Best Overall Half-Ton



We're immensely thankful to all the involved manufacturers for their support putting this event together; any aid aside, you’ll still be doing yourself a favor if you consider their products when shopping for your next truck or accessory. We'd also like to thank the team from Ricardo Inc. who instrumented all the trucks and certified our quarter-mile, hill climb, autocross and brake tests.

And, of course, we're very thankful to you, our readers. We do this for you.

Some are likely to be disappointed with the results because their favorite truck didn’t finish where they expected. Our test is only a snapshot of how these specific trucks performed in a week-long test under rigorously controlled conditions; it’s not a comparison of manufacturers’ half-ton lineups. The results could have been dramatically different had we included other engines or different cab configurations.

To determine the best overall half-ton in our comparison, we created a scoring system that measured the trucks subjectively and analytically. We believe our scoring system reflects how core truck buyers drive and evaluate their half-ton pickups during everyday use. Tests involved moderate to difficult towing situations, and considered towing confidence and safety to be the factors worth scoring, not cupholder size.

The maximum number of points a single truck could have scored was 99 — if it had performed better than every other truck in every test. Analytical scores (power, pulling and fuel economy) and subjective scores (driving impressions and features) were given nearly equal weight: empirical data accounted for 48 points (48.48 percent of a truck’s final score) and impressions were worth 51 points (51.52 percent).

The first component of our ratings was points assigned for driving impressions. Impressions were split into three categories: driving empty, pulling a trailer and performance over an offroad obstacle course. For each category, we gave the best-driving truck six points and the least-comfortable truck one point. The rest either drove similarly or had pluses or minuses that canceled out any advantages or disadvantages, so we scored them all with three points. The maximum a truck could have earned for this component was 18 points.

The second component awarded points based on the trucks’ power and pulling capabilities. Points were earned according to where the trucks finished in various time, distance and suspension-travel tests, with the top finisher getting six points and the bottom finisher getting one. The maximum a truck could have earned was 42 points.

The third component awarded points for key features that we think are important in determining how usable a truck is and how confident it makes its driver feel when working the truck hard. Unlike the other components, where points were assigned according to where the trucks ranked relative to each other, each truck could have potentially earned the maximum three points available for each feature. The only feature worth more was storage, which we assigned a maximum of six points because we thought the new RamBox deserved extra merit. For a truck to earn the maximum points available for each feature, the feature had to be both available and well-executed. We compiled a list of 10 important features, meaning a maximum of 33 points was available in this category. Each truck earned points according to availability and execution of each feature.

The fourth and final component ranked the trucks — assigning six points for the best-performing truck and one for the worst-performing — according to how well they did in our fuel economy test.


With 61 points (out of the maximum 99 possible), the Ford F-150 earned the title of 2008 Shootout Best Overall Half-Ton Pickup. The only thing this truck is missing is a powerful V-8 — it finished last in two of the three pure-power towing tests — but the rest of its performance and packaging was excellent. It took top spots in both our timed ride-and-handling test and our fuel economy test, and it offers value and features the other trucks couldn’t compete with — like trailer-sway control, which can manage the trailer’s brakes, and excellent road manners when towing.

The Chevrolet Silverado ranked right behind the Ford, with 58 points. It so tremendously dominated the power and pulling tests that it only barely lost to the better-equipped, better-riding F-150. If the Silverado’s fuel economy performance had been even in the middle of the pack rather than last, it would have won this contest.

One interesting side note: The Ford F-150 and Chevy Silverado were the only trucks we tested that didn’t have fancy navigation screens.

