RAM vs. CHEVY vs. FORD
Posting Guru
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,069
Likes: 9
From: Finger Lakes, NY
I'll be driving these elevations this July, 21K 5er in back of me too; AZ up to Utah, across Colorado to home.
My Duramax never even sneezed at this run, but I'm wondering now more than ever on how this thing will tow my heavy 5er. I'm still trying to load up the 1K breakin miles, Smokey Mtns May 2nd is my first haul-test.
My Duramax never even sneezed at this run, but I'm wondering now more than ever on how this thing will tow my heavy 5er. I'm still trying to load up the 1K breakin miles, Smokey Mtns May 2nd is my first haul-test.
Senior User
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Mx, I understand your disappointment. I'm disappointed as well, but I feel that something is a little off here. Ford tests these trucks up the IKE and the Davis Dam, as well as other high-altitude or steep grades, hot / cold, on and on. All manufacturers do. They know bragging rights are key to sales.
In this particular test, the Chevy was the lightest but also had the least advantageous rear axle ratio. The RAM was the
heaviest. Part of why the Chevy is lighter is due to the fact that the "as-tested" truck was a cloth-equipped LT without many of the options found on the other trucks.
Back in 2011, Ford's first 6.7L was 390HP and 735lb-ft. GM's LML Duramax produced 397HP and 765lb-ft. At the time, Ford was pretty proud of the in-house, brand-new "Scorpion" diesel. So they provided a software flash to the 400/800 figures. In all the tests of the first-gen 6.7L, especially compared to the Duramax, it seemed like flash notwithstanding, the 390/735 figure was more accurate. Back to back tests of flashed vs original trucks showed virtually no performance difference.
Now, the 2015 second-generation 6.7L received substantial upgrades to the engine in terms of the fuel system, turbo, etc. This 440/860 engine seemed to perform much closer to those numbers, besting the Duramax and RAM in many instances.
The 2017 version is considerably more torque-rich...although note how the peak torque has moved up from 1600RPM to 1800RPM. But it almost seems this 2017 truck is performing worse than the 2015 truck tested with nearly the same load.
In this particular test, the Chevy was the lightest but also had the least advantageous rear axle ratio. The RAM was the
heaviest. Part of why the Chevy is lighter is due to the fact that the "as-tested" truck was a cloth-equipped LT without many of the options found on the other trucks.
Back in 2011, Ford's first 6.7L was 390HP and 735lb-ft. GM's LML Duramax produced 397HP and 765lb-ft. At the time, Ford was pretty proud of the in-house, brand-new "Scorpion" diesel. So they provided a software flash to the 400/800 figures. In all the tests of the first-gen 6.7L, especially compared to the Duramax, it seemed like flash notwithstanding, the 390/735 figure was more accurate. Back to back tests of flashed vs original trucks showed virtually no performance difference.
Now, the 2015 second-generation 6.7L received substantial upgrades to the engine in terms of the fuel system, turbo, etc. This 440/860 engine seemed to perform much closer to those numbers, besting the Duramax and RAM in many instances.
The 2017 version is considerably more torque-rich...although note how the peak torque has moved up from 1600RPM to 1800RPM. But it almost seems this 2017 truck is performing worse than the 2015 truck tested with nearly the same load.
Just look at how many views this video got.... people are extremely interested in this test.
More Turbo
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 552
Likes: 22
is the 6.7 or Ford trucks in general, thought of as unreliable? If so, I never knew it.
More Turbo
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 552
Likes: 22
this is the first I've heard of this report, where did you hear they ran it twice?
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Out of the brands tested (and as acknowledged in the video) the Ford was the quietest and the smoothest riding truck. Add to that the far superior creature comforts, tactile feel, and technology, I'll give up 15 seconds and .2 mpg any day. At the end of 8 hours of hard driving, a smooth quiet ride more than makes up for a minute or two of speed. YMMV
Posting Guru
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,237
Likes: 3
I don't think you guys realize how much BIGGER the 2017 super duty's are. Sure the Ram weighed a little bit more but the aerodynamic is totally different. To me the new super duty is a big brick on wheels. I was just noticing how much bigger my f350 SRW is compared to my co worker brand new 2017 GMC 3500. No wonder it was a LITTLE slower. If there was any wind the Ford is at a huge disadvantage. And this is probably the reason why there is no difference in performance between the '16 super duty and the '17. It's the same hp with a little bump in tq. But the size of the '17 just cancels out the tq bump so it will perform the same.
Hotshot
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 10,119
Likes: 652
From: NH
I don't think you guys realize how much BIGGER the 2017 super duty's are. Sure the Ram weighed a little bit more but the aerodynamic is totally different. To me the new super duty is a big brick on wheels. I was just noticing how much bigger my f350 SRW is compared to my co worker brand new 2017 GMC 3500. No wonder it was a LITTLE slower. If there was any wind the Ford is at a huge disadvantage. And this is probably the reason why there is no difference in performance between the '16 super duty and the '17. It's the same hp with a little bump in tq. But the size of the '17 just cancels out the tq bump so it will perform the same.
You can bet the new design is more aerodynamic than the old design. The front air dam is much more pronounced now as well.
Weight is the single most important factor here. I don't think aerodynamics is critically important when the truck is struggling to make 35mph up a hill.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
Posting Guru
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,237
Likes: 3
Umm...the trucks got 4" longer, but the cab is much narrower at the roofline now than it was on the 2016 models.
