Forum Discussion
192 Replies
4x4ord wrote:
I just read over the scoring sheet a little closer and have to admit there is some stuff that make the results a little off in my mind. For example the Ford was on top the Davis Dam run almost a minute ahead of the Chevy and 1.25 minutes ahead of the Ram. That's like a mile in front and it gained only 10 points?? Then on the subjective scoring Aaron Bragman was very biased toward the Ram. These trucks are not that different ... 65 points for overall value for the Ford and 80 for the more expensive Ram .... give me a break ... I can see him not liking the Ford but for less money you definitely get a little more with Ford ... things like incredible tow mirrors that are both power extend and power fold; genuine leather seats vs synthetic leather in the supplied Ram; a more refined quieter engine :); keypad entry system. I would throw out Aaron's scores and call the results very close but a little less biased:
GMC...2827
Ford...2766
Ram...2706
My Longhorn Ram doesn't have "synthetic leather":h..I KNOW the Laramie Limited doesn't have "synthetic leather" and Mine is genuine leather....the rest I don't really care about:)
Hey give it to the Ford...I picked them to win any way, and had Chevy in 2nd....Ram was last...no matter how they finished....- Some of you take this stuff way too seriously.
- I think these tests have real value when they simply set up a series of events and test each truck and rate them based on stop watch or fuel mileage or whatever the criteria is. As soon as subjective thoughts are put into the calculations the value quickly becomes watered down. I don't know if GM still would have won or not without the subjective numbers added in. However when your test driving tow rigs, its not very often you can actually tow with them before you buy, so in my view these test provide an insight that you cant recreate before you buy. However the comfort of the cab materials and the composition of the leather. I don't want to hear about it, I can decide what value that has on my own.
- Do you guys really think the two click method is accurate filling the tanks?
I don't!
There are ways to accurately test it.
Seriously they do a great job right out of the box without having to add on anything to make them perform.
If your open minded test drive all three. I will admit I am not open minded. IdaD wrote:
4x4ord wrote:
I can see him not liking the Ford but for less money you definitely get a little more with Ford ... things like incredible tow mirrors that are both power extend and power fold; genuine leather seats vs synthetic leather in the supplied Ram; a more refined quieter engine :); keypad entry system.
You can nitpick features from the perspective of any of these trucks, though.
Ram Guy: For example when comparing the Ram to the Ford, you definitely get a little more with Ram...things like a coil rear suspension that doesn't sag and rides better on washboard roads, more soft touch materials in the interior, an engine with a proven simple design and a much stiffer redesigned frame.
GM Guy: For example when comparing the GM to the Ford, you definitely get a little more with the GM...things like the best mileage in the test with a load, a more refined all new interior with nicer materials and an 8" nav screen, and a smoother ride on many surfaces.
You already did Ford Guy, so I won't do that one again.
See, anybody can do it. You don't even have to be very creative.
Except that things like mileage and ride quality have already been scored in stand alone categories.travelnutz wrote:
Best truck package offering available for all??? Sure, like a 4.10 rear axle on either Ram or Ford so the engine turns a lot more revolutions per mile and then the Ram and Ford fuel guzzlers would have consumed 15%-20% more fuel than the GM! Further distancing the points given between the 3 for fuel economy. Just another hurdle popping up. Each time the cylinder fires it must have enough fuel to do so or there's NO combustion! Excess fuel consumed. Get it? It's not rocket science! I'll just bet both Ram and Ford would be so happy to have that guzzeling MPG fact displayed.
You're alluding to what I hoped others would catch. If you let each manufacturer configure the optimum tow vehicle, they will have to balance economy, drivability and performance. Maybe the highest drive ratio would not give the truck the best overall score even if it did dominate one test.4x4ord wrote:
I can see him not liking the Ford but for less money you definitely get a little more with Ford ... things like incredible tow mirrors that are both power extend and power fold; genuine leather seats vs synthetic leather in the supplied Ram; a more refined quieter engine :); keypad entry system.
You can nitpick features from the perspective of any of these trucks, though.
Ram Guy: For example when comparing the Ram to the Ford, you definitely get a little more with Ram...things like a coil rear suspension that doesn't sag and rides better on washboard roads, more soft touch materials in the interior, an engine with a proven simple design and a much stiffer redesigned frame.
GM Guy: For example when comparing the GM to the Ford, you definitely get a little more with the GM...things like the best mileage in the test with a load, a more refined all new interior with nicer materials and an 8" nav screen, and a smoother ride on many surfaces.
You already did Ford Guy, so I won't do that one again.
See, anybody can do it. You don't even have to be very creative.4x4ord wrote:
I just read over the scoring sheet a little closer and have to admit there is some stuff that make the results a little off in my mind. For example the Ford was on top the Davis Dam run almost a minute ahead of the Chevy and 1.25 minutes ahead of the Ram. That's like a mile in front and it gained only 10 points?? Then on the subjective scoring Aaron Bragman was very biased toward the Ram. These trucks are not that different ... 65 points for overall value for the Ford and 80 for the more expensive Ram .... give me a break ... I can see him not liking the Ford but for less money you definitely get a little more with Ford ... things like incredible tow mirrors that are both power extend and power fold; genuine leather seats vs synthetic leather in the supplied Ram; a more refined quieter engine :); keypad entry system. I would throw out Aaron's scores and call the results very close but a little less biased:
GMC...2827
Ford...2766
Ram...2706
That is one item I don't like in tests like these. Test, test, test, then throw a dart to pick a winner. The subjective side may have been weighted too high in the total score. But, if you are brand biased none of the results really matter and if you are open minded to any brand you can look at the quantitative tests and do the subjective tests on your own. After all, it is your tastes and behind that will need to live with the vehicle.- Best truck package offering available for all??? Sure, like a 4.10 rear axle on either Ram or Ford so the engine turns a lot more revolutions per mile and then the Ram and Ford fuel guzzlers would have consumed 15%-20% more fuel than the GM! Further distancing the points given between the 3 for fuel economy. Just another hurdle popping up. Each time the cylinder fires it must have enough fuel to do so or there's NO combustion! Excess fuel consumed. Get it? It's not rocket science! I'll just bet both Ram and Ford would be so happy to have that guzzeling MPG fact displayed.
More and more excuses doesn't make the test results seem any better but sure does expose the lack of knowledge some posters really have! Citing facts is not condescending but simply "factual". I expect no better from some of you posters and as usual, you live up to your billing. MARK VANDERBENT wrote:
really go ducks !! must feel threatened huh ??
Just stating the facts. Not threatened at all. Heck I bought the 3rd place truck in 2012:)
