The Tacoma 2.7 liter is a 4 cylinder not a V6.

Is the list the same for 4x4's?

GM 1st
RAM 2nd
Ford of Mexico- LAST AS USUAL!

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-ford-recall-idUSKBN0U51TT20151222

Folks in the news media, PUTC included, are still fighting the last war. FE was a huge topic in the 1970s, 2000s and up till a couple of years ago. Oil prices, as well as the huge development costs of creating FE technologies, drove up the cost of buying and owning a new pickup.

Our trucks today are a marvel of technology and ongoing improvement but the greenies are going to legislate them out of existence during the next 15 years through obsolete CAFE concerns.

GM Colorado diesel is only 4 mpg better than my 2016 2.7 liter gas engine 4x4...

Add better reliability, higher re-sale value, lower operating costs and a better off-roader and my new Tacoma was only $26,000 compared to $45,000 for the Colorado, I can clearly see I bought the better truck in terms of value!

Saving almost $20,000 and expected high re-sale value makes the slightly better MPG's of the Colorado look insignificant!

The Ford F150 Gasoline truck is #1 in fuel economy & #1 with 5 star crash test VS the 4 star crash test dummy Chevrolet Silverado is LAST again. LOL

I am sure, that second generation FCA 8 speed is going to match colorado diesel Mpg with ecodiesel and V6 Pentastar will jump few contenders from the table.
Not just on the paper, but in the real life as well.

I can attest to how the Duramax uses very little fuel. My 2500 Duramax rarely needed to have the tank filled. Kind of hard to use fuel when the darn thing is sitting in the shop waiting to be fixed, yet again. So, if it's low fuel usage you're after, GM is the way to go!

Most impressive fuel economy is the ecodiesel. heard lots of problems with them though from the three people I know that have one. All three have had warranty work on the engine. Don't expect the longevity that most diesels are known for. None of the others are really that impressive to me considering the 26 to 27 mpg average I get with my 4 cylinder manual ranger from 2004.

Keeping you vehicle tuned up, frequent oil changes, and properly inflated tires goes a long way in saving fuel. I don't have any issues with more efficient vehicles, but I do have concerns about the technology failing. The complexity of the newer automatic transmissions and the electronics.

Also the energy used to manufacturer and transport vehicles. The longer you keep a vehicle and maintain it properly the less energy is used. This is not what the manufacturers and the dealers want to hear but there will be enough vehicles manufactured and sold. Today's vehicles can last a lot longer than vehicles in the past.

Screw the environment, my 2006 is paid off and runs awesome! It gets 17mpg and that's good enough for me!

@Jeff S agree to a point.

Expect the EPA to begin the process of weeding out the older heavier vans and trucks from the highways during the next five years. Why?

Not because of FE, but rather because of dopey ideas about climate change.

The auto industry is not very warm to the idea of older trucks lasting 25 to 30 years on average. The guys who make replacement parts love it, though.

Today's auto paints are holding up amazingly well. It is not uncommon to see 20 year old cars with great looking (original) paint.

The electronics are very durable as long as they are properly installed. Drivetrains are much better today for long life and for better service.

papa jim - -

"Not because of FE, but rather because of dopey ideas about climate change"

Absolutely. There is no direct, unassailable, scientific evidence that climate temperature rise ("warming") has (had) anything to do with activities of humankind at this point.

What are the wealth-equalization, eco-Nazis going to say as we move into our next episode of global cooling? That it's OK to burn as many fossil fuels as needed, because the glaciers are coming?

The whole fuel-mileage thing has gotten out of hand. If you want to be comprehensive, a better measure would be BTU's per year for everything in your driving lifetime, including the remanufacturing of your cheap, ultra-high efficiency econobox, that can't last 15 years but gets 40 MPG, --- vs. my 1996 Dodge Ram that will easily last 25 years, but gets 18 mpg (ave.).

Or what about the guy with the Toyota Prius who gets 45 MPG but chooses to live in "boonies", and commutes 100 miles per day, vs. the guy (me) with my pickup who live 2 miles away from work, but gets 16 MPG in traffic.
1) Who uses more fuel?
2) After 25 years, who has used more of the planets BTU's and scarce resources?

