[sleepy]

No way you would own a duramax? Even though it's a GM?
You don't spend any time in the boosted forum, do you? They would run you out with that attitude towards turbos. A LOT of members here have turbos on their old Pontiac's.
And If turbos are junk, why are they used(without the so called problems) so extensively in semi's? WE go over a million miles without problems.
If cars have problems with turbo's it's only because the idiot behind the wheel doesn't know how to drive it.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by sleepy

No way you would own a duramax? Even though it's a GM?
You don't spend any time in the boosted forum, do you? They would run you out with that attitude towards turbos. A LOT of members here have turbos on their old Pontiac's.
And If turbos are junk, why are they used(without the so called problems) so extensively in semi's? WE go over a million miles without problems.
If cars have problems with turbo's it's only because the idiot behind the wheel doesn't know how to drive it.

i still have no clue where you're coming from on this one.

[big hammer]

[68gtoMN]

Sleepy, in situations like this you must remember the old adage which is timeless:

Never argue with an idiot - he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The Ecoboost 3.5 was not designed to BEAT the Chevy 6.2 or any other engine purely on HP AND be expected to deliver better mileage in all situations. Nope. The goals were more modest. What Ford accomplished was to develop a compact and lightweight engine that produced great Torque (you know...the force the actually moves an object) from a very low RPM and maintain it across a wide RPM band. As a by product of the engine size, when not being called upon to tow heavy loads (twice the payload and towing of the Chevy hybrid 6.0), it would deliver great mileage. In addition, the smaller package and lighter weight would provide better weight distribution, better suspension tuning, better turning, better braking all without having to upgrade these ancillary systems (cost).

Ecoboost provides the equivalent (better) torque, sooner in the RPM range AND across a wider RPM range, from a smaller package all the while delivering equivalent or better fuel consumption figures. The engine was tested, on camera, through more severe duty cycles than most engines can imagine seeing in two lifetimes and it still maintained factory specs upon tear down.

Ford did a great job with their Ecoboost engine line. Perhaps not all will like the styling or brand or colors Ford offers. So be it. GM and Chrysler also make good trucks. The issue here is that Ford has effectively shifted the paradigm and some can't come to terms with it. Just like computer controls would spell the death knell to performance cars...er...oops - that did not happen, people can't grasp smaller, boosted engines replacing cubic inches...

The facts tell the true story. The Ford 3.5 Ecoboost delivers equal or better performance than the 6.2 Chevy or the 6.0 Hybrid without sacrificing it's work credentials (towing/payload).

There is another old adage to follow - don't spit into the wind.

With twin turbos, Ecoboost is blowing hard in Chevy's direction...

[bigunde]

Well if you are gonna run twin hair dryers. Here ya go. LOL

http://www.lingenfelter.com/engine-p...emorative-edit

Not bad with 2 valves per cylinder and some pushrods. LOL

[dennis kirban]

Originally Posted by 68gtoMN

Sleepy, in situations like this you must remember the old adage which is timeless:

Never argue with an idiot - he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The Ecoboost 3.5 was not designed to BEAT the Chevy 6.2 or any other engine purely on HP AND be expected to deliver better mileage in all situations. Nope. The goals were more modest. What Ford accomplished was to develop a compact and lightweight engine that produced great Torque (you know...the force the actually moves an object) from a very low RPM and maintain it across a wide RPM band. As a by product of the engine size, when not being called upon to tow heavy loads (twice the payload and towing of the Chevy hybrid 6.0), it would deliver great mileage. In addition, the smaller package and lighter weight would provide better weight distribution, better suspension tuning, better turning, better braking all without having to upgrade these ancillary systems (cost).

Ecoboost provides the equivalent (better) torque, sooner in the RPM range AND across a wider RPM range, from a smaller package all the while delivering equivalent or better fuel consumption figures. The engine was tested, on camera, through more severe duty cycles than most engines can imagine seeing in two lifetimes and it still maintained factory specs upon tear down.

Ford did a great job with their Ecoboost engine line. Perhaps not all will like the styling or brand or colors Ford offers. So be it. GM and Chrysler also make good trucks. The issue here is that Ford has effectively shifted the paradigm and some can't come to terms with it. Just like computer controls would spell the death knell to performance cars...er...oops - that did not happen, people can't grasp smaller, boosted engines replacing cubic inches...

The facts tell the true story. The Ford 3.5 Ecoboost delivers equal or better performance than the 6.2 Chevy or the 6.0 Hybrid without sacrificing it's work credentials (towing/payload).

There is another old adage to follow - don't spit into the wind.

With twin turbos, Ecoboost is blowing hard in Chevy's direction...

