Topic: Feature: 2011 Truck King Challenge

[Autos_Editor]

The Dodge Ram took the 2012 Truck King Challenge, where judges tow and haul to see what trucks can really work.

Read More...

[1967Oliver550]

I liked the ''real life testing'' of the 2012 Truck King challenge, but was quite surprised at the price spread of almost 21 grand between the most affordable and most expensive truck. Were they all comparably optioned? That amount will get you a really nice travel trailer... Was the Ford that much more nicer than the Toyota? Or are we tangled up in the various rebate to dealer/employee pricing puzzles recently brought in by most manufacturers? Keep up the good work.

[Ex-airbalancer]

I just a new Silverado this August
4x4 ltz extended cab, listed at over 49gs, i have been driving a pick up for 19 of the last 25 years
I have not tow anything in   about 8 years
I do have a cap on the truck , with the tail gate removed

no one could come close to the Chevy in price , it was at least 6gs cheaper then the Ford and 10 cheaper then the Ram when matching trucks with Same options

another factor for me was keeping the same cap, the cap is over 5gs, and it would only fit the Chevy without a lot of modification or buying new

also the Ram box was under 6ft, hard to carry  a 6 ft ladder inside

over the first 12,000 km, it avg about 15.5 l/ 100km mostly highway, my cap is higher then the cab of the truck with ladders on the rack

All the trucks are great today, if the price was the same and if the cap did not factor in , it would be a hard choice out there

I did not like the Transit, to short, and other vans were ruled out since I do not like the noise of the tools bouncing around

Jil, I love the heated, 10 way power seats in my truck

[wing]

I towed 10,000lbs about 100km or so, with the F-150 EcoBoost I tested and I loved the thing!

Surprised the Dodge won the challenge.  I think for me it would be between the Chevy and the Ford and based on price it looks like the Chevy would win.

But man oh man the fully loaded F-150 is NICE!

[nlm]

It would've been interesting to see the points on the last page for the 5 trucks.

I am bit puzzled over two quotes:
Ram conclusion:
"it uses rear coil springs rather than leaf springs. These provided the smoothest ride of all when hauling air, but the truck was very bouncy when towing. It didn’t adversely affect the handling, but it did wear thin after a while."

I'm not sure if its physics-lly possible for a bouncy rear-end to NOT affect handling under any condition (except perhaps ultra low speeds)? Can someone correct me here with an explanation if I am wrong?

F-150 conclusion:
"The transmission issue aside, our final consensus was that we probably wouldn’t buy the V6 if we intended to pull a 3,600-kg trailer on a regular basis – it did work hard on the steeper hills – but it would be a fine choice for someone who only occasionally put something that heavy on the hitch. When it was loaded with the shingles, the steering got a little vague."

The consensus was you probably wouldn't buy the V6 b/c it worked hard (and thus, relatively harder than the competitors?) on the steeper hills; by working hard you mean higher rpms? How much higher were the rpms? Isn't this to be expected for the turbos to be providing that boost? And if that was the case why would there be a concern with higher rpms: more noise?, harder on the engine and thus higher wear and tear and lower life span? Or is it jus something most truck drivers not used to and thus it represents an unknown risk?

Clearly I'm not understanding the hesitation for the ecoboost.

[SaskSpecV]

Was there any instumented testing performed while towing?  Not that I care about 0-100 km/h times with a full trailer, but it would be nice to compare the towing capabilities objectively, not just subjectively (and no, the mnfr "tow ratings" don't count as the methodology isn't standardized...yet)  Insideline did a similar truck comparison a while back where they towed up one of the California mountain passes, really working the trucks.  And they had instumented testing to back up their opinions (passing times, engine temps, braking distances as well I believe).  I realize this may be beyond the scope of the truck king challenge, but it sure looks like Jil and co. put a lot of work into the testing...so the results (even if opinion only) deserve more than such a short write-up.  Especially with truck sales continuing to be so strong in Canada.

[nlm]

The consensus was you probably wouldn't buy the V6 b/c it worked hard (and thus, relatively harder than the competitors?) on the steeper hills; by working hard you mean higher rpms? How much higher were the rpms? Isn't this to be expected for the turbos to be providing that boost? And if that was the case why would there be a concern with higher rpms: more noise?, harder on the engine and thus higher wear and tear and lower life span? Or is it jus something most truck drivers not used to and thus it represents an unknown risk?

Clearly I'm not understanding the hesitation for the ecoboost.

It would not be higher RPMs because the Ecoboost has a diesel like flat torque curve.  The torque peak is reached at something like 2500 RPM.

One has to distinguish knowledge, opinion and fact.  The scepticism over the Ecoboost (which I once shared) is opinion not really supported by fact.

Agreed. But the "it worked harder on steeps" conclusion by concensus(!) had to be based on something other than subjectivity, right?  Jill and Co., I'm looking at you.

[Cord]

The consensus was you probably wouldn't buy the V6 b/c it worked hard (and thus, relatively harder than the competitors?) on the steeper hills; by working hard you mean higher rpms? How much higher were the rpms? Isn't this to be expected for the turbos to be providing that boost? And if that was the case why would there be a concern with higher rpms: more noise?, harder on the engine and thus higher wear and tear and lower life span? Or is it jus something most truck drivers not used to and thus it represents an unknown risk?

