2011 $30,000 Shootout: 7-Percent Grade (Loaded) Test


Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Index

Our last day of testing took place at Ford’s Michigan Proving Grounds, just outside of Romeo. The facility is massive, but we focused on just three areas: the 7-percent grade hill climb, zero-to-60-mph braking and a short autocross course. We conducted all three tests with 1,000 pounds of payload in the bed, with data also collected for braking and the autocross without payload.

We started by lining up each vehicle at the bottom of the 7 percent climb — air conditioning off, windows up, tow/haul mode turned on — at the same spot. Then we drove wide-open throttle. The full hill climb distance is just over a quarter-mile, so we measured speed and time at 200-foot intervals.


From the very moment each truck left the line at the bottom of the grade, we could feel how capable each truck was able to climb the slope. The strongest was the Tundra. It was the fastest to the end, carrying the most speed at every measurement point. It also was the fastest to 60 mph (at just before the 600-foot mark) and the fastest after 10 seconds (also just short of the 600-foot mark). The Tundra’s final time was 17.55 seconds, with a trap speed of 78.14 mph at the end of 1,320 feet.

In second place, but struggling a bit under the heavy load off the line (no wheelspin, just sluggish), the F-150 did the run in 17.96 seconds at 77.25 mph. Finishing next was the Ram 1500 with a time and speed of 18.29 seconds at 77.99 mph. The Nissan did the run in 19.24 seconds at 73.99 mph, and the Chevy did it in 19.38 seconds at 70.92 mph, bringing up the rear. Having lower axle gears helped the Toyota, but what was quite impressive was that the Ford and Ram were just a touch behind with much higher rear ends.



Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Index 



Good job Toyota!


I'd bet the Ecoboost will on the Tundra with a load!


Well I guess will never know because Ford didnt use a Tundra for the Davis Dam test you could say they have nothing to prove against the low selling Tundra but I say in equal configuration 1/2 ton truck performance until someone beats the Tundra loaded, unloaded, at the track and up a grade you have not proved anything to me your just talking a big game about your engine.

Sure, the F150 was lighter than the competition, but I'd have to say the 5.0 fared really well against the numerically larger engines. If, for some strange reason, I had to replace my current truck - I'd go with an F150 with the 5.0. I'm still not sold on the EB 3.5, especially with the small fuel tank.

Dodge & Nissan were still in 2nd gear.
GM is hamstrung with too tall gearing & lack of power, just look at the drop off after upshifting out of 2nd @ 60mph
Toyota just has a little bit better midrange

@5.3 Lol!

Watch this Ecoboost Ext Cab 1/4 time of 14.905 @ 93.3.


The Tundra 1/4 Mile time - 15.70

"The F-150 finished the quarter-mile in 15.48 seconds at 93.31 mph. What could be seen as a surprise to some was that the heaviest truck in our group, weighing 500+ pounds more than the Ford, finished a close second place with a 15.70-second run at 91.94 mph. Of course, the Tundra had 4.30:1 axle gears as well. A more detailed look at our data shows us the Tundra lost a little time off the line but stuck close to the F-150 until the 70 mph mark, and then the Ford’s new 5.0-liter pulled away."

What do you think?

1. That was the lighter configuration that pulled away 2. That was the high rev 5.0L designed for a muscle car but beefed up for a truck that pulled away after 70mph not the ecoboost which I have yet to hear anyone call a high rev engine.
I am not trying to bash Ford on this but honestly A powerful high rev engine designed for racing vs a powerful lown end torque engine designed for pulling will have different results based on the test if its a unloaded the the high rev has the advantage if its a loaded test the low end torque puller has the advantage. As far as the ecoboost goes all I have to say is to be the best you have to beat the best 1. The 6.2L GM and 2. The 5.7L Tundra http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKOzkXgHBF8&feature=relmfu, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJbfkNKkWFg&feature=relmfu none of which Ford chose to do in the Davis Dam Test please dont talk a big game if your not going to back it up.

@5.3 LoL!

They test 1/4 times to show that this is enough distance to enter a freeway at high speeds. After the 1/4 mile, the race is over.

You can go ahead and keep preaching how the Tundra will catch the EB in a 1/4 mile. We don't care.

