Road Test Review: 2011 Ford F-150 XLT 5.0-liter V-8

Road Test Review: 2011 Ford F-150 XLT 5.0-liter V-8
By Mike Levine and Mark Williams

Last year, the Ford F-150 offered most buyers a choice of legacy two-valve and three-valve 4.6-liter V-8 engines or a three-valve 5.4-liter V-8. While those engines got the job done, they weren’t known for power or performance.

This year, Ford has totally revamped the F-150’s powertrain lineup with three all-new advanced engines, plus wider availability of the 6.2-liter V-8 that was previously limited to the 2010 F-150 SVT Raptor.

We’ve extensively tested the 6.2 in the Raptor and the new entry-level 3.7-liter V-6 during our six-cylinder Work Truck Shootout. We’ve also spent several hours towing and piloting the novel twin-turbo 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6, the F-150’s top-of-the-line towing engine. But our time with the fresh 5.0-liter V-8 was limited to a brief drive and drag race in Texas last year. That’s no longer the case.

A 2011 F-150 XLT SuperCrew 5.0 4x4 showed up in our driveway last Tuesday, and we wasted no time putting it through its paces. In less than a week, we drove it 800 miles – 622 miles of which it towed a 9,000-pound conventional tandem axle horse trailer.

Snap judgment? This could be the best all-around engine ever offered in the F-150 – at least until EcoBoost’s early adopters can confirm that mill’s reliability and efficiency in real-world use.

Driving-1-560

The four-valve per cylinder, dual overhead cam 5.0 is positioned as the midrange engine choice for the F-150 — below the EcoBoost six-cylinder and 6.2 V-8 and above the 3.7. It’s rated at 360 horsepower (at 5,500 rpm) and 380 pounds-feet of torque (at 4,250 rpm). That’s more power than the old 5.4-liter V-8, but it doesn’t carry as high a tow rating. In the regular cab, it can pull up to 10,000 pounds instead of a maximum 11,300 pounds.

Like its engine, our test SuperCrew four-door was a middle-of-the-road model with a relatively steep MSRP of $39,445, after a $1,500 discount for the optional chrome, convenience and tow packages that runs through the end of the model year.

The metallic red F-150 came equipped with cloth captain’s chairs, AM/FM/CD stereo and Ford’s Sync hands-free multimedia system and Bluetooth connectivity. It lacked navigation, a rear backup camera and reverse sensors, making tail-first maneuvers a challenge in tight spots, and we couldn’t back up to the trailer without the help of a spotter. The optional chrome package added brightwork that included side steps and wheel covers. If it were our choice, we’d skip the package and invest in a nice set of aluminum wheels.

Despite a lack of luxury items, the XLT F-150 was more than comfortable inside. We turned our phone into a substitute for satellite radio by using Sync and Pandora to stream tunes wirelessly over Bluetooth, though we had to pair the phone and truck twice after the F-150 stopped playing music this way.

Ford has updated the F-150’s instrument cluster with nice gauges and an optional 4.2-inch trip computer that Ford calls a “productivity screen” that we’ve liked since it debuted in the F-Series Super Duty. It includes apps that provide fine-grained details about towing, off-roading, fuel economy and more. Controls on the steering wheel make short work of finding the information you want quickly and with minimal distraction.

Interior-1-560

The truck’s second-row seats and flat load floor made it easy for us to stow our gear for our tow test or accommodate two kids in booster seats running errands around Los Angeles.

Our four-wheel-drive 5.0 was rated 14/19 mpg city/highway. These days, we’d expect fuel economy to be higher, especially in a small-displacement eight-cylinder. It should have at least tied the 15/21 mpg rating of the 5.3-liter V-8 in the Chevy Silverado 1500. But making up for the so-so mileage was an optional 36-gallon fuel tank that gave us peace of mind and extra range pulling the heavy trailer. For comparison, the premium EcoBoost V-6 F-150 is only available with a 26-gallon reservoir.

