Who would get the V6 instead of the V8 if the MPG were better?

[SouthernSilveradoGuy85]

After all this back and forth between some of you I'll just say that I couldn't give 2 sh*ts which is cheaper and which makes more sense to own. I've always had Chevy full size V8 trucks and that's what I like. I've only towed once and I did need a V8 for that since the enclosed Uhaul tandem axle trailer was packed top to bottom front to back and I also had a lot in the bed including a fridge. I mainly use the truck to haul and there's been 2 separate times where I've hauled a ton and then a ton and a half of gravel. I don't need a V8 all the time, but I like having it in case I do need it. Like I've said before, a V8 is also like 4x4 to me, it's better to have and not need then to need and not have and then have to find someone. Hell I'm like some people and I just like the sound of a V8 period. The new 4.3s are a good V6 truck engine, but it wouldn't be enough for me rather it's just what I want or what I might need one day. Someone getting a V8 and not need it is a hell of a lot better and make more sense than someone getting a 3/4 ton or bigger with a diesel just to say they have a diesel and to roll coal. The only reason I would get a 2500 is to have a crew cab and standard bed and I would get a gasser anyways, but now since GM offers a 1/2 ton crew cab with a standard bed then I don't need to do that if I decided to get a full crew cab.

[Silverado Steve]

You mention initial purchase price. It makes a case for whenever a manufacturer dumps money on the hood to move trucks, resale plummets, something I wasn't able to effectively relay to the others in our conversation. That is why there is an argument the V8 will have a better resale value down the road. While a dealer will be more motivated to deal on a V6, in the long term, that will affect overall resale and trade-in...the 2 go hand in hand, hence why Toyota has such a strong resale.

 

If the V6 got like 20 city and 25 hwy with 4x4. I'd say there is an argument for getting it to save on gas. It's only major benefit is the cost savings of the intial purchase plus the possibility that dealers will wheel and deal on a V6 because they don't move off their lots as well as the 5.3 but, it doesn't move as well from a stop light either lol.

[Brian S.]

Steve, I "want" to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you keep going postal and ranting.

 

"Brian you are as dense as a wet loaf of bread." .

I hold a BA, a BS, and have worked in IT/IS for almost 20 years- the hallmarks of a dullard! Please though, feel free to keep trying to educate me, magnificent one!

 

"8 years ago I was driving a Crew Cab Toyota Tacoma with 236 hp and 266 pounds of torque that could tow 6K lbs, I never looked at a full-size becasue I knew better."

A lot of guys on this board would rather walk than drive a Toyota anything, let alone a Taco. I support American labor, so I buy a new American car or truck for my wife or myself whenever our vehicles get up to 70K miles. Nice of you to help the middle class along to their jobs at Hardware Hank, and transitioning into their new role as the "working poor".

 

Which is sort of like your ranting about E85. My dad grew up on a farm. My family still owns farm land. My best friend- yep- owns farm land. I imagine it wasn't thing to have putting around in your Taco, but in my American built Silverado it makes my hp 297, and my torque 330.

 

AND I get to leave wealth in our country, instead of sending it to overseas companies. (like Toyota)

 

"This goes to further reinforce that people want more power and efficiency from a truck upgrade and not, "well the 4.3 matches what I had 8 year ago"....again your words not mine.....also backed by sales fact."

 

Most of us just buy the latest 5.3l because it's the "sweet spot engine", the "bang per buck" engine. My last FOUR Silverados had 5.3s, because that is what you got if you don't need really heavy duty towing. (I wasn't driving around in a Taco )

 

I would have bought one again as well, for all the reasons you mention EXCEPT I think I saved a good deal of money getting the 4.3l. There's nothing "wrong" with saving money on upfront cost Steve. I don't look at trucks as a long term investment, or even care much about 5% difference in expected depreciation. (I trade them in every 3 1/2 years, so it's not like I'm "frugal")

 

It was a very difficult thing for me to buy a 6 cylinder, but after reading the reviews and driving the thing I saw it was very similar to my 2010 Silverado 5.3l I was trading in. I don't care what anyone else buys.

 

Mostly, I'm still in this thread to note how ridiculous your thesis statement about "The market has moved on, people need a V8, physics! Pushing harder on the gas pedal!" is.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_C/K

 

In 1981 to 1987, the 5.7l small block put out between 165 and 201hp. Physics! Everyone KNOWS you need well over 300 hp to get a truck moving. Just ask Steve, the guy who bought his first V8 engine this year, and is now the expert.

