The Test At Davis Dam: 2014 Chevy Silverado 1500s

IMG_7606a II

On paper, GM's EcoTec3 powertrain strategy was pretty simple: offer the most modern and up-to-date technology made from the lightest materials and provide as much power and fuel efficiency as possible. And do that with a new block, traditional overhead valves, direct fuel injection and cylinder deactivation. Sure, all the boxes are checked, but how does it perform in the real world?

As soon as we heard GM was going to use the same size engine for its base V-6 in both its Chevrolet and GMC 1500 pickups, we knew we had to get a closer look at how well the engine works on the open highway when towing a heavy load. And to do that we knew exactly where to go. We'd been there before.

We've run this same test and collected data about other pickups in previous years. We wanted to give you a chance to see how the new GM engine compares, both when loaded and unloaded, with the Ram Pentastar V-6 as well as with Ford's twin-turbo EcoBoost V-6. We'll be comparing some tests numbers with the Ram 1500 V-6 we tested on the same course last year, but we'll also look at Ford's EcoBoost numbers for comparisons as well.

 

The Players

Unlike the two Ram 1500s in our "Rampage! The Test at Davis Dam" (those trucks were similar, not identical), this time we were able to convince Chevy to order us two identically equipped half-ton V-6 trucks. Both were two-wheel-drive double cabs with GM's newly redesigned conventional-swinging rear doors, a 143.5-inch wheelbase and 6-foot 6-inch pickup box. Each of our Victory Red pickups came equipped with the all-aluminum EcoTec3 V-6 mated to the 6L80 six-speed transmission. All V-6-equipped pickups have one ring-and-pinion choice, the 3.23:1, which gave us a maximum towing capacity of 6,000 pounds and an EPA fuel economy rating of 18 city and 24 highway (the four-wheel-drive model is 17/22 city/highway).

IMG_7466a II

 

The base price of our LT pickups came to $34,880 (including destination), and the trucks came with the LT Plus Package ($535), which gave us rear park assist, power adjustable pedals and a universal home remote. Additionally, the All Star Edition Package ($2,640) gave us more popular options: 18-inch aluminum wheels, an auto-locking rear differential, power adjustable seats, fog lamps, remote start, MyLink audio with an 8-inch display screen, backup camera and a 110-volt plug. Finally, we opted for the 6-inch side steps ($750), trailer brake controller ($230), upgraded all-terrain tires ($200), extra bed lighting ($60) and four upper cargo box tie-downs ($60).

With the $1,095 destination charge and $750 All Star Edition discount, each of our test trucks cost $38,605. And to further verify these were identical pickups (although their VINs were separated by 325 build units), we weighed both trucks at the local CAT Scale, where they both came in (with no passengers or gear and a full tank of fuel) at 5,120 pounds. The gross vehicle weight rating is 6,900 pounds.

To see the pricing sheet for our 2014 two-wheel-drive Silverado LT that towed our loaded horse trailer, click here. To see the pricing sheet for our 2014 two-wheel-drive Silverado LT that ran our route and tests empty, click here.

 

Our Drive Route

Those familiar with last year's test will recognize we've duplicated the route and fueling spots as closely as possible. We started our drive near Pasadena, Calif., heading east. We had made the trek to Norco, Calif., the day before to meet our friends at Rarin' To Go trailer rentals, where we set up a double-axle horse trailer with about 2,500 pounds worth of rubber stable mats strapped to the floor of the trailer. Although not identical to the one we used with the Rams, the trailer's weight was within 200 pounds when empty; it took about 25 of the 100-pound mats to get the trailer weight to 5,500 pounds.

Although both Silverados were equipped with tow packages and trailer brakes, our trailer was equipped with hydraulic brakes (meaning the truck's inertial force determines the level of brake activation on the trailer), so we didn't need to worry about gain settings. We used a 2 5/16-inch tow ball and a Class III hitch. The Ram we towed with last year was equipped with the four-corner, load-leveling suspension, but we didn't have that luxury (or even the option) with our Chevys. Instead, we made sure to adjust our ball height to keep the tongue weight within spec (about 500 pounds) and our trailer angle level.

Our two Silverados easily left the Los Angeles basin, climbing up through the Cajon Pass just north of San Bernardino. The route runs up and down a few ridge climbs for about 10 miles and summits below 4,000 feet, and then gradually rolls down to the high desert before heading to Las Vegas. We stopped in Barstow, Calif., to verify our trailer and truck weights. The total of our V-6 Silverado LT two-wheel drive and horse trailer was 10,620 pounds. Our gross combined weight rating for the Silverado with 3.23:1 gearing and V-6 was 11,000 pounds, compared to the Ram we towed with last year, which had a GCWR of 11,200 pounds; however, you should remember that the gearing for the Ram V-6 was 3.55:1 (the empty blue Ram from last year came with 3.21:1 gearing).

 

Drive Route Map Rams II

Our drive route started in Los Angeles (A) and headed north through the Cajon Pass to Barstow (B), where we weighed our truck/trailer combination. We continued through the high desert up the punishing Baker grade (C) and finally turned off Interstate 15 near Henderson, Nev. (D). After we passed the Hoover Dam (E), we headed to Kingman, Ariz. (F), where we turned onto state Route 68 to the Davis Dam grade (G) for our acceleration testing. The following day we conducted our level ground testing outside Ludlow, Calif. (H), ending our trip in Norco (I) where we dropped off our trailer at Rarin' To Go.

 

From Barstow, we headed to Henderson, Nev., bypassing the congestion of Las Vegas, and then we headed east toward Kingman, Ariz., on U.S. Route 93. Once we reached the infamous state Route 68, we headed down into the river gorge where Davis Dam and Laughlin, Nev., are. After some aggressive testing runs up the Davis Dam grade (identical to the testing we did earlier), we headed away from the river valley and back to Interstate 40, which took us to Los Angeles. On the way, however, we stopped near the desert mining town of Ludlow, Calif., where we did more acceleration testing, this time on level ground.

In total, our drive route was a few hundred miles shorter than our trip last year with the Rams because we did not make additional trips up U.S. Route 95 in Nevada on the west side of the Colorado River; as a consequence, we had four complete fill-up events with the Silverados where we had five with the Rams. The fuel station stops and truck mileage readouts are almost identical to our Rampage test, so the numbers are comparable for our purposes.

 

On the Road

IMG_7491a II

 

During each fill-up, we used 87-octane fuel and used the same pump method for each truck (and used the same pump as well); we allowed the automatic shutoff at the pump to click off the first time, then let the tank settle for approximately 30 seconds, then slowly added more fuel until the pump clicked off again before we closed the fuel cap.

