cooler, meaning turbochargers require less cooling, and can be more reliable, than with spark-ignition engines.

I pull that straight from wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine


RE: GM.... bleh.
By robertgu on 4/2/2013 5:54:43 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, this post is so full of misinformation it is almost stunning. Please stop spread FUD on a subject you clearly know nothing about.

For one gas engines run lower exhaust temps than diesels. You can find tons of resources on this but I link just one simple one: http://www.ehow.com/facts_7819560_exhaust-temperat...

Additionally, Gas engine turbo typically do NOT experience higher lbs of boost compared to diesels. A typical gas turbo application has max lbs of boost numbers ranging from 5lb to 15lb due to denotation potential with pump gas. Compare that to diesel engines experiencing 25 to 32 max lbs of boost as typical applications.

As for RPM ranges, how is my diesel truck’s RPM range from 0 to 6k RPM red line, and I easily can get close to red line when I need to punch it to pass on hills (same use scenario as gassers).

The main reason why diesel turbo historically were more reliable than gas turbos isn’t because it was diesel over gas, both industries had similar turbo technology, the main reason is because of user use case. Back when turbos were more “delicate” diesel operators knew they had to take “care” of the turbo. You can’t go WOT then park the rig and shutdown the engine as it would greatly harm the turbo, you had to do cool downs first. Similarly you can’t start up a rig and go balls out as it would cause premature failure on the turbo and engine. Meanwhile the typical gas users did not educate themselves in these and other things you need to know if you own a turbo vehicle and thus the Urban Legend that gas turbo are terrible quality while diesel turbos are great was born. Today, as mentioned by another person on this thread, the turbos of today are built with new technology designed to deal with people that do not properly do cool downs, warm ups, frequent oil changes, etc.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Manch on 4/3/2013 10:12:10 AM , Rating: 1
oi...Because the burned gases are expanded further in a diesel engine cylinder, the exhaust gas is cooler, meaning turbochargers require less cooling, and can be more reliable, than with spark-ignition engines.

I pull that straight from wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine

You're confusing inches of manifold pressure with PSI, but this is a common misconception.

That's great if your truck revs to 6k. Typical diesels do not have a high rpm range and that is why the turbos do not have to spin as fast as one for a gas engine. As your rpms go up, the amount of air required to keep the combustion chamber "under boost" climbs as well. An engine at 7000rpm needs double that of one at 3500. A typical diesel with a narrow rpm range means the turbo will operate in a very narrow range as well.

I never said gas turbos are horrible or of low quality, but they are subject to higher rpms, higher temps, surging/back pressure, and all of that affects there reliability.

Instead of arguing with me using e-how, and urban legends, you may want to stop skipping your science classes, pick up a good tech manual, or maybe enroll in a vocational school if you're so inclined.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By mike8675309 on 4/2/2013 3:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
direct injection (which provides cylinder cooling...it's why compression ratios are higher nowadays)


Compression ratios are higher with direct injection not specifically due to cylinder cooling. The primary reason for higher compression is to leverage the ability to inject fuel much later in the compression cycle. Air does not detonate, fuel does. And injected late enough the fuel air mixture has insufficient time for detonation to form.

Thus a big benefit from direct fuel injection and good engine management is much higher engine efficiency.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Spuke on 4/2/2013 6:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Compression ratios are higher with direct injection not specifically due to cylinder cooling.
Thanks for the info. Always thought it was due to cylinder cooling.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Manch on 4/3/2013 12:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
I know some engines are using oil squirters now and applying heat treatments to the pistons


RE: GM.... bleh.
By piroroadkill on 4/2/2013 3:54:28 AM , Rating: 2
Uh, what about giant trucks. Semis.

Everything is turbo diesel and goes for a million miles...


