K&N test results shows the stock 6.2L makes ~340 ft.lbs. to the rear wheel at 4500RPM. Superchips dyno results for EB shows ~372 at rear wheels at 3100 rpm. Both in stock form. Either the published GM torque number is VERY optimistic or there is some major driveline loss going on. Regardless, I suggest your electrician never actually attempt to hook a load onto his Chevy and out tow an Ecoboost because he's gonna be in for a "rude awakening" as the old folks used to say. He DEFINITELY doesn't want to do this test at high elevations. You can research the effects of elevation on naturally aspirated engines versus forced induction one's if you want to know why.

http://www.knfilters.com/dynocharts/77-3082-6.2_dyno.pdf

http://www.f150forum.com/f7/54-more-hp-superchips-releases-tuning-2011-12-ecoboost-136986/

Again, this is all on paper. They have done several heads up tests and if im not mistaken the ecoboost either baredly or didn't outperform the hemi 5.7 tundra and 6.2 gm by much. Yes the eco makes a great 1/2 ton and probably better 3/4 ton tow vehicle than the gas options, but it obviously hasn't beat the competition so badly that they are antiquated.

Good comparison, here. Curious what the Ford will do with the new 10 speed tranny. Supposed to be in all F150's by 2017???



http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/...te-specs-page-6

That is a pretty thorough comparison. Is the 3.23 gear the only one available with the GM? Seems it used to come with a 3.42 before the 8 seed. Also its odd that the 6.2 looses most of the lower speed speed test ratings yet has the best 1/4 mile time and has all the best roling acceleration numbers as well.

interesting they show the ecoboost rated for 91 octane

First of all, you can't compare different vehicles power numbers from different dynos. Heck you can't even compare the same vehicle on different dynos. A few years ago I took my hopped up Subaru STi to a dyno and it made 355hp and 420tq on one companies dyno, then I immediately drove to another dyno and it made 390hp and 455tq. Same vehicle different dynos.
Second. These two dynos aren't typical for either of these vehicles. ecoboosts average 325-350tq and the 6.2's average 350-375. Look it up.
third, look at the superchips dyno chart. Its all screwed up on the chart itself, the numbers don't correlate to the graph...

The 8 speed tranny is a definite advantage to performance. The rear end is only part of the factor and can be offset with transmission gearing.

Also, I think the 91 octane is a misprint.

True. But all of those comparisons are acceleration tests. Are we talking about racing or towing? How many of us hook up a boat or camper and then lay the accelerator to the floor? I personally appreciate the ability to tow a considerable load and hold gears on inclines or in strong head winds. This is where the EB really shines. A naturally aspirated engine is just not able to produce torque as low as a forced induction engine. I'm sure the 6.2L is a great engine. It has awesome power numbers for a V8- and great mileage to produce those types of numbers. But it just won't out tow the Ecoboost- I don't understand why an adult would refuse to acknowledge this fact. It's so illogical I can't even understand it.

You can compare the final ratio's of each gear by multiplying the transmition ratio by the rear end ratio, that would enable you to compare them all on an even playing field, minus two being 8 speeds and the other two being 6 speeds.

The first gear ranking starting with lowest geared (read highest ratio, better for getting stuff moving)

Ram 15.11:1
Ford 14.80:1
Chevy 14.72:1
Toyota 14.31:1

The top/highest gear ratios rank as follows

Toyota 2.53:1
Ford 2.44:1
Ram 2.15:1
Chevy 2.09:1

As you can see not a whole lot of difference. The Ford and Toyota sixth gear ratios fall right between what the GM and Ram 7th and 8th gear ratios come out to.

Per your numbers, the GM actually puts down ~25 more ft.lbs. than the EB. But it has to rev to 4500RPM before it reaches that. Since we are discussing dyno issues, I'm sure you are aware of the fact that the EB is notoriously difficult to dyno accurately because of the fact that it is turbocharged. My driving experience indicates that the EB produces the majority of it's torque MUCH lower than most dyno tests would indicate- meaning the true towing ability of one is NOT accurately reflected in those charts.

Excellent point. Many "old school" thinkers in terms of rear axle ratio believe they are really getting a low geared towing monster when the get a Toyota with 4:30 gears. They don't realize that the tranny gearing actually puts that on par with most manufactures 3.5-3.7 ish gear ratios. We aren't driving 3 speed trannies with a 1:1 3rd gear ratio anymore- at least not most of us.

Honestly, I'm surprised the ecoboost does as well as it does on the performance numbers, because despite what Ford wants you to believe, it does have turbo lag. You don't really notice unless you punch it but there is a pause, then it takes off like a scalded dog. It feels funny when I go back to a naturally aspirated engine because they are much more responsive. The ecoboost feels similar to driving a turbo diesel, imo.

My FIL complains about this, however I only notice it a little under heavy acceleration. To me yes it is there and you can feel it, but its a pickup truck not a dragster so its a non issue to me.

While I see your point, if you compare the Toyota to the current ford 6 speed and the 2014 gm 6 speed and the last 6 speed ram offered then Toyota is still geared the lowest.

I think the 8-speed is interesting... but I'd HATE to have to rebuild one!