Texas Truck Showdown 2016: Max Towing Overview

Group Still 1 II

By Mark Williams, PickupTrucks.com

After two years of conducting unjudged Annual Physicals, we know pickup truck shoppers want our perspective on which trucks are best for them. Enter the Texas Truck Showdown. For its inaugural year we focused on two flavors of light-duty trucks: those with maximum towing ability and those that maximize mpgs.

For this max towing Showdown, we pushed the manufacturers to send us their best all-around half-ton pickups set up with their best towing option packages and features to see how they perform. Our Texas Truck Showdown 2016: MPG will publish in early February.

Our request here was simple: We asked each half-ton truckmaker to send us a two-wheel drive (to save some weight) with a crew cab to represent the heart of the market. Each player would need to be equipped with whatever max-tow package and features might be needed for multiple towing exercises, and it needed to be packaged as close to $51,000 as possible. What we got from the manufacturers was a group of test pickups close in size, capability and price, but each one displayed different personality traits when pushed in head-to-head competition.

Just to make things interesting, we tested a new 2016 Nissan Titan XD alongside our competitors to see how it would compare with this segment. However, we are not including this truck in this package of stories because it did not meet enough of our criteria and, technically, given its gross vehicle weight rating and size, it sits outside the segment. But because we know you'll want to know all the details, we will publish a separate story soon about how this all-new entry directly compares with the trucks in this test.

These are the tests we put our Texas Truck Showdown 2016: Towing competitors through:

  • We track-tested (acceleration and braking) all the players at the Royal Purple Raceway outside of Houston, both empty and loaded with 1,750 pounds of payload. We loaded the exact same weight into each pickup to better compare and measure them against one another.
  • We also ran each of these pickups on a 170-mile fuel-mileage route in and around Houston to get a clearer idea of how much compromise their towing packages surrendered when driven empty and how they performed driving the exact same route towing a 10,100-pound 18-foot Load Trail flatbed trailer.
  • We stopped by EngineLogics to run each of our test trucks on the Mustang MD250 chassis dyno to see how the engines compared using the same test equipment on the same day; all were tested by the same technician.
  • Our judges drove each pickup in multiple back-to-back settings while transporting the trucks to and from the racetrack, the hotel, the dyno shop and various photo shoot locations.
  • Finally, we did sound testing in each vehicle over the same stretch of Interstate 10 (east of Houston) at idle and at 60 mph in top gear with the windows rolled up, and the air conditioning and fan off.


The Contenders

2016 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 LTZ (redesigned for 2016)

Chevy front 1 II

Our Deep Ocean Blue Metallic two-wheel-drive crew cab came to us with a $51,010 price tag (all prices include destination fee) that included the athletic 5.3-liter overhead valve V-8 and eight-speed automatic transmission (Chevy sent us a competitor with the smaller V-8, while GMC sent the 6.2-liter V-8 at an additional cost). Although $51,000 might sound like a lot of money, the Silverado 1500 is basically a well-equipped middle-of-the road player in this segment with all the proper equipment for heavier towing and payload hauling. The LTZ Plus Package (a $1,165 option) added power adjustable pedals, a Bose audio system, front and rear park assist, and a heated steering wheel. Our test truck also had 20-inch chrome wheels ($1,495), chrome side steps ($700), heated and vented leather front seats ($650), a leather wireless charging console ($510), spray-in bedliner ($475), special paint color ($395), towing mirrors ($230) and movable upper tie-downs ($60). The Max Trailering Package ($925) added a bigger and stronger rear axle, stronger rear leaf springs, retuned shocks, better radiator cooling and an integrated brake controller inside the truck. The EPA fuel economy ratings for this V-8 truck are 16/22/18 mpg city/highway/combined. The Silverado 1500 is a strong mainstream pickup choice that delivers a lot of value for your dollar.

Chevy Engine 1 II

1 Chevy Silverado Crew 5.3 (3)

For a larger version of the 2016 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Monroney, click on the picture above.


