|
|
07-23-2013, 04:45 PM
|
#21
|
Camper Less Camping
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NW
Posts: 3,642
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JFM-jr
Peak numbers dont tell the whole story its where it occurs. Ill take 385ft lbs at 3600rpms all day over 400 ft lbs at 4400 as an example.
|
I hear ya!
I like my 415 HP & 785 ft/lb Torque @ 1800 RPM )))))))))))
__________________
2013 Sabre 32RCTS-6 (sold)
Family of 4 whose always on the GEAUX!
|
|
|
07-23-2013, 04:52 PM
|
#22
|
Phat Phrog Stunt Team
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Tipp City, OH
Posts: 7,154
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super 8
Tundra 381 hp and 401 lb-ft of torque
Current GM 6.2 403 hp 417 ft of torque
New 2014 GM 6.2 420 hp 450 of torque
|
Did I hear right in the new advertisement, that the new 6.2 gets as good if not better fuel mileage than the eco-boost Ford? I've owned both Chevys and Fords, and have had good luck with both, but that new 1500 has got to take the cake!
__________________
2016 Georgetown 364TS
2017 Jeep Rubicon Recon toad
Nights Camped 2019 - 17
|
|
|
07-23-2013, 05:07 PM
|
#23
|
Mod free 5er
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Concord, NC
Posts: 24,702
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragin Cajun
I hear ya!
I like my 415 HP & 785 ft/lb Torque @ 1800 RPM )))))))))))
|
Didn't know diesels were part of the thread.
Probably hard for some to believe, but some of us either don't like diesels, can't afford diesels or just don't want diesels. That's what makes the world go around. Not everyone has the same wants or desires.
__________________
|
|
|
07-23-2013, 05:43 PM
|
#24
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Long Island N.Y.
Posts: 419
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyo700
Tundra makes the 401 lb ft at 3500 rpm makes for very easy towing.
|
Yes indeed my Hemi needs almost another 1K rpm to make that number. So on paper they make the same torque but as you said easy towing
__________________
2013 Wildcat 323QB
08 Silverado Crew Cab 2500HD Duramax-Allison
Twin Honda 2000 campsite friendly generators
Nights camped in 2014 = 19
(2013 = 36)
(2012 = 42)
|
|
|
07-23-2013, 05:45 PM
|
#25
|
Camper Less Camping
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NW
Posts: 3,642
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCoot
|
They're not...notice I didn't mention the evil word "diesel" but was sharing posters enthusiasm for peak power at lower rpm's ,)
Now you've soiled this thread & brought the "D" word in the game!!! LOL!!!
__________________
2013 Sabre 32RCTS-6 (sold)
Family of 4 whose always on the GEAUX!
|
|
|
07-23-2013, 10:09 PM
|
#26
|
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 180
|
|
|
|
07-23-2013, 10:17 PM
|
#27
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 903
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCoot
|
Couldn't agree more. I through the idea around but ended up with a tundra and could not be happier that I didn't get a diesel. My tundra straight rips with no issues pulling my toy hauler. Although its not very big it's not different than a diesel with a 12000lb fiver behind it doing the same.
__________________
2012 Sandstorm 203slc
2013 Toyota Tundra
Eqil-l-izer hitch,Prodigy P3
2014 Honda Pioneer 700-4
2004 Yamaha Grizzly 660
|
|
|
07-23-2013, 10:30 PM
|
#28
|
Mod free 5er
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Concord, NC
Posts: 24,702
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragin Cajun
They're not...notice I didn't mention the evil word "diesel" but was sharing posters enthusiasm for peak power at lower rpm's ,)
Now you've soiled this thread & brought the "D" word in the game!!! LOL!!!
|
Your signature gave it away.
__________________
|
|
|
07-24-2013, 06:23 AM
|
#29
|
Camper Less Camping
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NW
Posts: 3,642
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCoot
Your signature gave it away.
|
,)
__________________
2013 Sabre 32RCTS-6 (sold)
Family of 4 whose always on the GEAUX!
|
|
|
07-24-2013, 06:27 AM
|
#30
|
Camper Less Camping
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NW
Posts: 3,642
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyo700
Couldn't agree more. I through the idea around but ended up with a tundra and could not be happier that I didn't get a diesel. My tundra straight rips with no issues pulling my toy hauler. Although its not very big it's not different than a diesel with a 12000lb fiver behind it doing the same.
|
If your Tundra rips w/ the toy hauler...then my diesel must be equivalent to the space shuttle towing my 12K 5'ver....sorry but there is a BIG difference, as Old Coot stated we're all having fun either way! ,)
__________________
2013 Sabre 32RCTS-6 (sold)
Family of 4 whose always on the GEAUX!
|
|
|
07-24-2013, 06:27 AM
|
#31
|
Mod free 5er
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Concord, NC
Posts: 24,702
|
Enough about the stinking D's, this is a gasser thread.
