Ford's biggest SUV gets bigger...

[snide]

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/75e6eaa35d5c08628a93830989bb556fb87a9d9e/c=1099-0-5621-3400&r=x393&c=520x390/local/-/media/2017/02/06/DetroitFreePress/DetroitFreePress/636220084474953548-18Expedition-05-HR.jpg

Article (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/02/07/ford-makes-big-expedition-suv-even-bigger/97594676/). Not quite Excursion big. Needs a diesel.

[Mike Mercury]

http://www.fullredneck.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Ford-Meme-3.jpg



http://pics.onsizzle.com/easy-now-ford-dont-over-doit-2803112.png









http://www.humoar.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/mexican-word-of-the-day-chicken-finger.jpg

[C5SilverBullet]

Has me considering one over the Suburban. Unlikely, but a thought.

[NavyC5]

What do you call three Fords and a Chevy?

Junk yard and a ride home

[C5SilverBullet]

What do you call three Fords and a Chevy?

Junk yard and a ride home

Says the guy who drives a Ram. :rofl:

[NavyC5]

Says the guy who drives a Ram. :rofl:

For the time being I still own a Chevy...no complaints from the Ram, I refuse to buy a Ford. Something wrong with an HD truck that you immediately have to put aftermarket airbags in to haul any kind of a load.

[polarbear]

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/75e6eaa35d5c08628a93830989bb556fb87a9d9e/c=1099-0-5621-3400&r=x393&c=520x390/local/-/media/2017/02/06/DetroitFreePress/DetroitFreePress/636220084474953548-18Expedition-05-HR.jpg

Article (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/02/07/ford-makes-big-expedition-suv-even-bigger/97594676/). Not quite Excursion big. Needs a diesel.

Nah- they need to break GM's hammerlock on the luxury-mom SUV market. One half hour in my Middle School parking lot (very upscale neighborhood) when school lets out would graphically tell the story. The number of big GM SUV's is truly eye-popping... especially when you consider a new Tahoe/Suburban (the entry level model) runs out at $75K fully loaded, and Escalades easily climb into the six figures.

Odd that Ford hasn't figured this segment out, since they dominate the mid-size segment with the Explorer. They don't need a diesel- they need to best Cadillac's 425hp V8... in a package that makes a similar statement the Escalade does. Like the big GM's or not... they do have presence.

http://popularamericancars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2017-GMC-Yukon-Denali.jpg

[polarbear]

For the time being I still own a Chevy...no complaints from the Ram, I refuse to buy a Ford. Something wrong with an HD truck that you immediately have to put aftermarket airbags in to haul any kind of a load.

Something very wrong if you think you have to.

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Oigi0Nvt--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/rnyjvvsixvhs9zrlyier.jpg

[Stangkiller]

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/75e6eaa35d5c08628a93830989bb556fb87a9d9e/c=1099-0-5621-3400&r=x393&c=520x390/local/-/media/2017/02/06/DetroitFreePress/DetroitFreePress/636220084474953548-18Expedition-05-HR.jpg

Article (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/02/07/ford-makes-big-expedition-suv-even-bigger/97594676/). Not quite Excursion big. Needs a diesel.

I'd consider test driving the V8 option when we are replacing Karen's car next.

Before I bought the Yukon Denali, I test drove the explorer and last model expedition, the turbo was laggy and the seats were short, flat, and unsupportive. :island14:

The damn Tahoes, Yukons, and Escalades are stupid expensive but there's nothing else on the market quite like them. But the 5.3L was insufficient in the Tahoe for that kind of money.

I will say my service experience has been so poor with the Yukon I'm really beginning to open up to the thought of a foreign car for my next new car.

[Truck Guy]

Something very wrong if you think you have to.

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Oigi0Nvt--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/rnyjvvsixvhs9zrlyier.jpg

I believe Ryan's pulling that fact out of his ass... :rofl:

[Mike Mercury]

http://www.kappit.com/img/pics/201406_1222_ehfgf_sm.jpg













http://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder89/500x/66451089.jpg










http://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/91/90/45/919045718e3d65056807a09bdd062f12.jpg

[NavyC5]

I believe Ryan's pulling that fact out of his ass... :rofl:

Two friends of my father have new model F-250. Both pull average size 5th wheels. Both had to install aftermarket airbags to keep out of the overload springs. :seasix:

[NavyC5]

Something very wrong if you think you have to.

