2000 Full-Size Pickup Truck Comparison Test

If you were to trace pickup DNA lineage back millions of years, back before dinosaurs and Dick Clark, back to the original bigus truckus pickup erectus, you would find the Ram to be closest in kin. This is the beefy truck all Dodge Dakotas aspire to be. The only thing with more testosterone is an AM General Hummer, or possibly a WWF wrestler during SummerSlam.

Our test truck was a 2000 Ram 1500 4x4 Quad Cab Sport. Its base price was the lowest in the test, but a long list of optional equipment quickly jacked up the price. This equipment included Customer Preferred Package 26G, the Sport Group, the Trailer Tow group, the Leather Interior Group, the Off Road Group, and the 5.9-liter V8 with four-speed automatic transmission.

The Ram hasn't changed much since its debut in 1994. The Quad Cab body style was introduced in 1998. For 2000, Dodge upgraded the front suspension and brakes and introduced the Off-Road Group.

Given that the truck's styling hasn't changed much in seven years, it was surprising to find that our staff still thought it was the best-looking truck of the four. The exterior is aggressive and purposeful, having a hardcore personality not too distant from an 18-wheel Freightliner (Freightliner is also owned by DaimlerChrysler, incidentally). Our truck's optional Sport Appearance Group and 17-inch wheels from the Off-Road Group were also beneficial. Fitting for the brute image, the Ram had the largest cargo bed out of our quartet of trucks.

Under our truck's muscular hood was Dodge's 5.9-liter V8. It produces 245 horsepower at 4,000 rpm and 335 foot-pounds of torque at 3,200 rpm. Dodge's press material states that the Sport Group option (which our test truck had) adds another five horsepower and 10 more foot-pounds of torque.

The Ram had the largest engine (the Toyota's 4.7-liter V8 was the smallest) of the four trucks, but it also had the heaviest curb weight. Not known for its eagerness to rev, the Ram's engine often felt asthmatic in comparison to the other trucks. This sensation was backed up on the test track, as the Dodge posted the slowest numbers in both zero-to-60 acceleration and quarter-mile acceleration.

The transmission didn't impress, either. Many of us felt the Dodge delayed both upshifts and downshifts too much given the amount of throttle input. And when it did shift, the engagement was not as smooth as the other vehicles. Adding insult to injury, the Ram's fuel mileage during our test was considerably worse than the other three trucks.

Four-wheel-drive activation was done via a floor-mounted transfer case lever. Operation was straightforward, but Dodge doesn't offer an electronically shifting transfer case like Chevy, Ford and Toyota.

At this point we should bring up the Off-Road Group that was featured on our test truck. Some trucks' "off-road packages" include nothing more than a 4x4 decal and plastic fender flares. Not so with the Ram. Dodge equips it with an impressive array of hardcore off-roading hardware. When we showed our test truck the off-road trails we were going to take it on, it snorted and replied, "That's all you got? I can do this with two wheels tied behind my back."

While the trail we used wasn't challenging enough to push each truck to its limit, we all felt that the Ram was clearly the most capable truck in our group. For people planning on traveling through rugged terrain, the Off-Road Group is worth the price.

For more mundane tasks, however, the Off Road Group's negatives outweighed its positives (when keeping in mind the broad focus of this test). The Off Road Group precludes the Ram's optional four-wheel ABS, leaving only rear-wheel ABS. We weren't aware of this until we unknowingly locked up the Ram's front wheels during our first 60-to-zero braking run. Successive runs were poor since we had to use the technique of threshold braking. The Off-Road Group doesn't have four-wheel ABS because professional off-road drivers find ABS to be problematic when driving down hills covered by soft dirt or sand.

We also found that the Off Road Group's recalibrated suspension gave the Ram a very stiff ride quality on city streets. The Ram's solid front axle might be a benefit while driving over rocks, but on pavement, it didn't absorb road shock nearly as well as the other trucks' front independent suspensions. On the freeway, the steering required constant monitoring and adjustment. Loading the box with 1,000 pounds of cement mix or driving with five people aboard did little to soften the ride.

The Ram's cabin is simple in design, but it works. Wind and road noise were high when the Ram was in motion, but the truck was otherwise quite agreeable. Most of the controls were easy to find, including the climate control system placed to the left of the stereo (though the gearshift lever sometimes got in the way).