 

In 1988-2000, the 5.7l had 210 to 255hp. Physics! For those 19 years, trucks sat still because over 300hp is required to move a truck.

 

And they were still selling them under 300hp until about 2006, when we jumped all the way to 315hp "which made "all the difference".

 

This is an inescapable fact you can't refute. No matter how childish you get with your insults, how many logical fallacies you post (.E.G. Appeal to the masses, "Most people buy the truck I bought, it must be the right truck to buy.), no matter how many times you spit on American farmers and the American ethanol industry with your disdain.

 

This simple truth remains:

 

The 2014 V6 offers comparable performance in terms of speed to most, if not all, of the 4.8l-5.7l V8s of the last 34 years. So if people were happy with that, they "should" be happy with the 4.3l.

 

While the 4.3ls tow capacity is indeed behind some of the taller geared V8s of the last 34 years, it's still well over what 90% of buyers need.

 

As such, it's not a good deal at the same price as a 5.3, but if you can get a deal and were happy with your old 4.8 or 5.3, it's fine.

 

The "better to have the power and not need it" argument is ridiculous. Why is the 5.3s tow power what it's better to have and not need? The 6.2 has lots more tow power, wouldn't it be better to have that and not need it?

 

The "push harder on the pedal" argument is weak as well.

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-gmc-sierra-1500-62l-4x4-test-review

 

 

Did the driver shell out the extra $1995 to get the 6.2-liter V-8 engine upgrade from the standard 5.3? Because if he did, and he’s clever enough to engage four-wheel drive via the knob on the left side of the dashboard to make sure all 420 horsepower gets to the ground, that Denali—the trim that we tested—can be moving one mile per minute in 5.4 seconds, on its way to a 14.1-second quarter-mile at 99 mph

 

Wowee! 5.4 seconds 0-60 for another $1995 Steve! Let's see how your 5.3 does:

 

http://www.edmunds.com/gmc/sierra-1500/2014/road-test1.html

 

 

 

Doing this at the track resulted in a 0-60 sprint of 8.0 seconds and a quarter-mile time of 15.9 seconds at 87.7 mph. It's not fast, but it'll do.

 

Looks to me like you have to push on the pedal a LOT harder to get the 5.3 going Steve. Wouldn't the 6.2 have been a better choice for depreciation and performance?

 

Wouldn't you be happier with the 4.3 if you weren't going for performance anyway? Or maybe another Taco?

[PMattras]

May I ask a 2014 4.3L owner and a 2014 5.3L owner to do the math and calculate the cost per km/mile of his/her truck?

That's the only way to see which engine is "cheaper".

 

To make it somewhat compairable don't take the payment and interest into the equation (i.a.).

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Good question to get actual working data. I am only getting 17 mpg on my 5.3 in CT-New England Area. Still in the breaking in period with low miles. Please mention what area of the US because it varies in different locations. From flat to hilly etc. locations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

g

[Silverado Steve]

Brian you truly are a silly man.....

Steve, I "want" to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you keep going postal and ranting.

 

"Brian you are as dense as a wet loaf of bread." .

I hold a BA, a BS, and have worked in IT/IS for almost 20 years- the hallmarks of a dullard! Please though, feel free to keep trying to educate me, magnificent one!

 

Cool, so we have the same level of education, so this should be easy for you to understand.....let's dispel some of your ignorance shall we

 

 

"8 years ago I was driving a Crew Cab Toyota Tacoma with 236 hp and 266 pounds of torque that could tow 6K lbs, I never looked at a full-size becasue I knew better."

A lot of guys on this board would rather walk than drive a Toyota anything, let alone a Taco. I support American labor, so I buy a new American car or truck for my wife or myself whenever our vehicles get up to 70K miles. Nice of you to help the middle class along to their jobs at Hardware Hank, and transitioning into their new role as the "working poor".

 

This is the ignoramus statement of the year. You do realize that Toyota does build more of it's trucks in the US right in the heart of Texas in San Antonio right? SO at the end of the day, if your argument is for giving American jobs.....who's doing that. Toyota paying American workers in Texas $20/hr with benefits to build the Tundra and Tacoma, or GM for building the Silverado in Mexico? Where's your degree from?

