Top 10 Most Fuel-Efficient 2013 Pickup Trucks

2013 Toyota Tacoma reg cab II

According to the almost-complete Model Year 2013 Fuel Economy Guide, published by the Department of Energy and EPA each year at this time, there are plenty of fuel-efficient pickup trucks to choose from. Based on the EPA's calculations we've listed the top 10, and unsurprisingly, Toyota and the GM two-mode hybrid systems are, again, well-represented. Unfortunately, it looks like this will be the last year for the Chevy and GMC hybrid pickups.

During the recent reveals of both the 2014 Chevy Silverado and 2014 GMC Sierra, officials continually reported they are not offering the advanced powertrain for 2014. Of course, that doesn't mean they can't bring a system out in the future to better combat the staggered and more aggressive federal fuel-economy mandates that take effect in 2016 and again in 2018. Our guess is we'll see more diesels make their way into our pickup truck choices around that same time. For now, here's what we have.   

The list below is broken down just as it is in the EPA's guide with cab configuration, drivetrain, powertrain, EPA-rated mileage listed as city/highway/combined and the average expected yearly fuel cost. We should note that there are some models and manufacturers not listed and wherever we had a tie, we made the highway mileage the tie-breaker. 

Top 10 Most Fuel-Efficient 2013 Pickup Trucks

  1. Toyota Tacoma regular cab 2WD, 2.7L I-4, 5-spd manual, 21/25/23, $2,200
  2. Ram 1500 regular cab HFE 2WD, 3.6L V-6, 8-speed auto, 18/25/21, $2,400
  3. Toyota Tacoma regular cab 2WD, 2.7L I-4, 4-speed auto, 19/24/21, $2,400
  4. Chevrolet Silverado Hybrid crew cab 2WD, 6.0L V-8, electric transmission, 20/23/21, $2,400
  5. GMC Sierra Hybrid crew cab 2WD, 6.0L V-8, electric transmission, 20/23/21, $2,400
  6. Chevy Silverado Hybrid crew cab 4WD, 6.0L V-8, electric transmission, 20/23/21, $2,400
  7. GMC Sierra Hybrid crew cab 4WD, 6.0L V-8, electric transmission, 20/23/21, $2,400
  8. Ram 1500 regular cab 2WD, 3.6L V-6, 8-speed auto, 17/25/20, $2,550
  9. Ford F-150 regular cab 2WD FFV, 3.7L V-6, 6-speed auto, 17/23/19, $2,700
  10. Toyota Tacoma regular cab 4WD, 2.7L I-4, manual (5) or auto (4), 18/21/19, $2,700

Comments

So a two wheel drive four cylinder beats the Ram, too bad those 4 cylinder little trucks can barely keep on on the highway. Then some folks order them with 4x4 and an access cab, what a poor combo.

Not everybody wants to go racing with their pickup truck. I think it's quite impressive that the Ram 1500 fell right in-between the Toyota I-4 stick shift and the I-4 automatic.

It's interesting to note that you can do a quick comparison between any truck using these same standards. 1 mpg difference = $100 per year. So when comparison shopping you can see there's not much annual fuel cost difference between a a big truck that gets 17 mpg and a lower powered efficient one that gets 20 mpg. Buy the truck that meets your needs and forget about the MPG crap.

no nissan or the turda

Toyota the best non-hybrid 4wd...

in a gutless 4 cyl manual...

I fully expect things to change over the next year although they will likely be all 2014 models. I mean the new GM mid-size trucks, GM full size and probably new Nissan and Toyota offerings, both mid-size and full-size.

I hope we see more trucks capable of 20+ combined mpg's with 4x4 and larger cabs since that is mostly what is purcahsed.

I hope that they can better the gas mileage on the Tacoma. It is good but it could be better. As for Tacoma, it is a good solid small truck but it is getting dated. For me if I were buying another truck I would either get a Tacoma or a Frontier because that is all I need.