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Oigi0Nvt--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/rnyjvvsixvhs9zrlyier.jpg

Might want to look up the new rear suspension on that truck. Ford added at least one leaf spring to solve the problem. This is pretty much what their trucks look like with even a medium size 5th wheel


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/WIQvcwZSwFc/hqdefault.jpg

[polarbear]

Two friends of my father have new model F-250. Both pull average size 5th wheels. Both had to install aftermarket airbags to keep out of the overload springs. :seasix:

If they had simply bought a F350, for a couple hundred more, the additional springs and GVW would have come standard. Only difference between the two is... wait for it... the additional springs (and an inch ride height). I pulled 10-11K with mine, and got next to zero squat (F350 Crew, single-wheel).

This is different from the GM line, where a 3500 pretty much means duals. Not true in Ford. The serious haulers in Fordland go with the F450. Rated to tow 32,500 (http://www.autoblog.com/2016/07/18/2017-ford-super-duty-towing-specs-released-official/).

http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-global/dims3/GLOB/legacy_thumbnail/750x422/quality/95/https://s.blogcdn.com/slideshows/images/slides/399/175/2/S3991752/slug/l/17fordf450platinum-2399-hr-2.jpg

[vetteman9368]

If they had simply bought a F350, for a couple hundred more, the additional springs and GVW would have come standard. Only difference between the two is... wait for it... the additional springs (and an inch ride height). I pulled 10-11K with mine, and got next to zero squat (F350 Crew).

This is different from the GM line, where a 3500 pretty much means duals. Not true in Ford. The serious haulers in Fordland go with the F450. Rated to tow 32,500 (http://www.autoblog.com/2016/07/18/2017-ford-super-duty-towing-specs-released-official/).

http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-global/dims3/GLOB/legacy_thumbnail/750x422/quality/95/https://s.blogcdn.com/slideshows/images/slides/399/175/2/S3991752/slug/l/17fordf450platinum-2399-hr-2.jpg

Just because it can tow it, doesn't mean it can stop or control it

[polarbear]

Just because it can tow it, doesn't mean it can stop or control it

The factory tow rating means exactly that- it is within the constraints of the chassis capabilities. Those tow ratings carry some serious legal implications, so they are- if anything- on the conservative side. That's a very serious (and expensive) tow vehicle.

[vetteman9368]

The factory tow rating means exactly that- it is within the constraints of the chassis capabilities. Those tow ratings carry some serious legal implications, so they are- if anything- on the conservative side. That's a very serious (and expensive) tow vehicle.

You do know that they perform those tests with basically stacked plate steel right? Big difference between a 30' gooseneck with double tandem axles and about 18" of steel plate on it and a 52' enclosed 3 car stacker trailer, even if they weigh the same.

[C5SilverBullet]

I'd consider test driving the V8 option when we are replacing Karen's car next.

Before I bought the Yukon Denali, I test drove the explorer and last model expedition, the turbo was laggy and the seats were short, flat, and unsupportive. :island14:

The damn Tahoes, Yukons, and Escalades are stupid expensive but there's nothing else on the market quite like them. But the 5.3L was insufficient in the Tahoe for that kind of money.

I will say my service experience has been so poor with the Yukon I'm really beginning to open up to the thought of a foreign car for my next new car.
There is no V8 option.

[C5SilverBullet]

Nah- they need to break GM's hammerlock on the luxury-mom SUV market. One half hour in my Middle School parking lot (very upscale neighborhood) when school lets out would graphically tell the story. The number of big GM SUV's is truly eye-popping... especially when you consider a new Tahoe/Suburban (the entry level model) runs out at $75K fully loaded, and Escalades easily climb into the six figures.

Odd that Ford hasn't figured this segment out, since they dominate the mid-size segment with the Explorer. They don't need a diesel- they need to best Cadillac's 425hp V8... in a package that makes a similar statement the Escalade does. Like the big GM's or not... they do have presence.

http://popularamericancars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2017-GMC-Yukon-Denali.jpgGM accounts for 75% of all large SUV sales.

