Truck Trend 1 Ton Challenge

They could not decide between the two previous set of hips so they put BOTH styles on.

WOW...



I am flat-out amazed at the lack of finesse and discarded attention to detail on the new Ford.

Are they actually STILL using those stick-on rear fender extenders??!?!!?!??????

Look at that left rear corner...look at all the mismatched seams, pieces, plastic bits, and complete lack of a sense of flow. Lines start and stop, with no relation to each other. Even the huge taillights have multiple lines, bumps, and angles that match NOTHING else. The lines on the bumper match nothing-especially at the corners, and what's with that huge gap between the tailgate and the bumper? Just amazingly huge gaps...for nearly EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS!!!

How many different sections and broken lines do they think they can cram into a 2 square foot area???

Just hideous.

4x4ord wrote:

brulaz wrote:
Fuel Economy results on the dyno are pretty weird;
don't seem to correspond with real world.

:h

It's unbelievable to me that they would publish those numbers without first understanding the reason for the mistake.

They said they ran the test twice because they thought the 1st time was wrong. The test still doesn't make sense. That is one huge difference for the GM when the Ford and Ram came out the same. I know the Ford and Ram had 4.10's and the GM 3.73's, but gearing ain't going to make that much difference.

I love the diesel power challenge so this was a good test to see. Nice to see them all making it through without breaking anything.

Might be just me, and I realize the article was free to view, but it was **** near impossible to get thru it all with all the pop up ad's, parts of pages loading sequentially, advertising videos trying to load and the need to keep clicking on additional pages because they put so very little material on each page. I first tried reading it on my Ipad and that was terrible. The desktop was just slightly better.

So the GM used .6 litre of fuel in 7.2 miles. Am I missing something because that's over 45 mpg!

brulaz wrote:
Fuel Economy results on the dyno are pretty weird;
don't seem to correspond with real world.

:h

It's unbelievable to me that they would publish those numbers without first understanding the reason for the mistake.

Fuel Economy results on the dyno are pretty weird;
don't seem to correspond with real world.

:h

All are good pick the one that you like and can afford if you need a truck.
Brand wars are crazy and fruitless, life's to short for stuff like that.
We all need to be happy that we can enjoy and afford camping, others don't have this luxury.

All three are so close that you just need to find one that fits your butt the best, and looks good on you.