Towing with new GM 5.3 v. 6.2? Experience?

[Kalamazoo]

Any 5.3 vehicle is going to struggle with that Tomcat on grades. If you're towing on mostly flat ground, you'll be fine. If you're towing over mountains you'll want something bigger.

not many mountains in West Michigan...a few respectable hills perhaps. also looking at the transmission...8 is certainly more than 6, but will that make a huge difference? in tow mode is that actually 7 vs 5?

[85 Barefoot]

did you also demo a suburban? was there a huge gap between loaded chevy and denali?

Gap in price, performance, or finish?

Yes on all 3!

[Bill_AirJunky]

ok, ok, ok I know F-150 is the best unless you want diesel then it could be the RAM 1500 unless you go 3/4 ton then it's chevy, blah, blah, blah...

Based on family/crew size I'm feeling a truck just isn't going to be enough interior room. I need a 3rd row seat. So...I pull the boat locally (10-15 mins) 95% of the time. I will be making 3-4 longer towing trips each summer for WTW, etc...probably 2-3 hours each on relatively flat midwest terrain.

Question: I'm thinking suburban or expedition. My boat (MB Tomcat 22) is 4100 lbs dry, so I'm thinking 6500 all loaded up or so.

Chevy: 5.3 V8 'ecotech' 355hp 383 tq and 8300 lbs tow capacity.

Ford: 3.5 turbo V6 'ecoboost' 365hp 420 tq 9200 lbs tow capacity.

Both will be fairly loaded (probably one step below the top tier, don't need all of it)

I think both will do fine, but all opinions welcome.

I have the older 5.3 with the 4L60E, 4.10s & it'll tow my 5k lb boat & trailer fine. It gears down going thru the mountains (Cascades, Siskiyous & Hells Canyon) but has not had much of a problem. Trans lost 3rd & 4th gear at 152k miles.

I understand the newer 5.3 is a bit torqueier, possibly a better trans, & higher gears. Plus your towing more weight. So maybe you can use that as a comparison.

BTW, when I test drove trucks, I brought them home, hooked up my boat & tested up the biggest hill in my area.

[Soon2BV]

Is the Denali AWD or 4WD (switchable)?

[nyryan2001]

The 3.5L Eco Ford Expeditions can be had for $45k. You can barely find a 6.2L Chevy work truck for $45.

Yes the $60k+ Denali is nicer inside. But you don't have to spend $60k to get a great big engine 8-10k lb capable SUV. 5.7L Sequias start at $45k also.

Saying you have to spend the 60k for the Denali is what's called a false imperative.

Saying the 6.2 outperforms the 3.5 Eco... Barely if at all. Check the Ike Gauntlent reviews on YouTube. Not consistent with ANY set of facts or real world reviews.

[hethj7]

I can't speak to the Chevy engines as I haven't towed with them, but in my research, similarly equipped Chevy/GMC offerings were about $10,000 higher than the Expedition. We ended up in an Expedition and love the Ecoboost in it, just like we do in the F150. And yes, the 3rd row in the Expedition is MUCH more usable/comfortable than in the GM lineup.

That being said, the Expy is a bit of a dated platform and some options you just can't get on the Ford that GM has like adaptive cruise control and lane departure warning systems. In the end, we saved the money and are extremely happy with the Expedition - plus, like with our boats, my local Ford dealer is excellent to work with and never gave me a reason to buy elsewhere. The Expedition handles our VLX well with a full load of people and gear for long weekend trips and can handle the Ozark Mountains we have in southern Missouri. Again, I can't say how the GM's would tow, but can say we are happy with the Ecoboost.

[85 Barefoot]

The 3.5L Eco Ford Expeditions can be had for $45k. You can barely find a 6.2L Chevy work truck for $45.

Yes the $60k+ Denali is nicer inside. But you don't have to spend $60k to get a great big engine 8-10k lb capable SUV. 5.7L Sequias start at $45k also.

Saying you have to spend the 60k for the Denali is what's called a false imperative.

Saying the 6.2 outperforms the 3.5 Eco... Barely if at all. Check the Ike Gauntlent reviews on YouTube. Not consistent with ANY set of facts or real world reviews.