Most of our driving along the route was within the legal towing speeds, which typically meant between 65 and 70 mph, but in some cases in California we were going as slow as 55 mph. Winds in the deserts were relatively low but there were points when we could feel the trailer behind our towing Silverado wag a bit. We especially felt the push of wind when passed by the occasional high-flying big rig.

Both of our pickups had the MyLink system with the 8-inch touch-screen, which meant we had access to Sirius XM radio (just about the most important option you can have for a long road test), but they did not offer a normal navigation system. The GM strategy here is a little misleading, in that there is a navigation button in the touch-screen, but all it does is connect you with an OnStar operator who can answer any questions or deliver turn-by-turn directions to your vehicle's playback system. As nice as it would have been to have the actual navigation system, we found the MyLink system easy to use, and the operator patient and helpful.

The Chevys had information screens displayed in the gauge cluster between the speedometer and tachometer. We found ourselves toggling between the real-time fuel economy readout and the tire pressure screen. While watching the mpgs, drivers can see when the engine goes into and out of V-4 mode — and we can tell you it happens quite a bit even when towing near max trailer capacity. By watching the tire pressure, we could check on any rear-wheel tire pressure issues we might have with the added tongue loads. Although temperatures were moderate for our entire trip, the level of relief it gave us to occasionally check tire pressure was hugely comforting.

 

Testing: Davis Dam

IMG_7508a II

 

We replicated the performance testing we've done with just about every important head-to-head comparison test we've ever done, running the trucks through our normal Davis Dam hill-climb testing. For those who don't know, we use a portion of state Route 68 as it climbs out of the Bullhead City, Ariz., basin, reaching more than 3,000 feet in elevation over an 11.8-mile stretch of road. That translates into several 7 percent grade sections, with a few less inclined sections as well. We chose a particular section of Route 68 where the average grade incline is between 5 and 6 percent, which gives us plenty of up-and-down visibility that usually allows us to get clean quarter-mile runs at wide-open throttle.

We tested both Chevys over the same stretches of road, with a full tank of fuel, and within about an hour or so of each other. On this particular evening, temperatures where right around 67 degrees and there was no perceptible wind.

The first vehicle on the course was the Silverado/trailer combination, and it ran the measured distance (thank you Racelogic VBOX; we used model VB2SX10) up the hill at 24.57 seconds at 54.3 mph. We made four runs, with all results within a half second of each other. For comparison to the Ram 1500 Pentastar, these numbers are almost right on top of the 3.55:1-geared truck we tested that did 24.35 seconds at 55.5 mph.

 

ChevyAccel1

ChevyAccel3

 

Quarter-Mile Davis Dam Performance

Capture

Our measured zero-to-60-mph times (in this case going well past the quarter-mile marker) took much longer. Our Chevy with trailer made the run up Route 68 from the same quarter-mile start line to 60 in 34.09 seconds, which is more than two seconds slower than the Ram-trailer combination. It's worth noting here that although our Chevys do have more Society of Automotive Engineers-rated torque than the 3.6-liter Pentastar (305 to 269 pounds-feet, respectively), the Ram did have a lower first gear (4.71:1 versus 4.03:1) and lower axle gears (3.55:1 versus 3.23:1).

During our "empty" runs (which included only one driver and our test equipment), our 240-pound-lighter Chevy with the bigger V-6 (42 cubic inches bigger; 4.3 liters versus 3.6 liters) ran the quarter-mile on Davis Dam with a best run of 17.95 seconds at 75.4 mph, where the similarly geared (3.21:1 versus 3.23:1) Ram made its run of 17.57 seconds at 79.4 mph. In zero-to-60 testing, the Chevy struggled (possibly because of fewer gears than the Ram) taking 10.44 seconds; the Ram did the run in 9.71 seconds. It's worth noting the Chevy did pull quite hard off the line (in fact, beating the Ram at the 10-, 20- and 30-mph marks) but it fell down after the 2nd-to-3rd gear shift.

All of our data presented here is from the best runs out of multiple runs (sometimes three, sometimes four). We ran both trucks with the air conditioning off, windows rolled up and left the transmission in Drive — no manual shifting. As for the Silverado with the trailer, we kept the Tow/Haul switch engaged.

 

Testing: Level Ground

IMG_7472a II

 

This testing was done the morning after our night runs at Davis Dam, outside of Ludlow, Calif., giving us a chance to warm up the pair of Silverados with an additional 115 highway miles. At our designated test location, we allowed the trucks to cool down for an hour.

Again, our Chevy truck/trailer combination ran first and delivered a strong, computer-controlled launch off the line, with a best run of 21.14 seconds at 65.1 mph. The Ram with trailer performed a similar quarter-mile run at 21.11 seconds at 66.5 mph. Our zero-to-60 measurements, which usually hit about five seconds before we reached the quarter-mile marker, had the Chevy with trailer clocking 17.15 seconds at 60 mph, while the Ram and trailer combination took 16.77 seconds.

 

ChevyAccel2

 

ChevyAccel4

 

Quarter-Mile Level Ground Performance

Capture-ii

With our identically equipped empty Silverado, our best recorded quarter-mile time was 17.11 seconds at 85.4 mph, while the best run with our empty blue Ram last year over the same stretch of road was 16.09 seconds at 88.4 mph, quicker than the Chevy by more than a second and faster by 3 mph. The zero-to-60 mph empty times were similar, as well, with the Chevy coming in just behind the Ram by about a second and recording an 8.90 time, and the Ram getting to the same speed in 7.83 seconds.

Conditions were warmer for our level test area than at Davis Dam, with temperatures hovering around 77; there was a slight headwind from the west. On level ground, both Chevys seemed to run just a touch slower than the Rams we tested last year.

 

Other Observations

During our time with the 2014 Silverados, we found the 4.3-liter V-6 a strong puller around town, providing some surprising pep when merging into traffic or passing a distracted driver. This is more impressive when you consider that all of Chevy's V-6s are equipped with rather tall (meaning smaller numerically) 3.23:1 gear ratios.

We especially liked how well-matched and suited the familiar-feeling 6L80 six-speed transmission feels, and we've always been a fan of the thick column shifter that allows for easy manual shifting when dropped into M. Our only gripe was not being able to see what gear the transmission was in during shifts. On the other hand, we also liked how well the transmission reads and adjusts to the trailer load during both hard accelerations and steeper downhill grades; we believe the integration engineers deserve a big thank you for making the Tow/Haul mode almost feel like an exhaust brake. The grade-braking capability was able to sense when we crested a summit, determining that holding or downshifting was the best way to keep our speed under control. And when another downshift was needed, the engine did not mind revving into the 5,000 rpm range to bring the speed down.

