What's the Best Light-Duty Truck for Towing 2016: Texas Truck Showdown

Joe dyno reading II

By Patrick Olsen, Cars.com

We put these five light-duty pickup trucks through a week's worth of tow testing in and around Houston to see which came out on top. Our judges were:

Mark Williams — PickupTrucks.com editor
Joe Bruzek — Cars.com senior road test editor
Bruce Smith — automotive freelance journalist who specializes in trucks and 4x4s
Kent Sundling — editor and owner of MrTruck.com

Here's how the trucks finished and what the judges thought about each one.

 

No. 5: 2016 Toyota Tundra 1794 Edition, 5.7-liter V-8; 2,102 points

Toyota Action 1 II

100-point categories (best in test): Fuel-tank capacity

The Verdict: "Perhaps a Tundra equipped differently could have made a better tow rig," Bruzek said, "but this Tundra with its off-road package was far outclassed for a comparison on maximum towing."

What They Liked

Quick start: The Tundra "launches with authority," Smith said, and Williams agreed: "The engine and transmission is always ready to jump off the line."

Transmission: "It may be short a few gears compared with the others," Bruzek said, "but the Tundra has very positive shifts from its six-speed package."

Handling: "Its light steering effort makes for quick lane changes, despite being the heaviest in this comparison," Bruzek said, and Smith liked how the Tundra "handles the trailered load."

The 1794 trim level: Bruzek liked the "beefy looks of its TRD Off-Road Package," while Williams said that "the 1794 Edition is a good first attempt with room for improvement," and Sundling appreciated its "quality luxury interior."

And …: Smith liked the "overall visibility." Sundling applauded that its "4.30 axle ratio is made for towing; you have to go to a Ford F-450 to get that axle ratio." And Williams noted that "there is nothing like the CrewMax cab out there. It's an entirely separate room in the back of the cab."

What They Didn't

Poor mpg: It "inhales fuel," Smith said. "The fuel mileage is the lowest in this group," Sundling noted, and Williams added, "fuel economy for a truck like this in a segment this competitive needs to be much better."

Toyota Int 1 II

Transmission, while towing: "It did a lot of hunting when loaded with a heavy trailer," Williams said, and Sundling found that "at slower speeds, even in Tow mode, the transmission hunts for gears and doesn't stay in gear until it reaches higher speeds."

Ergonomics: Smith disliked "the Tundra's placement of switches and knobs," while Sundling noted that he's "glad they finally have a factory trailer-brake controller, but it's hard to see while driving and using the manual control."

The exhaust note: "The optional TRD exhaust is an initial novelty that grows old the more miles you put on the truck," Bruzek said, and other judges agreed.

And …: "Most outdated truck in the group, other than the sheet metal," Sundling said. "Brake pedal feel is light and uncommunicative," Bruzek said. Williams found that there was "too much sagging in the rear end with payload; 1,200 pounds of [calculated] payload here is unconscionable."

 

No. 4: 2016 Ram 1500 Laramie Longhorn, 5.7-liter V-8; 2,149 points

Ram Action 1 II

100-point categories (best in test): None

The Verdict: "The value player in the group when loaded with options and features," Williams said, "if you're looking for a half-ton that doesn't need to work too often."

What They Liked

Interior quality: "Our Laramie Longhorn delivered top-notch layouts and quality at thousands less than Ford and GMC," Williams said. "It has the look and options of a luxury truck for a midrange price," Sundling said. "Highest quality and most comfortable interior with supple leather seating and fine materials for this class," Bruzek said.

Ride quality: "One of the most comfortable empty," Bruzek said, and Smith said he liked the "stable ride it provides when towing." Other judges agreed.

Value proposition: "A dollar goes very far with features like heated front and rear seats, ventilated front seats, towing mirrors, front and rear parking sensors, all for $50,805," Bruzek said.

