Ford Eco-boost vs silverado 5.3

[SatinSilver]

Originally Posted By: supton
Sorta makes sense I think. As I become an appliance driver I kinda want my appliances to all work alike. If what they say is true (that all the vehicles these days are just as good as the others) then why not standardize the driver interface? [Not across makers, just across one's personal fleet.]


As a fellow Toyota owner I like how your posts always seem right on the money. Not biased one way or the other just middle of the road. Esp with a Tundra in your sig and posting on a F-150/Silverado thread yet nobody gets bent out of shape over it. Nice.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: millerbl00
Keep laughing. If you don't want to hear the negative I'll go away until you post that you new tech has problems and you a crying about it.

Doubt you will see your new trucks running in 10 years. Much less 30 + years like some old designs.

Glad to see everyone has an open mind...


Well, in December it will be 5 years for the car with the Ecoboost 3.5 and, probably 100k. 0 issues other than a bum knock sensor.

The truck has many more years as I expect 10 out of it at the very least. With 0 issues with the engine.

 

[millerbl00]

100k is low mileage ccompared to a few years ago. Lets see in 200k and in a majority of them.

 

[wag123]

Originally Posted By: supton

one thing that has bugged me lately is how the controls between my VW and my Toyota's are different. For instance, in my VW I tap the wiper down for one wipe; in the toyota's you tap up. Cruise control is in different spots (left on VW, stalk on the right for toyota). Personally, I think my VW is vastly better set up; but when 2 out of 3 do it differently... Since I think the Toyota's are sticking around my house for a while to come I'm leaning strongly towards another Toyota (to replace the Jetta) only on this one basis.

Sorta makes sense I think. As I become an appliance driver I kinda want my appliances to all work alike. If what they say is true (that all the vehicles these days are just as good as the others) then why not standardize the driver interface? [Not across makers, just across one's personal fleet.]

It isn't Toyota that is different, it is VW that is different. I'm not saying that Toyota is right and VW is wrong, just that the majority of vehicles being sold today have controls that are more similar to Toyota's than they are to VW's. German vehicles in general, and BMWs in particular, have somewhat unconventional control arrangements that sometimes defy logic. Consumer Reports and other automotive testers often complain about this in their reviews of these vehicles.

 

[supton]

Hmm, that is interesting. My "first" new car was a Saturn that lacked cruise and buttons on the steering wheel; my VW was a major step up for me. Since it was my first I guess I got used to it.

 

[Clevy]

The vehicle controls and ergonomics aren't really a deal breaker for me,tough,reliable,starts in -40 unaided is of the utmost importance. I require tough because of the conditions being operated in.
Tell me about the tundra.
I've heard they are the Cadillac of trucks. How's the drivetrain,power,4wd etc.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: millerbl00
100k is low mileage ccompared to a few years ago. Lets see in 200k and in a majority of them.


Your right. 100k is just breaking in.
I've got vans built in the 90s,all with in excess of 300k that still run flawlessly,and the 04 hemi I had last year ran like new with 270k on the odo.
The sierra c3 I just acquired runs like new with 200k on the odo.
My 99 silverado runs fantastic too,although beat up in the looks department and it's got 270k,120 of those are running with custom tuning because of a cam swap,and that truck in 4wd hops when you punch it.
So considering all the older tech I own is achieving astronomical type mileage I expect engines 14 years(at least) newer to achieve at least what the dinosaurs can run to.
I'm really liking the chev's,but the mds hemi is a fantastic engine too.
My dads 2014 hemi,gets 26mpg on the highway at 65mph,and the chev/Eco-boost are supposed to get better mileage than the hemi,which is now confusing me because of what's getting reported in this thread.
Before anyone even starts chirping I saw with my own eyes the reported hemi mileage. Cruise was set,no wind and of course our flat prairie roads.
I'd like to have each truck for a couple days,just to experience and see what each is capable of in my hands.
I always seem to destroy the EPA advertised mileages of vehicles. Heck my charger gets up to 30mpg on the highway with cruise set at 65mph,but I've got cera-tec in the oil and I've got a home brew fuel additive that seems to help.
Thanks again guys for the feedback. All opinions are welcome

 

[millerbl00]

Thats my point the new tech will not achieve what the dinosaurs can do. The new stuff is cutting edge, unproven and not as tough as the old stuff. You will be highly disappointed.


Quote "So considering all the older tech I own is achieving astronomical type mileage I expect engines 14 years(at least) newer to achieve at least what the dinosaurs can run to."

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: millerbl00
Thats my point the new tech will not achieve what the dinosaurs can do. The new stuff is cutting edge, unproven and not as tough as the old stuff. You will be highly disappointed.


Quote "So considering all the older tech I own is achieving astronomical type mileage I expect engines 14 years(at least) newer to achieve at least what the dinosaurs can run to."



