2013 Light-Duty Challenge: Acceleration

Nissan Accel II

Whether it's surging from a dead stop, merging into traffic towing a 4-ton horse carrier, cresting a highway hill or simply enjoying the power of your pickup, acceleration is key to performance for truck drivers and owners.

We conducted our acceleration testing at the Chrysler Proving Grounds in Chelsea, Mich., on the vehicle dynamics blacktop area there. We tested each truck's zero-to-60 ability on a smooth, flat surface on a sunny spring day in May. Temperatures were about 75 degrees with a negligible breeze.

Each truck was run with the windows up, air conditioning off, in two-wheel drive and in Drive when empty. We turned traction control off during each run, modulating the brake and throttle at launch to incur the least amount of wheel spin with the maximum amount of acceleration at launch.

We made at least three runs with each pickup in three modes:

  • Unloaded
  • With 1,200 pounds of rubber mats strapped in the bed
  • With an 8,500-pound trailer hitched to the rear bumper (with a weight-distributing hitch)

When the test was conducted with a load (payload or trailer), the runs were made with Tow/Haul engaged and duplicating all other criteria. Tow/Haul was not engaged when the trucks were empty.

Each run had two adult males inside weighing about 185 pounds each. One was the test driver whose only job was to launch and drive as consistently as possible during each run; the other was the RaceLogic representative who diligently recorded our data and was there to problem-solve any issues that might come up. In all, we made fewer than 60 runs but it was still a long day (we also did brake testing the same day at the same place, but that's another story, literally. See our Brake Testing story).

During our empty runs, the three strongest players were the Ford, Toyota and Ram, with the Ram 1500 getting more traction off the line than any other truck. The Ram got to 60 mph in 7.0 seconds and did so in 362 feet. The F-150 got to 60 in 7.1 seconds in a slightly shorter 360 feet. Finally, the Tundra performed well, getting to 60 in 7.2 seconds, also in 362 feet.

We have to thank the crew at Chrysler for helping us load and unload the different trucks with dozens of thick rubber mats in order to provide a heavy, low load for our zero-to-60 runs with 1,200 pounds of payload. Since pulling a trailer is different than running empty or carrying a heavy cargo load, we thought it important to get acceleration numbers for each truck from each scenario.

Chevy Towing II

It may come as a surprise to some that the Ram didn't have the fastest time with a 1,200-pound payload. In fact, this was the only acceleration test where the Ram didn't perform flawlessly. The Ford's twin-turbo V-6 got to 60 mph in just 8.3 seconds, the Toyota in 8.4 seconds and the GMC in 8.7 seconds.

Lastly, our zero-to-60 runs with the 8,500-pound trailer (supplied by GM's engineering team) gave us some interesting results. We should note first that the trailer was right at the Ram 1500's maximum trailer weight outer limits. However, 8,500 pounds was well below the maximum trailer weight capacity of the Ford F-150 (which had the optional Max Tow Package; Ram does not make one for the 1500). With that said, the two trucks tied to in the race to 60 mph, each recording a time of 17.0 seconds on their best runs; however, because the Ford did it in fewer feet, we gave the tie to the runner, or Ford in this case, awarding the F-150 the 100 points for this zero-to-60-with-trailer test.

 

PUTCAccelChart[1]

Overview | Judges' Impressions | 0-60 Acceleration | 60-0 Braking | Mileage Drive | Hill Climb | Autocross | Payload and Towing | Results

Comments

Damn Ram and Ford are pretty much tied with the exception of the 1200 pound payload.

Way to go Ford and Ram!!!

It's not surprising to see the Tundra is still a worthy contender today. It's also the only J2807 compliant passenger pickup truck on the road today.

I would have liked to have seen how a 5.0L Ford would have done here, I bet it would be in the mix with the GM twins.

I have to say had Toyota added D4 or D4-S the Tundra might have won this part.

I knew performance wise it would be the Ram, Ford, and Toyota finishing very close to each other. Considering the Ram, F-150, and the Tundra were the three heaviest trucks tested.

Too bad they didn't opt for the 3.92's on the Ram. (that's what I ordered on my Hemi 8 Speed)

Not bad considering the Ram needs to be in 3rd gear where everyone else is in 2nd.