Interior material quality was commendable for a truck, no doubt helped by our test vehicle's optional Leather Interior Group. This package also granted the truck a power driver's seat, something none of the other trucks had. But power or not, most of our staff didn't find the driver's seat to be very comfortable. Rear passengers had plenty of hip and shoulder room, but the overall experience was tainted by a very thin seatback and minimal legroom.

For storage, the Ram relies heavily on a large center armrest that also opens up. The armrest--which folds up to accommodate a sixth passenger--is wide but not deep. A convenient pull-out tray houses the two adjustable cupholders.

In the end, the Ram's hardcore personality was its undoing. While the other pickups in this test have been updated recently to strike a balance between utility and usability, the Ram stubbornly refuses to be anything more than a truck. We can see this being a draw to certain people, but we felt all of the other trucks in our test managed to be just as or nearly as capable, without the negative side effects.

Word on the street is that the Ram will get new sheetmetal for the '02 model year and will ride on a new platform. New truck engines and transmissions are also said to be in the works. If you are considering a Dodge Ram, you might want to keep this in mind.

Second Opinions

This truck really excels in the dirt. Too bad the Ram's V8 can't deliver what the bulging muscles suggest. And who decided to give this truck rear ABS only? This truck is for hardcore truck people, or those young enough to find the back-cracking suspension amusing. -- Dan Gardner

I was very disappointed in the Ram, partly because I like the Dakota so much. Although it gives pretense of being a "luxury" truck with its power seat controls, leather interior and faux wood, this is a truck and constantly reminds you of it. I got a backache from the harsh ride and the Magnum V8 didn't impress as it should, given its size. -- Liz Kim

This is the true truck of the test. It's rough riding, it rattles and it's difficult to get in and out of. For those who want a rough-and-tumble pickup, the Ram is the answer. It is the macho truck. But for myself, I'll take a truck that doesn't require a kidney belt. -- Scott Mead

The Ram was the best-looking truck of the test, which says plenty since the design has remained virtually unchanged since its introduction. The 17-inch wheels on our test truck looked great, and the monochromatic paint scheme provided additional attitude. -- Christian Wardlaw

Ranking in class: Second

System Score: 5.0

Components. The system consists of a pair of 4-inch full-range speakers in the back doors, along with a set of large woofs in the front doors mated with tweeters in the A pillars. AM/FM/Cassette/CD inhabits the dash. Buttons on the radio are too small, too crowded together, and too flat to be really desirable. In fact, the whole faceplate has a very "flat" topography, making it hard to use and difficult to differentiate one button from another.

Performance. Disappointing. Although the speaker placement is much improved over, say, the Ford F-150, the system still doesn't perform up to expectations. As with the Chevy entry, this vehicle appears to be vastly underpowered. Add road noise to that, and you have a formula for lousy sound. I did like the tweeters, which were perfectly mounted in the A pillars and filled the cabin with clear, unsullied highs; still, Dodge doesn't provide them with enough of a power amp to get them up and dancing. Disappointing and confusing, since other Chrysler stereos I've tested have had more than ample power. This one doesn't.

Conclusion. Worst feature: anemic power amp. Best feature: tweeters. Perfectly placed and aimed--among the best I've seen. If this system had the beefy power amp from the F-150, watch out! As it is, though, it's meek and mild. Needs more power!

If the Tundra were a preschooler, we would paste a gold star to its loveable pug-nosed face. In only its first year, the Tundra showed us it has the cojones to stand tall against the big boys from Detroit.

It might seem that the Tundra came out of nowhere, but it's actually an outgrowth of Toyota's first full-size truck effort, the T100. The T100 was a rather unloved truck, stuck with a V6 when everybody else had a V8. This is America, son! You need a V8 to play!

So a V8 the Tundra has. The Tundra's engine is very similar to the V8 used in the Land Cruiser and Lexus LX 470. Displacing only 4.7 liters, it was the smallest engine in our test. But thanks to its 32-valve DOHC configuration and advanced engine architecture, it produces 245 horsepower at 4,800 rpm and 315 foot-pounds of torque at 3,400 rpm.

At the test track, our Tundra 4x4 SR5 V8 Access Cab went from zero to 60 in 8.6 seconds and passed the quarter mile in 16.7 seconds at 85.1 mph. The Toyota had the fastest quarter-mile trap speed, and it was second only to the Silverado in zero-to-60 and quarter-mile acceleration.

