• Highway Towing ‘Eco’ Truck Review: 2017 Ford F-150 EcoBoost vs. Ram 1500 EcoDiesel [Video]

    Which one is the most fuel-efficient truck for highway towing? This is precisely the question we answer in this 2017 Gold Hitch awards towing MPG test. This time the two contenders are: 2017 Ford F-150 with the 2nd-generation 3.5L EcoBoost V6 and the new 10-speed automatic transmission, and a 2016 Ram 1500 with the 3.0L EcoDiesel V6 and a 8-speed automatic transmission. Why are we testing a 2016 Ram truck in 2017? It’s because there is a stop sale on 2017 model year Ram EcoDiesel trucks due to an emissions investigation by the EPA.

    Both of these trucks are designed with efficiency in mind.

    Ford set out to build the second-generation 3.5L EcoBoost and the 10-speed transmission in order to improve acceleration performance and fuel efficiency. The got more power out of the engine: 375 hp and 470 lb-ft of torque. They also got a better EPA fuel efficiency rating. The truck you see here is a crew cab 4×4 Platinum model.  Turns out, it’s also the quickest 0-60 MPH we have ever tested at a mile above sea level!  It registered a blistering 6.23 seconds acceleration.

    For reference, here is the highway towing MPG video and the results for the 2016 Ford F-150 3.5L EcoBoost V6 with the 6-speed automatic transmission. We used the identical trailer and weight for these highway loops. The 2016 F-150 got 8.5 MPG on this test.

    The Ram 1500 EcoDiesel is the only half-ton truck to offer a turbo-diesel engine option. Actually, it’s not on sale currently, but it is the only manufacturer to offer a diesel in 2014-2016. It is the most fuel efficient truck of the bunch. This crew cab 4×4 Laramie truck is EPA rated at 27 MPG on the highway. The engine is rated at 240 horsepower and 420 lb-ft of torque.

    Check out all of the towing fun and the record-setting 0-60 MPH acceleration run by the F-150 in the video below.

    [Spoiler Alert]: 2017 Ford F-150 3.5TT 10-speed got 9.1 MPG on this loop. 2016 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel got 13.3 MPG on this loop. This Ram EcoDiesel is now the most efficient highway towing truck we have ever tested.

    Andre Smirnov
    Andre Smirnov
    Andre Smirnov is an Automotive Enthusiast, Producer, Reviewer, Videographer, Writer, Software Engineer, Husband, Father, and Friend.

    Similar Articles

    105 thoughts on “Highway Towing ‘Eco’ Truck Review: 2017 Ford F-150 EcoBoost vs. Ram 1500 EcoDiesel [Video]

    1. That’s impressive from the Ecodiesel, but I’ll take the power and the reliability of the Ford anyday over FCA’s bug ridden products

      1. Ford, Reliable??? Have you checked your facts lately. Ford imports the most parts of any company
        From China for there truck line, they have the highest rate of issues of any truck made to date. Ford has been dropping in Quality for the last 4 years. Just letting you know, check your facts before Buying a Chinese truck (Ford)

        1. ALL the North American manufacturers need to be 100% North American…..no overseas parts imported for our vehicles.

          End of Story

      1. Had good experience with both. Very few problems with dodge or ford in my experience, but have seen less issues with ford overall in my experience. Better resale value as well.
        I guess it depends on our experiences. Some guys swear by chevy, but that was the most expensive truck I’ve ever owned (repair wise). Spent more time on jackstands then on the road!

