@@andrewcarr899 Exactly, what I was thinking...apples to apples comparison. But we all know that GM will not do that. Kinda like how they [Chevy] got caught lying in their truck bed commercial about Ford's military alloy beds.
Okie Rider nothing apples to apples about Ford 2.7 vs GM 2.7, Ford 2.7 is twin-turbo with much more horsepower and torque, and by the way you're biased.
I've rented the RAM and the F150 base trucks, they are fine for day to day driving and normal truck use, I think the price points on the trucks have gotten out of hand...
Z2357111319 Have you seen those end of the year discounts for $10 grand? That’s because that much profit is tacked on to the price. You can get them much cheaper at the right dealer.
@@dam4274 These companies have been giving away cars in Europe for the past decade; they've been loosing 500, 400 & 300 million dollars a year trying to gain momentum over seas, and you are paying for it with your 65K pickups!!! Europeans don't like American made cars!!!! This is what happens when you have idiots running companies; it's called affirmative action, and they don't care what you think because they're entitled! DON'T BE AN IDIOT!!!!
@@garybulwinkle82 Its not that...Europeans tariff the he'll out of our cars then only want to buy European. The thing about European cars is without the tariffs based on value they cant compete. European cars break down at the same rate and cost more to repair.
If you think full size trucks are expensive, look at midsize suv's. They are expensive meanwhile less capable making this trucks look like a gooooodd deal. If you want a cheap truck you can order one from your dealer. Most dealers don't order base trucks because no one buys 'em.
@@dam4274 As I read your comment about end of the year sales, an ad pops up for up to $16k off at a local Ford dealership. Wow! Amazing timing and dead on accurate. (If you have any psychic stock market tips, I'm listening . 😉)
Agreed! Chevy already has the 4.3 V6 to complete with the other V6s I bet this was originally made to complete with Fords 2.7 because they don’t have an engine to compete against it. But it was a huge disappointment so GM tried to save themselves the embarrassment and decided to say its to complete against the other V6s (and their very own V6 lol) So the tests I want to see: 1. The Ford 2.7 V6 Ecoboost vs GM 2.7 turbo I-4 2. The GM 4.3 V6 vs the GM 2.7 turbo I-4 And to be honest, with the silly electric water pump (why, just why lol) on the new GM turbo 4 I would gladly take the other two base V6s and even GMs very own 4.3 over this new engine
BassRacerx doesn’t really make a difference how easy it is to replace if your engine is already ruined I would very happily give up the extra few horsepower the belt driven water pump uses for the piece of mind knowing that as long as the engine is running, the water pump is too. It is a simple and redundant system that has been proven to be extremely reliable and in some cases will last the life of the vehicle This electric one has none of that, and adds in extra levels of complexity and failure points of wiring, sensors, and the tubing that connects it up with the exhaust manifold (which from what I hear is cast as part of the cylinder head...another step backwards) Not sure what was going through General Motors head here with this engine. GM makes the LS, which is an amazing engine, so how did the same company that made that drop the ball so badly when it came to this??
The Fact that the 4-Banger does what it does is no Joke. For being a Base Engine in the LT Models, it is surprising what it can do while still achieving almost a 22 Combined MPG. It is also the fastest truck listed below. 2019 Silverado 2WD Extended Cab -- 2.7L Inline 4-Cylinder Turbo -- 310-Hp at 5,600 Rpm -- 348-Tq from 1,500-4,000 RPM, and maintains over 300 Lb-Ft of Torque til Redline. So basically the engine makes 300+ Lb-Ft of Torque off idle to redline. -- 8-Speed Auto -- 7,200 Lbs Max Towing (3.42 gears) -- 2,102 Lbs Max Payload (2,280 Lbs Max Overall) -- 20.3 MPG City and 23.4 MPG Highway, 21.85 Combined. (It is listed as 20/21.5/23) 2019 F-150 2WD Extended Cab -- 3.3L V6 -- 290-Hp at 6,500 Rpm -- 265-Tq at 4,000 Rpm -- 6-Speed Auto -- 7,400 Lbs Max Towing (3.73 Gears) -- 1,840 Lbs Max Payload (1,900 Lbs Max Overall) -- 19 MPG City and 25 MPG Highway, 22 Combined 2019 Ram 1500 2wd Extended Cab -- 3.6L V6 -- 305-Hp at 6,400 Rpm -- 269-Tq at 4,800 Rpm -- 8-Speed Auto -- 7,730 Lbs Max Towing (3.55 Gears) -- 2,300 Lbs Max Payload (2,300 Lbs Max Overall) -- 17 MPG City and 25 MPG Highway, 21 Combined
Strixx having higher horsepower, but less than 6 cylinders, does not equal fast. That ecoturd is hauling around a 4,000lb vehicle. Itll overheat and implode in a few thousand miles. You're asking too much of such a small engine. GM is going to get their asses handed to them in the base category until they stop making the 4cyl trucks. Its that simple.
@@LrulestheworldM8 Cylinders means nothing when you make More Power and Torque. As long as all other factors remain the same......tire height, gearing, transmission gearing, weight, wind resistance, and so on, the Higher Torque/Hp Engine will always win. We will see how it performs in the real world. I did watch GM do there Torture Test at Max RPM, under Max Load, while engine is tilting continuously, for a long amount of time. Also when it towed 7,000 lbs up a incline and did it pretty well.
@@calebniederhofer6529 can it last as long will be the question. I hope the 4 cylinder pans out. I'd like to also see 4 cylinder diesels in full size pickups as well.
@@kylevanwinkle2081 You used to be able to get a rubber floor full size work truck for less than 20k. I don't see the additions to these new trucks adding 2x the value.
@@BullittKid08 I'm not too sure it is inflation as much as it is the cost to comply with all the Federal Regs for safety, emissions and MPG. A base truck is not exempt from any of that. Just look at the requirement for backup cameras.
@@BullittKid08 inflation my ass this is people buying into luxury and demanding things that arent necessary. The upper end models drive the price of the lower end models up. Inflation only explains some of it since material cost hasn't raised much and labor rate hasn't either.
Whats spectacular about 310hp and 340 torque from a 2.7..Nothing! The Ford 2.7, the one that always gets ignored makes 325hp and 400 ft.lbs of torque....at 2750rpm. That's spectacular...oh yeah, it easily gets 26mpg too.
Don’t forget tfl just had a video of a tuned ranger putting down bigger numbers at the wheels with just a tune with their 2.3i4. That 2.7 is also a beast when tuned.
Pulled about 6k lbs moving from Denver CO to Yuma AZ and averaged 15 miles per gallon going 65-75mph, calculated from the pump. Pulled the weight like it had nothing behind it. The 2.7 ecoboost is seriously underestimated.
@@GH-oi2jf A 4x4 Z71 Duramax Colorado will run you about $33-35K on the out going year model, will have most of the options offered and can tow 7600 lbs, which is easily as good as any base engine full size pickup. If you an leave with a smaller cab(my long bed is easily comparable to the short beds of full size pickups, albeit a lower payload), it would be my choice - it literally was.
Nothing wrong with buying used. Plenty of people gave me shit for buying a new one but i dont think they understand, if people like me didnt buy new, there wouldnt be any nice well maintained used trucks on the market.
@@imzevoh8327 They did not, in 2014 they debuted a new 4.3 based on the GenV DI small block. All alluminum, literally the 5.3 or 6.2 with a pair of cylinders lopped off.
Track Days can you get the 2.7L - 4 banger in the WT trim? Or Custom trim? I think LT and maybe RST. So it Probably should be compared with the 2.7 EcoBoost. But it doesn’t matter really because the market will determine how well it does against the competition.
s_reilly - There’s nothing wrong with sharing an engine between cars and pickups. I have the 25l engine in my Colorado and it works fine. It’s just a matter of tuning and gearing.
GH1618 I think when talking about the types of loads and weights this truck is rated for, the 3.6 is just not an optimal engine. It’s power is made at near 7000rpm and torque is fairly pathetic for a truck capable of towing 7000lbs. The 4.3 would have been much more complimentary being that it makes its power at a lower 5000rpm and has more torque, again from fewer rpm. This 2.7 turbo would be even more ideal than that, but either is much more fitting than the car-based 3.6.
As long as they keep the 3.6 liter option for the Colorado, im cool with the 2.7 liter added to the list. I have the 2015 Colorado Z71 Offroad Extended Cab with the 3.6, and its a good combination. Im getting 25 MPG highway and have even gotten 27 MPG before,,,combined city, highway im getting 18 to 19 MPG, however im getting 15 to 16 MPG city
Just a little confused here.. That 2.7 Silverado isn't exactly the work truck for the new Silverado.. GM put that behind their paywall. You still get the 4.3 in the models that compete directly to the work trucks with the 3.3 Ford and 3.6 Ram.
Ram will sell you the 3.6 etorque engine across their entire lineup even on a $55,000 limited model. you can get the 3.3 naturally aspirated v6 engine on the ford up to the XLT trim level.
Amen brother! You get a mustang gt, a family hauler, an offroading rig and when the weekend fun is over, you still got a work truck........4 different uses/purposes in one truck....bad ass!
No. The one's they've used in the comparison are XLT and Big Horn which match most closely with LT. The LT in this comparison has more options added than the comparable models and that's the reason for the higher price even though it's a double cab, albeit 4WD . They obviously wanted to show case their fancier tailgate and a few other things not built in to the other models shown here, but those same features are available in XLT and Big Horn. You can get all of these features pretty much matched for the same money if you're crazy enough to pay a bunch extra for these low-cost features that help you be lazier, and so that's not what we should focus on. The focus is how well all the features are executed and the power trains and whether or not you like or dislike styling or interiors. Ford's base is the XL and Ram's base trim is Tradesman. They start for thousands less than these trucks even though Andre and company keep trying to tell us these mid-level trucks are work trucks; but in fact are far too expensive for what you get compared to the real work trucks. GM's lower trims are now W/T and Custom and Custom Trail Boss; they also start thousands less. But here is the big rub...GM doesn't want the media or us to call them out, and so far, hardly anyone is calling them out. Ford and Ram's base power train in their lower-end models are the same as the power trains as in the trucks shown here (3.6 8-speed w/eTorque and 3.3L V6 6-speed dual fuel injection; both at 20/25/22 mpg; 305/269 and 290/265 peak hp/torque, respectively), but for GM, the lower end customers get stuck with the 4.3L V6 mated to the same old 6-speed (mpg not released but previously 18/24/20) or the 5.3L V8 (mpg down 2 now at 15/21/17 versus 16/23/19 in the previous Silverado; same performance 285/305, peak hp / torque), as completely carried over power trains, aka nothing new except worse gas mileage but the same performance, albeit better capability via the new design. They try to tell us the 2.7L turbo is a base engine, but they don't offer it in the lower end like Ford and Ram does with their premium engines. So now an GM wants to change the game to their benefit by saying that an engine that's not even allowed in the lower trims is somehow a base engine. So how is it that a manufacturer can get away with limiting a choice of an engine in the lower trims, making it standard in level three and four and not optional anywhere else in the lineup, and then say it's a base engine, only because they make it standard one trim level lower than where Ford or Ram makes a premium engine standard. Of course any manufacturer can align their products as they wish, but it's up to us and the media to disregard their claims, and what it boils down to is that the new 2.7L Turbo is not a base engine. Base engines have always been the engines that are in the cheapest trucks for each brand in the segment. It's a lie to call it a base engine. If it were base, it would be standard in W/T and Custom. The media is going along for the ride that GM is taking the consumer on. The media is supposed to be our advocate; not theirs. As soon (if ever) that GM puts this power train in the lowest trims, the argument gets very good in their favor as a base power train choice versus the competion, and this comparison becomes immediately valid. They'll have a superior base power train for their half-ton truck in some respects; but for right now, it's a lie to say it's a base engine and compare it to the 3.3L and the 3.6L except but for those two exact, trim-level trucks versus XLT and Big Horn; but keep in mind, for $995 an XLT can have the 2.7L Ecoboost and for another grand, a 5.0L V8. A person could keep the price pretty much the same by dropping some of those unneeded features or even dropping a trim level. One can also opt for a V8 in the same Silverado shown here, so really, this comparison of so-called base engine is no big deal, because one can get what he or she wants, and these days, power train options are cheaper than opting for an 8" touch screen that probably cost GM $100 to add in the truck.
