Gm's Rebutall For The Eco-boost

ChevyTech77 · September 30, 2011

I can say that my stock 6.2 NHT truck has smoked several Ecoboost F150s around here.

I have multiple Dashhawk 0-60 times in the mid 5 second range....( 5.6, 5.7, 5.5)

So I think the rebuttal for the ecoboost is the NHT 6.2 package (3.73 gears are a big help)

Your stock 6.2 isn't doing sub six second 0-60 runs, sorry.

Have to agree because while I was impressed that I got mine to pull down a 14.5 @ 94, in a 1/4, it wasn't getting under 6.5 seconds to 60 no matter how hard I tried. Of course, I am running a completely stock truck and was struggling for traction on our terrible Michigan back country roads but I don't see traction and 3:73 gears dropping my

0-60 times 1 full second.

Knowklew · September 30, 2011

Your stock 6.2 isn't doing sub six second 0-60 runs, sorry.

Well then I guess my dashhawk is out of calibration or something. I did it multiple times, 4WD launches.

EDIT: Next time I get a chance I will make a video.

blairlee · September 30, 2011

6.2s are fast but I wouldn't trust any 0-60 times that weren't measured with stationary calibrated equipment. These in-car gadgets are useful and cool, but you'll never get truly accurate values from just an accelerometer or even GPS.

music · September 30, 2011

6.2s are fast but I wouldn't trust any 0-60 times that weren't measured with stationary calibrated equipment. These in-car gadgets are useful and cool, but you'll never get truly accurate values from just an accelerometer or even GPS.

Fixed. They're useless and misleading, imho.

blairlee · September 30, 2011

6.2s are fast but I wouldn't trust any 0-60 times that weren't measured with stationary calibrated equipment. These in-car gadgets are useful and cool, but you'll never get truly accurate values from just an accelerometer or even GPS.

Fixed. They're useless and misleading, imho.

Misleading when it comes to hard numbers, definitely. They can be helpful if you're just looking for changes from baseline, or if you have one of those OBD-monitoring gauge displays. I prefer regular stand-alone Autometers and real testing equipment, but it's hard to argue with colors and flashing lights.

Knowklew · September 30, 2011

well I have the dashhawk purely to monitor the status of my motor.

The MSD Dashhawk is an OBD2 monitoring device. So I have it setup so that I can see parameters such as: Actual Oil Pressure, Actual Engine Coolant Temperature, Ambient Air Temp, Intake Air Temp, etc.. etc..

I 100% agree with using a stationary device to measure speed tests. I am just stating what I have found in my experiences with my dashhawk.

I had the dashhawk in my TBSS as well as my Camaro, and it was very accurate. I would run it at the track simultaneously and the results were within 1-2%.

Again, just my personal experiences. Not trying to start any trouble/drama.

--Fred M.

ChevyTech77 · September 30, 2011

Never said that mine was 100% accurate but I'll bet it does WAY better than you're handheld stopwatch.

Silverado4x4 · October 1, 2011

You can count out- 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 and be more accurate then those devices.

becker87 · October 3, 2011

Everytime i see one in town i want to run with it, I know my truck isn't stock but it will still put a smile on my face!

Your removed your resinator? Did it make a difference and how is the sound? My 19 year old step son wants me to remove mine but afraid of it being too loud. I have a K&N CAI and BB tune...

It made the sound a little deeper, more noticable when standing outside the truck, it's not loud at all and there is no drone. I like the deeper growl and start up and i didn't have the money to throw down on an expensive corsa exhaust so this is a good option, cost me about 20 bucks at the local shop.

nickvrebel · October 3, 2011

so, back on topic........ someone said the 6.2L was a better match for the EcoBoost. How would you come to that conclusion? the Eco Boost is a V6. That puny little V6 can run with or out run the average V8 all day long if it wants to and when it's done it can get dramatically better fuel economy on the highway ride home. GM doesn't need to build a race truck, they need a truck that is appealing to the average person. That's going to be a truck with ample power to carry a load when needed and achieve reasonable fuel economy when it's not.

sic lsx · October 3, 2011

v6 turbo!! you act like its all motor. pull the turbo off and see what it does! throw a turbo on a 4.8 or 5.3 and see what the outcome is. I get 20mph on hwy in my 4x4 z71 the v6 turbo 4x2 gets 21mph so that is dramatically better fuel economy??? ill take my 30hp less truck, that much cheaper amd not look like shit and not to sounds like a ricer v6.

nickvrebel · October 3, 2011

but wait, when you are racing you are want to compare it to the 6.2L, when fuel economy is the subject you want to compare it to the 4.8L/5.3L

the turbo does a lot for the motor when it's under a load, no doubt about it. but what does the extra two cylinders do for you when cruising at highway speeds unloaded?

compare apples to apples. looks is a personal choice. I'd drive a Ford before I would a GMT900 Chevy if looks was a deciding factor. I'm not sure where you are getting the "sound" comment from.

blairlee · October 3, 2011

The point is not that it has a turbo, or what that engine or some other engine will or won't do with a turbo bolted on or taken off, or what you can or can't or will or won't do with engine tuning. The point is that Ford offers an engine at a reasonable price that delivers good power, better torque, and (relatively) great fuel efficiency. Oh, with a class leading tow rating and a nice powertrain warranty, too. In comparison, my truck makes a good deal more HP, a little more torque, and far worse fuel effieciency.

I love my Silverado and I bought it a few weeks ago after considering all of my options. If it weren't for the GMT900's superior styling inside and out, and the L9H engine, I have to say that I would have bought an F-150 with Ecoboost. It's okay in my book that GM is running a step behind right now; their truck platform is the oldest among the Big Three. I'm curious to see what they unleash in a couple of years.

ChevyTech77 · October 3, 2011

The point is not that it has a turbo, or what that engine or some other engine will or won't do with a turbo bolted on or taken off, or what you can or can't or will or won't do with engine tuning. The point is that Ford offers an engine at a reasonable price that delivers good power, better torque, and (relatively) great fuel efficiency. Oh, with a class leading tow rating and a nice powertrain warranty, too. In comparison, my truck makes a good deal more HP, a little more torque, and far worse fuel effieciency.

I love my Silverado and I bought it a few weeks ago after considering all of my options. If it weren't for the GMT900's superior styling inside and out, and the L9H engine, I have to say that I would have bought an F-150 with Ecoboost. It's okay in my book that GM is running a step behind right now; their truck platform is the oldest among the Big Three. I'm curious to see what they unleash in a couple of years.

Last I checked, the EB option was more than the L9H option. There throws reasonable price, right out the window.

Far worse fuel effieciency unloaded, same loaded. Ford still has a powertrain warranty that is less than GM's.

Plus, you're toating the L9H on one hand and the EB Ford on the other. Pick one. Wait, your wallet did. Game over.

music · October 3, 2011

In comparison, my truck makes a good deal more HP, a little more torque, and far worse fuel effieciency.

What kind of mpg difference? I've read on a few boards that the EB isn't doing any better than the 5.3 w/ mpg, and folks here speak of the 6.2 being within ~2 mpg of the 5.3. Curious...