[vetteman9368]

There is no V8 option.

And there's another problem.

[C5SilverBullet]

And there's another problem.

:spdchk::spdchk:

[Stangkiller]

And there's another problem.

:spdchk::spdchk:

Yup that was my point I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I spend 2hrs a day in my vehicle I damned well better be comfortable and enjoy being in it.

[polarbear]

GM accounts for 75% of all large SUV sales.

:yesnod:

GM own's this segment.

[Mike Mercury]

the 5.3 has had one nagging issue (though it's not a deal breaker)... oil consumption on models that have DoD; aka: 4 cyl mode.

You just gave to check oil level religiously; or it will sneak down on you.

[Stangkiller]

the 5.3 has had one nagging issue (though it's not a deal breaker)... oil consumption on models that have DoD; aka: 4 cyl mode.

You just gave to check oil level religiously; or it will sneak down on you.

The 5.3 uses the 6speed transmission to make up for lack of power, the end result is constant hunting for the right gear and never really finding it. I even test drove the 5.3 with the towing gear, it helped some but just wasn't enough. The 6.2 not only has enough power the 8speed transmission is very quick and smooth.

[vetteman9368]

:spdchk::spdchk:

The only cool v6. Ever

[Stangkiller]

The only cool v6. Ever

The typhoon was only 3800lbs the Tahoe is 5600.

[vetteman9368]

That's a turbo Buick logo. But the syclone I had was fun

[Stangkiller]

That's a turbo Buick logo. But the syclone I had was fun

Yup, but in all fairness GM did make a turbo 6cyl mini suv, and they are rather sought after these days.

[Mike Mercury]

Hmmm....wasn't ware of this but will keep an eye on it. :cheers:

on the truck forums, a common mod for the 5.3 oil consumption issue is to disable DoD.

My 2008 Avalanche 5.3 had it bad, about one quart every 600-700 miles. My 2012 replacement Avalanche 5.3 is more like every 1000-1200 miles.

Two updates were done on the 5.3, a different drivers side valve cover (with added internal baffles) and an added baffle in the oil pan. I replaced the valve cover on my 2008 and it helped. But the oil pan upgrade involved removal, and on 4wd models it required removing part of the drivetrain to get oilpan off; so I didn't do that part.

[vetteman9368]

Yup, but in all fairness GM did make a turbo 6cyl mini suv, and they are rather sought after these days.

That is true. I had one. Wish I still had it.

[C5SilverBullet]

Yup that was my point I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I spend 2hrs a day in my vehicle I damned well better be comfortable and enjoy being in it.

The 5.3 uses the 6speed transmission to make up for lack of power, the end result is constant hunting for the right gear and never really finding it. I even test drove the 5.3 with the towing gear, it helped some but just wasn't enough. The 6.2 not only has enough power the 8speed transmission is very quick and smooth.

Says Ford needs a V8...complains about GM's V8.

:funnier:

[C5SilverBullet]

BTW, the Ecoboost in the new Expedition will have more power and better fuel economy than the current version.

[Stangkiller]

Says Ford needs a V8...complains about GM's V8.

:funnier:

Yup pointing out a small v8 wasn't sufficient, as evidenced by the vehicle I finally purchased.

[C5SilverBullet]

Yup pointing out a small v8 wasn't sufficient, as evidenced by the vehicle I finally purchased.

It isn't sufficient, that is why Ford isn't using a small V8, they're using a turbo V6 that makes nearly 100ft/lb of torque more.

GM 5.3L
355 HP
383 TQ

GM 6.2L
420 HP
460 TQ

Ford 3.5L
375 HP
470 TQ

[The_Dude]

I want an Excursion.

[Stangkiller]

It isn't sufficient, that is why Ford isn't using a small V8, they're using a turbo V6 that makes nearly 100ft/lb of torque more.

GM 5.3L
355 HP
383 TQ

GM 6.2L
420 HP
460 TQ

Ford 3.5L
375 HP
470 TQ
Apples to oranges, the ecoboost is laggy and not a smooth power curve not to mention all of their problems, if they wanted the efficiency of turbos they could throw a few hair driers on a v8. These are big heavy vehicles putting an engine that has to work hard just to get down the street is tiresome and annoying.

