By on January 15, 2018

It’s NAIAS week in Detroit, signaling a parade of press conferences and more shrimp than what’s found in all the North Atlantic. While buzzwords this year are “mobility” and “disruption,” the Detroit Three still found time to show us new versions of machines in my favorite segment, the full-sized pickup truck market.

Chevy showed off a new Silverado with an octet of trims, Ram dropped its new non-Freightliner pickup, and Ford promised an oil burner for the F-150.

Now we’ve seen them all, here’s my question to you: if forced to choose one, what would you select?

And, no, you can’t say “none of the above.” This is not a first-year civics course at community college. Nor can you jump on the Nissan or Toyota bandwagon. Those two trucks are capable contenders but they’re not the focus of today’s QOTD.

Jeez. I think that’s the first time in my five-and-a-half years of writing here I’ve ever deployed my Dad Voice. Anyways. Let’s run through your options.

Ford F-150 Diesel

The new 3.0-liter Power Stroke turbodiesel V6 churns out 250 horsepower and 440 lbs-ft of torque when stuffed under the hood of the Ford F-150. Hooked to a 10-speed automatic transmission, the new PowerStroke enables the diesel F-150 to tow up to 11,400 pounds.

2019 Chevrolet Silverado

Chevy refurbished the new Silverado to the height of utility, with more bed acreage than previous iterations and trick storage solutions inside the seatbacks of the rear bench. It, too, will be available with a diesel in the form of a 3.0-liter inline-six. I am anxious to hear its exhaust note.

2019 Ram 1500

Ram has jumped into the deep end of risk by jettisoning the in-yer-face big rig look on which it traded for nearly 25 model years. It’s still plenty aggro, especially in the Rebel trim shown above, but this author thinks this styling decision is as much of a departure as the new-for-1994 Ram was back in the day.

So there’s your choices, B&B. Whatever your yardstick — styling, powertrain, or something else — what’s your pick for a full size truck from the Detroit Three?

[Image: Ford, General Motors, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

86 Comments on “QOTD: Is This Truck For You?...”


  • avatar
    Sub-600

    I would take the Ram, a white one with the 5.7. Sharp interior, strong engine, and 12” Uconnect.

  • avatar
    jpolicke

    As disappointed as I am with the styling, I would still go with the Ram. For the ramboxes, Uconnect, and Hemi.

  • avatar
    Steve Biro

    Dodge/Ram led us down the path of cartoon trucks; maybe they’ll lead us back. The new truck is a decent first step so I’ll go with Ram. But, deep down, I want to say “whatever truck is the smallest and lightest.”

  • avatar
    dividebytube

    Ugh – is there a none of the above option?

    If not – I’ll go with Ram. Its front end is the least hideous of all three.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Ram without hesitation. Proper V8, best transmission on the market, amazing forethought, and innovative features and a hybrid option if that’s you thing.

    Second choice is the Silverado. Another amazing vehicle, huge weight loss, still is proper steel, and you can get a 6.2L V8.

    Really why would you look at anything else? You’ll just be disappointed.

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    The Chevy in traditional 5.3 or 6.2 gas iteration. I have zero trust that Ford can get this new baby power stroke correct the first time out of the gate. Past performance as an indicator of future results and all.

    I feel like the Ram has the same, or similar, front end as the Charger. Not sure how I feel about this development.

  • avatar
    Nostrathomas

    Not (quite) full sized but it was introduced at the show, so I’d take the Ranger.

  • avatar
    Turbo Is Black Magic

    Since I still can’t get a modern Lightning, SRT, or Syclone… I’ll settle for the closest thing. F-150 with an Ecoboost so I can tune it.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    I’m not the guy to ask here, because I am not particularly interested in trucks, and have no need for one, but if I had to choose, I’d go with a red two-door F-150. The other two look like rolling advertisements for…ahem…girth insecurity.

  • avatar
    King of Eldorado

    Language nitpick: “Ram dropped its new non-Freightliner pickup…”

    Using “dropped” to mean “introduced” or “revealed” is confusing, as it also means its opposite, as in “canceled.” Thanks — I feel better now.

  • avatar
    Flipper35

    Can I get a Power Wagon with the Rebel grill instead of the new trashy grill?

  • avatar
    kosmo

    Having driven all three (fairly briefly) in their current guise, it would be hard to resist the siren song of TORQUES in the 3.5 L boosted Ford, despite all the concerns regarding long-term reliability.

