chaman

iTrader: (5)

In other words, you got owned. Simple.

SSU? Do you really are that dense?? Is that your only comeback; threads from YEARS ago? I expected more from a "always right" guy! Should we check all the threads HERE that you ended up looking like a clown? I know your type, the "know it all type", the ultimate, absurd, fanboy? You talk about contribution? What did you contributed here? "Facts" out of your ***? You have been called out by a lot of people here, but yet...your always right? Please.

Fanboys are like religion fanatics, detestable...and irrelevant.

I dont have the slightest interest in reading any comebacks your fanboy comes up with, so Im unsubscribing to this thread.

It'llrun

To go along with my other post, after reading this I decided to add...

It seems you're all but backpeddling. I mean, with you it's a room full of excuses, theories, disclaimers and discounted or simply unbelieved comments... as if you're the only one who's opinion matters, and all the facts are the words you added while the rest is conjecture from people who, unlike you, just don't know...

The reality is, the EPA didn't offer their test results to **** you off and they didn't make them up to give you a hard time. They don't, and won't, know you exist... It's NOT some big conspiracy against you and they didn't simply guess OR forget to ask for your input on the matter. After testing was concluded, they posted the results... The 5.3L Silverado may well have earned 15/21... That's NOT 16/22... It just isn't. To call it the same is akin to calling 1 the same as 2... Not so. Incorrect. False.

While you're rather quick to toss out the 5.3L as a comparison V8, that engine makes about 50 less hp and a WHOPPING 105 lb-ft less torque... That's A BUNCH when compared to a competing V8, let alone a V6. Even Fords 3.7L V6 nearly matches the 5.3L and does match the 4.8L in power. It's naturally behind on torque(278), but not as far as I expected. That 3.7L makes over 100 more hp than the competing 4.3L V6(which isn't comp for the 3.5L at all really) and easily has better economy than the 4.3L and 4.8L(V8). Those hp/tq numbers do suffer a need for high rpm, however.

Btw, the Ford competing V8(5.0L) shows at 15/21mpg(4X2 Supercrew w/ 3.55 rear ratio)... It also makes more power(360) and torque(380) than the 5.3L. The 4X4 SuperCrew is rated at 14/19 with 5.0L).

All told, I think GM has some obvious catching up to do AND there's no doubt in my mind, it will. Again, the info on those numbers came from the manufacturers websites and/or EPA.
Heh... Niiiice.

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

You say all this, yet YOU are the one who can't mount anything that resembles an argument without personal jabs.

Why was this above paragraph even necessary? It doesn't improve your argument at all, it doesn't phase me in the least (i've been called far worse by far bigger idiots), so what's the point?

It's because you feel you need to augment your argument, as if it's not good enough. Personal jabs are only necessary here when you can't hang otherwise.

Maybe this is why.

WTF dude? Where the hell this this **** come from? To say "left field" is being really nice. Now you are just pulling **** out of your ***. Like i'm some conspiracy theorist trying to say that Ford is paying off the EPA?!



Ah...and now we are bench racing. Great. You have no idea how this ecoboost will perform relative to these engines in the real world. The test that was the subject of this thread was a prototype, not a production model. If I have to remind you of all the examples of prototype tests that wowed us only to see the production model a big dissapointment, we'd be here a very long time.

If you want to buy the results of the prototype "test" (which i'd like to remind you, also claimed 19/26mpg), then by all means go right ahead. Sit here and bench race with everyone else based on the numbers this paper engine puts out. When the motor is out and doesn't sell because it's a V6 with V8 fuel mileage, i'll be back ONCE AGAIN to remind you that I TOLD YOU SO. I find myself doing that an awful lot on this site.

Here is one place where we agree. But this is how things go in the full-size truck market. It's going to be back and forth every year until some kind of ceiling is reached...more than likely it'll be fuel mileage regulations that kill off the fun.

It'llrun

Whatever, sport... You've made yourself look the fool. We need not bother anymore...

PS The test wasn't actually using prototypes... This F-150 model is coming to showrooms in the extremely near future(some say this month), and they'll be offered just like the one in the test, among other configurations. The only changes to the F-150 used in this test are related to the engine and it's supporting systems. The rest of the vehicle is no different than other F-150's already being sold.

