By on April 1, 2013

GM announced that prices of their new 1500-series trucks would remain flat, while the new 5.3L V8 is estimated to beat Ford’s F-150 Ecoboost in fuel economy and towing capacity.

Silverado and Sierra trucks with the 5.3L engine will apparently return 16/23 mpg city/highway in 2WD and 16/22 in 4WD configuration. The new trucks can also out-tow the Ecoboost F-150 by 200lbs (11,500 lbs versus 11,300 lbs for the Ford) while besting the 5.0L Ford trucks by a full 1,500 lbs.

Until EPA and real-world fuel economy figures are confirmed, we can only report on GM’s estimates. Also worth noting is that fuel economy ratings for the 4.3L V6 and the uprated 6.2L V8 were absent. Pricing for the Silverado will be flat, with the new model selling for the exact same base price as the 2013 versions – but without the very generous discounts that have been available for the last 16 months.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

113 Comments on “GM Pickups Get Fuel Economy Figures In 5.3L V8 Configuration...”


  • avatar
    ash78

    16/23 is really pretty impressive. For comparison’s sake, that’s barely worse than an average midsize AWD wagon (think Subie, Audi, Volvo). My wife’s Torsen-equipped Passat can’t top 24mpg on flat ground at 75mph without a stiff tailwind.

    I drive very little and fuel economy is lower on my list than capability, so oddly enough, for me a pickup as a daily driver/commuter vehicle sort of makes sense. Then you have all that extra capacity and space on weekends.

    Yeah, this sounds like the same crappy rationalization every “truck guy” has spouted for 20 years, but I’m coming from small-to-medium European cars.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      These trucks won’t be getting 23mpg at 75 mph even on flat ground. Try 60 mph.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        See my reply below: A relative with a LATE 2012 5.3L 4×4 Crew Cab gets 25/26ishmpg highway all day long at 75mph.

        • 0 avatar
          tresmonos

          You’re starting to sound like a troll. I can ‘game’ an ecoboost to get 26/27 mpg’s if I tail trucks / don’t break 65 mph. It’s not a sustainable economy and it just cherry picking what the ‘make me feel happy’ instant fuel economy meter indicates.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            Translation: “You are making a claim of personal knowledge about a Ford-competing product that does better than a Ford, so you must be a troll.”

            I’ll be sure to let him know that he is lying about the highway mpg he’s getting racking up the miles driving his high schooler son and his friends around to baseball, football & hockey practices/games.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            Yeah you do whatever non-value added action you claim to be threatening me with.

            And I’ll keep reading your biased ‘You Read It Here First’-’whistle blower’ posts because this site’s content keeps bringing me back.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            tres, I don’t recall making any threats or engaging in a single ad hominem attack on TTAC or any other forum I am a member of. It’s not my style, so I haven’t the foggiest notion of why you’re using that verbage.

            You sometimes appear to get angry when criticism of Ford surfaces without good cause.

            If you think someone is wrong in a specific criticism of Ford, why not just provide a counter-point, or if you feel that emotion is overriding objectivity, just ignore their comments.

            I don’t understand why people get wrapped up emotionally in things like auto brands.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            By the way, if anyone thinks I’m making baseless claims about the reliability issues affecting Ford ecoboost motors, including those used in the F Series, just do even the simplest search.

            The volume & seriousness of complaints regarding these motors, including on dedicated/loyal Ford owner forums, is astounding.

            If I’m not misrepresenting the size & severity of this problem, think about what the long term implications to Ford will be given the massive % of revenue and, especially, profits, that the F Series contributes to Ford’s bottom line.

            Just do a search on ecoboost F150 shutter or power loss to get a mere sample of what I’m referring to.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            This is why you are so frustrating, Deadweight: you are referencing google searches rather than statistics.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            It’s easy to get lost in the volume of complaints on a vehicle that sells half a million units a year.

            There are a few characteristics of the EB motors that some customers find unnerving, and there were some earlier production wastegate issues, but for the most part, reliability has been pretty good.

            Haters gonna hate.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            danio3834,
            Sensationalism over a vehicle with the best TGW/CPU roadmap in the company. Sure, it can be better, but that’s always the goal.

          • 0 avatar
            corntrollio

            Danio’s got this right — haters gonna hate. I haven’t taken him seriously since the heat soak = engine fires because of the “laws of thermodynamics” episode.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            conrntrollio, you’re possibly the only person I’ve encountered who denies heatsoak is an actual real world condition, and that fact alone always makes your further comments a must read for me.

          • 0 avatar
            corntrollio

            “the only person I’ve encountered who denies heatsoak is an actual real world condition”

            No, that’s absolutely a lie. I’ve never denied heat soak as an actual real world condition. In fact, I stated the true consequence of heat soak in the original thread where we discussed this:

            http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/12/lincoln-announces-name-change-nobody-cares/#comment-1975047

            HINT: The consequence is not engine fires as you’ve repeatedly and incorrectly suggested.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            corntrollio, my apologies; it was in fact another TTAC member who alleged to be an engineer with copious amounts of experience in thermodynamics who denied the existence of any such condition as heatstroke in another thread.

            I can’t remember his or her name, though.

            Contrary to your claim, I never stated engine compartment fires were the consequence of excessive heatsoak (although excessive heatsoak can certainly increase the potential for engine fires given another combustible catalyst).

            My concern with excessive heatsoak, which has been often associated with smaller displacement, forced induction motors, is that high temperatures contribute to premature wear and failure of many mechanical systems/parts.

