I'm sorry, but anecdotal 15k mile "evidence" is so far from long term duty cycles or statistically significant I don't even know what you think you are proving by mentioning it? Hopefully for the owners this is nothing like any diesel they've done since the 7.3.

You don't seem to be talking real world mileage, especially towing. Further, as tow ratings are not yet regulated (changing soon) the tow claims are simply mfg marketing.

Oh, and now you've heard of a problem. http://www.f150forum.com/f38/ford-f-...issues-157704/

Funny, I just tried googling to see what's out there as I've definitely heard of issues, and if you type in "ecoboost" and pause the first thing that pops up is "problems"........

I love how people without knowing any of the performance of the gen V's are slamming them because they didn't do something drastic like go v6 w/ turbos, etc. As I've been saying, that is easily in GM's skill set and the development indicated these improvements to a proven small block are better than twin turbo's for a truck application. So maybe we should wait and see the real world comparisons rather than claiming it isn't a worthwhile improvement.

edit: just a little time on goggle led to tons of threads and articles about ecoboost problems, mostly all like the link above with shuddering, lost power, and limp mode. Sounds like condensation gets in the intercooler. Hopefully they get it figured out.

Ive owned chevy trucks and have a camaro in the garage right now, so its not chevy vs ford thing. And I understand that my 15k miles isnt a true representation. But I have two people I know that have them as well with a combined almost 100k with no issues, again not a huge data set. And Of course any platform will have an issue and a few and far between.

What about the 5.3 and the notorious oil consumption/leak issue, or water pump failures. 5.3 was a great engine in 2007 and still is a good engine with good mpg numbers but it is not the best engine out there.

My real world MPG is exactly as advertised and towing i get 12mpg with cruise set at 68mph, with towing 10k lbs. I dont have any complaints. I agree with towing and manufactures and their numbers, but for now what is what we have and if I cant beleive ford as you suggest then I surely cant not beleive chevy or dodge as well.

And I have said on other forums we will have to wait and see what chevys performance numbers are. And Ill be honest with you I want to buy a new one, but the numbers for now dont support it as from what I have seen the "new" 5.3 only puts out 350hp, which why build something to only match current competition and not surpass it? Again it just seems like refinement more than anything, but we will have to wait and see if GM has any surprised and have to look at one in person.

I actually owned a 2007 new body style truck nice truck but it only got 13.5mpg and leaked water into the cab all the time. Between that truck and having two diesels, I can tell you for overall cost of the vehicle, maint/operating cost, and performance the eco is the best truck Ive had since 2007, and Im not a ford guy but more or less have taking the stance I am now going to buy the best american made product that fits my needs when I am shopping for a new car.

I have heard of the shudder and from what I gather it was the earlier model and had something to do more with the tune than anything. I have never experienced myself, but 12s and above I think the issue has been corrected.

I just think I share a lot of peoples attitude that we were hoping for something big, ford and their eco and dodge now claiming 25mpg(again manufactures numbers like you suggested) what is chevy going to bring to the table? We have to see their numbers but it looks as if the 5.3 will compete with the 5.o and nothing more. I just think if chevy comes out with a 1/2 ton diesel that get 25-30mpg and can tow 11-12k, why couldnt somebody buy it, heck most people wouldnt need to spend the premium on a 3/4 anymore. As a competitor you have to look at ford and say geese the guys that sell the most trucks have a turbod engine thats makes up over 50% of their of their product sold, shouldnt we do the same thing but make it better? Instead well just revamp what we got. That irritates me with all manufactures take for example the dodge extended cab the four small doors open on their own, now why doesnt chevy and ford copy that, at least chevys extended cab doors open flat, fords only come out 90 degrees. Thats just my initial thoughts.

I get what you are saying here. I think the issue is people are viewing gen V as some tiny change to what's there. What I'm saying is it is not. Read up on the details. Just because someone else uses turbos doesn't make this less advanced. The combination of VVT, DI, and much more aggressive AFM can lead to greater results through a different strategy.

