1.) I KNOW that the 3.0 is based on the Lion 3.0. Even Ford has stated that the engine has been heavily redesigned to meet US emissions. And when Ford tries to design engines, the results are usually pretty terrible. 2) The 6.7 Scorpion is alright but I wouldn't call it awesome. It's easy for an engine to look good when the 6.0 and 6.4 it replaced were such garbage. It's a good thing the Austrians designed the engine for Ford or it wouldn't have had a chance. 3.) Funny there are a lot of guys with GM K2 trucks that never have a vibration issue. Some guys do, but the same can be said for the F-150. The 12th gen F-150 had high-speed vibration issues. The 2015-18 F-150 has the same high-speed vibration issue. Just like the GM K2's, some are affected and others are not. That was my point. Just because you trade one brand for another doesn't guarantee you won't have a vibration. 4) The guy in the video could take it to a dealer and have the dash replaced. It would be a waste of time but he could do it. A LOT of guys had their F-150 dash replaved only to have it warp again. It's a design and material issue, not a random chance. The plastic they're using is garbage.
LOL have fun with that Ford diesel. If there's one thing Ford has demonstrated, unless they have somebody else engineer the engine (like the 6.7, designed by an Austrian company), their diesels have been absolute garbage. Oh and guess what, the F-150 has the same vibration issues that have affected the K2 trucks. Plus the dash plastic is so cheap they warp sitting in the sun. It's been an issue since 2015 and Ford still hasn't fix it. Just hope your aluminum cab doesn't develop a crack or split out of the blue like some guys have. Take it easy on that aluminum bed too, don't want to crack it when you set the groceries down.
That's the reason GM is now making the axles themselves for 2019. They spent billions making a new axle production line in Michigan last year. AAM (the axle supplier for the K2 trucks) quality has gone to hell over the last few years. GM didn't have many options for axle suppliers that can supply that volume.
The stuff in the catch can is usually mostly water vapor, some unburned fuel, and some vaporized oil. The colder the weather, the more water vapor. If I leave my CC connected in the winter, I usually end up with a block of ice in it by the end of the week. In the summertime, I might have an ounce of stuff in it every 2,000 miles. I use an Elite Engineering CC.
Haha these oil consumption limits for warranty coverage are rarely arbitrary limits. More often than not, they're set based on complaints and projected warranty costs. Toyota and Subaru dropped their acceptable oil consumption limit in order to avoid warranty work on many of their newer engines (Toyota 2AZ-FE and Subaru EZ36D and 4 cylinder FB engine line). They issue TSB's and Limited-Service Campaigns with very narrow time windows (less than 1 year) for owners to learn about and have their vehicles checked for consumption. If they missed the deadline (less than 1 year) or the car didn't develop the issue before the deadline, they're stuck dealing with the problem on their own. Who would think it's normal for a company like Toyota to tell customers it's normal for their 2-3 year old Camry to burn anywhere near 1 quart every 1,200 miles? Yet it's a fairly common issue, especially in Toyota vehicles with the 2AZ-FE. http://www.toyotaproblems.com/trends/excessive-oil-consumption/ https://www.carcomplaints.com/Toyota/Camry/2007/engine/excessive_oil_consumption.shtml "Subaru considers one quart burned for every 1,000–1,200 miles to be within “normal specifications.” That means if you follow their recommended changing schedule, which is usually 5,000 miles, you’ll probably need to top of your oil reservoir 4 times or so." - http://www.subarucomplaints.com/trends/oil-consumption/ https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2014/subaru-class-action-lawsuit-excessive-oil-consumption.shtml "The majority of complaints say that they were told from Honda and dealership mechanics that it was normal for a powertrain to burn a quart of oil every 1,000 miles. The class-action suit claims Honda refused to honor its warranties and instead told people to check their oil every time they stop for gas." http://www.hondaproblems.com/trends/excessive-oil-consumption/ https://www.carcomplaints.com/Honda/Accord/2013/engine/excessive_oil_consumption.shtml Ford added the 500 miles per quart limit to the Mustang GT350 supplemental owners manual starting in 2016 in response to the number of 2015 GT350 owners complaining of massive oil consumption. Many had engines blow up because they didn't expect their brand new hand-built 5.2 Voodoo to burn 2 quarts in 1,000 miles. Car and Driver's long term GT350 burned 8.5 quarts of oil over the course of 11,800 miles - most of which were freeway miles according to them. "Since our last update, the 5.2-liter Voodoo V-8 has developed a thirst for 5W-50 synthetic oil. Over the past 11,800 miles, the high-revving engine has consumed 8.5 quarts. There are no leaks, so we can only assume that it’s exiting the quad tailpipes. If this were the ’80s, this might be acceptable, but it’s 2018 and oil depletion has become a rarity. Ford has released a supplement to the owner’s manual regarding oil consumption, stating that the engine could drink up to one quart every 500 miles under “extended time at high engine speeds, high loads, engine braking, hard cornering maneuvers, and track use.” Our car, however—excepting the odd mountain run and back-road blast, of course—has spent most of its life on freeways." https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-ford-mustang-shelby-gt350-long-term-test-update-2-review I'm just putting this discussion in the right context. 1 quart of oil every 2,000 miles is very low compared to what many manufacturers consider the "normal" level of oil consumption. Most of the GM Gen V V8's don't burn anywhere near 1qt per 2,000 miles. Some oil loss is normal simply due to the fact that modern engine oils have viscosity modifiers that vaporize under normal conditions inside the engine. A typical 0W-20 has some of the highest volatility ratings (NOACK Volatility aka ASTM D5800). The NOACK test heats oil to 250C and measures how much oil by volume is lost due to evaporation. Most 0W20's are in the range of 10-13%. In a Gen V 5.3 or 6.2, I wouldn't be surprised if you lose close to 1/2 quart due to vaporization in the summer, especially if you do any towing or aggressive driving. It's still a very minor amount of oil consumption.
