Anyone else tired of seeing GM's getting bashed in comparison arti

[Jon A]

Thanks for sharing. We're impressed. We're not worthy.

 

I don't get why people post such things. Don't they realize posting they're too cool for the conversation, in the conversation, proves they aren't nearly as cool as they think they are?

[ShotgunZ71]

This article basically says that the 2 year old GM twins are holding their own against the brand-new F150 with all it's gadgetry. It's a game of leapfrog for the Big 3, and Ram is likely to do something next year to spice things up.

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/ford/f-150

[Jon A]

Good article, a couple of snipits:

 

 

While that makes the F-150 the lightest among the loaded luxury pickups we’ve recently tested, it only undercut an all-steel Silverado High Country 4x4 crew cab we tested last winter by a mere 95 pounds, or just a big dinner down at the local choke-n-puke. You’re entitled to wonder why Ford had to fuss with aluminum when using alloy merely got its curb weights down to those of its fiercest competitor.

 

 

 

though the hard-working V-6 returned fuel economy only just matching the latest Silverado test subject’s 6.2-liter small-block, at 16 mpg. There’s no denying that the 3.5-liter is a magic machine, making huge and sophisticated power from just 213 cubic inches. But here again, Ford seems to take a complicated route to achieve similar results as Chevy.

 

[nards444]

 

 

That's hilarious! That thing only weighs 60 lbs less than my Denali...and I have a standard bed, it has short bed. So much for that idea....

 

 

 

Nope. See above. Do you have some actual weights from somewhere besides a Ford add that disagree?

 

I remember seeing an article somewhere over the last year that stated GM stopped using minimum weights in their advertising. I guess Ford didn't get the memo. Also the heavy duty payload option that gives them those huge numbers for their adds doesn't seem to be available on the upper end models (the ones with all the gadgets). I guess they figure people buying a platinum or king ranch won't like the harsh ride from really stiff rear springs.On

Im only going by what each website has posted for body style and drive train. No where on GM or fords website does it state what goes into their curb weight for body style and drive train. If ford is using minumum weights, then what is GM using? Clearly Gm states crew cab with 4x4 and a 5.3 engine weighs X, now how are they getting X, because that truck could be anything from a WT to a high country potentially changing the weight by hundreds of pounds. True test I guess would be scales from like vehicles. Is there any emperical data out there showing weights of vehicles matched one for one i.e. body style, power pack, options etc. Serious question as I would be curious.

 

Either way goes back to my original thought that regardless of what Ford has done in relation to chevy, they have been innovative and improved their product from what it was before. Going to an aluminum skin is a big step.

[nards444]

 

You missed my meaning of "shiny object." In that context it was meant as something that would cause children and the simple-minded to pay it more attention to it than they should. Surely you've heard the phrase? The press and you look HERE=====>>>>Aluminum Body! Woooo!

 

As for actual gadgets and cool features, I think that's something Ford did really well. Things like the 360 degree camera, the "Denali-style" digital display on lower models, auto-opening tailgate, etc, are things people may use and enjoy very much every day. I give Ford good marks in that respect.

 

 

Maybe try looking at something for more than 5 seconds before jumping to a conclusion for once? It's pretty clear when you click on the link that it's one page of a multi-page test and that all the specs you want are on a different page (for which there are links).

If your going to make a point, you should link to the page where it shows what the comparisons. Either way after looking theres different gearing the trucks and they used 2014 GM products vs everybody else 2013 products. Again not comparing apples to apples. Im talking 15 to 15 in everything. Do that test of theirs with all 13s and see what happens.

[Jon A]

If your going to make a point, you should link to the page where it shows what the comparisons.

 

I was making a point about mileage. I linked to the page where they compared mileage. What do you not understand? It was very clearly a multi-page article so if you needed info from the other pages all you had to do was click on those links which were very clearly displayed. I'm not going to humor you by linking every single word in an article separately to keep you from pretending the info is too hard to find as a way of denying it exists/changing the subject.

 

Do that test of theirs with all 13s and see what happens.

 

Why exactly? How would an article testing the '13 5.3 back up your wild claims about mileage of your '14 5.3? Just trying to change the subject?

 

Im talking 15 to 15 in everything.

 

And you shall have your wish. The same guys tested a bunch of '15s recently. They haven't posted their results with the magic 3.5 yet, but they should be up soon.

[Daryl LBZ]

Okay guys, let's calm it down a little bit, and get back on topic. Starting to get a little out of hand.

[Sierra_guy]

I love how the motor trend article calls the ram the master of all trades there at the end. Except it can only haul 960# If I'm not mistaken, the ram ecodiesel isn't even a 1/2 ton truck.

[nards444]

 

I was making a point about mileage. I linked to the page where they compared mileage. What do you not understand? It was very clearly a multi-page article so if you needed info from the other pages all you had to do was click on those links which were very clearly displayed. I'm not going to humor you by linking every single word in an article separately to keep you from pretending the info is too hard to find as a way of denying it exists/changing the subject.

 

 

Why exactly? How would an article testing the '13 5.3 back up your wild claims about mileage of your '14 5.3? Just trying to change the subject?

 

 

And you shall have your wish. The same guys tested a bunch of '15s recently. They haven't posted their results with the magic 3.5 yet, but they should be up soon.

again making comparisons with non similar vehicles. If were going to compare lets at least compare current model to current model. My point all along has been 15 to 15. So Im not listening to anymore yeah but articles comparing apples and oranges.

 

I haven't made any wild claims about my 14 5.3 and gas mileage. Now your making stuff up. You might want to take debate class sometime as your all over the place.

 

I would interested in seeing their test. Unless they are like body styles, with like gearing its moot point.

[HondaHawkGT]

I love how the motor trend article calls the ram the master of all trades there at the end. Except it can only haul 960# If I'm not mistaken, the ram ecodiesel isn't even a 1/2 ton truck.

Yup. I believe it's the Ram Laramie Crew Cab equipped with the Ram Box and ecodiesel. Even worse, it's important to remember that the weight of the vehicle occupants has to be subtracted from that payload rating. Pretty scary to think of how many guys probably buy that configuration and are on the road, overloaded by 1,000 lbs or more.

[nards444]

Yup. I believe it's the Ram Laramie Crew Cab equipped with the Ram Box and ecodiesel. Even worse, it's important to remember that the weight of the vehicle occupants has to be subtracted from that payload rating. Pretty scary to think of how many guys probably buy that configuration and are on the road, overloaded by 1,000 lbs or more.

Personally I beleive there are probably as many people out that drive over weight as there are guys that are driving around a truck equipped to haul umpteen more weight than they ever would. I dont there there are to many guys that buy a truck that truly equipped for what they need.