Ike Gauntlet 2.0 (6.2 Silverado, Titan, F150 Ecoboost)

[timswi]

The big difference is you were not at anywhere near the altitude they were. They are starting at 10000' and climbing to 12000' in 7 miles. The altitude alone equals a 1/3 HP loss then factor in temperature. All SAE HP ratings are done at sea level and 15 deg Celsius or 59 deg F. You are at a low altitude and cold temp. That equals good power.


Chris

That's why I stated that I wasn't in the mountains yesterday...Anyway, that test is kind of silly anyway. How many of us are pulling that much at that altitude for it to have any bearing on which vehicle to purchase. In my opinion, the test was biased to Ford since it was the only one not normally aspirated, V6 or not. A real world test would be a better representation in my opinion.

 

[jejeosborne]

That's why I stated that I wasn't in the mountains yesterday...Anyway, that test is kind of silly anyway. How many of us are pulling that much at that altitude for it to have any bearing on which vehicle to purchase. In my opinion, the test was biased to Ford since it was the only one not normally aspirated, V6 or not. A real world test would be a better representation in my opinion.

Unlike turbos on airplanes that just normalize manifold pressure to compensate for altitude, all other turbo applications produce boost which will greatly improve performance even at sea level. Granted, they have extra capacity that allows the same psi boost even at higher altitudes, which I would like to see if they were able to produce 15 lbs at 12,000 ft, but still I feel that the ecoboost should be compared to 6.? engines rather than 5.? engines. I hate seeing people post comparisons in fuel mileage to fords 5.0 or Chevy comparing the ecoboost to their new 5.3 liter in commercials saying it gets better mileage and tows more. That is a BS commercial because it is rated to tow more but obviously not better. I think at sea level the 6.2 liter Chevy would beat the ecoboost in towing mpg, power and 0-60 but not empty mpg.

 

[timswi]

Unlike turbos on airplanes that just normalize manifold pressure to compensate for altitude, all other turbo applications produce boost which will greatly improve performance even at sea level. Granted, they have extra capacity that allows the same psi boost even at higher altitudes, which I would like to see if they were able to produce 15 lbs at 12,000 ft, but still I feel that the ecoboost should be compared to 6.? engines rather than 5.? engines. I hate seeing people post comparisons in fuel mileage to fords 5.0 or Chevy comparing the ecoboost to their new 5.3 liter in commercials saying it gets better mileage and tows more. That is a BS commercial because it is rated to tow more but obviously not better. I think at sea level the 6.2 liter Chevy would beat the ecoboost in towing mpg, power and 0-60 but not empty mpg.

I don't think MPG's can be truly compared on pickups anyway..Driving habits have more to do with it than anything. I can get close to 20mpg on the highway if I drive like an adult...That doesn't happen, so I live with 18 or so and an all around average of 15.5.

I don't really think the test made much sense for the vast majority of us who don't tow into yak habitats anyway.

Seems that the ones I saw (Ford and GM) performed well regardless of the circumstances and the driver. Didn't see the Dodge test.

 

[jejeosborne]

I don't think MPG's can be truly compared on pickups anyway..Driving habits have more to do with it than anything. I can get close to 20mpg on the highway if I drive like an adult...That doesn't happen, so I live with 18 or so and an all around average of 15.5.

I don't really think the test made much sense for the vast majority of us who don't tow into yak habitats anyway.

Seems that the ones I saw (Ford and GM) performed well regardless of the circumstances and the driver. Didn't see the Dodge test.

Well I would have to disagre with the mpg being the same across pickups. I had a dodge Dakota with a 4.7 liter gutless motor that I couldn't get above 17 mpg downhill with a tailwind. I tracked mileage with each tank and am getting exactly 3 mpg better overall with my ecoboost. That is significant not to mention the vast capability difference. Some truck are more efficient than other but I agree newer versions are becoming closer and closer.

