Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 02-25-2024, 09:56 AM
Bushrat's Avatar
Bushrat Bushrat is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,935
Default

They're all a bag of chips, only choice we have is to pick the flavor we like best.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-25-2024, 10:21 AM
MK2750's Avatar
MK2750 MK2750 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 3,444
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
The simple fact is that a small turbo produces more power at lower rpm, and the fuel mileage is much improved, so that is where the industry is headed.
I was tempted by the 2.7 turbo offered in the GM products, especially the GMC Canyon. The one I wanted was basically the same price as a similar full sized and the fuel economy was a wash.

The little turbo engines do pretty good until you do some math under real world conditions. Many people on line, including sales guys at dealerships, are carefully testing the fuel economy on You Tube. They are basically identical to a V8.

The new turbo charged Tacoma looks impressive but fuel economy is very similar (read not good) to the old V6. They do claim they are more powerful. The hybrid looks really good on paper and I would have liked to test one out if they were available.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-25-2024, 10:35 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 45,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MK2750 View Post
I was tempted by the 2.7 turbo offered in the GM products, especially the GMC Canyon. The one I wanted was basically the same price as a similar full sized and the fuel economy was a wash.

The little turbo engines do pretty good until you do some math under real world conditions. Many people on line, including sales guys at dealerships, are carefully testing the fuel economy on You Tube. They are basically
identical to a V8.



The new turbo charged Tacoma looks impressive but fuel economy is very similar (read not good) to the old V6. They do claim they are more powerful. The hybrid looks really good on paper and I would have liked to test one out if they were available.

I have driven a 3.5 twin turbo in an F150 for 80,000km,
so I have a lot of actual experience with a small twin turbo. Having previously owned several half tons with V8 engines, I have done the calculations , and the twin turbo V6 comes out way ahead in fuel economy. My 3.5 averages right around 11.5 l/100km, combined city/highway, in summer, and I have achieved 10.2l/100km on a 500km trip at 120km/hr. I have driven
over 1000km on one tank, at 110km/hr. Towing a 2000lb boat/trailer, I drive 700km round trip to Calling Lake and back, with 1/4 tank remaining. Those are real numbers, not somebody's speculation.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-25-2024, 10:37 AM
jungleboy's Avatar
jungleboy jungleboy is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stony Plain
Posts: 6,682
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
The new Tundra offers an engine with more power than a V8, at lower rpm and much better fuel economy. The first turbos produced by a North American vendor had some quality control issues, but that was dealt with and the new ones haven't been an issue. Tundras were very hard to get for a couple of years, but you can actually walk into a dealership and buy one off of the lot now.
The 8 ft box is an oddball. I think he has to wait about a month for it to come in.

Toyota Tundra Engine Performance
3.5L Twin-Turbo V6 engine.
389 horsepower.
479 lb-ft of torque.
10-speed Electronically Controlled automatic transmission.
17 mpg/city and 22 mpg/highway*
__________________
Preacher: Well, there's a lot of sinners here abouts. You wouldn't want me to leave before I finish my work, would you?.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-25-2024, 10:39 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 45,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jungleboy View Post
The 8 ft box is an oddball. I think he has to wait about a month for it to come in.
A friend waited over a year to get his doublecab hybrid, with 6-1/2' box, but that was when they were first released. His Tundra is running just slightly less mileage on the highway than my F150, but his being a hybrid does better in the city. And yes, the 8' box is a rarity theses days, for personal vehicles.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-25-2024, 10:57 AM
tirebob's Avatar
tirebob tirebob is offline
AO Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Airdrie, AB and Part Time BC
Posts: 3,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
I have driven a 3.5 twin turbo in an F150 for 80,000km,
so I have a lot of actual experience with a small twin turbo. Having previously owned several half tons with V8 engines, I have done the calculations , and the twin turbo V6 comes out way ahead in fuel economy. My 3.5 averages right around 11.5 l/100km, combined city/highway, in summer, and I have achieved 10.2l/100km on a 500km trip at 120km/hr. I have driven
over 1000km on one tank, at 110km/hr. Towing a 2000lb boat/trailer, I drive 700km round trip to Calling Lake and back, with 1/4 tank remaining. Those are real numbers, not somebody's speculation.
With my 2022 Chevy 1500 and the 3.0l Duramax Diesel I just ran back from Penticton to Calgary doing the usual 10kmh over the entire way, through both major mountain passes, averaged at 8.0l/100km for the entire trip which I was really impressed with! I find around the city I am usually around 8.9l/100km to mid 9's depending how I am driving it. Over winter a bit more with idling at start up much longer.

