• 2017 Chevy Silverado 1500 6.2L V8: Can It Beat the F-150 EcoBoost at 0-60 MPH? [Video]

    2017 chevy silverado v8 ford turbo v6 faster 0-60 mph
    2017 Chevy Silverado 6.2L V8

    Can the 2017 Chevy Silverado 1500 with the 6.2L V8 beat or match the 0-60 MPH time put up by the 2017 F-150 EcoBoost V6? Keep in mind that we do all of our testing at a mile above sea level (with approximately 17% less air density).

    The big 6.2L EcoTec3 V8 in this Silverado produces 420 hp @ 5,600 rpm and 460 lb-ft of torque @ 4,100 rpm, just like it did over the previous couple of years. In this Silverado LTZ model, the engine is paired to an 8-speed automatic transmission. This truck is also equipped with a towing package, which gives it a 3.42 rear differential ratio.

    Lack of a turbocharger or supercharger does hurt a bit at a mile above sea level. Still, this engine makes a lot more horsepower than the latest 3.5L EcoBoost V6 in the F-150. We are talking about a 45 horsepower advantage for the V8.

    Time to put the truck to test. We used the VBOX Sport GPS-based performance measurement tool (same tool and same location as with the F-150).

    2017 Half-ton Trucks: 0-60 MPH

    Year Make Model 0-60 MPH Time
    2017 Ford F-150 Crew 4×4 TT V6 6.23
    2017 Chevy Silverado 1500 Crew 4×4 V8 7.03
    2017 Nissan Titan 1500 Crew 4×4 V8 7.69

    Check out the acceleration runs here.

    Andre Smirnov
    Andre Smirnov
    Andre Smirnov is an Automotive Enthusiast, Producer, Reviewer, Videographer, Writer, Software Engineer, Husband, Father, and Friend.

    Similar Articles

    158 thoughts on “2017 Chevy Silverado 1500 6.2L V8: Can It Beat the F-150 EcoBoost at 0-60 MPH? [Video]

    1. Those Ford Eco-boosts are fast. GM will surely follow with its own turbo V-6 soon. Lets hope they offer it in more trim levels than they currently offer the 6.2 V-8.

    2. If it were my money, I would probably go for the GM. I have driven an Ecoboost before, and while the power and torque are impressive, the lack of complexity with the 6.2 is very appealing. Living near sea level is also a factor for going with a naturally aspirated engine. It also doesn’t hurt to hear that V8 rumble, which just seems fitting in a pickup truck.

      1. You do realize that the GM 6.2L is full of complexity right? Direct injection, variable cam timing, cylinder deactivation by controlling oil pressure to the lifters, small skirt pistons to reduce friction, variable rate oil pump. In fact there is more addons to a GM 6.2L than a 3.5L. All engines have a level of complexity to them. You cannot get away from it any more.

        1. A twin cam engine, with turbos, is in my opinion, more complex than a cam-in-block engine. Relatively speaking, of course.

          1. I can see how some with limited engine knowledge would think that.But even a twin cam engine is simple compared to a hydraulic roller cam engine. Think of the 16 hydraulic roller lifters with 1/2 of them needing secondary oil pressure to keep them turned on. Then you have 16 rocker arms actuating valves via pushrods. Then you have an overhead cam engine where the cam lobes push directly down on the valves. Actuation is direct vs an OHV engine where you have lifting forces start in the middle of the block to the top of the heads and then transferred to the valve. Nothing wrong with an in block cam engine but there is a reason most engines are overhead cam now. Because most engines are variable cam timing that is a mute point because almost all engines have that. But all of GMs gas truck engines have oil pumps that are controlled via the engine processor for output volume.

            1. I bet many people dont know even semi truck diesel engines are overhead camshaft engines. Been like this for a while know. Then they also have a separate shaft for the engine brake function. But most large diesel engines no longer have a cam in the block.

            2. Only a year of auto mechanics under my belt. Your assumptions aside, the basic design is the same as it’s been since the 50s. Yes it has been updated, but most would agree that a twin cam engine is more complex. There are more moving parts in the Ford engine compared to the GM.

            3. feel free to elaborate on the complexity of a twin cam engine that is current and not an engine from the 50’s. FYI I have been involved in the automotive business in several rolls for 20 years including medium truck. I would love to hear your thoughts.

            4. I will add a turbo engine is the same engine as a N/A engine. The only difference is a pair of hair dryers are bolted onto the exhaust manifolds. But the basic engine is the same, relatively speaking of course because turbo engines have stronger rods and pistons due to increased cylinder pressures.

            5. You must have a lot of friends. All kidding aside, when you have four cams that are variable versus one,four valves per cylinder versus two, and a turbo charging system, it seems to me that there’s more going on in the Ford engine than the GM. I think we are at a stalemate.

            6. First of Nick, yes i do have a lot of friends. So I am not sure why that was even brought up but back to engines. I am looking at why you think 4 cams (or 2 depending on engine) is more complex. Just because i have been doing this for a while does not mean i stopped learning. I learn almost every day and sometimes being wrong is a good way to learn. So i would like to see why you say what you do. Like i said before about turbo’s, they are not complicated at all. In fact they are about as basic as you can get. Similar to a turbine engine. For all their power they are very simple in design, just require some really really good parts. And they are heavily regulated. Our helicopters just like every other commercial aircraft, every component can be identified all the way back to earth. So glad we dont have to worry about that on the automotive side.

            7. Would you preferred if I said more advanced versus more complex. The mid engine Corvette is set to have an overhead valve engine. More advanced or more complex?

            8. You are starting to come off as an ignorant brand basher and really dont want to discuss anything. Just you are right and you dont care about anything else. Am I wrong? FYI i would be willing to bet money I have a larger and stronger friend base than you. Just saying.

