TFL Mega Ike - 5 Mid-size trucks

Fightnfire

Fightnfire

Moderator
This was an interesting but good day for TFL. Props to them for getting all five vehicles up on the mountain and towing on the same day.

I have some minor issues with the subjectivity of some of their rankings specifically around temperature gauges. Manufacturers should provide a number and if you're not given a number it's all guesswork.

At the end of the day a lot of their data is not subjective and provided some pretty interesting results. I'm not exactly sure how the Jeep knows it's towing when there's no tow mode I assume it registers a trailer when it's plugged in, something that seems extremely simple to engineer.

 
I thought the same. Pretty subjective. Temps were called out but meaningless when you cross brands. A better way would be to state if anything was significantly above what is nominal for that make and model. But it looks like they all towed that big weight fine. Not a big difference until the downhill. Really amazed by that Jeep. I wonder if it acts the same regardless of the trailer weight. One thing I had not noticed before was how the Ranger hitch stuck out proud of the bumper, even when empty. Might be a knee basher.
 
Most impressive was the ecoboost which is putting down more power than the paper figures suggest. Thats for the small one too, I believe the bigger engine is still coming and I think its going to dominate at that point. I think GM needs to figure out why the 430 lb/ft is not translating in the real world, the Howards also noted the GM feeling weaker than it should be. To be honest I'm surprised by this as I drove the 2.7 in the silverado and it felt really good with only the sound and a bit of lag being the indication around town that I wasn't driving my v8. Never had the chance to work it like this though so might be a different story when towing.

I'd probably purchase one of the naturally aspirated engines though if it were my money. These are lifestyle trucks, time isn't money, I'd rather have a simple/reliable drivetrain than make it up the mountain 60 seconds faster over an 8 to 9 minute run.

As for the Jeep, the ZF 8 speed figures out a lot on its own though I don't remember off the top of my head what exactly it is doing. I know the Ram (similar transmission) still has a real T/H so it would be interesting to figure out what the transmission is calculating vs the rest of the trucks.

Also agree that those temps need to be numbers as the dummy gauges are just that, dumb, may as well not even have them.

I like Kent but I think he's just blurting out too much factually incorrect data all the time. Andre too with the gear ratio comments, I'm surprised they don't understand that axle ratio wouldn't change a thing in these specific tests they're running, and also that axle ratio needs to be combined with the transmission ratios to fully know what your torque is going to be like. When both trucks are in first, my ZF 8 speed with the 3.21 has more torque at the wheel than the old Tundra's 6 speed with a 4.30 rear end. That's because the ZF has a very aggressive first gear. But when towing in 4th or 5th it really doesn't matter what your rear ratio is because the transmission can just downshift to make up the difference and end up at the same final gear ratio; rear axle ratio is only ever half the equation!
 
zonedout said:
Most impressive was the ecoboost which is putting down more power than the paper figures suggest. Thats for the small one too, I believe the bigger engine is still coming and I think its going to dominate at that point. I think GM needs to figure out why the 430 lb/ft is not translating in the real world, the Howards also noted the GM feeling weaker than it should be. To be honest I'm surprised by this as I drove the 2.7 in the silverado and it felt really good with only the sound and a bit of lag being the indication around town that I wasn't driving my v8. Never had the chance to work it like this though so might be a different story when towing.

I'd probably purchase one of the naturally aspirated engines though if it were my money. These are lifestyle trucks, time isn't money, I'd rather have a simple/reliable drivetrain than make it up the mountain 60 seconds faster over an 8 to 9 minute run.

As for the Jeep, the ZF 8 speed figures out a lot on its own though I don't remember off the top of my head what exactly it is doing. I know the Ram (similar transmission) still has a real T/H so it would be interesting to figure out what the transmission is calculating vs the rest of the trucks.

Also agree that those temps need to be numbers as the dummy gauges are just that, dumb, may as well not even have them.

