Quote:

---

But you won't buy either TESLAG so why?

---

I literally own a 24 Colorado with the 2.7. In new Silverado's the 5.3 is a $1,600 upgrade and requires as much or more maintenance. And is prone to lifter failure.

techno-ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Get rid of small displacement turbocharged 4 bangers that nobody wants and give us real engines

---

The new GM 2.7 turbomax is a damn good engine. And plenty of people want it. I'd prefer it over the 5.3 V8. Also, BMW has made some absolutely killer turbo 4's.

---

Have at it. But don't force me to buy it by taking away my V8.

---

No one is forcing you into a smaller displacement engine. In the F150 you can opt for less power and performance with a V8 over the turbo V6.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

But you won't buy either TESLAG so why?

---

I literally own a 24 Colorado with the 2.7. In new Silverado's the 5.3 is a $1,600 upgrade and requires as much or more maintenance. And is prone to lifter failure.

---

No, you "ackshually" own it. As in you have one and drive it.

And yeah, the newer 5.3/6.2 LS truck engines are absolute **** .

As for German turbo 4bangers, my GTI (if I still owned it) would walk most vehicles on the road. Bigger turbo, meth injection, etc. made for fun HP numbers

Teslag said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Get rid of small displacement turbocharged 4 bangers that nobody wants and give us real engines

---

The new GM 2.7 turbomax is a damn good engine. And plenty of people want it. I'd prefer it over the 5.3 V8. Also, BMW has made some absolutely killer turbo 4's.

---

Have at it. But don't force me to buy it by taking away my V8.

---

No one is forcing you into a smaller displacement engine. In the F150 you can opt for less power and performance with a V8 over the turbo V6.

---

now do Toyota and Nissan.

techno-ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Get rid of small displacement turbocharged 4 bangers that nobody wants and give us real engines

---

The new GM 2.7 turbomax is a damn good engine. And plenty of people want it. I'd prefer it over the 5.3 V8. Also, BMW has made some absolutely killer turbo 4's.

---

Have at it. But don't force me to buy it by taking away my V8.

---

No one is forcing you into a smaller displacement engine. In the F150 you can opt for less power and performance with a V8 over the turbo V6.

---

now do Toyota and Nissan.

---

There's nothing stopping them from offering V8's like Ford and GM. They just don't sell.

Friend has had a new 2024 Tundra for 14 months and its been in the shop a total of 12 months, likely about to be lemon lawed. Coworker had his engine take a poo after 6,000 miles on his Tundra, another lost an engine on his turbo Tacoma. Toyota trucks used to be known for quality are seeing a lot more issues.

Yep. I was all in on a Tacoma but when it came time to buy I went with a Colorado. Just better performance, interior, and style. GM got the 2.7 right, Toyota didn't with their mid size turbo.

Teslag said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Get rid of small displacement turbocharged 4 bangers that nobody wants and give us real engines

---

The new GM 2.7 turbomax is a damn good engine. And plenty of people want it. I'd prefer it over the 5.3 V8. Also, BMW has made some absolutely killer turbo 4's.

---

Have at it. But don't force me to buy it by taking away my V8.

---

No one is forcing you into a smaller displacement engine. In the F150 you can opt for less power and performance with a V8 over the turbo V6.

---

now do Toyota and Nissan.

---

There's nothing stopping them from offering V8's like Ford and GM. They just don't sell.

---

No Tundras and Titans sold fine. Toyota switched engines to turbos because of small displacement mandates. Nissan doesn't have the resources to develop a similar compliant engine so they dropped the Titan.

Weird, GM and Ford figured out how to keep offering V8's in full size trucks...

In 2021, Toyota's last year of the V8 they sold 45,000 Tundras. GM sold 429k Silverado/Sierras and Ford sold 362k F-150's.

Toyota didn't sell V8 Tundras well at all.

rocky the dog said:

---

---

And that's because it's a Mustang, and not a "real" muscle car.

Teslag said:

---

In 2021, Toyota's last year of the V8 they sold 45,000 Tundras. GM sold 429k Silverado/Sierras and Ford sold 362k F-150's.

Toyota didn't sell V8 Tundras well at all.

---

Tundras and Titans never approached the numbers of GM or Ford pickups. That's not the point. The point is the government killed the base model V8. Not sure why you want to argue this point.

