Comparison Test: 2007 Half-Ton Pickup Trucks

The part that interested me:

The Titan averaged 13.7 mpg during its stay with us, with a best tank of 15.1 mpg. EPA estimates are 13 mpg city, 18 mpg highway.

Despite its extra grunt and weight, the Tundra averaged 14.4 mpg, with a best tank of 16.9 mpg. EPA estimates are 14 mpg city, 18 mpg highway.

Over 5,436 miles, the Chevy has averaged 12.7 mpg with a best tank of 14.2 mpg. Of the three trucks, the Silverado's performance is the furthest from its EPA rating of 15 mpg city, 19 mpg highway.

The next time I need a truck for drag racing, I'll consider the Tundra. If I want a work truck, I'll get a Ford F250. The new, we really mean it this time, full size Tundra is still rated to carry less and tow less than even the 3 year old F150 design (depending on how each is equipped). The maximum payload for an F150 is 3060 lb (Regular Cab 4x2, 5.4L V-8). The maximum Payload for the almost Full Size This Time Tundra is 2065 lb (Regular cab, long bed, 5.7L V-8). The maximum towing capacity for an F150 is 11,000 lbs (when properly equipped). The maximum for the Tundra is 10,500 lbs (when properly equipped). But for about the same money as the F150, you can move up to an F250 which has a 3300 lb maximum payload, and a 15,000 lb maximum trailer weight (when properly equipped). For sure the Tundra will beat them both in a 0-60 contest. The next time I care about this, the Tundra will be at the top of the list. In my opinion, the new Tundra is just another truck for people who should have bought a car (I have the same opinion of an F150 by the way). I actually preferred the size of the old, 7/8 full size truck Tundra. Bigger is not always better.

People who really need a full size truck would be better off getting an F250 or Silverado 2500HD. People who want a truck to carry a bag of dog food in the back once a week should get a Ranger. There are few vehicles that look sillier that a full size truck with BIG chrome rims and a hard tonneau cover the bed.

Ed

messagenews:_ywvh.108$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe11.phx...

Chevrolet with the same GVW I would have to get a 1 ton chassis instead of the

3/4 ton Ford chassis, which I believe is a stronger chassis than the Chevy. Ron

Yeah. Nobody cares about the 0-60 or 1/4 mile times of a truck. Which is why those Dodge ads featured the pick-em-up towing the Charger blowing the doors off the yokels.

The people buying into this truck class are not immune to the siren song of "MORE POWER!"

Did you notice the fuel economy as tested by Edmunds? 12.7mpg for the Silverado and 14.4mpg for the Tundra. That's a bit of a surprise.

Well I am more interested in everyday performance. I test drove three different V-8 Tundras (4.7L V-8s) and was disappointed in how they pulled around town. If you floored them they were fine, but if you wanted to keep up with traffic, you had to floor them. I was used to my old 300 six in an F150. No fuss, no muss, it just kept up with traffic with minimal effort. Compared to that truck, the Tundras were a pain to drive. For that matter so is my Nissan Frontier. I can burn the rubber off the rear tires on the Frontier (4.0 L V6), but it is a pain to drive in traffic. No mid-range torque. It is like a no / no go switch. The specs look good, but real world performance sucks. In my opinion Ford does a much better job of matching the torque curve to real world usage. The specs don't look as good, but they are easier to drive.

I don't trust any of the displacement on demand systems. I'd like to see them test a "normal" small block V-8. I'll bet it would do better in the real world than the DOD system. It is my opinion that the Displacement on Demand systems have one advantage - they give good EPA numbers. It will be interesting to see how Consumer Reports does with the new 5.7 L Tundra. They got 17 mpg during the 150 mile trip loop with a 2004 V-8 Tundra. A 2004 Silverado with the 5.43L V-8 also got 17 in the 150 loop. A Frontier like mine only got 18 :( .

Ed

Are those the ones that use only some of the cylinders when cruising? Do only GM and Dodge have this?

How does Nissan do that? They build a truck smaller than Chevy/GMC, with far less cargo space and a cramped rear seat, but it gets worse gas mileage! Via the miracle of Japanese technology.

New truck, new engine. You may find it's different. Maybe even better.