I like Kent but I think he's just blurting out too much factually incorrect data all the time. Andre too with the gear ratio comments, I'm surprised they don't understand that axle ratio wouldn't change a thing in these specific tests they're running, and also that axle ratio needs to be combined with the transmission ratios to fully know what your torque is going to be like. When both trucks are in first, my ZF 8 speed with the 3.21 has more torque at the wheel than the old Tundra's 6 speed with a 4.30 rear end. That's because the ZF has a very aggressive first gear. But when towing in 4th or 5th it really doesn't matter what your rear ratio is because the transmission can just downshift to make up the difference and end up at the same final gear ratio; rear axle ratio is only ever half the equation!
Click to expand...
Interesting you bring up gear ratios and transmissions. I’ve spoken to so many engineers who downplay axle ratios since the extra gears in the transmission can make a 3.21 feel more like a 3.55 when tow mode is engaged for example. People still ask me all the time about the rear axle ratio and that’s why I made that graphic box I sometimes use in videos with rear axle ratio, gas tank size, transmission, engine, etc… Makes it a LOT easier for me since I don’t have to talk about it on camera, I can just show it.
 
A few IMO notes from the comments above:

Transmission temps should be digital, but there also needs to be an understanding on what a good temperature is these days. All makers are using synthetic transmission fluid these days and that can handle significantly higher temperatures these days. I did a variety of videos on it in the past and I find the information online to be simply outdated. Many online sites point to temps below 200 while new synthetic fluids state they can handle much higher temperatures than that.

So if one truck runs at say 240 degrees and another runs at 220 degrees or even 190 degrees, we should all recognize the transmission will be fine.

For the engine performance Ranger vs Chevy, I think the higher-output tune for the Colorado is really the best. I also still think the average driver may notice a difference test driving them back to back, but not after owning either of the trucks. An extra 100 HP or 100 lb-ft of torque may look impressive on paper, but behind the wheel it comes down to how you drive and what you expect out of a truck.
 
testerdahl said:
For the engine performance Ranger vs Chevy, I think the higher-output tune for the Colorado is really the best. I also still think the average driver may notice a difference test driving them back to back, but not after owning either of the trucks. An extra 100 HP or 100 lb-ft of torque may look impressive on paper, but behind the wheel it comes down to how you drive and what you expect out of a truck.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much what I got out of it. Nothing really telling here. They all did the "extreme" job with very small differences. It really shows how silly these "best in class numbers for HP, TQ, Towing, fun factor et al" really are. All one can do is cherry-pick the things they like or want over the others. Mechanically, not very different. Seems to be features where they differ most. If you want a sunroof, you don't want a Ford. If it's a power rear window, GM ain't got it. 4wd Auto, not Toyota. (Until the hybrid Limited shows up anyway)
 
testerdahl said:
Interesting you bring up gear ratios and transmissions. I’ve spoken to so many engineers who downplay axle ratios since the extra gears in the transmission can make a 3.21 feel more like a 3.55 when tow mode is engaged for example. People still ask me all the time about the rear axle ratio and that’s why I made that graphic box I sometimes use in videos with rear axle ratio, gas tank size, transmission, engine, etc… Makes it a LOT easier for me since I don’t have to talk about it on camera, I can just show it.
Click to expand...

I always use the example of getting eggs at the market.
Option A: 4 cartons of 3 eggs each
Option B: 3 cartons of 4 eggs each

We can't just look at the carton size and think 4 eggs is more therefore I'm getting more, we need to know the second half of the equation which is how many cartons am I getting?

Same with diffs and ratios. A truck that is using a gear ratio of 4.00 in the transmission with a 3.00 rear axle diff will perform 100% identically to a truck that is using a gear ratio of 3.00 in the transmission with a 4.00 rear axle diff. The transmission gear ratio and the rear axle gear ratio are multiplied together to come to the final gear ratio: 3x4 =12, just like 4x3 = 12. What matters is not the order of the gears, just the final value.

