"MooseKnuckles" (andyschenk)
07/05/2018 at 14:15 • Filed to: None
6
52|
"MooseKnuckles" (andyschenk)
07/05/2018 at 14:15 • Filed to: None | 6
| 52 |
Dynamic Fuel Management, the upgrade to Active Fuel Management shows it’s prowess.
The old inefficient AFM, aka cylinder deactivation dropping from V8 to V4 under low load, has been one upped in a huge way by the new-new DFM, which has 17 firing cycles in effort to skip cylinders and create the most efficient engine operation based on load demand. Like a transmission in side the engine! It’s praised as moving the V8 forward and GM showing everyone else that the V8 can hang out in a turbo world. By all accounts it sounds like the V8 strategy is still relevant for full size trucks.
GM has been praising it for it’s efficiency on the new 5.3 and 6.2 V8s that will be found under the hood of their new 2019 Silverado and Sierra 1500s. And the general media has followed suit talking it up like it’s a game changer. But Joe Media didn’t have figures or seat time in the trucks. They just regurgitated GM’s words.
GM low key released MPG figures on these engine over a week ago. Did you know that? Did anyone? It was s o low key that very, very few outlets even made note of it. And the outlets that did just casually mention it and carry on. This could also explain GM’s release strategy for these trucks. These two trucks made their debut what feels like a year ago, except it was only one or two models, and no specs. Then a few more models were released. Then some specs, but not all, not even the full engine lineup announced. Then the engines were confirmed but no specs. And so on. We still dont have full specs and they are supposed to go on sale essentially any day now. They trickled out information that by the end no one gave a shit.
So the MPG figures of these world changing V8s? City/HWY/Combined
5.3L DFM w/ 8spd - 17/23/19 (355hp, 383lb-ft) Unsure if 2wd or 4wd models
6.2L DFM w/ 10spd - 16/20/17 (420hp, 460lb-ft) Unsure if 2wd or 4wd models
Sound familar? Well here’s the old AFM engine from the 2018 model
5.3L AFM w/ 8spd - 16/22/18 (355hp, 383lb-ft)
6.2L AFM w/ 8spd - 15/20/17 (420hp, 460lb-ft)
1MPG at best...
Here’s the quick competition comparison
Ram 1500 5.7L V8 - 15/21/17 (395hp, 410lb-ft)
F150 5.0L V8 - 16/22/18 (395hp, 400lb-ft)
What gives GM? And what gives media attention? They should be getting chewed apart. Did GM ask for sympathy, like not chirping the shitty kid at a little league game?
Their 2.7T and 3.0D better pull a rabbit or these trucks are a massive let down.
HammerheadFistpunch
> MooseKnuckles
07/05/2018 at 14:41 |
|
I think GM knows the SBC’s benefits aren’t obvious on the EPA cycle and they are happy to let the numbers slide under the radar. It would be revealing if the EPA did a loaded test of utility vehicles as well - city/highway/high load mileage. Not to mention the fact that GM is happy to resign itself to being the snapple of trucks. They are #2 and that’ s fine with them. L et the others chase the big numbers there are plenty of truck conservatives who enjoy a “hitting the basics” approach to trucks. Im not sure its the best approach but they have a resistance to build to anything more than their customers demand. They want - good performance in the load ranges they tow in (which is NOT in the “ class leading” space where very few people actually tow ), they want predictable reliability (sbc) and they want a balance of laden and unladen performance.
|
MooseKnuckles
> HammerheadFistpunch
07/05/2018 at 14:45 |
|
Ah t his is true. And to that point they do have impressive margins on their current trucks... not that all trucks don’t, but GM more so. They may sell 100,000 units less than F150 annually (Silverado+Sierra) , but average transaction prices are higher as well as margins.
Nibby
> MooseKnuckles
07/05/2018 at 14:52 |
|
my 2015 Ram 1500 quad cab 4WD 5.7L Hemi had cylinder deactivation... I’d get 15-16 city, 17 mixed, (most is local) and around 22-24mpg hw. 25 if I tried.
jasmits
> MooseKnuckles
07/05/2018 at 15:30 |
|
Wow, it’s almost as if a certain amount of energy is needed to move a certain amount of mass and whether we optimize by using smaller engines with turbos which can extract more energy faster when they need to or bigger engines that can simulate little engines when the big engine isn’t needed we end up in the same place.
Danimalk - Drives a Slow Car Fast
> MooseKnuckles
07/05/2018 at 15:51 |
|
Hard to complain too much when you are arguing within 1 mpg.
