Ford Launches Online Comparsion-Shopping Tool

Fordweb
By Mark Williams

It’s no secret that one of the best ways to find the best truck is to compare your top picks head-to-head. Unfortunately, not everyone can get identically equipped vehicles and drive them back-to-back.

Thankfully, though, more and more websites are offering software that allows consumers to put their favorite pickup features and specs right next to each other. For those familiar with PickupTrucks.com you know we have a Shopping Tool — just to the left of the posted stories on the homepage — that allows you to compare up to four pickups head-to-head, comparing powertrains, fuel economy, pricing and more.

Another comparison program we like actually exists on Toyota’s website, where you can find a full list of standard and optional features on four different midsize or full-size truck competitors. And now, Ford is jumping into the comparison-shopping software game.

This newest comparison website, deep inside Ford.com, will prompt you to answer a few questions about payload, towing and duty cycle. Then you’ll find out who has the best powertrain for your needs.

The site provides sights and sounds regarding each competitor’s power range, fuel costs over time, and how many gallons you’ll consume doing what your truck has to do. It has a cool graphic presentation and is designed to help you find the right half-ton pickup truck.

As you might have guessed, Ford is quite good about setting the various parameters in specific categories where it does quite well. Still, the software offers a good selection of practical information, with several types of key head-to-head graphics. It’s worth a look.

 

 

Comments

Ford: The Best Never Rest

I think that the Ford upper-management are slave drivers -making the engineers, designers, product planners, and media people work 24-hours a day? Ford is not sitting still these days. There is Ford news at least once every other week.

Keep up the good work, Ford!

I looked at the site. It didn't seem to allow me to change competitor engines. It defaulted to GM's 5.3 and Toyota's 4.6. Unless I am missing something - how can I change it to compare to the GM 6.2 or Toyota 5.7 or even Ram's smaller V8? What about the Titan?
I like how it allows you to play with load and trailer settings, BUT, and a very big "BUT",
I couldn't find parameters that would give me a "best choice" for the 5.0. It would either give me a selection for the V6 3.7 or the 3.5 GTDI.
If I click on the Ford 6.2 it boldly says "best in class towing", but if I slide the tow indicator to the max - it sellects the EB 3.5
Why?
That would explain Ford's sales volumes in the V6 category.
Are they deliberately trying to steer customers to the V6 line up?
If I had to replace my 2010 5.4, my money would be on the 5.0, especially after the performance results I saw in "under 30" shootout.
If I towed heavy most of the time, and I did not want a diesel - I'd go for the 6.2, but not in a 1/2 ton.

As mentioned, the working pickup comparisons are hokey when you can't compare different competitor engines. Once again, Ford slants information.

it's kinda dumb all the areas the ram or chevy beats the ford they dont release that info,its dumb there lieing just like there lieing about the heavy duty test

and they put the eco boost up againts the other cuz its the only engine that has towing over 9,000lbs and gets good gas milage its dumb and i dont like it,

Their v6 comparison is fair, except they dont give you chevy's 4.3 v6 instead they give you a 5.3 v8, they gave the Ram and Tundra a v6 to compare to Fords v6, but then they only offer the small v8's after that, except the Ram which gives the big 5.7 'hemi'

@Ram,

Ford's 5.0 also tows 10k and gets better mileage than Ram.

F-150 5.0
15 c / 21 hwy

Ram 5.7
14 c / 20 hwy

I love how you can't get the 5.7 tundra or the 6.2 gm twins as options for engines on there "comparison" chart

Actually to correct myself, I played around with it and got the 5.7 tundra as an option, but no 6.2 gm twins.

to get the 6.2 gm twins, I had to put 1k in the hauling and 10k in the towing and it shows gm 6.2, toy 5.7, dodge 5.7, and ford ecoboost again.

If you move the sliders toward heavier loads the Toy 5.7 will come up, then you can change the Ford engines.