Step on the throttle, and the Tundra will emit an impressively elegant yet aggressive growl when revved hard. It doesn't quite have the low-end punch of the Silverado (even more noticeable with the 1,000-pound load of cement mix jammed in the bed), but the Toyota's power delivery is exceptionally smooth. Our staff felt it was the most satisfying engine of the gathered vehicles for urban commutes and light-duty applications. The only problem we encountered was occasional hard starting.

The Tundra's four-speed automatic transmission operates without fault. It always seemed to pick the correct gear and operated unobtrusively under nearly all driving conditions. (Other than saying you love its personality and that its butt isn't big at all, this is perhaps the best praise you can give an automatic).

Like the Chevy and the Ford, our Toyota was equipped with an electronically controlled transfer case. Engaging four-wheel drive was relatively easy, and the Tundra did an acceptable job of covering ground during the off-road portion of the test. All of us felt that the Toyota would be the first to balk if we had presented it more challenging terrain (the optional Toyota Racing Development off-road package being of unknown value). Additionally, the Tundra was the only truck in our group lacking a limited-slip differential, and Toyota does not offer one as an option.

We're curious how a Tundra equipped with the TRD suspension would behave. In stock form, the suspension is rather soft. Around town, this trait made the Toyota fairly comfortable and "car-like." But on the freeway, the Tundra bobbed and floated over pavement undulations. Loading the bed with 1,000 pounds of cement mix only helped somewhat. Some of our editors also felt that the Toyota's body flexed more than the other trucks.

When performing skidpad testing, we found that the Toyota understeered heavily. The slow steering required lots of steering input while driving the truck in the slalom test. Nonetheless, the Toyota's smaller size helped it slither through the slalom at 56.9 mph, the fastest time of our group. Overall, we'd prefer a stiffer suspension, but we'd still take the Tundra's stock suspension over the Ram. (In the Ram's defense, our test truck was equipped with the optional Off-Road package and light-truck tires, both of which probably made the truck's ride harsher than normal).

The Tundra's smaller exterior size pays additional dividends beyond the slalom. The Tundra is definitely bigger than the old T100, but park the Tundra next to an F-150, and you can instantly see how the Toyota is still relatively small, especially in terms of height and wheelbase. The Toyota actually fit in our editor-in-chief's garage, whereas the Ford and Dodge were grounded to the street. It was also easier to maneuver in mall parking lots and narrow city streets.

Despite being nearly 10 inches shorter than the Chevy, the Tundra still offers a 76.5-inch short bed and decent cabin accommodations. The front seats are mounted low to the floor, creating headroom comparable to the other trucks. The low seats also make the Toyota relatively easy to get in and out of.

The Toyota's smaller size does negatively affect the back seat, however. The materials and cushions in back were comfortable, but there were noticeable deficits in both legroom and hip room. When we put three adults in back, they complained about the lack of cabin width and the minimal room underneath the front seats for their feet.

Overall interior design reminded us of many other Toyota products. The steering wheel and much of the switchgear is corporate parts-bin material, but it all operates with typical fluidness. As it's a Toyota, we were expecting a higher level of quality materials, but we were disappointed to find that they were about equal to the Chevy's. The Toyota also came up short on useful interior storage. The center console was noticeably smaller than the ones in the other trucks.

If the Toyota's only problem were a stunted interior, it probably would have won this comparison test. But a lack of optional features and equipment jammed a dagger in the Toyota's heart. Full-size trucks typically have long lists of available options in order to fulfill consumers' different needs. The Tundra's is much more limited, missing items like upgraded electrical/cooling components, snow-plow prep packages and heavy-duty suspension pieces. The Toyota is also the only truck here that can't be ordered in extended cab/long bed configuration.

Still, for many people, those extras could be superfluous. And for those truck buyers looking for a quick and simple purchase, the Tundra's short order list could be a benefit. Toyota's first true full-size truck is a very good one, especially for the general consumer rather than the contractor or construction worker. For the Personal Picks component of this test, the Toyota tied for first place with the Ford. Our editors clearly liked the Tundra, and our test truck's good build quality was a solid indicator that Toyota's reputation for reliability is intact. But this is a comparison test, and since we're not "Motor Trend," not all the trucks could be winners. The Toyota inherits third place.