@@gregoryfaulkner5345 I'm not ready that entire reply, nor do I want to waste my time doing so. But I can tell you from the first couple of sentences from your reply. I never said anything about how they match. All I said was that the vocabulary TFL used was alittle off.
I really like TFL and the job they do in comparing trucks. There’s a huge part of the story missing on each. 1) cost of ownership 2) # of issues, recalls and services needed 3) re-sale value 4) bang for the buck. I have owned many f-150s, Chevy and gmc half tons, and even a GMC Canyon (15’). I currently own a 2018 Toyota Tundra 5.7 crew trd limited. Out the door it was 43k and change brand new. The Ford was 10k more with the same options and the gm twins were about 6-8k more. I agree with the comments that truck prices have run away and keep going up and up. Because of this I believe the Tundra is still the best half ton on the market hands down to own. It doesn’t do everything well, but it does everything good enough and does it without any problems, and with a resale that the others can only dream about. I think TFL should look at doing long term testing with these considerations. Love the show and the guys.
A work truck is usually a standard cab, long bed 2wd truck..by no means are these base work trucks, still way to spendy. Also, I'm probably going to get alot of crap but I hope these trucks dont sell well (whatever configuration) so that they will be forced to sell the for less
My grandpa has the 3.3L V6 with 290HP. He has the 2018 XLT in blue jeans color. I drove it multiple times before. And I’m only 18 and I also own a 2010 LE Camry 2.5L 169HP 6speed auto.
Cost of operating this 4cyl turbo would be way higher than a nat-asp V6 or possibly V8...think about the abuse the average non-caring employee would give these trucks and tell me which will be in the shop more...
When Ford releases a 2.7 they race it innBaja and test it against v8’s on Davis damm. Chevy releases a 2.7 and pits against the weakest offering of the competition.
The 3.3 is perfect for those who want an F150 as a car. Good mileage (for a truck), 6 passengers, a good cargo capacity grocery getter per se and an occasional tow of the bass boat. What I like about it is there’s a lot less to go wrong.
I really wouldn't call any of these trucks a "6 passenger" vehicle, nobody wants to sit in the middle front for more than 10 minutes and even that only in a pinch. As a car with an occasional tow compact trucks(Taco, GM twins, Frontier, Ranger) are way more practical.
jldude84 My eldest son loves his 2018 Taco crew cab. I find it too small inside yet he gets 29 highway. Rides well enough but still cramped inside and sore seating. Maintenance free vehicle.
What a sham from GM, and I know all manufacturers stack the deck for themselves but this is ridiculous. Some of the cheapest Ram and Ford trucks, and a much more upscale Chevy. They used a double cab so the price didn’t seem as far off, but it’d be near 50k if it was a crew cab. A 50k Ram is an awfully nice truck. You can’t beat the ford 2.7 either for the money. Ridiculous
@@TheJ602 no, the GM is a 4 cylinder...and in order to have low end torque with no lag, it needs constant boost, which can affect reliabity. I have heard that the eco boost has problems as well...
I love when one company has one of these comparisons with their competition. They provided Ford and Ram trucks, which is nice. But, they optioned up their own truck. Not only does it sticker for $4K more than the Ford, but they added a bigger Infotainment screen inside, as well as 4WD too; while the other two are merely 2WD. Nice Apples to Apples comparison, Chevy..
@Alexander Ya know my grandpa refused to ride with any driver that wore a seat belt. He figured if you don't trust yourself enough to drive safe their was no reason for him to trust you. He drove for 80 sum years without an accident. He also believed speed limits caused more accidents than they prevented (which has actually been studied and proven).
@@rmkscrambler I like the theory, but whenever I don't have my belt on I start getting visions of weird stuff happening like someone's wheel falling off and it rips their vehicle across an undivided road and into me before I can truly react... Then I'll put it on, and move over to be safer, so I see the thought behind it!
When I read the comments and the complaints of unfair comparisons. The Fast Lane has the same problem the car magazines have . They have deadlines to meet and have to work with the vehicles that are geographically available to the them at the time of the video or articles. Plus, they need to make some money and work for living like the rest of us. I personally feel these two are the hardest working truck reviewers on UA-cam. Keep up the good hard work guys.
Ford 2019 extended cab its $40k 4x4 with 2.7L EcoBoost that's almost 5k cheaper and faster then those 2 trucks Chevy trying to fool ppl damn shame on GM
GM used both engines here for point of reference in this test when TFL did their 1st video of new 4cyl 2.7 T. How is that trying to fool anyone?? The 5.3L can be had on all 3 trim levels. What that means there's a model with a 6spd. Because this engine is new GM chose to have 2.7L on volume trim but it's still the entry engine. The price argument will vary for various reasons. 2.7L Eco was slightly upgraded last yr. The same can't be said for this GM engine. It's hasn't been around that long. Like it or not price is affected by this issue.
@@jeffwill4923 ok then GM should of choose the ford 2.7L eco since GM base model truck does not come with the 4cyl turbo and for the price the ford still best buck with the 2.7L eco on either single,xcab,crewcab on stx trim level it's like ford trying to test 3.5L eco vs dodge 5.7L and GM 5.3L
@@michoacanom4320 MSRP aren't the end all be all, it's about finding the best deal, for example, www.davesmith.com/new/Chevrolet/2018-Chevrolet-Silverado+1500-a8b40c9e0a0e0adf5dc31896c9a128af.htm www.davesmith.com/new/GMC/2018-GMC-Sierra+1500-2af805680a0e0ae778da996fd1d131ae.htm www.davesmith.com/new/GMC/2018-GMC-Sierra+1500-3a6919e70a0e0a6b7c9f18f73697b98b.htm www.davesmith.com/new/Chevrolet/2018-Chevrolet-Silverado+1500-46df58370a0e0a6b13730521d3082731.htm www.davesmith.com/new/Chevrolet/2018-Chevrolet-Silverado+1500-cc766de90a0e0ae80dac34aa1f787f01.htm (Probably Best Deal) www.davesmith.com/new/Chevrolet/2018-Chevrolet-Silverado+1500-783524480a0e0ae70c244e039a8f15c8.htm www.davesmith.com/new/Chevrolet/2018-Chevrolet-Silverado+1500-aa33500d0a0e0adf10937696a55ead5e.htm (highest package) And to be fair to Ram: www.davesmith.com/new/Ram/2018-Ram-1500-be8c16470a0e0ae97ec0c9109ce50b25.htm www.davesmith.com/new/Ram/2019-Ram-1500-0a2de0a40a0e0ae81ad971793bbcd770.htm (Probably best Ram Deal) www.davesmith.com/new/Ram/2018-Ram-2500-cffa916f0a0e0ae82394e0f854810f74.htm (3/4 ton in the same price range) www.davesmith.com/new/Ram/2018-Ram-3500-e5ef33070a0e0ae97d17d33f39b81654.htm (1 ton in the same price range) I know right, super big advertisement for Dave Smith lol, But I've bought 2 trucks from them off these special pages and they are legit and actual prices, not just some marketing scam. But you can't just look at MSRP and say 'That's the price!' I'm sure there's Ford Dealerships that have good deals too, maybe more than these maybe not I don't know. But you can get just about any halfton you want in decent trim level from 25-40k dollars out the door. I actually asked Dave Smith why they don't sell Ford when they pretty much sell everything else, and the guy basically said When Dave Smith goes and tries to buy a Ford Franchise or business license or however it works to sell new Fords, the other Ford Dealerships in the area get the first 'dibs' on the new location / license and they're scared of Dave Smith so they either buy them or convenience Corporate Ford why Dave Smith shouldn't buy any of their stuff. Dave Smith does own some Ford Dealers under their parent company, and these are the few deals I could find on a quick search. www.bigspringford.com/new/Ford/2018-Ford-F-150-333654ac0a0e0adf066f1de533284208.htm www.bigspringford.com/new/Ford/2018-Ford-F-150-683179400a0e0a177b6ad645f8eec544.htm www.bigspringford.com/new/Ford/2018-Ford-F-150-fd8467600a0e0ae71a199e3955f9131b.htm?searchDepth=1:2&promotionId=5bef4c604beaba17b1eedde4 www.bigspringford.com/new/Ford/2018-Ford-F-150-3cfc095e0a0e0ae83cb3a9e8000ea9d2.htm?searchDepth=2:2&promotionId=5bef4c604beaba17b1eedde4 www.bigspringford.com/new/Ford/2019-Ford-F-250-8faf15500a0e0ae76e5b1cc40045b9d4.htm?searchDepth=2:10&promotionId=5bb5b4600d1d5a99f4983a8a (This isn't a great deal at all, it's actually a $92,000 F250 and I don't even know how they justify that price) www.jordanfordauto.com/inventory/new-2018-ford-f-150-lariat-4wd-crew-cab-pickup-1ftew1ep6jfd33155 www.jordanfordauto.com/inventory/new-2018-ford-f-150-xlt-4wd-crew-cab-pickup-1ftew1ep9jkg02580 (Maybe the best deal) www.jordanfordauto.com/inventory/new-2018-ford-f-150-xlt-4wd-crew-cab-pickup-1ftew1eg0jfe76179 (Bester Deal) www.jordanfordauto.com/inventory/new-2018-ford-f-150-platinum-4wd-crew-cab-pickup-1ftfw1e10jfd51344 (highest package) You're welcome to anyone looking for the best deal(s) in the halfton range I basically just did all of your home work for you. If you pay more than 6-7k off MSRP then you're not getting the best deal you could be. With some negotiation skills on the right truck you could push 13-14k off on some of them. Anyone looking for a new vehicle of any type, search these dealerships www.rfjauto.com/locations/index.htm and you'll probably find some of the best prices in the country. But after doing my little research here, I think the Best deals were still from Chevy / Ram, Ford wasn't quiet there.