Neither the InsideLine shootout nor the Edmunds specs for the Silverado 6.0L engine mentioned DoD. However, if you read the whole article, there are more curiosities. GM's engine management (not DoD - something else) on the Silverado appears to restrict power under certain circumstances and it appeared to hurt the Silverado in the testing (maybe just until they figured out what was going on). I don't recollect, precisely, what was going on, I think it was in the "dyno" section of the report.

Impala and Chrysler 300 owners do seem to like the DoD systems in their cars. I'd be awfully surprised if a good DoD system didn't offer noticeably better real-world fuel economy with little to no sacrifice of performance.

I'm a little surprised that DoD does not seem to be in any Toyota, yet, but maybe Toyota's outlook on this is similar to your own. Honda's got it - but not in too many models or trim levels, I think.

"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@news.meer.net...

Right now they are the only ones in this country selling it. I think others are working on it.

Well the Nissan Frontier does get better gas mileage (18 vs 17) than the GM V-8 and the Nissan V-6 engine is rated to have more horsepower than the GM

5.3L V-8. The Nissan Frontier is not that much smaller where it counts.. It has about as much room in the bed as a short box GM truck. The cab is a little smaller for sure. I didn't get the King Cab for the back seat - I just need it for storage space (tools, boxes, etc.). I have a small farm and the truck is primarily used on that farm. Big trucks are a pain in the rear if you actually need to use the truck for a lot of chores. When checking fences it is a pain to get in and out of the ridiculously jacked up full size 4x4 trucks. When planting in the spring, large trucks are difficult to pull out supplies as you need them. I like a truck that I can reach to the middle of the bed from either side, without a step ladder!. None of the current full size trucks are suitable. The previous generation Tundra (or the current if you don't count the new model) are just small enough to suit me. Unfortunately the prices are ridiculous. The Frontier is a little smaller than a Tundra (but only a little) and I find the size nearly perfect. The 4x4 system is excellent. The transmission is excellent. The seats are not particularly comfortable, and the interior attract dust like a magnet. The fuel economy is mediocre (not much better than my '92 F150). The engine is very powerful, but the power comes in at all the wrong places. To be honest, I should have bought a Ranger. We have an older one of those on the farm, and it will haul just about as much as the Nissan (despite the smaller box) and the interior is a lot more comfortable. And despite the fact the that the V-6 in the Ranger has much less power, it is actually much easier to use on the farm.

Ed

Thanks for your spirited defense of the Nissan Frontier. I do have to say that the back seat is comfortable enough for an 800 mile trip (I sat there!) and unlike you, I find the front seats quite comfortable. The Frontier would really be an ideal small 4-passenger truck if it just got better gas mileage.

Interesting idea. Some models of Ford Ranger (Mazda B2) have fairly good fuel economy. But I don't think a double cab is available, and I have not sat in the rear seat of the extended cab. Moreover, Consumer Reports shows much worse than average reliability for the drive train, except in 2003.

Just did a Consumer Reports comparison of the Ranger, Tacoma & Frontier. Probably the reason the Frontier gets such lousy gas mileage is that it weighs almost 5000# versus 4100# for the Tacoma.

I've noticed that DoD seems to work a lot better in more aerodynamic cars vs. brick-like trucks.

A while back, one of the mags tested a DoD Tahoe, which never dropped unless they drove like a 90 year old.

Two thoughts:

A) Presuming you're right (and I imagine you are but I'm not entirely sure), why don't they make the trucks more aerodynamic? I have to wonder if cooling and engine space layout requirements preclude this or if they just think the market demands trucks with massive front-ends in order to sell to people buying for image over substance? Frankly, I think it's the style issue and not an engineering requirement and I guess I can't understand a market segment where the buyers would value some arbitrary brute-force look over an additional N miles per gallon on the highway.

B) Presuming you're right (again...), why not just skip the DoD? Although, it seems like maybe, for the most part, they don't put the DoD in trucks.

I guess I have to wonder about the value of the DoD technology... The EPA estimates for a Honda Odyssey (farily aero - esp compared to a Silverado) are up by just 1mpg for both city and highway on the DoD version of the vehicle. That's not much but maybe the value is restrained by the EPA testing method. It would be interesting to see some real-world MPG stats on this vehicle with and without the DoD engine.