 

Which is sort of like your ranting about E85. My dad grew up on a farm. My family still owns farm land. My best friend- yep- owns farm land. I imagine it wasn't thing to have putting around in your Taco, but in my American built Silverado it makes my hp 297, and my torque 330.

You do realize that even with both engines running full ethanol, the 5.3 gets better mpg's and better power than the 4.3, so while honorable that you are helping the midland farmer, you are no throwing any argument you may have had with cost benefit of the 4.3 out the window. While Ethanol is a renewable energy source, let's just forget the cost it takes to prosuce that corn to yield the energy to move a car with E85, ohh Let's not get into a debate of how E85 has raised the price of corn for the average American while the government has to subsidize the cost of E85 at a penalty to the American taxpayer to keep ethanol competitive.....where's your degree from again?

 

AND I get to leave wealth in our country, instead of sending it to overseas companies. (like Toyota)

 

"This goes to further reinforce that people want more power and efficiency from a truck upgrade and not, "well the 4.3 matches what I had 8 year ago"....again your words not mine.....also backed by sales fact."

 

Most of us just buy the latest 5.3l because it's the "sweet spot engine", the "bang per buck" engine. My last FOUR Silverados had 5.3s, because that is what you got if you don't need really heavy duty towing. (I wasn't driving around in a Taco )

 

What.....what it your argument at this point....I only tow less than 4000 pounds, most people prefer cost over wasting money on useless capability. .....most drivers only tow 90% of the time, most people don't haul 90%? SO what is the best option if that is your argument? but somehow a midsize doesn't work..... I'm lost?

 

I would have bought one again as well, for all the reasons you mention EXCEPT I think I saved a good deal of money getting the 4.3l. There's nothing "wrong" with saving money on upfront cost Steve. I don't look at trucks as a long term investment, or even care much about 5% difference in expected depreciation. (I trade them in every 3 1/2 years, so it's not like I'm "frugal")

Again prove it....you did mention you paid $32,000 for you V6....great, but a comparable V8 isn't much more. I'll give you this, I would agree that there is a higher probability that there are lower end stripped down models on dealers hand, then there are V8's, so if that is the case, then you can more likely than not, get a V6 off the lot cheaper than a V8 for more then the cost of a V8 upgrade. The only benefit would be if you needed a truck today and couldn't shop around or wait for an order.....How many people actually need to buy right away vs can wait is the question.

 

It was a very difficult thing for me to buy a 6 cylinder, but after reading the reviews and driving the thing I saw it was very similar to my 2010 Silverado 5.3l I was trading in. I don't care what anyone else buys.

 

Funny, your previous posts don't reflect that......It's taken you close to 3 pages to finally admit this, yet you sure seem adamant to prove that the V6 that works for you is the overall deal of the century that us V8 guys missed out on.

 

Mostly, I'm still in this thread to note how ridiculous your thesis statement about "The market has moved on, people need a V8, physics! Pushing harder on the gas pedal!" is.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_C/K

 

In 1981 to 1987, the 5.7l small block put out between 165 and 201hp. Physics! Everyone KNOWS you need well over 300 hp to get a truck moving. Just ask Steve, the guy who bought his first V8 engine this year, and is now the expert.

 

Ignorance at it's best.....I never said a full size truck needs to have over 300 hp to work....that was, I wouldn't consider a V6 personally in a full size if it had less, somehow you managed to twist this as me passing fact. You must not of had to take any science let alone physics in obtaining you BS degree.....Newton's law is a Law of Science, not a hypothesis....it takes energy to move mass...therefore, an object such as a V6 will require more work (gas) to initially move an object (5800 lbs Silverado) where a bigger 5.3 V8 will require less work initially.....is you BS degee a Bachelor's of Science or Bull Shit?

 

In 1988-2000, the 5.7l had 210 to 255hp. Physics! For those 19 years, trucks sat still because over 300hp is required to move a truck.

 

Ha....now your ignoring your own argument from previous posts, that back then, that's all they had....where are you getting this mythical 300hp as a baseline? by today's standard, those V8's would be considered underpowered. Years from now as engine technology improves our 5.3 and yes even your 4.3 will considered the same.....Brian you are a silly fool.

 

And the were still selling them under 300hp until about 2006, when we jumped all the way to 315hp "which made "all the difference".

