soldier4402

my last chevy I tapped a site marker at a state park going about 5mph, it crinkled the tail gate and left quarter to the tune of 3 grand. Now im not saying thats just chevy any other brand could have done that. And was more or less my dumb ace fault.

soldier4402

yeah the only problem with a diesel option is your probably talking a 5 grand up charge on it, which then turns that 1/2 ton in competition in price with the 3/4. Yeah Im sure 2008 did not help. It will be interesting to see what happens by the CAFE deadline in what comes out there, as I see most half tons are going to have to push close to 20mpg city in order to comply.

But I also see chevy pushing a 4.5 duramax in the half ton pushing 300 hp and 450-500 torque with 25mpg. Understand the capital but something like that could sweep the market, and bring back GM like the camaro did.

rlj676

I'm telling you I'd bet against that happening haha, you can read between the lines here as I can't just blatantly say anything. The gen V made that option obsolete....... one could assume.

ezstriper

what some are missing here are the engines in this new truck are totally new and only the size is the same..new 5.3, 6.2 are nothing like currant ones, direct injection, piston/head design, nothing but the oil is the same...so until real #'s are out we just don't know...but if you look up the new engine it's pretty interesting...I also believe the LS designed engines are about the best out there period ! I am racing a 6.0 from a truck with stock intake, exhaust manifolds, heads, etc, only pistons(forged lower compression) and cam was changed, with a single turbo on E85 making way north of 1000hp. also have seen the difference that direct injection and variable valve timing makes..so should be promising....I also have driven a few eco-boost trucks, very nice, what I did not like was the lack of power until you really got on it...just normal light throttle was crappy to me...my .02...did run great under boost, also can't imagine what longevity is going to be like towing where you are going to have to keep under boost conditions for long periods of time ???

Uncle Dave

I noticed there was a bit more lag in the 3:55 truck than in the 3:73 truck which had only a barely detectable amount and when under load there was zero detectable lag in either. I would imagine a 3:15 truck has quite noticeable lag.

It does seem that these engines are completely new and even though I have been really impressed with the EB's I towed with and have driven I will admit I'm partial to a larger displacement NA engine vs all the air pushing stuff- to a point.

OF course a manufacturer gets to claim they are offering a completely new engine that claim also resets any previous reliability reputation factor you could carry over and that pushes chevy years behind the ecoboost. (in reality everyone has their issues)

Im uncertain that If I were starting an engine design from scratch that a 2 valve cam in block design would be how I would begin, but I also like simplicity. Given these new engines are quite complex regardless I dont think what Im partial to will ever be available again, but I really want to see the GM do well here.

In my mind the 6.2 has a better chance of delivering better freeway mileage than the 5.3 simply because it has a better chance of staying in 4 cylinder mode more often while on the freeway. and if it can make 80% of a journey using 3.1l of displacement rather than 60% of a journey using 2.65 it may be the cruise control mileage champ of the 2 vehicles - then again maybe not though.

in terms of a truck engine you pick your poison-either can kill you-

1. Do you spent your life in some measure of boost?
2. Or do you spend your life running at high RPM?

As to which is easier on the internals in the long run its going to be interesting to watch and I can tell you the real winners are us consumers!

Battle on!

Uncle Dave

buck183

The Ford Supercrew has the GM beat hands down in the Rear seat room category when it comes to Crew Cabs. I own both, and the published numbers say it too.

Been a GM man most of my life. Right now Ford is way ahead of them in the half ton market when it comes to features, options, looks, and capabilities. Dodge/Ram has even passed GM in my book over the last year or two.

I work on these trucks every day of my life and get the opportunity to see what I consider actual build quality. GM needs to step up.

Buck

mpally

I couldn't agree more. We considered Ford, Dodge, and GM half tons. We ended up with a F150 and couldn't be happier with the truck. I also liked the Ram, but the dealers around here were very proud of their trucks in inventory. I never even made it to look at the GM trucks. They just seem to be the same trucks from a decade ago. They just don't impress me right now.

Knot 4 Me

After 30 years of GM ownership I went with Ford on my latest truck (2010 F-150 FX-4 Screw). Been a good truck so far at 36K miles but like any of them it has had its share of minor problems. One disturbing thing I discovered last week while making sure the dealer had properly fixed the notorious transmission bulkhead fitting leak is that the rockers are completely exposed to the elements due to several large square openings in the inner sheetmetal under the truck. Ford closes these openings off by using what appears to be squares of a tarpaper like material. As with anything mass produced, care was not taken applying the patches and therefore some were not centered and have exposed the openings and others have begun to peel away. Now nothing prevents dirt, water, and salt from entering into these holes and settling at the bottom of the rockers with no way to drain or be cleaned out. Hello rusted out rockers!!! Also, Ford uses no seam sealer on any of their sheetmetal joints. This is another haven for dirt/salt/moisture to accumulate and rust out the bottom of your doors and tailgate.

Quicksilver

I agree, there's something about the Ford trucks that just far excels the others. There's a solid feel/quality to them, kinda like the old Benz that felt like a bank vault... the new Ram is nice and drives smooth but it just feels soft and mushy too. GM forget, all our GM trucks felt flimsy/shoddy, whereas even on rogh roads the F-150 just feels plain solid. Was up in CO and friend had a new loaded 1500 crew and on the roads there it just creaked and groaned and bounced like hell (never liked GM's suspensions even on the HD trucks), same roads in a 10' F-150 and not a squeek or rattle, he ended up buying a new 5.0 F-150 and couldn't believe the difference in quality and feel when driving.

rlj676

That's an interesting take on the fuel economy of the 6.2 when cruising. However, as I'm guessing you know it doesn't take much hp at all to maintain speed so I'd think the 5.3 will be able to stay in AFM about as much as the 6.2 (way more than today). Given the DI the 4 cyl of the 5.3 then could very will have more than plenty of power, figure close to 200 and I think it takes around 25 hp to maintain 65 or 70 if I recall the fuel maps correctly.

I'm eager for the press release or for someone internal to give me the scoop on the real numbers.

On the running at high rpm, I think it won't be as "bad" as today due to the DI. For example the LT1 (new vette 6.2) makes a very similar torque curve (great low end) to the current LS7 with over 10% less displacement.