It is not surprising that a twin turbo engine can compete successfully against larger n/a engines that are in much heavier trucks (in the case of the Ram). Any form of boosting effectively increases the "size" of the engine by cramming more air into the cylinders than atmospheric pressure will. The rub is that normal usage results in the same efficiency as a larger n/a engine. I'm not saying Ford has not taken an innovative approach to the power/efficiency/emissions problem that manufacturers face.
I do think the ecoboost platform has many more moving parts than either the Ram or GM engines. Parts wear out over time and need to be replaced. This is usually only an issue if you keep your truck more than a few years.

AMAZING!!

Comparing a 2.7 EB SuperCab F 150, (that from what I can tell is about 500 lbs lighter than even the Ford SuperCrew) to Crew cabs from all the other manufacturers, and then proclaiming how "it handily beat the Ram, Ford and Toyota V-8s" is not a direct comparison...get a 2.7 EB SuperCrew and do the same test, Mark.

I want to know where all the weight savings is that they bragged about! The 3.5 is just 60# less than the big V-8 6.2 Silverado!

All those little seconds saved accelerating or towing up hill is lost in minutes and dollars filling up at the gas station.

I couldn't believe how poor 2.7L fuel economy was in that recent half ton tow comparo.

I have 2014 Tundra CrewMax 5.7 V8. My 0-60 times are 6.2 at a launch and 6.7 just standing on it from a stop (check proof on you tube). This test is BS.

Proof: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC768wmJ40vVfMYcu9becCUA/videos

Thats because the GM twins use paper thin steel body panels. You've probably already noticed how gmt400's have more rocker panel left than any newer gmt has lol.

Lol.. how well the ecobust did vs GM 6.2L .... the 6.2s had 3.23 rear axle and ford had 3.55... throw some 3.42s on the 6.2s or better yet some.3.73s and see how much wider the gap gets... why does every test, seem to be skewed or made to believe that the F150 is always better?

I want to know how of earth did PickupTrucks get an EcoBoost out of the repair shop to even conduct the tests?

Brian: the test times were all done at the same time, with the same instruments, on the same day. While yours were done how? with a stop watch and speedo? Then we get to the "gears" in your tundra, try using the same 3:23-1 in the Chevy in the tundra and see what else happens!

WAY too many inconsistencies here for this to be relevant. If they were all the same cab sizes, tires, gear ratios... this "comparison" would be more relevant.

These charts are inaccurate, the ecobusts had 1080 pounds in them, not 1240, I copied this info from both tests.

This article is brought to you by Mike Levine and Ford as well as Mark Williams who is also angling for a job at Ford to join Mike, the gig is up.

Only the koolaid Ford lovers are buying the Turdblow koolaid, the Ecobust 2.7 has HORRIBLE LOADED AND TRAILERING FUEL ECONOMY.

Wards RIPPED the ecobust 2.7 yet they for the second year picked the Corvette 6.2 as a best engine.

http://wardsauto.com/wards-10-best-engines/where-s-eco-ecoboost

Guess what Ford lovers, that's the same engine sans different cam that's in the GM Twins, that's right, Ecobusts NOT on the best engine list, GM Twins 6.2 brother engine is on the list, proof once again that Ford Powertrain Engineers rode the short bus to school and get owned by Superior GM Engineering.

Chevrolet 54310
Gears 3.23
Weight 5620

0-60 5.92
0-60 loaded 7.09 1240 pounds
1/4 14.34
1/4 loaded 15.36 1240 pounds
Unloaded Chevy 6.2 19.8 MPG
Braking 60-0 133.7 unloaded
Trailering Chevy 6.2 10.2 MPG 6,700 pounds
Braking 60-0 132.2 loaded with 1240 pounds
Davis Dam 19.92 6,700-pound trailer

Ford F150 60880
Gears 3.55
Weight 5560

0-60 6.22
0-60 loaded 7.02 1080 pounds
1/4 14.84
1/4 15.50 loaded 1080 pounds
Unloaded 3.5 Eco boost 18.5
Braking 60-0 133.6 unloaded
Trailering 3.5 Ecoboost 11.1 6,800-pounds
Braking 60-0 135.3 with 1080 pounds
Davis Dam 20.76 6,800-pound trailer

I should clarify the EcoBurst 3.5 had 1080 pounds, not the 1240 that the V8's had, so this is not an accurate chart for the 3.5 versus the V8's, less weight in the bed, results not valid.

