2013 Light Duty Challenge

N-Trouble wrote:

Taco wrote:

in 2013 the top gas half tons pulling 8500 went 0-40 in around 12 seconds. in 2010 in the heavyduty SHOOTOUT the ford 6.7 powerstroke and CTD went 0-40 in 16 seconds towing 10k lbs. So a half ton handles power wise 8500 better than a diesel handles 10k. I would even go so far as to say the half tons have a decent shot of beating the diesels with 10k giving how big of an advantage they showed with only 1500 less lbs.

Take that same load up a 7% grade, or into a 30MPH headwind and then ask yourself whether the gas or diesel is better suited power wise... Towing ability is not all about acceleration. I take it you've never driven a current 3/4 ton diesel otherwise you would have not have made such an outlandish statement.

OK, we get it, it's diesel or nothing...

Anyway, it would have been interesting to add an old 5.3 6-spd 3.73 to the mix so the GM guys know how much of an upgrade they are getting for the money.

N-Trouble wrote:


Take that same load up a 7% grade, or into a 30MPH headwind and then ask yourself whether the gas or diesel is better suited power wise... Towing ability is not all about acceleration. I take it you've never driven a current 3/4 ton diesel otherwise you would have not have made such an outlandish statement.

both of those times were on a 7.2% grade at gm's proving grounds

Taco wrote:

in 2013 the top gas half tons pulling 8500 went 0-40 in around 12 seconds. in 2010 in the heavyduty SHOOTOUT the ford 6.7 powerstroke and CTD went 0-40 in 16 seconds towing 10k lbs. So a half ton handles power wise 8500 better than a diesel handles 10k. I would even go so far as to say the half tons have a decent shot of beating the diesels with 10k giving how big of an advantage they showed with only 1500 less lbs.

Take that same load up a 7% grade, or into a 30MPH headwind and then ask yourself whether the gas or diesel is better suited power wise... Towing ability is not all about acceleration. I take it you've never driven a current 3/4 ton diesel otherwise you would have not have made such an outlandish statement.

manley wrote:
I'm sorry, but I'm not buying these results. There's just way too much inconsistency in my opinion. Here's just a couple of the problems that I have:

1. GMC & Chevrolet - the results are WAY too different.
2. The Ram in 1st place? With a 1,000 pound payload? Seriously?
3. Look at the new 5.3 specifications... and tell me that the loaded / towing numbers can POSSIBLY be correct.

X2, the numbers are suspect for me too.

I would still take the Ford even with the less desirable fuel economy. Hooking up a trailer and smashing the gas pedal to the floor to see how fast it will go is one thing. The simple fact that the Ecoboost makes it's max torque at 2500 rpms makes long drives much more enjoyable. Being able to set the cruise control at 60mph and climb hills towing 7000lbs+ without it constantly downshifting and having to rev up high just to maintain speed makes all the difference in the world to me. So i think i will stick with the quiet little V6 torque monster... :)

Dadoffourgirls wrote:

The GM twins appear to be superior to the Ecoburst in fuel economy - towing and non-towing. And for the less than 1 second, appears to pull as well. I guess they were telling the truth when they said they would have a truck with better fuel economy then the ecoboost.

I see marginally better fuel economy unloaded, better towing, but with much lower overall performance for the GM twins.

So that 8 speed really didn't help the Ram at all. Fuel economy still is bottom of the pack and it barely beat the Ford in acceleration.

manley wrote:
I'm sorry, but I'm not buying these results. There's just way too much inconsistency in my opinion. Here's just a couple of the problems that I have:

1. GMC & Chevrolet - the results are WAY too different.
2. The Ram in 1st place? With a 1,000 pound payload? Seriously?
3. Look at the new 5.3 specifications... and tell me that the loaded / towing numbers can POSSIBLY be correct.

So there are differences in the GMC and Cheverolet. They may have had different tires, that would make some of the difference.

Number 3 - what exactly are you saying can not be possibly correct? Fuel economy, acceleration, braking?

The GM twins appear to be superior to the Ecoburst in fuel economy - towing and non-towing. And for the less than 1 second, appears to pull as well. I guess they were telling the truth when they said they would have a truck with better fuel economy then the ecoboost.

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying these results. There's just way too much inconsistency in my opinion. Here's just a couple of the problems that I have:

1. GMC & Chevrolet - the results are WAY too different.
2. The Ram in 1st place? With a 1,000 pound payload? Seriously?
3. Look at the new 5.3 specifications... and tell me that the loaded / towing numbers can POSSIBLY be correct.

All this good stuff has me thinking F150 heavy duty payload with 3.5L Ecoboost to tow our 8500 lb 5th wheel and give quite a bit better fuel mileage on my work route as well. I can't wait to see what's next!