@@michoacanom4320 I feel you are missing my point. Instead of making another V6 or upgrading the OHV 4.3L, GM went with a T 4cyl. There's more torque and economy is similar to a n/a V6. This 4cyl isn't built to take on their 5.3L in performance or towing. The numbers quoted here are similar to their 4.3L. This price debate can't be used here. We are looking at a mostly updated model from front to back. The same can't be said on Ford side. If you were looking for a 2.7 eco TT vs this smaller engine like some you were sadly mistaken. In every video after the 1st I told a few GM is using the 3.3L not TT. GM isn't looking to take a L, lol after all this talk of tech and upgrades.
@@dedalliance1 I get it here in Texas 4x4 stx crew cabs u can get them for 36k , and 2wd for 32k not a bad deal to me I love the color match no chrome for me
I just bought a brand new 2021 Silverado 1500 4x4 Crew Cab with the 2.7T, and I love it! I actually traded in my 2008 Corvette for this truck, it's been smiles ever since!
I have an 2003 Chevy wt with the 4.3 v6 and love the engine and truck rides super smooth and a great work truck all-around!Chevy's 4.3 is one of there best 6 cyl they ever made!they have good power plus reliablity!
that Ford's radio screen is just embarrassing compared to the competition, and I think it was pretty evenly matched... cause I know I'm not gonna custom order a truck and most people wont, they'll go to the dealer and get one off the lot for a cheaper truck cause they'll discount those more... soo your limited to whatever They decided to mass produce
I bought a new Tundra 5.7 in 2016, I'm very happy with it ! It gets about 15 MPG (Avg.) if you actually divide the miles vs gallons used. Trip Computer says 13.7 to 15 on a good day. It runs great, plenty of power, drives and handles good, 4x4, Good Truck. My wife still is driving our 2008 F-150, 210,000 and still going strong, 5.4, (I know many don't like this engine), but I've always used full synthetic oil, changed every 5000 miles. Or maybe we're just lucky.....
if its a truck, you want longevity and dependability , fuel economy is a factor but a 4cyl turbo or not is being pushed to hold that kinda power. It will only wear out faster.
Chevy and their bullshit. Sure this engine is standard in the LT but it is not in an actual "work truck" model. Additionally, for a very similar price you can get a 2.7L ecoboost with 10 speed. Ford probably should make the 2.7L the base engine in the XLT but options are nice too. 2.7L standard means you might be paying for something you don't want despite the likely hood of someone choosing a better engine anyways. Ram definitely has the best start stop IMO. I can't wait to see some people run 2.7 vs 2.7 though.
Ford's cheat. They use 10 speeds trans. DI and MPI. So 2 inj per cylinder. So yeah there hp should be better. But they never last very long in general.
TFL's production quality was so good I spent 15 minutes watching this before I realized I was watching a video about trucks that aren't the cool versions and I still can't afford them. Also, why getting hung up on the rear ends, they could pick any final ratio they want and adjust the transmission ratios.
Dissapointed. No equal comparison. Should be same cab, same drive configuration and same engine line. Just note trans and gearing differences. All 3 make same cab and drive configuration that can be matched. Ford and GM with TurboGas can be compared, all 3 with small V6 can be compared. Etc
But that's the part your missing. GM is saying this is their base engine and should be compared with the base V6s from Ram and Ford; they don't want to say it's better than Ford's 2.7L V6, which they say is an optional engine. They are saying we should compare standard to standard at LT and RST price points, theirs is better; and from a cost standpoint, they should be pretty close to the cost of a larger NA V6 with a turbo 4, and that's why it is so confusing why they haven't made the turbo 4 the base from the bottom up where they could make a better argument for it over a NA V6. They absolutely don't want you to realize that with Ford you could actually step down to an XL standard cab and get their 2.7L as an optional engine for much less money if that's all the truck you want. Try to do the same thing in Chevy, and you get the 4.3L. But really, when you compare either the LT or RST, they're right; and that's what they want us to see. It's the standard engine versus the others with an XLT with a standard 3.3L and Big Horn with the 3.6L. Comparing these trims; only standard engine to standard engine is the only way that GM's argument for this power train makes sense, and it's the only trims where the 4 cylinder turbo is available. But with all three brands, you can opt up to either V8s or for Ford, V8 or a choice of two turbo V6s.
Of course Chevy is going to put a optional engine against a base engine. Makes since. First video of TFL I can't even watch, ya'll should have refused the review. So biased and bs. Ram and Ford deserve better.
Steven Densmore I, too, am disappointed but I'm looking at it as more of an initial review of just the new Chevy, not a review of it against the others (which would more accurately be called a comparison or shoot-out). TFL wouldn't have refused the "review" because there's no other way at this early point for them to get their hands on the brand-new Chevy.
@@anthonyc1883 I know. U know I have been a Chevy fan till here late. It's just obvious that they rig the test. They all do it but Chevy is obvious. Makes me sick, next Chevy commercial a ZR1 vs mustang EcoBoost lol
are you all stupid? Ram, Ford, and Chevy have all done this for TFL.... it's a easy way for them to see 3 trucks with no effort on their part. Unless you have paid them a subscription donation stop complaining for content that interest you. Jezzzz
@@bryane2857 TFL should speak up about the discrepancy between the trucks GM supplied. Engine aside they even went as far as select the lowest version XLT and a higher priced and better equipped GM to one up the Ford. My XLT had the 8 inch infotainment system, heated seats, remote start, power slider and more and it's just a XLT. I also have a little 2.7eco that has embarrassed its share of 5.3 liter V8's.
@@Grem135 maybe you should go and find a safe zone, then you can have things as you see with out any instability for a comfortable life ahead. Snowflake
Because Ford was already getting government funding because of all the emergency services and regular service vehicles being bought by state and federal government. Out of almost Every 10 ambulances, cop cars, cabs, and fleet vehicles at least 7 or 8 would be Ford products. Also don't forget GM and Chrysler had more lines of vehicles under their umbrellas than Ford at the time of the bailout. It makes sense that GM and Chrysler lost more. So everyone says that like it's a superior thing to tout but it is just not accurate once you think it through.
Fuel Mileage is always lower with 4 wheel drive you have a lot of extra weight with transfer case and front driving axle . Might be able to take advantage of that Turbos boost with E-85 which is over 100 Octane and has a lot of cooling effect
Doesn’t Ford also have a 2.7 liter turbo to compare, apples to apples. Why are you comparing trucks that are clearly very different from each other, you would be hard pressed to find a base V6 ford on the lot and could get the base 2.7 turbo for much less then you quoted the regular V6 for. No problem taking up chevy’s offer to take them for a drive, just dont fool us into thinking this is a real world comparison.
@@smiller225, it depends on the trim level of both brands. In a lower trim Chevy the four cylinder turbo is $4,700 more than the base V6. In an F150 Lariat the 2.7 Ecoboost is the base engine.
The Winner is the Chevy Silverado LT 2.7L trust me I drove this Truck and was amazed how much power and how smooth it was. I’m getting one Soon fingers crossed 🤞 will be doing videos on my channel about it Soon.👊🏽😎💯
ring ding 2 stroke 1000cc triple turbo hybrid with start assist and dual backup cameras hydraulic tailgates and electric steering wheel holder apps for your iphone.
I agree. I've got a 2015 F150 XL with the 2.7L Ecoboost. Fancy interiors is not my thing, but yeah you'd expect more for a $41K truck. I Opted for option package 101A and chrome appearance package back then and my truck is exactly the same interior; same wheels and tires; only the grille is upgraded compared with mine; same interior features as mine minus the back seat, as I have no back seat. That package cost me $1,100 that's part of the total price at $27.8K before tax and gave me power glass, mirrors, cruise, CD player, MP3 hookup, and some other not-so-important features. A 2018 F150 XL with 101A and chrome or sport trim model now set up the same way as mine would be a ten speed, 25 more ft-lb torque; one more mpg city; dual fuel injection to prevent carbon build up on intake valves; and around $30K assuming the same incentive (it usually gets the same $3K incentive). I don't get where these guys come from when they talk about value. That Chevy double cab truck at $45K with an easier-to-lift tailgate that's not heavy anyway is worth that kind of money; or the Ram at $42K or the F150 at $41K; Really! Take out some of those silly little features and creature comforts; add a more advanced power train; change the letter badging to a less expensive letter combination; reconsider the need of four big doors with a small bed; and then you'd be looking at value.
All I want to I how the 2.7L performs. I do not really care about the comparison to other base models. Especially since a really Chevy base model is the WT with the 4.3L not a middle of the pack LT with the 2.7L.
I think GM is trying to push the modern “small engine = MPG” concept (that Ford started with the EcoBoost) a little too far/fast. I don’t think a 4 banger has any business in a 1/2 ton. If it only gets used for groceries & whatnot it’ll probably be fine but if somebody decides to do a lot of towing/work with it, I see that engine getting tired pretty quickly. Now I want to see these 3 trucks go up Ike with 7500 behind them. Even with the Chevy having a turbo, I bet the 3.3 Ford performs best.
This got me curious about the variable valve *lift* system on the cams, I never heard of something like this. There's 3 lobes on 3 cyl. and 2 on the 1st because it never deactivates, high lift, low lift and no lift (cyl. deactivation), the lobes actually shift themselves into place in a rotation. Normally (what I've seen) there are separate lobes solid to the cam and separate lifters that are constantly in contact, and it's the high or low lift lifters that lock themselves up to provide VVL. The double volute turbo, (or twin scroll) maybe unique to trucks, but I got one in my '94 Toyota Celica engine (OEM). Btw, the ford has the best sound.
Which of these base trucks has the most comfortable interior? I am very interested as you were able to go back and forth and get a very good impression of which truck was the most comfortable to spend time in.
I was once a fan of GM trucks in general but now they completely gone irrational. Their trucks underperform unless you pay up for the antiquated 6.2 which comes equipped on an ultra high trim level. Active Fuel management and their newer version is still a bandaid and lack of desire to come up with a more efficient engine. Yes the LS style motors were a marvel when they first appeared in 1997 on the Vette. However its been 22 years now and needs to go to retire. Throwing a bunch of crap together. And coming up with only a four cylinder turbo?! Should have been an Inline 6 with a turbo. I think most truck guys would have been more receptive. Another stupid idea is RAM's torque assist flux capacitor which is a guaranteed money magnet gimmick and unnecessary .
