Colorado/Canyon Duramax Diesel DEAD in 2023

[Dalko43]

If you can keep your foot out of the boost they will do better than the v8, the tfl test is entertaining, but not practical.

Well that's my point...when you use a truck like a truck (towing, hauling, overlanding), you're going to have the engine under load (in boost).

So in that sense, the TFL test is relevant. No one is going to argue that turbo gasoline engines are inefficient for empty cruising. But this is an overland site, meant to discuss 4x4 vehicles for overland applications...generally-speaking, engines will be under varying degrees of load for those applications.

 

[Dalko43]

You’re such a mag racer. Tundra test was on a different day! Different season! ?

How much towing have you done? What turbo gas engine are you talking about?

By the way, just watched the first video. Seriously, the V8 was a 2WD! And 3.15 gearing. Ecoboost was 4wd and 3.55. And still got MPG difference of only 0.5. Wow ?

How about them apples?

Other than a little bit of weight, what difference does the 4wd vs 2wd make in terms of mpg? And could you even quantify it?

And yes, the gear ratios are different...as they for most engine options which have different torque delivery characteristics. The 5.7l Tundra has 4.30 gearing (and is an all around heavier platform); it only got slightly worse mpg compared to the 3.5l ecoboost doing the same tow test...oddly enough I never hear anyone bring that up when analyzing the Tundra's lower mpg results.

Real world comparisons are rarely perfect, but they are worth considering. There is a whole boat load of evidence, to include studies, which have found that turbo gasoline engines don't maintain any mpg advantages for high workload applications...in fact their mpg advantage in general (for all passenger vehicles) isn't quite as pronounced as the OEM literature, fanboy hype and Govt EPA ratings would lead you to believe: Consumer Reports Study

Good job reading the comments section of that youtube video though. I can tell you really put a lot of effort into researching this topic....

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Yeah ok. ? Last month, I went on a week long trip in an F150 going over 8-9k mtn passes, towing a 5k lb enclosed trailer. 12mpg and power is incredible compared to my old Toyota V8. Just as efficient (actually, more efficient as my V8 was in single digit MPG), and much much more power.

Same experience for me. My 2.7 pulls better and gets better fuel economy than either Tundra that I owned.

 

[DRAX]

Well, the original post and video were based on assumptions that at this point seem to have been false. GM has said they’ve secured a continuous supply of the 2.8 for the foreseeable future. GM was also awarded the contract to supply the military with a light ISV which is based on the ZR2 and is powered by the 2.8, though without the emissions stuff attached.

So, what will happen for 2023 is yet to be seen but rumors aren’t facts. Just have to wait and see!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 9101]

If you can keep your foot out of the boost they will do better than the v8, the tfl test is entertaining, but not practical.

Nailed it! My F150 gets better MPG sitting in traffic than either of my Tundras got on the HW. In fact, my life time average (20.9 mpg) is higher than my Tundras could manage on the HW...lol.

 

[phsycle]

Other than a little bit of weight, what difference does the 4wd vs 2wd make in terms of mpg? And could you even quantify it?

Apparently, the EPA and every auto manufacturer can, as MPG estimates differ by the drivetrain alone.

And yes, the gear ratios are different...as they for most engine options which have different torque delivery characteristics.

Says a lot you didn’t even bring up that fact. Yet, kept touting “apples to apples comapro!!”

By the way, Ford allows all sorts of different engine to gear ratio combo. Unlike other manufacturers.

Read all you want. Seems like that’s all you do, yapping about what the theoretical numbers should be. Yet, real world scenarios and first hand experiences say otherwise. Sigh. This reminds me of dealing with the engineering dept.

 

[Dalko43]

Apparently, the EPA and every auto manufacturer can, as MPG estimates differ by the drivetrain alone.

Right...those magical EPA fuel economy #'s, generated under very specific testing conditions, which everyone replicates in the real world. That must be why the fuelly average for the 3.5l ecoboost F-150 is exactly the same as the EPA rating...oh wait, never mind: 2019 Fuelly F-150

Says a lot you didn’t even bring up that fact. Yet, kept touting “apples to apples comapro!!”

Certainly a lot more apples to apples than what you were doing: comparing an older, heavier Tundra (with fewer gears and 4.30 final gearing) to a newer, lighter F-150 w/ gear ratios and # gears optimized towards fuel economy.