Second Opinions

As the only non-domestic alternative (until Nissan brings its full-size to the market), the Tundra represents an interesting alternative to the other three. It's got rock-solid build quality that exceeds the others. The engine is silky smooth and is mated to a great transmission. But it rides like a Buick and dealing with a heavy payload or even regular bumps is not this truck's strongpoint. To me, the Tundra seems like a good match for Southern Californians. You don't even need four-wheel drive here. But Los Angeles isn't where most full-size trucks are sold, and I think the domestics are better matched to the primary full-size truck markets. -- Dan Gardner

The Tundra felt the most car-like. Yes, the suspension is soft, but I prefer it to the harshness of the Ram. It's also smaller than the others, and thus more manageable. The true appeal of this truck is that you get the full-sized utility without having to sacrifice car comfort. -- Liz Kim

The suspension is very car-like in that it is very softly sprung compared to the other trucks in our test. This made it palatable on rough city pavement. The V8 provided more than enough power, with the best grunt coming between 2,200 rpm and 5,000 rpm. Too bad the Tundra is saddled with Toyota's all-too-common numb steering rack that made it difficult to sense what the suspension and steering were doing when traveling over rocky terrain. -- Scott Mead

I found this to be a very uncomfortable vehicle, as I do most Toyota products. The seat is thinly padded and mounted too low to the floor. There is no seat height adjuster, and the seat doesn't travel far enough back in its track for optimal legroom. In fact, the cabin isn't as comfortable as a Dodge Dakota, much less any of the Tundra's direct competition. Toyota sells the Tundra on the following attributes: low price, refined engine, tidy size and a reputation for bulletproof reliability. But if I really had a need for a full-size pickup, I think I'd want a more serious, more comfortable, more capable workhorse that I could tailor to my specific needs. -- Christian Wardlaw

Ranking in class: Third

System Score: 4.0

Components. System consists of 4-inch speakers in the rear doors, with 5-inch speakers in the front doors coupled with tweeters in the upper portion. Electronics include AM/FM/Cassette/CD.

Performance. Not a very impressive stereo. The amp is weak and of a very poor quality -- it distorts massively above half gain. Unfortunately, the speakers aren't much better. The 4-inch speakers in the back doors are tucked under the armrests in an awkward and really lame position; they're largely useless. The front speakers aren't much better. The mid-bass driver is partially blocked by the door panel, cutting off sound. Not very good. The tweeters are okay, well positioned and accessible. There's not much nice I can say about sound quality in this vehicle. The tweeters do help quite a bit, but they're fighting a losing battle against the underpowered amp and the lousy speakers elsewhere in the system.

Conclusion. Worst feature: speakers, front or rear, take your pick. Best feature: a nicely appointed radio, with decent ergonomics. Large display and an easily readable readout. Better than most in this class.

Let the hate e-mail begin. You can't expect to put a big "two" next to Chevrolet's full-size truck and not raise the ire of proud Bow-Tie owners. And there are a lot of those, seeing as how combined sales of 2000 Chevrolet Silverados and GMC Sierras are nearly equal to Ford's top-selling F-Series line. But at least allow us to present our logic before firing off your nastiest prose. The Silverado came exceptionally close to winning this test, and its strengths just might suit your particular needs better than the other three trucks in our test.

With much hoopla, Chevrolet introduced its redesigned Silverado in 1999. There was a reason for this, mainly that the previous truck was getting rather ripe and stinky compared to the newer F-150 and Dodge Ram. The '99 Silverado's highlights included an all-new frame, new engine choices, better driving dynamics and more interior room. For 2000, Chevy has added a fourth door to extended-cab models and improved horsepower on the 4.8-liter and 5.3-liter engines.

Our test truck had the larger 5.3-liter V8. It generates 285 horsepower at 5,200 rpm and 325 foot-pounds of torque at 4,000 rpm. At the test track, the Silverado walked away with top acceleration honors, running from zero to 60 in 8.4 seconds and clearing the quarter mile in 16.5 seconds. Our editors backed up the results from the instrumented testing with their own subjective scoring, praising the Chevy for both engine and transmission performance.

While both the Dodge and Toyota felt winded when we loaded their cargo boxes with 1,000 pounds of cement mix, the Chevy's abundant low-end torque and useful powerband kept acceleration reasonable. The transmission features a "Tow/Haul" mode which delays upshifts and firms up the shift feel. At first, we dismissed the Tow/Haul as a marketing gimmick because the activation button is located on the end of the gearshift lever just where an overdrive button is usually placed. But with the cargo bed full, we noticed a distinct difference in the transmission's behavior between normal mode and Tow/Haul mode.