        1. I agree with you Jeff. I’ve had good results with both Dodge, Ford and GM trucks. I’m a contractor, most of my friends are also. I have a good friend who has the Dodge Power Wagon with 35″. He has a little over 180,000 and regularly pulls a 20′ trailer full of supplies and tools. So far, no major expenses except replacing the 35″ tires. I have a 2013 F-150 with the Eco. Prior to that 2005 with 5.4 (165,000 no issues), Prior to that Dodge with Hemi (75,000 no issues), Prior to that Chevy Silverado 4×4 with 5.3 (263,000 no issues). My wife drove a 2001 Chevy Tahoe 256,000 miles. We had to replace her transmission at 12,000 and 160,000. Sold to a friend who just changed the original factory brakes at 175,000. . . . I think the main lesson I’ve learned is that taking care of vehicles and driving them as they were designed to be driven should give reasonable service. I know some folks have issues and I guess there will always be a few vehicles with issues. I watch a lot of folks who complain about their vehicles being lemons, and I know some of them are. My wife had a company issued Ford Torus that was taken back on lemon law in 1995. Anyway, we also had a Ford explored that was company issued in 1996 that was in the shop about 6 mos of the first year. So I know it can happen. As far as the RAM diesel vs. the 3.5 Eco……. I’d probably chose the Eco-boost. I’ve pulled a few very heavy loads with my Eco and it does the job better than any truck I’ve ever owned including F-250’s and F-250’s with gas engines. When I’m not pulling, the Eco is a joy to drive and I get amazing mileage in my opinion. I have 2013 Platinum 4×4 with max trailer 3.73 gears. I also have trailer mirrors and the extended range fuel tank. I drive down from Cleveland Oh to Fork Union Va about every 3 weeks to visit my son in school. The drive is through the mountains of Penn, Maryland, WV and then up the Shannandoah Valley. Its about 50% toll roads and I average about 65 mpg. Going down I usually average 20-21 mpg. On the way back up I average less for some reason usually 18.5-20 +/-…. Anyway, the only real disappointment with the F-150 so far is the drivers seat cushion and leather is breaking down far faster than it should. I weigh about 190 and clean the leather every week. I’ve found that Ford really uses super thin leather and that their seat cushions break down far faster than RAM seats do. When I look at my friends 2013 Ram laramie longhorns leather and seats, the quality difference is huge. I think RAM currently offers the highest quality leather and plastics in its higher end trucks. My wife just traded in a 2013 Acura MDX and got a Jeep Grande Cherokee Overland and it has the same plastics and leather as the RAM. Is amazing how much better it is than Ford. Well, just my 50c worth of opinion and life experience. Good luck to everyone. I think your safe buying almost any truck on the dealer lot today. All are good and or better than one another in various areas. Its a good time to be a truck owner in my opinion…

      2. I’ve owned several ford trucks and we have a fleet of 40+ at work. I find them to be damn near indestructible. I had a ranger work truck that wouldn’t die and was used like a 3/4 ton truck almost daily.

    2. Ram fuel economy doesn’t count if it can’t do it while meeting emissions standards. Test is null and void

      1. That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. It should be null. Some one is butt hurt over the results. It is a legit saleing truck. The EPA needs to just back off of diesels. As you can see the diesel is way better in ever way but acceleration. But ecoboost lover are butt hurt over something they will never touch even if you had a 100 speed trans. So stop being angry and let the dice fall where they may.

        1. I’m just saying, the 2017 Ram ecodiesel may not deliver the same results once it’s revised to meet standards…

          1. Two coworkers got the ecm update flash from dealer. They are both pissed with the mileage drop. One traded for a ram 2500 with 6.7, the other is waiting to see what happens next.

            1. Sorry it waa a PCM flash. I am going off what they both stated. Flash involved the SCR and EGR cleaning. And I failed to mention that they both had complete exhaust replacement by dealer. End result they are both not happy with vechile.

            2. FYI Zviera law firm originally responsible for finding this states:
              Fiat Chrysler intentionally turns off emissions treatment, in violation of EPA requirements, because without cheating emissions, RAM 1500 EcoDiesels could not achieve the fuel economy, range, towing power or performance that Fiat Chrysler promises customers……

              Seems a little coincidental to me.

            3. FYI Zviera law firm originally responsible for finding this states:
              Fiat Chrysler intentionally turns off emissions treatment, in violation of EPA requirements, because without cheating emissions, RAM 1500 EcoDiesels could not achieve the fuel economy, range, towing power or performance that Fiat Chrysler promises customers……

              Seems a little coincidental to me.

              I am positive you are correct. When you reduce EGR, you increase engine efficiency and thus better MPGs. The cheating software found in Fiats programming shows that the EGR was reduced after a very specific amount of time. Likely around the length of an emissions test. Once EGR is reduced MPGs go up. They will likely need more EGR or ram more DEF in the exhaust. Or both. I am very curious about the outcome.

            4. I am very curious about the outcome too.
              FCA will address this issue for sure. I am curious to see also Ford diesel numbers in 2 years. Ford was waiting to easy EPA requirements probably, because they couldn’t meet them yet.

            5. Zvier kind of hard to say Ford cannot meet emissions when it is not out yet. Just because FCA cheated doesn’t mean Ford, GM, or whomever is cheating or is planning on it. FCA wanted the best in class adds on TV so they broke the rules. Doesn’t mean anyone else is doing the same.

            6. We don’t know the outcome from EPA yet.At least I am not aware of any. We just know, that RAM sell certified diesel for several years and ford doesn’t. I am very curious to see, how ford will handle emissions and MPG with the old diesel they try to make to work in here. Curious times indeed.