Granted with the price of diesel generally being about 5 to 10 cents higher than gas (I am always watching gas buddy for the best deals when they come up) and having to run DEF it is close to a wash, but man do I really love this motor almost 50K in!
__________________
Urban Expressions Wheel & Tire Inc
Bay #6, 1303 44th ave NE
Calgary AB, T2E6L5
403.769.1771
bobbybirds@icloud.com
www.urbanexp.ca

Leviticus 23: 4-18: "he that scopeth a lever, or thou allow a scope to lie with a lever as it would lie with a bolt action, shall have created an abomination and shall perish in the fires of Hell forever and ever.....plus GST" - huntinstuff April 07/23
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-25-2024, 11:04 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 45,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tirebob View Post
With my 2022 Chevy 1500 and the 3.0l Duramax Diesel I just ran back from Penticton to Calgary doing the usual 10kmh over the entire way, through both major mountain passes, averaged at 8.0l/100km for the entire trip which I was really impressed with! I find around the city I am usually around 8.9l/100km to mid 9's depending how I am driving it. Over winter a bit more with idling at start up much longer.

Granted with the price of diesel generally being about 5 to 10 cents higher than gas (I am always watching gas buddy for the best deals when they come up) and having to run DEF it is close to a wash, but man do I really love this motor almost 50K in!
Here diesel is currently 29 cents more than gasoline, so no savings for me to run diesel.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-25-2024, 11:40 AM
Ackleyman Ackleyman is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: Strathmore
Posts: 1,415
Default

Have owned the Ford F-350 7.3 , 6 liter and the 6.4. The good old 7.3 ran and ran , sounded like a coffee can full a marbles when i started it but never let me down. Was a great truck. The 6 and 6.4 ltr were pure junk , worst trucks ever had. The newer 6.7 ? I hear is good ? But ill never go Ford again ever after being stranded numerous times putting me in a jackpot in middle of no where , getting towed and rest of BS and truck being at dealer for over a month at a time over injector pumps and other fuel problems. Went to 3500 Duramax , 445 HP , lots of torque for towing heavier trailers , High Country model has lots of creature comforts for long road trips. Zero problems.....yet, but some say all good till head gasket goes. Whatever , piece of equipment like any other mechanical thing...will deal with it.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-25-2024, 12:44 PM
MK2750's Avatar
MK2750 MK2750 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 3,444
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
I have driven a 3.5 twin turbo in an F150 for 80,000km,
so I have a lot of actual experience with a small twin turbo. Having previously owned several half tons with V8 engines, I have done the calculations , and the twin turbo V6 comes out way ahead in fuel economy. My 3.5 averages right around 11.5 l/100km, combined city/highway, in summer, and I have achieved 10.2l/100km on a 500km trip at 120km/hr. I have driven
over 1000km on one tank, at 110km/hr. Towing a 2000lb boat/trailer, I drive 700km round trip to Calling Lake and back, with 1/4 tank remaining. Those are real numbers, not somebody's speculation.
Those are decent numbers. I drove out to Stettler, worked the day driving around and was at 12.9 when I got back to Red Deer. Over all average is 14.5 combined right now with the majority in town on a new engine.

Those are real people on YouTube checking the MPG making the same trip both loaded and not. There is a GM salesman that does a really good job testing them on exactly the same route. He compares the little diesel as well. This was just GMs I was looking at but the videos are not speculation. Many have documented very closely every minute since they owned their truck.

Mine is almost exactly one litre more than driving a new 23 Tacoma with the V6. I would easily pay a $1.30 more per hundred and drive a full sized GMC. The comfort level is 10 fold.

