MT Tests '16 Sierra Denali. Puts Pushrods To Test. Results Astound.

[surreal1272]

 

 

"should" and "is" are two very different things... and people who fill up their trucks with regular and see a marked performance drop are just being set up for disappointment no matter how much you try to prep them

Never mind mind the fact that his excuse is based of the assumption that gas prices will always be low, when they surely will not be this low always. What will the excuse be when gas goes up again?

 

 

While they won't always be low, they will stay relatively low for the next 3 to 5 years.  China's growth is scaling back and lots of new oil production came online in North America.  Saudi Arabia is in crisis mode, pumping as much as they can to keep the lights on because the price per barrel is so low.   So, he's most likely right that prices will stay low.... still... a bunch of people buying trucks that take premium that they are uninformed about is a potential customer relations issue.

 

One full scale middle east war (which we are on the way to at this rate) in the next two years changes that outlook exponentially. 

[Frisky Dingo]

I'll take this over an EcoBoost all day long. In fact, I'll take the 5.3 paired with the 8AT over the EcoBoost. Hell, I'll take the Tundra and it's old 6AT and dated interior over an EcoBoost.

[smk4565]

A 10-speed gearbox doesn't really add any benefit over and 8-speed.  The head of ZF said 9 gears is the limit to where there is no additional benefit.  And Mercedes ran 81 billion computer simulations and determined that 9 speeds was the maximum, to go beyond was just adding cost and complexity with no gain to fuel economy or performance.  

 

So since the law of diminishing returns has hit transmissions, the fuel economy and performance gains will lay on the engine.  You wonder why Ford doesn't have an Ecoboost 4.0 V8 since they have a 2.0 ecoboost 4.  I think the 3.5 V6 is sort of obsolete when that 2.7 ecoboost makes good power for every day driving.  A compact V8 would be nice for hauling and towing.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

A 10-speed gearbox doesn't really add any benefit over and 8-speed.  The head of ZF said 9 gears is the limit to where there is no additional benefit.  And Mercedes ran 81 billion computer simulations and determined that 9 speeds was the maximum, to go beyond was just adding cost and complexity with no gain to fuel economy or performance.  

 

So since the law of diminishing returns has hit transmissions, the fuel economy and performance gains will lay on the engine.  You wonder why Ford doesn't have an Ecoboost 4.0 V8 since they have a 2.0 ecoboost 4.  I think the 3.5 V6 is sort of obsolete when that 2.7 ecoboost makes good power for every day driving.  A compact V8 would be nice for hauling and towing.

 

I am pretty sure the head of ZF knows better than to claim 9 gears is a limit to benefit. What he probably actually said, is that the benefits are greatly reduced past 9.  But there is a benefit, however small.  

 

And regarding larger boosted engines, you don't need them.  3.5L is an adequate size based on bore size, which maintains a large enough valve size to move air.  And with boosting, it's not about volume of air flow, but the density of the air in it.  Thus, more boosting yields more density and a more power dense air charge for fuel to mix with.  Unlike NA engines, that need more volumetric flow of air to make more power, through either large cylinders of air filling up or high rpm's.  And regardless of what setup is used, the same proportions of air and fuel must exist to burn properly. Thus, a smaller volume with dense air will need adequate amounts of fuel to combust, just as a larger volume that is less dense will as well.  That is why a 3.5L will use similar amounts of fuel to make similar power, to larger engines.....when under heavy load.  The economy benefit then comes from driving not under heavy load, which of course is most of the time for most folks.

[El Kabong]

So we have a pushrod V8 that will put the boots to a TTV6. GM delivers again, while we all roll our eyes at "wait 'till next year" from Brand X.

Public, private... It matters not to me.

Disproving fluff and observing the consequences never grows old

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

Acceleration and fuel economy are more or less the same against the Ford.

I am mildly surprised at the amount of features offered in the Ford in a high trim model that are not even offered in a top shelf GMC.....But I am amazed that simple features like air vents and heated seats for the second row are not even there.  Does GM just say efff it for the second row passengers in a truck of this cost?

 

Come on GM, you can do better. 

[ocnblu]

Think about this:  comparable or BETTER fuel mileage in a steel bodied honkin' V8 pickup truck packed with features VS. the aluminum bodied, twin turbocharged six cylinder competition.  Ford looks like the BIGGEST FOOL right now.  I mean seriously... all that investment in silly bodywork and complicated TWIN TURBOCHARGED engines, and what do they have to show for it?  Not a damn thing that MATTERS.

[El Kabong]

Soooooo true.

And as I pointed out earlier, the GM accelerated as hard with 9,000 pounds as the Ford did with 7,000.

And I'm pretty sure it sounded better doing it.

[El Kabong]

It is possible that Ford has simply reached the limits of what they are capable of doing. Nothing to be ashamed of really. It's better than a Tundra. But facts are facts: GM is da shizzle in this segment for all but those who like diesels.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

Yes, the GMC has a small advantage when accelerating with 9K lbs in tow.

Something they said that a small fraction of customers do, very rarely.

 

The rest of the time the Ford has the speed and fuel economy advantage....not to mention about a gazillion features too.

 

And the performance advantage for the Ford is there even with an old engine and transmission, against GM's latest engine and transmission.

 

That is amazing to me.

[Drew Dowdell]

Yes, the GMC has a small advantage when accelerating with 9K lbs in tow.

Something they said that a small fraction of customers do, very rarely.

 

The rest of the time the Ford has the speed and fuel economy advantage....not to mention about a gazillion features too.

