Looking into New Trucks

All right, I have been looking into buying a new truck lately and want to hear some opinions. What do y'all think is the best bang for you buck when looking at 2014-2015 trucks. Options I am looking at include 4x4 and preferably a V8, I have been leaning toward the F-150s because their price for what you get seems very reasonable. Opinions?

Get a F150 4X4 with a 5.0L

That's what I have been looking at the most, but the popcorn eater makes me curious haha

just waiting on the crowd to start throwing their brand in the hat. Good luck your going to hear an ear full.

I agree with what was already said. The 5.0 f-150 is a good set up for pulling a few thousand pounds with no problem. Not to mention the great ride that the new f-150's have.

Gm engines have too many cam timing issues for me and i am just not a dodge, ram, or chrysler fan at all.

Well seeing as both your opinions were in line with what i was thinking, i will continue down the same road. Thank yall

UTDmiller, I think if you seriously look at the Toyota Tundra, you will change your mind about which truck to purchase.

Here we go! Took a lot longer than I first thought.

If I'm just towing a bass boat and wanted an F150, I look hard at the 2.7l ecoboost. It's performance is jaw dropping and gets better economy than the 5.0l.

I don't think you could go wrong with the Ford and 5.0.

+1, especially if you plan to keep it a while. Personally I think the new Fords are ugly but so are Dodges. There also seems to be this renewed fascination with chrome.

I find it comical you say the fords are ugly and recommend a Toyota considering how similar they look.

I loved my 5.0 in the 2012 mustang I used to have.Im sure it's just as nice in the f150. Sounds good too.
People love to hate on the toyota 5.7, but it is a nice truck too.

Well I would be buying a new 2014, way better deals since the 2015s are out now. Family member has a tundra and there are some things I like about the truck but gas mileage is pretty horrid, though 2 more mpg doesn't seem like much itll make a difference over a year. I plan on looking at a few this weekend so I appreciate all the responses.

Edit: Step Brother has a 2013 f150 5.0 and get 2-3mpg more towing or not over the tundra which is a 2012

If you want reliable, look at the Consumer Reports year-end buying guide. It shows the repair records for vehicles over the last several years.

Consumer Reports is a joke.

So are the new Ford's.
My vote is a GMC Sierra ,obviously not a popular one on this thread but if you have not driven a new one I would not rule them out. A big difference between the 2007-2013 model years and the new ones.

I guess some people just don't like the look of Ford tailgates.

Maybe so but my truck is built for work pulling my boats and hunting in the woods, no boat ramps were I launch during duck season sometimes. I guess I will just have to look at Ford tail gates, haha.

If I want to go fast I will just drive my wife's Audi.

I only tow 9500lbs with my Ford. Gee, I sure wish it was built for work.

Wow there sure is alot of bs on here about peoples opinion on what looks better or what they like best. Im a mechanic and see all of them everyday and to me that means something.

Take my advice for what its worth but when ya see em everyday you pretty much know what the better truck is

I do believe if i were looking for a new truck or any vehicle i would listining to the mechanics opinion on it.

Just my thoughts. Go ahead and bash me what do i know i just work on em everyday!

I have a friend that is a mechanic as well, and his thoughts were right in line with yours. That's why I was leaning towards the f-150 in the beginning

That things got pavement princess written all over it.

If I was buying new or nearly new today, I would get a Tundra. Best resale, best towing and best reliability.

Ram with a Hemi or Chevy 5.3L would be tied for 2nd choice (Chevy would get the nod if you're not towing anything too heavy - Hemi would get the nod if you might tow 7,000+ lbs). Ford with the ecoboost would be last on the list. Ford with the 5.0 would probably be a fine truck. But I think it trails the Toyota and Chevy in reliability (equal with Ram), the Toyota and Ram in towing (equal with the Chevy), and is probably on par with Chevy and Ram for gas mileage (ahead of the Toyota).

JMHO, it's worth what you paid for it.

Oh geez here we go

I think your making a good choice. The 5.0 is a good strong engine but if you want to take a step up the ecoboost is a highly noticeable one.

From what i hear the 2.7 will out perform the 3.5.

curious what data you used to formulate your opinion on the Ford trailing everyone else on reliability?

I will include some opinion and some fact in my response. The new Tundras look a lot better than the old Tundras but still seem to be expensive compared to the others (excluding GMC) and have worse gas mileage. Sure they can pull a friggin space shuttle, but who cares? We pull 20 foot bass boats. New Fords are ugly but I say that every time they change and then 2 years later I warm up to them. My dad has a 2014 F150 with the 5.0 and said he got 19mpg on his drive from Austin to Ray rob this past weekend, and regularly can touch 16mpg towing his 18 foot boat. I know very few people with the Ecoboost but when my dad was purchasing his new truck the salesperson dissuaded him from buying one, said it would not perform well for his intended use. I would imagine that your fuel efficiency would plummet if you regularly got that turbo spinning. If you tow on flat ground outside city limits primarily it would probably be fine for you.

Never have owned a Chevy or Dodge. They both seem to be ok trucks these days.

*edit* I have a 2005 F-150 with the 5.4l and get 9mpg towing my boat, just for full disclosure

I cant agree with this anymore! I will also add, An ecoboost will get good mileage if you dont drive it like you stole it.

yep, chrome and big wheels

Just buy the one you like.

My opinion. I stated that in my original post. What data did you use?

I've had one Ford that had more issues than every other vehicle I've had combined. That includes Nissan, Toyota, Honda, Chevy and Dodge. I think the new Fords are better than the older ones, but still not on par with Chevy or Toyota.

Once again...JMHO

I don't think it's possible to get unbiased data on reliability. I looked at Consumer Reports for my 2013 Altima recently and it had a "below average" reliability ranking. So then I went and looked at the detailed rankings for each category. It was "above average" or "excellent" in 13 of 17 categories, "average" in two categories and "below average" in the category for "rattles and squeaks". So they tank an entire reliability ranking based on a few noises that have nothing to do with reliability? Dumb...