IndividualFreedom said:

---

Ethanol Free only at the pumps

---

That is one that you will never see Republicans support. Too many farmers think it is critical for the corn industry. About 40% of the corn crop goes into ethanol and most of it is produced in bright red states.

A great example of politicians not being consistent in messaging if they think it will hurt their re-election chances.

techno-ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

In 2021, Toyota's last year of the V8 they sold 45,000 Tundras. GM sold 429k Silverado/Sierras and Ford sold 362k F-150's.

Toyota didn't sell V8 Tundras well at all.

---

Tundras and Titans never approached the numbers of GM or Ford pickups. That's not the point. The point is the government killed the base model V8. Not sure why you want to argue this point.

---

So why didn't they kill Ford and GM's V8's?

Teslag said:

---

In 2021, Toyota's last year of the V8 they sold 45,000 Tundras. GM sold 429k Silverado/Sierras and Ford sold 362k F-150's.

Toyota didn't sell V8 Tundras well at all.

---

They didn't sell well because everything else about the truck was so dated compared to the competition and the reality of just how much trouble the turbos would be hadn't kicked in. Resale value on those '21 and before Tundras is really strong. Still the best option is simply to offer both engines as an option, there are a lot of folks out there that just want a reliable V-8 in a full size truck they can drive for a decade or longer.

Teslag said:

---

Weird, GM and Ford figured out how to keep offering V8's in full size trucks...

---

GM kept unreliable junk V8s that fail thanks to fuel/emissions saving tech. The 6.2L does have a nice torque curve.

Ford offers a Mustang V8 in the F150. Which is awesome in the Mustang but lacks the torque desirable in a truck without adding aftermarket boost. It's also produced in far fewer numbers than the ecoboost trucks so it's harder to find discounts.

I've had both (6.2L GM and Supercharged 5.0L) and now drive a tuned HO ecoboost. The Supercharged 5.0L was by far the best, but I wouldn't own one without boost in a truck.

A reduction in displacement does not have to equal a reduction in cylinder count. I don't want to pay $50K+ for a truck and only get 3/4 of a motor.

Ford should should build a 4.0L twin turbo V8 if they phase out the 5.0L and 3.5L. Build it using the 2.7L architecture and have a hybrid option to boost low rpm torque and fuel economy. Fuel efficiency, reliability, power everywhere and V8 sounds.

Euro5 still gonna be hosing me over in motorcycle land

Maybe we'll start seeing SUVs that are distinguishable between brands again. Right now, I can't tell the difference between a low end Kia and a Mercedes or BMW.

oldcrow91 said:

---

Hopefully it gets rid of the engine cutting off at red lights.
It must save fuel mileage on their gov't MPG or they wouldn't do it but everything else about it is crap.

---

Yup. Saves you $30 per year in gas, but you have to pay $10k to replace your engine at 100k miles. Fuel efficiency isn't the only thing we should be looking at. R&M should factor in.

jwhaby said:

---

oldcrow91 said:

---

Hopefully it gets rid of the engine cutting off at red lights.
It must save fuel mileage on their gov't MPG or they wouldn't do it but everything else about it is crap.

---

Yup. Saves you $30 per year in gas, but you have to pay $10k to replace your engine at 100k miles. Fuel efficiency isn't the only thing we should be looking at. R&M should factor in.

---

I think you are describing the thin motor oils.

Will it bring back glass headlamps that don't fog over on the inside / outside and prevent the yellowing oxidation of the lenses that effectively makes headlamps useless unless cleaned/buffed clear or replaced?

GeorgiAg said:

---

IndividualFreedom said:

---

Ethanol Free only at the pumps

---

Why do you hate Big Corn?

(kidding, I agree. Ethanol tears up engines)

---

Nonsense

It does not

aggieforester05 said:

---

Ford should should build a 4.0L twin turbo V8 if they phase out the 5.0L and 3.5L.

---

5.0 + 88mm turbo = HAPPINESS

CanyonAg77 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

IndividualFreedom said:

---

Ethanol Free only at the pumps

---

Why do you hate Big Corn?

(kidding, I agree. Ethanol tears up engines)

---

Nonsense

It does not

---

It tears up brakes, from power-braking while on an E-85 boost tune to pwn newbs.

This much is science.

BigRobSA said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Ford should should build a 4.0L twin turbo V8 if they phase out the 5.0L and 3.5L.

