6 month review

[nards444]

Just thought I would post for perspective buyers so they can form an opinion and to see what others thought.

 

In OCT I bought a 2014 Double cab, 4x4, LT model pretty much loaded out, color Tungsten Metallic. Two recalls so far exhaust and rack and pinion nut. Vehicle not affected got it taken care of during oil change

 

Pros

-Color is awesome cant wait to see it waxed and in the summer sun

-Interior and exterior styling is fantastic

-Build quality seems pretty good, at least compared to my 2007

-Chevy really thought about some of the small things in design

-Just about getting the advertised 16mpg with 3.73 gearing and 5.3

-Double door is hands down a different experience then the extended cab, might check it before spending another 3-4k on a crew cab

-Truck is quiet in the cab

-The new touch sreen and electronics is pretty nice

-Cool blue lighting is nice-

The on star app is bad ace, not sure im going to be pay the $300 a year for it though

-Impressed by the inner door panels, with the cup holders and cubbies

-The new glove box is great compared to the last abortion that was in the truck

- 4x4 indicator moved to the other side by the lights is a better choice

-Handles well in snow

 

 

 

Now for some cons, some are ticky tack but non the less a review and my opinion

 

Cons

 

-Key Fob is cheap looking and just feels cheap, my wifes brand new 2013 malibu is nicer

-The sun glass holder on the ceiling in the LT model cant even really hold a pair of the standard sized oakleys, way to small

-I have the large touch screen, its laid out well and easy to use, but sometimes is slow, and say if you turn the volume or heat down up or down or any other function that function you are doing stays shown for to long and doesnt let you move on

-Changing the radio stations from the steering wheel takes two taps to move one station, annoying

-Doesnt really matter, but they have the same gear shifter as from 2007, 40k truck come on redesign it

 

 

Overall I like new the truck, I had a 07 new body style 1500 that was complete junk and was hesitant to buy Chevy again, but so far so good. But one thing I will say is I did own a 2011 F150 eco boost prior to this and the chevy engine is not in the same class, as far as power and I got better mpg in the ecoboost with the same gearing. Build quality was about the same, chevy is more updated but then again were talking a 2011 and a 2014. No complaints with chevy but if they dont come out with anything to match or exceed the ecoboost, Ill probably be back in one in a few years, the 5.3 is a dog compared to the eco.

 

And for those looking at Z71 or not. The trucks look very similar the days are gone where the non Z71 having crappy tires and rims and sits lower. The Z71 now is an appearnace package only beyond a skid plate and shocks, which in reality the Z71 far from makes it a true off road truck anyways. Difference in looks is the Z71 gives you a black plastic grill vs honey comb chrome grill and has Z71 stickers. Also with Z71 you CAN NOT HAVE the MAX trailer package.

[gmissed]

nards...I agree with your comparison on the F150 ecoboost. That thing was fast compared to the 5.3 GM. Between the 2 I've found that the gas mileage is about the same and both are super quiet. I'm happy with the 5.3 though so far.

[nards444]

nards...I agree with your comparison on the F150 ecoboost. That thing was fast compared to the 5.3 GM. Between the 2 I've found that the gas mileage is about the same and both are super quiet. I'm happy with the 5.3 though so far.

 

Yeah its not much I was 1MPG better in the F150 that was 4x4 same gearing and extended/double cab. The fast came from the torque and the fact there was no torque curve made it quick because with the eco you got all 420lbs of torque at 2500 not over a 2000rpm stretch. Which the torque has me worried as I do tow a big boat.

[daddis01]

I will add that, for me (5.3 & 3.08), at 4 months and 3500 miles my mileage is closer to 13.8 MPG combined. I am disappointed with that, but I agree with your other observations. Thank you for your update.

I will add that, for me (5.3 & 3.08), at 4 months and 3500 miles my mileage is closer to 13.8 MPG combined. I am disappointed with that, but I agree with your other observations. Thank you for your update.

[nards444]

I will add that, for me (5.3 & 3.08), at 4 months and 3500 miles my mileage is closer to 13.8 MPG combined. I am disappointed with that, but I agree with your other observations. Thank you for your update.

