• Is the 10-Speed Efficient or …? 2018 Chevy Tahoe and GMC Yukon 10-Speed EPA MPGs Announced

    2018 gmc yukon 6.2L v8 chevy tahoe 10-speed new transmission epa mpg
    2018 GMC Yukon 6.2L V8 10-speed

    We can expect the new 2018 Chevy Tahoe RST to be very fast with the 6.2L V8 and the 10-speed automatic transmission. General Motors and Ford co-developed this new transmission to offer better performance and efficiency improvements. So, how efficient is the new 10-speed in the latest GM SUVs? Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently released the MPG rating for the 2018 GMC Yukon and the 2018 Chevy Tahoe.

    Take a look at the GMC Yukon for a more direct comparison (see image above). The short answer is – the new 10-speed automatic in the 2018 Yukon produces the same combined-cycle EPA rating as the 8-speed did in the 2017 model. However, it does behave differently in the city and on the highway. The 10-speed is more efficient highway cruiser, but does worse in the city. The highway MPG improvement is more dramatic when you consider the 4WD models (see image below).

    The 2017 Chevy Tahoe was not offered with the 6.2L V8, but the 2018 Tahoe RST 10-speed rating is (not surprisingly) identical to that of the 2018 Yukon. One could only get the 2017 Tahoe with the 5.3L V8.

    Still, 22 MPG rating on the highway in a full-size body-on-frame 4×4 SUV is not a bad result. We will have to test this for ourselves as soon as we can get our hands on these. We wonder how quick these will run 0-60 MPH and how they will perform when towing heavy trailers.

    Here is a first look at the performance Chevy Tahoe RST.


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

    Similar Articles

    124 thoughts on “Is the 10-Speed Efficient or …? 2018 Chevy Tahoe and GMC Yukon 10-Speed EPA MPGs Announced

      1. You can see why they developed this transmission on a joint venture. Tremendous expense for miniscule gains.

        1. Daniel, welcome to the world of government mandated fuel economy and emission standards. It’s nothing BUT minuscule gains for gigantic amounts of money.

          1. Maybe you’re not as old as me and didn’t have to suffer through the gas mileage of decades ago. Before the diesel went in, my 1970 F-250 Supercab achieved a highway average of 10mpg. Towing a trailer to Florida meant stopping for gas every two hours.

            1. That should say 1977 Supercab. Also, the engine was a 460. No more typing with beer for me today.

      2. Going to 10 gears is a last ditch effort.

        Transmissions will be a thing of the past soon enough.

        Electric generators will literally take the exact place of the transmission–right behind the combustion engine..

        And the generator willpower the electric motors in the wheel or at least near the wheel.

        No more engines reving up and down and getting worn out by a mechanical link to he wheels.

        And no more transmissions sapping the engine’s power and efficiency.

        No more hunting for the right ratio on an impossible to tune gearing.

        And no more expensive, complicated, and difficult to work on transmissions that cost a lot and just take up a huge amount of room and weight under the chassis.

        But there will always be more people who have a vested interest in the old way commenting on this page with hair-brained arguments.

        1. The Raptor has the 10 speed, and it is the best truck you can buy they say… or NOT.

          An article comparing the RAM PowerWagon, ZR2 gas, and Raptor says:


          “3RD place goes to the mighty Ford F-150 Raptor. “The Raptor was my odds-on favorite before we got to Canada,” Scott said. “The biggest problem with the Raptor is its failure to perform the one job we brought it for: going fast off-road.” We know the Raptor is capable of going fast on the dunes of the West Coast, but on the loose-packed gravel and the mud and dirt trails of northeastern Canada, the Ford is out of its element.

          Nothing was more telling than its performance on the TLH proper. “On the off-road sections, the Raptor’s rear end kept moving dramatically from side to side on the dry gravel, but things got even worse when the rain started coming down and the road deteriorated,” Miguel said. Its drive modes only made it marginally more stable, but even with four-wheel drive engaged or in Sand/Mud or Weather modes, the Raptor handled the brutal TLH far worse than the other trucks. “At speed off-road, the rear end was never settled, never confident,” Scott said. “Isn’t that what this truck is designed for?”

          As disappointed as we were with the Raptor… it drives like a big sport sedan on pavement. Still, we expected more from the Ford.”


          So, the Raptor, even with a new engine and 10 speed transmission, is nothing but a big pavement sedan for pretentious dummies that don’t understand mechanical engineering (as many of have been saying for a long time). Many of you on this site have come to admit (after much effort on our part), that the Raptor may not be a good truck, but at least it is a good desert runner. Well, this independent test proves it CANNOT EVEN DO THAT.


          And if the ZR2 had the diesel rather than the gas, they probably would have given it the first place rather than second place, since the gas engine was the only complaint they had on it.

          1. @ Tray:
            I completely agree. The raptor is a mall crawler,and a damned expensive one at that.

            With all the mountain trails here where I live,I have never once seen a dirty raptor,or even a dirty new taco.

            I can’t say anything about the ZR2 since I’ve never seen one in person,just pics.

          2. I completely disagree. You are taking the words of one magazine and forming a conclusion. Many other automotive publications have reviewed the Raptor and stated how excellent it is. The Raptor is not good at everything, no doubt. But it is better at many things than virtually any other vehicle. I cannot see anyone in their right mind picking any form of a ZR2 over the Raptor. The PowerWagon is a good off-road vehicle, but looks almost identical to the million other RAM HD’s on the road, and is pretty slow and also suffers from a limited payload capacity, especially given that it is a 3/4 ton vehicle. I do like Fords, but clearly Ford has a complete winner on their hands: the Raptor is sold out and many are for sale on AutoTrader for $5-10k over MSRP.

            1. The ZR2 is a whole lot less expensive and for those of us you spend most of our time an narrower mountain trails, makes a lot more sense. Granted, the Raptor appears to be pretty amazing when in its element.

