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

[jejeosborne]

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.

So you are one of these that only look at peak numbers? You might want to overlay your torque curves and look at the area between the two. I guess you are saying that Chevy has wasted their efforts because your generation of truck tows better than these new engines? That is possible I guess. Makes your truck worth more when you sell it.

 

[timswi]

So you are one of these that only look at peak numbers? You might want to overlay your torque curves and look at the area between the two. I guess you are saying that Chevy has wasted their efforts because your generation of truck tows better than these new engines? That is possible I guess. Makes your truck worth more when you sell it.

What are you talking about. Have you ever owned/driven/towed with a 6.2 GM?..Guessing not. I never once said my '13 was better than the '14 because I wouldn't know. Like you I only saw 3 pieces of meat sitting in a truck with a blabbering tool with his foot stuck to the floor doing nothing but talking. Fortunately, I don't drive or tow under similar conditions.

Every truck has their manual interventions for various things. Downshifting really isn't that difficult. I'd deal with that in the few times a load like that needs to be pulled up a hill like that and trade it for a couple MPG's

 

[timswi]

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.

Assuming it was in tow/haul, I somewhat agree. Although you must admit a pull like that is rare enough in most cases that a manual downshift would be no big deal in the instances where this occurs. This was a "run what ya brung" test with a hands off methodology. In the real world, most of us don't do that.

 

[jejeosborne]

What are you talking about. Have you ever owned/driven/towed with a 6.2 GM?..Guessing not. I never once said my '13 was better than the '14 because I wouldn't know. Like you I only saw 3 pieces of meat sitting in a truck with a blabbering tool with his foot stuck to the floor doing nothing but talking. Fortunately, I don't drive or tow under similar conditions.

Every truck has their manual interventions for various things. Downshifting really isn't that difficult. I'd deal with that in the few times a load like that needs to be pulled up a hill like that and trade it for a couple MPG's

I must have misunderstood your posts. You implied your 13 model with 3.42 gears would have done better and that there was only 17 HP difference in the engines. That sounded to me like Chevrolet must have done some reverse engineering. My point being Chevy has also broadened the torque curve which is more important in this type of test than the 17 HP alone. The shape of the curve is just as important, or more, than the peak numbers.

To answer your question, I haven't driven the new or old 6.2 Chevy but have driven the 6.2 liter ford. I think these two trucks (Chevy 6.2 and Ecoboost) are equal in performance and current top towing capable 1/2 ton dogs.

 

[timswi]

I must have misunderstood your posts. You implied your 13 model with 3.42 gears would have done better and that there was only 17 HP difference in the engines. That sounded to me like Chevrolet must have done some reverse engineering. My point being Chevy has also broadened the torque curve which is more important in this type of test than the 17 HP alone. The shape of the curve is just as important, or more, than the peak numbers.

To answer your question, I haven't driven the new or old 6.2 Chevy but have driven the 6.2 liter ford. I think these two trucks (Chevy 6.2 and Ecoboost) are equal in performance and current top towing capable 1/2 ton dogs.

Ok, peace.:drink:..What I am saying is that my '13 pulls 9000# (plus the wife, daughter, Great Dane and a bed load of tools, full coolers and various other crap) without the same behaviors shown in the video...Given my higher gear ratio and slightly less HP and TB injection I think the 10K vs the 9K comparison is fairly equal. I haven't had to manually downshift pulling up miles long mountains in the '13. It finds it's own happy place at around 3700-4000 RPM and not even close to WOT..Maybe 3/4--never paid that close attention, but you certainly know when you have your foot in the floorboard with nothing more to give. I've never experienced that in either 6.2 that I've owned.

Obviously GM re-mapped the tow/haul shift patterns for MPG's. It still does the job according to the video, just does more gear searching than previous models. There is certainly no lack of power, you can hear the motor scream up with no issue once the right gear is hit---it just doesn't stay there..Why? I can't say.

