[SpeedIsLife]

http://wardsauto.com/wards-10-best-e...0-best-engines


The LT1 returned on the list, the LT4 is absent. The Hellcat placed as well as the EcoDiesel V6 from the Ram and the Ford Ecoboost 3 cyl. Otherwise the rest are non-American nameplates.

[Erik427]

Should have been more American engines on the list. The 2.7TT Ford and the 3.6TT Caddy should have made that list.

[rayhawk]

This is a great list. I really appreciate the fact that they have a $60k price cap on the vehicle, acknowledging that making a great engine is all the more difficult when it has to be sold at practical prices.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Erik427

Should have been more American engines on the list. The 2.7TT Ford and the 3.6TT Caddy should have made that list.

You do realize that American engines are actually over represented in that list, right? There are 3 American car companies but they are up against there are at least 10 other automakers from the rest of the world selling in the US (BMW, VW, Mercedes, Volvo, Hyundai-Kia, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Subaru) that I can think of.

A region home to 23% of the manufacturers laying claim to 40% of the 10 Best Engines is a pretty good showing if you ask me.





The LF3 didn't make the list last year, probably because it isn't really that special. It doesn't really do anything appreciably better than the other turbochraged 6 cylinder engines found in BMWs or Audis. And if it wasn't on the list last year it is ineligible this year.

Now, perhaps you meant the LF4 -the slightly more powerful variant of the LF3 that powers the up-comming ATS. Its probably too new to be in contention this year (seeing as nobody has had a chance to evaluate the ATS-V yet), but at the same time ... the LF4 is not exactly a radical departure from the LF3. I bet that 'too new' also prevented the LT4 from being in contention though it wouldn't surprise me if the Hellcat took whatever slot it might have had.

The 2.7 Ecoboast isn't more efficient or more capable than the 3.0 Ecodiesel in the Ram. And its not adding anything new to the segment either -Ford already did that with the 3.5L. So if isn't the best in class or shaking up the status quo ... why should it be on the list?

[SpeedIsLife]

I agree..having NA region engines account for 40% of the list is pretty cool to me.

[rayhawk]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

You do realize that American engines are actually over represented in that list, right? There are 3 American car companies but they are up against there are at least 10 other automakers from the rest of the world selling in the US (BMW, VW, Mercedes, Volvo, Hyundai-Kia, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Subaru) that I can think of.

A region home to 23% of the manufacturers laying claim to 40% of the 10 Best Engines is a pretty good showing if you ask me.





The LF3 didn't make the list last year, probably because it isn't really that special. It doesn't really do anything appreciably better than the other turbochraged 6 cylinder engines found in BMWs or Audis. And if it wasn't on the list last year it is ineligible this year.

Now, perhaps you meant the LF4 -the slightly more powerful variant of the LF3 that powers the up-comming ATS. Its probably too new to be in contention this year (seeing as nobody has had a chance to evaluate the ATS-V yet), but at the same time ... the LF4 is not exactly a radical departure from the LF3. I bet that 'too new' also prevented the LT4 from being in contention though it wouldn't surprise me if the Hellcat took whatever slot it might have had.

The 2.7 Ecoboast isn't more efficient or more capable than the 3.0 Ecodiesel in the Ram. And its not adding anything new to the segment either -Ford already did that with the 3.5L. So if isn't the best in class or shaking up the status quo ... why should it be on the list?

They mention that the LT4 is not eligible due to the base price of the vehicle it is available in being higher than $60k. Maybe it will be considered in a future ZL1.

[stoopid]

Good read. Definitely a glut of 4 cylinder turbos on the market now. By time I get in my next vehicle it will be an interesting time for car shopping. Seems like performance is leaning that way, and might be relatively fuel efficient too.

I was already eyeing the new Golf R or 1.8T (and comes in AWD).

[Erik427]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

You do realize that American engines are actually over represented in that list, right? There are 3 American car companies but they are up against there are at least 10 other automakers from the rest of the world selling in the US (BMW, VW, Mercedes, Volvo, Hyundai-Kia, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Subaru) that I can think of.

A region home to 23% of the manufacturers laying claim to 40% of the 10 Best Engines is a pretty good showing if you ask me.





The LF3 didn't make the list last year, probably because it isn't really that special. It doesn't really do anything appreciably better than the other turbochraged 6 cylinder engines found in BMWs or Audis. And if it wasn't on the list last year it is ineligible this year.

Now, perhaps you meant the LF4 -the slightly more powerful variant of the LF3 that powers the up-comming ATS. Its probably too new to be in contention this year (seeing as nobody has had a chance to evaluate the ATS-V yet), but at the same time ... the LF4 is not exactly a radical departure from the LF3. I bet that 'too new' also prevented the LT4 from being in contention though it wouldn't surprise me if the Hellcat took whatever slot it might have had.

The 2.7 Ecoboast isn't more efficient or more capable than the 3.0 Ecodiesel in the Ram. And its not adding anything new to the segment either -Ford already did that with the 3.5L. So if isn't the best in class or shaking up the status quo ... why should it be on the list?