I'm saying this as I work at GM (not in powertrains) but do know some people. These gen V's are good enough to cancel work on the turbos and small diesels....... which should tell us something. Ford has never had the same success with their V8's so the complexity of the ecoboost was worth it for them on the truck, as they couldn't get there with a V8. The eco-boost is a very expensive motor for them to build, and more than they thought it would be (used to work at Ford and have some insight). So, if GM can match or exceed what they're doing with a lower cost, less complexity ie more durability than it's a win.

I believe the 5.3 is to compete with the ecoboost, the 6.2 is going to be just stronger period. Considering the current LS3 makes 430/430 ish I think with out any of this tech that should be believable.

Last, Ford didn't always sell the most, only since they have refreshed twice since GM's last update in 06. Considering the lack of change I think people have been still happy w/ the GMT900's and small blocks. I still like my 08 w/ 100k on it. Runs strong and I get almost 14 avg despite 33's and a 6 in lift.

I dont see the 5.3 ever out pulling an EB but I can understand GM's marketing strategy to try to bracket it in that category. In the real world with heat and altitude EB will slaughter the the 5.3 because every engine guy knows it isnt about the displacement per se its about how much air you can move through the displacement you've got.

I agree IF the 6.2 can beat it with less complexity and offer a substantially longer life and on par fuel economy then it is indeed a win for GM.

I disagree the HP number is the benchmark that will make it a winner though. I think its the low end torque that will determine weather of not the 6.2 is a better truck engine than the EB.

I see no evidence the 6.2 was specifically designed from the ground for trucks only so GM calling the EB a car engine is just more marketing spin. Maybe I dont know where to look for this data though.

It interesting that GM has yet to announce HP and Torque for it.

No doubt the chevy will boast a towing number higher than 11,200 because thats a game they all play. The last guy to announce always has the highest capacity in the class and Ford even re-announces after they announce to win this game.

I want to see what kind of HP and Torque it makes at 1900RPM- top gear freeway speed towing. This will determine how much the truck has to downshift and engine RPM has a tremendous effect on cabin noise. It it has to bomb along in 3rd like the rest of the NA trucks where an EB can pull 4th or 5th in my mind - it looses.

I need a new truck and would rather not buy a diesel, and Ive been lucky enough to have towed with 2 new EB's and find them incredibly impressive, and I have an open mind about GM.

UD

My dad worked for GM and I did as well one summer and tend to bend that way. but like dave i need diesel like power and prefer to stay away from diesel hence the ECO option. It just doesnt seem that GM will quite make it there, and if they do they will only match and not surpass, which I am dying to by a chevy but from a finance stand point I cant justify buying new just to get matching capabilites.

One thing about the ECO is I get all 420 foot pounds at 2500 rpm not 365 foot pounds starting at 3 grand or so and have it stretch over a few thousand rpms like the 5.3, makes a big difference when towing. But if the 6.2 can out perform anything and get compariable MPG i am with Dave. But in reality the 6.2l whether its ford or GM is a terrible idea currently both engines do nothing more than there smaller counter parts and suck gas while do it.

But its interesting that GM has held back numbers. Ill be truthful with ya, if that truck comes in being able to tow 11k or greater and they boost their MPG to something like 18-19city/25HWY, Ill have an order in before you do. But I just dont see it at this point.

And ford does sell more F150s then chevy and has for like 30 years, now GM at times when you combine chevy and gmc has beat ford, which is kind of a marketing gimic but I get your point. I think within the last year Ford out sold GM as whole by about 40,000 units.

Also from the pics that GM has put out there they have obviously put the LTZ out there. What scares me is what the LT1 and such might look like as sometimes the loaded option can look a lot different than the middle options. Which is another thing that I feel GM has lacked behind on, for years theyve had the LTZ, LT, and WT, where as dodge has laramie, power wagon, big horn, outdoorsmen, etc and ford has Xl, XLT, FX4, Laraiat, Platinum, harley, etc. But all manufactures for a period of time a few years ago were basically saying heres your options deal with it. And I hate option grouping that they all do to. I would prefer to pick my base model and add individual items but from a manufacturing stand point I can see the cost savings.