            9. By the definition, the 6.2 is more complex. It consists of more interdependent parts needed to maintain operation. Both are advanced considering the technology needed to support them.

            10. Exactly Dave. Pretty much all newer engines are advanced. They require so much design and engineering to make them as efficient, durable and powerful as they are. Look at some of these engines that are using the same block material you find in diesel engines. 4 and 6 bolt mains for block rigidity, large rod big ends and wide to support high output while using really thin oil. How A/F is controlled to make combustion as efficient as possible.

            11. The complexity comes from more than just amount of cams and valves. A small block also has 1 timing chain that historically is very reliable as it is able to be kept very short. A DOHC V8 or 6 will have 3 timing chains typically and have a maintenance interval that is best to be followed. While I haven’t disassembled a 5th gen small block I have don’t plenty of 3rd and 4th gens and as Nick said, they are very simple and effective. The so called low tech small block still out performs the Ford Coyote V8 in just about every way. At best the Coyote matches the now 10 year old ls3.

            12. Actually Mike a 5.0L has more HP per liter than an LS engine. So I find your comparison not a very good one because it does not make any sense. In fact the 5.0L has been able to match an LS in performance until recently. Ford will surely also upgrade the power as GM and Ford is always one upping each other in that department.

            13. JimmyJohns, I agree with Nick. Pushrods and lifters operating 2 valves per cylinder is hardly complex. Yes, the EcoBoost uses the DAMB method, but you forget the EcoBoost has VVT on both intake and exhaust cams. That’s four electro-hydraulic VVT devices. It’s two timing chains and two hydraulic chain tensioners. The Ford also uses a variable displacement oil pump and both engines are direct injected. When you talk about working on one thing f these engines, no one would prefer working on the EcoBoost. The 6.2 has a single cam; the heads can be removed without touching the timing chain. Even if you did remove the chain, it is a single, short timing chain and you don’t need cam locks or other special tools. Everything is immensely easier to get at on the GM, despite the much larger displacement. The turbos add much complexity to the engines plumbing: they need their own oil lines and coolant lines for lubrication and cooling. They also route low and high pressure air through addition pipes, and the requisite intercooler just takes up additional space…and raises air temp passing through the radiator.

            14. What does horsepower per liter have to do with ANYTHING? Ever see a Ford 5.0l parked next to a “larger” 6.2l LS? That 5.0l is a lot bigger.

              So yeah at best that smaller but a lot bigger 5.0 is about as impressive as a 10 year old LS3.

            15. Troverman, when you talk about working on these 2 engines it is a different subject. For instance a cam change on the 3.5L is relatively easy. Remove the valve cover, lock the chain in place remove the phaser and remove the cam. A LS engine you have to remove the front of the truck, remove the front of the engine, remove the valve covers, remove the valve train (leave in the lifters) and remove the cam. Head replacement may be a little easier with the LS because of the timing chains on the 3.5L. But with a LS the valve train has a lot of moving components to transfer lift from the middle of the block to the valves. The 3.5L is direct action. Unless it changed for this current new gen 3.5L, only the Ford 2.7L has a variable displacement oil pump. All of the GM truck engines do. And they require 0-20W oil.

          2. If Ford’s 5.0 had the same displacement as the 6.2 is would produce 510 horsepower. Pound for pound the 5.0 is a more powerful engine.

            1. Correct. The 5.0 was actually designed to compete with the 6.2 and 6.4. That is best part of the ohc design up to liter. Expense to repair wouldn’t think would be of any consideration. 200k miles shouldn’t be an issue

            2. It would be nice if Ford would continue with the 5.8L they had in the GT500. A N/A version would have some killer HP. It would make a sweet truck engine too.

            3. Don’t leave out the fact that the Coyote lower end is good for around 1000hp in its stock configuration. It may not pull like an ecoboost but the new 5.0 is an awesome and reliable engine. Ive never heard of ANY problems with them but i have seen 3 GM 6.2’s that have had camshaft problems and had to replace engine.

            4. Brewhaha, I have seen that often also. They love turbos bolted onto them. In fact paired with the stock 6 speed automatic with a torque converter change they are killer. The only think I have heard of is the oil pump needs to be upgraded for above 600 HP or in that area. Other than that they handle a lot of power. Which is surprising for a factory engine. A proper tune is needed of course.

            5. Well Dave if chevy 6.2 had dual overhead cam it would have 550hp so wish in one hand and shit in the other .

            6. Joe, the adults are talking right now, try to keep up. We’re talking horsepower in ratio to the engines size. I encourage GM to pursue whatever technology they want to make the 6.2 a better engine but until then, the 5.0 is more powerful for its size. When your ready to debate like an adult, please respond.

            7. Joe’s starement is very confusing lol. I think he answered his own question? 550hp gm 6.2 OHC or shit in his hand. I think you better go wash your hands Joe…. but keep the dream alive LMFAO!

            8. Also Daddy Dave why does gm own the aftermarket on engines for project cars. Gm sells a lot of turn key engines aftermarket.

            9. Joe, you’re clearly not good at debating. No one is discussing physical size or weight, we’re are discussing horsepower to liters ratio. I’m not going to argue with a teenager today. Stop getting all emotional over this discussion. No one is saying the 6.2 is a bad engine.

            10. Where are you guys pulling this out of?

              The Ford 5.0 is not 6.2l so that argument is DOA. The argument is about as stupid as saying “well if the ls3 had dohc heads, it would make 540 hp. It holds no water.

              Fact remains the Ford v8 is 435hp and 400tq. That’s 10 year old ls3 HP with a lot less torque. Color it with any excuse you want, it’s all excuses.

              Ford fanboys love to talk HP per liter completely ignoring how much bigger that 5l v8 is compared to a small block.