 

Again....what the hell are you talking about.......so my personal opinion of I want the most HP for the buck in a fullsize, when this is thread about "why I would or wouldn't choose a V6" is taken as gospel for all full size trucks.....silly.....Brain if you are going to take anything I pass as personal opinion a fact, take this...."your post is making you look like an ignorant moron"

 

This is an inescapable fact you can't refute. No matter how childish you get with your insults, how many logical fallacies you post (.E.G. Appeal to the masses, "Most people buy the truck I bought, it must be the right truck to buy.), no matter how many times you spit on American farmers and the American ethanol industry with your disdain.

 

Any chance you are featured on people of Walmart.....this is truly ignorant.....millions of AMerican who drive foreign cars spit on the average Amercian......

Before you go full blown retard on us Brian, you do realize a large portion of the folks on here upgraded to a Chevy from a Tacoma......right?

 

This simple truth remains:

 

The 2014 V6 offers comparable performance in terms of speed to most, if not all, of the 4.8l-5.7l V8s of the last 34 years. So if people were happy with that, they "should" be happy with the 4.3l.

ok, so......this seems to be the focal point of your argument....So with that, I will play your silly game...you do realize that many 4 cyl of today make the same hp of the v8 of the 1940's right....even some from the 1970's. Look at the 180 hp 5.7 from the 1974 Corvette. So what you are telling me is I should be happy with a 4 cyl in a 2015 corvette you say? I'll await the how buying an import 4 cyl is taking food out of American babies mouths.

 

While the 4.3ls tow capacity is indeed behind some of the taller geared V8s of the last 34 years, it's still well over what 90% of buyers need.

True and acknowledged, but is it the best overall choice I ask? I said no, and have tried my best to prove why I say this.....you have chosen to ignore and cherry pick my statements to make your case, which I am no longer sure I understand, becasue now it's about American jobs supposedly.

 

As such, it's not a good deal at the same price as a 5.3, but if you can get a deal and were happy with your old 4.8 or 5.3, it's fine.

Cool, we agree.....

 

The "better to have the power and not need it" argument is ridiculous. Why is the 5.3s tow power what it's better to have and not need? The 6.2 has lots more tow power, wouldn't it be better to have that and not need it?

 

ok, at what cost point....you supposedly have a degree.....ever heard of target X? It's a simple thing.....If I can get 60 more hp, with a negligible hit on mpg over the 4.3 and the return will be realized at resale or trade in and my only hit is $1095 over the course of the loan of the vehicle, to me that is a no brainer upsell. If you want to push for the 6.2 If the arguement can be made the 6.2 has a lower cost of ownership than the 5.3, or the cost of upgrading is actually really low like I'm saying the 5.3 is over the 4.3 then I'm down. Soemthing I think you either neglect, or you choose to ignore is that resael is a factor in overall cost of ownership and cost to drive, yet, you throw this out like throwing out the baby with the bath water. I will say the 6.2 outsells the 4.3 so more people favor the higher engine choice overall. But for discussions sake, you can't get the 6.2 in the LT, much like you can't get the 4.3 in the LTZ.....

 

The "push harder on the pedal" argument is weak as well.

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-gmc-sierra-1500-62l-4x4-test-review

 

It's true Brain....physics my friend...physics is a low of Science. At some point, weight needs to be moved, and it takes work to so do.....I believe spurshot explained this quite well back on the 1st or 2nd page. With that, car manufacturers can manipulate this work through the use of gearing in transmissions.

 

 

 

Wowee! 5.4 seconds 0-60 for another $1995 Steve! Let's see how your 5.3 does:

 

http://www.edmunds.com/gmc/sierra-1500/2014/road-test1.html

 

Why are you constantly bringing up 1.4 mil time or 0-60....this isn't a big issue to me. You do realize GM retards the engine lineup overall for mpg's....these times are not a true reflection of how these engines truly perform overall....check out the tune thread.

 

 

Looks to me like you have to push on the pedal a LOT harder to get the 5.3 going Steve. Wouldn't the 6.2 have been a better choice for depreciation and performance?

Sure....I never said otherwise....this is a classic example of you pulling straws out of the air.....what's your point?

 

Wouldn't you be happier with the 4.3 if you weren't going for performance anyway? Or maybe another Taco?

 

No, becasue I cant a fully decked out LTZ with the 4.3....I already said that pay atenshun.......same goes with the Taco....it's too basic for what I want.....I'm one of those 10% who has $50K to blow on a waste of a truck

 

Alright Brian, I've already compromised my own principle of trying to win an argument on the internet.....that makes us both retarded now.....have a great day.

[Brian S.]

 

May I ask a 2014 4.3L owner and a 2014 5.3L owner to do the math and calculate the cost per km/mile of his/her truck?

That's the only way to see which engine is "cheaper".

 

To make it somewhat compairable don't take the payment and interest into the equation (i.a.).

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Good question to get actual working data. I am only getting 17 mpg on my 5.3 in CT-New England Area. Still in the breaking in period with low miles. Please mention what area of the US because it varies in different locations. From flat to hilly etc. locations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

g

 

My "since new" trip computer is 16mpg, but I've burned a lot of E85, been in 4wd a lot, and towed a lot so I don't know how representative that is of what people should expect.

[Brian S.]

Just replying to your crudely crafted and illogical arguments as presented Steve.

 

I live in Wisconsin, so I went to UW-Madison. At your college, did they teach you to bandy terms like "full blown retard"? I wonder how all the parents of autistic and mentally challenged kids feel about your quest to slander me with their child's illness? What's next, Politenessman? Going to pick an ethnic group and say I must be a member?

 

I know well enough it is torque that starts a truck moving, but you said (more than once) that the 4.3l is lacking because it's under your arbitrary "300/300" figure. The 4.3l has 305lbs torque on E10, and 330lbs torque (which greater than your arbitrarily chosen figure) so I chose to point out that for the last three decades most of the small block Chevys did not have over 300hp. It's a fact you can't deny, the 285/297hp of the 4.3l engine is in line with V8 trucks of the last three decades.

 

As you've shifted to attacking the torque of the 4.3l, I would note:

Every 5.7l produced in the 1980s has less torque than the 4.3l.

No 5.3l before 2014 has ever made more than 5lbs (1.5%) more torque than the 4.3l on E85. Even on E10 the 10% difference is a specious argument.

 

While I think it's nice you are "I'm one of those 10% who has $50K to blow on a waste of a truck" I have to question your entire argument at this point. It could be said that you can buy a 6.2 Silverado LTZ for $50K and you chose the engine with less power. I guess we think exactly alike on this issue.

 

Ask some UAW guys if they care about where Toyotas are built Steve. I live where all the cars used to be built and support my neighbors and American business. That means something to some of us, sorry you don't get that.

[Flying Tomatoes]

nope. give me the most powerful gasser, every time.

[nards444]

 

I'm starting to think you have a reading comprehension problem Nards. Brian said a small number of people buy a truck over $50K...he didn't say GM or the like to which I clearly showed that more people buy high end trucks than V-6 trucks....period..dot

 

You say "The fact remains the V6 is cheaper to buy and cheaper on gas, how much or how less is up in the air I guess." This seems to be the main point of your argument, yet it's not clearly the case.

 

And really, you are going to start using the Ecoboost as a V-6 example of the success of a V6 in the full size? Really, when last years ecobbost put out more power and torque than the Coyoye 5.0? That's not the discussion at hand.....the discussion is the 4.3. If the 4.3 output as much power as the 5.3, then we would have something, and yes, in terms of power to weight ratio, with our trucks close to 6,000 pounds, Yes, an Engine pushing over 300hp and 300lbs torque would be preferred, to which the 4..3 while close is not. Read the complaints of the last Gen 5.3 feeling underpowered by some.

I think its your comprehension that needs some work, and maybe should have taken some more reading classes.

 

Brians point was that not everybody is buying 50k trucks, which going by the data you provided across the boards looks to me about 15 or so out of 100 are 50k trucks or more.

 

And the V6 is cheaper its $1095 cheaper. It also gets better MPG it might be small but still is going to save a few hundo a year. Factor in that extra $1095 for a 5.3 will run $20 and some change more a month, along with the ability to get the v6 in lower trims, it could save someone a lot more money than you think. If you go back and read I have admitted the MPG difference is not that big, but its there none the less.