And …: "I love the sound of the Hemi under hard throttle," Smith said. "By far the easiest to get comfortable inside and around town," Williams said. "Visibility is as good as it gets for a pickup truck," Sundling said. Finally, "although some hate them," Williams said, "I like the pivoting side mirrors that offer a ton of rear visibility."

What They Didn't

Side mirrors: "They hang out like oars and do little to increase vision," Smith countered.

Ram Int 1 II

Trailer squat: Williams disliked "the horrible sagging when the Ram was loaded with bed cargo. It's uncomfortable to look at and has the headlights pointing skyward." "With this squat," Sundling added, "it handles the worst with a trailer, fishtailing."

Power: "I expected gutsier acceleration for its power and torque ratings with the eight-speed automatic transmission," Bruzek said, "though its hefty weight might have something to do with that."

Controls: "I don't like the dial-a-shift in the Ram," Smith said, "and the Longhorn's distracting gauge overlays make it difficult to read them, day or night."

And …: "I can't quite explain why this truck has a heavy and sluggish steering feel," Williams said. "Braking performance is far less confident when carrying the maximum payload," Bruzek said. "Ram desperately needs a more aggressive fuel-economy strategy as the Hemi has to be babied to get good mileage."

 

No. 3: 2016 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 LTZ, 5.3-liter V-8; 2,233 points

Chevy Action 1 II

100-point categories (best in test): Empty 60-to-zero-mph braking, sound at idle (tied with Ford), empty mpg (tied with GMC), calculated maximum payload, gross vehicle weight rating (tied with GMC)

The Verdict: "The Silverado offers stability and driver confidence when towing," Smith said. "The only thing that could make this package better would be if it had the 6.2-liter engine under the hood."

What They Liked

Transmission: "The eight-speed transmission squeezes every bit of acceleration from the 5.3-liter with impressive results," Bruzek said. Smith agreed: "The eight-speed's programming is perfectly matched to the engine."

Value proposition: "This Silverado is a good value for the price difference versus the 6.2-liter if you don't tow often," Sundling said. "I can't think of a better mainstream player in this segment, delivering solid ability and function," Williams said. "It's not sexy, but it's honest."

Interior design and quality: "It has a huge number of USB ports plus wireless charging, and that allows every passenger to charge a device at the same time," Bruzek said. "The interior designers have shown wonderful self-restraint," Williams said. "It's easy to see all the important stuff with dials and big buttons." "The memory foam in the seat makes it the most comfortable GM has ever made," Sundling said.

And …: "I like its fuel economy and power," Smith said, while Sundling appreciated its speed and braking ability while empty. "Its handling is planted when loaded or empty," Bruzek noted, and Williams concurred: "The Silverado chassis has the most composed feeling when loaded or towing."

What They Didn't

No 6.2-liter engine: "I had 6.2-liter envy driving this back-to-back with the GMC's more powerful engine," Bruzek said. "With little difference in fuel economy versus the 6.2," Sundling said, "it would be hard to pick the 5.3-liter."

Chevy Int 1 II

Steering-wheel position: "GM trucks still have their steering wheels pointed toward the door," Sundling said. "This goes back to the 1970s when it served the purpose of making entrance easier. Now that we have tilt and telescoping steering wheels, why doesn't GM align the steering wheel with the seat and doors?" Other judges agreed.

Ride: Smith didn't like "the harshness from the front suspension when encountering sharp bumps and dips, such as expansion joints and broken pavement." "Ride quality when empty is slightly disruptive and definitely more trucklike," Bruzek said, "but at the same time, body movement is controlled very well."

Features and quality: "Chevy trucks will always come up short on more options and features as long as GMC is around," Williams said.

And …: "I can't believe the crew cab doesn't offer a bigger fuel-tank choice," Williams said. "The new hood blocks frontal vision," Smith said. "With a trailer, acceleration is disappointing," Sundling said, "even with the eight-speed transmission."