The only different the rear axle makes these days (8/10 speed transmissions) is when you're in first gear (as the transmission can't downshift any further) or in final gear (as the transmission can't upshift any further). When you're towing up the IKE in 3rd or 5th gears and you have 8 to 10 total gears, the rear axle is completely irrelevant because the transmission takes the job of increasing/decreasing required torque.
 
zonedout said:
I always use the example of getting eggs at the market.
Option A: 4 cartons of 3 eggs each
Option B: 3 cartons of 4 eggs each

We can't just look at the carton size and think 4 eggs is more therefore I'm getting more, we need to know the second half of the equation which is how many cartons am I getting?

Same with diffs and ratios. A truck that is using a gear ratio of 4.00 in the transmission with a 3.00 rear axle diff will perform 100% identically to a truck that is using a gear ratio of 3.00 in the transmission with a 4.00 rear axle diff. The transmission gear ratio and the rear axle gear ratio are multiplied together to come to the final gear ratio: 3x4 =12, just like 4x3 = 12. What matters is not the order of the gears, just the final value.

The only different the rear axle makes these days (8/10 speed transmissions) is when you're in first gear (as the transmission can't downshift any further) or in final gear (as the transmission can't upshift any further). When you're towing up the IKE in 3rd or 5th gears and you have 8 to 10 total gears, the rear axle is completely irrelevant because the transmission takes the job of increasing/decreasing required torque.
Click to expand...
That’s a good analogy. I think I should copy that and post it into an article. You ok if I quote you?
 
I watched the TFL video. I am considering buying a mid-size truck. I am a Ford guy, had a 2019 Ranger Lariat FX4 that I sold during COVID and now regret it. Anyway, I really am turned off by the styling of the new Ranger. Otherwise, it seems to really compete within the class. I think the 2.7 EB will be a difference maker once it arrives on the scene. I have reached out to several local dealers about a Ranger Raptor. Closest dealer wants $7,500 market adjustment. No thank you. Still waiting to hear from several others.

At the risk of getting called a traitor, I have begun to look further into the mid-size class of trucks. I watched a video on the GMC Canyon AT4 by Ben Hardy. I found the truck very appealing at $47k (My realistic budget is $50k). It seemed to have a lot of nice features and a good looking interior. I like the in-your-face front end. It also has 1.5 inches more leg room in the front as compared to Ranger, which is a lot. The torque numbers are unreal, but I have read that it does not translate to the pavement. I may go take a look at one.

I still need to look at Tacoma, but my first impression is that it is overpriced, and the interior looks tight compared to the other trucks. I have done zero research on Frontier, so I can't say much other than the normally aspirated engine is appealing to me as an old school guy. I may swing by the local dealerships for both brands if time permits this weekend.

I'm not going to consider the Gladiator, it's just not for me. Ridgeline too, I want body on frame.

I need to catch up on the forums as I have not been around here as often as I would like. I will definitely find some good info here as well as You Tube.

Thanks for entertaining me as always.

Eric
 
GMC has 1.9% for 36 months but you have to take delivery by April 30th. I would rather order a truck but would not get the incentives. Nobody else is offering much, some lease deals that I am not interested in. Maybe we will see more once market cools, if it ever does.
 
I was on the GMC build and price tool tonight, built out an AT4 to $49,995. Almost every color is extra charge, unreal. You cannot make this stuff up. Showed the wife since she will be primary driver, seems interested. Local dealer seems to have mostly Elevation trim trucks and one AT4X with AEV, nothing in the middle. May go take a ride just to sit and take a test drive Since all powertrains are the same.

I need to send the misses some of Tim’s videos on the truck so she can get a better idea of what she is looking at. The GMC website is not the easiest to navigate.
 
Last edited:
I hate to pick on the Gladiator but that Pentastar just just not make enough torque for its towing capacity, it was screaming at 6500 rpm and had the slowest time by far. I wonder if the powertrain engineers can alter the torque curve to be more like the Frontier? :unsure:

On the other hand it had the best downhill performance so they nailed the transmission calibration.
 