            11. Just pick the one aspect of your particular engine that is better than the other and focus on that. Ignore everything else.

            12. External displacement the 6.2 wins. Simple and cheaper too. Nothing beats cheap easy hp.

        2. Jimmy, you too the words right out of my mouth. The 6.2 isn’t a small block from 1965.

          1. An overhead valve engine is still an overhead valve engine. Like I said before it has been updated but the basic design is the same. The overhead cam engine was considered too rudimentary for companies like Ferrari and Lamborghini, with a few rare exceptions I think.

            1. Yes and an OHC engine is still an OHC engine. It is all the tech in each that increases complexity. For instance, an LS engine the heads are pretty simple. You still have the 2 valves per cylinder and rocker arms. Rocker arms are designed to be low friction by using bearings in the fulcrum base. I dont believe they are using roller tips like you find in the aftermarket but i could be incorrect. But thats where the simple to me stops. Unless you have roller tips, the tip to valve stem is a friction point. The push rod to rocker arm in a friction point. You have 16 lifters. 8 of which need oil pressure to operate correctly because they are designed to collapse for the cylinder deactivation. Once you start getting wear, you can loose oil pressure to them and they dont function correctly. Remember the block is where the wear occurs. I have had to replace GM engines because of lifter bore wear. You still have some complexity over a fixed cam system with variable valve timing but anymore they are pretty robust. But you still need oil pressure to control the cam position. Oil seals, solenoids are needed for correct operation.

              An over cam engine you have no cam parts in the block. Cams are in the heads and they generally directly activate the valve via a puck. The only frictional loss is where the lob rides on the puck. You do have VCT and that still requires 1-4 solenoids to activate based on design. Oil seals are still needed too. You do have longer chains but chain guides are still used in either engine.

          2. When you start a conversation by implying that I have a simple understanding of engines, it’s not going to go over too well with me. And for the record I never bashed Ford or any brand.

            1. I sorry i did not coddle you in my comment but at this point it is what it is. You can actually describe your point of view instead of talking about your hurt feelings. Like i said, I want to hear your side.

            2. I meant to say the upcoming mid-engine Corvette is going to have an overhead cam engine. You are obviously The expert so I’m gonna let this one die . Go have a beer or something.

            3. So me saying I want to hear your technical side is out the door then? I already said i am ready to learn and want to hear your technical side. I have been all ears waiting for you.

            4. You clearly know your tech information. I think this is all coming down to semantics.if formula 1 racing is considered to be the highest technical form of racing, then why don’t they use overhead valve engine? I understand what you’re saying about those modifications to the basic engine that to make it more complex, however I don’t view it as being more advanced.

            5. Nick, I dont know where you were going with that last comment but I had to google the 2018 corvette engine. It is rumored that the 6.2L will get 3 more cams. If that is true, it will surely be a complete animal in the HP department. Those CC’s with a free breathing head with much higher camshaft control, it has some sweet possibilities.

            6. Nick I agree he can’t have many friends , every tfl thread I look at has jimmy johns constantly, more than anybody else name . Double even

        3. If gm are so complex why do ford engines cost double the amount to replace even the 5.0 coyota is double the price as a 6.2 ls3 ask engine masters about that one.

          1. Where are you getting that info from? According to Summit Racing, both engines are almost the same price. Same with what I’m finding on Ebay. Is this something you read in another forum?

            1. On engine masters that’s a show where they build engines popular show they take two engines ,in this case ls3 vs 5.0 coyota and put on Dyno and see winch engine has more potential . The 6.2 wins also is a smaller package with more potential.

          2. Simple. The GM faulure rste is much higher so they have a much bigger pool of cores to rebuild engines from thus making them cheaper. 😈

          3. Joe, none of this makes sense. We dont need to ask “engine masters” about nthe cost of an engine. If it is actually the labor that costs more, that has little to do with the internal complexity of the engine.

            1. Just watch the espisode of engine masters there most popular esposoid ever . The 5.0 block was so expensive they had to buy a used one . it was tripple the amount as the ls3 block. They also talk about how the 6.2 is lighter and a smaller package.

          4. Cost and complexity are not mutually exclusive. It’s ironic that the uber complicated ecoboost is one of the cheapest premium engine options throughout the industry.

    3. 1. Who gives a shit about 0 to 60 times. It’s a truck not a race car!
      2. “Men” and their “bragging rights” to their “friends”
      3. I do not care if someone else’s truck can beat mine by a fender length.
      4. Thos numbers are so close that very little things can change who “wins”
      5. Not a dig at Tfl, just at the “manly men” that care about stuff like this. “Men” that need a big v8 and big v8 sound cuz their “men” and that’s what “men” drive annoys me as well. And the amount of money they blow cuz of that is hilarious.
      6. I’m done lol

      1. I agree with everything you said. I would base a new truck purchase on fuel economy. And from other tests I’ve seen, the GM 5.3 with the 8 spd would be my pick. Sufficient power to, no its not as fast as some but still pretty dam fast

      2. It is always funny that the people who say they do not care about 0-60 times recently, are Chevy/Dodge/Nissan or Tundra fans. I remember owning a ’83 F350 with a 7.5l and the Chevy with the 454 was the rage then. Well every Chevy guy was busy telling me; “that ford has a big engine that could not even get out of it’s own way.” I guess 0-60 mattered then to those pick-up trucks owners, now, not so much.
        Just for the record Motor Trend has the Ford Ecoboost with the 10 spd clocking in at 6.1 sec
        CarandDriver.com has it clocking in between 5.3-5.7. So those Ecoboost badge bad boys will beat you by more than a fender.
        Having that power to jump into a gap in ongoing traffic from a dead stop on freeway ramps in Texas @ 85MPH is pretty confidence inspiring. Stepping out from behind a truck lumbering on a two lane highway in NM at 4000″ elevation with the Ecoboost vs Chevy’s 5.3L is a revelation.