@Ken and Ram - all of the comparison tools on any of the manufacturer sites are biased towards their own trucks.
What else did you expect???????
Go to the Chevy site.
They try to make drum brakes look good.
The Ram site is just as guilty as the Ford site.
Sheesh.
Welcome to the world of advertising.

I like the torque comparison graph I looked at 3600 the ecoboost was better than than a stock tundra but not by much. Since the only thing you can do for the ecoboost right now is exhaust and CAI I love my choice because with the Doug Thorley shorty Headers http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2010/07/21/doug-thorley-headers-vs-stock/ which improves the low end and Gibson dual exhaust and not to mention my Volant CAI I want to see how I do against a equal configuration ecoboost with dual exhaust and CAI. I liked the page the only thing I would have liked better is if Ford would have done a rear wheel torque graph because the 5.7L iforce Tundra is the only truck with 400lb ft @ the crank that can reach its peak torque below 4000rpm @ the wheels because both PUTC and Truck Trend got over 4000rpm for the ecoboost. I think with combination of the 5.7L iforce, 4.30 axle ratio, my mods and where the ecoboost power is @ the wheels I think I got a chance. The odd thing is if you give the 6.2L CAI, Headers and dual exhaust im not sure I want any part of that without the TRD Supercharger or swapping the 4.3 for a 4.88 http://www.justdifferentials.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=3959. I really dont like that Ford didnt make the 6.2L available for XLT. I must be the only one that kind of likes the comparison.

I looked at the site and it is slick. It is also biased in favor of Ford products, right? DUH!

But I believe that people buy on gut-feeling and seat-of-the-pants driving experiences rather than biased specs.

I've always been the compare, compare, compare guy, and I'm telling 'ya, nothing beats taking the vehicle you're thinking of buying for a test run and then comparing it to others in that class.

My son in law recently traded his 2006 Santa Fe for a 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee V6 4X4 because he liked the styling. He took the JGC for a test drive and thought enough of it to plunk down a sizable chunk of change for it.

Now, two weeks later, it has already been back to the dealer twice for different warranty issues, and he's beginning to notice the difference in ride and handling of the JGC. Hmmm.

After riding in his buddy's Honda Pilot AWD my son in law is thinking maybe he should have tested a few others in that class as well, before buying the JGC for its looks. Maybe he should have driven the new Ford Explorer, ya?

On-line comparo tools are great but nothing beats the real thing. And the real thing is to go out and compare, compare, compare. Kick the tires and take them all for a test drive.

Hay Lou - Stop hatin. I'm glad Chevy went back to rear drums. Drums protect the brakes when driving in snow and salt and gravel. They have lower maintence costs and better brake feel like I've said before, selling the most doesn't make you the best. Can you say McDonalds?

It is a neat site, but I will still not buy a Ford because of it.

I have had 175,000 happy miles with my 1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee 5.9 Limited. I took one other one out for a test drive before buying mine. Never considered any other models or brands.

I have had 54,000 happy miles with my 2003 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon. It was the only one I ever drove and I bought it the same night. Again, never considered any other models or brands.

I have had 70,000 happy miles in my 2005 Dodge Ram 2500 Power Wagon. I bought it without even test driving it. I test drove a different one a couple of weeks earlier. Same story, never considered any other models or brands.

I already know what I am looking for and what I want. I go for the best of the best. The vehicles I look for have no equals. I guess that makes it easier for me.

I suppose, if I were like most buyers -not having a preconceived idea already of what I wanted, I would have to; compare, compare, compare. Very good advice for people that have a broad set of needs/wants. They are gambling when they do not try the different flavors, first, and just let their emotions get the better of them after being in only one vehicle. The new car purchase experience is hypnotising, for some, and can cause quick and not thought out decisions.

When I am buying something my heart is already set on what I am after. So far I have been very satisfied with my buying practices.

