Why do you say that the 6.0 liter engine is a 1/2 ton engine? Its not even available in the 1/2 ton. From what I've read it performs very well in most applications. As long as your not towing avery heavy trailer for extended time it should do fine. Plenty of get up and go.
I also don't see why you feel it's appropriate to compare the 5.4. The 5.4 is in a whole lot of 3/4 ton trucks there guy. The ford v10 sucks gas like its free. If you don't want diesel, you drive a 5.4. Comparison is fair game here.
Tim- There is a whole lot of ford owners that don't consider thier 5.4 a loser. It happens to be an excellent performing engine.
Denial must let you sleep better at nite. There are many many many 3/4 tons Superdutys out there right now with 5.4s, and it is still a popular engine.
It is a very capable engine.
The 5.4 is the base engine in Fords 3/4 HD. The 6.0 is the base engine in GMs 3/4 HD.
wow...a V-10 outdoes a V-8....that takes a heck on an engine..
you still don't get it....nobody ever said it was better...just that it runs close with it..and has 2 less cylinders....if I want to compare apples to apples...I'd use the CURRENT 454 VS the V-10...again Ford would lose...(just like 6.0 VS 5.4)...
and nowhere did I ever say the 6.5 was a good engine. GM missed the boat by thinking diesels would not catch on (although they were strong with them in the early 80's).....but the new Durmax I feel will make up for all that.
So tout all you want that a bigger engine outdoes a smaller one.....i feel it's better to say a smaller one runs with a bigger one...
But tell me more that Ford can outdo Chevy with a bigger engine....it's so entertaining...
I believe those logos mean more to you than even YOU know?
well we can go round and round. i think we have made full circle. it all started when you said GM higly over-rates there engines. i rebuted that, and this is where we've ended up.
Selective reading is you're constant references to the v10 vs 6.0 comparison when we've been saying over and over and over the 6.0 is the base engine in GM and the big engine in Ford. thats the detail you've 'selectively read', so that the Ford wins in your eyes.
Instead of starting over again, i'll say it this way: in response to this quote "What GM rates and what is consistently found being put to the ground are significant descrepancy".
No. This has been found once, and once only.
And the same magazine did a pull-off in these trucks, and the GM truck outpulled it.
The chassis dyno had nothing to do with gearing, transmissions, or any of that--it simply measures horsepower put to the ground.
So if this test showed the GM put 40% less horsepower to the ground than the Ford...how in the hell did it outpull the Ford?
I read a quip in Popular Mechanics that outlined the new straight six 4.2 engine from GM.
a little more complicated than anticipated.
24 vavle DOHC (collective gasp) where the hell are my pushrods!?
drive by wire controls Valve Variable timing (oil pressure controls spring loaded helical gear on front of exhaust cam and has 25° range!!!!! (Honda had done this almost the same last year)
with that kind of timing control, thats probably the way they get so much horsepower and mileage out of such a small package. I have a feeling this engine probably has a very high horsepower peak, like the other vortecs do, simply becuz its torque curve is solid all the way up to redline.
this is going in this year's new Blazer. I wonder if it will replace the 4.3 in trucks?
if i remember right,car and driver television did a road test of the 3/4 ton chevy vs f250sd.the chevy was 6.0 the ford was v10.they pulled each other on a trailer and the chevy pulled the ford better than the ford pulled the chevy. but they were both excellent tow vehicles.
I know I brought that up a while back. In fact Chevy previewed it at Baja in Larry Raglands race truck loosely based on Chevy's new "Trailblazer" The Blazer will be history from what I've read.
My prediction is that a lot of the technology/parts will end up on an OHC V8 very soon. Sort of like Ford's modular motors.
can you like, just, shut up? or...if you want to make some personal attacks...take it to tim's site. everyone dropped the "he said, she said" crap and now for some unknown reason...you have to start it back up.
309 and 313-317 prove that others were willing to move on. but you gotta come back and start again with 318. are you so uncomfortable with your own vehicle that you have to continuously attack the decisions of others? go check out tim's site, i left a little message for you there...
bco you can't argue with an idiot, they will beat you with experience. just ignore him.
Mod, I remember you saying that. The 'Blazer' name is gone. The redesigned 'Blazer' will be renamed also to Trailblazer. Same size vehicle.
Its interesting the reason they went to OHC...that mechanically gives them room for the variable timing mechanisms. I can't wait to see the torque curve on that thing.
This variable valve timing stuff is the future. Navistar will have it on the next generation of powerstrokes, and boy, look out. They will have fully electronically controlled valves.