The Toyota Tundra, with 56 points, took third. If we catch any flak over this Shootout, it will be because the Tundra jumped ahead of the all-new 2009 Dodge Ram 1500 and the GMC Sierra. Like the Silverado, the Tundra had excellent power and performance numbers. While it couldn’t beat the Silverado in that category, it beat the Sierra by nine points and bested the Ram by 14 points in those tests. That was enough to push its score up to the third spot. It did very well in the brake and traction-control tests, even though its stability control performance in the autocross was poor. Its lack of towing-support features also lowered its score.



chevy has the most horsepower, and ford has the lowest, how pathetic, i think a chrstler town and country wud beat a ford truck in a race ford... fix or repair daily

How do these numbers add up. Trucks are eused for hauling loads and trailers, not cute little toys added to them as neat features. I have a 2007 Tundra Crew Max and have yet to find another 1/2 ton that can tow and haul like this truck. The Ford doesn't even compare to the Tundra when used like a truck. I suppose it is OK for a trip to the grocery store. The Ford didn't even come close to winning any areas that mean anything, how could it win. I've towed my 27 foot enclosed snowmobile trailer through the Porcupine Mts in the UP of Michigan loaded with 4 sleds, gear for 5 and 5 adults and another person in our group had a Ford F250 with a gas engine, 3 people with gear and 3 sleds on an open trailer. His load was about 1/2 the weight of mine and he struggled up and down the mountains. I even passed him going up 1 long hill because he struggled to hold 50 miles per hour in 4WD. Ford claims to have the highest towing capablities but just hook up a trailer over 10,000 pound and try to pull it up and down the mountains or against a 30 mile per hour wind. The Ford would not even be able to drive at the speed limit while the Tundra drives right by waving.

Great test, but abjectly ridiculous weight of factors. '3' for 1/4 mile drag loaded is worth exactly the same as '3' for mirrors?!

Shift the weighting to 'power/pulling' and 'driving impressions' and the results change dramatically.

The Chevy and Toyota are the best trucks here, with the advantage to the Toyota owing to far less fuel costs.

im a truck dealer and have owned and screwed with all these trucks.... all depends who you are... buy ford or toyota!!!

Dodges= cheap price, good power, bad durabilty but ur ok if sell them before 100,000 miles
Chevy and GMC = good, faster than u think, but transmissions are always breaking down, bad durabilty to
Ford = slow, but great cruisers, good all around, best american durabilty!!! very cheap buying a 1 year old ford,, most popular in our sales because of price..
titan = ugly, great performance and durablity, unpopular
toyota= best performing, best durabilty, harsh ride but we soften rides by taking out a leaf spring in the back,

All our customers either want the ford or the toyota, based on how much they have!!!!

trust me buy ford or toyota screw the rest....

im a truck dealer and have owned and screwed with all these trucks.... all depends who you are... buy ford or toyota!!!

Dodges= cheap price, good power, bad durabilty but ur ok if sell them before 100,000 miles
Chevy and GMC = good, faster than u think, but transmissions are always breaking down, bad durabilty to
Ford = slow, but great cruisers, good all around, best american durabilty!!! very cheap buying a 1 year old ford,, most popular in our sales because of price..
titan = ugly, great performance and durablity, unpopular
toyota= best performing, best durabilty, harsh ride but we soften rides by taking out a leaf spring in the back,

All our customers either want the ford or the toyota, based on how much they have!!!!

trust me buy ford or toyota screw the rest....

im a truck dealer.... dealt with all these
mostly depends on the deal you can get

customer feedback-
ford= i love it its perfect but want more power, good value
chevy= the transmission went out again only 65,000 miles on it
dodge = cool truck, cheap price, hauls, sell before 100,000 miles cause thats when we start fixing them
toyota = worship this truck, never breaks, extreme power, rough ride so we swap for softer rear leaf springs for everyone, most expensive
nissan = bad looks, but great durabilty and power

conclusion = buy ford to cruise nice, and toyota to haul and last forever

Any of you ever actually do any test work?

Take 2 sets of identical new tires. Run stopping distance tests on them on identical vehicles. You will see +/- 1 meter on average if you run say, 10 stops. 3 stops is not enough to be statstically significant.

Now, take 1 of those sets and do 30 or 40 heavy stops on them and some hard cornering, and you will find the stopping distance on that set will be reduced, somtimes by 3-4 meters, while the other set without the conditioning will still have the long distance.