@Oxi: if you just buy a 4x4 for city driving, or just for crawling offroad, maybe you can say that. Sure can't put much in it. As Lou said, your Taco is more choked down, pretty sorry that your V-6 in your lighweight truck can't do this:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform&path=1&year1=2013&year2=2013&make=Ram&model=1500%204WD&srchtyp=ymm

@DWFields: who said anything about racing? Big hills here, unlike Florida (isn't that where you live??) and you need atleast decent power. The Toyota 4 banger aint gonna cut it here. I am sure Oxi will tell us about all his mods, such as a chip, a header, an exhaust system, a "cold air" lol! intake, and maybe an over-rated throttle body? I see that as $$$$ and possible warranty issues. That kinda truck would barely pull a small fishing boat!

I meant "the v-6 available in the Taco" as Oxi says he has the leaf blower in his truck

Note the big disparity between the Ram's city and hwy numbers. It's relatively easy to get better hwy milage by using very tall gearing and cylinder deactivation. If most of your driving is in the city (or rush-hour highway), then you are still stuck with 17 mpg.

@Ken: The Ram gets that average from the 3.21 and 3.55 gears. They might seem so tall, but the 8 speeds much lower (numerically higher) gears should move it with ease. You must be confusing the GM V-6 with the Ram, as the GM 4.3 will have cylinder diactivation. Not the Ram. I would take the 8 speed one anyday in a hilly envirement, as it can make it up a hill without needing near as much gear, the 5 and 6 speed autos will have you dropping to a much higher rpm then needed. Less choices. You can always read the reviews of the Chargers and 300s with the v-6 8 speed and see how they compare to the epa ratings.

hmm only V8s are the GM twins. Looks like a lot of leaf blowers and snow blowers.

I get 22 mpg highway all the time with a 07 Silverado ext cab 4x4 5.3 L. Many people ask me why I do not drive a small pickup. Why when in 4x4 form they would not get any better mpg.
My friend had a 07 Tundra 4x4 and I always got 2-3 mpg better highway then he did. He got so mad about the mpg that he bought a GTi diesel that gets 40 mpg + and now gas prices are going down and diesel is not.

I bet the strong 3.5 V6 from Toyota backed by a 6-speed or better tranny would have very good fuel economy and be able to tow as well. Their 2.5 I-4 is also strong. I wonder why they are still using these other motors from 2 generations ago? If they did even a moderate update they would be so far ahead of the rest of the midsize pack GM wouldn't have brought over the Colorado.

I sure hope Toyota has some kind of ace up its sleeve that I don't know about.

Watch in a couple of years those figures reflecting diesels. With the parent company of Ram leading the way. They'll have the emissions figured out by then.
Those are words of a gentleman that does consulting work for domestic and foreign manufactures.
Yes, I know it's a costlier engine option and fuel cost more but it will be driven by the CAFE standards.

Fuel-efficient pickup truck is a contradiction in terms.
The Dodge 3.6 V6 & ZF 8 speed auto isn't fast, because it uses tall gearing.
That same tall gearing means it will be shifting frequently under adverse conditions.
Granted the transmission can shift so well, it probably won't be noticeable by the average driver.
If Dodge used 3.55 as the standard 3.6 V6 4x2 ring/pinion, then that would drop highway from 25 to 24, maybe 23.
Same with 4x4 ring/pinion, 3.92 instead of 3.55.

Toyota could easily be using 6,8 speed automatics. They could use AR engine family. They could add Valvematic, or D4-S port/direct injection system.

What Toyota needs to do is put VW's extraordinary Jetta diesel engine in the Tacoma and call it a day! I have a Jetta diesel. The Jetta has excellent low end torque, I get 30 mpg around town but wow! I get over 50 mpg at 75 on the hwy.

I do a lot of camping trips with my 2006 Dodge Cummins 4x4/manual, along with a friend who follows slowly in his 2006 Tacoma 4x4 4 cylinder/manual. Every time we fuel up, he actually uses 10% more fuel than I do. He paid the same amount for his truck as I did for mine.