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/2/2013 7:12:02 AM , Rating: 2
I said turbo gasser, not turbo diesel for a reason :)


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Therealcold187 on 4/2/2013 3:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
I've had multiple GM and never had a problem. I own a 2006 Pontiac GTO and it's never once have any issue and I have over 100,000 miles on it. The only car I've ever owned that had a issue is a Ford Taurus. Had the transmision replaced to only have it throw a rod bearing a week later. So I spent over 2g just to end up throwing the car away as I wasn't about to pay more to get a new engine. I was able to sell the new transmision for what I paid for it but lost all the money for having it installed. GM and Ford both have made good and bad cars over the years. I buy what I like best at the time I'm buying a car or truck. I don't care the brand as long as long as I get the most bang for my buck.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By Richard875yh5 on 4/2/2013 4:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
These failures you mention is a bunch of crap. GM does not have a reputation for those parts you mention.


RE: GM.... bleh.
By retrospooty on 4/2/2013 10:45:39 PM , Rating: 2
What planet have you been on for the past 30 years?


Ram 1500 still wins...
By Philippine Mango on 4/1/13, Rating: -1
RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By SeeManRun on 4/1/2013 7:36:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If they made the Ram 1500 smaller or weigh significantly less, I could see that truck getting 30mpg on the EPA test cycle.


If you make it weigh that much less it loses the ability to tow. Sure you can make a smaller more efficient truck, but then it isn't competing with the real half tons. The trick is to keep capability the same (tow nearly 11,300 lbs) with about a half ton payload while saving fuel.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By Flunk on 4/1/2013 11:51:23 PM , Rating: 3
Realistically, they need to build a decent 1/2 tonne pickup with less towing capacity. Most of these things never need to tow 11,300 lbs. I'm not saying that they shouldn't build ones that can but that if they made a lighter one with a bit less torque people who don't need to tow huge things could save a bunch on initial purchase and gas.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By Flunk on 4/1/2013 11:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
I feel I should mention that I drive a vehicle that's rated to tow 0 lbs so maybe I don't understand.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By tat tvam asi on 4/2/2013 12:15:45 AM , Rating: 3
Variable cylinder management makes more sense for trucks. Even a basic manual shut down of cylinders will go a long way in saving gas.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By Argon18 on 4/2/2013 12:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
Your argument is flawed, because "gas" doesn't make sense in a truck. Hauling or towing or offroading does not require horsepower or high revs - the reasons to chose a gasoline engine.

Hauling, towing, and offroading require torque, and lots of it. There's a reason in most of the world, you cannot buy a gasoline truck. They only come in diesel, because that's what makes sense for a truck.

Putting a gasoline engine in a truck, is like putting a diesel engine into a Ferrari - it's silly and pointless and goes against the goals of the vehicle.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By Spuke on 4/2/2013 1:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
Gas or diesel works well in trucks. Also, you need to read up on what hp and torque is cause clearly you don't understand the relationship at all.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By BRB29 on 4/3/2013 9:08:08 AM , Rating: 2
That's true for the rest of the world except the US. We don't have diesel at every gas station and especially in the city. Some people don't use trucks for work and therefore it doesn't tow or haul much most of the time.
For some people, they just want to be able to haul the camping gear, sports equipment and the family on a trip. Some people wants it because they are single, have a motorcycle, and move frequently due to their job.