            7. Actually zvier fiat does not sell a certified diesel. Cummins is under investigation along with suing FCA and now the FCA dieselgate. Can’t say it is certified when it looks like they passed the test cheating. Still have no idea why you keep being Ford into the matter especially since we have no information on the source of the diesel. Who says it will not be an inhouse design like the scorpion. Plus their diesel is not out yet and will be under heavy scrutiny because of the fiat fiasco. Fiat and VW has potentially set everything back for everyone else.

            8. Zvier I am very correct. You know it and have no argument. Search cummins FCA lawsuit. It may have been a topic here too. The cheating diesel emissions just sets everyone back. If VW and FCA played by the rules this conversation would not be going on.

            9. No one was holding ford back to bring diesel, before FCA did, just lacking the technology.
              We all well know,that ford diesel is going to be Land Rover one.
              FCA didn’t set everything back for everyone else. FCA is worldwide diesel technology leader with Multijet II patent , something ford doesn’t have.

            10. No one was holding ford back to bring diesel, before FCA did, just lacking the technology.
              We all well know,that ford diesel is going to be Land Rover one.
              FCA didn’t set everything back for everyone else. FCA is worldwide diesel technology leader with Multijet II patent , something ford doesn’t have.

              your a long way from PUTC RAM. Maybe you need to go back there before messing up this site. FYI the rest of the world is doing pretty good without the fiat injector and only FCA is the brand with that injector under EPA scandal/cheating investigation

            11. your a long way from PUTC RAM. Maybe you need to go back there before messing up this site. FYI the rest of the world is doing pretty good without the fiat injector and only FCA is the brand with that injector under EPA scandal/cheating investigation.

              No, VW is the first one and FCA doesn’t have any outcome from EPA yet, so be nice.
              I thought we would talk about a technical details and facts, but it looks, that some people won’t change.
              I will wait patiently for EPA outcome and ford diesel from Land Rover to see ,if they can beat FCA.
              It’s going to be a very hard without a Multijet II technology for ford, but EPA might easy their diesel emission requirements. That’s what Ford is waiting for.

            12. I know i am going to regret this Ram because i have read your post on putc. But if you think you can have a real conversation without the fiat propaganda we shall play. First off multijet injectors are nothing special. They have the multiple injection cycles as everyone else for preignite and noise reduction just like everyone else. However while most everyone else uses a separate injector for the DPF regen function they pulse the injector on the exhaust stroke. Again nothing really special as most companies have gone to the injector in the exhaust to have better control. Like i said it really is not that impressive and everyone else has no issues meeting regulations with their diesels. FCA is being investigated world wide for emissions cheating so i would not be touting off about FCA tech just quite yet.

            13. Multijet II is a special, no one else has since 2009.
              They handle very high pressure – 29,000 psi and because of their patented design – hydraulically balanced, it enables up to eight consecutive injections per combustion cycle and implements Injection Rate Shaping technology, which provides two very close pilot injection making the fuel delivery more continuous and modulated. This results in an engine that is quiet and has a smoother operation, lower emissions, better fuel mileage and higher performance compared to the previous generation Multijet I with up to five injections per combustion cycle.

              Ford designed in 2016 a “new fuel injectors”, which are capable of delivering up to six injections per combustion event. There is no engine with this injectors on the market yet. It just tells you how far is ford behind FIAT in injectors – most important component in a diesel engine for efficiency, noise and emissions.
              Fiat is a diesel injectors leader. It’s going to be very hard for ford to meet EPA standards with less sophisticated technology, but EPA can easy their requirements to make every one happy.
              GDI makes 100 times more particles than diesel with filter anyway.

            14. You are incorrect Ram. The multijet does have 8 injection cycles but it is per cycle. 4 for power and 4 after the combustion for emissions. The ford blue engine for EURO has 6 cycles for each combustion event. Not after combustion.
              So nothing special

              29,000 psi is common place. Everyone I know that uses high pressure direct injection has that pressure. Again nothing special.

              The control strategy is also nothing special. Everyone monitors engine functions and emissions to shape and control fuel injection spray. So to sum up, sure multijet 2 is probably better than 1 but I don’t see anything special compared to other injectors. Sorry bro, still not impressed.

            15. Ram, another thing you fail to comprehend is the injector is just part of the whole package. If the engine is not designed well then you failed from the start. The fiat engine is an old design and needs refined. The whole engine is the system, not just one part.

            16. Jimmy Johns i’ll ask if def consumption had increased, but he just had the flash done a little over a week ago. It was something about a clog and the entire exhaust getting bing destroyed. All I can really say it’s mostly highway commute driving and both the trucks had 50k miles. Really does make sense that would happen if they emission bs is short changed.