From the 2011 5.0 F150 Test
0-60 - 7.18
0-60 w/9000# 16.85

good 'ole V8... well not that old :)

given a good set of tires the tundra would have won these tests. achilles heal is the CRAP michelin tires on that standard alloy are terrible for traction in every case. these performance tests were lost due to tires alone. If toyota would have given an SR-5 or a Rock warrior or a TRD Off Road package these tests would have ended VERY differently. I NEVER have understood why PUTC always ends up with the most ho-hum tundras for these tests. Kind of a joke to me.

@hemi lol,

Toyota sent the truck to PUTC which was not to exceed $45,000.

There is a saying the in racing world....."Run what you brung."

@hemi lol ,

I sell used vehicles and can tell you tire spin isnt really that much of a factor in these trucks,not like a 60's big block Mopar,or 455 Buick/Olds/Poncho or 428 Ford.

Tundra would not win..besides its running 4.30 axle ratio..the RAM has 3.55's and still ate the Toyota,add 3.92 that I have and it will smoke the Tundras every time...

RAM still spins the 20" tires with 3.55's as tested.

I drove a 2012 Tundra 5.7 with 4.30 rear axle for 4 weeks as a dealer demo,every day and tire spin isnt dramatic.

The tire spin on these trucks are not as drastic as testing old 60's-early 70's cars when they would smoke the tires down the 1/4 mile track,resulting in up to 4 second slower recorded times then they actually were.

Add the best traction on any of these trucks you wont get better than .5 of a second,improvements..

As per the old cars they ran 13-15 seconds in the 1/4 while adding slicks they shave up to 4 seconds off the 1/4 mile.Case in point a new car mag back in the day tested a new stock 440 Plymouth Cuda,it ran mid 14's smoking/going sideways down the 1/4,they added a small slick and it ran low 12's..Those slicks from back then only have traction like a new modern quality tire..So these trucks are all quick,but not tire boilers of the past,so adding better tires wont let the Tundra win,as all would have better tires and thus all times would improve.

Sorry for your loss,time to get a real truck and not a cheap asian knock-off..yes a knock off,look at your grill...you cant tell me they didnt copy the Dodge RAM...Darn cheap asian knock-offs...

yep, boys I say GEEEEEEHAWWWWW! I told you! RAM would be good on acceleration! GEEEEEEHAWWWW!!!!!

@Toyota LOL

As a used car salesman I would expect you'd know to multiply the rear axle ratio by the transmission gear ratio to get the final ratio. In which case both the Ford and Ram are more aggressively geared than the Tundra.

@ Toyota LOL

ive BEEN driving a crew max tundra SINCE 2008. had a 2008 limited and now a 2010 Platinum. I sell them NEW and USED.

Its funny you should say "Asian Knockoff" as the truck is FAR MORE AMERICAN THAN YOUR ITALIAN RAM. Since it was designed, engineered, and built on USA soil with 80% parts content from here as well.

IF it were a knockoff it would have that antiquated 60's OHV technology like your beloved HEMI, instead it has a MODERN DOHC that makes essentially the SAME amount of torque as your hemi at 700 RPM LOWER than your hemi.

IF it were a knockoff it would have some STUPID coil spring rear end so ALL of the payload would be pressure pointed in only one location on the frame instead of dispersed across two points which we ALL know is better for a "work truck"

IF it were a knockoff your hemi would have a fluid to fluid heat exchanger on the engine oil AND the transmission which is ONLY on the 8spd because Ram DIDNT build the trans.

IF it were a knockoff it WOULDNT have that cooled oil spraying all the cam journals, and the bottom of all the pistons to control contact temps for more uniform temperatures. FORTUNATELY my truck does.

IF what YOU were saying was true about rear diffs then you would have an argument but you obviously dont quite grasp what all is at play here...... a 3.55 gear with a 4.71 first gear in the trans. is 16.72 multiplier and the tundra is 4.30 with a first gear of 3.33 which is 14.32 multiplier. so with a 3.55 the ram has a lower multiplier which means it SHOULD get out of the hole better. The point was the Ram has good tires on it and didnt beat it by very much at all. given better tires the tundra will EASILY go into the low 6 second 0-60 range as it has been done by MANY other people.