@Blue Oval 5.0 @Dusdaddy Let me know your impressions of the GMC. I test drove one and the materials were nice, but man was it cramped in there compare to my ranger and there was no good storage anywhere in the truck. I find that none of the numbers on the GMC/Chevy translate to real life whether it's the power or interior dimensions.
 
Blue Oval 5.0 said:
I watched the TFL video. I am considering buying a mid-size truck. I am a Ford guy, had a 2019 Ranger Lariat FX4 that I sold during COVID and now regret it. Anyway, I really am turned off by the styling of the new Ranger. Otherwise, it seems to really compete within the class. I think the 2.7 EB will be a difference maker once it arrives on the scene. I have reached out to several local dealers about a Ranger Raptor. Closest dealer wants $7,500 market adjustment. No thank you. Still waiting to hear from several others.

At the risk of getting called a traitor, I have begun to look further into the mid-size class of trucks. I watched a video on the GMC Canyon AT4 by Ben Hardy. I found the truck very appealing at $47k (My realistic budget is $50k). It seemed to have a lot of nice features and a good looking interior. I like the in-your-face front end. It also has 1.5 inches more leg room in the front as compared to Ranger, which is a lot. The torque numbers are unreal, but I have read that it does not translate to the pavement. I may go take a look at one.

I still need to look at Tacoma, but my first impression is that it is overpriced, and the interior looks tight compared to the other trucks. I have done zero research on Frontier, so I can't say much other than the normally aspirated engine is appealing to me as an old school guy. I may swing by the local dealerships for both brands if time permits this weekend.

I'm not going to consider the Gladiator, it's just not for me. Ridgeline too, I want body on frame.

I need to catch up on the forums as I have not been around here as often as I would like. I will definitely find some good info here as well as You Tube.

Thanks for entertaining me as always.

Eric
Click to expand...
When you were talking to the Ford dealership, did you happen to ask when the 2.7 six would be coming out?

I’m in same place… feel like it’s time to test drive each. I like the looks of Colorado best, am encouraged by what I read and watch (motor Trent TOTY)…except how buzzy people say engine sounds and the mileage not far off from half ton trucks. That Ford v-6 could be what tempts me away from Colorado if I go midsize on my somedaytruck.
 
TheDo114 said:
@Blue Oval 5.0 @Dusdaddy Let me know your impressions of the GMC. I test drove one and the materials were nice, but man was it cramped in there compare to my ranger and there was no good storage anywhere in the truck. I find that none of the numbers on the GMC/Chevy translate to real life whether it's the power or interior dimensions.
Click to expand...
The cramped rear seats are a big reason I upgraded to a Silverado. One advantage the new Colorado does have is it's the only mid size truck with rear air vents.
 
NorthskyBlue NHT said:
The cramped rear seats are a big reason I upgraded to a Silverado. One advantage the new Colorado does have is it's the only mid size truck with rear air vents.
Click to expand...

The only one that seems to have a definite advantage in backseat room is the Ranger, all the others seem to be about the same.
 
Fightnfire said:
The only one that seems to have a definite advantage in backseat room is the Ranger, all the others seem to be about the same.
Click to expand...
Agreed, after sitting in the new 2024 Ranger, it's much better than the competition for back seat room.
 
Fightnfire said:
The only one that seems to have a definite advantage in backseat room is the Ranger, all the others seem to be about the same.
Click to expand...
The funny part is that the Ranger has less rear legroom than the GMs. But the Ford, GM, & Taco are all within an inch of each other. The Jeep is the most, followed by Honda. The Nissan has the least but only 1.5" less than the GM. It's all irrelevant if you are tall because it will suck for anyone in the back seat. And if you're short, not bad! I care more about cargo in the back seat which they all suck except the Honda. The GM being the worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top