Drew Dowdell

One could go out on a limb and THINK that the boys at Buick could add the 2.0LTurbo to the Lacrosse line-up if a Park Ave shows up. Its a foregone conclusion that an Omega based PA will show up. At that time, the Lacrosse would systematically lose its status as the top Buick. U are aware that at Cadillac currently.. the XTS starts out with a standard 3.6L with 304 hp 264 lb-ft of torque? The CT6 will start out with a base 2.0L Turbo with Automatic Stop/Start BTEW.. anyone else find it curious that Cadillac has this on their website pertaining to the 2.0Lturbo? (TBD - SAE certification pending) It does not state that the 2.0L has 268HP 295lb of torque.. which makes me wonder what they are up to. Can add the 2.0T? They would have to have built it that way in the first place for China. The only change would be needed is in the order book for US dealerships.

You haven't driven my Toronado.... Hmmm... let me amend that. It can be fun to drive a slow nimble car fast. The front bumper on an '81 Toronado prolly weighs 2200 pounds. Cappy that's not too bad for fuel mileage there. I forget what I was getting in my '11 Fiesta SE 1.6 manual. There is a thread buried in the annals here somewhere about it. Hey now... the whole car still weighs less than a new Lacrosse V6 AWD..... but lord, would it have hurt them to put on roll bars that weren't made of over-boiled spaghetti!?

You haven't driven my Toronado....

Either Paul doesn't know how horsepower is calculated (doubtful) or he is lying about something... either directly or through omission. Horsepower = (Torque * RPM) / 5252 Torque = (Horsepower * 5252) / RPM If horsepower has changed, then the torque curve has changed. Period. There is no getting around that. The peak may still be 320 lb-ft, but then that would mean the engine backs off the torque peak earlier in the RPM band. <Speculation) So instead of 320 lb-ft from 2000 rpm - 5500 rpm, the engine only produces that torque from 2000 RPM to 4000rpm </Speculation> There are far too many variable for me to make an educated guess as to the actual numbers, but I believe my basic premise is correct. Someone needs to put one on a dyno and test the difference. Edit: and while Paul may object to the numbers, the proof of the phenomenon happening is right there on Ford's and Lincoln's websites. Just look at the difference between the Lincoln Navigator and the Ford Expedition. One is rated with Premium and the other rated with Regular.

Not a bad little bug!

Your snipe wasn't at anyone in particular, and it was largely not factual. If you stick with facts, you can't go wrong here. I didn't edit your post or warn you... I simply corrected your false statement. Indeed, it probably will, I expect it should hit the 30mpg highway mark pretty easily. I did not make a false statement. I simply mentioned weight reduction. And my snipe was at a GM product, although not nearly in proportion to the plethora of Ford snipes. There is only "a plethora" of Ford snipes because you insist on perceiving any comment on a Ford product that isn't heaping praise on Ford to be a snipe. The fact remains that Ford made promises it couldn't keep. It promised that Ecoboost would be much more powerful and much more fuel efficient than a V8.... and so far it's only true if you ignore V8s not made by Ford. Even the heavy Ram Laramie Limited Hemi manages 21mpg highway, which is only 1mpg behind the comparable 3.5 Ecoboost. Ford made promises on this, and when the product was delivered, a bunch of us who aren't on Ford's payroll asked "Where's the beef?!". That isn't a snipe... it's asking for the results which were promised. As for your snipe: 1. GM didn't spend multiple billions to retool their plants to build the Alpha cars out of a different material. 2. The weight loss is remarkable when you consider the Alpha cars are still mostly steel. 3. No one claimed the Alpha cars were a feat of engineering. Omega, certainly moves things forward, but Alpha is just using stronger steel and less of it.

All of that is true, but for the budget minded consumer, the extra tech doesn't really matter as much. Both cars will control your phone when you talk to them and play your phone playlists, that is about the extent of buyer's tech demands in this segment. The one tech advantage the Chevy has is Apple Car Play and Android Auto, meaning they can have NAV in their car's infotainment screen. Still, I'd like for at least the option of more power/torque in the Spark, and I'd sooner go with a CPO Cruze or Sonic than a new Spark.