 

And the performance advantage for the Ford is there even with an old engine and transmission, against GM's latest engine and transmission.

 

That is amazing to me.

 

Let's not get carried away here... all of that "added lightness" and a V6 Turbo gets it a mere 1 extra MPG on the highway and the same mpg city compared to a 6.2 liter.  (comparing a Platinum to a Denali of the same drive config, cab, and bed size)

[ocnblu]

Ford's efforts have been proven irrelevant.  How many billions were spent to engineer an aluminum truck and twin-turbo engines that CANNOT BEAT the traditional, honest and true high-strength steel, smallblock V8-powered Sierra and Silverado?  This is a laughable situation... the fact that with all that super duper CRAP, Ford cannot leapfrog GM in ANY important metric of performance!

[Drew Dowdell]

 

Yes, the GMC has a small advantage when accelerating with 9K lbs in tow.

Something they said that a small fraction of customers do, very rarely.

 

The rest of the time the Ford has the speed and fuel economy advantage....not to mention about a gazillion features too.

 

And the performance advantage for the Ford is there even with an old engine and transmission, against GM's latest engine and transmission.

 

That is amazing to me.

 

Let's not get carried away here... all of that "added lightness" and a V6 Turbo gets it a mere 1 extra MPG on the highway and the same mpg city compared to a 6.2 liter.  (comparing a Platinum to a Denali of the same drive config, cab, and bed size)

 

 

Although, apparently MT sees different specs than I see on the respective brand websites:

 

 

 

Unladen, the F-150 and Sierra’s Real MPG are within spitting distance of each other, too, with the GMC’s 15.4/21.1/17.5 mpg city/highway/combined edging the Ford’s 14.8/19.9/16.8.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

Yes, the GMC has a small advantage when accelerating with 9K lbs in tow.

Something they said that a small fraction of customers do, very rarely.

 

The rest of the time the Ford has the speed and fuel economy advantage....not to mention about a gazillion features too.

 

And the performance advantage for the Ford is there even with an old engine and transmission, against GM's latest engine and transmission.

 

That is amazing to me.

 

Let's not get carried away here... all of that "added lightness" and a V6 Turbo gets it a mere 1 extra MPG on the highway and the same mpg city compared to a 6.2 liter.  (comparing a Platinum to a Denali of the same drive config, cab, and bed size)

 

 

Huh? So simply mentioning the mpg advantage (as well as the performance correction) right after someone else claimed the GMC  'gave the boots to the Ford V6'.....somehow required a qualification on your part?  You never felt the need to qualify or correct the 'boot' remark?  Why is that?  That seems like the a better placement of your suggestion to 'not get carried away on.'

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

Ford's efforts have been proven irrelevant.  How many billions were spent to engineer an aluminum truck and twin-turbo engines that CANNOT BEAT the traditional, honest and true high-strength steel, smallblock V8-powered Sierra and Silverado?  This is a laughable situation... the fact that with all that super duper CRAP, Ford cannot leapfrog GM in ANY important metric of performance!

 

 

Actually, it can and does.

But thanks for your opinion.

[ocnblu]

 

Ford's efforts have been proven irrelevant.  How many billions were spent to engineer an aluminum truck and twin-turbo engines that CANNOT BEAT the traditional, honest and true high-strength steel, smallblock V8-powered Sierra and Silverado?  This is a laughable situation... the fact that with all that super duper CRAP, Ford cannot leapfrog GM in ANY important metric of performance!

 

 

Actually, it can and does.

But thanks for your opinion.

 

No problemo.  Glad to be in a position to help. 

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

Yes, the GMC has a small advantage when accelerating with 9K lbs in tow.

Something they said that a small fraction of customers do, very rarely.

 

The rest of the time the Ford has the speed and fuel economy advantage....not to mention about a gazillion features too.

 

And the performance advantage for the Ford is there even with an old engine and transmission, against GM's latest engine and transmission.

 

That is amazing to me.

 

Let's not get carried away here... all of that "added lightness" and a V6 Turbo gets it a mere 1 extra MPG on the highway and the same mpg city compared to a 6.2 liter.  (comparing a Platinum to a Denali of the same drive config, cab, and bed size)

 

 

Huh? So simply mentioning the mpg advantage (as well as the performance correction) right after someone else claimed the GMC  'gave the boots to the Ford V6'.....somehow required a qualification on your part?  You never felt the need to qualify or correct the 'boot' remark?  Why is that?  That seems like the a better placement of your suggestion to 'not get carried away on.'

 

 

Yes... because after spending how many billions on a new body material, and how many millions on building and marketing Ecoboost, a 1mpg increase in highway economy over the traditional setup isn't "amazing".   Imagine if Toyota had spend billions to build and market the Prius as fantastic and amazing new technology, then after all of that, it got 1 mpg better on the highway than the Camry.  We're told that the Ecoboost offers a great advantage in towing too?  It's 1.4 seconds behind the V8 when towing the same weight.   That's one-mississippi, two mississ..... behind. 

 

And even then, I don't know where MT got those fuel economy numbers, but they say the V8 in a steel body gets better city, highway, and combined fuel economy over the turbo-V6 in an aluminum body? 

 

In another comparison test where Car and Driver compared the Chevrolet Silverado High Country 6.2 and F-150 Platinum 3.5EB - their powertrain and chassis scores are basically even, observed MPG is identical (though the Ford is taking premium fuel verses the Chevy's regular).... and in that comparison, another stat shows up.  The aluminum body, V6 Ford is only 81 lbs lighter than the steel body, V8 Chevy. They also give the "Fun to Drive" crown to the Chevy.

