- Edmunds.com
-
Price Promise℠Get upfront pricing
Get Instant Pricing with Edmunds Price Promise℠
1Look for "Special Offers" on a specific car
2Get your upfront, locked-in price from the dealer
3Go to the dealership to buy your car with no haggle
-
Make
Tell us what Make you're looking for.
-
Model
Oops! First tell us what Make you're interested in.
-
Year
Oops! First tell us what Make you're interested in.
-
Car
Type -
Used
Cars -
Car
Research - Live Help
ADVERTISEMENT
2013 Ram 1500 vs. Ford F-150 V6 Pickup Truck Comparison Test
- Full Review
- Pricing & Specs
- Road Tests
- Comparison (1)
- Long-Term
ADVERTISEMENT
Comparing the Base V6 Engines of Two Popular Pickups
Published: 05/20/2013 - by Dan Edmunds, Director of Vehicle Testing
- Comparison Test
- 2013 Ram 1500 Specs and Performance
- 2013 Ford F-150 Specs and Performance
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) |
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 |
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.
| Vehicle | |
|---|---|
| Model year | 2013 |
| Make | Ram |
| Model | 1500 |
| Year Make Model | 2013 Ram 1500 SLT 4dr Quad Cab SB (3.6L 6cyl 8A) |
| Vehicle Type | RWD 4dr 6-passenger Crew Cab Pickup |
| Base MSRP | $32,770 |
| Options on test vehicle | Big Horn Equipment Group ($1,495 -- includes 115-volt auxiliary power outlet; 20-by-8.0-inch aluminum chrome-clad wheels with P275/60R20 all-season tires; 5.0-inch touchscreen display; Big Horn badge; bright billet grille; Class IV receiver hitch; cloth 40/20/40 premium bench seat; electroluminescent instrumentation cluster; foglamps; front center seat cushion storage; full size temporary use spare tire; GPS antenna input; leather-wrapped steering wheel; locking lug nuts; power eight-way driver seat; power lumbar adjust; rearview mirror with microphone; steering-wheel-mounted audio controls; Uconnect 5.0 AM/FM/Bluetooth; Uconnect voice command with Bluetooth), Luxury Group ($560 -- includes auto-dimming exterior mirrors; exterior mirrors with supplemental signals; exterior mirrors with courtesy lamps; glovebox lamp; leather-wrapped steering wheel; overhead console with universal garage door opener; power heated exterior mirrors with power fold-away; rear dome lamp with on/off switch; interior rearview auto-dimming mirror with microphone; steering-wheel-mounted audio controls; sun visors with illuminated vanity mirrors; underhood lamp; electroluminescent instrument cluster), Wheel-to-Wheel Side Steps ($600), Spray-In Bedliner ($475), Anti-Spin Differential Rear Axle ($325), Trailer Brake Control ($230), 3.55 Rear Axle Ratio ($50), 17-Inch Aluminum Chrome-Clad Wheels (-$500 credit for deleting 20-inch Big Horn package wheels) |
| As-tested MSRP | $36,005 |
| Assembly location | Warren, Michigan |
| North American parts content (%) | 67 |
| Drivetrain | |
|---|---|
| Configuration | Longitudinal, front-engine, rear-wheel drive |
| Engine type | Naturally aspirated, direct-injected V6, flex-fuel |
| Displacement (cc/cu-in) | 3,604/220 |
| Block/head material | Aluminum/aluminum |
| Valvetrain | DOHC, four valves per cylinder, variable intake + exhaust-valve timing |
| Compression ratio (x:1) | 10.2 |
| Fuel cutoff/rev limiter (rpm) | 6,400 |
| Horsepower (hp @ rpm) | 305 @ 6,400 |
| Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) | 269 @ 4,175 |
| Fuel type | Flex fuel (E85 ethanol blend or 87-octane unleaded gasoline) |
| Transmission type | Eight-speed automatic with dash-mounted rotary shifter, steering-mounted manual selector buttons and tow/haul mode switch |
| Transmission ratios (x:1) | I = 4.71; II = 3.14; III = 2.10; IV = 1.67; V = 1.29; VI = 1.00; VII = 0.84; VIII = 0.67 |