              Zviera, believe it or not I know people the have a ecodiesel with a problem. My assumption is just that, a assumption. Just put it out there for everyone to think about. What the hell do I have to gain by not telling the truth?

            17. 2009 Multijet II:
              The time between injections has been reduced to 150 microseconds while the minimal injection quantity has been reduced from two to less than one microlitre compare to first Multijet generation thanks to hydraulically balanced patented injectors.

              Ford “new injector” can deliver every 250 microseconds 0.8mg of diesel.

              Wow. Multijet II is still almost twice as fast as ford.


            18. Ram, still not impressed as you have brought nothing to the table. If other injectors can have multiple injections per cycle it is doing its job. Plus as have been proven globally, (see my link) fiat has issues meeting emission standards. So again, when they can meet emission standards then I can be impressed. As of right now, they are a brochure ad trying to look impressive on paper. In the real world, nothing. All show and no go.

      2. Daniel you making way to much out of it. A year difference between a 16 and 17 when they didn’t change the engine and drive train hardly much wouldn’t make it “null and void” EPA doesn’t make difference in in this fuel mileage run between the two.

    3. Someone needs to run this test simultaneously, requires two identical trailers. Always put the slow diesel in front so the gas engine has to match the slow acceleration. I’m curious how much closer the numbers will be when the gas engine can’t use it’s acceleration advantage

      1. Sorry. Lamest post I’ve ever read on this site. The 10 speed transmission is a gimmick! Not much improvement over the 6 speed plus, the Ford recommends 91 octane. Way more expensive to tow with the Ford over the RAM.

      2. Daniel, it was a 100 mile loop so differences in acceleration would not make a big difference. Besides, TFL was very careful in bringing the speed up slowly to 70 mph. Clearly, you did not actually watch the video.

        1. It was only a few minutes recorded of the near 2 hour drive. I’ll admit to ignorance as to what traffic they typically run into on that course

    4. What rear end gear ratios were in the two trucks? The new 10 speed allows the F150 to run a 3.31 rear gear and still have a first gear as short as the old 3.73/6 speed combo while also giving it a super tall 10th. If I was specing a 2017 I would go 3.31 every time.

      1. The ratio in th ’17 must have been the same as the ’16 based off of the RPMs. The ’16 was jumping from 6th to 5th which was 1800 rpm and 2200 rpm. The ’17 was jumping from 10th to 8th which is 1700 rpm and 2200 rpm. This makes sense since 10th is slighty taller than 6th on the older truck and 8th is the same as 5th on the older truck.
        Some owners that the EB holds to tall of a gear while towing and that it gets better MPG at higher rpm with less boost.

        1. Well thats what the 10 speed is for. The rear end selection becomes less important because you have some many smaller steps to always keep you at or close to the optimum power.

          I can understand the tall gear issue, I actually think that I benefit from the 3.73’s in my F150 living here in the mountains of utah. I am always climbing steep grades, even just driving to town, and it think it new better mpg than maybe an 3.55 truck and probably a 3.31 truck.

        2. The nice thing is the Ecoboost can still tow 10,700 lbs in a supercrew with 3.31’s, so all the normal people who dont tow more than 5% of the time can benefit the 3.31’s and still tow pretty much anything the truck could handle anyways.

    5. Keep up the good work guys. I for one love when you guys put all these different trucks through there paces. Both of these trucks are super nice.

    6. Good job TFL,

      Nice to see you using 91 octane. Im cheering for RAM and not the FCA, it’s not RAM’s fault that the FCA didn’t have the proper emission testing equipment in 2014, 15, and part of 16 to pick up on this stuff and RAM didn’t tell them about the programs in the truck because they’re safety equipment, when you think about it because if the system overheats and catches fire, or stalls out on a hill when towing because the exhaust chokes off, than those individuals are basically screwed and stranded if not dead.

      Anyways just my opinion.

      GO RAM

      1. I’m sure you mean EPA, not FCA.

        The systems in question pretty much turn off performance choking emission systems once the truck gets out of the test station and hits the open road. I think the regulations are way too strict, but they need to be applied equally to everyone, ideally relaxed for everyone. That truck could be getting 40 mpg in pre-2001 emission standards

    7. Yep, great work Andre and Nathan. I actually saw it 3 days ago, but I would much rather discuss the results here instead of you tube!

    8. TFL,
      Can you please give a more in depth review of the interiors, infotainment systems, storage and options available etc….. this is where I personally feel TFL is lacking in their truck reviews.