 

8 inside horse trailera II

 

During Davis Dam acceleration runs, we were able to test and play with the grade braking function (which works whether the Tow/Haul setting is engaged or not), and we particularly liked how quickly the transmission downshifts and how easily a short tap on the brake pushed the setup down another gear.

Although it's probably more a testament to how well we had the trailer tongue weight dialed in, we found the 5,500 pounds pushing behind us (basically the weight of another full-size pickup truck) on those long downgrades was relatively invisible to us from the driver's seat. Our only other gripe about towing was not having adequate towing mirrors (meaning that they would be extendable in some way) as part of the tow package. The height and width of our trailer meant that anyone closer 12 to 15 car lengths behind us was invisible to us, hidden behind the trailer.

As for fuel economy, our tow vehicle with trailer (remember, with a combined weight of 10,620 pounds) averaged 11.4 mpg over the 1,000 miles we traveled. Our best recorded mileage number at fill-up came from our trip across the high desert on the way back from level-ground testing as we dropped into the Los Angeles basin. Over that 250-mile stretch, we averaged 13.4 mpg, with a good portion in V-4 mode, while our worst tank average was 9.8 mpg.

Our best and worst fuel economy averages in our empty Silverado were 23.7 and 19.0 mpg, respectively. We kept meticulous fuel economy notes and data, logging the exact miles driven along with the precise amounts of fuel each truck consumed. We should also note that in almost every instance, the onboard computer calculated a slightly more optimistic mpg number than we did doing the math, in some cases awarding a full mpg over our number. Still, we were amazed the computer did as well as it did given that we've seen some fuel economy computers miss the proper calculations by several mpg.

 

ChevyTwinMPG

 

The overall fuel economy for our test with our Silverado/trailer combination was a solid 11.4 mpg, which includes all the wide-open throttle testing portions of the test. This compares well with our Ram and trailer combination (which has a smaller engine but higher 3.55:1 gears) at 10.7 mpg. When comparing our empty pickups, the Chevy Silverado averaged 21.7 mpg, while the empty Ram with 3.21:1 gears averaged a little more than 4 percent better at 22.7 mpg.

As we did last year, we made a stop at the K&N Engineering in Riverside, Calif., to measure engine output via its chassis dyno. PUTC readers with good memories will recall the Ram's Pentastar V-6 pulled 257 horsepower at 6,500 rpm and 220 pounds-feet of torque at 5,900 rpm. By comparison, our Silverado 4.3-liter EcoTec3 V-6 pulled 243 hp at 5,250 rpm and 256 pounds-feet of torque at 4,550 rpm. To put that in simple terms, the Pentastar makes about 5 percent more horsepower and the EcoTec3 makes about 16 percent better torque, but in both cases, peak power is quite a bit lower in the rpm range for the Chevy.

 

The Verdict

The new entry-level V-6 in the Chevy half-ton pickups, to put it simply, is impressive, but it does not beat the Ram's 24-valve DOHC Pentastar in many categories. We like the way the transmission handles and distributes power, and the throttle feel is controlled and strong. The smaller EcoTec3 engine does a great job of balancing power output with the increasingly important issue of getting great fuel economy.

We've seen impressive numbers from this lineup of engines, especially with the popular 5.3-liter V-8 engine, but just as impressive is that the Chevy Silverado V-6 fuel economy ratings are about as real-world as you can get, including extensive amounts of highway cruising, city driving, loaded and unloaded, and even some mash-the-pedal track testing.

 

IMG_7420a II

 

GM tells us that sales of the new all-aluminum V-6 in the new 2014 Chevy Silverado is crushing the previous V-6 take-rate numbers, closing in on 20 percent of all sales; the number used to be just more than 5 percent. Maybe this shouldn't surprise anyone now that all the big pickup truckmakers have made significant investments in their V-6 lines.

When combining the EcoBoost and existing naturally aspirated V-6 offered in Ford's F-150, well more than half of Ford's most popular truck come equipped with a V-6 engine. Likewise, Ram is seeing increased interest in its V-6/eight-speed transmission combination; in fact, now choosing to offer the "entry-level" engine in their more expensive Laramie trim package.

Although $40,000 is a lot of money, we found that our Victory Red double-cab, two-wheel-drive LT pickups offer quite a bit of value. We found the LT interior, with the 40/20/40 front bucket bench seat comfortable and adequate for long hauls. The interior is a huge improvement from earlier generations (especially the easy-to-read gauge and information center), and the touch-screen, with its big icons, was simple and easy to use.

We have no doubt, as efficient and capable as the trucks are, that GM could make them even better. As for fuel economy, there is still plenty of room for more technology like stop-start or spark ignition or even overhead cam valvetrains that could raise fuel economy to new levels. And GM hasn't denied the possibility of bringing back some sort of hybrid.

As for payload abilities, our pickups offered close to 1,800 pounds; that's impressive capability for a V-6 engine in a half-ton truck. The Ram we tested last year had more than 1,300 pounds of payload capacity.

For now, it's clear that with all this effort and technology going into what used to be the ugly stepchild of the powertrain families, we're going to need to do another V-6 work truck comparison or maybe something more heart-of-the-market as these often-ignored and quite potent engines work their way into more fully loaded trim packages and into the hands of more practically minded buyers.

Cars.com photos by Mark Williams

IMG_7431a II

 

 

Comments

Lou

TRX only brought out all of those points because there are guys like sandman who keep bringing up "what if the chev had this and/or what if the chev had that?"

Facts are GM brought what they could, Ram brought what they did. The Ram was heavier, and less technologically advanced engine, and outperformed the chev in almost every test.

@papa jim
You can't have something affect a vehicles performance, like wind speed and not affect both. Really, if it is slowing you down, then obviously you will want more power.

More power equates to more fuel.

Sort of doesn't make sense. Validity?

@papa jim,
Right about that. If anyone has raced a car on an oval or circuit, prevailing conditions(track temperature, wind) can affect performance enormously. So I am not surprised that their are differences. The Davis Dam test is a pretty subjective test as it is not constant in the sense of a scientific objective one.
We have a race circuit here that climbs over 600ft from the start to highest point. They have had races where it was sleeting at the top and perfectly dry at the bottom. The sun changes the tracks characteristics all day.

@ALL 1: The so how good will the dependability be of the Egoboost? Since you want to talk about turbo engines.....

Lets see, Consumer Reports says reliability is down....

Not to mention a lawsuit against Ford cause they spit and sputter when people have no load on them, in humid areas? Yeah, that's what a person looking to save a little cash needs, a Ford Ecoboost to throw money at.

