I expected that the Silverado/Sierra 1500s and Ram 1500s with all-new-from-the-ground-up designs would right now be ahead of F150 with respect to power train technologies (performance and/or capability and/or fuel economy). I mean, it is their time to shine due to both of them beginning a new cycle and Ford being just past mid-cycle. It's 2018-designed and built trucks versus 2015 design by Ford. By all-rights, those manufacturers should have figured out a way to have a truck that would be more advanced than F150 at least with respect to power trains. But for folks that like to see the segment move forward via competition, it is very disappointing. Just as one example of where Ram and GM falls flat is with respect to mpg ratings through today versus F150. I have entered each available power train only once and ranked them. I've ranked them in each power train's most economical version as possible, which will usually be 2WD and standard duty (not heavy duty or towing packages with higher gearing).

1. F150 2.7L Ecoboost 20/26/22 city, highway, combined 325/400@2750 RPM hp,torque still class-leading mpg and +52 ft-lb
2. (tie) F150 3.3 V6 FFV 20/25/22 290/265@4000 RPM
2. (tie) Ram 1500 V6 eTorque 20/25/22 305/269@3800 RPM
4. GM 2.7L Tripower 20/23/21 310/340@1500 RPM
5. F150 3.5L Ecoboost 18/25/21 375/470@3500 RPM still segment-leading torque and towing

V8s
1. (tie) GM 5.3L DFM 8-speed* 17/23/19 355/383@4100 RPM
1. (tie) Ford 5.0L 17/23/19 395/400@4500 RPM class-leading payload
2. Ram 5.7L w/eTorque* 17/22/19 395/410@3950 RPM

*It should be noted that while all three manufacturers currently come in at virtually a tie with respect to their V8 power trains, only Ford offers their most advanced and most economical version at all trim levels and as a standard version V8. All F150s configured with their 5.0 V8 get all the advanced features updated for MY 2018 including mating to a 10 speed transmission, which means a customer can choose the same power train starting around $31K in an XL standard cab, short bed all the way up to King Ranch where it is the standard power train. Contrast the Ford customer with Ram. The standard Hemi without the eTorque option has the exact same mpg as the previous design (15/21/17) and a customer must pay extra for the 130 pound eTorque system that adds 2 mpg city, 1 on the highway, and 2 combined. The story for GM is even worse. In the lower trims, GM does not even offer the version of the 5.3L V8 listed above with the new dynamic fuel management system and mated to an 8-speed. Instead, the "high value" customers are relegated to carry over power trains (4.3 V6 and 5.3 V8 with AFM and mated to a six speed). The 4.3L mpg for the 2019 truck has not yet been posted at fueleconomy.gov, but the 5.3L has, and it is not only lower than the DFM version, but it is lower than last year (15/22/17 versus 16/23/19 last year); indicating that if you put an identical power train in the new Silverado half-ton versus the old design; the old design actually burns less fuel according to what we can see with equal power trains according to the EPA test cycle. This means that even though the new truck weighs less by up to 450 pounds and has 7% less drag, the increased size of the truck and the higher stance means that it either pushes more air, traps more air underneath in total due to the larger size and/or it has more roll resistance. We see this again with the 6.2L. Even though GM is now mating the new truck to an all-new 10 speed and now uses DFM instead of AFM for cylinder deactivation; it actually loses one mpg on the highway while gaining one in the city. This shows that while the power trains are more efficient, the bodies must be less efficient with the new Chevy and GMC truck; at least in the configurations that have been tested with the EPA cycle. As you can see above, even a 4 cylinder turbo with the same displacement as the Ford V6 twin turbo, in the new GM-designed trucks, get 3 less on the highway according to the EPA tests and 2 less than Ram.

 

And then add in the fact that the only regular cabs available from Ram is choosing the old design and the only regular cab that will be available from Chevy and GMC is a long bed and a customer must take all old technologies and must choose the very, very lowest stripped truck out of 8 trim levels in a WT trim levels; contrasted with F150 where a customer can choose a regular cab short bed with three power train choices up to XLT trim or in a long bed, they can choose one of four gas engine choices up to XLT trim. In other words, only Ford will remain in the regular cab business, and I've been seeing more and more new ones on the road lately; and not just fleet drivers. The other brands are giving these up in favor of higher margins.

 

you cannot list the 5.0 and the GM 5.3 as a tie. The 5.0 is putting down 45 more HP at the same mpg ratings. that alone puts it far ahead . not to mention its a smaller displacement putting down more hp at same mpg ratings. your analysis is flawed.

 

Only 23 mpg highway out of a 2.7L four with fuel management?

 

I have the RCSB.. I always thought the S equaled "standard" bed. as it's not the short one. But. either way, the RCSB was prefect for what I was looking for.

 

 

Who buys a truck for gas mileage?

 

I did not consider a Tundra due to gas mileage.

 

nobody, but some people need a truck and would still like to get the best mpg possible out of one.

 

No one buys a truck because it gets good mileage, but it is indisputable that lots and lots of people shop a truck for fuel mileage.

Anyone that puts a lot of miles on wants the best mileage he can get. I was in a car wash last week, and noticed that the guy behind me had a new Ram diesel.

I asked him why he got the diesel. He said that working in Vegas, and going home to Phoenix every week-end, he put on 1,000 mi. a week.

You bet your butt that 3 mpg is a big deal to him, as it would be to anyone that rolls up the miles.

What surprised me is that mpg is twice as important as safety in this survey.