            To be fair, various people assure me, without providing specifics, that unlike in past years, the new unobtanium alloys being used in the components most susceptible to heat-induced failure, along with the addition of robustly designed, and even often supplementary cooling systems, in the newest generation of vehicles being fiercely built to a price point, has rendered my concerns moot.

        • 0 avatar
          dieselone

          April Fools

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        I had a 2002 Avalanche that was rated 13/17 and I could get 20 MPG easily on the highway with cruise on at 70 MPH – all day long. That was with a 4-speed auto and aggressive rear end. Shoot in the worst of the worst bumper to bumper commuting of Puget Sound I was squeezing out 15 MPG – and that was truly 90% of driving in stop and go highway crawls (which is why I got rid of it in the first place)

      • 0 avatar

        “These trucks won’t be getting 23mpg at 75 mph even on flat ground. Try 60 mph.”

        My neighbor claims her daughter’s current-generation 5.3 4×4 Extended-Cab Silverado got 23 HWY on a recent interstate trip at speeds around 75MPH.

        Most notable is that this neighbor has driven Fords exclusively for decades. To hear anything positive about a Chevy from this family is remarkable.

    • 0 avatar
      powerblue

      The average all wheel drive wagon? What planet are you even on these days? My new 2013 Subaru Outback with AWD does 30 to 31 highway and 20 to 24 in the city.

  • avatar
    WRohrl

    We’ll see about the transaction pricing. Pickup stickers have the discounts figured in, i.e. the manufacturer will still make plenty of money after discount. No reasonably sane person would pay sticker price for a full size truck with their own money. And if they did, they certainly would not admit to it.

  • avatar
    billfrombuckhead

    Sure gets a lot better gas mileage the Toyota and Nissan trucks.

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      The Tundra is an absolute pig when it comes to fuel economy compared to any GM truck. A roller cam push rod V8 is a much better engine design for a truck than the overly complex double overhead came motor you find in a Tundra. Sure it pulls harder in the higher revs, but that is not what you need or want in a truck. I’m sure it would be great in a sports car though. Now open the hood and tell me what motor you would rather do maintenance on.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        I was curious about this, since my own use of a Sequoia and a bunch of American trucks didn’t reveal any pattern of one brand being notably worse than any others(okay, maybe Dodge). Looking at Fuelly.com, nobody else seems to be seeing evidence of your claim either. Some model years the Silverado 1500 is as much as an mpg better, others the Tundra is a fraction better.

        • 0 avatar
          ihatetrees

          Aren’t tires a big part of the fuel economy equations?!? Two truck guys I know discuss tires endlessly…

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            Tires are a big part of the equation. If you change tires sizes, you can also throw off your odometer in addition to changing gearing and adding rolling resistance. I don’t think that explains the difference between Carlson Fans’ claims and everyone on fuelly.com’s experiences though.

      • 0 avatar
        LectroByte

        Maintenance seems pretty simple on the Tundra’s I see in the shop… what specific problems are you thinking of? Now, changing those oil seals on GM products… yikes.

        • 0 avatar
          Carlson Fan

          I don’t think the guys in the 1/2 ton GM trucks are seeing the 12 MPG average like the Tundra drivers. Having owned 2 Toyota products I can tell you MPG was not their strong suit. My 1/2 ton Tahoe got better mileage towing my 23′ boat(5500 lbs) than my compact Toyota PU could ever muster towing my 16′ boat(less than 3000 lbs.)

          And what engine has oil seal problems? I’ve owned GM trucks with the 5.7 , 5.3, and 6.0 V8 gas engines. Never any issue with any of them. I have had 2 V6 Toyota’s in my garage and neither made a 100K without self destructing. The 3.0 in my PU snapped head bolts taking out the head gasket. The Highlander started using about 2 quarts of oil between gas fills with a little over 70K on it. 2 separate repairs totaling almost 3K and it was good as new. Oooooooh what a feeling!…LOL

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            I’m lucky to get 12mpg in my 5.7L Tundra, empty!

            Yeah, hi-speed driving on the highway has something to do with that but put a trailer with a full load of bricks or tiles behind my Tundra, and use it in high-country and we’re looking at 6mpg easy! Much of that going downhill.

            So that’s not why people CHOOSE to buy a pickup truck! People who buy trucks choose to do so because of the utility a truck brings to the game of life.

            It doesn’t matter if you put an Ecoboost, or a normally aspirated 6 under the hood, or even a fancy electronically managed 4/8 engine like the GM, you’re going to burn gas.

            I like the complex engine of the 5.7 Tundra. It’s a magnificent piece of engineering. And there is no lack of low-end torque because the Engine Management System disables two of the four valves at lower rpm, so it acts just like a old Chevy 350 did, except with fuel injection.

            If fuel efficiency is what a person is after, they should only rent a truck when they need one and buy an econobox instead.

          • 0 avatar
            jaje

            The way I see the Tundra – it’s built more as a quasi HD truck than your normal half ton is (as Toyota doesn’t have 3/4 or 1 ton variants). I do agree that mpg on the Tundra is not great – as I was able to only get at best 19 mpg average doing 65 mph on a 250 mile road trip. However it tows very nice and safe.

            My 1/2 ton 2wd Silvy with the 5.3 v8 with cylinder deactivation was only able to get at best 16 mpg (50/50 mix) and 20 mpg highway. Comparing it to the vehicle I replaced it with a 3.0 turbodiesel 4wd Jeep (which is as heavy but smaller) I get 20 mpg combined and 26 mpg highway.

