12-10-2014, 10:39 AM | #1 |
Drives: Current Camaro-less Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,242
|
LT1 places on Wards 2015 Top 10 engines
http://wardsauto.com/wards-10-best-e...0-best-engines
The LT1 returned on the list, the LT4 is absent. The Hellcat placed as well as the EcoDiesel V6 from the Ram and the Ford Ecoboost 3 cyl. Otherwise the rest are non-American nameplates. |
12-10-2014, 10:51 AM | #2 |
Drives: 1970 Camaro, 2011 Mustang GT, 2011 Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Huntington WV
Posts: 89
|
Should have been more American engines on the list. The 2.7TT Ford and the 3.6TT Caddy should have made that list.
|
12-10-2014, 11:20 AM | #3 |
|
This is a great list. I really appreciate the fact that they have a $60k price cap on the vehicle, acknowledging that making a great engine is all the more difficult when it has to be sold at practical prices.
__________________
|
12-10-2014, 12:27 PM | #4 | |
Moderator.ca
|
Quote:
A region home to 23% of the manufacturers laying claim to 40% of the 10 Best Engines is a pretty good showing if you ask me. The LF3 didn't make the list last year, probably because it isn't really that special. It doesn't really do anything appreciably better than the other turbochraged 6 cylinder engines found in BMWs or Audis. And if it wasn't on the list last year it is ineligible this year. Now, perhaps you meant the LF4 -the slightly more powerful variant of the LF3 that powers the up-comming ATS. Its probably too new to be in contention this year (seeing as nobody has had a chance to evaluate the ATS-V yet), but at the same time ... the LF4 is not exactly a radical departure from the LF3. I bet that 'too new' also prevented the LT4 from being in contention though it wouldn't surprise me if the Hellcat took whatever slot it might have had. The 2.7 Ecoboast isn't more efficient or more capable than the 3.0 Ecodiesel in the Ram. And its not adding anything new to the segment either -Ford already did that with the 3.5L. So if isn't the best in class or shaking up the status quo ... why should it be on the list?
__________________
Note, if I've gotten any facts wrong in the above, just ignore any points I made with them
__________________ Originally Posted by FbodFather My sister's dentist's brother's cousin's housekeeper's dog-breeder's nephew sells coffee filters to the company that provides coffee to General Motors...... ........and HE WOULD KNOW!!!!__________________ Camaro Fest sub-forum |
|
12-10-2014, 12:47 PM | #5 |
Drives: Current Camaro-less Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,242
|
I agree..having NA region engines account for 40% of the list is pretty cool to me.
|
12-10-2014, 02:22 PM | #6 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
12-10-2014, 02:39 PM | #7 |
Drives: 4 wheels Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: anyplace, USA
Posts: 1,177
|
Good read. Definitely a glut of 4 cylinder turbos on the market now. By time I get in my next vehicle it will be an interesting time for car shopping. Seems like performance is leaning that way, and might be relatively fuel efficient too.
I was already eyeing the new Golf R or 1.8T (and comes in AWD). |
12-11-2014, 03:23 AM | #8 | |
Drives: 1970 Camaro, 2011 Mustang GT, 2011 Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Huntington WV
Posts: 89
|
Quote:
|
|
12-11-2014, 07:35 AM | #9 | |
Drives: Current Camaro-less Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,242
|
Quote:
The only rating where the 2.7 outperforms the 3.0L EcoDiesel is in horsepower. It's down on torque (420ftlb vs. 375 ftlb), towing capacity (9200lb vs 8500lb) and fuel economy (20/28/23 vs 19/26/22). EcoDiesel Ram> 2.7 EcoBoast F150. |
|
12-11-2014, 10:59 AM | #10 | |
Drives: 2012 Ford Focus Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 394
|
Quote:
Is that slight mpg improvement and 700lb towing capacity worth 4K and 1.00 dollar difference in gas prices? |
|
12-11-2014, 01:04 PM | #11 |
Drives: 12 Boss 302 Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Posts: 1,369
|
If you keep it for 50 years, the Ecodiesel will save you money over the gas version.
__________________
The biggest mistakes in life come when you know exactly what you are doing.
|
12-11-2014, 01:48 PM | #12 | ||
Drives: 21 Bronco Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Carol Stream
Posts: 6,035
|
Quote:
Quote:
TEST DATA ACCELERATION TO MPH, UNLADEN; TOWING 7,000-LB TRAILER Chevy Ford Ram 0-30 2.3; 5.7 sec 2.4; 5.0 sec 2.6; 5.2 sec 0-40 3.5; 8.9 3.5; 7.5 4.3; 9.0 0-50 5.2; 13.6 4.9; 11.5 6.3; 14.5 0-60 6.9; 19.5 6.5; 16.2 8.8; 23.9 0-70 9.4; - 8.6; 22.2 11.8; - 0-80 12.2; - 11.2; - 16.0; - 0-90 15.5; - 14.2; - 20.8; - PASSING, 45-65 MPH 3.6; 15.5 3.2; 9.4 5.1; 21.2 QUARTER MILE Chevy 15.4 sec @ 89.8 mph; 22.0 sec @ 62.3 mph Ford 15.1 sec @ 92.8 mph; 20.7 sec @ 68.0 mph Ram 16.6 sec @ 81.5 mph; 22.2 sec @ 58.7 mph DAVIS DAM "FRUSTRATION"** 7.6 sec, 665 ft 6.0 sec, 524 ft 9.0 sec, 812 ft Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz3LcVRvlq9 Not to mention unless I am totally doing something wrong, the first trim level that you can put the Ecodiesel in is the Laramie according to Ram's build and price site ( just looked quickly so I could be wrong) That truck with the ecodiesel starts of as a 44K truck in 2wd Last edited by shaffe; 12-11-2014 at 02:02 PM. |
||
12-11-2014, 02:07 PM | #13 |
Drives: Current Camaro-less Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,242
|
Maybe I'm in the minority when it comes to evaluating trucks..but when I'm looking at something that is going to be towing/hauling/etc long distances or daily, I'm not really going to be too interested in acceleration and 1/4 mile times.
Cars are toys, those numbers matter. Trucks are tools, a different set of numbers matter more to me. |
12-11-2014, 02:12 PM | #14 | |
Drives: 21 Bronco Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Carol Stream
Posts: 6,035
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|