F150 2.7 22MPG vs Ram ED 23MPG
So there it is. F150 - 2.7 320hp/375tq - 19/26 - 22mpg comb $600(?) option or standard Available with 2250# payload 0-60 ~ 7s - with 6000# trailer est 13sec Ram ED - 3.0 240hp/420tq - 20/28 - 2...
Forum Discussion
dshelley wrote:
The op's question, "where does this leave the 4k oil burner" seems to have been answered by Motor Trend.
http://m.motortrend.com/roadtests/trucks/1501_comparison_2015_ford_f_150_vs_ram_1500_chevrolet_silverado/
...
Yes, thanks for the link. I too thought it was a pretty good comparison, except for an issue with towing, especially Travel Trailer towing.
...60 percent of light-duty truck owners tow less than once a month. When they do, the data says they tow 7,000-8,000 pounds on average, regardless of what the truck is capable of. Armed with this information, we loaded our trailer up to 7,000 pounds and hit the road.
They neglect to mention payload. According to their chart, the F150 had 1565# and the Chevy had 1593#, but the RAM EcoD had only 960#.
That's ~600# difference. The F150 didn't have all the options of the RAM EcoD though so that would change things some.
I wonder what the tongue weight was of their 7000# trailer? If it was 12% (the min, IMHO, for a high side trailer) their tongue weight was 840#, making the RAM almost certainly overloaded.
They didn't mention using a WDH either and I suspect they didn't which means they exceeded the hitch receiver rating (Ford's anyway, dunno about the others).
Anyway, it was a pretty casual (pathetic?) tow test, typical of people who don't tow much.
It was also interesting how the reviewers appreciated low rpm torque and HP. Despite the Chevy having higher peak HP, apparently little of that appears at low RPM, and the truck seemed dull and unresponsive to them as a result. And the EcoD with the lowest peak HP had much of it at low rpm, making it feel quicker. (But the over-all lack of HP did hurt the EcoD in the uphill passing test where it took the longest time.)
