Pick-up V8 vs V6

OnlyOneDR said:
Nothing other than the new one makes 285Hp/305lb-ft (old one was 195/260), has a lighter aluminum block and heads (vs iron) with six bolt main caps, and spanks the old engine in fuel economy as well (18/24mpg vs 15/20 for base 2wd). Out with the old...
Click to expand...


I'm not sure that 4MPG is really worth the expense of a new truck. Say you run 15,000 miles a year in your truck (for sake of argument and easy math), that works out to 125 gallons of gas saved over a year's span. Even at $3 a gallon (which is where I think we are heading back to), that's $375 a year saved by 4 MPG reduction.

Even a 10 MPG difference works out to about 250 gallons saved ($750 a year based on same assumptions) It will be a while before the "New truck" pays for itself in gas mileage advantage.


This is the problem I had all along with the "Cash for Clunkers" fail. Yes, it did temporarily churn out some new car sales, but in the process it killed the Used Car market, drove up the prices of "vintage" cars, filled the landfills with previously viable vehicles and put scrap prices through the floor.
 
ManglerYJ said:
I'm not sure that 4MPG is really worth the expense of a new truck. Say you run 15,000 miles a year in your truck (for sake of argument and easy math), that works out to 125 gallons of gas saved over a year's span. Even at $3 a gallon (which is where I think we are heading back to), that's $375 a year saved by 4 MPG reduction.

Even a 10 MPG difference works out to about 250 gallons saved ($750 a year based on same assumptions) It will be a while before the "New truck" pays for itself in gas mileage advantage.


This is the problem I had all along with the "Cash for Clunkers" fail. Yes, it did temporarily churn out some new car sales, but in the process it killed the Used Car market, drove up the prices of "vintage" cars, filled the landfills with previously viable vehicles and put scrap prices through the floor.
Click to expand...

You are reading waaaaaay too much into my post. Basically I am saying that it is good that the new engine is a complete re-do. If you need a new truck then it is a viable option. Let's face it, the only way you can buy a used truck is for it to have been someone else's new truck first. If I use your math and then extrapolate that over the course of five or six years (which most people finance vehicles for nowadays) then you are saving a bit of money. And the truck keeps saving as long as you keep driving it.

The same arguments work for all sorts of "energy saving" technologies. There is always an upfront cost to improve and then a subsequent marginal reduction in operating costs. As long as the Return On Investment (ROI) period is shorter than the service life of the technology and is also palatable to the buyer then it wins out over the no-change option.

But back to the V6 vs V8 debate. The V6 tows over 7200 lbs, which isn't terrible. I did not realize it was that much. That will suit a lot of "weekend warrior" truck buyers towing small trailers to the home improvement store or towing a couple ATVs or a UTV.
 
RatLabGuy said:
Looked at the price of new trucks lately? You're screwed either way.
Click to expand...

New vehicle prices have driven used prices sky-high. Lately I keep seeing decade-plus-old Tacomas going for well over 10-grand. That is a hell of a retention in value! And diesel trucks, forget it.
 
OnlyOneDR said:
New vehicle prices have driven used prices sky-high. Lately I keep seeing decade-plus-old Tacomas going for well over 10-grand. That is a hell of a retention in value! And diesel trucks, forget it.
Click to expand...

What he said!!
 
[QUOTE="OnlyOneDR, post: 1344532, member: 1725"you are reading waaaaaay too much into my post. Basically I am saying that it is good that the new engine is a complete re-do. If you need a new truck then it is a viable option. Let's face it, the only way you can buy a used truck is for it to have been someone else's new truck first. If I use your math and then extrapolate that over the course of five or six years (which most people finance vehicles for nowadays) then you are saving a bit of money. And the truck keeps saving as long as you keep driving it.

The same arguments work for all sorts of "energy saving" technologies. There is always an upfront cost to improve and then a subsequent marginal reduction in operating costs. As long as the Return On Investment (ROI) period is shorter than the service life of the technology and is also palatable to the buyer then it wins out over the no-change option.

But back to the V6 vs V8 debate. The V6 tows over 7200 lbs, which isn't terrible. I did not realize it was that much. That will suit a lot of "weekend warrior" truck buyers towing small trailers to the home improvement store or towing a couple ATVs or a UTV.[/QUOTE]
7200 pounds could even be a vehicle if using a reasonably light trailer
 
ponykilr said:
If it's a Ford Ecoboost V6, you get V8 torque and great mileage. The new 2.7 is a monster. 325HP and 375LB/FT and 20+ MPG (Jalopnik got 23, ford says up to 26)
Click to expand...