      1. I totally agree with you. TFL pays a lot of attention to off-road and towing. Which is fine, but not the way the majority of people will use these trucks. Everyone will use the interior 100% of the time they’re in the vehicle. Most of the time they don’t comment other than to say “really nice” without going into detail. There’s a guy on YouTube named Saabkyle04 that spends easily 30 min covering all aspects of the vehicles he reviews. Unfortunately, he’s only done a couple truck reviews, but I’m going to lobby for TFL to emulate his style a bit.

    9. I recommend watching the video at 2x speed on youtube the 2nd time. Andre sounds hilarious!
      It’s amazing that the EB ran the loop at a lower RPM (1700-2200) vs the Ecodiesel (2000-2400).

    10. Since when is a diesel truck and a gas truck in the same category? As far as dodges epa ratings being investigated? Go figure from A fiat product!! Wait till Blueoval brings out they’re diesel, but really? How many trucks that are on the road actually haul or tow something?
      Oh yeah 2016 Ford sold 93 trucks per/min in the U.S lol sick!!!!!!!!
      Dodge sucks

      1. What does that have to do with the test? Not really the place to get brand righteous. I suggest you tube for that. TFL is simply comparing the best CURRENT trucks for MPG towing with a Ford and a RAM. Nobody expects a gas to beat a diesel, but nonetheless is always nice to see real world testing.

    11. The 2.7 ecoboost is the comparable motor to the Ecodiesel, not the 3.5 ecoboost. That said, the ecodiesel isn’t even for sale right now due to not meeting EPA emissions standards. VW TDI owners know the feeling.

      1. That would be a good matchup. Similar power and displacement. Have to run the test with the ’18 model and 10-speed vs whatever the epa let’s FCA sell

      2. 2.7 exoboost has worse MPG than 3.5 when towing, because it’s under a boost constantly.It has been tested already.

    12. It was a good test but it was lacking a couple key information. The rear end gearing is very important it does make a difference especially in the gas. Talking to a handful of guys with 3.5 that it does make a difference in towing performance. I don’t know if it makes a difference on the fuel mileage end, but not a towing a trailer it does.

      Another peace information was not Omitted was cost between the two engines. Both engines optional engines. I’m not really interested to much of the cost of the truck per say because it is up to you how you want to spec the trk. Looking at engine cost.

      Keep in mind when Andre said whew it was more to fill up with the ford. Your state might be totally different price of fuel than co. Some states are even some less. It varies quite bit.

      Overall seem to be fair video just missing them key information.

    13. 91 is recommended for the Ford, but not required. I suspect the fuel economy would drop if 87 was used.

      That said, another factor often left out of diesel economy testing is regens. If the Ecodiesel had a regen on this loop, it would be averaging about the same as the Ford…except without the power.

      1. I have towed before using both fuels and never noticed any difference in MPG, Highway anyways. I suspect it would be normal because under cruise the engine is not under a heavy load so 91 is not needed. premium is needed under high cylinder pressures and aggressive timing for more HP. Thus why you see a slight increase in HP using higher octane fuel and no change in torque. If you are city driving a lot while towing i think premium would be the way to go. If you were at close to max payload and a heavy foot.

        1. My point is this: Ford states rated horsepower is at 91 octane. Use 87 octane = slightly less horsepower. Less horsepower = more RPMs needed to move truck, especially when towing. More RPMs = worse fuel economy.

          Yeah, the difference is fairly slight. But I don’t think you’d end up recouping the fuel cost by running 87 instead of 91 while towing.

          By the way, we always run 87 octane in our 2010 Lincoln MKS 3.5L EcoBoost as well as 87 octane in our 2016 F-150 2.7L EcoBoost. No issues.

          1. Troverman, your wrong on Fords power #’s.
            All Ecoboost’s in F150’s are rated horsepower #’s on 87 octane. In fact all Ford F150 & F250 gas engines are SAE certified/rated on 87 octane. 91 will provide increased performance and is recommended for towing on all F150 Ecoboost’s.

            In the Lincoln Navigator the 1st gen 3.5 was rated higher hp than F150 because it wad rated on premium 91

    14. What was the payload on the door stickers?

      It cost $2 more with the F-150 using premium to drive the 100 miles.

      I’ll stick with the F-150 with rock solid durability, up to the nano second technology and jaw-dropping capability.

      1. How do you get $2? 7.4 gallons of diesel vs. 10.8 of premium. That’s an extra 3.4 gallons or $9 bucks per 100 miles. If you’re towing a lot, it will add up.