I've not seen any other data that I felt was unbiased.

That seems to be the takeaway from this thread. They're all good trucks nowadays. The differences in reliability, towing, resale, etc are minimal compared to the 90s.

My neighbor has a Ford with the 5.0 that's been fantastic for him. I don't think I've ever seen him have a lick of trouble from it.

I've seen a couple test results. They were all close in the 1/4 mile and from 0-60....and both whooped the 5.0l. Surprised the heck out of me. I just added a 2.7l to our fleet for our maintenance guy, too. He sure seems to like it.

it is Consumer Reports that is the way they are. They pick out one or 2 negatives and rate the vehicle accordingly. They ding Tacomas because they ride like a truck.

If you spend most of your time driving over 70mph and care about economy, the 3.5l ecoboost is probably not the truck for you. It does as good or better than any V8 in urban driving, as long as it has time to warm up.

0-60 results/seconds
6.2 GM = 5.9
3.5 Ford = 5.9
2.7 Ford = 6.0
5.0 Ford = 6.4
5.7 Ram = 6.6

http://www.tfltruck.com/2014/09/2015-ford-f-150-v-competition-drag-time-showdown-video/

Is there a typo in here?

Did I mention jaw dropping performance?

Haha, well since I am not buying a truck to drag race this really means nothing to me. Also, .5sec is really nothing and for those that say you might need that when merging on to the highway, if I need to be .5secs faster to get on the highway then I am driving like an [censored]

Hey, I get some people are die hard V8 lovers. More power to you. But any time you can get better performance and better economy, it's worth a look imo....just saying.

So what im reading is that the 2.7 ecoboost will outperform the 3.5 ecoboost? Yes?

It's faster than the prior model 3.5l.

the problem with the EcoBoost though is that it has v8 power and v8 fuel economy. Not exactly what ford promised...

I disagree. It has better low-end torque, and in my experience, better economy.

Virtually every real world test that had ever been done puts the ecoboost on par with all of the other v8's in average fuel economy which is around 16mpg. Hardly anyone has achieved 23mpg highway as they advertise.

I'll tell you why...yes you may get better economy when the turbos are not spooled, but as soon as they start to sing, you get way worse. When you build boost, the ecu adds fuel to keep the air to fuel ratio correct.
If you do get 23mpg highway, you could be the first.

Seems like I just mentioned the 3.5l isn't a highway vehicle. Good thing I spend 90% of my time in urban areas...just like the majority of owners.

You could get 23, I don't know but what you are saying is generally true with all turbos. With low boost you are the most efficient.

The 2.7 will probably come out with 24, maybe 25 mpg highway. It will also probably be worse than the 3.5 towing.
Its not all bad. If you drive mostly highway or unloaded the 2.7 may be your best overall for lower fuel costs. If you tow a bunch you have to decide if you want the very best fuel efficiency (5.0) or power (3.5).

I average close to what I got out of my 2010 5.3l hwy but it also sat 2" lower. City is no comparison. The Eco wins hands down.

The 2.7 is supposed to get better.

Edmunds has a 2.7 ecoboost f150


Here is their latest update:
"April was a relatively slow month for our 2015 Ford F-150. It spent most of its time locally and accumulated only a modest 530 miles. Accordingly, our best and worst fills remain the same as they did in March at 14.0 and 17.3, respectively. Best range also remains unchanged at 557.3 miles. After almost 7,000 miles, we're still falling short of the EPA combined estimate.
Worst Fill MPG: 14.0
Best Fill MPG: 17.3
Average Lifetime MPG: 15.6
EPA MPG Rating: 20 Combined (18 City/23 Highway)
Best Range: 557.3 miles
Current Odometer: 6,908
Josh Jacquot, Senior Editor"
Man you are right that's better mpg!

I've seen several articles that are better but hey...you read it on the internet...must be true. FYI, my Eco took over 5k miles to break in. First couple tanks I was wondering what I got myself into.

I'm just showing you information that is from a reputable source that isn't my own opinion. Sorry it doesn't meet your expectations. Fyi, this data is after 7000 miles

http://m.motortrend.com/roadtests/trucks...olet_silverado/

I can cherry pick too. Sorry that doesn't meet your biased blessing.

http://www.tfltruck.com/2015/02/2015-ram...way-mpg-report/

How about this quote from car and driver
"Unfortunately, the 2.7 EcoBoost’s EPA fuel-economy ratings of 18 mpg city and 23 mpg highway don’t translate to the real world. We averaged 16 mpg over more than 1000 miles of mixed winter driving, and we didn’t load the bed with car parts, tow a trailer, or disable the overly aggressive stop-start engine function."
I've looked at 2 articles and put them both here... not cherry picking

Yeah, Dodge wins again!!!

Until you own one a couple years and it starts to fall apart. Always said mine was the purtiest in the mechanic's bay.

Wow!27.8mpg In this test...that sounds like it may have been riding on a boxcar....

Considering I averaged 15 on s good tank out of my 5.3l and the 2.7l will spank its [censored], I'd say not bad.

I really do get 23mpg at 65mph but that's not real world..at least in Texas where we drive 80.

Mine is 15 years old. Still get better than 23 at 65 mph but it does cost more for fuel. Went back to the dealer once, for a sensor replacement. I do most of my own troubleshooting so I can understand. I've replaced several sensors and put in an aftermarket lift pump.

Sounds like yours is made by Cummins. Mine wasn't. Honestly, I'm about ready to give Ram another try. I'd like to get back to towing at 75 mph.

So what im reading is that the 2.7 ecoboost will outperform the 3.5 ecoboost? Yes? [/quote

From what a customer of mine told me that has owned the 3.5 and now the 2.7 says the 2.7 is a more "stout" engine. I dont know what he pulls but thats what he said. I dont know for myself

Forgot about the ecodiesel. That should be added to any new truck debate. The fact that Ford, Chevy and Toyota haven't stuck a small diesel in a half ton recently just goes to show how little they understand the market.

Toyota and nissan have a Cummins diesel coming out in their trucks next year.
The Toyota is going to be a 5.0 Cummins with 300hp and 500tq.(estimated)
and the nissan is almost out now with a 5.0 cummins and 310hp and 555tq.

Hard to get excited about 240hp but I can see it filling a niche.

My EB gets about the same mileage that a GM or Ram V8 does- better than most what people typically report from the Tundra 5.7, though. With that being said, you are either woefully ignorant of how a torque curve affects towing performance or simply ignoring it to push an agenda. In no way, shape, for or fashion is the performance of the EB the same as NA V8 competitors. The only number that will indicate similar performance are the 0-60, 1/8 and 1/4 times and such- which has NOTHING to do with how a TRUCK performs (do you pull your boat or camper with a Hemi Challenger??? It'll post much better numbers in all of those categories...) I pull a travel trailer that is ~9500 loaded and I just chug along in 5th at ~2000RPM (maybe 2100, can't remember at the moment) at 65. Moderate inclines catch 4th at ~2800. No V8 out there is going to perform like that. Obviously we are on the TFF, so many here are only pulling boats and such. For something streamlined like a boat and much lighter than a travel trailer, the new V8 engines will perform admirably. But, I will agree that Ford definitely didn't have it right when stating "performance of a V8, fuel efficiency of a V6." It should have been "Performance of a V10 with fuel efficiency of a V8."

The lack of ability to rev and produce horsepower shows big time in the towing comparison tests. The EB walks off and leaves the Ram ED. Even though the ED compares closely to the power numbers of the 96-99 7.3PSD, people now expect more from a diesel engine. I think that Dodge will have a REAL contender on their hands if they can get those numbers to 300/500 or better and still maintain the upper 20's MPG. They need to get payload capacities to 2000 instead of the 1000-1200 range that is typical of them as well.

I drove my 5.3 cruise set on 85 from san Antonio to Hebronvile, drove around two days in a pasture in 4x4 hunting filling feeders etc, came home with the cruise set on 85 all on the same tank of fuel and got 16.9 mpg hand calculated. How do you drive?

Kinda funny you say that because the puny little eco diesel makes as much HP and torque as Allison1's cummins does. But his gets 24 mpg at 70 (BS) and the turbo runs on heat... Some new technological advancements.

If only Diesels weren't 5grand or so more

Averaging 15 mixed and averaging 17 highway mileage are two different things. I got 17-18mpg at 80mph from my 5.3l suburban. I've gotten anywhere from 16-18mpg out of the ecoboost. It is pretty sensitive to weather...wind, temps and humidity.

I call the 10 miles of 4wd and idling through a ranch, and 15-20 miles of 30 mph dirt county road driving and all the little towns along the way mixed.

I call stop signs and red lights mixed.

George west, 3 rivers, and the 4 other little towns we go through have those.

I think your making a good case for why comparison tests are more valid than isolated economy claims.


Observed by MT 5.3L 2.7L 3.0l
cty/hwy/mixed 13/19/15 mpg 17/22/19 mpg 20/28/23 mpg

Did you flip flop the mixed and hwy?

Not unless MT did. See the chart at the bottom.

http://m.motortrend.com/roadtests/trucks...olet_silverado/

They way your post reads

5.3 gets 13 city, 17 hwy and 22 mixed?

2.7 gets 19 city, 22 hwy and 28 mixed?

3.0 gets 15 city , 19 hwy and 19 mixed?

How is mixed higher than both city and hwy? Or am I reading it wrong.

Never mind im reading it wrong

5.3 13-19-15
2.7 17-22-19
3.0 20-28-23

I will say I find MT's numbers to be low, especially for the two turbo motors. I attribute it to how they drive them. I think they put them through their paces in their tests, which is reflected in the economy numbers.

But we're talking about a truck on a fishing forum.... most likely looking for a tow vehicle. I don't know of many lakes in urban areas?

I live in downtown Dallas and still 80% of my driving is highway at 70mph

Unloaded, I think you'd get better mileage with a V8 than the 3.5l (2.7l is another story) at highway speeds. Towing something light like a boat...IDK, maybe you'd do better with a V8. With my old trailer (over 5k lbs loaded), my 5.3l was doing good to get 6mpg, all while screaming at 3500rpms at 55-60mph. I got over 9mpg several times out of my ecoboost, and that was towing 65+mph. In fact, it gets better mileage towing my current trailer (over 9k), than the 5.3l ever did towing the old one. So I would say it depends what you have behind you and how frequently you plan to tow.

To quote myself:

2.7 "eco" boost test

Well, all the lakes I normally fish are a good little trip on hwys, so towing at 70mph is important. I think I will stick with a V8

If it's all about economy, why not buy something like the Pentastar V6, which is a great engine? It'll cost less and get better economy than your V8?

2.7L -average about 18mpg:
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/201...mp;submodel_id=

3.5L - about 17 mpg
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150?engineconfig_id=2815&bodystyleconfig_id=&submodel_id=

6.2L GM - about 15mpg
http://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/silv...mp;submodel_id=
http://www.fuelly.com/car/gmc/sierra_150...mp;submodel_id=

Are you exaggerating or did you tow in 3rd gear? When we don't like something we tend to exaggerate. I pulled our tt with my 5.3 a few times it got raight around 10-11 mpg and it towed it in 4th gear which was around 2500 rpm at 60. You for big time sure knew the tt was back there, but it pulled it fine. Ours weight a little over 6k.

Seriously, 3rd gear. Maybe 4th with a tailwind. Buddy has a 2012 Suburban, tried to tow his TT once and said never again. Worst V8 tow engine I've owned since my 97 Ford.

10-11, as you say BS.

You have to admit, when one person says they got 21.5mpg and the very next person says they got 11.8 it makes you scratch you head...?

I tried to ignore the outliers. IDK.