By emphasizing pure fuel mileage, are we really subsidizing a more intense commuting lifestyle, while the total BTU's per person per year will be about the same?

Some government people aren't thinking.

=============================

The Nissan XD Cummins is missing from the sipping list.

"There is no direct, unassailable, scientific evidence that climate temperature rise has anything to do with activities of humankind at this point."

No matter how you slice it there's a difference between reality and packaged belief systems originated from Fox news, etc.

Global warming is an abject fraud.
The basic laws of radiative thermodynamics disprove their conjecture of anthropogenic global warming.
Ever seen an exhaust system glow: dark red, red, red-orange, yellow-orange on a dynamometer?
Why does the color change? Why does total radiated energy increase dramatically as the temperature rises above ambient?
We can thank Wein's displacement law & Stefan-Boltzman for that.
Carbon dioxide isn't some devil gas which blocks the entire electromagnetic spectrum. No its spectral lines are well known.
What about 4X4 trucks? 4x2 is for the Sun Belt.

I average 22-23.5 on my Ram 3.6 Pentastar City/Hwy combined if that helps anybody.

I average 22-23.5 on my Ram 3.6 Pentastar City/Hwy combined if that helps anybody.

Posted by: Don | Apr 23, 2016 2:37:50 PM

That's very good number and would be my second choice with 8 speed after HEMI combination.
Second generation 8 speed with higher spread gears fro 7 to 7.8 and lower RPM converter lock and less friction and power loss will improve all the numbers as well.

Ecoboost 2.7 numbers are overrated and out of the real life, no question about that.

@Ford orgullosa de ser mexicana You do know GM has more plants in Mexico than Ford operating and are investing more money than Ford in Mexico,5 billion to 1.6 billion.

Ford has invested more money in the U.S. over the past 5 than any other auto maker,over 10 billion

The globe is definitely warming, but it is not human machines causing it to get hotter. The scriptures clearly tell us, (written thousands of tears ago) that there would come a time on earth it would be so hot that men would look to the sky and curse God. Humans who ignore the mountains of evidence that god is real, believe that the earth is all there is and they want to try to save it. Too bad for them heaven and earth will pass away.

I kinda like this site (although a little slow sometimes), but the comments are stupid. It's like a bunch of kids who can't get their way! Maybe I will just delete this site from my bookmarks as I wish a few of you would do...

nature lovers LOVE nature but HATE humans
if 2/3 of the worlds population was wiped out they would be happy
nature lovers look at humans as a disease on mother earth

Colorado 2.5 gets 19/23/26....

are these crew cabs, regular cabs or extended cabs, it makes a difference?

"Ford has invested more money in the U.S. over the past 5 than any other auto maker,over 10 billion..."
Posted by: David | Apr 23, 2016 3:05:21 PM

David you are only an idiot because you were born that way. First off, what makes you think GM is any better than Ford they both stink.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/07/ford-to-build-plant-in-mexico-ramp-up-output-from-the-country-wsj.html

Secondly, how much government money has been given in loans and grants so that "Ford" would invest the little they do in the US?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/07/09/ford-focus-cmax-mexico/29921307/

Yeah I would invest money that was handed to me from the government if I had to...lol...some of it even in the country that gave it to me in the first place...lol

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ford-motor-mexico-idUSKBN0N827120150417

Boneheads like you like to forget that, Ford receive $5.9 billion in government loans in 2009 to retool its manufacturing plants to produce more "fuel-efficient cars", and the company lobbied for and benefited from the cash-for-clunkers program — contrary to the ad’s testimonial that Ford is “standing on their own.” lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1DAI2aCPA

Yeah they invest Money in the US alright! Your tax money IDIOT!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1IKg4I_D_E

I dont doubt that the Earth is warming up,however its not necesarily bad thing for people living up north..LOL..

