When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Another Factor could be that the 2.7 is rated with Regular fuel. The engineer that headed up the project said it is higher with premium fuel, so if they are running the dyno tests with premium, it would make the 2.7 appear either underrated or much less driveline loss. I would like to see a comparison of a 2.7 on regular and then premium fuel to see the difference.
I found this interesting... Pickuptrucks.com did an in-depth comparison of all the half ton trucks.
The 2.7 puts out 340 ft/lbs @3250RPM!!! while GM's 6.2L V8 puts out 336 ft/lbs @ 4200RPM(manufacturer claimed 460 ft/lbs)
... the 2.7 is slightly behind the 3.5 EB, but it's making this torque at 900RPM lower.
This certainly helps validate why my 2.7 feels so much stronger than my previous 5.7 Tundra. Can you provide a link to the original article? I did a quick Google search but couldn't locate...Thanks.
Last edited by MNSportsman; 05-09-2016 at 08:20 AM.
Another Factor could be that the 2.7 is rated with Regular fuel. The engineer that headed up the project said it is higher with premium fuel, so if they are running the dyno tests with premium, it would make the 2.7 appear either underrated or much less driveline loss. I would like to see a comparison of a 2.7 on regular and then premium fuel to see the difference.
This still doesn't explain a 30% drive line loss for the 6.2 GM.
This certainly helps validate why my 2.7 feels so much stronger than my previous 5.7 Tundra. Can you provide a link to the original article? I did a quick Google search but couldn't locate...Thanks.
So the GMC weighed 500lbs more, had less tq but was 1/2 a second quicker in the 1/4 mile and 0-60 than the Ecoboost? Loaded or unloaded!
The GMC still has the most HP which will make up for slightly less torque... Why do you think Ram's rated 420ft/lb EcoDiesel did so poorly in the 0-60 & 1/4 mile?
Here is the video of the acceleration test. You can see the F150 driver was pretty soft on the launch.
I'd bet that the low 6.2 torque has something to do with torque management. Gm's torque management is the worst. They used to literally have a 10 second timer that wouldn't give you power enrichment at wot until the timer was up. Edmunds found this to be the case in 2007:
Last edited by engineermike; 05-09-2016 at 06:20 PM.
The GMC still has the most HP which will make up for slightly less torque... Why do you think Ram's rated 420ft/lb EcoDiesel did so poorly in the 0-60 & 1/4 mile?
05-09-2016, 07:48 AM
Loaded or unloaded!