GMs mechanical solution overcomes a major power problem...12 volts requires too much amperage to operate valves. There is a push in the auto industry to go to a 48 volt standard...that allows them to get the wattage at the valve solenoid without having a huge amperage.
Just looking at the new Vortec v8s, its hard to see how they could change that thing over to OHC, from the whole layout of the block. At least from the deck up, it seems they would have to start from scratch.
GMs engine line up doesn't lend itself very well to the modular Ford style, either.
"Just looking at the new Vortec v8s, its hard to see how they could change that thing over to OHC, from the whole layout of the block. At least from the deck up, it seems they would have to start from scratch"
Your last sentence..... It could be far fetched but I'm sticking to that prediction for now. Say 5 years?? GM/Chevy was actually the best in auto history at interchangeability I don't think they'd design this new DOHC for just one application. For instance the 6 cylinder head will become a 4 cylinder or 1/2 a V8 head later. I agree there might be new blocks but Ford's SOHC V6 and even the oooold SOHC 427 were based on the OHV blocks.
Edmund's full size pick-up truck comparison is now is now being featured on their homepage. Here's the direct link to Road Test: 2000 Full-Size Pickup Truck Comparison Test. Let us know what you think.
Not bad. I like the fact that the Ford won. I would like to see some more stats, like acceleration when loaded, towing, maybe some specs on the trucks as far as at least rear-end gearing. That could make a big difference as far as which one felt more punchy. Anyway, that ought to give the Shabby fella's enough to groan about.
another fine story that belongs in the comic books at the magazine rack...
Chevy lost by 7/10 of a point....blows ford away in Power and features.(what really matters)..but loses due to "personal preference".......a feature the comic books always seem to include..which can be very biased....
I'm not sure what to make of the test. It almost seemed that the writers wanted the Chevy to win sooo bad but just couldn't do it. They praised the Chevy more within the F150 reviews than its own. Wonder if the Ford would of been a little quicker minus the extended cab? Here we go.. Swift.... p.s. But a win is a win is a win...
Good review. On an 80 pt scale, the Ford wins by .7? GM lost all points on looks? I think the conclusion was good. Both trucks are top notch overall, and deserve to be where they are, at the top of sales.
I'd say it was a pretty subjective article. I think Edmunds should do it more often. Yearly basis would be great and would get a lot more folks into the website if they knew that every year, Edmunds did a test on the current offerings.
is they're all very close in what they're supposed to do and it may ultimately come down to personal preference or even that last test drive. I realize that any of the trucks could have had a squeak or rattle that wasn't normal but if you're on the fence and the truck you're testing is making wind noise or rattling it might make the difference in the final choice.
.4 of a second is not blowing anything away in the 1/4 mile.
Cdean, please advise on your links showing specs, thanks.
I'd say powertrain and braking are more important than styling. They said the Ford had iffy brakes, a backseat as bad as the Tundra and a lackluster powertrain. Sooo...why did it win? Because they thought the Silverado was "stupid" looking and had iffy build quality. Also, they said the Tundra would have won if it had more available features (still not sure if that's a great criteria to base your choice on). This has got to be the most subjective, factless comparasions to date.
...to descriptions of the vehicles in general. They test drove trucks provided to them by the manufacturers with any number of options. If you look at the first of the story, concerning each truck, it lists the options, like limited slip rear-end, but it doesn't give a ratio. LS rear-end is not standard on the Ford so that was an option. The ratio of which could have been anything. Same with the Chevy. It had an optional rear-end. And I would bet anyone right now that it was lower geared than the Ford.
I noted in that truck comparison that the Tundra was faulted for a soft suspension, but it was the only one of the bunch that did not have the optional Off-Road suspension package. I wonder why they did that? Seems like the test would have been more comparable if they would have included the TRD Off Road package on the Tundra which includes the Bilstein shocks and progressive rate springs. Just an observation.
Telling about old technology under a new body isn't personal attacks...it's the truth. Perhaps if you knew anything about trucks other than Ford...you would know this.
....hmm..I don't see any posts on my site from you...I guess you haven't really been there..
..perhaps your grade behind kid can figure how to post for you?
you must try to think like a lunatic who's wife left him...then you will understand the mind of F150....he is so caught up in himself and Ford...he doesn't know real from fake.....he has lost all battles...so lame name calling is all he has left....I'm saving mine for the real battle....on my site
...funny how he can so readily identify the sounds of low quality, rattling, vibrating, junk so quickly, eh? must be first hand experience with his own trucks i guess! LOL!