            Dodge announced the 1/2 Ram will get a 3.0 diesel which should easily get low 30′s highway and mid 20′s city. The ’14 Grand Cherokee with the same engine gets same city mpg as the v8 hemi gets highway.

      • 0 avatar
        dieselone

        The gas mileage isn’t impressive with the Tundra, but you obviously have never driven or towed anything with one if you think the power is all at high rpm. That simply isn’t true. I’ve driven and towed with a 5.7 Tundra and the power blows away any pushrod GM motor I’ve sampled. Just look at the torque output. 401 ft-lbs @3600 rpm is impressive and the torque peaks at a lower rpm than any recent push-rod v8 from GM or Ram. Plus the gas mileage of the Toyota should be compared to the 6.2 in a GM truck as the power is more comparable.

        I wouldn’t buy a Tundra for a variety of reason, but the powertrain is simply awesome. IMO, it blows away the 5.3 I had in a Suburban and the 5.4 I currently have in an Expedition. Heck, even the new Ecotec 5.3 isn’t going to match the power or torque delivery Toyota’s 5.7 which is a 6 year old design.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        My DOHC 32v V8 – pretty easy to work on, plug change in 30 minutes, oil change in 10 or 15 (I like to stop draining the oil at slow drip), air filter in a minute or two. Water pump is right out in front easily accessible, thermostat is right out in front and up top in its own housing making it especially accessible. About the only pain in arse feature is the cam drives (cylinderheads are just as easy to change, cams only slightly more of an issue mostly due to the followers, pistons – rods – oil pump are essentialy the same as the Chevy).

        Also multivalve engines with multiple cams being peaky rev to the moon engines is a bit of a misnomer. Multivalve engines tend to offer better low and mid lift airflow with no real advantage in peak airflow (e.g. GM’s LS7 and the Ford GT cylinder head both flow about the same at peak lift).

        The problem with early multivalve engines were improperly sized intake and exhaust ports with combustion chambers that lacked the necessary features to excite the cylinder charge which like an old school hemi or Boss 302 or 4 bbl 351 Cleveland meant you had to rev the piss out of them in order for the to perform.

        The Toyota engine most likely gets its “top end charge” due to variable valve timing which also helps in the low end grunt department. However as I like to point out to my 5.0 buddies who think five liters, short runner intakes and infinite amount of RPM are the solution to everything.

        GM’s engines use good ol’ “no replacement for displacement” and if that displacement advantage gives them more average power (most people like to call it torque) down low in the rev range then its going to feel like the engine has more grunt. Cube for cube though a properly configured multivalve engine will outshine a two valve engine almost every time.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          My understanding from old articles published prior to 2007 is that Toyota basically reverse-engineered the Chevy 348/350, improved upon it by slapping on Lexus LS 32-valve heads, and casting the works in Aluminum to reduce weight and improve handling.

          Toyota also reverse-engineered all the best features from Ford and Dodge, improved on each and incorporated all that improved stuff into the 2007 Tundra.

          The 2007 Tundra was truly revolutionary in its day and forced Ford, GM and Dodge to “suck it up and deal with it”. The beneficiaries were the buyers.

          It’s safe to say, Toyota hasn’t done much to improve on the current Tundra and rumor has it that the 2014 Tundra will only be offered with the 4.6 and the 8-speed automatic out of the Lexus LS. More CAFE, EPA and DOT mandates, no doubt, levied on the popular half-ton class.

          Buying heavier frames for a 3/4-ton or 1-ton version of the Tundra would not be cost-effective since Toyota doesn’t sell enough Tundra trucks to make it pay off for them.

          I see both the Tundra and Titan as being offered as alternatives to discerning buyers in a market where Ford dominates, GM runs a distant second with an outdated line of trucks and Dodge/RAM is an also-ran dedicated to Chrysler fans and aficionados.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            “Buying heavier frames for a 3/4-ton or 1-ton version of the Tundra would not be cost-effective since Toyota doesn’t sell enough Tundra trucks to make it pay off for them.”

            Toyota’s major Commercial vehicle section is Hino outside NA. They do not make 3/4 ton or 1 ton Pickups.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Yeah, I could have been more clear. I should have written:

            Buying heavier frames for a 3/4-ton or 1-ton version of the Tundra to compete with those from Ford, GM or Dodge/RAM in North America, would not be cost-effective since Toyota doesn’t sell enough Tundra trucks in total to make it pay off for them.

            I was pressed for time, killing time waiting for someone when the opportunity arose to make that initial comment.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    If 22mpg is achievable in the real world, I am impressed. I don’t expect to get that at a 80 mph blast across the interstate, but if I can get it at 60 or 65 mph…

    • 0 avatar
      TEXN3

      It may not be too far off. I’ve had countless Sierra and F150 XLTs (V8 and 4WD models), I’ve usually averaged 21-23mpg on western US interstates doing 70-80mph cruises with varying terrain and varying wind speed/direction. Slightly worse than the 2007 Outback MT I recently sold. Really not bad though, considering the size and shape of the trucks.

  • avatar
    mcarr

    My 2009 Silverado 5.3 4×4 would get 21 mpg at 65 mph, so color me not impressed with the claimed 1 mpg gain… Unless the real world numbers are better.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    A relative just bought a “something” special edition Chevy 1500 4×4 Crew Cab to replace the 4 door SEDAN they used to have. It was fairly loaded and less than a similar truck would have cost 5 years ago (I think he paid around 25k for it with an MSRP in the low 30s).