Plus some scientists would argue that increased levels of CO2 is good for plants and trees helping these grow faster..

http://www.ibtimes.com/increased-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-makes-trees-more-efficient-using-water-1341637

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/17/another-benefit-of-climate-change-and-increased-co2-trees-continue-to-grow-at-a-faster-rate/

If youre concerned about air polution diesels wont help much no matter how efficient..
Only way to get rid of air polution from the exhaust is to use Electric vehicles,
,maybe thats why Tesla is so popular having 300.000 orders from people..

Big Threes moronic management can only dream of having such demand for their vehicles

Hybrid electrics being quite efficient also as this 230 mpg Volt proves
tells me GM would do well to use such drivetrain in their big trucks..
https://youtu.be/SThO7oY8pi0

Note the big 3 NA v6 offerings on the bottom of the list deliver virtually identical mileage. The difference is the the 4.3 chevy delivers right now torque and easily hauls around a full size pick-up. It would be the best choice for contractors who spend most of their time around town.

These numbers are either selective or wrong. The 2.7 F-150 is 19/22/26. The only way to get 18/21/24 is with the payload package, which is a senseless option when you're comparing it to the likes of the Canyon, Colorado, Frontier and Tacoma.

@papa jim--Most of today's vehicles drive trains will outlast the electronics. I am not saying that the electronics are bad but they are more expensive to replace and much harder to diagnose. It was unheard of 30 or more years ago for the average vehicle to go 200k or more miles and for it to last 15 years or more. I don't think we will see the EPA taking older vehicles off the road but I do think as vehicles become more efficient that many older less efficient vehicles will be taken off the road especially if fuel prices rise in the future. Also I think that with the more attractive leasing deals that more people will lease vehicles and that there will be a surplus of late model used vehicles on the market giving those with older vehicles more incentive to get rid of their older vehicles and buy later model used cars and trucks. There are some very good lease deals especially on midsize and compact cars.

@Jeff S
Lease is always bad deal.

Want to save the environment, STOP HAVING KIDS!

GMSRGREAT

I agree with you the 4.3 V6 in the full size truck is the best kept secret out there. It's the perfect size for both power and fuel efficiency.
Nobody talks about it cause the eco-boost talk drowns it out.

oh-oh-oh-moooaaan-- oh the eco-boost is sooooo wonderful I get 27 mpg! "Oh! that's nothing! I get 32 mpg in my eco-boost! aaaaa-aaaaa---aggghh- my eco-boost is the greatest engine in the whole wide world! NO! it's the greatest engine in the universe !

@RAM--For most people leasing is a bad deal but if you don't put much mileage on a vehicle and want a new vehicle every few years then leasing can work. The fact is more people are leasing vehicles which will provide more late model used vehicles when these vehicles are returned at the end of their leases. I keep my vehicles for 10+ years. Many people lease vehicles that they could not afford to buy. I am not endorsing this but it is a fact. I am cash buyer myself and tend to keep what I have till it wears out.

He's not comparing it to the ecoboost, NA means naturally aspirated. But if you do compare to the entry level 2.7, the Ford has way more power, better mileage, and tows more.

@Jeff S

I don't think that RAM is easily persuaded. It's my view that leasing is such a good choice that millions of American companies--from Mom/Pop businesses all the way up to some of the biggest in the world--count leasing as a way to optimize their capital, while simplifying their tax accounting. Being neither a tax expert or an accountant I can only tell you that I know for a fact that an awful lot of companies swear by it.

One of my clients is a software exec who has created dozens of companies from scratch. He could buy BMWs by the dozen, but instead he gets a new one each year via leasing. This guy is not a dope, trust me.

@papa jim--It makes sense for your client to lease. For some leasing is much better. For some who are not in business there is a tendency to get a more expensive vehicle than they can afford. I tend to keep my vehicles longer but leasing could be an alternative for my wife's vehicle since she doesn't drive as much and would prefer to have a newer vehicle instead of keeping it as long.

I have never taken a loan out on a vehicle until 3 years ago when we bought a new CRV for my wife. We had the cash to pay for it but with the 0.9 percent interest and not getting anything additional off for paying cash it made more sense to take the cheap loan and keep our money invested. Each of us has a different financial situation and for some leasing is a better deal.