@Southern IL man They HAD the emissions figured out a longtime ago. Real problem is to get the US Public to accept small diesels.
The "Powerstroke 3.2 " Diesel in the new Transit is known as the Duratorque outside NA. That engine could not meet coming Euro V1 regulations in Europe, but it is acceptable for current and future US Diesel regulations.

you people crack me up with the gutless 4 cyl comments. that truck will tow 3500 lbs! thats not too shabby for a 4 cyl in my book, why dont one of you name another 4 cyl. powered truck of ANY kind built in the us that will tow more????? ummm thats cause there arent any......

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!

The OEMs are the ones that calculate these numbers--so take them with a grain of salt.

Notice all of the "HFE" and "Hybrid" terms--models good for hype and advertising but not necessarily for what people actually want in a pickup or buy.

@TRX4 Tom: Shows you don't know who's who. No, I'm not in Florida and I've owned 4- and 6-cyl vehicles even in Colorado that still offered surprising performance if you knew how to drive them. Burning off your tires is a lot harder in Colorado than it is at lower altitudes. Still, when you can take a Ford Escort and pass cars and trucks with huge V8s *going up the mountains* those I-4s can still be more than sufficient for the task. Sure, big horsepower is fun, but it's not a necessity unless you plan to max out the load on a regular basis.

@hemi lol
The gasoline 4 cylinder 2.5 Global Ranger is rated to tow 2 200kg which is about 4 800lbs.

Combined cycle of city/highway driving it is using about 10 litres per 100 km, or over 23mpg. Highway driving it would get at least 27mpg.

There might even be more 4 cylinder gasoline pickups that can tow at least the same.

Funny no ecoboost on here. All the ranting and raving..for what?

22/27/24
2011 Ford Ranger has better mileage per gallon than any of the 2013's.

Of all these trucks, the only trucks with 4 full doors and fullsize cab, it is only the GM twins that get 20cty! oh except for a reg cab 4x2 4cly toy truck! I have a 2011 Z-71 w/3:42 5.3, 4X4, that gets 18cty 22hyw, any time I take it easy and drive the speed limits, use the c/cntl all the time, you would be suprized what I get when puling my Airstream, I wonr even tell you, because you will all call me a lier! I am right now on a trip in N.H. and on the last tank, from Laconia-N.Conroy on hyw93N to tr 112, The Kancamangus hyw, I got an average of 14mpg!, that is very good, for if you know these roads, there are a lot of very long hills, but all I do is set the c/cntl at the Speed Limit, and let the truck do the rest, on level roads, it is running on 4cyl!, go ahead and call me a lier, I could give ..... but if I was trying to do this with one of those toy trucks I doulbt I could even pull the trailer, never mind get that kind of mileage, and if I had a reg cab 2013 Ram 3.7 8spd, I would live to see how it would do. Take care, and have a Good New Year everyone, and drive safe!!!!!!!

C'mon, why you gonna rip on the 2.7liter Toyota!!!

Mine comes with the 5-speed manuel and trust me I can get up to speed in the city with ease because I know how to use my 2.7liter with 5-speed...

Sure it is no highway beast but then again knowing how to use the 5-speed and terrain is key...

Off-road she has plenty of guts in low-4 with 4.10 ring/pinion...

In the end its the driver behind the wheel...

The Toyota 2.7 liter is one solid engine!

@oxi-I agree with a 5 speed manual a 4 cylinder is more than enough unless you want to haul an Airstream, which most truck drivers will not. A 5 or 6 speed manual will give maximum performance out of a 4 cylinder and I agree with DW Fields that if you are going up a steep hill or incline the size of the motor is not as important as the gearing. Sure if you are hauling a huge trailer or large loads then you might need the power and weight of a full size but lets be honest most guys don't come close to using the full potential of their trucks. Of the Raptors that I have seen I have never seen one dirty or off road, all of them are clean and street driven. Same with most of the half ton crew cab Chevys, Fords, and Rams. Most of the trucks that I see towing trailers or heavy loads are diesel HDs which are used by farmers, contractors, and other businesses that use their trucks to their full potential. As they say in Texas the difference between a Drug Store Cowboy and a real cowboy is that the real cowboy has mud on the outside of their boots.

