2013 Light-Duty Challenge: Results

LDC Group 2 II

OK, we've been through the testing, we've put on the miles, and now we're just about ready to render our verdict.

We decided to judge these trucks both on their physical capabilities as well as other more subjective characteristics. Thankfully, we were able to get experts from RaceLogic and Popular Mechanics to help out. The end result is mountains of data and impressions collected, and one overall winner for our 2013 Light-Duty Challenge.

Scoring a test like this can be complicated. In the past, we used a series of formulas that weighted each category according to how important (or not) we thought those categories were. Not so this time. This year each winner of each quantitative test was awarded 100 points and all other competitors received whatever fraction of points their own score deserved when compared to the winning time or distance.

For example, if the winning truck accelerated a prescribed distance in 10 seconds and the second-place finisher accelerated in 11 seconds, the former would be awarded 100 points and the latter 91 (10 divided by 11= 90.9). Likewise, in stopping distances, if the winner stopped in 135 feet (100 points) and the fourth-place finisher stopped in 153 feet, the fourth-place truck got 88 points. (You can do the math.)

The only place where fractions were allowed into total scoring was in the qualitative section, where judges could award points in any way they saw fit. As you can see from our judges' impressions, each expert had his own biases and preferences, and each reflected those opinions in his scores. The fact that this particular section can be considered "fuzzy" motivated us to designate this section to be worth about half as much as the 13 objective categories.

Before we get to the final finishing order, we'd like to thank our third-party experts at RaceLogic (thanks Joe Lachovsky) who were responsible for collecting our test data and providing tons of helpful testing advice, as well as both original equipment manufacturer support teams that helped us use the Chrysler and GM Milford Proving Grounds to their fullest (Ford, it's your turn next time). And thanks also to our compatriots at Popular Mechanics: Your insights and driving skills were hugely appreciated. We've been told readers can look for PM's own half-ton challenge in the September issue, going on sale near the beginning of August.

For all our quantitative test and calculated data in one head-to-head chart, click here.


Sixth Place
2013 Nissan Titan Pro-4X | 1,605.5 points

Results Nissan II

(Nissan Scorecard)

Even though the Titan did not win a single category in our tests, the news is not all bad. The foundation of this truck is solid, and our judges seemed to have a soft spot for the Titan as the sportiest player in the segment. Sure, the engine and interior are the weakest links but there are some good qualities that Nissan can build off of when the next-generation Titan debuts, hopefully by 2015. The Titan was the last-place finisher in our quantitative testing, but our judges did not believe it deserved last place in interior and exterior scoring. At the end of the testing, the Titan was simply outgunned with more under-hood technology and firepower from the other trucks; it also is significantly in need of a new interior design. On a positive note, from what we're hearing, the next-gen Titan will offer many more powertrain options and cab configurations, something that all the players in this arena must have.


Fifth Place
2013 Toyota Tundra SR5 | 1,624.5 points

Loaded Accel Toyota II

(Toyota Scorecard)

The Tundra did not win a single one of our testing categories either, but it did perform well during our most extreme tow tests, thanks in large part to a relatively solid Max Tow Package that included 4.30:1 axle gears but no integrated brake controller (just like the Nissan). Unfortunately, the biggest weaknesses centered on the outdated gauge cluster and split center stack, as well as the underperforming tire choice. The 2014 Toyota Tundra is set to debut later this year with a new interior and exterior design, and since our judges scored the current Tundra in last place for our contest in both those categories, we'd say that's good timing. Our judges all liked the powerful sound that the Tundra's engine made when hauling and towing, but it somehow seems appropriate given the quality of the all-new or recently updated competitive powertrains that the Tundra finished fifth in our quantitative tests, fifth in our qualitative categories and fifth in total points. As a small piece of advice, we'd suggest giving some serious thought to updating and modifying this truck's powertrain and chassis choices soon.