 

No. 2: 2016 Ford F-150 Lariat, 3.5-liter V-6 EcoBoost; 2,323 points

Ford Action 1 II

100-point categories (best in test): Least expensive, scale weight, sound at idle (tied with Chevy), sound at 60 mph, peak torque on dyno @ rpm

The Verdict: "This F-150 is perfect for the times when V-8 muscle is needed," Smith said, "and perfect for when mpg matters most."

What They Liked

The way it drove: "The F-150 has unparalleled agility and maneuverability in this comparison that contribute to the Ford driving like a much smaller truck," Bruzek said. Smith liked "the nimble, sporty feeling when driven empty."

Power: "The torque from the EcoBoost 3.5-liter is confidence inspiring with big payloads," Bruzek said. Smith appreciated the Ford's "surprisingly nice balance of horsepower and fuel economy."

Interior quality and ergonomics: "This is the standout feature for me," Williams said, "offering more features and options and quality surfaces than anyone in this price range. There isn't anyone who understands how to deliver information to the driver than Ford." Smith agreed: "I like Ford's technology package and how it gives a broad scope of information that's easily accessed while driving." Sundling applauded its "great dash layout, with the most options to scroll through."

Bonus features: Bruzek liked the "countless utility features, such as LED box lighting, the Pro Trailer Backup Assist, retractable tailgate step and digital dashboard displays with trailering info."

And …: The Ford "has great grade shifting in Tow/Haul mode," Sundling said, "and it's very well-equipped for the price."

What They Didn't

Wheel choice: Smith didn't like "the way its two-ply, carlike tires handle when towing," while Bruzek, our track driver, saw "absurd wheelspin that keeps the big power from being used to its maximum potential." "Our test truck had Michelin Energy Saver tires, and it was frustrating to watch it on the track," Williams said. "Yes, it got better mpg, but there was a lot of tire spin."

Ford Int 1 II

Trailer and payload issues: Smith didn't like the F-150's "soft rear suspension when towing," and Sundling noted that it "squatted bad with a trailer, which changed the headlight angle." "It doesn't track nicely when loaded on the track," Bruzek said. "It was darting around at highway speeds with the nose pointed high and the rear of the truck squatting."

Lightweight: "We could definitely feel that this truck was the lightest of the group, but that meant it was less settled on bad roads," Williams said.

And …: "There's nothing like the Pro Trailer Backup Assist, but it forces the trailer-brake controller too low," Williams said. "It didn't have the optional towing mirrors that many others in this competition did," Bruzek said.

 

No. 1: 2016 GMC Sierra 1500 SLT, 6.2-liter V-8; 2,357 points

GMC Sierra Action 1 II

100-point categories (best in test): Empty zero-to-60 mph, loaded zero-to-60 mph, empty quarter-mile, loaded quarter-mile, loaded 60-to-zero-mph braking, peak horsepower @ rpm dyno, empty mpg (tied with Chevy), mpg with trailer, calculated maximum towing ability, maximum rated towing, gross combined weight rating, GVWR (tied with Chevy)

The Verdict: "This is a mild-mannered pickup that is ready to don its cape and do some heavy lifting," Williams said, "saving the day from a long list of work chores."

What They Liked

The powertrain: "The hot-rod 6.2-liter engine and eight-speed transmission are a match made in heaven," Bruzek said, "capable of making a maxed-out payload feel nonexistent." "The engine and transmission are synced up like a smooth-flying jet rocket," Williams added. And Smith liked "the fuel economy and power the 6.2-liter and eight-speed combo provides." "I love the sound of the 6.2," Sundling noted.

And more powertrain: "Did I mention it's fast?" Bruzek asked. "It's like hit-the-speed-governor-before-the-quarter-mile-ends kind of fast." "It's surprising how much of a sleeper hot rod this is," Williams said. "Loaf along and get rewarded; stomp the throttle and get rewarded too."

Tech: "I like the way the Apple CarPlay integrates with the Sierra," Smith said. "Apple CarPlay simplifies using an iPhone in the truck easier than any other multimedia system," Bruzek added. "The gauge layout is the quickest to read the vital signs such as engine temperature, oil pressure and battery amps," Sundling said.