My hunting partner just bought a new F150 with a 5 litre and I would have no trouble owning that. This is his second one in a row and the first was a good truck. Guys that tried the eco boosts have all gone back to V8.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-25-2024, 12:56 PM
lakerman lakerman is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 499
Default

Feul economy is one part of the equation,unloaded it probably is cheaper, loaded it will work harder and how much are these turbo's? I'm more interested in reliability, if its in the shop it will cost you big time, and now with inflation prices skyrocketing all I know is you get less truck at a higher price but get to work longer for it, heck they even have the colors like underground...which is where some will be before its paid for.
__________________
Keep taxing me so 'll never be a millionare or live like one!
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 02-25-2024, 12:57 PM
HyperMOA HyperMOA is online now
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Edmonton (shudder)
Posts: 4,654
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
I have driven a 3.5 twin turbo in an F150 for 80,000km,
so I have a lot of actual experience with a small twin turbo. Having previously owned several half tons with V8 engines, I have done the calculations , and the twin turbo V6 comes out way ahead in fuel economy. My 3.5 averages right around 11.5 l/100km, combined city/highway, in summer, and I have achieved 10.2l/100km on a 500km trip at 120km/hr. I have driven
over 1000km on one tank, at 110km/hr. Towing a 2000lb boat/trailer, I drive 700km round trip to Calling Lake and back, with 1/4 tank remaining. Those are real numbers, not somebody's speculation.
On Saturday did my best 100km with my 21 silverado Z71 with a 5.3 in it. 8.8l/100km. I regularly get high 9s to low 11s on the highway. And about 12.5-13.9 in the city.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-25-2024, 01:06 PM
MK2750's Avatar
MK2750 MK2750 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 3,444
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tirebob View Post
With my 2022 Chevy 1500 and the 3.0l Duramax Diesel I just ran back from Penticton to Calgary doing the usual 10kmh over the entire way, through both major mountain passes, averaged at 8.0l/100km for the entire trip which I was really impressed with! I find around the city I am usually around 8.9l/100km to mid 9's depending how I am driving it. Over winter a bit more with idling at start up much longer.

Granted with the price of diesel generally being about 5 to 10 cents higher than gas (I am always watching gas buddy for the best deals when they come up) and having to run DEF it is close to a wash, but man do I really love this motor almost 50K in!
That's impressive. I almost bought one but I was too afraid of where the greenies might be going with the price of diesel. It is absolute insanity the price of diesel right now and the left has the audacity to blame grocers for the increase in food prices.

Those mpg numbers are really close to my Impala with the 2.5 four cylinder. Right now it is at 8.7 combined a lot of city driving. The little car can get well down into the 7s on a long highway trip though.

I know you are not a Nokian guy but their tires are incredible fuel savers. An Nokian AT is over 10% better than the Duratracs I run in winter. The Entire and Ones on the car save right around 10% over the factory Firestones my car came with.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-25-2024, 01:09 PM
MK2750's Avatar
MK2750 MK2750 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 3,444
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperMOA View Post
On Saturday did my best 100km with my 21 silverado Z71 with a 5.3 in it. 8.8l/100km. I regularly get high 9s to low 11s on the highway. And about 12.5-13.9 in the city.
Nice, I am hoping for better numbers once the engine is broken in and I get some top end synthetic oils in place. My GMC is factory lifted a wee bit I believe and does not look as aerodynamic as the Silverado.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-25-2024, 01:13 PM
Tungsten, Tungsten, is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,308
Default

And hear I thought 14L/100km was good in my LBZ.
My 03 6.0 gas gets 19L/100km down wind.
With diesel .30 more a litre it's a wash.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-25-2024, 04:16 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 45,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MK2750 View Post
Those are decent numbers. I drove out to Stettler, worked the day driving around and was at 12.9 when I got back to Red Deer. Over all average is 14.5 combined right now with the majority in town on a new engine.

Those are real people on YouTube checking the MPG making the same trip both loaded and not. There is a GM salesman that does a really good job testing them on exactly the same route. He compares the little diesel as well. This was just GMs I was looking at but the videos are not speculation. Many have documented very closely every minute since they owned their truck.

Mine is almost exactly one litre more than driving a new 23 Tacoma with the V6. I would easily pay a $1.30 more per hundred and drive a full sized GMC. The comfort level is 10 fold.