@Bob - no "hatin" just the facts, and tell me why GMC stopped putting disc brakes on the back of their 1/2 tons?

I knew a bunch of guys who had them. Each time they left pavement, and drove down a gravel road, or worse in mud - you'd be lucky to get 1/2 a year to a year out of them. The rotors would even be completely shot. My one buddy had one rotor completely shot and the other 3 were fine after a summer with his truck. GMC refused to warranty the rotor. The 2 local dealerships started installing aftermarket shielding kits on them for free because they got sick and tired of fixing them.

Instead of coming up with a quality disc brake design they went back to drum brakes.

When is the last time anyone has seen drum brakes on a modern vehicle, street motorcycle, dirt bike or quad? (other than some entry level stuff)

@Bob,
How did Chevy perform in the "Under $30k Shootout" braking tests? Second last when empty and last place when loaded. Yep, those drum brakes are great!

Despite coming in last in distance pickuptrucks.com felt GM had the best brakes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcFou2oVZjs

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2010/11/2010-v-6-work-truck-shootout-brake-test.html

GM has the best brakes according to Mike Levine who works for Ford now. Ha ha ha ha ha. Ford says GM is better. Let it be written!

He said GM had the best brake "feel", whatever that means, not that GM's brakes were the best. In the results he gave the 100% score to Ford's brakes and GM came in last behind the second place Ram. Disc brakes provide better stopping power. GM needs to wake up and quit cutting certain corners on these trucks.

Despite the stopping distances, we believed the Sierra provided the best overall brake feel and driver feedback. We always felt confident we were controlling the truck instead of just along for the ride. The F-150 seemed to split the difference between the GMC and the Ram, while the Ram required the most brake pedal travel and had the most audible and noticeable ABS intervention during the sudden stops, almost from the moment we hit the brake pedal.

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2010/11/2010-v-6-work-truck-shootout-brake-test.html

Despite the stopping distances, we believed the Sierra provided the best overall brake feel and driver feedback. We always felt confident we were controlling the truck instead of just along for the ride. The F-150 seemed to split the difference between the GMC and the Ram, while the Ram required the most brake pedal travel and had the most audible and noticeable ABS intervention during the sudden stops, almost from the moment we hit the brake pedal.

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2010/11/2010-v-6-work-truck-shootout-brake-test.html

Despite the stopping distances, we believed the Sierra provided the best overall brake feel and driver feedback. We always felt confident we were controlling the truck instead of just along for the ride. The F-150 seemed to split the difference between the GMC and the Ram, while the Ram required the most brake pedal travel and had the most audible and noticeable ABS intervention during the sudden stops, almost from the moment we hit the brake pedal.

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2010/11/2010-v-6-work-truck-shootout-brake-test.html

What is wrong with drum brakes? My 1968 Ford Mustang G.T. fastback has 4-wheel drum brakes. It stops...eventually. Just do not have more than two panic stops close to each other or cross any flooded streets. Otherwise, it's brakes...what brakes? A 4-wheel disc brake conversion is in the future.

The site recommends the most fuel efficient engine that can meet the towing and hauling weight you've entered for both F-150 and the competitors. And in every case F-150 WINS. I think many of you are missing the point. This is all about fuel economy savings.

Drag the sliders all the way to the right....GM, Dodge and Toyota don't even show up to play.

Drum brakes on a modern vehicle!? Say it isn't so, Joe!? Better not ever get them wet. That was the reason the industry switched over to disc brakes.

@DeBinder Dundett. Halleluah! What next we going back to crossplys intead of radials, Carbys instead of DI? Somethings have really moved forward.
Unfortunately Ford seems to have scored an own goal on the Ecoboost Explorer. That is the most scathing review I have ever seen on this site.(See Below) Lucky in Australia we have the similar Ford Territory(same size and weight) which is being praised by all the review it for its NVH, handling, ride, space utilization, economy for the diesel.
http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/suv/163_1108_2012_ford_explorer_ecoboost_test/index.html

If you want Comparison tests of Ford products this is a review of the new Global Ranger, production version.
http://www.caradvice.com.au/138988/ford-ranger-review/

Robert Ryan, I actually drove an EB V6 F150 SuperCrew after reading an article on PUTC. I was impressed and I posted my comments on PUTC at that time.