The Fiesta with either engine is probably a better overall package for a similar price.... less likely to run out of steam when getting on the highway. I've driven the 1.0 Ecoboost and it's fantastic in that car...... that's why I was wishing for some similar option in the Chevy. The prior Spark was simply a city runabout, not something you'd ever want to take on the highway for a long trip. Things really get complicated if you also consider the Chevy Sonic. It is slightly bigger than the Fiesta, but feels like a more substantial car in the way it drives. The Sonic 1.4T gets better fuel economy than the Fiesta 1.6, but it also costs more and there is still the Fiesta 1.0T which is even better fuel economy than the Sonic. It's one of those areas where it really comes down to your budget and how you will use the car. If you're a long distance driver like myself, the Sonic is probably most comfortable on the highway while the Fiesta 1.0T is the most fuel efficient and cheaper to buy. If you're a city dweller, the Fiesta would probably be my pick for the trim size plus better base engine over the Spark. There's really no situation where I would pick the Spark over the other alternatives I've mentioned... I'd rather go used.

For me, it comes down to looks, performance a close second. Prior to the GM '16s coming out, my favorite looking truck was the Ram. I've been a fan of the Hemi engine for many years, it's kinda my "ol' reliable". In any FCA vehicle I drive, if it's got a Hemi, I'm happy. In the performance department, it simply has to be sufficient for my needs. I don't care so much about 2 tenths here or there, I'm not drag racing my truck. The most I'll ever be towing is my Toronado on a car carrier and even a V6 Durango can do that, so the extreme level of towing isn't on my list of needs. Where performance matters most is in my driving style. I'm a conservative, long distance driver. I want a smooth engine, efficient performance, and sufficient power to haul the trailer over the mountains. My truck/SUV (rented, currently) is a mobile office and work vehicle for me, so a column or rotary shifter is a nice thing to have and I love the huge deep center console in the GMs. So for me at the moment, the 2016 GMC Sierra SLT Crew Cab Short Bed 4x4 with the 5.3 and tow package is the top of my list, the Silverado of the same config (only in Z71 trim, I don't like the Chevy chrome) is second. I've already been given permission from the other half to buy it, I'm just waiting till some other things are in place first and that will take a few months.

I was really hoping for a bit more engine in this.... something with turbo and DI. I realize these are built to a price... but at least the option would be nice.

Your snipe wasn't at anyone in particular, and it was largely not factual. If you stick with facts, you can't go wrong here. I didn't edit your post or warn you... I simply corrected your false statement. Indeed, it probably will, I expect it should hit the 30mpg highway mark pretty easily.

The body in white weight matters of course, but it matters a lot less when you lard up the rest of the car. It was a major part of the ATS project to shave weight on everything, not just the body.

Good that you can be clear, since the Cadillac and Camaro actually have the numbers to back them up. The ATS is the lightest in its class by a large margin.... as is the CTS. The CT6 weighs as little as cars two classes below it... it's 740i sized and 335i weight. All the F-150 did was beat the existing lightweight by 81 lbs. I'm a simple guy... just show me the numbers. And they all have substantial performance gains to show for it, especially the Camaro. Base SS and base GT V8 are within 35lbs of each other, and one is smaller than the other? So not exactly revolutionary reductions. The only aluminum changes in the Camaro are the suspension components and some interior beams. It is still a steel body car... as is the ATS (mostly) and CTS (just the hood and doors are aluminum). So you can't really point to either of those two with your earlier attempt to snipe. The most dramatic gains were in the CT6 with their new mix materials process which produces a 740i sized car at a 335i weight.

Good that you can be clear, since the Cadillac and Camaro actually have the numbers to back them up. The ATS is the lightest in its class by a large margin.... as is the CTS. The CT6 weighs as little as cars two classes below it... it's 740i sized and 335i weight. All the F-150 did was beat the existing lightweight by 81 lbs. I'm a simple guy... just show me the numbers.

It just dawned on me. The Lincoln MKZ is the preview of what is to come. It makes 400 lb-ft... so the quick and dirty calculation is torque divided by displacement means 133 lb-ft per liter. In a 3.5 liter, that means 466 lb-ft. Now, I know that isn't a scientific way of doing things, and increasing displacement has diminishing returns. So we'll say that it will match the 6.2 liter's 460 lb-ft. But there's that darn asterisk..... the MKZ only gets 400 lb-ft if it is running 93 octane. If it loses torque on 87 octane at the same percentage that the Mustang does, you're looking at 435 lb-ft from a new gen 3.5 Ecoboost. Or basically, nearly right back where it started from with only a 15 lb-ft increase over the outgoing model.

