Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

New Ford 3.5 Ecoboost Vs 5.3 Gm


  • Please log in to reply
141 replies to this topic

#1 sylvester13

sylvester13

    10+ Year Member

  • Member
  • 919 posts
  • Location:Blue Ridge Mountains of Western North Carolina
  • Gender:Male
  • Drives:2013 Z71 Crew 4x4 Silverado LT

Posted 31 October 2010 - 07:57 PM

I ran across these videos on youtube. They are from the Ford sponsored event in Atlanta to introduce the 2011 F150 to the public. Some guy with a cam rides along and a narrates the drive first with the Ford and then the Chevy pulling a 6500 lbs. trailer. In the video the Ford "owns" the Chevy. I know the Ecoboost V-6 is rated at 420 ft/lbs of torque and the 5.3 is about 80 to 100 ft/lbs less. Nevertheless, you have to know that Ford tilted the scales some. I wonder if the GM has the 3.08 rear end? I am glad to see Ford improving it's boat anchor engine lineup, but I'm still skeptical of a V6. If this is legit, GM best be upping the rebates or pulling some rabbit out of a hat somewhere.

Ford 3.5 Ecoboost w/ 6500 lbs trailer

Chevy 5.3 w/ 6500 lbs. trailer

Chevy 5.3 w/ 6500 lbs. trailer part 2

Edited by vroten, 31 October 2010 - 08:18 PM.


#2 vettelovralexand

vettelovralexand

    Enthusiast

  • Member
  • 442 posts
  • Location:Columbus, IN
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 October 2010 - 09:09 PM

I ran across these videos on youtube. They are from the Ford sponsored event in Atlanta to introduce the 2011 F150 to the public. Some guy with a cam rides along and a narrates the drive first with the Ford and then the Chevy pulling a 6500 lbs. trailer. In the video the Ford "owns" the Chevy. I know the Ecoboost V-6 is rated at 420 ft/lbs of torque and the 5.3 is about 80 to 100 ft/lbs less. Nevertheless, you have to know that Ford tilted the scales some. I wonder if the GM has the 3.08 rear end? I am glad to see Ford improving it's boat anchor engine lineup, but I'm still skeptical of a V6. If this is legit, GM best be upping the rebates or pulling some rabbit out of a hat somewhere.

Ford 3.5 Ecoboost w/ 6500 lbs trailer

Chevy 5.3 w/ 6500 lbs. trailer

Chevy 5.3 w/ 6500 lbs. trailer part 2


This is a very unfair comparison of a truck with an engine which is really not supposed to be competitive to the truck it is being compared to. The 5.3 competes much better with the 5.0 whereas the 6.2 is the new competition for the ecoboost or the ford 6.2. That is, btw, the only truck they didn't have on hand at their test. Even their own 6.2 couldn't compete with the ecoboost truck. A few quick calculations shows that the truck in the video had to have had the 3.42 rear end based on the two rpm and speed combinations they gave. The first says they were at 5000 rpm and 55 (2nd gear in the 6 speed 3.42 truck) the other was 4000 rpm and 70 (3rd gear in the same truck).

2009 Crew Cab Z71 4x4 LT 5.3L 6L80E; White with color matched door handles, mirror caps, and tailgate handle.
DIC added, Remote start added, Fogs added, Line-X, F/R splash guards, Husky Floor Mats, Wet Okole seat covers, Amsoil Diff Fluids,
Weatherguard 117 Saddlebox, Rear Fender Liners, Bilstein 5100 leveling and rears, 13% front tint, GMPP Intake, Corsa Sport Dual Rear Exit, Blackbear Performance 93 Octane Tune
To Do: Long Tubes and a Magnacharger


#3 doug_scott

doug_scott

    Senior Enthusiast

  • Member
  • 2,024 posts
  • Location:Ajax, ON
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 November 2010 - 09:25 AM

The ecoboost torque peak is at a very usable 2500 rpm. The torque peak of the 5.3 is way beyond the normal rpm area you actually drive in. That is the difference. Finally a company is producing something useful. These HP wars are pure BS. Who cares, you can't use HP, you use torque. And it needs to be in the rpm range you are driving in. Problem is you do not get to promote huge HP numbers then since HP is a just a number based on torque and rpm. No high rpm, no high HP number. I wish they would just make shit that works instead of stuff that advertises well.