We care for low end torque and getting off the line, quick!

The Ecoboost in the Test is an Ext. Cab, the same configuration as the Tundra that ran 15.7 1/4 vs Ecoboost 14.9

Your link was a unloaded drag strip test you can clearly read and watch the links that I posted to tell that I have been referring to tests with a load on the strip and up a grade as was the Davis Dam test and the 2008 shootout and what this page of this shootout is about. Also where did I preach anything about the ecoboost other than its not a designed for race or the strip like the high rev 5.0L so results may vary and I also said I want to see it against the the powerful low end torque puller, 4.30 axle ratio for quick accleration 5.7L Tundra and against the powerful GM 6.2L in same cab configuration and not here from Ford guy how their going to own the 5.7L Tundra or GM 6.2L in a test?
Ford guy im glad you have powerful new engines and you like them but please quit hyping them up and let them back themselves up and the only way they can do that is by beating the best in a fair competition not on paper because GM proved that in the HD shootouts and their own AMCI certified test.

I am not hyping Ford numbers up. Mike Levine tested them here and this is what I see.

F150 Ext. Cab Ecoboost 1/4 - 14.9

Tundra Ext. Cab 1/4 - 15.7

Is this not the same configuration?

Im not talking about numbers I am talking real world performance the Ford Superduty had all the numbers on the GM HD's and lost everytime a real world test comparison so all I want the Ford guys to stop hyping up their numbers to tell 5.7L Tundra owners or GM 6.2L owners what would happen if they met because Ford chose the GM5.3L and Ram 5.7L as hand-picked opponents for the ecoboost in the Davis Dam Test and not the 2 truck that almost were tied in performance as the best in the 2008 shootout loaded at the strip or up a grade or unloaded at the strip. I just want the Ford guys to stop giving us their numbers and telling us what they are going to do to us in shootout like test if they are not going to back it up in real world performance test its just HYPE. It seems to me since Ford got new engines the Ford guys have forgotten that bragging rites are earned in equal comparioson pickup truck shootouts against the best and not on paper or against hand-picked opponents.

@5.3lol- Who cares about the Eco-boost? Theres still a 6.2. You want equal comparisons with a load? The 6.2 destroyed the 5.7 Ram and the 6.0 Chevy in the 3/4 ton up-hill tow tests. Now, what do you think the 6.2 F150 would do to the 6.2 1500 Chevy (keeping in mind that even chevy seems to think the 6.0 is a better tow motor than the 6.2) and 5.7 1500 ram in a heavy tow test? Only real competition would be from the Yoda and I dont think it has the gall to do it.


WTF are you talking about!

I would love to see the 6.2L F150 in a tow test because that is the one im not sure I want any part of especially if someone mods that thing headers, cai, exhaust and a tuner that has got to be over 450hp and 475lb ft @ the crank. I would love that truck if Ford made it in XLT. I think the ecoboost is great but it needs to compete in a shootout and beat the 5.7L iforce with that said I wouldnt be surprised if they beat the current 5.7L Tundra in a tow test but I want to see if before we crownthem champs.

"The 6.2L GM and 2. The 5.7L Tundra http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKOzkXgHBF8&feature=relmfu, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJbfkNKkWFg&feature=relmfu none of which Ford chose to do in the Davis Dam Test please dont talk a big game if your not going to back it up."

@5.3 Lol!

They are not a direct threat to Ford Sales. Ford is targeting mid range engines, such as 5.3L, 5.7L in Toyota's case 4.7L, do you understand? Beside, I have no no doubt an Eco-boost will beat a Tundra loaded and unloaded. I want to see it too. But, look at the numbers.

F150 Ext. Cab Ecoboost 1/4 - 14.9

Tundra Ext. Cab 1/4 - 15.7

P.S. Got anymore pics of the Lowrider?

@ frank

the lowrider guy is me, not 5.3 lol.

