MotorTrend Tests the 1500's

Hybridhunter wrote:

ib516 wrote:
Some disagree with you assessment hybridhunter. Motor Trend had this to say about the new F150 with the 2.7L EcoBoost when comparing it to the EcoDiesel.

"This was to be the F-150's year. Hyped as the most thoroughly re-engineered, game-changing pickup of the millennium, these twin-turbo'd alloy haulers swaggered in with great expectations. First impressions were glowing. Of the 2.7L EcoBoost, Seabaugh said: "This little guy seriously packs a punch." Evans enthused, "This thing's like a race truck." At speed, Loh found it "an impressively tomb-quiet truck, like a library." The judges awarded Engineering Excellence points for truck firsts such as the 360-degree camera, park-distance sensors by the front wheels, panoramic sunroof, LED headlights, BoxLink hardware, materials engineering, and its impressive roster of available safety tech.

Then came some grumbling. "The interiors are Wurlitzer organs of heavy-handed design," Reynolds said. Burgess found the exterior redesign less of an advancement than that of last year's Silverado. Lieberman concurred, lamenting that it didn't look "nearly enough like the stunning Atlas Concept." Dynamic complaints cropped up: Reynolds noted, "The steering is truck-sloppy. There's a wobbly indecisiveness to their true direction that bothers me." He found the 2.7's brakes "very soft on application and very grabby once they engage." Many complained that the lane keep assist fought them for control of the wheel.

The bigger problem was that Ford didn't win a concurrent Chevy/Ram comparison, largely because we were unconvinced that Ford's EcoBoost/aluminum approach trumps Ram's EcoDiesel/eight-speed fuel economy play. Our Real MPG combined results give the Ram a 21-percent advantage over the 2.7L, while observed results over 350 miles with a 1,000-pound load extend that to 35 percent, furthering our impression that working an EcoBoost like a V-8 returns V-8 consumption. The Ram diesel rides better (on air or coil springs), looks better inside and out, and can be had similarly equipped for similar money. So while we remain deeply impressed with the F-150 as an engineering feat, these two examples impressed us less as trucks."

Not really. If you really consider MT's opinions to be valid, I could offer you some insight as to how useless "opinions" can be. But they in fact validated all the data points I have been making. They rave about the power, and how they used it at every opportunity, and then didn't get the mileage that a low torque, lazy throttled half truck gets.
MT's has never had any credibility. Their data is usually sound though. Tell me how a warmed over midsize truck destined to be forgotten beats out one of the most revolutionary trucks of the past century?

Good lord, do you read anything, or just post your hate?

Take a minute and read up on how MotorTrend calculates their "real MPG" figures. It is a well thought out method that has been proven accurate to what the average consumer can expect in regard to MPG.

If you don't believe that, go on Fuelly and see what their users say in regard to MPG.

At this point, I'm not even sure what your argument is, other than a vendetta against Chrysler in genral and the EcoDiesel in particular.

It is a simple equation. If a consumer wants a truck that gets the BEST MPG of anything out there - mid size or full size - that has more capability than the vast majority of what the average consumer needs, the EcoDiesel is available

If a consumer wants to race from stop sign to stop sign, or be the first 1500/150 up a pass with a loaded trailer, buy the EcoBoost (or Chevy 5.3 or RAM 5.7)

I am a MOPAR guy, but I appreciate the EcoBoost. It is a very good towing engine with power comparable to a V8. But it clearly IS NOT a leap foreward in MPG.

What is great about America, you have choices. Buy what suits your needs best.