The added cargo didn't present much of a problem to the Chevy's suspension, either. Ride quality wasn't too soft or too harsh, and the shocks did a good job of keeping extra body roll in check. At the test track, the Chevy posted the best skidpad rating and the second-best slalom speed. And while instrumented testing didn't register an advantage to the Chevy's four-wheel disc brakes when unloaded (the only truck in the test to have them), the brakes felt confidence-inspiring with the box loaded. We'd like them even better if Chevrolet could reduce the ABS system's racket and brake pedal pulsation.

During the off-road portion of our test, the Chevrolet was about equal in ability to the Ford. Our test truck's Z71 Off-Road package and LT 245/75R16 tires were obvious benefits here. Engaging the four-wheel-drive system was a simple matter of pushing a button on the dash, and the Chevrolet's 4WD was the only one to have an automatic mode.

OK, so the Silverado has a great engine, a capable suspension and it is composed when hauling and blazing new trails; why didn't the Chevy win? Well, the Silverado unfortunately fell into the same trap that we've seen with many other recent GM products: a great drivetrain pulled down by lackluster styling and iffy build quality.

Actually, the Chevy's build quality wasn't horrible, and our editors scored the Dodge even worse in this department. But, somehow, you kind of expect the macho-man Dodge to have an unfinished feel, whereas the Chevy is supposed to be the more upscale and real-world truck. Mistakes on our test vehicle included incorrectly fitted weatherstripping that caused a major wind leak from the driver's door, mismatched panel gaps around the headlight area and interior trim pieces that could be wiggled or pulled apart.

Another one of our staffs' complaints centered on the exterior styling, or, more correctly, the lack thereof. Chevy says it purposely styled the truck this way because that's what its customers wanted. That may be the case, but to us it just looked too much like the old Silverado. The optional Sportside body didn't help matters, either. Is there some way to graft the Dodge's exterior sheetmetal over the Chevy's?

The interior also had some problems. Our LS test truck came with equipment like air conditioning, cruise control, a leather-wrapped steering wheel, power windows and locks, keyless remote and an upgraded stereo. Too bad the LS trim doesn't improve the cheap headliner, the "mouse fur" material used on the optional reclining bucket seats, the conservative interior design or the excessive use of hard plastic on the dash. All of the trucks had hard plastic dashboards, but the Chevy's seemed the most insubstantial and most tempting to pull apart with your bare hands.

We did find the Silverado's cabin to be comfortable, however, and the optional seats were praised for their good side-bolstering, foldable armrests and integrated seatbelts. The Silverado also presented a logical control layout and useful interior storage. And while none of the trucks provided limo-like rear seating, our staff felt the Chevy's back seat was the best at accommodating passengers thanks to the rear headrests, four cupholders and decent shoulder room.

All qualities combined, the Silverado comes out smelling much better than the Silverado before it. It also came very close to winning this test. Less than a percentage point, in fact. So for all those Bow-Tie lovers out there, please redirect your pointy little e-mails toward the GM people responsible for interior and exterior design. If they had spent more time doing their job instead of counting pennies and taking extra-long lunch breaks, your truck could have been the winner instead of the runner-up.

Second Opinion

Perfectly suited for aggressive shifting. The suspension is a tad stiff, but it does seem to strike a good middle ground in terms of ride quality. Too bad fit and finish are a step below the others. I'd take a Sierra over a Silverado as it is better-looking and has a more luxurious interior. -- Dan Gardner

The Chevrolet was the stupidest-looking truck of the test. The grille and flared fenders make it look like a woman with an oversized butt. However, engine power is copious, and I got a much more secure feeling from mashing the brakes than I did in the Ram. Plus it's got that cool name which evokes images of the Old West and cowboys. -- Liz Kim

I'm sure the Dodge is ultimately more capable, but I actually thought the Chevrolet was the best-performing truck in terms of our limited off-road excursions. I was disappointed with the old interior design and lack of quality materials. Chevrolet really needs to add a grab handle for the driver, as ingress/egress is difficult (especially with the Z71 suspension package). Chevrolet builds a great no-frills work truck, but don't expect the valet to park it in the front row. -- Scott Mead