[C5SilverBullet]

Apples to oranges, the ecoboost is laggy and not a smooth power curve not to mention all of their problems, if they wanted the efficiency of turbos they could throw a few hair driers on a v8. These are big heavy vehicles putting an engine that has to work hard just to get down the street is tiresome and annoying.

Have you driven one? They aren't laggy at all, and no problems with them either. The first year there was an issue, but have been great since.

I've been driving an Expedition for a week, MUCH better pickup that the Tahoe/Suburban.

[vetteman9368]

Apples to oranges, the ecoboost is laggy and not a smooth power curve not to mention all of their problems, if they wanted the efficiency of turbos they could throw a few hair driers on a v8. These are big heavy vehicles putting an engine that has to work hard just to get down the street is tiresome and annoying.

Common sense. Not a job requirement at ford powertrain engineering. And it's not like it gets THAT much better fuel economy.

[C5SilverBullet]

Common sense. Not a job requirement at ford powertrain engineering. And it's not like it gets THAT much better fuel economy.

The fuel economy isn't better, it is on par with what GM gets out of the 5.3L.

[Stangkiller]

Have you driven one? They aren't laggy at all, and no problems with them either. The first year there was an issue, but have been great since.

I've been driving an Expedition for a week, MUCH better pickup that the Tahoe/Suburban.

I did and it had nearly as much hesitation and turbo lag as my duramax, which was causing Karen some problems when she drove the diesel. Everybody kept saying no lag and lots of power, I was really surprised at how much lag there was.

[Stangkiller]

The fuel economy isn't better, it is on par with what GM gets out of the 5.3L.

:confused5: then what's the point a much more complicated engine with more expensive parts to service.

[vetteman9368]

:confused5: then what's the point a much more complicated engine with more expensive parts to service.

Exactly. It's pointless. Ford is going to screw themselves with all this. "Loook at me" technology. These are vehicles that NO ONE will want to own out of warranty.

[C5SilverBullet]

I did and it had nearly as much hesitation and turbo lag as my duramax, which was causing Karen some problems when she drove the diesel. Everybody kept saying no lag and lots of power, I was really surprised at how much lag there was.You must have driven the only one ever built like that then.

:confused5: then what's the point a much more complicated engine with more expensive parts to service.
What's the point of building a smaller, lighter, engine that produces more torque and hp than larger V8's?

[Mike Mercury]

4 and 6 cyl engines all have the same drawback; lack of low end torque at the rpm ranges most people daily operate in.

These high HP and TQ 4 & 6 cyl engines only develop those numbers near peak RPM; so it's still doggy feeling with normal everyday driving where RPM's don't get above 3k most of the time.

8 cylinder or higher naturally have this low RPM grunt. When any mfgr boasts about a 4 of 6 cyl with "the power of a V8"... don't ignore where this high power is delivered (which RPM range you will need be at to gain the power).

One saving grace to these lower cyl engines is direct injection. This does help; but still cannot add any additional "explosions per crankshaft revolution".

[vetteman9368]

You must have driven the only one ever built like that then.


What's the point of building a smaller, lighter, engine that produces more torque and hp than larger V8's?

Smaller and lighter than what? Their behemoth mod motors? I bet that bitch isn't lighter than an aluminum LS based v8. And if it doesn't translate into an actual benefit then there is no point. Adding forced induction to the v8 would make the V6 pointless. It's an answer to a question no one asked. And ford will not succeed by not offering the v8. I know why they aren't offering it, because it would outsell their ecoboost and they don't want that egg on their face.

And for the record in theory ford's overhead cam v8s should be more efficient than a pushrod motor, yet the real world says otherwise.

[Truck Guy]

Apples to oranges, the ecoboost is laggy and not a smooth power curve not to mention all of their problems, if they wanted the efficiency of turbos they could throw a few hair driers on a v8. These are big heavy vehicles putting an engine that has to work hard just to get down the street is tiresome and annoying.What Tony said, not laggy at all. It actually has less gas pedal lag then the 5.0L V8.
Don't forget all that extra torque is at 2500 to 3500 RPM. No need to wind the hell out of the engine.