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2015/01/2015-annual-physical-acceleration.html

@hdmax
The aluminum body in the ford is actually more than twice as thick as the body of the chevy silverado. Chevy sacrificed durability to make their steel truck lighter. Hit the side of a chevy truck with a sledgehammer and would be interesting to see how much more damage than what happened to the ford. Also the larger ecoboost in the test was a loaded platinum. All those options add hundreds of pounds.

Where’s the Eco in EcoBUST?

2015 Ward's 10 Best Engines

Ford powertrain engineers may be disappointed to have landed just one 2015 Ward’s 10 Best Engines trophy, for the 1.0L EcoBoost 3-cyl. in the Fiesta.

Dearborn offered up four other engines, and we’d like to explain why they did not make the cut.

2.7L EcoBoost V-6: This all-new F-150 pickup engine is compelling for several reasons, particularly the “hybrid” block construction that uses compacted-graphite iron for the upper part and aluminum for the bottom, as well as aluminum heads with integrated exhaust manifolds.

There are lots of interesting technologies onboard, from the fracture-split connecting rods and variable-displacement oil pump to the structural die-cast front engine cover and deep-set fuel injectors capable of four spurts per combustion event.

Don’t forget the smooth-functioning stop/start system, the composite oil pan, the recycled-material composite cam covers, the premium polymer-coated main and connecting-rod bearings for low NVH or the twin turbochargers with inlet swirl vanes for flow initiation.

This all-new engine architecture incorporates the type of technologies we seek to reward, and this V-6 performs reasonably well, propelling the F-150 with ease and remaining remarkably quiet and composed.

But there’s a big problem: The observed fuel economy is not that good. The EPA says this engine should get 26 mpg (9 L/100 km) on the highway with 2-wheel drive and 23 mpg (10.2 L/100 km) on the highway with 4-wheel drive. Our 4x4 supercab never got close to that, even under a light foot.

Several editors drove the truck for 253 miles (407 km), and the trip computer displayed a low of 17.6 mpg (13.3 L/100 km) and a high of 19 mpg (12.3 L/100 km).

We checked consumption old-school (253 miles divided by 16.16 gallons [61 L] to refill the tank) and came up with an even more disappointing figure: 15.6 mpg (15 L/100 km).

Fuel economy has become a significant measurable as we select Ward’s 10 Best Engines, so it’s difficult to ignore numbers like these.

This engine has impressive power and torque (325 hp and 375 lb.-ft.[508 Nm]). But heck, we’ve driven 5.0L V-8 F-150s that delivered better mileage.

Devoting resources to an aluminum-intensive pickup might pay off in the long run. But no matter how much weight you trim from a fullsize truck chassis, a smallish V-6 will require much work from its twin-turbochargers, which hurts fuel economy.

It's funny that V8 fans are mad cos they are getting clobbered by a little 2.7! That said, if I were buying a new half ton today, I'd have a serious look at the Titan XD diesel! Well when it comes out anyway.

Because when you use premium, the 3.5 ecoboost V6 is actually a 7.5 liter V6.
The 'lil 2.7 ecoboost V6 is actually a 6 liter V6.

How can we trust pickuptrucks.com charts and numbers when you had such a huge mistake in your 2015 Annual Physical. Based on the pictures and published weight It appears that you tested a 4x4 Colorado and called it a 2WD. You were called out on it several times and not even a response. Below is one of the post calling you out

'Can someone explain why the pickuptrucks.com 2wd crew cab Colorado weighs the same as the 4x4 crew cab tested buy Motor Trend and Car and Driver?

Pickuptrucks.com 2wd Crew Cab 4520
Motor Trend 4x4 Z71 Crew Cab 4511
Car anc Driver 4x4 Z71 Crew Cab 4536

Do you guys even know what you're testing?'