For a full-sized truck, the cabin felt tight to me. Part of this impression had to do with the gray interior of our test truck, as well as the center console section that connects to the power part of the dash. Overall, I like the ergonomic layout and design of the Silverado's innards, but I'd opt for a bench seat and a tan interior. Oh, and GM has got to do something about the interior; it reeks of cost-cutting. -- Christian Wardlaw

Ranking in class: First

System Score: 6.0

Components. System consists of 4x6 full-range drivers in the rear doors, along with separate 6-inch bass and tweeters built into the upper portion of the front doors. Electronics include an AM/FM/single-play CD with a hidden power amplifier. Ergonomics: poor. The controls overall are too bunched together and lacking in different feel to be of optimum use. I found them difficult to use while driving. The little fader and balance knobs are too small, too close together, and hard to use.

Performance. I have to say that I was unimpressed with all four of the sound systems in this comparo. I hated this one the least, which I guess makes it the winner. Maybe a pickup truck isn't expected to have a nice sound system, since the damn tires are so noisy it's lucky if you can hear the music. Neither the speakers nor the amplifier appear to be of a decent quality in this system from GM. The amp clips at about half gain and gets worse from there. The system has an overly boomy bass which drowns out the highs. It's just not very impressive.

Conclusion. Best feature: speaker woof and tweet combos in the front doors are nicely placed and aimed. Reminds me of the setup in the Ford Focus. Worst feature: suck-ass power amp that runs out of steam halfway to town. Let me ask you a question: if you were designing a vehicle that you knew was going to be noisy as hell on the road, wouldn't you want to give it extra power? To this question, Chevy answers with a resounding NO. This system could have benefited significantly from a heftier power amp, and I marked off heavily for them not answering the call. Poor job, Chevy. What did I like? Well, the speaker setup is nicely done, but needs about twice the power.

One of our editors referred to the Ford F-150 as the "Honda Accord of full-size trucks." We're not sure how happy F-150 owners will be to hear their truck compared to Honda's bowl-of-tapioca family sedan, but the statement does have some truth to it.

In almost all of our comparison tests, there are vehicles that might not excel in many areas, but they don't have any glaring faults, either. These vehicles usually do very well in our comparison tests. It's a simple formula, but it's also one that is very difficult to pull off. Honda manages to do it with its Accord. The same goes for Ford and its F-150.

It would seem that the American public agrees. Not only has the F-Series pickup been the best-selling truck in recent memory, it has also been the best-selling vehicle period. Americans are buying more F-Series trucks than any other vehicle.

The current F-150 has been around since the '97 model year. Back then, Ford's break from traditional pickup styling caught many people off guard. But four years later, we feel that the F-150 shape has aged quite well. In fact, we agreed that the F-150 was the best-looking truck in our test behind the Dodge.

The F-150 is basically the same truck as it was in '97, though Ford has been making minor updates ever since. For 2000, Ford tinkered with the SuperCab's rear seating and added an overhead console to XLT and Lariat models. Our test truck was a 2000 F-150 XLT 4x4 SuperCab Styleside. The base price for a XLT is around $26,000, but a long list of options pushed the price past $30,000. One option we could have definitely done without was the dopey soft tonneau cover. It was difficult to install and remove, and became a pain when we were loading and unloading the bed with 1,000 pounds of cement mix.

The optional 5.4-liter V8 was much more to our liking, however. The biggest engine available in the F-150, it produces 260 horsepower at 4,500 rpm and 350 foot-pounds of torque at 2,500 rpm. This is 25 more foot-pounds of torque than the Chevy and 35 more than the Toyota. The advantage in torque didn't hold up at the test track, though, as the Ford was marginally slower than both during acceleration runs. In terms of power delivery, the Ford's V8 felt similar to the Silverado's. It didn't quite have the Chevy's low-end pop, but it did top it in terms of smoothness and quietness. The four-speed automatic was sometimes a little slow when asked to downshift, but otherwise it operated without a fuss.

An electronically controlled transfer case doesn't come standard on the F-150, so you'll have to pay an extra $160 to get the nifty little 4x4 selector dial on the dash. Like the Dodge and Chevy, our F-150 test truck had an optional off-road package and a limited-slip rear differential. The Ford made short work of the off-road portion of our test, and ultimately felt about equal to the Chevy in terms of maximum off-road performance.