Im at 15.8 . I did put the k&N drop in filter last week and picked up .8 miles to the gallon already

 

If you havent I would reccomend the K&N one time about $40 bucks and they are lifttime, they dont void your warranty or change anything just a drop a in filter. Youll probably pick up at least 1MPG.

 

with 3.08 you would think you would get good MPG. Although i test drove one, and my only thought is you may have to gas it more to get it to move.

[nards444]

Interesting comment. The truck was complete junk but you liked it?

new truck, changed it for ya

[daddis01]

Im at 15.8 . I did put the k&N drop in filter last week and picked up .8 miles to the gallon already

 

If you havent I would reccomend the K&N one time about $40 bucks and they are lifttime, they dont void your warranty or change anything just a drop a in filter. Youll probably pick up at least 1MPG.

 

with 3.08 you would think you would get good MPG. Although i test drove one, and my only thought is you may have to gas it more to get it to move.

I'm still arguing with myself about "needing" to do anything aftermarket to get the truck to the minimum posted mileage (I know, your mileage will vary...right), I still feel that, especially with the 3.08 rear end, that it should be doing what it claims it can do in it's stock configuration.

 

I have had K&N's before. While I don't remember an MPG increase, I (at least psychologically) do remember it "feeling" like it had more power. Thanks for the advice though, I may get one again.

[nards444]

I'm still arguing with myself about "needing" to do anything aftermarket to get the truck to the minimum posted mileage (I know, your mileage will vary...right), I still feel that, especially with the 3.08 rear end, that it should be doing what it claims it can do in it's stock configuration.

 

I have had K&N's before. While I don't remember an MPG increase, I (at least psychologically) do remember it "feeling" like it had more power. Thanks for the advice though, I may get one again.

I put one in my old F150 and got almost 2mpg better. and Like I said a week later already seeing 1MPG. The way it see it at a minumum replace 2-3 paper filters and im at the cost of one K&N

[stevev]

thanks for your review. I have also been a F150 owner, my last was an 09 5.4V8, but I have family members with the newer Ecoboost, and they are nice. I'm still on the fence on whether to get a 14 or 15 Sierra, or just wait now for the new 2015 F150 and see how the two trucks compare. I test drove a V8 Sierra and it seemed nice but didn't feel like it was something I "had to have". Also, the local dealers aren't offering that much of a discount on the SLT All-Terrain model I like, compared to the discounts I'm used to seeing on Ford trucks.

[Sooperdave]

Good review! I agree with the channel flipping. I guess one reason is the ability to flip thru favorites without changing though. I was almost an F150 EB owner myself... Super happy I didn't! lol

[mike94silverado]

Thoughtful review nice!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bdbake01]

You guys must know some really hot ecoboosts out there. Granted, I have the 6.2 w/ 3.42, but my neighbor has a 2013 eco and I can absolutely rape him from a dig. I mean, it's not even funny. Left him like he was tied to a tree. He was not a happy camper. Became even less happy when I told him that I was getting better gas mileage too even though I drive it like I stole it.

[gmissed]

You guys must know some really hot ecoboosts out there. Granted, I have the 6.2 w/ 3.42, but my neighbor has a 2013 eco and I can absolutely rape him from a dig. I mean, it's not even funny. Left him like he was tied to a tree. He was not a happy camper. Became even less happy when I told him that I was getting better gas mileage too even though I drive it like I stole it.

LOL...Lots of chest beating here. This is one load of BS. Definitely your 6.2 will take a 6 cyl ecoboost but not like you describe. The EB will take the 5.3 - no problem. As for gas mileage you will not beat the EB. I know, I have the 5.3L and have had the EB - the EB got slightly better gas mileage than I'm getting with the 5.3L. So unless you're saying you are getting better gas mileage than the 5.3 then your post is BS.

[KARNUT]

I have a 5.3 on E85, I though that was an ecoboost hard to tell out my rear view. Yea it was I remember now looking at the side of the truck as I was going by.

[gmissed]

I have a 5.3 on E85, I though that was an ecoboost hard to tell out my rear view. Yea it was I remember now looking at the side of the truck as it was going by.

Made the correction for you.