Never said the TFL videos were perfect, but they certainly offer a better basis for comparison.

Read all you want. Seems like that’s all you do, yapping about what the theoretical numbers should be. Yet, real world scenarios and first hand experiences say otherwise. Sigh. This reminds me of dealing with the engineering dept.

My understanding of turbo gasoline engines comes from reading & having driven numerous turbo engines (F-150 ecoboost' and a few BMW's). I appreciate their strengths but I'm also willing to acknowledge their weaknesses. They burn through fuel at the rapid rate when under load...if this is news to you, then I might suggest you do some more reading. Or maybe try out some tow/haul tests of your own.

Your real world driving may not see much of a mpg hit. However, most other F-150 owners do see some hit to their mpg's in typical driving. Hence why the Fuelly averages are lower compared to the EPA ratings and why there are numerous articles and studies discussing the discrepancy between the official ratings and real-world results.

Sorry for bursting your bubble...

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Right...those magical EPA fuel economy #'s, generated under very specific testing conditions, which everyone replicates in the real world. That must be why the fuelly average for the 3.5l ecoboost F-150 is exactly the same as the EPA rating...oh wait, never mind: 2019 Fuelly F-150




Certainly a lot more apples to apples than what you were doing: comparing an older, heavier Tundra (with fewer gears and 4.30 final gearing) to a newer, lighter F-150 w/ gear ratios and # gears optimized towards fuel economy.

Never said the TFL videos were perfect, but they certainly offer a better basis for comparison.





My understanding of turbo gasoline engines comes from reading & having driven numerous turbo engines (F-150 ecoboost' and a few BMW's). I appreciate their strengths but I'm also willing to acknowledge their weaknesses. They burn through fuel at the rapid rate when under load...if this is news to you, then I might suggest you do some more reading. Or maybe try out some tow/haul tests of your own.

Your real world driving may not see much of a mpg hit. However, most other F-150 owners do some hit to their mpg's in typical driving. Hence why the Fuelly averages are lower compared to the EPA ratings and why there are numerous articles and studies discussing the discrepancy between the official ratings and real-world results.

Sorry for bursting your bubble...

As someone who has had a first gen and second gen Tundra and now owns a 2.7 EcoBoost I can definitely add more anecdotal experience to counter your "I read it on the internet" or "I drove one once."

Running +10 the speed limit from Orlando Fl to Boston and back I can get 21 mpg Neither of my Tundras could get that kind of fuel economy doing 65 mph.



This is with the cruise set at 65:



Towing a ~7100lb travel trailer it gets 2-3 MPG better than my Tundra did...while accelerating faster and crusing at a higher speed.


Sorry for bursting your bubble...

 

[phsycle]

My understanding of turbo gasoline engines comes from reading & having driven numerous turbo engines (F-150 ecoboost' and a few BMW's). I appreciate their strengths but I'm also willing to acknowledge their weaknesses. They burn through fuel at the rapid rate when under load...if this is news to you, then I might suggest you do some more reading. Or maybe try out some tow/haul tests of your own.

Your real world driving may not see much of a mpg hit. However, most other F-150 owners do see some hit to their mpg's in typical driving. Hence why the Fuelly averages are lower compared to the EPA ratings and why there are numerous articles and studies discussing the discrepancy between the official ratings and real-world results.

Sorry for bursting your bubble...

Interesting to hear that TFL guy say the turbo wasn’t working as hard as the NA. And, therefore, they got the same effective MPG (considering drag loss of drivetrain). So maybe on your spreadsheet of mag numbers, NA comes out ahead. Yet, in the real world, there is no significant difference.

You say you’ve driven a number of F150’s, as if to imply you have experience in towing. Have you actually towed with an EcoBoost, or did you accidentally leave that part out as well? All your blabbings about “my calculations show it SHOULD be this and the internet SAYS that“, has nothing to do with real-world experience, which you seem to have none of. If you do, please post up data.

 

[Dalko43]

Interesting to hear that TFL guy say the turbo wasn’t working as hard as the NA. And, therefore, they got the same effective MPG (considering drag loss of drivetrain). So maybe on your spreadsheet of mag numbers, NA comes out ahead. Yet, in the real world, there is no significant difference.

