Which is which again? Besides the grill and taillights, they look interchangeable.

i like the way the dodge looks anyway.

but id much rather have a diesel dually of either one.

Lame-ass country bumpkin fixture at the display, suggesting owning this vehicle makes you a cowboy...

Advantage Dodge.

Mitsubishi Lancer-esque nose treatment which doesn't look like it was drawn by engineers with severe ADD using ransom note newspaper cutout leftovers...

Advantage Dodge.

Positioning vehicles, of multiple colors no less, in a fashion so as to allow pictures of the rear...

Advantage Dodge.

Still not including separate turn signal lamps for the tail end, resulting in one burned-out bulb rendering both a brake light and turn signal useless...

Advantage Europeans, though Chevrolet did have amber turn signals on their trucks the past few years.

I like the Dodge Better, but If Toby Keith promises to never ever make another CD, I would buy a Ford

They both look basically the same no doubt to attract all the people who are stupid enough to drive a truck without really needing a truck.

Again, who the hell is this Toby Keith person?

I think the cow shit won.

Best in show!

That Ford grill really needs bubble-tubes up the sides and a record selector button.

[img][www.allpar.com]]

Ford instantly loses because of their shitty powertrains. The new Dodge gets 380hp and 404tq with variable cam phasing, active length intake manifold and MDS. That puts it in the same league as the Toyota's 5.7L. Ford's 5.4L is the lame duck of the entire half ton segment.

It must suck to be Toby Kieth, knowing you got upstaged by a bunch of sexually confused, soon-to-be-eaten cows.

Actually...it must pretty much suck to be Toby Kieth in general.

@Torqahontas:

Damn that image didn't work...

This blue Sport Ram is really nice:

[www.allpar.com]

Toby Keith and Cow shit...synonymous.

Neither of these are OUR truck. OUR truck is apparently the Chevy Silverado. It's what's been driven into the skulls of sunday football viewers with a jackhammer for the last two years, anyway.

Meh, without truck nuts I cant decide.

@SpeedWagon: Yes, it needs Truck Nuts and a Hood Window to win

While gas prices continue to climb, the big three constinue to put out big, hideous, useless trucks to cater to the hedonistic inbreds everywhere. Poorly built, no major engineering advancements since the '70s and driving our insurance rates up. Why else would you drive a full sized pick up unless you work in construction or you own a ranch?!

F-150 = non-medicinal male enhancement
Ram = Strap-on with 4 wheels

It may be a male-orgazmo wannabe market, but remember that next time your signifigant other kicks you out of your living space and need to move all your crap into storage. Dodge still has the style edge, and someone was thinking with the top center head when it came to the integrated side storage box. Now if anyone of the big three could figure out how to pull 25MPG..., that would be a real news story worthy of real press time.

since I think the collective readership of Jalopnik adorns themselves with the dragon title when fitting... we all have to hate trucks, right, I mean dragons don't do trucks... less domination goin on and what not...

@bmrfile:

Is their a most ignorant statement of the day?

ALSO... I think the advantage goes to Dodge for not having 35 flavors of crappiness

Its funny how a group of people who lust over 11 mpg sports cars can so hypocritically judge trucks, which are far more practical no matter how little you use it, for fuel economy.

why don't they get it over with and just chrome the whole front clip?

that ford grille is hideous

now here is a REAL ford truck....

@Triborough: I hope your not from here. Not because you don't know who he is, but, well, because you're fortunate enough to not know who he is.

@RLJ676: Gas guzzlers are gas guzzlers. An exotic that gets 11MPG is no better than a raised F-250. However, there are a lot less people who buy Maserati than the Ford trucks.

No one really needs that much power and very few people need that much truck. An exotic is mostly for show and will never be daily drivers. However, a lot of people drive Rams and F-150s to and from work everyday.

I'm all for heavy taxation for gas guzzlers and excessive GVWR. A gas company utility truck has to pay for a commercial operating fee, why not impose the same tax on an H2, since they weigh about the same?

@bmrfile: Agreed. It's the loop holes in the system that need to be plugged, and yes most truck owners have never used it for it's intended purpose. Of course if we were to look at what the majority of Americans use vehicles for (EG transportation of one to and from work) then the most logical vehicle choice would consist of two wheels and 250cc's.

And how do you propose we do that? I already pay more at the pump, for registration, and insurance. Now you want to tack on a weight tax?