My hunting partner just bought a new F150 with a 5 litre and I would have no trouble owning that. This is his second one in a row and the first was a good truck. Guys that tried the eco boosts have all gone back to V8.
If you are talking the GM 2.7 turbo, it is a 4 cylinder, and compares very poorly to the 3.5 twin turbo V6 engines offered by Ford and Toyota. The 3.5s offer more horsepower, more torque, and better fuel economy.
I had a 2019 Tacoma myself, and my F-150 gets the same mileage around town, but it does better on the highway. And if you add a trailer, the Tacoma mileage is horrible, around 15l/100km, while the 3.5 ecoboost burns in the 12s towing my boat.
My 3.5 ecoboost is a 2021, you can't compare pre 2021 ecoboost engines, because in 2021, the 3.5 got a new tune, which increased power, and added about 8% in fuel economy. The 2021 also has the new timing chain and cam phasers, that were redesigned because the previous versions had a lot of reliability issues. As far as turbos go, I know of a couple that a local business has that almost made 400,000 km before requiring replacement. I was told that if you run full synthetic oil, changed every 8000km, it greatly increases turbo life compared to running regular oil, and changing according to the computer, which can allow 15,000km before calling for an oil change. As for reliability, the GM V8 engines have had issues with lifters collapsing, and the Ram Hemi, has had cam issues, so all of these engines have had some issues.

As to my mileage numbers, the 11.5l/100km combined, is over several thousand km, and the 10.2 number was for 500km at 120km/hr. Highway driving at 110, mileage is usually 10-11 l/100km, depending on terrain and wind. If I gave the best highway mileage over 50- 100km, it would be under 9l/100km, because I have seen that kind of mileage on flat ground at 100km/hr, especially with a tail wind. I have also seen the mileage go to over 12l/100, but that was towing my boat, or when headed into a 60km headwind at 120km/hr. Comparing the mileage to my 5.3GM, the 3.5 ecoboost does about 20% better overall. My 5.7 Tundra was terrible on fuel burning around 30-40% more than the 3,5.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-25-2024, 05:08 PM
jungleboy's Avatar
jungleboy jungleboy is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stony Plain
Posts: 6,682
Default

Paid $13 grand for my 08 gmc 5.3 10 yrs ago. Now has 347000 on it and runs between 11 and 12l/100 on the highway depending on the weight of my foot.
Im not sure any new truck will measure up to the out right reliability and value for money of this rig.
Crusty but trusty.
I think the new vehicles in general are adding a lot of fancy fru fru bells and whistles and amazing tech at the expense of long term reliability and value
__________________
Preacher: Well, there's a lot of sinners here abouts. You wouldn't want me to leave before I finish my work, would you?.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-25-2024, 05:26 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 45,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jungleboy View Post
Paid $13 grand for my 08 gmc 5.3 10 yrs ago. Now has 347000 on it and runs between 11 and 12l/100 on the highway depending on the weight of my foot.
Im not sure any new truck will measure up to the out right reliability and value for money of this rig.
Crusty but trusty.
I think the new vehicles in general are adding a lot of fancy fru fru bells and whistles and amazing tech at the expense of long term reliability and value
The older engines were so reliable, because they were so much simpler. Adding the part time cylinder deactivation was the cause of a large percentage of the issues with GM and Dodge engines, and the cam phasers caused Ford a lot of issues. I don't think any gas truck will ever be as reliable as my 2007 Tundra, but while the mileage was competitive in 2007, it couldn't compete in 2022, so the V8 was replaced with a twin turbo V6.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-25-2024, 05:47 PM
Id rather be outdoors Id rather be outdoors is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jungleboy View Post
Paid $13 grand for my 08 gmc 5.3 10 yrs ago. Now has 347000 on it and runs between 11 and 12l/100 on the highway depending on the weight of my foot.
Im not sure any new truck will measure up to the out right reliability and value for money of this rig.
Crusty but trusty.
I think the new vehicles in general are adding a lot of fancy fru fru bells and whistles and amazing tech at the expense of long term reliability and value
10 years ago, 40-50k was including all the bells & whistles. Theres no excuse now for $100k trucks even factoring in inflation. The dealers are greedy and get away with it because some people have more money (/debt) than brains. Gotta keep up this the Joness syndrome. Keeping my >10 year old truck forever. Stealerships can go to hell.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-25-2024, 07:36 PM
W921 W921 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 1,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
The simple fact is that a small turbo produces more power at lower rpm, and the fuel mileage is much improved, so that is where the industry is headed.
I was cleaning out my basement and throwing out piles of hotrod magazines from back in 60s,70s. I was reading one issue from about 1973 and one of the editorials were saying future government mandated fuel economy ,emissions would eventually force industry to fuel injection and turbo chargers.
They were bang on with a forty year prediction. Threw magazine's in garbage. Nobody cares or can read unless on a computer.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-25-2024, 08:38 PM
JD848 JD848 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tirebob View Post
With my 2022 Chevy 1500 and the 3.0l Duramax Diesel I just ran back from Penticton to Calgary doing the usual 10kmh over the entire way, through both major mountain passes, averaged at 8.0l/100km for the entire trip which I was really impressed with! I find around the city I am usually around 8.9l/100km to mid 9's depending how I am driving it. Over winter a bit more with idling at start up much longer.