            2. Motor Trend is a car magazine. They don’t know crap about trucks. All they do is test their handling and how fast they are. I read this review and it was one of the few times they actually tried to seriously evaluate a truck. They failed. If you read the entire review you will see that they do not understand trucks. But, having said that, all three of these trucks are good trucks that meet different needs. It’s like comparing apples, oranges, and pineapples and picking a winner.

            3. Troverman

              1. Many publications have pointed out the Raptor’s surprisingly flawed designs.

              2. The ZR2 makes is a far more well rounded vehicle for the vast majority of people, and those are not just my words.

              3. You say the PowerWagon has bad payload, when the Raptor is far worse!

              4. No doubt people buy the Raptor. But since when were “people” ever wise, ore even smart for that matter. “People” buy more candy bars than they do heads of broccoli. The only thing more stupid than that is making an argument that “everybody is doing it”.

            4. @Glen,
              I know the Raptor has a payload limitation, which is why I said “also” when speaking of the PowerWagon. I’m just saying the PW’s payload problem is more heinous because it is a 3/4 ton. I agree you can find publications that criticize the Raptor, but I believe that if you took the overall note of ALL reviewers, it is favorable. And people as a whole may be dumb, but they aren’t that dumb. Some people may buy the Raptor for looks alone. If so, than the other manufacturers should work on better styling! But I do believe the Raptor does the “combination” of many things better than all other competitors: looks, speed, off-road capability, interior comfort and luxury, towing / hauling. The ZR2 is almost certainly more handy in tight off-road trails…it would go where the Raptor cannot…but it is not particularly good looking, is slow (or very slow, if you opt for the diesel), tows less, and cannot come close when in comes to interior comfort and amenities. The Power Wagon also matches or exceeds the Raptor off-road (at least slow-speed off-road), and is as roomy and comfortable inside as the Ford (although not as feature laden) and can exceed the towing and hauling capabilities. BUT, it does not look special and it is also very slow and thirsty.

            5. 2018 Raptors are sold before they hit the showroom floor, at 5-10k over msrp.

              You are right, this article is absurd. They found the perfect conditions to fishtail a raptor at speed and knock its stability? Its riding on very soft suspension damped for big hits and will not respond accurately in these conditions. Wide tires and track hurt your traction and stability on greasy mud roads.

              If the reviewer thinks it handles like a sports sedan on pavement, they have literally never driven a sports sedan.

              (I own and drive BMWs, track and canyon driving, have driven Mercedes, and even Cadillac I’m a huge fan of the CTS-V and ive owned LS V8 cars in the past) Literally the opposite thing entirely from a raptor on the street.

              And if they knocked the other truck for being Gas and not Diesel, what do they want in a truck? No diesel with an extra 1,000 pounds on the front axle is going to handle those exact conditions anywhere near as well as a gas truck with much lighter weight, less low end torque causing wheel spin, and more high end Rpms for high speed runs down dirt roads.


          3. Blasphemy and a bogus test so says the guys on raptorforum. It was simply a matter of having too much air in the tires and not enough weight in the bed. Not to mention the pilot lacked the ‘driver mod’.

        2. Maybe one day. Generator/Motor combinations make for great infinitely variable transmissions.
          Keep in mind however that generators, controllers and motors all have losses associated with them. Very, very good alternators produce power at an efficiency in the low 90’s-at ideal conditions. Inverters can get nearly as high as 99%, again in ideal conditions. Very good, heavy, stationary motors at constant speed and load produce power at an efficiency in the low 90’s. Being optimistic, let’s say the alternator and motor each have an efficiency of 95%, the controller @ 99%. At best you’re going to have a loss of more than 10% through this combination. All that loss is going to be in the form of heat-which will have to be removed=more losses. In the real world, efficiencies will be significantly lower than this. According to this website https://www.nap.edu/read/21744/chapter/7#170 “the efficiency of conventional automatic transmissions ranges from 86 to 94 percent.” So a current transmission can do as well as 94% where as an electric drivetrain can, at best, obtain an ideal efficiency of less than 90%. Hmm.
          The engine will still need to change speeds to match load, though this can be softened by the IV nature of the electric drivetrain. Engine wear is still going to occur; there is no real reason to think that an electric drivetrain is going to lead to an appreciable increase in the life of the engine.
          Those who feel that a generator/controller/motor setup will be less complicated or less expensive to fix than a convention transmission don’t understand these pieces of equipment very well. I suspect that the electric drivetrain is to them less complicated than reality and convention transmissions more complicated than reality.
          As to the cost, one only need look around at the cost of stationary, single speed motors and generators with the rating needed for a vehicle. Keep in mind that a mobile, protected from the elements, motor designed for the much more demanding work cycle of a vehicle is going to increase the price quite a bit.
          I think we’ll start seeing more automated manuals before we see any electric drivetrains. They are already showing up in commercial heavy and medium duty trucks (interestingly there are no production electric drivetrains in this sector). I would thin behind an “HD” truck would be the most likely. You really can’t do any better efficiency-wise than a manual. Coupled with a better ability to add more ratios and computer controls, it could work very well.

          1. Well put, though many here don’t like science without the “fiction” part.

            I do take issue with one point. There are in fact now several vehicles that are more efficient in automatic form than in manual. Just goes to show how refined the latest automatic transmissions are.

            In reality, it’s simple enough. Automakers like money and will always go the least expensive route to make that money. They would not invest bazillions of dollars and make a joint effort with long-time rivals in developing a transmission if there were an “easy button” to gain efficiency without losing functionality.

            1. Another thing to consider is farm equipment. If there is one application that would benefit from the “high torque” and infinitely variable ratio of an electric drive train it would be a tractor. I would guess that there would be fewer supplier relationship disruptions as well. Yet there is not a single mass produced tractor that has a electric drive train. Why?

            2. I think most of those higher efficiency automatics are CVTs-they can keep the engine in its sweet spot (more efficient operation) more of the time. That is one benefit that an electric drive train would have, though probably not enough to overcome its greater losses.