When you compare the real world results compiled from hundreds of F-150 owners, the 3.5l ecoboost gets about the same average mpg as what the 5.0l v8 gets. Fuelly and magazine reviews bare that out. I don't quite understand why you are so skeptical of those information sources.

I'm drawing on the results provided by lots of sources (articles/reviews and other people) in addition to my own experience....you're drawing only on your own experience.

If you want to continue to live in a self-biased lala land, go right ahead.

 

[Dalko43]

As someone who has had a first gen and second gen Tundra and now owns a 2.7 EcoBoost I can definitely add more anecdotal experience to counter your "I read it on the internet" or "I drove one once."

Running +10 the speed limit from Orlando Fl to Boston and back I can get 21 mpg Neither of my Tundras could get that kind of fuel economy doing 65 mph.

View attachment 602819

This is with the cruise set at 65:

View attachment 602821

Towing a ~7100lb travel trailer it gets 2-3 MPG better than my Tundra did...while accelerating faster and crusing at a higher speed.


Sorry for bursting your bubble...

Instantaneous mpg readout's DO NOT equal average mpg's....but you can enjoy that fantasy if you so choose.

As for the 2.7l ecoboost getting better mpg's than the 5.7l iForce...that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Vehicle weight difference, engine displacement difference, aero & gearing difference. A lot of factors at play. Never said that the 5.7l iForce Tundra was just as efficient as the 2.7l ecoboost F-150; nor would I expect it to be.


What I am saying is that all things being equal, or as much as is realistically possible, between a NA v8 and turbo gasoline of similar output in a similar platform, the turbo gasoline engine does not have much, if any, mpg advantage for working (key word there) applications.

So maybe instead of comparing a brand new 2.7l ecoboost F-150 to an older 5.7l Tundra, compare something that is more apples-to-apples. Go tow 6k lbs with the 3.5l ecoboost and 5.0l coyote...tell me how much more "efficient" that ecoboost is. Because plenty of people, besides TFL, have done those tests...the mpg difference is negligible.

 

[dreadlocks]

FWIW, my 6yro AWD German 3L Turbo Diesel gets ~30mpg avg @ 75mph, ~24mpg in city w/AT's, and about ~15mpg avg towing my enclosed toy hauler (~6klb) through the mountains.. however, its been modified a lil bit.

I'm not gonna be buying a turbo 4 for any towing needs anytime soon.. I like where I'm sitting right now, and there isint much that is offering anything comparable.. However for non towing needs, meh.. boosted 4banger is fine.

 

[DRAX]

Instantaneous mpg readout's DO NOT equal average mpg's....but you can enjoy that fantasy if you so choose.

Those images aren't showing instant MPG, they very clearly show the avg MPG for the trip meter mileage shown. So, not sure what you're going off about with that comment.

 

[phsycle]

When you compare the real world results compiled from hundreds of F-150 owners, the 3.5l ecoboost gets about the same average mpg as what the 5.0l v8 gets. Fuelly and magazine reviews bare that out. I don't quite understand why you are so skeptical of those information sources.

I'm drawing on the results provided by lots of sources (articles/reviews and other people) in addition to my own experience....you're drawing only on your own experience.

If you want to continue to live in a self-biased lala land, go right ahead.

I’ve already told you this before. Fuelly data means nothing without more details on the mileage. Was it city driving? Highway? Load? Towing? There are just too many variables that fuelly doesn’t account for. I look at all of my other cars and trucks in the past. Some were on-par with fuelly but majority weren’t. Data is just too volatile. I don’t even like comparing city mileage, as too many variables come into play. This is why I test highway miles. Fortunately, I had a daily 100+ mile commute for a number of years and had a chance to test various vehicles. A lot of variables are taken out this way.

It’s funny that the only people who bring up the fuelly data are people that DON’T own the said vehicles. “Hey, I don’t own what you drive, but let ME tell you what you should be getting.”

Give me a break. The only person in la-la land is you. Never owned any of the trucks we’re discussing, never towed—yet, you’ve got opinions up the wazoo based on things you’ve read on the internet. Good work.

 

[phsycle]

So maybe instead of comparing a brand new 2.7l ecoboost F-150 to an older 5.7l Tundra...

Agreed. @Jnich77 should’ve used a NEW Tundra....with a.......5.7..........and.....the....6-spee.....