The axle shafts are held inside the axle tubes by C-clips inside of the diff. When there is a little play, the axle shafts can slide side to side just enough to make a noise. When you push sideways on the truck, the axle shafts (attached to the tires) are held in place, so the whole axle housing (shafts and pumpkin) slides sideways. It's a normal characteristic of a semi-floating axle. Some make more noise than others depending on tolerance stacking.
LMAO Toyota and Subaru says it's normal for their vehicles to burn up to 1 quart every 1,200 miles. Honda has a similarly low standard for oil consumption. The new Mustang GT350's 5.2 Voodoo will "normally" burn up to 1 quart every 500 miles and that engine runs on 5W50. GM holds a fairly high standard by comparison. Especially if you take into account that most of their engines run on 0W20, which will lose 10 to 13% of its volume due to vaporization.
And 3.42's are more than enough when combined with the 8-speed or 10-speed. What I'm saying is that GM took away what little choice they once offered. Startong this year, if you want the 3.42's, you can't have a Z71 package and you don't get the option of a 2-speed transfer case. If you want a Z71 or Trailboss, they tell you okay you get 3.23's and you cannot have 3.42's. They have both axle ratios available so let us chose between between the two. It's even worse with the Custom Trailboss because they take the 8-speed away and give you the 6-speed, but only offer one axle ratio: 3.42's. A truck with the 6-speed should have the option of 3.73's. Even the 8-speed with 3.23's has a better final drive than the 6-speed with 3.73's. They basically crippled the Custom and WT trucks.
Good point on the premium fuel. I don't see why they can't make a milder tune that would let it get by with 87 octane. Call the 6.2 that requires premium fuel the 6.2 Max or 6.2 HO or something like that. Ford manages to do with with their 3.5 Ecoboost. Ford actually says the exact same thing GM does about octane requirements. Both say it's okay to run on 87 octane but knock might occur but for best performance 91 octane is recommended. I absolutely agree about gearing options. I didn't believe GM when they unveiled the truck this past winter and claimed that the big change with the 2019 trucks would be "more customer choice". I was right, we got the *illusion* of customer choice when in reality there's less customer chance than before. Two axle ratios to chose from is unacceptable. Especially if choosing the Z71 package eliminates any choice in which axle ratio you get. It's pretty widely known on here that the EPA estimates for the 6.2 and 5.3 are way too conservative. Before I started modding my truck I was getting high 23 and even low 24 MPG with the cruise set at 65 MPH. There are a ton of guys on here that get great fuel economy with the 6.2. One thing to keep in mind is that if you went from 2014-15 truck to a 2016-18 truck, the body styling was changed for a reason - aerodynamics. The 2014-15 trucks sacrificed aerodynamic drag for styling. For 2016, they smoothed the front of the truck and added stuff like active shutters in the front grille to bring the drag coefficient down. It's obvious that when the EPA revised their testing procedures a couple years ago, the fuel economy estimates became so conservative and inaccurate that it unfairly penalized GM's trucks. It seems like their test procedures rewarded turbo gas engines like the 2.7 Ecoboost but penalized naturally aspirated V8's. Ram cut 200+ lbs out of their trucks, added an active air dam that nearly drags on the ground it's so low, and made the truck even more aerodynamic but the fuel economy ratings are identical to the 2018 truck. GM cut around 400 lbs out of their trucks, added an even more aggressive cylinder deactivation system, auto start/stop, tons of aerodynamic improvements, and made the 8-speed standard in the LT and up trims. Yet the EPA says the fuel economy is the same as a 2018 truck except for a 1 MPG improvement in the city (thanks to start/stop). What a joke. The Raptor starts at $55k but the truck is so stripped out at that price, it's a joke. You don't even have the standard 8" touchscreen at that price. If you want the standard touchscreen, the price jumps up to around $60k. If you re-equip the Raptor with the stuff that comes standard in most XLT's or Lariats, the price climbs up past $65k fast.
No but if they offered the 6.2 in lower trims they wouldn't be able to even give the 5.3 away and their average fuel economy would take a big hit. It's the same reason why Ford doesn't offer the HO 3.5 Ecoboost across all trims and FCA doesn't offer any of their bigger V8's in the Ram. GM also leverages the big V8 to get people to pay a little extra for a higher trim level. That being said, if GM wants $50k+ for an LT Trailboss it better have the 6.2 in it. The TB is WAY overpriced for what it is.
Most OnlineNewest Member
Who's Online 49 Members, 0 Anonymous, 277 Guests (See full list)
- The Hoss
- Doug McIvor
- Dock Rocker
- Janno De Leon
- Sean Hartley
- Chris Shirey