Finally if it were a knockoff it would barely last 100k like your truck but mine will easily go 250k and NOT sound like a rattle trap. and there are PLENTY of third party companies and people that will agree with me........ Sorry you bought a CHEAP italian knockoff.


BTW i know why you used it for a demo for 4 weeks........ You were IN LOVE WITH DRIVING A NICE TRUCK!!!!! lol

@Toyota LOL Brian is correct, there is a lot more than just the axle ratio, you have to consider the trans gearing. I bet the Dodge actually has the advantage over Toyota's 4.30's when you factor in the trans gearing. Considering the Toyota is a 7 year old powertrain, I would say it has aged very well. It runs nearly neck to neck with the "almighty" ecoboost and the Hemi Ram and the "aggressive trans geared" 8 speed.

If anything GM should be scared, their new trucks which GM says they are producing the most popular packages first (non max tow packages) run nearly the same times as the dinosaur Nissan Titan loaded.

I don't understand how these results could happen. Why would a truck's acceleration change simply because 1200 lbs were added into the bed? Acceleration is about torque to the ground, which means engine power output * gearing. I get that Ford and Toyota are in the top 3 in each comparison, but how does the Ram go from being the top dog in 2 tests to dropping to nearly last in another? That does not make any sense.

Wish one of the GM twins had the 6.2L. Would love to see how it stacked up in these tests. Also, don't see how such a minor weight differences (GM/Chevy twins) accounts for such variances in performance.

I don't understand why the F150 got the points in the tie with the Ram on the 0-60 8500 lb tow. What difference does distance make. I've seen this referenced A few times and other than the braking test it should not matter. If distance equals rate times time it seems like covering more distance in the same amount of time would be advantageous. To cover more ground I suppose the Ram got a real good hole shot covering more ground early then faded a bit while perhaps the F150 was slower out of hole but recovered nicely. Only way I see the distance factor working out since both scored 17 seconds....and why should The Ram be penalized for that. I say the one that covers the MOST GROUND in 17 seconds should be the winner.

"Why would a truck's acceleration change simply because 1200 lbs were added into the bed?"

If that logic worked, a 900hp mining truck would be as fast as a Formula 1...

Acceleration = Force / mass

Your force is generated by horsepower at a given speed (when speed = 0 only torque matters). So therefore, acceleration is strictly dependant on your weight!

@ Roy J, yes, exactly. So perhaps I should have phrased the question more precisely. "Why would one truck lose a larger portion of its acceleration while loaded than another?"

There is absolutely no reason why the Ram 1500 would have beaten the other trucks unloaded, beaten them with a trailer. Beaten them with a trailer up a hill, and then lost with a load in the bed? Hello? PUTC screwed something up here. There is also no reason why the Ecoboost should have matched the Ram 1500 in flat trailer acceleration. It has a gearing disadvantage, weighs more, and puts out less power. Something is off with this test.

@lol hemi: So what, the I-Force (what force?) 5.7 makes it's max torque 550 rpm less then-3950-3400=550. Great math skills you have there. Anyway, what sucks for you is that, yeah, the Tundra makes it's max sooner, it makes less torque, and therefore makes it sooner, and when the I force is maxed out on torque, the Hemi (that old overhead valve, lol!) makes more and doesn't drop torque like a rock. As you been showed many a times, whats the big deal, your I Force might make 5 to less then 10 ft pounds of torque (if that nowadays) in the 2400 rpm range. Wow. It doesn't make up for how it pales when compared to the Hemi in broad torque.

Since you are boo hoo-ing over your tire size and blaming everthing on that (as always) shouldn't those narrow tires help for gas mileage? Nah! 18 mpg, lol!


Boo hoo hoo hoo! My Tundra gets crappy mileage! Boo hoo hoo hoo! Please buy it!

bizare how the ram did best 0-60, and was at the back of the back with 1200 pounds of payload, but then with the 8500 pound trailer attached, did as well as the (high tow numbers) Ford? What the heck?

@TRX4 Tom

I don't see how that is physically possible. The Ram has the weight advantage, power advantage, and gearing advantage. It won all hill acceleration tests and all acceleration tests other than load in the bed. Either the air suspension does something *very* strange when the truck is loaded or else they completely screwed up this test.