Fourth Place
2014 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 LT Z71 | 1,715.75 points

Towing Chevy II

(Chevrolet Scorecard)

The only contest the new Chevy Silverado 1500 won was the fuel economy loop with the trailers in tow, scoring just a hair better than its GMC cousin. Beyond that one category, the Silverado was a solid middle-of-the-pack player, often getting close to joining the leaders, yet never threatening to join the bottom two. It's worth noting the Silverado is less than 34 points from third place and more than 90 points better than fifth position. Due to a few option differences with the GMC, the Chevy weighed 60 pounds heavier than its cousin, which generally hurt it most in performance and fuel economy (at least when empty). With our judges, the new Silverado was usually a top-three finisher, garnering plenty of comments about creature comforts and stellar ride quality; unfortunately, the GMC interior resonated with our judges just a touch louder. Finishing in fourth place after all the quantitative testing and calculations, and a strong third place in the qualitative portion, the 2014 Chevy Silverado just couldn't keep up with the better-looking and ever-so-slightly better-performing Sierra.


Third Place
2014 GMC Sierra 1500 SLE Z71 | 1,749.25 points

Autocross GMC 2 II

(GMC Scorecard)

If there was a surprise in this competition, it was that the all-new GMC Sierra 1500 won two of our 13 quantitative contests outright, and came in second in four others, all done without a maximum trailer package or the all-new 6.2-liter V-8 (both arriving later this year). Impressively, that put the GMC within striking distance of the Ford (only 55 points behind out of 1,300) after the quantitative section of the test. Unfortunately, the GMC made up less than 40 points in the judge's scoring, winning the exterior styling portion outright but finishing in second place to the Ram 1500 in both interior and overall value. Our judges were clearly impressed with the new material choices and gauge cluster layout inside the GMC but they weren't impressed enough to take away points from Ram or Chevy, both of which also scored well. As strong as the push was for the Sierra near the end (it was like we were watching a long-distance runner finish a marathon with back-to-back five-minute miles), it wasn't enough to overtake the hard-performing Hemi in the Ram 1500 or the monster-strong F-150.


Second Place
2013 Ram 1500 SLT Big Horn | 1,753.5 points

Towing Ram 2 II

(Ram 1500 Scorecard)

Watching the top two in a comparison test like this is more like witnessing King Kong wrestle a giant anaconda or a T-rex; you know you shouldn't be standing around watching the bloody battle, but it's just too dang mesmerizing to look away. Together, the Ford and Ram pickups won more than three-quarters of all the test events. In fact, the new Ram 1500 won five separate events (both autocross tests, both hill-climb events and the empty zero-to-60 run), as well as coming in a close second in three categories. Additionally, the new Ram was a strong player with our judges, winning both the interior and overall value categories, and finishing second in the exterior section behind the stylish GMC. If the Ram 1500 had one obvious weakness, it was in our calculated payload and towing capacity events. In those two categories, the Ram gave up the most points of any other competitor in any event, and with that huge distance to make up, it couldn't close the gap enough on the Ford no matter how well it performed in the other events. In the end, this truck missed the tape by a nose.


First Place
2013 Ford F-150 XLT | 1,765 points

Autocross F-150 II

(Ford Scorecard)

Say what you will about the F-150, but as the biggest-selling half-ton in the U.S. offering the most engine choices and trim packages in the class, you had to think this was the favorite from Day One. Although the F-150 hasn't won a PUTC comparison test since the 2010 V-6 Work Truck Shootout, we should note we're not counting last year's Ultimate 4x4 Shootout because the Ford Raptor is in a class by itself. The performance in this well-equipped XLT SuperCrew with its Max Tow Package was, quite simply, dominating. In the quantitative section of our test, with 13 different performance tests and max rating calculations, the Ford outdistanced the competition by a significant margin. It won five competitive events outright and came in second in six others. However, in the qualitative section of our testing, the Ford's domination fell short. In fact, even though the F-150 did not garner any harsh criticisms, the XLT interior was clearly not up to the levels seen in the new GM trucks and Ram 1500. After the judges' scores were sorted, the Ford never received higher than a third-place finish in this section, winding up in fourth place overall in our qualitative portion of the test. But this contest wasn't only about what a few experts think, so now that all the dust has settled on one of our most thorough and exhaustive half-ton pickup truck comparison tests, the 2013 Ford F-150 is PickupTrucks.com's 2013 Light-Duty Challenge Champion by 11.5 points more than the Ram and 15.75 points more than the GMC. Congrats to Ford and to all of our competitors, because this was one crazy, brutal battle royale.


