New truck pricing really has gotten ridiculous.

Edmunds said: The entry-level 3.5-liter V6 is downsized from 3.7 liters in the current model. A new turbocharged 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 slots in above, and Ford promises power that will "exceed that of other midlevel truck V8 engines." This engine should be the fuel economy leader of the lineup. The 5.0-liter V8 carries over, likely with last year's rated output of 360 horsepower and 380 pound-feet of torque. This engine should be cheaper than the new 2.7-liter EcoBoost and should tow more, but it's also likely to burn more fuel. The current 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 also carries over, likely to offer the same 360 hp and 420 lb-ft of torque from last year. Ford has not yet announced power or torque ratings for its engines. The same sturdy six-speed automatic is the only available transmission.

So apples to apples, if possible, when cross market shopping we should be comparing GM's new 4.3L Ecotec3 with either Ford's 3.5L N/A or 2.7L turbo. The GM 5.3L vs. the Ford 2.7L turbo and/or 5.0L and the GM 6.2L vs the Ford 3.5L turbo. Maybe?

Wiki & Autoblog claims the new little 2.7L Ecoboost is 320 Hp, 370 lb-ft, I can't find any MPG claims other than, "3 more MPGs," but 3 more than what, I'm not sure.

http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado-1500-pickup-truck/specs/powertrain.html
GM's 4.3L Ecotec3 = 285 HP @ 5300 RPM 305 lb-ft @ 3900 RPM 18 City/24 Hwy
GM's 5.3L Ecotec3 = 355 HP @ 5600 RPM 383 lb-ft @ 4100 RPM 16 City/23 Hwy
GM's 6.2L Ecotec3 = 420 HP @ 5600 RPM 460 lb-ft @ 4100 RPM 14 City/20 Hwy

As cool as those new F-150s have the potential to be, I've driven an Ecoboost 3.5L, it's no slouch, and as impressed as I am with the new 4.3L, my money would be spent on a 5.3L GM, Sierra most likely. A used '14, 5.3L, extended cab, 4x4, come August should be a $25K ish truck. Smart money's still on last years models though.

• Lee

In reply to the canadian:

I give none berkeleys about a website touting averages. There are far too many options(rear gear especially) that impact this.

Total trip was from Evansville, IN to Summitville, IN via highways at around 70mph. Open trailer with a jeep. Its a crew cab xlt, 4wd, 3.5TT, 3.23 rear(iirc)

Tank was full prior to leaving evansville and filled again here. Then using milage to calculate.....not the bullE36 M3 onboard milage computer. "It was around 20mpg" was my statement as I could not remember the decimal point, but it was 19.xx mpg(closer to 20 than 19)

The simple fact here is I am completely done tolerating the "raising of the bsflag" over what we have personally seen returned.

I once hit 13mpg unloaded in my 3/4ton. For realsies!

In reply to logdog:

My onboard computer claims the '99 f250 I'm in was getting 99.9mpg while I'm coasting down a hill yo!

The sad part it will read 11(like it always does) by the time I get home.......and thats if I don't have to pull shiny happy people out of the snow.

In reply to yamaha: 99.9!?!?! Did you swap in a Cummins?

Best to date tank out of my F350 crew cab with a 460 is 14.2 mpg. I'm just glad I wasn't behind me leaving the lights.

Worst to date is 6.4 towing a 14000 pound, 35', camper at 75 on the interstate. Sometimes it's just time to get home...now. I bet if I really hammered it I could get under 5 mpg.

Still not buying a new truck, so I really don't care how expensive they are. I wouldn't buy one at half the price. I'll keep feeding the 460 her 20 tanks of gas a year.

yamaha wrote: The simple fact here is I am completely done tolerating the "raising of the bsflag" over what we have personally seen returned.

And I am completely done tolerating people making outlandish claims on fuel mileage (bobzilla is also lying, but only a little bit). What I am saying is that you are lying, or you really suck at the whole "creating a proper test to provide somewhat accurate mpg data" that is relevant. Unlike you, I believe proper data for claiming ANYTHING involves a larger sample than 1 person on the interwebs. People have no reason to lie on fuelly, and it is REMARKABLY accurate.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33203

The epa rating for that truck is 21usmpg. You can keep claiming you got 20usmpg towing the equivalent of probably 5000+ lbs, but you didn't. Go cry about it 'merican

In reply to HiTempguy:

A bit lighter than that as the trailer is sub 1k and thanks to Chrysler and rust, it was between half and two thirds of a jeep......

Either way, I did the math so I know that one wasn't wrong. Now, if you cared to explain how a Cummins can claim 30mpg highway with just a tuner, I'm all ears.....

yamaha wrote: Either way, I did the math so I know that one wasn't wrong. Now, if you cared to explain how a Cummins can claim 30mpg highway with just a tuner, I'm all ears.....

I've never claimed that, any any ijiot who believes it is exactly that. Frontal area on trucks is a bitch, there is only so much you can do against drag (again, the motor is only so XX% efficient, it can't ever get any better). So I don't believe that claim either. This is the specific reason I have clamored for so long for a SMALL displacement diesel in a pickup; diesel has more energy per gallon, plus the way a diesel engine works can typically yield better mpg results.