2016 Ford F-150 Lariat (all new in 2015)

Ford F-150 front 1 II

Our two-wheel-drive Shadow Black Ford F-150 SuperCrew Lariat had a final price of $50,270 and came equipped with the twin-turbo 3.5-liter V-6 EcoBoost engine ($1,200) and six-speed automatic transmission. Equipment Group 501A ($1,500) includes a remote start system, 360-degree blind spot detection, backup sensors, LED spotlights in the side-view mirrors and an extra 110-volt, 400-watt outlet. Our test truck also had the Lariat Chrome Appearance Package ($1,695), leather bucket seats and console ($650), and a bed tailgate step ($375). The Max Trailer Tow Package ($1,195) includes an integrated trailer brake controller, Pro Trailer Backup Assist, 3.55:1 axle gears and a GVWR up to 6,800 pounds. Although unrelated to towing, this Ford also came with voice-activated navigation for $795. Finally, the optional larger 36-gallon fuel tank ($395) allowed us to tow heavy loads without stopping for fuel every 200 miles. The EPA fuel economy ratings for this V-6 truck are 17/24/20 mpg. The F-150 is the No. 1-selling pickup in the segment because it offers a wide variety of options and features that many buyers seem to want.

Ford Engine 1 II

2 Ford F-150 Crew 3A (3)

For a larger version of the 2016 Ford F-150 Monroney, click on the picture above.


2016 GMC Sierra 1500 SLT (redesigned for 2016)

GMC Sierra front 1 II

Our Iridium Metallic two-wheel-drive GMC Sierra 1500 SLT crew cab came equipped with the bigger of GM's two V-8 options. The EcoTec3 6.2-liter V-8 is mated to the factory eight-speed automatic transmission for a final sticker price of $53,235, making it the most expensive player in our test. The priciest option was the more powerful V-8 engine ($2,495) rated at 420 horsepower and 460 pounds-feet of torque. The Sierra also came with 20-inch polished aluminum wheels ($895), chrome side steps ($700), leather bucket seats and console with additional USB ports and wireless phone charging ($510), high-performance LED headlights ($500), Intellilink with a color 8-inch touch-screen ($495), a spray-in bedliner ($475), a premium paint color ($395) and special chrome power side-view mirrors ($230). The GMC also had the Max Trailering Package ($925) providing a heavier-duty and larger rear axle, stronger rear leaf springs, retuned shocks, better radiator cooling and the integrated trailer brake controller. Both GM trucks equipped with the max-trailering option have a GVWR of 7,400 pounds. EPA fuel economy ratings for this truck are 15/21/17 mpg. The GMC Sierra 1500 SLT, especially when equipped with the big V-8, is the hot rod of the segment, but does it with style.

GMC Engine 1 II

3 GMC Sierra Crew 6.2 (2)

For a larger version of the 2016 GMC Sierra 1500 Monroney, click on the picture above.


2016 Ram 1500 Laramie Longhorn (all new in 2013)

Ram 1500 front 1 II

Our Bright Silver Metallic crew-cab Ram 1500 Laramie Longhorn came to us in the requested two-wheel-drive configuration with the 5.7-liter V-8 Hemi and eight-speed automatic transmission, finishing with a bottom-line price of $50,805. Because the Laramie Longhorn trim level comes well-equipped at a starting price of $49,980, there was not much need for optional equipment. Standard equipment included in this top trim level are 20-inch polished aluminum wheels with silver inserts, halogen projector headlamps, heated and ventilated leather seats and console, under-seat rear storage, power adjustable pedals, power 10-way driver's seat and six-way passenger seat, Alpine nine-speaker and subwoofer sound system, 8.4-inch nav touch-screen with Uconnect and a 32-gallon fuel tank. The options it came with merely added to the Longhorn's towing capability; it comes standard with a Class IV trailer hitch. Add-ons included towing mirrors (with swing-up capability) and an integrated trailer brake controller ($380), better-performing 3.92:1 axle gears ($75) and a limited-slip differential ($370). The EPA fuel economy ratings for this truck are 15/22/17 mpg. It's worth noting this is Ram's top-level trim package, which it is able to provide under our price ceiling; none of the other competitors could deliver their top trim level in this price range — although Toyota came close.

