What's the Best Light-Duty Truck for MPG 2016: What the Judges Said

MAX MPG Group 5 II

By Patrick Olsen, Cars.com

We took four high-mpg light-duty trucks to the track and the streets of Houston to see which one came out on top. Our judges were:

Mark Williams — PickupTrucks.com editor
Brian Wong — Cars.com Los Angeles bureau chief
Bruce Smith — freelance journalist who specializes in trucks and 4x4s
Kent Sundling — editor and owner of MrTruck.com

Here's how the four trucks finished:


No. 4: 2016 Toyota Tundra SR, 4.6-liter V-8; 1,824 points

Toyota Accel II

100-point categories (best in test): None

The Verdict: "At nearly $15,000 less than its competitors, the Toyota was predictably the least equipped and felt the most like a work truck," Wong said. "Unfortunately, it also felt and drove like something out of the bargain bin."

What They Liked

Value proposition: "The Toyota is a great value," Sundling said, "the bang-for-the-buck winner."

A true work truck: "The no-nonsense look and feel of the SR interior with the column shifter says that Toyota understands work," Williams said. "For such a big truck, overall weight is just above 5,000 pounds, and that points to it being a solid work truck with muscle."

Power: Smith liked "the punch the Toyota has in the lower speeds," and Williams liked that the "throttle response of the smaller V-8 is like a slingshot."

Ride and handling: "I liked the Tundra's ride and handling when loaded down," Smith said, "and its light, nimble, easy-to-drive character when empty." Sundling found it to be "a very stable truck in the wind, and its longer wheelbase and suspension makes handling effortless."

Toyota front seats II

Tech: "The Bluetooth system paired with my Android phone easily and quickly, with a straightforward setup process," Wong said. "The larger multimedia screen than the Ford meant that even though the backup guidelines were not dynamic, it was easier for me to use the backup camera."

What They Didn't

Poor mpg: "Got the lowest fuel mileage in its group," Sundling pointed out, and Smith and Williams called it "dismal."

Cheap feel: "It's got the cheapest price of the group and it looks it," Williams said. "It has a very cheap-feeling interior with lots of road and wind noise coming in from all directions," Wong said. Several judges chimed in on the noise issue.

Suspension: "The tuning seems to be Toyota's weakest link on the full-size side," Williams said. "The steering ratios and spring rates are mismatched." Smith disliked "the jittery, nervous rear suspension under the Tundra."

Performance: "The Tundra fell flat, both loaded and unloaded, without an uptick in mpg to compensate," Wong said.


No. 3: 2016 Ram 1500 HFE, 3.0-liter V-6 EcoDiesel; 1,992 points

Ram squat II

100-point categories (best in test): Empty mpg, loaded mpg, EPA mpg ratings, tank range

The Verdict: "It's amazing how the right-sized engine with the right amount of torque and fuel economy can create a strong competitor," Williams said. "More half-ton players need to imitate the EcoDiesel."

What They Liked

The power: "The EcoDiesel powertrain's gaudy torque numbers shined through," Wong said. "It pulled with or without payload in an even, predictable fashion while maintaining mpg figures that were a cut above the rest." "It's still a relatively heavy truck for an extended cab, but the extra torque has a strong feel," Williams said.

The mpg: "I like the great fuel economy the EcoDiesel delivers loaded or empty," Smith said. "It gets incredible fuel mileage that revived half-ton diesels," Sundling added.

Acceleration: Smith lauded the "acceleration and midrange pull of the Ram," while Sundling said it had "decent acceleration while empty." "It has good throttle response and engine feel at speed," Williams said, "and minimized lag that delivers strong off-the-line feel."

Sound: "It's a quiet truck," Sundling said. "You wouldn't know it's a diesel." "Ram has tuned just enough of the diesel sound out of idle and highway speeds to make it a great choice for non-diesel buyers," Williams said.

