2009 Full-Size Pickup Truck Comparison Test

[Intrepidation]

Chevy Silverado vs. Dodge Ram vs. Ford F-150 vs. Toyota Tundra

We see it every Friday during our evening commute. A stream of vehicles choking the freeway, headed out to the Mojave Desert or the Colorado River for some well-earned weekend stress relief.

The fun varies, from camping to dirt-bike riding to water-skiing. But the vehicle that invariably gets tasked with hauling the corresponding equipment is a full-size pickup truck. You know, like the 2009 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, 2009 Dodge Ram 1500, 2009 Ford F-150 or 2009 Toyota Tundra.

Sure, we talk about the virtues of the minivan as a family hauler, and there are many. But the minivan stands no chance against a looming 25-foot camping trailer. And SUVs are easily flummoxed by motocross bikes and the need to carry their smelly gas cans (or anything that's remotely dirty, actually) in the vehicle's cargo area.

There's nothing like a pickup, with its big bin in back that doesn't care what you toss into it. And the truck is sure to be around long after the full-frame SUV falls completely out of favor and descends into the three-row car-based sensibility that is the crossover.

The Game

All the big hitters have introduced new machines in the last couple of years. It's time to see if the pecking order has changed, so we sought out one of everything for a simulated weekend romp: the 2009 Chevy Silverado, the 2009 Dodge Ram 1500, the 2009 Ford F-150 and the 2009 Toyota Tundra. (That's everything except the Nissan Titan, which is overdue for a refresh.)

With them we'd pull camping trailers to the desert, so they needed to be tow-ready. Once there, we'd unburden our beasts and play in the sand, so four-wheel drive was a must. And of course we'd subject them to two weeks of day-to-day use, so we made sure all of them had a crew cab (with 5.5-foot bed), sunroof, navigation system and other convenience features.

We added another task to our tow-test regimen this time. We always test trucks against their claimed capacity, ballasting each rig to a similar percentage of its particular Gross Combination Weight Rating (GCWR). But this produces different trailer weights for each combatant, and it confuses some readers. So we added a second test: a fixed-weight face-off in which each truck pulled an identical trailer up our test mountain.

Let's meet the contestants.

The Players

Our Toyota Tundra CrewMax 4x4 test truck is actually a 2008 model, but we've used 2009 pricing because the truck hasn't changed. Ours had the 381-horsepower 5.7-liter iForce V8, the TRD off-road package ($2,155 option) and rear-seat DVD entertainment ($1,670), yet its $44,434 price is still the least in this test because this SR5 model doesn't have leather upholstery.

The 2009 Ford F-150 Lariat Super Crew 4x4 comes loaded with a host of comfort and convenience features, inside and out. It is powered by Ford's venerable 5.4-liter V8, which makes 310 hp. An optional 3.73:1 rear axle ratio ($300) and other towing bits give it a claimed towing capacity of 11,200 pounds, the highest rating in this bunch. All that and more cost $46,415.

Our decommissioned 2007 Silverado long-termer had a 6.0-liter V8, but this 2009 Silverado 1500 Crew Cab 4x4 test truck has the larger 403-hp 6.2-liter V8 ($1,000) bolted to its six-speed transmission, a stouter combination that nevertheless results in a lower tow rating. It prices out at $48,175 with leather bucket seats, 20-inch chrome-finished wheels ($745) and LTZ trim.

Finally there's the 2009 Dodge Ram Laramie Crew Cab 4x4, with coil-spring rear suspension and the only five-speed automatic transmission in this group. Its 5.7-liter V8 makes 390 hp and matches up here with the optional 3.92:1 rear end ($350), but the truck's 7,300-pound tow rating is still the lowest by far. And at $52,555, the Ram is also the priciest. Much of the cost comes from the unique RamBox bed ($1,895) and a rear-seat entertainment system ($1,695).