Ram Hemi Engine 1 II

4 Ram 1500 Crew 5.7 (2)

For a larger version of the 2016 Ram 1500 Monroney, click on the picture above.


2016 Toyota Tundra 1794 Edition (all new in 2014)

Toyota Tundra front 1 II

Our Sunset Bronze Toyota Tundra came to us with its top-level trim, the 1794 Edition, at $52,722. Unfortunately, it also came to us with a 4x4 driveline and the TRD Off-Road Package. Although not the priciest truck in this test (that was the GMC), we did consider not allowing the Tundra into the Showdown because of the driveline disparity; however, in the name of delivering to our readers as much comparative data as possible, we decided to test it at the expense of the relatively small weight and payload penalty. We also discovered that the TRD option ($100) offered softer springs and shocks with a few other pricier styling options. Additional options on our test truck included the front-end paint protection film ($395), chrome Tundra tailgate inserts ($99), rubber bed mats ($139), a TRD performance air filter ($75), a center console storage tray ($85), a spare tire lock ($75) and alloy wheel tire locks ($85). The only other add-ons were the TRD dual exhaust ($1,100) and TRD rear anti-sway bar ($299), which probably helped with power output and trailering stability, respectively. As part of the well-equipped aspect of the 1794 Edition, our Tundra came standard with an integrated trailer controller, trailer-sway control and a high-quality backup camera. (Without the optional equipment, the total price for the Tundra would have been $50,275.) EPA fuel-economy ratings for this truck are a segment worst at 13/17/15 mpg. The Tundra is a solid performing pickup, but it is aging quickly and other players offer more strength and style.

Toyota Tundra Engine 1 II

5 Toyota Tundra 5.7 (2)

For a larger version of the 2016 Toyota Tundra Monroney, click on the picture above.

Scoring the Showdown

Scoring breaks down into 20 categories, including acceleration and braking when empty and loaded, trailered and trailer-free fuel economy, engine performance (dyno), maximum payload capability, GVWR and more. Added to that are scores from our four judges in six key areas: towing performance, ride quality, value, ergonomics, visibility, and tech and entertainment. All totaled, each competitor had about 2,500 available points.

The judges for this contest included truck testers from inside the Cars.com/PickupTrucks.com family as well as truck-loving freelancer experts. Each judge was able to spend lots of time driving each combatant in several back-to-back drive routes and had time to discuss their findings with other drivers.

The Judges

Joe Bruzek — Lead driver and Cars.com's senior road test editor, Bruzek has one of the fastest reaction times you'll ever see.
Bruce Smith — A longtime automotive enthusiast, Smith is skilled in the art of towing, four-wheeling, and wide-mouth bass and walleye fishing.
Kent Sundling — Known to the world as Mr. Truck, if it has a trailer or pickup bed, it's likely Sundling has driven it over the Rocky Mountains.
Mark Williams — Veteran automotive journalist and editor of PickupTrucks.com, Williams sometimes wakes up at night with new comparison test ideas.

To see the comparison specs of these pickups, click on our What You Get chart below.


Cars.com photos by Evan Sears and Angela Conners

Overview | Acceleration | Braking | Mileage | Results


Two Truck Towing 1 II


Leave it to Toyota to once again shoot themselves in the foot. Have they learned nothing from the TRD OffRoad Tacoma getting sand kicked in its face in no small part from OR biased tires.

I know right. Instead of sending a limited which is lighter and with tow mirrors, toyota chose to send a heavy arse pig with low tow and payload. It's no wonder toyota can't break into the truck market. Suits them well to lose.