32' Winnebago One, 7800 dry...Have it completely loaded--Cupboards, cabinets, passthrough and outdoor kitchen..Given what all of the boxes weighed when we filled it, the additional 1200# might be on the light side over reality.

Red one is the current 6.2, Black one is the previous one.

 

[94BULLITT]

Ok, peace.:drink:..What I am saying is that my '13 pulls 9000# (plus the wife, daughter, Great Dane and a bed load of tools, full coolers and various other crap) without the same behaviors shown in the video...Given my higher gear ratio and slightly less HP and TB injection I think the 10K vs the 9K comparison is fairly equal. I haven't had to manually downshift pulling up miles long mountains in the '13. It finds it's own happy place at around 3700-4000 RPM and not even close to WOT..Maybe 3/4--never paid that close attention, but you certainly know when you have your foot in the floorboard with nothing more to give. I've never experienced that in either 6.2 that I've owned.

Obviously GM re-mapped the tow/haul shift patterns for MPG's. It still does the job according to the video, just does more gear searching than previous models. There is certainly no lack of power, you can hear the motor scream up with no issue once the right gear is hit---it just doesn't stay there..Why? I can't say.

32' Winnebago One, 7800 dry...Have it completely loaded--Cupboards, cabinets, passthrough and outdoor kitchen..Given what all of the boxes weighed when we filled it, the additional 1200# might be on the light side over reality.

Red one is the current 6.2, Black one is the previous one.

View attachment 347051View attachment 347052

The black one looks good sitting beside the Ford

 

[timswi]

The black one looks good sitting beside the Ford

The Ford's gone....Thankfully..Too many mechanical issues. I'll stick with a TT from now on.

 

[94BULLITT]

I don't know how those guys got a job testing vehicles, they don't seem to bright. I like their Cen Tech thermometer from harbor freight they used to test the brake temps. They should have used the same driver for each truck. I think they try to hand the win to GM. You can't expect a 3.5V6 to hold back like a 6.2V8. They did not have the trailer brake controller adjusted properly on the Ford. They had the gain on 5.0 towing 10K and I use 5.0 on empty 2500lb trailer. The front brakes on the Ford were really hot but the trailer brakes were as cool as the GM's and they did not use brakes on the GM. When they test ran the GM they had a clear shot for the 0-60 run and it did 38 seconds. The Ford did it in 41 seconds and got held up in traffic. The guy driving the Ford was told not to exceed 70MPH but the guy in the GM almost hit 80MPH. I was surprised at the transmission in the GM, it sound like a 4 speed with the RPM drop it has between shifts. I wonder why the GM would not downshift going uphill but it held 5000 RPMS down hill?

The Ford's gone....Thankfully..Too many mechanical issues. I'll stick with a TT from now on.

I think a TT is better but a motorhome has its uses.

 

[timswi]

Pulled the TT from the dealer to the mines this AM...Pulled up two really long hills, 2 miles or so each but not in the mountains but pretty much straight up---25mph for tractor trailers usually. 1/2 throttle, 4k RPM and 50MPH with no manual intervention. Could have easily gone 70 with some more pedal but it was a 40 MPH road. No gear hunting whatsoever--Paid attention to throttle position this time.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Pulled the TT from the dealer to the mines this AM...Pulled up two really long hills, 2 miles or so each but not in the mountains but pretty much straight up---25mph for tractor trailers usually. 1/2 throttle, 4k RPM and 50MPH with no manual intervention. Could have easily gone 70 with some more pedal but it was a 40 MPH road. No gear hunting whatsoever--Paid attention to throttle position this time.

The big difference is you were not at anywhere near the altitude they were. They are starting at 10000' and climbing to 12000' in 7 miles. The altitude alone equals a 1/3 HP loss then factor in temperature. All SAE HP ratings are done at sea level and 15 deg Celsius or 59 deg F. You are at a low altitude and cold temp. That equals good power.

Chris