@@eddielt1sl dude. It's a base engine displacement and tuning are all in play gm trucks dont under perform. Having used all 3 ford and mopar trucks are under whelming. But I am ruined by cars that rattle your brains at idle.
The 2.7 EB in most testing had similar acceleration numbers to the Chevy 6.2 and would easily blow all of these away.The 2.7 is probably the best mid tier motor for a truck and this is coming from a GM guy.
I know most truck guys don’t like mid size trucks but for city drivers you can’t beaten..I liked the ranger but didn’t trust the turbo in truck form so I went with the 308 hp canyon
Mr.truck said that having a center console underneath the center console (6th seat) is unique to ram. It's not unique to ram go back in the Ford and you actually can do the same thing except that the Ford has a better under storage console with more space.
william shoemaker - Wrong. Barra is doing a great job. She was previously head of product development. My 2nd gen Colorado is a Mary-mobile, and it’s perfect.
@@GH-oi2jf I have to completely disagree, just because she said that something looks nice does not mean that she should be in charge of the big boy toys
Generally speaking, the CEO doesn’t get very involved with this stuff. At least not as much as you would think. Generally the marketing department wears the pants in the house. They set the maintenance intervals (believe it or not). They decide models and options. They decide allocation.
As someone else said, I think the 2.7 turbo will be great for fleet vehicles like for construction companies or rentals such as U-Haul. Good MPG and cheap engine, with a decent towing rating.
@@FishFind3000 yeah but for the money it still was a better buy the F-150 was more money more plastic the Chevy was nice I'm not sure of the 4 cylinder engine in a full size truck 🔧🔧
I have the small screen in my Ford. As someone who learned to backup without using a camera I really don't find them useful other then to see when you clear the curb behind you.
You were here in Snottsdale (well technically, Paradise Valley), and you didn't even call or visit? I feel jilted. Going to have to put my TFL hoodie to the back of the closet. :-)
I paid less than the MSRPs on all these for my 2018 F-150 Supercrew Fx4 4x4 2.7, a 49 K MSRP. I put some back into it for a 130K 7 year warranty, and Husky Liners. Now I have the sound deadening of carpeting with rubber to reduce the carpet wear. I don't go running a host through the truck to clean it either because that would be a sure way to have corrosion. down the road. No lag with the 2.7, and it will out mileage and out pull the Chevy. The Ram needs more low end and 3.9 gears, or just add a good turbo or two.
Folks it doesn't matter which truck in which trim level with which engine you chose because either way they're Absolutely wayyyyyyyyyy overpriced just like any other modern vehicle you see on the road today.
I am not sure why you compared the Chevy 2.7L against the Ford and Ram base model. According to the Chevy site and building my own truck with crew cab and 4x4, the 4.3L is the base motor. I think you should have put Ford 2.7L turbo in the line up and i believe the Chevy would have fallen last of the three trucks. I am not sure why Chevy keeps insisting this 2.7L 4 cylinder is compared to the Ford 3.3L.
Because it's the only way the can appear better. Watch any comparison commercials from GM, they rig or completely edit out stuff that's negative to them. Like the whole aluminum bed video, they give a quick shot of the tool box falling and there's no hole. Then a quick jump and there is a hole in a different area of where the tool box hit.
@@anthonywebber2211 If you go to their website to build a new 2019, the 4.3L is first engine listed. Maybe next year, but this was not a base model compared to base model. I believe GM is disappointed with this 4 cylinder engine and it did not produce what they expected. It has the same displacement as the Ford and ford 2.7L kicks its ass in power from what has been seen so far. GM modified all their engines and none of them beat the competition that has older power plants.
Maybe it’s just me but I like when TFL chooses the trucks to compare instead of the manufacturer....
Beggars can't be choosers...
Need a review of the ford 2.7 versus gm 2.7
@@andrewcarr899
Exactly, what I was thinking...apples to apples comparison. But we all know that GM will not do that. Kinda like how they [Chevy] got caught lying in their truck bed commercial about Ford's military alloy beds.
Okie Rider nothing apples to apples about Ford 2.7 vs GM 2.7, Ford 2.7 is twin-turbo with much more horsepower and torque, and by the way you're biased.
@@Sig721Tau you do realize the whole "military alloy" thing is marketing nonsense right?
I've rented the RAM and the F150 base trucks, they are fine for day to day driving and normal truck use, I think the price points on the trucks have gotten out of hand...
Z2357111319 Have you seen those end of the year discounts for $10 grand? That’s because that much profit is tacked on to the price. You can get them much cheaper at the right dealer.
@@dam4274 These companies have been giving away cars in Europe for the past decade; they've been loosing 500, 400 & 300 million dollars a year trying to gain momentum over seas, and you are paying for it with your 65K pickups!!! Europeans don't like American made cars!!!! This is what happens when you have idiots running companies; it's called affirmative action, and they don't care what you think because they're entitled! DON'T BE AN IDIOT!!!!
@@garybulwinkle82 Its not that...Europeans tariff the he'll out of our cars then only want to buy European. The thing about European cars is without the tariffs based on value they cant compete. European cars break down at the same rate and cost more to repair.
If you think full size trucks are expensive, look at midsize suv's. They are expensive meanwhile less capable making this trucks look like a gooooodd deal. If you want a cheap truck you can order one from your dealer. Most dealers don't order base trucks because no one buys 'em.
@@dam4274 As I read your comment about end of the year sales, an ad pops up for up to $16k off at a local Ford dealership. Wow! Amazing timing and dead on accurate. (If you have any psychic stock market tips, I'm listening . 😉)
I don't care what Chevrolet tells you, the viewers want to see a 2.7 Ford vs 2.7 Chevy review. Especially up the Ike gauntlet.
Gm fanboys will just complain that ford has two more cylinders.lol or whatever crazy excuse they can make for losing
Agreed!
Chevy already has the 4.3 V6 to complete with the other V6s
I bet this was originally made to complete with Fords 2.7 because they don’t have an engine to compete against it. But it was a huge disappointment so GM tried to save themselves the embarrassment and decided to say its to complete against the other V6s (and their very own V6 lol)
So the tests I want to see:
1. The Ford 2.7 V6 Ecoboost vs GM 2.7 turbo I-4
2. The GM 4.3 V6 vs the GM 2.7 turbo I-4
And to be honest, with the silly electric water pump (why, just why lol) on the new GM turbo 4 I would gladly take the other two base V6s and even GMs very own 4.3 over this new engine
@@dragon81heart that water pump looks like it is stupid easy to replace. its right up front looks like only 4 screws hold it in .
BassRacerx doesn’t really make a difference how easy it is to replace if your engine is already ruined
I would very happily give up the extra few horsepower the belt driven water pump uses for the piece of mind knowing that as long as the engine is running, the water pump is too. It is a simple and redundant system that has been proven to be extremely reliable and in some cases will last the life of the vehicle
This electric one has none of that, and adds in extra levels of complexity and failure points of wiring, sensors, and the tubing that connects it up with the exhaust manifold (which from what I hear is cast as part of the cylinder head...another step backwards)
Not sure what was going through General Motors head here with this engine. GM makes the LS, which is an amazing engine, so how did the same company that made that drop the ball so badly when it came to this??
@@Pabloperes675 Grand National vs ecoboost
The fact that you have to pay $45k for a half ton with a 4 banger is a joke.
the v8 is only a 900 dollar option
The Fact that the 4-Banger does what it does is no Joke. For being a Base Engine in the LT Models, it is surprising what it can do while still achieving almost a 22 Combined MPG. It is also the fastest truck listed below.
2019 Silverado 2WD Extended Cab
-- 2.7L Inline 4-Cylinder Turbo
-- 310-Hp at 5,600 Rpm
-- 348-Tq from 1,500-4,000 RPM, and maintains over 300 Lb-Ft of Torque til Redline. So basically the engine makes 300+ Lb-Ft of Torque off idle to redline.
-- 8-Speed Auto
-- 7,200 Lbs Max Towing (3.42 gears)
-- 2,102 Lbs Max Payload (2,280 Lbs Max Overall)
-- 20.3 MPG City and 23.4 MPG Highway, 21.85 Combined. (It is listed as 20/21.5/23)
2019 F-150 2WD Extended Cab
-- 3.3L V6
-- 290-Hp at 6,500 Rpm
-- 265-Tq at 4,000 Rpm
-- 6-Speed Auto
-- 7,400 Lbs Max Towing (3.73 Gears)
-- 1,840 Lbs Max Payload (1,900 Lbs Max Overall)
-- 19 MPG City and 25 MPG Highway, 22 Combined
2019 Ram 1500 2wd Extended Cab
-- 3.6L V6
-- 305-Hp at 6,400 Rpm
-- 269-Tq at 4,800 Rpm
-- 8-Speed Auto
-- 7,730 Lbs Max Towing (3.55 Gears)
-- 2,300 Lbs Max Payload (2,300 Lbs Max Overall)
-- 17 MPG City and 25 MPG Highway, 21 Combined
I agree. All of these companies are building Gucci trucks and it is annoying.
Strixx having higher horsepower, but less than 6 cylinders, does not equal fast. That ecoturd is hauling around a 4,000lb vehicle. Itll overheat and implode in a few thousand miles. You're asking too much of such a small engine. GM is going to get their asses handed to them in the base category until they stop making the 4cyl trucks. Its that simple.
@@LrulestheworldM8 Cylinders means nothing when you make More Power and Torque. As long as all other factors remain the same......tire height, gearing, transmission gearing, weight, wind resistance, and so on, the Higher Torque/Hp Engine will always win.
We will see how it performs in the real world. I did watch GM do there Torture Test at Max RPM, under Max Load, while engine is tilting continuously, for a long amount of time. Also when it towed 7,000 lbs up a incline and did it pretty well.
25 hwy because of start stop. Lol. Come on Mr. Truck. You don't start and stop on the highway. J/k
EGGINFOOLS lol thought I was the only one who heard that
maybe downhill, I think the low altitude was affecting my brain waves
MrTruckTV ha! Understandable
@@MrTruckTV
Where's the Ford F150 with the 2.7L EcoBoost V6? GM is being very dishonest here.
@@Sig721Tau GM's goal was to compare entry level engines, though the GM 2.7L turbo is only the base engine to two models
Gm bashed Ford for their ecoboost motors and then they go and put ratatouille under their hood 😂
At least itll make good food
And after bashing Ford for an aluminum body, they use a lot of aluminum on their trucks.
Don’t tell Chevy fans tho 🤣🤣🤣
At least Chevy doesn't shove it down our throat, I want a V-8 not a v-6 with a penis extension in my truck.