| Final-drive ratio (x:1) | 3.55 |
| Differential(s) | Rear limited slip |
| Chassis | |
|---|---|
| Suspension, front | Independent double wishbones, coil springs, twin-tube dampers, stabilizer bar |
| Suspension, rear | Live axle, coil springs, monotube dampers, four trailing links, panhard rod, stabilizer bar |
| Steering type | Electric-assist, speed-proportional, rack-and-pinion steering |
| Steering ratio (x:1) | 17.9 |
| Tire make and model | Goodyear Wrangler SR-A |
| Tire type | All-season M+S |
| Tire size | P265/70R17 113R |
| Wheel size | 17-by-7 inches front and rear |
| Wheel material | Chrome-clad aluminum alloy |
| Brakes, front | 13.2-by-1.1-inch ventilated cast-iron discs with two-piston sliding calipers |
| Brakes, rear | 13.8-by-0.9-inch cast-iron discs with single-piston sliding calipers |
| Track Test Results | |
|---|---|
| Acceleration, 0-30 mph (sec.) | 2.8 |
| 0-45 mph (sec.) | 4.9 |
| 0-60 mph (sec.) | 7.8 |
| 0-75 mph (sec.) | 11.5 |
| 1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) | 15.7 @ 87.0 |
| 0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) | 7.4 |
| 0-30 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 2.8 |
| 0-45 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 4.9 |
| 0-60 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 7.9 |
| 0-75 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 11.7 |
| 1/4-mile, trac ON (sec. @ mph) | 15.8 @ 86.3 |
| 0-60, trac ON with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) | 7.6 |
| Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) | 32 |
| 60-0 mph (ft.) | 128 |
| Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) | 55.6 |
| Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) ESC ON | 55.3 |
| Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) | 0.71 |
| Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) ESC ON | 0.70 |
| Sound level @ idle (dB) | 38.6 |
| @ Full throttle (dB) | 76.9 |
| @ 70 mph cruise (dB) | 64.6 |
| Engine speed @ 70 mph (rpm) | 1,775 |
| Test Driver Ratings & Comments | |
|---|---|
| Acceleration comments | Rather nondescript engine and exhaust note, but this V6 gets the job done nearly as well as a V8. Gear spacing is just right, with each upshift dropping it back into the power. Nearly seamless upshifts, in fact. |
| Braking comments | Straight and steady with moderate dive. Consistent pack of average stops, with the shortest coming on the second of five stops. Medium pedal effort with decent feedback. |
| Handling comments | Slalom: Nice steering wheel and predictable steering reaction. It is a little slow to transfer weight side-to-side, but nothing I'd describe as unusual. Eventually, it runs out of front tire and room to go any faster through the course. Skidpad: Good steering feel and feedback (for a truck). Good balance until, once again, the front tires begin to howl and the ESC closes throttle. |
| Testing Conditions | |
|---|---|
| Test date | 5/8/2013 |
| Elevation (ft.) | 1,121 |
| Temperature (°F) | 70 |
| Relative humidity (%) | 43 |
| Barometric pressure (in. Hg) | 28.80 |
| Wind (mph, direction) | 12, headwind |
| Odometer (mi.) | 3,714 |
| Fuel used for test | 87-octane gasoline |
| As-tested tire pressures, f/r (psi) | 40/40 |
| Fuel Consumption | |
|---|---|
| EPA fuel economy (mpg) | 17 city/25 highway/20 combined |
| Edmunds observed (mpg) | 18.5 |
| Fuel tank capacity (U.S. gal.) | 26.0 |
| Driving range (mi.) | 650 |
| Dimensions & Capacities | |
|---|---|
| Curb weight, mfr. claim (lbs.) | 4,928 |
| Curb weight, as tested (lbs.) | 5,050 |
| Weight distribution, as tested, f/r (%) | 55/45 |
| Length (in.) | 229.0 |
| Width (in.) | 79.4 |
| Height (in.) | 77.2 |
| Wheelbase (in.) | 140.5 |