If there was some electronic nanny kicking in for Ram acceleration it should have been disabled, just like they went out of their way to spool up the turbos for the F150 acceleration. I am actually extremely disappointed in PUTC and how they handled this test. The Ford bias is just absolutely oozing from this entire shootout. The F150s are great. My next truck may be an F150 (though not an XLT), but reading this kind of obviously biased comparison makes me question the trucks more than it has me interested in buying them.

I just figured out why Ram did so poorly in the loaded 0-60. It had an open diff, no limited slip. I can't believe ram put tow mirrors on the damn thing instead of putting a limited slip on it? (shakes head)

A lot of people don't understand that turbos are load devices. The more load the faster they spool. here how it would play out.

under hard acceleration, the engine revs so fast in 1st, that it doesn't produce enough heat to spool the turbos to really increase the torque production. But if it's strap to 8,500 lbs of more weight, now the engine is generating a lot more heat in the exhaust, which spools the turbos faster at lower engine RPM, which increases the engines production of torque, which accelerates the truck down the road sooner and faster.

NA engines don't have any way to change the intake charge characteristics, therefor engine torque is produce in the same manner, in the same points in the RPM ranges.

This why turbos shine under this conditions. The same holds true as you tow up a grade(to a certain extend). as the truck climes pass 2000ft, 3000ft, 4000ft, 5000ft, and so on, a NA engine will start to loss performance, while the Turbocharged one will suffer very little. the higher the altitude the bigger the performance differences.

regards,
AL

@Toyota LOL- I wouldn't say the RAm "ate" they Toyota by a long shot.
It somehow fell on its face with a payload, and when you add the times together, the Tundra comes out ahead.
I wonder if there issome glitch in the trans programming to make the RAM so much slower in the payload times, but then competitive again, in the trailer pull.
@Doug- not having a LSD should show itself unloaded, if anywhere. It fell off with a 1200 lb (basically GVW) load in the bed, where traction shouldn't be a problem AT ALL.
@Brian- the only thing I expect from a used car salesman is to get me a dealer plate and keys. Sorry, it might not be all of you, but there are plenty in your ranks to sour my opinion.

Arguing over the 5.7 vs 5.7 hemi is pointless. The 5.7 hemi makes 7 more torque at a higher RPM and 14 more HP. Both seem to pull the trailer nearly equal and unloaded post nearly identical times. The only difference is the 5.7 Hemi gets better unloaded MPGs, thanks to cylinder deactivation, but the Tundra got better MPG's loaded up with the trailer.

Keep in mind, in the last shoot out when the Ram had the old 5/6 speed; it was significantly slower than the 5.7 Tundra. So the 8 speed must be geared (transmission) better than the old 5/6 speed was.

Even 6 years later Toyota's powertrain is still the half ton benchmark. It's just a shame about the rest of the truck.

Not really impressed by GM's 5.3. Not that you expect it to be any kind of monster with those paper figures, and it isn't, but for all the complexity of a super high compression motor with direct injection, cylinder deactivation, etc. to not have standout power or, seemingly, very good mileage either seems like a bad compromise.

I don't see the point of testing two essentially identical GM trucks while not putting in a Ford with the 5.0 or Ram with the 3.6.

@AL951

Turbos will require a load on the engine to spool up, but that is why they power braked the engines in this test. In other words their engines were already loaded and the turbos spooled before launching. This is actually a stupid and unrealistic way to test the trucks, and was likely done specifically so that the F150 did not appear to be a laggard. Either way if they power braked in the same way each time there is absolutely no way the turbos should have any noticeable effect in the loaded test. Moreover that still does not explain how the Ram 1500 managed to get hammered in 1 of 5 acceleration tests, while winning the rest of them.

I would normally say that PUTC just screwed something up here, but this entire shootout is so blatantly skewed to have Ford winning that I am guessing that they purposefully sandbagged that test.

I am *very* disappointed with PUTC after this shootout. I will begin looking elsewhere for auto/truck news.