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


Definitely surprised the Ford won. The 3.5L is definitely a power house, it cleaned up in the performance testing.

I expected the Ram to win (reading the results, it probably should have). Why wasn't the Ram available with a higher spec tow rating? I was under the impression they have 10,000lb tow packages available.

I don't get why the GM trucks performed so differently, they should have been the same truck. Is it normal for two identical trucks to vary so much?

The Nissan and Toyota finished where they should have been expected to, it's too competitive of a segment to sit around so long.

I think Ram would do better with the EcoDiesel. F-150 did very well considering it's due for a replacement. It makes me excited for the 2015 F150 and Super Duty. The GM and Toyota fans are not going to be happy, cue the hating....

Surprised Ford won due to the fact that it is a older truck. Glad Ram did well, but I am disappointed with GM thought they would do better. As far as the other they finished where I thought they would.

Speaking for GM - OUCH!!!

Great Write UP!!! I was on the edge of my seat and noticed it was either F150 & RAM.

Great review!! Thanks!

While I freely admit that the relatively old Tundra doesn't have the interior refinement of newer offerings from Ram and GM, I'm mystified as to why these refinements are important.

It's almost as if there's two different comparisons underway here: One that measures what these trucks actually do, and one that measures how they make people feel.

Personally, I feel best with a capable truck, and I'd gladly trade a nifty gauge cluster for improved reliability, durability, SAE approved testing methods used to verify a tow rating, etc.

With respect to the time and effort involved, I think this comparison missed the mark in three key areas:

1. Resale value was not addressed at all, which is a key indicator of both long-term durability as well as overall value. Ram doesn't perform well in this area (at all) and should be docked accordingly.

2. Durability/reliability data from Consumer Reports, JD Power, Intellichoice, etc. seems to have been ignored. While it may be that consumers should have to collate all this data themselves, there's no denying that Toyota and Ford set the standard in these two areas. They should be awarded bonus points for winning this award for so long (Toyota has won the JD Power long-term durability award for 7 or 8 years in a row...where's the points for that?).

3. Autocross testing doesn't belong in truck comparisons - it never has. The relative parity in autocross times is a glaring indicator that a) none of these vehicles is designed for autocross and b) consumers can't possibly find value here.

I commend PickupTrucks.com for taking the time to complete this massive comparison, but this comparison needed to talk about long-term value/reliability. That's a huge factor in every consumer's decision, and it should therefore be a key portion of your comparison testing.

I really think the Ram is the winner of this challenge. Maybe I'm a bit biased because I like Mopar vehicles but it clearly out performed the other trucks in overall testing. Only when you get to the calculated towing and payload capacity did it fall behind the Ford, yet you tested it beyond your calculated capacities and it still was at the top or in the top 3 of the performance tests. Ram calculates their payload and towing capacities assuming a 150 lb driver.

I think it's really unfair to use calculated towing and payload in this test, considering that it has nothing to do with how the vehicles performed. Remove this score and Ram wins by a lot

another comment on the Ram max payload/tow... just wondering why/how what Dodge calculates is so far off from what you guys calculated in your tests.... looking up their site, it seems like their max payload should be 1659 and tow should be 8800, but you guys calculate 1000/8350. 600 pounds seems like a pretty large difference from manufacturer's specs vs your actual calculated specs.