 

For all of that money and time spent on the new technology at Ford, I am not amazed. Not even a little bit.

 

Now, I like the F-150, I think it's a great truck... I just don't think it's "amazing" compared to its closest competition given all of the money they spent to get there.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

hmmm, okeedokee then, I see EXACTLY what you are saying.

 

Well, congrats on GMC finally winning a comparo then.

 

It's a solid truck effort that comes close to the King of trucks, falling short in acceleration and fuel economy and far short in basic luxury features.

There is always next time for them to improve.

[Drew Dowdell]

hmmm, okeedokee then, I see EXACTLY what you are saying.

 

Well, congrats on GMC finally winning a comparo then.

 

It's a solid truck effort that comes close to the King of trucks, falling short in acceleration and fuel economy and far short in basic luxury features.

There is always next time for them to improve.

 

Of course, being the "king" it has to drink premium just to get the same observed fuel economy.  I take a 3+ mpg hit when I fuel an Expedition with regular.  I expect that's the same with the F-150.

 

And even at today's low gas prices, the Chevy is cheaper per mile to fuel.

 

 

I'm not the only one unconvinced by the claimed fuel economy of the Fords.

 

Automotive News:

 

The new 2.7-liter engine’s EPA ratings look good on paper, but it has the greatest potential to disappoint buyers.

It is rated at 19 mpg city/26 highway/22 combined. But using the turbos -- as you must do to accelerate normally -- erodes fuel economy. The most fuel efficient use of this engine is to cruise at a steady speed with no load in the bed or in a trailer. The EPA needs a better test for turbocharged gasoline engines.

-----

On the surface, the 2015 F-150’s fuel economy numbers are disappointing. Ford spent billions of dollars re-engineering the truck and retooling plants, and didn’t move the fuel economy needle much.

 

Edmunds could only get the EPA rated fuel economy of 23 mpg highway from the 2.7 Ecoboost (and that's the new gen engine remember) when going down hill, with a strong tail wind, and keeping the speed strictly at 65mph or below:

 

 

I thought it'd never happen. Our 2015 Ford F-150 managed to complete the last 337-mile leg of our trip from Modesto, California to Santa Ana at 23.1 mpg, the first and only time our 2.7-liter EcoBoost-powered 4x4 has matched its EPA highway rating in nearly 18,000 miles of ownership.

 

 

But there is huge asterisk. A tailwind persisted for at least two-thirds of the distance — a strong one that had the flags standing straight out. On top of that, I was really trying, never exceeding 65 mph even when the limit went up to 70 mph. I was well aware that this particular leg has historically been the most mpg-favorable of our entire Oregon-and-back route. I was determined to make the best of it.

 

I usually beat EPA highway in nearly every vehicle I drive, but given the results by others in this field, I guess I should be happy that I simply matched the EPA rating of the Expedition EL... even though it took premium fuel to do it and the EPA's rating is based on regular. In Suburbans, I meet or beat the EPA rating every time.

 

So yeah, I have reason to remain skeptical of the virtues of Ecoboost in these big trucks.  I do believe turbocharged DI engines have their place, but so far, that place is in vehicles of significantly lower mass.

[El Kabong]

Indeed. Given the amount of cash and time Ford has put into making their product more efficient, it's astounding just how little they have to show for it. This is doubly true when you consider that they are also losing market share in the segment!

Edited December 27, 2015 by El Kabong

[Suaviloquent]

Okay, the money spent to retool facilities which is included in the cost of development should not be a target of scrutiny.

 

It had to happen either way.

 

And second, the reason why the F150 was not as light as expected the C/D test was that the F150 was larded up with heavy options like a the giant sunroof and a 36 gallon fuel tank. Putting that in perspective as well.

 

And third, you know, I may like that GM is slightly better FE here, but these are $60,000 pickups and above.

 

And to see the GMC lacking luxury equipment, either standard or optional makes F150 the de facto choice for folks who what a giant sunroof, console shifter and rear a/c vents. Even if you won't use them.. Hey, we are talking in the context of luxo-trucks.

 

And I still want to see a like-for like comparison of trucks. Yet manufacturers rarely have them in their press fleets, available to the publications at the same time.

 

Again, it's easy to target the F150 because of course people are salient to their own beliefs, want to exert a self-confirmation bias or have bounded rationality, or want to forage only the information that they desire, and some like Drew may have personal negative experiences.. I don't want to discount them of their credibility, but want to expand the search.

 

$h!, and using one sample to approximate a population parameter is not ideal, huge error possibility. And online sources may be subject to response bias. We may never hear the real, complete story until maybe vehicles can communicate with another and show transmit real-time information to insurers for example, all the time.

[Drew Dowdell]

What is "amazing" to me is how there is only a 1mpg penalty to move from the GM 5.3 to the 6.2 even though there is a big jump in power.  I'm sure a lot of that is the doing of the 8-speed, the 5.3 isn't hooked up to the 8-speeds yet.

 

 

Okay, the money spent to retool facilities which is included in the cost of development should not be a target of scrutiny.

 

It had to happen either way.

 

Plants re-tool all the time, but the Ford effort for Aluminum was a huge cost, many times over the normal retooling process.

 

 

And second, the reason why the F150 was not as light as expected the C/D test was that the F150 was larded up with heavy options like a the giant sunroof and a 36 gallon fuel tank. Putting that in perspective as well.