    As much as I personally dislike the way trucks, SUVs/CUVs and vans drive, due to their high COG relative to cars (this is especially true given that I’m a big fan of sharp handling, rwd sports cars), I must admit that the truck has a ride that’s better and an interior that more quiet than most sedans, it gets pretty impressive fuel economy for such a large vehicle (especially on the highway), and has a feeling of solidity to it that few cars can match over stretches of crumbling roads.

    Also, the bad news keeps piling up for Ford. In addition to the now common knowledge that their ecoboost engines not only don’t achieve better fuel economy than larger non-aspirated ones (whether in their pickup trucks or cars), Consumer Reports 2013 Auto Buying Edition arrived two days ago, placing Ford at near the bottom of all manufacturers on its composite score index.

    What’s worse is that Ford dropped to that lowly position not based on its OLD MODELS, but what Consumer Reports referred to as the reliability-plagued, European-based new models (i.e. Focus, Escape, Fusion) recently unveiled, which have large enough and common enough problems with core components such as motors and transmissions to earn solid black circles (the CR circle of doom).

    Regardless as to how much any particular person pays attention to Consumer Reports when selecting possible vehicles to buy, the collective market says that it’s one of the most influential sources of information out there (ask Honda), and Ford has problems on its hands.

    GM may have made a very wise decision to refine older, more proven technology when it comes to pickup trucks that see double duty as workhorses and family haulers, than try and reinvent the wheel.

    • 0 avatar
      TEXN3

      I like the current/previous GM trucks…I’ve heard of folks with internal oil leaking but not sure if that is widespread. I’d almost get the 6.0l as it’s got some awesome power.

    • 0 avatar
      CoastieLenn

      No domestic manufacturer has ever done particularly well in CR studies. They’ve always held Honda and Toyota on a virtually untouchable platform.

      Its no surprize then that the vast majority of auto-savvy people use CR to loosely base thier potential appliance purchases (ie: dishwashers and coffee makers) and not much more.

      This is not new news.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Many domestic vehicles do very well by Consumer Reports ratings.

        The Chrysler 300 is the second highest rated large car, ahead of many Japanese makes, and both the Chevrolet/GMC pickups and the Dodge Ram rate well, also, as just a few examples.

        Were you aware that the Chevrolet Avalanche was the highest rated truck that Consumer Reports ever reviewed, also?

        Ford has literally fallen to the bottom of the rung in terms of reliability with the new Focus, Escape and Edge (the only worse vehicles in terms of reliability are Range Rover and Jaguar), while the verdict is still pending on the new Fusion (which CR remarked had among the worst fit and finish of any new car it has reviewed in the last decade).

        I’ve made a prediction that the ecoboost V6s that Ford is using in its F series will be one of the biggest mistakes any manufacturer has made in many, many years, since consumers will not only NOT achieve better real world fuel economy than with the V8, but they’ll have less towing capacity all things being equal, shorter longevity and experience worse reliability.

        • 0 avatar
          jim brewer

          Well, the expected take rate for the Ecoboost option was 15% and the actual was 40%. Its holding up so far. Ford sells a 7yr 100K warranty for the trucks for around $800. So the company is certainly taking a stand, your worries notwithstanding.

          Personally I don’t think the Ecoboost should be a particular worry for the typical Ford owner. The transmission will usually blow up first.

          Mileage seems variable in the Eco-boost. No doubt the engine invites hot-rodding, but there seems to be unit by unit variability as well.

          Personally, if I had a big trailer to haul I would get a three quarter ton truck, instead of attempting that kind of compromise. the 5.0 L Coyote is a fine motor, likely to offer excellent service.

        • 0 avatar
          Firestorm 500

          I’m with you on the EcoBoost. I believe in the future they will be hard to get rid of as used vehicles. I’m not a fan of trendy engines.

          Let’s talk about the Oldsmobile 350 diesels and the V8-6-4 Cadillacs of the eighties.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Olds Diesel was a monumental mistake no doubt, a deadly sin as it were, but in the defense of the Cadillac 368 (aka V4-6-8) from what I have read and seen when you ripped off the Atari fuel injection and replaced it with a carb, it ran quite well.

            Now if you want to talk epic disaster, lets talk HT4100…

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            In a few years time, many may just be admitted that GM was smart to keep refining their pushrod motors offered in vehicles like their critically important pickup trucks, since they’ve pushed reliability and fuel economy with such an “old” technology further than most predicted could be done.

            Conservative moves often trump bold ones, when so much is riding on such an important revenue and profit center, and pickup truck buyers (especially the kind that use their trucks for work) seem to be among the most loyal buyers out there, yet the least forgiving of reliability woes.

            For all the criticism I throw GM’s way, and deservedly so, I’m not going to deny that their pushrod V8s and V6s (with a few notable exceptions) are quite reliable motors that now prove they can match many competitors’ overhead cam “modern” motors in terms of power, refinement and even fuel economy.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          I want to correct my statement about the Chrysler 300 above.

          Consumer Reports DOES NOT rate it as their second best “large car” in their recently published 2013 Annual Automotive Buying Guide–

          – Consumer Reports actually rates it as their top pick (aka numero uno) in the “large car” category, and it even earns their much sought after “recommended” seal of approval, since it has at least average reliability or better.

      • 0 avatar
        KixStart

        CoastieLenn: “No domestic manufacturer has ever done particularly well in CR studies. They’ve always held Honda and Toyota on a virtually untouchable platform.”

        An attitude shared by many Honda and Toyota owners. Strange how that works out.

    • 0 avatar
      tresmonos

      WTF are you talking about? Are you saying GM made a wise deicision to pump their development budget into Volt / Cadillac while spreading their new model development thin accross aging platforms / platforms dedicated to fleet?

