I agree 300 hp is plenty for any 1/2 ton pick-up but the difference between the Ecoboost and Ford's 5.0 (or the Chevy engines) is the torque. The Ecoboost brings about 420 ft/lbs of torque to the party at 2500 rpms and compared to the 5.0's 380 ft/lbs at 4000 rpms (+/-). Its would be the way to go if the truck is used for towing, otherwise I would stay with the V-8.

Hmmmmm
16.5 mpg average for the 3.5 ecoboost???

I get 17mpg average out of a 95 4x4 Toyota tacoma with 262,000mi on the original 3.4 v6 with no "Ecoboost"

I would buy a Ford but not an ecoboost

new pickups(f150...) weigh 5600 lbs and up....? Read where 2015 Ford would takeoff 600 lbs with aluminum chassis

Have a 2011 SuperCrew F150 w/5.0 coyote, 13k miles so far since new. 14.7 average mpg, I've been as high as 17+ in the summer. Hunts for gears a bit when towing the boat on rolling hills, a little low on torque down low, revs super smooth, goes with authority past 4,000 rpm and does the business. Thumbs up overall, feels well sorted, but still pretty new.

I did not opt for EcoBoost as it had just hit the market that year and I felt it was too new. My guess is that 90% of the issues have been sorted by now.

+1

Is there anything you won't attempt to argue about? Your Camaro had a curb weight of 3306 lbs, the early Tundra has a curb weight of 4800 lbs, and 5687 lb for my 2012 F150. The Camaro has 10.3 lb/hp, the early Tundra has 17.7 lb/hp, and my F150 (with its 360 HP V8) has 15.8 lb/hp. However, if the F150 only had 315 HP that would swing the pendulum to 18 lb/hp, worse than the early Tundra which was not known as a hot rod. Comparison of power numbers is POINTLESS without considering the weight of the vehicle.

Not only do I not think 300 HP is adequate in a full sized crew cab 4x4 truck, I voted with my wallet. For the same money I was comparing the 4.6L Crewmax Tunda (18 lb/hp) with the 5.0L SuperCrew F150. The 5.0 returned the same MPG but with 50 more HP, which was definitely noticeable when driving the trucks back to back. My wife does a lot of driving on 2-lane backroads with heavy semi traffic, roads where having plenty of power to pass provides an extra margin of safety. For a vehicle that my family would be riding in, it was a big deal to me. So for my needs I absolutely stand by my "adequate at best" statement, I would not consider a 300 HP V6 powered full-sized crew cab truck.

2015 Ford F-150 Prototypes Spotted in Michigan - Truck Trend

All I'm saying is that ten years ago (2003) you simply couldn't get a 1/2 ton Ford (or GM, or Toyota) that made even 300 horsepower, even with the largest V8 engine choice. And people thought they were more than adequate, even in a 6000 lb crew cab, even for towing.

The new Dodge V6 with its 8 speed auto returns 25 mpg EPA freeway, and makes more horsepower than any 2003 1/2 ton, while having more mechanical leverage with its 8 gears to choose from (vs 4 speeds automatics in any 2003) to negate the torque differences.

The 4.3L V6 in the new GMs will be even a little more powerful than the Dodge

The Camaro was simply an engine output reference. Remove its mention and my post is still valid.

True. Ten years ago there's not a truck on the market that I would have considered using for a family vehicle. They have come a long way.

You had an Armada until last year. Here's what you wrote about that 5500 pound family vehicle:



That motor made 305 horsepower



YMMV (and does)

For starters the Armada is a truck based SUV. There wasn't a crew cab truck on the market in 2004 that offered the same combination of interior space, amenities, and car like comfort that our 2012 F150 has. That was the point which I was trying to convey. But I'll still play your game.....

The Armada was 5013 lbs and had 305 HP, giving it a power to weight ratio of 16.4 lb/hp. That's 10% better than the 4.6L Toyota Tundra which I felt was only adequate. Furthermore, your HP pissing contest started earlier totally ignores torque, which is a significant contributor to the performance of a truck. At 385 lb/ft it actually has 5 lb/ft more than my F150, and almost 60 lb/ft more than the 4.6L Tundra. The Armada 0-60 time of 6.8 seconds is actually faster than my F150 at 7.1, and much faster than the 4.6L Tundra at 7.9. So yes, the Armada was quick enough for my needs and would likely blow the doors off of a V6 powered full sized truck. What was your point again?

BTW, I'm curious about your hard on for my posts. Is it because I don't genuflect to your car knowledge? I think you have a good perspective to share on these forums, but it also comes off very car salesman at times (for good reason). I don't claim to know everything about everything, but I like to share what I know. Considering that I just purchased a new crew cab truck after cross-shopping the competition and have already put almost 20k on said truck, I think I have a perspective to offer on this thread that you don't.

A 2013 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab 4x4 with the V6 does 0-60 mph in 7.6 seconds. It weighed in at 5193 pounds.

Just a point of reference. Take it as you will.

Blow the doors off?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1360794850.jpg

So in 03 the only 300+ hp truck was the Hemi Dodge right? I have a little time behind the wheel of the Hemi and that is just an amazing mill. WOW does that thing have power.

Yep. 345 horsepower. Completely eclipsed the 1/2 ton offerings from Ford, GM, and Toyota.

I rented a crew cab Hemi a few times...I don't know what the 0-60 times of it are but that thing HAULED! I don't know anything about the new 8 speed (ZF?) but back in 03 the Hemi had a 545RFE, which I've had in quite a few Jeeps. That transmission backing the HEMI seriously made the Dodge a no-brainer purchase in 2003. Now it seems like everybody has the HP - just maybe not as low down in the RPM range as the Hemi (ecoboost seems to have more torque even lower though!).

Just like you found a slower time from an unnamed source to support your big "gotcha" regarding the Armada, I'm sure I could find similar information to make the Dodge appear to be slower if I really gave a damn. My numbers were from a Motor Trend road test by the way. You have a V6 truck to sell or something?

The Armada test times depend on whether their tester was equipped with the towing package or not

With the towing package (or Off Road pkg), the final gearing was 3.36:1
Standard, the final gearing was 2.94:1

2004 Armada 0-60 tests:

Motor Trend 7.0 secs (2004, towing pkg)
Car and Driver 7.1 secs (2004, Off Road pkg)
AOL Autos 7.6 secs (2005, standard version)

Disclaimer: I did run a Nissan dealership

Feel free to find whatever data helps support your claim

I'm baffled. You post data that basically corroborates what I posted, then sarcastically say "feel free to find whatever data helps support your claim". WTF? I like how your "superior" knowledge of cars is trying to convince me otherwise with a car that I owned for two years and 40k, and one that I've owned for close to a year. Nevermind that you're trying to tell me that my OPINION is wrong. But you're right because you're a freaking car salesman?

I didn't say you lied, or that you were wrong

But your Armada "never lacked for power" at 305 hp and 0-60 times in the 7.0-7.6 second range

Yet a Dodge "is barely adequate" at 307 hp and 0-60 times in the 7.5-8.0 second range

Since they're all so close, I'm just "baffled" that you'd make such a statement

This isn't a V6 versus V8 thing. Clearly the Dodge V6 is quicker than, say, a Chevrolet Silverado 5.3L or Toyota Tundra 4.6L. Are those V8 trucks "barely adequate" too?

Thanks for everyone who gave input on my original questions. Just got back from the dealership, wound up getting the 4x4 loaded out for less than what the EcoBoost in mid-level trim cost. So mods, you can lock this one and let the fellows take the pissing match elsewhere