dcfluid

Check out PickupTrucks.com to see how the 5.0 motor fared.

dcfluid

Anybody read up yet?

energie

Since no one likes reading why don't you just tell us.

I went ahead and read.
It got 3rd place, just because they decided to send PickupTrucks.com a Regular cab instead of a Supercab or SuperCrew.
It was best truck for under $30,000. I guess Ford thought sending a XLT regular cab was better than a bone stock supercab. In the end the F-150 got 3rd and the Ram got 1st just because they sent a quad cab.

Oh and Silverado got last place....just throwing that out there.

dcfluid

Ok.
The 5.0 was the smallest engine.
It was in the lightest truck.
It won 6 out of 8 performance tests.
Placed 2nd in one test and last in one test.
Overall it was ranked 3rd place because Ford supplied a higher trim level regular cab whereas the two trucks that finished ahead were crew cabs and did so based on seating capacity.
A stupid test not specifying what truck configuration to send in an under 30 grand comparison, and then sandbagging the best truck because of seating capacity.

GatorMedic

While I agree downgrading the F150 so severely because it was a regular cab sucked, I wish Ford would have sent a scab STX for a more apples to apples comparison. If I was forced to buy one of those five trucks, I would have bought the Ram also because a regular cab wouldn't work for me, or for most other buyers. But to me this comparison test was good entertainment but lacked substance. Any truck comparison test that bases a lot of it's weight on 1/4 times is pointless to me

To the poster who said all the others sent crew cabs: they all sent extended cabs, not crew cabs

dcfluid

Yes a simple change to an STX scab would have given the Ford the win even with the 300# more weight the scab would bring. After all the Ram won only 1 test.

How do you second guess the testers in a comparison like this?

jswd60

I was on the build and price and you cant get 3.73's without going 4x4 in supercab xl and stx. I wish that ford would have at least sent one with 3.73's instead of adding the brake controller, but they didnt know what kind of tests it was going to be. With the 3.73's it would have been a little better in the autocross and uphill runs. I'm pretty excited that the "weak" and smaller 5.0 whooped butt in most performance tests.

Big Frank

Was pickuptrucks.com sandbagging the F-150?

You can get a $30k or less 5.0 F-150 in a supercab but it will have to be an XL. That shouldn't be a problem with pickuptrucks.com because the Ram was also a base model.

If SuperCab was a requirement, they could have specified such. Then Ford could have sent an XL supercab 5.0 and pretty much loaded it up with tons of features, chrome bumpers and still been under $30k MSRP.

Mike Levine did not want the regular cab to win is what it boils down to.

my67falcon

OK, even though they showed 2 "discount promotions" I'm guessing they went with their inflated MSRP. My FX2 SCREW with 3.73's didn't cost as much as their standard cab XLT after the Ford discounts. Lose the 1k trade assistance and it is about the same price. Hell, an XLT Ecoboost SCREW with max tow is a grand less than their standard cab.

dcfluid

The problem with this comparison began with the request from PUT.C who asked manufacturers to provide their BEST truck for under 30 grand.
Ford supplied the BEST TRUCK in this test and dominated the testing.
The competition provided better passenger vehicles or more versatile vehicles.
So the request should have been " provide your most versatile or best all round pickup for under 30 grand "
That would have changed the thinking of Ford staff who provided the best TRUCK (work) for the test.