This is the version of this “new” technology. They think it has a future, I guess.
Future next gen S2000 owner
> HammerheadFistpunch
07/05/2018 at 16:04 |
|
What I don’t get is the fact that seemingly all the media outlet never actually recommen d towing at max capacity. So being a towing leader is like being the best whiffle ball player around, it doesn’t really mean much.
|
MooseKnuckles
> Future next gen S2000 owner
07/05/2018 at 16:14 |
|
Yes it can be pretty unsafe. Something I just found out recently is both Ford and GM say to use weight distribution hitch over something like 5,000lbs (see I’ve already forgotten the exact weight!). I believe it’s “mandatory” in the manual for warranty and such.
Should also be smart enough to run away control. End up with “tail wags the dog” especially as half tons get lighter.
|
Future next gen S2000 owner
> MooseKnuckles
07/05/2018 at 16:24 |
|
Seems like common sense is needed, but what is the point of tow ratings if no one advises to use that amount?
BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
> MooseKnuckles
07/05/2018 at 16:37 |
|
Just anecdotal...
I have a 2007 Nissan Titan. 5.6L DOHC VK56 engine. The only engine offered. EVER.
The company I work for has a fleet of service trucks. I don’t usually drive them, but I recently have had an opportunity to shuttle some equipment around for logistics.
We have an old old Mercedes-merger era RAM 1500. My father has a 2011 Laramie, though, so I do have some experience with those outside of work.
We had an older F150, now one of it’s replacements is brand new, and I am not sure what engine got ordered, I have barely even seen that since it came in.
We have two 2018 Titan XDs. 5.6L, about a year old now.
We have 4 outgoing-generation Chevy Z71 Silverados, two are 18 months old, one is 6 months old, the other was just purchased. 5.3L
T hey each have probably 500-800 lbs of racking, equipment, tools, and materials in the bed, in slide outs, shelves, and tool-box toppers, and ladder racks on the top. They are service trucks.
I have also been towing a box trailer, tandem axle, probably 15-18ft long, with tools and gear inside, specialized for fiber optic cable fusion splicing. I am guessing, but probably 8-9000lbs.
I have pulled it with both of the Titans, and the newest Chevy Z71.
Result:
NOT EVEN CLOSE.
The Titans run like that as if the trailer were just part of the truck by default. Yeah, you can feel the extra weight going up a hill, and the extra inertia coming up to a stop... but really not an issue at all. These are Titan XD, which is more robust than non-XD... but that is like saying that the Titan is a 1750 in a class of 1500s... and the XD is turned up to somewhere around 2250, but maybe not quite a full 2500-class... in the same frame and body.
That is unlike the big 3, where 2500 means at least a different frame... and either body modifications on the Ram for the differing body and bumper height on the frame, to Fords just having a different Super Duty body altogether. The Nissan is just the upgraded suspension and running gear, transmission cooling, etc. under the same body. They even have the same 5.6 DOHC Endurance engine. STILL the only option.
The Chevy... looks like a Tonka toy by comparison (not even getting into the new-generation’s looks) . significantly smaller in every dimension, much lower to the ground, which isn’t all bad for visibility... but IIRC the trucks already had to have leveling blocks or helper-springs installed just for the tools in the bed.
I hooked that trailer on to the Chevy to shuttle it back... It sagged like it wasn’t looking forward to the trip... plus this was in 90+ degree, high-humidity weather... not exactly great for shedding mechanical heat... and not feasible for turning off the cabin air conditioning for a little less engine load.
The truck and trailer pulled and jerked on each other the whole time... there was some strange harmonic resonance at 58mph on the highway that set up a standing oscillation wave that would shake the whole thing, so I had to slow down, I certainly wasn’t going to speed up.
I felt sorry that I didn’t have the option of saving this poor truck with 922 miles on it, from such a task during it’s break-in period... but I am sure I was probably being more gentle on it than some of the other guys, giving long slow acceleration and deceleration changes... not ramming and jamming.
It made it without any real trouble... but that truck would not be suitable for being paired with that trailer every work day. The Titan would probably just bring that trailer along like a hard hat, steel-toed boots, and a tool belt ... every-day work gear, no big deal.
I see those Chevy trucks everywhere... and for general people hauling a bit of plywood or something... probably does just fine. and maybe the HD2500 with the 6.2L engine is an easy and mandatory upgrade for anyone who tows anything... but the 1500 5.3 may be traditionally a full-size truck by classification... It is barely more than a mid-size truck in an OLDER, smaller full-size body, when all of the current full-size trucks are bigger and stronger.