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/trucks/1411_2015_chevrolet_colorado_z71_first_test/

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-chevrolet-colorado-v-6-4x4-test-review

2.7 all though horrible towing mpg it was still got better towing mpg the a hemi while the 2.7 got an impressive 23+ mpg empty. If you want the best mileage towing and want power as well it looks like you want a 3.5 as that got the best towing mpg by s mile over the v8's.

I bet a tin foil truck would be a lot quicker than a aluminum truck or steel truck. Does that mean it's better? For drag racing yes.

Where is the crash ratings for the aluminum ford?

" Model-to-model comparisons of frontal crash ratings are valid only within a vehicle class or between models of comparable weight (as long as they're within 250 pounds of each other). The test reflects how the vehicle would fare in a collision with another of the same model, not versus a larger or smaller vehicle (or a lower- or higher-riding vehicle). A heavier vehicle protects its occupants better than a lighter one if all other factors are equal."

Smarter Suspensions
The new F-150 essentially uses a carryover suspension strategy across the board. The same double A-arm (short and long) IFS and live-axle leaf springs set up in back. Yes, the leafs are shorter and lighter (and we're guessing they're going to have to create more combinations with the new powertrains) to help minimize the axle hop problems some of the truck configurations have had. But not offering a coil spring version or airbag setup for a premium sport or luxury ride package is curious. Ford knows better than anyone else that its customers will pay for premium packages that offer a softer ride. One possible explanation, which we heard from another journalist, is that Ford doesn't want to be seen as following anyone else's lead.

No Diesel Announcement
That "no copying" theory may explain why Ford was mum about a diesel option for the new F-150. With the Ram EcoDiesel getting all sorts of media attention, Ford probably decided to wait to announce a fifth new powertrain for the F-150 in the form of the five-cylinder baby Power Stroke. That engine will be offered in the new full-size Transit van, which goes on sale in a few months. This delay may be for the better; it will likely take some time for truck enthusiasts to understand how the biggest-selling half-ton pickup truck in the U.S. will offer three V-6 choices and only one V-8

Outdoor Package
It's been fun to watch Ram's success with its Ford-like trim package strategy, but now that Ford is trying to simplify its trim levels there are a few holes. Not that we're against any truck corporation making big money on luxury pickup trucks, but those premium packages would probably be even more successful if there was a more solid and credible outdoor lifestyle pickup. Such a package would offer features and technology for activities like hunting, fishing, camping and toy hauling. Sure, every truck maker throws a motorcycle or snowmobile in the bed for marketing photography, but give us a trim level with unique technology to communicate that manufacturers understand customers who want big mileage or work-duty durability and great cost of ownership.

Give us the Numbers
We can be very patient when it comes to releasing horsepower, torque and fuel economy numbers for a completely new lineup of powertrains; however, not providing estimated numbers doesn't make any sense. Yes, Ford has cut out a reported 700 pounds from a comparably equipped 2014 F-150 SuperCrew, but that's just 12 percent of the weight of the actual pickup. It puts the F-150 about 200 or 300 pounds lighter than the current Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra (at least that's what we found during our 2013 Light-Duty Challenge). The F-150 won by a thin margin in that test, and it wasn't for its ride quality or styling. The GM V-8s were similar in mileage when empty and much better when towing than Ford's current-model EcoBoost. Saving weight is good, but we know from carrying 700- and 800-pound loads, the real-world mileage numbers won't move around much. We have no doubt Ford will release these important numbers in tiny pieces over an extended period to get as much media coverage as possible — just like GM did with its new trucks — and we'll be here to share it.

Quiet on Safety
Although much at Ford's Detroit display this year was about the new production process upgrades and engineering changes that will occur to the new F-150, little was said about crash-testing, crumple zone safety improvements, or insurance and repair costs. On average, we're guessing truck customers will have had little experience with aluminum construction and repairs. Most people we spoke to assume that aluminum is easier to crumple than steel. But Ford said nothing about crash tests on this revolutionary new pickup. We know Ford is not hiding anything, but we wonder if the company is aware that an education lag might exist when it comes to what people know about aluminum use in vehicles.