I found the EB V6 to be very responsive on the I-5 and the I-805 and very nimble compared to my old 2006 F150 5.4.
This is due largely to the reduced weight over the front wheels.

The EB V6 F150 handles just as well and just as nimbly as my 2009 Tundra 5.7 4dr 4X4 Limited and is just as quiet. I still don't care much for the Ford driver seat and that's where I like the Tundra seat much better.

So I think that from a power-to-weight-ratio angle putting that EB V6 into an Explorer should result in a boost in sales, even at the stellar prices Ford demands for it. I was not able to read the article you posted but did get to the site.

From a personal point of view, I'm not sold on a turbo charged or supercharged engine in a passenger car or truck.

It goes back to those disasters that GM and Porsche put on the market that promised all sorts of wonderfulness but delivered only heartache and grief, and financial distress after the warranty coverage ended.

Don't get me started on my dad's Buick Park Avenue with that marvelous blown V6, good for any altitude on earth. My brother-in-law had a Porsche Turbo Carerra. They both had problems with the blowers and it costs big money to replace them after the warranty expires. None for me, thanks.

@Debinder Dundett. The Explorer appears to have a "Back to the Drawing Board" future going by the article as it fails on many fronts.
On the other hand the Global Ranger is a generation in front of the class leading Hilux . They have been mulling over putting a Petrol V6 into it, nice if it is a Ecoboost! Still waiting the other manufacturers responses.VW now has an Eight speed Automatic, but still a tiny 2 Litre diesel.
Global Ford Ranger towing
http://cdn6.caradvice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/2012-Ford-Ranger-Review-19-625x415.jpg
Doing a bit of light off road stuff
http://cdn9.caradvice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/2012-Ford-Ranger-Review-76-625x415.jpg

Interesting, Robert Ryan. Thanks.

I have to confess that my wife's 2009 Lexus LS460 has had an 8-speed automatic since we bought it and the damn thing even parks itself (if you let it). We don't let it.

Of the two US auto manufacturers still standing I expect Ford to do the greater things. GM, IMO, should sell itself to China.

I have read this sentiment over and again on several different venues. GM just does not have what it takes to be self-supporting or profitable ever again. Nor does anyone with a brain support the notion that GM will ever pay back the US tax payers for the bail outs.

Ford, OTOH? I can see Ford venturing into innovative areas, just like they did with the EB V6. I can even see an EB V8, an EB I-4, and yes, even a light-duty diesel for those who want it.

That the Explorer has been rated as a laggard compared to the competition is somewhat surprising because the advertising and marketing in the US hails the Explorer as the second coming of Christ to the automotive world.

But, like in all things that have gone before, only time will tell if the Explorer really fills the bill for Ford or if the competition has the better-engineered, more reliable product.

We're I to buy an SUV/CUV I would prefer a Lexus RX350, a Highlander or a Pilot over anything domestic. Our domestic offerings are crude compared to those three, at any price level/trim level comparison.

Warranty issues continue to plague the domestics as my son-in-law found out first-hand with his 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee. He wishes he still had his 2006 Santa Fe.

Too many people quote sales numbers as the be all, end all measure for acceptance. But that data does not measure buyers' remorse nor does it measure the regret a person feels for having to make 59 more payments after having just had their car repaired under warranty.

I fully expect Ford to stay on top of the industry under the current leadership captained by Alan Mulally. Once he retires, no one can predict what will happen to Ford.

As far as the General Motors bailout goes. I am much happier that my tax dollars were used, to save this United States of America icon, rather than General Motors selling out to a Chinese (or any other Asian/foreign outfit) company.