Even a NON-XD Titan is bigger and stronger. My 2007 Titan SE feels healthier at 80K Miles than that brand new 5.3L Chevy did. My truck may have sagged a little bit under the tongue-weight of that trailer, more than the new XD, but probably less than the Chevy... I’ve had 1400lbs of brick in the bed of my old Titan, and it did sag then.... but the drivetrain pulled under that weight with no problem whatsoever, and I doubt it would have had a problem pulling the trailer, with 800lbs or less cargo in the bed, too. My dad’s 5.9 Hemi RAM Laramie... pulled U-haul 12-foot trailers full of stuff, and the bed full of modest-weight stuff... no problem at all.
The 5.3L 1500 Chevy just didn’t seem as willing to do those tasks... and seemed to be much more overtly styled inside and out... sort of like it was supposed to have a bumper sticker on the back: “If I didn’t have to haul this stuff home from the big box store, I’d much rather be driving my Camaro SS.”
jimz
> MooseKnuckles
07/05/2018 at 16:48 |
|
you’re ignoring the CAFE implications, which aren’t the same as the numbers which go on the window sticker.
|
jimz
> BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
07/05/2018 at 16:51 |
|
and the XD is turned up to somewhere around 2250, but ma ybe not quite a full 2500-class... in the same frame and body.
the XD does not have the same frame.
oh, and the F-250/350 has the same body as the F-150, just with different styling front and rear.
Tapas
> MooseKnuckles
07/05/2018 at 16:59 |
|
Wow.... I’m getting 17 mpg combined in my E39 M5 with all 8 cylinders firing.
GM messed up.
JeepJeremy
> MooseKnuckles
07/05/2018 at 17:01 |
|
Great investigation and well written. But where’s your source for this info? Would you provide a link to the article(s) where you found these numbers?
DipodomysDeserti
> Future next gen S2000 owner
07/05/2018 at 17:05 |
|
Bro...
|
BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
> jimz
07/05/2018 at 17:07 |
|
I stand corrected... but I thought since the Aluminum-bodied F150... that the F250s and up had the hold-over bigger steel bodies... but I will defer if that is not the case.
Trucks are typically not my forte... although I have found myself using mine for actually more-often substantial hauling than I thought I would. I knew I had some use for one ... which is why I bought a 10-year old used one.
Used Nissan Titans are THOUSANDS less than similar Rams, Fords, Chevys, and probably 10 grand less than a similar year and mileage Toyota Tundra. A workhorse bargain, it seems. I am not tied up into having a certain brand of truck, as long as I don’t actively dislike the particular truck.
18 months ago, I saw a 10 year old ‘07 Titan SE King Cab (160-degree rearward half-doors, longer bed) just under 80K miles, state motor pool as the previous owner (maintenance done regularly) , for $ 15K...
I bought it outright. Nothing under $ 20K like that from the big 3... nothing under $ 25K for the Tundra with that mileage... any Tundra under $ 20K had at least double that mileage, and likely several years older.
|
jimz
> BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
07/05/2018 at 17:09 |
|
I stand corrected... but I thought since the Aluminum-bodied F150... that the F250s and up had the hold-over bigger stee l bodies... but I will defer if that is not the case.
the Super Duty switched to aluminum for 2017, two years after the F-150. they share the same cab, bed, and interior. The hoods, fenders, and bed sides are different to accommodate the changes in styling.
|
MooseKnuckles
> JeepJeremy
07/05/2018 at 17:59 |
|
Sorry you’re right. I first noticed the numbers in a video by The Fast Lane Truck which were comparing the new GM truck engines. They had fuel figures for the new 5.3 and 6.2 but barely mentioned it. I originally assumed they mixed up the new V8s with the old and that’s why they didn’t mention much about the MPG . But then GM Authority had an article Very similar comparing the new engines and a GMA staff writer confirmed the numbers were.. confirmed with GM. So unless GM is sandbagging and holding out for longer.
|
MooseKnuckles
> jimz
07/05/2018 at 17:59 |
|
Explain? These figures are the EPA figures
Jcoppola33
> BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
07/05/2018 at 18:10 |
|
I think what you feel when you say the truck was jerking around with the trailer is the v4 mode kicking in, especially when the trucks are in break in they seem to be kinda rough in and out. Also a GM 2500hd has a 6.0l not a 6.2. the 6.2 is an an o ption for the the 1500's
|
MooseKnuckles
> Tapas
07/05/2018 at 18:14 |
|
Well to be fair for a smaller (weight and front cross sectional area). There’s C5 and C6... And I’ll assume C7 better owners that get 30mpg highway. I think even the C5 Z06 was capable.