Pushing Too Far?
From our vantage point, the elephant in the room for the new F-150 is how well an all-new, smaller EcoBoost engine will be received by customers. The new compacted graphite block is familiar to many from the monster Power Stroke in Super Dutys, but at 2.7-liters in size, that will sound more like an inline four-cylinder engine than a relatively powerful, small V-8 replacement engine. We're guessing there has been a great deal of exhaust tuning work done to keep the smallest engine from sounding like a high-revving sewing machine when pushed at or near its gross vehicle weight rating. We give Ford credit for taking this risk and giving new customers exactly what they say they want, which must be much better fuel economy from their full-size pickup. But we don't expect this engine to have anywhere near the take rates the current (larger) EcoBoost enjoys. What additional cost this new EcoBoost engine will carry will be critical as well. It's possible this was a push just outside the zone.

Just in Case
Although this isn't directly a criticism of the new F-150, the entire reason for going on the huge diet — using aluminum and doubling down on the EcoBoost technology with an even smaller V-6 option — is that Ford insists its data does not support the need for a smaller, midsize pickup. Whereas GM's Mark Reuss, executive vice president of global product development, insists GM's data sees the market needing a smaller, more efficient and more "parkable" option, Ford may be stretching the bandwidth of the F-150 to accommodate too many truck buyers. Only time will tell which strategy will win out; but we will say it must be nice to be Ford, which can easily pull the trigger on the global Ranger if it needs too.

The F-150 won by a thin margin in that test, and it wasn't for its ride quality or styling. The GM V-8s were similar in mileage when empty and much better when towing than Ford's current-model EcoBoost. Saving weight is good, but we know from carrying 700- and 800-pound loads, the real-world mileage numbers won't move around much.

Ford knows better than anyone else that its customers will pay for premium packages that offer a softer ride.

Sources PUTC

Williams must have had his peepee smacked by his Ford masters after posting the Edmunds dent article. Now he has to make up for it by posting a Ford slanted article force feed to him by Mike Levine.

@Jon You are exactly correct. The specs included in the story were taken from the price sheets provided to us from Chevy. As you note, the look, weight, and stickers on the Colorado identify it as a 4x4. Sorry for the confusion and delay in responding directly to your question. Additionally, as some have also already noted, the Ford F-150 SuperCrew XLT in our Light-Duty V-8 Challenge did have EcoBoost badging on the truck but there was a 5.0L V-8 in the truck.

In the first chart the Ford v-8 was 440 lbs. heavier and the Ram was 1,100 lbs. heavier. They all ran about the same 0-60 time unloaded. The Ford and Ram did have better rear end ratios tho. Remember that each hundred lbs. is a tenth of a second in the quarter mile.

Still waiting for the crash test results for the new 2015 F150, if you need a reminder, here it is.

2014 F150, they will be scraping your wife off the dash and you will push her around in a Wheel Chair for the rest of her life. @Lee

http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratings/2011-Newer+Vehicles/Vehicle-Detail?vehicleId=8259

2015 Chevrolet Silverado, your wife will still walk and not be in a Wheelchair.

http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratings/2011-Newer+Vehicles/Vehicle-Detail?vehicleId=9505

GM drivers are safer anyways, we don't worry about drag racing, being dangerous, running boost tunes to showoff and blowing are turbos early then ford turning down our fraudulent warranty claims, bragging to make up for their "insecurities"

We understand a truck is meant for work and not doing NHRA burnouts, we arrive alive, get better gas mileage and our wives/Gf's are Hotter, SHAKE AND BAKE.

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

@Lee, I have a real V8 rumble and wouldn't want the EcoDust or having Ford pump in fake Vroom Vroom noises to the cabin to impress.

Its not my fault you drive an unsafe in a crash vehicle for your passenger, just presenting the facts.

That's 3 stars passenger frontal crash for your truck built Ford Tough, even my "ancient" 2011 Silverado is safer.

The reality is this.

How many will drive their vehicles like in the test, or even how often.

As I've stated quite a few times the 2.7 EcoBoost is a pig on fuel under load.

Even under normal driving the 2.7 EcoBoost will not return it's advertised FE. None of these vehicles will, but the turbo engines will fair worse.