    But I’m a van guy at heart, and REALLY want a Transit with 3.5 L Ecoboost and AWD. Come on Ford!

  • avatar
    ajla

    Lowest priced 6.2L Silverado GM will sell me.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    A short bed, standard cab Silverado is the truck for me, hands-down.

  • avatar
    Gardiner Westbound

    I’d go with the Chevrolet Silverado for long term reliability notwithstanding the cylinder deactivation feature. It’s a very complicated system with minimum upside.

  • avatar
    arach

    I’ll take the ram as long as I can get it in a good color like Yellow, Orange, or green. Thats always kind of a dependency for me.

    I bought my last Ram when they had the beautiful emerald green on the lux trims. Also had an F250 Amarillo edition (yellow). I love everything about that Ram as long as the color options follow suit! I refuse to drive a lame Black, White, Tan, Red, etc.

  • avatar
    derekson

    The Chevrolet with the inline 6 diesel and either a chrome or body colored grille instead of that disgusting blacked out fascia.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    Not for me. This truck is too big by far and a darned sight more capable than anything I’ll ever use one for.

    All I need is a little something that can seat two comfortably and a dog in the cab extension and carry 750# of payload, not including passengers. Is that REALLY too much to ask?

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Oh, I can definitely say, “None of the above.” The question asked is if this truck (or these trucks) is for me and by no means is any one of them what I want in a truck.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Attaboy! You keep voting with your wallet and they’ll come around eventually if you live long enough.

        Or not.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Enough people voting with their wallets WILL have an effect. If (and I admit that’s a big word in this case,) the Hyundai Santa Cruz comes out truly as small as the prototype in overall size, I expect a lot of wallets will be opening up, showing the Big Three just how badly they screwed up by going bigger with each new mid-sized model.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Has there EVER been a pickup “just right” for you? When buying exclusively to fit a narrow set of dimensions/requirements, I’m sure Hyundai knows it’s just as easy to get it *wrong* as right. Fullsize pickups are like stretch pantz, where in every configuration, most users find them big enough or can easily live with the extra size/area unused or unneeded, for any given task, or no task.

            Compact tiny pickups are like designer jeans but in just one size. They only get one shot to please everyone looking into the segment, so they better chose “correctly”, even though they’re limited to an existing platform. Buyers such as yourself will pour all over it with a tape measurer when/if it hits showrooms and are extremely finicky. Fullsize trucks, (or even midsize pickups) don’t have such problems.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “Has there EVER been a pickup “just right” for you?”

            —- Yes, DM, there has. The first was a Mitsubishi with the extended cab, albeit it lost a foot of bed in the process, back in the mid-80s. Problem was, I couldn’t afford it at the time. The second is more recent and yes, is a compromise to some extent but that would be almost any of the next-generation S-10/Rangers with the extended cab and short bed. But again, I couldn’t afford them and in one case I simply wouldn’t let my employer turn my private vehicle into a company work vehicle for hauling loads (hey, he owned a pickup truck AS a company vehicle; pick up and delivery of those heavy rear-projection TVs for repair were going to be on HIS buck, not mine!) I didn’t need two vehicles at the time and if I was going to have just one it wasn’t going to be a working-type vehicle. No sedans, wagons or trucks for me at that point. If it had four doors, I didn’t want it. But I still needed at least of modicum of interior storage so I drove coupes with an enclosed trunk or hatchback (liftback) design like the 90s Camaro (you’d be surprised how much you could pack into a car like that. Still had cat hair in the headliner when I sold the car 10 years after I made a major move.)

            Now I can afford what I want, but nobody builds it.

          • 0 avatar
            MBella

            Correct Mike. The economics just don’t work for the small trucks. When the new Ridgeline came out I started looking at trucks as an option. The roads here in Michigan aren’t getting any better, and a truck would help deal with them. The bed in the Ridgeline is to shallow. Toyota prices for Tacomas were crazy compared to comparable GM products. Then you start looking at Colorados and realize that the only place it feels smaller than a full size is the interior and the bed. Otherwise it feels almost as big. Than you ad the incentives on the full size and realize why they are so popular.

      • 0 avatar
        Carlson Fan

        “It, too, will be available with a diesel in the form of a 3.0-liter inline-six. I am anxious to hear its exhaust note.”

