We’re overdue for another automotive thread.

New Yukon debuted today. I really like the exterior but not sold on the interior. The Denali finally gets more distinction. The inside looks really dated compared to the competition. While I like buttons for function bigger screens are the future for most people and the ones in the Yukon and Tahoe are tinny. I really like digital configurable gauge clusters, yet these are still stuck with mechanical needles and a tiny center screen.

the biggest problem comes with the diesel. The core audience for the diesel is going to be the same ones that want the AT4 package. Denali and lesser trim buyers aren’t interested in Diesel’s, mostly enthusiast are. They don’t make sense from a fuel economy standpoint and seeing as how the I6 isn’t designed for towing that isn’t a selling point. What is is the range and drivability that comes with that torque which is what a lot of AT4 buyers will want. Yes because of a stupid design decision you can’t get the diesel with the off-road package. At the next refresh they will drop the diesel because “nobody is buying them”. Well no duh!
 
Went and took a look.

Yeah GM is completely lost on their trucks.

That’s essentially the same truck I just got rid of that was 18 years old and the tech was 22 years old in it.

That cylinder deactivation is going to cause problems in the 5.3.

Agree that diesel without the off road package will be problematic for many.

The infotainment tech, small screens, whatever... that’s okay. It’s a truck.

But nothing for safety features? Adaptive cruise? Collision or roll avoidance? Special trailering modes?

They’re still stuck there where they got bailed out and never recovered. Should have divested them.

More fake JD Power and Associates awards coming, I predict. :)
 
denverpilot said:
Went and took a look.

Yeah GM is completely lost on their trucks.

That’s essentially the same truck I just got rid of that was 18 years old and the tech was 22 years old in it.

That cylinder deactivation is going to cause problems in the 5.3.

Agree that diesel without the off road package will be problematic for many.

The infotainment tech, small screens, whatever... that’s okay. It’s a truck.

But nothing for safety features? Adaptive cruise? Collision or roll avoidance? Special trailering modes?

They’re still stuck there where they got bailed out and never recovered. Should have divested them.

More fake JD Power and Associates awards coming, I predict. :)
Click to expand...
They do have adaptive cruise, lane centering, blind spot detection, and cross traffic alert. It just seems to me that all their new products just match the competition that has been out for a couple years if even that. Short of the Corvette they never seem to move the bar forward like Hyundai and Kia or even Lincoln as of late. The cylinder deactivation has been problematic since it came out in 2010ish. The 5.3 is also pathetic and outclassed by every other competitive engine. The 6.2 is a different story and most test show it gets as good or better MPG than the 5.3. I’m thankful they haven’t gone to smaller displacement turbo engines but at least up the HP and TQ of the base engine.
 
Grum.Man said:
The cylinder deactivation has been problematic since it came out in 2010.
Click to expand...

Everybody who does cylinder deactivation has problems. It’s just dumb.

I wish I could share in your happiness that they’ve stuck with giant engines and trying to make them efficient, but even as much as I’ll never buy another Ford... at least Ford didn’t stick their heads in the sand and realized that they had to go to the turbo 6es and they put real money and effort into it.

Judging by what I read about it, they should have put (if they didn’t) whatever adaptive cruise tech is on that Buick TourX wagon. Everyone who does a long term test says that’s the best system they’ve ever driven behind/monitored. Even starts to pass from behind slower traffic as soon as the signal is on and the lane is clear.

I tried really hard to find one of those to test drive. They just don’t exist around here. Either they’re selling them as quick as they arrive, or they really don’t know what they have there and nobody orders any for dealer stock.

GM just feels “rudderless”. No direction. No spark. They just bring so little to the table for the same prices as competitors. There’s little flickers like the Colorado bringing back mid-sized, but they screw it up with timing chain problems? Ugh.

I just don’t get what they’re trying to accomplish other than stay alive.
 
denverpilot said:
Everybody who does cylinder deactivation has problems. It’s just dumb.

I wish I could share in your happiness that they’ve stuck with giant engines and trying to make them efficient, but even as much as I’ll never buy another Ford... at least Ford didn’t stick their heads in the sand and realized that they had to go to the turbo 6es and they put real money and effort into it.