Surprised the Ford won, the way the comparison read, I thought Ram had the victory in the bag. I have to disagree with awarding 100 points each for basically arbitrary payload and towing figures.

I'm most impressed by the GMC MPG!! That they came in 3rd place isn't at all bad. Knowing the two things that most matter to me is the interior (since I'll be staring at it most) and the MPG (since this hurts most on my wallet) the GMC was first in my mind!!

Good job also goes to RAM, I think to me (if they had a little better MPG) they would be best in my mind. They have a great looking truck with nice interior.

Sorry, but FORD is not the winner in my mind given the problems with the ecoBoost engines (being sued by several for shuttering and poor engine and milage performance). Give all these EcoBoost engines a few more years and we'll see what cost of ownership will be like 5-10years down the road.

I am sad to say the 3rd Gen Tundra didn't address performance and will be lagging behind the competition at launch. I am glad PUTC did some "real word mpg testing" because I am tired of hearing from Toyota reps and fanbois saying we get the same if not better "real world fuel economy as the competition." They just say that because they can get away with making in unsubstantiated claim and now they can't. This is another are where Toyota will lag behind the competition at the launch of the 3rd Gen Tundra.

I still love my Supercharged Tundra and wouldn't trade it for any of these nice rigs but if something were to happen to my truck I WILL NOT REPLACE IT WITH A 3RD GEN TUNDRA.

Thanks for the comparison. Alot of good information, and very close competition. I understand the finishing order, but when you look at the criteria, and the points seperation, not a big margin between them. I can't wait for the GM HD's to be updated too.

I am a 2013 F150 owner (5.0) kinda wish they tested that. In any case, Im suprised the F150 won vs the Ram. These are all capable pickups - its all personal choice. I am also suprised the new GM Twins didnt place at least second. Oddly, I think Ford has the most difficult job - dont screw up the 2015 becuase the competition is very very tough!

The only "pro Ford" comment I will make is reguading the debate around tow ratings. While the SAE standard is a nice way to "level" the field. The real issue with published tow ratings is around product liability. If Ford or anyone else claims a tow rating, it damm well better be engineered to safely tow that weight - there are a 1000 lawyers who would make sure if Uncle Buck crashed his 10, 980# travel trailer and tried to sue Ford.

@A L: The Ram has 3.92 gears available. I don't think they are getting everything they can out of the air system if it doesn't up that payload. Eveything else from the air system is a win for me.

As for trailer tow mileage, was the test done in a hilly or flat evirement? If on a flat area, you can let it go in drive, off with the tow haul, which is good for hilly areas, but turns a bit more rpm then all the rest at highway speed.

when I saw the spec sheet posted last week I knew who was going to win. Disappointed PUTC, although to your credit this will always happen. It looks like most manufacturers read the letter of the rule and provided their closest performers to the line and then Ford and Toyota come in and drop a max tow with HD Pickup rear axle ratios in them with top of the line engine options and they win... ooooh so surprised.

As a consumer I feel a little bit gypped as it would have been fun to see what an ecoboost standard tow package with 3.55:1 gears would do in this company. I bet it would still do well. The language in this article shows exactly why Ford did what they did and Ford is not stupid for doing their homework. The penalty for sending what is basically a 1500HD/2500LD to a half ton shootout pays off far more in the performance category than it is penalized in the economy/drive-ability area. A less extreme bias in equipment to me is far more representative, but naturally as a manufacturer the trophy case is all that matters to them so we send the max tow 3.73:1 dif Ecoboost to a half ton test and it walks away with a healthy margin due to its performance stats in one or two areas (which it was specifically configured for) despite getting middle of the road marks for other areas which as trucks become a lifestyle choice more than anything else, are probably more important.

The bottom line? All the trucks made it to the top of the hill and for that we as consumers win regardless of the games going on behind the scenes, because not one half ton truck from 10 years ago could have done that.

The sad part is this older fprd design handed gm it's ass over and over.
The tundra pretty much sucked in everything and with a redesign only going as far as a uglier grill and the same weak chassis toyota will remain far far behind the competition

The ram did a good job and its interior design is great and the 8 speed sounds like it did its job

But in the end the ford with it older design inside and out but with it powerhouse twin turbo v 6 was awesome and when it comes to quality and toughness the right truck won again.

Yes ford has had 6 people who don't like there ecoboost
the toyota bed shake is aweful
the ram is more car like then truck
the gm twins even though new are still way behind
The titan while dated did a astounding job over all
yes no one is perfect but the ford is pretty dam close

AND YES the atlas is a coming so look for ford to be even further out front....have you driven a ford.....lately !

Autocross certainly does belong in the contest. Ever had to dodge debris in the middle of the interstate at 70 MPH? You don't care to be able to do this safely?

RAM was the clear winner. Published payload and towing is the only thing that kept it from #1.

The people who call all the RAM fans here "fanboys" can put this in their pipe and light it up.

CHRYSLER still builds the best truck on the road.

@WXman - Don't you mean Chrysler-Fiat?

It's no surprise the F150 came out on top, as the comparison was sort of designed to favor them. The payload/towing section, for example, favors Ford because they publish the largest ratings...not because the truck actually handles the stated amounts with aplomb.

Ditto for the performance testing - a twin-turbo V6 is going to shine here as well, if only because it's got a flatter torque curve compared to the NA V8's. If you give the V8's credit for being less expensive and more reliable, it's not a clear EcoBoost win.

Still, there's no denying the F-150 is the most popular truck in America, and it offers a large variety of options that make it a great choice for anyone.

TO be clear: I'm a Ford fan, but even I think this comparison was failed on a couple of counts.

The Ford F-150 has the worst headlights. There are no legal upgrades, and overwattage H13 melt the terminals.
They belong a $15K vehicle, not $45.
The F-150 has the 2nd shortest Reverse gear, but then you are waiting for the turbochargers to provide boost.

Bad/shame on Nissan/Toyota for not offering a PTO transfer case (one that has a computer regulated clutch pack for powering the front axle)

and how many have red rear turn signals?

and for fun, where is the 1/4 mile drag strip runs?

and bad on all pickup trucks for not having any transfer cases with a center differential.

If Ram would go back to the industry standard leaf springs then they could increase in the weak areas and stand out better.

I knew the Ford haters couldn't resist throwing their 2 cents in. For those complaining about Fords max tow package, the other competitors had the chance to do it but didn't. Max tow hurt the towing fuel economy! That's the down side. Unloaded, Ford came in second with the max tow, not bad. Looks like Ford's strategy of updating the F-150 every year is working. Can't deny that!
The only thing Ram needs is a new engine. This Hemmi is dated. The rest of the truck is new, the engine should be too. Do the same thing GM did, same size but with newer technology. Compare the old 5.3 vs the new one. Ram needs to do that especially with Ford coming out with it's new truck soon!

I think the Ram did great. This right here proves the old V8's can keep up with the V6's. the Hemi V8 gets 21m.p.g the v6 gets 22. that's not really that much better. And about the Towing thing. I Think its the truck they tested. Ram says there truck can tow 10,150lbs. Which truck is that?
good job doe to Ford and Ram. But what happened to Chevy/GMC??????

and can the Fait stuff stop now kiddies? Ram just kind of kicked ass here. Only reason they lost was the Towing and we all know he Ram can tow 10K. just the truck they tested cant

Good job doe Mark the test was great. Cant wait to see the 2013 HD test with the big boys.

i am pretty sure if you do these test back in 10 years the ford will be last , if it is still running

Jim you are absolutely right, all the manufacturers could have sent a max-tow (or equivalent spec), they didnt because they chose to send what better represents a cross section of the majority of half ton truck buyers, instead of trying to put in a ringer to pad the trophy case with. Yeah the deeper gears hurt it in some areas but the tradeoff clearly paid returns.

Fair play to Ford, I just personally wish they would have sent something more representative of the average truck user because really this comparison doesnt prove anything except that Ford's max tow package has higher towing and payload than the other manufacturers' standard tow package.

You can get the EcoBoost 3.73 gear F-150 without Max Tow. The only thing Max Tow does is add more payload, upgrade the bumper and throw in tow mirrors and an ITBC which s available separately. It doesn't make it go faster.

The requirement was to tow 8500 lbs. Quite frankly any person towing that much is going to get Max Tow.

The problem with the Ram again is the coil springs and when you add a crewcab and start adding options it kills payload completely.


Ford wiped the floor 10 years ago, way to go TROLL.


I am not sure some of you are aware that the EB beat the 5.3L which did very well but it is not the 6.2L V8 in terms of power. When I see the new 5.3L I see the best option of FE, mid range power and capabilities. The new 5.3L will offer 90% of what GM truck buyers will need but for those who love performance and desire more they have an available 6.2L V8 option. I don't see how it was a bad showing for the new GM trucks The new 5.3L will be capable of more power with FI than the 5.7L Hemi (due to internal) or the Ecoboost for those who want more performance than stock. Take out the interior and exterior section and it did very well. I am not saying interior and exterior don't matter and shouldn't be part of the test I am just saying it doesn't matter that much to me as I drive a 2nd Gen Tundra.

I see no-one is pointing out that if you spec that Ram with the 3.92 it will be faster, tow more, carry more, etc and then would win easy according to their point system since it would not be docked for the payload towing calcs.

i have the 3.92 8-speed and tested a 3.55 8-speed, there really is a big difference.

Frank... oooh a 6.0l powerstroke, how'd that turn out for you Ford guys?

Prior to the testing and when the truck debuted many said 3.92 wasn't needed - "there's no reason for it." You liked the 3.55 and how first gear is 4.71 to 1. And how it was more agressive than the Ford and Tundra! Don't change your tune now because you don't like the results.


"It was reported on Allpar that gear ratios would be 3.21, 3.55, 3.92 and 4.10, which the 3.92 and 4.1 really are not needed when first gear is 4.71 to 1." - Posted by: TRX4 Tom

"Yeah,, I know there seems no sense in 3.92s and 4.10s, unless they have oversize, big tires, like if they ever built a factory Ram Runner" - Posted by: TRX4 Tom

"3.55s would be even pretty high with your 20s. The starting ratio of 3.23s would be just less then a Ford with 3.73s, and just over the it with 3.55s, that is alot of gear! More then any Tundra has in first!" Posted by: TRX$ Tom


"Don't know why some of you guys are only looking at rear end ratio, and not overall transmission ratio. The Ram's ZF 8 speed with 3.55s is MORE aggressive than Tundra's 4.30 (and Ford's 3.73)." - Roy

"Overall 1st gear ratios:

RAM ZF: 4.7 x 3.55 = 16.685
Tundra: 3.33 x 4.30 = 14.32
GM: 4.027 x 3.42 = 13.77
Ford: 4.17 x 3.73 = 15.55

So while the GMs are at a slight disadvantage, it's nowhere near as bad as people think. " - Roy


great well that....sucks. I'm a ford man but after this can you say chevy and ram are pushing them to be better? hardly.

Eseentially the 2013 Ram with "virtually nothing left unchanged" and the "all new" 2014 Silverado were beat by the 2011 F-150.

Ram and Chevy raised the bar, but not enough.