Why didn't ford provide a truck with 3.73 gears?

Toyota knows they wouldn't win anyways, so if they send something different people can always wonder "what if they sent xxxx model??"

Mark - - -

"Just to make things interesting, we tested a new 2016 Nissan Titan XD alongside our competitors to see how it would compare with this segment. However, we are not including this truck in this package of stories because it did not meet enough of our criteria and, technically, given its gross vehicle weight rating and size, it sits outside the segment. But because we know you'll want to know all the details, we will publish a separate story soon about how this all-new entry directly compares with the trucks in this test."

Good Judgment! An excellent way to both include and not include this new and interesting vehicle.


Mark and his team is fantastic! Everyone was complaining over the weekend about the lack of the XD (despite the reasons Mark listed above...and most readers recognize that logic). But Mark et al. saw that coming a mile away and the XD will be present to some degree.

It will be nice to see how the XD fared. I hope the GM and F150 blows it away for no other reason than to close biGal's pie hole.

notice the GM trucks both beat their sticker rated fuel economy, by quite a bit...the other manufacturers all got worse, gm got better.

I like it. The idea of maxing out your towing or hauling and haul butt 0-60. I don't know about you, but when I tow I drive as fast as I can 0-60. Interesting read about the Ram. It shows it squatting really well. My last Hemi did the same thing. My 3D does not squat near as bad. I'm talking half a cord of Oak in my truck barely moved. My friends Hemi carrying the other half cord was down bad. Wonder why that is?

Of course the 6.2L won. Anyone could see that coming. Newest powertrain on the GMC to promote that brand. Better keep the Chevy with the weaker powertrain so people could see the difference in performance. Good move GM.

After reading all of these articles on the testing I have my list of preferences for these pickups.

1. Chev Silverado; it looks great and is packed with value. From the testing results it's overall performance from the testing is quite good.

2. The Ram (yes, don't know why); the Ram as the article stated is the premium Ram pickup. You can't really option it up. Since most of the time it's driven around empty, who cares how it handles 10 000lbs. So long as I'm comfortable going to Home Depot.

3. GMC Sierra; It's the best looking pick of the bunch; It sort of has the best figures all round. But as I have stated many times I don't buy on magazine data or sell on magazine data.

4. F-150; What worries me is how well will it's FE be with a fully enclosed trailer? Well, Ford, you had an opportunity to produce a game changer. You failed.

But, when is all said and one the F-150 is a very good pickup, but only competitive with older and even to some degree outdated vehicles. Pull your socks up Ford! You can do it.

5. Toyota; What a dismal vehicle. This vehicle is left behind. Wasn't this vehicle designed when sliced bread was invented?

Toyota can only rely on it's revering supporters for so long. They will leave you if you don't do better.


It will be interesting to see how the 1/2 ton Titan will perform as well as the XD. I don't suspect the XD will win any of the drag racing components of the testing.

Interesting and puts to rest several things......

First , the GM trucks are just flat out as good or better than the new all alum. twin turbo Ford is and is steel, less complex, etc. and can provide as good or better mileage doing it.

Second, the 5.3L is a good engine with the 8 spd it equals or beats everything out there from Ram and Toyota and is a great choice for the majority of GM buyers. Wonder how the 2.7l EB would have done , its strong as well.

Third, the weight savings didnt really help the Ford much .....gas mileage wasnt as good as the simpler GM v8 engines (insnt that supposed to be the whole point behind the EB?), truck couldnt hook up as well in back , didnt feel as stable etc.

Would be nice to have a comparative dyno sheet to see not just numbers......did I miss it?

The diesel Nissan wont even be close with these loads IMHO.

You hit the nail on the head with the aluminium wunder trux from Ford.

I do recall for a considerable time after making the announcement that the F-150 will be moving toward aluminium Ford nearly declared a National Holiday regarding the FE advantages of moving to aluminum.