Common sense. Not a job requirement at ford powertrain engineering. And it's not like it gets THAT much better fuel economy.Wow, such hate for Ford. You may want to see a shrink for that... :rofl:

:confused5: then what's the point a much more complicated engine with more expensive parts to service.Really, two small turbochargers as compared to GM's Displacement-on-Demand engineering? Seriously?

I like you guys, but your GM pole stroking seriously clouds your judgement.

Before you say the same about Tony and me, I'm a Ford, Chevrolet and Chrysler dealer. I don't give a flying rats ass what vehicle you buy.

[Truck Guy]

4 and 6 cyl engines all have the same drawback; lack of low end torque at the rpm ranges most people daily operate in.

These high HP and TQ 4 & 6 cyl engines only develope those numbers near peak RPM; so it's still doggy feeling with normal everyday driving where RPM's don't get above 3k most of the time.

8 cylinder or higher naturally have this low RPM grunt. When any mfgr boasts about a 4 of 6 cyl with "the power of a V8"... don't ignore where this high power is delivered (which RPM range you will need be at to gain the power).

One saving grace to these lower cyl engines is direct injection. This does help; but still cannot add any additional "explosions per crankshaft revolution".Sorry Tim, but you are so totally wrong on this one.

The 3.5L V6 Ford EcoBoost gets maximum torque at 2500rpm (420 ft.lb.) and the 5.0L V8 gets 387 ft.lb. at 3850rpm.

More on the lines of a diesel engine.

[Mike Mercury]

Sorry Tim, but you are so totally wrong on this one.


naturally aspirated, I am not wrong.

Direct injection has lowered the rpms required to get to the power, and I did mention this.

But "explosions pre crankshaft revolution" is a simple matter of physics.

Though these latest 4/6 cyl engines with their trickery (super/turbochargers and DI... all which help) still don't add any additional ignitions per revolution.

[Stangkiller]

You must have driven the only one ever built like that then.


What's the point of building a smaller, lighter, engine that produces more torque and hp than larger V8's?

Brand new Ford Explorer sport last spring. Even my father in law noticed it from the back seat.

This has nothing to do with humping GM, I test drove everything, then drove a million Tahoes with the 5.3 just ask poor tony how many test drives. And eventually decided on the need for a 6.2L v8 for my large SUV.

[Truck Guy]

naturally aspirated, I am not wrong.

Direct injection has lowered the rpms required to get to the power, and I did mention this.

But "explosions pre crankshaft revolution" is a simple matter of physics.

Though these latest 4/6 cyl engines with their trickery (super/turbochargers and DI... all which help) still don't add any additional ignitions per revolution.We're not talking naturally aspirated, the discussion was about the EcoBoost. You're correct for a non-boosted engine.

Trickery? What...are we back in the 12th century where they thought the earth was flat :rofl::rofl::rofl:
You mean modern technology? Such as the GM DOD system, Ford's EcoBoost, etc.
All this tech is in the name of better fuel economy, lighter engines, more power and ALL of the manufactures are doing great even if they have gone down different paths to get there.

BTW, GM is starting to turbocharge smaller engines in their autos. So are these cars bad?

[Truck Guy]

Brand new Ford Explorer sport last spring. Even my father in law noticed it from the back seat.

This has nothing to do with humping GM, I test drove everything, then drove a million Tahoes with the 5.3 just ask poor tony how many test drives. And eventually decided on the need for a 6.2L v8 for my large SUV.I agree on the 6.2L V8, great motor.
If I was buying a Silverado or Suburban, that's all I would order.

I still disagree with the lag comments, I drive them all the time and have never had a problem.
Just personal opinion I guess.

[simpleman68]

Thought I'd chime in as I own both, daily drive both, and have towed with both. Long distances with each vehicle pulling 10,000 lbs.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e28/simpleman68/Boat/20161102_105545_zpspui9yvnw.jpg

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e28/simpleman68/Vette%20Stuff/20140120_131726_zpsl7qwh8kp.jpg

Big caveat is that I input the Livernois Motorsports tuner on the 3.5 for an extra 125 hp & 100 lb/ft tq

'13 Yukon Denali 6.2
'15 F-150 3.5 EB

I see both sides of what each party is saying. The 3.5 does lack low end grunt. Off the line, it takes more effort (pedal) for the 3.5 to get the boat/trailer moving.
GMs 6.2 is effortless and acceleration is smooth and enough to get out in front of others.