        And trust me, if you know guys that buy diesel PU’s, that exhaust note alone is what will propel sales of the GM 1/2 ton diesel past Ford & Ram. Again – putting an inline 6 diesel in their new 1/2 ton was one of the smartest decisions GM has made in long time.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          I agree that for a certain crowd of diesel buyers the inline 6 cyl’s exhaust note is a large part of the appeal. I don’t know if that will be enough to make it outsell the Ford in that class. Ram should be easy enough to outsell if the MPG and capability is comparable.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Anyone know where they sourced the inline-6 diesel?

          • 0 avatar
            MBella

            It’s speculation, but I have to assume it’s a derivative of the LWN engine used in the Colorado. This engine is derived from an original design by VM Motorized, but has since been updated in house by GM.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      Supercab F150 STX with one of the smaller engines: Flat floor, 40/console/40 front seats with column shifter, vinyl floor and clam shell doors is a pretty sweet K9 package. The two smaller engines, without any payload packages, have rear leafs properly suited for light loads as well. In my book, the STX trim Supercab is also the bast looking half ton.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “750# of payload, not including passengers”

      Passengers are payload. Two “average” males put you at 392 lbs. A lab sized dog averages 75lbs. Add that dog to your passengers and you are at 467lbs. Throw in your 750 lbs of cargo and voila: 1217 lbs which is right in the ballpark of a low capacity small or large pickup. Add to that the normal flotsam and jetsam of life and you can easily add a few hundred more pounds to that tally.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @Lou_BC: You’re obviously not understanding my intent. I know as well as you do that you’re only arguing semantics. I’ve made it quite clear in the past that I don’t agree with modern terminology because it is deceptive marketing. Payload to me means “Paying Load”, meaning revenue-making load capacity. Pickup trucks are not taxis or buses so they cannot include passengers as payload. That is why I worded my desires in the specific manner I did.

        I know it’s not standard, but I simply don’t care. I’m describing what I want, not what exists. What I want doesn’t exist and likely won’t exist until the OEMs realize that they’re ignoring a lucrative market.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Extended cab F150 (but I don’t want the diesel) clamshell doors like an extended cab ought to be.

    XLT trim, bench seat, 5.0 V8 (now with 10 speed auto) 4×4 – and there will be exactly 0 on dealer lots configured that way. I get an aftermarket performance exhaust and make it sound like a Mustang GT.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    I can’t believe sometimes they’ll sell me a V8 crew cab 4X4 in base trim, rubber floor, plain radio with a sprinkling of luxury, heated seats/mirrors, pwr/locks windows.

    Make it in red (no clearcoat) with chrome delete and I’m absolutely thrilled. Yes it’s a great time to be into pickups! $10K in rebates too??

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      DenverMike – I don’t think that a non-clearcoat paint exists anymore.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        I’m not sure why you would need a clearcoat for a solid color (except for black), but with solid reds and whites, I don’t think I’ve yet to see a burnt clearcoat on them, like all metallics with lots of sun exposure, a few years in. When did they start clearcoating everything? My white ’06 Super Duty also has no clearcoat, never garaged and still shines ok, as does my red ’04 F-150, 14 years in the weather. Its black textured trim is toast though. The trim bits at the outer cowl turned to dust years ago, but the red paint still shines ok.

        • 0 avatar
          MBella

          I can assure you that your super duty has a clear coat if it still has the original paint.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Nope I took sandpaper to the door jamb to confirm no clearcoat. Yes it’d sparkle almost with a good wax or buffing but it looks good asis and I absolutely attribute that to no clearcoat, just single stage, but quality factory paint. No waxing since new either. A clearcoat would’ve looked like hell by now, with this kind of neglect, exposure.

        • 0 avatar
          IHateCars

          Two stage paint systems have been in wide use for years by manufacturers but it may be that your white Super Duty has no clear as it was possible to order fleet/commercial trucks with single stage paint….typically in white or gray.

  • avatar
    MrIcky

    I was considering something like the Ram ecodiesel, but I want to hear more about the hybrid. It seems like a pretty straightforward unit. If it can do +20mpg in town,it will move up the list.

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    Honestly, I d rather have a gently used 2015 GMC Sierra CC/LB in SLT trim w/6.2 under the hood over any of these trucks brand new. That’s one sharp looking truck which is something I can’t say about any of these.

  • avatar
    Dan

    I have a ’16 Ford right now that’s been flawless. The worst that I can say about it is that there’s no getting used to the vacuum cleaner noises under the hood. Oh, and the radio stinks. Ford’s signature conveniences – the 36 gallon tank, the keypad on the B pillar to unlock the truck, the great visibility with the dropping beltline for the side mirrors – would be tough to give up.

    I had a ’14 Ram before that. It drove and sounded great and it floated down the road like a Cadillac used to, but from the warranty trips to the early onset of rattles the quality wasn’t really there.

    GM and their hideous Mexican truck built with American bailout money can kiss my ass.

    I like a lot of what I see in the new Ram but this Ford has been good enough that I’d just buy another one.

  • avatar
    Middle-Aged Miata Man

    As loathe as I am to endorse anything Fiasler… the Ram all the way. The Chevy is a grotesque mess and I trust Ford “build quality” even less than FCA. Final transaction price would likely be much lower as well.

  • avatar

    Chevrolet because nobody does V8 better.

  • avatar
    chaparral

    The turbo tincan Ford.

    In ten years the Ram will be rotten as a pear, the Chevy will have a solid body and rusty hardware, and the Ford will need to be washed and waxed.

    On paper the V8s should outlast the Ecoboost, but we don’t drive on paper, and the cylinder deactivation problems and worn lifters actually do send the pushrod engines out of service.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    Chevy:
    I don’t know enough about the Chevy diesel to want to pick that truck. I like the “lifted” Trail Boss but typical of Chevy it has the snowplow low bumper facia.

    Ram:
    Ewwww. Hate the snout. Since the “rules” of this game mean I have to stick with the 1500 that rules out picking the Power Wagon.

    Ford:
    Ford has come up with the strategy of introducing new drivetrains separately from new bodies and chassis. That makes sense since it isn’t as big a risk with a new truck.
    The diesel they are using appears to be proven in other products, I am a fan of the EB 3.5, the new F150 interior isn’t that far removed from mine.
    I’d pick the V6 diesel or the Eb3.5 in a Supercrew 4×4 with 6.5 box.

    Too bad the Ranger or Colorado ZR2 weren’t on the list.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Yes Lou, no new midsizers. But, hey, its the USA!

      As I stated years ago the technology, or more precisely the technology used in these full size pickups will move prices north. This will make diesel more competitive and mid size pickups as they seem to be chasing bling over drivetrain technology.

  • avatar
    davefromcalgary

    Fascinating. The 2017 model year featured decently looking RAMs, F150 and GM 1/2 tons all for sale at the same time. And now for 2018 and 2019 they managed to apply an industry wide ugly stick.

    Fascinating.

    None of the above. This is getting out of hand.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    My first choice would be the Chev, in diesel with a few provisions;

    1. The diesel is a BMW sourced engine.

    2. The quality of the interior matches vehicle cost. GM and Ford make disgustingly crappy quality interiors. Oh, to the people who justify these low quality Tupperware looking interiors “because they are trucks” miss the point, they are cars now.

    3. The vehicle is not expensive.

    The F-150, even with the Lion diesel has an interior that would embarass a Chinese manufacturer and the vehicle is butt fnck ugly, the Ranger is far better looking than the F-150.

    Ram, overall FCA quality needs improving or proof of improvement. and the VM could use some tweaking or another turbo.

    The Ram looks nice, the Chev looks better.

    Matthew, there is a world of pickups, limited or biased, are you?

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Big Al from Oz – if Ram is any indication or Colorado for that matter, you are looking at a 4-5k premium for a diesel.

    • 0 avatar
      RSF

      A BMW sourced engine? Ever pay for repairs on these or see the sludge that developes if not maintained religiously?

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        RSF,
        I’ve pretty much have been involved with diesel pickups since the early 80s. I swear by them.

        Sludging? The worst engine I’ve had for sludhing was the 3.5 Mistsubishi V6 gasoline engine.

        • 0 avatar
          RSF

          I agree with you on diesel trucks. They are excellent overall. However, it’s common to find sludge in bmw and Mercedes diesels, even with miles in the 20s. We have to use caution when buying them.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        BMW? When it came time to put the ancient 7.3 to bed, Navistar looked to BMW for the 6.0 Power Stroke’s “modern” and emissions-compliant design. It even looks like a BMW diesel, but many corners were cut including plastic fuel-pump impellers and other BMW inspired cheapness that lead to catastrophic failure. Many Ford “updates” made the later 6.0s completely reliable/robust, and 100% “bulletproof” with help from the aftermarket.