Interior quality: "Even the midlevel package SLT offers all sorts of nice details and touches in the cabin," Williams said. "Soft for all elbows."

What They Didn't

Value proposition: "The 6.2-liter and eight-speed automatic are only available on the priciest trim levels," Bruzek said. "GMC will always be a little pricier," Williams said, "but I'm not a fan of having to pay $50,000 for the big V-8." Smith objected to the GMC running on premium, adding to long-term ownership costs.

GMC Int 1 II

Empty ride: "Like the Chevy, ride quality without payload or a trailer is bouncy and more rigid than the more-refined-riding trucks in this comparison," Bruzek said. Smith disliked "the GMC's stiff compression damping of the shocks, especially in the front." "The ride is not as good as the Ram's rear coil springs," Sundling said.

And …: "Just like the Chevy, it's difficult to believe that there isn't a larger fuel tank option for crew cabs. Everyone else has it, even Toyota," Williams said. "It has a smaller windshield than the other trucks, and the large rearview mirror with OnStar blocks some of the view," Sundling added.

 

TTS16_AllChart_Tow_pmo_F2

Cars.com photos by Evan Sears and Angela Conners

Overview | Acceleration | Braking | Mileage | Results

 

Judges 1 II


 

Comments

The 5.3 does perform well but not perform better then the tundra 5.7. It is paired to a better gears transmission that keeps it in the powerband. The much heavier tundra still performed admirably despite being the pig of the group. Ram has always been lethargic for some reason. I was expecting the lighter ram to edge out the tundra with it's more hp, tq and 8spd transmission. It was also mentioned by one of the testers that the tundra has the 4.30 rear... like it had a advantage because of this..... really? If all the trucks had the same transmission ratio, then yes, the tundra's 4.30 would be an advantage... but that's not the case. Do some math and you can definitely tell the others are gear lower than the tundra. Every time a tester mention how the tundra has an advantage with the 4.30 rear without actually knowing anything about the transmission ratios.. their credentials just went out the windows.

@LMAO,

Agreed, the F150 performed great for an outdated V6. We'll see the results change when Ford updates the Eco V6. Then the table will turn, for now, congrats to the Sierra, who barely eeked out the Ford despite have more HP/TQ.

@LMAO,

Agreed, the F150 performed great for an outdated V6. We'll see the results change when Ford updates the Eco V6. Then the table will turn, for now, congrats to the Sierra, who barely eeked out the Ford despite have more HP/TQ.

Burnas pruebas, muy buenas.
En las pruebas realmente importantes las ganaron chevrolet y gmc, se que juzgaron en base a puntos por prueba, pero se me hace injusto que el chevrolet gano mas pruebas que ford y la chevy quede en 3er lugar.
Debemos esperar haber que tal salen las reparaciones de esos motores biturbo de ford...

I can't believe they sent a 4x4 Tundra to compete with the others 4x2. From what I gather the F150 and Ram squats significantly when towing. Can one conclude that the GMC and Tundra would be the more stable and safer pickup for towing a trailer at ~10klbs?

The 6.2 GMC is impressive.

@ Lou

You nailed it exactly with your comment about GM twins looks. Why couldn't they let good enough alone? They finally had a handsome looking truck and now they mess it up. I agree with you, the only model that looks good now is the monochromatic z71.

I came away from reading these tests with a few thoughts. First, Ford is (and always has) sandbagging the hp/tq of the 3.5l. Those dyno results compared to the GM 6.2 would indicate ratings more like 400/475. Not a crime to do so, but definitely underrated. Second, Ford seemed to feel that they would gain more in the mpg race than they would lose in the drag race with fuel saver tires. I think they figured wrong as they didn't win either test. Third, why does GM even build the 5.3? The 6.2 does EVERYTHING better. Fourth, Ram's coil spring suspension is not for hauling real loads (not just test results, but real world observation). Fifth, if you limit the truck you build to 98mph due to potential driveline vibrations, you need to fire a couple of engineers.