For my driving habits and that travel trailer 10 mpg is a pretty magical number. My 1994 chevy 350 got right around 10. Truck was replaced with a 2002 gm 2500 hd 6.0 which got right around 9 mpg. Was again replaced by a 2004 duramax which gets about 12 pulling it 65(if you slow down to 55, which I did once because we had a blow out and limped it on a weak spare it got 14.5 on a 200 mile trip) I towed it a few times with the 2011 5.3 around 100 miles all hwy and it got between 10 and 11 and I checked it. I don't have a need to go fast gene and I probably never broke 4000 rpm either, i bet it barely got to 3k.

I agree the 5.3 is not a heavy towing rig, but yours was either a hell of a lemon or you just exaggerate the hell out of how bad you thought it was because you didn't like it.

On flat ground mine would hold 5th gear with the tt.

And where is this magical realm you speak of? Mine would not hold 5th with the 3.4 rear end. Heck, it was all that engine could handle to tackle an overpass in 5th...while unloaded. It's a turd of an engine that produces no power under 3k rpms and was complete mismatch for what I needed it for. I think GM rating it to tow 6k lbs was a joke.

I towed in 4th because the slightest incline or even a head wind would make it loose 5th. It towed in 4th at 2500 rpm with 3.42 gears just fine. It was not peppy but it worked.

Have a griped about the 5.3l tranny temps today? And I've been around a handful of people that had to pull over for that.

I will say if I head one direction, I hit the Texas hill country. If I head another other, I hit mountains. Only exception is I-20 and I usually get stuck bucking a 20+ mph wind.

It did labor some on big hills between 3 rivers and alice. Trans temp was never an issue for me, rarely if ever got over 200.

If I stayed between 55-60mph, I could keep mine between 210-212. Anything faster, it would skyrocket.

The [spoiler][/spoiler]

My truck has been dynoed at 370hp and 710 ft/lbs. That is to the rear wheels so my truck, a 3/4 ton weighing around 6300 pounds would not be a good comparison.
Mine does not have the EPA stuff the newer ones have on it either. Also since I calculate every single tank you appear to be calling me a liar. Without a clue as to how you know that.

You've ignored even the most simple explanations on how turbos work and seem to know something about them. Have you ever really done anything with a turbocharger or get your supposed knowledge out of thin air?

You never once said that I know of your goat wasn't stock.

If that turbo runs on heat build a fire under it and make some boost.

The first sounds way too familiar. Pretty much sums up my experience. My old trailer was a 27' Nomad, little lighter though. And my Suburban had 3.42 gears.
*****************

Posted By: treeofliberty on 10/18/12 10:04am

We did this with our new 27 foot Kodiak, with a max of 6700 pounds. I towed it back from WI to AZ and then on a few camping trips above 7000 feet. It worked but wasn't pleasant on the steep grades or heavy headwinds. Mileage was often 6.5 mpg. We had the tow package with 3.73 gears and oil cooler. Sold it and bought a F-150 with ecoboost. Night and day. The Ford will pull up the hill at any speed I choose, just a matter of how much gas I want to burn. With a light foot on our 3600 mile strip in Oregon we averaged 9.5 mpg.

The problem with the Tahoe is you have no performance margin to maneuver. You will be the slowest guy on the hills. The Tahoe was just working too hard.

Posted By: ut_pupcamper on 10/15/12 04:52pm

We pulled our last trailer, a 28' 6500# one, with our Tahoe. We live in Utah and doing of the mountains around here was slow going over some of the bigger passes, 35-40 mph max, but it did fine nags mileage was definitely a different matter. On a trip from salt lake into western Wyoming the best we could do was 5-6 mpg.

https://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/26461299/print/true.cfm

I watched a heads up towing comparison with the new motors. They did the test in texas and said that in the mountain states and higher elevations the ecoboost had a clear advantage in performance. In texas they said the difference was negligible at best.

That was comparing a gm 6.2 ecoboost and hemi. Turbos make up a lot of ground in hi altitude.

I have no doubt the 6.2l is a very solid and capable engine.

I have an issue with a lot of those tow tests because they want to stomp the accelerator and time a race. I don't really judge a tow engine that way.

while I do value the ability to accelerate a load quickly, that would not be my primary concern either

One thing we haven't touched on in this thread is curb weight. The 2.7 ecoboost weighs in just a touch over 4800lbs. The ram right at 5500lbs, gmc w/6.2 is 5700lb and tundra w/5.7 is the porker at 5800lbs. Make no mistake that weight has a direct relationship with performance and fuel economy. Cudos to ford for getting the weight down With the aluminum body. Hope they can keep repair costs down in the future With the added cost to repair aluminum. I believe the jury is still out on insurance increases or not.



I had a coworker that has a 2011 infinity fx350 that got bad hail damage a few years ago. It cost the insurance company $14,000 to fix it because of the aluminum body

People up north and near the coast should love the corrosion resistance of aluminum.

For whats it worth I got 22mpg highway out of my Dad's 13' Ecoboost 3.5 shortly after he bought it when me an dmy wife went on our honeymoon. Averaged 65-70mph. You get much aboove 65-70 in ANY truck and your gas mileage starts going way down. 55 is the sweet spot for the absolute best mileage but that will get you killed in Texas lol

The diesel isn't built to tow a ton. It fills the exact niche that the ecoboost tried to but failed miserably. It just so happens that the ecoboost filled another need - people who want a fast truck.

But for folks who want an economical truck and don't need to tow 10k lbs, the ED is perfect.

The 5.3L? I've got a 2004 5.3L Silverado and I'm not sure I've ever hit 3k RPM...

It's a dog towing for sure compared to the other big V8s available 10 years after mine was built. But it's not that awful. Either way, my truck runs smooth and fast empty and I never have to get anywhere near 3k RPM to handle any hills. Now if I stick my boat on the back, that's another story. And my parents travel trailer is another story on top of that.

Exactly. Those towing tests are such a waste of time it's not even funny. You want a REAL towing test? Take each of them and hook up a 9K travel trailer to them. Find a straight road with descent hills and then set the cruise on 65. Then show us the instrument panel as you let the trucks do their thing. You'll see the EB holding gears and chugging along while the NA motors catch gears and rev constantly. At this point, the uneducated would possibly begin to ponder why the trucks perform so differently with such similar HP/TQ numbers. We could then begin discussing how a torque CURVE is not the same thing as comparing PEAK torque numbers.

Im with patriot, I think the EcoDiesel should be a home run. My first pickup didn't even have 240 hp and I didn't mind driving it at all. If it would have gotten 28 mpg hwy I would still have it! I don't need to go fast, I want something that has the grunt to do what I need and returns the best fuel economy. 240 hp and 420 lb ft of torque is plenty for a 1/2 ton truck, especially if it is at a good usable rpm... now if the epa just hadn't fire trucked all the diesel emissions...

Its comical that a 5.9 cummins or 7.3 powerstroke putting out 200 or so hp and 400 or so lb ft of torque will pull a mountain down and is ok for a 3/4 ton but put the same capability in a 1/2 ton with the ability to get almost 30 mpg and its absurd.

Wow 240 hp. My first F150 had 140, my second, a 351 2bbl, had 150, my 3rd which was a 351 H.O. with 4bbl Holly double pumper had around 210. The last one towed great. I think it was the C6 coupled with the 3.73 rear end. I had my 18' Ranger up to 95 on 635 with plenty of pedal left. I hate to even think of the MPGs. I drove it out to Ranger once and ran 95 - 100 or a good stretch out near Throckmorton and swore I could watch the gas gauge drop. It had 218.5 gallon tanks and needed them. They all did poorly in a good headwind.

It's also been a few years since poor Sammy Hagar had to sing "I can't drive 55" while passing through Texas.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. If your suggesting that the new 300+ hp trucks are the only ones that can drive 75 then

I'm just saying expectations are a little higher....and sammy can finally get out of second gear. :P

I don't know that they are.

A lot of people who bought ecoboosts are disappointed because they expected to get 23 mpg pulling their boat. I think if you can really give people an option that gets close to 30 mpg in a full size 1/2 ton people will go for it. And while its not the latest and greatest speed demon, a lite 1/2 ton with 240 hp and 420 lb ft of torque and a 8 speed is no slouch either.

Well.....no slouch in the world of Scions and Fiats, anyway.

Yeah a bunch of scions and fiats and nisan ford and chevy cars make 240 hp, not a lot make 420 foot pounds of torque, and that's what counts. I bet a 5.9 cummins or 7.3 powerstroke with less numbers on paper would work your ecoboost into the ground.

My peepee is bigger, no mine has more horsepower

But they all do 0-60 in about 9 seconds.

I thought a couple posts ago we just stated it wasn't about drag racing seems like its about whatever makes ecoboost come out on top.

If you bought a 1/2 ton truck to tow 9000lbs any distance(even if the manufacturer says it's ok)you aren't that smart. That's 3/4 ton territory. There's more to towing than a tourqe curve ie: brakes, curb weight, tire ratinghd springs,swaybars. we bought 1/2 tons to tow our boats, utility trailers, and medium sized travel trailers, which they all do just fine. If you want to occasionally tow a super heavy load go ahead and don't worry about it changing gears, that's what it was designed to Do.

Go take your 9000lb trailer out on the highway with your ecoboost in a storm with heavy winds and see how much you care about your tourqe curve.
Otherwise, just enjoy the truck you like.

So here are the choices:

Truck A:
Tows up to 7,500 lbs
0-60 in 8 seconds
27 mpg highway

Truck B:
Tows up to 8,500 lbs
0-60 in 6.5 seconds
19 mpg highway

Which would you take? I'd take truck A every day and twice on Sunday. If truck B is what you want, buy the ecoboost and invest in Exxon.

Personally I'd pick truck C which does 0-60 in 6 seconds and tows 11k lbs. If I wanted economy, I'd buy a Prius.

Haha look what I started.. Well after test driving several models with different engines I ended up with the Eco Boost. Happy with what I got and what I paid for it. Again, I thank you all for your input

If you were pulling llk on a daily basis would you still pick truck "C"?

I like the ecoboost, but im not gonna pull 11k with a half ton. If I did it would be a one time short trip take my time kinda thing and the ecodisel would do it just fine.

I would venture a guess that most people driving 1/2 ton trucks either tow nothing at all or a boat or some other small trailer well within the capabilities of either. Our duramax and my last cummins ran 0-60's in considerably more time than 6 seconds... I see a lot more of them used as tow vehicles than ecoboosts.

Truck posts always generate a large debate. They are nice pickups. I don't know anyone personally who has one and doesn't like theirs. Congrats on the new ride.

You better get you a class A drivers license too because you can't tow that 11klb travel trailer with a class C legally.

Heck no. If I could afford a $50k truck right now, I'd have a cummins...which is pretty slow too wihtout a tune but at least it'll haul some weight. I personally would never be happy with the ecodiesel. It won't do what I want a truck to do.


And the point is, it's rated up to 11,700 for a 4x4 SC. It'll dang sure handle a lighter load.

BS

Which engine?

Been there done that and it is scary. But you just slow down to a speed that you feel comfortable. Honestly, when the winds are gusting 40mph, I'm not sure you feel comfortable driving the speed limit in a 3/4 ton.

Look it up. I went down this road when I bought my 8000lb dozer.also bought a 14,000 gvwr trailer and was told you can't tow over 10,000 with ANY truck unless you have a CDL, class A or class B. farm use gets you to 16000lbs with a class C.

There are a million RV'ers out there driving illegal then. Above 26,000 lb GVWR or GCWR (while towing > 10,000 lb) requires non-commercial Class A or B.

http://changingears.com/rv-sec-state-rv-license.shtml

I could be wrong but if you hAve a truck that has a GVWR of 12000lbs and a trailer that has a GVWR of 14000lbs and the weight of the trailer is over 10,000lbs, that puts you in need of a class A, right?
this is what the place that I bought my trailer from told me. I figured they know.

I think there is some confusion of gross vehicle and gross combinantion going on here. You would be surpassing a lot of ratings if you got an ecoboost to weigh in at 12k!