I've been cruising the ford truck forums and there are owners who own Eco-boost trucks,and using them as work vehicles towing trailers and so on and there are many examples of 150000 milers and their owners mentioned requiring a re-flash because of condensation but other than that every single high mile example has a happy owner who isn't reporting any problems or anything for that matter.
According to you these things dissolve or explode at 200000 miles,but from what I've read from the high mile guys they are happy with the vehicle,and engine.
If what you've written had any real merit at all there would be at least something about these failures somewhere,which there isn't.
So I'm not buying it.
I'm betting 10 years ago you were saying exactly the same thing about new tech,yet those examples are doing just fine and running into very high mileages,so if the new tech then was so bad wouldn't those older engines be blowing up long before now.
Miller. Thanks for your opinion and it's noted,however I don't feel your even remotely helpful.

SteveSRT owns a fleet of chev engines in service vehicles. Now if there was a problem with chev,like seems to be the general consensus here then if any one would know its gonna be him,considering the duty cycle of his service vehicles,yet from his fleet "experience" this new crop of chev engines are the best ever,so you'll forgive me if your opinion doesn't mean a lot to me.
You've shown that your just sour and will find fault where there isn't any. I'm betting you cried from the mountaintops about hemi tick too 10 years ago.
So miller unless your fleet service record can generate some stats about how today's engines are junk then please just save it. Your opinion is noted in every post and no one reading this thread has any question on where you stand.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Tell me about the tundra.
I've heard they are the Cadillac of trucks. How's the drivetrain,power,4wd etc.


To be fair, I have a longtime dislike of Ford and Dodge; I know they have come a ways from where they are, and I should have cross shopped: but when I was shopping I wasn't interested in those two. I did try out a Sierra 1500 ECSB 4x4 with the 4.8L and 3.42's; unfortunately the sales guy road shotgun so I didn't really open it up and see how bad it was (since nearly every review slams the smaller mill). I wanted to buy new and then oilcoat and change fluids etc--so I'd know for sure it'd last the distance, as GM trucks seem to suffer from rust. Badly. But they played games on the price so it was very easy to walk, and in the end I didn't want to pay new truck prices anyhow.

Plus I wanted a bare-bones truck. At the time it sounded like GM's AFM was flakey, I wasn't sure on the 6L80, I didn't like the overall gearing they used (lots of 3.42's or worse). Dodges fell apart, Ford's were just out (long time family dislike), and thus... Toyota was about it.

Sorry, I can't give you much of an unbiased report. I like mine. But I have low expectations.

I did fail to do my research; since then I've come across all the problems. Front diff's that need a new bearing (just had that done, thankfully I have a warranty!), bad wheel bearings, bad steering racks on 2010 and later, water pumps and finally this Air Injection Pump (AIP) which is a real failure point (and not cheap) on these trucks. I might very well trade out of the truck before 150k when the extended(?) coverage on the AIP ends. I think the stock 255/75R18 tires are somewhat odd sized, not sure they are stocked everywhere also.

They are also thirsty. With zero fuel economy tricks (small motor, tall gearing, cylinder deactivation) it seems 15mpg is very common. Best I can squeeze out of my small V8 (the 4.6, which has taller gearing than the 5.7) has been about 21mpg; and that requires driving in summer & going no faster than 60mph.

I suspect Tundra's are pretty close to the bottom at the moment. World class in half-tons in 2007 when they debuted the 5.7&6spd auto, but they simply have not kept up. Now they are merely "just good enough".

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: Clevy

SteveSRT owns a fleet of chev engines in service vehicles. Now if there was a problem with chev,like seems to be the general consensus here then if any one would know its gonna be him,considering the duty cycle of his service vehicles,yet from his fleet "experience" this new crop of chev engines are the best ever,so you'll forgive me if your opinion doesn't mean a lot to me.


The only moment of thought I'll give millerbl00 is that SteveRT doesn't deal with the road salt we see up north. So he will not see the galvanic/rust issues. That aside, every other Northerner would though, and unless if fleets up here have problems with suspension parts falling off (which we'd have heard about by now), then I have to strongly think there is zero issue here with mixing metals in suspension.

Aluminum panels instead of steel sheetmetal, ok, we'll see how that turns out. But that's a cosmetic issue, and not quite in the same league as all other problems.

 

[millerbl00]

After all the problems car manufacturer's have had they have to prove themselves. They have proven time and time again they cannot be trusted. But hey everyone their own view and how they wish to spend there $$. I will not waste my $$ any more on unproven. Remember you asked for opinions you just did not want the negative ones.

 

[SteveSRT8]

^^^Nope, all opinions welcome. Always.

The one thing unreasonable would be to expect everyone to agree on something. After all, it is 'open' discussion...

 

[Volvohead]

Getting back to the OT . . .

Clevy, are you leaning towards a firm decision on this yet?

Between these two, neither is head-and-shoulders better than the other, so I wouldn't overthink it to death.

 

[wag123]

Originally Posted By: supton

I suspect Tundra's are pretty close to the bottom at the moment. World class in half-tons in 2007 when they debuted the 5.7&6spd auto, but they simply have not kept up. Now they are merely "just good enough".