| Track, front (in.) | 68.0 |
| Track, rear (in.) | 67.5 |
| Turning circle (ft.) | 45.1 |
| Legroom, front (in.) | 41.0 |
| Legroom, rear (in.) | 34.7 |
| Headroom, front (in.) | 41.0 |
| Headroom, rear (in.) | 39.7 |
| Shoulder room, front (in.) | 66.0 |
| Shoulder room, rear (in.) | 65.7 |
| Seating capacity | 6 |
| Step-in height, measured (in.) | 22.5 |
| Cargo loading height, measured (in.) | 35.2 |
| Bed dimensions, L x W x H (in.) | 76.3-by-51-by-20.1 |
| GVWR (lbs.) | 6,700 |
| GCWR (lbs.) | 11,200 |
| Payload, mfr. max claim (lbs.) | 1,770 |
| Tow capacity, mfr. claim (lbs.) | 6,100 |
| Ground clearance (in.) | 8.7 |
| Approach angle (degrees) | 15.7 |
| Departure angle (degrees) | 25.1 |
| Breakover angle (degrees) | 19.2 |
| Warranty | |
|---|---|
| Bumper-to-bumper | 3 years/36,000 miles |
| Powertrain | 5 years/100,000 miles |
| Corrosion | 5 years/100,000 miles |
| Roadside assistance | 5 years/100,000 miles |
| Vehicle | |
|---|---|
| Model year | 2013 |
| Make | Ford |
| Model | F-150 |
| Year Make Model | 2013 Ford F-150 XLT 4dr SuperCab 6.5 ft. SB (3.7L 6cyl 6A) |
| Vehicle Type | RWD 4dr 6-passenger Extended Cab Pickup |
| Base MSRP | $32,925 |
| Options on test vehicle | XLT Chrome Package ($1,595 -- includes chrome grille, 18-inch chrome-clad aluminum wheels, P265/60R18 white letter all-season tires, 5-inch chrome tubular running boards, chrome door handles with black bezels, chrome exhaust tip); Equipment Group 301A ($1,310 -- includes XLT Convenience Package with power heated sideview mirrors, auto-dimming rearview mirror, six-way power driver seat, power-adjustable pedals, Sync with MyFord voice activated communications and entertainment system, Sync Applink, 4.2-inch LCD productivity screen in instrument cluster, 4.2-inch LCD audio and climate control screen in center stack, leather-wrapped steering wheel with five-way steering wheel mounted controls; Trailer Tow Package (Class IV trailer hitch receiver, seven-pin wiring harness, upgraded radiator, auxiliary transmission oil cooler and SelectShift automatic transmission; SiriusXM satellite radio); Spray-In Bedliner ($475); 3.73 Limited-Slip Axle Ratio ($400); Ruby Red Metallic Paint ($395); Cloth Bucket Seats With Center Console ($300); Trailer Brake Controller ($230); Equipment Group 301A Discount (-$500); XLT Chrome Package Discount (-$750) |
| As-tested MSRP | $36,380 |
| Assembly location | Dearborn, Michigan |
| Drivetrain | |
|---|---|
| Configuration | Longitudinal, front-engine, rear-wheel drive |
| Engine type | Naturally aspirated, port-injected V6, flex-fuel |
| Displacement (cc/cu-in) | 3,731/228 |
| Block/head material | Aluminum/aluminum |
| Valvetrain | DOHC, four valves per cylinder, variable intake + exhaust-valve timing |
| Compression ratio (x:1) | 10.5 |
| Horsepower (hp @ rpm) | 302 @ 6,500 |
| Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) | 278 @ 4,000 |
| Fuel type | Flex fuel (E85 ethanol blend or 87-octane unleaded) |
| Transmission type | Six-speed automatic, column shifter with manual shift buttons and Tow/Haul mode |
| Transmission ratios (x:1) | I = 4.17; II = 2.34; III = 1.52; IV = 1.14; V = 0.86; VI = 0.69 |
| Final-drive ratio (x:1) | 3.73 |
| Differential(s) | Rear limited slip |
| Chassis | |
|---|---|
| Suspension, front | Independent double wishbones with high-mount upper arm, coil springs, twin-tube dampers, stabilizer bar |
| Suspension, rear | Live axle, leaf springs, twin-tube dampers |
| Steering type | Electric-assist, speed-proportional, rack-and-pinion steering |
| Steering ratio (x:1) | 20.0 |
| Tire make and model | Michelin LTX A/S |
| Tire type | All-season M+S |
| Tire size | P265/60R18 109T |
| Wheel size | 18 inches |
| Wheel material | Chrome-clad aluminum alloy |
| Brakes, front | 13.8-by-1.3-inch ventilated cast-iron discs with two-piston sliding calipers |
| Brakes, rear | 13.7-by-1-inch ventilated cast-iron discs with single-piston sliding calipers |
| Track Test Results | |
|---|---|
| Acceleration, 0-30 mph (sec.) | 3.1 |
| 0-45 mph (sec.) | 5.4 |
| 0-60 mph (sec.) | 8.2 |
| 0-75 mph (sec.) | 12.1 |
| 1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) | 16.1 @ 86.7 |
| 0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) | 7.8 |
| 0-30 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 3.2 |
| 0-45 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 5.5 |
| 0-60 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 8.3 |
| 0-75 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 12.3 |
| 1/4-mile, trac ON (sec. @ mph) | 16.1 @ 86.6 |
| 0-60, trac ON with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) | 7.9 |
| Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) | 33 |
| 60-0 mph (ft.) | 130 |
| Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) | 57.1 |
| Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) ESC ON | 57.1 |
| Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) | 0.72 |
| Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) ESC ON | 0.71 |
| Sound level @ idle (dB) | 41.0 |
| @ Full throttle (dB) | 76.5 |
| @ 70 mph cruise (dB) | 65.1 |
| Engine speed @ 70 mph (rpm) | 2,000 |
| Test Driver Ratings & Comments | |
|---|---|
| Acceleration comments | Sounds and feels like a Mustang V6 in a pickup truck -- and that's a good thing in this drag strip environment. Plenty of power and a nice raspy exhaust note. It stumbles off the line and gear spacing could be tighter, but this is where V8s used to be not that long ago. |
| Braking comments | Straight and steady, with the shortest stop occurring on the fourth of six runs. Medium pedal effort with decent feedback. Pretty raucous ABS with chunky pulses. |
| Handling comments | Slalom: Light steering effort, relatively quick steering reaction and stiff rear springs make the F-150 feel like a pretty sharp handler. Long wheelbase means being patient while the rear wheels pass the cone. Good balance, but not so good as to avoid understeer by the end of the course. Skid pad: Light steering and not much lateral support from the seat. Some sort of suspension windup/release gets the F-150 into an undulating/bounce sort of motion all the way around the circle. Eventually, the throttle auto-closes to snub understeer. |
| Testing Conditions | |
|---|---|
| Test date | 5/8/2013 |
| Elevation (ft.) | 1,121 |
| Temperature (°F) | 70 |
| Relative humidity (%) | 43 |
| Barometric pressure (in. Hg) | 28.80 |
| Wind (mph, direction) | 9.3 headwind |
| Odometer (mi.) | 4,852 |
| Fuel used for test | 87-octane gasoline |
| As-tested tire pressures, f/r (psi) | 35/35 |
| Fuel Consumption | |
|---|---|
| EPA fuel economy (mpg) | 17 city/23 highway/19 combined |
| Edmunds observed (mpg) | 16.8 |
| Fuel tank capacity (U.S. gal.) | 26.0 |
| Driving range (mi.) | 598 |
| Dimensions & Capacities | |
|---|---|
| Curb weight, mfr. claim (lbs.) | 5,043 |
| Curb weight, as tested (lbs.) | 5,165 |
| Weight distribution, as tested, f/r (%) | 55/45 |
| Length (in.) | 231.9 |
| Width (in.) | 79.2 |
| Height (in.) | 75.2 |
| Wheelbase (in.) | 144.5 |
| Track, front (in.) | 67.0 |
| Track, rear (in.) | 67.0 |
| Turning circle (ft.) | 47.0 |
| Legroom, front (in.) | 41.4 |
| Legroom, rear (in.) | 33.3 |
| Headroom, front (in.) | 41.0 |
| Headroom, rear (in.) | 39.6 |
| Shoulder room, front (in.) | 65.9 |
| Shoulder room, rear (in.) | 65.7 |
| Seating capacity | 5 |
| Step-in height, measured (in.) | 21.8 |
| Cargo loading height, measured (in.) | 32.8 |
| Bed dimensions, L x W x H (in.) | 78.8-by-50-by-22.4 |
| GVWR (lbs.) | 6,700 |
| GCWR (lbs.) | 11,700 |
| Payload, mfr. max claim (lbs.) | 1,600 |
| Tow capacity, mfr. claim (lbs.) | 6,400 |
| Ground clearance (in.) | 8.6 |
| Approach angle (degrees) | 23.1 |
| Departure angle (degrees) | 23.7 |
| Warranty | |
|---|---|
| Bumper-to-bumper | 3 years/36,000 miles |
| Powertrain | 5 years/60,000 miles |
| Corrosion | 5 years/Unlimited miles |
| Roadside assistance | 5 years/60,000 miles |
ADVERTISEMENT
The moral here is never buys a Ford truck, they believe function follow form.
I've towed and hauled with a few Ford trucks, and none of them were impressive. The most disappointing was a new V-10 E-Series 16' box van rental. It wasn't even half full, and the heaviest item packed inside was a big, old, wooden chest. I had to floor it on several occasions in an attempt to maintain 60-65 climbing a mountainous highway. And talk about noisy! OMG! I had to check under the hood as best as I could to make sure it was really a V-10, and it was. Back in '96, we owned a new Chevy 16' box van with a Vortec 350, and that well out performed this new V-10-powered Ford, even when we had it packed to the gills.
redgeminipa, Ford's V10 is definitely a gutless lump. I've driven two examples of it and I could not believe how sluggish it is. No bottom end, no upper end, no nothing. Uses a lot of fuel though. And it is tremendously loud, so I suppose the fuel is being put to SOME use. Ford's new diesel is a very impressive powerplant, however.
Nice article, Dan, it is good to see the base powertrains put to a rigorous test.
FWIW, the Dodge V10 was no champ either. A good friend of mine had a '96 3/4 ton 4x4 with the V10 that he sold a couple months back with about 240k miles on it. I'll give it marks for durability, but in terms of speed it was inferior to the Vortec 350 in my sister's '99 Suburban with 204k miles on it, which is still going strong. In this test I think that the Dodge would have benefited from a lower axle ratio. a 3.73 or so would have let it hold the grade in 3rd all the way and with the 8 speed they could easily adjust 4-8th to maintain the excellent highway economy.
Don't know about the trucks (though I like the Dodge), but that Airstream sure is sweet!
I love mopars v6 motor its a star of better things ahead
A friend of mine just purchased the Ford 150 with the 5.0 and 4x4 for this same price. I definitely would want the 5.0 if I could get my hands on it!
The moral here is the newer the better. These days you can´t go wrong with a D3 truck. I guess that the new chevy will beat the ram and when ford brings a new f150 it will be the best and so on. @redgeminipa the E-series vans are just cheap transportation nothing else they are older than me and probably you. I drive one every single day for work and it is bulletproof it has over 300k in the clock without any major problem tough you are riding a dinosaur that can´t be compare to a newer pickup.
You know, for a website that claims to be consumer-oriented and presents themselves as able to show consumers the lowest price available, a review that fails to mention the fact that Ford XLT's currently have up to $8500 in incentives available doesn't say much for the credibility of the conclusions. I'm sure Ram has several thousand in rebates as well. In fact, these incentives in some cases make the more powerful versions of these trucks cheaper than the V6's, as does the "express " package on Rams. (20's and Hemi included)
Good comparison, keep it up. Look forward to seeing the GM V6 tested against these two.