@phillyguy

I have respectfully disagree with you. If PUTC would have specificly power brake just the F150, I,could see your point. But that wasn't the °c ase. It was done to all the truck.

Regards,
AL

@Al951

I am not following your reasoning anymore. All engines were placed under load and revved up prior to launch, leaving all engines at close to peak power. This specifically helps out the F150 more than the others since it allowed the turbos to spool up which would normally cause as light delay on the F150, likely resulting in it having lower acceleration numbers than multiple other trucks.

More importantly, since the turbos were spooled up in every launch, there is no explanation for how the F150 managed to beat the Ram in the loaded tests, and tie it in the trailer test, despite the Ram having the power, gearing, and weight advantage. It also does not explain the random (and completely out of place) poor showing for the Ram in the loaded test. Finally that type of acceleration test is really rather stupid and non-transferrable to real-world driving. Mashing down the accelerator from a dead stop is the more realistic and reproducible way to test acceleration. But which truck would have lost the most being launched this way? Oh yeah, the F150, which squeaked by for the win. If this were the only "off" test in the shootout it would be fine. But the mpg test was stupid and artificially slow, reducing a Ram advantage. No offroad test (despite them ordering 4x4's), reducing a Ram advantage, arbitrarily taking manufacturer's paylaod/towing ratings without testing *anything*, clearly *massively* inflating the F150's score, and finally if you look at the subjective sections of the scorecard Mark Williams himself inflated his F150 rating, doing his best to boost the score of the F150.

I like both the Ram 1500 and F150, they are both great trucks. My next truck is likely going to be one of those two. That said I don't come to PUTC to read Ford propaganda, I come for news and updates. A lot of people have complained for years that this site has a distinct Ford bias. I ignored these complaints until now, but I won't anymore. Very disappointed.

@Mr knowitall: that's just one part of all these tests where the Tundra beat the Ram. In the uphill towing,the Ram smoked it. Tundra can't stop, can't corner, can't get decent mileage....what does it do? Oh, get better mileage with a trailer? Only because the Ram was in Tow haul preventing it from being in top gear.

I agree with the BigMT above. The Ram covered the most ground in that period of time, so the tie shoulda been Rams.

Funny how Mar Williams says the Ram doesn't have a max tow package, but yet he coulda said "they offer 3.92 gears for up to 10,000 or so pounds" Instead he dogged the Ram for it's 8350 tow rating in this case.

But yet in everything but loaded with 1000 pounds to 0-60, it was either right with the Ford that's rated for towing over 11,000, or smoked it like a cheap cigar.

So, that's the price the Ram pays for having an honest tow rating? Less then the Tundra, smoked it too.

Required 4x4s yet never went offroad? Busted the Ram for payload (which I admitt they can make better use out of the air suspension) but they didn't measure ground clearance?

Did a mileage test that was mostly at 50 mph, knowing Rams air suspension lowers it for mileage at a faster speed?

Yeah, Mark wanted Ford to win.

In regards to Mark Williams bias, I would like to know what truck he owns? I agree with phillyguy and TRX-4 that this test was rigged. And before you say I must like another brand, I'm actually a Ford guy. Ram clearly won this challenge!

As a note to 0-60......Car and Driver tested an 11 FX-4 Ecoboost unloaded and no power breaking, ran the 0-60 in 6.2 seconds by old fashioned flooring!! That's great power if you ask me!!

This test was bullshit. Every other road test of the Ram 1500 and the Toyota Tundra and Nissan Titan give the latter two a O-60 time of low to mid 6 seconds while the Ram mid 7 seconds. Either the Putc testers fucked up, or some manufacture trickery is going on.

@Patriotgrunt,

The RAM almost came in last in payload test. That is what hurt the RAM.


How about a case of cheeze to go with that whine?

The EB 3.5 tied the Ram with a loaded trailer but hit 60 earlier and beat it with a load in the bed.

Why? WHY? Why?

Does that mean the Holy Grail 8 speed and road leveling suspension does NOT deliver on their hyped perfromance advantages?
Ram guys predicted the competition would get killed once the 8 speed showed up since the old Ram 6 speed would not let the 5.7 Hemi deliver.
I PERSONALLY EXPECTED THE RAM TO DO BETTER!
The other possibility is that the 5.7 Hemi itself falls on its face under load. The old 6 speed was just a skapegoat.
There has to be something off with the chassis or drivetrain.