Unloaded, the F-150’s trip computer calculated a bladder-busting driving range of 521 miles, though we wouldn’t come close to that with the trailer behind us. In our first stretch of towing — 226 miles from Norco to Needles, Calif., which included the challenging Cajon Pass on Interstate 15 — we averaged 9.42 mpg, burning 24.03 gallons of fuel (versus an optimistic trip computer estimate of 9.8 mpg and 22.9 gallons of fuel). Those are respectable numbers for a rig that weighed 14,780 pounds on a CAT scale -- just 320 pounds less than the truck’s gross combined weight rating.

On that same stretch, we also started to realize the vast potential that’s locked inside the 5.0. As we left the L.A. basin and started climbing Cajon Pass, the truck shrugged off the weight behind it. Visibly, we could see the rear squatting lower, and we could feel the truck hunker down from inside, but power wasn’t an issue. It was available on demand.

On the steepest parts of Cajon, we had no problem keeping up with traffic at around 65 mph with the modest 3.73-to-1 rear axle. When the engine needed more power, its six-speed transmission smoothly downshifted to 3rd gear, and the mill found its sweet spot at around 4,000 rpm. The truck never lost momentum. In fact, it gained speed to the point where we had to ease back on the accelerator. After cresting the top of the grade, the truck quickly upshifted into 6th at 1,600 rpm and 65 mph.

Coyote-1-560

We noticed some interesting transmission behavior as the terrain flattened out. We kept the truck in tow/haul mode the entire time it was hooked up to the trailer. Tow/haul mode does two things: The transmission holds gears longer when the truck is working hard to keep power up, and it downshifts automatically to slow the truck with a tap of the brake pedal on descents. Every cog swap was carlike, but several times after upshifting into 6th, we felt the torque converter lock up about 20 seconds after the gear change. We’re sure that helped with shift feel, but we wonder if we weren’t sacrificing a bit of fuel economy with the torque converter seeming to stay loose for such a long period. If we could squeeze out extra mileage with a faster-locking torque converter, we’d take that option over smoother shifts.

Another trait we noticed as we requested more power from the engine on climbs and to pass traffic was its split personality – similar to that of the 3.7-liter V-6. Loping along, the V-8 was subdued and quiet. But when we needed more power, the exhaust note snarled like a sports car – not surprising, since the engine is also shared with the Ford Mustang. We loved the deep notes it made. They were perfectly tuned to match the engine’s effort and sounded much better than the flat exhaust note of the EcoBoost V-6 when that engine is under load. There’s nothing like the tenor of a hard-working V-8 in a half-ton pickup.

The 2011 F-150 also features standard 12-volt electric power-assisted steering for every engine except the 6.2 V-8 – the first half-ton pickup to do so. (The limited-volume Chevy Silverado Hybrid uses a 42-volt system.) The steering feels light when the truck is stopped and during low-speed maneuvers. It dynamically adjusts steering effort to match the speed and loads the truck is under. On the highway, the steering was precise and provided excellent driver feedback. There was none of the numbness generally associated with electric steering’s early days in small cars. It seemed to vary boost levels as we entered turns, smoothly assisting the trailer around bends in contrast to the on/off boost that can occur with conventional hydraulic steering pumps.

As we drove across the desert, we encountered strong winds that had knocked several semis off the highway the day before. While we could feel the gusts buffeting the truck and trailer, we never felt control was an issue. At least once, immediately passing an 18-wheeler, we were hit by a strong gale that seemed to trigger the F-150’s trailer-sway control system.

Driving-2-560

Trailer-sway control senses difference in yaw between truck and trailer and uses the wheel brakes in both vehicles to counteract any sway before it becomes dangerous enough to throw the rig off the road.

If you order a 2011 F-150, we highly recommend you option it with the integrated trailer brake controller, which extends sway control to the trailer (in addition to controlling the trailer’s brakes via ABS). Even though our truck was optioned with the F-150’s trailer towing package, it didn’t include the brake controller, which costs an extra $230 from the factory. A local dealer had to add the controller after it arrived for our test.