EPA FE figures are not accurate. The test conditions in no way reflect what is actually occurring in the real world.

Take the new aluminum F-150 wonder pickup. There is much proof that the 2.7 EcoBoost is returning between 15-17mpg.

This figure is far off the Ford figures given to the EPA.

Driven as most normal people drive you will see a the 2.5 far exceed the 2.7 EcoBoost aluminum F-150 with FE.

The diesel Ram and Colorado will even widen this FE deficient gap even further from the 2.7 EcoBoost aluminum F-150.

Turbo boost equates to fuel usage.

No matter what is said and done to accelerate mass as in most driving situations of slowing down, stopping, accelerating, etc the heavier the vehicle the more fuel it will use.

Add to this the turbo which again forces a much larger fuel/air mix into the combustion chamber to give you this acceleration you will see FE rise even further than a NA engine.

I would think a diesel is the best engine followed by a V8 for a pickup that is used as a truck.

These little turbo EcoBoost engines are good for most pickup owners as pickups never tow or carry a load. They are just large SUVs and cars, not a truck in the real sense.

gotta love how bafo has tried to disguise himself as denver dud.

For anyone interested in the F-150 my wife has a new 2015 with the 2.7 Eco boost. it is a little hot rod and a hoot to drive.
With a bit over 2000 miles we are getting 19.7 around town, and if I were to stay out of the throttle a little bit, probably better. She will be taking a business trip to L. A. this week, we are in Phoenix so will have better figures on road milage then. It has the 20 inch wheels, looks sharp, handles well, and is quiet comfortable. From some of the post on here is seems a few have never possibly even seen the new trucks. Otherwise the comments would actually make sense. If Ford puts this motor in the new Ranger look out for a lot of fun. It will haul azz and get great milage on top of it.

@ Ford de ser mexicana Guess you don't know the difference between bailout and loan,Ford had to put up the Blue Oval logo and trademarks like Mustang and F-150 as collateral

I would think a diesel is the best engine followed by a V8 for a pickup that is used as a truck.

These little turbo EcoBoost engines are good for most pickup owners as pickups never tow or carry a load. They are just large SUVs and cars, not a truck in the real sense.

Posted by: DenverlllDud | Apr 24, 2016 12:37:25 PM

YUP the Big Turd From OZ is back. Sure was nice when we didn't have to keep reading your F150 posts. Even when it was not about the F150. I guess the vacation is over. We are back to the Big Loser From Oz again.

"
The auto industry is not very warm to the idea of older trucks lasting 25 to 30 years on average. The guys who make replacement parts love it, though.

Today's auto paints are holding up amazingly well. It is not uncommon to see 20 year old cars with great looking (original) paint.

The electronics are very durable as long as they are properly installed. Drivetrains are much better today for long life and for better service."

Wanted to get something newer are hanging onto a old for me 15yr old vehicle. Still looked it came from the showroom. Considering how fierce the sun is in the Southern Hemisphere, pretty neat trick

My Ram Eco Diesel In town is 24 on hwy trips it's 30-31 with cruise set to 71. It's a 4x4 Crew cab with 3.92 and 8speed teams. This is not exaggerate in any way. You can believe me or not, but it's the truth!!!!!

4.3 with a heavier 4cyl mode to keep it just using 4. Will actually have more power than a 5.3 in 4cyl mode. Less pistons not firing being pushed by the other 4. And bigger displacement in 4 cyl mode. Put that in a canyon. Or put the 8 speed behind it.

@Brandon, totally agree re: 4.3 in the colorado/canyon pickups. The 3.6 may be lighter, but I'm just guessing.

You can be sure the 3.6 costs more to build and is less biased for torque. I used to have a first gen 4.3 (SBC) and I had a second gen 3.6 and the 4.3 was almost like driving a small V8.

The 3.6 was a high revving and very smooth motor, but for use in a truck I'd favor the 4.3 gen 5 motor hands down.

Factor in Toyota does not use high strength steel
can you say rust out