Lots of funny comments.....

On premium fuel....GM's RECOMMEND it but dont REQUIRE it . They fueled them all according to what is recommended. You can put either in them.

Tires......Ford with 18's will ride better and get better mileage and be lighter and less expensive and even quicker (except it had the fuel mileage tire selection) . The 20's would help handling and looks only. This didnt hurt the Ford in the test...

On price.....Ford was cheaper because : only 18's . They all are about the same price . A grand or three at this level is really not a big difference. You can select options you want.

Hello folks....anyone that is "surprised" that a twin turbo V6 is powerful has no clue. TURBOS are a GIANT advantage for power. What is amazing is that a pushrod physically smaller on the outside lighter engine (GM's 6.2L) not only destroys the turbo wonder in power but gets better mileage while being less complex lighter cheaper (to build mod repair and replace).

I've got a question for you towing gurus - isn't it a requirement that any trailer over 5000 lbs requires a weight distribution hitch?

I thought I remembered that in the Ford towing guide when they state the tow rating there is an * that says anything over 5000lbs needs a WD hotch. Doesn't this invalidate these results, especially the ride quality/handling comments?

Mark49, there have been dyno test between the Ford 3.5L and GM 6.2L. The 6.2 does put down more power than the 3.5L.

@LMAO,
Agreed, the F150 performed great for an outdated V6. We'll see the results change when Ford updates the Eco V6. Then the table will turn, for now, congrats to the Sierra, who barely eeked out the Ford despite have more HP/TQ.

Posted by: Frank | Jan 25, 2016 3:02:41 PM
So does these test results confirm that the newest designed truck in the group is a second rate truck at best. Sounds like more then the engine is outdated. But I digress, I believe Ford should have entered there 5.0 V8 so the GM twins could have beat up on it too. LOL

I would not buy truck that didn't at least have 32 gallon tank when traveling it makes big difference , towing even more.

That's why they are called professional grade trucks.

Get you a big bag full of that. Enough said.

@ furd fan girls

"the F150 performed great for an outdated V6. We'll see the results change when Ford updates the Eco V6. Then the table will turn, for now, congrats to the Sierra, who barely eeked out the Ford despite have more HP/TQ."

the GMC performed great for an outdated, simpler, smaller, pushrod V8. We'll see the SAME RESULTS when GM updates to a LIGHTER truck. Then the table will REMAIN THE WAY IT IS, congrats to the SUPERIOR Sierra, who beat the crap out of furd despite the Sierra being 500 POUNDS HEAVIER!

Professional grade trucks is a gimmick, there is nothing professional about it you big johnny dolt.

Professional grade trucks is a gimmick, there is nothing professional about it you big johnny dolt.

"the GMC performed great for an outdated, simpler, smaller, pushrod V8. We'll see the SAME RESULTS when GM updates to a LIGHTER truck. Then the table will REMAIN THE WAY IT IS, congrats to the SUPERIOR Sierra, who beat the crap out of furd despite the Sierra being 500 POUNDS HEAVIER!"

The 6.2L got an power update just recently, it's updated, the Ford is not, it still has the same power from 2011 but that is all changing soon that finally has some power in their engine.

**but that is all changing now that a truck maker has finally met Fords match. Hey, it's great to be King. Why, because everyone wants to be like you, just look at the trvlls

**but that is all changing now that a truck maker has finally met Fords match. Hey, it's great to be King. Why, because everyone wants to be like you, just look at the trvlls

Looks like a professional beat down GM dished out.

It was not a beat down, you need to go back to school and learn how to read. It barely beat it.

Nuff said

Lots of comments about the Ram rear suspension here....they clearly state in the Video that the F-150 had the most rear suspension sag of all.