 

And no Im not bringing the eco into this, again you didnt read, you need some lessons. As I said the eco is not any ordinary 6. I also said Ford owners were skeptical of that engine but now every 100 F150s sold 60-70 contain a v6 engine. My point being was how a V6 was looked at skeptically but now is liked, albeit its a different animal than the 4.3. I dont know how you passed the ACT reading portion, because I am clearly agreeing with you on many of your arguements. But as Brian said you are clearly reaching and picking what you want out of the sky. its fine that you own one and you dont have to to justify to anybody why you have a V8 that you clearly do not need.

[Isriam]

10,000 miles a year at 2.68 a gallon with 1MPG difference is 88 dollars a year. Just to raise the bar, 15,000 miles a year at 2.68 gallon 1MPG difference equates to 657 over 5 years savings. These are rated at 17 and 18mpg average. If you go to 20/21 you lose even more savings.

 

I love this calculator, its what made me decide to get a tuner. Also, if you do add e85 your mpg drops, but you get close to the same hp/tq output as a v8, so thats a lose/lose. The only way you save money at this point in time, is by running gas, driving tons of highway miles (2mpg difference), and not towing. You probably save money on the trim, but again i think resale value probably negates that savings also. I understand if you have a certain price point, you get what you can get. But you should weigh the difference of the price points, resale value, cost of ownership, to get the best value. I'm sure going up 3-5k to a SLT over SLE would return that much over time, and probably cost you almost nothing in fuel upcharges or maintenance. But if you can't afford to go up 3-5k in trim, then this is a moot point anyway

 

Keep the name calling to a minimum though, I don't want this thread locked. Lots of great info.

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/savemoney.shtml

[KARNUT]

If your an extreme penny pincher, you can get a 5.3 lower option truck. you cant do that with the 6.2. BUMMER.

[nards444]

If your an extreme penny pincher, you can get a 5.3 lower option truck. you cant do that with the 6.2. BUMMER.

Yeah I still contend that was a big mistake by GM not offering that package in lower trims. I would have bought it as I haul heavy. But it wasnt worth it to me to spend 50k plus to get it. At 50k plus and if you haul heavy, a half ton shouldnt be where its at anyways.

[KARNUT]

Yeah I still contend that was a big mistake by GM not offering that package in lower trims. I would have bought it as I haul heavy. But it wasnt worth it to me to spend 50k plus to get it. At 50k plus and if you haul heavy, a half ton shouldnt be where its at anyways.

The only way I can justify in my mind to trade as often as I do is to buy good deals. They don't deal as well in the upper models caused they don't buy as many. I bought the upper model once had myself convinced I keep it an extra year, it almost killed me, as strange as that sounds. Im dept free as frugal as they come, but tell me I cant get a new truck when I want, just go a head and shoot me.

[Silverado Steve]

We seem to keep going round and round on this....let's clarify.

 

 

I think its your comprehension that needs some work, and maybe should have taken some more reading classes.

 

Brians point was that not everybody is buying 50k trucks, which going by the data you provided across the boards looks to me about 15 or so out of 100 are 50k trucks or more.

 

His exact statement was, "You're also in a very small group of buyers who will pay over $50K for a truck. Almost every one else either can't afford to, or chooses not to. (For example I had a 6 year old 150hp fishing boat and a 3.5 year old 5.3l LT truck I felt like replacing this spring, nothing wrong with either. Didn't mind spending a bit over $60K to replace both, but to add $15k to my outlay to get the leather trim and the 6.2l would have been more than I wanted to spend. (and I wanted to replace both)"

 

I think it goes without saying not everyone is buying a $50K truck, that much is obvious, but when you add up all those numbers of trucks exceeding $50K, guess what, it out numbers those who buy a N/A V-6 full size truck....crazy right? So what does this mean, it goes to reinforce, that more people will buy a high end truck than a low end cheaper model...by how much you decide.

 

And the V6 is cheaper its $1095 cheaper. It also gets better MPG it might be small but still is going to save a few hundo a year. Factor in that extra $1095 for a 5.3 will run $20 and some change more a month, along with the ability to get the v6 in lower trims, it could save someone a lot more money than you think. If you go back and read I have admitted the MPG difference is not that big, but its there none the less.