Judging by what I read about it, they should have put (if they didn’t) whatever adaptive cruise tech is on that Buick TourX wagon. Everyone who does a long term test says that’s the best system they’ve ever driven behind/monitored. Even starts to pass from behind slower traffic as soon as the signal is on and the lane is clear.

I tried really hard to find one of those to test drive. They just don’t exist around here. Either they’re selling them as quick as they arrive, or they really don’t know what they have there and nobody orders any for dealer stock.

GM just feels “rudderless”. No direction. No spark. They just bring so little to the table for the same prices as competitors. There’s little flickers like the Colorado bringing back mid-sized, but they screw it up with timing chain problems? Ugh.

I just don’t get what they’re trying to accomplish other than stay alive.
Click to expand...
I hate the way turbo gas engines drive. All GM products use the same adaptive cruise and safety tech. Buick TourX’s aren’t around because nobody bought them. The dealers here still have 18’s in stock. I test drive one before getting my Equinox. They ride well enough but for the price the interior looked and felt incredibly cheap. The only defense I have for GM is that while their vehicles are priced the same as the competition, the actual selling price is much lower. I got 10k off the sticker of the last two SUVs I bought. That’s the only real reason I bought them. At a 32k purchase price my AWD premier Equinox diesel is a much better value than my mom’s CRV that was the same price.
 
Grum.Man said:
I hate the way turbo gas engines drive. All GM products use the same adaptive cruise and safety tech. Buick TourX’s aren’t around because nobody bought them. The dealers here still have 18’s in stock. I test drive one before getting my Equinox. They ride well enough but for the price the interior looked and felt incredibly cheap. The only defense I have for GM is that while their vehicles are priced the same as the competition, the actual selling price is much lower. I got 10k off the sticker of the last two SUVs I bought. That’s the only real reason I bought them. At a 32k purchase price my AWD premier Equinox diesel is a much better value than my mom’s CRV that was the same price.
Click to expand...

Interesting point on the discount.

I guess the TourX is suffering what a lot of interesting cars do... reviewers and enthusiasts love them, but they don’t sell. Not that they seem to know how to market anything.

I do get it on how the turbos drive. The turbo lag is always high at this altitude and they’re always spun up and they still take too long.
 
Grum.Man said:
I hate the way turbo gas engines drive. All GM products use the same adaptive cruise and safety tech. Buick TourX’s aren’t around because nobody bought them. The dealers here still have 18’s in stock. I test drive one before getting my Equinox. They ride well enough but for the price the interior looked and felt incredibly cheap. The only defense I have for GM is that while their vehicles are priced the same as the competition, the actual selling price is much lower. I got 10k off the sticker of the last two SUVs I bought. That’s the only real reason I bought them. At a 32k purchase price my AWD premier Equinox diesel is a much better value than my mom’s CRV that was the same price.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by “hate the way turbo has engines drive”. Have you driven Fords EB V6 or Infiniti’s turbo-V6? The turbos are pretty much seamless from just off idle, and the torque curve is flat as can be. Aside from the fuel consumption when not being frugal with the go-pedal, there’s not much to dislike. Older turbo engines, with the lag and more abrupt power surges, I understand. The latest breed is pretty solid all around.

I’m a V8 guy for sound, but given the choice between the GM 5.3L, the GM 6.2L, and the Ford EB V6, I’d choose the Ford every time. I’ve got one GM 5.3L in the garage now, and sold one 5.3L in the past year, both ‘07 models with AFM which burn over 2 qts of oil every 5K miles. Cylinder deactivation is a joke, and the primary cause of the oil burn.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Not sure what you mean by “hate the way turbo has engines drive”. Have you driven Fords EB V6 or Infiniti’s turbo-V6? The turbos are pretty much seamless from just off idle, and the torque curve is flat as can be. Aside from the fuel consumption when not being frugal with the go-pedal, there’s not much to dislike. Older turbo engines, with the lag and more abrupt power surges, I understand. The latest breed is pretty solid all around.