And the payload of 1,750 pounds was 110 pounds LESS than the Ford's calculated max rating and 450 pounds MORE than the Ram's calculated maximum.

The GM 5.3 definitely punches above it's weight, Ram needs to get on the direct injection program ASAP. Except the Ram and Toyota, all the trucks in the contest are GDI which is really good for torque and mileage.

Wes - a few others hace called out PUTC for not using equalizer hitches. Perhaps it was used but not in the photos. Any 1/2 ton with more than 5k needs an equalizer. All of the manufacturers state it.

Toyota is stupid or whoever is the person that sent the tundra is stupid. Let's see, PUTC asks for max tow, 2wd.. Toyota sends max loaded heaviest tundra in 4wd and trd package. Toyota deserved to lose, not like they were gonna win anything either.

Where are all the hemi v8 people...this test proved all along what I already new the dodge, I mean fiat, I mean ram or what ever they call it now is a poor truck. My 2013 f150 ecoboost has embarrassed many of them. All while getting good fuel economy. I have no complaints what so ever about it. If I were ever to get a different brand of truck I would look at the Chevy or GMC. I do believe they are nice trucks. It would have to have the 6.2 because the 5.3 just doesn't have it.
M

By the way...you people that think the cylinder deactivation is so great...my bosses GMC motor shelled out at 28000 miles because of it. Dealer admitted they have lots of problems and dealers were told to disable it

there is so much bias in this article against the Tundra I don't even know where to start!!

First of all if it was a 2wd like the rest these test scores would be WILDLY different.

2. there has NEVER been a Tundra 5.7 on a wheel dyno under the 320hp 330lb. mark I call BS!

3. 1200lbs payload? REALLY? its 1440lbs.

4. It has dual exhaust of COURSE ITS LOUDER

5. the price is THE CHEAPEST if it were a 2wd.

as well as EVERY other test...... the way you all scored it if this truck was a 2wd and the dyno test and payload were correct the Tundra wins lmao give me a break

By the way...you people that think the cylinder deactivation is so great...my bosses GMC motor shelled out at 28000 miles because of it. Dealer admitted they have lots of problems and dealers were told to disable it


Posted by: Dan | Jan 25, 2016 7:41:06 PM

Which engine was it? The GM dealer I use warned me of the 2014 5.3L because of the cylinder deactivation feature. He hasn't seen many 6.2L issues but it was pretty early in the 2015 release when he was telling me about the issues. GM did some big work on the 5.3L to increase FE in 2014. Including requiring 0-20 engine oil.

My no tech magnum is just fine


Posted by: roadram | Jan 25, 2016 8:27:51 PM

I think that makes you a Magnum V8 people.

Why didn't you do acceleration testing and braking testing with the 10,000 lb trailer? Wasn't this a max towing test?

This Ford might be the best choice if 0-60 times is all you're looking for but for being equipped with the tow package, it just doesn't seem to handle it's calculated payload. It shouldn't have been equipped with those eco tires if it was ordered with a towing package. The rear sag was surprising when loaded. Great looking truck though and with proper tires, I would imagine braking and acceleration would have been improved.

Glad to see the 5.3 involved in the competition. Wish they would have sent one with the better 3.73 axle ratio.

What is the first bullet in what they didn't like on the f150??? I think it was about wheel absurb wheel spin of the 2 ply tires. If the ecoboost had decent tires with some wide performance rubber on it, it's performance numbers would have easily eclipse the 6.2. Braking and acceleration are going to be bad when you smoke show the tires under slight throttle. It does awesome for the lowest power and smallest displacement in the test. Really a great testament to fords light weight tech. Just imagine if it had decent, wide 20's on it like the gm twins!!!

Once gen 2 ecoboost 3.5 hits the lots it will be game over on performance. Heck it's down 80 hp on the big engine and on garbage rubber in this test and it delivers similar performance!!!