Ram rear seats II

Comfort and ergonomics: "The Ram has good ergonomics and visibility in the cabin," Wong said, "with the center seat folding down to form a well-positioned armrest, which isn't the case with all bench seats. The seats were comfortable and supportive enough for a fairly long haul, unlike the Toyota." "I like the bright backup camera and the view that the Ram's mirrors provide," Smith said.

What They Didn't

High-speed fade: "The diesel seems to fall flat after about 70 mph," Smith said. Williams agreed: "It does a good job pulling through midrange, but falls on its face at highway speed."

Brakes: "They don't feel up to the size or weight of the truck," Williams said, "and it just gets worse with a load." "It had the longest braking distance [loaded] from 60 mph to zero," Sundling noted.

And …: "I didn't like the nervous, jittery suspension," Smith said, "or the center stack controls or layout." "Its handling was affected by the wind," Sundling said, adding that "the non-telescoping steering column made it a bit difficult to set up a good driving position."


No. 2: 2016 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 LTZ, 5.3-liter V-8; 2,018 points

Chevy Track 2 II

100-point categories (best in test): Gross vehicle weight rating, calculated maximum payload, maximum rated payload, sound at idle, sound at 60 mph, peak horsepower on dyno, braking empty

The Verdict: "The quietest and most confidence-inspiring half-ton in the max mpg group," Smith said.

What They Liked

Ride and handling: "I was impressed by this midlevel-trim pickup," Williams said. "It has a stable road feel and carries a load confidently." "It has a good ride when loaded," Wong said. "I didn't detect the suspension bottoming out even over bumps, and it remained composed at highway speeds and during acceleration."

Powertrain: "The GM eight-speed automatic's programming is perfectly matched to the engine," Smith said. "The powertrain was very confident and did not feel taxed, even with 1,500 pounds of payload for half of the mileage drive," Wong said.

Value proposition: Sundling called the Chevy "a good starter truck for a family that doesn't tow much. It's well-equipped if you don't need a large, rear legroom area." "This is the value part of the pickup truck segment," Williams said. "The extended cab gives you a few liabilities, but it is very versatile."

Chevy rear axle II

Quiet: "Most comfortable interior of the competitors, and was the quietest as well," Wong said. "Very easy to have conversations at highway speeds," Williams said. The other judges also agreed.

What They Didn't

Powertrain: Where some judges really liked it, Williams found issues. "I'm not sure that the 5.3-liter, eight-speed combination should have been their engine and powertrain choice here," he said. "There's something about the way GM has tuned the throttle feel with this combination. There's a sluggish response, and maybe that's to improve the mpg."

Cab size, entry: "The double cab [Chevrolet's name for extended cab] is too small for adults in the rear seat," Sundling said. "The extended-cab doors feel a bit too small to be practical for family or work," Williams said.

Ergonomics: "The steering-wheel controls for the audio system are not very intuitive and would take some time to grow into over the course of ownership," Wong said. "There's no easy way to start a phone call through MyLink; I had to start a call through the phone itself."

Value: "It's one of the highest-priced trucks in the group," Sundling said, and Wong agreed: "It's the most expensive of the four contenders by at least $5,000."

And …: Smith didn't like "the hood height, as it hindered the view of vehicles in front." He also didn't like "the slow tip-in throttle response" and "the harshness of the Silverado rear suspension over expansion joints and broken pavement."


No. 1: 2015 Ford F-150 XLT, 2.7-liter V-6 EcoBoost; 2,033 points

Ford Accel 3 II

100-point categories (best in test): Truck weight, peak torque on dyno, zero-to-60-mph empty, zero-to-60-mph loaded, braking loaded, quarter-mile empty, quarter-mile loaded

The Verdict: "The Ford F-150 2.7-liter EcoBoost is an exciting truck with speed, but its handling is a little touchy because of its light weight," Sundling said.

What They Liked

Power and speed: The 2.7-liter engine may have been the star of the entire Showdown. "There's stunning power off the line with this engine," Williams said. "You'd have no problems roasting the tires if you're not careful." "I like the EcoBoost's V-8-like power and V-6 mpg," Smith said. "It's a very fast truck," Sundling said. "It's fun to drive as a sport truck with a Sport mode." "For having a small-displacement V-6," Wong said, "the engine really pulls, and I was not left wanting for power, either loaded or unloaded. The engine was far and away my favorite part of the Ford."