Our turnaround point for our road test was near Laughlin, Nev. Cajon Pass was a warm-up for testing the 5.0 F-150 on the 12-mile, 5 percent grade Davis Dam hill climb on Arizona Highway 68, just east of Laughlin. Davis Dam has become the default location for measuring performance against the industry’s new trailer towing standards set by the Society of Automotive Engineers. It’s also where Ford recently tested the EcoBoost six-cylinder against competitors’ eight-cylinder engines. On Highway 68, the 5.0 was incredibly strong — so strong that we could accelerate at any point along the route and still gain speed to where we had to slow down to safely control the truck and trailer around turns.

We also staked out a 7,500-foot stretch of the grade where we could safely climb the hill from a full stop and measure its performance using our VBOX kit. Zero to 60 mph up the steady 5 percent grade took 30.29 seconds, and the truck finished the quarter-mile in a respectable 25.06 seconds at 55.5 mph.

Those numbers, plus seat-of-the-pants feel, make us wonder how much Ford might be sandbagging the 5.0-liter V-8’s power figures, something we suspected during our first drive in Texas.

Dyno-1-560

We also ran the same performance tests on level ground. The zero-to-60 mph time with the trailer was cut almost in half, to just 16.85 seconds. Unloaded, the 5.0 yielded a zero-to-60 time of just 7.18 seconds – almost as quick as the large displacement 6.2-liter V-8 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 crew cab 4x4 that was the fastest truck in our 2008 Light-Duty Shootout.

Our final confirmation of the tremendous towing performance and potential of the 5.0 came on the Dynojet Research chassis dyno at our friends at K&N Engineering in Riverside. At the rear wheels, we measured a very healthy 311 hp and 325 pounds-feet of torque. While the torque curve isn’t as flat as the EcoBoost V-6’s curve, it is broad, and power steadily climbs over most of the rev range instead of being peaky near 4,000 rpm.

Overall, we’re very impressed with how comfortable the F-150 5.0 was during our long-haul towing legs. We towed just under the truck’s max GCWR and towing capacity, yet the truck felt like other half-tons towing much less. A truck that drives this smoothly and comfortably, with very little driver fatigue, at max capacities is something quite special — even unusual in any truck segment.

The truck was also comfortable and relatively easy to manage in unloaded driving around Los Angeles. It was also fun to show off some of the 5.0’s power at one or two green lights. We averaged between 13 mpg and 17 mpg depending on traffic conditions, surface streets and highway driving. Nothing to brag about for fuel economy, but superior to what we’ve observed driving a 6.2-liter V-8 in LA.

Which engine should F-150 buyers choose? If you’re going to tow and haul more than 10,000 pounds frequently but want something smaller than a heavy-duty pickup, opt for the 6.2. If you’re going to tow more than 10,000 pounds occasionally and need a truck for light-duty hauling activities the rest of the time, a 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 would probably be a good fit. But if you’re going to tow 5,000 to 10,000 pounds regularly and aren’t quite ready to trust a twin-turbo six-cylinder to move your rig, the 5.0 is for you. If we were going to buy an F-150 today, the 5.0 is the box we’d likely check on the order form.

Infographic-final-560

Special thanks to K&N Engineering and American Horse Trailer Rentals

Comments

What is the payload on this truck?

@Jason: 1,560 lbs

As always, a great review Mike.

Great work Mike, you must have the best job in the world and you are very good at it!

Very nice torque curve, I remember all the naysayers predicting that the torque was all high RPM, but that chassis dyno shows a nice torque spread. Can't wait to see the EB test; its going to be a tough choice when we order the wife's truck as to whether we go 5.0 or EB. I was sure on EB, but now I'm not so sure!

@ Mike - how was towing visibility with the standard mirrors?

