2013 Ram 1500 vs. Ford F-150 V6 Pickup Truck Comparison Test

Let's face it. The V6 truck motor has never been taken seriously, and for good reason. A few years back, the measly 215 horsepower put out by the Dodge Ram 1500's 3.7-liter example was the strongest of the big three V6 offerings. Any theoretical fuel economy benefits these engines offered was wasted as they struggled to keep their trucks moving.

As recently as last year, the Ram's 3.7-liter V6, 4.7-liter V8 and 5.7-liter Hemi V8 shared identical EPA ratings. What, then, was the point of the V6 engine?

It came down to economics mostly. The V6 models appealed to frugal fleet buyers who were more concerned with the bottom line than bottom-end torque. But now that fuel economy has become a higher priority, V6s are making a comeback.

New Thinking
Ford may have dropped its V6 in 2009, but it came right back with an all-new six-cylinder in 2011. It was largely overshadowed by the revolutionary 3.5-liter EcoBoost twin-turbo V6 and fan-favorite 5.0-liter V8, but the V6's impressive 302 horsepower and 278 pound-feet of torque made it a solid option.

A modern six-speed automatic was standard, and rated fuel economy was 17 city/23 highway and 19 mpg combined. And for the first time the base V6 was available with the SuperCab (4x2, 4x4) or Super Crew (4x2).

Ram recently followed suit and brought the 3.6-liter Pentastar V6 with 305 hp and 269 lb-ft to the heart of the 2013 Ram 1500 lineup. Then it went Ford one better by backing the new truck with an all-new eight-speed automatic that helps the V6 deliver 17 city/25 highway and 20 mpg combined. Wrapped in volume-selling SLT trim, it comes standard across the board, up to and including the Crew Cab 4x4.

GM has upgraded its Silverado and Sierra pickups with a new V6 for 2014, but neither truck was available in time for this test.

Meet the Contestants
Our 2013 Ram 1500 and 2013 Ford F-150 V6 test trucks are eerily similar. Both are two-wheel drive with the cab-and-a-half configuration and a 6-foot-something midsize bed.

The Ram 1500 SLT Quad Cab 4x2 starts at $31,775, onto which was added $1,495 for the Big Horn Equipment Group. That typically includes 20-inch wheels and tires, but our truck stuck with 17-inch wheels and tires so $500 was credited back.

Other options include the Luxury Group ($560), spray-in bedliner ($475) and chrome side steps ($600). For maximum towing performance, it also had a 3.55 limited-slip rear end ($375) and an integrated trailer brake controller ($230). Total damage: $36,005.

Ford charges $31,930 for an F-150 SuperCab 4x2. The XLT Convenience package adds another $1,310 while the XLT Chrome package and its 18-inch wheels is $1,595. Package discounts reduced their bottom line impact by $1,295.

Other options included $400 for a 3.73 limited-slip axle, $230 for a trailer brake controller, $475 for a spray-in bedliner and $300 for bucket seats and a front console. Add in $395 for Ruby Red Metallic paint and it comes to $36,380. Ignore the pretty paint and our Ford would be $20 cheaper than the Ram.

Making the Grade
But there is one more participant, at least for a portion of this test: a 23-foot two-axle Airstream travel trailer. Specifically, it's the International Signature 23 FB floor plan, and with bedding, cookware, hitch hardware and full water tanks it weighs 5,765 pounds. Makes for a stylish chunk of ballast for our tow test up the Jacumba grade at the southwestern tip of California.

Speaking of towing, in 2011 Ford initially claimed the 3.7-liter V6 SuperCab 4x2 could tow up to 5,800 pounds and assigned it a GCWR (Gross Combined Weight Rating) of 11,100 pounds. Then the 2013 Ram 1500 V6 Quad Cab 4x2 came out with a 6,100-pound maximum tow rating and 11,200-pound GCWR.

After that, something odd happened. Ford reexamined its internal test results and decided the 3.7-liter V6 SuperCab 4x2 could tow up to 6,400 pounds at a GCWR of 11,700 pounds: a 600-pound increase despite zero physical changes. According to a source, the introduction of the 2013 Ram V6 had nothing to do with this.

With those ratings in mind we ballasted our Airstream to 5,765 pounds, a number that brought the Ram precisely to 100 percent of its 11,200-pound GCWR. Why not 6,100 pounds, the Quad Cab's max rating?

Options pushed the Ram's measured curb weight to 5,050 pounds, some 122 more than the official figure. And there were two occupants aboard that weighed a combined 385 pounds instead of the solo 150-pound flyweight assumed by max tow rating calculus. The story is similar with the 5,165-pound Ford, and with the same trailer weight it climbed the hill at 96.7 percent of its 11,700-pound GCWR.