I'm glad to see Dodge's V6 wrung out but this comparison completely misses the point. Ford's 3.7, as every other V6 truck until now, is a fleet special. Try to find one that actually looks like the one you tested, in the real world they're all white XLs with bench seats. It has no retail presence and it was never intended to. Dodge wants the V6 Ram to be a consumer product and they're putting that motor in $30,000 4WD crew cabs. 10 different ways of saying the powertrain is better than a stripper work truck isn't telling us anything. Where's mileage and drivability against the V8s they're trying to sell this as an alternative to?
Is it time for D3 to drop small diesels into these trucks?
Ram Wins!! Clearly the winner. Can't wait to see a Hemi/EcoBoost comparo!
This review is b/s. The guy has likely never used a real truck in real life. Here is what you need to review in order... 1/ GVWR. Trucks are used to move things. The greater the GVWR, the more you can move. Ford gvwr is 8200# max. Ram gvwr is 6000# max. This is a huge difference. With Ford F150 you can mount a decent 2000# camper. You cannot do this on the RAM1500. F150 has far greater towing abilities, too. 2/ Engine Torque. Torque is what gets you going under load, and keeps you going uphill when rpm starts dropping, not HP. Ford torque is 420#. Ram is only 260#. This is a huge difference. 3/ Transmission. Under heavy loads, you want fewer gear changes, not more. More changes means more work and tear on the tranny. 4/ Limited slip rear axle. Under load and slippery conditions, you want traction to both wheels. The question is how much torque the diffy can take, and Ford exceeds RAM. 5/ Brakes. Under load, any tech that can reduce the frequency you need to apply the brakes (and thus reduce fading) gives you that much more braking power and security. Ford does, RAM does not. 6/ Suspension. Under heavy load, any suspension will reduce vehicle control. This is why the big semi rigs often have no suspension on the trailer. So far, the best suspension for heavy loads is axle with leafs. Coils are good for comfort, but not loads: at least not yet, given the current tech put into trucks. Much more R&D is needed by all truck mfgrs to engineer proper independent suspensions for heavy loads. 7/ Seats. The reviewer has ignored the most important item in the cab; the seats. Bucket seats with lumbar are best for long hauls. Even so, American mfgrs are the poorest among all mfgrs. The truck seats engineered by Benz and Volvo are vastly superior for safety and comfort, and have air suspensions. Again, this is an item American mfgrs need to improve enormously, and quickly. Ford offers buckets with lumbar, which is far better than RAM. RAM may be good for a truck used as a car. But Ford gives you a truck to be used as a truck. The specs prove this.
input this URL: ( http://www.mkmalls.com/ ) you can find many cheap and high stuff Believe you will love it. WE ACCEPT CREDIT CARD /WESTERN UNION PAYMENT YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!! http://www.mkmalls.com/Michael-Kors-Handbags-n2447/
Research Models
New Car Resources
Most Researched Vehicles
Most Researched Vehicles
Best Cars List
Top 14 Sedans With the Smallest Turning Circles for 2014
Vote Now: Best Cars and Trucks To Be Thankful for
Deals of the Month — Cars
Deals of the Month — Trucks, Minivans and SUVs
More Best Cars Lists
More on the 2013 1500
More on 2013 Ram 1500
Automotive Website”
Help | About Us | Contact Us | Careers | Affiliate Program | Dealer Center | Privacy Statement | Visitor Agreement | Membership Agreement
Your Ad Choices | Site Map | Glossary | Mobile | Developers
Follow Edmunds
© Edmunds.com, Inc.
† Edmunds.com received the highest numerical score in the proprietary J.D. Power 2014 Third-Party Automotive Website Evaluation Study℠. Results based on responses from 3,381 responses, measuring 14 companies and measures third-party automotive website usefulness among new and used vehicle shoppers. Proprietary study results are based on experiences and perceptions of owners surveyed from January 2014. Your experiences may vary. Visit jdpower.com.