      Since when does that strategy pay off?

      Apples to Oranges, yadda yadda yadda, and your comparisson keeps highlighting your bias. Nothing new here.

      You’ve made your point in the past, but man this post is a damned stretch. Sure, turbos=bad… 1.6L=bad… euro quality = bad. All that is believable and can be backed up with relatively weak statistics. But to say that GM is making wise product planning decisions and this somehow relating to quality issues (that I have tried to shed some light on in the past) is down right smoking dope.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        I will tell you what: In no more than one year TTAC will be running regular, routine articles on the by then well-established clusterf*ck of a decision to “ecoboost” the F series.

        Ford just couldn’t resist taking a huge risk with the biggest source of revenue it knows, for no real benefit, and with many potential (to materialize) downside risks.

        • 0 avatar
          tresmonos

          So you’re saying that by 4/1/2014, we’ll be reading that DV/PV testing doesn’t matter and that cars well within warranty will be failing?

          Where are the grenading SHO’s from 2010?

          April fools! You got me. I knew you were kidding!

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            It’s no fooling to state that Ford’s claims of the benefits of reducing displacement and “ecoboosting” motors in the Focus, Escape and Fusion has already led to many recalls, engine bay fires, black circles of un-reliability and worse than advertised fuel economy.

            What do you base your optimism on that things will work out any better for the ecoboosted F series?

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            Fires = cooling algorithm. Fuel economy can be achieved the same way your relative ‘who must be lying’ achieves their economy. Unreliability can be stemmed to 1 plant’s teething issues. Divide up your data and tell me which ecoboosted motor is a problem child.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            Better yet, why don’t you provide your highly specific, inherently reliable data which proves the non-anecdotal claims Consumer Reports is currently making about Ford ecoboost reliability & fuel economy issues incorrect?

            I’m confident I’m not the only one that would be interested in this.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            And get my ass fired? Nuh-uh. You meet me for a beer somewhere and we’ll talk shop. Until then, think whatever you want. I’m over this.

        • 0 avatar
          tresmonos

          ‘and for no real benefit.’

          Damn. Got me again. I guess the 3-5 mpg improvement per tank of gas I get when I check one of these ecoboosted P415′s out for 3 days is just my imagination. Where is your data?

          I need to learn how to ignore your posts from here out.

          Edit: I see you’re continually watering down your tone. Nice.

          • 0 avatar
            Kinosh

            No need for personal attacks. If I wanted that, I’d swing by Autoblog.

            Most of the F150s out there are doing commuting/light duty work. I don’t expect to see a warranty spike out of them.

            If I got my truck and used 90% of it’s towing capability regularly, I’d have to think long and hard about adding a turbocharger to it.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            Kinosh,
            I don’t see a perosnal attack and even if I did, I’m one more troll away from requesting to get my IP blocked from this site, so you won’t have to worry about it.

    • 0 avatar
      TW4

      I tend to agree with you, deadweight, though I wonder if any of the buyers will actually notice their folly. To be sure, the man who traded his V8 work truck for a V6 Ecoboost will likely regret his decision as the vehicle ages, but how many working men made that decision? Few, imo.

      The pickup truck commuting army will see the value of their trade-in plummet, as the poor reliability ratings become well-known in the second hand market, but the dealerships are more likely to cover ass by blaming the 4-digit-trade-in-value on excess supply or a different another deceit, not the terrible reliability and lack of powertrain longevity.

      As you say, trucks feel very substantial and relatively well made, but the saddest part is that similar products cannot be found in the overwrought domestic full-size sedan market. If a manufacturers is bold enough to offer V8 power in a full-size sedan, they like to charge $40,000-$50,000.

      CAFE is certainly causing this mess. If a manufacturer were to give a pickup truck sedan-like ride height, then replace the bed with a trunk sill, that manufacturer would have to double the EPA fuel economy. People continue to buy substantial vehicles with unnecessarily poor fuel economy b/c the government is limiting their choices with the current footprint legislation, imo.

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      I think the Fusion’s relatively poor reviews are taking their toll. Despite more discounting by Ford , the Fusion has fallen far behind the Accord.

      I believe the Accord sold 36k vs 30k for the Fusion in March. Accord up 36%, FUSION, 6%.

      And despite massive discounting, sales Camry and Altima both fell 12 and 8%, but remain slightly ahead overall, with Altima as #1.

      The Accord won retail sales.

    • 0 avatar
      corntrollio

      Of course, Consumer Reports also put the Audi A6 at the top for luxury sedans, but you wouldn’t think so if you listen to the biased against Germans peanut gallery at TTAC.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Now that you mention it, Audi overall has been the biggest gainer on a relative AND absolute basis in terms of reliability of new models, across their entire product spectrum, as reported by Consumer Reports reliability ratings.

        This is something of a puzzle to me, since a CR has not reported a similar move for Volkswagen (which has improved in reliability, but not on a basis remotely close to Audi), which uses many of the same core components as Audi.

        Maybe this divergence has to do with sample size, or maybe there really is something “there” there.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    The European sourced Fords have similar problems in Australia. The Local Falcon and Territory No.

  • avatar
    eggsalad

    At what point did 23mpg highway become an acceptable number? Thirty years ago, a V-8, automatic Chevy C-10 got 18mpg highway. Is that all we can muster, a 28% increase in fuel economy in 30 years? Big whoop.

    On top of that, in 1984 the only people who drove pickup trucks were people that needed to, in order to make a living. Now, people “need” a pickup truck to go to Home Depot or to haul the boat to the lake on Sunday.