And let's not forget the trailers these trucks pulled. Our Fleetwood Prowler 230 RKS is a 29-foot camper that weighs 6,280 pounds with dry tanks. We also had a Fleetwood Backpack 210 FQ, a 3,880-pound unit that's around 23 feet long. All the trucks pulled the heavier Prowler (ballasted to an even 6,500 pounds) in the fixed-weight test. Afterwards, trailers and ballast were manipulated to burden each truck to 80 percent of its towing capacity.

4th Place: 2009 Ford F-150 Lariat SuperCrew 4x4

What? This isn't supposed to happen. After all, the F-150 is the perennial pickup sales champ. Perhaps, but this is a strong field, and the margin between 1st and 4th is thin.

Our Lariat-trim F-150 is truly a nice place to spend time, featuring Sync voice-actuated audio and telephone control plus sumptuous leather seats that can either heat or cool our posterior. But nothing about the interior style is subtle, and there's lots of chrome. The Lariat Plus package ($1,295) adds still more brightwork outside. With Amber Gold paint, the "pretty truck" theme goes to an oxymoronic extreme.

The 2009 F-150's elongated wheelbase (144.5 inches, an increase of 6 inches over last year) provides a smooth and confident highway ride, plus there's ample cabin space for the tallest among us, especially in the backseat, where it offers 43.5 inches of headroom.

But the extra length affects performance. More truck means more weight, and our test example weighs a whopping 6,040 pounds, some 200-500 pounds heftier than the others. Parking this beast was no picnic either, thanks to a turning radius of 47 feet.

Put both extra wheelbase and extra weight together and you'll understand why the F-150 feels ponderous on twisty roads. Our test-driver looked like all arms and elbows through the slalom test at the track, but came away with only a 55.9-mph run. Secure? Yes. Predictable? You bet. Willing dance partner? No.

Acceleration isn't particularly sprightly, either. Despite the smooth-shifting six-speed automatic, the F-150's 8.4-second run to 60 mph from a standstill (8.0 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip) lags 1.0-1.8 seconds behind the rest.

Perhaps it's optimized for towing, we theorized. A mere 6,500-pound trailer should be a minor annoyance for a truck with an 11,200-pound tow rating, right?

Well, it didn't work out that way. Simply put, the Ford got beaten on our 11.5-mile test grade, coming in dead last by 27 seconds in a test that should have stressed it least. It was the only truck to drop below 50 mph, sagging to 47.8 mph at one point, and it spent the most time at wide-open throttle.

None of this should be a surprise. Physics suggests that a tepid 5.4-liter V8 that makes 310 hp (in the heaviest truck, no less) should not be able to out-tow others that boast 380 hp and up. Physics is right. Furthermore, the 3.73:1 axle ratio that's needed to generate the advertised tow rating drastically affects everyday fuel economy. Our unburdened F-150 achieved 12.6 mpg, well below the window sticker ratings of 14 mpg city and 18 mpg highway (which were achieved with the standard 3.55:1 ratio).

This 2009 Ford F-150 is a nice truck in many ways, but it's clearly time for a new engine. The 5.4-liter V8 is simply being asked to do too much, and the rumored 4.4-liter turbodiesel cannot come soon enough.

3rd Place: 2009 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 LTZ Crew Cab 4x4

If lots of motor makes a trucker's life easier, the 2009 Chevy Silverado proves it with a stout 6.2-liter V8 that cranks out 403 hp — the class of the field by 13 horses. On top of this, the Silverado tips the scales at just 5,520 pounds, some 500 pounds less than the F-150 and more than 300 pounds less than the others.

This pays off big at the test track, where the Silverado beats the rest with a 6.6-second run to 60 mph from a standstill (6.3 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip). It is also king of the slalom, where its relative lightness and lower overall height help it to 58.6 mph. Its stopping distance from 60 mph while unloaded is also best in this test at 124 feet.

