OneSlowV

iTrader: (2)

Most guys on here only own cars and wont to talk about how good the ecoboost is. C15 cats witch are twin turbo get 4.5-6 mpg while a cummins isx or 60 series can get 7.5 and up. Twins suck *** in the diesel world and gas world. Hook up the same load to a eco and 6.2 and watch the NA motor get 2 mpg better or more and pull the load better also.

siLversLeigh

Pulling my 96 z28 on an open trailer, my "ecobust" averaged 16.5 @ 55mph w/the cruise on. Good enough for me.

You can't even compare how much better my truck pulled than my wifes yukon denali did. I know not true apples to apples. But that's what I bought it for, not drag racing.

And yes it has been in the shop, the heating element in my seat quit working.

codyvette

iTrader: (24)

While this is very true (even though it's unfortunate my cummins is wrapped in a piece of **** Mega Crapp Dodge), you should never argue with a bunch of retards. Someone will walk by and not know which one is which. JUST F'N WITH YALL. Try not to get too butthurt.

OneSlowV

iTrader: (2)

I loved my 06 mega cab though i had a 6spd in mine.

codyvette

iTrader: (24)

Don't get me wrong. I love the idea of the mega cab, but the interrior quality sucks *** and the sheet metal is as thin as it can be. There have been way to many issues with head lights, wiring, blinkers, AC, etc. That rattling *** 5.9 fires up and hauls out like no other every time though and that is why I bought it. It will also so always get way to etter fuel economy, loades or not, than gas.

HioSSilver

iTrader: (8)

Good kill big!

snake95

I'm talking about the blatant disregard for the F-150's potential since that 5.0 one on street tires has hurt a lot of feelings on here. Be it 5.0 or ecoboost, the F-150's bring on the butthurt. GotHemi's first response pretty much sums up what I expected when opening the thread

OneSlowV

iTrader: (2)

The new body style cummins is nice but 16 mpg sucks. I had 200k on my cummins before i sold it not one problem besides replacing a clutch after i tuned it lol. Really depends on how the owner treats the truck. Seen were one guy never changed his oil or fuel filter or air filter for almost 40k miles on a 6.4 stroker. Takes it into Ford and ask them whats the problem with his truck. I wonder

big hammer

dude that guy with the f150 already got busted for lying.

big hammer

thanks dooood!

big hammer

cats have always been notoriously worse on fuel than cummins or Detroit.


but yes by nature a turbo'd engine is less efficient than an n\a one.

OneSlowV

iTrader: (2)

I had a 3406e that got 7.2 mpg but the newer cats are just junk. Nothing but trouble.

GotHemi?

Yeaaa broooo!! He's actually awd...wait...i mean 4wd!! and i know he has to be spraying a huge 125shot!! Everyone knows thats a recipe for a 9sec H/C/I ZL1 killing F150!!!

LMAO!!!

Gimmie a ******* break. Whether he's lying or telling the truth that work truck is putting the hurt on **** he shouldnt be and it has you spewing with envy!! Go get some Boudreaux’s Butt Paste for that wrecked butthole of yours...

kennyxg

iTrader: (1)

Big Hammer i have read all of your post on this thread.. Going forward, your new name is Big Tool!

big hammer

it's not huge but it's more than adequate. thanks!

big hammer

how is it envy when it's just that I can smell the BS a mile away? I've built several trucks, I know what they're capable of.

It'llrun

Do you have any idea how much of that "unproven" technology GM is finally starting to use in their vehicles?? Plenty. Look at all the changes to the 2014 Sierra 1500, etc.

I've driven 5 of those(great distances)...
http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel/...x?prestitial=1

Just so everyone knows, the "60 SERIES" is NOT a Cummins engine. It's a DETROIT DIESEL... Having also had those engines powering trucks I've put thousands upon thousands of miles on, my favorite is the DETROIT because the Cummins got worse economy under load(and I had N14's in some Volvo's before them) and worse, cost more to repair/maintain, particularly if the cam issue is considered. The new QSM12 will almost certainly replace the ISX at some point, even if it never meets that power level(which it surely will at some point).

No they haven't. My favorite would be the 3406 and I liked that as well as any Detroit. My worst economy was definitely from Cummins power. Not that I don't like the engines, but the economy wasn't good for me.

Which guru told you that? In diesels, specifically, we know better. In modern gasoline vehicles, it's also fairly clear that turbocharging can indeed be more efficient than not. Why do you think so many companies have brought out turbo engines over the past 6yrs or so? Because they sell efficiency.

Your idea is probably that it takes about 20% more fuel to make the turbo engine survive the pressures and heat... That's old school. Today we have direct injection on gas engines... Diesels have been using this type of system for ... who knows how long... The reality is, while the turbo engine may indeed burn more fuel, it generally makes far more power and torque per cubic inch in the process. That equates to better efficiency.

big hammer

the worst economy I've seen is cat engines. they have great low end torque and shift nice, but that's it.

best all around engine is the cummins. best efficiency is from the Detroit, but you gotta rev it up to pull.

there's a difference between volumetric efficiency and energy efficiency. a turbo greatly increases volumetric efficiency. however, it takes energy to run the turbo, which in this case the energy comes from the fuel. a portion of an internal combustion engines energy which comes from fuel is spent propelling a turbo. so by nature, a turbo engine is less fuel efficient than an n\a one. it's simple physics.

It'llrun

Simple physics, eh...

Simple MATH says the same size engine with a turbo can get better economy AND more power and torque. We've seen it hundreds of thousands of times in diesels and it's not a fluke or a guess... it simply happens. Match the power, turbo engine will get better fuel economy. Go for higher power, the N/A engine may get better economy but nowhere near the power. The "defeat" is using a larger N/A engine. At some point, one runs out of space to put said engine.

I remember the 1985 Ford Tempo GL diesel... roughly 45mpg hwy... Chevy Cruze gets the same today with it's 1.4L diesel. Ford used a 2.3 and GM uses a turbo. The Fusion Hybrid is rated at 47 today, and just look how small that engine is?? VW has its 1.9 TDI in the same mid 40's... All these engines are smaller than the old Ford Tempo diesel and all of them make probably double or more power, diesel or gas. That Fusion is LOW on power, but I think the old Tempo was around 45hp. Anyway, I'm going to bed, now that I think I can sleep!

Btw, I've seen terrible economy in CAT engines as well, but over the road, the 3406 is one of the best and I've gotten my worst with Cummins power.

OneSlowV

iTrader: (2)

Pulling wise for me. C16 > Volvo D16 > ISX and last but not lest Detroit 60.

MPG 60 series all the way besides a slow E7 i had lol.

Cant speak for the new Detroit motors or Paccar diesel though