GM Inside News Forum banner

2015 Fullsize Pickup Truck V-6 Shootout

6746 Views 69 Replies 26 Participants Last post by  syr74
2015 Annual Physical
Posted by Mark Williams | January 26, 2015
pickuptrucks.com


Last year, we introduced our Annual Physical concept on PickupTrucks.com in order to test and track as many new pickup trucks as possible. The 2014 Annual Physical focused on V-6 engines from the half-ton (GM's 4.3-liter EcoTec3 and Ram's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel) and midsize (Toyota's 4.0-liter, Nissan's 4.0-liter and Honda's 3.5-liter) segments.

This year we conducted our 2015 Annual Physical at the same time as our recent 2015 Light-Duty V-8 Challenge; as a consequence we opted to focus our test segment on half-tons — with one exception. To make it interesting and meaningful, we asked for pickups with V-6 engines in middle-cab configurations (typically meaning extended cabs) with 4x2 running gears with a price ceiling of $34,000. The six 2015 test trucks for the 2015 Annual Physical were the Chevrolet Colorado 3.6-liter (the aforementioned exception), the Chevy Silverado 1500 4.3-liter, the Ford F-150 2.7-liter EcoBoost, the Ford F-150 3.5-liter EcoBoost, the Ram 1500 3.6-liter and the Ram 1500 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. We should note the two new F-150s were technically preproduction trucks — we conducted the test several weeks before the start of production for the all-new half-ton.

Only two of our six trucks this year met all four of our criteria, yet the remaining four offered so much interesting data and information we decided to include all in this year's report.

And in case you are wondering why Toyota, Nissan or GMC are not represented, the first two do not offer V-6 engines in their half-tons, and GMC declined because it would have sent us a truck similarly equipped to the one that we tested last year.

More at the link...
See less See more
1 - 20 of 70 Posts
If you compare it to the light duty v8 trucks - Both 6.2 GM trucks had better acceleration loaded and unloaded and better gas mileage than the 3.5l Ecoboost.

Go GM!
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Seemed silly of them to not put the Ecoboosts in with the V8's - that is where they compete power and price-wise. Dat Colorado mileage though!
Pick up trucks dot com easily has the most scientific testing of trucks out there.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
If you compare it to the light duty v8 trucks - Both 6.2 GM trucks had better acceleration loaded and unloaded and better gas mileage than the 3.5l Ecoboost.

Go GM!
Outstanding!!! I've said it before and I'll say it again, the 6.2L V8 with the new 8 speed transmission should be STANDARD in every Silverado/Sierra.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
What a stupid test - I didn't even read to the test results. Their vehicle selection and testing regimen had more exceptions than rules.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Colorado goes from; 27.2 MPG Empty, to 11.5 MPG Loaded!? (1,080 lbs.)
Pretty predictable results, though the Coly showed even better than I thought.
Colorado goes from; 27.2 MPG Empty, to 11.5 MPG Loaded!? (1,080 lbs.)
Smaller engines work harder under load. That said, 27.2 is damn impressive.
Colorado goes from; 27.2 MPG Empty, to 11.5 MPG Loaded!? (1,080 lbs.)
The new 2.7L EB went from 23.8mpg empty to 9.8mpg loaded -ugh!

P.S. I don't know where you got the 1,080lbs number but each truck was pulling a 4,200lbs trailer.
  • Like
Reactions: 4
Standing ovation for the 3.0 diesel RAM w/ 29.8 mpg. Bummer that you can't get a SWB Tradesman with the diesel because that might have cracked 30 mpg. If I just needed a truck for work and not a toy that would be my choice.

Congratulations to GM for the Colorado posting over 27 mpg. I'm still interested to see how the new mid-size twins fare in a market where $5-10K rebates on full-size trucks is common.

Based on the results, the 2.7L Ecoboost I have to question whether the 3.5L Ecoboost is worth the extra $1,500 for the average buyer. You get a higher payload and towing capacity, but at a reduced fuel economy and only .5 seconds faster with the 3.55 gear vs. 3.31 for the 2.7L.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
So a shoot out without a winner? Why did Ford send a 60k truck to a 34k competition? This whole thing makes little sense. 27mpg in the Colorado V6 is very nice.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Outstanding!!! I've said it before and I'll say it again, the 6.2L V8 with the new 8 speed transmission should be STANDARD in every Silverado/Sierra.
NO! Not unless they drop the LT4 in as standard in the Escalade or offer it as an option.

Lol I'm kidding but just a little bit serious...
  • Like
Reactions: 1
NO! Not unless they drop the LT4 in as standard in the Escalade or offer it as an option.

Lol I'm kidding but just a little bit serious...
I love the idea!
  • Like
Reactions: 1
NO! Not unless they drop the LT4 in as standard in the Escalade or offer it as an option.

Lol I'm kidding but just a little bit serious...
Escalade V anyone?
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Outstanding!!! I've said it before and I'll say it again, the 6.2L V8 with the new 8 speed transmission should be STANDARD in every Silverado/Sierra.
They couldn't if they wanted to, unless they decide to neuter the rest of the GM lineup by removing anything that doesn't get a rated 35mpg highway. 6.2L production isn't severely limited by GM for no reason, even with the 8-speed that combo is going to be a CAFE shredding monster and GM currently has no way to offset that within their truck line.
One thing that was brought up, on PUTC, when comparing the 3.5L EB with the 6.2 twins..................... they need to be tested at the same time, with the same criteria. Basically, either run them both on premium (which is necessary for the 6.2) or run them both on regular. The 3.5L EB, under load, will get better mileage and have more power when run on premium. It is rated on regular.

I think that would be a great test, the 2 top dogs. I say run them both on premium as the 6.2 says right in the manual that regular can cause predet, which would cut performance. That way you see the best performance from both.

Then you can do it again when the Gen 2 3.5L EB comes out (will be out in the Raptor).

Note that I didn't say that anything sucked, or was better or worse than the other. Just that they are their respective companies top offerings at this time.
See less See more
Actually the 6.2 GM didn't get better mileage towing than the 3.5 EB Ford. To me the difference is small enough that choosing the truck one likes best would be more of a deciding factor.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
The new 2.7L EB went from 23.8mpg empty to 9.8mpg loaded -ugh!

P.S. I don't know where you got the 1,080lbs number but each truck was pulling a 4,200lbs trailer.
Didn't read the article I take it?

Finally, in the name of full disclosure, due to a complicated set of timing circumstances, the F-150 2.7-liter EcoBoost loaded acceleration and braking data was collected with 1,240 pounds of payload in the bed, whereas the F-150 3.5-liter EcoBoost was track-tested (loaded numbers only) with 1,080 pounds of payload — the same amount of weight all the other V-6s carried during testing. Also, during our Davis Dam testing, the F-150 2.7-liter EcoBoost pulled the lighter 4,200-pound Logan horse trailer, whereas the F-150 3.5-liter EcoBoost was tested with the heavier 6,800-pound horse trailer, just like the V-8s in our Light-Duty Challenge pulled.
Colorado goes from; 27.2 MPG Empty, to 11.5 MPG Loaded!? (1,080 lbs.)
Smaller engines work harder under load. That said, 27.2 is damn impressive.


I know that, but if it really drops 57.8% with 1,080 lbs., what is it going to drop when someone puts personal belongings and/or 2 or 3 people in the cab?....... 16 MPG?
1 - 20 of 70 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top