The only vehicle that will come close to its advertised FE is the diesel Ram. In the US the EPA has a different testing regime for diesels in comparison to gasoline (anti diesel bias, again?).

But, I would still like to see the 2.7 EcoBoost offered in the Ranger/BT50. There will be a market here in Australia for a traffic light dragster. They will be no match for our current V8 Ford and Holden utes for driving pleasure, but if we can get it, it will have to do.

I cant understand how the F150 only weighs 81 pounds less than the Chevy, was the F150 that overweight before?

Maybe Mike Levine can chime in here.

Mark, your data above is incorrect regarding the hauled weight in the 3.5, 1080, not 1240.

Chevy disses aluminum Ford F-150 as only 'nice update'

In an unusually blunt comment Chevrolet says the aluminum Ford on the Ford F-150 is no better than a "nice update," not the radical advance it's portrayed by Ford.

Citing a Car and Driver test of four-full-size pickups, Chevy truck spokesman Tom Wilkinson pointed out that the F-150 beat the Chevy Silverado by just 3 points -- 176 to 173, out of 240 possible points.

You might think Chevy would be squeamish about finishing second in a four-way contest, but the close result makes it "essentially a draw," Wilkinson said in an email.

STORY: F-150 named 2015 North American Truck of the Year

STORY: Chevy Silverado wins 2014 North American Truck of the Year

Mike Levine, Wilkinson's counterpart at Ford, sent USA TODAY an email response to the Chevy remarks, saying, "We are proud to be America's truck leader. Ford F-series, including the all-new F-150, remains America's best-selling truck for 38 straight years and America's best-selling vehicle for 32 straight years."

He declined to be more astringent.

VIDEO: Test Drive evaluates F-150

TEST DRIVE: Wheeling the Chevy Silverado

Wilkinson's email said: "So, did Ford's massive investment in aluminum 'set a new standard for the future of trucks,' as Ford promised a year ago in Detroit? For customers, the answer that is emerging is 'No.' For the most part, Ford just pulled back into the lead pack.

"The F-150 is a nice update of the old truck, with modestly higher payload and trailer ratings offset by still-unanswered questions about insurance costs and access to body repairs outside of major cities," Wilkinson said.

Ford's pitch for aluminum is that the truck weights less, so gets better mileage and can carry and tow more.

The magazine's observed mpg was 16 for Ford and Chevy. Weights of the similarly equipped Ford and Chevy showed the Ford just 81 lbs. lighter.

As tested, the magazine reported, the Chevy could tote 1,740 lbs., the Ford, 2,020 lbs.

The magazine's test vehicles pitted Ford's premium EcoBoost turbocharged V-6 -- the most powerful F-series engine, which accounts for about 45% of sales -- against Chevy's 6.2-liter V-8, the truck's most powerful, but which accounts for a much smaller slice of Silverado sales.

The third and fourth places went to Ram 1500 and Toyota Tundra, respectively. Both were well behind the top two on the final scores.

If people would spend half as much time looking for the positive in the story, like how each manufacturer has improved their product over the last 5 years... these comments might be more bearable. As a GM fan, I would happily go with the 6.2L GMC with the 8 speed, and smile every time I filled up with premium unleaded gas. I also would not have a problem congratulating a new owner of a Ford or Ram. To each their own, and they each are more than capable for most everybody’s needs. Will there be issues with each, Yep.. Will there be recalls... Yep. But overall these trucks are awesome!

@Lee, I have a real V8 rumble and wouldn't want the EcoDust or having Ford pump in fake Vroom Vroom noises to the cabin to impress.

Its not my fault you drive an unsafe in a crash vehicle for your passenger, just presenting the facts.

That's 3 stars passenger frontal crash for your truck built Ford Tough, even my "ancient" 2011 Silverado is safer.