 

 

The High Country and Platinum both had sun roofs.  Weights are listed with a dry tank, but even if you want to include the difference in weight of each tank full, that would still mean there is only a difference of 144lbs (the difference in dry weight between a 26g tank and 36g tank is marginal)

 

 

 

And to see the GMC lacking luxury equipment, either standard or optional makes F150 the de facto choice for folks who what a giant sunroof, console shifter and rear a/c vents. Even if you won't use them.. Hey, we are talking in the context of luxo-trucks.

 

 

A console shifter is nothing but a giant waste of space in a truck (and I'd argue the same for cars too, score for Lincoln on this one).  Give me a column mount or the Ram's rotary dial. The giant and deep storage capacity of the Silverado's center console is tough to beat. 

 

 

As for my negative experiences - I didn't have any, nor did I say I did. I got the EPA stated fuel economy in a perfectly capable SUV which matches my experience in an SUV from the competition.  What I don't buy is the marketing hype around Ecoboost in the trucks being so much better.... because that hasn't been my experience.  Nor has the hype matched the experience at Edmunds, Motor Trend, Car & Driver, or Automotive News...... so it's not just me. 

[Suaviloquent]

What is "amazing" to me is how there is only a 1mpg penalty to move from the GM 5.3 to the 6.2 even though there is a big jump in power.  I'm sure a lot of that is the doing of the 8-speed, the 5.3 isn't hooked up to the 8-speeds yet.

 

 

Okay, the money spent to retool facilities which is included in the cost of development should not be a target of scrutiny.

 

It had to happen either way.

 

Plants re-tool all the time, but the Ford effort for Aluminum was a huge cost, many times over the normal retooling process.

 

 

And second, the reason why the F150 was not as light as expected the C/D test was that the F150 was larded up with heavy options like a the giant sunroof and a 36 gallon fuel tank. Putting that in perspective as well.

 

 

The High Country and Platinum both had sun roofs.  Weights are listed with a dry tank, but even if you want to include the difference in weight of each tank full, that would still mean there is only a difference of 144lbs (the difference in dry weight between a 26g tank and 36g tank is marginal)

 

 

 

And to see the GMC lacking luxury equipment, either standard or optional makes F150 the de facto choice for folks who what a giant sunroof, console shifter and rear a/c vents. Even if you won't use them.. Hey, we are talking in the context of luxo-trucks.

 

 

A console shifter is nothing but a giant waste of space in a truck (and I'd argue the same for cars too, score for Lincoln on this one).  Give me a column mount or the Ram's rotary dial. The giant and deep storage capacity of the Silverado's center console is tough to beat. 

 

 

As for my negative experiences - I didn't have any, nor did I say I did. I got the EPA stated fuel economy in a perfectly capable SUV which matches my experience in an SUV from the competition.  What I don't buy is the marketing hype around Ecoboost in the trucks being so much better.... because that hasn't been my experience.  Nor has the hype matched the experience at Edmunds, Motor Trend, Car & Driver, or Automotive News...... so it's not just me. 

 

Well, I didn't mean to construe the features as superior, just there.

 

Well, if Ford's tooling for aluminum is questionable, THEN why is GM following suit?

 

Not only that, Ford has patented most of the processes and technologies it uses to make aluminum bodied trucks. And it's got exclusive use of materials from industry suppliers.

 

I guess GM could apply its mixed material approach with trucks, but tooling for aluminum is going to be expensive for GM too. Even more expensive if they use the tech found in the low volume CT6 for the mass produced trucks. 

 

And I can understand why the Ford development was expensive. The Dearborn and Kansas plants were ancient. They weren't just modernized, they were completely re-configured, and prepped for multiple generations of trucks. What can be quantified as the normal cost for retooling. Not so easy, is it?

 

Heck, FCA's SHAP facility needed to be retooled and cost around $5 billion. And the most notable product it makes is the Chrysler 200. And FCA wasn't clear if the cost of the 200 development program was folded into that, but here's the key deal, some of the most advanced robotic welders were added and a new quality centre was built.

 

Weight savings is weight savings. Magazines should disclose the reasons why trucks were closer in weight than expected rather than make a blank conclusion leaving readers to do the math.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

Drew, you need to stop pretending like you don't know the true score.  You know that the biggest contributor to fuel economy gains for the GMC is cylinder deactivation and 2 extra gears.....both of which are NOT currently present on the Ford.  And this is GM's latest and greatest, direct injected V8 engine, where the Ford engine is a decade old.  You know for a fact that when Ford has same or more gears and cyl deactivation, both of which will be very soon, things like reduced weight will suddenly make more sense.  And not just for the 3.5L, but the coming upgraded 6.2L and 5.0L and 2.7L and even the new 3.0L Diesel.

 

So yeah, congrats again, but pretending like Ford screwed up by swallowing the diet pill now, just screams of bias.

[Drew Dowdell]

Again, I'm not knocking the effort.  I'm knocking the hype that doesn't match the results.   I've been trying to find weights of the previous generation platinum to show how much weight it has lost, but I keep coming up with numbers that are lower than the current model. 

[Drew Dowdell]

Drew, you need to stop pretending like you don't know the true score.  You know that the biggest contributor to fuel economy gains for the GMC is cylinder deactivation and 2 extra gears.....both of which are NOT currently present on the Ford.  And this is GM's latest and greatest, direct injected V8 engine, where the Ford engine is a decade old.  You know for a fact that when Ford has same or more gears and cyl deactivation, both of which will be very soon, things like reduced weight will suddenly make more sense.  And not just for the 3.5L, but the coming upgraded 6.2L and 5.0L and 2.7L and even the new 3.0L Diesel.