    I think it’s disgusting that in a world that offers several dozen ways to get 40mpg highway, people are choosing to celebrate 23mpg.

    • 0 avatar
      tikki50

      a truck is a truck, you dont just get better mpg with small tweaks to these things and keep the price affordable. By nature they are not airflow frendly, they are big hunks of moving steel walls for under 25K. Shy of slamming a diesel in them, this isn’t bad news because truck owners need a hell of a lot more than just MPG. I will always own a truck, I love them and will deal with the gas consumption. If people are so concerned about MPG and towing, then get a diesel and shut up. The real question is when are these manufacturers going to accept the 1500/f150 families would like diesels too! Obviously they chassis can handle the weights for towing.

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      At what point did acceptability in the eyes of “eggsalad” become the benchmark?

      Just saying.

      • 0 avatar
        eggsalad

        Well, yes. It’s purely my opinion that 23mpg is unacceptable in a vehicle used primarily for commuting.

        I thought comments were an acceptable place for opinion. Sorry.

        • 0 avatar
          86SN2001

          I drive a crew cab pickup and 99% of the time, it’s only hauling my skinny butt around. I drive 50 miles each day to work and average around 16 MPG.

          And there isn’t a thing wrong with that.

          Why do I have a truck? Because in my short summer season, I like to go boating. So I need something to tow my boat.

          And it’s CHEAPER for me to just drive my truck than to buy/insure/maintain/register/repair/fuel another car.

          I had another car…I bought it for $550. I put some money into it, but between tabs, insurance, and fuel, I wasn’t really saving anything over just driving my truck.

          Your disdain for a full size truck that weights over 5K pounds and still manages to get 23MPG with the ability to tow 11,500 pounds is severely misguided. This is an astounding accomplishment.

          Equally juvenile is your argument comparing a 30-40 year old C-10 to a modern day truck. Completely disregarding modern safety improvements, capability numbers, size, etc.

          You clearly don’t get it.

    • 0 avatar
      AJ

      Egghead, I’m surprised you even admit to owning a car. Get a bike and save the earth, man!

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      “Only” a 28% improvement? In an industry where companies spend billions to find 2-3%, “only” 28% is pretty incredible. Especially when you consider how much the capability and feature content has increased.

      Darned ungratefuls.

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      You have to remember that the mileage of the 1984 Chevrolet C-10 was measured under the EPA’s old, optimistic rating system.

      The EPA mileage of the new pickup is more likely to reflect the mileage that drivers are recording in the real world. The improvement in mileage between the 1984 model and the new one is therefore actually more impressive than the figure you quoted would indicate. The new model also emits virtually no tailpipe pollution compared to the 1984 model.

      Also note that the 1984 C-10 had no airbags and was considered well-equipped it if had an automatic transmission, power steering, power brakes and AM-FM stereo. Today’s pickups have more luxury equipment than a 1980s Cadillac. The air bags and other safety features in new trucks (and every other vehicle) are why the death rate per 100 million miles traveled is much lower today than it was in 1984.

      And, yes, there are several vehicles that offer 40 mpg on the highway. People spending their own money, however, place more importance on comfort, safety and better performance. For example, we’ve abandoned the laughably low 55 mph national speed limit in effect during 1984. We also have no desire to drive a buzzbox that can barely make it up a hill when the air conditioning is running.

    • 0 avatar
      corntrollio

      FWIW, 5 mpg improvement is a far bigger accomplishment for a low MPG car than it is for a high MPG car. People have “romance explosions” when they see a Prius’s EPA numbers of 50 mpg (2 gallons/100 miles), even though it’s not that much more impressive than 45 mpg (2.2 gal/100 mi).

      Going from 5.6 gal/100 mi (18) to 4.3 gal/100 mi (23) on a vehicle that gets larger, heavier, safer, and more cartoonish with higher horsepower and torque and greater refinement as time goes on is probably not as unimpressive as you’re making it out to be.

      Also, are those numbers apples to apples re: the EPA adjustment?

  • avatar
    deanst

    the more interesting question is whether GM will be able to beat Dodge’s V6 highway MPG with the 8 speed (25mpg)

    Also interesting that GM’s new V8 couldn’t match the HP of Ford’s old V8. (much less matching the HP or torque of the ecoboost)

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    To the guys complaining about fuel economy. If someone can afford to drive it who cares.

    On the other hand, I would love to see more economical full size pickups. But this isn’t the case yet. In 2016 you will see changes, but costs will jump.

    Fiat/Ram and Nissan are the only 2 so far that have stated they will drop diesels into full size trucks down the track.

    I have heard that GM was developing the 2.8 Colorado diesel to fit into the Caddy CTS with significant gains in power and torque. I would like to see this engine in the Silverado.

    The VM V6 in the Fiat/Ram is a nice engine as we have had them here for a while in the Grand Cherokees.

    The interesting one is Nissan with the Titan. Nissan has partnered with Cummins and are dropping the 2.8 ISF 4 cylinder in the Titan. Ths engine in a full size is expected to achieve 30mpg on the highway.

    The Cummins will not require Add Blue either as Cummins have developed a way to reduce combustion temperatures, which will reduce NOx levels.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    I may be alone in this, but even with my attraction to gm products I’m concerned in the longevity of the cylinder deactivation technology, that’s a pretty vital vehicle component with a seemingly half brained idea attached to. And in my experience it doesn’t even function how you would expect I can be setting in a sparking lot idling and it stays in v8 mode for w/e reason.