Shoot, I'm on my phone so there isn't a way to make a link hot but just guessing I would think the last gen Limited has similar or slightly less equipment than the new gen Platinums. 6029lbs is what the weight is. I'm not sure what Platinum weight you're looking at for comparison. http://m.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-ford-f-150-limited-ecoboost-v-6-test-review-less-is-more-page-2 (Don't look at their mpg either.. Lol) I'm chalking it up to lazy reporting in the articles I've found. Reporting a 2012 SuperCab Platinum 4x4 at 5585 and I'm thinking "that can't be right"

Well, even the marketing team at Ford was careful enough to make the 700 lb weight loss claim an "up to" type. CR, when weighing two comparable middle of the range GM and Ford half-ton crewcabs chucked a figure of around 400 lbs that the Ford has an advantage on weight. While mass is key to driving dynamics and has a lot of benefits overall, FE for a still heavy vehicle is probably still more affected by powertrain and gearing, which Ford didn't completely overhaul in 2015. GM did have a new engine range, but the 8 speed just became more available just recently. MT's test of the 5.3 with the 6-speed in the comparo, it chugged fuel, but the Ram won partly because even though it was slower, it had the 'feeling of being fast'. So quite a bit of rthetoric and hype in magazine tests is just what it is, pandering to the fears and likes of the audience to get controversial results and sell dead-tree and online subscriptions. By no means however, am I giving pity points to the F150. But the GMC Denali's performance is only against a comparably equipped Platinum, not the full range of trucks. All of their test chug fuel... whether it's the GM V8s or the Ford Ecoboosts or the Ram Hemis.... As long as they are being tested the same at the same time, it isn't an issue. I am perfectly willing to admit that my driving is atypical. I get the vehicle on the PA Turnpike or I-80, point the nose due east or due west as my needs dictate, get it to 70mph and then press the cruise control button. This is a 250 mile to 350 mile trip I do multiple times a month. I always rent the biggest SUV I can get, and I've had them all. There is simply no fuel economy advantage to selecting an Ecoboost powered vehicle over a GM V8 (The Hemi does fall behind a bit even with the 8-speed), and the Ecoboosts require premium to return their promised results. It's simple. Show me the numbers of something I can buy today that show a clear Ford advantage over a GM that matches the hype. You can show me a lower cost to operate, a power advantage that manifests itself in faster acceleration of 1 second or more.... something.. anything that you can point to without an asterisk and fine print. Asking for that isn't bias.

I'm not knocking the effort. I'm looking at the numbers and asking where the results are. This effort was supposed to beat everyone else in the game. It hasn't.

If eight-speeds and cylinder deactivation were the primary cause for the fuel economy gain, then why isn't the Ram HEMI doing that well with fuel economy even with lower power? You also can't talk about the extra gears when comparing the GM 5.3 to the Ford 2.7, they both have 6-speed autos and again, the observed fuel economy results are the same in spite of the Ford's "added lightness" and the New-Gen engine. The guy in the Edmunds test just barely got 23mpg in an F-150 2.7EB while trying really hard.... I get 22mpg out of a Suburban at 70mph across Pennsylvania every other month! GM has been running cylinder deactivation in its trucks since 2005, not exactly new tech there! Since you seem to want to play the "just wait till next year!! I'll show you!" card - GM has Dynamic Skip Fire coming where the V8 can run on as few as 2 cylinders, and as you like to point out, they are going aluminum as well.... and getting the 10-speed. But future product doesn't matter today. And the results today are that the hype surrounding the F-150's weight loss and the Ecoboost's efficiency aren't reflected in the real world results. You can't blame 8-speed transmissions and Cylinder Deactivation at GM for that. 2.7TT v. 5.3 EcoTech = same real world fuel economy, both with 6-speed autos 3.5TT v. 6.2 EcoTech = same real world fuel economy, same acceleration unless towing and then the 6.2 wins... and the 6.2 costs less per mile to fuel. (Selecting the Max Towing package further improves both the highway fuel economy* and acceleration on the GM) And yet, in both cases, the GM truck is heavier..... So I just don't see the huge advantage you're trying to sell me on if I go with the Ford. *It's a lower final drive ratio, but that also allows the engine to stay in 4-cylinder mode longer.

Again, I'm not knocking the effort. I'm knocking the hype that doesn't match the results. I've been trying to find weights of the previous generation platinum to show how much weight it has lost, but I keep coming up with numbers that are lower than the current model.