I have nothing against half ton full size trucks but many owners use these trucks to commute to work or go to the mall in. I don't really need one that much and a smaller truck with a 4 cylinder and 5 speed manual does everything that I need it to do. If I needed more then I would buy more but it is a waste for me.

I was reading a story about hybrids and the authors felt that hybrids will slowly die away. They believed that we will see more fuel efficient gas or diesel engines and battery only vehicles.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/141147-why-hybrids-are-dying-gas-engines-are-good-enough-on-mpg-plug-ins-are-sexier

They had an interesting comment that does not bode well for the future of V8 engines, Exerpt - " If you create a car from the ground up to not fit, say, the V8 as an option, you can make the engine compartment smaller and lighter. The same goes for a midsize car that uses only four cylinders, no sixes."
I wonder if this is where Ford is going with their "revolutionary" next gen F150? Is this their plan with the whole Ecoboost engine line?
Personally, I doubt it since they would not be able to recuperate the development costs of their current V8 engine line up. They could ditch the old tech 6.2 and make a new F150 that barely fits the 5.0 V8. Turbo's and DI could turn that engine into Ford's premier powerhouse, and the 3.5 EB would become the midline engine. There are rumours that Ford will replace the 3.7 normally aspirated engine with a smaller 2.3 litre I-4 turbo engine. This link supports that rumour.
http://mustangsdaily.com/blog/2012/06/18/ford-to-drop-v6-engine-option-for-2015-mustang/

Weight savings will contribute just as much to the demise of the V8 as MPG.

@Lou--If they can get more horsepower our of a turbo I-4 2.3 than the current 3.7 V6 then Ford will do that and the others will follow. Then they can lighten the vehicles and make small engine compartments and lighten all the components achieving higher mpgs. Maybe this is what Ford is talking about when they say they might put a turbo 4 in an F-150. This would definitely work with a single cab short bed truck especially is the size were reduced to close to the size of a Global Ranger and then you could put it in an extended cab. I could see this in a few years when the F-150 has to meet the new standards. You would have more than enough power for most people unless you are doing heavy hauling or towing something large. This would definitely be enough for me to consider an F-150 in the future.

From the pictures of what I have seen of the 2015 Mustang it will be a global car and look more European and less like the Mustangs of old and if it is lighter and more aerodynamic then I could see this new turbo 4 being a hot little engine especially if you put a 6 speed manual with it. I think Ford is onto something here and from the looks of the 2013 Fusion, Focus, and C-Max once they get the defects and bugs ironed out they will be great vehicles. A lot of Ford's problems are with the MySync and some of the problems that plague any new redesign or new model similiar to what the 2011 Chevy Cruze went through. Once these vehicles have been in production for several years they will get much better. That was true with the Taurus and Sable when they got redesigned in 1996 and the 2000 models were mechanically the same except the fronts and the backs were restyled with improved looks but by then the Taurus was a great car (96 and 97 Tauruses were plagued with bad transmissions and other defects),

@Lou--GM is going to produce their own e-assist sytems for the 4 cylinder Lacross, 2013 Malibu Eco, and the new 2014 Impala. These are more of a mild hybrid system but they are less expensive and not as complex. The Lacross can get up to 37 mpgs on the highway. I can see more mild hybrids because they achieve great fuel economy and are less costly. Lincoln is using this as well and charges the same price for the hybrid as the V6 on the MKZ.

@Lou & Jeff S
I think the positive aspects of Euro VI and CAFE is the accelerated technological improvements to all vehicles. But thiis will come at a cost, the price of vehicle will increase.

I think the cross pollination of gas and diesel is great. The link that Lou posted is quite interesting, especially how Mazda intends to transfer the Sky-Active gas technology to their diesels. The only problem I see is if they increase combustion ratio/pressure this increase NOx levels.

Unless you are an urban dweller hybrid/EV technology is not viable. In countries like Canada, Australia and the US we have great distances to drive and diesel will become the dominant energy.

I have read that Fiat has a 2.7litre V6 Pentastar multi-air. This could fit into a Ram. In Australia the Ford Falcon comes with a 4cyl eco boost that is about 240hp and 280ftlb of torque.

