Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Foghorn17

New Ford 3.5 Ecoboost Vs 5.3 Gm

Recommended Posts

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

2009_62L_L9H_Silverado_LTZ.pdf

2009_Vortec_60L_L76_Silverado_SAE.pdf

2009_53L_LH6_Silverado_SAE.pdf

2009_62L_L9H_Silverado_LTZ.pdf

2009_Vortec_60L_L76_Silverado_SAE.pdf

2009_53L_LH6_Silverado_SAE.pdf

2009_62L_L9H_Silverado_LTZ.pdf

2009_Vortec_60L_L76_Silverado_SAE.pdf

2009_53L_LH6_Silverado_SAE.pdf

2009_62L_L9H_Silverado_LTZ.pdf

2009_Vortec_60L_L76_Silverado_SAE.pdf

2009_53L_LH6_Silverado_SAE.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
High stress engine, wont last.

 

 

Even severely under stressed engines from Ford (like the 5.4) don't last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Popular Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.