Jump to content

Gm's Rebutall For The Eco-boost

Prdtrgttr

Recommended Posts

becker87 Senior Enthusiast

becker87

Posted
Posted

I think a twin-turbo V-6 is a great idea, in a mustang or camaro, not a pickup. I hope GM comes out with a few different V-8 engines with DI. As soon as they come out with a larger gas engine with DI and put it in the HD pickups i will be getting one for sure.

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply
66 ROG Enthusiast

66 ROG

Posted
Posted
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.

 

I've alway hated that excuse. It's the same excuse I heard when I easily spanked a Silverado SS with my Lightning at the track. "Well if I put a supercharger on my truck, I would be much quicker than your POS."

 

Having said that, I love my '11 Silverado and chose it over an EB. We'll see how Ford handles the EB issues and pass judgement later.

Stevens03 Senior Enthusiast

Stevens03

Posted
Posted
I've alway hated that excuse. It's the same excuse I heard when I easily spanked a Silverado SS with my Lightning at the track. "Well if I put a supercharger on my truck, I would be much quicker than your POS."

 

Having said that, I love my '11 Silverado and chose it over an EB. We'll see how Ford handles the EB issues and pass judgement later.

 

Come on now,... the Chevy SS isn't even in the same class as the Lightning. Its almost embarrassing for GM to put the SS badge on that truck. They were nice looking but they weren't all that fast. And I agree, if the SS was supercharged then it would be a real race. :thumbs:

 

And I agree.... Hopefully Ford stands behind the issues and fixes them.

dirtfan21 Senior Enthusiast

dirtfan21

Posted
Posted
I've alway hated that excuse. It's the same excuse I heard when I easily spanked a Silverado SS with my Lightning at the track. "Well if I put a supercharger on my truck, I would be much quicker than your POS."

 

Having said that, I love my '11 Silverado and chose it over an EB. We'll see how Ford handles the EB issues and pass judgement later.

 

Come on now,... the Chevy SS isn't even in the same class as the Lightning. Its almost embarrassing for GM to put the SS badge on that truck. They were nice looking but they weren't all that fast. And I agree, if the SS was supercharged then it would be a real race. :thumbs:

 

And I agree.... Hopefully Ford stands behind the issues and fixes them.

 

 

Exactly, that is like racing a crotch rocket against me on a BMX bicycle. :drool: The SS was an ext. cab truck built to handle a bit better than stock, be kinda quick, yet be able to tow a boat and drive it in all weather. The Lightning was an all out in your face race truck that sat two.

66 ROG Enthusiast

66 ROG

Posted
Posted
I've alway hated that excuse. It's the same excuse I heard when I easily spanked a Silverado SS with my Lightning at the track. "Well if I put a supercharger on my truck, I would be much quicker than your POS."

 

Having said that, I love my '11 Silverado and chose it over an EB. We'll see how Ford handles the EB issues and pass judgement later.

 

Come on now,... the Chevy SS isn't even in the same class as the Lightning. Its almost embarrassing for GM to put the SS badge on that truck. They were nice looking but they weren't all that fast. And I agree, if the SS was supercharged then it would be a real race. :thumbs:

 

And I agree.... Hopefully Ford stands behind the issues and fixes them.

 

 

 

My point exactly. Not in the same class, but he thought it would be a good race and then had to make excuses afterwards.

jro909 Senior Enthusiast

jro909

Posted
Posted

i watched the eco-boost torture test vids on youtube...and remembered why i dislike watching brand funded propaganda....running an engine full bore for 24 hours straight with maximum weight being towed with no failures seems unrealastic...

wavery Enthusiast

wavery

Posted
Posted
i watched the eco-boost torture test vids on youtube...and remembered why i dislike watching brand funded propaganda....running an engine full bore for 24 hours straight with maximum weight being towed with no failures seems unrealastic...

 

The environment is controlled and the stress is constant (another control)....... no one knows how many engines melted down during a video shoot or how many shoots were done. I dislike this type of advertising also........ GM is just as guilty with this sort of stuff.

music Senior Enthusiast

music

Posted
Posted
GM is just as guilty with this sort of stuff.

 

Not nearly as bad, imho. GM's normal advertising can be pretty funny, but Ford has put out a bunch of "net only ads" where they have guys dragging, towing, etc. against competitors' trucks. The guys doing the video are almost nauseating to listen to, kinda like reading Ford user forums when they're bashing the competition. GM has commercials with good humor, and seems to stay out of the mud. I don't think I've ever seen the kind of bashing Ford has put out on the net from the others (?). It's enough to keep me off the Ford lots...