Maybe I will change my screen name to something pig headed...like ChevyRules!?.....nahhh..that would be too child like...
I can't wait until the new F150 comes out...then we can have fun with all it's first few years probs...nahh...that would lower myself to F150's level...(whatever his name is)
Comments
I also don't see why you feel it's appropriate to compare the 5.4. The 5.4 is in a whole lot of 3/4 ton trucks there guy. The ford v10 sucks gas like its free. If you don't want diesel, you drive a 5.4. Comparison is fair game here.
Tim- There is a whole lot of ford owners that don't consider thier 5.4 a loser. It happens to be an excellent performing engine.
Denial must let you sleep better at nite. There are many many many 3/4 tons Superdutys out there right now with 5.4s, and it is still a popular engine.
It is a very capable engine.
The 5.4 is the base engine in Fords 3/4 HD.
The 6.0 is the base engine in GMs 3/4 HD.
exactly how unclear is that?
good job of avoiding my comments though...
I agree....the majority of Superduty's are 5.4's...not V-10 and Powerstroke....
Actually I'd bet the diesel outsells the V-10!
- Tim
on the road, i see powerstrokes, then 5.4s, then v10s.
I give up too....you can't convince me
- Tim
V-10 (dont know the trans or rear end axle combo)
310HP @ 4250 RPM
425 ft/lbs @ 3250 RPM
6.0 Liter V-8 (manual, 3.73 rear end)
300 HP @ 4800 RPM
370 FT/lbs @ 4000 RPM
you still don't get it....nobody ever said it was better...just that it runs close with it..and has 2 less cylinders....if I want to compare apples to apples...I'd use the CURRENT 454 VS the V-10...again Ford would lose...(just like 6.0 VS 5.4)...
and nowhere did I ever say the 6.5 was a good engine. GM missed the boat by thinking diesels would not catch on (although they were strong with them in the early 80's).....but the new Durmax I feel will make up for all that.
So tout all you want that a bigger engine outdoes a smaller one.....i feel it's better to say a smaller one runs with a bigger one...
But tell me more that Ford can outdo Chevy with a bigger engine....it's so entertaining...
I believe those logos mean more to you than even YOU know?
- Tim
GM 1500 vs F150
4.3 vs 4.2 (adv GM)
4.8 vs 4.6 (GM)
5.3 vs 5.4 (draw)
GM LD 2500 vs F150 HD
5.3 or 6.0 vs 5.4
GM HD 2500 vs Superduty 250
6.0 vs 5.4 (GM)
454 vs v10 (Ford)
8.1 vs v10 (GM)
6.5 diesel vs 7.3 (Ford, by far)
6.6 vs 7.3 (GM)
These are the 'facts'. These are the competing models that each manufacturer makes.
I can't wait to see how you dispute this...
Selective reading is you're constant references to the v10 vs 6.0 comparison when we've been saying over and over and over the 6.0 is the base engine in GM and the big engine in Ford. thats the detail you've 'selectively read', so that the Ford wins in your eyes.
Instead of starting over again, i'll say it this way: in response to this quote
"What GM rates and what is consistently found being put to the ground are significant descrepancy".
No. This has been found once, and once only.
And the same magazine did a pull-off in these trucks, and the GM truck outpulled it.
The chassis dyno had nothing to do with gearing, transmissions, or any of that--it simply measures horsepower put to the ground.
So if this test showed the GM put 40% less horsepower to the ground than the Ford...how in the hell did it outpull the Ford?
Flaws...
you just can't stand to lose? This was funny. Its now ridiculous. we just went over this!
Post 301
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/engaged/edmund.cgi?a=r&c=Pickups&t=2168
for pete's sake, I will let you babble from now on, it doesn't need rebuttal...
as for smoking....I ain't sharing it with you!
"I don't need you no more in this world....I'll meet you in the next one.....don't be late"
(which is easy in a Ford)
- James M. Hendrix
You wont listen at all anyways
someone got exposed.
When you stay objective, not angry, thats when meaningful discussions take place.
apologies to Ryan and others for draggin this out. I usually skip over this stuff in other topics, sorry to have contributed to it.
I read a quip in Popular Mechanics that outlined the new straight six 4.2 engine from GM.
a little more complicated than anticipated.