You just have to replace the heads every 30k. Not a bad trade when you think about it.
 
ponykilr said:
If it's a Ford Ecoboost V6, you get V8 torque and great mileage. The new 2.7 is a monster. 325HP and 375LB/FT and 20+ MPG (Jalopnik got 23, ford says up to 26)
Click to expand...
Fuelly.com shows 18.9 mpg average for 7 different users, with the highest being 21mpg. I put a lot more faith in that because it uses real numbers from real drivers. You put in the raw data (miles driven, gallons pumped, cost per gallon) and it does the calcs AFTER you save the numbers, so people don't manipulate the numbers in their favor (at least not as easily).

I drove an 3.5L ecoboost f150 from here to Canada last year and averaged between 15-18mpg, all highway, normal speeds (5-9mph over). There was a kayak on top, but I was quite UNimpressed with the mpg. Power was very good though.
 
I am sure for combined driving that the numbers from Fuelly are accurate. The numbers I posted are highway and were done specifically to get the best numbers by the driving style used.
 
So given all that, what's the point then of the EcoBoost? Added complexity, extra crap to break, and I am getting almost the same mileage with a 5.3L V8. Had I taller gears for the highway I could get better mileage as I have co-workers running 3.08s getting 22 out of their 5.3s. Given that I don't doubt the 4.3 can touch 24, and again without all the extra BS and cost from an EcoBoost.
 
OnlyOneDR said:
So given all that, what's the point then of the EcoBoost? Added complexity, extra crap to break, and I am getting almost the same mileage with a 5.3L V8. Had I taller gears for the highway I could get better mileage as I have co-workers running 3.08s getting 22 out of their 5.3s. Given that I don't doubt the 4.3 can touch 24, and again without all the extra BS and cost from an EcoBoost.
Click to expand...

Well there is all that HP (if its real), and advantages from just having a smaller, lower-weight engine in there maybe? decreased weight of the truck increases weight to HP ratio, smaller displacement means less volume for cooling, less oil to change out in the crankcase, etc? Probably a bunch of stuff.
I'm just saying it's not always just about lower MPGs. If you can get the same numbers from a smaller engine, you're going to be better off w/ the smaller engine.
 
OnlyOneDR said:
again without all the extra BS and cost from an EcoBoost.
Click to expand...

New Chevies are exactly the same. Lots of problems with the DI motors.

It's all driven by the Fed emissions standards.
 
RatLabGuy said:
Well there is all that HP (if its real), and advantages from just having a smaller, lower-weight engine in there maybe? decreased weight of the truck increases weight to HP ratio, smaller displacement means less volume for cooling, less oil to change out in the crankcase, etc? Probably a bunch of stuff.
I'm just saying it's not always just about lower MPGs. If you can get the same numbers from a smaller engine, you're going to be better off w/ the smaller engine.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but for longevity I would rather see less crap cluttering an engine bay. Maybe if Ford sold their EcoBoost engine in a Chevy truck then we would see some real mileage benefits. Up until 2015 the Ford F-150 was a porker of a pickup truck. They had to convert to Aluminum bodies to get the weight down to Chevy territory. Last Car and Driver comparison showed comparably equipped F-150 vs Chevy to have less than a 100 lb weight advantage, even after their "significant" weight reduction.

BigBody79 said:
My 2011 5.3 get 15.5-16. Daily. Best I've seen is 19 ish.

My 1998 5.7 got those numbers.
Click to expand...

An '11 doesn't have a Gen V engine. Big difference. And it always depends on how you drive it. I am doing a ton of mixed driving on my '14, now with 32k on the clock. With the weather warming up and gas (presumably) going off winter blends I am regularly beating 18mpg in mixed driving. Highway over 20mpg.
 
our 2014 burban I dont think has ever got over 16 hand calculated
 
Ron said:
our 2014 burban I dont think has ever got over 16 hand calculated
Click to expand...
You gotta quit that hand calc stuff. Really messes up your internet credit (see my sig, hand calc averages about 17.5mpg on the truck).
 
i count my toes wit my fingers!?!?!!?
 
ManglerYJ said:
What kind of hands do you have that have toes on them?!?!?!?!? You didn't say foot-calculated.... :)
Click to expand...

I can count to 16 using only 1 hand.

Binary... just counts the 1s places. much more efficient.
2 hands will get you up to 1023
 
Is this going to be just an extra vehicle that you use only when needed to haul stuff? Or is this going to be a DD/stuff hauler? If it's just going to be an extra vehicle, why not look into buying a used truck for $5,000 or less? If it's going to be a primary driver plus weekend home improvement hauler, then spend the extra on something newer if that's what you want to do. To me, it would be a lot easier to dump a load of mulch, trash, gravel, what have you in the bed of a cheaper truck rather than risk denting or scratching a $40k+ truck.
 
Back
Top