Uphill with a trailer attached, the Silverado trails the quickest truck by only 4 seconds after almost 13 minutes of climbing. The steepest stretch requires some encouragement with wide-open throttle and the speed dips to 50.2 mph, but this is still a pretty stout performance from a truck with a standard 3.42:1 axle ratio. And here the use of a standard axle ratio means our 14.2 mpg observed fuel economy (best of the test) accurately reflects the EPA window sticker, which predicts 12 mpg city/19 mpg highway.

We also like the Chevy's six-speed transmission, which executes snappy yet smooth shifts. And its tow-haul mode demonstrates psychic ability by downshifting proactively to control descent speed on hills without first requiring a dab of brakes — reassuring when some 6,500 pounds is attempting to shove you down a 7 percent grade.

The Silverado's leaf-spring rear suspension supports the trailer weight well enough, and Chevy's ride when unladed is second best here. But axle tramp enters the picture when the truck is accelerating on silty off-road surfaces. (Our truck didn't have the Z71 off-road package, which seems like a $275 no-brainer to us.)

Athletic prowess aside, the Chevy settles into 3rd because of day-to-day issues. The interior is well-finished enough, with nicely grained surfaces and a clean overall design. But our top-line LTZ's black interior is more than a little monochromatic and dreary and the tiny control buttons on the center stack are hard to use. Plus, the as-tested price of our truck does not include things like extendable tow mirrors, a rearview camera, a fully integrated iPod connection or rear-seat entertainment — which are found on most of the other trucks. Even the Silverado's sliding rear window is an optional extra, and it's the only truck here that doesn't have side curtain airbags.

And so the Silverado seems the polar opposite of the F-150. It's athletic and willing, but the day-to-day functionality and convenience come up a little short. It's a solid truck that could stand a bit more polish.

2nd Place: 2008 Toyota Tundra SR5 CrewMax 4x4

When it was introduced in 2007, the Toyota Tundra leaped to the top of the pickup truck pile thanks to its 5.7-liter iForce V8 with 381 hp and 400 lb-ft of torque, a six-speed automatic transmission and a tow rating in excess of 10,000 pounds. From the get-go, this capability applied to all cab configurations and trim levels, and that's because Toyota has to do everything with the Tundra; it has nothing like a heavy-duty T-250 or T-350 in its lineup. Chevy and Ford quickly countered with trucks that had higher tow ratings, though only in low-volume variants.

But Toyota's all-aluminum 5.7-liter DOHC V8 with variable intake and exhaust valve timing remains mighty impressive. It likes to rev a bit more to make power, so the axle ratio here is 4.30:1. But this combination produces a 6.9-second acceleration to 60 mph from a standstill (6.6 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip) and a run to the quarter-mile in 15.1 seconds at 91.7 mph — only a couple tenths behind the lighter Silverado with its pushrod 6.2-liter V8.

On the towing hill the Tundra tops the list, cruising easily at California's towing speed limit of 55 mph all the way up at part throttle, dipping to 53.4 mph only because we didn't use cruise control. Transmission performance is excellent, as there isn't any hunting between ratios.

This towing prowess does not come at the expense of everyday fuel economy. The standard 4.30:1 axle ratio leads to an EPA rating of 13 mpg city and 17 mpg highway. The EPA rates this truck at 14 mpg combined, and our Tundra does just that with 13.6 mpg over 1,000 non-towing miles, 2nd best overall. This kind of powertrain performance is possible when a strong engine is mated to a well-calibrated six-speed transmission. Some of the other trucks in this test could learn from this.

At the same time, the Tundra's high tow rating leads to compromises some might be unwilling to accept. Stiff rear springs are required to support higher tongue weights for trailers, and this affects everyday ride comfort. But anyone who chooses the 5.7-liter Tundra gets such springs, and we think a significant number of "anyones" won't be towing. For us, the F-150 Lariat rides a bit smoother than this Tundra, even though the Ford's stated towing capacity is 1,100 pounds higher. (Perhaps this is a by-product of the Tundra's TRD off-road package, which made our Toyota a demon in the dirt. Then again, our past experience has shown that the Bilstein dampers that accompany this option don't necessarily harm ride comfort.)