__________________
|
|
|
07-24-2013, 06:35 AM
|
#32
|
Camper Less Camping
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NW
Posts: 3,642
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super 8
|
That's good news...I've always complained about the 6.0 being undersized for the GM pickup truck line, glad to hear the new 6.2 is going to offer some brute in the 1/2 ton truck line
I do miss the 1/2 ton's ride when unloaded...this new engine tech would get back in a GM 1500 for a DD!
__________________
2013 Sabre 32RCTS-6 (sold)
Family of 4 whose always on the GEAUX!
|
|
|
07-24-2013, 07:57 AM
|
#33
|
Wanna Be Camper
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,420
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ttrost65
Did I hear right in the new advertisement, that the new 6.2 gets as good if not better fuel mileage than the eco-boost Ford? I've owned both Chevys and Fords, and have had good luck with both, but that new 1500 has got to take the cake!
|
Nope you heard wrong The 5.3 supposedly is better not the 6.2. Probably need a fuel tanker in tow with the 6.2.
A 5.3L EcoTec3 V-8 is standard for the 2014 Sierra Denali. It produces 355 horsepower and offers better EPA-estimated fuel economy (23 mpg highway on 2WD models) than any V-8 or turbocharged V-6 pickup on the market.
__________________
John & Deb
2011 F250 Lariat FX4 Crew Cab 6.2
2011 Flagstaff V-Lite 30WRLS
|
|
|
07-24-2013, 09:17 AM
|
#34
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Long Island N.Y.
Posts: 419
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragin Cajun
If your Tundra rips w/ the toy hauler...then my diesel must be equivalent to the space shuttle towing my 12K 5'ver....sorry but there is a BIG difference, as Old Coot stated we're all having fun either way! ,)
|
Agreed, wether you like or need a diesel twice the torque at half the rpm is hard to argue with. Head up into elevation and the difference is even more pronounced. Just fact
__________________
2013 Wildcat 323QB
08 Silverado Crew Cab 2500HD Duramax-Allison
Twin Honda 2000 campsite friendly generators
Nights camped in 2014 = 19
(2013 = 36)
(2012 = 42)
|
|
|
07-24-2013, 10:19 AM
|
#35
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 80
|
I test drove the 6.2 gm before buying the ecoboost. I chose Ford for reasons other than the engine. The 6.2 was by far the most fuel efficient and all the people I know with them say the same. Better than the eco and better than my 5.3. It is a nice engine. The 6.0 is the pig on fuel. I have never heard anyone towing with the 6.2, but it seems to be a beast.
p.s the eco pulls awesome also.
|
|
|
07-24-2013, 10:19 AM
|
#36
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Long Island N.Y.
Posts: 419
|
BTW Dodge is stepping up the gasser game in 2014 as well 6.4 litre Hemi is standard .
__________________
2013 Wildcat 323QB
08 Silverado Crew Cab 2500HD Duramax-Allison
Twin Honda 2000 campsite friendly generators
Nights camped in 2014 = 19
(2013 = 36)
(2012 = 42)
|
|
|
07-24-2013, 11:53 AM
|
#37
|
Wanna Be Camper
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,420
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JFM-jr
BTW Dodge is stepping up the gasser game in 2014 as well 6.4 litre Hemi is standard .
|
Actually it is an option over the std 5.7 Hemi.
The Ram truck brand will introduce what it says will be the largest displacement V-8 engine in the heavy-duty truck segment in its 2014 Ram 2500 HD. The new pickup, which has a starting MSRP of $30,695, including destination charge, can be equipped with an optional all-new, 6.4-liter Hemi V-8 that offers more power and torque than the current Ram 5.7-liter Hemi engine and adds $1,495 to the sticker price.
__________________
John & Deb
2011 F250 Lariat FX4 Crew Cab 6.2
2011 Flagstaff V-Lite 30WRLS
|
|
|
07-25-2013, 07:08 AM
|
#38
|
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 180
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JFM-jr
Peak numbers dont tell the whole story its where it occurs. Ill take 385ft lbs at 3600rpms all day over 400 ft lbs at 4400 as an example.
|
Here is a map of the Ford engines with the silver GM 5.3 grafted in, which is Not bad- 355 hp/383 ft lbs/ 23 mpg hwy
|
|
|
07-25-2013, 09:15 AM
|
#39
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 80
|
these graphs are good info. They were a big part of my decisionin in chosing the eco. It doesn't necessarily have the biggest numbers, but I wanted the power at low revs for pulling. And I have to say it does that. I towed my trailer with a combined truck and trailer of around 15000 lbs last week. I set the cruise at 100 km, 5th gear which was 2100 rpm and it just kept right on going without any downshifts. My 97 5.4 struggled to get 80-90 km last time I went there.
To the original question though, the GM 6.2 has an almost identical torque curve to the ford 6.2, so I think you will tow your trailer with no probs. You may need a few more revs though in the tough spots. If you have a six speed auto, you might need 4th gear, which I'm guessing might take you close to 2800-3000rpm. Still not an issue I don't think.
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|