#4 chevys

chevys

    Enthusiast

  • Member
  • 97 posts

Posted 01 November 2010 - 11:39 AM

I dont think it was a fair test either. Ford chose the 5.3 because it was going to make them look good and that is what most Gm trucks leave the lot with so it was familiar to a lot of folks. Ford expects 1/3 of the new trucks to sell with the turbo 6. Thats a far cry more than gm's 6.2 or Fords 6.2 for that matter. You have to admit its an impressive engine. It acts a lot like a diesel. Just dead low rpm grunt. How it will hold up nobody knows but Ford knows they have a lot riding on this. Im am curious what sort of gas mileage it will get. Loaded down its going to eat gas but unloaded is what Im curious about.

#5 jro909

jro909

    Your Own Personal Jesus

  • Member
  • 4,079 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin
  • Gender:Male
  • Drives:04 1500 Silverado

Posted 01 November 2010 - 03:52 PM

i don't pay any attention to comparisons sponsored by companys, its all propaganda....hell look at the ford sponsored truck comparisons on youtube, its all loaded in fords favor.... the reason ford is hustling around for a better motor is because their motors have been pulling their ratings down in comparisons to other trucks, i am a gm fan and i like dodge also but ford seems to get overly cut throat on their marketing
RCLB 5.3, 3.42 gears, Z85/82 Bilstein Hds, General AT2 Grabbers

Man fears what he does not understand- Anton LaVey

Old People Drive Slow To Make The Most Of The Time They Have Left

Member of the Red Truck Club


Proud Vortec Owner

#6 doug_scott

doug_scott

    Senior Enthusiast

  • Member
  • 2,024 posts
  • Location:Ajax, ON
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 November 2010 - 04:26 PM

I dont think it was a fair test either. Ford chose the 5.3 because it was going to make them look good and that is what most Gm trucks leave the lot with so it was familiar to a lot of folks. Ford expects 1/3 of the new trucks to sell with the turbo 6. Thats a far cry more than gm's 6.2 or Fords 6.2 for that matter. You have to admit its an impressive engine. It acts a lot like a diesel. Just dead low rpm grunt. How it will hold up nobody knows but Ford knows they have a lot riding on this. Im am curious what sort of gas mileage it will get. Loaded down its going to eat gas but unloaded is what Im curious about.


Doubt the 6.2 would catch the ecoboost either. Still no low end torque.

#7 coloradoSkiCountry

coloradoSkiCountry

    Senior Enthusiast

  • Banned
  • 2,138 posts
  • Location:Denver, Colorado
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 November 2010 - 04:52 PM

No need to get worried. The next generation of GM engines coming out in a few years will push Ford back into the stone age again for another 20 years before they catch up.
Posted Image

GM- Simply the best, and saying "To Hell with the rest!"

#8 Z71_Silvy

Z71_Silvy

    Senior Enthusiast

  • Banned
  • 1,911 posts
  • Location:Cottage Grove, Minnesota USA
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 November 2010 - 09:26 PM

No need to get worried. The next generation of GM engines coming out in a few years will push Ford back into the stone age again for another 20 years before they catch up.



THIS!

What is funny is that Ford has posted a new video of a TwinForce (<-- that is the proper name as the engine drinks fuel like a V8 and has nothing ECO about it) F-150 pulling some sticks around the woods. In that video....where they are saying how pedantic the V8 has become...they dubbed in a V8 soundtrack.

