Towing with new GM 5.3 v. 6.2? Experience?

[ahopkins22LSV]

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.

That is what I have been told from sources at each company. Ford basically reduced its weight to be equal, more or less, with the field. And if you listen carefully in the commercials they do say that it is 700lbs lighter than the previous model. At least that is what they are saying now.

[shawndoggy]

Car and driver weighed the 2013 and the 2015: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-f-150-first-drive-review

[nyryan2001]

85s experience also calls into question Ford's 3.5L Eco hp/tq specs.

Only north of 4000rpms should the 6.2L out pull the Eco.

Perhaps BS numbers by Ford.

Perhaps more favorable tranny gearing by GM.

[IXFE]

85s experience also calls into question Ford's 3.5L Eco hp/tq specs.

Only north of 4000rpms should the 6.2L out pull the Eco.

Perhaps BS numbers by Ford.

Perhaps more favorable tranny gearing by GM.

I haven't towed with our new 6.2 yet. But I will say the 3.5 Eco was a great tow experience, and it "crushed" on hills. I liked it better than the old 6.2

Can't wait to tow with our new rig. Next week!!

[85 Barefoot]

85s experience also calls into question Ford's 3.5L Eco hp/tq specs.

Only north of 4000rpms should the 6.2L out pull the Eco.

Perhaps BS numbers by Ford.

Perhaps more favorable tranny gearing by GM.

I haven't towed with our new 6.2 yet. But I will say the 3.5 Eco was a great tow experience, and it "crushed" on hills. I liked it better than the old 6.2

Can't wait to tow with our new rig. Next week!!

And to be fair, I wasn't crushing either. Towing I generally feather the throttle at 3200-3400 RPM, not like I was running around "trying" to wring them out. As I said before the 3.5 felt really great (I think I said a sweet town engine) but the 6.2 just made more pulling power easier IMO. Looking forward to your report back IXFE.

[rennis]

So what we are saying is Ford needs to Ecoboost their 6.2 and put all of this nonsense to rest? Agreed.

(honestly don't know why they don't turbo the 5.0 for high-end truck applications. If I could get a turbo'd Coyote in a Platinum I'd be all over that. The Germans have this game down very well.)

[boardjnky4]

So what we are saying is Ford needs to Ecoboost their 6.2 and put all of this nonsense to rest? Agreed.

(honestly don't know why they don't turbo the 5.0 for high-end truck applications. If I could get a turbo'd Coyote in a Platinum I'd be all over that. The Germans have this game down very well.)

I'm pretty sure that the 2017 Raptor is planned to be a Twin Turbo 5.0

edit: I'm wrong, C&D reports it's a 3.5L V6 Twin Turbo

Edited February 2, 2016 by boardjnky4

[Nitrousbird]

So what we are saying is Ford needs to Ecoboost their 6.2 and put all of this nonsense to rest? Agreed.

Cost, emissions and these companies don't do some of the cool things they should do.

If we are going to make that comment, why not put the LT4 from the Z06 in the GM? It's a motor that actually exists, is also a 6.2L motor and 650HP / 650LB/Ft of torque should tow nicely.

[RyanB]

CAFE is the reason Ford will likely never offer the EcoBoost in a V8. Unloaded MPG MIGHT be OK, but loaded you would likely get worse MPG than I get with my 8.1.

[rennis]

CAFE is the reason Ford will likely never offer the EcoBoost in a V8. Unloaded MPG MIGHT be OK, but loaded you would likely get worse MPG than I get with my 8.1.

probably so. It's just a shame because the germans are boosting their V8s and getting away with it no problem. Mind you they're typically smaller displacement (my X5 is only 4.4 liters) but they put out a crap ton of power per liter for a stock motor. I just wish the Americans would join in that arms race and give us something really fun in our tow rigs.

[oldjeep]

Never fear, they are both lighter than the Ram 1500 Although light weight and full sized truck is not something I'm real concerned about.

[Falko]

probably so. It's just a shame because the germans are boosting their V8s and getting away with it no problem. Mind you they're typically smaller displacement (my X5 is only 4.4 liters) but they put out a crap ton of power per liter for a stock motor. I just wish the Americans would join in that arms race and give us something really fun in our tow rigs.

All about cost and marketing. Maybe they should make a Canyon Cyclone edition from back in the day....