Then there is the extra cost to buy, and those Ford dealers are mighty proud of an engine that has a weak cover underneath the engine.

No better mileage, and you know, when they get out of warranty, you think a person with a brain will pay as much for one knowing Ford has had issues and people go running the crap out of them, and there is more to break and more $$$. So at a point, people will say, "I don't want anything to do with that $$money pit" Resale is gonna drop, the further we get into the Egoboost run, and people wise up. Then, you get tailpipe raped.

So you might want to calm your little ass down, cause I am talking NATURALLY ASPIRATED. You want a money pit that should run high octane, go right ahead. Atleast with a 3.6, 3.7, and 4.3, we had no worries about the right fuel, and if we should be cheap and run 87 in a turbo engine.

sandmanyfourbyfour: Maybe it is, that you need a 3/4 ton? Just what does this weight of two bikes? Sounds like your're over the weight of your truck now. Whatever.

I gives a damn about installing headers on a new truck. They are expensive nowadays. I bet 95% of customers don't put on headers. I had some on my Dakota 2007 SLT quad cab 4x4 HO 4.7 3.92 gears. Didn't do $#1+ for me! Yup, I even did the rest of the system, cat back, with a bigger pipe and Hooker Aero Chamber Muffler. Edlebrock Y pipe. Next you will say "I should have got a tune" which is more wasted money. Or I should have got a so called cold air intake, so when the thing breaks, like what happened to somebody I heard of with an Ecoboost, (ALL 1 thinks they never break) the dealership fights me to fix it! Now with a Tune I half to change the computer before it goes to the shop-as if GM hasn't had enough issues with computers lately, lol.

As far as your "the Chevy coulda had 3.42s" Darn right! But they made that decision to save all the gas they could, and it's a horrid combo. With a 6 speed, it would work with 3.73s, but GM KNOWS that mileage on the highway would suck.

AS far as the 6.4, you couldn't seem to find the right payload...Sandam looks at his computer, he found the Ram 2500 payload, OH, but he looked at the 5.7 not the 6.4! Oh, big mistake, but he insisted the Chevy 6.0 had more payload! Play by play of Sandman looking stuff up!

Here is one for you: Build two crew cabs (or three, if you want a frame flexing Ford F-250) Put in 4.10 gears, and the same cab configuration, and same tire size, lets be fair, you can put in the Ford with 4.3 gears, after all they are available. The Ford will be better towing up hill with that combo maybe, but will still get wooped any other time, the Chevy? Ha ha! It would be so far behind! Hey, if the last HD shootout (a comparo of evenly picked trucks) the Ram 2500 5.7 smoked the 6.0, and they have only added power and a better gear set (but still not as much low gear in the trans as Ford and Chevy)What do you think will happen?

The Chevy? It excelled in mileage towing...when it tows in top gear cause (say it with me people) tow haul locks out top gear in a Ram, well, more rpm=more gas.

Why don't you actually see what it tows like?


Really LouBC made a very good point, it is not a true comparison unless both vehicles are run at the same time/temp, and the outcome from these two or three different test are close enough to make it a tuff call. I will say it again for all those out there who can not seem to be able to comprehend, and that is both are fine trucks, and I would be proud to own either.

TRX-4tom: we do agree on one thing, and that is I would not buy another Eco-Boost engine! I would buy a Hemi again in a heartbeat but after all the problems I have had with my EB? never again!

Old Ford 5.4 doesn't have any soul and feel.

Again, after reading the comments in this article I have realized everyone in the US flogs the $hit out of their pickups.

So, which truck out of the Ram or Chev offers the best flexibility when driving it more sedately?

These tests are good if you rev the $hit out of your truck. But I don't care what brand of truck you have if you drive them flatout they will not last 10 000 miles.

So in the writers opinion which is the better truck for day to day living?

Why doesn't PUTC round up a dozen motoring journalists and let them decide with a big shootout?

One persons opinion does have a greater probability of being biased in certain areas of performance.

Because what the writer views as significant might be of less significance to another.

@sandman4X4. Pretty logical. Would be very different times if it
was Winter instead of Summer.

@Lou: you are right about the ultimate deciding factor, I agree. I myself drove a Ford....Drove a Tundra....Had enough visits to the GM dealer on last GM and don't like the looks, interior, transmission, and looks, and low rider low slung frame and air dam...GM would have to do alot to get me back. This isn't enough. I traded in a Dodge car for a Chevy, so you know. Nothing was broke on it, and it was paid off.

It was a definite win for Ram. Better mileage empty, better pulling. Would have been about the same mileage, had they not unhooked the red Ram and did ADDITIONAL testing that the Chevy didn't get. Because they had the same exact Chevy empty.

So you gonna make a big deal cause I pointed out the Ram was a crew, this is a double cab? Or the Ram was a more optioned truck, which the only option that helped it was the 3.55 gears. They coulda ran a stripped down version as I said, or a Lone Star like I talked about, and it would have been in Rams favor. Woulda been lighter.

This is the same guy that said they should have compared even trailers in the Canadian Truck Challenge, right Lou? Or was that a different Lou in BC? Changing your tune, Lou?

Man, the crying! LOL, a bigger engined, direct injected, higher compression, lighter truck that runs on 4 cylinders lost to a truck with a better gearset, better aero, a smaller engine.

You're right, Lou...if they were run on the same day (even though it was windy then last year) the Ram could've ran even better then this truck, there is that possibility too.

theareextommy I do not need to drive a 3/4 t around all the time, and the amount of time I tow? is no all that much in comparison, the bikes? weigh in at 1200, and my wife and I? 310, and the hitch weight? around 500, and the truck is rated at 1800lbs so I do go over a bit, but not in total gross weight so I can do it enough to get by, and have no problems doing so, and the air bags keep the truck level, but could never do it with a Ram, I might have more power? but not enough suspension.

@TRX 4 Tom

I am guessing you don't have a Consumer Reports subscription. If you looked up the engine major and minor reliability of the 2013 Ecoboost, it is at better which is the same as all the Rams. Where the F150 gets it's only bad score of an average is in the audio system because CR hates Ford MyTouch and Sync.

I will not deny the Ecoboost had a intercooler issue of being too efficient in cooling down air that it turned it into water which got ingested by the engine at higher boost levels. The ingested water was not enough to harm the engine, but enough to cause a misfire which would send the truck into the EPA mandated "Limp Mode" for 30 seconds cutting fuel to two cylinders. In some older turbo vehicles, the intercooler would have a small drain hole it taking care of the condensation making it a non event. This is no longer an option due to the EPA. The intercooler has since been redesigned and the problem fixed. The issue was never with the engine or turbos, just the intercooler.

