2011 Ford F-150 Ecoboost vs. 2011 GMC Sierra 6.2L
#1
04-24-2011, 06:45 PM
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2011 Ford F-150 Ecoboost vs. 2011 GMC Sierra 6.2L
I decided to do a Ford vs GM review on new vehicles. This time my local Ford dealer gave me an Ecoboost for the day to test drive, generously, considering their contentness on engine excellence. I also got a 2011 GMC Sierra 6.2L to test, but my dad rented it, because the GM dealer wouldn't lend a truck out. both trucks were crew cab XLT/SLE trims.
Looks:
The GMC is sharper looking than the Chevy, but looking at the GMC beside the Ford, the f-150 towers over it with great boldness. The GMC is nice, but the dated factor comes into play here.
Interior:
The GMC has the exact same interior that it did in 2007, not even a stereo or trim update. The dash is bulky and cheap, and gives off a feel of general cheapness, and I understand it's for workers, but so is the XLT, and the dash is much nicer on the Ford.
Drivability:
The EPAS in the ford is excellent, and so is the turning circle. The Ford gives off a general feel of smoothness. The GMC is also nice to drive, but it's hard to park, has small mirrors and epic blind spots.
Technology:
The GMC had an mp3 plugin. A USB port and simple Bluetooth
Are available. The f150 had sync, which had a simple interface and intelligent feedback. The stereo in the GMC was miles better than the Ford, however.
Performance:
Here's where it gets good. Regardless of the 2.7 Litres and 2 cylinders difference in the engines, the f-150 kicked the GMC's ***. We needed to haul a load of lumber to a house being built, and the weight was equal to 3500 lbs. We hooked the trailer to the GMC to set a benchmark, then hooked the same trailer to the Ford, and immediately the difference showed. In the GMC the trailer skipped, hopped and tugged, and we thought it was a trailer issue, then we hooked it to the ford and the issue went away. There was no struggle or hop,
And we averaged 13 l/100km in the 3.5, and 19.5 l/100km in the GMC on the same route with the same trailer.
Summary:
The Ecoboost is the future, and I think a big update from GM could get them back in the game.
Trucks as tested:
2011 Ford F-150 XLT Supercrew Ecoboost - Short bed, Race Red
2011 GMC Sierra 1500 SLE Crew Cab 6.2L - Short Bed, Taupe Grey
Looks:
The GMC is sharper looking than the Chevy, but looking at the GMC beside the Ford, the f-150 towers over it with great boldness. The GMC is nice, but the dated factor comes into play here.
Interior:
The GMC has the exact same interior that it did in 2007, not even a stereo or trim update. The dash is bulky and cheap, and gives off a feel of general cheapness, and I understand it's for workers, but so is the XLT, and the dash is much nicer on the Ford.
Drivability:
The EPAS in the ford is excellent, and so is the turning circle. The Ford gives off a general feel of smoothness. The GMC is also nice to drive, but it's hard to park, has small mirrors and epic blind spots.
Technology:
The GMC had an mp3 plugin. A USB port and simple Bluetooth
Are available. The f150 had sync, which had a simple interface and intelligent feedback. The stereo in the GMC was miles better than the Ford, however.
Performance:
Here's where it gets good. Regardless of the 2.7 Litres and 2 cylinders difference in the engines, the f-150 kicked the GMC's ***. We needed to haul a load of lumber to a house being built, and the weight was equal to 3500 lbs. We hooked the trailer to the GMC to set a benchmark, then hooked the same trailer to the Ford, and immediately the difference showed. In the GMC the trailer skipped, hopped and tugged, and we thought it was a trailer issue, then we hooked it to the ford and the issue went away. There was no struggle or hop,
And we averaged 13 l/100km in the 3.5, and 19.5 l/100km in the GMC on the same route with the same trailer.
Summary:
The Ecoboost is the future, and I think a big update from GM could get them back in the game.
Trucks as tested:
2011 Ford F-150 XLT Supercrew Ecoboost - Short bed, Race Red
2011 GMC Sierra 1500 SLE Crew Cab 6.2L - Short Bed, Taupe Grey
#2
05-02-2011, 06:52 PM
Do you run some kind of publication? What Ford dealer in their right mind would just loan out a truck for a day? Unless you were doing that 24 hr test drive crap if they still do it. I've never seen a rental place with a GM 6.2l, only 4.8's or 5.3's on occasion. Enterprise has a truck branch but all the 3/4-1 tons here have the duramax.
#3
05-03-2011, 07:54 AM
#4
05-03-2011, 09:11 AM
Post Fiend
On the GM interior, unlike Ford, GM has a completely different dash for the low-end trim work trucks and luxury trim levels, so your comparison would not apply for the typical retail buyer.
Turbos are a great thing when it comes to getting maximum usable torque and economy out of an engine, but I still worry about long-term durability. Gasoline engines are harder on turbos than diesels, due to the higher average Exhaust Gas Temperatures, often read as Turbine Inlet Temperature. When oil prices spiked in the late 1970's, Chrysler and Mitsubishi went for Turbos with a vengence and they didnt hold up. Maybe with todays vastly superior lubricants and better quality control, things will be different this time.
Turbos are a great thing when it comes to getting maximum usable torque and economy out of an engine, but I still worry about long-term durability. Gasoline engines are harder on turbos than diesels, due to the higher average Exhaust Gas Temperatures, often read as Turbine Inlet Temperature. When oil prices spiked in the late 1970's, Chrysler and Mitsubishi went for Turbos with a vengence and they didnt hold up. Maybe with todays vastly superior lubricants and better quality control, things will be different this time.
#5
05-04-2011, 12:19 AM
Elder User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the GM interior, unlike Ford, GM has a completely different dash for the low-end trim work trucks and luxury trim levels, so your comparison would not apply for the typical retail buyer.
Turbos are a great thing when it comes to getting maximum usable torque and economy out of an engine, but I still worry about long-term durability. Gasoline engines are harder on turbos than diesels, due to the higher average Exhaust Gas Temperatures, often read as Turbine Inlet Temperature. When oil prices spiked in the late 1970's, Chrysler and Mitsubishi went for Turbos with a vengence and they didnt hold up. Maybe with todays vastly superior lubricants and better quality control, things will be different this time.
Turbos are a great thing when it comes to getting maximum usable torque and economy out of an engine, but I still worry about long-term durability. Gasoline engines are harder on turbos than diesels, due to the higher average Exhaust Gas Temperatures, often read as Turbine Inlet Temperature. When oil prices spiked in the late 1970's, Chrysler and Mitsubishi went for Turbos with a vengence and they didnt hold up. Maybe with todays vastly superior lubricants and better quality control, things will be different this time.
#6
07-23-2011, 02:24 PM
Yes, but you left out 1 important comparison! Which one sounds better at WOT going through the gears? The V8 of course! The Ford 5.0 sounds killer compared to the ricer V6 noise on the Eco Boost! I think if GM moves ahead with a direct injection, twin turbo 4.0 V8 version of the Eco Boost that would be amazing on all fronts! How about a 5.0 Eco Boost? Oh Yeah! I think that Ford made a good thing but it would be better in small V8 Eco Boost version!
#7
07-23-2011, 09:47 PM
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
BuffyFromETB
2015 + Expedition & Navigator
7
09-22-2015 02:47 AM