The 2.7 may not get the fe, but it does outperform the diesel everywhere else. Gas vs Diesel.....as for the Caddy 3.6TT, power for pound the motor is fantastic.

[SpeedIsLife]

Originally Posted by Erik427

The 2.7 may not get the fe, but it does outperform the diesel everywhere else. Gas vs Diesel.....as for the Caddy 3.6TT, power for pound the motor is fantastic.

The 2.7 does NOT out-perform the diesel everywhere else. It's down on torque, down on FE and likely down on long term durability.

The only rating where the 2.7 outperforms the 3.0L EcoDiesel is in horsepower. It's down on torque (420ftlb vs. 375 ftlb), towing capacity (9200lb vs 8500lb) and fuel economy (20/28/23 vs 19/26/22).


EcoDiesel Ram> 2.7 EcoBoast F150.

[khell86]

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

The 2.7 does NOT out-perform the diesel everywhere else. It's down on torque, down on FE and likely down on long term durability.

The only rating where the 2.7 outperforms the 3.0L EcoDiesel is in horsepower. It's down on torque (420ftlb vs. 375 ftlb), towing capacity (9200lb vs 8500lb) and fuel economy (20/28/23 vs 19/26/22).


EcoDiesel Ram> 2.7 EcoBoast F150.

The EcoDiesel might have more torque, but it disappointingly slow unloaded and loaded. Payload is also lower than the 2.7L in most configurations.

Is that slight mpg improvement and 700lb towing capacity worth 4K and 1.00 dollar difference in gas prices?

[derklug]

If you keep it for 50 years, the Ecodiesel will save you money over the gas version.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by Erik427

The 2.7 may not get the fe, but it does outperform the diesel everywhere else. Gas vs Diesel.....as for the Caddy 3.6TT, power for pound the motor is fantastic.

Yep

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

The 2.7 does NOT out-perform the diesel everywhere else. It's down on torque, down on FE and likely down on long term durability.

The only rating where the 2.7 outperforms the 3.0L EcoDiesel is in horsepower. It's down on torque (420ftlb vs. 375 ftlb), towing capacity (9200lb vs 8500lb) and fuel economy (20/28/23 vs 19/26/22).


EcoDiesel Ram> 2.7 EcoBoast F150.

Actually it does with the exception of torque and fuel economy, The F-150 equipped with the 2.7 performs all around better than the Ram Eco diesel. the Silverado 5.3 is the first column, the F150 2.7 the second and the Eco Diesel is third column. So please explain to me how the 2.7 Does not outperform the Eco diesel? It out accelerates it to every MPH unloaded, and blows it away when its towing a 7K pound trailer. The ram is going to get better mileage, loaded or unloaded ram will get better mileage, no denying that. But again show me how the 2.7 equipped Ford doesn't outperform the Ram? The 5.3 chevy out performs it as well.


TEST DATA ACCELERATION TO MPH, UNLADEN; TOWING 7,000-LB TRAILER

Chevy Ford Ram
0-30 2.3; 5.7 sec 2.4; 5.0 sec 2.6; 5.2 sec
0-40 3.5; 8.9 3.5; 7.5 4.3; 9.0
0-50 5.2; 13.6 4.9; 11.5 6.3; 14.5
0-60 6.9; 19.5 6.5; 16.2 8.8; 23.9
0-70 9.4; - 8.6; 22.2 11.8; -
0-80 12.2; - 11.2; - 16.0; -
0-90 15.5; - 14.2; - 20.8; -

PASSING, 45-65 MPH 3.6; 15.5 3.2; 9.4 5.1; 21.2

QUARTER MILE
Chevy 15.4 sec @ 89.8 mph; 22.0 sec @ 62.3 mph
Ford 15.1 sec @ 92.8 mph; 20.7 sec @ 68.0 mph
Ram 16.6 sec @ 81.5 mph; 22.2 sec @ 58.7 mph
DAVIS DAM "FRUSTRATION"**

7.6 sec, 665 ft 6.0 sec, 524 ft 9.0 sec, 812 ft


Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz3LcVRvlq9

Not to mention unless I am totally doing something wrong, the first trim level that you can put the Ecodiesel in is the Laramie according to Ram's build and price site ( just looked quickly so I could be wrong) That truck with the ecodiesel starts of as a 44K truck in 2wd

[SpeedIsLife]

Maybe I'm in the minority when it comes to evaluating trucks..but when I'm looking at something that is going to be towing/hauling/etc long distances or daily, I'm not really going to be too interested in acceleration and 1/4 mile times.

Cars are toys, those numbers matter. Trucks are tools, a different set of numbers matter more to me.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

Maybe I'm in the minority when it comes to evaluating trucks..but when I'm looking at something that is going to be towing/hauling/etc long distances or daily, I'm not really going to be too interested in acceleration and 1/4 mile times.

Cars are toys, those numbers matter. Trucks are tools, a different set of numbers matter more to me.

I agree, however measuring a trucks acceleration is still a measure of performance is it not? Also how that truck accelerates while towing a 7K pound trailer is a measure of performance is it not? How about passing while towing said trailer? Are those not performance measures? Especially the ones with the trailer attached? I want to know my truck can get out of its own way when towing something.