@Paul810,

Since when did Chevy drop the 3.73 gear ratio option for the 5.3L? Seems like to me the 3.73 ratio was somewhat the standard ratio to get in the Z71, but I guess GM figures they want to get every single drop of fuel mileage from the 5.3L by offering the 3.08 and 3.42. But there's nothing wrong with the 3.42 b/c my dad has a '97 Chevy C/K 2WD with the 3.42 and it gets about 20mpg on the highway and still be able to haul/tow a decently sized load.

@Lou: I forgot to write about that. What do they say about mirrors? There's no replacement for displacement? That said, they weren't bad. The new convex lens in the driver side mirror made it very easy to see where the left wheels were at all times. Rights side visibility was good as well. They are an improvement over last year's mirrors but I'd still select the towing mirrors if I was going to pull a trailer regularly.

The truck didn't have a backup camera either. I really missed that - even if the screen is only in the rearview mirror. Makes hooking up a trailer so much easier.

@Mike Levine,

How much extra for the back-up camera? Also, does in come standard in the Plantium and KR Editions.

Thanks for the review!

@Bob,

4x2 to 4x2 both Ford and Chevy get 15/21 mpg. From what I could find Chevy's 4x4 gets the same fuel economy, and if that's true then that's awesome, cause I've never heard of that happening before.

But remember, Ford has 45 more horsepower and 42 more lb-ft of torque then Chevy.

So, Mike, this means you would likely check the EcoBoost option with the trailer mirrors if you were pulling a trailer regularly? Tow mirrors are not available on the 5.0L.

You also said payload was 1565 and you would choose the 5.0L if you were towing 5-10,000 regularly. I'm not sure how this works, but 10,000 lb trailer x 15% tongue weight = 1500 lbs. That means you have only 65 lbs left for yourself, passengers, cargo, etc. Wouldn't it be better to select EcoBoost and Max Tow if you are towing regularly which will give you 300-400 lbs more payload?

@Frank: $450

@Jason: I said, "But if you’re going to tow 5,000 to 10,000 pounds regularly **and aren’t quite ready to trust a twin-turbo six-cylinder to move your rig, the 5.0 is for you."**

5,000 to 10,000 pounds is a big range. To tow 10K, you'd have to go with the reg cab 5.0. Make the call based on your total GCW requirements.

I'd consider getting a set of Ford OEM trailer towing mirrors from the dealer and installing them myself.

BTW - This 5.0 review is a warm-up for a very large EcoBoost test we have planned. We're going to answer lots of questions.

Good article, def love what I'm hearing about the 5.0, I just wish Ford would equip their regular cab trucks with the same options that GM does, for example can't get a regular cab F-150 with a real locker rear end and 18" wheels like GM offers, and that black strip between the side window and edge of the door no matter what colourof truck on the new F-150s is soo ugly IMO.
@ Alex,
Good ol' GM torque management at work, those trucks with 5.3s have to be tuned before you can get any torque below 3500 rpm. Then they're like driving a totally different truck.

@ Bob - how do you figure Ford is in second place with engines?
Diesels - that topic is best left to a diesel thread.
Gasers - it is looking pretty obvious to anyone without a brand bias who currently has the better engines.
The 5.0 is almost as fast as the GM 6.2.
Your the expert on GM trucks - what is the MPG ratings for the 6.2? EPA = 12/19.
The 5.0 is rated 14/19
Ford has a "base" engine that has 1200 cc less, 43 less HP, 37 lb.ft. less but is only 0.12 seconds slower 0 - 60 mph, and only 0.01 seconds slower in the 1/4 mile.
Let me point out again that this is Ford's "base" V8. It is comparable to GM's premier engine.
How did Ford's new 3.7 compare to GM's venerable 4.3 V6 in the worktruck shootout?
How did Ford's 6.2 compare to GM's 6.0 in the HD shootout?
The only quantity X remaining is the EB 3.5. We could extrapolate from known data a probable winner but I don't play those kind of games.
We will know soon enough how that engine rates in the real world.
You should get together with "P" and polish your tarnished bowties.

Lou,
GM 6.2 is: 12city, 18 hwy in 4x4 and 4x2

Ford 5.0: 15city, 21hwy 4x2
Ford 5.0: 14city, 19hwy 4x4

One more thing, the 5.0 is faster than the GM Sierra 6.2 was in the shootout.

"GM 6.2 is: 12city, 18 hwy in 4x4 and 4x2"

Is this with Cylinder Deactivation?

@Mike Levine, how was the engine braking and braking in general? Did you feel the truck was able to capably stop that load on the downhill? Could you tap down a couple gears and not have to ride the brakes coming down?

@Mike: I thought the grade braking in tow/haul mode was totally acceptable. Several times I had to dig a bit into the brakes but it wasn't unreasonable on the descents, which were as steep (briefly) as 6-7%.

Mike, Prodrive who produce the FPV Ford Falcons in Australia, have produced a supercharged and modified version of the engine for car use. Power ratings for the same engine would be rated a lot more in the US. as they quote the average rating, rather then peak horsepower here.i.e. 470-500hp in US.

http://www.carsguide.com.au/site/news-and-reviews/car-news/fpv_launches_coyote_v8_as_miami

I find the Tow/haul mode works great in the winter on icy roads. I activate it sometimes when slowing down and the down shifts do a great job of scrubbing off speed.
These new auto transmissions work so well that i can't see a need for a standard anymore.

Mike,
At the EcoBoost Tear Down Jim M said the 36 gallon tank would be an option for the SuperCrew for EcoBoost. Is there any way you can get an update on the status of that? At the Chicago Auto Show perhaps?

I believe that the 15/21 fuel economy rating for Chevy's are with the 3.08 rear end ratio, compared to the 3.73 for Ford? I am sure if Ford tested their trucks with the 3.08 ratio they would get 21 mpg on the highway or better. Chevrolet guys are getting desperate, not much to hang their hats on these days.

still puzzled at some of u guys who's spitting epa numbers around like it's standard. don't forget to calc for axle ratio n tranny ratios.

as for track times, i'll hold out until they're all tested at the same time in the same place. bcuz we all know, diff truck perform diffidently even with the same drivetrain. but i'm willing to guest that if the 5.0L gets compared again next time with the others, it'll be slower than this one that just got reviewed.

i will say ford will fit in this order for crewcabs n the top 4 will be within .2 sec of each other for 1/4mile:
gm 6.2
tundra 5.7
ford 6.2
ford 3.5 eco
ram 5.7
ford 5.0
titan 5.6

the f150 is showing good performance so far.

So Mike with the truck unloaded and average driving is your suspicion that the 3.5 will get substantially better mileage over the 5.0?

@Jason: Yes, I definitely expect EcoBoost to get better fuel economy when the truck is unloaded. Looking forward to testing what it will be over long distance with a trailer.

@ uh huh - good point about track times. Temperature, humidity, wind, barometric pressure, elevation etc. all come into play.
You are bolder than I when it comes to picking the final rankings.
Bob will give you a big wet sloppy kiss for your efforts;)

Baloney baloney baloney, First of all GM doesn't put the fuel economy numbers on their trucks. The EPA or Eviormental Protection Agency puts the fuel economy ratings on vehicles and the Manufactures have nothing to do with it.

So to the idiots who say gm used the 3.08 to get thier ratings are complete morons and are lying to prove a point.

The fact of the matter is GM has the only V8 offered in a pickup that is 4 wheel drive and gets 21 miles per gallon. Can Ford or Dodge or Toyota say that??? NOPE!!!

Fords Ecoboost is a great engine and is rated at 15 city and 21 highway with 4 wheel drive and only matches the 5.3 liter V8. BTW. Gm's 6.0 Hybrid is rated at 21 city and 22 highway in 4 wheel drive. NOBODY touches that from the competition. NOBODY!!!