Fuel economy: "Its loaded mileage was impressive at better than 22 mpg, which was second only to the EcoDiesel," Wong said.

Data display: "I'm still impressed at how much engine and truck information is placed at the driver's fingertips," Williams said. Smith appreciated "the advanced technology and connectivity in the F-150."

And …: "I like the quietness, comfort and layout of the SuperCab [Ford's name for extended cab] interior," Smith said. "Although the hinge mechanism looks scary complicated," Williams said, "all extended cabs should open so wide."

What They Didn't

Ride: "The use of aluminum saves tons of weight, but that translates into a twitchy road feel that is sometimes uncomfortable," Williams said. "The ride quality was especially harsh with payload," Wong said. "The rear felt unsettled and shifty when driving on the highway, which is unnerving with all of that weight in the back." "It's a little too light for windy conditions," Sundling said. "Its handling is affected."

Ford Bed Step II

Sag: "The F-150 looks and feels uncomfortably soft when loaded," Smith said. "The leaf spring pack seems too thin and not up to carrying anywhere near the rated payload without sagging horribly," Williams said.

Tires: "The choice here was most disappointing," Williams said. "They seemed designed for improved fuel economy, but the trade-offs are too harsh."

Tech: "I don't like the very small multimedia screen in the center console, which made the backup camera hard to use, and it looked out of place with the rest of the dash," Wong said.

And …: "The steering did not track straight and required constant corrections," Wong said. "The problem was more obvious when the Ford was loaded, but even when empty, there was vagueness with the steering." "The XLT interior seems cheap compared to the Lariat, especially the seats," Sundling said. "I don't like the A-pillars, which partially block the view at busy intersections," Smith said.


Cars.com photos by Evan Sears and Angela Conners

Overview | Acceleration | Braking | Mileage | Results


Ford F-150 Dyno II



Never thought the day that pickups are judged by MPG's as most important feature like they are an SUV for the wife!

Fuel prices have dropped, so I guess the editors have to favor the big 3 somehow.

"ooxxiiFuel prices have dropped, so I guess the editors have to favor the big 3 somehow"

ooxxii, I don't know how old you are but I have seen gas prices go up and down several times in my life. So unless you only expect your new truck to last a few years you had better plan on gas prices going back up long before the truck is worn out. If the producers don't raise prices governments eager for tax revenue will, Obama is already proposing a $.25/gallon tax and from what I have seen a lot of states are thinking along the same line.

Look how good the f150 eco did, big al what can you cry about now.

The amazing thing is that ram ecodiesel, that is crazy MPG for a halfton, especially when loaded up, nice work Ram, Im liking that.

Scale weight is what gave the Ford the win. That is a retarded, what is the point of having that much of a weight advantage if you don't even get close the best fuel economy. Why don't you throw in a epa vs actual mpg results test, or weight/power vs actual mpg test.

shows how irrelevant this site has become.

That was just this part of the compition. I love it. All of these different scenarios tested just give more info for all. These trucks are all so close just pick your fav and you are still driving a nice ride. I still think these tests show GM still lacks in the torque dept. They race better than they tow and that still doesn't set the bar.

That Fiat gets great mileage.

I am surprised the F-150 ran so much slower in the quarter, it gained the most when loaded. Considering it's power to weight ratio, and Fords commercials, that's not supposed to happen!

Funny how the Ram gained the least! It's supposed to gutless, right?

Looks like a smorgasbord of other factors they threw in to keep the Ram from winning.

I can see Ram needs better braking, but their GAWR points are goofy when they already are giving points for lightest truck and payload. What's next?

How about the fact the Ford Club Cab has the least space in the second row?

I thought this was about mileage? If it was, RAM smoked them.

Apparently it's about whatever they look for besides mileage.