There's a lot of reasons why a gasoline truck exist.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By Spuke on 4/2/2013 12:45:49 AM , Rating: 2
NO! Quite frankly I'd rather drive a 1/2 ton that can tow that much than weight drive a 3/4 or 1 ton. The lighter trucks perform and handle better than the heavier one's. The newer F150's can tow most bumper pull trailers (aka travel trailers) and some of the lightweight 5th wheels now. And with these new engines, they won't run like crap pulling that weight nor will they get super crappy fuel economy either. Not to mention they're WAY cheaper to own. I have a 3/4 ton diesel and its replacement will be one of these new 1/2 tons. Because of the new capabilities I don't need the 3/4 ton anymore.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By Philippine Mango on 4/2/2013 8:37:14 AM , Rating: 2
You want a 1/2 that tows as much as a 3/4 or 1 ton but isn't those things? I don't think that makes any sense as that's really what defines those vehicles... In essence, there has been so much power inflation that these 1/2 ton vehicles are effectively 1 ton vehicles of two decades ago... Why can't we have 1/2 vehicles of two decades ago, today, but with the improvements of today? i.e if it took a 5 liter engine to make 150hp for that 20-30 year old 1/2, why not sell a truck with a 2 liter engine today that still makes the same or slightly more power? not everyone needs a hulking truck.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By Spuke on 4/2/2013 10:29:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
not everyone needs a hulking truck
Exactly why I'd prefer a 1/2 ton to my present 3/4 ton. Save the 3/4 tons (and larger) for the heavy duty loads. Most of us can get by easily on todays 1/2 tons for truck duty. We ARE talking about truck duties right? And if YOU want an even lighter duty truck, those are already available.

I'll give you some examples of my previous/present requirements:
1. Tow horse trailer
2. Haul eight bails of hay
3. Pull a lightweight 5th wheel

Since I don't have the 5th wheel anymore, a 1/2 ton with a long bed will meet these requirements easily. And if they had the present F150 in 2009, I would've bought that instead of my 3/4 ton.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By spamreader1 on 4/2/2013 11:59:33 AM , Rating: 2
That's not necessarily true. The ability to tow includes the ability to stop and handle things like tongue weight. The max tow weight is a combination of things. For campers, light weight 5th wheels, and "bumper pull" which aren't typically pulled by bumper instead it's a class III receiver hitch, generally work fine as long as you have weight distribution hitches and electric trailer brakes. Without them the 1/2 ton can't do it, where a true 3/4 or 1 ton could (depending on the size of the trailer of course) as it has heavier axles, springs, shocks, etc.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By robertgu on 4/2/2013 6:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, there are alot more components which 3/4 and 1 ton trucks have over 1/2 ton trucks than engine power. Sure 1/2 ton trucks of today have engine power today which were usually the realm of its bigger stable mates, but the ability to safely tow the weights reserved for ¾ and 1 ton is not easily replicated even when mitigated with things like weight-distribution hitches and trailer brakes.

Typical ¾ ton trucks can tow 10,000 to 16,000 lbs. The ½ ton trucks might have the engine power to tow that but definitely does not have the weight, axle, brakes, etc to safely handle that weight.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By lagomorpha on 4/2/2013 6:37:41 AM , Rating: 3
They already have trucks that have less towing capacity than 1/2 ton, they're called light trucks. Why people buy the trucks with towing capacity they will never use doesn't make sense to me but there are a lot of morons in the market.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By BRB29 on 4/2/2013 7:45:32 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, realistically there's a big market for a lighter truck with better MPG. I don't want a cheap small truck like a Ford Ranger either. If you have not noticed, Toyota had bumped their Tacoma to the size of their old Tundra.

Why do I want this? I just want to be able to carry some stuff around. A lot of carptenters and similar profession in the cities/suburbs wants these trucks. They don't need to haul 11,000 lbs. Anything that can carry tools, some supplies and haul 3000-6000 lbs will work.
As a regular consumer that just want a good truck that can carry my sports equipment, furniture, camping equipment and whatever I need to carry + kids. An F150 with with better mpg and less towing capacity makes a whole lot of sense.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By Spuke on 4/2/2013 10:39:34 AM , Rating: 2
You haven't been looking at Tacoma's then. I had an old Tundra (2004) and the new Tacoma is NOT the same size. A lot of people see the 4WD Tacoma's with the Prerunner option. If you really need a simple, light duty pickup, skip all that and get a regular cab or access cab, 2WD, 4 cyl truck. But if you need to haul 3000-6000 lbs, you're gonna have to get a 1 ton pickup. Hauling and towing are the same thing and require the same "reinforcements" to frame, suspension and tires. Same physics at play for both. When you're towing, you ARE hauling a portion of your trailers weight in the truck. That's why you see different weight maximums for bumper pull trailers vs 5th wheel trailers. You can put more weight directly over the rear wheels (5th wheel trailer) than you can hang off the back (bumper pull).