Clearly I'm not understanding the hesitation for the ecoboost.

It would not be higher RPMs because the Ecoboost has a diesel like flat torque curve.  The torque peak is reached at something like 2500 RPM.

One has to distinguish knowledge, opinion and fact.  The scepticism over the Ecoboost (which I once shared) is opinion not really supported by fact.

Agreed. But the "it worked harder on steeps" conclusion by concensus(!) had to be based on something other than subjectivity, right?  Jill and Co., I'm looking at you.

The correct quote is "it worked hard...", not "harder."

[nlm]

The correct quote is "it worked hard...", not "harder."

Good catch. The inference is the same as 'harder' unless the other trucks also worked 'hard'. In any event why was the V6 deemed to be unacceptable relative to the V8s?

[aaronk]

It looks to me, from reading both the measurements and the subjective comments, that the Tundra is a pretty strong contender here, if not the champ. Coming at over $20K less than the Ford, one would question where that extra $20K can be found inside that truck versus the capable Toyota.

[Ex-airbalancer]

no one could come close to the Chevy in price , it was at least 6gs cheaper then the Ford and 10 cheaper then the Ram when matching trucks with Same options

I think it depends on trim level.  The XLT F-150 was less than the comparable Chevy.  Not as nice as the LTZ, but there seemed to be a huge price jump to get all the luxury stuff.

I did try to price the same truck, and did get round 16gs off the Chevy

[bridgecity]

It looks to me, from reading both the measurements and the subjective comments, that the Tundra is a pretty strong contender here, if not the champ. Coming at over $20K less than the Ford, one would question where that extra $20K can be found inside that truck versus the capable Toyota.

The Tundra tested is a mid-level trim, whereas the Ford is the top-level trim, which would account for most of the discrepancy I would think.  It would have been preferable if they all had the same trim level as obviously dollars can affect the decisions of buyers, but I understand that may be difficult/impossible to accomplish.  However, it does make you wonder about comments the interiors when you are comparing  fully loaded models and mid-level models.  Not a level playing field.  Either way, the Tundra interior is getting dated, but the limited model is definitely nicer than the SR5/TRD.

[rrocket]

^^Toyota will put in a TRD blower with full warranty.  500+HP and matching TQ!!  WOOHOO!!

[bridgecity]

^^Toyota will put in a TRD blower with full warranty.  500+HP and matching TQ!!  WOOHOO!!

Ya, I've looked into it.  Very impressive, but not so much on the price.  From what I've read, guys in the states are paying anywhere from 5-7G for supply and install.  The unit itself is about 5G from the states.  Either way, the 5.7 is already a very impressive motor.

[rrocket]

^^Toyota will put in a TRD blower with full warranty.  500+HP and matching TQ!!  WOOHOO!!

Ya, I've looked into it.  Very impressive, but not so much on the price.  From what I've read, guys in the states are paying anywhere from 5-7G for supply and install.  The unit itself is about 5G from the states.  Either way, the 5.7 is already a very impressive motor.

5G is the going rate for a quality blower...especially one that doesn't void your warranty.

[bridgecity]

^^Toyota will put in a TRD blower with full warranty.  500+HP and matching TQ!!  WOOHOO!!

Ya, I've looked into it.  Very impressive, but not so much on the price.  From what I've read, guys in the states are paying anywhere from 5-7G for supply and install.  The unit itself is about 5G from the states.  Either way, the 5.7 is already a very impressive motor.

5G is the going rate for a quality blower...especially one that doesn't void your warranty.

I figured so, but sadly, I have higher priorities at the moment, like kids and stuff  . Someday...

[ArticSteve]

None of the units tested are meant to tow 34ft/8000 lbs. trailers (hitched) regardless of what the companies claim.  This is definitely 3/4 ton territory (F250/Chevy 2500, Ram 2500).  Same goes for the roof shingles.

A better weight would have been 5000 lbs. or 1000 lbs. in the box.  I have a 8500 lbs. travel trailer that I move out of a building twice a year and position a few hundred yards away and for serious distance towing on that thing one would be in dually territory or true 3/4 ton at a minimum.

The other thing, obviously hard to do, is compare "out the door" prices because as most 1/2 shoppers know Toyota doesn't discount much.   

[bridgecity]

I just noticed the load of shingles weight.  Without looking it up, I'm guessing that's over the listed payload capacity of all the trucks tested.

[dirtyjeffer]

I just noticed the load of shingles weight.  Without looking it up, I'm guessing that's over the listed payload capacity of all the trucks tested.

wow...i didn't realize shingles weighed that much...no wonder why they use a skyjack to put them on the roof.

i checked the Dodge site (couldn't find specifics on Ford) and the towing is rated at 10,450 pounds (when properly equipped, whatever that means) and the payload is 1860 pounds, which means those shingles are right there.

[rrocket]

Don't worry.  A new payload/towing rating test established by SAE will be used in by all manufacturers (except Nissan) for 2012/2013.  It's the SAE J-2807 standard.