NOT impressed by the little Ford EB's mileage compared to the 5.3 full size V8 in the Chevy .....its quick but its mileage is essentially a wash , that is lame. Twin turbo small v6 in an all aluminum truck with fuel econ tires (Chevy had 20's ) and literally lost some of the mpg segments to the Chevy which is nearly 700lbs heavier ?!?! Wow, lame. IF you put the Chevy power train in the Ford imagine.......also , whats with its squirely behavior and actual load capability so low? Shouldn't the aluminum give it a much better capability? Again, lame.

Aluminum bodies and wiz bang twin turbo sixes .....the combo is essentially EQUAL to GM's all steel , real V8 combo .......except its more complex, more costly to build fix replace and package. Lame.

It was supposed to "really move the bar" but so far its been as good as GM's (excellent) simpler approach......but more expensive. Seriously, THIS is the big hoopla (along with the previous test) ?

Ram .....small diesel V6 gets great mileage , surprise.

Toyota ......still hangin' in there, barely.

So what shriker, you get .6 or whatever better milege in this test. Wanna race. Or how much better does all this torque feel when I am towing?

The picture of the ugly spare tire on the truck on the rack reminds me of a pet peeve of mine. Why can't I buy a truck with all 5 tires alike so that I can do a 5 tire rotation? Is it really that much trouble to pull all 5 tires and wheels from the same bin? Why do the trucks come with a $200 tire that most likely will die from dry rot without ever being used because it is so ugly?

Nowhere in the article do you specifically mention if you filled the Ford with premium fuel. So what grade was it?

Toyota has been living off reputation for far too long. They need D4-S port/direct injection, Valvematic, and an 8 speed automatic on a 5.0 V8 for 400hp (and the new 3.5 V6 "2gr-fks" as entry level @ 300hp)

Ford needs the 10 speed automatic standard on every '17 F150. A 2.7 V6 4x2 with 3.15 axle ratio would have even better mileage/performance.

Post your raw dyno data. Just like your last test the dyno results here do not pass the smell test. Your F150s are consistently showing substantially higher peak torque and hp numbers than most see. Your Tundra (in the last test) and ecodiesel (in this test) are showing lower peak numbers than most see.

Are you having your speed shop specially optimize the test for ecoboosts? I mean seriously, actually *LOOK* at the ecoboost torque @ rpm numbers you posted above. They are absurd. Honestly they're so ridiculous that I'm not sure how you could accept those numbers from your speed shop without an explanation and a new test. Ditto for the tundra in your last comparison.

All of your comparisons and reviews going forward should have dyno data, but you need to work out whatever is going wrong with your tests, because the numbers you have posted are just flatly not believable.

Nissan has still to announce what their 4th engine for the Titan lineup will be. Since they've already committed to supporting diesels in these vehicles (that's a HUGE step) maybe we could be so lucky and get the VX9 3.0 V6 diesel.

It may be a pipe dream but I would love to see tests with a tuner, hypertech, livernois, superchip or whatever.

Congrats to FORD. After spending billions on new FE Tech you managed to eke out a .005 percent overall point total win. Good job. I'll take my Chevrolet in that Deep Ruby Metallic with the cool 20 in wheels and tires that offer real traction.

If you haven't driven a turbo gas motor you just wouldn't understand!

Wow, Ram's 2009 truck is still competitive!

where's big al? Gotta love that ecothirst and how terrible it's mpg is.

The title of the article says "What's the Best Light-Duty Truck for MPG 2016".

The Ram diesel won every MPG category with a full 100 points. The two 120-mile real-world tests both netted in excess of 30 mpg... above the usually optimistic EPA highway number.

Please explain how it finished third in an MPG-comparison test.

This has to be the most ridiculous test this site has ever run. A supposed test of high-mileage trucks, but the winner was the truck that was the *fastest*? Seriously?

Congrats to FORD. After spending billions on new FE Tech you managed to eke out a .005 percent overall point total win. Good job. I'll take my Chevrolet in that Deep Ruby Metallic with the cool 20 in wheels and tires that offer real traction.