Where are all the hemi v8 people...this test proved all along what I already new the dodge, I mean fiat, I mean ram or what ever they call it now is a poor truck. My 2013 f150 ecoboost has embarrassed many of them. All while getting good fuel economy. I have no complaints what so ever about it. If I were ever to get a different brand of truck I would look at the Chevy or GMC. I do believe they are nice trucks. It would have to have the 6.2 because the 5.3 just doesn't have it.
M


Posted by: Dan | Jan 25, 2016 7:37:19 PM

I am here. I just came back from short holidays. My outdated V8 Naturaly Aspirated HEMI beats any ecoboost with double turbos from red light all the time without power braking.
Pretty impressive engine, but update is coming . I would be happy with 4.8 V8 based at Pentastar, with multiair, DI and 8 speed. Hellcat would do it too.

I received TLC Air Springs for $375+ $90 Shipping last week . Best design, quality operating temperature range and warranty after I did my research. I was thinking to remove coils and use Firestone W217602518 Ride-Rite Full Air Conversion Kit ,but I left coils there for extra safety reasons and got TLC.

I can't wait to install them, when positive temperature numbers.
I will keep you posted about my observations, but it's going to be best ride empty and loaded probably. Leafs can't compete to multilink. Too bad, nobody else has multilink, I would like to give some other manufacturer a chance. (Except Ford . No chance for them .)

http://www.totalloadcontrolsuspensions.com/Ram1500Coil-Spring09-current.aspx

Mostly typical BS comments with the odd coherent post as usual.

The two reasonably put statements I've read that stand out though are how the smaller 3.5 was at a disadvantage and that it did well despite being outdated. Twin turbos are not a disadvantage and the displacement is self explanatory based on the set of twins. I also can't accept that the 3.5 is at some sort of disadvantage due to how much more advanced and updated the 6.2 is.

Both engines debuted at around the same time. Both have plenty more power hiding in them.

My only real surprise was how well the 5.3 did. It does change my opinion of that combo. I'd be interested to see the 5.0 in the same comparo. I think it would equal the 5.3 maybe even edge it. The two of them are great performers for midline engines.

Where was the payload advantage afforded to it thanks to it's lightweight, military grade super metal? Ford dropped the fuel economy marketing in favor of the "class leading payload and towing capability" marketing spin, yet it sagged like a ram when loaded. Thanks to it's Cali lean it was squirrely on highway. It's a truck, not a street racer. Ford dropped the ball with this "tow package".

Ram is next up for a significant redesign, so it will be interesting to see how it plays out after that.

You need to post your actual dyno results, not just the summary slide. Your dyno data is at massive odds with that posted by 5 star tuning for the ecoboost. I would like to see the actual curves.

Also, as an aside. Everytime you evaluate a vehicle you should put it on the dyno from the same shop. It won't be a perfect apples to apples comparison but should allow for a ball park comparison between vehicles.

Since 95% of new GMs have the 5.3 then I guess 95% of them suck compared to Ford. Looks like GM's 6.2 is just a gimmick considering that I can't find it on the lots. No wonder my favorite company filed for bankruptcy.

Posted by: GMSRGREAT | Jan 25, 2016 7:16:42 PM
@GMSRGREAT

Looks like your 6.2 sucks compared to iceboats...hee hee hee

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0cKxXrJidM

Posted by: Rolling Can of Beer | Jan 25, 2016 7:22:52 PM

Reread this article posted by your favorite website:
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2016/01/whats-the-best-light-duty-truck-for-towing-2016-texas-truck-showdown/comments/page/2/#comments

This PUTC test did use WD hitches on each truck. Check out the photos when they post more. All in accordance with OEM towing requirements.

Alex -
The Ram has desparately needed an update for years. They need to ditch the coil spring rear suspension too. It's turning the Ram into a 3/8-ton with it's mediocre payload and towing performance.

This showdown demonstrated what it takes to be leader in the 1/2-ton market -- GM and Ford are in a class of their own. Durability, reliability, capability, efficiency.