Ok, yes max on a ecoboost is 7200ish.
BUT let's say you have a f350 (GVWR 14,000) and a travel trailer that is GVWR 14,000 and the weight is over 10,000lbs would you need a class A license? Total weight is 18000gvwr and trailer over 10000lbs

I'll take my EB with my ProPride hitch any day of the week over a 3/4 ton with a basic WDH that the vast majority of people use to tow TT's with. Having owned and driven both considerable distances, I am speaking from experience rather that hypothetically as you seem to be. To specifically address your issues with 1/2 ton towing: 1)Brakes- New 1/2 tons have MUCH better braking systems than the 3/4 and 1 tons of just 20 years ago. Trailers have their own brakes as well. If you are concerned about losing trailer brakes and having to stop- go run the numbers and calculate the % of it's GVWR a 1 ton is hauling with a 15,000 pound FW versus a 1/2 ton with a 9K trailer. In case that's too difficult, the 1 ton would be towing 30.4% MORE than it's GVWR whereas the 1/2 would be towing 25% more than it's (15,000 trailer, 11,500 GVWR truck = towing 3500 more than truck weight and 3500 is 30.4% of 11,500 versus 9,000 trailer, 7,200 GVWR truck = towing 1800 more than truck weight and 1800 is 25% of 7,200). 2)Tire ratings? Really? If you insist on trying to argue that point, I have LRD tires rated at 2680 each for a total of 10,720 capacity. 3) HD springs- I do agree that 1/2 ton suspension is too soft for consistently heavy towing, that's why I added Firestone air bags and Rancho RS9000XL shocks. 4) Sway bars???? Grasping are we?

There's an aweful lot of apples to orange comparing here...
1)2015 1/2 ton to 1995 3/4 ton
2)1/2 ton with a propride hitch to a. 3/4 with a regular hitch
3)tires, does your stock truck have the same rated tire as a stock 3/4ton?doubt it
4)did your stock truck have a factory rear sway bar?
5) gross weight plays a huge factor in towing stability. No question a 3/4ton weighs more than a 1/2 ton. Maybe you moded your truck and added weight too...

seems like you are trying to turn your truck into a 3/4 ton?

I think these are valid points

BTW I own a 2015 tundra 5.7, a 2011 dodge 3500, my brother has a f250 w 6.7, my dad has a denali w/6.2. I've towed with them all in the real world.

One thing to keep in mind is that the GVWR is what shows up on the registration, not what the vehicle(s) actually weigh.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/dlClasses.htm

A truck with a 12,000lb or 14,000lb GVWR and a trailer with a 14,000lb GVWR, used for non commercial purpose, would require a Class A driver's license. The GCWR is over 26,001 pounds and the towed unit exceeds 10,000 pounds.

A truck with a 10,000lb GVWR, for example SRW 3/4 or 1 ton, towing the same trailer would require a class C. The GCWR is under 26,001 pounds.

If you need it, the hardest part of getting a Class A is finding a DMV that administers Class A road test and getting one scheduled.

Some 1 tons go up to 14000 gvwr. If they are towing a 14k gvwr trailer that weighs over 10000 then what?
ie:I have a dodge 3500 with a gvwr of 13000lbs. If I'm towing my 14,000gvwr trailer and the total trailer weight is over 10,000lbs, what license do I need?

You missed the point. You stated that someone wasn't intelligent if towing 9,000 pounds with a 1/2 ton. I pointed out how the numbers don't line up for this line of reasoning. You completely ignored my comparison of weight carried over GVWR. Well, you somewhat alluded to GVWR in point 5 but ignored the point that a 1/2 ton towing 9K is technically "less loaded" that a 1 ton towing 15K- which no one bats an eye about. And what difference does it make if a 1/2 has the same rated tires as a 3/4 ton? Even with the factory P rated tires your tire load capacity is higher than the GVWR of a 1/2 ton making that a moot point. Not trying to turn my truck into a 3/4 ton, but the point that today's half tons are much more capable than the half tons of 20 years ago and are arguably superior to 3/4 tons of that era is a valid one. 20 years ago would you have called someone stupid for towing 9K with a 3/4 ton? I'd say not, most likely. So if today's 1/2 tons are just as capable as those, why would you make that claim now?

Edit:

I'll also point out the the manufacturers towing and loading guides claim the highest capabilities for the LIGHTEST trucks- stripped down regular cabs. Not only are they lighter, but they are also shorter wheelbase, both of which negatively affect towing performance. So, I agree that, all other things being equal, a longer, heavier truck will be more stable- wonder why the manufacturers don't see it that way???

Something I don't know, and I question about the integrity of the modern half tons is the transmissions rear ends etc. Sure they make a boat load more power than trucks from 20 years ago did, but how do the new transmissions compare to the old heavy duty auto and standards of 20 years ago? I have no clue, just a thought.

To me the 1/2 tons have always been marketed more toward the go fast crowd, not the people who use them day in and out.

Also 20+ years ago the speed limit was probably 55-60 mph.

Well when the heaviest thing you will be towing is a boat 95% of the time there isn't much need for anything over 1/2ton, lighter vehicles getting better gas mileage for the most part so unless you plan on towing a 5th wheel or heavier, there really isn't much need for a big truck

I'm not a professional CMV compliance person and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, so this is internet advice that's worth as much as you paid for it.

13,000lb tow vehicle GVWR + 14,000lb trailer GVWR = 27,000 GCWR and the towed unit has a GVWR in excess of 10,000lbs, would require a Class A if used for non commercial purposes. If you have an agricultural exemption and are using it for business purposes within 150 miles of your farm, you would need a class B. If you're using it for commercial purposes you would need the appropriate regulatory licensing and a Class A CDL.

The best advice is to go to your local DMV and get the most up to date information in writing.

You are still comparing apples to oranges

I`m talking about comparing your 1/2 ton and a 9000 trailer to a 3/4 ton to the same 9000lb trailer...same hitch, factory specs. Which one does does it with more ease...


No I`m saying that if you are going to tow something for any extended period of time, that close to your max tow limit, It would be smarter to tow with a 3/4 ton because its well within its towing capacity and less likely to do unnecessary damage(wear and tear) to the truck.





Think about this... the term ``half ton`` used to mean that its payload capacity was a 1000lbs.
New trucks now have 2000lb capacity or even more with a 1/2 ton.
IT just means trucks have gotten bigger/ heavier duty, and we`ve kept the same namesake. That`s why its not fair to compare the 2.
Also, you can`t go out and buy a NEW 20 yr old 3/4ton, at least not easily, so it seems reasonable to talk about comparing vehicles of the same yr.




They use math like you, the truck can tow x amount of lbs, take away some weight and it can magically tow more, even though you and I know the heavier truck is more stable, the mathmatitions at Truckland have to find a way to make bigger numbers and keep lawsuits in check

You specifically stated: "If you bought a 1/2 ton truck to tow 9000lbs any distance(even if the manufacturer says it's ok)you aren't that smart." I would agree that if I was going to use a truck day in and day out to haul 9K, a 3/4 ton would be a better choice. However, the bulk of my driving is unloaded. But you said "any distance". My F150 EB performed GREAT on my 2 long distance hauls from Ohio to here with large TT's in tow. I could also make valid points that a 1 ton would be even more stable than the 3/4 you recommend. But wait, an F450 would be even better. But wait, a ___________would be even better. Where does it end? So, while I did make some upgrades to make towing more enjoyable- very common for the 3/4 and 1 ton guys to do this too, I might add, I find that the 1/2 ton is more suited to my daily driving and towing needs. I can't remember that far back about the speed limits, but I did find this- though I won't vouch for it's accuracy:

In 1987, the speed limit was increased to 65 mph on rural interstate highways if the population was 50,000 or less. In 1988, the speed limit was increased to 65 mph on highways built to interstate standards. In 1986, there were 3,568 persons killed. In 1987, that number decreased to 3,261. In 1988, the number increased to 3,395.
The speed limit increased to 70 mph in December of 1995. In 1995, there were 3,172 persons killed. In 1996, the number increased to 3,738.

Wonder how much the death rates have to do with 1) drinking and driving crackdown and 2) improved vehicle safety equipment.

Not really sure why that was brought up here anyway.

Furthermore- you made a blanket statement saying that anyone towing 9K with a half ton was stupid. You didn't make any allowance for stability improvements or using a really good hitch. I'm sorry, but you don't get to throw out a statement like that and then control the conversation. You wanna argue "factory spec"? Fine. Then tell someone that has the F150 with the MaxTow and HD Payload packages that their truck can't handle a 9K trailer regularly. What it boils down to is that you made an opinionated statement that you can't factually back up and you wanna cry "apples vs. oranges" when someone logically proves that a 1/2 ton is just as capable of towing 9K as a SRW 1 ton is of towing 15K- which is quite common and never frowned upon. On top of that, now you are trying to simply state that towing 9K is easier with a 3/4 ton. So what? Towing 2K is, too. Is someone an idiot now for not towing their 16' boat to the lake with at least a 3/4 ton????

What do you mean you don't know why that was brought up? I was posting when the speed limits changed in TX because of what you said here. The death rate was just included and I didn't feel like editing it out.

I was referring to the death rates, seemed irrelevant

I stand corrected, yes I said any distance and I meant to say any long distance for an extended period of time. I also only used 9000 lbs because you or someone else used that number earlier, but I should have and intended the 9000 lbs to represent any number that is in the upper range of the manufacturers maximum. Let's say in the upper 25% of the towing range I wouldn't consider, in my opinion, a long term answer...

Besides that total deaths are irrelevant (unless you're one of them):

• In 1995 there were 176,628,000 licensed drivers traveling 2,423,000,000 miles. The fatality rate was 1.73 per 100,000,000 traveled and 15.91 per 100,000 population
• In 1996 there were 179,539,000 licensed drivers traveling 2,484,000,000 miles. The fatality rate was 1.69 per 100,000,000 miles traveled and 15.86 per 100,000 population
• In 2012 there were 211,815,000 licensed drivers traveling 2,969,000,000 miles. The fatality rate was 1.13 per 100,000,000 miles traveled and 1.11 per 100,000 population.

More miles driven by more people with fewer fatalities, and some of the roads are 80+ miles per hour now.

Now, back to the topic at hand...

Ride in the back seat of a Tundra CrewMax from Glen Rose to Terlingua, then go out and buy a Tundra from Freeman Toyota and don't look back. The Tundra is a great rig. I switched from a die hard Ford truck owner (started with a 1970 F100, Then F150s in the following year models 90, '95, '03, and an '08).

Have a 2011 Tundra Crewmax, just turned 119k miles. Not one issue, best truck I have ever owned. Have owned all 3 majors at one point. Average 14.5 mpg pulling my 99 Cobra 190S.

+1, sounds like EcoBoost is reinforcing FoundOnRoadDead

After looking through this thread, pretty much.

You wish.

Some folks just don't know and are too scared to find out. Too ingrained in their own beliefs and aren't man enough to face their friends if they make a change.

Today's country sucks anyway.

ScottCook, I don't care - I had just seen that poster yesterday and thought it was rather funny so I found it again and shared it. The vehicle brand argument is like ice cream flavor preferences - there will never be just one for all. You certainly read a lot into a funny poster being shared. If I were ingrained as you seem to think, I don't know how I managed to develop and deploy new technology that profoundly changed our world over the last 35 years.

My vehicle of choice is a Suburban because it is the largest SUV now in volume production. Because of that in particular, I'd never consider a Toyota as they don't build anything that might be suitable for my needs. Anecdotally, I've logged over 200k miles on two Suburbans and have yet to have a single failure and no service other than that scheduled for wear and fluid change. For that, my 3rd one is scheduled to be built in a few days.

I will note that a recent year model Tundra (forget which one) had some serious crash test failure issues. That kind of thing WILL cause me to look elsewhere when better results are common. Notwithstanding my choices, everyone else is free to buy and use whatever makes them happy!