Ford didnt test between the ecoboost and the tundra 5.7 because the ecoboost will lose. simple as that.

the 15.7 sec run on the 5.7 you speak of is with the intrusive TRAC system enabled on the tundra which allows for ZERO wheelslip. (this is for safety)

THEN, on this last test they turned off everything apparently because they claimed they couldnt control wheel slip (i have ZERO problem with this on my truck). The trick is to hit the traction control button (which looks like the slippery when wet sign) ONCE. this turns off TRAC and turns ON the Auto Limited Slip Diff. my crew max 4x4 will run under a 15 sec. quarter mile and it weighs 5805 lbs.

FWIW i will put my truck up to anyone who wants to test the ecoboost against it loaded or unloaded. the ecoboost crew cab 4x4 with 3.73's is lighter than my truck by several hundred pounds and i'm CERTAIN my Tundra will win. matter of fact the more weight the bigger the win i'd have.

I would say the mid range engine comment is valid..... BUT its NOT. Ford touts the ecoboost as a max tow engine and then maybe you could say the "majority build" would be what they should do the davis dam comparison with, SO that would mean the 5.3 from chevy, the 4.7 or Hemi from Dodge i dont care which, and the 5.7 Tundra IS the majority build. The Tundra's 4.6 is rarely built at this point. The win would go to The Tundra. EVERY manufacturer is a threat to each other, no matter how big or small, that mentality (should ford feel that way) would eventually lead to their falling from top sales numbers. To become #1 and stay that way you must think like #2. So i dont believe Ford would be that stupid. Also consider that Toyota's market share is extraordinary in EVERY other facet of the automotive business, and 20 years ago the same wouldve been said about the camry vs. the other midsize sedans...... and now look, its the most sold sedan in the US by a HUGE margin........ do you see my point?

@ everyone

lastly i cant comment on all the false things typed here but i'm TIRED of reading comments (EVEN FROM PUTC) about the numerically bigger rear end on the Tundra "4.30's" I really thought "pick-up guys" would be smart enough to take into consideration the gearing in the transmission which is WILDLY different on each truck. the rear diff ratio isnt relevant to speak of unless your also comparing the gearing in the trans. i'll site the difference between ford's 6 speed vs. the Tundra 5.7L 6 speed gearing. as you can see below Ford makes up for the 3.73 diff with the first gear ratio and gives you a REALLY small 6th gear. interesting about the fuel economy they post when you do the "REAL" math. NOTE: were not even considering how good of a torque converter either uses. That 6th gear being so shallow means the truck cant utilize 6th gear hardly any if the truck is loaded. I think PUTC should do an MPG test LOADED vs. each other, i know who the winner would be do you?

Tundra 5.7 rear diff 4.30
1st gear is 3.33
final ratio 14.32

2nd 1.96
final 8.43

3rd 1.353
final 5.82

4th 1.00
final 4.30

5th .728
final 3.13

6th gear .58
final ratio 2.49

Ford ecoboost rear diff 3.73
1st gear ratio 4.17
final ratio 15.55

2nd 2.34
final 8.72

3rd 1.52
final 5.67

4th 1.14
final 4.25

5th .86
final 3.21

6th gear .61
final ratio 2.27

@hemi lol: I know this is an old post, but I have never driven a Tundra. I did pull my 9000lb tractor yesterday with 2 yards of gravel under it on the trailer (little over 4K). Of all the times for me to not have a camera! All I know is The truck was overloaded, The trailer was overloaded, (only 10k rated) and the ecoboost didn't care. I was actually afraid to use too much throttle due to weight ratings, but even at partial throttle I would be up to 55 quickly, and into 6th gear as soon as I let off. I was on rural roads and only drove about 20 miles like this, but it was very impressive. I have a 12K hitch or would not have done this, although it was even over 1000 lbs heavy. I did distribute the weight evenly as possible.

Thank you for sharing. I completely agree with you. I really like this article. You would probably get more readers if you interviewed controversial people for your blog.

@ hemi lol
Great post re the gearing. I too am tired of hearing the comments about how "low" the tundra is geared and that is the reason it is faster. As you stated, Final Drive Ratio has NOTHING to do with overal drive ratio.

Love the sig, there is a reason that the hemi went away decades ago....stubid combustion chamber that requires a rediculous domed piston to get any reasonable compression ratio, leaving a long flame path. Garbage!

The comments to this entry are closed.