        1. Just don’t forget to turbo spool the ecoboost from the dead stop, otherwise you are slower,than my HEMI.

          1. I doubt that turns out to be truthful. There is very little turbo lag on an ecoboost. Have you driven one? I have driven both. Just my perception.

            1. Yes, there is a little turbo lag.
              It’s enough for me to get in front of ecoboost with my JBA headers at the red light, because that guy beside me forgot to turbo spool. It works all the time.

            2. No Lag, that is one of the advantages of a twinscroll turbo. Drive one! My detuned 3.5 in a Transit has embarrassed a few Chevy guys, the look on their faces are priceless.
              The 5.3l which is available for all Chevys like the 3.5 is for all Fords. the C&D results at sea level has the Ford 50-70@4.4
              Chevy 50-70@4.9

            3. What do you mean by no lag.
              You don’t feel any? Every turbo has more less a lag, except the electric one. I had a variable vanes turbodiesel with lag as well. Less than others,but still a lag. 2 small turbos has a lag as well. Less than 1 big one, but still a lag.

        2. Why would you be at a dead stop merging into 85mph traffic? Sounds dangerous to me. Typically most people enter a merge doing some sort of speed. For example, the 6.2 GM acceleration from a 20mph roll is much faster than the ecoboost.

          1. Do you have any data to support the 6.2 being “much faster” from a roll? I’ve never seen them tested but the 3.5 seems to be pretty solid everywhere.

            1. Car and Driver tested the trucks and the 6.2 was actually faster than the 3.5/10A in their testing. I think 0-60 was the same but 1/4 mile the 6.2 was faster. The passing power test (something like 45-75 or 40-70 mph) the 6.2 was a few tenths faster and even the 5.3/8A matched the 3.5/10A. This test of course was not at a mile high.

          2. Ford 10 spd Top gear 30-50 is 3.3 secs Chevy 6.2 with the 8 sp is 3.0 sec
            50-70 has the same margins 3/10 of a second.(Top Gear) So no evidence that the Chevy is much faster.
            Often vehicles come to a complete stop because the tractor trailers barreling at 90mph cannot change lane to allow for you entering the highway. So in the interest of your self preservation you might want to stop and watch for that gap in the right lane.

            1. The highway stretch I was referring to is I-20 between Monahans,Pecos etc. The Speed limit is 80mph but large grouping of traffic approach or exceed 90 mph difficult to police, and difficult to judge speed when merging. there is also our well documented 85mph toll road. but watch out for the Javelinas.

        3. It’s only took ford ten years to finally beat the chevy 6.2 in a race a mile above sea level . It also took ford a very complicated route to do so , even took gm designing the 10 speed transmision .

            1. The chevy 6.2 has been out probably 9 years and ford has never been to out do it and before that gm had 6.0 and ford couldn’t touch that either.

            2. By what metric are you referring to? Seems Ford’s ecoboost has outdone the GM 6.2 in every test TFL has done.

        4. Hahaha 😂 Your comment is absolutely hilarious and typical of Ford loyalists.

          First and foremost, I wouldn’t want a echoboost motor shoved up my *** as the turbos decrease the longevity and reliability of the engine. That goes for all engines with turbos.

          So you can have your ford’s and turbocharged v6 engines (echoboots) and I’ll stick to the tried and true V8 engines that have been around for decades.

          Also, V8s sound better than those turbocharged echoboost motors and Ford is even losing customers because they won’t offer one in the Raptor.

          Granted, Ford does offer their 5.0 liter Coyote V8 and have recently made updates to the engine but it’s only a matter of time before it completely ceases production. Personally, I think Ford is just keeping it around for the competition uses V8s and they know that some buyers want a V8. Ceasing production of the coyote engine as of now would cause V8 Ford enthusiasts to jump ship (either to RAM, Chevy, or GMC).

          If Ford was smart, they wouldn’t abandon the V8 customer base but hey, when they do finally cease production of the coyote engine, those who are loyal to Ford but want a V8 will have to look elsewhere and we RAM, Chevy, and GMC fanboys will gladly welcome them to their new brand!

          1. Yeah such a correct statement Mike. So many turbocharged diesel engines out there sre severely suffering from longevity issues because of the use of turbochargers. What an ignorant statement made by someone who apparantly knows nothing about engines. Yes the 6.2l is a good engine as well as the Coyote 5.0, the Hemi is a piece of shit in my professional opinion. How many other manufacturers tell you to change your spark plugs every 30k? To me thats a lot more expensive than competitors incudong the ecoboost. Give credit where it’s due and quit being a mindless fanboy.

            1. Wow. I have a HEMI with 200300 kms and didn’t change the spark plugs yet. What are you a professional of ?

            2. Look it up. I fuess U haven’t looked at the last couple of year hemis but at least up to 13 that was recommended by the manufacturer. I’m a mechanic and have been fir over 15 years and work on just about everything with wheels. I’m not saying I agree with their mileage interval but it’s one thing they could use as an excuse to deny you warranty coverage. I would definitely change them out at least every 100k (miles). Ram uses cheapo champion pkugs and Penzoil is their house oil of choice…. both shit products in my view but some people swear by them or like to buy cheap

            3. What’s wrong with those spark plugs ? Did you break some, when replacing them? As long as you use a 5W-20 oil ( I use full synthetic) it’s fine.
              Why do you call HEMI a piece of shit ? Just wondering.

