2015 Ford F-350 0-60 MPH Test

You know, I was among the many who at one time questioned the actual validity of an acceleration test such as this. What did this have to do with towing??

Well, poor old rural me forgot about the big city folks, or perhaps more accurately, those traveling through the bigger cities.

I-494 in the Twin Cities is a prime example of the need for such acceleration. Those who have traveled there, along with other major cities, know they have lights on the on-ramps.

So one waits at the light and when it goes green, you'd better have some acceleration to blend into the heavy traffic on that route.

So indeed it does apply to towing, cause there are places you GOTTA get that load moving in a hurry.

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
I think uzz all drunk. :B

I've been next to this thing and it can REV!!


Listen at 20! Sounds pretty quick to me.

If I remember right, I think Brad said this ol rattler ingests 100 LBS of boost! I don't know about this engine, but I know the old one was an old 12 valve. :E

I just don't understand drag racing. It costs too much money to break into a sub 9 sec 1/4 mile, and anything slower than that is just painfully boring to watch. Give me a well sorted and capable chassis, let me in the seat and give me some turns to enjoy.

FishOnOne wrote:

3oaks wrote:

TXiceman wrote:
Who really cares. What really matters is how well it will tow at max GCWR,

Ken

X2
And there you have it.
But some people never grow up and are still stuck in the "my truck is faster than yours" mentality. :R

Did you see the Ford F150 2.7 EB vs the RAM 3.0 ED 0-60 times? And did you see these two trucks performance pulling a trailer up the Ike Gauntlet? It was very revealing that the one with the better 0-60 had the most reserved power during that pull comparison. :W

A 0-60 time is a metric that measures a trucks power and does have some correlation to a trucks pulling ability.

So the Ford will make it to the top of the hill first; YAAY!

We still haven't tackled that tough question of long term durability, Fish :W

Don't worry; Ford Motor Company doesn't want to discuss that either :B

Fast Mopar wrote:


The 2.7 EB has 85 horsepower more than the 3.0 ED. And, the Ford is lighter. The EB is faster and tows better. Makes sense. It should be faster and it should tow better with a third more power and less weight. Not sure why this is headline news.

It is headlines because even with all that you said, Ram rates the Ecodiesel to tow more than the 2.7L Ecoboost which is a bunch of bull. I think if Ram rated it to tow less then it would be more acceptable that it performed like it did.

FishOnOne wrote:

Did you see the Ford F150 2.7 EB vs the RAM 3.0 ED 0-60 times? And did you see these two trucks performance pulling a trailer up the Ike Gauntlet? It was very revealing that the one with the better 0-60 had the most reserved power during that pull comparison. :W

The 2.7 EB has 85 horsepower more than the 3.0 ED. And, the Ford is lighter. The EB is faster and tows better. Makes sense. It should be faster and it should tow better with a third more power and less weight. Not sure why this is headline news.

3oaks wrote:

TXiceman wrote:
Who really cares. What really matters is how well it will tow at max GCWR,

Ken

X2
And there you have it.
But some people never grow up and are still stuck in the "my truck is faster than yours" mentality. :R

Did you see the Ford F150 2.7 EB vs the RAM 3.0 ED 0-60 times? And did you see these two trucks performance pulling a trailer up the Ike Gauntlet? It was very revealing that the one with the better 0-60 had the most reserved power during that pull comparison. :W

A 0-60 time is a metric that measures a trucks power and does have some correlation to a trucks pulling ability.

ShinerBock wrote:

ib516 wrote:
I'd be willing to bet the redesign of the Superduty will have a fully boxed frame. That says something. What was good in 1999 is now a step behind, and they will acknowledge that when they redesign it.

I will bet the pick up version might, but not the cab and chassis version. They will more than likely remain a C-channel frame from the bed on back just like the current GM 3500 and Ram 3800/4500/5500 cab and chassis are for easier up fitting. Most people think the whole F250/350 frame is C-channel, but it is not. Only the from the cab on back which I explained why earlier.

Both C-channel and fully boxed frames have their pros and cons, and one is not totally superior than the other in every aspect. One is just better than the other depending on the need of the customer. If you were going to put a flatbed or a welders bed on then you will want a C-channel frame for easier installation and you will not ruin the integrity of it as much as a fully boxed when you drill through it. If you just have a pickup bed, then fully boxed is the way to go.


GMC 3500 cab and chassis have fully boxed frame with a C-channel bed
http://media.gmc.com/media/us/en/gmc/vehicles/sierra-3500hd-chassis-cab/2015.html

Ram 3500/4500/5500 cab and chassis have fully boxed frame with a C-channel bed
http://www.allpar.com/trucks/ram/2013-chassis-cabs.html

Well said...Also I remember some of the first GM HD trucks that had the hydroformed frame didn't have enough strength to hold a snow plow. And my BIL 07 RAM had to have part of the frame welded in the bottom corner because his Ranch Hand bumper must be too heavy. Neither of the Super Duty's have this issue and both have Ranch Hand bumpers. These trucks get beat hard and tow very heavy loads a lot of times on pot hole infested gravel and dirt roads and the Super Duty's frames have never been an issue to date.

It's interesting how some motives changed the topic! :W

TXiceman wrote:
Who really cares. What really matters is how well it will tow at max GCWR,

Ken

X2
And there you have it.
But some people never grow up and are still stuck in the "my truck is faster than yours" mentality. :R

ib516 wrote:
I'd be willing to bet the redesign of the Superduty will have a fully boxed frame. That says something. What was good in 1999 is now a step behind, and they will acknowledge that when they redesign it.

I will bet the pick up version might, but not the cab and chassis version. They will more than likely remain a C-channel frame from the bed on back just like the current GM 3500 and Ram 3800/4500/5500 cab and chassis are for easier up fitting. Most people think the whole F250/350 frame is C-channel, but it is not. Only the from the cab on back which I explained why earlier.

Both C-channel and fully boxed frames have their pros and cons, and one is not totally superior than the other in every aspect. One is just better than the other depending on the need of the customer. If you were going to put a flatbed or a welders bed on then you will want a C-channel frame for easier installation and you will not ruin the integrity of it as much as a fully boxed when you drill through it. If you just have a pickup bed, then fully boxed is the way to go.


GMC 3500 cab and chassis have fully boxed frame with a C-channel bed
http://media.gmc.com/media/us/en/gmc/vehicles/sierra-3500hd-chassis-cab/2015.html

Ram 3500/4500/5500 cab and chassis have fully boxed frame with a C-channel bed
http://www.allpar.com/trucks/ram/2013-chassis-cabs.html

I'd be willing to bet the redesign of the Superduty will have a fully boxed frame. That says something. What was good in 1999 is now a step behind, and they will acknowledge that when they redesign it.