Also tried to jack the ram box
2.7 Ford EcoBoost vs. Silverado 2.7 4-cyl. This is a must-do comparo. C'mon TFL, that would be a meaningful thing to watch.
Not at all , The EB produces more torque , power , faster it is V6.
2.7 I4 is a base engine. The 2.7l v6 is a significantly more expensive premium engine, so no it wouldn’t be a straight comparison
@@calebniederhofer6529 can it last as long will be the question. I hope the 4 cylinder pans out. I'd like to also see 4 cylinder diesels in full size pickups as well.
@@8__D the 2.7 I4 isn't a base engine. The 4.3 v6 is. It makes 285 hp while the 2.7 I4 makes 310 hp..
@@alextran8188 oh my bad, thought after 35 years they finally got rid of the 4.3, those things will never die
40 grand for work trucks is insane.
Agreed I paid 39k for my 2013 3500hd duramax same truck today would be damn near 60k
@@kylevanwinkle2081 You used to be able to get a rubber floor full size work truck for less than 20k. I don't see the additions to these new trucks adding 2x the value.
You guys act like you dont understand inflation smh
@@BullittKid08 I'm not too sure it is inflation as much as it is the cost to comply with all the Federal Regs for safety, emissions and MPG. A base truck is not exempt from any of that. Just look at the requirement for backup cameras.
@@BullittKid08 inflation my ass this is people buying into luxury and demanding things that arent necessary. The upper end models drive the price of the lower end models up.
Inflation only explains some of it since material cost hasn't raised much and labor rate hasn't either.
Whats spectacular about 310hp and 340 torque from a 2.7..Nothing! The Ford 2.7, the one that always gets ignored makes 325hp and 400 ft.lbs of torque....at 2750rpm. That's spectacular...oh yeah, it easily gets 26mpg too.
You're right about the 2 7 Ford twin turbo being a HOT ROD!
Don’t forget tfl just had a video of a tuned ranger putting down bigger numbers at the wheels with just a tune with their 2.3i4. That 2.7 is also a beast when tuned.
2.7 ecoboost
I went on a ~60mi trip yesterday in my 2.7l EcoBoost driving 55-60MPH and averaged 27.1MPG when I pulled in to the destination city. :P
Pulled about 6k lbs moving from Denver CO to Yuma AZ and averaged 15 miles per gallon going 65-75mph, calculated from the pump. Pulled the weight like it had nothing behind it. The 2.7 ecoboost is seriously underestimated.
The price of new trucks is crazy! I'm poor, and will buy used.
Chas106 G. - Consider the Colorado or Ranger.
@@GH-oi2jf A 4x4 Z71 Duramax Colorado will run you about $33-35K on the out going year model, will have most of the options offered and can tow 7600 lbs, which is easily as good as any base engine full size pickup. If you an leave with a smaller cab(my long bed is easily comparable to the short beds of full size pickups, albeit a lower payload), it would be my choice - it literally was.
NEW Trucks are more heavily discounted. It’s harder to get discounts on used trucks. Plus used trucks prices are inflated
Nothing wrong with buying used. Plenty of people gave me shit for buying a new one but i dont think they understand, if people like me didnt buy new, there wouldnt be any nice well maintained used trucks on the market.
USED Prices are up right there with new ! a few grand and your in a new truck. crazy
Fun fact, you can get a 2.7 ecoboost 4x4 super crew STX for mid 30's.
31.9K, end of year sale. I know cause I bought one.
I was thinking 40k+ for each of these! That’s outrageous.
They need to get them down into the low 20s in my opinion.
Not in FL anymore...lol
i got mine for 32k in 2018 labor day sale :). 80k miles later it is still perfect except bunch of rock chips
Fun fact same with the 2.7 lt or sle all 3 companies compete directly in this price range for high end ram is most expensive then Ford then gmc
Ram Big Horn is not a work truck . It's practically mid trim level . Should have had a tradesman
True.
@Sorgel agreed !
Chevy didn’t dare to give you guys the Ford with the 2.7 V6 turbo.
Probably because it's not a base engine.............
Yeah that wouldn't make sense to give an optional engine to go against a base engine.
White Wolf 4.3 *ecotec*
They stopped making vortec 4.3 vortecs in 2013
@@imzevoh8327 They did not, in 2014 they debuted a new 4.3 based on the GenV DI small block. All alluminum, literally the 5.3 or 6.2 with a pair of cylinders lopped off.
Track Days can you get the 2.7L - 4 banger in the WT trim? Or Custom trim? I think LT and maybe RST. So it Probably should be compared with the 2.7 EcoBoost. But it doesn’t matter really because the market will determine how well it does against the competition.
$40K for a 2WD V6 F150? Insane...
Insanely cheap or insanely expensive?
@@bencoyle7555 expensive. I paid 45k for my Chevy 2.7 with 4wd. Ford is overpriced shit.
@@roblacerra3257 you say overpriced shit when you bought a truck with a smaller engine for 5 grand more 😂😂😂 clueless
Turbocharged 4 cylinder ... a recipe for sub 100,000 mile lifespan for that engine.
In Chattanooga Tennessee you can get that same Ford truck in a regular cab configuration for about 23 and some change
I know. Regular cabs are cheap now because nobody wants them. Everybody wants a 4 door today.
I'd rather see that 2.7L turbo dumped in a Colorado rather than the 3.6L that it took right out of an Impala/LaCrosse.
That would make too much sense.
you mean camaro/Cadillac ..
s_reilly - There’s nothing wrong with sharing an engine between cars and pickups. I have the 25l engine in my Colorado and it works fine. It’s just a matter of tuning and gearing.
GH1618 I think when talking about the types of loads and weights this truck is rated for, the 3.6 is just not an optimal engine. It’s power is made at near 7000rpm and torque is fairly pathetic for a truck capable of towing 7000lbs. The 4.3 would have been much more complimentary being that it makes its power at a lower 5000rpm and has more torque, again from fewer rpm. This 2.7 turbo would be even more ideal than that, but either is much more fitting than the car-based 3.6.
As long as they keep the 3.6 liter option for the Colorado, im cool with the 2.7 liter added to the list. I have the 2015 Colorado Z71 Offroad Extended Cab with the 3.6, and its a good combination. Im getting 25 MPG highway and have even gotten 27 MPG before,,,combined city, highway im getting 18 to 19 MPG, however im getting 15 to 16 MPG city
Mr. Truck seems like the kind of guy to shake your hand too hard and carry butterscotch candy in his pocket.
Just a little confused here.. That 2.7 Silverado isn't exactly the work truck for the new Silverado.. GM put that behind their paywall. You still get the 4.3 in the models that compete directly to the work trucks with the 3.3 Ford and 3.6 Ram.
They were scared to put their 2.7L against Fords 2.7L V6. The EcoBoost 2.7L is a little monster.
Ram will sell you the 3.6 etorque engine across their entire lineup even on a $55,000 limited model. you can get the 3.3 naturally aspirated v6 engine on the ford up to the XLT trim level.
If I’m gonna drop 40K for a F-150 it better have a 5.0
Amen brother! You get a mustang gt, a family hauler, an offroading rig and when the weekend fun is over, you still got a work truck........4 different uses/purposes in one truck....bad ass!
and we overseas have to pay 40k for a 2.0 diesel Ranger.
It’s going to be an Xl
Id buy a two year old truck fresh off a lease and get tripple the options
I like the turbo
The Ford and Ram trucks weren't really "volume trucks". The were just entry level. The XL and Tradesman are the "volume/work" trucks
No. The one's they've used in the comparison are XLT and Big Horn which match most closely with LT. The LT in this comparison has more options added than the comparable models and that's the reason for the higher price even though it's a double cab, albeit 4WD . They obviously wanted to show case their fancier tailgate and a few other things not built in to the other models shown here, but those same features are available in XLT and Big Horn. You can get all of these features pretty much matched for the same money if you're crazy enough to pay a bunch extra for these low-cost features that help you be lazier, and so that's not what we should focus on. The focus is how well all the features are executed and the power trains and whether or not you like or dislike styling or interiors.
Ford's base is the XL and Ram's base trim is Tradesman. They start for thousands less than these trucks even though Andre and company keep trying to tell us these mid-level trucks are work trucks; but in fact are far too expensive for what you get compared to the real work trucks. GM's lower trims are now W/T and Custom and Custom Trail Boss; they also start thousands less. But here is the big rub...GM doesn't want the media or us to call them out, and so far, hardly anyone is calling them out. Ford and Ram's base power train in their lower-end models are the same as the power trains as in the trucks shown here (3.6 8-speed w/eTorque and 3.3L V6 6-speed dual fuel injection; both at 20/25/22 mpg; 305/269 and 290/265 peak hp/torque, respectively), but for GM, the lower end customers get stuck with the 4.3L V6 mated to the same old 6-speed (mpg not released but previously 18/24/20) or the 5.3L V8 (mpg down 2 now at 15/21/17 versus 16/23/19 in the previous Silverado; same performance 285/305, peak hp / torque), as completely carried over power trains, aka nothing new except worse gas mileage but the same performance, albeit better capability via the new design. They try to tell us the 2.7L turbo is a base engine, but they don't offer it in the lower end like Ford and Ram does with their premium engines. So now an GM wants to change the game to their benefit by saying that an engine that's not even allowed in the lower trims is somehow a base engine. So how is it that a manufacturer can get away with limiting a choice of an engine in the lower trims, making it standard in level three and four and not optional anywhere else in the lineup, and then say it's a base engine, only because they make it standard one trim level lower than where Ford or Ram makes a premium engine standard. Of course any manufacturer can align their products as they wish, but it's up to us and the media to disregard their claims, and what it boils down to is that the new 2.7L Turbo is not a base engine. Base engines have always been the engines that are in the cheapest trucks for each brand in the segment. It's a lie to call it a base engine. If it were base, it would be standard in W/T and Custom. The media is going along for the ride that GM is taking the consumer on. The media is supposed to be our advocate; not theirs.
As soon (if ever) that GM puts this power train in the lowest trims, the argument gets very good in their favor as a base power train choice versus the competion, and this comparison becomes immediately valid. They'll have a superior base power train for their half-ton truck in some respects; but for right now, it's a lie to say it's a base engine and compare it to the 3.3L and the 3.6L except but for those two exact, trim-level trucks versus XLT and Big Horn; but keep in mind, for $995 an XLT can have the 2.7L Ecoboost and for another grand, a 5.0L V8. A person could keep the price pretty much the same by dropping some of those unneeded features or even dropping a trim level. One can also opt for a V8 in the same Silverado shown here, so really, this comparison of so-called base engine is no big deal, because one can get what he or she wants, and these days, power train options are cheaper than opting for an 8" touch screen that probably cost GM $100 to add in the truck.