Towed the boat from WI back to PA (900 miles) with the 3.5

Towed same rig from PA to FL (1500 miles) with the 6.2

On the highway, they both struggled to get 10 mpg. :wow:

Both did a fine job although I VASTLY prefer towing with the 3.5 :yesnod:
Longer wheelbase, and more power with fewer gear changes (that was a surprise)

I removed the tow tune from the 3.5 to see how big the difference was and it wasn't as much as I expected.
To be fair, I didn't do a long haul test but I did get out on the highway and the only appreciable difference was it took more time to accelerate and there was a bit of lag but not objectionable, to me anyway.

Both great trucks IMO but my perfect truck for hauling boats, kids etc would be a Suburban with a 6.2 but they don't or didn't make one the years I was shopping for trucks.
Scott

[Stangkiller]

I agree on the 6.2L V8, great motor.
If I was buying a Silverado or Suburban, that's all I would order.

I still disagree with the lag comments, I drive them all the time and have never had a problem.
Just personal opinion I guess.

I know just a little lag can be normal and is easy to adjust to it. I loved driving my Duramax, and yes it had lots of turbolag.

But let's talk about a personal yet "hypothetical" story which is one of the big reasons I had to replace my diesel. I loaned my diesel truck to somebody to drive some of our family up to the ranch. Well on the way back while trying to pass on a two lane road, this person stepped on the accelerator and changed into the other lane to complete the pass. While that's a move that I made all the time, what passengers never saw was how early I would initiate a pass. Now the driver didn't know that and was shocked at how flat the truck wasn't accelerating, but the boost was slowly coming up making the driver think they could complete the pass. Well by now a car has come over the ridge and the car being over taken hasn't slowed down. To make a long story short both the oncoming car and the car being passed were run off the road.

So to people that drive them regularly a little boost lag is no big deal maybe even fun, but if I'm shopping for a vehicle for my family and have a choice between a lag and no lag, you damn right I'm going with no lag every time.

[Mike Mercury]

What...are we back in the 12th century where they thought the earth was flat :rofl::rofl::rofl:



It's not ?????

I guess I should buy a newer set of encyclopedias... :)

OK, "trickery" wasn't the best word to use... I'll give you that. These are ways of overcoming the lack of HP & TQ in the absence of cylinders. But even then, with these newest DI engines... you do have to reach a minimum RPM to get at the benefits. So between idle and whatever this RPM minimum is... it could be noticed as a lag; but might only be a real issue on a heavy vehicle or when towing something.

Ya know, GM tried small V8's once, the 262 ci (4.3). But it was released in an era when "V8" equated to "SportsCar !"; and too many owners mistook the idea of offering low end torque - for the ability to dragrace at every stoplight (and they were disappointed)

It was a good idea, but at the wrong time.

[GRN ENVY]

Thought I'd chime in as I own both, daily drive both, and have towed with both. Long distances with each vehicle pulling 10,000 lbs.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e28/simpleman68/Boat/20161102_105545_zpspui9yvnw.jpg

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e28/simpleman68/Vette%20Stuff/20140120_131726_zpsl7qwh8kp.jpg

Big caveat is that I input the Livernois Motorsports tuner on the 3.5 for an extra 125 hp & 100 lb/ft tq

'13 Yukon Denali 6.2
'15 F-150 3.5 EB

I see both sides of what each party is saying. The 3.5 does lack low end grunt. Off the line, it takes more effort (pedal) for the 3.5 to get the boat/trailer moving.
GMs 6.2 is effortless and acceleration is smooth and enough to get out in front of others.

Towed the boat from WI back to PA (900 miles) with the 3.5

Towed same rig from PA to FL (1500 miles) with the 6.2

On the highway, they both struggled to get 10 mpg. :wow:

Both did a fine job although I VASTLY prefer towing with the 3.5 :yesnod:
Longer wheelbase, and more power with fewer gear changes (that was a surprise)

I removed the tow tune from the 3.5 to see how big the difference was and it wasn't as much as I expected.
To be fair, I didn't do a long haul test but I did get out on the highway and the only appreciable difference was it took more time to accelerate and there was a bit of lag but not objectionable, to me anyway.

