Gender: Male
Age: 22
State: Colorado
Country: US
Signup Date: 11/12/2008
|
|
|
|
October 20, 2009 - Tuesday
 |
Category: Automotive
Truckin’ through the apocalypse: Under ominous economic skies, we compare the best big-iron pickups Detroit has ever offered.
BY TONY SWAN, PHOTOGRAPHY BY JEFFREY G. RUSSELL
March 2009

Proposition: No vehicle offers a broader range of capabilities than a full-size pickup truck
with four doors. Seating for five. Covered cargo space for stuff you
want to keep locked up and dry. Open cargo space for really big stuff
and stuff you don’t want inside there with you, to wit: dead deer, live
badgers, bags of organic fertilizer. Big load capacity. Big towing
capability. Unless you want to shell out the substantial
premium you’d pay for a hybrid, which might get you a few extra mpg,
that’s the price of big-truck capabilities. Fuel and air equal power.
Big loads require big power. Some members of Congress seem to
believe they can legislate big mpg gains in big pickups without serious
performance penalties. But like the California Air Resources Board and
its attempt to mandate zero-emissions vehicles, they’re out of touch with technical realities.

In
any case, reductions in fuel consumption occur automatically, as a
function of price. When gasoline prices hovered around $4 per gallon,
pickup inventories reached overflow levels on dealer lots around the
country, a glut exacerbated by the implosion of the U.S. housing market
and subsequent general economic malaise. There’s a direct correlation
between the health of the housing industry and pickup sales, a
correlation that Ford’s economic tea-leaf readers see as dismal for at least the next two years. Others see this forecast as optimistic. Meanwhile,
domestic truckmakers have been tiptoeing along the edge of a financial
abyss, and corporate execs are muttering the Twenty-third Psalm. The
shadows are deep, the valley is more like a chasm, and at this writing,
the only ray of light is gasoline prices that have dropped
precipitously from their summer highs to well below $2 per gallon. Actually,
there are some other bright spots in the gloom. These are provided by
the trucks themselves, which are stronger, tougher, and more refined.
In particular, we’re talking about pickups with good ol’ Yankee names: Chevrolet Silverado, Dodge Ram, and Ford F-150, the subjects of this comparison test. Some
of you may protest that this is no longer an all-American show—that the
big-pickup game includes a couple of teams from Japan. Before you grab
your BlackBerry to thumb us an indignant “whasamatta with you?,” let’s
review our selection procedure. The champ from the most recent comparo
is seeded in automatically. Beyond that, we include new or
significantly updated entries that have come along since.

The last showdown, “ Pay Dirt,” appeared in our April 2007 issue. The then-new Silverado emerged as the winner, trailed by the Nissan Titan, the Toyota Tundra,
the Ram, and the F-150. Since then, the Ram and the F-150 have had
major redesigns, while the Tundra and the Titan stand pat for 2009. To
escape the onset of wintry weather—not to mention the gloom that hovers
around Detroit these days—we sought a warmer clime for our test. And
what better destination for truckin’ than Texas? According to a
statistical snapshot by the Vehicle Titles and Registration section of
the Texas Department of Transportation, on October 13, 2008, there were
5,540,227 pickups registered in Texas, almost 27 percent of vehicle
registrations statewide. We collected our trucks—all of them
fancy (and pricey) editions—in Dallas and headed for the central Texas
Hill Country west of Austin, setting up headquarters in Fredericksburg
(population: 10,432), an attractive town founded by German immigrants
in the mid-1800s. In addition to friendly eateries and an unhurried
pace, it has the attraction of being close to Luckenbach (permanent
population: 1), glorified in a song by the late Waylon Jennings and
home to frequent country-music festivals. While in the
Luckenbach neighborhood, we visited the ranch of Mary Beth Richardson,
who keeps a trio of Texas longhorns in her front yard. Thanks to
Richardson’s bribes (feed), the longhorns cooperated and refrained from
puncturing either trucks or test crew. Photo ops wrapped, we saddled up
to see which truck would be tops. 
2009 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 LTZ 4X4 Crew Cab - Comparison Tests
Third place: Truckin’ through the apocalypse.
The traits that helped propel the Silverado
to the head of the pack last time around—solid structure, brisk
acceleration, smooth on-road ride quality—haven’t diminished with age.
The GMT900 chassis, with its hydroformed frame rails, is still a solid
foundation, giving the Chevy an edge in pavement handling. One member
of our test crew went so far as to call it “tossable,” which is a
stretch, but the Silverado did smoke its opponents in the lane-change
exercise, in part because the stability-control systems in the Ram and F-150 can’t be turned off and in part because the Chevy weighed 300 pounds less than the next-heaviest Ram. Light
is not a word that comes to mind in connection with a 5540-pound
vehicle, but it was a tangible distinction in favor of the Chevy and
gave it the second-quickest 0-to-60 time—7.6 seconds—even though this
Silverado was equipped with a 5.3-liter V-8 with cylinder deactivation
(315 horsepower, 338 pound-feet of torque). In 2007, Chevy showed up
with a 367-hp, 6.0-liter V-8 (375 pound-feet). Going with the lesser
5.3 cost a couple of 10ths in the sprints. But the Chevy had the
highest towing capacity of the group (9500 pounds) and the best
observed fuel economy, at 18 mpg. The Chevy’s
logbook also contained praise for GM’s new six-speed automatic
transmission and column shifter. The center-console shifters in the
Dodge and the Ford may look a little more macho, but they take up space
that could be devoted to stowage.

