Truck Trend Homepage
Truck Trend
Ford F 150 XLT Chevy Silverado LT Ram 1500 SLT Front End

Comparison: Ford F-150 XLT vs Chevy Silverado LT vs Ram 1500 SLT

 

Ford F 150 XLT Chevy Silverado LT Ram 1500 SLT Side Rear Mirror
The runs took place on Highway 68, where the local law enforcement occasionally halted traffic so the test drivers could make clean runs up the course. On the day of the test, each truck had an identically equipped 9000-pound trailer hitched to their bumpers. Ambient temperatures hovered around 85 degrees with very little wind, so extreme heat did not come into play. In the 0-60 mph runs against the F-150, the Chevy did slightly better than the Ram off the line, but neither could keep up with the Ford. We're guessing the fact that the Ford's transmission has a lower first gear and axle ratio than the Chevy, and more gears than the Dodge, had a lot to do with that outcome. Next came 4-mile runs up the 5-, 6-, and sometimes 7-percent grade climb.

Ford F 150 XLT Chevy Silverado LT Ram 1500 SLT Front End
The Ford's first runs up the hill against the Chevy started out pretty close; however, as the rpms climbed in the EcoBoost, the F-150 pulled away with authority from the first mile marker, almost making it impossible to see the GM pickup in the Ford's rearview mirror. The Ram was a different story. As expected (after seeing how the Ford and Ram measured up against each other in the 0-60 test) the Ford had an easy time taking the early lead. But once the Ram got into second gear, it pulled hard, not losing any ground for the remainder of the climb. It finished behind the F-150 by a touch under 4 seconds over the three-minute course.

Ford F 150 XLT Chevy Silverado LT Ram 1500 SLT Ecoboost Number
In the end, the tests seemed convincing, although we would have liked to see all the same ring and pinions, and some extreme heat on the hillclimb would have been nice. As to why the Chevy didn't have 3.73:1 axles, test coordinators said GM products in that body style with that engine cannot be ordered with the 3.73:1 or higher axle ratios. But we know those gears fit in those axles, and to keep this test as apples-to-apples as possible, it would have been better to have a more representative axle gear. We have a pretty good idea why GM might decide not to offer that axle ratio and, as you might have guessed, it has to do with CAFÉ numbers. 3.08:1 or 3.23:1 or 3.42:1 gears will do much better in EPA MPG testing than (numerically) higher gears.

2011 Ram 1500 Front Three Quarters Static
2011 Ram 1500 Rear Three Quarters Static
2011 Ram 1500 Side Passenger

Prev | 1  | 2  | 3  | Next

RELATED PHOTOS

Ford F 150 XLT Chevy Silverado LT Ram 1500 SLT Camera Crew 2011 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Crew Cab Front View
Ford F 150 XLT Chevy Silverado LT Ram 1500 SLT Camera Crew 2 2011 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Crew Cab Rear View
Recent Articles

More Related Content

Community Comments


leff82  (12/14/10 12:29 PM)

I agree it would have been nice to see the Silverado with the 3.73 rear end, however true to what the coordinater said I looked it up on the Chevy website and you can't get a 5.3L Crew Cab 4x4 with anything lower than a 3.42 rear end.  Even with the 3.73's the torque deficit is pretty big between the 5.3 and the Ecoboost.  I'm more impressed with the fact that it held it's own against the Hemi in the Ram, even though the tranny gearing was a little different and 5 spd vs 6 spd the Ram had a lower 3.92 rear advantage. It would have been nice to see the Tundra 5.7 and heck even the Titan 5.6 in the mix too.

paul42  (12/16/10 01:02 PM)

I find the comparison to the Chevy 5.3 interesting, but I'd also like to see a comparison to the GM 6.2L.  I think these two motors are likely to be cross shopped as much or more than the 5.3 and eco-boost.

I do have to say I'm a bit surprised that the eco-boost times were not better vs the Hemi considering its torque curve and extra gear.

lasvegascolonel  (12/18/10 12:09 PM)

Even without a more advantageous axle for the Chevy, the EcoBoost certainly was impressive.  I would only add three things:  One, how will a V6 pulling a heavy vehicle hold up long-term over a V8?  Two,do you want to pay $5K more for the Ford over the Chevy to get a bit more performance and a bit better gas mileage? Three, if ride comfort is of paramount to you and your family, the Ram still rides the best with its superior suspension.

svtklondike67  (01/05/11 07:09 PM)

I guess Chevy and Dodge didn't have any comparable V6 to run in the test?

vFeralLynXv  (01/27/11 04:49 PM)

@paul42

Well the reason they tested the 5.3L is because the the EcoBoost is not the most powerfull engine option in the F-150, as they do have a 6.2L as well.

Anyway, It was a good test, and all 3 are great trucks

I'd love to know how they got that much torque out of that EcoBoost, wow.

  (03/26/11 06:18 AM)

Well lets see about this test. They picked a 5.3 chevy and based on the hp and torgue don't even compare to the f150. lol  Second why not compare it to the chevy 6.2 and the Tundra, duh it would not have won that battle is why.  All about advertising but i do appluad Ford on making the ecoboost. I think its a great truck way better than the previous models which they should have included inthe test also.

Truck Trend  (03/28/11 06:49 AM)

:::facePlam::

cadet58j  (10/09/11 05:33 AM)

The 5.0 liter in the F150 out performs the competition's similar sized v8s in hp and torque too.  The Hemi to the ecoboost?  Should have been the 4.7 to the 3.5 ecoboost or 5.0. Ford's standard 3.7 v6 would stand up to the Dodge 4.7.
And then there's the Ford 6.2l.  I'd say Ford blows the competition away.

cadet58j  (10/09/11 05:50 AM)

"Second why not compare it to the chevy 6.2 and the Tundra, duh it would not have won the battle is why."
That wouldn't have been a fair comparison is why. To judge engines in performance the fair way is to compare engine displacement/size. Ford does more with less...that's the point being made.  
For a fair comparison of the engines you mentioned we need to bring out the Ford 6.2, which has more hp and torque than the Chevy 6.2 or Tundra...duh. Additionally, the Ford 5.0 would have competed here and it is positioned under the ecoboost in Fords engine line up.

NoelGzz  (04/07/12 11:08 AM)

ford sucks...I don't know how they do these tests, but the ones ive tried are too slow and sloppy...chevy rules

Post a Comment (Must Be Registered)



*Please enter your username

*Please enter your password

*Please enter your comments
User Name
Not Registered? Signup Here
Password
Comment
   (1024 character limit)
Trade In Value