Ford Taurus 2010 Sel on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2019 Chevy Silverado 1500 vs. 2019 Ram 1500 vs. 2018 Ford F-150: How they compare

The full-size pickup truck market is seriously hot right now. Both Ram and Chevrolet have introduced completely redesigned trucks, the 2019 Ram 1500 and the 2019 Chevy Silverado, and as the companies slowly roll each one out, more and more information comes to light. We've put together this comparison post to help you keep track of all the features and specifications of each of these new models, along with the updated 2018 Ford F-150. Among the stats we'll take a look at are engines, power, fuel economy, trim levels, weight and more. Weight savings Both the 2019 Ram 1500 and 2019 Chevy Silverado 1500 have gone on a diet for the new model year, similar to the one the F-150 went on in 2015. The Silverado is the weight-loss leader, having shed 450 pounds when comparing quad-cab V8 models. The Ram 1500 lost 225 pounds compared to the current truck. Both trucks achieve their weight loss in part due to the use of aluminum parts. On the Silverado, the hood, doors, and tailgate are aluminum, while on the Ram, just the hood and tailgate are aluminum on the body. Compare that to the F-150, which uses aluminum for all exterior body panels for a total weight loss of up to 732 pounds, which makes the aluminum-intensive F-150 the weight-loss leader. View 160 Photos Engines and transmissions There's only a bit of overlap in powertrains on the Ram 1500 and Chevy Silverado. Each has a V8 for the top engine. The Ram's is a 5.7-liter Hemi V8 making 395 horsepower and 410 pound-feet of torque. The Silverado will once again use a 6.2-liter V8 as its range topper with the same 420 horsepower and 460 pound-feet of torque as the current model. Both of these V8s boast some extra fuel saving technology. The Chevy's 6.2-liter (and some 5.3-liters) comes with the company's latest cylinder deactivation system that can shut off any or nearly all of the eight cylinders. The Ram's V8 boasts an optional 48-volt mild-hybrid system that, in addition to likely helping fuel economy, can provide up to 130 pound-feet of torque right off the line. With the Ram, fuel economy sees an improvement of 2 mpg in the city and combined ratings for 17 and 19 respectively. Highway fuel economy improves by 1 mpg to 23 with two-wheel drive and 22 with four-wheel drive. The Silverado's 6.2-liter V8 only improves city fuel economy by 1 mpg to 16, and actually loses 1 mpg on the highway. The new 5.3-liter engine with the fancy cylinder deactivation does see an improvement over the simpler version.

Top torque-to-weight ratios under $100k, $50k and $25k

Horsepower may steal a lot of headlines, but the always-more-complex torque figure is often a critical one for both the workingman and the motoring playboy. The measure of rotational force represents the twist that can liquefy one's tires or haul one's horse trailer. Good stuff.
It follows then, that as with the horsepower-to-weight list that we assembled for you a few months ago, a list of cars that offer the most pound-feet with the fewest pounds to carry, is an interesting one to break down. Sure, there's a big difference in how the torque is applied from a turbocharged six-cylinder in a Swedish luxury sedan and a massive heavy-duty truck's turbo-diesel. But being the car/stat geeks that we are, we think it's kinda neat that those two vehicles rank near each other where torque and weight intersect.
As with the horsepower list, we've given you figures as pounds per every one pound-foot. Again broken down into broad price categories, we've got a mixed bag of 2014 and 2015 models here, too. Every effort has been made to select the most up-to-date prices and specs, and we've also to omitted some '14 cars that won't be re-upped after the ongoing yearly changeover.

Trump did talk to Bill Ford, but the Kentucky plant was never moving to Mexico

President-elect Donald J. Trump has been butting heads with Ford for a while now. A lot of it seems to stem from misunderstanding or misrepresenting facts about how the automaker currently does business and its plans for the future. After a sit-down with executive chairman Bill Ford Jr., the misunderstandings continue, but Trump has apparently convinced the company to make some changes. During his campaign, Trump claimed that Ford was going to fire US workers and move manufacturing to Mexico. That wasn't the case – yes, Ford planned to transfer Focus and C-Max production from Wayne, Michigan, to Cuautitlan, Mexico, but no, that wouldn't mean anyone losing their job. The Wayne plant will continue to operate, and likely busier than before, as it will be the home of the new Bronco and Ranger. So Ford CEO Mark Fields responded with the facts, and then chairman Bill Ford Jr. sat down with Trump over the summer. Things apparently weren't resolved to Trump's satisfaction, so he and Bill Ford spoke on the phone yesterday as he claims in this tweet: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Let's pick that apart. First off, it's not a Lincoln plant, per se – the Louisville Assembly Plant currently builds the Ford Escape and Lincoln MKC, two small crossovers that share a platform. Ford was considering moving MKC production out of Kentucky to Mexico, but it would not have resulted in many lost jobs if any – the union had already agreed to moving the MKC in 2015 negotiations, and taking production of the slow-selling Lincoln out of the plant would open up capacity for more Fords. Be that as it may, Ford has decided not to move MKC production out of the plant, either for political reasons of placation or because it didn't make the greatest deal of business sense, maybe a combination of the two. That means Trump isn't really saving any American jobs in the short term. If anything, this move could keep Ford supply-constrained and result in reduced sales, which in turn brings the company less money and affects the bottom line and all employees. But that's speculation, so we won't tweet it. There is of course the possibility that Ford will be convinced, either by sheer will or by a more attractive trade situation, to invest in increased US production, which could bear fruit later on. We are told by Ford that the two men did in fact speak yesterday.