If you want to start bringing up issues and recalls then I got a laundry list on the Hemi when it was new and the Pentastar 3.6L from messed up cylinder heads to running hot. I don't do that sort of thing because I am not ignorant to the fact that engines will have issues especially when first designed and to call out one while not calling out your own is being a hypocrite. I see some have no issue with that.

In all actuality, you can't say that the Ecoboost or any other engine will not last X amount of miles just as I can't say it will. Truth is, neither of us know for sure and especially you don't because you have ZERO experience with one. So your ASSumptions are just that ASSumptions. I do know we have Ecoboost work trucks with 140k hard driven and towing miles on them and never seen an ounce of anything other than 87 octane. So I say to my self "Who do I believe? A guy on the internet that has no real world experience with any Ecoboost engine making ASSumptions or from real trucks driven 140k miles with towing 5,000+ lb trailers for about a quarter of those miles?" Sorry Tom, but I just can't go with your ASSumptions especially come from someone who is a fanboy for another brand with NO real world experience with an Ecoboost to back them up.

Funny part is you speak as if you do have experience or even know what you are talking about which is very humorous to me. I think you truly and honestly believe that you are right, and what you say is to be held as truth or fact when all it is is just ASSumptions coming from a fanboy. That is like me telling you how long your truck would last when you bough it even though I have never owned one. If I did that, would my words hold any weight with you? Then what makes you think your words hold any weight with me?

Now lets get back to the facts. You stated "The score is 4-0 Ram vs other v-6s". And I sated that you should correct that with "The score is 4-0 Ram vs other base N/A v-6s" because the 3.5L Ecoboost is an "other V6" and is considerably more powerful than the 3.6L Pentastar. They are not even close in what they can do so comparing them is just asinine. However the Pentastar 3.6L would more then likely get better fuel economy if that is what you are looking for.

@All1
There is a hundreds and hundreds ecoboost turbo fails you can read in any ford forum about. Just google it. Sorry to disappoint you, but I won't have any HEMI turbo failure.
There is no question that turbo will go. Sooner than non turbo HEMI engine.
But you expected that, because you took a chance.

@TRX-4 Tom - wow, you, yahoo, and hemiv8 got one helluva chip on your shoulders.


Ever stop to think about the fact that one reaps what one sow's?


@Lou BC, "@TRX-4 Tom - wow, you, yahoo, and hemiv8 got one helluva chip on your shoulders."

I can't speak for every one. For me I am confident in Ram trucks. I have owned one. Besides the regular maintenance battery, alternator, brakes,tires, serpentine belt, the truck has been flawless. 90,000 miles now. If i would have listened to all the nay sayers about Dodge trucks i would have not bought it.
I am suppose to be on my third transmission. lol The thing that i have learned over the 10 1/2 years driving a Dodge. None of the nay sayers have ever owned one but they talk a lot of $#!^. My experience with Ford was worse than bad. Fire took it away. Looks like Ford has not changed much since I owned my Ford. Son in law has had two fire Recalls in 6 months of owner ship of his 2013 Ford Fusion. I would never consider another Ford. Chevy and G.M.C. yes. This is my experience. I realize people have there own. And this will be my MONEY. So that's all that matters ;)

Weren't you Lou, the one that told us two years ago that Ram was the leader that all others will follow? You were right. Did you have a chip on your shoulder?

I think TRX has felt burned by Chevy. So when guys like johnny doe talk $#!^ it makes him less than patient. He has had a personnel experience with Chevy. It wasn't good. He has owned both and prefers Ram. The only Chevy I owned was a El Camino. I have never had a silvy or jimmy. Not that i wouldn't. I think Ram is the leader right now. I agree with you Lou ;)

@zviera

Like you have some kind of engineering degree or any other experience with turbo engines to back up what you say? No, I didn't think so. As I told Tom "That is like me telling you how long your truck would last when you bought it even though I have never owned one. If I did that, would my words hold any weight with you? Then what makes you think your words hold any weight with me?" If you had some proven experience with turbo engines behind your belt then I might listen to your words, but since you don't they are just opinions backs up by air. If you don't think my engine will last then that is fine because we are all allowed our opinions.

johnny doe talk $#!^ LOL what #$$% did I talk just point out the fact if the GM had two more gear it'd beat the Ram. Hell its right on the tail now with two less.

Man after skimming through all of these comments about freaking v-6 trucks it is apparant that nobody has a life on here. Seriously, why argue about stupid trucks. A truck is a truck, made for work, uses alot of gas, etc. There really isnt that much of a difference between each brand, all have nice attributes, all have flaws.

johnny doe talk $#!^ LOL what #$$% did I talk just point out the fact if the GM had two more gear it'd beat the Ram. Hell its right on the tail now with two less.


Posted by: johnny doe | Mar 24, 2014 8:20:15 PM

Your right! And if the Ram had a Hemi it would have ripped up the Chevy. lol

Johnny, You have talked $#!^ in past posts. Maybe not this one. ;)

LOL Look whos talking, but 5.3L probably 6.2L naw.

@HEMI V8 - you got burned by Ford. I can accept that and in itself is a legitimate beef.............. BUT.....................
all of the crap you post is above and beyond.
The biggest problem are your inconsistencies..........
- you hate Japan but own Yamaha quads
- you are a union fan but will buy a Mexican built truck
- you are pro-American and attack Toyota but your future Ram is just as foreign as they are
-you post page after page of anti-Ford links but Chrysler/Ram has the poorest track record

do I need to say more?

TRXTom is consistent and will admit (reluctantly) to advantages of other vehicles but is very chippy. He had a crappy Chevy which was part of a crappy line i.e. GMT800-900.
I can accept that but not the chippiness and constant defensiveness.

Yahoo is just........well..........a yahoo.

As adults we move on or at the very least try to move on.

Yes I did say the new Ram 1500 trucks will be the compass setting the direction for other trucks to follow BUT

as more evidence surfaces..........
- anyone copying Ram 1500's payload?
- anyone going to rear coils?
- anyone else playing with air ride?

- diesels = That is a given and the writing was already on the wall.

I'm not going to play the "they are copying me" game or "we had it first" kindergarten crap.
Car companies work on 5-6 year lead times.

Ford is going aluminum and turbo's.........

looks like Ford is not following anyone but have gone their own unique direction.

GMC is lost and searching for a direction. That doesn't mean that the current trucks are bad, they'd be great if it was 2010 but it's 2014.

Ram has forged their own path and it has been very successful for them.

Good job Ram.