Equipmentwise, the Tundra doesn't feel like the least expensive truck in the test. Sure, it's the only truck with cloth bucket seats, and it has a simple aux jack instead of an iPod connection, but it does have a lot longer list of convenience features than the Chevy, including side curtain airbags, a rear-seat DVD player, extendable towing mirrors, a telescoping steering column, a rearview camera and a damped tailgate. It also has the only full-width, power-operated rear window instead of a small pass-through. And then there's that standard 10,100-pound tow package.

The Tundra is a very strong product, but with no 3/4-ton or 1-ton variants to sell, it has to be. If the day-to-day ride had less edge, it might have won this comparison. It's that close.

1st Place: 2009 Dodge Ram 1500 Laramie Crew Cab 4x4

After all the points were tallied, the Dodge Ram takes the win with a very well-rounded performance, despite being the priciest truck in the group.

We knew from previous experience that the Ram's coil-spring rear suspension works well when the truck is unloaded, but this time we found it has the chops to handle a trailer, too. The superior lateral stiffness of a five-link rear axle and a rear antiroll bar keep things from getting all swimmy while towing, even when we're late for lunch and with a winding road between us and a burrito plate. Later, the burritos stayed down because the Ram 4x4 is best at smoothing out washboard tracks and putting the power down in sand, as you don't get the insistent rear-axle hammering of leaf-spring rear suspensions.

At the track, the Ram clears the slalom cones at 57.6 mph, second quickest of the bunch. But the 390-hp 5.7-liter V8 is held back in our acceleration runs by its optional 3.92:1 rear-axle ratio and a five-speed transmission. The Ram's time to 60 mph from a standstill of 7.4 seconds (7.1 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip) is 0.8 second slower than the Chevy but still a full second clear of the F-150.

And the Dodge does better over the long haul up the long grade, where the horsepower and the axle ratio come into play. It clears the top in a virtual tie with the Tundra (12 minutes, 51 seconds) and never once needs full throttle — this from the truck with the lowest advertised tow rating (7,300 pounds) in the test.

Yes, its minimum speed during towing does sag to 51 mph for a few hundred yards as the five-speed tranny dithers between its more widely spaced gears. The lack of 6th gear hurts fuel economy, too, as the Dodge comes in 3rd at 13.1 mpg, just behind the Toyota. Here again, the EPA rating of 13 mpg city/18 mpg highway and 15 mpg combined is misleading because of this truck's optional axle ratio.

The optional RamBox proved itself useful by swallowing 85 pounds of greasy trailer hitch parts in its lockable bins. And its repositionable bed divider is easily the best of its kind. If you don't need this stuff, you can opt out and save $1,895. You win either way.

Inside, the Dodge is a happy medium between dull and overdone. The new Crew Cab replaces last year's Mega Cab, and it's just right. There's just enough rear legroom, yet the whole truck avoids growing to an unmanageable size and weight. At 227.5 inches overall, the Dodge is the shortest truck here. It sits on the shortest wheelbase at 140 inches and it turns around in a second-best 45.4 feet. It's also the second lightest at 5,860 pounds, RamBox notwithstanding.

There's lots of functionality, too, with heated and ventilated front seats, heated rear seats and a heated steering wheel. It's got rear-seat DVD and TV, a back-up camera, Bluetooth and a fully integrated iPod connection that works. If only the radio itself — accessed through the same navigation screen — was as easy to use.

The Dodge Ram impresses us with a solid performance, an understated ability to tow the socks off some others, a feature-laden presentation and rugged good looks. Oh, and those coil springs? After this, many of us won't have our truck any other way.

Summing Up

Still, none of them is perfect. A better truck is theoretically possible if someone took the best elements from each and mashed them together. The final results show just how good the 2009 Chevrolet Silverado, 2009 Dodge Ram 1500, 2009 Ford F-150 and 2008 Toyota Tundra are.