Both great trucks IMO but my perfect truck for hauling boats, kids etc would be a Suburban with a 6.2 but they don't or didn't make one the years I was shopping for trucks.
Scott

Some how we managed to get that in my tiny one car garage at my old town home :lol:

[erickpl]

The 5.3 uses the 6speed transmission to make up for lack of power, the end result is constant hunting for the right gear and never really finding it. I even test drove the 5.3 with the towing gear, it helped some but just wasn't enough. The 6.2 not only has enough power the 8speed transmission is very quick and smooth.

I thought the newer Silverados and Tahoes etc had an 8 speed transmission... if you get the max trailering package, you even get 3.73 gearing.

[Stangkiller]

I thought the newer Silverados and Tahoes etc had an 8 speed transmission... if you get the max trailering package, you even get 3.73 gearing.

The 5.3L is paired only to the 6speed you have to step up to the 6.2L to get the 8speed.

[Stangkiller]

BTW, GM is starting to turbocharge smaller engines in their autos. So are these cars bad?
Yes, small engine and boost is a bad idea when a simpler larger engine makes more sense. For replacing Karen's car we've been talking about either a cts-v or perpaps a last model year SS. Notice a pattern? Besides my Jeep Cherokee I had at 15 and my Rx-7 I've never owned/driven anything but v8's.

I learned to drive in a suburban v8
Had a Jeep I-6 got rear ended before I turned 16
Bought a firebird v8
Replaced with rx7
Replaced with 99 Vette, eventually added a blower
Supplemented with a Tahoe 4x4 v8
Added a 2nd c5 convertible v8, sold after a year or so
Replaced Tahoe with Duramax 2500hd v8
Bought a c6 vert yup another v8
Replaced Duramax with Denali 6.2L v8

Call me a dumb redneck if you wish but at least I'm consistent.

[simpleman68]

Some how we managed to get that in my tiny one car garage at my old town home :lol:

Shoe-horned that bish in there. :Jeff '79:

Scott

[snide]

Yes, small engine and boost is a bad idea when a simpler larger engine makes more sense. For replacing Karen's car we've been talking about either a cts-v or perpaps a last model year SS. Notice a pattern? Besides my Jeep Cherokee I had at 15 and my Rx-7 I've never owned/driven anything but v8's.

I learned to drive in a suburban v8
Had a Jeep I-6 got rear ended before I turned 16
Bought a firebird v8
Replaced with rx7
Replaced with 99 Vette, eventually added a blower
Supplemented with a Tahoe 4x4 v8
Added a 2nd c5 convertible v8, sold after a year or so
Replaced Tahoe with Duramax 2500hd v8
Bought a c6 vert yup another v8
Replaced Duramax with Denali 6.2L v8

Call me a dumb redneck if you wish but at least I'm consistent.

I'm not seeing any Mustangs in that list...

[C5SilverBullet]

The 5.3L is paired only to the 6speed you have to step up to the 6.2L to get the 8speed.

Incorrect

[C5SilverBullet]

Brand new Ford Explorer sport last spring. Even my father in law noticed it from the back seat.

Totally different version of the 3.5 than is in the truck.

[C5SilverBullet]

Yes, small engine and boost is a bad idea when a simpler larger engine makes more sense. For replacing Karen's car we've been talking about either a cts-v or perpaps a last model year SS. Notice a pattern? Besides my Jeep Cherokee I had at 15 and my Rx-7 I've never owned/driven anything but v8's.

I learned to drive in a suburban v8
Had a Jeep I-6 got rear ended before I turned 16
Bought a firebird v8
Replaced with rx7
Replaced with 99 Vette, eventually added a blower
Supplemented with a Tahoe 4x4 v8
Added a 2nd c5 convertible v8, sold after a year or so
Replaced Tahoe with Duramax 2500hd v8
Bought a c6 vert yup another v8
Replaced Duramax with Denali 6.2L v8

Call me a dumb redneck if you wish but at least I'm consistent.
Just because you prefer a V8, doesn't make everything else a bad engine, or a dumb idea.

[C5SilverBullet]

I thought the newer Silverados and Tahoes etc had an 8 speed transmission... if you get the max trailering package, you even get 3.73 gearing.

