2015 V6 truck comparison
http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2015/01/2015-annual-physical-overview.html
Clicky creator won't work for me right now for some reason.....
Clicky creator won't work for me right now for some reason.....
Forum Discussion
22 Replies
- 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. 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.Bionic Man wrote:
BenK wrote:
Just comparing V6 to V6 is out of context
All NA or Forced Fed?
Alway curious on how 'performance' is listed...over at any 'sports car' mag will
have braking distances from various speeds...speed going through
the same slalom...but over at these 'truck' forums...no one thinks
braking is a 'performance' attribute
Missing on these 'truck' list of performance attributes are their TRUCK RATINGS
that matter, or matters to me. Like GVWR, F/R GAWR, GCWR
All they listed are 'car' metrics...down to weight to power...which is a 'go' metric
The article did give braking distances from 60 MPH. The Ford was pretty impressive there.- Love me some v6 action here. I wish they would have included the base V6 on the F150
BenK wrote:
Just comparing V6 to V6 is out of context
All NA or Forced Fed?
Alway curious on how 'performance' is listed...over at any 'sports car' mag will
have braking distances from various speeds...speed going through
the same slalom...but over at these 'truck' forums...no one thinks
braking is a 'performance' attribute
Missing on these 'truck' list of performance attributes are their TRUCK RATINGS
that matter, or matters to me. Like GVWR, F/R GAWR, GCWR
All they listed are 'car' metrics...down to weight to power...which is a 'go' metric
The article did give braking distances from 60 feet. The Ford was pretty impressive there.- 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. - Just comparing V6 to V6 is out of context
All NA or Forced Fed?
Alway curious on how 'performance' is listed...over at any 'sports car' mag will
have braking distances from various speeds...speed going through
the same slalom...but over at these 'truck' forums...no one thinks
braking & slalom are a 'performance' attribute
Missing on these 'truck' list of performance attributes are their TRUCK RATINGS
that matter, or matters to me. Like GVWR, F/R GAWR, GCWR
All they listed are 'car' metrics...down to weight to power...which is a 'go' metric - The lower payload is for the 4x4. Apparently all the others are 4x2.
- Payload:
2015 F150 Crew Cab 4x4 - 1440# - Lowest (T)
2015 RAM 1500 4x2 - 1440#
2015 Chevy Colorado - 1480#
2015 F150 crew cab 4x2 - 1580#
2015 RAM 1500 express - 1880#
2015 Chevy Silverado 4x2 - 1920# - Highest
So a Colorado has more payload than the new lighter F150 :h They must have lowered their GVWRs.
