2015 V6 truck comparison

They all have decent performance...at least IMO. One thing, I like though, is the vehicle good looking. If I pass it in a parking lot and find myself involuntarily looking back that's a good sign.

There's only two in that group, that pass the 'look test' for me.

The new Colorado and then the 4 door Ram.

I've noticed as of late, there seems to be a real buzz going around from car/truck buffs who are impressed with the new Chevy Colorado.

Tystevens wrote:
6.2 seconds (for the 3.5 EB) 0-60 is smokin'! And the economy of the 2.7 looks pretty good. I think Ford is doing pretty well w/ the EB lineup, personally.

Interesting test; kinda hard to know what to do with all the different engine choices. Personally, I would have included the EB 3.5 and the Ecodiesel in with the V-8 test, since they are 'premium' engines and really not intended to compete w/ the entry level V6's, particularly where Ford and Ram both have a lower priced V6 that was not brought to the test.

My thought as well. And to add to it, I don't agree including a V6 turbo with this "V6" comparison. Keep the HP and Torque near equal, or its simply an unfair comparison.

Chevy Colorado 27 mpg: surprising
Siverado 21 mpg: seams adequate
F150 2.7 24 mpg: surprising
F150 3.5 18 mpg: needs to be better
RAM 3.6 22 mpg: needs to be better
RAM ED: Fuel economy needs to be measured with 1 regen cycle to be accurate.

mich800 wrote:

That figure I believe was maximum reduction in weight year over year. Not comparing the competition.

Just out of curiosity. I looked at the 2014 model trucks and it appears the F150 was about 400 pounds heavier than the others.

Sorry, my bad. You are correct. That makes a lot more sense.

Fast Mopar wrote:

Bionic Man wrote:
Interesting read.

The price of the 3.5 EB is shocking. MSRP of $61,000 for a 150/1500 blows my mind.

Does Ford not offer a NA V6 to compete with the 4.3 and 3.6?

Sounds like there really isn't a bad truck in the bunch.

At the Houston Auto Show this past weekend, there was a 2015 F150 4WD Ecoboost that had a MSRP just over $62,000.

The numbers are interesting. One thing that stands out to me is the weight.

Silverado 1500 crew cab 4.3 V6 2WD weighs 4980 lb
F150 crew cab 2WD 2.7 V6 weighs 4680 lb
Ram 1500 crew cab 2WD 3.6 V6 weighs 4920 lb

So, the aluminum F150 weighs approximately 240-300 lb less than the others. I thought the weight savings was going to be 700-800 lb.

That figure I believe was maximum reduction in weight year over year. Not comparing the competition.

Just out of curiosity. I looked at the 2014 model trucks and it appears the F150 was about 400 pounds heavier than the others.

They dropped the Ford 3.7L n/a V6 in favor of the smaller and less powerful n/a 3.5L that they use in their midsize cars.

With the weight reduction of the 2015, ford reduced GVWRs and bigger engines.

6.2L gone and is now replaced by newer 385 hp 5.0L
3.5L turbo Ecoboost is carried over with same power output
Previous lower 360 hp 5.0L spot is now replaced with the 2.7L turbo Ecoboost
3.7L gone and is now replaced by less powerful 3.5L n/a engine

Still 4 available engines, just stepped down in power output

With the lighter weight, and the new 385 hp 5.0L, the 2015 will be a very quick truck.

Yep, your better off getting a Ford 2015 F250 6.2L 4WD Crew loaded truck opposed to the same configuration in a 2015 F150, as far as cost and payload.

Ford is so fast to push new technology, that the buyer gets to be the guinea pig. This is true with their 6 speed trans and Ecoboost which all finally got fixed in 2014 (trans fixed in 2011 and Ecoboost fixed in 2014) , but now they're going to start over with an aluminum body on a steel frame which screams Galvanic corrosion.

As much as I dislike GM, their trucks are looking better to me for a future replacement.

Tystevens wrote:
6.2 seconds (for the 3.5 EB) 0-60 is smokin'! And the economy of the 2.7 looks pretty good. I think Ford is doing pretty well w/ the EB lineup, personally.

Interesting test; kinda hard to know what to do with all the different engine choices. Personally, I would have included the EB 3.5 and the Ecodiesel in with the V-8 test, since they are 'premium' engines and really not intended to compete w/ the entry level V6's, particularly where Ford and Ram both have a lower priced V6 that was not brought to the test.

They did test the RAM 3.6L Pentastar in the test, just not the Ford 3.5 without the turbos.

BenK wrote:

Missing on these 'truck' list of performance attributes are their TRUCK RATINGS
that matter, or matters to me. Like GVWR, F/R GAWR, GCWR

More specs are linked in the article. There is a .pdf file with the payload, GVWR, etc.

Bionic Man wrote:
Interesting read.

The price of the 3.5 EB is shocking. MSRP of $61,000 for a 150/1500 blows my mind.

Does Ford not offer a NA V6 to compete with the 4.3 and 3.6?

Sounds like there really isn't a bad truck in the bunch.

Yes, they offer the 3.5L NA V6 now, it replaces the 3.7L they used in 2014.