Forum Discussion
- The 6.2 really makes the 5.3 seem irrevelent. The mpg is similar and yet the 6.2L is just an incredibly strong preforming engine. However GM really limits the configuration that you can get that combo in. I am not sure why that is but they have no problem selling vehicles with that engine. My neighbor has 300k on one of his older 6.2L 1500s. He bought one of the first 2014's available with that motor. If your in the market for a 1500, I am not sure why you would opt for anything other than that engine. This reminds me of the 4.8 verse the 5.3 from years ago. I really wished that the 6.2L was available in the HD's.
rjstractor wrote:
They knew they were going to be outclassed in every category no matter what they sent. Maybe Toyota decided negative publicity was better than no publicity.
. . . surprising that there is always at least one manufacturer (Toyota this time) that sends a truck so poorly configured for a competitive test that they would have been better off sitting the test out.
It's amazing that Toyota has been able to retain their marketshare with the 2015 Tundra's nearly 9-year old drivetrain. Arguably, the reliability image is the only thing the Tundra has going for it these days.- GM has really took over the 150/1500 market (power and fuel mileage) with the 6.2. Their payload is pretty good too. I would like the next test of the V6's to be compared to the V8's too. They are all doing great fuel mileage wise (v8 and v6) but it's interesting that Ford is building their V6's to compete with their V8's. Does Ford even have a base V6 now in their trucks?
- On any of these so called "impartial tests"...is to first ask who paid for it?
Like any 'survey'...they can get pretty much what they want out of it by the
deck of cards they allow you to see/use - Interesting test. Thanks for the link.
I like the fact that GM offers the big 6.2 V8 in their half tons. I think Ram should offer the 6.4 in the 1500, and I think Ford should not have dropped the 6.2 from the F150. Yes, I know there are plenty of reasons why those decisions were made, and I don't need to hear them again. But, I just like the idea of a big, naturally aspirated gas V8 in a half ton pickup. Guess I must be getting old. - I agree it would have been a different test with the addition of the Ecoboost. But the intent of the test was to compare the best V8 offerings from each manufacturer.
john&bet wrote:
ib516 wrote:
Maybe the Ram should be the 6.4L. Or were you listing them by HP?
Would have been a better test with only one GM 6.2L truck.
I would have put these trucks in the test:
- GM 6.2L V8
- Ram 5.7L V8
- Ford 5.0L V8
- Ford 3.5L V6 EcoBoost
- Ford 2.7L V6 EcoBoost
- GM 5.3L V8
- Toyota 5.7L V8
That would have been a more meaningful comparison for the average truck shopper.
This was a 1/2 ton test. 6.4 is only available in HD- Interesting test. What really stands out to me is the shockingly fast empty acceleration of these trucks. Way back when I was a kid there were very few muscle cars that could out-accelerate today's trucks. It's also surprising that there is always at least one manufacturer (Toyota this time) that sends a truck so poorly configured for a competitive test that they would have been better off sitting the test out.
- My takeaways
1) Made no sense to have two 6.2l GM trucks.
2) Ecoboost should have been included.
3) Toyota really has some work to do... ib516 wrote:
Maybe the Ram should be the 6.4L. Or were you listing them by HP?
Would have been a better test with only one GM 6.2L truck.
I would have put these trucks in the test:
- GM 6.2L V8
- Ram 5.7L V8
- Ford 5.0L V8
- Ford 3.5L V6 EcoBoost
- Ford 2.7L V6 EcoBoost
- GM 5.3L V8
- Toyota 5.7L V8
That would have been a more meaningful comparison for the average truck shopper.