Well, as we have all witnessed Ford once Ford realised that the FE advantages were really only a 1mpg advantaged it moved to load and tow.

Most 1/2 ton pickups are sold as a car/SUV alternative with the occasional 5 000lb (if you are lucky) trailer hitched up behind.

If you are going to seriously tow 5 tons on a regular basis you will not buy anyone of these pickups tested.

Judging by how the standards the manufacturers are using you would want to buy a pickup that is rated to tow at least 20 000lbs and with a diesel.

To move 8 tons of combined mass around why would you want a gasoline engine?

Ford can do better, maybe Ford will, but by that time it's competitors will again have outstripped Ford. The only one that might not is Ram because FCA isn't flushed with money.

@ Shriker

The reason the GM trucks perform so well, even the 5.3 is because in 2014 all three of their engines went DI. This provides more power and greater FE. I haven't heard much about repairs for these engines, but the newest generation of anything has to work out kinks. GM is known to produce reliable power plants, even if the Ford guys knock'em for being old tech.


Shriker - Ford did need to shed some weight. They let their PR over-hype MPG. At least now they are more accurately stating cargo gains over mpg. Ford now offers close to 2k cargo across all of their 1/2 ton crewcab trucks (with the exception of the Limited at 1450). there are those that will say that cargo does not matter but in a crewcab truck you can eat up 500-1000 lbs of capacity with passengers and their associated paraphernalia.

GM at least offers the 7600 gvw option. It is as rare as the 6.2 engine unfortunately. I'd consider a Chevy if I could find a mid-level spec truck with 7600 gvw, max tow and 6.2. This test proves that there isn't much point to buying a 5.3 other than not needing premium gas.

Shriker - agree on the Nissan XD. It can tow but not haul. 1500-2000lbs depending on trim level is too poor for a truck that is as big and heavy as it is.

TFL truck found it didn't go up a hill much faster than the 5.0. So that would mean that it probably is on par with the 5.3. Hardly worth the price premium.

as BARFo has pointed out , "Most 1/2 ton pickups are sold as a car/SUV alternative with the occasional 5 000lb (if you are lucky) trailer hitched up behind."

His statement indicates that there is zero business case for buying one to do the work of a 1/2 ton.

I wonder how people attempt to equate empty mass with payload?

Is it because of Frod and it alumnium wunder trux?

Does it matter the payload to vehicle weight?

One would think a heavier vehicle in comparison to it's payload has an advantage in ride comfort. Also with towing it is far better to have increased mass, especially the difference between say for arguments sake an XD Titan and a aluminium F-150, 2.7 EcoThirst or better still the Frod tested in this article with the 3.5.

Technically if a vehicle can have a 1 500lb load it should be able to tow 15 000lbs.

Hmmm .......................... some comments denigrating the Titans payload might be Frod biased and the claims are made one of those paid website product bullsh!tters. These types have no real allegiance. They are just talk with little knowledge and substance.

What's your opinion BC Mike ........ oops I mean Lou?

Hey there BARFO. What was all that BS you were spewing about the 3.5L being winded towing 10K and would be under 8 mpg towing? Common, you are the all knowing. Is PUTC wrong with this? Maybe you should write another email to Mark.

Many times I will check this site out when I am sitting on the toilet making a statue of Johnny Welfare!


Hey there military grade BARFO. What was all that military grade BS you were military grade spewing about the military grade 3.5L being military grade winded towing military grade 10K and would be under military grade 8 mpg towing? Common, you are the military grade all knowing. Is military grade PUTC wrong with this? Maybe you should military grade write another email to military grade Mark.

So did the Silverado have 3.42's or 3.73's. The article and window sticker mention 3.42's, but they listed it as having the max tow rating of the 5.3 NHT equipped with 3.73's, not the 3.42 axle ratio.