I don't know if the 2.5 T6 Ranger engine is eco boost compatible, but it is a new engine from Ford. If that is converted to an eco boost it could put out a bit of power.

I don't see CNG as a real alternative as the storage of the kind of pressures required is and always will be expensive. Even the handling of the CNG will require special thought.

But every year we will see improvements in emissions and economy.

I will be interested to see what the new Ram 1500's with the 8 speeds start getting in real life mileage. If its anything close to their EPA claims they will be really popular trucks.

DWFields: If you are passing V-8s it is because they back off to save some fuel.

I never said anything about horsepower now did I? Low speed torque, most 4 bangers don't have much. I was more referring to trucks that weigh in the mid 3000 pound area, such as the Tacoma 4x2. Now that little Escort might weigh less then 2400 (oldest) to slightly over 2700 for the latest. Now, put a few people in the back of it. You will see how low on torque it is. Of course they gear them up differant. I just drove 300 miles in my girlfriends 2000 1.8 L Nissan 4 speed auto, totally geared differant from my 96 Camry 2.2 5 speed.(yes, it's a tough little engine, Oxi) The Camry can pull all the hills here in 5th at 55mph plus. Granted it is a bigger engine, the car also weighs more then her Sentra, which is constantly downshifting.

So I don't know where your from. You didn't know that I lived in Colorado for awhile either, did you?

4 bangers aren't for trucks that plan to climb hills at interstate/highway speeds or haul anything much unless turbo'd, and even then I would question how long it will last (in truck for pulling alot of weight, on GAS)

Now my turbo Daytona is another matter. Doesn't need a downshift until you really get going slow, like 40 or so up a hill, and has much taller gears then my Camry, which needs 3,000 to go 75, while the Daytona turns 2700 to do same speed.

@George: if the 3.6 Ram eight speed runs an average of those two gears 3.21 and 3.55 to get it's MPG EPA rating, then I would guess it can be pretty FAST. But if you meant to say quick, well it isn't too far off some v-8s times, and a good QUICKER the Fords BIGGER 3.7 that is RATED at a high amount (but yet doesn't have as much of it down low. You can compare the times Motor Trend got with a 3.6 Ram vs. the V-6 Work Truck Shootout this site did on the Ford 3.7, which when PT.com drove the 3.7 Ford they praised it, now, it's 2nd place.

You don't need 3.92 gears when the 1st gear ratio in the 8 speed is a 4.71 vs. a 3 to 1 in the Ram 6 speeds, that's the best part of it, you can use the economy rear end gear, while the transmission gets you moving.

Where's the Eco Turd all the Ford folks bragging bout? By god a 6.0L GM motor does better then a twin trubo v6? Oh wait Ford built that 3.5L Eco Turd, along with their fail car MPGS!!!

The only method to accurately capture fuel usage would be to "download" a vehicle fuel consumption againts distance travelled everytime a vehicle is serviced. This information would then be given to the EPA. But this isn't viable.

I think you would see a substantial drop in mpg's across all vehicles. Some of the figures quoted by contributors on this site verges on fantasy. You guys mainly quote highway miles and yet most of you live in urban areas. (I don't want to hear about someone who live in a rural environment).

Alot of you guys are alway banging d!cks about how much power brand X has and how it will out accelerate brand Y. And yet alot of you guys are getting fantastic fuel economy.

An example is the eco boost figures or even the Ram figures. To drive and achieve the EPA figures you have to drive quite sedately. If you are driving in such a manner you might as well have your pickups fitted with 4cyl engines.

This is where diesels excel, under load, I haven't seen to many people at least in New Jersey, Vegas, California etc who drive sedately. My mother's Focus struggles to get a 25mpg in real life driving.

A friend of mine has a V8 gasoline 100 Series Land Cruiser and he is getting about 16mpg on the highway. I doubt a Tundra will get much better.

We have 2.7 litre Hilux's at work and we are lucky if we are getting 12mpg out of them because of the short distances we travel.

I think the EPA figure only give you a benchmark in which to know which vehicle has the potential to give better fuel economy. The quoted mpg's figures aren't real life, it's no different in Australia or Canada or anywhere.

