Topic Sponsor
2009 - 2014 Ford F150 General discussion on 2009 - 2014 Ford F150 truck.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

details released on new chevy/GM truck engines

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-01-2013, 06:48 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
eye.surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Central California
Posts: 1,166
Received 251 Likes on 137 Posts

Default details released on new chevy/GM truck engines

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/04/01/2...better-econom/

bottom line, 2014 Silverado 1500 with its 5.3-liter EcoTec3 V8 gets 355 horsepower and 383 pound-feet of torque. EPA rating of 16/23/19 which is better than the ecoboost albeit with less power.

The GM press release specifically mentions the Ford ecoboost and compares it's V8 to it. All three GM EcoTec engines feature direct fuel injection, Active Fuel Management (cylinder deactivation) and continuously variable valve timing.

Last edited by eye.surgeon; 04-01-2013 at 06:52 PM.
Old 04-01-2013, 06:51 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
13Harleyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: El Paso Texas
Posts: 1,616
Received 163 Likes on 132 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by eye.surgeon
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/04/01/2...better-econom/

bottom line, 2014 Silverado 1500 with its 5.3-liter EcoTec3 V8 gets 355 horsepower and 383 pound-feet of torque. EPA rating of 16/23/19 which is better than the ecoboost albeit with less power.
Bigger motor, less torque, and better gas mileage? Numbers don't add up.
Old 04-01-2013, 06:55 PM
  #3  
LONE STAR
 
KILOFINAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,005
Received 629 Likes on 432 Posts

Default

Yawn......I've got a smaller engine, more HP, more torque and better MPG's. I'm already averaging 23-25 MPG on the highway and I'll pass on the cylinder deactivation

Last edited by KILOFINAL; 04-01-2013 at 06:59 PM. Reason: ..
Old 04-01-2013, 07:08 PM
  #4  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
eye.surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Central California
Posts: 1,166
Received 251 Likes on 137 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by KILOFINAL
Yawn......I've got a smaller engine, more HP, more torque and better MPG's. I'm already averaging 23-25 MPG on the highway and I'll pass on the cylinder deactivation
You don't have better mileage actually. Those numbers are US gallons and I assume you are talking Canadian. The GM EPA rating is higher than the ecoboost albeit very marginally. Now in the real world, we shall see. As we've learned from the EB, the EPA ratings don't tell the whole story.
Old 04-01-2013, 07:09 PM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
EcoboostKev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 675
Received 127 Likes on 99 Posts
Default

They should be comparing that to the 5.0 not the Ecoboost. I'm assuming it has the same torque curve as the 5.0 as well... Nice try Government Motors.. I do think it's funny that they raised the max tow capacity just high enough to beat Ford.

Last edited by EcoboostKev; 04-01-2013 at 07:12 PM.
Old 04-01-2013, 07:18 PM
  #6  
LONE STAR
 
KILOFINAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,005
Received 629 Likes on 432 Posts

Default

I'm going by what the truck computer is saying. I switched the units from metric to english and I'm getting 23-25 MPG.



Originally Posted by eye.surgeon
You don't have better mileage actually. Those numbers are US gallons and I assume you are talking Canadian. The GM EPA rating is higher than the ecoboost albeit very marginally. Now in the real world, we shall see. As we've learned from the EB, the EPA ratings don't tell the whole story.
Old 04-01-2013, 07:20 PM
  #7  
LONE STAR
 
KILOFINAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,005
Received 629 Likes on 432 Posts

Default

That's the best GM could do with a 49.5 Billion dollar bailout from taxpayers.
The following 5 users liked this post by KILOFINAL:
Count Drunkula (04-01-2013), ERod4x4 (04-01-2013), getsynyster (04-05-2013), rdkev (04-02-2013), whitescrew77 (04-05-2013)
Old 04-01-2013, 07:35 PM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
Magnus1350's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 210
Received 31 Likes on 25 Posts
Default

Not impressed. Less HP & TRQ for 1 mpg.... Also big effing deal GM on the 200 lbs over ford for towing with arbitrary number. Line both of them up on Davis Dam & then lets see. Plus all the extra problems of a new body & a new powertrain in the same year. Uh no thanks.

GM is still playing catch up to the F150. Even if there truck performs as advertised they are saying their brand new design is as good as the Ford. And the Ford body is 5 years old with the engine being 4 years old. (Was used on the Flex & Taurus 1st). So GM good luck when the gen 13 F150 comes out if your new truck is comparable with the "old" Ford truck.
Old 04-01-2013, 07:39 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
Truck owner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,346
Received 240 Likes on 178 Posts
Default

cyclinder deactivation, heck no, i dont need to feel the cam shudder, i got Honda Odessey with that deactivation and if honda cant perfect it theres no way i am gonna trust Govt Motors. I'll pass but i am sure the Chevy Guys will be high fiving each other.
Old 04-01-2013, 07:41 PM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
schizbomb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 650
Received 73 Likes on 57 Posts
Default

The pictured truck in that article is butt ugly


Quick Reply: details released on new chevy/GM truck engines



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:30 PM.