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By BRB29 on 4/2/2013 3:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, it was a typo. I meant towing when I said hauling. As for hauling, I don't need anything past 1.5k lbs. My brother in law does carpentry, landscaping and some construction and he never had to haul anything that heavy. His truck bed is used mainly for tools and some small supplies. Remember this is in the city, the logistics are done by someone else and projects are usually large scale. Even with individual homes, the supplies are always delivered by the supplier. The only time he has to tow anything heavy was his trailer of heavier tools for small scale construction. That thing doesn't weight more than 4000 lbs packed. Larger equipment are normally rented and delivered to site also.

As a regular consumer who just want a truck to be versatile and go on camping trips or sporting trips, I have no need for huge hauling or towing. Anything that can haul about 2k and tow about 6k is more than enough for me.

I'm just saying there is a market if Ford makes a much lighter truck wit higher mpg. My needs are not extraordinary and I'm sure there's plenty of people share the same mindset.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By Spuke on 4/2/2013 6:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
A Tacoma would fit those needs IMO. You'll need a fairly stripped truck to get the 1400 lbs hauling but towing 4000 lbs shouldn't be an issue, especially around town. I've towed a 2600 lb car on a trailer before with a 4 cyl Tacoma. It wasn't bad at all. If you have to have a Ford, they don't offer any light duty trucks at the moment. Honestly, the F150 isn't a monster, Just get the 3.7L V6 and keep the options to a minimum.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By Argon18 on 4/2/2013 12:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
What they need is to split the models into two categories, since there are really two separate usage patterns for truck buyers.

Some folks buy a truck because they tow a large boat, or horses, or race cars, or whatever. These are the folks that *need* the towing capacity, and the inevitable weight that comes with that.

Then there are the folks that buy a truck simply for day to day suburban utility. Moving a love seat, or a washer and dryer, or picking up some mulch from the hardware store. These people do not tow anything, ever. These people usually live in a suburban neighborhood, with a HOA that forbids trailers anyhow, so they have nothing to tow even if they wanted to. Also in this category are the wash-n-shine macho guys, who never haul anything, never tow anything either. They bought a truck because it makes the feel like a big man on the road. They have a loud stereo and loads of chrome truck accessories, but they use the truck purely for commuting to work, as an "image" thing.

These needs of these two groups are very different, yet they buy the same vehicles. The manufacturers should cater to these groups separately, with vehicles tailored to their usage patterns.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By Spuke on 4/2/2013 1:12:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What they need is to split the models into two categories, since there are really two separate usage patterns for truck buyers.
They're already separated into categories, it's just that people CHOOSE to buy the 1/2 tons instead of the lighter duty trucks. Also, none of you seems to understand that hauling and towing go hand in hand. They are the same thing. What makes a truck haul 2500 lbs also gives it the ability to tow 11,000 lbs. You can't have one without the other.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By DiscoWade on 4/1/2013 7:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
Has Dodge fixed their transmission problems yet? A friend of mine had a Dodge Ram truck and at 50,000 miles the transmission started to act up. Before I would be willing to consider a Dodge I want to be sure on the reliability. Can anyone tell me if Dodge has improved?


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By Philippine Mango on 4/1/2013 7:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
This is using a Fiat transmission and engine design so hopefully dodge reliability doesn't apply here... Aside from coil springs, dodge trucks have mostly sucked but this one seems very promising. Can't believe this truck weighs 5300lbs! If it lost 1000lbs, that'd be a major improvement! For some perspective, the Toyota Tundra weighs 4200lbs!


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/1/2013 7:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh, the 3.6-liter Pentastar V6 is a Chrysler design. The 8-speed transmission is designed by ZF with Chrysler modifications.

