Ford F-150 Tremor: Ok GM. Next move is yours.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by 62nalide

What are the numbers for the GM 6.2L? Pretty hard to beat the 470hp and tq of the 6.4L

the new 6.2 is 420 hp 440 ft'lbs of torque. the 6.4 in the ram is 410\429.

[Russo]

Originally Posted by big hammer

a stock f150 ecoboost usually run 15 flat, not 14 flat.

this means you're trying to invalidate my statement by using an assumption of your own

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by Russo

this means you're trying to invalidate my statement by using an assumption of your own

you go ahead and believe whatever makes you happy.

[Russo]

Originally Posted by big hammer

you go ahead and believe whatever makes you happy.

thanks for letting me know I can believe what I want..

[King Sun]

Originally Posted by big hammer

a stock f150 ecoboost usually run 15 flat, not 14 flat.

[Truck Norris]

Originally Posted by big hammer

ecoboost is a fail.

I know!

A 90whp gain from a tune and downpipe on a new gasoline truck is a total FAIL.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by Truck Norris

I know!

A 90whp gain from a tune and downpipe on a new gasoline truck is a total FAIL.

you figured out what a turbo is?

[Rapid Runner]

Why does everyone keep hating on the Ecoboost?.. It's annoying

I've seen one make 12's... can't beat the output these motors put out

[willhe64]

Because Ford is over complicating their engines. DOHC, turbo V6, it's all marketing hype. Their answer to the econ/horsepower wars is to make small engines with big ponies, and it's not working. They are making peak horsepower numbers but fail at where everyone drives them normally.

I demo'd an ecoboost for an entire weekend before I bought my silverado 6.2 (I owned a Ford Fusion AWD sport at the time and loved it! 260hp V6, no gimmicks). When I got the truck it had 4800km on it and the average fuel economy showed at 16.8l per 100km(canada). The power was not impressive.

Test drove the 6.2 and loved it. My trucks average economy now sits at 14.8l per 100km, this is 13% better mileage and 405 horsepower and gobs of torque. I haul a race car and trail every other weekend too.

[Rapid Runner]

Originally Posted by willhe64

Because Ford is over complicating their engines. DOHC, turbo V6, it's all marketing hype. Their answer to the econ/horsepower wars is to make small engines with big ponies, and it's not working. They are making peak horsepower numbers but fail at where everyone drives them normally.

Well

I wouldn't call DOHC's, Turbo V6's marketing hype... considering mostly all manufactures are downsizing and turboing smaller engines

I think in my opinion, Ford missed the mark on the MPG factor and critics are making a field day out of it, otherwise... where is the fail...

[Truck Norris]

Originally Posted by willhe64

They are making peak horsepower numbers but fail at where everyone drives them normally.

Originally Posted by big hammer

you figured out what a turbo is?

Yup, i'm on my 4th factory built turbo pick up and the low end torque sucks.

Im thinking about removing it and increasing displacement just like the 454 in my old motorhome.

There's no replacement for displacement.

[willhe64]

Originally Posted by Truck Norris

There's no replacement for displacement.

Try and tell the Ford fanbois here that.

[willhe64]

Originally Posted by Rapid Runner

Well

I wouldn't call DOHC's, Turbo V6's marketing hype... considering mostly all manufactures are downsizing and turboing smaller engines

I think in my opinion, Ford missed the mark on the MPG factor and critics are making a field day out of it, otherwise... where is the fail...

Gah, "Ford missed the mark on the MPG factor".
So they made a 3.6 litre twin turbo that got 40 less horsepower and 13% less fuel mileage than a pushrod V8. I'd call that a total fail. Now the Ford forums a are rife with problems with these engines. Over complicted BS.

[Inferno LSX]

What GM should really do is make a RCSB Duramax/Allison 2500HD. The MPG, HP, TQ, 0-60 would be very nice. LOL.