My point is that tire "burnish" has a HUGE impact on stopping distance. Even slight differnces in burnish can have a big impact on stopping distances. The same is true for maximum lateral load capability of the tire, it improves with conditioning. If the chevy was taken out for a couple of extra "evaluations" prior to the braking test where someone evalauated the rubber to smoke capability of the powertrain, or the oversteer gradiant of the vehicle, that could be enough to change the conditioning on the tires. Also, note that one heavy ABS pressure drop can result in a lost meter, so ABS calibration is critical as well. If the Chev and GMC have the same ABS cal, and it was not optimized for the different rear shocks, it may have impacted the results (just a little note for those of you who like screwing with your suspensions - ABS and stability control are HIGHLY dependent on suspension geometry and compliance).

As for engine you really think that every drop of fuel has EXACTLY the same chemical makeup? Do you think that each combustion stroke makes exactly the same amount of power? Do you know that most modern powertrains have learning algorythems that modify combustion / and shift parameters based on "learned" statistical measurements made in prior driving? All these contribute to test to test variation.

I would imagine if you grabbed 2 F-150's, or 2 Tundras, you would find "unexplainable differences". The fact is, you can not take these sort of test numbers and accept them as Gospel. There is a +/- band on any test like this your run, as one guy pointed out already, he races his Tundra against other Tundras, and there are always differences.

Also, if you really want to learn about % North American about how it's calculated. It only includes Tier I suppliers. So if a Japanese company brings in a transmission from a "Tier II" from Japan and then installs 1 bolt to that Japanese transmission here, then it automatically becomes an "American" transmission. That is how Japanese companies get 80% N.A. content. If you measured content by mass, their content would be more like 20% on their "American Made" vehicles, and almost none on their Japanese made vehicles.

Finally, reading this you would think the only jobs in the American auto industry are the folks at the plant putting the parts together. Do you think they design, validate, and manage the programs from the plant? There are thousands of engineering jobs that go into each vehicle line that is produced, and if its a Japanese company, these high dollar jobs are in Japan (other than a few folks here who do N.A. mareket research and N.A. specific testing), but for an American company, these jobs are right here.

No one spends much time talking about creature comforts on a truck, but I have to tell you, the Sony stereo package on my new Lariat was the deciding factor for me. It really kicks. So OK, I'm not as fast off the line as some other trucks, but the stereo makes a little more time in the cab just fine with me. And snce I'm getting better gas mileage, all the more reason that a little less speed works just fine.

1 point. The only trucks that result in improving our economy are the American Trucks. The profit from the Japanese trucks goes to Japan. So if you don't care about the foreign. Also, the statement that the Tundra has more American content is bunk. Someone has been drinking the kool-aid that Toyota and Nissan have been selling.

Another note is reliability. The Toyota and Nissan now lag behind in failures and reliablility.....hmmm.

In Japan they do NOT buy American cars. They understand what fuels their you?

Overall good information, debate and interesting results.

ok guys the toyota won(or placed second) in things that you use a truck for like driving and pulling things and oh ya braking i do that sometimes too. The tundra lost points for mirrors when tow mirrors are an option so go add 5 to the tundra score, also i dont decide what truck to buy based on it having a brake controler or not so add 3 to the tundra there. Also no much mention of price guess your readers arent concerned with that little detail,also none of your readersare into reliability or being able to run on 87 gas(cause gas is cheap right?) score more points for the tundra. My final point is you can make number look any way you want to by putting as much emphasis on tow mirror scores as things that count like brakes and performance. P.S there are no tundra commercials saying that we are now equal to someone else in quality....Also i would factor in the fact that toyota will be around when you go to trade in thetrucks you buy , i hope gm and ford can make it too,but ya never know.