PUTC -PLEASE INCLUDED THE 5.0 in one of these tests. I own one and frankly it doesn't get any press when most traditionalists want a V8!! It's a great motor and I'd like to see how it performs against the competitors.
If you do the math on the weight and 1/4 mile trap speed the Chevy 6.2 is approx 417 hp, the Ecoboost approx 390 hp. I'd say they are within the margin of error as advertised.
As much as I am a Ford guy, nothing beats the baritone sound of a V8!

I just wish the GM trucks looked better. They've got to be the ugliest trucks in the test. Heck even the Nissan now looks better.

Posted by:" GMSRGREAT " | Jan 26, 2016 6:12:01 AM

I am sincerely flattered, great posting name, huh!

Still waiting for PUTC to answer if these trucks used WD?

@GMSRBAD, Again, for the 100th time, GM won becasue its the only engine with that kind of HP and TQ, the truck did not win, the engine did, and I'll also say again, to you and BAFO, DOnt brag that the NEW big 6.2 engine barely beat he old v6 of Ford, it should but it was close, military grade will always win, and has for 39 years and counting......!

Congrats for GM on beating 2009 ford tech with the most modern technology engines. The 3.5l EB with the 6 speed not the 8, hung neck and neck with the 6.2l with an 8 speed. The EB was introduced in 09. It's gonna be an ugly onslaught when the Second Gen 3.5 EB is launched with the 10spd in these trucks. Congratulations again GM on the win, but I wouldn't sit yo happy at the top with these numbers.

It's not an "old Ford V6". It was the biggest news 5 years ago and was built to replace big V8's. It went up against one and these were the results. It's also getting a power bump but just accept the results already. What GM is doing with a big pushrod V8 when it comes to a combination of performance and economy is more impressive than the 3.5. If the 3.5 was soundly beating the competition in mileage the overall outcome and response from the competition would be different but none of these results change the fact that at the moment Ford and GM are head of the pack if you're looking at truck performance.

LMBO the Ford clowns are calling the eco pop v6 old now, but last time they had one of the head Ford clowns chuck taylor calling GM engines 1955 grandpa push rod engines. I guess when your high tech eco pop V6 gets smoked by 1955 tech you got to come up with some excuses as to why you lost.

Don't worry Grnzel1 Ford plays v8 sound tracks over the radio for yah LMBO!

Ford is on the phone this morning dialing up Ram for some of them air bags after PUT.com grind the rear bumper off Ford's max payload truck with 1,700 pounds in the bed. LMBO!

Wall street must of saw how poorly Ford did in this test too.


http://www.autonews.com/article/20160125/OEM/301259958/no-love-for-ford-on-wall-street

Sorry ford guys the f150 got beat in almost every test LOL
Im just surprised how well the 5.3 did.
Now gm needs a iron 6.2 for the hd trucks.

@Waldero, @Nitro, @all other Ford fanboys,

I'm sorry your favorite brand of truck didn't win in fair subjective testing. The "if they would have done this, they should've done that" gets old fast. Each of these manufacturers have the others' trucks and know exactly what they are going against. The Ecoboost is a good motor- that's why Ford doesn't change it. The new F-150 may turn out to be a good truck long term. However, these tests showed that at Houston's elevation, it does not accelerate, brake, tow, handle a heavy payload, or return fuel economy equal to a GM 6.2.

You guys write "wait 'til the new Ecoboost and 10 speed". Ok.
GM already has a 6.2 with 45hp more than the one in the truck, and it eventually will probably get the same 10 speed tranny and aluminum body the Ford has. I imagine dropping 500lbs will probably help the GM trucks just like it helps the Fords.

What this test really shows is that Ram and Toyota have their work cut out for them.

So they put an GMC SLT up against the highest level of other trucks.. Why didnt they test the GMC Denali?

The SLT with the max trailering package will out tow just about everything listed here. Unsure if that is what was tested???

Where do I find the gear ratios and advertised towing capacities of all of the trucks tested?



The comments to this entry are closed.