Forum Discussion
- We've been very satisfied with our Tundra but it's not surprising the Tundra finished down the list. It's a 7 year old platform and has grown long in the tooth. The big 3 trucks are basically a generation ahead of the 5.7 Tundra. Interested to see what 2014 will bring.
ib516 wrote:
I wonder what would have happened if they wouldn't have "power braked" before all of the acceleration tests (which to me seems like a blatant way to show favor the EcoBoost). Power braking before starting to move is unlikely to happen in the real world - something the tests are supposed to simulate, and would do nothing to help the non-turbo competitors. As I have a turbo-charged vehicle as my daily driver, I'm going to say not power braking the trucks would have seriously lengthened (due to turbo lag) the acceleration numbers for the EcoBoost F150. Thumbs down.
I don't think it would have made much difference. The turbos on the Ecoboost are small and really only made to service an under 2.0 Liter engine. They are designed to spool fast and are heavily managed by the ECU.
In the car application of the 3.5 Ecoboost it has been found to not really matter if you brake-torque it or not.
Edmunds SHO Comparison
"The SHO didn't respond (good or bad) to brake-torque, so best launch was at 2,000 rpm."
My guess is the stall speed of the Ecoboost Torque converters is set so that it is close to when boost is starting and that's why brake torquing has no effect.
Bottom line is the EB has the advantages of Diesel (flat torque and lots of it) with few of the drawbacks (service cost, expense, weight).FishOnOne wrote:
Here's the summary for the truck challenge.
BTW... The GMC is starting to grow on me and there's no doubt the Ford and RAM are starting to look long in the tooth and the Titan is already in the pasture.
Dismal hill climb performance is not too impressive considering this is the latest greatest from GM. Loaded hill climb really shows it.ib516 wrote:
I wonder what would have happened if they wouldn't have "power braked" before all of the acceleration tests (which to me seems like a blatant way to show favor the EcoBoost). Power braking before starting to move is unlikely to happen in the real world - something the tests are supposed to simulate, and would do nothing to help the non-turbo competitors. As I have a turbo-charged vehicle as my daily driver, I'm going to say not power braking the trucks would have seriously lengthened (due to turbo lag) the acceleration numbers for the EcoBoost F150. Thumbs down.
Seems maybe Pickuptruck.com cheer for the blue oval.
Didn't read that article and if they did as you say...agree...they are
stacking the deck in favor of Ford...
Acceleration is only one aspect of towing and to play games is so wrong- I wonder what would have happened if they wouldn't have "power braked" before all of the acceleration tests (which to me seems like a blatant way to show favor the EcoBoost). Power braking before starting to move is unlikely to happen in the real world - something the tests are supposed to simulate, and would do nothing to help the non-turbo competitors. As I have a turbo-charged vehicle as my daily driver, I'm going to say not power braking the trucks would have seriously lengthened (due to turbo lag) the acceleration numbers for the EcoBoost F150. Thumbs down.
Seems maybe Pickuptruck.com cheer for the blue oval. Buck50HD wrote:
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...
No I'm not at all implying that. BUT when someone makes a far out claim that a 1/2 ton gasser is better equipped than a 3/4 ton diesel to pull a 8500lb+ load and are basing that claim solely on 0-40 drag times I have to step in and say something...Taco wrote:
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
I'm not talking about 0-40 drag times... Simply pulling the hill and being able to hold speed wihout having to dowshift 2-3 times and turning 4500 RPM to do so.- Who cares... buy your brand... enjoy the ride! It's your hard earned money so be proud. We are all entitled to our opinions and preferences. Some dudes still like pink shirts too ;) Mostly Ford guys.... JUST KIDDING!
Turtle n Peeps wrote:
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.
Don't get caught up in the input's... It's the outputs that really matter! :W- Here's the summary for the truck challenge.
BTW... The GMC is starting to grow on me and there's no doubt the Ford and RAM are starting to look long in the tooth and the Titan is already in the pasture.