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

If I had the motivation I'd link you a couple dozen threads where he was caught making up facts out of thin air, but alas I'm too bored by his antics. But if your really bored, type in Nissan GTR, Nuremberg ring, Blackbird24 into the search function and you'll see some of his most "classic" failures in the posting world.

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

HAHA...you are ONE OF THE LAST who should be talking. If there was a log kept on this site of members involved in the most locked threads, you would be AT LEAST top 3....maybe number one.

Pot meet kettle, glass house and all.

justin455

This is what I imagine a hooker convention to be like...

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

Another failed post by you...
I didn't say anything about not being involved in threads getting locked down. Great point though, however irrelevant...

It'llrun

Pricing(and at least some actual packaging) for the 3.5L showed up today... $4,050 option with the regular cab 8ft box on the 2wd XL model. With that, I think it's about $3,000 too expensive, but it still chimes in with a $27,065.00 price tag not including fees or extras... And it does get the highest tow/haul rating available in the F-150, 11,300 lb and 3,060 lb. Too expensive in that form for my tastes, you betcha... But a healthy sight under the 40K+ tag some were thinking.

I'd add more info, but it takes too long to look up all the variables. There ARE packages which aren't available with that engine. Then again, that's the deal with most. I tried to build a Silverado and their website and it kept sticking me with whatever specific model it wanted... generally a WT package, but for whatever reason, it won't even allow me to pick a 6.2L engine, let alone 3.73 gears... I had to go to GMC for that... When I did, the only version I could get it in is the Denali, at over $43,000... and even that doesn't show 3.73's availble...

Irunelevens

GMC is a pointless division that GM should have gotten rid of with Pontiac.

X-ray

iTrader: (6)

I never understood the point of GMC. Is the interior supposed to be more upscale or something?

Irunelevens

It used to be their "coach" company, for trucks/vans/heavy-duty stuff. But there is absolutely no reason that they can't just manufacture them as Chevrolets and save money. Like I said; pointless.

It'llrun

Nooo... We don't want that that... How else will we be able to do our own build and get quality info? cherolet.com sucks compared to GMC... I've always thought GMC made the better looking pickup. I also thought it was picked up before Chevy offered a truck. Still, I do agree that GM should've melded the two in badging and just offered decals or whatever, except those marked "GMC" or "Sierra" because even that would save money. It might also remove the crown from Ford as the #1 seller...

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

Especially considering that the new 5.0L V8 (DOHC 32V not unlike the Mustang GT) is only $1000.00.
I do like the new Ecoboost twin turbo V6 and think it could make for a decent truck motor but if I were to order a new F-150 it would likely be with the 5.0L.





Or keep it and do away with the Chevrolet light truck division instead. Even though it is somewhat redundant, I believe both were kept alive because there are just too many diehard loyal customers of both Chevrolet and GMC trucks that it was assumed that cutting either one of them would've cost too many future sales.
I understand the loyalty as most of them are great trucks.

Irunelevens

That's ignorance on the part of the consumer though. They're the same damn trucks. Either quit selling Chevy trucks, or drop GMC. Seems to be a no-brainer for me. There is no purpose to having both of them.

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

X1000000, they could do away with Buick and merge that with Cadillac while they're at it. Can't believe they made it this long making 2-3 of the same model with different body work and a different brand logo slapped on it.

Irunelevens

They need to keep Buick around because of their sales in China. At least keep them around IN China.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

True.
I've come to find that most vehicle consumers are quite ignorant LOL.




Well, they're not the only ones.
Toyota does it with Lexus, Honda does it with certain Acuras, Nissan does it with certain Infinitys, VW and Audi etc.
A little fake wood trim here, some chrome there, new badging and voila, a whole new car.

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

Oh I know that everyone does it, but nobody does it near as bad as GM does.

Irunelevens

Toyota has been moving Lexus further and further "upmarket" over the years, intentionally. The Camry/ES and Landcruiser/LX are the only ones that have been very guilty of that over the years. Honda and Nissan don't really do it too much. The Sierra Denali is the only consumer GMC that they have that doesn't have an almost EXACT Chevrolet copy. And even that one is pushing it.