I'll consider buying one when their reliability ratings are as good as everyone else's and they give me what I want for the price I'm willing to spend.

I thought that the Ecodiesel would of been that conquest vehicle for me but not at those cargo ratings and at those prices.

This test was close and I'd have to drive both of them before considering which one to buy but as I said earlier, I prefer the torque of the 5.4 to the rpm HP of the 5.3. Based on that fact, I'd most likely prefer the 4.3 over the 3.6.

The results are too close to say one is better. The fact that the tests were over a year apart also render picking a winner moot.

but then again, this site is the domain of the moot point.

@HEMI V8

I have owned two Dodge trucks, two GM trucks, tow jeeps, one Yota truck, and three Fords. Some were secondary vehicles and others I only kept for a short period of time while three I kept longer than 5 years. I can tell you that everyone of them had there goods and bad. I have a had some that were complete trouble from the day I got them then turn around and bought the same brand and had zero issues. To think that every truck that roles off an certain brands assembly line will be flawless is just as dumb as thinking it will be nothing but crap. For every person like you that says they had trouble with a certain brand, I can name 10 more that didn't. To say one generation/model year/engine had problems does not mean all years had the same issues. To say that all Ram rear ends will lock up because of the issue they had a few years back is just a foolish to say all Fords will catch fire. I know you say you had issues with your old Ford, but that does not mean every Ford is that way. Same could be said for people that had issues with Ram or any of the other brands.

"@TRX 4 Tom

I am guessing you don't have a Consumer Reports subscription"

Posted by: ALL1 | Mar 24, 2014 8:18:11 PM

2014 Ram 1500 Named Top Pick by Consumer Reports

@All1
I don't have a turbo engineering degree. It would be 2 week course for me. My expertise is Bearings and Gear boxes , but I build turbines with my son. Small ones, simple single stage. They run 170 000rpm, very close to what turbo is running. We have Wren turbine running in our garage, for study purpose, going to install reduction gear box to run generator. It's really fun and power feeling.
I know, what destroys bearings and what destroys rotors.
I am sure you don't leave your engine running few more minutes to cool down turbo bearing when at destination. I am sure you don't wait to heat it up either. 90% of turbo failure is bearing insufficient lubrication, because of plugged burned oil line. Your turbo is water cooled , but when you stop the engine, water and oil stops circulating and bearing overheats and oil burns at one spot. That what kills your bearing slowly to the point it will start to spill the oil in to the intake manifold.
You said several times, you don't have to use premium fuel with your ecoboost.Guess what will happen when carbon deposit hits rotor running at 200 000 rpm.
Turbo has rotors just from steel. We use very expensive inconel for much higher temperatures in turbines. They machine everything for us in china, because it's cheaper include shipping, then buy just material in here.
They do amazing job in there include balancing.

We have also many supper capacitors installed in our trucks ( my son has Titan. He is Nissan guy and I might buy new one with Cummins). Future technology. You don't even need a battery ( we still have ). Just 6 pieces of 330 Farad capacitors to start the engine. I installed all by myself solar panels with 3kW Grid tied inverter Power One Aurora. I don't pay for electricity. Meter is running opposite direction.
This is our goal and this is automobile and truck future. Not HEMI and certainly not ecoboost. Ecoboost is good for short couple hundred of thousand kms run. For many include you it's enough. Not for me. Turbo is a gimmick.This turbine engine will run on almost anything. Very small, light, powerful to charge batteries and supper capacitors for instant power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WEDewGq5Z4

I will still keep my Versys 1000, just for that sound. 6 Cylinder sounds terrible though.

How is this for my expertise. It's probably not enough for you and I don't care.

All1, All true. Until you have had an extreme situation like my experience with the switch fire that covered 7 million Ford vehicles, you may not understand what that does to your psyche. It was very scary. Could have burned my work down and it was a chemical plant. Would have had to evacuate a 10/20 mile radius from the toxic fumes and explosions. Now here is the worst part. It could have happened hours after parking it. Burning my house killing me and my family. This has happened more than once with Ford. Not G.M. not Dodge. I am not a salesmen. Buy what you want it's your money. Just be aware this has been a history that continues with Ford. Nothing is worse than paying for a car you can't drive any more. Why do I need to buy another Ford when Ram and G.M. have great trucks. I have had my truck for 10 years and don't need another one. How many more truck's do i NEED in a life time? I have boy cotted Ford for screwing me out of my hard earned money. Screw me once shame on you. Screw me twice, shame on me. What in the Hell is wrong with owning a Dodge truck that was the most powerful 1/2 ton in it's class in 03. With a 7 year 70,000 mile powertrain warranty? 4 door with 6.4 bed for two quads. Unlike fords and chevy's 5' bed.

@HEMI V8

So what, my sister 2009 Ram rear axle locked up on her and my nephew going down their long drive way. It could have been on the highway or someplace else, but it wasn't. After she got the truck fixed guess what she traded(and lost money) it in for....... another Ram. Even she was brave enough to put her big girl panties on and deal with it because she know snit happens, and just because it happens to one does not mean all are like that. Her husband being a big Ram fanboy also contributed to her buying another Ram as well.

@All 1, Be a Ford only fanboy. Just don't be a blind one. lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czyaZmYz9FQ


http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/f150_fires.htm


" The problem was discovered after two F-150 pickups caught fire during manufacturing at Ford's Dearborn Assembly Plant in Michigan."

So not much has changed over at Ford. Trucks burning on the assembly line. 000000 miles

See if you can answer this. Why do I need to buy another Ford when Ram and G.M. have great trucks?

@Papa Jim: And my point is, why use a sledgehammer when a claw hammer is the better tool for the job? It's all in what the buyer really wants, not in who's the biggest, baddest, strongest and meanest. Sure, there are a lot of people like that, but there are just as many, if not more, that get what they really need with a little bit of extra rather than the absolute strongest of everything.

@zviera

This isn't my first turbo engine so I don't have an ignorant fear about turbos, and yes I do know what coking is. I can tell you know squat about turbos. Yes, modern turbos are oil and water cooled. However, this statement you made....
"Your turbo is water cooled , but when you stop the engine, water and oil stops circulating and bearing overheats and oil burns at one spot. "
......is completely false. Even after the engine is shut off, the turbos heat pulls water through the bearing using thermal siphoning which continuously runs water around the turbo bearing until it is cool down enough. You do not need to have a turbo timer like the old days or idles for 30 seconds for your turbo to cool down. If you want more information on how it works, you can go here - http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/sites/default/files/Garrett_White_Paper_01_Water_Cooling.pdf .

Turbos have been put on engines longer then half the technology found in your Hemi. Don't believe me, look it up. If turbos are a gimmick, then that gimmick is what made it possible for just about everything you see, touch, smell, eat, or wear to be brought to you. Yeah, that's right. Every class 8 truck that brought the food you eat to the grocery store, the computer you are typing on to Best Buy, or the lumber for your house has a turbo charged engine. Turbocharged engines are also what gave the Allies the upper hand in the skies over Europe in the B-17 and B-24 bombers allowing them to be at a higher altitudes that certain enemy planes could not reach.

I understand that people are leery of turbochargers because of the 1980s and early 90s turbo cars. However, sometimes their ignorance makes them makes ASSumptions that are just not true which further ingrains their fear. It is true in what they say "people fear what they do not know".

@HEMI V8

And do you honestly think that I can't post videos or reports of Ram's on fire, axles locking up, or loss of steering? I mean do you honestly think that Ram is not immune to anything? I am not blind. I know EVERY truck make has issues which is why I don't like being a hypocrite only calling out one brand like you guys like to do.

@ALL1 - I find it odd, I call out hemiV8 for his crap and he keeps on going and going................

yahoo plays with turbines, I kinda suspected he was an amateur rocket scientist ;)

Impressive? UUmm no not really, basically competitive is about it. GM had to make this truck demonstrably better than the rest. It's going to be a long time till the next refresh for GM, those new trannys can't get here soon enough. The Rams shows that eight speeds will make less power competitive. Even with big$ landing from GM heaven on the hoods of these trucks sales will stay flat, or fall. Good thing GMC upper level trucks seem desirable and are selling better. Dark days ahead for GM...

REPOST.........

@ALL1, See if you can answer this. Why do I need to buy another Ford when Ram and G.M. have great trucks?


Posted by: HEMI V8 | Mar 24, 2014 10:39:15 PM

@HEMI V8

"@ALL1, See if you can answer this. Why do I need to buy another Ford when Ram and G.M. have great trucks?"

Who told you that you need to buy a Ford? I don't know your truck needs to be able to recommend a truck configuration.

On a side note. I do think it is funny like Lou said that you being the pro-union and pro-American kind if guy being that it was the UAW that sold it's 41% stake in Chrysler to the foreign Company. Imagine that, a union with all it's "Made in America" morals sells the stake it had of a once American company to be owned by a foreign Italian company. I guess the all might dollar trumps keeping a company American for the UAW hypocrites.

@All1

""Your turbo is water cooled , but when you stop the engine, water and oil stops circulating and bearing overheats and oil burns at one spot. "
......is completely false."
No, it is not completely false, because oil is not moving at all.
The water thermal siphoning will help a bit, but not as much as forced colder water by water pump. You loose a little water , get air bubble in the system will stop moving .It might still overheat. I admit, it's better then 10 years ago, but next step would be extra auxiliary electrical water pump. It's not gonna happen, because each component has predicted life time by engineers and trust me Ford engineers ( or Honeywell) know precisely when it's gonna happen.
You left out the second issue with build up carbon hitting turbo rotor at very high rpm and speed. Keep using low octane gasoline. You will find out soon.

@All1
I had a 1.9L VW turbodiesel with variable geometry turbo 17 years ago in VW Sharan. I am not missing that.
Regards those turbocharged bombers, they had a power like your ecoboost, but they were not meant to last.

@roadwhale

Hammer metaphor. I was trying to make it easy for you. My bad.

The reason V8s were so popular after WW2 was because they are so flexible, compared to a six. The sixes are better today but the eight is still the choice if the menu might include hauling or towing.

What's in your pickup--an eight or a six?

I think a lot of guy are overlooking the fact that the v6 truck market is aimed at the daily driver/mall truck owners.

Someone that need to carry four people and get put to work maybe a dozen times a year, with trips to the big box store or a 1/2hr trip to the lake with a boat in-tow.

Guys need to back off on the jumping right to max tow numbers for trucks that aren't going to see that type of load at any point in the trucks time on the road.

The new V6 offerings are putting out power numbers some of a V8's 10 yrs ago, and the MPG's are starting to slowly go up with better fuel control and the 6&8 speed gear box's. Trucks like this have they place in the market, it's just may or may not work for you.

@lowrange

So, what's in YOUR truck?

Mark - Thank you for the report. There are many of us interested in these types of real world tests of some lower trim levels / price points.

One thing that is missing from this report is more subjective impressions of how these trucks performed, not just strictly numbers. How did the v6 feel pulling up that big grade? Comfortable towing experience or stressful?

@PapaJim: What's in my truck? 200 horses from an obsolete V8. Today's V6 offers both more horsepower AND more torque than that old V8. You simply can't use V8 vs V6 as a measurement any more because the V6s offer as much power as the old small-block V8s while the new small-block V8s offer the power of the old big-block V8s. Getting a big-block engine in a pickup today is difficult at best unless you go SuperDuty or Heavy Duty and then you're pushing Class V or higher load and tow capacities, for which a CDL is needed to haul those loads.

@Papa Jim: I might note that the 5.0EFI in my truck is rated at only 25 horses more than the old 302W that was in my 1973 Gran Torino--which itself towed a 5,000# travel trailer many times during its life. Why would one engine size only see a 25hp gain in 20 years? I find it quite remarkable that you can get that same power and more from a smaller engine today AND get better fuel mileage. Now, physically reducing the size and improving the aerodynamics could improve that economy even more--while retaining the same power levels. An S-10 with the same drivetrain as the trucks in this review would have out-pulled these trucks and still done better on economy, though it probably would have been limited to 5,000# instead of 6,000 towing.

On a side note. I do think it is funny like Lou said that you being the pro-union and pro-American kind if guy being that it was the UAW that sold it's 41% stake in Chrysler to the foreign Company. Imagine that, a union with all it's "Made in America" morals sells the stake it had of a once American company to be owned by a foreign Italian company. I guess the all might dollar trumps keeping a company American for the UAW hypocrites.


Posted by: ALL1 | Mar 25, 2014 1:16:32 AM

Thank god they sold those Chrysler and G.M. retirement funds. Men and women have already worked and retired for these benefits. So according to you the U.A.W. should have let G.M. and Chrysler right that off too in the B.K. That would have been good.

@LouBC, "I'll consider buying one when their reliability ratings are as good as everyone else's."

So let me see if I got this. You are worried about Rams reliability ratings when Ford has the worst Recall Record of anybody for FIRES! That makes a lot of sense. lol Do these reliability ratings take Recalls into consideration?

@HEMI V8 - you got burned by Ford. I can accept that and in itself is a legitimate beef.............. BUT.....................
all of the crap you post is above and beyond.