 

So yeah, congrats again, but pretending like Ford screwed up by swallowing the diet pill now, just screams of bias.

 

If eight-speeds and cylinder deactivation were the primary cause for the fuel economy gain, then why isn't the Ram HEMI doing that well with fuel economy even with lower power?   You also can't talk about the extra gears when comparing the GM 5.3 to the Ford 2.7, they both have 6-speed autos and again, the observed fuel economy results are the same in spite of the Ford's "added lightness" and the New-Gen engine.  The guy in the Edmunds test just barely got 23mpg in an F-150 2.7EB while trying really hard.... I get 22mpg out of a Suburban at 70mph across Pennsylvania every other month!   GM has been running cylinder deactivation in its trucks since 2005, not exactly new tech there!

 

Since you seem to want to play the "just wait till next year!! I'll show you!" card - GM has Dynamic Skip Fire coming where the V8 can run on as few as 2 cylinders, and as you like to point out, they are going aluminum as well.... and getting the 10-speed.

 

But future product doesn't matter today. And the results today are that the hype surrounding the F-150's weight loss and the Ecoboost's efficiency aren't reflected in the real world results.  You can't blame 8-speed transmissions and Cylinder Deactivation at GM for that.

 

2.7TT v. 5.3 EcoTech = same real world fuel economy, both with 6-speed autos

3.5TT v. 6.2 EcoTech = same real world fuel economy, same acceleration unless towing and then the 6.2 wins... and the 6.2 costs less per mile to fuel. (Selecting the Max Towing package further improves both the highway fuel economy* and acceleration on the GM)

 

And yet, in both cases, the GM truck is heavier..... So I just don't see the huge advantage you're trying to sell me on if I go with the Ford.

 

 

*It's a lower final drive ratio, but that also allows the engine to stay in 4-cylinder mode longer.

[Suaviloquent]

Again, I'm not knocking the effort.  I'm knocking the hype that doesn't match the results.   I've been trying to find weights of the previous generation platinum to show how much weight it has lost, but I keep coming up with numbers that are lower than the current model. 

 

Well, even the marketing team at Ford was careful enough to make the 700 lb weight loss claim an "up to" type.

 

CR, when weighing two comparable middle of the range GM and Ford half-ton crewcabs chucked a figure of around 400 lbs that the Ford has an advantage on weight.

 

While mass is key to driving dynamics and has a lot of benefits overall, FE for a still heavy vehicle is probably still more affected by powertrain and gearing, which Ford didn't completely overhaul in 2015.

 

GM did have a new engine range, but the 8 speed just became more available just recently.

 

MT's test of the 5.3 with the 6-speed in the comparo, it chugged fuel, but the Ram won partly because even though it was slower, it had the 'feeling of being fast'. 

 

So quite a bit of rthetoric and hype in magazine tests is just what it is, pandering to the fears and likes of the audience to get controversial results and sell dead-tree and online subscriptions.

 

By no means however, am I giving pity points to the F150.  But the GMC Denali's performance is only against a comparably equipped Platinum, not the full range of trucks.

[Drew Dowdell]

So yeah, congrats again, but pretending like Ford screwed up by swallowing the diet pill now, just screams of bias.

 

I'm not knocking the effort.  I'm looking at the numbers and asking where the results are.  This effort was supposed to beat everyone else in the game. It hasn't.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

Again, I'm not knocking the effort.  I'm knocking the hype that doesn't match the results.   I've been trying to find weights of the previous generation platinum to show how much weight it has lost, but I keep coming up with numbers that are lower than the current model. 

 

OK, fair enough. 

But regarding the weights, the previous Ford was the heaviest truck for years, no doubt,  They could have done what GM did and engineered it lighter with the latest steels and my guess, they would have seen a 200-300lb weight reduction, while possibly keeping the same towing and hauling capacity.  But instead, they realistically got a 500-550 weight reduction, while also...key word here.....also increasing towing and hauling through strengthening, instead of just lightening. 

 

And I really don't see any hype about the weight, other than anti-hype these days.

[ccap41]

Again, I'm not knocking the effort. I'm knocking the hype that doesn't match the results. I've been trying to find weights of the previous generation platinum to show how much weight it has lost, but I keep coming up with numbers that are lower than the current model.

Shoot, I'm on my phone so there isn't a way to make a link hot but just guessing I would think the last gen Limited has similar or slightly less equipment than the new gen Platinums. 6029lbs is what the weight is. I'm not sure what Platinum weight you're looking at for comparison.

http://m.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-ford-f-150-limited-ecoboost-v-6-test-review-less-is-more-page-2

(Don't look at their mpg either.. Lol)

Edited December 27, 2015 by ccap41

[Drew Dowdell]

 

Again, I'm not knocking the effort.  I'm knocking the hype that doesn't match the results.   I've been trying to find weights of the previous generation platinum to show how much weight it has lost, but I keep coming up with numbers that are lower than the current model. 

 

Well, even the marketing team at Ford was careful enough to make the 700 lb weight loss claim an "up to" type.

 

CR, when weighing two comparable middle of the range GM and Ford half-ton crewcabs chucked a figure of around 400 lbs that the Ford has an advantage on weight.

 

While mass is key to driving dynamics and has a lot of benefits overall, FE for a still heavy vehicle is probably still more affected by powertrain and gearing, which Ford didn't completely overhaul in 2015.

 

GM did have a new engine range, but the 8 speed just became more available just recently.

 

MT's test of the 5.3 with the 6-speed in the comparo, it chugged fuel, but the Ram won partly because even though it was slower, it had the 'feeling of being fast'. 