The new diesel is made by the Italian company VM Motori. Not sure where you're getting your info...


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/1/2013 8:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
Uh Fiat? As bad as Dodge's reputation for reliability is, Fiat's is probably worse.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By superflex on 4/1/2013 9:46:54 PM , Rating: 4
Fix It Again Tony


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By dj LiTh on 4/2/2013 3:50:06 AM , Rating: 2
Fix It Again Tomorrow


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By OutOfTouch on 4/1/2013 8:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
Not exactly, 4500 pounds. That is also only the regular cab short bed.

http://www.toyota.com/tundra/features.html#!/weigh...


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By Manch on 4/2/2013 3:44:13 AM , Rating: 2
The Ramtrucks ahvent seen a chassis update in a long time. Of the three, it is definitely the inferior one. Coil springs and their latest gimmick...airbags put the nail in the coffin for anyone that wants a truck with decent capabilities. Tundras don't compete either. There chassis is just as bad if not worse than the dodge.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By djc208 on 4/2/2013 11:53:07 AM , Rating: 2
This comment makes no sense. Ford and Chevy both still use leaf springs in the rear, that tech has been around since the horse and buggy. Front suspension has evolved but mostly by incorporating more car-like attributes (coil springs, torsion bars, A-arms, all old school car tech).

The ladder frame might be built with different technologies but other then to loose weight or increase strength it's the same basic concept since the beginning.

Tractor trailers use air bag suspension all the time, so there doesn't have to be any reduction in capabilities with air. Coil springs underpin trains and many military vehicles. It's not in what it uses, it's in how it's used. Last I checked Dodge was one of the few actually trying something different.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By Manch on 4/3/2013 2:27:12 AM , Rating: 2
and leaf springs are used for good reason. Dodge sacrificed towing capability when it switch to coils in the rear. All ladder frames are not created equal. The newer Ford and Chevy Chassis are much stiffer and stronger than the Dodges.

Tractor Trailer airbag systems are also a lot more stout. You're right, there doesn't have to be, but with Dodges record I'll bet money there is.

How they are using these things, it's giving them less towing and hauling capacity.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By Bad-Karma on 4/2/2013 4:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
Air bags are highly useful in maintaining load control. A lot of people who actually tow heavy loads and campers on a regular basis tend to have aftermarket airbags installed. Many of these systems offer left & right as well as front to back balancing.

I have bags on both my F550 & F450 for moving cattle/horses supplies or my 36' fifth wheel camper. Even with dual rear wheels, without those bags the trailer tends to push and roll the truck when going through turns. The truck is attempting to turn while the trailer's momentum still wants to go straight. This gets eally noticeable at highway speeds in a turn. Those bags help keep the weight more distributed evenly across the chassis & suspension.

I don't know how good of quality Dodge's system is, but the fact that they've included something that can sometimes cost a few grand is nice. Besides, ever look at a big rig? They use a combined bag and air shock system that has been integrated into a single unit to help maintain load control.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By Manch on 4/3/2013 2:34:21 AM , Rating: 2
I think airbags are great, but I do not see the setup Dodge is using as any good. When they started talking about the airbag system in tere truck, it wasn't about towing capacity, load balancing, it was about having a comfortable ride, fuel efficiency, and entry/egress.

I'm not skeptical of airbags, I'm skeptical of Dodge's in General.


RE: Ram 1500 still wins...
By BRB29 on 4/2/2013 7:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
Air bags can be electronically controlled on the fly. If a good system is implemented it can adjust according with load to keep your truck balanced and drive better.
When you are driving your truck at high speed on the highway, the air bags can lower your suspension so that you get better mpg also.
The problem with air bags is that it's not widely used so it tends to cost more. Leaf springs may be ancient but it's light and easy to implement. It's also pretty cheap. Coil springs with shocks are costly and can suffer from fatigue quicker. It's slow progress but if you replace your springs and shocks at around 100k, you'll feel the difference in how much it degraded over time.


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki