BassAckwards

Also forgot about the tire size difference in 4x4 and 4x2.

So not only do u have a weight difference, but now there is a tire weight difference and a gear ratio difference!

The merit of this test as any kind of true scientific experiment dwindles away faster and faster. The more I think about it the more dissappointed I become. Was it so hard to keep all the variables equal?? I mean I'm willing to overlook frivolous weight differences in Trim Levels but when you want to compare a 2wd Eco and a 4x4 5.0 you just failed with your experiment.

They don't make any real claims in the end but the experiment almost seems to be a waist if they can't match the variables across the board.

Westbayou

The 4x4 and the 4x2 are going to make VASTLY different power at the wheels. Real life example: I had my truck at Diablosport for tuning. Stock it put down 260 rwhp. My truck is a 4x4 FX4 Supercrew 5.0L. Same dyno, different truck puts down 307 rwhp on a stock tune. It was a 2wd 5.0L. Smaller tires and no transfer case make a world of difference.

BassAckwards

And they literally used every drivetrain available on the butt dyno for the EB, 5.0, and 6.2 with a 2wd, 4wd, and AWD respectively. The Butt dyno results don't prove to much when every drivetrain on these 3 engines were different and the 6.2 had a 3.55.

reward69

The Harley is only available with a 3.73, this had to be a typo on MT's part. Talk about dyno and drive loss, my ZX14 picked up 3HP at the wheel by lubing the chain. My friend the dyno owner pulled three runs that were within 1 hp of one another. He then said watch this and sprayed lube on the chain (which hadnt been lubed in a while) and it picked up 3HP on three more pulls. He put more air in the rear tire and picked up another 1HP. The dyno owner has a turbo hayabusa thats mild, thats making over 300 hp at the rear. Heck mine thing pulled down 184hp on a chassis dyno, not bad for a 4 banger that weighs just over 500 lbs. Of course this is tuned with aftermarket exhaust.

BassAckwards

Well good then at least they all had the same rear end.

Pale Screw

I believe this is why the 6.2 didn't get the EPAS.

LCW

Full disclosure - I own a 5.0 and love it. Chose it over the EB after many back and forth test drives.

With that said, the comparisons are completely flawed and meaningless. And I say this in an objective manner. Just look at the vehicle specs. SO many variables with 4x2 vs 4x4, not to mention different trim levels (ie. weight) and even worse different rear axle ratios. Motor Trend will always be second rate vs Car & Driver, and the fact they even published this 'comparison' shows how amateur they are. I don't think I've ever seen such an "apples & oranges" comparison in my life.

Thumbs down to MT.

BassAckwards

My sentiments exactly, very well put!

REGCABMAN

If I were testing the different engines I would have 3 of the trucks 4x4 lariat Screws 5.0, Eco, 6.2 and for the 3.7 I would have used an XLT 4x4 Screw all with 3:73 rear ends. If the test was done that way then I would be a true comparison.

fordjamie

The 3.7 isn't available in a screw 4x4 lariat. Well at least not in Canada.