No one said he had to buy a denali.

As to the 6.2 v 3.5, I just did them back to back, last weekend. 6.2 in a heavy yukon XL platform towed better than the 3.5 in a much lighter 2016 platinum F-150 4x2 in stability, power, and overall towing ease. Which kind of bummed me because I was close to buying that truck (in 4x4). Not now. Full disclosure, that was sea level. But since the OP has a 6.2 and asking about the new 5.3s, I'm not sure who ryan was speaking to anyway about the EB?

I too like Nathan and Roman, but the Ike Gauntlet isn't the be all end all tow test. I used to have to drive it once a week. Timing how long it takes to climb the pass on a crowded road with traffic is silly. The EB SHOULD have beaten the 6.2 at 10,000 feet, as at significant altitude it is actually more powerful. After driving 6.2 and 3.5 the same weekend, 6.2 all the way for me, please.

Edited January 27, 2016 by 85 Barefoot

[shawndoggy]

No one said he had to buy a denali.

As to the 6.2 v 3.5, I just did them back to back, last weekend. 6.2 in a heavy yukon XL platform towed better than the 3.5 in a much lighter 2016 platinum F-150 4x2 in stability, power, and overall towing ease. Which kind of bummed me because I was close to buying that truck (in 4x4). Not now. Full disclosure, that was sea level. But since the OP has a 6.2 and asking about the new 5.3s, I'm not sure who ryan was speaking to anyway about the EB?

I too like Nathan and Roman, but the Ike Gauntlet isn't the be all end all tow test. I used to have to drive it once a week. Timing how long it takes to climb the pass on a crowded road with traffic is silly. The EB SHOULD have beaten the 6.2 at 10,000 feet, as at significant altitude it is actually more powerful. After driving 6.2 and 3.5 the same weekend, 6.2 all the way for me, please.

good point bringing altitude into the equation. What might be preferred at sea level might be second best at elevation.

[Kalamazoo]

good point bringing altitude into the equation. What might be preferred at sea level might be second best at elevation.

well...I live at 728 ft above sea level, rarely go "upland". so that means I need less prop engine?

Edited January 27, 2016 by Kalamazoo

[85 Barefoot]

well...I live at 728 ft above sea level, rarely go "upland". so that means I need less prop engine?

Every 1000 feet a naturally aspirated engine loses 3% of its power. turbos lessen that substantially. IF you're at 728 feet, the 6.2 will feel stronger both off the line and the ease with which it will hold speed.

All that said, the 3.5 is an excellent engine. I shouldn't have called it a dog towing as I did above. That was simply in comparison to the 6.2. I could certainly come to love the EB.

Edited January 27, 2016 by 85 Barefoot

[IXFE]

Guys I do love the Ecoboost. I owned one in my 13 F150 Limited. And it towes GREAT. I am with 85 on this though... The new 6.2 is better, imho.

And I also want to clear something else up about the money... Since the 6.2 doesn't start until you get to Danali, it is spendy as I already pointed out. But as I also said the LTZ trim is no joke. I have seen Tahoe's sticker out as high as $75k. I was drawing this comparison to essentially say, if you're shopping for a LOADED rig, the Denali is a bargain compared to LTZ trim. All else equal you're not paying much for that 6.2L engine. But you can get the Chevy stuff for as low as approx $50k (maybe less) if you're willing to have fewer options (lightly equipped LT). It's just no longer apples to apples to the Denali trim. Same thing can be said for Expedition. Sure you can get cheap ones with Eco. And at those price points the Eco shines over the 5.3. But regardless of the option level we just didn't like much besides the engine in the Expy. I really wanted to like it to because we both loved our F150.

One thing I love about the 6.2... she purrs like a muscle car!!

[IXFE]

Is the Denali AWD or 4WD (switchable)?

The older generation is AWD. The new ones (2015+) are 4WD.

[Nitrousbird]

Every 1000 feet a naturally aspirated engine loses 3% of its power. turbos lessen that substantially. IF you're at 728 feet, the 6.2 will feel stronger both off the line and the ease with which it will hold speed.

All that said, the 3.5 is an excellent engine. I shouldn't have called it a dog towing as I did above. That was simply in comparison to the 6.2. I could certainly come to love the EB.