Max Conventional Trailering
5.3 w/ 3.42's 4WD CCSB - 9,200 lb
5.3 w/ 3.73's 4WD CCSB- 10,900 lb
5.3 w/ 3.42's 2WD CCSB- 9,400 lb
5.3 w/ 3.73's 2WD CCSB- 11,100 lb

Nice going Ford, for spanking the competition with a V6 215 cid engine VS big block V8 engines with 331cid to 400 cid engines.

Nice going Ford, for spanking the competition with a V6 215 cid engine VS big block V8 engines with 331cid to 400 cid engines.
Posted by: blueman | Jan 25, 2016 10:29:18 PM

LOL what are you talking bout. Ford didn't even win one event, and barely came in second on a few LMAO!

It's comments like yours that embodies what's going wrong with the F150. They abandoned the fuel economy angle, market non-existant "class-leading payload" trucks that sag like a Fiat, and emphasize 0-60 times instead of the far more important TRUCK capabilites. They send a tow-package equipped truck that sags when hooked up to a trailer, gets twitchy on the highway while towing, shows up rolling on horrible eco passenger car tires, and despite a 2250 pound weight advantage, can't stop any better than an unloaded cheby. The new F150 is a military grade failure. Looks I won't be trading in my 2012 5.0 Screw anytime soon.

Did the RAM have the Air Suspension option? It looks like it did not. If not, I wonder if Air Suspension would have materially improved the RAM's towing squat and handling. Past testers have raved about the towing handling using RAM's Air Suspension option. It would be interesting if that was still true towing this maximum load.

Its hilarious reading some of the drivel typed on here.

MassMike - nope. the air ride wouldn't have saved the Ram. This is a quote from the last 1/2 ton shootout:

"where the Ram lost most of its points was in its limited payload, braking numbers and the ride quality of the air suspension when towing or loaded."

FCA wants you to buy a HD for anything other than SUV with a balcony duties.

I am so happy that I have a 2014 F150 4X4 Screw 157 WB with the Raptor 6.2 which comes as a Max Tow PKG. with 3:73 Final Drive. It's heavy, but pulls strong! This is rear configuration that I will keep forever!

Ram/FCA is like the other pickup manufacturers, they are no different in the end.

75% of pickups are sold to the wannabe car/SUV/CUV style operators. They do want utility, but slightly different utility that the CUVs and SUVs offer, with an added middle class lifestyle statement. This is valid for Frod, GM, Ram, Nissan and Toyota. Honda is a given.

This is why the 1/2 to is and aluminium Ford EcoThirst, GM twins or a steel, diesel Ram ar the biggest movers are the mid to high end models.

I'd even bet that most any one of the pickups sold that were tested in this latest towing "shootout" would never tow more than a few tons, at best a couple of tons.

This is how Ram/FCA has improved sales. Ram offered a very civilised product that appeals to the majority, except now FCA must update and improve the Ram.

Sorry, my above comment should of been addressed to massmike, not kyle.

I knew I was right. BARFO could not resist his Ford bash. Look at him go. Ecothirst, frod, towing etc. What a pitiful and predictable fool.

The world according to BARFo..........incorrect..... the Canadian and American truck world according to BARFo:

"75% of pickups are sold to the wannabe car/SUV/CUV style operators. They do want utility, but slightly different utility that the CUVs and SUVs offer, with an added middle class lifestyle statement."

Fortunately for you and I, we are in the 25%.

BARFo is firmly planted in the 75%. That does explain his view of trucks.

BAFO uses his truck to haul a fishing pole and beer. He once saw a Tundra at a mall in Jersey. That explains his view on trucks.

Jeff - he must haul a lot of beer ;)

Speaking about spanking the competition...how's your wife LMAO?

Posted by: Rolling Can of Beer | Jan 26, 2016 5:46:55 PM

Oh wait...I know how she is!

Posted by: Rolling Can of Beer | Jan 26, 2016 5:47:27 PM

Your Mom is doing just fine!

I see school let out. I am surprised you want to ask about me "spanking" your Mom. That is rather weird but you also like to watch your sister in the shower so it is understood.