 

So quite a bit of rthetoric and hype in magazine tests is just what it is, pandering to the fears and likes of the audience to get controversial results and sell dead-tree and online subscriptions.

 

By no means however, am I giving pity points to the F150.  But the GMC Denali's performance is only against a comparably equipped Platinum, not the full range of trucks.

 

 

All of their test chug fuel... whether it's the GM V8s or the Ford Ecoboosts or the Ram Hemis....  As long as they are being tested the same at the same time, it isn't an issue.  

 

I am perfectly willing to admit that my driving is atypical.  I get the vehicle on the PA Turnpike or I-80, point the nose due east or due west as my needs dictate, get it to 70mph and then press the cruise control button.  This is a 250 mile to 350 mile trip I do multiple times a month. I always rent the biggest SUV I can get, and I've had them all. 

 

There is simply no fuel economy advantage to selecting an Ecoboost powered vehicle over a GM V8 (The Hemi does fall behind a bit even with the 8-speed), and the Ecoboosts require premium to return their promised results.  

 

It's simple. Show me the numbers of something I can buy today that show a clear Ford advantage over a GM that matches the hype.  You can show me a lower cost to operate, a power advantage that manifests itself in faster acceleration of 1 second or more.... something.. anything that you can point to without an asterisk and fine print. Asking for that isn't bias.

[surreal1272]

 

Again, I'm not knocking the effort.  I'm knocking the hype that doesn't match the results.   I've been trying to find weights of the previous generation platinum to show how much weight it has lost, but I keep coming up with numbers that are lower than the current model. 

 

OK, fair enough. 

But regarding the weights, the previous Ford was the heaviest truck for years, no doubt,  They could have done what GM did and engineered it lighter with the latest steels and my guess, they would have seen a 200-300lb weight reduction, while possibly keeping the same towing and hauling capacity.  But instead, they realistically got a 500-550 weight reduction, while also...key word here.....also increasing towing and hauling through strengthening, instead of just lightening. 

 

And I really don't see any hype about the weight, other than anti-hype these days.

 

Just about every F1-50 commercial I have seen would beg to differ with your non-hype assessment. There has been a ton of hype behind for the last year and that is a fact that is backed up by those countless ads and online "reviews" by folks like yourself. 

[Drew Dowdell]

 

Again, I'm not knocking the effort. I'm knocking the hype that doesn't match the results. I've been trying to find weights of the previous generation platinum to show how much weight it has lost, but I keep coming up with numbers that are lower than the current model.

Shoot, I'm on my phone so there isn't a way to make a link hot but just guessing I would think the last gen Limited has similar or slightly less equipment than the new gen Platinums. 6029lbs is what the weight is. I'm not sure what Platinum weight you're looking at for comparison.

http://m.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-ford-f-150-limited-ecoboost-v-6-test-review-less-is-more-page-2

(Don't look at their mpg either.. Lol)

 

 

I'm chalking it up to lazy reporting in the articles I've found.  Reporting a 2012 SuperCab Platinum 4x4 at 5585 and I'm thinking "that can't be right"

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

 

Again, I'm not knocking the effort.  I'm knocking the hype that doesn't match the results.   I've been trying to find weights of the previous generation platinum to show how much weight it has lost, but I keep coming up with numbers that are lower than the current model. 

 

OK, fair enough. 

But regarding the weights, the previous Ford was the heaviest truck for years, no doubt,  They could have done what GM did and engineered it lighter with the latest steels and my guess, they would have seen a 200-300lb weight reduction, while possibly keeping the same towing and hauling capacity.  But instead, they realistically got a 500-550 weight reduction, while also...key word here.....also increasing towing and hauling through strengthening, instead of just lightening. 

 

And I really don't see any hype about the weight, other than anti-hype these days.

 

Just about every F1-50 commercial I have seen would beg to differ with your non-hype assessment. There has been a ton of hype behind for the last year and that is a fact that is backed up by those countless ads and online "reviews" by folks like yourself. 

 

 

 

 

Every brand offers commercials plugging their benefits, and some even have commercials denouncing the others (steel cage anyone).

Edited December 27, 2015 by Drew Dowdell
removed unneeded personal attacks

[Drew Dowdell]

460ftlbs is available as mentioned and more will be available, even if they only offer it in a GMC-like premium trim level.  It is an entirely new engine that will only share displacement.  And more displacement is not needed. That is one of the perks of GTDI.

Fuel type should not be a concern in those premium trim models, especially at today's cheap prices.  And it's not just torque peak that will impress, but massive average torque, better known as area under the curve.

 

It just dawned on me. The Lincoln MKZ is the preview of what is to come.  It makes 400 lb-ft... so the quick and dirty calculation is torque divided by displacement means 133 lb-ft per liter. In a 3.5 liter, that means 466 lb-ft.  Now, I know that isn't a scientific way of doing things, and increasing displacement has diminishing returns. So we'll say that it will match the 6.2 liter's 460 lb-ft.

 

But there's that darn asterisk..... the MKZ only gets 400 lb-ft if it is running 93 octane. If it loses torque on 87 octane at the same percentage that the Mustang does, you're looking at 435 lb-ft from a new gen 3.5 Ecoboost. Or basically, nearly right back where it started from with only a 15 lb-ft increase over the outgoing model. 

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

Of course, weight reduction through aluminum in a Cadillac or Camaro, that combined sell at a faction of the volumes, is somehow 'engineering excellence.'

 

Just want to be clear.