Even with the stiffer shocks and 17-inch light-truck tires, the suspension adapted well to use on city streets and highways. Ride quality was acceptable when driving over rough pavement, and its freeway ride was a nice compromise between the rough-riding Dodge and marshmallow-like Toyota. On curvy roads, the F-150 was stable and confidence-inspiring. Our staff also gave the Ford's steering high marks, noting its quick responses, though one editor said he found it difficult to keep the Ford going in a straight line without making numerous steering adjustments. For normal use on both pavement and dirt, we found the F-150 and Silverado to be near equals.

The only problems we encountered with the Ford were when we loaded up the cargo box with cement mix. The engine wasn't overburdened, but the Ford's suspension seemed to become more unsettled than the Chevy's when we drove it over large bumps. Additionally, the Ford's brakes required noticeably more effort because of the extra weight. Even with the bed unloaded, we noticed minor brake fade and inconsistent stopping distances at the test track.

While none of these truck's interiors were outstanding, Ford seems to have crafted the most tolerable one. Hard plastics abound, but the two shades of tan match well with the black plastic used for the center of the dash. Styling was the most modern of the group, and we liked the large and easy-to-find buttons and controls. The big center storage bin was useful for holding CDs and cassette tapes, though we did notice that the glove box wasn't very large.

The optional captain's chairs provided the best comfort of our group, with our editors commenting that the broad seating surfaces seemed perfect for the beefy construction workers that Ford always shows driving its trucks during TV commercials. Too bad these same construction workers won't be as happy sitting in back, as the F-150's rear seat isn't as comfortable as the Silverado's and has less legroom and headroom.

Entry and exit was no problem on our test truck, thanks to the optional cab step bars (without them, the climb would be equal to the tall Dodge). While driving the F-150 on the freeway, there was minimal wind and road noise and no squeaks or rattles. Overall, we found the truck to have good build quality, though the Toyota was still slightly better. (Interestingly, a Ford Explorer that we obtained for our recent SUV test was lambasted for its poor build quality).

The F-150 is an interesting vehicle. It's a four-year-old design. It doesn't wow you with glitz or stunning athletic ability. It doesn't cleanly dominate the other trucks in any one particular area. But like the Accord, it doesn't have an Achilles' heel, and that allowed it to take the top position in this test -- barely. Think F-150 over Silverado in triple overtime. But a win is a win is a win, thank you very much, and Ford gets the bragging rights that come along with it.

Second Opinion

The Ford certainly looks the most modern of the group. It also has a decent interior with good seats. It manages to do everything fairly well, and nothing terribly. As this is the best-selling truck in America, all Ford has to do is make sure they don't screw it up. For the last four years, I think Ford has succeeded in that mission. -- Dan Gardner

The F-150 managed to provide the best combination of ride quality and real full-size utility. The V8's power was very smooth, and the suspension was acceptable enough to give me confidence during highway and street driving. I also like how the Ford doesn't scream "manly testosterone!" like the Ram does. -- Liz Kim

It's no wonder that the F-150 has been the best-selling pickup for years. The Ford exhibited great off-road prowess and good linear torque from the Triton V8. Unlike the Dodge, the Ford feels like a Crown Victoria that is capable of hauling a 21-foot Bayliner. Would I recommend it? You bet. Ford builds a winner. -- Scott Mead

Is the Ford outstanding in any respect? No. Does it fall on its face in any respect? Aside from the annoying tonneau cover on our test truck, no. The F-150 is an excellent blend of style, comfort, ability and overall competence. Plus, you can buy one to suit any need, from the supercharged SVT Lightning to the Super Duty F-350 Crew Cab to the F-150 SuperCrew in between. That's why it's my favorite, and the one I'd recommend to full-size pickup buyers. -- Christian Wardlaw

Ranking in class: Fourth (last)

System Score: 3.5

Components. System consists of 6-inch full-range speakers in the front and rear doors. There are no tweeters or subwoofers in this system. Electronics include an AM/FM/CD and, as usual with all Ford systems, a kick-ass amplifier tucked away somewhere. This thing really cranks! The radio has nice ergonomics--buttons are well-spaced and logically laid out, readout is bright green, faceplate makes sense.