Fords Ecoboost is a great engine and is rated at 15 city and 21 highway with 4 wheel drive and only matches the 5.3 liter V8. BTW. Gm's 6.0 Hybrid is rated at 21 city and 22 highway in 4 wheel drive. NOBODY touches that from the competition. NOBODY!!!"

The Ecoboost has 50hp and 100lbs tq and can smoke the Chevy 5.3L and 6.0L. The hybrid can only tow a measly 6100 lbs. If that's the case, I would buy the F150 3.7L V6 and get 23mpg on highway. The Silvy Hybrid is redundant.

Ford has all the bases covered. The 3.7L can tow the same as the 6L Hybrid and cost less.

F150 V6 3.7 > Silveraod Hybrid 6.0L

Mike, is it even possible to get the towing mirrors without getting the Ecoboost? Seems like a pretty unfair disadvantage for people who don't want to step into TTDI.

stop yelling bob

How much can the GM Hybrid tow? Only 5900 lbs. GM giveth, then taketh away.

Who needs GM's underpowered V8 5.3 when you got a Ecoboost V6 from Ford than has more power, more torque, better fuel economy in 2wd, and equal fuel economy in 4wd?


@ Bob - quote "The fact of the matter is GM has the only V8 offered in a pickup that is 4 wheel drive and gets 21 miles per gallon."
Only V8 ?
you a PR hack for GM?
You are "cough" "hack" "gasp" "urp" "brack" correct if you must split hairs.
The EB 3.5 is NOT a V8 and the 5.0 matchs GM's ratings in 2 wheel drive.

How do you feel about the 5.0 being 0.01 slower than 6.2?
That is zero point zero one seconds slower in the quarter mile?
The 5.0 is afterall - Ford's base V8.
GM's base V8 is the 4.8.
How do you thing the 5.0 will fare against the 4.8 in a drag race or tow competition?

How about Base V8 versus intermediate V8.
How do you think the 5.0 will compare to the 5.3 in a drag race or tow competition?
360 hp vs 315 hp

GM's intermediate is the 5.3 - would that mean the 5.3 has to be compared directly to the EB 3.5?
How do you thing the 5.3 will fare?
(lets exclude Ford's Davis dam test - probably rigged in Ford's favor-right?)

Finally how do you think Ford's 6.2 will do against Chev's 6.2?
Premium engine versus premium engine?

Like I said before - go polish your tarnished bowtie.
your Astro van probably needs a good cleaning.

aHHHHHHHHHHHHH, YELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

NOBODY and NO MANUFACTURE has better fuel economy numbers on their trucks than GM period! Who is the only manufacture that makes a 4 wheel drive with a V8 engine that gets 21 miles per gallon???? Survey says.... GM of course. Any other players out their???? NO. HAY Ford has a V6 that will get 21 mpg but they don't make a V8 with 4 wheel drive that will get that and you ford lovers can't stand getting beat by GM and lie, cheat and steal to prove other wise. Wow Ford you really have something with your ecoboost engine matching GM'S 5.3 Liter V8 in fuel economy.

Let's see, GM'S 5.3 has been produced since 1999 and fords ecoboost???? oh yea this year. Wow ford your really going places, NOT!

Mike,

An EXCELLENT article, especially the charts/summaries at the end... I like your work.

Quick question on the dyno test. It certainly seems Ford is underrating the engine. I always thought automatics, especially trucks with heavy drivetrains, had at least 20% driveline loss.

So...

I am guessing the real output numbers of the 5.0 are around 390 HP and 405 lb-ft of Torque (at 20% loss, that would match the dyno numbers you obtained).

And, judging from your test results, I would say 390 HP and 405 lb-ft Torque is confirmed. But, 30 HP and 25 lb-ft Torque is quite a sandbag...

Your thoughts?

Isn't it time to ban that troll?

"Let's see, GM'S 5.3 has been produced since 1999 and fords ecoboost????" - TROLL


Yup, the same year you were born.

@Bob
Are you a GM salesman??? Lol! I'm not a Ford man at all. But you have to admit it and you probably hate it that Ford has done a good job with their new engines. They deserve credit for what they have done. It's now time for GM, Dodge, Toyota and Nissan to come to the plate with something better than they have. Which I'm sure they will in time. Well most of them anyways.
@Mike
Keep up the good work. I look forward to reading more of your articles. And how about some winter testing with these trucks. I'd love to know how they do in winter weather.

@ Bob - you didn't answer any of my questions?

Sad, real sad - the only thing you have left to cling to is a measly 1 mpg 4x4 fuel economy advantage in a V8 or brag about the extra mpg 10,000 dollars worth of batteries will buy.

Direct comparisons

base engine
3.7 versus 4.3

base V8
5.0 versus 4.8

intermediate engine
3.5 EB versus 5.3

Premier engine
6.2 versus 6.2

That is how it breaks down.
Cherry pick data all you want.

Mike I just want to say this is a great website! I am thinking about buying a ecoboost 4X4 with the 3.73 gears but am worried 3.73 will get a lot worse gas mileage vs the 3.55 gears. Do you have any idea how much the gas mileage would be afected by the gear ratio?

Bob, Lou, please no more. I'm going to delete all of your back and forths.

Ignore the trolls and they'll go away or I'll delete the comments.

@ Mike - my apologies.

@ Mike - do you think you will be able to round up the full engine lineup form all the truck companies for the 2011 shootout?
That would be the ultimate test.

@Jeremy,

Towing capabilities are no different at all. 3.55s do .5-1 mpg better at freeway speeds.

GM is going to have to spend a lot of money to redesign their next 1/2 ton. They need new engines, new frame, new exterior and new interiors to catch Ford and Dodge Ram. All that Dodge has to do is put that 8 speed transmission in their 1/2 tons and that Hemi will tow like a diesel and get good milage. I know the manufactures can't come out with new products all at the same time so someone is always going to play catch up.
When I look at buying a new truck fuel mileage is 4th below tow rating, hp and good looks.

The Dodge Ram 5.7 Hemi still out performs the 5.0 and eco-boost..I want to see the performance for the Ford 6.2..

Car&Driver got a 6.4 0-60 with a 4x4 CrewCab Ram,14's in the 1/4..

Mid 5 second range with the 5.7 Hemi R/T...And can run mid 13's in the 1/4..

Ram has new 8 speed transmissions coming,and probably more powerful engines.

Cant believe the wire/hose mess of a Ford's engine bay,very,very cluttered..besides that Ford finally has engines to make a truck guy proud,they were slugs before 2011 !

I like the back and forth, makes my day less boring! Great points Lou, plus the fact the V8 Chevy is the same HP as the V6 Ford! No need to delete Mike!

I think the debate between Ford and Chevy can be summed up less by performance numbers and fuel economy and more by the articles right here on pickuptrucks.com. Read the single articles about the Chevy Silverado and compare the content to those of the Ford F150. Clearly Ford builds a superior truck in todays market. They have since 2007.

@Mike Levine, it would be great if you had a page on your site with performance numbers of all the brands and vehicles you test. HP, 0-60, quarter mile(empty and towing) etc. That would be a wonderful resource!

I keep reading posts that say "just wait for gm's new engines!" and I've done a bit of searching online and can't find anything on new gm truck engines plans. Does anyone even have an idea as to what they are working on? Or are they just stuck with the same engines for another 10 or more years?

nice job mike, but who says 15% tounge weight? i read 10% in my owners manual.

Re: Car and Driver

Ram 0-60: 7.4
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/ee57d5e3b90584e2b9ae5664552187ba.pdf

Ram 1/4 mile: 15.7 sec
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/08q4/2009_dodge_ram_1500-first_drive_review

5.0 from Mike's test:
7.18 0-60
15.53 1/4 mile.

Ram recommends mid grade fuel.
Ford recommends regular.

Ram gets worse fuel economy.



The comments to this entry are closed.