BTW, I do travel to work on a motorcycle as much as possible, the F350 is for towing, and legally required for most of the trailers I pull.

@bmrfile: I'll agree with you that a lot of people don't use their trucks/suvs enough to justify them, but your little rant kinda makes you sound like a self-righteous prick.

Trucks haven't advanced since the 70s? Not true. Variable cam timing, cylinder deactivation, small diesels on the way, coil-sprung rearend, lighter drivetrains...it goes on from there.

Part of the issue is that a lot of trucks get used as trucks on the weekend, and it's not economical to have an extra commuter car unless it's really cheap and you have a really long commute.

Gotta tow a trailer on Saturday (ever Saturday), what else are you gonna use?

Besides, if you want to be all draconian and restrict people's vehicle use to "what they need," we're back to Honda 600s or taking the bus. Taking the bus sucks ass.

@bmrfile: Where do you live? Not at all trying to be a jerk, just wondering. I've heard a great deal of people talk about all the truck owners who never haul anything. However, in rural Wisconsin where I live, big trucks are a necessity for some.

We plow snow with them, farmers haul hay wagons and chopper boxes around with them, lots of veterenarians (sp?) in dairy country moving cattle trailers around, in addition to the construction workers and utility companies and whatnot.

And for those people who don't have access to 2 cars, sometimes the truck gets pressed into service to get groceries or take someone to work. I have a 3/4 ton truck, but I only use it when I need to haul something.

No need to have one if you live in downtown Los Angeles and work at a dentist's office maybe, but trucks do serve a legitimate purpose. It's really in poor taste for someone to stereotype all pickup truck owners like you do. The world needs less of that close-mindedness.

Dodge wins for not subjecting the Detroit public to Toby Keith or Kid Rock.

@Kelly: Because, when I think full-sized truck, I think Europe! I suppose there's a Final Countdown joke in there somewhere, but that's about it.

@bmrfile: I bought a full-sized truck because from the quotes I could find, the only thing cheaper to insure was a smaller pickup (and there was next to nothing in the beater price range when I was looking). Since the oil companies rip everyone off equally, I'd rather waste money on them than insurance companies, who're more selective about who they screw over.

In regards to the F-150, what's that plastic hump on the floor? Does it do anything useful other than get in the way? I mean, the Silverado's got a flat floor, and the Ram's floor hump is useable for storage, right? Is Ford preventing buyers from getting truely monstrous televisions?

Advantage: Ram for 100% less Toby Covel.

Are those reefer boxes in the floor wide enough to use for small subwoofer enclosures? Two 8" subs sunk into the floor would be sweeet.

@bmrfile:
Impose worse taxes on vehicles with high GVWR? That's a stupid statement. A high GVWR allows people to legally haul more goods and people than you could with a lower one, commercial vehicle or not. One large diesel 2500 can move as much weight as 3 small trucks and burn far less fuel and use put out far less emissions than they would.

No major advancements since the 70s? Trucks have become FAR more fuel efficient and offer more power than they have in the past. This new 5.7L Ram puts out 380hp and gets better fuel economy than ANY of its predecessors (5% better than the old 345hp 5.7L). If people want even better economy, a smaller V8 and V6 is offered. For 2010, there's a bunch of new small diesels coming and even a DSG transmission for the Ram, and they'll get 20mpg.

Go take your narrow minded opinions somewhere else.

@Mad Science: Trucks have made superficial advancements in that they are a lot more comfortable and more user-friendly than your old school '73 F-100. However, the gas mileage is about the same, maybe a little better, but not by much. Engines are supposed to run more efficiently through the technological breakthrough you have mentioned. Where's the improvement?

@Maymar: Trucks are cheap to insure because on average they do not cost as much to fix. Easier to swap out body panels or just the whole bed if you're ever rear-ended. Most of the time trucks don't sustain too much damage, but they do cause other to have more damages. If you pit a Corolla against a Ram, guess which one is going to fare worse in a head-on collision? The oil companies are not screwing us, but rather we have been spoiled. Prior to 9/11, we were paying less than $2/gallon, while rest for the world was paying $3, maybe $4. Believe me, at $3+/gallon, we still have it good.

@Squablow: I admit I was out of line for stereotyping in my first post, and I apologize. I do agree full-size trucks have their purpose. They're handy if you do haul heavy equipment to job sites or if you own or work on a ranch. But if you live in the suburbs like most of us do, you do not need a truck.