Granted with the price of diesel generally being about 5 to 10 cents higher than gas (I am always watching gas buddy for the best deals when they come up) and having to run DEF it is close to a wash, but man do I really love this motor almost 50K in!
My brother has the same year and same motor ,just loves it. I almost went with your truck, but my Ford only had 15k on it so they really wanted that F250 so I traded for f150 .If I'm not happy with this thing the only other I would get is exactly what you have .

I laugh about guys thinking there brand is the best ,they all have issues here and there .Never had a perfect truck ,came close .

Diesel prices hopefully get better in the future ,it darn well should.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 02-25-2024, 08:55 PM
MK2750's Avatar
MK2750 MK2750 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 3,444
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
If you are talking the GM 2.7 turbo, it is a 4 cylinder, and compares very poorly to the 3.5 twin turbo V6 engines offered by Ford and Toyota. The 3.5s offer more horsepower, more torque, and better fuel economy.
I had a 2019 Tacoma myself, and my F-150 gets the same mileage around town, but it does better on the highway. And if you add a trailer, the Tacoma mileage is horrible, around 15l/100km, while the 3.5 ecoboost burns in the 12s towing my boat.
My 3.5 ecoboost is a 2021, you can't compare pre 2021 ecoboost engines, because in 2021, the 3.5 got a new tune, which increased power, and added about 8% in fuel economy. The 2021 also has the new timing chain and cam phasers, that were redesigned because the previous versions had a lot of reliability issues. As far as turbos go, I know of a couple that a local business has that almost made 400,000 km before requiring replacement. I was told that if you run full synthetic oil, changed every 8000km, it greatly increases turbo life compared to running regular oil, and changing according to the computer, which can allow 15,000km before calling for an oil change. As for reliability, the GM V8 engines have had issues with lifters collapsing, and the Ram Hemi, has had cam issues, so all of these engines have had some issues.

As to my mileage numbers, the 11.5l/100km combined, is over several thousand km, and the 10.2 number was for 500km at 120km/hr. Highway driving at 110, mileage is usually 10-11 l/100km, depending on terrain and wind. If I gave the best highway mileage over 50- 100km, it would be under 9l/100km, because I have seen that kind of mileage on flat ground at 100km/hr, especially with a tail wind. I have also seen the mileage go to over 12l/100, but that was towing my boat, or when headed into a 60km headwind at 120km/hr. Comparing the mileage to my 5.3GM, the 3.5 ecoboost does about 20% better overall. My 5.7 Tundra was terrible on fuel burning around 30-40% more than the 3,5.
The window sticker on a Ford F150 XLT 4X4 with 3.5 V6 EcoBoost says it gets 13.6 city and 10.3 high way and combined is 12.1

Mine is similar trim Elevation with the 5.3 V8. Window sticker says 14.8 high way 11.8 high way and 13.5 combined.

The F150 with the 2.7 EcoBoost is 12.8 city 10 highway and 11.5 combined.

I would take the non turbo every day. If I was going with a F150 it would be the 5 liter. Window sticker says 14.2 city 10.9 high way and 12.7 combined.

I know the turbos are getting more reliable but not having one is as reliable as a turbo can get. I do think that other companies are ahead of GM in the small engine turbo department.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-25-2024, 09:11 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 45,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MK2750 View Post
The window sticker on a Ford F150 XLT 4X4 with 3.5 V6 EcoBoost says it gets 13.6 city and 10.3 high way and combined is 12.1

Mine is similar trim Elevation with the 5.3 V8. Window sticker says 14.8 high way 11.8 high way and 13.5 combined.

The F150 with the 2.7 EcoBoost is 12.8 city 10 highway and 11.5 combined.


I would take the non turbo every day. If I was going with a F150 it would be the 5 liter. Window sticker says 14.2 city 10.9 high way and 12.7 combined.