Gents, Excellent set of articles. Thank you

Posted by: Rolling Can of Beer | Jan 26, 2016 7:54:31 PM

I guess you are retarded. I already told you your Mom is doing just fine.

"Nice going Ford, for spanking the competition with a V6 215 cid engine VS big block V8 engines with 331cid to 400 cid engines."

None of the trucks had big blocks....

Thanks Lou_BC and Big Al from Oz. Since the trucks were supplied by the manufacturers to show their best performance, I suspected the RAM air suspension option would not have helped and may have hurt RAM's performance for this test. Thanks for the reference to the past test to prove that fact. The reviews that raved about the RAM air suspension during towing were for lighter loads, though the loads may be more realistic for most 1/2 ton owners. I agree the current popularity and increased production of trucks is due to targeting the suburban user with nicer rides and plusher interiors. Gone are the fantastically satisfying teeth loosening ride and efficient "hose it out" interior of my '70 Blazer, which sadly looses 20 lbs every time I slam the door.

MassMike - the "air ride" on the Ram 1500 is actually a closed system using nitrogen. I've heard of incidences of having to get them recharged. I've also heard of overheating on rough roads. I have seen one air-ride Ram sitting behind the local dealership looking like a torpedoed ship about to topple over.

One thing people have to watch with crewcab trucks are the load ratings. A 5-6 passenger cabin full of family and/or adults can consume 1/2 to 3/4's of your cargo ratings. Adding even a light trailer can max the truck out.

Most any US 1/2 ton is not one of those new 3 000lb payload F-150s.

Most any US pickup as Massmike pointed out are CUVs for the Suburbs.

Why can't you get this through your head.

Ranting and your retorts slamming Ram are ridiculous. FCA has realised what the average and expected use of a pickup is and they have manufactured what the consumer wants.

Just because a vehicle will tow a squillion pounds doesn't necessarily mean the person buying will ever use that capability.

Why don't you denegrate all US pickups for their overall lacklustre payload performance.

Have a look at the most popular payload class within the 1/2 ton pickups. I'd bet you'll find that there are far more Frod buyers that I would be concerned about regarding the payload/tow argument you go on ranting about.

I do believe you are completely disconnected from reality with the use of the NA pickup.

Ranting and your retorts slamming Ram are ridiculous. FCA has realised what the average and expected use of a pickup is and they have manufactured what the consumer wants.

Posted by: Big Al from Oz | Jan 27, 2016 1:02:11 PM

And by the Fiat sales numbers very few people have purchased what you say consumers want. Just because your a fiat fanbot does not mean that is what everyone wants. In fact the fiat trucks tend to be the cheapest pricedo on the market. Fiat even offers 7 and 8 year financing to try and get paymentsome lower and more people in their products. However Ford and GM remain the largest sellers of trucks and wait for it.....................................................................have leaf spring rear suspension. So what do consumers want?

"I do believe you are completely disconnected from reality with the use of the NA pickup."

"I do believe"

"I do believe"

"I do believe"

That is obviously the extent of your North American truck reality.
I've said this before, most (civilian personal use buyers)are clueless to the cargo capacity of their trucks and are even more clueless to what different things weight.
Sales staff will parrot advertising i.e. best in class mpg, best in class towing, best in class hauling, best in class HP but often NONE OF THAT applies to the unit they are selling.

Only one pickup wins this but you have to order it. The half ton heavy duty Ford with the Max Tow. Fabulous truck. Few 3/4s can match it. But Ford doesn't market it at all. They would rather sell a bunch of wanna bees. My 2011 XLT SC out the door very nice and perfect...34,500$ Drove the aluminum one. Everything about them is better. Better center of gravity, much better mileage, etc. These road test guys couldn't get good mileage with a turbo if they had to. You have to drive these turbos different, then you see the difference. I am just glad there is a pickup that gives me that option as my uses are highly varied.

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