Manufacturers' mpg figures are about as good as tow figures.

NONE of them are anything to brag about!

They are all atrocious.

I'm a toyo guy but those MPGs are shameful.

@Big Al from Oz

The Tundra does get (marginally) better MPG than the LC100
primarily for a few reasons:

-no full-time 4x4
-better aero
-a great 6-speed transmission

That said, I usually average around 17-19 on the highway, but I was getting a little better when I was running the stock size, less aggressive tires.

The Tundra also has way more power than a LC100.

@ Big Al

What is sad is that the EPA numbers are not even that great to compare cars one model to the next. Some manufacturers seem to always test "higher" than other manufacturers. Hyundai/Kia just got dinged for this, and I know people always talk about Fords having trouble living up to expectations as well.

A big problem with the EPA estimation is how they structured the test. Their definitions of "highway" and "city" are an absolute joke, and if that is the best they can come up I would just as soon see the EPA shut down since it is is staffed full of morons. Average speed of 48 mph? No big accelerations to pass anyone? No abrupt panic stop and then accelerate back to highway speeds again? City driving is unrealistic too. They don't have any stop and idling as one does in traffic or at traffic lights. I really like services like fuelly, so we can see what at least a few other people are getting in real world mileage. And I still will be interested to see how the new Ram 1500 performs. I don't actually think very many people will get anything close to the EPA ratings, but I certainly hope that I am wrong about that.

Yeah, the Ram needs as much gearing as it can get to compensate for the lackluster 3.6 V6.
In MT test of Truck of Year, the V6 model wasn't even going 90mph in 1/4 of a mile.
That demands shorter gearing.
The 4x4 is heavier, taller-inferior aerodynamics, and uses larger overall diameter tires (which eats some of the axle ratio advantage)
The V6 needs the 3.92 ring/pinion in 4x4 models. (and the automatic transfer case too)

@phillyguy
The CAFE and EPA regulations are leaving manufacturers less scope than Euro manufactures in the versitility of vehicle design. The reason is Euro vehicle emissions are determined on weight not footprint.

The US has placed a great emphasis on NOx emissions (with little thought towards oil heaters) and less on CO2 emissions, this is why diesel is struggling in the US. Due to higher combustion pressure diesels generates more NOx. This is why the new Transit will come with the 5cyl diesel in the US and doesn't meet Euro V CO2 emission standards.

Also, another significant instrument is additional taxation on fuel. This would encourage vehicles to be genuinely more economical than the current CAFE/EPA regulations. Right now CUV/SUV/Pickup classification is a joke in the US.

Additional fuel tax has benefits, ie, ploughing the funds back into your aging transport infrastructure. From my observations the quality of roads in the US has been in decline over the past 5 years.

The current regulations promote large and unecomical vehicles in the US, contrary to what most would think.

@Big Al--We desperately need to replace bridges and repair roads and an increase in fuel tax would be good. Federal fuel tax has not been increased since 1993. However the political will is lacking to increase fuel taxes. I agree that the consumer would have an economic incentive to buy more efficient vehicles with a higher fuel tax and from the technology that Ford, Chrysler, GM, Toyota, and some of the others are bringing out this would encourage them to even work harder. The auto companies will come out with the technology if the consummers buy it. Ford has shown that with the Ecoboost, and Ram is showing that with their newer trucks with 8 speed autos. I would be more than willing to pay more fuel tax if they would build a new bridge to replace the Brent Spence bridge over the Ohio River that is now approaching 50 years old and was designed for less than half the traffic that it current has. The Brent Spence connects I-71 and 75 and it is a major commercial route and the life blood of this area.

I spent a couple of summers working for the local government at a park when I was younger. In our town everything was centered at one township building - police, parks and rec, public works sewer, public works roads, etc. Took those guys weeks to fill in a single pothole, and that was local guys who knew exactly where the problem was, and had everything on hand to do it. They joked about how long they could draw it out. State contracted road work is probably two orders of magnitude less efficient than the local work.