For now, the 2009 Dodge Ram sits atop this pile, but any of the others could forge ahead if they spend a little time on their respective weaknesses. It's that close.

And we think it's safe to say that horsepower and torque are still among the more important elements in the mix if you're going to tow or haul for work or play. And if you're not going to tow or haul, why buy a truck at this point?

Insideline

[Intrepidation]

[ocnblu]

Thanks for posting this. After reading the article, I'll gladly stick with Chevrolet, for reasons stated therein. They are all worthy trucks, however, except no American should be willing to be seen in a Toyota fullsize pickup. Also, those sticker prices... WOW, these are high-priced pickups.

[toesuf94]

Was the Toyota frame rust option not included on the sticker on the test truck?

Every time I look at the dash in the Tundra, I think Phantom of the Opera...just a stupid looking dash all the way around.

And the Dodge is a great looking package - love the Rambox design. THAT is a great feature.

My money would still be spent at the GM dealer though, had WAY too many issues with the Chrysler/Jeep product to let me come back.

Edited May 6, 2009 by toesuf94

[cletus8269]

i always have a problem with these comparison shoot outs. the biggest is like ocn said. holy crap at those prices batman. i'd much rather see a comparison of each truck with the best "working truck" setup. no dvd, no leather, no DUBS. i cant wait for the silverado front end update. but i have some issues with some of the reasons why the trucks were placed in the order that they are.

But axle tramp enters the picture when the truck is accelerating on silty off-road surfaces. (Our truck didn't have the Z71 off-road package, which seems like a $275 no-brainer to us.)

thats cause you got the 20" wheels dummies. but i dont think that you can get the Z71 package and the 6sp tranny with the tow package. you can get the special heavy duty suspension though. in all honesty does a truck need anything bigger than 18" wheels if it is going to be offroad? that goes for the whole list of trucks here.

the tiny control buttons on the center stack are hard to use.

thats harder to use than

the toyota's center stack looks like the pilot's view in a 737.

my personal preferance is showing because i dont care for dvd nav backup cam do hicky's to begin with. just seems to clutter up the dash in my mind.

Plus, the as-tested price of our truck does not include things like extendable tow mirrors, a rearview camera, a fully integrated iPod connection or rear-seat entertainment — which are found on most of the other trucks. Even the Silverado's sliding rear window is an optional extra, and it's the only truck here that doesn't have side curtain airbags.

had we not splurged the option list so high these options could have been thrown on the LT crew cab and the price still prolly wouldnt have hit the high mark it did.

But Toyota's all-aluminum 5.7-liter DOHC V8 with variable intake and exhaust valve timing remains mighty impressive. It likes to rev a bit more to make power, so the axle ratio here is 4.30:1.

a 4.30 rear? the 6sp must be its saving grace. and yes it is rev happy because torque for it is in the upper as opposed to anyone who could tell you that it needs to be in the low part of the curve. hey Peterbuilt can i get a tractor that has to rev up to 4500 RPM before the rig can start moving forward?

From the get-go, this capability applied to all cab configurations and trim levels, and that's because Toyota has to do everything with the Tundra; it has nothing like a heavy-duty T-250 or T-350 in its lineup. Chevy and Ford quickly countered with trucks that had higher tow ratings, though only in low-volume variants.

uh come again? to justify tundra's lack of heavy duty by saying the others had to scramble to build low volumw 1/2 tons to compete? Well maybe it was low volume cause people figured hey im gonna be towing. i better get something that is made for that i.e. 250-2500-350-3500.

This towing prowess does not come at the expense of everyday fuel economy. The standard 4.30:1 axle ratio leads to an EPA rating of 13 mpg city and 17 mpg highway. The EPA rates this truck at 14 mpg combined, but our Tundra only musters 13.6 mpg over 1,000 non-towing miles, 2nd best overall. This kind of powertrain performance is possible when a strong engine is mated to a well-calibrated six-speed transmission, but GM knows that because the Silverado had 14.2 a best in test. b]Two[/b] of the other trucks in this test could learn from this.

fixed

Equipmentwise, the Tundra doesn't feel like the least expensive truck in the test. Sure, it's the only truck with cloth bucket seats, and it has a simple aux jack instead of an iPod connection, but it does have a lot longer list of convenience features than the Chevy, including side curtain airbags, a rear-seat DVD player, extendable towing mirrors, a telescoping steering column, a rearview camera and a damped tailgate.

uh instead of bashing a $45K truck for not having leather interior and the gold standard ipod jack which even entry level cars have you even it out by talking about extending mirrors and telescoping steering wheels and rear seat DVD... yeah it comes with another set of mirrors... paired up with smoke...

It also has the only full-width, power-operated rear window instead of a small pass-through. And then there's that standard 10,100-pound tow package.

wonder how nice that feature will be if it gets busted out... or stuck hehe. whats with the repeated 10,000 lb thing? congratulations mAn youse a real truck now essay.

i think that my favorite part of the article is how the Dodge won. well deserved i might add. its a good looking truck thes time around and it has a lot of interesting points. i'll still go with the Chevy but thats cause its the one i like personally. but i find it interesting to see how edmonds picked the dodge over the yota and calls it sooooo close but in the summary of the dodge points out 2 negatives for every laurel of praise it bestows.

There's lots of functionality, too, with heated and ventilated front seats, heated rear seats and a heated steering wheel. It's got rear-seat DVD and TV, a back-up camera, Bluetooth and a fully integrated iPod connection that works. If only the radio itself — accessed through the same navigation screen — was as easy to use.[/i]

wtf?

[Drew Dowdell]

Exactly how far into the passenger's lap does one have to reach in order to use the nav in the Toyota?

[Intrepidation]

I will say that the Sliver's controls look like they'd be pain to use, especially with gloves on if you actually used them in work truck form. However They themselves have said the Tundra's interior was cheaper than the Silverado's. Plus I'm sure you could get the Silverdo in different interior colors. And reaching for the Tunda's controls looks like a bitch.

[z28luvr01]

It's Toyota's way of encouraging safe driving. If you're going to change the radio, NAV, or HVAC, you're going to make damn sure you have enough time to slide over so that half your butt is on the console, strecth your right arm all the way out, fiddle with the appropriate knobs, and move back into your seat.

[Drew Dowdell]

I will say that the Sliver's controls look like they'd be pain to use, especially with gloves on if you actually used them in work truck form. However They themselves have said the Tundra's interior was cheaper than the Silverado's. Plus I'm sure you could get the Silverdo in different interior colors. And reaching for the Tunda's controls looks like a bitch.

Steering wheel controls FTW.

[DBeaSSt]

I will say that the Sliver's controls look like they'd be pain to use, especially with gloves on if you actually used them in work truck form. However They themselves have said the Tundra's interior was cheaper than the Silverado's. Plus I'm sure you could get the Silverdo in different interior colors. And reaching for the Tunda's controls looks like a bitch.

When the GMT900's first came out, the "work truck" package had a different dash which used knobs so that a driver in gloves could easily operate them. I would hope that is still the case.

Personally I don't have use for all those "nice" features in a truck because mine is used as a true work truck.

I've sat in the TuRDra and those knobs are very inconvenient to reach if needed. Stupid design but at least consistent with their designs lately.

[Justin Bimmer]

Everything below the LTZ has the "Work Truck" interior.

I don't know, still looks pretty hard to use.

But I do have to say that the Ram's Nav is hard to use too. I have used one before, they haven't changed at all since I drove one.

For that matter, the Toyota nav looks hard to use too! Come on!

[Daryl Z71]

Everything below the LTZ has the "Work Truck" interior.

I don't know, still looks pretty hard to use.

