Ike Gauntlet 2.0 (6.2 Silverado, Titan, F150 Ecoboost)

[Bob77064]

The 5.6 in the Titan makes good power. In my opinion the 5.6 is underated by Nissan.

 

[timswi]

A 6.2 is certainly not all bark and no bite. It appears that they changed the shift mapping from 2013. My '13 6.2 will downshift where needed an hold RPMS with no problem towing ~9000# up miles long mountain hills.

I tried to watch the tach in the video, the best I could see was the truck hold 3000 RPM most of the time. That isn't enough with that much hill and that much weight. 3700 or so is more appropriate. I've never red-lined mine (towing anyway ) and never needed to.

Unfortunately CAFE standards are the primary reason for this..That truck could have easily ripped that hill at 70+ MPH, I've done it with 3:42's

I understand the 'out of the box' test method but a manual downshift would certainly have significantly changed the dynamic. It's very obvious this shift pattern is designed for gas mileage...Downshifting takes no effort whatsoever if needed.

They are absolutely correct about the engine braking, it's nothing short of outstanding.

Good video.

 

[Diamondpilot]

A 6.2 is certainly not all bark and no bite. It appears that they changed the shift mapping from 2013. My '13 6.2 will downshift where needed an hold RPMS with no problem towing ~9000# up miles long mountain hills.

I tried to watch the tach in the video, the best I could see was the truck hold 3000 RPM most of the time. That isn't enough with that much hill and that much weight. 3700 or so is more appropriate. I've never red-lined mine (towing anyway ) and never needed to.

Unfortunately CAFE standards are the primary reason for this..That truck could have easily ripped that hill at 70+ MPH, I've done it with 3:42's

I understand the 'out of the box' test method but a manual downshift would certainly have significantly changed the dynamic. It's very obvious this shift pattern is designed for gas mileage...Downshifting takes no effort whatsoever if needed.

They are absolutely correct about the engine braking, it's nothing short of outstanding.

Good video.

No way it could have done it at speed. You are at 10,000 feet to 12,000 feet. That's a loss of 1/3 the HP. The test truck had 3.73 gears and was floored the entire way and could not hold the speed limit of 60 mph. The only 1/2 ton they have tested to date that could hold speed was the Ecoboost.

Chris

 

[timswi]

No way it could have done it at speed. You are at 10,000 feet to 12,000 feet. That's a loss of 1/3 the HP. The test truck had 3.73 gears and was floored the entire way and could not hold the speed limit of 60 mph. The only 1/2 ton they have tested to date that could hold speed was the Ecoboost.

Chris

The speed recovered every time it downshifted. If they had manually downshifted it and left it in 4th, or whatever gear it wanted, it would have held. Given the amount of HP losing some of it still leaves plenty. It ran out of RPM's due to holding gears, not lack of power.

 

[jejeosborne]

A 6.2 is certainly not all bark and no bite. It appears that they changed the shift mapping from 2013. My '13 6.2 will downshift where needed an hold RPMS with no problem towing ~9000# up miles long mountain hills.

I tried to watch the tach in the video, the best I could see was the truck hold 3000 RPM most of the time. That isn't enough with that much hill and that much weight. 3700 or so is more appropriate. I've never red-lined mine (towing anyway ) and never needed to.

Unfortunately CAFE standards are the primary reason for this..That truck could have easily ripped that hill at 70+ MPH, I've done it with 3:42's

I understand the 'out of the box' test method but a manual downshift would certainly have significantly changed the dynamic. It's very obvious this shift pattern is designed for gas mileage...Downshifting takes no effort whatsoever if needed.

They are absolutely correct about the engine braking, it's nothing short of outstanding.

Good video.

Your less powerful, not direct injected truck with 3:42's could have "ripped that hill at 70+ MPH"? If this is a stock, logic is making me very doubtful. If you have spent a couple grand in aftermarket performance improvements, logic is making me think plausible. BTY your downplaying this feat by calling this a hill and not a mountain skews my decision.

 

[buickanddeere]

All bark and no bite. HP means very little and making torque at the top of the RPM Band, Ain't Nobody Got Time For That!


Chris

It's a balance of torque and rpm that makes the most HP under the curve that pulls the load. It isn't just torque, it isn't just rpm and it isn't just peak HP.

 

[buickanddeere]

I had to purchase a programer to get my 2003 GMC to shift up and down when required. The factory shift points were useless.

 

[jejeosborne]

It's a balance of torque and rpm that makes the most HP under the curve that pulls the load. It isn't just torque, it isn't just rpm and it isn't just peak HP.

I think you said the same thing as diamondpilot. Peaky numbers at high rpms vs WIDE strong torque curves, well we know which is better. It is hard to beat a turbo charged engine with a naturally aspirated engine in area under the curve unless you add a lot of displacement. I think these two engines would have similar areas under the curve. It would be nice to overlay these two dyno sheets and calculate the area under the curve for both engines. No doubt the ecoboost gets the job done at a significantly lower rpm. The wide torque curve allows a greater rpm range for each gear. If the chevy would have had a gear right between 2nd and 3rd, it would have done very well. Its sweet spot was, well, a sweet spot.

 

[timswi]

Your less powerful, not direct injected truck with 3:42's could have "ripped that hill at 70+ MPH"? If this is a stock, logic is making me very doubtful. If you have spent a couple grand in aftermarket performance improvements, logic is making me think plausible. BTY your downplaying this feat by calling this a hill and not a mountain skews my decision.

Less powerful by 17 HP-403 vs 420--Big deal. I pull in the mountains all the time so I do have experience in the matter. They were able to hit at least 55 throughout the pull only after downshifting. If they would have held a gear, it would have screamed right up the hill...They pretty much said so in the video.

 

[Ford850]

But the truck was in Tow/Haul mode. It was running in what GM configured as the best shift strategy for power and shifting. The load was under the GM truck's rated max by 1500 lbs and well over the max limit of the EB. It seems odd that the 6.2 still struggled that much. Maybe they need a third shift strategy option, for max loads/power. Might not be a bad idea for all the brands to offer that, since there is a wide range of loads from 0 to 11,000+ lbs.