          2. I second that VERY well put. The dreamers here will undoubtedly state that your brainwashed by big oil blah blah blah. In this day and age of CAFE and EPA requirements, if it was that viable of an option it would be being realized

        3. Gary, where did you get your information on the price and complexities of rebuilding automatic transmissions? Most are rather simplistic, just ask your nearest auto transmission mechanic.

          I wish I could even begin to think you’re right in terms of cost alone, let alone performance. I don’t, however. It’s not about if a wheel attached generator can perform… it can. It’s that we have no reason to believe it will last as long/longer than OR cost less than a transmission rebuild when it breaks. The average transmission rebuild kit today is less than $300.00 and that’s quite cheap when considering the motor you’re talking about will likely cost more to rebuild and the vehicle will have 2 or 4 of them in most cases.

          If $300 is expensive to you, God help you when your idea takes hold… you’ll never be able to buy a new vehicle, let alone have it repaired later! J/K, but I hope you get the point.

          One example I can offer. We already have generators RIGHT BEHIND combustion engines. The typical hardware store has sold them for decades and if you are to get any notable power from one, you will plan to spend THOUSANDS of dollars… My home unit cost $3,000.00(13yrs ago) and powers MOST of the home when the power goes out. That’s 1 unit, not designed or built with the rigors of automotive use in mind, but purely stationary use. I can buy nearly any transmission in use today for that and not have a single wheel motor to concern myself with during the repair. Just sayin’… in a cost comparison model, the automatic transmission in automotive use is far and away more efficient in terms of cost to the user as well as manufacturer.

          Besides, some people still like manual transmissions.

      1. It may require a bit more horsepower to complete all the necessary shifts. On the highway it’s done shifting and can take advantage of a lower final drive ratio

        1. In reality it don’t need to use all 10. It can easily be programmed to skip certain gears. Ford started doing that for with the 5R series transmissions. If the ratio is not needed, just skip over it.

      2. The gearing of the first few gears is very short, causing a slight drop in stop and go driving.

        8L90 1st gear = 4.56
        10L80 1st gear= 4.70

        Other areas may be differences in parasitic loss in the transmission’s fluid pump and torque converter (if it’s different).

    1. There is noticeable improvement in drivability between the eight speed and the six speed trans, but it’s starting to look like a point of deminishing returns is being reached when going to the 10 speed trans.

      1. @C Barry: Exactly. I recall reading about 18 months ago or so an engineer for the ZF transmission stating the gains in mileage quickly fall after 8 speeds.

        1. You have to wonder what Nissan and Honda think about that since they use CVT transmissions. Pretty much infinite speeds.

          1. Exactly, it’s just far less of a PITA than stuffing 20 different gear combinations into a transmission.

            1. CVT’s have a whole other host of problems-there is a reason you don’t see them in anything other than fairly small vehicles.

          2. CVT’s have an awful reliability track record across a spectrum of auto brands. Especially in heavy vehicles like SUV’s and trucks.

            1. I personally don’t like cvt transmissionso but some companies use them over standard auto transmissions. Nissan uses a 2 speed CVT transmission in order to get performance and efficiency. They do a pretry good job at it.

            2. CVT’s have a lot of inherent losses in efficiency that reduce the potential benefit of infinite ratios.

              Jimmy Johns – there is no such things as a 2 speed CVT. It’s either has gears, or uses a band and pulleys to vary the effective ratio.

    2. I remember Roman saying a while ago that at some point the number of gears ceases to make sense. It seems (according to the EPA at least) that GM have reached that point. Well done.

    3. There are some other variables- the EPA does not report an actual test based value, but rather an “adjusted” one. They have the lee-way of moving the number up or down, without scientific reasoning. It is also possible that the shift schedule is just not as mature as it was for the 8-speed. Fuel tables might still need tweaking here or there. Ford invested for a full-scale roll out of the product to just about every place it could fit. GM is obviously trickling the transmission into service, from the top down, as production capacity comes up. The 6.2 is not their big volume engine, so optimum fuel economy was possibly not as well funded as other engineering tasks. When the 8-speed goes to the 5.3 in every trim and truck, they’ll have done their homework to be competitive with the other guy.

      1. @Mr. Knowitall
        Correct, especially considering that the current version of the 6.2 is almost over. It’s a near certainty that the engine will be significantly revised next year as part of the rollout for the next generation 1/2 tons.

      2. It’s a smart move on GM’s part. Dumping a new transmission into a ton of vehicles will on cause problems and hurt consumer perception.

        Just look at the comment sections on the recent GM recall for software updates for the electric power steering system. 2014 was the first year they used electric steering racks in all their half-ton trucks and while it’s a really minor software update, people see 690k trucks recalled and react by mocking GM for it.

        Release new parts slowly across models, fixing any unforeseen issues, software or otherwise, as they come. It made the 8-speed’s teething issues much easier to deal with it seems.

    4. One test that would be interesting to see is mpg comparisons at the upper end of the highway speed limits. (or) For instance, if we saw an increase in the speed limits to 80 or 85 (since most drive at the upper end of the speed limit), would the extra gears (overdrives in the case of the 10 speed) start showing an noticeable improvement over the eight? Maybe so? At some point the drag coefficient would still start to override the efficiency of running at higher speeds even at lower rpms–I would think.

      1. It is a nice thought to think of a more efficient HD at 80 to 85 mph but you are right about drag. I had an 2012 F150 5.0 with 3.55 gears. At 85 it seemed like it was straining in sixth gear. I shifted to fifth and the truck felt better and showed three mpg better on the instant mpg readout. More ratios will not help with efficiency at high speed but should help find a more ideal ratio when towing or hauling.

    5. C Barry
      Your right! But will these numbers stop some truck reporters { not TFL] from continuing to brag about the increased efficiency of the 10 speed transmissions. probably not! And will many truck enthusiasts fail to notice these results? Probably! And in the next year or so will we see the truck manufacturers are working on a new, more efficient 12 speed transmission? It’s likely! But remember, it makes for great marketing!