I know the turbos are getting more reliable but not having one is as reliable as a turbo can get. I do think that other companies are ahead of GM in the small engine turbo department.
The turbo isn't the only reliability issue, GM has issues with lifters, in the 5.3 and 6.2 with cylinder deactivation. Ram has issues with cams.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-25-2024, 09:44 PM
MK2750's Avatar
MK2750 MK2750 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 3,444
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
The turbo isn't the only reliability issue, GM has issues with lifters, in the 5.3 and 6.2 with cylinder deactivation. Ram has issues with cams.
The past is a road most Ford folks avoid but you are right, they all have gremlins. My 2010 Sierra with AFM hasn't given an issue. Still runs great with no excessive oil consumption. The new 5.3 has DFM which is an entirely different beast but so far not many issues reported.

I change my oil often and only run synthetic oil but never say never.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-25-2024, 09:53 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 45,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MK2750 View Post
The past is a road most Ford folks avoid but you are right, they all have gremlins. My 2010 Sierra with AFM hasn't given an issue. Still runs great with no excessive oil consumption. The new 5.3 has DFM which is an entirely different beast but so far not many issues reported.

I change my oil often and only run synthetic oil but never say never.
I would never have purchased a pre 2021ecoboost, because of the cam phasers, and chain but both were upgraded for 2021. The turbos actually don't concern me nearly as much.
GM had a run of issues in 2021, supposedly defective lifters, there is now a class action lawsuit in the USA for lifter issues.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-26-2024, 08:51 AM
Engels Engels is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 195
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
The turbo isn't the only reliability issue, GM has issues with lifters, in the 5.3 and 6.2 with cylinder deactivation. Ram has issues with cams.
Just went through this with my 2016 5.3L Chev Halfton. basically got a new top end. Happened with 200,000 on the odometer. AFM is the worst thing for those V8s. I paid for a V8 truck, i want V8 all the time.. Cost of the work is still cheaper than a new truck payment though. Been a great truck for me otherwise.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-26-2024, 09:43 AM
HyperMOA HyperMOA is online now
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Edmonton (shudder)
Posts: 4,654
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Engels View Post
Just went through this with my 2016 5.3L Chev Halfton. basically got a new top end. Happened with 200,000 on the odometer. AFM is the worst thing for those V8s. I paid for a V8 truck, i want V8 all the time.. Cost of the work is still cheaper than a new truck payment though. Been a great truck for me otherwise.
Did you delete it during the repair?
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-26-2024, 09:48 AM
Engels Engels is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 195
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperMOA View Post
Did you delete it during the repair?
yes
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-26-2024, 09:56 AM
amosfella amosfella is offline
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tungsten, View Post
And hear I thought 14L/100km was good in my LBZ.
My 03 6.0 gas gets 19L/100km down wind.
With diesel .30 more a litre it's a wash.
The farm's LBZ is doing 15- 15.5L/100km empty for a 3500 dually crew cab long box. This is hand calculated, and not based of the cluster. Cluster can be a little over a liter out high or low. Doesn't seem to be bang on ever.

Towing a trailer loaded that I'm sure was 30,000lbs, it still got 10 mpg. That's stock, no tune. It's nicer pulling now with a tune that added a turbo brake.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-26-2024, 09:58 AM
amosfella amosfella is offline
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Id rather be outdoors View Post
10 years ago, 40-50k was including all the bells & whistles. Theres no excuse now for $100k trucks even factoring in inflation. The dealers are greedy and get away with it because some people have more money (/debt) than brains. Gotta keep up this the Joness syndrome. Keeping my >10 year old truck forever. Stealerships can go to hell.
Unions and pension liabilities are the reason for the massive price increases.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-26-2024, 10:08 AM
amosfella amosfella is offline
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MK2750 View Post
The past is a road most Ford folks avoid but you are right, they all have gremlins. My 2010 Sierra with AFM hasn't given an issue. Still runs great with no excessive oil consumption. The new 5.3 has DFM which is an entirely different beast but so far not many issues reported.

I change my oil often and only run synthetic oil but never say never.
Keeping the oil clean with hydraulic lifters is the source of many of the problems with cylinder deactivation I'm told. The carbon that gets into the oil is very abrasive. The carbon can start eating the tight tolerance parts causing inefficiencies and breakdown or functions in the engine.

One solution might be to run a bypass filter of the centrifugal type. Another solution would be to use a bench type oil cleaner to clean the carbon and other junk out of the oil, and add in additive pack additive to keep oil running longer.

I was looking at this here: https://www.hotshotsecret.com/portab...refining-unit/
and the farm would more than pay for it in one engine oil change cycle if we cycled all the oil for the machinery and vehicles through it once.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.