    Seems like a good reason to skip the 5.3 as a whole and turn to a more reliable 6.0 etc

    • 0 avatar
      Truckducken

      Hummer, what’s your cylinder deactivation concern? Various makers have been doing this successfully for several years now. I am old enough to recall the uselessness of the Caddy 4-6-8, but modern systems are digital rather than mechanical, and evidently not prone to failure. Note also that many modern FI systems cut off fuel when decelerating – that’s a lot like deactivating all cylinders!

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        True, I’ve heard of those marvels, I guess it’s just my lack of trust in computers, I’d much rather have a manual connection and be able to decide on my own what needs to take place, but I guess time will tell, being able to rebuild a regular 5.3 is pie, this I’ve never messed around with

      • 0 avatar
        CobraJet

        The modern de-activation systems are computer controlled, but there is a mechanical component. I have the 3.9 in my 07 Impala. The system kills 3 fuel injectors when cruising, but it also keeps the the valve (or valves)closed on three cylinders. This is done, as I understand it, by oil pressure latching the hydraulic lifters in a collapsed position, then releasing them when more power is needed. Every 10 minutes of a steady cruise, it also releases the lifters and starts fuel and fire for a few revolutions to burn off any oil that has gotten past the rings. All in all a very compicated set of actions taking place within the engine and constantly changing as you drive. So far at 90,000 miles no problems. But I dread the thought of having to tear down the engine to replace lifters at some point.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      There’s really nothing to be concerned about with the longevity of the cylinder deactivation system itself. The modern Hemi has been using it since a year or 2 after introduction and there are very very few failures attributed to it.

      It’s a very simple system, similar to the GM setup, that works just like CobraJet describes, collapsible lifters on the deactivativatable cylinders that keep the valves closed.

      The only long term negative effects has been extra oil consumption in some highway/light duty driven vehicles due to stuck carboned up piston rings on the shutoff cylinders due to cooler temperatures.

      This can be prevented by periodically giving the enigine the Northstar treatment and run it out to peak RPM through a few gears. Sometimes the carbon can be dislodged by running the car up to speed, then downshifting and performing a coast down in gear if needed.

  • avatar
    Lichtronamo

    Since the new F-150 is due next year GM pretty much gave Ford it’s EPA target.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      And add another “bold move” to Ford’s “messing with” the F Series, where they’re going to attempt to remove 700 lbs of weight through the use of aluminum in lieu of steel.

      While I’m pessimistic regarding the long-term reliability & durability of Ford’s ecoboosted V6s in the F Series, adding as much aluminum as Ford is about to do in order to further press fuel economy (which is not only an understandable goal, but increasingly a necessary, government mandated one) may not be unwise, but it, too, is not without inherent risks.

      Not only will it add quite a bit of expense, but I’m really not confident that the use of aluminum body panels, hoods, and other sections is going to hold up as well as traditional steel alloy will for the types of uses the F Series is expected to carry out.

      I’m not that knowledgeable about the durability of aluminum vs steel, however, so someone with more knowledge is more than welcome to address this issue.

  • avatar
    ToxicSludge

    my 2011 Chevy 4×4 Z71 rcsb,with cat-back duals,and a volant cai on cruise control at 65mph gets 22 1/2 to 23 mpg and that is it.I can’t tell you what the mpg would be at 70+mph,I never drive that fast.Oh yeah,3:42 gears.

  • avatar
    86SN2001

    And with that, GM makes Ford’s fairy tale Egoboost pipe dream even more irrelevant.

    Riddled with problems, amazingly disappointing fuel economy for a V6, terribly expensive to buy/maintain/repair, yep, must be a Ford engine.

    Funny though, Ford didn’t need GM to prove that Egoboost is a joke, their disappointing 5.0 already does that by returning better real-world economy than the egoboost V6.

    Only an incompetent company like Ford could make a brand new V6 that drinks fuel WORSE than a V8, and a hybrid that misses it’s fuel economy numbers by 10MPG, or an astounding 27% less.

    Bold moves indeed.

    • 0 avatar

      You lost me at incompetent though.

    • 0 avatar
      AFX

      “Only an incompetent company like Ford could make a brand new V6 that drinks fuel WORSE than a V8, and a hybrid that misses it’s fuel economy numbers by 10MPG, or an astounding 27% less.”

      It’s only going to get worse since the former head of Boeing is in charge now. I heard for 2015 they’re planning on adding a Fiesta engine to their trucks, and bolting it into the bed behind the cab. It’ll be used as an APU to power the sat/nav system, stereo system, power seats, and power windows. The good thing is you’ll be able to park your truck at the mall and your kids will be abble to watch their SpongeBob cartoons on the DVD player without killing the battery.

      Another innovation I heard they’re bringing from the aircraft industry is the use of more aluminum in their trucks to make them weigh less and get better gas mileage. That’s really not a new innovation at all, the rednecks have been doing that for years. In fact I see old Fords out on the road all the time with aluminum added to the cabs or beds, mostly in the form of old street signs or license plates used to cover up the rust holes. The real serious hard-core rednecks will go to Lowes and use a roll of roof flashing to add even more lightness to their trucks.

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      Hey I’m a GM guy too but I think you got it wrong with the ECO boost. Ford makes a great truck. It’s just their exterior and interior styling that I don’t care for.

      I think the big advantage of the ECO boost is that it will run circles around the current 5.3 GM motor while towing but still offer similar to better fuel economy when not loaded. Probably a big difference in a 2WD standard cab truck(light) but not as much in a 4WD crew cab(heavy).