Posted by: GM Man | Jan 31, 2015 2:57:36 PM

Not that this link adds anything relevant to the conversation of how the 2.7 dominates in economy and performance mid level v8's such as the hemi 5.7, toyota 5.7 and the 5.3.... But you might want to check some info as in the 10 deadliest vehicles in the USA, as the silverado carries some pretty interesting company as in the top ten deadliest list...... Just saying you may not want to throw stones in that glass house of yours...
http://jalopnik.com/these-are-the-ten-cars-youre-most-likely-to-die-driving-1682672803

uninformed*

Bring your super crew ecoboost and line up next to my 5.7 2010 model Tundra, they lose EVERY SINGLE TIME I RUN AGAINST ONE. Check 0-60 times .com for PROOF the Tundra dbl cab does an 0-60 in 6 FLAT! 2014 Limited in 6.1 and a 1794 at 6.5 seconds....... supercharged its 4.6/13.3 quarter mile

http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/toyota-0-60-mph-times/

http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/ford-0-60-mph-times/

Here is a link to BOTH Ford and Toyota....... NOT ONE SINGLE ONE COMPARABLE is the ford faster than the Tundra so stop the nonsense man really.....

@ jep

I think the reason the GTR does so well has more to do with its AWD system, working with all of those computers, that helps it put engine power down to the ground more effectively, the twin turbos on its v6 are only part of it.

The smaller, more complicated, more expensive to fix ecoboosts seem to only be comparable to these V8s, no real advantage, unless you drive at high altitudes a lot, where turbos seem to breathe better than N/A engines.

@ Alan

"I would happily go with the 6.2L GMC with the 8 speed, and smile every time I filled up with premium unleaded gas."

Me too.

The GM V8s are actually V4s as they are driving around in 4 cylinder mode most of the time. In rare instances you may use all 8 cylinders.

@Lee, I would be happy with the new 4.3, I don't tow more than 6,000 and it would be fast enough for me and haul plenty, we got to get off this HP/TQ war, its plain silly.

I would be more proud of a safe, well made truck, that rides well, brakes well and is reliable over HP wars, years ago 285HP was considered a lot.

I guess Lee is out looking to drag race people all the time, I don't know why, maybe he is bored and retired?

@Lee,
Your comment;
"Hey, if you need a V8 rumble noise to make you feel like more of a man and don't mind coming in second place to a 2.7L V6 then by all means that 5.3L is for you."

My response;
Then what is your comment alluding too?

I'd bet my balls the V8 will tow as well as your EcoBoost.

So, again from your comments of late and past, ie, towing, payload, etc, a Ram EcoDiesel is better suited to your requirements because you don't drag race.

By the sounds of it even a V6 Colorado will suffice.

@Lee,
It appears you have created this mysterious "tow" vehicle around what Ford offers and only Ford can provide.

You have stated in the past that you tow infrequently. So why don't you buy a Yaris and rent a tow vehicle when needed? I have introduce this dimension to the debate because you are always debating the cost of ownership in FE, etc in relation to pickups.

You state you need this power. Why? The be "first" best? I do have empathy for you like I had with HemiV8.

I do know as a fact that an Izuzu truck with a 150kw diesel will out tow your EcoBoost.

And I'll bet my balls that a VM powered Ram will suffice for your towing needs. If they really exist.

I do believe you are the HemiV8 of the Ford world. Lot's of talk with little to support your arguments.

That's all they are arguments of little value, but never the less arguments. Many with little merit.

Will be interesting to see how these tiny engines last years of the typical cooling system neglect most put their vehicles through. I just cannot foresee a little engine being hammered constantly with high- superheated turbo pressure lasting very long. And yes, I have see Ford's tests showing a supposed 200K+ endurance test on the 3.5 Ecoboost, but that cannot imitate years and years of use. Moreover, the advantage of the small engine is not sold with the fuel consumption. It is inline with the much larger V8's while empty, and below most when loaded or towing. And while 0-60 tests and 1/4 mile tests may be interesting, they are not how most trucks spend their time being driven, or worked while towing or hauling. Having driven the Ecoboost engines I can say that you do not get much of a performance snap off the line unless you powerbrake, which would be the last thing you would want to do while pulling a load that you care about the contents within.

I did a test drive on a 2015 F-150 with the 2.7 Eco-Boost

HATED IT !