For the record, I never menat to condemn full-size pickups. They do have a purpose and they do suit certain population. But as many have mentioned, trucks are being marketed to the LCD (Lowest Common Denominators) recruiting spokespeople such as Toby Keith. Nothing wrong with country music, but Toby Keith is the last person that should be representing any commercial product.

@bmrfile, @Neener: My intention is not to "pile it on," but I must object with the assertion that most truck owners don't need trucks. That perception may be realistic while standing on a city street corner, but it doesn't reflect reality in most of the country.

The situation is a lot more complex. For some, it boils down to the problem of only being able to own one vehicle, and selecting the vehicle that satisfies the peak demand. For others, the total cost is the bottom line. In many cases, a fullsize truck is cheaper (vehicle + depreciation + fuel + insurance) than other vehicles. And in other cases, it has to do with what's available—a coupe utility (that is, El Camino) may be best, but they're just not available. For most truck buyers, all of those factors were at play, as well as others that I didn't think of.

All this is not to say that you're wrong; there are indeed many people who only need a Vespa but drive an F-350. But be careful about painting broad strokes such as "no one needs ..." That is fallacious.

@bmrfile:
These numbers are approximate, but let's use a '72 F100 with a 390 as an example.

That truck gets 10-15mpg on a good day, <10 if you're hauling or getting on the gas much.

New trucks get 15-20 most of the time, 10-15 if you're hauling (cargo or ass).

From 15-20 is a 33% increase, 10-15 is a 50% increase.

They do this while polluting a fraction of what the old model does, making near double the power, with better driveability and reliability.

This is coupled with dramatic increases in handling and safety.

These improvements are real. I've driven both old trucks and new trucks. There's a huge difference in chassis improvements, not just creature comforts (which I don't really care for).

To be honest, I'd rather have that linked F100 than a new truck, but that has a lot more to do with intended use and cashflow.

@billstewartx: I know this has been asked before, but how do you in bed pictures into your comment again?

Next time honda releases a new vehicle all us truck owners should whine why it doesn't get as good as milage as their old CCVT models.. the new ones don't come close.. talk about goin backwards!

The 86 CRX-HF got over 50mpg.. the new civic hybrid only 40 city and 45 highway..

I know it's apples to oranges.. but so is comparing these trucks to old ones.. they are better in every way..

now throw in all the nannystate gadgetry they have to carry around, plus crash standard requirements, and epa restrictions.. i'm amazed they get as good of milage as they do.

@cardesignmike:
Define "here" please.

@stu-rock: I live in the city and I own a Hemi Ram Quad Cab. Apparently, I'm a terrible person.

I can tell you any serious sports car or sport bike guy has a truck, because they tow a non street legal vehicle to and from the track. Also, if you're like me, all those hobbies make it impossible to afford another more economical ride. Not that every truck owner is a weekend racer, but they do have a purpose.

Also, trucks haven't changed much because they do their job well, and have always done their job well. They feel crude because the stresses that their components are designed to take force higher tolerances, leading to more slop. It comes with the territory.

@Fitty7lax: I'm agreeing with stu by the way.

@billstewartx: The way that picture appeared I only saw the lower half, and I thought, wow, that's like our old yellow dog Ford truck and then I saw the row of lights and thought, well, we didn't have that...oh, and we definitely didn't have the ack-ack gun with mutant on point.

@bmrfile: In my case the cheapest vehicle I own to insure is my '94 Dodge Ram 3500 with the V10.

@Truck fighters: once upon a time it was true--this was pre SUV insanity--that people had big pickups, country Cadillacs, as they were called--and they might have hauled some mulch from Lowe's or Walley World and maybe a washer dryer in the boxes, or a load of firewood, but mostly never. Urban cowboy. Then SUVs became the wheels de jour--well, I skipped the minivan but I think the pickup cowboy wannabes went straight for the 4-Runners and then everything went to hell.
All the pickemups I know work for their living. Do you ever drive by construction sites? Farms? You simply can't carry big heavy stuff any other way. Not a van, not SUV. When I saw the tiny beds on some pick ups or the halfway covered ones, I was dumbfounded because that defeated the whole purpose.

Use the HTML script

<*IMG SRC="(direct link to image)"

Take out the astric before IMG, and then put the direct image link between the quotes. For what ever reason, on Jalopnik if you try closing the script, the image doesnt appear... Atleast for me.