bell4fan

The truck had to be under $45K.....That XLT was pushing that.

stx03

I thought this was interesting, I figured the eco would take top spot in all the towing related challenges

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks....tion-test.html



Also strange is how much the Gmc suffered while pulling the trailer VS the chevy.. I thought they were the same truck?

Bosro

There were criteria to be met with these trucks,one being they had to be under $45K I believe.
It was up to the manufacturer to send whatever SCrew under that price they wanted...
I don't think a Lariat 6.2L would make list of $45K.

Ooppps....somebody already posted this.

chadhargis

Impressive numbers for Ford considering the Ram had a 5.7L engine. The EB nearly stayed with it. Makes me wonder what the altitude is. Would LOVE to see this test done in Denver or towing a trailer up Pike's Peak. Turbos RULE at altitude.

stx03

Not sure about the elevation but it says they powerbraked the motors to 2000rpm, obviously a huge advantage for the eco, getting the turbos spooled up.
Without powerbraking the motors, the eco times would have been slower.

I posted about this in another thread, but I can't get over how funny it is every time guys act like the ecobboost is just a little v6 keeping up with those big v8s.
It's a 3.5 liter twin turbo, the motor can and should be putting down huge power, it's a large v6 with two turbos, there's no reason it shouldn't be keeping up, or beating, v8's in performance tests.

The dodge is very impressive. I'm sure the new 8speed helps it's case. Looks like they've built a damn fine machine.

StrawHatShinobi

Unless they changed something about the Hemi reving it to 2k before taking off did nothing to help it. The PCM pulls timing when you do that.

jwanck11

Huh? I have not seen a Tq curve that starts at max and descends. Why do you think power braking is used in every single run down every single strip?

Bottom line, is that power braking helped every single vehicle - without exception.

Now, an "argument" could be made on why the power braking was not dialed per vehicle based on its maximum launch ability...

Stx, please, we understand you are an eco hater. I request you talk it out in a mirror and not post your thoughts. 3.5 is a relatively small V6 - especially given the size of the engine bay it sits in. Sheesh.

Burns331

They shoudl have put premium in the Eboost.. THe extra 15hp 10lbft woulda narrowed up some margins...

BTW rear ring gear doesnt mean **** from truck to truck... When combined with the effective transmission ratios, your overall gear ratio is way different...> Toyota runs a 4.30 gear but runs much taller gears in the transmission.

I believe i read that dodge had the overall lowest 1st gear ratio with ford being 2nd. That ram aint no slouch, but honestly i woudl take the eboost over it all day...> Tune the ecoboost and its game over for all the competition.

engineermike

Burns, thank you for understanding how gear ratios work. With your grandpa's 2 or 3 speed trans, rear gear had to be carefully chosen and had a dramatic affect on performance. With 6 or 8 transmission gears, the rear gear choice is far less influential.

engineermike

Good test and interesting numbers. It shouldn't be a surprise that the ram out accelerated the eb, because 390>365. Yes, torque helps, but in the end hp is king, especially with thus many gears that keep the engines at or near peak power.

Also, the towing mpg reinforces what I've been saying...that when towing heavy the eb mileage will be worse than a small v8, but not that much worse. Some folks seem to think the eb uses double the fuel when towing heavy. Looking at the others results, the 5.0 would probably come in around 12, with the eb at 11 mpg.

A while back, I calculated 10% worse for the eb at wot. So, it goes from 10% better at cruise to 10% worse at wot, with every other case falling in between.