Forum Discussion
36 Replies
- I am on my second GM 5.3, and have liked the engine quite a bit. I'm not a GM hater by any means.
But the low end torque of the EB allows it to tow so much easier in my opinion. The 5.3 gets the job done, but does it at 3500-4500 rpm, which I find grating after a while (particularly after towing with a diesel for 5 years). The Suburban does feel a little lethargic, too, after being used to the EB! Again, it'll go when urged, but you have to push on the right pedal a bit harder than I'm used to.
I don't know if I see myself buying another naturally aspirated engine again. The EB is my 3rd turbo charged engine (VW 1.8t, Chevy Duramax diesel were the predecessors), and I really prefer the power delivery characteristics. Now that Ford is putting the EB in the Expedition, we might not have another V8 in the household again (which is a strange and funny thought).
If I were buying a 1/2 ton today, 3.5 vs. 2.7 would be a tough choice. I'm honestly not sure which way I'd go. - Tystevens, I have the 5.3 in my 12' 1500 and I couldn't agree more. I was at the Ford dealer (again) with my 6.4 and walked the lot a bit. If I were to get another 1/2 ton I would really like the 2.7 but the new 14's with the 3.5's are marked $10,000 off MSRP right now, very tempting indeed.
Tystevens wrote:
brulaz wrote:
Bionic Man wrote:
MPG has proven to not be an advantage of the Ecoboost engines. Test after test, it gets no better MPG than engines it competes with (Hemi, GM 5.3/6.0). A V8 EB would be WAY too thirsty.
True. When towing and under boost it has the same power and mileage as the big V8s.
But when not towing and not driven by a lead foot, you can do much better. My long-term average is 19.6mpgUS, not towing. EPA hwy is higher.
As they say, it's Eco or Boost. Not both.
Now whether a big V8 with cylinder de-activation is as good or better than the 3.5L EcoB is another question for another thread.
Yep. My 3.5 EB gets approximately 10% better fuel economy than the 5.3 in my Suburban under most unloaded circumstances.
And the EB kills the 5.3 when towing, although it does get about the same mpg doing it. Of course, I'm going faster in the EB when towing, so ...
I expect, from numbers I'm seeing, the 2.7 would probably best my 5.3 by 20-30% in unloaded economy, and would still out-tow the 5.3.
People like to jump all over the EB for its lack of "eco," as though it should be competing w/ a Honda Civic as far as economy goes. But 10% better fuel economy and lots more power than its direct competitor is literally a win-win scenario.
I think many here have seen Bionic Man called out on his own fuel mileage reports so credibility comes to mind.brulaz wrote:
Bionic Man wrote:
MPG has proven to not be an advantage of the Ecoboost engines. Test after test, it gets no better MPG than engines it competes with (Hemi, GM 5.3/6.0). A V8 EB would be WAY too thirsty.
True. When towing and under boost it has the same power and mileage as the big V8s.
But when not towing and not driven by a lead foot, you can do much better. My long-term average is 19.6mpgUS, not towing. EPA hwy is higher.
As they say, it's Eco or Boost. Not both.
Now whether a big V8 with cylinder de-activation is as good or better than the 3.5L EcoB is another question for another thread.
Yep. My 3.5 EB gets approximately 10% better fuel economy than the 5.3 in my Suburban under most unloaded circumstances.
And the EB kills the 5.3 when towing, although it does get about the same mpg doing it. Of course, I'm going faster in the EB when towing, so ...
I expect, from numbers I'm seeing, the 2.7 would probably best my 5.3 by 20-30% in unloaded economy, and would still out-tow the 5.3.
People like to jump all over the EB for its lack of "eco," as though it should be competing w/ a Honda Civic as far as economy goes. But 10% better fuel economy and lots more power than its direct competitor is literally a win-win scenario.- Great technology, but it may not be without future and perhaps expensive carbon buildup problems.
http://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=M-Q4hfWTyyo&u=/watch%3Fv%3D0irwbwpuEbQ%26feature%3Dem-subs_digest-vrecs
(Did this on the iPad and could not get the link correct) dreeder wrote:
...
My only hang up would be the 2.7 vs. the 3.5. If the 2.7 doesn't have a noticeable MPG increase over the 3.5 I just don't see how it would make sense to choose the smaller Ecoboost.
With the start/stop feature, the 2.7L really should do better in stop-n-go urban/suburban traffic. On the highway though ...- It looks like the 2.7 might average 20mpg, my 5.3 averages 17 and can't touch the 2.7 in performance especially at the altitudes I play in. My only hang up would be the 2.7 vs. the 3.5. If the 2.7 doesn't have a noticeable MPG increase over the 3.5 I just don't see how it would make sense to choose the smaller Ecoboost. Either way, I can't say enough how impressed I am by this thing and man they are good looking trucks.
Bionic Man wrote:
MPG has proven to not be an advantage of the Ecoboost engines. Test after test, it gets no better MPG than engines it competes with (Hemi, GM 5.3/6.0). A V8 EB would be WAY too thirsty.
True. When towing and under boost it has the same power and mileage as the big V8s.
But when not towing and not driven by a lead foot, you can do much better. My long-term average is 19.6mpgUS, not towing. EPA hwy is higher.
As they say, it's Eco or Boost. Not both.
Now whether a big V8 with cylinder de-activation is as good or better than the 3.5L EcoB is another question for another thread.rjstractor wrote:
RobertRyan wrote:
Yes the GCVWR is less than the 3.2 Diesel
Fine print, by 500 lbs., slightly more than the weight difference between the two engines.... ;)
Although, diesels do have a much greater GCVWR , than a Petrol engine. That can be VAST in some examples
All are 3 litre engines 33ft Cardinal reinforced suspension, all up weight 21,000lbs
Jayco Optimum twin slides 15,000 GVWR, 23,000lb GCVWR . Current model of this(not this one) has a payload of 4.9 Tonne, by my calculation 10,780lb
RobertRyan wrote:
Yes the GCVWR is less than the 3.2 Diesel
Fine print, by 500 lbs., slightly more than the weight difference between the two engines.... ;)