        1. You mpg whores really know how to get my panties in a bunch. You are directly responsible for all the skid marks in my drawers. The Ford cost $7.74 extra with premium and had they used regular at $2.22/gallon considering the same mpg then only $2.81 extra. However, this is under towing. Under the life of the vehicle if you add the city and highway together and divide by 2 you get an average mpg. 23mpg (Ram) and 20mpg (Ford). So the Ram costs you 23/2.369 = 0.103 dollars per mile. If you run regular in the Ford then 20/2.22= 0.111 dollars per mile. So your difference is 0.111-0.103= 0.008 dollars per mile. If the diesel costs $2000.00 more to own then it will take you 250,000 miles to make a gain at the pumps.

          In this case it will take you 25,000 miles to see a gain if the Ford is running premium and if your always pulling a trailer. Resale is another gamble and factor and typically diesel is more expensive to maintain. And fuel prices are another gamble. The caviar to all of it is the diesel accelerates slow. The diesel is better suited for commercial trucks and for someone who pulls all the time and doesn’t care about acceleration.

          But NO the diesel savings will never add up to anything for the average truck buyer. Just a nice option for the few who need it or want it. But in my opinion it’s just a way for dealers to meet cafe requirements otherwise the benefits are not there; that a manufacturerer would actually want to build these trucks. Also people modify these motors, even manufacturers are caught cheating and the exhaust is extremely dangerous when modified which is just going to create an environmental nightmare and more health problems that in the end will raise taxes for everyone that could have went to infrastructure for battery power.

          1. This, 100%. Plus, a vast majority of 1/2 ton owners are not towing any significant amount. I’ll pay an extra $20-30 on an occasional tow trip to be able to drive an ecoboost everyday.

            If I was a contractor towing an enclosed trailer for a living, I would probably be taking a much closer look at the ED, but generally I am just driving on long road trips with a few hundred pounds of payload.

    15. And how soon will Ford drop an oil burner into the F150? GM? well never mind gm,they said we didn’t need a diesel 1500.Maroons…

    16. Price is what they are given to test. I’m sure a Ford with the same equipment would be the same price or probably cheaper since the Dodge/Ram/Fiat is a diesel.

    17. Good outcome for the Ram, too bad its a junk motor. I wanted to like that truck a lot but its just slow and problem ridden.

    18. I cant believe a 0-60 10 second truck is comparable to a 6 second truck, like this is some kind of a win for Ram to some on this thread. The Ram does everything better except accelerate better is the dumbest thing I have heard. This is one of the most important parameters to American truck buyers to within reason and the Ram is so slow it walks that dreaded line to the majority buyer. Next we should be told what the gearing is in the rear end and final ratios. Also I agree with some that we should see more interior reviews and exterior reviews like the trailer chain hook ups was commendable. I think it would be great had you done the run with both 91 and 87 octane as that would have been interesting for everyone. Engine prices would have been nice to hear as well. Hope this is taken as constructive critique. I love these comparisons and it will be interesting to see if the Ram 2017 loses its mpg reign a little; after the EPA investigation should you do another loop with the 2017 Ram diesel. Also, I am left wondering if the new 2017 2.7EB 10 speed will do better or how will the base V6 do. Also, when you set cruise and hit little hills how good does the diesel hold its speed compared to the Ford EB. Likely the Ram diesel will lag behind the Ford considering how slow it went up the gauntlet; it would be shifting gears a lot more and not able to maintain a cruise speed very well under hilly conditions.

      1. 0-60 is not even a consideration when buying a truck for me. Never heard anyone on a job site ever say they bought their truck because it was fastests

        1. I did not say fastest, I said reasonable for majority buyers in my opinion. If you read at all, the general consensus is that the 3.0 diesel is too slow. Many buyers including myself wont go near a truck that accelerates that slow complete deal breaker. Fact is the two motors are worlds apart on performance and the gas motor will still be cheaper regardless of mpg for the majority of its life. So where is the advantage? Realistically its an oxymoron but its good to have choice for those who want a diesel, should it float their boat.

          1. Didn’t say you said fastest. Just giving my opinion and experiences. Top parameters I hear are reliability perception, cost, and capacity, well manufacturer preference too. The extra scoot is bonus. Can you show me a legit 10sec 0-60 time?

            1. Look up the mashup TFL did with the 2015 Ram ED VS the Ford 2.7EB. The Ram did 0-60 in 10.56s and the 2015 Ford 2.7EB got 6.99

            2. Will do. The ram probably is still faster than my old 07 4.6 f150 at elevation. To bad I was tired of brake pad changes a poor mileage, the damn 4.6 can get some serious time in. Crap my ’14 gm 4.3 has more get up than that truck did and the gm is no speedster. But I can’t really say when the last time I felt it necessary to go 0-60 in such a brief time, always fun though. One more question though, think the ecodiesel is partly responsible for Rams growth in sales?