What is "amazing" to me is how there is only a 1mpg penalty to move from the GM 5.3 to the 6.2 even though there is a big jump in power. I'm sure a lot of that is the doing of the 8-speed, the 5.3 isn't hooked up to the 8-speeds yet. Plants re-tool all the time, but the Ford effort for Aluminum was a huge cost, many times over the normal retooling process. The High Country and Platinum both had sun roofs. Weights are listed with a dry tank, but even if you want to include the difference in weight of each tank full, that would still mean there is only a difference of 144lbs (the difference in dry weight between a 26g tank and 36g tank is marginal) A console shifter is nothing but a giant waste of space in a truck (and I'd argue the same for cars too, score for Lincoln on this one). Give me a column mount or the Ram's rotary dial. The giant and deep storage capacity of the Silverado's center console is tough to beat. As for my negative experiences - I didn't have any, nor did I say I did. I got the EPA stated fuel economy in a perfectly capable SUV which matches my experience in an SUV from the competition. What I don't buy is the marketing hype around Ecoboost in the trucks being so much better.... because that hasn't been my experience. Nor has the hype matched the experience at Edmunds, Motor Trend, Car & Driver, or Automotive News...... so it's not just me.

Of course, being the "king" it has to drink premium just to get the same observed fuel economy. I take a 3+ mpg hit when I fuel an Expedition with regular. I expect that's the same with the F-150. And even at today's low gas prices, the Chevy is cheaper per mile to fuel. I'm not the only one unconvinced by the claimed fuel economy of the Fords. Automotive News: Edmunds could only get the EPA rated fuel economy of 23 mpg highway from the 2.7 Ecoboost (and that's the new gen engine remember) when going down hill, with a strong tail wind, and keeping the speed strictly at 65mph or below: I usually beat EPA highway in nearly every vehicle I drive, but given the results by others in this field, I guess I should be happy that I simply matched the EPA rating of the Expedition EL... even though it took premium fuel to do it and the EPA's rating is based on regular. In Suburbans, I meet or beat the EPA rating every time. So yeah, I have reason to remain skeptical of the virtues of Ecoboost in these big trucks. I do believe turbocharged DI engines have their place, but so far, that place is in vehicles of significantly lower mass.

Let's not get carried away here... all of that "added lightness" and a V6 Turbo gets it a mere 1 extra MPG on the highway and the same mpg city compared to a 6.2 liter. (comparing a Platinum to a Denali of the same drive config, cab, and bed size) Huh? So simply mentioning the mpg advantage (as well as the performance correction) right after someone else claimed the GMC 'gave the boots to the Ford V6'.....somehow required a qualification on your part? You never felt the need to qualify or correct the 'boot' remark? Why is that? That seems like the a better placement of your suggestion to 'not get carried away on.' Yes... because after spending how many billions on a new body material, and how many millions on building and marketing Ecoboost, a 1mpg increase in highway economy over the traditional setup isn't "amazing". Imagine if Toyota had spend billions to build and market the Prius as fantastic and amazing new technology, then after all of that, it got 1 mpg better on the highway than the Camry. We're told that the Ecoboost offers a great advantage in towing too? It's 1.4 seconds behind the V8 when towing the same weight. That's one-mississippi, two mississ..... behind. And even then, I don't know where MT got those fuel economy numbers, but they say the V8 in a steel body gets better city, highway, and combined fuel economy over the turbo-V6 in an aluminum body? In another comparison test where Car and Driver compared the Chevrolet Silverado High Country 6.2 and F-150 Platinum 3.5EB - their powertrain and chassis scores are basically even, observed MPG is identical (though the Ford is taking premium fuel verses the Chevy's regular).... and in that comparison, another stat shows up. The aluminum body, V6 Ford is only 81 lbs lighter than the steel body, V8 Chevy. They also give the "Fun to Drive" crown to the Chevy. For all of that money and time spent on the new technology at Ford, I am not amazed. Not even a little bit. Now, I like the F-150, I think it's a great truck... I just don't think it's "amazing" compared to its closest competition given all of the money they spent to get there.

Let's not get carried away here... all of that "added lightness" and a V6 Turbo gets it a mere 1 extra MPG on the highway and the same mpg city compared to a 6.2 liter. (comparing a Platinum to a Denali of the same drive config, cab, and bed size) Although, apparently MT sees different specs than I see on the respective brand websites:

Let's not get carried away here... all of that "added lightness" and a V6 Turbo gets it a mere 1 extra MPG on the highway and the same mpg city compared to a 6.2 liter. (comparing a Platinum to a Denali of the same drive config, cab, and bed size)