I’m a V8 guy for sound, but given the choice between the GM 5.3L, the GM 6.2L, and the Ford EB V6, I’d choose the Ford every time. I’ve got one GM 5.3L in the garage now, and sold one 5.3L in the past year, both ‘07 models with AFM which burn over 2 qts of oil every 5K miles. Cylinder deactivation is a joke, and the primary cause of the oil burn.
Click to expand...
Yes I have driven the Ford eco boost engines. While they are some of the better ones out they still suck compared to a big NA V8. They also have problems with oil buildup in the intake. Given the choice between a 5.3 and the 2.7 I would chose the 2.7 ecoboost. Given the choice between the 6.2 or 3.5, I’d take the 6.2. There are modules to turn off cylinder deactivation which would be the first thing I would do.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Not sure what you mean by “hate the way turbo has engines drive”. Have you driven Fords EB V6 or Infiniti’s turbo-V6? The turbos are pretty much seamless from just off idle, and the torque curve is flat as can be.
Click to expand...

Exactly, our Fusion with 2.0 Ecoboost is very solid down low, no lag at all. I'm actually quite impressed with this engine, it's very powerful yet also very quiet and smooth. Too bad Ford has decided to ditch cars...
 
Grum.Man said:
Yes I have driven the Ford eco boost engines. While they are some of the better ones out they still suck compared to a big NA V8. They also have problems with oil buildup in the intake. Given the choice between a 5.3 and the 2.7 I would chose the 2.7 ecoboost. Given the choice between the 6.2 or 3.5, I’d take the 6.2. There are modules to turn off cylinder deactivation which would be the first thing I would do.
Click to expand...
What do you mean "suck compared to a big NA v8?" I'm just not sure which aspect sucks about it. The Ford EB V6 (as an example) has over 400ft lbs of torque from around 2,000rpm all the way to 4,500 when it tails off (max torque 420ft-lbs), the GM 6.2L doesn't hit 400ft lbs until 2,800rpm and tapers off around 4,300rpm (but does max out at 450ft-lbs or so) with max 420HP @ 5,600rpm. The EB v6 makes max torque and (400HP @ 5,000rpm) lower and longer in the RPM band, which means power is more accessible and doesn't require the engine to be "rev'd up" in order to take advantage of available power. I've driven an Escalade and Yukon Denali w/6.2L v8 and 10-spd transmission, and I've driven an Expedition w/3.5L and 10-spd transmission.

The 6.2L v8 wins in sound and max HP/Tq numbers . . . that's it. The EB v6 will out tow and out accelerate the 6.2L from just about any speed. The EB v6 in Limited F-150 and Raptor trims makes 450HP/510TQ, which win the "bench specs race" as well. Fuel mileage was about the same for either engine in the full size SUVs, so it's break-even there. Time will tell on the longevity of the turbo'd engines, but the EB v6 has been around for the better part of a decade and have numerous examples above 200K miles. The oil build-up in the intake has been remedied from what I've gathered, and was primarily an issue on the first gen engines.
 
SoonerAviator said:
What do you mean "suck compared to a big NA v8?" I'm just not sure which aspect sucks about it. The Ford EB V6 (as an example) has over 400ft lbs of torque from around 2,000rpm all the way to 4,500 when it tails off (max torque 420ft-lbs), the GM 6.2L doesn't hit 400ft lbs until 2,800rpm and tapers off around 4,300rpm (but does max out at 450ft-lbs or so) with max 420HP @ 5,600rpm. The EB v6 makes max torque and (400HP @ 5,000rpm) lower and longer in the RPM band, which means power is more accessible and doesn't require the engine to be "rev'd up" in order to take advantage of available power. I've driven an Escalade and Yukon Denali w/6.2L v8 and 10-spd transmission, and I've driven an Expedition w/3.5L and 10-spd transmission.