In relationship to this particular post regarding the comments on torque.....my main retail business is the turbo Buicks best known among non owners the black Grand Nationals which in 1987 much to the dismay of Corvette was the fastest US production car..period.

This was was accomplished with a 3.8 V6 engine and a turbo coupled to a special valve body in a 2004R trans which travelled to a 3.42 rear end ratio in a 8.5 housing all in about a 3,300 lb G body car.

When this car came out most GM hot rodders found it hard to believe that this package was more potent than the Monte Carlo SS 305 with 3.73 gearing and a 7.5 housing in the rear.

This was probably the first example in the 1980s....where low end torque versus HP showed people what the difference was.....at 3,200 rpm the little V6 Buick was pumping out 330 lb pounds of torque....on a cool spring day this was and is impressive.

No one can predict accurately what the values will be down the road on the new Ford trucks....I can tell you from first hand experience how the 1987 Grand National value worked out as I leased one brand new and the buy out was 1/3 of what I sold it for.

The days are long gone when gas will be anywhere near $3 per gallon, most of us will never ever adapt to electric cars and trucks so if engineers from either GM-Ford-Chrysler camps
can make things work with gas engines get low end torque let them go at it with either turbos or superchargers or whatever.

One thing is certain we live in the USA and are fortunate enough to have a wide variety to choose from.

[email protected]

If your taking a poll I have owned mostly GM trucks.....

[The Boss]

You guys need to stop.

[The Champ]

Now, back to the topic...

The Best Big 3 Truck

Our poll shows that Chevy is the clear leader (and that is without the votes that could have been had if the poll were Chevy/GMC).

Ford, as of now, is closer to Dodge in votes than it is to Chevy.

Dodge trails Chevy by 41 votes.

Now it's no surprise to me that the Dodge is trailing like it is. But I expected that with all the vocal Ford apologists and the vocal GM bashers on this board that Ford would be closer to the top than the bottom.

Some here claim that we shouldn't say negative things about Ford products (some even say that we shouldn't do it because we have members that work for Ford). I'd just like to remind folks, that we have GM employees on this board also.

And at least one of those individuals has much involvement in a product that has been attacked profusely on this board.

This is a Pontiac board. Pontiac was part of GM. Yes, I like many here, am sad that Pontiac's are not still being made. But life goes on...

I'm just glad that it's public knowledge that Chevy builds "the longest lasting, most dependable truck" in this country.

[sleepy]

Originally Posted by The Champ

I'd just like to remind folks, that we have GM employees on this board also.

And at least one of those individuals has much involvement in a product that has been attacked profusely on this board..

Are those the same GM employees who put brake Assembly's in cars without pads? Who sent them out to dealers? Who sent their customers out on the street without the pads?(what happened to the dealers prep they charge for?) Are they THOSE GM employees???

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by sleepy

Are they THOSE GM employees???

If you would take the time to actually read and comprehend things on this board, you'd know how foolish you make yourself look with this post.

[sleepy]

You were expecting a different outcome to that pole here? I wonder what the results would be on a dodge or ford site? You're still a three year old in walmart screeching because his parents wouldn't buy the toy he wanted.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by sleepy

You were expecting a different outcome to that pole here? I wonder what the results would be on a dodge or ford site? You're still a three year old in walmart screeching because his parents wouldn't buy the toy he wanted.

it's more of a poll than a pole.

[sleepy]

Originally Posted by big hammer

it's more of a poll than a pole.

Good catch, Mr spellcheck.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by sleepy

Good catch, Mr spellcheck.

You should capitalize the first letter of a proper noun.

[sleepy]

Originally Posted by big hammer

You should capitalize the first letter of a proper noun.

I went to public school with union teachers, What do you expect?

[wytnyt]

yawn

[sleepy]

You're saying Union members are under paid and over worked? I thought they were in the union to keep the evil corporations from doing that.

[Featherburner]

Originally Posted by sleepy

You're saying Union members are under paid and over worked?

I'm saying, most teachers, union or not, are overworked and under-paid.

Originally Posted by sleepy

I thought they were in the union to keep the evil corporations from doing that.

Thinking comes from not knowing! They really have no choice in joining the union.

[bigunde]

Originally Posted by sleepy

You're saying Union members are under paid and over worked? I thought they were in the union to keep the evil corporations from doing that.

' In my opinion" They are until the Company goes under. Then on to the next. Reminds me of the Borg on Star trek. LOL

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/st...chers-bad-kids


oops scratch that, they do own a stake in the " New GM"

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by joshDub

If you are really concerned about efficiency, reliability, and price why not go with a Toyota?

because they have some of the worst mileage out of all the new full size trucks.