It seems like every 5mph over 60mph I go in my Silverado the fuel economy exponentially decreases. I coast at 80 and my mileage is cut in half. And that outcome makes sense, and makes sense to experience it more in a large x-sectional flat front truck than in a small x-sec pointy car.
Highlander-Datsuns are Forever
> HammerheadFistpunch
07/05/2018 at 18:15 |
|
I happen to love Snapple and GM trucks.
|
Shad Holland
> MooseKnuckles
07/05/2018 at 18:24 |
|
I just sold me 2015 Silverado. I was lucky to get 15 MPG from the 5.3 in the city. The best I ever managed on the highway was 24 MPG and that was one time when I was on 55 MPH back roads and was doing about 60. I generally got about 20 MPG on the highway.
For the money these trucks could get 30 MPG with a bit of technology. But people buy them the way they are at the extremely overpriced cost and this GM, Ford, and Fiat will just take the profits. I was very disappointed with the MPG I got which was less than EPA listings.
So here is my message to Detroit, Toyota, and Nissan. Until you put the tech into pickups that cars have to save fuel, all while keeping the prices how they are rather than reaping such huge profits, that allow them to get 30 MPG I won’t buy another one.
Period! Anyone who buys one of these at the prices they charge is getting ripped off at the dealership and at the gas pump. With the current technologies in these they should cost not more than $35000 with 4x4 and all the nice amenities.
JCAlan
> MooseKnuckles
07/05/2018 at 18:30 |
|
Do you know how difficult it is to increase fuel economy by one mpg? I’m guessing it’s pretty hard, or all mpgs would be one higher than they currently are.
You’re right , it’s a modest increase, no big deal. But it is an increase, using new tech, and therefore of course the manufacturer is going to brag about it and people that report on such things are going to mention it.
My bird IS the word
> Future next gen S2000 owner
07/05/2018 at 18:38 |
|
Pissing contest. Tech has gotten so good that the tangible benefits are unnecessary. Happened with stereos, beginning to happen to tvs.
|
My bird IS the word
> MooseKnuckles
07/05/2018 at 18:40 |
|
Huh. That’s funny. Cant one of these manufacturers just pay for the patent rights for freevalve already? Or is it that freevalve actually sucks and it hasn’t been made public?
I'm starting to wonder.
|
MooseKnuckles
> JCAlan
07/05/2018 at 18:43 |
|
The point was more so that it’s coming up shy in power and torque, and even with it’s fancy tech it only matches the 5.0 Ford.
I’m a Chevy guy but F sakes this truck is a let down. Interior is copy and paste. Exterior is bold, but so is the the Juke. Engine and trans combos are Limited.
With the praise the m
arketeers dished out for these V8s, the weight loss
, the active and passive aerodynamics.
I was expecting 24-
25mpg hwy. That’s a
low load and coasting scenario
, doesn’t seem like a far-fetched number to hit with DFM and aero. And yes I get it, it’s still a brick. But they implemented active shutters, louvers, defusers, rake angles. You name it.
MrPizzaman09
> MooseKnuckles
07/05/2018 at 19:07 |
|
One problem is people don’t notice a few percent change in mpg. In semi trucks, they will advertise half a percentage increase in fuel economy because the big fleets can see it.
Also, weight, tires and aero are the biggest levers for fuel consumption since the engines aren't gaining a ton more each year in efficiency. Only when you have a full engine redesign with modern computer software will you see huge jumps.
Kieran
> MooseKnuckles
07/05/2018 at 19:17 |
|
I own a 2016 6.2L Z71, crew cab, 4x4 . Before I lifted the truck and put 35s on I would regularly get 24mpg hwy. Which out performed the EPA numbers handsomely.
Now with 50k miles, 35" Nitto Terragrapplers, a 6" BDS lift, traction bars, and 3.73 gearing... I get 19mpg hwy.
What really matters is what is the mpg while towing a 10,000# trailer. EPA ratings should include that, as a 1mpg increase is a big deal there. I get on average 8.4mpg when towing my 12,000# (fully loaded) toyhauler. If the new motor gets 10mpg with the same load that's a 20% increase in fuel economy. BIG DEAL!!!
|
jimz
> MooseKnuckles
07/05/2018 at 19:19 |
|
the manufacturer’s CAFE compliance is derived from the harmonic mean of the fuel economy numbers across the fleet. What that means is that if you can eke out 1 mpg more on your least economical vehicles (esp. if their economy is low for the vehicles’s footprint) that can be the difference between being compliant for the year, or being fined by the government.
when you crank out as many light trucks as the industry does, 1 more mpg is no joke.
bhtooefr
> MooseKnuckles
07/05/2018 at 20:36 |
|
This is why MPG is bad and wrong.