  • avatar
    blockmachining

    Without a doubt, the Ram. The Ford is eliminated from consideration due to it’s aluminum bed. Out here in the farming community, there are way too many new Fords with holes in their bed. Reality goes like this…a new Ford truck is bought hoping that the bed issue will not affect them. The first fence post thrown into the bed that has either a nail still in it or a gate hinge still screwed in and bang… your bed has a hole in it. Then they go and buy a plastic Bed liner to hide the hole. Next, the Chevy’s front end is ugly. Sorta like the Pontiac Aztec. The Aztec was actually a very functional vehicle but consumers could not get past it’s looks. I’d buy the Ram. It seems FCA has not forgotten the primary mission of a truck. The Ram has shortcomings but it still has the capability to get the job done.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “Then they go and buy a plastic Bed liner to hide the hole.”

      I have to call B.S.

      Anyone who ACTUALLY uses their truck for work gets a spray-in liner or some sort of alternative i.e. aluminum checkerplate, rubbermat, plywood etc. regardless of bed composition BEFORE the truck gets put to work.

      I do not know a single guy who does not do that other than someone who has the keys to a fleet truck and even there, the fleet owner will add some sort of liner!

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        Or just a tray (flatbed) on the truck.

        But Ford (and all other manufacturers)knows most pickups don’t work. The ones that do will end up bent irrespective of brand.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          Pickup (tub) beds do just fine for hard work and are ideal for all but the heaviest of industrial users. A flatbed deck has to sit almost a foot higher to clear the wheels/tire travel, and you lose compatibility with camper shells or high tops, never mind lost “resale”.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Yeah I had to laugh too. If that’s the case, yeah use it bare and unprotected until there’s holes, then bedliner it, or at time of sale or lease return.

    • 0 avatar
      RSF

      Until the hemi starts it’s knocking….

  • avatar
    MBella

    I’m thinking the Sierra will probably look good to the person who doesn’t like the Chevy. That would be my choice, with one of the V8s. I don’t trust the Fiat or turbo Ford for long term reliability.

    • 0 avatar
      RSF

      Not sure why there are long term reliability doubters on the ecoboost engines. We’re in model year 8 on these now and no major issues have been revealed.

      • 0 avatar
        MBella

        Adding more heat to an engine and complexity will have an affect. Just the added failure points are going to decrease reliability in the long term. 0% of naturally aspirated engines will suffer turbo failures, boost leaks, etc… By forcing more air into the engine, you are also adding more stress to the engine. I have already heard of fleet managers replacing their turbo Fords early with naturally aspirated options.

      • 0 avatar
        Fordson

        Yeah – like 62% of the most popular vehicle in the world are sold with these engines in them and now they are at 8 model years…so that’s how many billion of actual road miles in the hands of owners – ?

        But yeah – they’re unproven.

        And take away those power windows and A/C, too. Unproven. And sunroofs all leak.

        Lots of smart people on TTAC…but the creeping old-fartism is so strong.

        • 0 avatar
          tomLU86

          All things being equal, more heat and more complexity WILL equal more failure.

          If an automaker puts the same amount of effort (and cost) into reliable normally aspirated engine as a turbo, the NA will always be more reliable and cost less to make.

          And in the ‘real world’, when one uses the “power” that enables our small turbo engine to behave like “big” one, guess what? It uses the same amount of fuel.

          So, to me, in a TRUCK, the slight gain in efficiency is not worth the real risk of expensive repairs (unless of course I sell the truck below 100k miles, and the next guy gets it. But if word is out that the truck is not as reliable, then I will get less money for my sub 100k mile truck, so the turbo will cost me in depreciation)

          Turbos are easier to accept in smaller cars, where mass and underhood space are more critical.

          • 0 avatar
            Fordson

            How about if word gets out that your sub-100k-mile truck has an aluminum body that won’t rust – will you get more for it than you would for a steel-bodied truck?

            Yes.

  • avatar
    Carrera

    If I had about 35,000 I would get an XLT F150 with the 2.7 V6
    If money wasn’t part of the equation, a Laramie Limited Ram with V6 diesel.
    I am glad the Chevy is bringing a diesel but the inside looks very GM cheap.

  • avatar
    cdotson

    The Ram’s increase in towing capacity returns it to class-competitive. With the Ram’s new flat floor that tilts further in favor of the Ram.