@@gregoryfaulkner5345 I'm not ready that entire reply, nor do I want to waste my time doing so. But I can tell you from the first couple of sentences from your reply. I never said anything about how they match. All I said was that the vocabulary TFL used was alittle off.
Ford XLT is *NOT* entry level.
I wouldn't want to four cylinder in a work truck
I really like TFL and the job they do in comparing trucks. There’s a huge part of the story missing on each. 1) cost of ownership 2) # of issues, recalls and services needed 3) re-sale value 4) bang for the buck. I have owned many f-150s, Chevy and gmc half tons, and even a GMC Canyon (15’). I currently own a 2018 Toyota Tundra 5.7 crew trd limited. Out the door it was 43k and change brand new. The Ford was 10k more with the same options and the gm twins were about 6-8k more. I agree with the comments that truck prices have run away and keep going up and up. Because of this I believe the Tundra is still the best half ton on the market hands down to own. It doesn’t do everything well, but it does everything good enough and does it without any problems, and with a resale that the others can only dream about. I think TFL should look at doing long term testing with these considerations. Love the show and the guys.
A work truck is usually a standard cab, long bed 2wd truck..by no means are these base work trucks, still way to spendy. Also, I'm probably going to get alot of crap but I hope these trucks dont sell well (whatever configuration) so that they will be forced to sell the for less
The USA built Ford and dodg--(I mean Italy's RAM) pickup trim levels are more inline with that of a manager,not a worker.
My grandpa has the 3.3L V6 with 290HP. He has the 2018 XLT in blue jeans color. I drove it multiple times before. And I’m only 18 and I also own a 2010 LE Camry 2.5L 169HP 6speed auto.
2.7 turbo Chevy makes for a good run around truck for large fleets...gas companies, cable companies...good on fuel, not meant to tow much.
I agree
Drop it in a fiero
Except it really isn’t that good on Fuel compared to the Ford according to the EPA. Hopefully real world is better.
No smart fleet is going to buy unproven a sliding cam shaft 4 banger when the 5.3 is a proven engine
Cost of operating this 4cyl turbo would be way higher than a nat-asp V6 or possibly V8...think about the abuse the average non-caring employee would give these trucks and tell me which will be in the shop more...
When Ford releases a 2.7 they race it innBaja and test it against v8’s on Davis damm. Chevy releases a 2.7 and pits against the weakest offering of the competition.
Do you not see how the two motors are different? One is a 4 cylinder base engine and one isnt....
Track Days I understand you’re sensitive.
Jason Larsen someone questions your opinion and you call them sensitive. That’s ironic
daniel Stark it’s not opinion. Nobody buys the 3.3 f150 in a trim comparable to the gm RST. I’m only using what GM has brought to the table here.
The 2.7 isn't base. The 4.3 is still the base engine.
The 3.3 is perfect for those who want an F150 as a car. Good mileage (for a truck), 6 passengers, a good cargo capacity grocery getter per se and an occasional tow of the bass boat. What I like about it is there’s a lot less to go wrong.
I really wouldn't call any of these trucks a "6 passenger" vehicle, nobody wants to sit in the middle front for more than 10 minutes and even that only in a pinch. As a car with an occasional tow compact trucks(Taco, GM twins, Frontier, Ranger) are way more practical.
Alexander Golubev Jr I don’t want a console. I prefer the 40/20/40 seating. Costs less too.
@@dam4274 I do too. But just for that once in a million years need type of thing. It's just not practical.
jldude84 My eldest son loves his 2018 Taco crew cab. I find it too small inside yet he gets 29 highway. Rides well enough but still cramped inside and sore seating. Maintenance free vehicle.
@@dam4274 I have a Chevy Colorado 2.8 diesel I get 33mpgs highway and 28 city. The diesel runs like a top and gets great mileage
Should have called out Chevy for not using the base engine but got a ford and dodge truck with the base engine
It is the base engine.
Welcome to AZ! I like it when you guys are in my town. Enjoy the beautiful weather 👍🏽👏🏽
What a sham from GM, and I know all manufacturers stack the deck for themselves but this is ridiculous. Some of the cheapest Ram and Ford trucks, and a much more upscale Chevy. They used a double cab so the price didn’t seem as far off, but it’d be near 50k if it was a crew cab. A 50k Ram is an awfully nice truck. You can’t beat the ford 2.7 either for the money. Ridiculous
It's a base chevy.
@@jdrok5026 Yeah, but a base Chevy is better than mid-level Dodge or Fords. Not fair. Heh heh.
You can turn off the “Auto-Start-Stop” by pushing the button above the screen in the center console.
Gotta wonder about a large truck with a small engine under near constant boost....
b sudah like the Ford 2.7 v6
TheJ602 not like
@@TheJ602 no, the GM is a 4 cylinder...and in order to have low end torque with no lag, it needs constant boost, which can affect reliabity. I have heard that the eco boost has problems as well...
@@sudahb prob a 150k engine at best
I love when one company has one of these comparisons with their competition.
They provided Ford and Ram trucks, which is nice. But, they optioned up their own truck. Not only does it sticker for $4K more than the Ford, but they added a bigger Infotainment screen inside, as well as 4WD too; while the other two are merely 2WD.
Nice Apples to Apples comparison, Chevy..
this is gm forever..allways cheap & nasty..
I liked that comment from Mr. Truck. "I can get all the grandkids in here"
Mr truck is awesome. I bet he's got some happy grandkids!
@@volvo09 And if he puts one of his grandkids in the front center, he doesn't care about them. Lap belt and no airbag = no bueno.
@Alexander Ya know my grandpa refused to ride with any driver that wore a seat belt. He figured if you don't trust yourself enough to drive safe their was no reason for him to trust you. He drove for 80 sum years without an accident. He also believed speed limits caused more accidents than they prevented (which has actually been studied and proven).
@@rmkscrambler I like the theory, but whenever I don't have my belt on I start getting visions of weird stuff happening like someone's wheel falling off and it rips their vehicle across an undivided road and into me before I can truly react... Then I'll put it on, and move over to be safer, so I see the thought behind it!
@@2005OEFArmy There is a shoulder belt in the center seat! Even an older truck like my 2011 F150 has the shoulder belt in the center seat.
When I read the comments and the complaints of unfair comparisons. The Fast Lane has the same problem the car magazines have . They have deadlines to meet and have to work with the vehicles that are geographically available to the them at the time of the video or articles. Plus, they need to make some money and work for living like the rest of us. I personally feel these two are the hardest working truck reviewers on UA-cam. Keep up the good hard work guys.
Just built an F150 online with the 3.5 ecoboost, crew cab, towing package, and 4 wheel drive, and the total cost was $39375.
Finally tested base models of Ford Ram and Chevy. Great job. For me I would go with the Ram. Better value.
Enjoy a $700. Per month truck payment for 6 yrs...
With a few thousand down. And a trade in the dealer can give you peanuts for.
At least for that coin I’ve got a 3/4 diesel.
As long as it's at 0%, no problem.
I’m interested in the 3.6 pentastar and 8 speed trans. Had the pleasure of driving one blew my mind.
Ford 2019 extended cab its $40k 4x4 with 2.7L EcoBoost that's almost 5k cheaper and faster then those 2 trucks Chevy trying to fool ppl damn shame on GM
GM used both engines here for point of reference in this test when TFL did their 1st video of new 4cyl 2.7 T. How is that trying to fool anyone?? The 5.3L can be had on all 3 trim levels. What that means there's a model with a 6spd.
Because this engine is new GM chose to have 2.7L on volume trim but it's still the entry engine. The price argument will vary for various reasons. 2.7L Eco was slightly upgraded last yr. The same can't be said for this GM engine. It's hasn't been around that long. Like it or not price is affected by this issue.
@@jeffwill4923 ok then GM should of choose the ford 2.7L eco since GM base model truck does not come with the 4cyl turbo and for the price the ford still best buck with the 2.7L eco on either single,xcab,crewcab on stx trim level it's like ford trying to test 3.5L eco vs dodge 5.7L and GM 5.3L
@@michoacanom4320 MSRP aren't the end all be all, it's about finding the best deal, for example,
www.davesmith.com/new/Chevrolet/2018-Chevrolet-Silverado+1500-a8b40c9e0a0e0adf5dc31896c9a128af.htm
www.davesmith.com/new/GMC/2018-GMC-Sierra+1500-2af805680a0e0ae778da996fd1d131ae.htm
www.davesmith.com/new/GMC/2018-GMC-Sierra+1500-3a6919e70a0e0a6b7c9f18f73697b98b.htm
www.davesmith.com/new/Chevrolet/2018-Chevrolet-Silverado+1500-46df58370a0e0a6b13730521d3082731.htm
www.davesmith.com/new/Chevrolet/2018-Chevrolet-Silverado+1500-cc766de90a0e0ae80dac34aa1f787f01.htm (Probably Best Deal)
www.davesmith.com/new/Chevrolet/2018-Chevrolet-Silverado+1500-783524480a0e0ae70c244e039a8f15c8.htm
www.davesmith.com/new/Chevrolet/2018-Chevrolet-Silverado+1500-aa33500d0a0e0adf10937696a55ead5e.htm (highest package)
And to be fair to Ram:
www.davesmith.com/new/Ram/2018-Ram-1500-be8c16470a0e0ae97ec0c9109ce50b25.htm
www.davesmith.com/new/Ram/2019-Ram-1500-0a2de0a40a0e0ae81ad971793bbcd770.htm (Probably best Ram Deal)
www.davesmith.com/new/Ram/2018-Ram-2500-cffa916f0a0e0ae82394e0f854810f74.htm (3/4 ton in the same price range)
www.davesmith.com/new/Ram/2018-Ram-3500-e5ef33070a0e0ae97d17d33f39b81654.htm (1 ton in the same price range)
I know right, super big advertisement for Dave Smith lol, But I've bought 2 trucks from them off these special pages and they are legit and actual prices, not just some marketing scam. But you can't just look at MSRP and say 'That's the price!' I'm sure there's Ford Dealerships that have good deals too, maybe more than these maybe not I don't know. But you can get just about any halfton you want in decent trim level from 25-40k dollars out the door. I actually asked Dave Smith why they don't sell Ford when they pretty much sell everything else, and the guy basically said When Dave Smith goes and tries to buy a Ford Franchise or business license or however it works to sell new Fords, the other Ford Dealerships in the area get the first 'dibs' on the new location / license and they're scared of Dave Smith so they either buy them or convenience Corporate Ford why Dave Smith shouldn't buy any of their stuff.