The so called CRAP I post about FORD FIRES is absolutely FACT! So i don't know what you mean by CRAP?

To me CRAP would just post Ford sucks, ETC....

I am showing you Federal FACTS!

whether you choose to accept these FACTS is up to you.

@HEMI V8 - you have limited comprehension, that is blatantly obvious when ever a discussion gets complex.

Your fire stuff is crap because it is your own little pathetic propaganda war that makes Ram look like the prefered circus clown car.

There was an interesting discussion on TTAC a while ago about recalls and reliability/durability.

Recalls are based on components that have failed and there is risk for harm. Not every component in the batch fails but the odds are higher so it is recalled.

Risk of harm is the reason for a NHTSA issued recall.

Example:

Chrysler was legally forced to recall SUV's due to gas tank explosions.
Did every Chrysler SUV recalled blow up?
No.
Did every Chrysler SUV have reliability/durability issues due to the problem?
No.
It was a safety issue.

Same can be said for Ford's cruise control switches.
Did every Ford product suffer a fire?
no.
Did every Ford have reliability/durability issues due to the problem?
no.

It is the probability of harm.

Large recalls are due to shared components.

You once again are playing games.

Care to answer the other parts of my comment?

The biggest problem are your inconsistencies..........
- you hate Japan but own Yamaha quads

- you are a union fan but will buy a Mexican built truck

- you are pro-American and attack Toyota but your future Ram is just as foreign as they are

-you post page after page of anti-Ford links but Chrysler/Ram has the poorest track record

Fix your inconsistencies.

Until then, you just hurt yourself and your brand.

@Roadwhale, BeaverCleaver, Vulpine, Mr Chow, LowRange, Sonny/Cher and whatever else you are calling yourself these days.

Your Windsor Ford engine will last a lifetime if you don't overheat it or spin the bearings. The EFI's had a funky injection system but there are still a lot in circulation, but listening to your whole bleeping approach to this topic is like getting a damn root canal.

Let it rest! And please stick to one %$#@ name.

@zviera

Seriously? How a modern direct injection turbo engine works or even an engine cooling system seems to elude you. Please, go find out how a modern cooling system works and how the surge tank keeps these big bubbles you speak of out of the properly filled cooling system. While you are at it, learn more about how thermal siphoning keeps the bearing area cool enough to where oil coking is not possible. I am not going to answer the carbon thing because you find out how a modern direct injection turbo engine works. Lastly the octane level of a fuel has nothing to do with the carbon build of a properly running engine using the correct octane rating. A fuels octane rating is it's knock/detonation resistance, nothing more. Unlike port injection, direct injection allows for the fuel to be injected into the cylinder at precise times to control detonation.

I know you are trying you best to find any worst case scenario you can to fit what outcome you want to happen. You want a turbo engine to fail therefore you will seek out any ways for it to fail. I can do the same same for any engine including the Hemi to cherry pick scenarios for it to fail just so I can say it is unreliable. However your scenarios do not coincide with what really happens with a modern direct injected engine.

I will say this again "You guys telling my engine will explode is like me telling you how long your truck would last when you bought it even though I have never owned one. If I did that, would my words hold any weight with you? Then what makes you think your words hold any weight with me?" Quit speaking like you have experience and as if your ASSumptions hold any fact to them because they don't. They are just that ASSumptions.

@Papa Jim: Keep imagining things, Jim; it only demonstrates how little you really know. I almost appreciate the fact that you think I use so many different names but if people really are using some of those others (I think you just made them up) then you're insulting them by giving me the credit.

That 302 Windsor DIED. Flat Out Died. Sure, it could have been rebuilt, at a cost even back then of almost $2,000. I had a 351W dropped in its place for about 1/3rd that and realized some nice ponies until other stuff started breaking down. That car lived in my family for a full 20 years before I traded it off on something newer.

The 5.0EFI loves to run... as long as my foot's on the floor. It's got power and honestly sounds like a Mustang under full acceleration. But the timing chain is shot and I expect I have some vacuum leaks and other niggly issues that individually don't mean much but when combined will add up to a pretty hefty tune-up bill. It doesn't want to accelerate at highway speeds UNLESS I floor it and even then will hesitate and stumble for several seconds unless I come off the pedal and slap it down again.

Honestly, I question the viability of spending more money on it when more interesting models seem right around the corner. On the other hand, I've got to keep it going at least long enough to have a viable trade-in when I do buy a new one. To me, owning this thing is like getting a root canal done. It's painful but I can't yet get rid of it.

Why do I follow PUTC? Because I want to make my future decision based on real-world information as much as possible. I don't trust the salesman to tell me what I need to hear, only what he thinks I want to hear. And to be blunt, if it weren't for the 3/4 rear doors on these new Ram and GM full-size, I have to admit they're otherwise attractive--if too big. At least the Colorado/Canyon kept the 'suicide doors'. They, too, are too big, but not AS big; no bigger than what I have, anyway. What I'm really hoping for is a true Jeep pickup or a true compact pickup--something in one case that has been in the rumor mill for a while and the other has started entering the rumor mill with a little more seriousness.

@LouBC, What does me buying or owning anything have to do with your FIRE waiting for a place to happen FORD?

Did every Chrysler SUV recalled blow up? HELL NO!

They had to be rear ended hard enough to cause significant damage.

One of many Ford FIRE Recalls the straps were rotting off the gas tank and you were dragging the tank metal to asphalt. Can you say sparks. lol


Both 20 million or more switch FIRE recalls all you had to do is park the vehicle and walla you got your self a BBQ.

"Not every component in the batch fails but the odds are higher so it is recalled."

NO SH!^ SHERLOCK!!!

THAT IS WHY I DON'T DRIVE A FORD. :) And won't be anytime soon. Jesus buddy I think you need a another trip to Anaheim. Get out of that thin air.

Problems per 100 2010 vehicles, average for all models:

• Lexus 71
• Porsche 94
• Lincoln 112
• Toyota 112
• Mercedes-Benz 115
• Buick 118
• Honda 119
• Acura 120
• Ram 122
• Suzuki 122
• Mazda 124
• Chevrolet 125

INDUSTRY AVERAGE 128

• Ford 127
• Cadillac 128
• Subaru 132
• BMW 133
• GMC 134
• Scion 135
• Nissan 137
• Infiniti 137
• Kia 140
• Hyundai 141
• Audi 147
• Volvo 149
• Mini 150
• Chrysler 153
• Jaguar 164
• Volkswagen 174
• Jeep 178
• Mitsubishi 178

Guess it's time to trade the old Ford in. LMAO!



The comments to this entry are closed.