You can bet the new design is more aerodynamic than the old design. The front air dam is much more pronounced now as well.
Weight is the single most important factor here. I don't think aerodynamics is critically important when the truck is struggling to make 35mph up a hill.
You can bet the new design is more aerodynamic than the old design. The front air dam is much more pronounced now as well.
Weight is the single most important factor here. I don't think aerodynamics is critically important when the truck is struggling to make 35mph up a hill.
Hotshot
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 10,119
Likes: 652
From: NH
Im just going off personal experience here in Tx. It's been very windy the past couple of days and I notice while towing my '17 struggles more than my works '16 f350 with the same trailer and same equipment on the trailer. Granted I know it's not like going up a mountain but if there was any kind of wind during that test the Ford is at a disadvantage.
Senior User
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
From: Lititz, PA
Fair enough. Many people have commented on "how big" these new trucks are. It's a little bit about perception. You have to remember its the exact same cab as the F-150...and nobody comments on how big those are. The F-150 cab is shorter in height than the previous Super Duty cab. To make it appear taller, the cab sits higher up on the frame, rather than wrapping down around it like the previous generation did. So yes, the trucks are longer (thanks to the longer F-150 cab) but they aren't really larger in any other way.
Excellent point - this past Sunday, I was just at the local dealer comparing 2 trucks I've been eye-balling. 2016 F150 and 2017 F250 next to each other...same config: SC, LB, 4x4. The 250 sits much higher than the F150, largely due to solid front axle and a big frame. But the appearance....I've noticed in many other vehicles the past few years, the design...the "lines" of the vehicle, greatly contribute to perception of size.
I think in the case of the new Super Duty's, the fact it sits up on the frame higher in combination with some design-magic, has these trucks looking MASSIVE. All the same time having the same exact cab dimensions as the "little" ol' F150.
So....after eye-balling and drooling, I hop "up into my Ford Ranger-like 2006 F150". Man, did my truck feel absolutely miniature after walking around the F250.....miniature....unreal.
I want one............badly............
Posting Guru
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,237
Likes: 3
Fair enough. Many people have commented on "how big" these new trucks are. It's a little bit about perception. You have to remember its the exact same cab as the F-150...and nobody comments on how big those are. The F-150 cab is shorter in height than the previous Super Duty cab. To make it appear taller, the cab sits higher up on the frame, rather than wrapping down around it like the previous generation did. So yes, the trucks are longer (thanks to the longer F-150 cab) but they aren't really larger in any other way.
Hotshot
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 10,119
Likes: 652
From: NH
I know it's the exact same cab as the f150 and I understand why it sits up higher. But you do realize when you lift anything they become less areodynamic and will get less mpg. The new super duty basically has a 3-4" lift kit over the previous model with no gain in hp and a little bump in tq. 65lbs isn't that noticeable in these size of trucks. I'm not hating on them one but cause I own a 2017 F350 KR and I LOVE it. But I'm really not surprise at all at this test just from personal experience. And don't get all the hurt feelings from this? It's pretty funny that people are getting so upset cause of 15 seconds. Lol
I pulled a common config from the Ford dimensions guide for both 2016 and 2017 trucks: F-350, CCSB, 4x4
2016 truck: 80.8"
2017 truck: 81.3"
Furthermore, minimum running ground clearance on these same trucks measure an identical 8.2".
So in reality, the old and new truck basically sit as low and as high as each other. The perception trick is in how high the cab sits off the ground compared to the old truck. Basically, the distance from the cab floor to ceiling is significantly less than the old truck, which makes it seem high...but in reality you just sit closer to the cab floor in the new truck.
Posting Guru
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,237
Likes: 3
No, it doesn't. While your point is well taken regarding lift and mpg, the fact is that these new trucks have a roof height of only about 0.5" greater than a 2016.
I pulled a common config from the Ford dimensions guide for both 2016 and 2017 trucks: F-350, CCSB, 4x4
2016 truck: 80.8"
2017 truck: 81.3"
Furthermore, minimum running ground clearance on these same trucks measure an identical 8.2".
So in reality, the old and new truck basically sit as low and as high as each other. The perception trick is in how high the cab sits off the ground compared to the old truck. Basically, the distance from the cab floor to ceiling is significantly less than the old truck, which makes it seem high...but in reality you just sit closer to the cab floor in the new truck.
I pulled a common config from the Ford dimensions guide for both 2016 and 2017 trucks: F-350, CCSB, 4x4
2016 truck: 80.8"
2017 truck: 81.3"
Furthermore, minimum running ground clearance on these same trucks measure an identical 8.2".
So in reality, the old and new truck basically sit as low and as high as each other. The perception trick is in how high the cab sits off the ground compared to the old truck. Basically, the distance from the cab floor to ceiling is significantly less than the old truck, which makes it seem high...but in reality you just sit closer to the cab floor in the new truck.
Hotshot
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 10,119
Likes: 652
From: NH
Theres a bigger difference than you think. At my work my co worker has a 2014 f350 lariat with 20's stock everything and you can clearly tell a difference in cab height and bed height. I'll take measurements of his and mine and take photos. The Ford site might say only half inch difference but in reality there looks to be a bigger difference. We'll see when I measure.