It is already bad enough that we lost a portion of Chrysler Group L.L.C. to Fiat (Italy).

@DeBinder Dundett - Interesting commentary. I agree with you.Ford has done wonders to turn itself around. They have made great strides, but they will make mistakes. So far, very few.
The other 2 or should I say 1 "domestic" is still in trouble. I have similar doubts about GM.
Goals, objectives, and Q/C are alll over the map.
I think Chrysler, because it is the smallest of the three, should be able to turn itself around much faster than GMC. They've made great strides with the Ram 1500. It now rates #3 in quality and durability. They still have a long way to go on many other products. I've heard a lot of negative stories about Fiat's past forrays into the NA market. I suspect they will try extra hard not to make mistakes. I'd like to think that Fiat will be a good fit with Chrysler. They both need each other. Chrysler needs Fiat's fuel efficient engines, anf Fiat needs Chrysler's NA market.
DaimlerBenz and Chrysler struck me as a really odd pairing. The groom faired much better than the bride in that divorce;)

I used to buy primarily based on best purchase price. Brand be damned. I learned the hard way that best price isn't always the best value.
I am cautious to the point of not buying "first release" products. Let someone else be part of the beta test. I''ve seen from personal experience that there are always teething problems. Even JD Power had reseach bearing that fact out. Exceptions do occur, but I'll wait.

The media is as guilty as the manufacturer for hyping the "latest and greatest".
The media is just a guilty for jumping on negative publicity band wagons as well.
The media's mantra should be "truth be damned".
Unfortunately, ratings, and media advertising dollars, and mindless sound bites drive the industry.

I like my truck and the 5.4. It fits my mission profile. Sure, virtually everyone has a more powerful, or in most cases more fuel efficient motor, but it is (was?) a thoroughly tested and proven engine in the real world. I liked the overall package the best. That's what matters to me.

Maybe in 6 years time, I'll be buying a Chinese made (owned) GMC???
It won't matter to me, as long as it is the best product on the market. (That ought to confuse Bob.LOL)

Lou, If you truly don't buy first release, you would have bought a used 2008. Your 2010 is new. Well over 2000 new parts in 2009. The only sheet metal the same is the doors. The frame is new (thats why you can't just slap a six speed in the 04-08) as well as a whole new floor pan (agian six speed) and an all new interior. New brakes. later.

@Don - new in 2009 not the fall of 2010 when I bought. That would translate to a release date of late summer, or early fall 2008. That makes it a 2 year old design by the time I bought one.
Plenty of time to sort out what may be problematic.
Plenty of time to do research on the net and talk to guys who own them.
Frames are complex but they don't require computer's, and software to run. How complex is a floor pan? As long as the welds are done right, what is there to go wrong?
Brakes - Ford needed the upgrade as they didn't hold up very well in the previous model.
Engines and transmissions, as well as the computers, and software to run them are the most complex items on a truck. Sync, and all of the interior electronics also have been around a while.
Your telling me the 5.4 was new for 2010?
I'm just pulling your leg on that one, but the key components aren't "all new".
"All new" is the most abused term in the auto industry.
The Tundra is the only "All new" truck" out their. (Maybe the Titan??)

The reason the larger competitive V-8 engines don't show up right away is because the comparison tool first selects the most fuel efficient engine that can still haul or tow the loads you've selected. Exceed the capability of that engine, and the larger engine is selected next (where applicable).

I find it rather strange that, if I max out the payload & towing it only leaves me with the 3.5L V-6 EcoBoost. No 6.2L V-8 (Ford). If I drop the weights, then all of the sudden the 6.2L V-8 (Ford) becomes available. Ford is really trying to push their C.A.F.E. numbers up by hiding the 6.2L.

Because max payload is with the 5.0 or 3.5 eco at 3060 lbs, thats a regular cab 4 X 2. From what I can tell max payload with 6.2 is 1770, that's with a supercrew 4 X 4. It's because the 6.2 is limited to certain models.