    6. This really does show how much better the GM 8 speed is compared to the Ford 6 speed. Ford’s engines all seem to have gotten at least slightly better economy city and highway when moving from 6 spd to 10 spd. The fact that GM isn’t realizing any significant gains just means that 8sp was really good.

      1. Daniel
        Good point! and maybe, just maybe ford should have gone to the 8 speed as well. Just like gm and ram had.

    7. Remember that these transmissions can be tweaked for a variety of reasons. As an example, the much-maligned ZF nine-speed found in some Jeep, Land Rover and Honda products, was developed for MPG. However, customers didn’t like how it shifted, so the trans was tweaked to shift differently, making a nicer driving experience, but losing some MPG. This varied by make, of course.

      Anywayz, it is possible that GM tweaked the trans for other considerations outside of MPG. Maybe they’ve already met their CAFE requirements and can afford to do this. Maybe it will be tweaked in the future for better MPG as CAFE increases. Perhaps they have an agreement with Ford regarding tweaking parameters. Who knows? I would just say that this isn’t the be-all, end-all spec for this 10AT.

      Btw, I believe Honda is working on a 13-speed triple-clutch AT. Perhaps more gears (and how they are used) gets you better driveability while retaining MPG, beyond the 8-speeds?

      1. That makes sense. I would assume people buying these particular vehicles are more intrested in performance than a slight increase in MPG. It could very well be that the 10 speed, optimized more for MPG, can do a little better than the 6 or 8 speed.

      2. That very well could be. It seems like a common them where people complain about the drivabilty of the 5.3L maybe GM was not as worried about the economy and gave some mid throttle performance back.

    8. The 5.3 10-speed should show good numbers, but keep in mind they tend to use a 3.08 axle ratio and a single speed t-case, it can’t be much fun to drive, let alone tow with. The tallest ratio in the Expedition is a 3.31, plus the 3.5 EcoBoost gives you a lot more low-end torque.

      1. They offer a 3.15 ratio too I believe, but I don’t know a lot about the 2017 Expedition. At least the 2017 F-150 has a 3.15 axle ratio.

        3.08’s really wouldn’t be bad with the 10-speed. First gear is 4.70 vs the 6-speed’s 4.02. Second gear is 2.99 vs the 6-speed’s 2.36. Essentially, from a stop, the 10L80+3.08’s would be similar to a 6L80+3.42’s, which are a reasonable balance of performance and economy.

        Plus, nobody should or would knowingly buy a truck with 3.08’s and the 6-speed. Those trucks are really geared towards the crowds that never tow.

        1. I had a 2015 5.3 6spd w/3.42 gearing. I now have a 2017 5.3 6spd w/3.73 gearing. Max tow package. The only time it downshift to 5th gear when empty is on a 7% grade. Live in an area where speed limits are 90 km/h (55mph) and can drive at 105km/h (65). Same fuel economy. I have since upgraded to a much heavier and aggressive tire and have lost .5 mpg.

        2. This is an old story now so you probably won’t see it. Ford offers the 3.15 only on 2wd trucks. GM has the 3.08 as standard on all trucks. Plus their engines have less low-end torque. The tallest ratio on Ford 4×4 is the 3.31.

    9. Andre – – –

      As a whole package, including the updated naturally aspirated (NA) 6.2 L V-8, AND the 10-speed transmission, I think Chevy hit a home run here.
      I have grown weary of turbo this and turbo that. If you can stick a more tweaked version of that engine into a Corvette Stingray, — generating 460 HP/460 lb.-ft of torque — AND still get EPA 29 mpg highway, then you know the big American NA V8 is a long way for being “dead”. Congrats to Chevy!

      BTW: Yes, 10-speeds may be about the end of the road in terms of ROI on fuel mileage. Some folks seem to think that 8 speeds was about optimum (http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a7243/gears-galore-how-many-speeds-is-too-many/). I suspect that getting good fuel mileage beyond that depends more on how you drive, rather than the number of gears in the transmission…(^_^).


      1. Bernie, you’re weary of “turbo this and turbo that” but you just bought a Cummins turbo!

        1. Hi Troverman – – –

          Yup, I did. And the bloody Ram 2500 Diesel’s got TWO of them! Hate it, but I don’t have a choice. It’s amazing what I’ll buy to get a decent Manual Transmission in a full-size (or larger) truck.
          When I started looking at a CPO Kenworth W900 with a 10-speed Eaton-Fuller, my son went ballistic.
          “But, Dad, where are you going to keep it?!”
          “Gee, Son, I see there’s a spot available in your driveway….” (^_^)…


          1. Bernie:
            Two turbos? I don’t think so. I’m not that up on Cummins turbos, but I’m guessing they use the home-grown Holset VGT turbo still? Perhaps its a “compound” turbo like what Ford used on the 6.4L diesels back in 2008. It’s still really only a single turbo with different size wheels. But I’m not sure.

            I’m a big fan of the W900. Favorite Class 8 truck on the road, for me anyway. But not practical as a daily driver.

          1. Brick – – –

            Thanks. That is exactly the information I suspected for EcoBoost: 60K miles! I knew they could NOT be targeting the durability of an American V-8 (250K miles)!
            You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you “force feed” a goose, you get foie gras and a sick goose. If your “force feed” a 3.5-Liter V-6 to give you 380 HP / 460 lb.-ft, you eventually get a sick, short-lived engine, and a tidy repair bill. No free lunch.

            As far as the 6.7-liter Cummins is concerned, I was told by a salesman (but a low-key knowledgeable person: long time in trucking):
            1) Cummins tuned for 385HP / 900 lb.-ft: 300K miles (automatic transmission);
            2) Cummins tuned for 350 HP / 660 lb.-ft: One Million Miles (G56 Manual Transmission).

            Any thoughts on the accuracy of these projections?


            1. Bernie – make no mistake, the Cummins is a great engine…but current models are not going to significantly outlast the GM or Ford V8 diesels. If the Cummins did, they would own the commercial and fleet markets. They don’t. You can rebuild any engine, for the most part. The required diesel emissions system on all three of the big pickup diesels is going to seriously limit the engine longevity. Could a 6.7L make it to 1,000,000 miles? Sure. But it’d be rare, and you could do the same thing in a Ford or GM. Heck, there was some Volvo from the 1960’s that went more than 1m miles.

              I don’t really think the lower-rated 6.7L engine will outlast the others. The engine is designed to handle the maximum 385/900 rating. The reason why it is detuned is strictly based upon what the transmission can handle. The manual is the weakest trans, the RFE is the next-weakest, and the Aisin is the strongest. Now, if I was buying a RAM diesel, I’d opt for the manual, too. But you sure are taking a big hit in the torque department. If you do some research on the G56 transmission…there are many reports of clutch failure, synchro failure, even cracked transmission casings. This Mercedes-built transmission was never designed specifically for the Cummins, but rather just adapted to it. Some of the failures may be related to folks modifying the engine for more power. But clutch failure was quite common, especially when towing. Still, it sure would be great to shift your own gears and feel that extra involvement with your truck!

          2. Brick this is a superficial post. Those diesels at 300k miles will have thousands of dollars in repairs plus another 10 grand to intially buy it. The smaller diesel in the Colorado also requires that it change its timing belt but at 150k miles. You can google problems with any motor and get a myriad of links to post here. Just go to consumer reports where owners complain altogether; is the best summary your going to get. Then see what the reliability ratings are. I wonder why companies dont warranty the HD to 300k miles🤔

          3. I believe the original 5.9 Cummins, as used in the OTR trucking industry, has a design life of 2 million miles, and is designed to be rebuilt four times, every 400k miles.

            I don’t know how much longevity is affected when the crank up the HP/torque on these engines, though.

          4. Brick, please. While I would expect a Cummins 6.7L to outlast an EcoBoost, I cannot believe you actually think the life expectancy of an EcoBoost is the warranty. These are very good engines. I can vouch for quite a few of these first-gen EcoBoost engines lasting a lot longer than what you state. Here’s a video of a tear-down of a 200,000 mile EcoBoost running fine with little wear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_CXoPdTBUE

            My brother in law has a 2013 with about 100k on it; our shop supplier just traded his 2013 EcoBoost with 201,000 miles on it (engine needed one turbo replaced during that timeline), my mother traded a higher-mileage Lincoln MKS 3.5L EcoBoost in for a newer one with the same engine, etc, etc. I’m certain you can find some EcoBoost engines with problems – same as any engine – but you’ll also find many with high miles and no problems.

            The 3.5L EcoBoost does not use large turbos nor does it run high boost pressure. That results in a perfectly acceptable long life. The 2.7L EcoBoost does run higher boost pressure, but it uses a CGI engine block and heavier-duty diesel-style connecting rods to ensure a long life.

    10. Workhorse makes a Van with 268HP and 1620Lb-ft of torque at 1rpm all the way to rediline with one gear. First. A second gear just means you are the first loser, right?

      And it has a 400% increase in mpg over a similiar gas van. And we are still talking about transmissions and ICE engines. Sad


      1. Yeah, that’s amazing Rambro. The difference is the gas van will keep on truckin’ once the electric van has to stop for 30 minutes to recharge.

        And by the way, EV’s produce maximum torque right at zero and then it rapidly trails off. It’s absolutely not zero to redline. If an electric motor has an 8,000 RPM redline, it probably makes maximum torque from zero to 2,000lbs.

      2. Rambro – – –

        Your comments lately have been so unrealistic and distorted (sometimes even hysterical), — as to border on “click bait”, trolling, and science fiction. Sadly, it’s gotten to the point that I doubt that responding to you now is anything more than a waste of time 🙁 …

        The so-called Workhorse “Van” that you quote is:
        1) Not a private van, in the sense we know it: it’s a step-van designed for urban commercial purposes;
        2) It is not an EV: it’s an extended-range hybrid that uses a BMW gasoline engine to power the batteries;
        3) It is not capable of general-use range, and even with the BMW engine, is limited to only 120 miles;
        4) Even more: Its speed is limited to 67 MPH.

        Here are its specs (http://workhorse.com/stepvans):
        Range (from plug) 60 Miles
        Extended Range 60 Miles
        Total Range 120 Miles
        Battery Pack 60 kWh
        Gross Vehicle Weight 19,500 lbs
        Available Wheelbases 157 & 178
        Top Speed 67 mph (Electronically Limited)
        Motor Power 268 hp
        Motor Torque 1620 ft*lbs
        And from a physics point-of-view, there is no way that ANY electric motor (asynchronous or not) can maintain its initial (0-RPM) torque delivery all the way to its maximum allowable RPM (the equivalent to an ICE’s “red line”).

        This step-van vehicle is so inappropriate, for a general-use ICE comparison, that you might as well have proclaimed the virtues of industrial fork lift…

        Here is reality (IMHO): When EV’s have – – –
        1) a range of greater than miles 500 miles while hauling and/or towing, and…
        2) can FULLY charge in 10 minutes or less, and…
        3) will cost LESS than a comparable ICE vehicle, and…
        4) can be supported by charging stations all over THIS country (USA), and…
        5) have an electric grid capable of powering more than 25% of all customers who would drive EV’s, and…
        6) do not depend on exotic metals like indium and cobalt, which are rare and rapidly depleting, and…
        7) have adequate VERY cold-temperature performance (which they do not now), then……
        …..maybe they would be the beginning of a viable alternative product for GENERAL (as opposed to urban-only) use.

        In the meantime, my 6-passenger diesel pickup cost <$50K; hauls 3K lbs.; tows 16K lbs.; has a range of 700+ miles; can refuel in 7 minutes; does not depend on anyone's "grid"; and can safely drive from Milwaukee to Minneapolis at -15 deg. F to visit grandma.
        Hardly "JUNK", is it…


        1. Very good post, Bernie. I agree with all of it. <$50k for your Cummins is a very good deal.

          I also think that once the EV industry does reach these milestones you suggest, it should still only be another type of "offering" available to the public. Those that still prefer a gas or diesel engine should still be able to buy these vehicles. However, there is so much potential money riding on the future "green / EV" industry that the powerful EV lobby is pushing for legislation banning ICE engines. (See France and England legislation). This is utter nonsense, and for those of us who enjoy "feeling" the shake of a Harley-Davidson, or the rumble of a diesel, or the roar of a V8, or the shriek of a Ferrari V12, etc, etc…they are literally stealing our freedom. I can guarantee that if governments did not provide massive grants to both the EV industry, the autonomous car industry, the battery industry…plus tax incentives and rebates to consumers…plus appropriating money to build charging stations…electric vehicles would not exist other than as science experiments.

          1. Troverman – – –

            As usual, your analyses and insights are spot on.

            Let the unbiased, un-manipulated free market determine success or failure, with all options and vehicle designs open to the consumer. Then we’ll see what is valuable and desired, and what isn’t.


      3. Rambro, why don’t you guys that want to circle jerk each other bloviating about electric trucks start your own forum, and quit threadjacking the comments on every article with the same crap?

        It’s getting old.

        1. Glen H, I am just pointing out that you only need one speed. There are far too many sheep buying into this 10 speed 8 speed crap. Electric is where its at. 1620Lb-ft of torque in a 1 speed, 400% increase in fuel mileage. Why continue with transmissions. We need to get away from this garbage. Thats the torque from the Van with 268HP. The W15 worktruck has 460HP so im not sure what the torque will be in the W15 work truck but it may be a lot more than 1620Ft-lbs at 1 rpm to redline. Where does the 6.2 make its torque and HP and then have to shift ten times trying to get there for a brief second and then switch again to a lower torque at various rpms.

          This is junk. We are buying Junk. You can only put so much lipstick on a pig and call it a makeover.

          1. Rambro – – –

            R: “This is junk. We are buying Junk. You can only put so much lipstick on a pig and call it a makeover.”

            Q: If you truly consider that what TFLT is presenting, — and what these commenters are trying to discuss — is “Junk” and “lipstick on a pig”, then why are you even contributing to this website at all?


            1. Bernie, this is not a presidential debate. But Even Donald Trump did not stay on topic and he is the president of your country. Since when is a modern 10 speed transmission not up against a superior 1 speed electric motor? That has everything to do with this thread. It is just lipstick on a pig. It doesnt change anything. All these new upgrades are the norm. Watch the video and Roman even says so. Its getting boring for a lot of us who understand better things are out there if people stop buying this junk. Give companies like Workhorse, Tesla and Bollinger a chance so we have better choices and dont go back yo paying 4 dollars a gallon for fuel again.

              Let me know when you become a moderator for the site so I can watch the ratings plummet. The only thing of topic is your policing. Talk about a hypocrite calling the kettle black. But I digress. Workhorse makes a van with 1620Ft Lbs of torque with 268Hp and they make a truck with 1 speed. The ten speed wont be needed. Things are moving fast so if I save someone 60 grand and they hold off and wait for better or buy something cheaper just to get by until better comes along because they are sick and tired of lipstick on a pig than that is a contribution

              TFLT from what I seen; Andre was pretty excited about the Bollinger truck. If electric trucks progress TFL will have a lot more to chew on with a lot more exciting things to talk about instead of mild timid updates that offer very little in actual value from one year to the next.

            2. A discussion on a 10 speed transmission is very much also a discussion on electric solutions. Making an improved ratio for a combustion engine to work best, begs the question of electric solutions, since electric has proven to very very good with distributing power along a power band. Furthermore, electric is coming whether you like it or not. NOt necessarily all electric all at once, but electric for sure. So if you don’t want to talk about it, you can go make your own website and get off of ours.

              You should call it THE SLOW LANE TRUCK, or TSLTruck.com.

            3. Rambro – – –

              Forgive me, but I am not debating, and I am certainly not policing.
              My presenting evidence that counters your position is not a debate: it is a discussion, and you seem not to be able to deal with that. And, frankly, I don’t care whether you continue to post here or not. But I was asking why in the world you would do so if you consider TFLT’s ICE vehicles as “junk” and “lipstick on a pig”.

              My sense is that others (like “Glen H”, but also me) are getting weary of your going off topic with constant EV preaching; and your turning almost every possible article into a forum for EV vehicles, — especially inappropriate ones, like this “Van”. You have completely ignored contrary issues that I and others have presented, and have just continued the EV rant.
              We get the picture. You like EV’s. Fine. But you are treating them like the hammer from a carpenter for whom every problem looks like a nail. Enough already….

              Look, you have contributed valuable insights and comments in other areas. And they are respected. So please save your EV comments for articles that feature EV’s. That’s just courtesy.


            4. Dale H. – – –

              You are certainly right about the upcoming hybridization in trucks (and possibly the new JL Jeep), — in which an ICE can do what it does best (fueling ease, range, convenience, top-end power); and electric motors can help with what they do best (low-end torque, simplicity, location for weight balance).

              The problem has been: the “haul wars” in trucks. Competitors vie over load capacity, and anything that reduces that (like battery packs needed for batteries in a hybrid system) will put a manufacturer at a disadvantage, unless that hybrid system has a significant benefit in other ways.


            5. What would be true courtesy Bernie; is if you left the post alone. One post is all it was. It was not a rant. You turned it into a discussion that you are now calling a rant. Electric is a superior choice to this modern 10 speed whether you like it or not. Based on your cries to silence me, I gather you are a bit intimidated by 1620 lb-ft in a Van that shares the same motor as the Workhorse Electric Truck. Being that you are a diesel owner and preach torque at 900ft-lbs at 1800 rpm, the 1620ft-lbs at 0 rpm must be a real hammer on the nail for you. Surely my one post that was all but a few lines left for dead could not have been a rant unless it hit home a little. Otherwise if it werent for your disagreement with it, then it would have sat all alone and wheres the harm in that. Plus I disagree completely. People reading into this 10 speed crap need to be informed better that a 1 speed gets the job done better and its coming so dont buy this garbage is what I am saying

              These are not TFL transmissions or motors. You are trying to play TFL for a fool to think or place my frustration with the current market into something where I am against TFL truck. Do I have to quote your child like manipulation here. Seriously

              Are you a communist Bernie? Silence the superior torque of electric and the superior 1 speed electric motor so you can continue to smell jars of petrol. Its not right Bernie. You are the one off topic and bloggers go off topic far worse than your opinion on this discussion and TFL permits it. From my experience on TFL they permit anything as long as it is not a personal attack. My post spoke for many people frustrated with the current stagnated truck market. Your post is a personal attack that I now have to challenge. My post said nothing about you until you tried to silence my free speech as permitted by this site.

            6. Bernie and I quote you

              “The problem has been: the “haul wars” in trucks. Competitors vie over load capacity, and anything that reduces that (like battery packs needed for batteries in a hybrid system) will put a manufacturer at a disadvantage, unless that hybrid system has a significant benefit in other ways.”

              Not true. The bollinger truck with batteries came in at 3900Lbs, lighter than a midsize with a 6100 pound payload. The hydrogen transport has battery packs and came in 2000Lbs lighter than an inferior diesel truck with less torque and less HP and it still has to add fuel. The W15 comes in at 5000Lbs with a 2200Lb payload with the generator and batteries.

              So who is it that adds to the EV discussion? This is not me, I am just righting a wrong

            7. You can’t buy any of these dream electric trucks of yours. None of them exist in the real world as road going, purchasable products. None of them have proven themselves in the real world. All they are is ideas and prototypes based on allusion.
              It is easy to compare real products to imaginary ones and refer to them as junk. Not relevant until there is a real product that can be tested and verified.
              Sure, they’re fun to talk about but at this point they are science fiction with promises based on false hopes-not real engineering or science.

          2. Rambro,

            I’m hearing the same stuff about electrics from the same people in the comments for nearly every article. It’s OT and it’s getting old. Why can’t you people have your own comment section to discuss this separately, to your heart’s content. The rest of us are getting annoyed. Honestly, if you’re looking for converts, look elsewhere. I tuned your last comment out just like most of them when you get to this subject.

            Most of us are uninterested to hear you electric truck fanboys drone on about how wonderful your hypothetical vehicle will be. I clicked on this article and am reading the comments because I’m interested i the subject matter. Not what you think I should think or know about OT things like hypothetical products.

            Again, not trying to stop you, just asking you guys to go somewhere else with it.

            1. Glen H how about you take your policing elswhere. Some of us are tired with the junk and useless updates. We dont need ten speeds, just an electric 1 speed.

              I can understand your communist position Glen but you do not speak for everyone. Kindly move on to another post or create your own car reviews and become a moderator for your own site if you want to silence EV vehicles. Some of us want better than a 10 speed.

            2. Rambro electric motor is fine. We don’t have to discuss that. The problem is batteries. Especially in the truck application.

            3. Ramiro, if you don’t like ten speeds and the current tech then post elsewhere. These comments are for an article about ten speed tranny’s. Electrics are not part of the topic.

              Quit threadjacking.

            4. No Glen , the transmission is dated, whether its a 10 speed or not we can do a lot better with EV’s and they only need one speed. We can do without the police work on this thread however. Maybe go elswhere Glen. Im not going anywhere just because have a problem.

          3. Sorry Rambro, but transmissions are not the evil monster you make them to be. Take your example, you could, at little to no loss in efficiency, give your Van a 2:1 doubler. Then you would have 3,200 lb ft at zero rpm and still be able to maintain your 60 mph top speed.

            Heck, put a 10-spd behind your theoretical electric motor with a 7:1 spread and you can have 10,000 lb ft of torque plus extra top speed in overdrive.
            If I’m not mistaken, simple machines was a subject in 3rd grade math…

            1. Lmao. Evil monster? Lol. Nice try but thats not what I said. I said the Van has 1620Lb-ft at 0 rpm and has a 400% increase in fuel mileage with a 1 speed vs a 10 speed. Same old crap in these trucks, didnt even gain a few mpg.

        2. Glen H – – –

          Fully agree. Not every TFLT article should be twisted into becoming a forum for EV preaching, with ICE-based vehicles being labeled disparagingly.
          For me, this EV rant is more than “getting old”: the EV issue, for general-use (non-local) pickup trucks in America, is something I consider to be a non-starter, — for a long, long time. The seven criteria listed above (August 8, 2017 at 1:51 pm) tell why. ICE engines are improving rapidly now, with Mazda just announcing its SkyActiveX technology. For fuels, if not gasoline, then diesel; and if not diesel, then CNG; etc. So, expect to hear the Roar of the Engines in the future too! (^_^)…


          1. I agree Bernie, we should tell people what not to say on all the threads so long as you can actually challenge it and come out on top. How come Lochief and others above talking about Raptors; not get any grief from you. Every blog brings up the Raptor, right?

            But you failed to police those individuals. The bias directly leads me to believe that you are intimidated by the advatages of EV vehicles especially the low end superior torque over that of your beloved diesel engine which was it’s mainstay and you are not intimidated by repititious Raptor posts. Clearly you and Glen H have other intentions, bias against a better solution over this 10 speed. Others such as Gary above and Dale H happen to share my frustration with these timid and stagnated updates.

    11. Real world results will probably show the ten speed to be more efficient than what the epa numbers suggest, especially when towing. I just hope GM puts the ten speed behind all of its truck engines. A ten speed and 4.3 combo should net some impressive performance and mpg from a V6.

      1. The 4.3 would do great even with just the 8-speed. The gear ratios in the 8-speed are very respectable.

        1. I’ve had a 2013 and a 2016 with the 6.2. The change to the 8 speed i the 2016 was a big step forward in performance. A smaller engine like the 4.3 would definitely benefit from it.

    12. I think the ten speed is over kill. All that things going to do is shift. Probably why the in city numbers are down it will never stop shifting.