Dave Smith does own some Ford Dealers under their parent company, and these are the few deals I could find on a quick search.
www.bigspringford.com/new/Ford/2018-Ford-F-150-333654ac0a0e0adf066f1de533284208.htm
www.bigspringford.com/new/Ford/2018-Ford-F-150-683179400a0e0a177b6ad645f8eec544.htm
www.bigspringford.com/new/Ford/2018-Ford-F-150-fd8467600a0e0ae71a199e3955f9131b.htm?searchDepth=1:2&promotionId=5bef4c604beaba17b1eedde4
www.bigspringford.com/new/Ford/2018-Ford-F-150-3cfc095e0a0e0ae83cb3a9e8000ea9d2.htm?searchDepth=2:2&promotionId=5bef4c604beaba17b1eedde4
www.bigspringford.com/new/Ford/2019-Ford-F-250-8faf15500a0e0ae76e5b1cc40045b9d4.htm?searchDepth=2:10&promotionId=5bb5b4600d1d5a99f4983a8a (This isn't a great deal at all, it's actually a $92,000 F250 and I don't even know how they justify that price)
www.jordanfordauto.com/inventory/new-2018-ford-f-150-lariat-4wd-crew-cab-pickup-1ftew1ep6jfd33155
www.jordanfordauto.com/inventory/new-2018-ford-f-150-xlt-4wd-crew-cab-pickup-1ftew1ep9jkg02580 (Maybe the best deal)
www.jordanfordauto.com/inventory/new-2018-ford-f-150-xlt-4wd-crew-cab-pickup-1ftew1eg0jfe76179 (Bester Deal)
www.jordanfordauto.com/inventory/new-2018-ford-f-150-platinum-4wd-crew-cab-pickup-1ftfw1e10jfd51344 (highest package)
You're welcome to anyone looking for the best deal(s) in the halfton range I basically just did all of your home work for you. If you pay more than 6-7k off MSRP then you're not getting the best deal you could be. With some negotiation skills on the right truck you could push 13-14k off on some of them.
Anyone looking for a new vehicle of any type, search these dealerships www.rfjauto.com/locations/index.htm and you'll probably find some of the best prices in the country.
But after doing my little research here, I think the Best deals were still from Chevy / Ram, Ford wasn't quiet there.
@@michoacanom4320 I feel you are missing my point. Instead of making another V6 or upgrading the OHV 4.3L, GM went with a T 4cyl. There's more torque and economy is similar to a n/a V6. This 4cyl isn't built to take on their 5.3L in performance or towing. The numbers quoted here are similar to their 4.3L. This price debate can't be used here. We are looking at a mostly updated model from front to back. The same can't be said on Ford side. If you were looking for a 2.7 eco TT vs this smaller engine like some you were sadly mistaken. In every video after the 1st I told a few GM is using the 3.3L not TT. GM isn't looking to take a L, lol after all this talk of tech and upgrades.
@@dedalliance1 I get it here in Texas 4x4 stx crew cabs u can get them for 36k , and 2wd for 32k not a bad deal to me I love the color match no chrome for me
I just bought a brand new 2021 Silverado 1500 4x4 Crew Cab with the 2.7T, and I love it! I actually traded in my 2008 Corvette for this truck, it's been smiles ever since!
I'm going to stop you here, Ford 2.7L > GM 2.7L.
I enjoy all you guys videos,,, hope to get a base model f250,, one day,,,, my dream truck
@walt charamba The body won't rust but everything else will, especially if they salt the roads where you live.
The ram has plastic trim around the vents. Not metal.
I have an 2003 Chevy wt with the 4.3 v6 and love the engine and truck rides super smooth and a great work truck all-around!Chevy's 4.3 is one of there best 6 cyl they ever made!they have good power plus reliablity!
That "base" Ford sure does have a lot of options driving the price up... Just saying.
Rinzler yea I wish you could pick and choose your options one by one. Not my trim or package
Lol Chevy calling the XLT a “base” truck. “Let’s just skip over the XL” lol
You bet. And that is not by accident. Even the XL has WAY too much technology on it, and WE pay for it.
Tommy Truth we’ve got a 2015 XL and it doesn’t have much technology all things considered
that Ford's radio screen is just embarrassing compared to the competition, and I think it was pretty evenly matched... cause I know I'm not gonna custom order a truck and most people wont, they'll go to the dealer and get one off the lot for a cheaper truck cause they'll discount those more... soo your limited to whatever They decided to mass produce
I like the sound of the Ford's exhaust
A 4 cyl. truck is a grocery getter not a work truck turbo or not.
I bought a new Tundra 5.7 in 2016, I'm very happy with it ! It gets about 15 MPG (Avg.) if you actually divide the miles vs gallons used. Trip Computer says 13.7 to 15 on a good day. It runs great, plenty of power, drives and handles good, 4x4, Good Truck. My wife still is driving our 2008 F-150, 210,000 and still going strong, 5.4, (I know many don't like this engine), but I've always used full synthetic oil, changed every 5000 miles. Or maybe we're just lucky.....
I think the ford sounds best
if its a truck, you want longevity and dependability , fuel economy is a factor but a 4cyl turbo or not is being pushed to hold that kinda power. It will only wear out faster.
Chevy and their bullshit. Sure this engine is standard in the LT but it is not in an actual "work truck" model. Additionally, for a very similar price you can get a 2.7L ecoboost with 10 speed. Ford probably should make the 2.7L the base engine in the XLT but options are nice too. 2.7L standard means you might be paying for something you don't want despite the likely hood of someone choosing a better engine anyways. Ram definitely has the best start stop IMO. I can't wait to see some people run 2.7 vs 2.7 though.
So your ignoring that they compared base engines. When the 4.3 is offered in extreme basic models only
The Ford with a 2.7 and ten speed would make the Chevy look silly.
Bs ford is always been the biggest piece of junk going. And has the worst resale value
Ford's cheat. They use 10 speeds trans. DI and MPI. So 2 inj per cylinder. So yeah there hp should be better. But they never last very long in general.
@@donaldkinder6716 best selling truck for 42 years
@@ryanl2601 actually no. Best selling line sure by itself. But not actually.
John Tarantino dumbass what about the 3.5...typical ford fanboys
If is sponsored by chevy is gonna be a chevy episode
I wonder when we'll see a 3 cylinder truck. Maybe in a couple years?
2.7 ecoboost ford is better compare for this review to be fair
TFL's production quality was so good I spent 15 minutes watching this before I realized I was watching a video about trucks that aren't the cool versions and I still can't afford them. Also, why getting hung up on the rear ends, they could pick any final ratio they want and adjust the transmission ratios.
Dissapointed. No equal comparison. Should be same cab, same drive configuration and same engine line.
Just note trans and gearing differences.
All 3 make same cab and drive configuration that can be matched. Ford and GM with TurboGas can be compared, all 3 with small V6 can be compared. Etc
But that's the part your missing. GM is saying this is their base engine and should be compared with the base V6s from Ram and Ford; they don't want to say it's better than Ford's 2.7L V6, which they say is an optional engine. They are saying we should compare standard to standard at LT and RST price points, theirs is better; and from a cost standpoint, they should be pretty close to the cost of a larger NA V6 with a turbo 4, and that's why it is so confusing why they haven't made the turbo 4 the base from the bottom up where they could make a better argument for it over a NA V6. They absolutely don't want you to realize that with Ford you could actually step down to an XL standard cab and get their 2.7L as an optional engine for much less money if that's all the truck you want. Try to do the same thing in Chevy, and you get the 4.3L. But really, when you compare either the LT or RST, they're right; and that's what they want us to see. It's the standard engine versus the others with an XLT with a standard 3.3L and Big Horn with the 3.6L. Comparing these trims; only standard engine to standard engine is the only way that GM's argument for this power train makes sense, and it's the only trims where the 4 cylinder turbo is available. But with all three brands, you can opt up to either V8s or for Ford, V8 or a choice of two turbo V6s.
@@gregoryfaulkner5345 Its not their base engine. The base is a 4.3 liter.......
Love Scottsdale AZ if you haven't been there you have to take a vacation there. Love the valley of the sun.
Of course Chevy is going to put a optional engine against a base engine. Makes since. First video of TFL I can't even watch, ya'll should have refused the review. So biased and bs. Ram and Ford deserve better.
Steven Densmore I, too, am disappointed but I'm looking at it as more of an initial review of just the new Chevy, not a review of it against the others (which would more accurately be called a comparison or shoot-out). TFL wouldn't have refused the "review" because there's no other way at this early point for them to get their hands on the brand-new Chevy.
@@anthonyc1883 I know. U know I have been a Chevy fan till here late. It's just obvious that they rig the test. They all do it but Chevy is obvious. Makes me sick, next Chevy commercial a ZR1 vs mustang EcoBoost lol
are you all stupid? Ram, Ford, and Chevy have all done this for TFL.... it's a easy way for them to see 3 trucks with no effort on their part. Unless you have paid them a subscription donation stop complaining for content that interest you. Jezzzz
@@bryane2857 TFL should speak up about the discrepancy between the trucks GM supplied. Engine aside they even went as far as select the lowest version XLT and a higher priced and better equipped GM to one up the Ford. My XLT had the 8 inch infotainment system, heated seats, remote start, power slider and more and it's just a XLT. I also have a little 2.7eco that has embarrassed its share of 5.3 liter V8's.
@@Grem135 maybe you should go and find a safe zone, then you can have things as you see with out any instability for a comfortable life ahead. Snowflake
Funny how not that long ago 290 HP was a lot for a V8 truck. Good video guys.
It still a good number. We just fall on the manufacturers Power fight.
At least FORD was never Taken for A Buy Out like Chevy and Chrysler!
Because Ford was already getting government funding because of all the emergency services and regular service vehicles being bought by state and federal government. Out of almost Every 10 ambulances, cop cars, cabs, and fleet vehicles at least 7 or 8 would be Ford products. Also don't forget GM and Chrysler had more lines of vehicles under their umbrellas than Ford at the time of the bailout. It makes sense that GM and Chrysler lost more. So everyone says that like it's a superior thing to tout but it is just not accurate once you think it through.
Fuel Mileage is always lower with 4 wheel drive you have a lot of extra weight with transfer case and front driving axle . Might be able to take advantage of that Turbos boost with E-85 which is over 100 Octane and has a lot of cooling effect
4cylinder turbo is cool but to me a truck isn't a truck if there ain't 8 pistons rumbling under the hood.
What about the Cummins, and also pretty much every semi truck on the road? They have 6 cylinder engines, are they not real trucks?
@@n8rev156 semis dont really have the width to support vs anymore.
@@n8rev156 also anything with a Cummins is just a car slow no torque and unreliable
Spider mirrors are great for pulling trailers enabling you to see your trailers as you turn.
Doesn’t Ford also have a 2.7 liter turbo to compare, apples to apples. Why are you comparing trucks that are clearly very different from each other, you would be hard pressed to find a base V6 ford on the lot and could get the base 2.7 turbo for much less then you quoted the regular V6 for. No problem taking up chevy’s offer to take them for a drive, just dont fool us into thinking this is a real world comparison.