    Bottom line is: cheapest crew cab with a minimum 6′ bed that tows more than 11k with integrated trailer brake controls, rear camera, and towing mirrors wins. Up to now that would have been a Ram 2500, but the 2019 Ram 1500 might eek out the win.

  • avatar
    derekson

    Automobile claims one of the engine options in the Silverado will be a new 2.7L twin turbo I4. That seems like an intriguing base engine (before people wail and gnash their teeth about 4 cylinders in a full sized truck anyway). It also seems like an ideal engine for the Colorado instead of the 3.6L V6 that isn’t even really a truck engine.

  • avatar
    TW5

    In the era of engine downsizing, all trucks should have inline-6 engines. They are cheaper, simpler, and can be boosted by a single turbocharger. Trucks have enough room in the engine bay to accommodate the block. Unfortunately, the manufacturers are maintaining the V-architecture to maintain compatibility with smaller vehicles that still need V6 power.

    In the absence of an inline-6, I want a V8, and since V8’s make such nice noise and draw so much attention, it must be a nice looking truck. That rules out the Ford and the Chevy. I’ll take a Ram of some sort, preferably a Rebel.

    • 0 avatar
      tomLU86

      I agree with TW5!

      In-line sixes are inherently smooth.

      That’s why it’s a shame that GM dropped their 4.2 six from the Trailblazer.

      Maybe it was too costly due to DOHC?

      Then, rather than the 4.3 V6, which is the mutated offspring of the (brilliant) Chevy small-block, why not apply modern electronic engine controls to the old 250 cid Chevy six, with a head modified to mimic the combustion chamber of GM’s current excelent small block V8.

      There you go GM, less cost and a better motor than the 4.3 V6, and arguably a better base engine than ANY pickup truck today.

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        Thanks for mentioning that inline 6’s are naturally balanced (smooth). Somehow, I omitted!

        Anyway, I’m glad someone else sees the inherent value of inline-6’s.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    I never thought that there’d be a day where I preferred Ram’s hair lip grill found on the Rebel.

  • avatar
    jack4x

    Since only Ford (of these 3) still offers an 8 foot bed with a backseat, that is my choice by default. No diesel for me though, the fuel savings just don’t seem like they would ever pay off with local prices, and the gas engine lineup is better than ever.

    Lariat, 5.0, ECLB, 4×4, tow package, as little chrome and as much tire sidewall as possible.

  • avatar
    rreichar

    Ram for me. Uconnect rules. I’d prefer the 3.0 liter diesel but the Hemi is still cool. I’ve had a 2013 Hemi and a 2016 diesel. Both great trucks.

  • avatar
    ptschett

    Ram Rebel Quad Cab if it can be had with a 40/20/40 bench seat & auto-4WD transfer case; Big Horn or Laramie if Rebel is still locked into the bucket seats & part-time transfer case. 5.7 Hemi, 4×4, probably 3.92 gears, maybe with the eTorque.

  • avatar
    ernest knoellinger

    I’m thinking car enthusiasts don’t represent the full-size pickup market very well, reading the comments. Last year, 2.3 million full-size pickups were sold, and, if my math is right, 41% of them were Fords. That being said, I’d go for the Ford Supercab, but I’d like mine with the 5.0 please. If cost was no object, I’d just go for a Bright Blue Raptor and call it a day.

  • avatar
    jfk-usaf

    I actually think that Ram fixed their look. The old grill looked like an actual pig with the two holes up front.

    I’d choose the Ford. FCA vehicles are constructed of crap parts so Ram gets a Hell no! GM is a little better and does look good but still a no. Maybe I’d lease one and keep getting rid of them before things start to go wrong. GM just doesn’t age well.

    Of the three I have the most faith in Ford. You only buy the others if you don’t want to (or can’t) spend the money on the F-150.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Arthur Dailey: Nice posting. Those early Firestone radials were indeed dangerous. As mentioned previously I had 2...
  • Arthur Dailey: With my most recent vehicle acquisition I actually went with a lower spec model to avoid the larger...
  • EBFlex: ” serial adulterer” Yes shouldn’t he be completely canceled for that? Per the leftist mob...
  • ToolGuy: You can rearrange the letters of MOVEMENT THAT INSPIRES to spell: – HESITANT IMPROVEMENTS –...
  • conundrum: I lived in London from 1969 to 1974. There never was a 2.6 litre version of this Essex V6 engine. The 2.5l...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber