WHY? 4-6-8

SS502 · February 23, 2019

5 hours ago, qwank said:

I'm a fan of the turbo Camaro, If this 2.7 makes it into them in the next couple of years I may buy one if the 1LE package is still offered.

....may as well go Electric have you seen the eCOPO? That noise, oh that beautiful noise you hear is not from the Camaro

https://www.powernationtv.com/post/chevys-electric-ecopo-camaro-goes-wheels-up-first-time-at-the-drag-strip

Daverado · February 23, 2019

lol only reading the title I thought this thread was going to be about DFM and say it's really not fair to label it like the Cadillac V8-6-4

https://www.hemmings.com/magazine/hmn/2008/04/Cadillac-V-8-6-4/1610045.html

qwank · February 23, 2019

5 hours ago, SS502 said:

....may as well go Electric have you seen the eCOPO? That noise, oh that beautiful noise you hear is not from the Camaro

https://www.powernationtv.com/post/chevys-electric-ecopo-camaro-goes-wheels-up-first-time-at-the-drag-strip

I've been getting into the electric cars as well since I'm the only one at work certified to repair them. I wouldn't mind a '16 Cadillac ELR. That eCOPO is cool.

SS502 · February 23, 2019

33 minutes ago, qwank said:

I've been getting into the electric cars as well since I'm the only one at work certified to repair them. I wouldn't mind a '16 Cadillac ELR. That eCOPO is cool.

We may be laughing right now but it’s coming! The torque on an electric MOTOR is unbelievable. I am old school and won’t own a Tesla but I can see myself owning some type of eCar someday. Hell all my yard and most power tools are all electric. I am most impressed with my dang lawn mower...lasts a looooooong time. Won’t be long for cars/trucks to have equal range as their gasoline cousins.

KARNUT · February 23, 2019

We may be laughing right now but it’s coming! The torque on an electric MOTOR is unbelievable. I am old school and won’t own a Tesla but I can see myself owning some type of eCar someday. Hell all my yard and most power tools are all electric. I am most impressed with my dang lawn mower...lasts a looooooong time. Won’t be long for cars/trucks to have equal range as their gasoline cousins.

I use mostly battery powered weed eaters,trimmers, chain saw around the yard. When my little trimmer mower fails, I'm going battery power. The rider not in my life time. My trip car, if they get over 500 miles with AC on and chargers at Hampton Inns I'm in. Then all that's left how much to charge up. I'm 63 in my lifetime, doubtful.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

magnum74 · February 23, 2019

15 hours ago, M1ck3y said:

Completely different engine tech, but its embarrassing that an engine with1.2 litres less displacement, isn't far behind. Guess gm should be thankful ford didn't make a new gen 6.2...

Or maybe Ford should be thankful GM doesn't tweak a 6.2 LSA for truck use. If naturally aspirated 6.2's are embarrassing you should've bought an Ecoboost to begin with.

M1ck3y · February 23, 2019

11 minutes ago, magnum74 said:

Or maybe Ford should be thankful GM doesn't tweak a 6.2 LSA for truck use. If naturally aspirated 6.2's are embarrassing you should've bought an Ecoboost to begin with.

I've never owned a ford, and I don't plan on it right now. I love my 6.2. I'm looking at NA engine technology vs power output. And I'm talking about the 5.0... 6.2 minus 1.2 = 5.0. I didn't mean to put a kink in you gm hard on, I apologize.

Edited February 23, 2019 by M1ck3y

magnum74 · February 23, 2019

5 minutes ago, M1ck3y said:

I've never owned a ford, and I don't plan on it right now. I love my 6.2. I'm looking at engine technology vs power output. I didn't mean to put a kink in you gm hard on, I apologize.

I have no 'hard on' for what GM is doing right now. Just responding to you comparing a twin turbo V6 designed to replace a big V8 and calling the big 8 it's competing against embarrassing. No need for you to include penis references here, either. You must have your chat forums mixed up.

CmackR56 · February 23, 2019

7 minutes ago, magnum74 said:

I have no 'hard on' for what GM is doing right now. Just responding to you comparing a twin turbo V6 designed to replace a big V8 and calling the big 8 it's competing against embarrassing. No need for you to include penis references here, either. You must have your chat forums mixed up.

Having quite a bit of experience (2 F150s 6+ years) with Ford's 3.5L twin turbo V6, the truth is that with a load on the back it's light years ahead of anything FCA or GM produce in a 1/2 ton. The only thing comparable are the 3/4 ton diesels. 130,000 miles with synthetic oil changes at 12-15,000 miles the little Ecoboost was stone reliable. My 2015 Lariat averaged hand calculated 20.4 mpg over 57,000 miles. I realize this is a GM forum and I'm currently in a 2019 1500 Denali but the F-150 Eco is a force to be reckoned with.

magnum74 · February 23, 2019

19 minutes ago, CmackR56 said:

I realize this is a GM forum and I'm currently in a 2019 1500 Denali but the F-150 Eco is a force to be reckoned with.

First, I have no issue with the Ecoboost. The other guy called the 6.2 embarrassing.

Second, I'm not a fanboy of GM. The twin turbo has some outstanding characteristics but I'd argue the 6.2 is one of the main reasons Ford built it. If the Ecoboost is a force to be reckoned with so is the 6.2. They both perform on a similar level.

Both companies are catering to different mindsets. I'm not against either. Glad you're enjoining your past and present trucks

CmackR56 · February 23, 2019

35 minutes ago, magnum74 said:

First, I have no issue with the Ecoboost. The other guy called the 6.2 embarrassing.

Second, I'm not a fanboy of GM. The twin turbo has some outstanding characteristics but I'd argue the 6.2 is one of the main reasons Ford built it. If the Ecoboost is a force to be reckoned with so is the 6.2. They both perform on a similar level.

Both companies are catering to different mindsets. I'm not against either. Glad you're enjoining your past and present trucks

I was confused as to who said what. I'm more of a Ford fanboy despite the fact that I'm currently driving a GMC. Hopefully this Denali will win me over 100%. Time will tell. So far 2019 is up to a pretty good start.

magnum74 · February 23, 2019

13 minutes ago, CmackR56 said:

I was confused as to who said what. I'm more of a Ford fanboy despite the fact that I'm currently driving a GMC. Hopefully this Denali will win me over 100%. Time will tell. So far 2019 is up to a pretty good start.

You'll end up liking what you like, no harm there. If I had to go F150 it would be the 5.0. I just like the choices on the market.

CmackR56 · February 23, 2019

I just returned from towing my bass boat on a 30 mile course. Seemingly tows about as well as my Ecoboost did. Speed zones from 50 to 75 rolling hills and a few miles flat. Made the first half of the loop in the tow/haul mode and came home in the tour mode. Fuel economy was 12.9 mpg. I am impressed, never felt the DFM doing it's job nor did I notice the transmission downshifting going up hills, the only indication was the tach when it shifted.

M1ck3y · February 24, 2019

9 hours ago, magnum74 said:

I have no 'hard on' for what GM is doing right now. Just responding to you comparing a twin turbo V6 designed to replace a big V8 and calling the big 8 it's competing against embarrassing. No need for you to include penis references here, either. You must have your chat forums mixed up.

You need to read my post again. I am not embarrassed by my 6.2; and no where did I say I was making a comparison between the ecoboost and the l86.

What I said is embarrassing is that ford can make an f150 5.0 with... +400 hp/tq? Higher in the mustang I'm sure... And gm needs 6.2 litres to pull out in front of that. I could be very wrong but I think the 5.0 in the mustang makes 420hp, 460tq. Obviously different rpm ranges/curve, engine tech , application, but peak numbers are peak numbers.

With that being said, I will say it again. I don't want an f150 or a 5.0. I love the 6.2 wish I had the extra cash to get my headers on it, tune it, cam it... and heads.

I was comparing power output to the number of litres it takes to get the job done.

Oh, and this is the only forum I visit. But with the number of idiot's on here really thinking about discontinuing it... Especially because of Canadian idiots.

Edited February 24, 2019 by M1ck3y

magnum74 · February 24, 2019

26 minutes ago, M1ck3y said:

You need to read my post again. I am not embarrassed by my 6.2; and no where did I say I was making a comparison between the ecoboost and the l86.

What I said is embarrassing is that ford can make an f150 5.0 with... +400 hp/tq? Higher in the mustang I'm sure... And gm needs 6.2 litres to pull out in front of that. I could be very wrong but I think the 5.0 in the mustang makes 420hp, 460tq. Obviously different rpm ranges/curve, engine tech , application, but peak numbers are peak numbers.

With that being said, I will say it again. I don't want an f150 or a 5.0. I love the 6.2 wish I had the extra cash to get my headers on it, tune it, cam it... and heads.

I was comparing power output to the number of litres it takes to get the job done.

Oh, and this is the only forum I visit. But with the number of idiot's on here really thinking about discontinuing it... Especially because of Canadian idiots.

I heard you loud and clear. It's a twin turbo. What do you expect and why do you think they didn't continue with their own 6.2? They didn't build a twin turbo 6 to have less HP per liter than their own 6.2 let alone GM's 6.2.

If you can't handle a spirited discussion you should leave.

BTW, I'm happy I bought a truck built in Flint to support the US and North America. Don't let the door smack you on the way out.