	2013 Ram 1500 SLT Quad Cab	2013 Ford F-150 XLT SuperCab
*Advertised Max Towing Capacity:	6,100	6,400
*GCWR:	11,200	11,700
Advertised Curb Weight:	4,928	5,043
(a) Measured Curb Weight:	5,050	5,165
(b) Occupant and Luggage Weight:	385	385
Available Towing Capacity (GCWR - a - b):	5,765	6,150
Trailer weight:	5,765	5,765 (run 1)
		6,065 (run 2)
As-Tested GCWR Percentage:	100%	96.7% (run 1)
		99.3% (run 2)

Note: *Ram requires optional 3.55 rear axle, Ford requires optional 3.73 rear axle

2nd Place: 2013 Ford F-150 SuperCab V6 4x2
We'd like to say this was close. In some respects it was, but the decision was unanimous.

In regular driving, the 2013 F-150 SuperCab could use some polish. The 3.7-liter engine is strong enough, and it scoots the F-150 to 60 mph in a respectable 8.2 seconds (7.8 seconds with a 1-foot rollout as on a drag strip). But the cabin doesn't keep enough of the sound outside, even at part throttle with no significant load. Idle vibration at rest is fairly noticeable.

And then there's the tendency toward gear hunting, which occurs on moderate grades at light load and on curvy uphill roads that involve some throttle work. This transmission loves to upshift, but even with six gears there are gaps that this V6's torque curve can't always bridge.

It's more of an issue with a trailer latched behind. The Ford charges up Jacumba Grade in 11 minutes and 57 seconds at an average speed of 58.7 mph, never once needing the prodding of full throttle to do so in Tow/Haul mode. But the process is painful, as the transmission dithers between 2nd and 3rd gears well over a dozen times in the dozen minutes.

Each 3-2 downshift comes with an rpm jump of 2,000 rpm to something approaching 5,700 revs, which makes us wish for earplugs. The subsequent upshift and the relative calm that follows doesn't last. There's insufficient 3rd-gear oomph to maintain pace, so the cycle repeats...and repeats.

And then we made a second run with 300 extra pounds to account for its claimed towing advantage over the Ram, landing just 85 pounds shy of its revised GCWR. This time the transmission temperature gauge nudged toward the yellow mark. At mile 9 an over-temp warning dominated the driver information screen, accompanied by an automatic power cut. The F-150 slowed itself to 55 mph in 2nd gear for the remainder of the pull.

Jacumba is no cakewalk downhill, either. Speed builds too easily and the desert crosswinds don't mix with the twisting descent. The first is no problem for the Ford, with its excellent grade logic in Tow/Haul mode. It seems to quickly learn the speed we want from the first couple brake applications and maintains the appropriate gear to hold it steady.

But the curves and crosswinds are another matter. The gently wagging Airstream sets the Ford's hindquarters into a subtle but nonetheless unsettling swimming motion. This is utterly absent in the Ram, doubtless because its coil-spring rear suspension enjoys the lateral control of a Panhard bar. The Ford's relative lack of on-center steering feel doesn't help much here either.

Unloaded and away from Jacumba, the F-150's ride is not overly stiff. But the asphalt roads on our Edmunds test loop (and elsewhere) set off a persistent low-level shake and jiggle that originates behind the cab, a feeling we rarely sense in the Ram. It seems tied to the unsprung mass or the "stiction" of the leaf spring rear suspension. The lack of a B-pillar that results from the SuperCab's archaic reverse-hinged rear doors probably isn't helping.

Inside, the XLT trim is handsome enough, but it's looking a bit tired. The plastics look like, well, plastic, while the buttons and controls appear a decade old. And there are way too many look-alike buttons on its overly busy center stack. We dug the data screens on the instrument panel when they appeared 4 years ago, but now they pale in comparison to what the 2013 Ram 1500 is packing.

None of this makes the Ford a bad truck. The V6 engine gets the job done well enough, but after the challenging at-the-limit tow test portion of this contest we're not buying into Ford's uprated tow rating and GCWR. What is clear is the venerable Ford F-150 is perhaps a bit too venerable. If Ford owners objectively cross-shopped the 2013 Ram right now they might switch brands.

1st Place: 2013 Ram 1500 Quad Cab V6 4x2
Fire up the engine and there's much less idle vibration from the Ram's Pentastar V6. Primary gear selections are made with a rotary knob on the dash, which is odd at first and takes getting used to. Once underway the Pentastar and its eight-speed transmission are buttery-smooth.

Gearchanges are nearly imperceptible, owing to more closely spaced gears and smaller rpm jumps. Hunting is pretty much absent for the same reasons. And the Ram's cabin isolation is substantially more effective. The Pentastar's engine sounds are refined yet remote, more outside than inside.

At the track, the Ram 1500 gets to 60 mph in 7.8 seconds (7.4 seconds with rollout), some 0.4 second quicker than the F-150. It stops in 128 feet from the same speed, which puts it in the same company as many midsize cars. Is should be said that the Ford's 130-foot stop isn't bad for a truck, either.

On Jacumba, the Ram took 12 seconds longer to reach the summit at an average speed of 57.8 mph. But that mostly boiled down to speedometer calibration. We used the big digital speedo to gauge our target speed but the data later showed we'd unknowingly been running 1 mph slower.

A third of the way up, the Ram's eight-speed dropped from 4th into 3rd and seemed happy to stay there. Eventually, at the steepest point near the top, the Ram's speed began to sag to 57 mph, then 56 mph, then 55 mph. It couldn't downshift because 2nd gear is quite short in this eight-speed gearbox. The engine would have redlined.

So we waited a few more seconds until the speed ebbed to 51 mph, which triggered the first and only kickdown a half-mile shy of the summit. The speed came storming back, but the engine sound was nowhere near as raucous as the Ford had been while doing the 2-3-2 tango. Overall, the Ram's uphill run was far less frenetic, far more pleasant.

Downhill, the wagging movement of the trailer barely registered. But we did have to work the brake pedal a bit more. Even in Tow/Haul mode, the Ram slowly gained speed whenever our foot was off the brake, leading to more frequent dabs of the pedal.

Unladen, the Ram's ride is calmer. It's not so much a question of stiffness as it is one of poise and control. In places where the Ford made us think the asphalt was laid down by the lowest bidder, the steadier Ram hardly noticed. We've said it before and we'll say it again: The competition should follow Ram's lead and adopt a multilink, coil spring rear suspension.

When all was said and done the Ram averaged 17.9 mpg when the Airstream was absent, versus 16.8 for the F-150. On our 116-mile evaluation loop the Ram averaged 22.4 mpg to the Ford's 19.9 mpg.

The Ram's eight-speed transmission looms large here, too. The extra gears make it more efficient in more situations. And it only takes a 3.55 rear axle ratio to achieve the same level of towing performance the Ford produces with its 3.73 rear end. That fact pays off every single non-towing mile.

Even when it comes to features, the Ram impresses. Its locking tailgate is tied into the central locking remote, which means the tailgate is locked whenever the doors are. A key is needed to lock the Ford's tailgate by hand each time, which means we'll never remember. A small point, perhaps, but as easy as tailgates are to steal, it's huge.

The cab features a power sliding rear window. The rear doors are, well, doors with normal forward hinges and a cab-stiffening B-pillar. There's a 115-volt outlet on the dash. And the center stack controls are handsome and simple to master, especially the 5-inch Uconnect touchscreen, which quietly out-synchs Sync.

And even though we didn't opt for buckets and a console, they're unnecessary in the Ram. The outboard seats are sculpted like buckets and the fold-down center seatback opens like a console, with a USB socket and aux jack waiting inside. Our Ford's optional dedicated console contains no such hookups.

	2013 Ram 1500 SLT Quad Cab	2013 Ford F-150 XLT SuperCab
Price as tested:	$36,005	$36,380
0-60 (sec.):	7.8	8.2
Quarter-mile:	15.7 @ 87.0	16.1 @ 86.7
60-0 braking (ft.):	128	130
Slalom (mph):	55.6	57.1
Skid pad (g):	0.71	0.72
Observed fuel economy, no tow:	18.5	16.8
Observed fuel economy, test loop:	22.4	19.9
0-60 with trailer (sec.):	20.0	19.9
Quarter-mile with trailer:	22.1 @ 64.2	22.6 @ 65.2
Time to climb (sec.):	*729	717
Average speed (mph):	*57.8	58.7
Minimum speed:	50.6	54.5

*Speedometer off by 1 mph, so driver drove more slowly than intended

A Clear Choice
In the end both the 2013 Ford F-150 XLT and 2013 Ram 1500 SLT proved that the modern interpretation of the base V6 truck engine is for real, even when towing a decent-size trailer. There's no longer any reason to assume a V6 is only good for white trucks with black bumpers and some kind of logo on the door.

And it shouldn't be too surprising that the Ford F-150 V6 trailed in this test. It's clearly an older product, and Ram has made many aggressive and positive moves in recent years. Its new eight-speed transmission with closely spaced gears is particularly well-suited to the torque characteristics of this sort of small-displacement engine.

It's also clear that tow ratings are a mess. On the Jacumba Grade the F-150's original tow capacity and GCWR seems more believable. It was never 300 pounds better. It's worth noting that neither company uses the new standardized SAE tow rating procedure to back up its claims for these trucks. Our tow test results are a good reminder why they should.

They're not the only ones, of course, as GM refuses to do the same with its brand-new 2014 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra. Both will offer a new 4.3-liter direct-injected base V6 engine that makes a little less power (285 hp) and a little more torque (305 lb-ft) than the engines tested here.

GM says its new trucks can tow more than the Ford or Ram, but the key words are "GM says." Sounds like yet another head-to-head test is in order. Ram versus Silverado, anyone?

The manufacturers provided Edmunds these vehicles for the purposes of evaluation.