Stevens03 Senior Enthusiast

Stevens03

Posted
Posted
Not nearly as bad, imho. GM's normal advertising can be pretty funny, but Ford has put out a bunch of "net only ads" where they have guys dragging, towing, etc. against competitors' trucks. The guys doing the video are almost nauseating to listen to, kinda like reading Ford user forums when they're bashing the competition. GM has commercials with good humor, and seems to stay out of the mud. I don't think I've ever seen the kind of bashing Ford has put out on the net from the others (?). It's enough to keep me off the Ford lots...

 

The one that cracked me up the most was the Ford commercial claiming it would take 2 silverado's to tow 11,000 lbs that Ford claimed there truck could tow (small print showing properly equipped). :cheers:

 

Found it: Makes me laugh

 

music Senior Enthusiast

music

Posted
Posted
Found it: Makes me laugh

 

+1. I wish I could find the ads from about 10 months ago where they had guys in Atlanta testing the trucks "side by side" in different situations, with words like "wow, this thing is spinning the wheels"... vs "the pedal is on the floor, but I'm not sure we're going to make it" for the GM 5.3 :cheers: . Or... the one where they have an "engineer (salesman)" walking around them all with the hoods up, pointing out how cheaply the "others" are built, but *not* the F150. And I can't forget the one where they have all the frames on a pivot, with weights, looking at frame flex (as if one is "better" than the other just because it's "stiffer" in their *specific* test geometry). There's more, but I couldn't find them if I tried. The "ads" are pretty sleazy, and "over the top".

 

Heck, even our local dealers follow the same pattern:

- Ford/Dodge: "Huge blowout now, trucks, trucks, and more trucks... come on down... superdooty... just 21995... how can you pass this up?!!!!!!".

- GM: "Labor day event going on now, please stop by".

 

Maybe that's just *our* local dealers?

APT Enthusiast

APT

Posted
Posted

Ford used the same engine in all of its EB torture testing. It put it in several trucks, though. How many shoots? No one knows. Was it marketing? Yep! Does it represent the real world users? Some, but probably not many.

csheatz Senior Enthusiast

csheatz

Posted
Posted

Time will tell if this is a good idea or bad, I do give Ford credit for taking this idea to market. They are putting their ass out there for what could become a epic fail or change the light truck market.

kdixer Enthusiast

kdixer

Posted
Posted

With todays outlook and budgets concerning fuel mileage, whichever auto manufacturer creates the technology to burn gasoline in the most effecient manner stands to make alot of $$$$. Ford is marketing the ecoboost as this technology. Unfortunately forced induction is not new technology and direct injection is not really new anymore. Sure DI is still being developed, but it has been out for a couple of years. As I have stated earlier, you are only going to get so many BTU's from burning a specific amount of present gasoline blends. Until a way to extract more energy from a smaller amount of fuel is discovered, fuel consumption is what it is. Vehicle weight, the amount of HP an engine is capable of producing and effecient gearing are the only solid ways to affect fuel mileage. Engines with less hp will consume less fuel, but only if the power to weight ratio of the vehicle/engine combo are not out of whack.

MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted
GM is just as guilty with this sort of stuff.

 

Not nearly as bad, imho. GM's normal advertising can be pretty funny, but Ford has put out a bunch of "net only ads" where they have guys dragging, towing, etc. against competitors' trucks. The guys doing the video are almost nauseating to listen to, kinda like reading Ford user forums when they're bashing the competition. GM has commercials with good humor, and seems to stay out of the mud. I don't think I've ever seen the kind of bashing Ford has put out on the net from the others (?). It's enough to keep me off the Ford lots...

 

 

 

Funny as in that douchebag Howie Mandell bashing Ford for having a tailgate step? I have no use for one but I bet lots of truck owners with bad backs or knees think it's a godsend. He's a smug little turd and I'm glad he's gone from the TV spots. GM has plenty of net-only stuff too, some geared toward the competitive testing but others just pull a bit at the heritage of the brand and I really like those. Too many people these days just think of vehicles as another appliance like their dishwasher or lawn mower but for lots of people (and I'm betting just about everyone here) vehicles play a huge part in our lives. I bet just about everyone here remembers a special car or truck that dad, grandpa or an uncle had when they were a kiddo, right?

music Senior Enthusiast

music

Posted
Posted
Funny as in that douchebag Howie Mandell bashing Ford for having a tailgate step?