Lou, I agree with your comments. I would like to add that what once was Chrysler is just a means to and end for Fiat now.

If anyone can remember back to when Daimler bought Chrysler? Everyone had high hopes that Daimler could inject some viability and credibility into Chrysler but Chrysler then, as it is now, was FUBAR.

And now Fiat owns Chrysler and made it a subdivision. But it has potential (for Fiat). Fiat can rebadge Chrysler products and sell them under a variety of internationally-recognized luxury names owned by Fiat (as in Jeep by any other Italian name), while at the same time gaining ready access to the lucrative US market with its tiny metro-cars like the 500. Alfa as a made-in-the USA sport sedan?

I think the Chrysler subdivision will actually do well under Fiat and I'm certain we'll see the new 8-speed automatic in Italian-brand luxury cars.

I'm equally certain that some of Fiat's world-class engines will make it into Chrysler products. I'm not at all optimistic about future Chrysler innovations since it is totally dependent on the kindness and goodwill of the Fiat board for any financial allocations to R&D.

Chrysler needs Fiat to stay alive. Fiat, once having gained access to the US market, can do without Chrysler or most of its employees.

Look for buyouts and reductions in work-force in the immediate future as Fiat restructures Chrysler to make Fiat products in the US for the US market. That's what our tax payer money bought us.

i love to see this blog thanks for sharing

Due to lack of support towards Americans (Chrysler), and people supporting foreign brands, this certainly could be the beginning of the end for Chrysler.

People, keep buying-up foreign products to continue killing the U.S. economy and work force. America appreciates it.

That comparison tool is an ABSOLUTE JOKE! its simply more ford propaganda that shows NOTHING relevant to real work numbers. waste of time.

@DeBinder Dundett, The Problem is Fiat is based in Italy a country with some pretty bad debt problem. Ford has a very highly geared debt as well as a company. GM is out of Jail as far as debt goes, but has limited funds to develop new models compared to to VW , Toyota and even Hyundai/Kia.
None of these companies is going to handle another GFC very well at all.

@Robert Ryan - agreed. Another financial meltdown and governments will topple. We are seeing signs of that already in Europe. Greece is there right now. Spain and a few others close behind. How much money can governments borrow to prop up failure? The USA Government has already been hit with a "downgrade" in lending status.

Robert Ryan, agreed! Fiat and Italy both have severe debt and credit-rating problems that are not mutually exclusive.

But the US market and Chrysler's ready-made access to it will help Fiat tremendously with sales. The Fiat 500 is ideally suited for metropolitan sales, and should do very well. The Mini did. Ford hopes to.

I'm not optimistic about GM. I thought the bail outs were ill-advised when Bush was president, and politically motivated when Obama gave GM and Chrysler all that tax payer money. Obama's debt to the UAW was the driving factor there.

GM should also have been sold or given away to anyone who wanted it. That's what we did with Chrysler. It is true that yet another global financial crisis would put a dent in a lot of companies, but some will survive.

Auto industry analysts wrote prior to carmageddon that the global auto industry was going through changes and that it would take roughly five years for the industry to shake itself out and regroup.

In 2008 the US economy went through shock therapy and carpocalypse followed the financial industry paralysis and the housing industry collapse. Who can forget Cash for Clunkers (C4C)?

The way I see it, by 2015 or 2016 we should have a pretty good understanding of which auto manufacturers will still be standing in the US auto industry. That also includes the transplants and their alliances.

One thing for certain, we won't recognize it because it will have morphed into an alliance we have never seen before.

I see Ford and Toyota in an alliance that sells both trucks and Hybrids.

I also see GM pared down to Caddy and Chevy.

I see Fiat's name everywhere and on Chrysler products rebadged as Fiat brands. I do see Dodge RAM trucks and Jeeps.



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2014 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com