            4. Not calling rhe Hemi a POS, im not a big fan of them tho. Was referring to Penzoil and Champion plugs. I’ve seen a lot of them over the years have problems is all and I think Penzoil is a cheap bottom of the barrel oil. When we do tuneups on vehicles we use OE plugs so we do put champions back in Dodges, but if I owned one it would get either Acdelco or Motorcrafts pkugs if they made them for them.

          2. Diesels are turbos too, don’t cha know. Oh, can you share the source for Ford losing Raptor customers for want of a V-8, or is that an alt-fact, LOL.

        5. They post similar times with the 6.2 GM trucks. And they do it without sounding like a Camry.

          The 5.3 is not fast, but it’s perfectly fine for 95% of drivers.

      3. 1. 0-60 is a good demonstration of applied torque.
        2. OK
        3. 8 tenths of a second is more than a fender-length, LOL
        4. The Ford is approx. 12% faster. 88% get you a ‘B’ in school, not an ‘A’ in most classes.
        5. Hate to tell you, bro, the Ford is a V-6.
        6. Peace-out.

        1. No, i believe the rule of thumb is 3% per 1000 ft.
          By the way The Ecoboost is loosing power too, just not at the same rate.

    4. Please type it so I don’t always have to watch the video. C’mon. Idiocracy is on its way and reading comprehension is an important skill to retain….Please?

    5. I’ve owned an Ecoboost, 2012 6.0 Chevy 2500hd and a 2015 6.2 Chevy 1500 over the years. By far the ecoboost motor towed stronger at lower RPMS than any but the towing stability of the 6.0 2500hd gave me the most confidence for long term durability. I must say that the ecoboost was a beast and held some low RPM’S when towing my 32ft TT. That ecoboost was fast also.

    6. Hey Jimmie John how long will you think they will keep the 6.2 ? If gm goes TT v-6 like i think they will i believe it is possible that the 6.2 might get axed. As you know this is a very large engine for the half ton market. It will be intristing to see how long they will hold on to it in the half ton.

      1. I would be surprised if chevy goes turbo v6 . I was reading on gm authority that 2019 they are going to make new truck it will be aluminion and will stay with v8 but make them more efficient.

        1. I have to agree. The ecoboost has been out since late 2010, 6.5 years. And GM has multiple twin turbo engines they could put in their trucks, wouldn’t they have offered one by now? If their truck become lighter, add 10 spd transmissions and a newer V8 they will be by far the most fuel efficient trucks on the road.

          1. Joe and trucksareforwork gm really didn’t have a TT v-6 not till last 3 or maybe 4 yrs and so far it has been in the caddys​.

            Joe you can only make a big engine so efficient that it cost more money than doing it. Thats why you don’t see real big engines any more in the hd trucks and cars anymore.

            Trucksareforwork yes Ford had the TT v-6 for awhile but not gm. Gm is probably reliezing that they are behind the ball with tt v-6 and they wasn’t ready for the truck. Yes a ten SPD would help , but a smaller engine more so. Yes it possible they might come out with newer v-8 and i believe it will be smaller than 5.3. 5.3 could be the engine that replaces the 6.2.

            I just think 6.2 might be close to a end. Time will tell.

            1. Your statement might make sense if GM wasn’t already more efficient than anything Ford (or any truck maker) has with gas engines. Every test TFL does the 6.2 winds up winning on fuel economy. It even beat the 5.3! It significantly beat the Ecoboost on the Ike run (4.0 to 3.5) and I’m pretty confident it will post the best in class 100 mile towing loop as well. The truth is Ford was way behind the eight ball on weight and efficiency. Even with the drastic measure of going all alluminum and practically abandoning the V8 they still are only matching GM on weights and fuel economy ratings (and they lose the mph battle in real test).

              Ford will be scrambling if GM extensively uses alluminum for the next generation trucks.

            2. Matt the TT v-6 3.5 beats 6.2 up the ike every time they tested the 2 against each other. Yes I will agree with you that it is very good on fuel mileage, but you will agree what I said a bigger engine gets harder to get better fuel mileage than the smaller one. It is also makes it more expensive to do so.
              I think 6.2 is great engine , but it has a up hill climb to stay alive.

              No Ford will not be scrambling because they already have aluminum.
              Gm was busy dumping rocks in aluminum beds only to realize it wasn’t hurting Ford. It was stupid for gm to do this when they new they was going to aluminum to. To me it was dumb to do this knowing that nobody takes there half ton down to the local quarry to dump bunch rocks in there bed. Most people would get dump truck to do this. I guess gm owners do this nonsense, but then again I don’t see any gm owners with ld of rocks in there beds going down the road. Gm owners might be smarter than gm corporate.

            3. The 6.2 isn’t going anywhere as it doesn’t cost anything to offer it. Outside the intake and exhaust manifold it’s 100% the same as the Camaro and Corvette LT-1.

              It’s a well known fact the Ecoboost doesn’t return it’s advertised mpg and the 6.2 exceeds it.

            4. Mike your are having a terrible time with this. This engine is big it is going to get harder for gm to make the mandates as they are today. Yes I agree pretty much alot things to say concerning the fuel mileage between the two, but it will get more expensive to make the mandates with this 6.2. yes the Camaro and Corvette use the 6.2 but they are not pushing a brick threw the air like Silverado does. Generally a v-6 is going to get better fuel mileage than a v-8. Maybe you have trouble letting go of the 6.2. I don’t know. You can see the hand writing on the wall looking at all the manufacturers. They are all going smaller. Even ram has rumors going smaller engines. Even gm 4.3 v-6 is large compared to Ford and ram. I wonder how long it has before it gets the axe for smaller v-6? It is really not much of debate if you start looking what manufacturers are doing.

              3.5 TT v-6 has gone up the ike with out running out of breath. The 6.2 is gasping for for air doing the same thing. Gm is not liking this.

            5. Marc, again your statements would be plausible for GM if they weren’t already beating Ford (and everyone else) in gasoline fuel economy. Now I would agree with you for brands like Toyota, Nissan, Ram to a certain extent and even Ford with their 5.0. They obviously can’t produce a V-8 to get decent mileage in a pickup. But GM doesn’t have this problem. I believe the 5.3 matches or is maybe one mpg down from the Ecoboost according to the EPA, but always beats it in real world test. Same with the 6.2 (although it’s EPA ratings are a couple mpg down). The 6.2 usually matches or beats the 5.3 in real testing.

              Now I could see the 4.3 going away simply because there’s no market for it. The 5.3 option is only around $1000 more and comes with much more power and basically the same fuel economy. The 6.2 (or similar sized) option ain’t going anywhere for GM. It’s cost to produce can’t be much because it’s not specific to the trucks and because of its limited availability in trucks (LTZ/High Country trucks optional only) what small hit they get from it’s EPA numbers being less than the 5.3 are marginal at best. And actually, all the 5.3/8A trucks have the same EPA numbers as the 6.2 trucks.

              So again, GM is far ahead of the curve as far as gas engines goes in trucks. They match (EPA) and beat (real world) all the competition and GM still has the alluminum weight saving trick in the bag.

    7. Why are these replies not in order? When I pull this article up they are all jumbled according to the time stamp.

      1. Because this format allows you to directly reply to someones comments. If someone is challenging a comment you’ve made, you can see it posted under your statement instead of having to read all the comments to have an argument.

    8. The Chevy will have the same 10 speed transmission in the future. Curious how much better the 6.2 will do with the new transmission.

    9. Umm, no one has commented on either the 6.2’s narrower size advantage due to ohv or the 3.5’s weight advantage…surprising.

      1. Dino I don’t how much of a weight advantage if any the 3.5 echoboost has if any over the 6.2 was developed for the corvette a pretty light package. That’s a good question for Troverman!!!!

        1. Joe, the 3.5L EcoBoost weighs 449lbs. The 2.7L EcoBost weighs 440lbs because of the CGI block. I’d expect the 6.2L to weigh abut the same or less. The EcoBoost engines have a lot more weight in the heads – 4 cams instead of 3, 24 valves instead of 16, two long timing chains instead of one, 4 VVT solenoids, the twin turbos and associated plumbing, etc.

          1. Thanks Troverman you are one of a few guys that know what the hell is going on around here. Your smart guy even though you are a ford fan !!!

    10. Well the results don’t seem too far fetched to me. If the GM is losing ~15% power at alititude and loses by ~13% at altitude I think that makes sense. I would speculate the efficiency loses in the new 10 speed are also a factor as they should be improved.

      Similiar to the 1-ton shootout a few weeks ago- the power numbers of the Duramax and the Power Stroke are within just a couple percent of eachother. Driveline losses, efficiency, and transmission differences are more magnified than ever before.

      To me it’s just an awesome time to be a truck fan! The competition is fantastic.

    11. I look at these top trucks and it’s very interesting how different they are. You are comparing making a small engine big when you need it versus a big V8 engine that deactivates for mpg. It just seems like the DOHC has room to expand for power and efficiency while the big displacement pushrod is fighting itself via cylinder de-activation to sip fuel and using a lower gear ratio. It looks like the turbo has extra power on tap when needed versus the big old gas gulper that is putting along… I think turbo, DOHC and CGI block versus an aluminum block pushrod is the way to go in the future. That’s where my money is now.

      1. Kris,
        This is a very interesting way of looking at this never ending debate of what is better in a truck!

        In fact I would be almost certain that the engineers at Ford are reading this and saying finally someone is on to us!

      2. The Ecoboost is the gas gulper here. They don’t return advertised mpg and are really bad when you put some weight on them. The 6.2 just sips gas and outside of a extremely high elevation makes more power doing it.

        The only advantage Ford has is that it’s hard to find 6.2 trucks.

        1. I agree the GM V8 engines are more fuel efficient than the Ford turbo V6 engines…particularly under load. You can still get very good fuel mileage from an EcoBoost, but you have to drive it with an eggshell under the accelerator.

          1. With the V8, if you stay at a steady rpm and try to avoid downshifting you could pretty much predict your MPGs. The thing with the EcoBoost is that the added boost dimension affects MPGs. You could tow at 1500 RPM but if you are at 10 or 15 psi boost, it really sucks the gas. My MPGs have been all over the place with different loads and octane. The EcoBoost seems really touchy on MPGs and it is tough to be consistent. I’ve noticed differences in MPGs with different brands of gas (same octane) and such things as temperatures.

      3. Kris S, just FYI…only the 2.7L EcoBoost has a CGI block…and it is only the upper block at that. The 3.5L EcoBoost is still all aluminum.

    12. But wouldn’the the F150 be faster, I mean watching the Chevy commercials bragging about all that steel,you would think it was a military tank as compared to the tin foil F150.

    13. Looks like it did pretty good – except it got beat by the little 2.7tt Ecoboost.

      It ran a 6.9 last year in a 4wd Supercab XLT

    14. I forgot – that was TFL’s fastest truck ever until the Raptor and 3.5tt / 10spd came out.

    15. Why am I keep reading on here the 6.2 beats 3.5 TT v-6 ? Yet there is chart on this page showing you that isn’t true.

      I think the 6.2 is great engine but it isn’t no match in thin air. Force induction just plain rules don’t matter how you slice it. Even at sea level 6.2 will struggle because of the low end TQ that the 6.2 doesn’t have. The 3.5 TT v-6 went up Ike like it wasn’t there, yet 6.2 was just plain gasping for what Little air there is to get up the Ike. I’ve said this before gm is cringing when they see this. Leave no doubt gm is looking for another engine to deal with the 3.5 TT v-6. 6.2 isn’t going to get it unless they give force induction. I just don’t think that will happen.
      There isn’t much here to change my mind about the 6.2 and GM’s direction.

      1. I don’t think GM is too worried about high elevation drag racing in half ton trucks.

        Get real.

        1. It is for gm. Do you think they like what they see? If was gm executive I would be looking for a TT v-6 in my Silverado.

        2. I agree mike the ford beat it by 10 seconds. Also if that was my 60000 truck I wouldn’t be drag racing up the mountain anyways.

          1. 10 second and of out breath. Really you wouldn’t? So eco-boost goes by you and you wouldn’t get an ich to see if the 6.2 can catch up to it? Leave no doubt Joe there is lot of truck guys that want the fast engine available. It always has been and always will be.

            Joe and Mike look at the trends in the last several years. Engines are going smaller. That is fact, and there isn’t​ much you going to say to me that is going to change my mind. Gm is no different than Ford and ram on this point.
            Now I hope gm proves me wrong I really do. The 6.2 is a pretty good engine. If I wanted Silverado I would get the 6.2. as Ford guy this like an endorsement for gm.

            Like I said time will tell what happens with the 6.2, but it is facing the Ike to stay alive.

    16. Wow, what a thread. We go from talking about which is a more complex engine…the EcoBoost or GM 6.2L V8…on to then discussing the physical size of the engines, including the 5.0L Ford…and finally on to who is the fastest…the 6.2L or EcoBoost trucks.

      In the end, here is my opinion:

      The EcoBoost engines are relatively complex compared to the traditional GM V8. It is harder to work on because it has four overhead cams, dual chains, VVT on four cams, more valves, and the associated turbo plumbing. GM’s traditional V8 has become more complex with cylinder deactivation and direct injection…but still at its core is a simple cam-in-block pushrod V8.

      As for physical size…any overhead cam V-engine is going to be wider than an OHV engine. The Ford 5.0L Coyote is indeed physically larger than the GM 6.2L. The Ford 6.2L SOHC engine is physically much larger than the GM 6.2L. The EcoBoost 3.5L is somewhat wider but shorter. So it is true the GM engines offer some packaging advantages compared to the Ford OHC / Turbo engines, and are easier to work on.

      As for who’s faster, that’s easy…the Ford turbos.

      1. I guess it kind of depends on what you are used to working on too. For me a DOHC engine is pretty easy to work on. But of course i know people that are afraid of them. But I also used to love working on 6.0L internationals and the 6.7L Ford diesel. A lot of people said they are scary and or look really hard to work on. When in fact (at least to me), they were really easy. If it takes me 20 minutes to remove a turbo from a 6.0L i must have taken a poop during. A turbo on a 6.7L like wise is easy. Around an hour. So i guess it would not be fair for me to say something is easy or less complex because it may be easy for me and not for others. Or the direct opposite. I wish there was more discussion vs what occured and Mike is just here as a PUTC basher from what i can tell. Then it becomes side tracked. I find it interesting that the weight of the engines came up. I find it interesting that a 3.5L is similar weight to a 6.2L. I know GM uses light weight rotating assemblies and that makes me wonder about long term durability. The 6.2L had piston slap issues with some time on them so i wonder if they fixed that. I know of several newer 5.3L that the pistons wore out just over 100K when they were mainly used for work.

        1. I am looking at buying my uncles 2006 gmc 1500 5.3 2wd 70000 miles has lower ratio rearend for towing , for my painting and drywall business, but honestly it has to much power for my guys and a few tools . I’m scared the guys will hot rod it, I usually buy 4.8 and 4.3 also I have one ford van 4.6 . I don’t know why trucks need this much power . Unless people are pulling heavy tailors or campers. So I believe each brand does need one engine that is a work Horse. For my personal family truck I would buy 5.3.

          1. Those older 5.3L that I have seen are really durable. I don’t blame you about having reservations as a work truck for someone else. The right foot is tempting for sure.

          2. Joe in 2018 Ford will give you 5 engines to choose from. What are you going to do with all these options?

    17. I rather enjoyed the give and take between Nick and Jimmy Johns. It appears they are both very knowledgeable but have differing opinions about the complexity of the Ford Eco Boost and the 6.2L GM motors. My # criteria when purchasing a truck is reliability. I’m 65 and after owning 3 Fords in the 90s I bought my first Tundra in 2000. I haven’t looked back and have since owned a 2004, 2010 and a 2014. Not one single issue with any of those trucks. Gas, oil, brakes and tires is it. Nothing ever breaks. I put 80k on my 2010 and many of those miles were from yanking a travel trailer all over the country. Never even needed brakes and just one set of tires. Most say the Tundra is an old school truck. Old school has its merits. So I guess I’d lean more towards the 6.2L Chevy for no other reason than the V8 rumble.

    18. There are more moving parts in the twin turbo V6. Obviously, and there are more sensors to monitor the engine when it’s running on the Ford. There has be more, because if those turbos stop working that engine is a total slug. If those turbo’s and push the engine to hard for to long the engine will melt itself, requiring more monitoring to acheive reliability. I’ll take the V8, you can keep that Mitsubishi Eclipse garbage twin turbo V6. Remember those peices of shit? The twin turbo V6 is better, but really how much better can you make a motor that is under a ridiculous amount of pressure.

        1. It’s going to take ole Will a little time – he’s got to look a question like that up on the Internet!

          It’s okay he’s just living in the V8 past – there’s a few of them out there.

          I was a V8 guy too until I actually drove a Ecoboost, towed with one and then Bought one!

          I still scratch my head in amazement every time I drive and tow things with it compared to my V8 days.

