F-150 tops RAM, Sierra in V6 Pickup Shootout

[StevenCaylor]

Not quite. It was on a transport that I hired (along with six other vehicles) to be moved from Toyota's marketing and sales fleet in LA to Detroit. It was the only 2011 4.0 Tundra in Toyota's captive fleet because production had just started before the test. We couldn't get a replacement from a Toyota dealer, like we acquired the Ram, because they didn't have the trucks yet. We'll test the 2011 Tundra extensively in the future. I'm bummed it didn't happen for the Shootout.

 

Did the F-150 have a limited slip differential? Seems now even with the base engine, it's needed (standard now on the V6 Mustang).

[mercury]

Would love Ford to shave about 300-400 lbs off the F150,might see it rated at 24-25 mpg if they could.

Looks like GM & Dodge may have the last laugh when they update their V6's as they are both around 200 lbs. lighter.

[Deanh]

Ford supplied the truck. They didn't have an XL model in their captive fleet at the time the test was done. I said in the story why the F-150 cost $4,000 more.

 

Still, the F-150 had cloth seats, vinyl floor, two-wheel drive, two doors and a short bed. It's a work truck in my book. A fancy one but a work truck nonetheless.

Mike, and no offence...work trucks do not come with matched grill surrounds, bumpers, 17 inch alum wheels, windows locks cruis tilt CD, perimeter alarms, outside temperature displays, integrated Key Transmitters 40/20/40 cloth seats with lumbar support as standard equipment....so, my point is in the "value for money" dept there should have been an asterix ......I ALWAYS see this when it comes to comparisons with chevy and Dodge.....there never seems to be an apple to apple, its usually a King Ranch or the like....little mis-leading IMO....so shame on ford....still, drivetrain speaks for itself. Excellent!

[V8-X]

Ford supplied the truck. They didn't have an XL model in their captive fleet at the time the test was done. I said in the story why the F-150 cost $4,000 more.

 

Still, the F-150 had cloth seats, vinyl floor, two-wheel drive, two doors and a short bed. It's a work truck in my book. A fancy one but a work truck nonetheless.

After reading the comments on your site and this reply, just amazing how many times you have to explain why you used an STX model. Helpful if people had actually read the article. Enjoy your site though and keep up the good work there Mike!

Edited November 10, 2010 by V8-X

[Deanh]

Ford supplied the truck. They didn't have an XL model in their captive fleet at the time the test was done. I said in the story why the F-150 cost $4,000 more.

 

Still, the F-150 had cloth seats, vinyl floor, two-wheel drive, two doors and a short bed. It's a work truck in my book. A fancy one but a work truck nonetheless.

aside from vinyl floor, you just described the Lightning....ahem....

[Deanh]

After reading the comments on your site and this reply, just amazing how many times you have to explain why you used an STX model. Helpful if people had actually read the article. Enjoy your site though and keep up the good work there Mike!

the angst comes from marking down the value for money column....kind of a moot point dont you think, especially when comparing apples and Oranges.....not his fault that ford supplied the vehicle at all....just saying that particular rating becomes irrelevent to the point it shouldnt have been include. This should have just been an engine drivetrain comparison...forget about value for money if all vehicles are specd differently....and PS, my nitpicking gripe aside...well writen article.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Deanh

[Deanh]

XL worktruck, basic, just tow package...MSRP $23765 includes D & D, add cruise, Cd, my key ( XL plus package 61X) $450, Power group ( windows locks mirrors ) $950, and XL decor group ( chrome bumpers 40/20/40 cloth bench ) $115, after a 500 dicount package MSRP becomes $24780........theres the diff between the STX and XL..........STX looks great though....

[ANTAUS]

And even with the Ram having the Penta (thats a flower),-star, I don't think it would have helped the ram much anyways. The engine is available on the Grand Cherokee and doesn't set anything ablaze either.

[J-150]

In all fairness to the RAM, it was a base truck, with base wheel & tires riding on a short wheelbase. The 2009 Dodge Ram I drove last year was a well equipped extended cab with a decent set of tires & wheels and I really enjoyed the way it drove & handled, especially when compared to the 2009 F150 SuperCrew that I drove a week before the Dodge.

 

 

no, it is not "in all fairness" the test was work trucks, not loaded crew cabs.

 

If any manufacturer wants to foucs on loaded crewcabs, they will lose out on the work truck market.

[NLPRacing]

no, it is not "in all fairness" the test was work trucks, not loaded crew cabs.

 

If any manufacturer wants to foucs on loaded crewcabs, they will lose out on the work truck market.

 

How many of these kind trucks do you think Ram will sell versus how many extended & crew cabs they will sell? Plus, the Ram "work truck" was the cheapest too. Do you think fleet buyers care about which work truck is fastest on a auto-cross course? I doubt it. They will look at price, fuel mileage, payload and expense down the road, not 0-60, 1/4 mile and road course times as well ride and handling. They don't care.

 

However, the average buyer of a crew cab 1/2 ton pickup would care about ride & handling, and that is where the Ram excels. I can't believe I'm the one having to defend Ram trucks here, it's making my head hurt.