Agreed...depending on the turbo application. At altitude, the wastegate will run a higher duty cycle. If the turbo application is already running near the limits of the turbo (IE @ 100% WGDC the turbos still can't hit boost targets) , it will be impacted exactly the same at elevation as a NA motor. That said, most turbo applications have plenty of head room (which is good for cranking up the boost), so typically they outshine NA & Supercharged motors the most at elevation.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Nitrousbird

[MLBurns]

Yes the Denali is more $, but the resale is much better than it will be on a Tahoe. I won't ever go back to the 5.3 after getting the 6.2 Denali.

[Cory]

I'm eager to put this 6.2 to the test. Sadly, our first pilgrimage to Eastern WA towing the boat isn't till June 25th. That Borla is going to sound awesome!!!

One thing the Yukon doesn't do is tell you what gear your in. I like to watch that. Sort of feels like the 2014 Malibu dash not sharing rpm's.

[Malibudude]

After 3 failed ecobust engines, a potential fire and literately dropping all the oil and failed to make it to the dealer...my 275k no frills Saturn blah car came to the rescue. I'm still not impressed with forced induction at this point ymmv. With that said I did drive a ford car w/ the EB 2L and it was quite peppy to the naturally aspirated 4 banger option.

[Cory]

My trouble with picking a new half-ton is that I prefer the GMC 6.2L & interior leather on the Sierra, but prefer the larger back seat, flat rear floor, tailgate step, etc. of the Ford. I'm torn between a 2017 Sierra Denali and a well-equipped 2017 F-150 Lariat. Wish I could order a Ford-GM Frankenstein vehicle.

[Malibudude]

My trouble with picking a new half-ton is that I prefer the GMC 6.2L & interior leather on the Sierra, but prefer the larger back seat, flat rear floor, tailgate step, etc. of the Ford. I'm torn between a 2017 Sierra Denali and a well-equipped 2017 F-150 Lariat. Wish I could order a Ford-GM Frankenstein vehicle.

The power plant is just huge and settling on that is hard to overcome. Larger rear seat cool but how may times are people sitting there, rear floor the truck has a bed and the rear step I thought GM did those as well but never needed. Tough choice but for me the powerplant would be the hardest to overcome with these options.

Ah, I found your truck...

[Cory]

My truck is my daily driver. I commute into downtown Seattle everyday with it. I have two child seats permanently installed in my backseat. I have kids in the backseat more than I have my boat or utility trailer attached to the hitch. So, for me the backseat area is a big deal. The bumper step cutouts in the Sierra just aren't as convenient as the tailgate step. You can step up/down into/out of the Ford bed while holding "stuff" in both hands with the tailgate step. The GMC requires one hand be free to use the bumper step. The bumper step is ok for getting into the bed, but pretty lame for getting out of the bed.

There are other features that I really like on the new Ford also: all around camera and adaptive cruise control. These aren't on the Sierra (this year anyway). I love the adaptive cruise control on my wife's Yukon, so I definitely want it on my truck. The all around cameras are helpful in the urban environment.

I agree, the engine is a BIG deal--that is why this is such a tough decision for me.

[IXFE]

My truck is my daily driver. I commute into downtown Seattle everyday with it. I have two child seats permanently installed in my backseat. I have kids in the backseat more than I have my boat or utility trailer attached to the hitch. So, for me the backseat area is a big deal. The bumper step cutouts in the Sierra just aren't as convenient as the tailgate step. You can step up/down into/out of the Ford bed while holding "stuff" in both hands with the tailgate step. The GMC requires one hand be free to use the bumper step. The bumper step is ok for getting into the bed, but pretty lame for getting out of the bed.

There are other features that I really like on the new Ford also: all around camera and adaptive cruise control. These aren't on the Sierra (this year anyway). I love the adaptive cruise control on my wife's Yukon, so I definitely want it on my truck. The all around cameras are helpful in the urban environment.

I agree, the engine is a BIG deal--that is why this is such a tough decision for me.

I feel like I'm reading my own posts!

In our case we traded our F150 Eco for the Yukon Denali. Three months later I miss having a truck so I'm considering replacing my daily driver with another half ton.