 

I don't think I saw that one (I don't watch TV much)... but funny, as in: http://superbowlads.fanhouse.com/2011/chevy-lassie-truck/ :lol: When I mention the Ford stuff, it's their 30 minute "infomercials" that are hard to watch. They present it like it's engineering/scientific/factual, but it's not. So long as they have even a hint of humor, it's fine though. Not knocking Ford engineering, just their sleazy marketing tactics.

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • silveradosid
      Replacing 2.7L on 2021 Silverado with 2023 2.7L

      By silveradosid · Posted

      same here , i have a 2020 first gen and the cost to repair these engines far excedes replacement
    • KARNUT
      OCI, not when but why?

      By KARNUT · Posted

      But Grumpy I did show several subdivisions that had homes starting in the 170K range. If you bought a Townhouse or Condo you could go cheaper. Same with a car 3000 dollars in the 70s translates to around 20K today. There are several models at that price. You actually get more for the money. In the 70s I drove a 3000$ car bought a 28K home and made 4.50 per hour. Thank goodness for overtime. Today I could buy a 170K house drive a 20K car and make 25 dollars an hour operating the same machine today. The difference the house, car, machine would be better and have AC. And I wouldn’t be taxed on overtime. And statistically your wife works too. Easing the burden. I thought we agreed to disagree. I brought receipts earlier, showing examples. I think you’re more stubborn than me. I was done with this debate. 
    • Coastie05
      Replacing 2.7L on 2021 Silverado with 2023 2.7L

      By Coastie05 · Posted

      I’m definitely interested to hear the end result here. 
    • MASONV88888888
      Another 6.2L engine failure!

      By MASONV88888888 · Posted

      My 2025 Silverado 1500 had to receive a brand-new engine (long block) under warranty last month at only around 16,500 miles. Before the replacement, the truck repeatedly displayed "Engine Oil Level Low" warnings, even though the Oil Life Monitor still showed around 50% remaining after about 6,000 miles since my last oil change. After seeing the warning several times, I checked the dipstick with the engine cold, and the oil level was completely normal. The next day, the message escalated to "Add Engine Oil." At first, I assumed it was just a faulty oil level sensor, so I brought the truck to the dealership. After inspecting the engine, they found internal cylinder wall scoring and ultimately replaced the entire long block under warranty. Before this happened, I was planning to install a 4-inch lift and suspension upgrade on my truck. After needing a new engine at just 16,500 miles, I honestly don't see the point anymore. I also contacted GM to ask whether my vehicle qualified for a buyback, but I was informed that it does not at this time. Anyway, this experience has left me with serious concerns about the long-term reliability of this engine. I sincerely hope NHTSA expands the current investigation or recall to include 2025 model and performs a thorough inspection of affected vehicles. My biggest concern is that these engines may fail shortly after the powertrain warranty expires. If GM truly stands behind this engine, then at the very least, please consider extending the powertrain warranty to 10 years for affected owners. That would go a long way toward restoring customer confidence.
    • Grumpy Bear
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Without exception but then I'm the odd duck, right? I know what goes into that test, how it is calculated and thus how to beat it. But EPA values are often not beaten by the general public and the government has in past years adjusted the means and methods to come to those values to more closely approximate "Joe Average".    The only real trick to beating that EPA average is don't drive like "Joe Average".    It's the same method you used to profit from "Economic Migration" and in doing so beat the 'stats'. But you, like me, are not "Joe Average".     The thing you don't seem to grasp is this "Purchasing Power Index" isn't forward looking. It doesn't predict what it going to be but looks backward and states what it was. They are not telling us what the THINK, they are telling us what they MEASURED. Example:    Wife says "I'm going to lose 40 pounds by Christmas". May she does, maybe she doesn't but the doctors office who weighed her when she made that statement and again at Christmas only REPORTS what the RESULT was. You and I can banter about what was possible and what aunt Tilly did till the cows come home but the result is the result. Arguing otherwise is.....irrational. That's all I'm saying. This isn't about:      What you are calling a 'Statistic' is a RESULT not a CALCUATION and as a result the RULE. Like gravity as a rule, it can not be broken. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...