Ford really can't do anything right these days....
Posted Image
-2006 LT3 CC Silverado, 5.3 V8, 3.42 gears, 6000K HIDs, Corvette Servo, Escalade Platinum Cluster, Lux Amp, Tinted Front Windows, Body Color Door Handles, 35K 'Slap-Free' Miles, $3.00 AUX input, and attacked by a BlackBear.

#9 doug_scott

doug_scott

    Senior Enthusiast

  • Member
  • 2,024 posts
  • Location:Ajax, ON
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 November 2010 - 08:04 AM

No need to get worried. The next generation of GM engines coming out in a few years will push Ford back into the stone age again for another 20 years before they catch up.



THIS!

What is funny is that Ford has posted a new video of a TwinForce (<-- that is the proper name as the engine drinks fuel like a V8 and has nothing ECO about it) F-150 pulling some sticks around the woods. In that video....where they are saying how pedantic the V8 has become...they dubbed in a V8 soundtrack.

Ford really can't do anything right these days....


No link? Looks like it is not only Ford that can't do anything right here.....

#10 vettelovralexand

vettelovralexand

    Enthusiast

  • Member
  • 442 posts
  • Location:Columbus, IN
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 November 2010 - 08:30 AM

I dont think it was a fair test either. Ford chose the 5.3 because it was going to make them look good and that is what most Gm trucks leave the lot with so it was familiar to a lot of folks. Ford expects 1/3 of the new trucks to sell with the turbo 6. Thats a far cry more than gm's 6.2 or Fords 6.2 for that matter. You have to admit its an impressive engine. It acts a lot like a diesel. Just dead low rpm grunt. How it will hold up nobody knows but Ford knows they have a lot riding on this. Im am curious what sort of gas mileage it will get. Loaded down its going to eat gas but unloaded is what Im curious about.


Doubt the 6.2 would catch the ecoboost either. Still no low end torque.


I am sorry, but the GM pushrod engines have excellent torque curves for naturally aspirated engines. See the attached PDFs if you don't believe me. The GM 6.2 makes over 300 lb-ft from 1000-6000 RPM and over 350 lb-ft from 1500 rpm up. The 6.0 and 5.3 curves look similar just shifted downward. Despite the power discrepancy there should be no one who refutes that the GM Vortec engines have served well even against the more powerful rivals from Toyota and Dodge due to their excellent torque curves and excellent reliability. GM started the turbocharged/DI thing with the LNF and makes a factory warrantied 2.0L engine with 290 hp and 315 lb-ft of torque.

Attached Files


2009 Crew Cab Z71 4x4 LT 5.3L 6L80E; White with color matched door handles, mirror caps, and tailgate handle.
DIC added, Remote start added, Fogs added, Line-X, F/R splash guards, Husky Floor Mats, Wet Okole seat covers, Amsoil Diff Fluids,
Weatherguard 117 Saddlebox, Rear Fender Liners, Bilstein 5100 leveling and rears, 13% front tint, GMPP Intake, Corsa Sport Dual Rear Exit, Blackbear Performance 93 Octane Tune
To Do: Long Tubes and a Magnacharger


#11 Stevens11

Stevens11

    Senior Enthusiast

  • Member
  • 8,153 posts
  • Location:Bellefonte, Pa
  • Gender:Male
  • Drives:2011 GMC Sierra Crewcab 6.2L

Posted 02 November 2010 - 09:17 AM

All I have to say is... It's about damn time they get something to compete. Seems like a decent motor as far as I could see, obviously the "ford" people will be a little biased, but so would a Chevy person. My question would be are the tests as close to apples to apples as they could get.

In time we'll all see how they fair in reliability :thumbs:

Posted Image

Storm Gray TRUCK CLUB: Member #1
2011 GMC Sierra SLT Crewcab 6.2L with NHT and 3.73 gears


Visit My Website


Current truck:
Denali Grill, 2" RC Leveling kit, Boss MT100 20x8.5 wheels w/ 305/50r20 Cooper Discoverer H/T Plus tires, Blackbear tuned, Extang Full Tilt Bed cover, GMC Bedrug, 15% Tint, and Custom Dynamics light bar.