And, you would be wrong! You need to take a close look at the 2014 Tundras, and take a test drive.
IMHO, the Tundra is the best built most reliable truck you can buy. Their 5.7L V/8 is strong and bullet-proof, and all of the other mechanical components are hefty enough to be used in a 3/4 ton. The icing on the cake is that they are ALL built in the USA. Many of the Fords, Chevys and Rams are built in Mexico (look for a 3 as the first digit of the VIN). The quality of the Mexican built trucks is definitely sub-standard compared to their American built counterparts.
But, Tundras are pricy.

 

[dave1251]

F150's are assembled in either Kansas City, MO or Dearborn, MI.
RAM 1500 are assembled in either Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico or at Warren Truck Assembly in Warren, MI.
GM 1500's are assembled in one of three locations. Flint, MI Roanoke, IN or Silao, Mexico

 

[Volvohead]

Our 'hoe was assembled in Arlington TX.
It does have some Mexican parts content, however.

We found the Toyos overpriced for the content level, and their powertrain is not any more durable than the two big Americans.

 

[wag123]

Dave1251 is correct, I was wrong. Ford is no longer importing F150 trucks from Mexico.

Originally Posted By: Volvohead
We found the Toyos overpriced for the content level

Agreed. They are high.

Originally Posted By: Volvohead
their powertrain is not any more durable than the two big Americans.

I take issue with this. I have never known anybody who has ever had any kind of a powertrain problem with a Toyota truck, even trucks with very high miles on them. In the high mile lower priced used truck category, people actively seek out Toyotas because of this reputation.
Chevy and Dodge also have very good V/8 powertrains, their V/6 powertrains not so much. Ford on the other hand has had durability problems with the 5.4L V/8s, the V/6s, and some of the diesels. Nissan is like Dodge, they have very good powertrains but the rest of the truck lets them down.
As far as "bang-for-the-buck" is concerned, IMHO a Chevy with a 5.3L V/8 wins, if you can find one that isn't built in Mexico (hard to do where I live).

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: wag123
Originally Posted By: supton

I suspect Tundra's are pretty close to the bottom at the moment. World class in half-tons in 2007 when they debuted the 5.7&6spd auto, but they simply have not kept up. Now they are merely "just good enough".

And, you would be wrong! You need to take a close look at the 2014 Tundras, and take a test drive.

Not shopping at the moment for another truck, and certainly don't want to be tempted anyhow. Plus, 2014 was sheetmetal changes and not much more. Maybe they played with spring rates, noise deadening. I have heard they did reprogram the accelerator pedal, something long in the coming. Maybe they fixed cruise control too? One can hope. Perhaps they finally got auto up on the electric windows too?

They also are rather behind in the mpg department. They use nada for mpg boost. The 4.0 is too little motor IMO, and my 4.6 is "good enough" for my light usage; but the mpg's pale in comparasion to GM/Ford/Dodge. Which I was ok with, as I didn't plan to rack up mile after mile, and being a Luddite I didn't want any of the fancy tech.
Quote:
IMHO, the Tundra is the best built most reliable truck you can buy. Their 5.7L V/8 is strong and bullet-proof, and all of the other mechanical components are hefty enough to be used in a 3/4 ton.

Dunno, they have their issues. AIP, steering rack, front diff, water pumps. I just had the front diff rebuilt at only 84k. Given how little 4WD this truck likely has seen it's a bit sad; and Toyota has a TSB on it, so it's a real issue. I think the 5.7's may have rear diff issues too: get this, turns out the 4.0/4.6 rear end holds one more qt of gear lube as compared to the 5.7, despite the 5.7 rear having a larger diameter ring gear!

Whatever the components are, the axle limits aren't that high, and the payload is low. Perhaps they are oversized and bolted to an undersized frame? Why not beef up the frame--or just try to break into the 3/4ton market?

Quote:
The icing on the cake is that they are ALL built in the USA. Many of the Fords, Chevys and Rams are built in Mexico (look for a 3 as the first digit of the VIN). The quality of the Mexican built trucks is definitely sub-standard compared to their American built counterparts.
No comment, don't have any info on this. Yes it's nice to have them built in the USA. Not convinced that quality control respects country boundaries.
Quote:
But, Tundras are pricy.

Sorta. All trucks are pricey, but looking at my local dealer I didn't think they were too bad. They seem to hold their value, which is rather neutral: bad when buying, good when selling. New double cabs are low 30's, used 2nd gen I think is still low 20's/upper teens, depending upon miles. Which means they are a good deal, if they can truly withstand high miles and years of use. Which is more or less what got me to buy one.

*

I like my truck, I did buy it for a reason; but while I'm a fanboy I'm not oblivious to its shortcomings.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: wag123

I take issue with this. I have never known anybody who has ever had any kind of a powertrain problem with a Toyota truck, even trucks with very high miles on them.


So none of them were victims of the camshafts snapping in half? As that was an issue Toyota had.