            3. @Canoepaddler I don’t know how many diesels are sold. Sure would like to know? From what I see around here in Ontario the Rams are priced cheaper than any other truck out there. I’ve been listening and looking for a truck and I may miss something but in general I think Ram is selling more because they are priced lower. Hopefully I buy a truck soon, its getting annoying that the ZR2 wont show up. Be nice to see the new Tundra in 8 days

            4. Canoepaddler, i have driven an F150 with the 4.6L. You will not win to many races with it. Especially since it has the old 4R75W 4 speed transmission. But taken care of that engine is hard to kill. The 4.6L 3V engines accelerated really well but they also had the 6 speed transmission which helps im sure. But i was really surprised on the power. The one i drove was also getting 21 mpg on the highway too.

        2. I would argue that 0-60 is a direct correlation to tow performance, at least if we are talking about vehicles that are about the same size an weight. If your truck is good at accelerating its own 5000 lbs to 60mph then its probably also pretty good at the same with a 5000 or 10000 lb trailer behind it.

      2. The only problem with switching from premium to regular is apparently it doesn’t give the computer time to properly caculate for the different fuels, it takes 2-3 tanks of the same fuel for it to adjust, and in my experience you still need to get a programmer and set the computer for premium or regular as that makes a difference as well.

        1. If you go to Ford Racing they have a programmer for the 5.0 liter that specifically sets it for premium and they have a video of the dyno results.

    19. While many may not consider 0-60 when buying a new truck – many others do. It is not as if we want the fastest truck on the road but the full size market is so competitive until having the edge in one category or another when most people are heavily researching trucks can make a difference for some buyers. After all, we were all paying attention to the 0-60 runs of the new Raptor and amazed by the times. While this is not a top priority to me, it is fairly important because for gas burners acceleration and power kind of go hand in hand. Nowadays we want everything in our trucks and accelerating fast is also one of the things we want so I’m with Rambro on this one but do understand that some people don’t care as much. Hiwever, I don’t want a 10 second to 60 truck and it would be a deal breaker for me. Then again I just broke down and bought a new 2017 Tacoma TRD Off-Road so I don’t have a dog in the full size truck fight. 🙂

      1. Nice buy Moondog. Keep me updated. I’m still on the fence. New Tundra will be revealed soon. My dealer has a Power Wagon but despite its Power it’s not real fast due to the weight but I’m going to try it out soon.

    20. Will do, Rambro. I “ordered” it if that is what you call it for SE USA Toyota ordering. We just pick from a lot of available trucks and try to get as close as possible to what we want. I got the Double Cab TRD OFF-ROAD Long Bed in Quicksand and will pick it up either this Wednesday or Thursday. I drove one before I ordered this one and must say the 3.5 engine is going to take some getting used to with power being reached at a much higher RPM than the old 4.0 that my last one had. Having said this the truck is whisper quiet, especially compared to the last gen – not even close. The interior is much more refined with a nice 7inch display. I will be glad to post some pics and keep you updated on my driving impressions as I break it in. I waited forever on the Colorado ZR2 but the small 5′ Bed compared to the 6′ Bed option on the Tacoma was a deal breaker. I just like the longer bed. Also, Chevy would not give me any timeframe regarding when the ZR2 would be here and I have waited long enough to replace my last truck.

    21. Rambro, on the Power Wagon you are right – they are heavy and will likely only net a mid 8 second 0-60 but this is one that would get a pass for me on the 0-60 time. I like a truck with a good spring in its step but something this big and specialized not named Raptor is not going to be very fast – it’s just not built for it. I think you will like the Power Wagon and would likely drive it differently if you got it. If you can find a leftover 16 you can get an enormous discount on them and you would be getting a truly great truck for around the price of a loaded mid size.
      Regarding the Tundra, expect another refresh as opposed to a full redesign. Then again Toyota has been a bit quiet over the Tundra so we never know until they drop it. I bet they won’t allow the Titan to have a leg up on them very long. After all, they are fighting for fourth place, not one of the top three spots. I like the Tundra a lot and even don’t mind the Titan. An earlier commenter made a great point when they said if someone just saw the Titan and didn’t comparison shop after coming off of six years in another truck they would probably love it. I agree. The Titan is likely a great truck for anyone. The same holds true for the Tundra. The problem for the Titan and Tundra is that the big 3 have much better products overall to choose from and they have set a very high bar. They have more options and offer a level of total refinement that these trucks can’t presently match. These are great times to be in the market for a truck because the choices have never been better in the full size market and it appears they all just keep getting better. I am not sure you can get anything better for the money than a full size truck. I just like the smaller ones. 🙂
      On another note, I agree with all the commentary here tonight regarding the suggestion and need for TFL to get more in depth on the infotainment systems and interior features more on these trucks. This is only meant as constructive criticism because we all know TFL does a GREAT job of reviewing these vehicles from the eyes of true truck guys. But, we spend a lot of time in these trucks and knowing more about the creature features inside would be welcome and I’m sure TFL would nail it if they did it.