Ford the only real truck 40 +years no arguing facts
The 2.7 turbo is Chevy's base model engine. The 2.7 Ecoboost Ford is a $1000 option
@@smiller225, it depends on the trim level of both brands. In a lower trim Chevy the four cylinder turbo is $4,700 more than the base V6. In an F150 Lariat the 2.7 Ecoboost is the base engine.
Let's see the Ford has twins and two more cylinders so do the math if you have any brains!
DURAMAX_DELIGHT
2.7 liters, that’s math, the diesel family never argues how many cylinders their displacement has.
Oh come on cameraman! Moved away from the tachometer right as the Ram was about to take off from the red light and kick on
Ford, Ram, Chevy in order of best revs
The Winner is the Chevy Silverado LT 2.7L trust me I drove this Truck and was amazed how much power and how smooth it was. I’m getting one Soon fingers crossed 🤞 will be doing videos on my channel about it Soon.👊🏽😎💯
Also, it is amusing some say the 3.3 is a base engine. The LT is not a base trim. It would compare to an XLT, which puts a 2.7 in my Ford, base.
Next up is the all new 2020 ford raptor with a 3 cylinder twin turbo bringing 750 hp
ring ding 2 stroke 1000cc triple turbo hybrid with start assist and dual backup cameras hydraulic tailgates and electric steering wheel holder apps for your iphone.
Nice. That is funny. LOl LOL LOL LOL LOL
Chevy's 4.3 V6 is pretty torquey. 305 lb ft on 87 octane, 330 lb ft on E85
For the price, you'd think Ford's interior would be less shit.
Tbh better than Chevy's
Ford was the cheapest don’t forget....
I agree. I've got a 2015 F150 XL with the 2.7L Ecoboost. Fancy interiors is not my thing, but yeah you'd expect more for a $41K truck. I Opted for option package 101A and chrome appearance package back then and my truck is exactly the same interior; same wheels and tires; only the grille is upgraded compared with mine; same interior features as mine minus the back seat, as I have no back seat. That package cost me $1,100 that's part of the total price at $27.8K before tax and gave me power glass, mirrors, cruise, CD player, MP3 hookup, and some other not-so-important features. A 2018 F150 XL with 101A and chrome or sport trim model now set up the same way as mine would be a ten speed, 25 more ft-lb torque; one more mpg city; dual fuel injection to prevent carbon build up on intake valves; and around $30K assuming the same incentive (it usually gets the same $3K incentive). I don't get where these guys come from when they talk about value. That Chevy double cab truck at $45K with an easier-to-lift tailgate that's not heavy anyway is worth that kind of money; or the Ram at $42K or the F150 at $41K; Really! Take out some of those silly little features and creature comforts; add a more advanced power train; change the letter badging to a less expensive letter combination; reconsider the need of four big doors with a small bed; and then you'd be looking at value.
Should have pushed sport mode on the Ford and the magnification button for the small screen back up is push okay on the steering wheel
I don't think start/stop affects highway mileage Mr Truck.
maybe downhill, I think the low altitude was affecting my brain waves
sho942000
people makes mistakes
All I want to I how the 2.7L performs. I do not really care about the comparison to other base models. Especially since a really Chevy base model is the WT with the 4.3L not a middle of the pack LT with the 2.7L.
I think GM is trying to push the modern “small engine = MPG” concept (that Ford started with the EcoBoost) a little too far/fast. I don’t think a 4 banger has any business in a 1/2 ton. If it only gets used for groceries & whatnot it’ll probably be fine but if somebody decides to do a lot of towing/work with it, I see that engine getting tired pretty quickly.
Now I want to see these 3 trucks go up Ike with 7500 behind them. Even with the Chevy having a turbo, I bet the 3.3 Ford performs best.
or make it apples to apples and load the ford with their 2.7 liter.....
This got me curious about the variable valve *lift* system on the cams, I never heard of something like this. There's 3 lobes on 3 cyl. and 2 on the 1st because it never deactivates, high lift, low lift and no lift (cyl. deactivation), the lobes actually shift themselves into place in a rotation. Normally (what I've seen) there are separate lobes solid to the cam and separate lifters that are constantly in contact, and it's the high or low lift lifters that lock themselves up to provide VVL. The double volute turbo, (or twin scroll) maybe unique to trucks, but I got one in my '94 Toyota Celica engine (OEM). Btw, the ford has the best sound.
What’s sad is this Chevy LT’s interior at $44k looks the exact same as a High Country at $65k
That would be sad, if it weren't a load of shit...
Which of these base trucks has the most comfortable interior? I am very interested as you were able to go back and forth and get a very good impression of which truck was the most comfortable to spend time in.
How in the world did GM put out a 2.7 turbo 4 that gets less mpg than the 2.7 v6 ford and the natural v6 dodge!? Don't make sense to me.
Because they cannot put their 2.7 against fords 2.7
I was once a fan of GM trucks in general but now they completely gone irrational. Their trucks underperform unless you pay up for the antiquated 6.2 which comes equipped on an ultra high trim level. Active Fuel management and their newer version is still a bandaid and lack of desire to come up with a more efficient engine. Yes the LS style motors were a marvel when they first appeared in 1997 on the Vette. However its been 22 years now and needs to go to retire. Throwing a bunch of crap together. And coming up with only a four cylinder turbo?! Should have been an Inline 6 with a turbo. I think most truck guys would have been more receptive. Another stupid idea is RAM's torque assist flux capacitor which is a guaranteed money magnet gimmick and unnecessary .
@@eddielt1sl dude. It's a base engine displacement and tuning are all in play gm trucks dont under perform. Having used all 3 ford and mopar trucks are under whelming. But I am ruined by cars that rattle your brains at idle.
@@eddielt1sl also the 6.2 is a lt based engine.
I’m a Chevy fan, always have, always will. I think that Chevy needs to put a lot more effort into their trucks all the way around.
Chevy sounds the best
Not gonna pay $45k for something that's gonna fall apart in 5yrs.
Those fold up middle seats are best removed, like captain chairs up front then, and easy access to the back.
I think it will be cross shopped with the 2.7 EcoBoost in the XLT and Lariat, not the 3.3 XL base truck. So how does it feel compared to the 2.7EB?
The 2.7 EB in most testing had similar acceleration numbers to the Chevy 6.2 and would easily blow all of these away.The 2.7 is probably the best mid tier motor for a truck and this is coming from a GM guy.
Yeah nothing like comparing apples to oranges. 2.7 ecoboost would dominate.
They compared base model engines the 2.7 is Chevy's base model for 2019
2.7 ecoboost would murder it in every category.
@@smiller225 I'm pretty sure the 4.3 v6 is the base engine
I know most truck guys don’t like mid size trucks but for city drivers you can’t beaten..I liked the ranger but didn’t trust the turbo in truck form so I went with the 308 hp canyon
Mr.truck said that having a center console underneath the center console (6th seat) is unique to ram. It's not unique to ram go back in the Ford and you actually can do the same thing except that the Ford has a better under storage console with more space.
Chevy really needs to fire their CEO she obviously doesn't care about trucks or how to use them
In general, management at the auto companies have their heads up their rear ends.
william shoemaker - Wrong. Barra is doing a great job. She was previously head of product development. My 2nd gen Colorado is a Mary-mobile, and it’s perfect.
@@GH-oi2jf I have to completely disagree, just because she said that something looks nice does not mean that she should be in charge of the big boy toys
Generally speaking, the CEO doesn’t get very involved with this stuff. At least not as much as you would think.
Generally the marketing department wears the pants in the house. They set the maintenance intervals (believe it or not). They decide models and options. They decide allocation.
@James Evans ha, I forgot equal opportunity
As someone else said, I think the 2.7 turbo will be great for fleet vehicles like for construction companies or rentals such as U-Haul. Good MPG and cheap engine, with a decent towing rating.
We love our 2.7s
I liked all three trucks but it seemed the RAM was the best buy 👍🔧🔧
None r worth buying
larry burnett but it wasn’t base.
@@FishFind3000 yeah but for the money it still was a better buy the F-150 was more money more plastic the Chevy was nice I'm not sure of the 4 cylinder engine in a full size truck 🔧🔧
It has a tendency to overheat
The Ram will die first. I’d personally buy a GM V8 or Tundra.
I have the small screen in my Ford. As someone who learned to backup without using a camera I really don't find them useful other then to see when you clear the curb behind you.
You were here in Snottsdale (well technically, Paradise Valley), and you didn't even call or visit? I feel jilted. Going to have to put my TFL hoodie to the back of the closet. :-)
I live in Phoenix proper myself
I paid less than the MSRPs on all these for my 2018 F-150 Supercrew Fx4 4x4 2.7, a 49 K MSRP.
I put some back into it for a 130K 7 year warranty, and Husky Liners. Now I have the sound deadening of carpeting with rubber to reduce the carpet wear. I don't go running a host through the truck to clean it either because that would be a sure way to have corrosion.
down the road.
No lag with the 2.7, and it will out mileage and out pull the Chevy.
The Ram needs more low end and 3.9 gears, or just add a good turbo or two.
the new silverados visually look very small
Wow, I don’t know how I missed this video. Finally, a video with REAL everyday trucks people buy, not 6 figure trust-fund 4x4’s.
You can tell chevys transmission tuning is still lethargic.
Work truck is a very important segment
Folks it doesn't matter which truck in which trim level with which engine you chose because either way they're Absolutely wayyyyyyyyyy overpriced just like any other modern vehicle you see on the road today.
I liked the RAM the best and that's what is now parked in my driveway!
I am not sure why you compared the Chevy 2.7L against the Ford and Ram base model. According to the Chevy site and building my own truck with crew cab and 4x4, the 4.3L is the base motor. I think you should have put Ford 2.7L turbo in the line up and i believe the Chevy would have fallen last of the three trucks. I am not sure why Chevy keeps insisting this 2.7L 4 cylinder is compared to the Ford 3.3L.
Because it's the only way the can appear better. Watch any comparison commercials from GM, they rig or completely edit out stuff that's negative to them. Like the whole aluminum bed video, they give a quick shot of the tool box falling and there's no hole. Then a quick jump and there is a hole in a different area of where the tool box hit.
John Fountaine
the 2.7 is a new engine and replacing the 4.3
@@anthonywebber2211 If you go to their website to build a new 2019, the 4.3L is first engine listed. Maybe next year, but this was not a base model compared to base model. I believe GM is disappointed with this 4 cylinder engine and it did not produce what they expected. It has the same displacement as the Ford and ford 2.7L kicks its ass in power from what has been seen so far. GM modified all their engines and none of them beat the competition that has older power plants.
@@John76546-x, I said replacing not replaced, there is a difference in the to words
@@John76546-x, do you think a brand new engine is going to replace an engine has 40 years of proven engine just like that