Posted by: GMSRGREAT | Feb 15, 2016 10:43:06 AM

You see cobalt boy this is where you continue to be misled by your GM bandwagon. Sure Ford spent a ton on the new F150 body and nothing on powertrain. With the exception of the 2.7L engine. The 2.7 gets the EPA ratings but they could be better in real world. But I would like to see a base engine comparo under the same conditions. Plus the charge for this engine is under $800.00 over the base engine. Ford has spent the big money for future FE regulations while everyone else is just getting started. With the light weight out of the way, engine, transmission, suspension combos can be tweeked and the cost will not be as high. But in reality only a few of you guys seem to worry what Ford spends. Who care!

Ecodiesel mpg is impressive. Those kind of gains will pay for that engine.

The GM 5.3 with eight speed is a good combination. I looked at a graph comparing the 5.3 to the Gm 6.2. The torque curves were virtually identical except for higher rpm i.e. around 4000.

I'd go with a GM 5.3 8 speed any day over a 2.7 EB.

It does look like Ford needs to do some chassis tuning.

They need to run the same tires.

That is one variable PUTC needs to address.

My truck is more stable under load with 10 ply tires than it is with the stock 4 ply tires.
Tires play a huge role in braking.

I must say that I don't understand the disconnect between the title if this article, the results, and the judge's comments:

This was supposed to be:

Well, why are all the other factors involved here? Seems that many of them have already been addressed.

So, to me, the clear winer IN THIS CATEGORY is Ram. Period.


The test was for the best TRUCK for MPG. Not the best MPG for a truck.

Ford has the best truck. Good job, Ford. You win again.

Let the crying continue!!!!

Keep things apples to apples .... By deactivating start stop tech?? By having a truck with a bed cover over the rock salt load?? How is that apples to Apples? You didn't stop the cylinder deactivation on the Chevy (bc you can't) so why deactivate the the start stop tech on the ford? Run the trucks the way they are intended to run as efficient as they can run. And the dodge you didn't even run empirical gas readings you simply went by the trucks mpg readout? Worst review you have done to date!
Posted by: Wrigley | Feb 15, 2016 11:17:20 AM

Wow. Agree. That was a pretty poor decision by PUTC. smh.

The final placing of the contenders of this is not really done well.

If this is a MPG Test, why didn't the FE scoring have more sway in the total points??

Maybe double or triple the FE components of the test. Then a better picture would of been painted.

My view is this;

1. Silverado/Ram. Both seem to be very good in certain areas making them equal.

3. F-150. It does have nice acceleration, but not that great when the Silverado is taken into account. It's FE isn't that great, it isn't what Ford has promoted by the move aluminium.

4. Tundra. It is cheap and nasty, but an ideal working platform.

@Big Al, my advice to you is to go and actually drive these vehicles before commenting on what you think the FE, or anything else for that matter is.

Where I do agree with you, is the title saying its a MPG test, when the best MPG vehicles did not come in first, again, poorly written by PUTC

Very thorough, a pleasure to read the whole set of articles. Thank you.

Hard to believe the 2.7 Eco got less mpg than the 3.5 Eco in the max tow testing. In fact, the Chevy also got less than the chevy and GM with 6.2 in the max tow test. Perhaps these engines were a little tighter than the ones in the max tow? With that, why would you even want to buy a 2.7 over the 3.5 in the Ford as you can get both engines in all the configurations.

It's amazing how much more torque at a lower rpm the ecoboost makes vs the ecodiesels a lot less torque. Some posters her would like you to believe that small diesels are better off-roaders due to there torque.... Which there torque is at a higher rpm and a lot less then a gas v6 turbo.... Hmmm. It's pretty easy to see the ecoboost would be the best offroad engine in this group. Gobs of low end torque compared to a laggy diesel that has to be on boost in the upper end of its rpm range

Bad test, Ram should of won this by a country mile. I guess they had to do something to get the Ford in 1st place LMBO!