You can get it on the Silverado, but not the Tahoe/Suburban. Max trailer on the SUV has the 3.42 rear.

[Stangkiller]

Just because you prefer a V8, doesn't make everything else a bad engine, or a dumb idea.

Assuming they really did iron out the initial issues it's probably fine in its own right given the correct application, a full size SUV attempting to compete with the Tahoes, yukons, and Escalades is not the right application. As a consumer of large SUVs removing the v8 or larger option removes me as a potential customer. Done not interested, I think THATs the dumb move by Ford, they want to develop turbo technology that's great, but it's clearly not a one size fits all world, keep a large displacement option at least.

[C5SilverBullet]

Assuming they really did iron out the initial issues it's probably fine in its own right given the correct application, a full size SUV attempting to compete with the Tahoes, yukons, and Escalades is not the right application. As a consumer of large SUVs removing the v8 or larger option removes me as a potential customer. Done not interested, I think THATs the dumb move by Ford, they want to develop turbo technology that's great, but it's clearly not a one size fits all world, keep a large displacement option at least.

They sell like crazy in the trucks, and they offer more hp & torque than Chevrolet/GMC do with the 5.3L V8, by a lot. It isn't a one size fits all application, they have MANY different configurations with the turbo engines. The truck 3.5L and the car 3.5L are nothing alike.

If I could get the Suburban with a Ford 3.5L engine it would be perfect. I'm settling for the 5.3L because it is all they offer.

[polarbear]

Have you driven one? They aren't laggy at all, and no problems with them either. The first year there was an issue, but have been great since.

I've been driving an Expedition for a week, MUCH better pickup that the Tahoe/Suburban.

:iagree: I routinely drive them both. The Expedition is noticeably quicker. That being said... I like a V8 rumble.

[09CTSV]

Okay I'll jump. I am with Chris on this. I drove quite a few different vehicles before settling on the Yukon Denali. I didn't want to spend all the extra coin on the bling of a Denali but wanted the 6.2L and 8 Speed. I drove four different 5.3L with the 6 speed and did not like the lack of low end power. It felt like the truck was always not happy in any gear.
The Ford EcoBoost was good but I could feel the turbo lag. Maybe this is from having other forced induction cars like the CTS-V and not having the lag with the supercharger. The X5M had was a 4.4L with twin turbos and I could tell a definitive difference between it and the V in ramp up to power. I know the X5M was heavier, AWD etc..... but in ramp up of power, not speed, you could feel the difference between the turbo and a supercharger. With the EcoBoost engine I could feel the lag.
To be fair, I did test drive three different Explorers, a Yukon, Yukon XL, Denali, Denali XL, Tahoe, Suburban, Grand Cherokee, SRT Grand Cherokee and the Toyota. I didn't go back to a BMW because I just did not want to bring back my wallet again. Of them all the GM's with the 6.2L felt the best. The SRT was fun but there were definite quality issues just in the test drive. The Toyota felt like driving a brick in Flintstone mode. It was nearly as refined as the Ford or GM.
If any of manufactures could supercharge the small engines like GM did with the 3.8 back in the day, the lag would be gone and you would have more power.

Another item which hasn't been really brought up yet is direct injection. BMW has had it for years and they recently started to realize and understand the issues with it. The injectors will get clogged over time. BMW uses a walnut shell cleaning or something like that, too early to do a google search, too clean the intakes and injectors.

I did recently tow a tandem trailer with the Denali. It did okay but I wish for towing I had our old 3/4 ton Suburban back. The 8 Speed even in trailer mode did not like the extra weight being pulled along.

I agree with Chris on the service issues for GMC. Both dealers I've had service at I'd like to drop a steamy mully right on their door step to show the appreciation of their great service. I had to take the trim on the rear hatch apart and put it back together correctly after they replaced a roof rail. GM might build a good SUV but their dealer network sucks big donkey balls. The best dealer I've dealt with was a local Chevy dealership. The strange thing is I thought I'd have problems with them when I had the SS because the service manager and service writer were both from the Cadillac dealership I had so much problems with. Turns out it wasn't the people working but management as I found out when I bought the Denali from the clowns.