Topic: Pickuptrucks.com tests V6 Full Sized Pickups.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

How does a 11.3 second 0-60 time and 18.56 @ 76.45mph sound? How about the same numbers while pulling a 2300lb trailer with "only" a V6?

To me the V8s are looking kind of redundant.

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2010/11/2010-v-6-work-truck-shootout-introduction.html

[bridgecity]

To me the V8s are looking kind of redundant.

The Fords V6 numbers are good, however the Chev and Dodge are lacking.  Not good V6 options if you ask me, especially if you plan on towing any significant load. 

[rrocket]

Now let's get some more diesel options (maybe even 4 bangers) and make gas engines redundant in pick-up trucks.

[G0dspd]

The Fords V6 numbers are good, however the Chev and Dodge are lacking.  Not good V6 options if you ask me, especially if you plan on towing any significant load. 

It's not surprising that Ford won.  The GMC and Ram's engines are reliable antiques.  I guess there waiting for their next generation to introduce the new V6s.  Money must also be an issue.

Now let's get some more diesel options (maybe even 4 bangers) and make gas engines redundant in pick-up trucks.

Ford and GM had "light duty" diesels in development for their 1/2 tons but they pulled the plug at the 11th hour (price of diesel and emissions).  I'm sure that they're on a shelf somewhere ready to go.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

The Tundra (which was damaged in transit, so couldn't be tested) gets the 4.0L and Ram gets the Pentastar this year. GM does have to step up their 6.

[PJungnitsch]

It's an interesting test, but 2WD? and single cab? such a tiny part of the market nowadays. Our fleet is all base extended cab 4X4's, and I think that is pretty standard for company trucks that the regular joes drive.

[rrocket]

It's an interesting test, but 2WD? and single cab? such a tiny part of the market nowadays. Our fleet is all base extended cab 4X4's, and I think that is pretty standard for company trucks that the regular joes drive.

It depends.  I see many here in the construction industry driving the exact trucks they tested.

[EV Dan]

I had a V6 150 (I think 4.2) and I couldn't call it gutless, unless it was loaded with a box full of triple mix or other . So the new one is good choice as long as the truck is bought for show, as most around here are. Still, why wouldn't you spring for the recently built 5.0 32 valve from the 'Stang for only $1000 more?

P.S. any official fuel economy figure yet?

[bridgecity]

It's an interesting test, but 2WD? and single cab? such a tiny part of the market nowadays. Our fleet is all base extended cab 4X4's, and I think that is pretty standard for company trucks that the regular joes drive.

It depends.  I see many here in the construction industry driving the exact trucks they tested.

Ya, a lot around town here also.  Mostly electricians and plumbing companies. 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

It's an interesting test, but 2WD? and single cab? such a tiny part of the market nowadays. Our fleet is all base extended cab 4X4's, and I think that is pretty standard for company trucks that the regular joes drive.

Depends on the region and industry. There are still a lot of contractors buying 2wd cheapo models for their fleets.

FWIW the base F150 with the 6 is available with 4wd unlike some of the competitors (Toyota and Dodge).

Funny how things change. I had an 1986 F150 4x4 work truck with the 150hp 5.0L and thought it adequate. The base V6 in this is over 300hp and people wonder why one wouldn't spring for the V8. For $2k you can also get the 365hp EcoBoost.

Base price is just under $20k for the 2wd version.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I had a V6 150 (I think 4.2) and I couldn't call it gutless, unless it was loaded with a box full of triple mix or other . So the new one is good choice as long as the truck is bought for show, as most around here are. Still, why wouldn't you spring for the recently built 5.0 32 valve from the 'Stang for only $1000 more?

P.S. any official fuel economy figure yet?

Nothing on the EPA site yet.

From the test:

In the unloaded test, the Ford F-150, with its six gears and two overdrives, had the easiest time accelerating through traffic while shifting into a lower gear quicker than the other four-speeds (in the Ram and Sierra). As a result, the F-150 (weighing in at 4,760 pounds) completed our road course with an average of 21.4 mpg [11L/100km] over the loop. In second place was the Ram (weighing 4,562 pounds), averaging 19.0 mpg [12.4L/100km]; the lightest vehicle, the Sierra (at 4,486 pounds), averaged the worst at 18.3 mpg [13L/100km].

[airbalancer]

A friend use a base GMC V6 at work and has a 4 door GMC V8 at home
The V8 gets better mileage since it will deactive some of the cylinders on the hiway

[CatsEye68]

The Tundra (which was damaged in transit, so couldn't be tested) gets the 4.0L

Somebody must have leaned on the tailgate.

[rrocket]

The Tundra (which was damaged in transit, so couldn't be tested) gets the 4.0L

Somebody must have leaned on the tailgate.

The Obama Admin crashed a gov't car into it.......

[neil]

It's an interesting test, but 2WD? and single cab? such a tiny part of the market nowadays. Our fleet is all base extended cab 4X4's, and I think that is pretty standard for company trucks that the regular joes drive.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.  This test is comparing 8% or less of the Peecup truck market.  Government is about the only entity buying reg cab 2wd's these days.  Resale value alone is incentive to step up to extended cab 4x4's, cost of ownership is about the same either way.

[mmret]

How have they managed to get 195hp/260torque from 4.3 liter of displacement? Is this 1995?

[hoss]

I really disagree about the Reg. Cab pick ups.  If you are truly using a truck for work (not just cruising around) a RC Long Bend makes a great deal of sense.  I have owned over 10 PU over the years, and only one short box, and I hated it, nothing fit.  If you get a Long bed with a extended cab the truck gets really long, I once had a Ford F350 crew cab with a long bed great truck, but it didn't fit anywhere.  The new trucks (I have a Tundra) have a lot of room behind the seat, unless you are carrying a crew the RC works better.

The whole truck market has switched to non working vehicals.  Try and get a vinyl floor in a new truck, (who would buy carpet in a work truck), as for motors everyone thinks they need huge engines.  The best truck I ever owned (maybe the Tundra will be better who knows) was a Ford F 150 with a straight 6 and a 5 speed stick.  Resonble MPG, tons of tourque and you could kill the motor.

[airbalancer]

I would never want a reg cap for work.
No place to put drawings, winter /summer/rain gear
I went for reg cap 8 ft box, to an extend cab 6-6ft and it works for me

[hoss]

My Tundra has a huge amount of room behind the seats, almost as much as the old style Ford Super Cabs.  I can put 20 litre pails back there.  The major reason I would not even look at the GM trucks was that they have no rear room in a RC.

[aaronk]

How have they managed to get 195hp/260torque from 4.3 liter of displacement? Is this 1995?

lol, comment made me laugh - this is a total Jeremy Clarkson... "how do they manage to get so little power from such a big engine!?"