In increasing order of combined fuel consumption ( then looking at city vs. highway slightly prioritizing city more, then alphabetical order when it’s the same ) , using the numbers you reported, in gallons per 100 miles (people don’t drive gallons, they drive miles):
New 5.3 DFM+8-speed: 5.9/4.3/5.3
Old 5.3 DFM+8-speed: 6.3/4.5/5.6
F150 5.0: 6.3/4.5/5.6
New 6.2 DFM+10-speed: 6.3/5.0/5.9
Ram 1500 5.7: 6.7/4.8/5.9
Old 6.2 AFM+8-speed: 6.7/5.0/5.9
For comparison, that average 0.3 gallons per 100 miles on the new 5.3 ... in a car that gets 50 MPG, or 2.0 gallons/100 miles, to improve by that much would require getting 59 MPG. In a car that gets 40 MPG, or 2.5 gal/100 mi, it would require getting over 45 MPG. In a car that gets 30 MPG, or 3.3 gal/100 mi, it would require getting 33 MPG.
|
MooseKnuckles
> Kieran
07/05/2018 at 20:55 |
|
12000 on a 6" lift?
|
MooseKnuckles
> jimz
07/05/2018 at 20:57 |
|
I see now. That’s good for GM as a manufacturer but doesn’t change it being weak against the truck competition given the amount of aero and controversial tech that went into it
gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
> MooseKnuckles
07/05/2018 at 22:40 |
|
that R&D for 1mpg could save them millions or tens of millions of dollars in CAFE fees.
|
gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
> MooseKnuckles
07/05/2018 at 23:09 |
|
“What gives GM? “
Now marketing can go on and roll with best 5l fuel economy
|
Kieran
> MooseKnuckles
07/06/2018 at 02:10 |
|
Yes. Block lift in the rear, airbags, and fox shocks. With weight distributing hitch of course. The BDS recoil traction bar keep the axle in place well to prevent axle wrap
|
MooseKnuckles
> gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
07/06/2018 at 07:12 |
|
But it only matches Ford 5.0, and the Ford has better paper performance.
|
MooseKnuckles
> gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
07/06/2018 at 07:22 |
|
Yeah as a company that 1MPG helps . But offering a vehicle in the most competitive and loyal segment, a segment with the highest profit margins and highest unit sales, with paltry improvements against the competition and coming up short in a lot of factors.
|
bhtooefr
> MooseKnuckles
07/06/2018 at 07:55 |
|
1 MPG better in the 5.3 pickup is equivalent to 9 MPG better in a Prius, as far as fuel saved.
This is why MPG is the wrong way around.
Shift24
> MooseKnuckles
07/06/2018 at 09:43 |
|
But thats the point, your telling me there is only a 7mpg difference between a sports car and truck? I would think there would be way more than that. Weight, Aerodynamics, G earing , and drivetrain are totally different. The only thing thats similar is the engine, but even that is changed for more low end torque.
There is only so much you can do with a pushrod V8. I feel GM has fully optimized the N/A V8. DI, Cylinder shut off, and DFM. The only thing they could do is make it Hemispherical but Dodge would be all over that. There isn’t really anywhere to go but add lightness. Even then with aluminum blocks and heads what else can you do? Maybe adapt Mazda’s compression ignition but as even Mazda is still doing R&D no way it would be ready this gen of trucks.
Also not sure which year your siverado is but a buddy has a 20 16 and gets 24- 25mpg. Granted thats 95% highway driving, he says he does 80-85mph but i have been in his truck were its more like 75 mph max.
Lastly t hough I agree that this gen of truck from GM will be a big let down. Trucks are meh to ugly, interior is basically the same, and late to the party release. 2019 Rams are already on the streets. I have a feeling Ram will challenge GM for #2 on the truck list. (which also still uses a pushrod V8) The only thing hindering Ram might be FCA its self as people still peg the brands as unreliable.
|
MooseKnuckles
> bhtooefr
07/06/2018 at 10:01 |
|
Definitely MPG is the wrong way. Everywhere else is L/100km. US should adopt volume per distance.
|
MooseKnuckles
> Shift24
07/06/2018 at 10:12 |
|
Basically every engine is hemi-esque. Every cylinder head and piston face has geometry to optimize combustion. Nothing is flat anymore. Hemi is more marketing now. In the 60s hemi meant something for engine technology.