Brake feel, on pavement and
off, was another strong suit, although this was mitigated by the
longest stopping distance in a group of long stoppers: 70 to 0 mph in
202 feet, likely a result of the tire choice. Still, the Chevy’s
dynamic report card was generally pretty good. So why the slide from
first to third? In a word, details. The most obvious shortcoming
is rear-seat space. You can get three adult males buckled in back
there, but it’s much more confining than in the Dodge or the Ford,
particularly for the guy in the middle. There’s a shortage of rear
cabin stowage, too—no door pockets, no under-floor bins—and the front
door pockets were the smallest in this trio, as well as the flimsiest.
Not good for guys who like to stash tools in the cab. We were
also underwhelmed with the Chevy’s interior materials. Although the
instrument-panel design was clean and uncluttered, there were visible
mold lines, and the quality of some of the plastics looked a little
cheap for a truck in this price category.

The Chevy’s seats
drew the lowest scores for comfort and support, and a venomous rattle
manifested itself in the rear of the cabin during our dirt-road driving. Speaking
again of price, you’ll note that the Chevy had the lowest base and
as-tested prices in this group, but even so, both were pretty steep,
and the leather interior that goes with the LTZ package seems a little
out of step for a truck that’s actually going to get its hands dirty on
the job. You could get the same capabilities, minus 4WD, for much
less—$32,600 for an LT model with cloth seats, a trailering package,
and the 5.3-liter V-8; $34,480 for the 6.0-liter V-8 and max towing
package. You’d go home with a truck that would serve you well. But there are a couple of others here that might serve even better. 
2009 Ford F-150 King Ranch 4X4 SuperCrew - Comparison Tests
Second place: Truckin’ through the apocalypse.
The 2009 F-150
doesn’t look markedly different from the 2008 model. If you’re not
looking at it front-on, it doesn’t look different at all. Do not be
deceived. There’s some serious structure beneath the new body. The
F-150’s full-length fully boxed frame rails are bridge-girder stout,
and the body and box-support crossmembers are welded in place. Ford’s
basic goal in the F-150 makeover was increased capabilities—bigger
payloads and more towing capacity. Make that biggest payloads and most
towing capacity among half-ton pickups. The F-150’s 3030-pound max
payload is tops in this class, and the same goes for max towing: a
resounding 11,300 pounds. That’s a lot of turnips, dude. However, the
ratings for our crew-cab F-150 with a 3.31:1 axle ratio (1320 pounds of
payload and 8200 pounds towing) drop it to second behind the Chevy. Like
its opponents, our F-150 test truck was far from basic. You could get
these same capabilities in a rear-drive cloth-upholstered F-150 SuperCrew XLT
for $34,855. This one, with the King Ranch package, carried a base
price of $42,960 and an as-tested price of $46,065. The King Ranch
interior, highlighted by beautifully stitched saddle-tan leather seats,
is absolutely gorgeous and drew top grades for comfort, but it’s not
the sort of interior an owner would likely subject to the abuse that
goes with ranching or construction work.

Similarly, that short
cargo bed—at 67 inches, the shortest in a short trio—doesn’t lend
itself to the four-by-eight-foot building material standard. Your
sheets of drywall will sit between the wheel wells, but even with the
tailgate down, you’ll have a bit of overhang. We weren’t hauling
drywall down there in Texas, of course. And in any case, the Ford’s
interior was pure pleasure to occupy. Space behind the front seats was
best in our test, ditto door-pocket storage, and the F-150 design team
created a flat rear floor, albeit at the expense of under-floor stowage. Opinions
varied regarding the Ford’s dirt-road dynamics, but all crew members
found it to be a smooth operator on pavement, with the best steering
feel, as well as quiet operation, recording the lowest sound-level
numbers at idle and freeway cruising speeds.

Based on the
foregoing, the new F-150 might look like best in class. But this omits
one critical factor from the equation: power. Ford
has improved output of its 5.4-liter, 24-valve V-8—310 horsepower
versus 300—and a slick new six-speed automatic replaces the previous
four-speed, adding more zip: 7.9 seconds to 60 mph versus 8.8 last time
around. This becomes more impressive when we consider increased curb
weight (at 5880 pounds, the test’s heaviest) and the tallest rear-end
ratio. Nevertheless, the Ford was the slowest in almost every
acceleration category, which calls into question those big work
ratings. Having towed a 7000-pound load behind this new truck, we were
impressed with its trailering stability but can only wonder how
deliberate towing would be with 11,300 pounds hitched up. There are other demerits. At 47 feet, the Ford’s turning circle is just behind the Chevy’s
in terms of parking-lot unhandiness. Brake-pedal feel is mushy, and the
stability system is overassertive. But power is the key limiting
factor. The 5.4 is Ford’s top light-duty truck engine—one of two F-150
V-8s (no V-6 until the EcoBoost comes along next year). In this
application, it’s rated for 14 mpg in the city and 18 on the highway—we
averaged just over 15. Not too impressive in a test that involved a lot
of highway driving. 
2009 Dodge Ram 1500 Laramie 4X4 Crew Cab - Comparison Tests
First place: Truckin’ through the apocalypse.
Dodge
added “Bad, Bad Leroy Brown” swagger to its Ram act in 1994 and has
been amplifying it ever since, including the Ram’s makeover for 2009.
Research tells product planners that pickup buyers like chrome surfaces
on the fronts of their trucks. If that’s true, the latest Ram is likely
to seduce potential customers at first sight. There’s enough bright
stuff—chrome-plated plastic—on the front of this bad boy to make it
visible on Google Earth. This affinity for pickup brightwork is a
little mystifying in the Lone Star state, as just about every other
truck we encountered had a massive deer bumper covering its
grille—apparently Texas deer are particularly suicidal—although, to be
fair, some of those bumpers were chromed. Perhaps this sounds a little caustic? It’s not. We gave the Ram
top styling marks. There was some concern about how the two-tone paint
job would be perceived in Texas—perhaps a little fancy for cowboy
country—but we liked it, and the forward-canted grille is a welcome
change from decades of bows whose designs seem to have been inspired by
Great Lakes iron-ore freighters.

There are other design touches
that scored big. Although it was upstaged by Ford’s King Ranch
treatment, the Ram’s leather-lined Laramie interior is almost as
handsome and almost as roomy, rivaling the F-150 in terms of dashboard
design, general comfort, and fancy stitchery. The double-decked glove
box is the only useful glove box in the group, almost every small
storage nook in the cab has a rubber liner to damp out rattles, the
dashboard sports a 115-volt outlet, and though the rear cabin still has
a driveline tunnel down the middle, it also has a pair of fairly deep
under-floor storage wells and two storage bins under the seat. As in the Ford,
one of the Ram’s under-seat bins was preempted by a big amplifier. And
like all three trucks, this one could be acquired for much less money
without diluting its basic strengths—$33,890 for the basic rear-drive
SLT version, $37,285 for the four-wheel-drive Sport model. That’s a
long way from the $48,965 as-tested total for our gussied-up 4WD
Laramie test truck.

Back to design. A big plus was out back,
where Dodge has created covered storage—the Ram Boxes—in the cargo-bed
side rails. They measure 57 inches long by 10 inches wide, with a lot
of space under each cover. And there’s still enough width between the
rails for your four-by-eight sheet of whatever. The other big
deal here lies beneath the cargo bed. Although the Ram retains a
traditional live axle, it has forsaken traditional leaf springs for a
coil-spring setup. This has produced two effects: one positive, the
other not. Positive: Ride quality is distinctly superior to the Ram’s
rivals, particularly in the dirt. Negative: The coil-spring rear
suspension limits towing capacity to 8700 pounds max. Which do you
think our scoring prioritized, comfort or towing? Right, comfort.

Though the Dodge was only 40 pounds lighter than the F-150,
it was quicker than either of its rivals, as you’d expect with a 390-hp
Hemi under the hood and a 3.55:1 rear end. The downside of this, of
course, was the worst fuel economy, 14 mpg. Even so, the thrust of that
engine and the sounds that go with it are hard to resist. Add that to a
solid platform and innovative design, and you have a winner. Our Pat
Bedard went so far as to call it a “breakthrough truck.” He didn’t get
much argument.







3:50 AM
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|