2013 Light Duty Challenge

[ib516]

2013 Light Duty Challenge

Ram Hemi 8 speed vs Ecoboost F150 vs new 5.3L Gm twins & more!

[ordually]

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.

Power-braking is a disappointing test control move. Previous shootouts (example) used conventional launch methods:

All trucks and trailers were completely on the grade and stationary before each run. All the tests were performed “brake-to-accelerator,” meaning the foot brake was fully depressed with the right foot, which then lifted and fully depressed the accelerator pedal in one movement.

That was back when founder Mike Levine ran the site. He later quit and went to work for Ford PR, though I think he always ran balanced tests. I think the new management (cars.com staff) aren't as rigorous.

Ord

[larry_barnhart]

Kevin O. wrote:

MARK VANDERBENT wrote:
12.6 towing 8500 pounds is impressive I think. That egoboost can not match the smallblock chevy even thought it has all that extra power that tells me the turbo 6 is working hard.

Gas mileage is the only thing that seems impressive with the all new chevy. I'll bet if they lined the "Egoboost" next to the chevy and instead of the ford embarrassing the chevy to the top of the hill it just stayed with it the mpg would be very similar. You are correct that the turbo 6 was working hard, it climbed the 7.2% hill to 40 mph almost 2.5 seconds faster than chevy's brand new powerhouse!! Thats what I think is impressive. :B

one thousand one, one thousand two, one thous. That is a lot of time but not to me. But fast is fast.
chevman

[Buck50HD]

Did they forget the parking brake on in the Titan during the fuel economy runs? That was probably the most surprising part of the whole comparison.

[Kevin_O_]

MARK VANDERBENT wrote:
12.6 towing 8500 pounds is impressive I think. That egoboost can not match the smallblock chevy even thought it has all that extra power that tells me the turbo 6 is working hard.

Gas mileage is the only thing that seems impressive with the all new chevy. I'll bet if they lined the "Egoboost" next to the chevy and instead of the ford embarrassing the chevy to the top of the hill it just stayed with it the mpg would be very similar. You are correct that the turbo 6 was working hard, it climbed the 7.2% hill to 40 mph almost 2.5 seconds faster than chevy's brand new powerhouse!! Thats what I think is impressive. :B

[Flashman]

wintersun wrote:
It is the result of the gearing of the trucks. Lower gears equals better acceleration and of course fewer MPG in most driving situations. Really a stupid test as who really cares whether a truck takes 7.1, 7.2, or 7.4 seconds to accelerate onto a freeway.

The Toyota is going to provide the fewest problems and cost the least for maintenance and repairs and it has gotten the JD Powers award as the best truck for the last 5 years in a row.

What a fan boy. Toyota is the recall king.

I remember videos of the Tundra's tail gate breaking when trying to load a ATV.

I have owned 5 different Toyotas in my life - some good, some bad - you cannot just make a blanket statement about any manufacturer.

[wintersun]

It is the result of the gearing of the trucks. Lower gears equals better acceleration and of course fewer MPG in most driving situations. Really a stupid test as who really cares whether a truck takes 7.1, 7.2, or 7.4 seconds to accelerate onto a freeway.

The Toyota is going to provide the fewest problems and cost the least for maintenance and repairs and it has gotten the JD Powers award as the best truck for the last 5 years in a row.

[Hybridhunter]

Ron3rd wrote:
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.

BNG and Ford interior and and Ford super duty style tailgate stamping.
Wouldn't really have changed much.

[MARK_VANDERBENT]

12.6 towing 8500 pounds is impressive I think. That egoboost can not match the smallblock chevy even thought it has all that extra power that tells me the turbo 6 is working hard.

[Fordlover]

itguy08 wrote:

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).

When I was test driving the Ecoboost F-150 (towing 6,500 lbs.) I noticed that if you went WOT, there was no turbo lag. Only if you were driving around 1,000 RPM would you find any lag, and it's impossible to keep the engine at 1,000 RPM at WOT, brake torquing or not.

[Fordlover]

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.

At least they tested all the vehicles the same. MotorTrend decided to do their truck of the year testing between the F-150 and Ram by towing about an extra 1,000 lbs. behind the Ford. Talk about tilting the scale in the Ram's favor.

[Ron3rd]

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.

[itguy08]

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).

[Hybridhunter]

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.

[BenK]

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