 

[timswi]

Well I would have to disagre with the mpg being the same across pickups. I had a dodge Dakota with a 4.7 liter gutless motor that I couldn't get above 17 mpg downhill with a tailwind. I tracked mileage with each tank and am getting exactly 3 mpg better overall with my ecoboost. That is significant not to mention the vast capability difference. Some truck are more efficient than other but I agree newer versions are becoming closer and closer.

I don't believe that I implied that MPG's were even close to the same across pickups. What I'm saying is that driving behavior is the primary factor over the ratings, what they say and what you get may or may not come to fruition based on how heavy your foot is. Some are horrible no matter what the driver does.

 

[Oaktree]

It's interesting to me that the Titan, a 11 year old design that has not changed any, was only 1/2 minutes behind the GM and gave up over 100 HP and was pulling above its tow limit while the GM was 1500# below. Just goes to show how well the Titan was engineered back on 03 that it can compete with the offerings of today. It flat stomped the competition back then.

Meh. I had a Titan for a company vehicle at my last job. Agree it had a strong engine, but otherwise was a mediocre truck. Ate wheel bearings and front hubs every 50k, had an intermittent drivetrain problem the dealer could never fix, lots of pebble-in-the-shoe quirks. They seem to get it right as far as rustproofing went, though. It was a choice between that and a Tundra...in retrospect, I got the best of a sorry lot.

I had a dodge Dakota with a 4.7 liter gutless motor that I couldn't get above 17 mpg downhill with a tailwind.

My personal truck is a Dakota with a 4.7, and I wouldn't call it gutless. The 3.9 V6 in my previous one...that was a different story. Transmission (auto) could stand to have a couple more speeds...towing up a hill at highway speeds it seems to hunt between lugging and over-revving.
I hear ya on the gas mileage though...17's about all I get with it, and I'm a pretty conservative driver. Nice truck otherwise.

 

[jejeosborne]

My personal truck is a Dakota with a 4.7, and I wouldn't call it gutless. The 3.9 V6 in my previous one...that was a different story. Transmission (auto) could stand to have a couple more speeds...towing up a hill at highway speeds it seems to hunt between lugging and over-revving.
I hear ya on the gas mileage though...17's about all I get with it, and I'm a pretty conservative driver. Nice truck otherwise.

I had excellent service out of my Dakota and ran the dog piss out of it. I called it gutless in comparison to the vehicles in this test. In the Dakota it felt strong, just not strong enough to justify it's thirst.

 

[crazyal]

That's why I stated that I wasn't in the mountains yesterday...Anyway, that test is kind of silly anyway. How many of us are pulling that much at that altitude for it to have any bearing on which vehicle to purchase. In my opinion, the test was biased to Ford since it was the only one not normally aspirated, V6 or not. A real world test would be a better representation in my opinion.

I've said it before, totally useless test for 99% of buyers. Do the same test at 1000 feet and it'll be extremely different.

 

[jejeosborne]

I've said it before, totally useless test for 99% of buyers. Do the same test at 1000 feet and it'll be extremely different.

I agree the test would be different but not "extremely different". I haven't seen a published torque curve for the 6.2 liter Chevy but I'm betting the ecoboost produces more torque below 4000 rpms. I may stand corrected. Once you wind up the 6.2 the show should be over.

I also wonder what octane fuel they were running. I've read the 6.2 chevy requires premium. The ecoboost will run on either but best performance with premium.

 

[timswi]

I agree the test would be different but not "extremely different". I haven't seen a published torque curve for the 6.2 liter Chevy but I'm betting the ecoboost produces more torque below 4000 rpms. I may stand corrected. Once you wind up the 6.2 the show should be over.

I also wonder what octane fuel they were running. I've read the 6.2 chevy requires premium. The ecoboost will run on either but best performance with premium.

I run my 6.2 on 87 octane 99% of the time...If I think about it I'll dump premium in it..No real difference one way or the other..Not drag racing it though. '14 might require premium, the '13's don't.

I really don't worry much about torque curves, I just want the power when I want it and yes the GM 6.2 makes it at over 3500 RPM..Works for me.