The Ford combo is the most disappointing in this test for several reasons - it weighed 700+ pounds less than the Chevy yet got similar fuel mileage and performance loaded and unloaded - that doesn't speak much to the supposed eco boost technology. Let us ask the question - if the Chevy engine and transmission was in the Ecoboost platform (aka a truck with aluminum body that weighs 700 pounds less) how would it have done in acceleration and mpg? It would have blown the Ecoboost out of the water. I bet the Tundra 4.6 would have blown it out of the water as well. Alas I get it - this is a truck comparison - the package, the mfr, etc. If we are going to talk about truck mpg surely we are interested in ownership cost and value offered for the person that buys the vehicle. This makes the Tundra a solid choice - $10,000 less capital cost buys a lot of gas for the Tundra. Combine that with the fact that the 4.6 litre v8 is the same engine found in the Lexus GX460 and Meaning you have a Lexus engine under the hood and Lexus IS consistently one of the most reliable brands in the world and that makes the Tundra with the 4.6 a solid choice. When you factor in the quality, durability, reliability, and resale the Tundra arguably is amongst the tops in this supposed mpg related test.

Scott K, the same question could be asked, if the F150 had an 8 speed transmission like the Chevy and fiat what kind of change would that bring? Even if the Toyota had an 8 speed. I would like to see the difference when the 10 speed is brought out. But right now these are the only options. The 8 speed madE a huge difference in the GM twins. No real difference in the 5.7L fiat 1500 so what will be the verdict with a 10 speed.

Funny to see BARFo's diesel in 3rd place.

Goes to show that Ram needs to build a truck 1st and a mpg champion 2nd.

Other tests have shown that the Ecodiesel falls flat on its face at higher speeds especially towing.

Three observations-1) Wong couldn't make a phone call with the My Link because buttons weren't intuitive? Sorry, but the system is one of the easiest to pair up a phone and use. Not sure why the problem. (2) Its the most expensive by $5,000? Well, duh, its an LTZ trim truck with extra charge paint and the others sent more basic trim packages. Now that's Chevy's fault-they should have sent an LT-however at this point in time I don't believe you can't get the 8 speed with the 5.3L on an LT trim. I will agree the double cab can be too small for family use unless the driver and front passenger are under 6'. But for that $5,000 diff. you get a heck of a lot of nice features and a truck that according to their testing methods was the most confidence inspiring truck to drive of the group. It still got decent fuel economy for a truck that is all around more capable at carrying and towing than the others in the group. If a family can only afford one truck , but needs it to do more, the Chev would appear to be the best choice. (3) the hood height? Didn't anyone show Smith how to use the power seat adjuster to raise the seat?

what's funny to see is Ford builds a truck that's not much better than Ram at holding weight, but hey, RAM isn't bragging all about "what we can do with a half ton what a 3/4 ton should be doing" like Ford does.

They put the high payload numbers on the Ford, but it just can't handle it.

They can't make it (F-150) ride good or handle either. It can't even get it's highway rating.

Finishing order exactly as what I thought it would be- no surprise. Given the higher cost of diesel and cost of operation the higher FE benefit is lost.
The whining of some here is a bit beyond what I would have thought.
Seriously kids, get over it. Go grab your blankies and snuggle with Mommie, have some hot chocolate, some SpongeBob cartoons and move on.

^the better percentage of mileage with a diesel out weighs the higher cost over gas. Craw out from under your blankit, get away from momma, and do the math per mile, provided you know how?

Did they even tell us what the Ford cost? The standard "that diesel truck cost so much" doesn't apply here. Spendy Chevy!

I would have thought they might do a test comparing them all with say 5,000 to 7,500 pounds of trailer. Wait, we already seen that test for the Phord, it drops like a rock!

TRX-4 Tom

I call bs on your claim that Ram doesn't brag about what their trucks can handle. I've seen Ram ads on this site claiming best in class towing of 17000 lbs with the Ram 1500. Please explain that to me. No half ton truck is capable of towing 17000 lbs. Completely misleading advertisement.