And yes the 2019 Rams are out. But only the regular 5.7. for whatever reason, still unknown, they haven’t started selling the 5.7 eTorque or the 3.6 eTorque. And EPA still is strangling them from selling the Ecodiesel again.
Their sales will be bolstered by continuing to sell last year’s models as the Ram Classic.
I think pushrod can still go places . They just require innovation like any engine advancement. People likely didn’t think AFM would be a thing. Or start stop. It’s like having an incandescent light bulb and wondering where we go from here, then CFL and LED were spat out.
|
bhtooefr
> MooseKnuckles
07/06/2018 at 11:38 |
|
Well, you do have many Asian countries using km/l, which while metric is still wrong.
|
MooseKnuckles
> bhtooefr
07/06/2018 at 12:07 |
|
Oh really, i didn’t realize they were distance over volume. I looked up others and the middle east use km/20L, even more fucked lol
|
gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
> MooseKnuckles
07/06/2018 at 12:50 |
|
17/23/19 is better than 16/22:18, thus giving the go ahead to make it a point in all new commercials. With gas creeping up I’m sure they’ll be mentioning it.
Spanfeller is a twat
> gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
07/06/2018 at 12:58 |
|
It’s a six percent improvement in city and a 5% improvement in highway driving
.
The issue is that MPG is a bad measurement.
|
Spanfeller is a twat
> bhtooefr
07/06/2018 at 13:32 |
|
I’ve been trying to tell them, but Americans just like having complicated measurements for some damn reason
.
You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much
> MooseKnuckles
07/06/2018 at 16:00 |
|
For argument let’s look at the numbers for the 5.3L. New hotness gives 17/23/19, while old hotness gives 16/22/18. That is an increase of 1/16 in city driving, or 6.25% better mileage; 1/22 in highway driving, or 4.55% better mileage; and 1/18 combined or a 5.56% improvement in combined mileage. A 5% improvement in mileage is no small feat and not something to brush off as insignificant.
|
MooseKnuckles
> You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much
07/06/2018 at 16:11 |
|
The old 5.3 AFM is getting upgraded too, and actually will use a new engine code. It very well could get an improved MPG rating. Possible the old 4.3 will get the same upgrades.
several changes to the block
intake manifold
a new valley cover
exhaust
on-center water pump
|
Shift24
> MooseKnuckles
07/06/2018 at 18:24 |
|
Yeah but fuck start stop bull shit. And active fuel management has been around for a long time (81 Caddy and then 05 for E nvoy) , just hasnt been perfected until recently.
And the Classic will help but its not like GM hasnt done that ether (07 Silverado). It helps with the c hange over but dont buy a Ram until 2020. And its easy to understand why the eTorque isn’t out. Way more complexity for a truck that used to be Gas or Diesel. It takes Honda normally an extra 3 -6 months before their hybrids come out. The current Accord did.
Also agree on that nothing is flat but was mainly going for a t rue Hemi will get you the most surface area
they-will-know-my-velocity
> MooseKnuckles
07/06/2018 at 19:34 |
|
So what you’re saying is...I should p
ut a supercharger on it to really optimize the power of the 6.2. Along with a freer flowing exhaust to improve efficiency. Obviously.
Then, I’ll remove the anything related to measuring MPG’s for weight savings. Job done.
|
they-will-know-my-velocity
> Kieran
07/06/2018 at 19:35 |
|
This guy trucks.
|
gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
> BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
07/07/2018 at 23:02 |
|
the titan does benefit from a shorter gear ratio. I haven’t driven one, but one thing that has bugged me on the 15 chevy and Ive noticed it with the 16 f-150 isthey want to upshift at the drop of a hat. I was towing a trailer to my uncles through a very hilly section and they can’t seem to pick a gear and stick with it it. My dads has a 1500 with the 5.3, that has more power than his old 2500hd, yet the hd lugs the trailer without a shrug.
I think Ford and Chevy have spent so much time advertising their trucks to everyone, that they’ve got themselves into a corner trying to deliver 1 vehicle to 2 different clie nts. One that wants a commuter vehicle, and the other that needs a solid work vehicle. I think this is evident on how ford wouldn’t offer a plow prep package (2013, 2014? ) on the 150 unless the 6.2 was selected