My Father owned nothing but Rangers after they were first introduced. He had

5 -

'83 2.3l 4 cylinder automatis "S" model - no A/C, no power brakes, no power steering, no radio - he got rid of it when he decided he wanted A/C - never had a failure in 3 years '86 2.9l V-6 short box, regular cab 2WD. Great truck, but was damaged in multiple accidents. I fixed it up and drove it for several years before it was totaled in another accident. The only failure in 6 years was one TFI module '89 2.9l V-6 long box, regular cab, automatic, 2WD. No problmes in 3 years, but Dad decided he wanted an extended cab '92 3.0l V-6 short box, extended cab, automatic, 2WD. Needed one water pump in 7 years. Dad decided he wanted 4WD '99 4.0l V-6, short box, extended cab with rear suicide doors, automatic,

4WD - never had a single problem in 8 years. It was recalled to replace the Firestone tires, but that's it. My Mother still owns this truck

So who should I believe, Consumer Reports and their flawed survey, or the experiences of my family? In over 24 years of Ranger ownership, we had two repairs - one TFI module and one water pump. My Nissan is under warranty, but it has already been back to the dealer 4 times for recalls and repairs. So which vehicle should I rate as the more reliable?

BTW, although Ford doesn't sell a true 4 door Ranger with a real back seat in the US, they do in Latin America. I rode in one in Mexico a few years ago. I don't know why they don't sell it here. See

. I suppose Ford wants to sell Explorer Sport Tracs to US consumers instead - but not to me. Ed

4,655# is not "almost 5000#." The 4 Door Frontier weighed 4,655#. The 4 Door Tacoma 4,115#. CR got 17 mpg with the 2005 Tacoma 4 door on their 150 mile loop. The 2005 Frontier four door got 18 mpg for the same 150 mile loop. So why do you think the Nissan got better fuel mileage than the Tacoma despite the higher weight? I average right at 18 for my Frontier, but there is a lot of high speed highway drivng to and from my farm in that average.

I actually had my Frontier weighed on the local truck scales - it only weighed 4300 lb. Mine is a 4WD, King Cab, V-6, Automatic. I had about 1/2 tank of fuel when it was weighed. My SO's Father has a V-6 4WD Tacoma, he doesn't get any better gas mileage than I do (his is also an extended cab). It appears to me that some of the Tacoma's body panels are plastic. At least I hope they are. I started to lean against the passenger side door and it flexed so much I jumped back from it.

BTW, in the CR ratings, used Rangers all get a good to very good overall rating. Recent Tacoma models have only rated very good. Used Frontier are rated about the same as Rangers. I actually set out to buy a Toyota truck, but got fed up with the local Toyota dealers. They all liked to quote a decent price but then added on the biggest documentation fee I've ever seen when you actually get ready to buy. This is just plain dishonest in my book. I don't buy cars from crooks. The Nissan dealer also included the phony doc fee, but it was small and I'd already factored it into my "acceptable" price. Even without the doc fee, the Nissan was thousands cheaper than a Tacoma with similar equipment. I really don't understand why anyone would buy a Tacoma. You could buy a Tundra for less, and almost anybody's else's similar size truck for a lot less.

Ed

I worked for a company that had several hundred (250-300) Rangers as telephone installation vehicles between 1985 and 1991. They were terrible! In '92 they switched back to short body vans, with some of the Rangers getting pulled from service in as little as 15 months and

18,000 miles.

The same company had a fleet of first generation Ford Explorers for cell site techs. Same results as the Rangers, not at all good. None of these vehicles were all that heavily loaded.

I'm not a cheerleader for Consumer Reports, but the overwhelming stats from the fleet I'm familiar with suggests your family should buy more lottery tickets. You've got a real shot at millions!

Another favorite trick of Toyota dealers is to quote a price for service not including parts. E.g, $59 for oil change and tire rotation. Afterwards the bill includes an additional $12 for oil, filter, and environmental fee.

Thanks for actual weights of your truck, hmm...

Please don't feed the trolls.