    13. It looks like we have reached a point of diminishing returns. This is not impressive at all and is on premium fuel. Then again I recall years ago when manufacturers were wondering if anything over 6 speeds made sense.

        1. Good post Brick and nice link. I was hoping the TFL Chemist would do her thing on this but I guess not. So the Ethanol does affect fuel mileage. If I factor that into the price of premium with the added distance I get then premium is not as expensive as it appears to be. What a great scam or detriment to the consumer paying for fuel with ethanol and they think they are getting a deal. And its not just a 3% loss in energy it is a loss in power which makes your vehicle rev higher to get the same power to climb hills meaning it will have to downshift more often. I did a recent test with my Tacoma and got almost 2mpg better fuel mileage with premium. Thats a 10% gain with premium from 20 to 22mpg.

          1. Premium fuel does not nessasarily have less ethanol-it may even have more. It just has a higher octane rating-which has no correlation to the energy density of the fuel. You may be able to see a MPG increase using premium fuel-it would depend on the design of your engine and the loads you are subjecting it too. Many cars will not.

        2. I’m pretty sure the EPA does fuel economy testing-not the manufacture (that is what your linked article stated as well). Standardized for all cars. Not unique to Ford.
          The article also stated that the EPA compensates for the difference in fuels by adjusting the results using a mathematical formula. The fuel economy rating is calculated to reflect the ethanol fuel that is available to most of the country.
          The manufactures do however produce the Torque and HP numbers.

      1. The engine related to the article is neither supercharged nor turbocharged. All engines (NA or forced induction) can be specifically tuned for premium. Compression and timing are the two largest variables. Direct injection allows great power on regular gas for forced induction. Less dramatic results for NA.

        1. My comment was in reply to the post that suggested that the use of premium gasoline in the 6.2l was was peculiar to that gasoline engine

    14. I’d also like to see the results of the 10 speed with the 5.3. Premium fuel definitely puts a damper on mpg results in my opinion. So far it looks like ram has the best transmission in a half ton truck, IMO.

    15. I think over all these trucks and SUV’s have come quite a long ways. Just 12 years ago my parents suburban was getting 15-16 on the highway. My wife’s 2013 expedition is a very nice vehicle but it gets an honest 18 mpg on the highway. 4-5 mpg better is a thrifty machine when compared to a 2013 full size SUV. Plus they have 100 more HP and torque. Nice

      1. exactly. The improvements from the 2010 f150 5.4 4×4 to a 2017 2.7ecoboost 4×4 went from 15mpg(14/18) to 19(18/22). Thats huge.

    16. The 10 speed may be more effective on certain engines vs others. It would seem the 10-speed would be more effective on lower horsepower and lower torque engines that need more gears to keep them in the sweet spot. Perhaps the 5.3L trucks will do better.

      1. Both of our 6-speed 5.3 Yukon XLs yielded over 20 in city and over 23 hwy no matter how we drove and drive it. Now, the tranny was/is neurotic and you never know when that V-8 power is coming but one thing I will not complain about is the gas mileage given it is so big. I do have a few other grievances with the vehicles but I’m sitting in my vacation condo staring at the beach so I’m not cranky enough to go into all that. 🙂

      2. I actually wonder if the 10 speed would be most effective behind a diesel. Even though diesels are torquey, they have a very small operating window and cant afford bigger gear jumps. Really they operate from 1500-4000 rpm and ideally it would be nice to keep it below 3500 because otherwise you are just wasting that slow burning fuel on a fast moving piston.

    17. The 10 speed is programmed to skip gears, up or down, for best operation.
      Over time, the programming will get tweaked(improved).

    18. I see this as a performance improvement as well as efficiency improvement. Remember when we only had 4 speeds and the jumps between gears was massive. Your truck was either stuck in 2nd screaming away or couldnt maintain speed in 3rd. We go to 6 speeds and its not so bad, but still not ideal.

      Well 10 gears gives you 25% more gears than an 8 speed. This means they can narrow the gap between gears, keeping you at optimum power or torque or whatever you need. It also means you can stretch the top to bottom spread more which is exactly what they did with the 10 speed. The 1st gear is shorter than the 8 speeds 1st and the 10th is taller than the old 8th. All of this without losing the close ratios that dont throw you out of ur power. The can run a taller axle ratio because of the shorter first and still smoke the tires off while getting a super tall highway gear.

    19. Hmm interesting. Maybe n/a engines do not have the effect of a ten spd as turbo engine does on mpg? If i remember posted on tfl when ford backed 3.5 eb with ten spd the fuel mileage jumped up like 1 or 2 mpg over the 6 spd? I’m sure somebody will correct me if I’m wrong on that. With the low end tq of eb engines ford can use it to there advantage for mpg. This makes you wonder how the new 5.0 is going to do with a ten spd?
      Also the eb in the expedition/ navigator will have the ten spd so we should be see a fuel mileage report pretty shortly.

    20. 100 gears will not improve that much. 6 to 8 helped alot and 8 to 10 did as well for the Ford. Going 8 to 10 will not improve mpg or performance much, as expected

    21. Some of you are talking about Premium gasoline. Premium is better than regular.
      Most of the Premium’s has ethanol in it.
      Regular, let’s say Shell without ethanol is better than Premium with ethanol .
      Premium without ethanol is the best . I used Chevron 94 without ethanol couple of days ago for my Kawasaki when on holidays and what a blast. More power , better mileage, smoother engine run and throttle response. I use to tank a Premium 94 on PetroCanada. It’s garbage, since they put ethanol in it.
      Ethanol in the Premium is a scam. You pay for nothing.
      I use this from now on, to get the best for my Kawasaki.


    22. I don’t get why GM made the Suburban RST just an appearance package and gave the Tahoe RST the power plant and transmission. That’s beyond stupid if you ask me. Especially since I absolutely hate phony appearance packages that just make the car look sporty and but don’t add anything under the hood. That is a fad I think all car companies should stop doing for good.

    Comments are closed.