 

We discussed resale value that I introduced pages ago that you for most intents and purposes you discarded as negligible. When you factor in resale (which is a factor in overall car ownership), minimal to no MPG gain (several link showing there is minimal to none), especially when someone chooses to run E85 in the 4.3, is the 4.3 cheaper overall (Brian's practice, but contrary to his argument for cost benefit over a V8)? It goes to show that there is little to no savings, yet you maintain there is. Can you please show with some sort of factual data to dispell this since this is your argument? You never really supported this. Your statement is above has been discounted, so I don't understand why you keep coming back to overall price point as a significant factor? With all that said, if it comes down to $87 to $300 over the course of a year and $20 a month more for the loan to finance the V8 over a 5 year loan, are you buying a car you can really afford? While up for a different discussion of managing your finances, I would say, there are much better options if we're arguing value.

 

And no Im not bringing the eco into this, again you didnt read, you need some lessons. As I said the eco is not any ordinary 6. I also said Ford owners were skeptical of that engine but now every 100 F150s sold 60-70 contain a v6 engine. My point being was how a V6 was looked at skeptically but now is liked, albeit its a different animal than the 4.3. I dont know how you passed the ACT reading portion, because I am clearly agreeing with you on many of your arguements. But as Brian said you are clearly reaching and picking what you want out of the sky. its fine that you own one and you dont have to to justify to anybody why you have a V8 that you clearly do not need.

 

You mentioned that many V8 gear heads made the same statement about Ford's V6 ecoboost when it first came out....yes, however the difference between the 2 discussions, is the Ford Ecoboost generated more power than the mid-level Ford 5.0 at the time; whereas the 4.3 does not produce more power than the mid level 5.3. That's a significant oversight. Will people here view the GM 4.3 in the same book? Probably not. I already said GM will have to produce a similar output V6 for that to change pages ago. So I guess I don't fully understand the premise of your point on this. Your introducing irrelevant facts as a basis for argument.

 

For someone who says the agree with me, I'm confused by your arguments, because if your playing devil's advocate you would try to provide some sort of facts to prove your counterpoint. Now to go on and support the fallacies that BrianS keeps posting, at this point is silly. I tend to value your inputs Nard, but surprisingly to me is that for most of this topic, you have overlooked or neglected very obvious things that have been stated and supported many times overall by many other people than me, specifically what you claim that the V6 is cheaper to operate.

 

I'm going to say this here since I really don't have the time, patience and quite frankly the will to keep going at it with Brian. Brain lost all credibility with me when he stated that buying an import is akin to putting Americans out of a job, which is the farthest thing from the truth and quite frankly a statement I would expect from an ignorant hack. Since you are more reasonable than him on this topic, let's be clear on a couple of things. Brian is clearly under the assumption and still maintains that I have said the 4.3 will not move the truck truck, not what I said, my point is the V8 will move the truck easier, hence why the V6 doesn't get a significant MPG increase over the 5.3. I have never argued that the 4.3 engine doesn't work, my argument is, has, and will always will be that since this is an opinion thread, that I prefer the 5.3 becasue I will not buy a full size truck that offers mid size capability. just like I will never buy the 5.3 with the 3.08 gears (mentioned in another thread) It has nothing to do with my need to tow, my need to drag race, or my need for sound. I think we discussed this when you asked what argument the V8 crowd had other than nostalgia and sound. Apparently, overlooked that this is my first V8 and that I have no previous bias, yet I cannot offer an opinion on owning a V8 becasue it's my first (Brian's words) lost was I wanted a decked out truck, "luxury" if you will and the V6 didn't come in the LTZ trim. Highlighted yet neglected is there are roughly 25% of truck buyers in the market who buy for the same reason as me, meaning over $50K luxury trucks, I know you aren't debating what anyone should buy, i'm not arguing that the point is, more people will spend that kind of money, then those who buy at the other end, or at least a V6 equipped truck, and approximately 55% make up the middle of 5.3 V* buyers in the LT trim ...... Anyways had the 4.3 been available in the LTZ , I still wouldn't of bought it because it then offers mid size capability for which I would of bought either another Tacoma or one of the new midsize GM twins if I wanted cost over power. I didn't go with the 6.2 because they were on constrain and weren't readily available, had it been, I would of probably looked into it more.....it's as simple as that.

 

I think this is a good and healthy topic for discussion, but please do me a solid and provide some facts and context for your counterpoints. With that I think we're done going round and round on this....later

[nards444]

We seem to keep going round and round on this....let's clarify.