I like the styling of the Ford F150, but I can't get past the overall poor performance when it comes to using a truck like a truck; carrying loads, towing trailers, stopping etc. I own a limited Tundra, and I'm the first to admit that the interior is not up to par, but I use my Tundra to tow a 7,000 lb travel trailer up and through the Eisenhower tunnel here in Colorado (12,000 ft elevation), and the truck does it without breaking a sweat. I routinely fly past F150s towing much smaller trailers. Don't get my wrong, I like the styling, and the fit and finish of the F150, but until they give it more power (6.2 boss) I wouldn't consider one. Something else that bothers me is that you always see Ford touting "highest payload and towing in its class", but would you really hook up an 11,300 pound trailer to an F150 if it can't keep up with the others towing a trailer that weighs 5,000 less? Look at the towing and payload numbers for the trucks in this comparison (the most common configurations) and the Tundra is ahead in both categories. Of course I'm biased (at least I admit it), but I think the Tundra wins where it counts if you use your truck as it was meant to be used.

"Gord" get your facts straight. My "Chevy" truck was built at the Canadian plant. You don't even make sense.

Overall, very interesting results. GM's real world inconsistency came through. I'd have liked to know crash test results and rollover resistance, etc. but beggars can't be choosers. The company that's been making trucks the longest won the competition. The sophistocation of the F150s engineering, given its way less powerful motor, which showed up in the autocross test was the key element of the competition, in my view. The Tundra had an impressive showing with the numbers, but the real world unrefined drivability and interior hurt it... of course this (the only '08 in the test) was the first year Toyota has built a true full sized pickup. The going uphill on a simulated icy surface test was surprising, to me, given GM's highly touted locking diff. I'd have expected them to easily be the best performer in that test, which was won by the Ford with Toyota the only other performer that did not require a switch from 2WD to 4WD. I guess you could reprogram the F-150's computer to be more powerful and you'd have the perfect truck (except for the bad back seat position) and lack of nav.

Very interesting stuff guys. Thank you.

Joe in Austin

Just thought I'd comment and give my review of the review after seeing the comments of so many crybabies. I must admit that I'm a pretty level-headed person and I read the review and took it only for what it's worth. Only poseurs feel the need to race anything in a 5500 lb vehicle and only 18 year olds care about max horsepower. I'd rather have torque than horsepower because honestly, in a full-size truck, who wants to roll around above 4000 rpm all the time just to be making the most power? Please, a honest truck should have torque to get the truck rolling smoothly with no hiccups and just enough horsepower to maintain the same acceleration all the way to redline. 0-60 times are not the all-defining category in trucks like it is in sports cars so why do most of the negative comments concern this number?

you never said anyhting about ON-STAR! gm is the only manufacture that has it. if you where fair that would blow the comp. out of the water every time

Look people, I'm not a brand loyalist by any means. I went out to find the most reliable, dependable and functional truck for my money. I talked to as many mechanics and contractors as I could, read all the literature I could, and test drove all the options. Every bit of research I did pointed to the Ford. Most contractors choose Ford and say the Chevy and Dodge both have quality and reliability problems such as interior components failing, noticable rattling over time, transmission and engine failures. I've had a Ford F150 now for 125k miles without a single problem small or large. I've towed and hauled to capacity which seems to be it's happiest place to be. I don't need a truck that's fastest 0-60 and I imagine most serious truck buyers don't either (best selling truck). Bottom line is, if your a Chevy guy you're going to say Chevy is the best, if you're a Toyota guy then Toyota is the best. I don't really care, I bought the best truck for my money and needs and that happened to be the Ford. If you wanna drag race trucks buy a Chevy or Toyota. If you wanna haul, tow and beat up your truck and have it last, buy a Ford.

Sounds like Ford really needs the 6.2L Boss V8 (hopefully it won't sacrifice mpg over the 5.4 for the extra HP and lb-ft). Bring on the 4.4 diesel too.

Yes Everyone knows that GM's are way faster. I bet they can beat all these other companies to bankruptcy by at least a few months.

Face it guys a quality vehicle starts with quality management and quite frankly you don't have it. And if your wondering why a LIGHT DUTY vehicle doesnt have 400 horsepower to go to down the street to the Walmart, well your part of the problem. All the power in the world means nothing if its not correctly used and if your vehicle is not properly equipped to handle it its useless. Power? big deal.

