Jump to content

2014 Chevrolet Silverado towing test - Ike Gauntlet


Recommended Posts

The new 5.3 has similar specs than my 6.0 did stock. 355/383 vs my 345/385 before I started modding

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You're not going to lose 30% power up high. I've had my 2006 9k+ feet, and the power loss isn't even noticable. Modern engines don't care.

 

yeah i didnt really get why they were saying that... maybe if these trucks had carbs that would be true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. I'm sure there is some loss at altitude but these days it's not going to be that bad I'd have to imagine. Of course a turbo/supercharged motor will do better and the EB engine is a bit of a hot rod. Too bad it sounds like nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah i didnt really get why they were saying that... maybe if these trucks had carbs that would be true

I think it's because people don't realize just how steep the grades often are. "Man this thing is working hard, must be the altitude," when they're driving it up the side of a mountain. :lol: It's obviously going to work hard. Climbing mountains is fun though, even with a 4 speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah i didnt really get why they were saying that... maybe if these trucks had carbs that would be true

I think it's because people don't realize just how steep the grades often are. "Man this thing is working hard, must be the altitude," when they're driving it up the side of a mountain. :lol: It's obviously going to work hard. Climbing mountains is fun though, even with a 4 speed.

 

Yead "fun". A violent kick to 2nd at 75 mph rpms at 5000, 2 mpg.

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

these guys are such douche bags. they spend 5 minutes going over the bed liner - as if they are standard from the factory. They never once indicated that this was aftermarket add on. As the assist on lowering the tailgate - the Titan had it first (if I remember correctly, I know mine did....).


As far as I'm concerned, TFL stinks and are lousy reviewers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yead "fun". A violent kick to 2nd at 75 mph rpms at 5000, 2 mpg. Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 4

Last time I did La Veta pass (Walsenburg to Alamosa) my avg was over 19. I like hearing the exhaust echo around the pass. I usually only go 65 though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Utah speed limit on I-15 is 80 mph. I averaged 19 going there with the 4.8 and 18 with the 6.0. But that grade drops the instant pretty bad

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those guys weren't very impressive, but it was good to see the video. My 4-spd/3.73 5.3, with less power, would have held 60 up the entire climb @ 4000 rpm. I pull a good bit more weight in the form of a camper, and have topped 10k feet with it. I couldn't hold 60 with my camper up a grade like that, but that boat was a lot easier to pull.

 

It was very enlightening to see how the 6-spd/3.08 performed in those conditions. A 4-spd/3.73 has a sweet spot in 2nd when towing up a grade in the 45 to 65 mph range, but the 6-spd just doesn't have a good gear for those conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trailer I rented from U Haul was lighter (4-5000 probably) and I have 3.42s but when I moved the truck had plenty of power to climb grades in 3rd, easily running 75. Granted it wasn't Colorado but I think if I could drive the way I did without issue then 60 at that elevation should be doable. It seems like they had some aversion to letting the truck rev with the way they kept backing off but who knows. I watched the Ford test and while the EB did great climbing, the brakes were over 400 degrees after the decent test. Power is good but I'd rather have reliable brakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trailer I rented from U Haul was lighter (4-5000 probably) and I have 3.42s but when I moved the truck had plenty of power to climb grades in 3rd, easily running 75. Granted it wasn't Colorado but I think if I could drive the way I did without issue then 60 at that elevation should be doable. It seems like they had some aversion to letting the truck rev with the way they kept backing off but who knows. I watched the Ford test and while the EB did great climbing, the brakes were over 400 degrees after the decent test. Power is good but I'd rather have reliable brakes.

Power is good? How good will it be w/ 100,000 miles on those 2 tiny snails? Only turbo six's that belong in a truck are the ones that run off diesel. The heat those turbos generate cannot be good over the lifetime of the vehicle. Putting that engine into a taurus is one thing, but putting it into a truck and putting that truck to work over the course of its life...well, somebody else can gamble w/ $50,000 not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trailer I rented from U Haul was lighter (4-5000 probably) and I have 3.42s but when I moved the truck had plenty of power to climb grades in 3rd, easily running 75...

 

I'd love to test a heavy trailer behind a 3.42/6-spd combo on a similar climb, to compare. You lose about 30% of your power at 10k ft on a n/a motor, iirc, and you feel it bad. The video test above was "floored" at WOT (according to the driver), and the truck was shifting to 2nd at 50 mph (over 5k rpm), speeding up, shifting to 3rd @ 5800 rpm, slowing down... then repeating. I'm not knocking on the 6-spd, and wouldn't mind one myself (w/ at least a 3.42), but the way that they're geared puts them in a "soft spot" in the speed range these guys were trying to use. The first rule of pulling a mountain (well... my first rule) is "match the gear to the incline/load and hold it there". If that means I'm pulling at 50 mph, then that's what it is. I hate when folks like the reviewers pick some random speed, and then test to that number... regardless of the truck/motor/gearing. My first objective is to make it to the top, and down the other side, without hurting anything (or anybody). I have no worry for how long it takes, so long as temps and whatnot stay reasonable (from motor to brakes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trailer I rented from U Haul was lighter (4-5000 probably) and I have 3.42s but when I moved the truck had plenty of power to climb grades in 3rd, easily running 75. Granted it wasn't Colorado but I think if I could drive the way I did without issue then 60 at that elevation should be doable. It seems like they had some aversion to letting the truck rev with the way they kept backing off but who knows. I watched the Ford test and while the EB did great climbing, the brakes were over 400 degrees after the decent test. Power is good but I'd rather have reliable brakes.

Power is good? How good will it be w/ 100,000 miles on those 2 tiny snails? Only turbo six's that belong in a truck are the ones that run off diesel. The heat those turbos generate cannot be good over the lifetime of the vehicle. Putting that engine into a taurus is one thing, but putting it into a truck and putting that truck to work over the course of its life...well, somebody else can gamble w/ $50,000 not me.

 

My post wasn't in favor of the EB. The intercooler issuers are well documented and enough to make me wary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right in that they don't belong in a truck but GM has to have them available for fuel efficiency reasons. As long as they offer 3.73's and lower ratios we are ok.

 

But as far as I see it, the 3.08's do appeal to a certain group of people who need the capacity of a half ton but drive a high amount of miles. Also, older people who just cruise in them and want to pay $50k or more for a useless truck. :rollin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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