Well before I would ever support any increase in taxes to fund construction projects, I would want to see severe criminal penalties in place for both road construction companies and the state managers of such companies if work is not done in both a timely and cost effective manner. And I mean *serious* penalties. If I contract with you to maintain a 500 mile stretch of interstate and notice a pothole and drive by a week later and it has not been repaired, you go to prison for 3 years. Right now half or more of the infrastructure improvement money in the United States is effectively handouts with no oversight. If you say a job is going to take 6 months and it takes you 9. You get to pay a $250,000 / day fine for every day you go over. The roads belong to the people, and the people elect representatives in good faith to represent them. When the people approve of a construction project that is supposed to take 6 months, they EXPECT it to take 6 months.

So in conclusion the cronyism and corruption needs to begin to be punished severely well before taxes get raised. Otherwise raising taxes will be a futile gesture. Also we may well find that once the cronyism and corruption is weeded out that there is more than enough money to maintain and repair roadways.

@phillyguy --I agree with you and furthermore no Federal Excise taxes should go to road beautification or nonroad projects such as the Lawerence Welk or Greyhound Bus museums and that includes their walkways and landscape. In the past these types of projects were funded with fuel, tire, and heavy truck excise taxes as part of the pork barrell politics. Most people will be willing to pay a little more taxes if the funds are not wasted and the money goes toward what it was originally intended for. I can even see some excise tax still going toward mass transit but a majoirty of the funds need to go to maintaining and building roads and bridges.

Another thing is that roads and bridges should be built in such away that they require less maintenance and with more durable materials. There are still plenty of new roads that need to be built to connect areas east and west and to alleviate the growing populations and the growing number of cars and trucks.

John Chaffee, former US Senator from Rhode Island and now deceased, proposed that more roads be built out of shredded tires and glass because some of the roads built out west with those materials lasted longer, used less materials, required less maintenance, and they were cheaper to build. Not only was it cheaper but it would alleviate the problems with tires in landfills and dumps that are a breeding ground for mosquitos. Of course the road contractor's lobbying group blocked the bill from passing. There is no reason that we cannot have roads like the Autobahn in Germany that require less maintenance and that are built to last.

@Jeff S.
A Lot of infrastructure was pretty run down when I visited the US in 2007. How it has changed I do not know. I went on that (very high)Minneapolis Bridge that collapsed soon after. So that really emphasized the state of the run down nature of some of the bridges and roads we went on. Detroit had some shocking secondary roads.

Detroit has some truly abysmal roads, but Detroit is essentially a dead city. I Agree with Jeff. Philadelphia is the 5th or 6th largest city in the country, and it has only ONE east/west artery through it (I-76) and this road is ONLY two lanes in each direction. Its a terrible joke and realistically the city would need an absolute minimum of doubling in size of East/West roads, if not more than double.

I take mass transit in/out of Philadelphia every day (Septa) and I would have to disagree with (more) public funding for mass transit. Right now Septa is routinely rated as one of the most expensive and least efficient transit agencies, they have outdated equipment and refuse to have add ticket kiosks at each station despite this being standard practice all over the country. To ride Septa you have to find one of the few stations that sells tickets, or pay a conductor on a train to punch a ticket (yes, 1930's style). Septa is able to do such an abysmal job because their fares (rated as some of the highest in the country) only cover ONE THIRD of their operating budget. They don't care about responding to passengers, since the passengers' fares cover such a small slice of their budget. I end up with heavily subsidized train service that is (at times) fairly awful. Wouldn't it make more sense, be more efficient, and be more fair to stop forcing people all over the state of PA to subsidize my train tickets, and charge passengers the true costs of running the rail lines? This would require the train operator to better cater to the wants and needs of their passengers while not stealing from people who have never even heard of "Septa" to pay for its operation.

And I am aware that if this were to happen Septa would shut its doors overnight. Its infrastructure and equipment would be auctioned off and a new operator would take over. I am quite confident that it could be a nicely profitable enterprise once the proper cost structure was setup.

Yahoo, trucks are getting same fuel economy as my old 1978 F-150. Not that i care about fuel economy in a work pick-up.

