GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 70 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,213 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,320 Posts
Colorado goes from; 27.2 MPG Empty, to 11.5 MPG Loaded!? (1,080 lbs.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,370 Posts
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.
 

·
Back!
Joined
·
5,366 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,311 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,320 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,320 Posts
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