@CKREID92-They don't brag how this 1500 should be doing the job of a 2500/F-250 ("3/4 ton")

Read it again, I was referring to "1/2 tons" (1500s, F150s)

They plainly don't try to convince people that they need a 1500 to struggle with 1700 plus pounds payload, and obnoxious 12,000 pound trailer ratings.

Just as well, their 2500 6.4 hemi is not far off from the stiff riding Chevy 2500 that can't turn for crap, and is rated to, and holds, more then the "Super"Duty F-250. Ba ha ha!

You can get an F-150 with a much higher GVWR
get you calipers out boys and measure the thickness of those springs on different F-150's
yea, they are different!

the other Lou has a point. With Ram you are stuck with one truck. If you want more payload you either buy a stripped out 1500 or are forced to buy a 3/4 ton.

The F150 can be purchased with a 2,600 lb rating in a crewcab 4x4.

Oh and they need to run these tests with the same brand of tires.

My F150 felt sketchy at max GVW on stock tires. On 10 ply tires my truck felt completely stable.

Another point of note..... load ratings are truck specific because of options. All of the trucks had similar load ratings.

F150 - 1,570
Chev - 1,660
Ram - 1,485
Tundra - 1,540

They were loaded with 1,500 lbs each.

I do agree with TRX-Tom that 12k trailer bragging rights in the 1/2 ton class is stupid BUT that is where my agreement parts ways.

We are talking about 4 door 5-6 passenger pickups. It is very easy to put 1,500 lbs of weight in a truck once occupants are factored in.

The guys who think cargo/passenger weight doesn't matter should spend some time weighing everything they throw into a pickup.

Lou_BC everywhere I go I see people spend hours on end weighing everything they throw into a pickup. Item by item, hour by hour. Nothing is loading until everything is at the proper weight.


On the Chevy: "There's no easy way to start a phone call through MyLink; I had to start a call through the phone itself." As somebody else said, just push the talk button and say, "Call Mom" or whatever name you have in your phone's directory and it dials, how can it be any easier?

The Ford was the only one with significantly lower mileage than its EPA ratings, any idea why?

Your comments on steering problems and sag with payload on the Ford were more discouraging than its mileage.

Overall an informative test, you gave enough info for the reader to form their own conclusions despite the conclusions you offered. Your tests on the 14 models were a major factor on the truck I purchased then, thanks!

@TRX-4Tom, the difference between gasoline and diesel national average is $ 0.215. Let's assume that I do not know how to calculate, please educate us. Please include the difference in cost of basic maint. Ie. An oil change between the Ford f150 2.7 Ecoboost vs the Ram 3.0 Ecodiesel
Be sure to detail the costs of the correct spec. oil filterspill, oil and quarts quantity. Also the Required DEF for the diesel.

The guys who think cargo/passenger weight doesn't matter should spend some time weighing everything they throw into a pickup.

Mark Williams REALLY like the Ford. The only writer who scored a particular vehicle above 100

Without Mark's enthusiasm for the F150, it might not have equaled the Chevy.

Also, any pickup truck without carpet on the floors is going to be louder inside than the rest of the tested trucks. The Tundra was at a major disadvantage due to the rubber floor.

Smiths REALLY like the Chevy. The second writer who scored a particular vehicle above 100 and the only one who scored the Chevy over 100.

Without Smith's enthusiasm for the Chevy, it might not have beat the Ram.

The Tundra should be quiet either way, and carpet doesn't explain noise coming from every direction - windows, windshield, doors, etc.

I'm glad I could educate you, jim.

I agree with Lou. The Ram guys go unhinged and start spamming this blog everytime someone brings up payload. It's the funniest thing I've ever seen.

yeah, my 2010 Ram was quite stable with 275/70 r 17 LTs, stock, and it probably brought down my mileage, but my 2006 Chevy 1500 4x4 had the lightest tires with the least rolling resistance.

The comments to this entry are closed.