 

 

Italics is your proof for resale, bold is my rebutal. I think you have just as more conjecture than anything in saying resale will be so much greater. And Im not sure either of us can sit here and truely say how good or bad reasale might be in a few years or 5 years on this model. I think you are not wrong in assuming a V8 might command a little more value but how much is debateable. There are so many factors, region, how well that model faired in general, miles on the vehicle, trim etc. I just think your talking 5 years down the road with a 45-50% loss as you quoted, what does that loss truly represent. If you can only hang getting your money back at resale, then I dont how valid that is.

 

And yes I conceed the ecoboost is much different. My only point being is that it was a V6 and was much different. My point being was there was naysayers to something new or different and now its the biggest seller. BUt I will contend that if whoever it might be GM, Ford, Dodge etc, if they can build a NA V6 to produce ~350 HP and like torque and beat a V8 in MPG, the sales numbers might swap. In the current version your right more than likely not, I think it will stay at 20% or whatever I quoted which is higher than the 6.2l sales I beleive.

 

As for luxury you realize 25% is GM only, the largest seller of trucks which is ford is only like 10% and Dodge was what a little higher than ford. So for the GM brand you have 1 out of 4 willing to spend over 50k where as the others only 1 out of 10. I think that still shows 75-90% of the market is interested in cost or getting more value for their dollar. And if you compare GM only 25% is 50k and above and the V6 is around 20%, so IM not sure you can say luxury buyers are outnumbering v6 guys by that much.

 

"Don't beleive me or want to argue no one knows what the resale values are after 5 years, here's a simple test, do a search on Cars.com and see what the going rate is for a V-6 equipped Crew Cab 4x4. Here in Colorado a V6 Crew Cab 4x4 that lists for $43,0000 MSRP is going for $32,000 a market loss of $11,000; whereas a V8 equipped LT All Star that lists for $48,000 is going for $41,000 used at a loss of $7,000 market. So what is cheaper the V6 or the V8 in one year." Your now not only comparing two engine packages, but now two trim levels. Also at the end of the day do you know hold backs for each model, promotions, or what the final sale was after MSRP. So do we have apples to apples here. . At the end of the day I dont buy this obsession that reseale is so important when I buy, after 5 years I take a multiple thousand dollar loss anways, more than likely tens of thousands. How can one accurately say where each one of those thousands went, or if I chose this trim, or that engine I would be that much ahead, I dont think they can. So I kind of think this is a speculatory argument at best. Plus keep in mind the used car buyer is typically of a different mind set than a new owner. Used car buyers typicaly are savings shoppers, young people, people that are looking for a good deal more than anything. (addition) your also missing saleability. If Im going shopping for a used truck and dont need to haul a bunch of weight which one of those two trucks do I buy? Do Buy one that 41k where I could probably just turn around and buy a new one same trim level for 5-6k more or do I buy the cheaper one? If you notice at car lots a lot of times these high priced trucks sit and sit and sit some more, so eventually theres going to be a bigger loss. Also is your figures the actual sale or list price, those can be two wildly different things.

 

 

"At the end of the day, no one here is going to convince either party on what's right or wrong....the original topic was "Would you get a V-6" The resounding answer is NO!! play devils advocate, argue all you want, the bottom line is sales number back up the V8 crowd....the market doesn't believe or supports perceived resale value of the V6 as some have pushed and tried to believe, that is something you can play devils advocate all day long, but the real numbers do not support. Perceived resale of the 2014 Silverado with the V8 according to KBB is that the 5.3 will maintian 50 of it's value after 5 years, where the v6 will maintain 45%. that 5% is well more than the $1095 you will pay for the 5.3 upgrade." Well lets say we have two trucks at 40k ones a 6 and ones an 8, but otherwise like vehicles. After 5 years the 8 will be worth 20 and the v6 will be worth 18 according to your math. The v6 buyer is 2 grand in the whole. But paid 1000 less for the v6 saved 300 a year on fuel, his loan was 20 bucks cheaper for a savings of $1200 over 5 years. So really the V6 owner after 5 years is still $1100 ahead after 5 years not including cheaper insurance and basic maint on the engine. might be small beans for some, but none the less is cheaper. Still isnt the whole picture as typically the higher engine requires a higher trim level, making the vehicle cost more than the just the 1095 upgrade charge. And yes I know the V8 dominates sales, I have one and like it very much and wouldnt be in a NA V6. But have you looked at sales figures of the V6, specially GMs in the 2014, since they have more than doubled last year.