Previous trucks:
2007 Sierra 6.0 Vmax crewcab 4x4, 275/55r20's Cooper Zeon LTZ tires, Corsa Sport Exhaust, Denali Grill, Bedrug, Extang Full Tilt Tonneau Cover, Blackbear performance Custom tune
2003 Silverado 5.3L extended cab 4x4, 6" Skyjacker lift, 315/75r16 BFG tires, Goodmark Cowl hood, Billet grill, K&N 77-Series intake, Magnaflow exhaust, Wait4me PCM tune
2001 S10 Crewcab 4.3L 4x4; 3" body lift, 31" BFG K/O tires, Flowmaster 50-series exhaust, K&N 63-series intake, relocated IAT sensor, E-fans, TB Spacer, Jet stage 2 chip with B&M shift improver

#12 cbxeric

cbxeric

    Enthusiast

  • Member
  • 259 posts
  • Location:Victoria B.C.
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 November 2010 - 12:00 AM

High stress engine, wont last.
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, rather than open it and remove all doubt."

--Abraham Lincoln

#13 Z71_Silvy

Z71_Silvy

    Senior Enthusiast

  • Banned
  • 1,911 posts
  • Location:Cottage Grove, Minnesota USA
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 November 2010 - 10:14 AM

High stress engine, wont last.



Even severely under stressed engines from Ford (like the 5.4) don't last.
Posted Image
-2006 LT3 CC Silverado, 5.3 V8, 3.42 gears, 6000K HIDs, Corvette Servo, Escalade Platinum Cluster, Lux Amp, Tinted Front Windows, Body Color Door Handles, 35K 'Slap-Free' Miles, $3.00 AUX input, and attacked by a BlackBear.

#14 coloradoSkiCountry

coloradoSkiCountry

    Senior Enthusiast

  • Banned
  • 2,138 posts
  • Location:Denver, Colorado
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 November 2010 - 11:48 AM

I get stressed just thinking about trying to make a Ford last long :lol: :lol: :P J/K I have nothing but praise for the 4.6L, of course I am biased because I drive a Crown Vic with that engine :lol:
Posted Image

GM- Simply the best, and saying "To Hell with the rest!"

#15 doug_scott

doug_scott

    Senior Enthusiast

  • Member
  • 2,024 posts
  • Location:Ajax, ON
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 November 2010 - 12:46 PM

I dont think it was a fair test either. Ford chose the 5.3 because it was going to make them look good and that is what most Gm trucks leave the lot with so it was familiar to a lot of folks. Ford expects 1/3 of the new trucks to sell with the turbo 6. Thats a far cry more than gm's 6.2 or Fords 6.2 for that matter. You have to admit its an impressive engine. It acts a lot like a diesel. Just dead low rpm grunt. How it will hold up nobody knows but Ford knows they have a lot riding on this. Im am curious what sort of gas mileage it will get. Loaded down its going to eat gas but unloaded is what Im curious about.


Doubt the 6.2 would catch the ecoboost either. Still no low end torque.


I am sorry, but the GM pushrod engines have excellent torque curves for naturally aspirated engines. See the attached PDFs if you don't believe me. The GM 6.2 makes over 300 lb-ft from 1000-6000 RPM and over 350 lb-ft from 1500 rpm up. The 6.0 and 5.3 curves look similar just shifted downward. Despite the power discrepancy there should be no one who refutes that the GM Vortec engines have served well even against the more powerful rivals from Toyota and Dodge due to their excellent torque curves and excellent reliability. GM started the turbocharged/DI thing with the LNF and makes a factory warrantied 2.0L engine with 290 hp and 315 lb-ft of torque.


Still do not see over 400 at 2500 rpm on any of those. Ask any here that have the 5.3 how that torque curve works out for them towing. Downshifts with the cruise on when you get to a hill without towing at 50mph is not a sign of high torque is it?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Advertise Here