          I just drove my buddy’s pristine 96 F250 extracab 460V8 C6 2WD auto and towed my car hauler with a 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee on it. This is the exact load ive towed with my little 2.7tt F150 4×4 Supercab and the 460 couldn’t hold 60mph on two grades between Vegas and St George Utah.

          My Leafblower 2.7tt easily goes up those same grades effortlessly! What speed you want?

          That’s just it – I would bet almost every single Ecoboost hater has not driven one empty or towing and most likely never will.

          They’re too busy putting around town with their V8 headphones 🎧 on!

    19. I really don’t want to get in on this nonsense. Opinions are like…oh never mind. LOL! I only commented so I could check the add me to the TFL news feed box. I used to get almost daily emails but haven’t seen one in weeks.

    20. anytime you increase displacement without changing the design of a given engine, you lose effenciency. I.E. the ford 2.7 liter engine makes more horsepower per Cu.In. than the 3.5 liter.
      So, making comparisons between a 3.5 and a 6.2 liter engine as to BHP/CuIn is like comparing a Draft Horse and a Thorobred race horse. One is faster and one can pull a lot more.

    21. We all know a naturally aspirated engine is at a disadvantage at higher elevation. And we also know that a lighter truck is faster than a heavier truck. So if you want to know which ENGINE, 3.5tt or 6.2, is really faster 0-60. Let’s add some weight to the lighter truck to equal the weights and do the test at or near sea level. then we are much closer to an apples to apples test of just the engines power!

    22. Hi I’ve been watching your videos on YouTube for quite some time already and you are guys are great and fair so keep up the good work 👍

    23. A Stock 2017 Crew Cab Standard Bed Silverado LTZ 4×4 with the 6.2/8-Speed and the NHT Package (3.42 Gears), curb weight of 5,600 lbs, can run a consistant 6.0-6.1 Second 0-60 mph time. Unfortunately those tests were done at or below 2,000 ft. Elevation. Higher Elevation is where boosted engines shine since the Turbo/Supercharger compresses/forces the air to the same mass regardless.

      Same test was done on a 2017 Extended Cab Standard Bed Silverado LTZ 2×4 with the 6.2/8-Speed with NHT Package (3.42 Gears) Curb weight of 5,200 lbs. It ran a consistant 5.73-5.8 second 0-60 mph.

      Each 0-60 was run 5 times by each vehicle.

      A 2017 Ford F-150 Crew Cab Standard Bed Platinum 4×4 with the 3.5-TT/10-Speed with 3.55 gears weighs just under 5,000 lbs. The F-150 equivalent to the Extended Cab 2×4 with the 3.5-TT/10-Speed weighs 4,600 lbs.

      So the 4×4 Chevy weighs 600 lbs more than the Ford equivalent.
      The 2×4 Chevy also weighs 600 lbs more than the Ford equivalent.

      The Ford takes the win at 6,000 ft elevation or higher. For every 1,000 ft. Of elevation, an N/A motor loses roughly 3.5% of its total power. The air is less dense, meaning it does not fill the cylinder with the “full” amount of air volume needed for ideal compression and combustion. The engine adjusts for this by reducing the fuel charge/amount sprayed into the cylinder. Which results in less power produced.

      A Forced Induction engine litterally forces the compressed air into the cylinder and filling the cylinder “full” of air. Now it may mot be 100% full, compared to it being at 1,000 ft of elevation. So the 420 Hp Silverado at 8,000 ft elevation can lose about 100 Hp, that’s 320 Hp. A Turbo/Supercharged engine loses roughly 0.5% per 1,000 ft of elevation. So the 3.5-TT 375 Hp engine at 8,000 ft elevation drops down to around 360 Hp. So you can see why Andre specified high elevation, because of the power loss.

      The Chevy still makes a great overall time, unfortunately he only did one run. The Chevy, weighing 600 lbs more, has a higher tow rating of 12,500 lbs bumper pull compared to Ford’s 12,200 lbs bumper pull. The fully optioned Chevy 4×4 will also run pretty much a flat 6 second 0-60 at 0-2,000 ft elevation, which is a hell of a time for an almost 3 ton truck.

      While doing these tests, I used both the Ford and Chevy to tow our 10,000 lb test trailer. Everything was setup ideally to maintain proper hitch weight and load equalization with both Chevy/Ford trucks. Elevation was 1,800 ft with 85 degree outside temps. Both trucks performed great and handled the weught very well.
      The F-150’s 10-Speed definitely makes pulling steep hills a breeze while being able to maintain that exact RPM for maximum torque. It can be a bit finicky with constantly shifting between gears on a flat road sometimes if a Semi passes you or it gets a bit windy, Manual shifting solves that problem.
      The Silverado has a better torque curve and will pull hard to redline where the F-150 flattens out after 4,500 RPM. It also has more get up and go from a complete stop while towing 10,000 lbs comapred to the F-150. You can tell the turbos have very slight lag when towing heavy and accelerating from a stop. The 8-Speed does very well and I prefer it over the 10-Speed, it allows the engine to Rev longer and pick up more speed in between shifting at a higher speed such as 65-75 mph.

      Other than that, both vehicles were amazing and it will come down to personal preference or brand loyalty when choosing one.
      Unfortunately we were not able to get our hands on a 2017 Ram 1500 with the correct/equipment combinations. We wanted the best possible gear ratio in the axle with the largest engine available, while being a crew cab standard bed that is fully loaded. We are still currently trying to work out something with a local dealer to have kne shipped in.

      We will also be testing the 2017 Disel 3500 Crew Cab Long Bed Dually in the near future.

    24. GM engines are much better and more durable than anything ford builds.
      Case in point, nothing is harder on an engine
      than a marine applications.
      Both Mercruiser and Volvo Penta use GM small and big block engines.

    Comments are closed.