[smk4565]

Think about this:  comparable or BETTER fuel mileage in a steel bodied honkin' V8 pickup truck packed with features VS. the aluminum bodied, twin turbocharged six cylinder competition.  Ford looks like the BIGGEST FOOL right now.  I mean seriously... all that investment in silly bodywork and complicated TWIN TURBOCHARGED engines, and what do they have to show for it?  Not a damn thing that MATTERS.

They do have the #1 selling vehicle in the USA for 40 years in a row.  I guess that is something.

[Drew Dowdell]

Of course, weight reduction through aluminum in a Cadillac or Camaro, that combined sell at a faction of the volumes, is somehow 'engineering excellence.'

 

Just want to be clear.

 

Good that you can be clear, since the Cadillac and Camaro actually have the numbers to back them up.  The ATS is the lightest in its class by a large margin.... as is the CTS.  The CT6 weighs as little as cars two classes below it... it's 740i sized and 335i weight.

 

All the F-150 did was beat the existing lightweight by 81 lbs.  I'm a simple guy... just show me the numbers.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

460ftlbs is available as mentioned and more will be available, even if they only offer it in a GMC-like premium trim level.  It is an entirely new engine that will only share displacement.  And more displacement is not needed. That is one of the perks of GTDI.

Fuel type should not be a concern in those premium trim models, especially at today's cheap prices.  And it's not just torque peak that will impress, but massive average torque, better known as area under the curve.

 

It just dawned on me. The Lincoln MKZ is the preview of what is to come.  It makes 400 lb-ft... so the quick and dirty calculation is torque divided by displacement means 133 lb-ft per liter. In a 3.5 liter, that means 466 lb-ft.  Now, I know that isn't a scientific way of doing things, and increasing displacement has diminishing returns. So we'll say that it will match the 6.2 liter's 460 lb-ft.

 

But there's that darn asterisk..... the MKZ only gets 400 lb-ft if it is running 93 octane. If it loses torque on 87 octane at the same percentage that the Mustang does, you're looking at 435 lb-ft from a new gen 3.5 Ecoboost. Or basically, nearly right back where it started from with only a 15 lb-ft increase over the outgoing model. 

 

 

 

Not too far off the mark on the new 3.5L.

The story on the 3.0L, is that it was changed from 2.9L, not because it could not hit targets, but purely as a marketing ploy.  Ford brass determined that 3.0L will be much easier to sell in a Lincoln.  And the 3.0L will be more or less in all Lincoln's, with different tunes, where currently the 2.7L is in the MKX.  That was a timing decision, based on the 3.0L delay.  And torque will be around 415ftlbs when launched.  Although I am not sure if it will be premium rated.  But honestly, most GTDI engines these days benefit from the premium fuel in premium vehicles.  So word to the wise, if you are going to be drag racing your Lincoln, don't forget to get premium.

[surreal1272]

 

Of course, weight reduction through aluminum in a Cadillac or Camaro, that combined sell at a faction of the volumes, is somehow 'engineering excellence.'

 

Just want to be clear.

 

Good that you can be clear, since the Cadillac and Camaro actually have the numbers to back them up.  The ATS is the lightest in its class by a large margin.... as is the CTS.  The CT6 weighs as little as cars two classes below it... it's 740i sized and 335i weight.

 

All the F-150 did was beat the existing lightweight by 81 lbs.  I'm a simple guy... just show me the numbers.

 

And they all have substantial performance gains to show for it, especially the Camaro.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

Of course, weight reduction through aluminum in a Cadillac or Camaro, that combined sell at a faction of the volumes, is somehow 'engineering excellence.'

 

Just want to be clear.

 

Good that you can be clear, since the Cadillac and Camaro actually have the numbers to back them up.  The ATS is the lightest in its class by a large margin.... as is the CTS.  The CT6 weighs as little as cars two classes below it... it's 740i sized and 335i weight.

 

All the F-150 did was beat the existing lightweight by 81 lbs.  I'm a simple guy... just show me the numbers.

 

 

 

Yeah, I tried sitting in the back seat of the ATS, and gave up. Several times. It is pathetic.

Guess what, the CTS does not change matters much, as my size 11 boot does not fit the tiny well behind the drivers seat. 

 

So if that is the resolve needed to obtain 'lightest weight trophies' then you can keep them.

Of course, I am not the only one saying this, based on their sales.

 

 

Of course, weight reduction through aluminum in a Cadillac or Camaro, that combined sell at a faction of the volumes, is somehow 'engineering excellence.'

 

Just want to be clear.

 

Good that you can be clear, since the Cadillac and Camaro actually have the numbers to back them up.  The ATS is the lightest in its class by a large margin.... as is the CTS.  The CT6 weighs as little as cars two classes below it... it's 740i sized and 335i weight.

 

All the F-150 did was beat the existing lightweight by 81 lbs.  I'm a simple guy... just show me the numbers.

 

And they all have substantial performance gains to show for it, especially the Camaro.

 

 

Base SS and base GT V8 are within 35lbs of each other, and one is smaller than the other?  So not exactly revolutionary reductions.

[smk4565]

ATS 2.0T weighs 44 lbs less than a C300 in red form and 52 lbs less in and form.   Not really a large margin, but an advantage I suppose.

 

As far as Ford goes with the F150, they should be pushing the turbo V6s against the GM 5.3 liter and Ford should have a 4.0 Ecoboost V8 with 430 hp, 500 lb-ft as the alternative to the GM 6.2 liter.   

 

An Ecoboost V8 would be good for the Mustang too if Ford fans weren't so obsessed with 5.0 badges.