The 6.2L v8 wins in sound and max HP/Tq numbers . . . that's it. The EB v6 will out tow and out accelerate the 6.2L from just about any speed. The EB v6 in Limited F-150 and Raptor trims makes 450HP/510TQ, which win the "bench specs race" as well. Fuel mileage was about the same for either engine in the full size SUVs, so it's break-even there. Time will tell on the longevity of the turbo'd engines, but the EB v6 has been around for the better part of a decade and have numerous examples above 200K miles. The oil build-up in the intake has been remedied from what I've gathered, and was primarily an issue on the first gen engines.
Click to expand...
I’m sure the EB is a better towing engine, just don’t like the power delivery. Almost all modern turbo engines are dead on throttle tip in, then get a huge burst of power, then fall flat. The 6.2 is a smooth wave of power so I can predict what I will get when I press the accelerator. Unless it changed in the last year, the 6.2 was still faster but just barely, not that it really matters.
 
Grum.Man said:
I’m sure the EB is a better towing engine, just don’t like the power delivery. Almost all modern turbo engines are dead on throttle tip in, then get a huge burst of power, then fall flat. The 6.2 is a smooth wave of power so I can predict what I will get when I press the accelerator. Unless it changed in the last year, the 6.2 was still faster but just barely, not that it really matters.
Click to expand...

Not even close. Dunno what you've seen. If I were towing a bunch I would go with a more traditional V8 (or more likely a diesel), for recreational towing, the EB wins. I can understand a personal preference on off-throttle response, but the EB v6 just does everything really well (as does the Infiniti 3.0T). I've love to see an EB 5.0L from Ford. Best of both worlds.


 
SoonerAviator said:
Not even close. Dunno what you've seen. If I were towing a bunch I would go with a more traditional V8 (or more likely a diesel), for recreational towing, the EB wins. I can understand a personal preference on off-throttle response, but the EB v6 just does everything really well (as does the Infiniti 3.0T). I've love to see an EB 5.0L from Ford. Best of both worlds.


Click to expand...

looks like chosen gear ratio and altitude will determine the faster truck. The GMC with the 3.42 gears was faster than the EB with 3.55 gears and the Chevrolet with 3.23 gears. If you live on Colorado where TFL films the EB will probably be faster due to the Turbos. In the end they are all really close so it comes down to preference.

https://news.pickuptrucks.com/2018/11/whats-the-best-half-ton-truck-for-2018.html
 
Grum.Man said:
looks like chosen gear ratio and altitude will determine the faster truck. The GMC with the 3.42 gears was faster than the EB with 3.55 gears and the Chevrolet with 3.23 gears. If you live on Colorado where TFL films the EB will probably be faster due to the Turbos. In the end they are all really close so it comes down to preference.

https://news.pickuptrucks.com/2018/11/whats-the-best-half-ton-truck-for-2018.html
Click to expand...

Sure, in a perfect world they would be able to find models with identical weights, tires, and gear ratios to make a level comparison. I can only say that I've driven the SUV variants of both engine options and know the Expedition is noticeable quicker on acceleration and I believe the Expedition weighs a few hundred pound more, on average. With the trucks, I've seen different numbers on acceleration times for each year and test run. Car and Driver has a number of 5.1s 0-60mph for 2019, but 2017 was 5.7s 0-60 both with the 3.31 rear end. The 2019 6.2L Silverado LTZ was clocked around 5.5s by C&D, but they didn't specify the rear end ratio. I chalk it up to a tie in the trucks, and it's only one metric to evaluate the engines on. The 10-speed transmission in Fords and GMs was a joint-venture, so mechanically they are mostly the same but the software programming is tailored to each brand. Both engines are direct injected and require 91+ octane as well. My experience on the Denali/Escalade is that it won't go into 4-cylinder mode at 80mph or above, so that was a bit disappointing on the road trips we took which were around 4-5 hours each way. I don't think there's a way to say one engine is a "definite" over the other, but theoretically the 6.2L should be a bit more simple being OHV non-interference if a timing set should fail as well as not worrying about the turbos. With GM moving towards turbos as well (EcoTech 2.5L I-4, LF3/LF4 3.6L V6), the 6.2L's days may be numbered anyway, who knows.
 
LOL LOL ...

a7add3c55b0658b4e52762c1cf388a13.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top