      1. Ya the PW has a nice cool factor even if it’s slow. Sounds great and it responds nice, comes with a winch four wheel lock and sway bar disconnect. Plus the added weight will help keep the truck planted when I use my 12,000 lb dump trailer. They are offering 0% for 48 months and about 13,000 off msrp for a 2017 and no payments for 90 days. I think that’s what I will buy but still not 100%. I did a long trip last week with 4 adults and a five year old in the Tacoma and it was cramped but that’s just maybe one trip a year. It’s nice to have the extra room but harder to park. I’m not sold on the Ram cargo box either. Takes away a lot from the truck bed and it’s only a 5’7 box length in the PW

    22. Ya the throttle lag saves fuel to meet cafe requirements; is what I believe. When I drove one I found it’s only a bit of a drag in the initial start from a stop and go. The rest of the time I just found myself playing with the manual shifters to keep the revs a touch higher if I was in a spry mood. Otherwise your saving fuel so not a complete loss there and more power on the highway for passing I believe. Bunch of nice new features for sure. I might have to settle for a Sport again if I want the 6 foot bed quad cab in Canada.

      I’m still going to wait though. In Canada I want remote start for cold days and the Tacoma still forces me to go aftermarket on the starter and you know I hate aftermarket so that is a pet peeve I have on Toyota. I got one in mine under the dealerships gaurantee that I would have no problems but sure enough when the truck turns off after 10 minutes of idling the lights stay on and drain your battery and they can’t fix it. It’s that way for all installations. So if you forget or decide not to go anywhere after starting the truck you have to physically put the key in the ignition to turn the headlights off. Always BS with aftermarket. I know GM will offer the factory remote start. But not a deal breaker but I have to give credit to GM where Toyota failed me. Small item but a pain in the ass and very odd why Toyota does not offer it for the Tacoma

      1. My 2004 6.0 Sierra Denali got better mpg with 91 but cost more to run. I tried silver or 89 and it got the same mpg as 91. The 87 got worse mpg so the 89 was the break even point. Better fuel but same cost to use the 89 over the 87 octane. I tried this with a Kia Spotage turbo with 264Hp in a 4 cylinder and it didn’t matter which fuel I used the mpg was the same. I haven’t tried this comparison with the Tacoma but I always use 87.

        1. Oh OK thanks. I have always pumped premium 93 in my vehicles especially if the manual recommends it. Also gas stays pretty affordable down here in Texas. Looking to buy a truck next, so I’m trying to make an educated decision on motor and fuel.

    23. My Yukon actually gets better mileage on regular. When I feed it the good stuff the mileage is actually worse. It is picky about the brand of gas and I used to notice a big difference in mileage between premium fuel brands in my Audis.

      1. I’ll have to try a tank of the good stuff in my Tacoma now and record the fuel and mileage on a fill up and do the 30 second rule. Have to get all the low grade stuff out first. Run two tanks of premium to make sure it’s all out. Easier to do with the computer. Sometimes when you do this you may find it’s actually cheaper to run better fuel if it extends your mpg enough. But depends on price per gallon that fluctuates as well. The guy with the Audi is bang on. I had a 2006 Audi A6 with the 4.2 and it got way better mpg with premium but not true for other vehicle types. Too bad TFL didn’t do two runs with the Ford but how does TFL know if there was regular or premium fuel in the tank to begin with. It has to be empty and then fill it with premium to get the benefit of the premium otherwise they just made a cocktail of 87-91 mix

    24. A sales person said that owner’s manuals normally say that 91 octane will allow for optimal performance, but that doesn’t mean that 87 isn’t good enough. Therefore, I think that your test should be tried with 87 octane gas, as with other trucks.

    25. Higher octane burns slower and is more resistant to burn. This is why in high compression engines higher octane is used. The increased cylinder pressures can cause low or mid grade fuel to preignite. Running agressive timing is also needed with higher octane fuel. Again has a resistance to burn as fast as low octane fuel. High octane fuel does not contain more energy than low octane fuel. It is just the resistance to burn. An engine nto designed to run high octane fuel can cause reduced performance and even mpg. The reason is the fuel is still burning on the exhaust stroke. You want to have a complete burn on the way down. If you burn on the way up your applying resistance to the piston. I have seen dyno results comparing a low octane rated engine run on high octane fuel. Lost HP.

    Comments are closed.