Ten years ago not of these vehicles had 300 horses. And they worked just fine. What makes a truck usable is space management, brakes, transmission control, long term usability, minimal driver fatigue, which starts with engineering and ergonomics not power anymore.

Power just a number to put on posters.

Let me get this straight, the Ford has a better ride improvement loaded over empty because it rides "jittery and skittish" when empty. It has heavy steering so loaded it seems better. It gets 2 points because it squats 1/4" less. It gets 3 points for trailer sway control that won't be needed if a person sets his trailer up better. It gets two points for a ladder for the tailgate to fill up with gravel. To top it off, the Ford's a total dog performance loaded and unloaded and it's a total pain to hook a trailer up. I kinda really don't get it, but I guess those things add up.

Me, I think the beauty is in the eyes of the boholder. Me? I'd take the good lookin' hotrod hauler 2mpg defecit and all.

Nice testing, I got a kick out of the woosy factor on the tailgates though. Hate to see some of you testers open the gate on my 65-F-250 or my 77 F-250. I think you should of done a drive up test on the tailgates. Oh right you have to remove the Tundras, otherwise it would collapse.
I also love all the Tundra owners doing their typical crying.
Not everyone buys the most Hp trucks. And buy Tundra sales thats proof enough.
Nice testing guys.

Oh and for the guy saying a Tundra is more American, Yes you are wrong.

Did anybody notice the gear ratio in the tundra? 4.30 wth.
Damn put that in any of the other trucks and the numbers would be WAY different.

I just purchased a 2008 GMC Sierra Denali after driving all the competition with the exception of the Dodge. After having two Dodges and dealing with quality issue after quality issue I went to Toyota. Two Tundras later I bought the Sierra. I found that the Denali was head and shoulders ahead of the competition in every department for my needs. I am not a hauler but do have an Airstream trailer I pull and the Denali does it with character. The Tundra's ride and heavy stearing took me to the Denali and honestly it came down to staying with Toyota or going to GMC. For me the Denali is the finest combination of luxury and performance on the market. The fuel mileage issue is so minute that really....who cares? The Ford was an ok truck to drive but the engine left me wondering what they were thinking when they kept the 5.4. The Nissan was butal in power delivery and ride. The Chevy was much as the GMC but I prefered the look and feel of the Denali over the top line Chevy. So for me...the GMC won...Reading the test was interesting but as others have said, the scoring could have been more accurate.

I think this testing has shown that competition is tight for this market segment. If I were an engineer for either Ford or Dodge, I might be a little upset by the results. Especially considering Ford barely beat products that have been out on the market for more than a year. Both Ford and Dodge should've taken the competition by storm. If this is real world results, then Chrysler is in big trouble. Millions of jobs hang in the balance!

good thing this test didnt mention resale value since toyota just got the award for lowest ownership costs of the light duty truck group, also i love paying 20cents less a gallon for fuel and still being able to pass those truck that pay more for gas. Also since i have good brake i never get in accidents, and oh ya its a toyota so no service visits but oil changes. no tranns fluid change till 120k saving me money. And it still tows as good or better than every other truck compared. P.S. in hte real world i have raced the GM trucks both chevy and gmc 6.2 and i have never lost. Ive even been able to get around fords while i was towing a trailer. if the dont wanna let me over to bad get a truck not a mini van i have the power to get around em every time. Also toyota isnt asking for my tax money think about that 1

Ownership costs get real, they have been out 2yrs. And have how many recalls already. And not little issues. 4 star crash tests, Impressive.
Resale what can I say your right, 450k trucks sold for Ford or Chevy and "cough" Tundra 126k. I am hoping that they end up doing what Nissan is doing.
Oh and one other thing I was able to race one in my 1977 F-250, with a mild 460,, he cried.

