For 2014 there is a 4.3-liter V-6, a 5.3-liter small-block V-8, and a 6.2-liter small-block V-8. All three engines feature an aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injection, and cylinder-deactivation technology as standard. On the V-8s, cylinder deactivation cuts fuel and spark to four of the cylinders, while on the V-6 the system darkens two pots under light load. All three engines have relatively high compression ratios for improved efficiency; the 4.3-liter V-6 and 5.3-liter V-8 run at 11.0:1, while the 6.2-liter V-8 has an 11.5:1 ratio.

 

It really resembles the F-150

 

Need premium fuel? Or does the direct injection offset that.

 

I wish they would release power and fuel economy info ...

 

Good god that Chevy interior is awful. I mean, it looks like a mid-year refresh of my old '97 S-10, and that is NOT a good thing. I pulled up a high-rez on my monitor and I think the paint on the wall behind me began to peel. I know there are a bunch of people who think the Camaro's interior is secretly awsome, like if you look PAST it like one of those mystery paintings it's true beauty becomes apparent, But everyone has to agree this is just plain bad, right?

They sure doubled-down on the square look, didn't they? Hell, the 80s Silverados had a more aero look and I always thought they looked like bricks.

 

Full size trucks in general right now are lacking a bit of "style" in my opinion. They have all seemed to go back to that square, utilitarian design.

 

dont like

 

Boy I cannot wait for this 'make it bigger - make it square-er' trend to be over with in the full sized truck market. The grill and headlights are hideous on that thing.

 

Boy I agree with that! They keep making the sides of the bed on the F150 taller and taller. I'd need a ladder to reach in and grab something.

 

I was going to rant but this really says it all.

So I will sum up my feelings on this truck in 3 words: Big dumb brick

 

I am NOT a fan of that.
To me..that looks like a step backwards. Like an 80s truck.

 

That's what I like about it.

 

I don't like it. I'm hoping that Ford comes up with a replacement for the Ranger before I have to retire my Dakota crew cab.

 

I;m sure direct injection offsets that. The focus is 12:1 compression and runs on regular gas.

 

My guess is that the electronics would allow a bit more power with higher octane fuel but have to dial back the tuning a touch for 87 octane swill with the resultant drop in power and efficiency. A lot of cars seem to be going this route lately, what with the flexibility modern electronics and engine control systems afford. Boy, back in the day, an 11:1 compression ratio would have required gas with a triple-digit octane rating more lead in each gallon than an old fisherman's tackle box.

So I guess the answer might be no and yes: no, it doesn't NEED higher octane fuel, but yes, it would serve up better performance and efficiency with the top-shelf stuff.

As for the truck, proper, it looks nice enough but as many mentioned, that immense uber-butch, designed-with-a-ruler look is getting a bit played out and runs a bit counter to today's more efficiency-minded gestalt. As for the Urkel-esque high-waisted beltline, well, that design fad seems to have infected far too many designs of late with perhaps the Camaro being the ridiculous pinnacle of this trend.

Sure, maybe that square, high-sided look makes a bit more sense in a truck bed – bigger box can hold more stuff – but if you need a crane to hoist said stuff into it, is that really an advantage? However, I think this is driven more to prop up sagging feelings of machismo with oh-so-manly design shtick than for truly practical reasons.

 

 

+1000. That looks like a child designed it. I mean come on... What is that??

 

I don't think there is anything wrong the 1970s and 1980s design.

IMO, some of the best looking Ford Trucks were built back then.

 

I worry about you sometimes Zoran