Performance. I wish this system had better speakers. This was the only vehicle in this test without separate tweeters, and the system suffers as a result. The sound is very dull. Female vocals sound boxy, muted, subdued and muffled. Likewise acoustic strings, which come off like the musicians are performing in the next room. Just not very impressive at all. Too bad, because the power amp kicks butt and the rest of the system rocks. If this system had even decent tweeters in the front doors or A pillars, along with slightly better speakers all around, it would probably have won the class. As it is, it's just mediocre. It doesn't make sense for Ford to match this power amp with such lousy speakers. In the future, they should save their money.

Conclusion. Best feature: as with most Ford systems, the power amp. Worst feature: lack of tweeters. The radio had a very user-friendly feel and nice cosmetics. Too bad they didn't give this system better speakers.

The interesting thing about full-size pickups is that people use them for so many different tasks. When we evaluate family sedans, the intended purpose of those vehicles is pretty clear: haul kids, offer good safety and have at least a mediocre level of performance and style. But the type of truck that a budding construction worker would want is probably quite different than the one a suburban family with two kids, a dog and a couple of personal watercraft would want.

Given that, a strong argument could be made for each of these trucks. Based on the final score (it finished last in every category), the Ram was the wooden spoon of the test. But even then, it could be a good truck for somebody who needs a rugged vehicle to haul equipment or make frequent trips into the wilderness.

The remaining trucks were all very close in final score. The Toyota is the most "car-like," and is best suited for somebody who needs a truck primarily for urban commuting and light- to medium-duty hauling and towing. This was just fine with us, as not everybody needs a big and burly pickup.

The Chevrolet and the Ford ended up with better scores than the Toyota because they were broader in spectrum, able to nearly match the Toyota in comfort, as well as the Ram in off-road ability. And while they both have different personalities -- the Silverado bland but beefy, the F-150 more refined -- we were surprised how equally capable they were. This is reflected in the final score: 78.4 to 79.1. These are both great pickups. Either could be the best truck for you.

After driving all four trucks, each editor was asked to rank the vehicles in two categories. The first category was the order in which an editor would personally rank the vehicles in terms of "would I buy it?" The second category was a ranking of "would I recommend it to a full-size pickup shopper?" Then all personal and recommended rankings were put together to come up with an overall ranking for each category.

With the exception of the Toyota Tundra, little variation existed between how our editors felt about the trucks personally, and how they felt about them as a recommended buy. The Dodge was clearly the laggard, as it was ranked last by every editor for both personal and recommended ratings. D'oh!

Personal	Pick Total	Percentage
1. Ford F-150	13	81.3
2. Toyota Tundra	13	81.3
3. Chevrolet Silverado	10	62.5
4. Dodge Ram	4	25
Recommended	Pick Total	Percentage
1. Ford F-150	15	93.8
2. Toyota Tundra	11	68.8
3. Chevrolet Silverado	10	62.5
4. Dodge Ram	4	25

Engine Performance
Vehicle	Score	Ranking
Chevrolet	83	1(t)
Toyota	83	1(t)
Ford	78	3
Dodge	67	4

Transmission Performance
Vehicle	Score	Ranking
Toyota	90	1
Chevrolet	78	2
Ford	75	3
Dodge	65	4

Braking Performance
Vehicle	Score	Ranking
Chevrolet	73	1
Toyota	70	2
Ford	65	3
Dodge	53	4

Suspension Performance
Vehicle	Score	Ranking
Ford	80	1
Chevrolet	78	2
Toyota	60	3
Dodge	53	4

Tire Performance
Vehicle	Score	Ranking
Ford	83	1
Chevrolet	75	2
Dodge	70	3
Toyota	55	4

Steering Performance
Vehicle	Score	Ranking
Ford	75	1
Chevrolet	68	2
Toyota	63	3
Dodge	45	4

Fun to Drive
Vehicle	Score	Ranking
Chevrolet	78	1
Ford	75	2
Toyota	63	3
Dodge	50	4

Seat Comfort Front
Vehicle	Score	Ranking
Ford	83	1
Chevrolet	80	2
Toyota	78	3
Dodge	55	4

Seat Comfort Rear
Vehicle	Score	Ranking
Chevrolet	67	1
Ford	60	2
Toyota	50	3
Dodge	44	4

Wind & Road Noise
Vehicle	Score	Ranking
Toyota	78	1
Ford	75	2
Chevrolet	70	3
Dodge	63	4

Rattles & Squeaks
Vehicle	Score	Ranking
Ford	90	1
Toyota	83	2
Chevrolet	78	3
Dodge	48	4