Kelly Blue Book
2007 Ford F150 Super Cab 8' = Excellent

2007 Toyota Tundra Long Bed = Excellent

I guess Kelly Blue book needs to reprint some books, not.

to the guy above who is dense as a rock. toyota just got the award for highest resale value and lowest cost of ownership you fool. just becasue 1 unpopular long bed model is less than the ford doesnt mean anything you fool. also we have the highest crash rating available for the insurance institute crash tests which are much stricter than the highway tests you referenced. P.s. the toytota was the only truck with runnning boards which effect ground clearence, tow mirrors are an cheap option as is a break controller. order one with these options and i would have killed the ford in this test and it still scores higher in the things that count like brakes , turning radius , resale value, towing speed, unloaded speed, and reliability. get your facts right you fool. ( i really like tha,t we are now equally to toyota in quality commercial you have its real cute good luck on your knees begging for money from congress)

this test is trash, why would points be awarded for things like tow mirrors and break controllers that are options? these small unimportant features that you can add as an option from the dealer should not change the results of a comparison test. you guys cheated toyota big time, it was also only truck with running boards then you took points of for ground clearence because of it, why not mention this. also it was a sr5 not a limited why not mention this too. Why pay ricardo to get all that good info then skew the test to make the ford win anyway? How can your test be unbiased if the trucks your testing are compareable to each other? also you cant do comparison testing a a place like gm,s proving ground as thier trucks were DESIGNED for this particular road. I am very disappointed in Guess you had to please those sponsors huh?

@your dense: Thanks for your feedback. It's appreciated but to call integrated trailer brake controllers unimportant is shortsighted and wrong. Integrated trailer brake controllers provide smoother, proportional braking versus aftermarket units and, in the case of the F-150, they can also activate the trailer's brakes to stop dangerous sway before the driver even realizes it.

The Tundra wasn't the only truck with running boards. The F-150 had them too.

Maybe if you took the time to read the entire Shootout from start to finish, you'd have noticed that Toyota was well aware of the specs and setup of the other trucks for weeks before the test and chose to supply an SR5 instead of a Limited.

GM's trucks obviously had an advantage over all the other trucks at the proving grounds - because gravity doesnt work the same way for the GM pickups on GM's hill climb. The F-150 and the Tundra having better traction up the split-mu traction test - that must have been a clever trick to throw suspicion off GM's inherent advantage. Choosing the F-150 as the Best Overall Half-Ton after the tests at Milford must have been coordinated too.

Look around on the website. No Ford advertising or sponsorship.

Try again after you read the entire test.

And for a second opinion - check out Truck Trend:

if the reliability were better i would consider yhe ford or chevy. unfortunately quality of parts is poor. i'll have to stick my abused but very reliably toyota... its a 2001 and i've tried some of everything.

That is very strange about the two GM trucks being diifferent when they are the exactly same.

Anyway really HAPPY about the Ford F-150, but a little upset about the size of the engine.

We rented a 2007 F-150 and thought it was great. Had a lot of power and road really nicley.
P.S. I know my name is 98corvette, but that is the only vehicle I like from Chevy. wins. I know she's slower, but equipped with a smaller engine, I think it can earn my credit. BTW, by judging the shape and outlooking, F150 is still the HOTTEST!!!! What a charming pickup!

See my hot rating:

1. F150
2. Ram
3. GMC
4. Chevy
5. Ugly Tundra
6. Ugly Titan

Great test! Oh, and I hear rumors of Fords 6.2L that will be in the Raptor might make its way to the loaded F150. Now thats 400HP and over 400lb.ft. I pray for that! Here it is in writing Ford now fix it!

ya thats just weird how the gmc and chevy came out different....maybe its bad at making trucks cant make them perform the same lol...and ford rocks!! it was just proven =P

I'll agree with DonE37 here, people usually don't buy pickups for acceleration. WOT driving is not a very occurance for work trucks and daily drivers, it you want all types of performance, YOUR NOT going to get a vehicle stock anyways.

Also for all that talk about ponies and horsepower, you must simply watch a lot of TV and read a lot of magizines. Whether your working or in stop and go traffic, TORQUE is what gets you moving, improves gas mileage, and allows more towing capabilities, not HP!

F-150s these days are built more for daily drivers anyways, heck they quite putting manual transmissions in them in '04. There building them convenience and comfort.

If you want towing capabilities get a powerstroke super duty. 650ft/lb torque with a insanely restrictive exhaust, And yet only 350hp. Again, torque does the work not speed, how many big rigs haul a**. Only an inconsiderate fool would drive fast with a load while endangering other motorists.

Most ford guys will admit GM builds peppier vehicles, but aren't looking to go fast while working. And If your serious about speed or off-roading, then you won't stay stock, everything can be improved upon once you purchase the vehicle.

I just wanted to point out, I feel sorry for the Titan because it is a last generation truck. Although the new Titan or np1500 that comes out in 2010 will be built on dodge platforms and there will be 1500-5500. even though the tundra is two years old it is still a new generation truck so its a fair race. I think its funny yall are b***hin about the chevy and gm when they couldnt even muster the guts to send there 5.3 liter to the contest or even the 6.0 wow got send the wammy huh? puss atleast the other trucks all had 5.something liters. Dont worry about Fords power problems all the new engines come out in the 2010 models, ecoboost and a decesion for the diesel will be made and in 2011 the huricane so no worrys its just not availible now, the 4.6 ecoboost will outpower todays 5.4

Hope the '08 Ford is better then my '07. Have had nothing but trouble. Should have kept my '04 Sierra. Gettin tired of driving loaner cars!

XLT used to mean a lot more that it does now. The new 09 F-150 XLT interior is a little cheap looking. The lower console storage latch was broken on the demo. (I wonder if quality is going to be a problem with all the disgruntled GM and Ford workers) The F-150 I saw didn't have the bed rails or the tailgate step wasn't that comfortable, why are the headrests angled so far in now? The Chevy 1500 isn't much better - At least the Ford interior doesn't smell like GM plastic. The F-250 is probably the way to go if your going to haul stuff. Otherwise, forget it and wait for the Raptor.

For all you people wanting more power out of Ford, it's coming. Just look at the 6+ liter going into the '09 F-150 SVT Raptor. It will be available in the 2010 model year. Then all you others who whine because Ford won but doesn't have the most power can put it in your tailpipes cuz the F-150 will blow you all away.
Seems to me like there's a lot of sour grapes and bad losers on this site.
Good tests, like what I see.
Go there and see for yourself why the F150 is number one in so many places.

Hey Sandman...yeah, OnStar's pretty cool. But seriously, I have to PAY for that. And how often will I really use it? Does your precious GM have the stuff you really WILL use? Like the integrated tailgate step? Or the side box steps? Or trailer sway control? Or...on par with your OnStar...Integrated Work Solutions? What's that you ask? Any real working man will tell you one of his biggest costs are tools. What Ford has done is developed a system that uses RFID tags on each tool to determine if everything is back in the truck, alerts the driver to what's not in the truck in the even that he forgot something. Stuff you actually use. And the new Ford vehicles will also dial 911 in the event of an accident through a paired bluetooth phone. What else you got?

From Truck Trend's article: "The Tundra has a fully boxed frame with a high-tech, all-aluminum, 32-valve, variable valve-timed 5.7-liter V-8..." WRONG! The Tundra does NOT have a fully-boxed frame! They use their "Triple-Tech" frame which INCORPORATES fully-boxed up front, but in the back where it's needed most, they have a C-rail frame. And boy does it flex.... Honestly, this coming from a website that claims to know trucks? Get real. Let's compare apples-to-apples and at least run their 5.3L which USED to be the smallest. Then you have a fair fight.

Do you think differrent test results would be achieved with extended cabs body styles vs. crew cabs that were tested?

Earlier question was posted with incorrect e-mail address. Same you think different test results would have been achieved if extended cabs styles vs. crew cabs (tested), presuming the use of the same or similar wheelbases?

My $.02:

1. I agree with several of the above comments that certain categories (e.g., powertrain) should be weighted more heavily than others (e.g., mirrors, tailgate options). However, I disagree with the "you guys are idiots" approach to criticism. Sometimes a little constructive criticism goes a lot farther than just calling somebody an idiot. Overall, I found the test to be highly informative and a job well done.

2. I'm surprised that GM's trucks did so poorly on the Split-mu test, considering that the test was done at GM's own proving grounds. What's the point of designing a test and then releasing a product that can't pass that test? Didn't GM know that their trucks couldn't make it to the top of the hill in 2WD? Did they just say, "oh well, we'll get 'em next time"? Seems odd to me (and a bit disappointing, since I'm a Chevy guy).

3. In the future, I would love to see a maximum towing capacity test. Specifically, how is it that the heaviest truck with the least powerful engine (F-150) claims the highest towing figures? Even in the last generation of F-150, Ford claimed a higher towing rating than common sense would allow. Can anyone explain this to me? Is this just marketing BS, or does Ford have some trick up its sleeve that allows it to tow more with less?

Great test overall. Good job, guys. A little tweaking of your scoring system would make it even better.

Hey PK,
The majority of where this claim comes from is in the rear-end of the truck. This truck has longer and wider leaf springs and outboard mounted shocks. The quality of the shock and how it's mounted goes a long way here, too. Also, and most important, is the frame. ultimately, it's what does all the work and having a hydroformed fully-boxed frame goes a long way. Factor in also the brakes, F-150 has four disc brakes that are a pretty good size. Last year when I was looking, Chevy was still using drum brakes and EVERYONE knows (except this particular sales guy I was working with) that disc run circles around drums. This guy tried to tell me otherwise....
Hope this helps....

Thanks, Luke.

I always wonder about the design decisions that manufacturers make. I remember Ford made a big deal about their outboard shocks and fully boxed frame when the previous gen F-150 came out. I wasn't surprised to see GM follow suit with their own fully-boxed frame, but I was surprised to see that GM didn't use the outboard shock setup on their new trucks last year. I wonder why. Does GM not think the outboard shock setup is as useful as Ford does? Or did they just not want to spend the money for R&D? Anyway, I guess these differences between trucks are what allow us to argue about this stuff all day long.

I looks to me that if your a labor worker, everyday hauler get the Chevrolet 1500. Luxury and toy hauler get the ford. It seemed like the chevy won out all the towing and things of that nature. Would the Chevy avalanche come close to any of these results fars as towing?

I cannot believe you would pick a F150 with that doggy engine as the winner. I drove everyone of these trucks 3 months ago and got a 08 Titan SE 4x4 kingcab. Power, handling, features, and value, the Titan is a deal, way better than F150. Get one now before they become a rebadged Dodge (blech) in 2010.

My only comment is to notice that GM packages up a 6.2L w/6 speed tranny for the test. This setup, available for a couple years in the Denali line, is indeed a potent drivetrain.

Yet, what are they still shipping to dealers as "2009" 1500 Silverados - the old, sluggish 5.3L w/4 speed tranny.

I waited for 2 years for GM to put that 6.2L and 6 speed into a Silverado or Avalanche, then finally bought elsewhere.

GM is falling way behind, and they should have pushed this drivetrain out to go toe-to-toe with Tundra. Instead, it appears as vaporware, always years off.

GM should have to test the truck they actually sell.

One thing to remember here; These trucks were not tested on their engines alone. The testing took each truck into account as a whole. I agree that if you want to know which truck is right for you, get rid of the segments that mean little to you and add up the scores in your important areas. That being said, I'm so sick of seeing trucks tested with the largest V-8 available in class. For once I'd like to see a mid 5 liter truck shootout. If the truck in question only comes with a 6+ engine, fine. But I'd like to see what the numbers would amount to with a Chevy 5.3 and Ford 5.4 test.

GM? who cares? they are dying with no cash flow.....maybe in next year, only 4 trucks would be in a shootout

The comments to this entry are closed.