---

5.0 + 88mm turbo = HAPPINESS

---

88mm + Tiger Tank == awesome

So not doing away with it, just kicking the can down the road for 4years... sounds right.

BigRobSA said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

But you won't buy either TESLAG so why?

---

I literally own a 24 Colorado with the 2.7. In new Silverado's the 5.3 is a $1,600 upgrade and requires as much or more maintenance. And is prone to lifter failure.

---

No, you "ackshually" own it. As in you have one and drive it.

And yeah, the newer 5.3/6.2 LS truck engines are absolute **** .

As for German turbo 4bangers, my GTI (if I still owned it) would walk most vehicles on the road. Bigger turbo, meth injection, etc. made for fun HP numbers

---

Yes I am comparing it to the 2011 5.3L which is a dependable workhouse

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

But you won't buy either TESLAG so why?

---

I literally own a 24 Colorado with the 2.7. In new Silverado's the 5.3 is a $1,600 upgrade and requires as much or more maintenance. And is prone to lifter failure.

---

No, you "ackshually" own it. As in you have one and drive it.

And yeah, the newer 5.3/6.2 LS truck engines are absolute **** .

As for German turbo 4bangers, my GTI (if I still owned it) would walk most vehicles on the road. Bigger turbo, meth injection, etc. made for fun HP numbers

---

Yes I am comparing it to the 2011 5.3L which is a dependable workhouse

---

#Beastmode


Had a 2003 5.3 Silvy. L33 I believe. Absolutely one of the better engines, in any format, of any brand.

Would like to see Toyota into this truck here... LC70

Teslag said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Get rid of small displacement turbocharged 4 bangers that nobody wants and give us real engines

---

The new GM 2.7 turbomax is a damn good engine. And plenty of people want it. I'd prefer it over the 5.3 V8. Also, BMW has made some absolutely killer turbo 4's.

---

Have at it. But don't force me to buy it by taking away my V8.

---

No one is forcing you into a smaller displacement engine. In the F150 you can opt for less power and performance with a V8 over the turbo V6.

---

now do Toyota and Nissan.

---

There's nothing stopping them from offering V8's like Ford and GM. They just don't sell.

---

They will for Dodge...

The last non-***** car company....

There's no way that constantly stopping and starting an engine can be good for it…or at least the efficiency doesn't make up for the increased wear and tear. Also, the active fuel management is complicated and not worth it.

oldcrow91 said:

---

Hopefully it gets rid of the engine cutting off at red lights.
It must save fuel mileage on their gov't MPG or they wouldn't do it but everything else about it is crap.

---

I don't get this complaint at all. Both my cars auto stop/start (unless you turn off after starting the car, for me that takes no time (none, since I could push the button to turn it off w/ my right hand as a back out). At a stop sign, in both cars it's virtually unnoticed. Adds what, a quarter second to getting off the line? Engine health? In a modern car everything remains at operating status, including oil pressure.

I'm as libertarian as they come, and don't think the govt should control any of this, but as long as they own the roads (which shouldn't be a govt monopoly) they make the rules. I don't like most of them, just don't understand why this one is to annoying to people.

cecil77 said:

---

oldcrow91 said:

---

Hopefully it gets rid of the engine cutting off at red lights.
It must save fuel mileage on their gov't MPG or they wouldn't do it but everything else about it is crap.

---

I don't get this complaint at all. Both my cars auto stop/start (unless you turn off after starting the car, for me that takes no time (none, since I could push the button to turn it off w/ my right hand as a back out). At a stop sign, in both cars it's virtually unnoticed. Adds what, a quarter second to getting off the line? Engine health? In a modern car everything remains at operating status, including oil pressure.

I'm as libertarian as they come, and don't think the govt should control any of this, but as long as they own the roads (which shouldn't be a govt monopoly) they make the rules. I don't like most of them, just don't understand why this one is to annoying to people.

---

Because the tech, since "displacement on demand" in the 70s and 80s and now the stop/start bull****, is problematic... at best. DoD type tech was bad in the 70s when GM introduced it in the Cadillac. It got slightly better in the 2000s, but just slightly. Still problematic.

And it's entirely noticeable in every vehicle I've ever driven, or ridden in, that has it.

Wonder how much this has to do with the energy needs in AI and the energy production race with chiba