      Leave Ford alone. If want a good laugh check out the frame rails on a Tundra at the rear next time your parked next to one. I had to after following one down some rutted icy and snowy roads in St. Paul one night. I backed away because I thought the poor guys tail gate was going to come flying off at any minute and trash the front of my GMC. I’ve never in my life seen a pick-up bend and twist the way that thing did. Truly scary.

      • 0 avatar
        86SN2001

        Oh, I didn’t get anything wrong.

        The deal with Egoboost and not living up to fuel economy numbers is that Ford tested the egoboost with the tallest gear they offer…a 3.15 gear (egoboost exclusive). Selecting that gear will get you somewhat close to that fuel economy (in 2WD form) but severely lowers your capability numbers.

        Selecting a lower gear will get you the capability numbers, and a much higher fuel bill to go along with it..

        It’s false advertising when Ford says they have a truck that will get 23MPG and tow 11,300 pounds

        Ecoboost is a highly complicated V6 that gets V8 mileage. It’s a farce, a joke.

        • 0 avatar
          azmtbkr81

          Whoa, did Allen Mulally piss in your Cheerios this morning?

          I agree that the Ecoboost was over-hyped at the onset but the numbers are still very impressive. I applaud Ford for taking a chance during a time when most auto manufacturers are too scared of their own shadows to try something new. Someone has to lead the way and the Ecoboost ,despite its flaws, obviously got the attention of GM and Fiat.

          I’d still buy the V8 if I were in the market today but that might not be the case a few years from now once the engine is its second generation.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I think if Ford drops the V8 in its F150 they’d might as well surrender to the competition. The only way I’d see this work and they not lose their shirts is if dot gov creates an edict stating no V8s in a half ton of any make, or something to this effect. Given the current state of the regime I’d say its unlikely but possible.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            28, they’d lose a LOT of loyal, longtime F Series buyers, and they know it.

            Which makes it all the more puzzling IF Ford Dealers are stocking V6 ecoboost F150s (with lots of options) as a high % of their total inventory, as is being reported all over the place, including on Blue Oval Forums and F150forum.

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            EcoBoost plus lots of options is the Office Worker Edition. I can see where Ford might easily sell a lot of those.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            @DW:
            it’s not puzzling when you read jim brewer’s reply to your post above.

            The demand is there.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @DW

            Perhaps the higher percentage is intended to attract new buyers (i.e. former sedan/wagon drivers) to the model as oppose to your traditional truck buyer.

        • 0 avatar
          tresmonos

          86SN2001:
          The tallest gears (and smaller rims, mind you – that also plays a major role in the EPA rating) will still tow your Ski Natique just fine.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            @Tres, don’t even bother. His irrational hate of Ford products defies all logic.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            Just giving him some insight on the EPA rating. I agree that the Ecoboost (and all other truck EPA ratings) are pure bullshit. OEM’s should correlate the numbers to take rates (I also think CAFE should go off and die, I’m just a supporter of clarity to the customer).

          • 0 avatar
            86SN2001

            Yeah, until the POS breaks down. And if I’m at all concerned with feel economy, I will NOT tow with the Egoboost. I’ll get better mileage with a 5.0.

            Egoboost is nothing more than a marketing scam. Anyone that buys it because of fuel economy is a complete mindless sheep.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            What POS, the Ski Natique? I thought those were fitted with the venerable Windsor V8?

            Out of experience, the numbers are achievable if you get the correct options. Best of luck finding the options in the dealer lots. I’d got into more personal accounts of what I’ve witnessed for fuel economy, but I know you’re not interested.

  • avatar
    RS

    Where’s the MPG ratings on the other motors?? Will the 4.3L get 25-26 mpgs?

    If GM ever installs their planned 8sp tranny behind the 5.3L, what will that MPG be? Another 2-3 mpgs?

    Overall, I’m really liking the MPG wars in the truck market.

  • avatar
    AFX

    What’s really sad is that the Bugatti Veyron has that big engine with turbos, 1,000hp, AWD, and I don’t even think it has a rated towing capacity. What’s the point in all of that horsepower and AWD if you can’t tow your boat, camper, or jetskis with it ?. Not only that, it only gets 8mpg city /15mpg highway !. Does Michelin or anybody else even make studded snow tires for that thing, or is the AWD capability just a waste too ?.

    Now with these new trucks coming out I could see some improvements in highway MPG’s through the use of aerodynamic enhancements like full length skid plates that would double as a aero belly pan. Maybe ditch the fancy aliminum wheels for some steelies with Moon discs too. If a guy was really clever he’d eye up the ground clearance on those trucks and realise you could fit some really big-assed ground effects venturis underneath those things too. Maybe build some deep side skirts into the running boards that automatically lower at highway speeds. With the venturis you could fit under a truck you could probably use it for a street sweeper at 65mph, and pull manhole covers out of the pavement.

  • avatar
    troyohchatter

    On Autoline Detroit a while back the head truck man from Dodge/Ram stated that they already had engineering efforts in play with their 5.9L V8 that would match the Ecoboost empty and in towing would beat it by a considerable margin. Trade in all of the mumbo turbo jumbo for displacement and get the same or better MPG in the process? If this comes to pass, I will lay money the truck based Ecoboost will be a memory within 5 years. I say this because the cost to manufacture the Ecoboost vs a conventional V8 along with the long term maintenance consideration doesn’t make it a viable option if performance is equal.

  • avatar
    Nick

    I am curious as to why they keep the old 4.3 V6 around. Fleet sales?


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India