Edited December 27, 2015 by smk4565

[Suaviloquent]

This is where I got the 400 lbs from.

 

Take it as you will, but these guys buy their own trucks and weight them on their own scales, and they don't usually buy fully loaded models - this video they do say this isn't their own truck, but they did weigh it anyways.

 

Go to the one minute mark.

 

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

 

Of course, weight reduction through aluminum in a Cadillac or Camaro, that combined sell at a faction of the volumes, is somehow 'engineering excellence.'

 

Just want to be clear.

 

Good that you can be clear, since the Cadillac and Camaro actually have the numbers to back them up.  The ATS is the lightest in its class by a large margin.... as is the CTS.  The CT6 weighs as little as cars two classes below it... it's 740i sized and 335i weight.

 

All the F-150 did was beat the existing lightweight by 81 lbs.  I'm a simple guy... just show me the numbers.

 

And they all have substantial performance gains to show for it, especially the Camaro.

 

 

Base SS and base GT V8 are within 35lbs of each other, and one is smaller than the other?  So not exactly revolutionary reductions.

 

 

The only aluminum changes in the Camaro are the suspension components and some interior beams. It is still a steel body car... as is the ATS (mostly) and CTS (just the hood and doors are aluminum).  So you can't really point to either of those two with your earlier attempt to snipe.

 

The most dramatic gains were in the CT6 with their new mix materials process which produces a 740i sized car at a 335i weight.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

suave, it is a bit more than 400lbs.  The true fact is that it is slightly over 500lbs of reduction.  I have actually lifted (along with another guy) a cab and then a bed, side by side, showing the weight difference. The steel cab could not be lifted, The aluminum one could be. Bed was real easy too.  So combined with doors and hoods and gates, it adds up.  It is not only 400lbs. And the bigger the truck (i.e. 4 door long bed, etc.) the more the weight reduction, upwards of 700lbs, as advertised.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Wings4Life

[Drew Dowdell]

ATS 2.0T weighs 44 lbs less than a C300 in red form and 52 lbs less in and form.   Not really a large margin, but an advantage I suppose.

The body in white weight matters of course, but it matters a lot less when you lard up the rest of the car.   It was a major part of the ATS project to shave weight on everything, not just the body.

[Suaviloquent]

 

Of course, weight reduction through aluminum in a Cadillac or Camaro, that combined sell at a faction of the volumes, is somehow 'engineering excellence.'

 

Just want to be clear.

 

Good that you can be clear, since the Cadillac and Camaro actually have the numbers to back them up.  The ATS is the lightest in its class by a large margin.... as is the CTS.  The CT6 weighs as little as cars two classes below it... it's 740i sized and 335i weight.

 

All the F-150 did was beat the existing lightweight by 81 lbs.  I'm a simple guy... just show me the numbers.

 

 

Actually well, the ATS-V is 200 lbs heavier than an M3. And even by being lighter, it isn't as fast in plebian models, it's horsepower and torque are not as strong in feeling as the German ones, and it's interior is cramped. 

 

And in most tests, the 3 Series kind of teaches everyone how to make an efficient 4 cylinder turbo.

 

Drew, I think your last statement simply cannot be applied to every F150 model. 

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

 

 

 

Of course, weight reduction through aluminum in a Cadillac or Camaro, that combined sell at a faction of the volumes, is somehow 'engineering excellence.'

 

Just want to be clear.

 

Good that you can be clear, since the Cadillac and Camaro actually have the numbers to back them up.  The ATS is the lightest in its class by a large margin.... as is the CTS.  The CT6 weighs as little as cars two classes below it... it's 740i sized and 335i weight.

 

All the F-150 did was beat the existing lightweight by 81 lbs.  I'm a simple guy... just show me the numbers.

 

And they all have substantial performance gains to show for it, especially the Camaro.

 

 

Base SS and base GT V8 are within 35lbs of each other, and one is smaller than the other?  So not exactly revolutionary reductions.

 

 

The only aluminum changes in the Camaro are the suspension components and some interior beams. It is still a steel body car... as is the ATS (mostly) and CTS (just the hood and doors are aluminum).  So you can't really point to either of those two with your earlier attempt to snipe.

 

The most dramatic gains were in the CT6 with their new mix materials process which produces a 740i sized car at a 335i weight.

 

 

 

I snipe when others snipe. 

Unless you have not noticed. 

 

And you never seem to notice the others who snipe. Why is that.

[Suaviloquent]

suave, it is a bit more than 400lbs.  The true fact is that it is slightly over 500lbs of reduction.  I have actually lifted (along with another guy) a cab and then a bed, side by side, showing the weight difference. The steel cab could not be lifted, The aluminum one could be. Bed was real easy too.  So combined with doors and hoods and gates, it adds up.  It is not only 400lbs. And the bigger the truck (i.e. 4 door long bed, etc.) the more the weight reduction, upwards of 700lbs, as advertised.

 

The one minute mark is a comparison to the competition in Crewcab mid-level trim, mid-level engine option, typically equipped form. They do say the weight difference to similar last-gen XLT was over 700 lbs. 

 

What like 5060 vs 5800, something like that.

 

I'm just tossing numbers out here, I'm not going to speak volumes more about a truck other notable publications simply never test adequately until Truck of the Year comes by.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Suaviloquent
added the word 'difference'

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

Although I have zero interest in the new 3.0L Ford Diesel launching next year, when combined with 10 gears, I see no reason why it won't dominate the FE crown. Weight reduction is a big part of that. The Ram is a pig.