I'm sure that they repeated the tests to rule out an oddball run.

The Ram lost, get over it.

or maybe all of you Rambo Motard Sheepherder's do NOT want to get over it since it would mean that the "AllMighty" 5.7 Hemi and the "Holy Grail" 8 speed and "float like angels" air ride is actually purgatory in disguise.

That old outdated Tundra was way off the pace (sarcasm intended).

These results should make you wonder which 5.7 is the better of the two.

This one, to me, is the least important as honestly I wouldn't drag race my truck, empty or loaded. Yes, I do like the feel of strong acceleration, but the maximum separation between the fastest and slowest was a mere 1.5 seconds with an 8500 pound trailer on the bumper comes out to me as essentially a tie. I'd be far more concerned how quickly it can accelerate from 35 to 75 instead. Passing power is more important than getting to highway speed from a dead stop in most cases.

Someone suggested testing the Ram with the 3.5 V6. First thing that jumps out to me is that it's only rated for a max of 6500 lbs towing. Would be a bit hard to do the 8500 lb acceleration test. And if they DID hook up the 8500lbs, don't they realize writers have deadlines? They'd STILL be waiting for that truck to get to 60 ......

"I would have liked to have seen how a 5.0L Ford would have done here, I bet it would be in the mix with the GM twins."

I test drove a 5.0 to pull my camper, I can't see how it could possibly come close...d.o.g. with a load.

"Wish one of the GM twins had the 6.2L. Would love to see how it stacked up in these tests. Also, don't see how such a minor weight differences (GM/Chevy twins) accounts for such variances in performance."

Wish they also would've had an XLT with the 6.2l to see how it performs compared to the rest, including the EcoBoost. Ford & GM both need to put their top tier engines in this test...in Ford's case, both of their top tier engines. Hey PUTC...can you arrange THAT test? Or arrange it for me over here. I've got an E/B, would gladly tow my camper with a 6.2 to see how it stacks up. :-)

Time to go read the rest of the article...

@Toyota LOL
I do not think you are taking all factors into account when you compare the "power" of the Old Cuda to these modern POWERHOUSES. All new vehicles have computerized torque management which enhances transmission and tire life (which reduces or eliminates spinning tires, which is inefficient anyway!).
Also, forget the axle gearing on the Tundra, you need to focus on overall gearing and matching gearing to the engine torque curve. Kudos to hemi lol for already explaining this.
Turbos are great for bringing the power curve lower in the RPM range, which generally translates into more average power across the real-world operating range (too bad we cannot keep our engines at peak HP rpm at all times).
To help make my point about torque management, consider two vehicles I am very familiar with: My 2008 GMC 2500HD SLT crewcab, 4X4 6.0L gas engine, 6 speed auto, 3.73 gears. Stock this vehicle acts like many other modern pickups, virtually no wheelspin, does about 7.8 seconds 0-60. With a quick SuperChips program update (87 octane), it does about 7.2 seconds and melt the tires if provoked, also gets a 2nd gear AND 3rd gear scratch!
The other vehicle is my wife's BMW 335i with 3.0L straight-six, twin turbo. This vehicle is bone-stock and has gobs of low-end power. It pulls like a team of Clydesdales from about 1,200rpm! Torque is flat from 1,400 to 5,000 rpm, horsepower peaks at 5,800. Ford's ecoboost has a ways to go to match the refinement of this little gem.
I do not have a bias against or for any vehicle, I enjoy all sorts of technology. Is my GMC the best pickup in the world? I doubt it, but I still like it (the same goes for the BMW sedan).
SHALOM!
P.S. Everybody knows something and nobody know everything...

PUTC tested the Ford 5.0. Her are the numbers for all.

0-60 flat unloaded

Ford 5.0-----7.18 sec.
Ford Eco-----7.1 sec.
Dodge-------7.0 sec.

0-60 flat 9000 lb trailer 5.0, 8500 lb trailer for others

Ford 5.0-----16.85 sec.
Ford Eco-----17.0 sec.
Dodge-------17.0 sec.