Yeah George, it must be LACKLUSTER if you compare it to V-8s or the Ecoboost, right? Most people that would care about mileage that don't need to tow 5,000 pounds or more would find the 3.6 Pentastar to do fine with 3.21 or 3.55 gears, atleast when compared to Fords BIGGER 3.7.

Lets see, PT.com did the V-6 "Work Truck" Shootout. The 3.73 geared Ford single cab with 265/60 R18s (a 30.5", a shorter tire then the Rams 31.65" 265/70 17) ran a quarter mile in 16.18 @ 88.46. It ran a 7.85 0-60, and then with a 2300 pound trailer it ran 0-60 in 11.33 seconds, and then ran a 18.56 @ 76.45 quarter mile.

The heavier crew cab Ram, with a Rambox (more weight) with 3.21 gears and 8 speed, ran a 7.6 0-60 and a 15.8 @ 86.7 mph. Then with a 3262 pound trailer (motor trends 75% of max tow trailer testing) ran a 12.1 second 0-60, then a 18.7 @75.1 mph quarter mile. That's not much behind the Chevy single cab 4.3 EMPTY time in the work truck shootout.then the Rams 31.65" 265/70 17) ran a quarter mile in 16.18 @ 88.46. It ran a 7.85 0-60, and then with a 2300 pound trailer it ran 0-60 in 11.33 seconds, and then ran a 18.56 @ 76.45 quarter mile. Also if you consider a DOUBLECAB Tundra 5.7 4.30 geared, in the 30K shootout ran a 15.7 quarter mile, so a 15.8 aint too shabby for the 4x2 v-6 CREW Ram. So, it can run quicker 0 to 60 then a Titan and a 3.42 geared extended cab 5.3 Chevy, by 3/4 a second? Yeah George, sounds gutless.

A 3.55 geared Pentastar 3.6 truck has ALOT more starting ratio, crawl ratio then a 3.73 geared Ford, or any 4.3 geared Tundra, and has more gear in 7th then a Tundra 4.3 or Ford 3.73 truck, (a 2.98 ratio) yet you can use the 8th gear for running empty, and it will still provide lower rpms at 75 mph down the freeway. There is no reason at all to put 3.92s in a v-6 Ram.

Like I said George, sounds like it does pretty good compared to everything else on this list, maybe you are comparing it to an Egoboost? Not everbody needs to tow Ecoboost weight ratings, and not everyone wants to have to pay the Ecoboost premium, and then have more maintanance down the road, and run Ecoboost recommended premuim gas, when towing heavy.

But if you want to compare it directly to Fords BIGGER 3.7, and whatever GM gets out of their 4.3, and Toyota and Nissan's 4.0 V-6, it is way ahead. Ford can pencil whip their numbers for the 3.7 however they want, it is not much of a comparison if you ask me (3.6 vs. 3.7) Only shootouts here will point it out, not ratings.

If I was to order a crewcab 4x4 3.6 Pentastar, if I was into towing a light trailer say over 3,000, I would just get the 3.55s. If I didn't plan to tow much, but needed a 4x4 3.21s would be fine.

George, I get the idea you didn't do well in math class?

Oh, the Ford single cab takes longer to stop too!

Actually Big Al, some of us drive easy when there is no fire to go to with our V-8s, and can get decent mileage, considering we aren't in little trucks that have hardly no space for anything much.

Some of like having the power for when we NEED it, like when you hook up a trailer. See how well those little four cylinders would do then? I would rather have the extra power and drive it easy, then have the lesser power, and drive it harder, as DWFields seems to like. The engine will last longer, and give about as good economy when worked then the smaller ones.

It's funny you want to just tax us more, they already get enough! Not our fault they can't manage it! Sure, I have afforded a truck with $38,000 MSRP, but not everybody can! Go taxing it for, the crime rate, poverty level, and forclosures just go up, not everybody can jump in a newer truck, that gets great mileage, and even at that, it will hurt the economy.

I never heard your comment on what it takes in extra maintenance and fuel addatives to keep a diesel on the road in the winter in a cold area. Here in Arkansas, not so bad, but New York, Illinois, Michigan, Canada?

I do like low speed torque though.



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 | © 2011 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com