What truck is that? I'd love to see a half ton tow 11k lbs up and down hills, and I'd really love to see a half ton try to stop 11k lbs.

If we're going off tow rating, just add 3,500 lbs to each and tell me which vehicle you'll take. I'm asking about how much it can safely, practically tow.

You remember that time you saw a Tundra on the side of the road broke down? Me either...

Fair enough, if I had my way I'd be driving a 2015 diesel Excursion.

Regarding the Tundra crash data, can you cite a source? Everything since 2008 gets greens across the board from the IIHS.

Incidentally, the '08 F150 I traded off for the Tundra had 230,000+ on it with no mechanical issues.

Been covered.

Alright...

So would you rather have:

Truck A:
Tows up to 9,500 lbs
0-60 in 8 seconds
27 mpg highway

Truck B:
Tows up to 11,000 lbs
0-60 in 6 seconds
19 mpg highway

The Ram ecodiesel 4x4 crew has a max towing capacity of 7,700lbs vs 11,700lbs for the ecoboost 4x4 crew. Apples to oranges.

If you go with the 3.73 rear end in the ecoboost, you can get that towing (I can't even find one locally that has that option). But you then give up all of your mpg gains. Which defeats the whole purpose...?

If you want a truck that gets 15 mpg empty and tows 11k lbs, get a 3/4 ton. Same price as the ecoboost with stronger components and better resale.

If your looking at the power and where it is available in the rpm band, the ecoboost will dominate the 3/4 ton gas trucks. Stepping up to a diesel is a big step expense wise.

They aren't that hard to find...I own one. Found after searching for a day or 2.

Actually, the 2015 models with the highest tow rating are 3.55 trucks. Considering the 3.5L EB drivetrain didn't change at all, we can assume that Ford came to the same conclusion I did- you don't really need lower than 3.55 gears in an EB because of the torque curve and 6 speed tranny.

I rarely if ever see any truck broken down on the side of the road unless it's 20+ years old. Considering the Tundra didn't come out until 2000 and there are vastly fewer of them than the Big 3, it's not surprising we don't see them broken down on the side of the road that often.

I used to drive down I-35 into work every day. For a span I kept count of what cars I saw broke down on the road. The numbers were almost straight up even amongst vehicle makers. I didn't just count trucks though, it was all cars seen.

Another thing not taken into consideration with broke down cars is, the owner. Some people just don't take care of their stuff.

Sure seems to me that Toyota has more than their fare share of recalls.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/...faulty-airbags/

They say that 10% of the fisherman catch 90% of the fish. The same can be said about people and car trouble.

I believe this!

Yeah you wish, GM's been dominating for years.

My sig is redchevy and I like some of what ford dodge and Toyota are doing, I don't care who is first on race day! Im not going to spend 40K on a truck just because it has a name on it Im gonna put in my time do my research and find out what is the best option for me. The best option for the guy who tows a 14' aluminum boat isn't the same as the guy who has a 9k lb travel trailer. Some people don't get it.... the square peg doesn't fit in the round hole.

Yes but a square peg will fit a square hole which is why I just bought a GM with a 6.2 and it pulls my 9000 lb. trailer flawlessly, but I mainly bought it because of the reliability I've had with GM my whole life. That being said I like what Ford has been doing lately, but Ford is the only other truck I would consider.

I had and AFM engine. I didn't have a lick of trouble out of it. I know a lot of people did. I have my suspicions why they did and I didn't and at times I worked mine pretty darn hard. Its worried me enough that I likely wont buy another.

Maybe you worry to much. My Silverado I bought new is about to roll 300,000 and the only part that has failed under the hood is an alternator at about 260,000. I tow with it every weekend and it still has the original trans fluid in it.

Yours isn't an AFM motor is it? What year?

05 for mine. Guy I work with has an 09 with 200,000 and zero repairs.

GM had AFM in 05? Didn't realize it had been around that long in pickups, but maybe so.

Not till 2007. And I think even up till 2011 when I got the one I had you could get a 5.3 without AFM, but it came with the 4 speed auto instead of the 6.

No it doesn't. But it's always gotten 20 mpg on the highway. Good enough for me.

My mom has an "06 5.3 in a Tahoe. Its got 200k on it now all its had is a water pump, dead battery once, and oil/filter changes and a belt. Its a solid motor, wouldn't hesitate to buy one of them for a sec.

I've got a 2004 5.3L with 150k miles and zero engine repairs. Had to replace a power window motor awhile back. And had to clean the throttle body once awhile back. Didn't realize that. The pre-2015 towing specs were quite different. You had to have the 4.11 or something like that to get any tow capacity over 9,500.

Uhmmm....no.

http://www.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/towingguides/14FLRV&TT_F150_Sep11.pdf

And based on a lot of reading, here is what you get moving from the standard tow package to HD Maxtow: Upgraded shocks, upgraded leaf springs, E rated tires, upgraded bumper, tow mirrors, trailer brake controller and usually a 3.73 rear end. And a lot of those you end up buying a-la-carte on a non-hd maxtow.

Not with the EB. 2011-2014 EB SCrew trucks typically had mid 9K ratings with 3.55 gears. 3.73 and 4.10 trucks had the 11K+ ratings. 2015 trucks with exact same drivetrain have 12K plus ratings with 3.55 gears. Having towed mid 9K loads thousands of miles with my 3.55 truck, I can assure you that lower than 3.55 gears are absolutely unnecessary for towing heavy with the EB. Ford finally came to their senses. I think they likely made the transition to the higher gears over time because the general public expects a gas truck to NEED low gears to tow.

Same drivetrain, same rear end, same cooling system, same brakes....makes you wonder how they come up with the numbers.

For 2015 aren't they using a new rating system?

I thought it was supposed to lower tow ratings though?

Yes. First year of compliance and the Ford F150 tow ratings went up. Could be the weight difference though.


http://www.autoblog.com/2014/09/29/2015-ford-f150-best-payload-towing-rating/

Yeah, was bugging the heck out of me I couldn't remember SAE.