I thought the tachometer needle was going to break off the way it moves up and down so fast!
The transmission "clunked" when it was CONSTANTLY shifting and searching for another gear.
EVERYTIME you change speeds thru traffic - CLUNK-BANG-BOOM the transmission changes gears.
At high speeds on the highway I could feel a vibration and a feeling like the truck was holding me back like the brake was on.
The brakes SUK ! (maybe cause the brake pads were new and it was a very cold day)

Frankly! My older 2013 F-150 with the 5.0 was a better truck.
That's my opinion
I don't see or feel the power and performance the 2.7 EB has.

I believe Ford gave the middle finger to their former loyal F-150 customers with this new 2015.
Ford said "screw you" we can pick and choose what customers we want and don't want.

I think that ford is trying a new Chinese business model. Let's make a product with high end specs, high end price tag and poor lifetime and warranty.
There is no way that 2.7 V6 with 2 turbos is going to last a halftime of Naturally Aspirated 5.7 V8.
@Lees 2011 3.5 ecoboost is gone already.

huh! even a moron can figure out if you take the Ram 5.7 Hemi and the Chevy 5.3 V8 and match or program the transmission shift pattern it would blow the doors off the eco-boost!
You are being held hostage to the transmission shift pattern.

Chevy and Ram programs their transmissions for fuel economy, Ford HAS to program them for performance.

Ford also has a manual - select shift option where you can experiment with to get better drag race times

wasn't a fair test based on the transmission programing !

COME ON PEOPLE

WAKE UP !! they are trying to fool you !

Ford quality, Job 1. This is a perfect example of the QA at Ford.

My 2011 Silverado had the best paint job I have ever had on a new vehicle, I went over every inch of the silver paint and there were no flaws, scratches, dirt in the paint, blooms, orange peel, I was amazed.

I have owned new Audi's. VW's, Ford's, Subaru's, Honda's, Jeeps and my Indiana built Silvy was the best. Now if this isn't a paint flaw and its related to the rivets, UT OH, could be the future Rivet Gate for the new F150, poppin down the road.

http://www.f150forum.com/f118/went-pick-up-my-truck-left-empty-handed-287844/

Comparing supercabs to crewcabs?

Jeez, some of you will not be happy until the ecoboost trucks are only compared against themselves to "make it fair". Even then you'll complain because one driver wore boots and the other wore tennis shoes.
I've owned Chevys, Fords, Dodge, and Toyota and liked all of them for their differences. Look at the numbers and buy the truck that will perform best for what you are going to do with it if you're going to buy one. If not, keep your whining about average truck comparisons to yourself or go set up your own test and let the rest of us tear apart your bogus results.

These charts are misleading. If you are comparing different items based on time, its traditional to list the results by time. At first glance it appears that the Fords easily beat the competitors but that is just because they start with "F" compared to Ram and Toyota. The Ram had the best time and should be listed first. I can buy going alphabetical in the first chart, but the fact that the Fords are listed first again when comparing to the Chevy clearly suggested a conscious decision to give the impression that the Ford was fastest. Also, to print that the Ford had the same weight as the others (#1240) as compared to the real #1080 that is carried backs that impression up. Really poor reporting in the best case; worst case a blatant effort to make something look better than it really is.

Day by day working truck big engine no such thing a small turbo,,,,

Amazing stats.........................

............until the EcoBoost gets sooted up from carbon and you can't clean it...and those turbos poop the bed on you.

HEMI is all there is. Longevity, power, and dependability used to be hallmarks of a good truck, and Ram is the only one left.

Performance wise these trucks are all pretty close...

Remember back in the 80's Chrysler had Turbo 4cyl that ran with and beat 5.0 and 5.7 v-8's from Ford/GM..

Ford guys bashed small motors,today they hate v-8's and love small motors,odd..

I want a Hellcat RAM that runs 11 second 1/4's !!

"HEMI is all there is. Longevity, power, and dependability used to be hallmarks of a good truck, and Ram is the only one left."

The only reason the hemi seems to be the only one left is because it's waaay behind GMs 6.2!!!

Concerns of turbo reliability is not a concern to me. Having been in the trucking industry for close to 20 years turbo's have actually been the least of problems.
Ford is utilizing on a gas engine that has been utilized on diesels with success: turbo charging with direct injection.