@Jim - the hemi is dated? nah just wait to see what tricks they have for 2016 my guess they'll be neck & neck with ford again. this 2015 ford is probably gonna be damn good! the hemi isn't dated especially if drag racing uses them look it up. funny cars use the hemi engine block because its proven to be more powerful than the GM or Ford. despite sponsorship they all use them. I predict Ford will continue to make a better turbo charged v6 to compete with RAM's hemi. pentastar has already proven 400 hp when turbo charged in the maestri so, if RAM decides to take that route Ford has their work cut for them. Ford has been good on payload & towing wish RAM would step it up a bit on that category.

If they had only tested on Thursdays when it was 64 degrees and the breeze was out of the Northwest at 9 mph, my favorite truck brand would have won.

They outlined the criteria, the manufacturers provided vehicles and they were tested. The results are there...and next year they will be different. Well, except for Toyota being a crap truck...but anyway - enjoy your clear bias for your brand and I hope your particular truck does whatever you need it to do. I know my F-150 does - along with the 40,000 more people that bought them last month over Ram. (71,000 vs. 31,000)

It would of been nice if GM trucks had their max tow package with 3.73s available at the time of this test, it would of close the gap a lot more maybe even got them 2nd and third place. I think the Ram should of won this test though. Any way proud of GM and how well they ran with 3.42s with less hp and tq vs Ram 8speed, ford's 373s 6speed,and Toyota's 4.30s 6speed can't wait to see what their monster 6.2L has to offer when PUT.com has time to test it and review it.

After reading many comments about how the Ford rigged their truck to win with the Max Tow option, your right. But why? @ devisladocate - play fair? If your "average truck buyer" steps into a Ford dealership as his 4 must haves are; 4 doors, 4x4, cost less than $45k, and be able to tow 8,500lbs, guess what? The dealer is going to get him a truck with the Max Tow Pkg. It's not a ringer, it's selling your customers what they want, and what this contest asked for.

My only complaint about the comparison, is that there was no off road, or 4x4 testing. Around here, you find all of these trucks on farms pulling this or that in the fields, or any of these trucks pulling a 4 place enclosed snowmobile trailer 75mph down the interstate, then into a snow covered parking lot where 4x4 is a must. I would be interesting to see if the 4x4 systems are as complex and "smart" as some of these new engines and transmissions.

GM serious must feel a little embarrassed especially when jeff lukes bragged about these GM twins being the most competitive trucks with that stump speech at the 2014 GM introduction. Ford is definitely an old format & RAM is too with the same body carried over an eight speed tranny its basically the same age as Ford. this is why I won't be buying GM products anymore almost doesn't cut it for me. RAM is #3 seller in this country & shut GM up! with a supposedly less superior pickup than GMC cadillac lol whatever the results have proven GM isn't like a rock anymore...they can be beaten with a stick lmfao it happen guys! you finally got a can of whoop ass from my POS RAM hahaha I'm proud to be a RAM fanboy, like popcorn sutton said " F*** you! "

How does Ram score 1st or near the top in almost every test but lose to The F150 because of one test? And its not even a far test since the manufacture can say whatever they want and there's no way to compare to another truck. Not saying this was biased but feels like it.

It doesn't matter if the Max Tow was available at testing for Chevy/GMC, it wouldn't qualify.

1) For the Chevy/GMC, Max Tow isn't available on the 5.3 with a four full-size doors (Max Tow on 5.3 is double cab only. The crewcab with 4 full-size doors is one of the requirements.

2) To get Max Tow with 4 full-size doors, you have to go up to a LTZ or High Country Model and add a 6.2 which puts you over the max $45k figure. Staying under $45k is was one of the requirements.

Therefore even if you had it the Max Tow available at this time, it cannot be done for the 5.3 with a crewcab or under $45k with a 6.2L.

GM's fault.

adubs16.... right because the average buyer who walks into the Ford dealer with those 4 criteria also wants those idiotic "look at me!" anabolic wannabe SuperDuty mirrors you get stuck with when you option the max-tow package.

Or alternatively they want a truck that looks normal and isnt geared to pull your house off its foundation.