Like I said nobody is claiming in extreme heat and altitude NA will be the best choice. For the rest of the country I wouldn't discount it. Just as you say it's not about peak power. Factor in the weight of the truck and declaring the ecoboost the victor is too early. Sorta like the 6.7 having "more power" than the D-max but losing to it in every single type of comparison.

The towing will I think next year use a SAE standard so if everyone uses that it becomes a real comparable metric.

I agree with everyone the EB is an impressive implementation. What I don't agree on is that it is the end-all, as there are other ways to skin the cat. Combined with the durability question mark it'd be tough for me to throw my money at it, if buying a Ford (I wouldn't, forced to go non-GM it's a Ram) I'd still think I'd go V8 for now.

The numbers won't come out until closer to launch for a few reasons....they're still being tweaked to optimize and then the competition can't react already. Also, the 25 Hiway is for the V6 Ram only no?

I'm talking GM, not Chevy. Ford has way more variations of F series where as GM has two brands. Only for the past year or 2 has Ford sold more, and it took a big refresh and all new powertrains to beat old GM product.

Everyone is basing their comparisons on gen IV. That is lacking DI and the AFM is very conservative. These two variables will allow to add much more power and improve fuel economy through higher compression, etc.

No the ECO is not the be all or only way to skin a cat and I think its just scratching the surface on what can be done with that technology. But as far as durability were on the 3rd model year with yes a few issues but nothing that the Eco is being "known for" yet unlike the power stroke 6.0 or some other junk that has been out there. But in the end thats what a warranty is for. A turbo application on a gas engine is nothing new in concept and in the long run is a lot healthier on an engine than say a blower. I would have to imagine ford has limitations built into the computer to keep it from comsuming its self, they would be stupid not to as they have 5 years on every truck they kick out to fix if it breaks. I understand the skepticism as I was one and many ford owners were and still are. But if you follow the ford forums you should need the numbers switching sides, and sales figures show it. the last time I looked the eco was like 56% of sales with the 5.0 being 38% and the rest down the line. I mean there has to be some by in on the concept. And again think as a consumer some of us were looking at chevy like come on put something out it doesnt have to be a turbo, but put something out there. Yet again we will have to see the numbers. I wouldnt be surprised if chevy has a black cloth over a 3.0 turbo or 4.5 durmax that they are going to use that has long since been rumored.

You can keep hoping on the turbo and 4.5.......but I know very factually about one of those (and pretty well about the other) and like I said they aren't necessary technology as decided by the people that know the cost and efficiency of all options out there (including Ford/Ram current offerings).

All of this coulda/shoulda/woulda been out earlier to compete against Ford if not for a small cash flow issue in 2008, and fuel efficient cars were the priority.

However, I'd still contend that sales are not too crazy off considering how new everyone elses trucks are and how much incentives they have all ready. Paid off capital selling fewer vehicles at similar transaction prices may not be so bad a business decision to wait on.

Did anyone see the rear "bumper" pic in the Fox link?
Can we say "crumple zone"? That thing looks like it will cave if backed into a bush. The way it is molded into the bed means the bed gets creased as soon as the bumper folds 3/4 of an inch.
I see high insurance repair costs for a rear end collision (or just ooops I backed into something) in exchange for car like collision absorption.

The larger rear door on crew cabs looks interesting but I have not seen any interior numbers to determine if there is also more cab room. I feel GM already has the best rear seat room of a standard CC. The Tundra and Dodge Mega cabs have huge room but at the expense of full sized beds.
Interesting the Extended cab gets rear opening doors. Getting boxed in with both doors open in a parking lot is a big negative on most current models.