PUTC's Davis Dam Test

The Test At Davis Dam: 2014 Chevy Silverado 1500s

Quote :

On paper, GM's EcoTec3 powertrain strategy was pretty simple: offer the most modern and up-to-date technology made from the lightest materials and provide as much power and fuel efficiency as possible. And do that with a new block, traditional overhead valves, direct fuel injection and cylinder deactivation. Sure, all the boxes are checked, but how does it perform in the real world?

As soon as we heard GM was going to use the same size engine for its base V6 in both its Chevrolet and GMC 1500 pickups, we knew we had to get a closer look at how well the engine works on the open highway when towing a heavy load. And to do that we knew exactly where to go. We'd been there before.

We've run this same test and collected data about other pickups in previous years. We wanted to give you a chance to see how the new GM engine compares, both when loaded and unloaded, with the Ram Pentastar V6 as well as with Ford's twin-turbo EcoBoost V6. We'll be comparing some tests numbers with the Ram 1500 V6 we tested on the same course last year, but we'll also look at Ford's EcoBoost numbers for comparisons as well.

The Players
Unlike the two Ram 1500s in our "Rampage! The Test at Davis Dam" (those trucks were similar, not identical), this time we were able to convince Chevy to order us two identically equipped half-ton V6 trucks. Both were two-wheel-drive double cabs with GM's newly redesigned conventional-swinging rear doors, a 143.5-inch wheelbase and 6-foot 6-inch pickup box. Each of our Victory Red pickups came equipped with the all-aluminum EcoTec3 V6 mated to the 6L80 six-speed transmission. All V6-equipped pickups have one ring-and-pinion choice, the 3.23:1, which gave us a maximum towing capacity of 6,000 pounds and an EPA fuel economy rating of 18 city and 24 highway (the four-wheel-drive model is 17/22 city/highway).

The Verdict


For fuel economy, our tow vehicle with trailer (remember, with a combined weight of 10,620 pounds) averaged 11.4 mpg over the 1,000 miles we traveled. Our best recorded mileage number at fill-up came from our trip across the high desert on the way back from level-ground testing as we dropped into the Los Angeles basin. Over that 250-mile stretch, we averaged 13.4 mpg, with a good portion in V-4 mode, while our worst tank average was 9.8 mpg.

Our best and worst fuel economy averages in our empty Silverado were 23.7 and 19.0 mpg, respectively.

The new entry-level V6 in the Chevy half-ton pickups, to put it simply, is impressive, but it does not beat the Ram's 24-valve DOHC Pentastar in many categories. We like the way the transmission handles and distributes power, and the throttle feel is controlled and strong. The smaller EcoTec3 engine does a great job of balancing power output with the increasingly important issue of getting great fuel economy.

Go to PickupTrucks.com for the complete write up and all their test results.

There is no replacement for displacement, except more transmission gears.  

Those numbers are so close that I doubt it's going to sway any GM or Ram fans either way. For the moment Ram does have bragging rites.

Sticker prices are insane. The Chevy's stickered at $38,605. The Dodges stickered at $37,490 and $43,640. All relatively light optioned trucks at that.

The Dodge rear gear ratio and the transmission were the biggest benefit in overcoming the torque deficiency.

The Chevy torque advantage really came into play while loaded as this resulted in the RPM not progressing through the range as fast, being in the sweet spot longer evened out the playing field compared to the unloaded testing.

9-11 mpg?!
That is what my 6.5TD returned pulling a 14K backhoe/trailer combo or tandem car trailer loaded and with a slide in camper. Granted there was no way I was going to tow the backhoe at anything north of 55mph.

Just priced this out:
Ram, tradesman, quadcab, 2wd, 3.0L TD, 3.55 gear, LSD, tow package for $34,100

Diesel Dan wrote:

Just priced this out:
Ram, tradesman, quadcab, 2wd, 3.0L TD, 3.55 gear, LSD, tow package for $34,100

May as well pull the trigger! It's only money!   

Diesel Dan wrote:

9-11 mpg?!
That is what my 6.5TD returned pulling a 14K backhoe/trailer combo or tandem car trailer loaded and with a slide in camper. Granted there was no way I was going to tow the backhoe at anything north of 55mph.

Just priced this out:
Ram, tradesman, quadcab, 2wd, 3.0L TD, 3.55 gear, LSD, tow package for $34,100

I was just saying the same exact thing elsewhere with a Ford fan touting the ecoboost.  


I'm quoting myself here,
"I think the comparison was more for the non boosted V6 trucks. The 3.7 Ford had would have been more appropriate.


What I took from this is that they all get V8 economy when working. So if you using your truck for hauling or towing heavy loads most of the time then avoid the V6 offerings. The only real benefit for the sixes is unloaded driving. And once they are empty the only real advantage the ecoboost has is 0 to 60 and 1/4 mile times."

Diesel Dan wrote:

9-11 mpg?!
That is what my 6.5TD returned pulling a 14K backhoe/trailer combo or tandem car trailer loaded and with a slide in camper. Granted there was no way I was going to tow the backhoe at anything north of 55mph.

Just priced this out:
Ram, tradesman, quadcab, 2wd, 3.0L TD, 3.55 gear, LSD, tow package for $34,100

Strangely enough that's what I paid for the '02 Duramax.

To bad they used those dumb ass crew cabs and not the regular cab long beds .

Scout wrote:

What I took from this is that they all get V8 economy when working. So if you using your truck for hauling or towing heavy loads most of the time then avoid the V6 offerings. The only real benefit for the sixes is unloaded driving. And once they are empty the only real advantage the ecoboost has is 0 to 60 and 1/4 mile times."

It's called BSFC or Brake Specific Fuel Consumption. The basics is that it takes X amount of fuel to support X number of horsepower. There are very minor difference between engines of different configuration. The general premise is that if the job requires 400 ft lbs to accomplish, it doesn't really matter if it's a V6 or V8 doing the work,. X amount of fuel is required to support the work effort in this case torque required.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption

Simply put, the V6's in todays trucks are probably more than adequate for a vast majority of owners. Yes, everyone WANTS a V8 with big power, but want and need are two different animals. Most pickups you see today are used for commuting and typically their heavy work load is the weekly groceries.

The 1/2tons don't need to be a big a bloated as they are today either. "Little Truck Syndrome" has taken over Detroit.

I seem to recall, when I was younger, I could reach near half the bed of my truck over the side rail. Now I have to leave a stick in these to scoot tools to the edge. Am I getting smaller?