Pretty good considering the published hp of the 5.0 is the lowest of the bunch. E85 bumps the 5.0 15hp if you want hp and less mpg.

TRUCK 0-60 FLAT

FORD 5.4 8.9 MPH
FORD 5.0 7.1 MPH
FORD 3.5 ECO 7.1 MPH
CHEVY 5.3 8.8 MPH
CHEVY 5.3 ECO 7.5 MPH
CHEVY 6.2 7.0 MPH
DODGE 5.7 7.6 MPH
DODGE 5.7 8 SP 7.0 MPH

@Lou: go to any dragstrip and the quickest to get to that point wins, be it 1/4, 1/8 mile or 1000 feet. But oh no, Mark Williams likes to cover a shorter distance in the same time. I wonder what they were smoking to think shorter is better?

Yeah, they had to spool up the Ford, lol! Reminds me of the diesel and turbo guys on Pinks All Out asking for time to spool up.

Wah, wah, that Ram has a better gear ratio, can we spool up the Ford? Lol! Maybe you didn't read it to well, the Turbo engine won only one acceleration contest!
They shouldn't have spooled or braketorgued ANY of them!

So Lou, have you even driven a Hemi? Or the new one? Would think any salesman would think you are a potencial customer. But it hard enough for you to spot one ( yeah right)

These tests make me laugh every time. You really need to like the look of your truck and of course...Test drive it to determine how it fits for you.
I have owned every truck except for a Toyota.
I sold my 2009 Titan this year and I will you it would most definitely not be last in performance!!
It would eat any one of these trucks on any surface or climate Period.
I now own a Frontier and it too would shock most of these big trucks in a 1/4 mile drag.
All very good trucks but from my experience I would put my hard earned money in a Titan or better looking tundra for main reason... They will last longer under the hood.
I have seen Japanese Car makers engine parts specs and most automotive supplier cant hold the tolerances that they demand. This is first hand knowledge and is the biggest determining factor in my purchase decision. Not the bells and whistles or car like trucks.

I'm glad RAM can do better with 3.55 than ford with 3.73. Even though considering that ford has smaller tire size. It comes to show that V8 is better than TTV6.

A test meant to highlight that a truck is designed to perform when loaded. The best in this category is in the mix when loaded or when pulling a trailer. Wonder how they would have done with both payload and an underbumper trailer. Bet it would again highlight the difference in a truck meant to work and a truck built for car enthusiast. No surprise loaded the Ford wins.

Oh, btw Lou, or Lou in BC, or whatever you call yourself now, the 8 speed did make a HUGE difference for the Ram, it accelerated pretty darn good, loaded or unloaded. The last shootout (for 4x4s, in 2008) didn't have a payload rating involved, but it had a squat test. No squat test this year? Because Mark knew Ram would win that portion, but they added a payload rating for points, he KNEW Ford would win that. The trailer tow ratings? Just numbers when you consider what Chevy is putting out for ratings, lol. The Ram 8 speed has the most realistic rating, it may not be SAE like Tundra, but both of them are real instead of 7th graders working at Ford and GM and throwing out numbers for the sake of bragging.

So Ram lost on payload, (crummy made up towing ratings by other brands) and towing mileage; the GMs tow in drive, if it's anything like Rams cylinder deactivating system, once in drive, the cylinders deactivate. Which by the sounds of it, they might have been towing 8500, but that isn't hard work in the flatlands, so not all 8 cylinders are needed. There is your mileage. To boot, the Rams in tow haul not only couldn't deactivate cylinders for the sake of the mileage here, they also ran the highest gear ratio towing, 3.55x.84, about 2.98, while Chevy and GMC was 2.29, Tundra? 4.3 x .588=2.53, there is the towing mileage, if we can only get testers to actually take the Ram out of Tow Haul when not needed, the mileage would be better. The Ram in 8th gear and 3.55s? 2.37, if that Chevy could pull a 2.29 with less torque, the Ram can pull with 2.37s, when on flat ground.

The last shootout comparing the 4x4s in 2008, the Toyota scraped running boards when offroading, which are as low as the frame, the GMs would be bottomed out, being low riders, and the Ford would be just average. It's amazing all the tests they skipped.



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In