We were "this close" to getting a '15 F150 as the replacement for the '13 F150. Some things I love about the '15 + F150

* LED headlights with the Latiat 502A package

* 3.5 Eco is even faster in this truck cuz it weighs 700 lbs less

* As Cory mentioned the back seat and floor of the F150 is bigger than a Super Crew

* The pano sunroof is delicious

* Body style is subjective, but I love the look of the new F150, particularly how the sides aren't just a flat slab of metal anymore.

But alas we bought the Denali cuz we felt it was time to go back to a SUV that had seating for the entire family (not that we're all together that often). I love this Yukon so much That Now I find myself lusting for a GM half ton with the new 6.2. I thought adaptive cruise control would be annoying (like rain sensing wipers can be), but now I quite like it. I can live without the tailgate step, even though the updated one is superior to what I had on my 13. And I'd be fine with the GM backseat. One question, can you get the pano moonroof and power tailgate on the Silverados and Sierras?

Edited January 30, 2016 by IXFE

[Cory]

No on large moon roof, GMC has remote locking but not remote open. I don't think the remote open tailgate is that useful, but do like remote lock and easy drop, which they both have.

[85 Barefoot]

FWIW the new denali and silverado HCs can come with the power steps that with a tap on the end will swing rearward almost all the way to the rear tire providing a bed step. Pretty trick. I pulled an FS44 centurion this weekend with EB and then my denali. No comparison. I think the magna shocks and air suspension helped but even in the power department the 6.2 easily out pulled the EB. It became MORE evident with that heavier of a boat. So yes I spent last night speccing sierra denalis as well! Unbelievable engine.

[85 Barefoot]

I feel like I'm reading my own posts!

In our case we traded our F150 Eco for the Yukon Denali. Three months later I miss having a truck so I'm considering replacing my daily driver with another half ton.

We were "this close" to getting a '15 F150 as the replacement for the '13 F150. Some things I love about the '15 + F150

* LED headlights with the Latiat 502A package

* 3.5 Eco is even faster in this truck cuz it weighs 700 lbs less

* As Cory mentioned the back seat and floor of the F150 is bigger than a Super Crew

* The pano sunroof is delicious

* Body style is subjective, but I love the look of the new F150, particularly how the sides aren't just a flat slab of metal anymore.

But alas we bought the Denali cuz we felt it was time to go back to a SUV that had seating for the entire family (not that we're all together that often). I love this Yukon so much That Now I find myself lusting for a GM half ton with the new 6.2. I thought adaptive cruise control would be annoying (like rain sensing wipers can be), but now I quite like it. I can live without the tailgate step, even though the updated one is superior to what I had on my 13. And I'd be fine with the GM backseat. One question, can you get the pano moonroof and power tailgate on the Silverados and Sierras?

I actually read for the first time last night that the weight savings is in fact 700# over the old BODY, but they are using a more robust frame so the actual weight loss is only 50#s? Does anyone have Ford's specs to confirm?

[ahopkins22LSV]

I actually read for the first time last night that the weight savings is in fact 700# over the old BODY, but they are using a more robust frame so the actual weight loss is only 50#s? Does anyone have Ford's specs to confirm?

That is what I have heard too. But have only heard it from sources.

[IXFE]

I actually read for the first time last night that the weight savings is in fact 700# over the old BODY, but they are using a more robust frame so the actual weight loss is only 50#s? Does anyone have Ford's specs to confirm?

If that's true, then it really sucks of Ford to advertise it the way they do. They have been very vocal about 700lb weight savings. Shame on me for listening to commercials.

At some point last year I got curious and looked at the weight of 2015 F-150 vs. a 2015 Silverado 1500. The difference was more like 100lbs, not 700lbs (I don't have the data in front of me). That tells me the old F-150 was just that much heavier than the GM trucks. I shook my head at Ford back then, but figured "at least it's 700lbs. lighter than my '13 F-150." Maybe not...

EDIT: Quick check on Edmunds.com shows no weight listed for Ford F150 (new or used). What happened to that site? It used to be so good. Now it's like they try their hardest to obscure information.

Edited February 1, 2016 by IXFE