24 vavle
DOHC (collective gasp) where the hell are my pushrods!?
drive by wire controls
Valve Variable timing (oil pressure controls spring loaded helical gear on front of exhaust cam and has 25° range!!!!! (Honda had done this almost the same last year)
with that kind of timing control, thats probably the way they get so much horsepower and mileage out of such a small package. I have a feeling this engine probably has a very high horsepower peak, like the other vortecs do, simply becuz its torque curve is solid all the way up to redline.
this is going in this year's new Blazer. I wonder if it will replace the 4.3 in trucks?
When is Ford getting there I-5 out, anyone know?
mike
My prediction is that a lot of the technology/parts will end up on an OHC V8 very soon. Sort of like Ford's modular motors.
whatever the book says...
- Tim
- Tim
309 and 313-317 prove that others were willing to move on. but you gotta come back and start again with 318. are you so uncomfortable with your own vehicle that you have to continuously attack the decisions of others? go check out tim's site, i left a little message for you there...
http://www.teleweb.net/mgdvhman/index.htm
bco
you can't argue with an idiot, they will beat you with experience. just ignore him.
Mod,
I remember you saying that. The 'Blazer' name is gone. The redesigned 'Blazer' will be renamed also to Trailblazer. Same size vehicle.
Its interesting the reason they went to OHC...that mechanically gives them room for the variable timing mechanisms. I can't wait to see the torque curve on that thing.
This variable valve timing stuff is the future. Navistar will have it on the next generation of powerstrokes, and boy, look out. They will have fully electronically controlled valves.
GMs mechanical solution overcomes a major power problem...12 volts requires too much amperage to operate valves. There is a push in the auto industry to go to a 48 volt standard...that allows them to get the wattage at the valve solenoid without having a huge amperage.
Just looking at the new Vortec v8s, its hard to see how they could change that thing over to OHC, from the whole layout of the block. At least from the deck up, it seems they would have to start from scratch.
GMs engine line up doesn't lend itself very well to the modular Ford style, either.
"Just looking at the new Vortec v8s, its hard to
see how they could change that thing over to OHC,
from the whole layout of the block. At least from
the deck up, it seems they would have to start from scratch"
Your last sentence.....
It could be far fetched but I'm sticking to that prediction for now. Say 5 years?? GM/Chevy was actually the best in auto history at interchangeability I don't think they'd design this new DOHC for just one application. For instance the 6 cylinder head will become a 4 cylinder or 1/2 a V8 head later. I agree there might be new blocks but Ford's SOHC V6 and even the oooold SOHC 427 were based on the OHV blocks.
Happy Motoring. ;-)
Pocahontas
Edmunds.com/Town Hall Roving Host
Chevy lost by 7/10 of a point....blows ford away in Power and features.(what really matters)..but loses due to "personal preference".......a feature the comic books always seem to include..which can be very biased....
another reason to decide on your own..
..now where is that F150Rules to slap around?
- Tim
Swift.... p.s. But a win is a win is a win...
Ryan
I'd say it was a pretty subjective article. I think Edmunds should do it more often. Yearly basis would be great and would get a lot more folks into the website if they knew that every year, Edmunds did a test on the current offerings.
From the links I followed, it said the Chevy had the 3.42 rear, and the Ford had the 3.55.
I can hear 5.4 owners drumming up their performance dispute already!
.4 of a second is not blowing anything away in the 1/4 mile.
Cdean, please advise on your links showing specs, thanks.
I am skeptical that those axles i quoted are correct, but the way the page is set up, thats what it leaves me to believe.
http://www.edmunds.com/newtrucks/2000/chevrolet/silverado1500/ls4wdregularcabsb.html
http://www.edmunds.com/newtrucks/2000/ford/f150/xlt4wdsupercabstylesidesb.html
http://www.edmunds.com/newtrucks/2000/dodge/ram1500/st4wdquadcabsb.html
- Tim
you kill me...the sure sign of a loser here at Edmunds is when they start personal attacks...and you have...LOSER..
I've chewed up several people like you....come on over to my site....
- Tim
....hmm..I don't see any posts on my site from you...I guess you haven't really been there..
..perhaps your grade behind kid can figure how to post for you?
- Tim
- Tim
- Tim
f150, why don't you just give up? nobody is listening to you.
- Tim
quality, rattling, vibrating, piece of junk
Silverado!"
you know...if you keep repeating that over and over again, it just might come true...
...but i'm not going to hold my breath! LOL!
bco
bco
Maybe I will change my screen name to something pig headed...like ChevyRules!?.....nahhh..that would be too child like...
I can't wait until the new F150 comes out...then we can have fun with all it's first few years probs...nahh...that would lower myself to F150's level...(whatever his name is)
- Tim
I just scan on past his stuff now....
- Tim
- Tim
Swift....