But I do have to say that the Ram's Nav is hard to use too. I have used one before, they haven't changed at all since I drove one.

For that matter, the Toyota nav looks hard to use too! Come on!

My truck looks just like that inside minus the navagation system, and I have no problem with the buttons or controls? The Ram is a really nice truck, the Ram box is a good idea, but I think it makes the bedsides look stupid. I wouldn't want to work on the Ram either to me it looks like the motor is so far under the truck it would be a major pain (Like my Camaro). I like the F-150 alot also, but I can't stand how the guages are set up on it. As for the Tundra its just ugly as a mud fence, and I would be ashamed to be caught dead sitting in it. My truck has the black cloth seats and interior, not the leather and I will say that the only thing I don't care for is the seats. Everything sticks to them, and you need to take a lint roller to them once a week to get everything off. When I get seat covers from GM that problem will be fixed though.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Daryl Z71

[Camino LS6]

What are people smoking that they'd equip trucks this way?

The prices are simply insane.

I'd leave all four of them on the lot.

[siegen]

Interesting "ram box" idea on the Dodge.

[regfootball]

ram is a nice truck. so are the GM and Ford.

[balthazar]

Love the RamBox AND the adjustable bed 'fence'- great features.

Console looks 2-ft wide, tho!

All 3 domestics easily make the tundra look like it was penned in the late '90s.

[Robert Hall]

What are people smoking that they'd equip trucks this way?

This seems to be a pretty common way people equip their trucks, though. I'd say the majority of the full size pickups I see in the Denver and Phoenix suburbs tend to be loaded, high trim level 4drs.... I hardly ever see standard cabs anymore except for white commercial-use work trucks.

[Intrepidation]

Well if you load it up you have a true jack-of-all-trades. No need for a car. That's the only logic I can see.

I think the article was good overall. Like they said, any of these would be good picks (although I'd worry about the frame breaking in half in the Tundra).

Nice to see Dodge win a comparison though...been a while.

[biff]

I'll agree with them on some of their interior gripes on the Chevy. I think the dash is the cleanest and nicest looking in the bunch bit I'm disappointed with the rear seat and storage. After a cross country trip in one of these, there's just not enough thoughtful places to put stuff.

The Ford is a solid rig looking for an engine. I don't like the interior much but it seems a lot more solid than the Chevy and it's quieter. Toyota is just bland all around. I haven't driven a new Dodge yet.

[Robert Hall]

Well if you load it up you have a true jack-of-all-trades. No need for a car. That's the only logic I can see.

I think the article was good overall. Like they said, any of these would be good picks (although I'd worry about the frame breaking in half in the Tundra).

Nice to see Dodge win a comparison though...been a while.

I like the Dodge..have seen a couple in person. I think it has the best exterior, but I like the Chevy's interior, esp. the Tahoe-like dash. I'm not a truck fan, but a loaded crew cab like one of these is exactly how I'd want one, could be used as a car and to tow stuff and haul stuff.

[Intrepidation]

I've been seeing quite a few F150s and Rams these past few weeks.

[balthazar]

>>"After a cross country trip in one of these, there's just not enough thoughtful places to put stuff."<<

Buddy has an '08. Just installed something called 'TuffBox' IIRC, fits under the rear seat in his crew cab- has divided bins, you can fill up the entire under-seat area- looks factory and one wouldn't necc think anything was in there, either.

[pow]

I'd still take the F-150. Lowest emissions and safest full-size truck out there.

[CMG]

I gotta say, after hearing all the moaning about "cheap plastic interiors" over the last couple of years here at C&G, I rode in a 2008 Super Duty Ford diesel on the weekend.

PLEASE, if ANYBODY wants to talk cheap plastic interiors, have a nice ride around the block in a Super Duty Ford.

Everything else WILL seem Bentley-like opulent after, trust me. LOL

[Intrepidation]

I'd still take the F-150. Lowest emissions and safest full-size truck out there.

And slowest.