I honestly have no dog in this fight, I drive and HD and have always laughed at people who try and work "hard" in a half ton. I am just saying as the consumer and enthusiast I feel slightly short changed by an article that is supposed to b a comparison because it would have been interesting to see how a more traditionally optioned F150 would have fared in this shootout. I think it would have done well... win? maybe so but it would have been closer. Considering the ram lost by what 15 points, it easily gave up that many or more to the Ford due to those way higher "as tested" payload figures.

Again fair play to Ford... they took a gamble on what would most likely win them the competition and it did... plain and simple, people who have taken these result as a license to bag on some other brand though are way off base and they know it, doesnt stop em though

i like to know what gears the trucks running.

Wow!! Crazy seing a 10 trying old truck (basically) dominate the others like that. Nice ford!

Looks like another biased comparison from PUTC.

the ford won by 50 points before they added in personal opinion.
In other words ford stomped them badlywith a 2011 model and the new gmc and sister truck chevy weren't even close.

That has to be a kick in the ass that chevrolet can't build a new truck to beat a 4 yr old truck by ford.What does that say about the new ford atlas coming soon .will it be 10 yrs ahead of gm.

The ram did great and has the nicest interior of that group price but not the best over all.Again ford takes the top spot.

The fact that ford can take a 6 cylinder and whip the other brands v8s like that is just amazing.
Now you;ll hear that the ecoboost is this or that but until you actually drive one you just have no idea the kind of grunt and thrust this thing has.
Well we all see why the f line is the leader for 34 straight yrs running and with the new atlas coming it may lead another 30 some yrs. Great job ford on job !

“In our performance-oriented competitive events, the Ford half-ton was dominating,” says Mark Williams, editor of PickupTrucks.com. “It finished in either first or second place in 11 of 13 events. If this were the Olympics, there would be a new Ford F-150 on a cereal box.”


Here are the real scores, the experts scores.

Nissan 459.5

Toyota 461.5

Chevrolet 524.75

GMC 544.25

RAM 559.5

Ford (Tune Cheat Job 4) 505

So The Ram wins, GMC 2nd, Chevrolet 3rd and Ford Job 0 a distant 4th.

The test, (rigged by Mike Levine) schemed overvaluation of autocross, 0-60. 60-0 Braking over FE empty and towing and matched no max tow vehicles against ford cheat tune and gears.

I can prove this test was rigged by this simple fact, the GMC was listed max tow at 9380lbs, my 2011 Chevrolet 4x4 Crew with a 315hp 5.3 had max tow of 10,000+, with Max Tow the GMC would have won the whole contest just on the increase of points on this one area, since Ford bups their tow rating anytime someone gets close (cheats) and not aligned with SAE, this test simply takes what the Manufacturer says and assigns points based on that, so I could say my truck can tow 20,000 and PU.com would give me 200 points, this test is a joke.

The expert scoring was only for exterior/interior and "value."

I would expect the Ram and GM's to be better in this area as they are newer.

I will never understand why the Fanboys and TROLLS can not give credit where credit is due.

I like how the TROLLS say..."THIS TEST IS A JOKE."

Stop whining, the best truck won, hands down.

Conduct your own test and shut it, this is as real as it gets.

A 3 year old V6 won. Nice job!

Anyone here that follows my posts knows that I'm a licensed Professional Engineer and a "Car Guy," but no brand loyalty. I buy what I think is the best at the time of purchase. I almost always buy used and let the first buyer take the depreciation hit. I've owned Ford, Toyota, and Chevy trucks. My current truck is a Chevy Duramax Allison 4x4 CrewCab. I'm glad I'm not in the market right now because there are several really strong trucks to choose from. Ram and the F150 are really impressive. Right now I'd probably buy the Ram because of the Hemi and 8spd transmission. The Ecoboost is really intriguing, but I keep my trucks for 200,000-250,000 miles. The cost of owning, maintaining, and repairing an Ecoboost for that length of time worries me.

The comments to this entry are closed.