# Half-ton pickup redux



## begreen

Looking at going up a notch from our old trusty Ranger to an F150, probably used. Wondering what thoughts  are on the payload ratings. Properly equipped Ford F150s appear closer to 1ton. Anyone have good experience with them? Most of the time the truck will be unloaded or with a light load. We would have a pop-up camper on it sometimes with a dry weight of about 1400# and a loaded weight of about 1800#. 

Have a friend with a 2011 F150 Lariat with the heavy duty options (trans. oil cooler, heavy payload springs and firestone airbags). They tow a horse trailer and have this same camper on it. Said it has worked out great for them for the past 6 yrs.. Camper mfg. (Hallmark) says this is a common combo for them to outfit, yet when I go online I get opinions from two camps. One says it works great and the other says go huge, you never know what you might need in the future. I've done that in the past and often never used half of what I thought I'd use. I might still snag some good free wood, but that would be strictly local hauling. Any F150 owners out there want to comment?

https://www.autotrader.com/best-cars/top-7-light-duty-pickup-trucks-by-payload-capacity-241420


----------



## Seasoned Oak

If its an automatic dont let it sit for long periods or the tranny wont work anymore.


----------



## begreen

Seasoned Oak said:


> If its an automatic dont let it sit for long periods or the tranny wont work anymore.


Have heard that, but only when sitting for a long time, like overwinter. That won't be happening.


----------



## Bad LP

Leaving the brand rant out of your question... I've owned just one 1/2 ton truck in the past 26 years. I only buy trucks and I will never own another 1/2 ton anything again.

Sure my decision costs more in fuel and load range E tires but how much it really costs is debatable. The brakes, springs, driveline and front end parts are more rugged and reliable. And before someone asks I do not abuse my truck. I use it but you will not find scratches and dents in the body panels except inside the bed. 

I've never seen a slide in camper in the back of any truck unless its one of those pop up styles.


----------



## begreen

Campers are very common out here. Popups on the compact Tacomas etc. and 1/2 tons and hard shell on the 3/4 and 1 tons. I've spoken to two camper mfgs and one Ford rep and all say that the combo I am proposing is a good fit. If I used the truck for hauling wood, gravel, lumber and dirt on a regular basis I would go up to the larger truck, especially if for work, but most of the time it is just transportation. The Ford Ranger with Timbrens has worked for me for a long time including when I was younger and moved a lot more stuff.  The F150 is heavier duty in every regard compared to the Ranger. Going to the F250 or a 2500 seems like overkill, but I do appreciate the vehicle and have my eye out, they are just harder to find with low mileage used.


----------



## bholler

It is all in what you need.  It sounds like a 1/2 ton will work fine for your needs.  For me a 150 or 1500 would never be enough


----------



## begreen

Yes, I totally respect the need for a 3/4 ton truck in a heavy work environment.


----------



## bholler

begreen said:


> Yes, I totally respect the need for a 3/4 ton truck in a heavy work environment.


Yeah but most people really dont need it.  You wont be towing anything to heavy.  Or hauling like we do so why pay more and have a worse ride if you dont need it.


----------



## GadDummit

I don't know how "used" you're looking for, but if you decide to move up from the 1/2 ton for the camper, longevity, etc. you can't beat a good 1999-2003 F250 with that 7.3 Diesel. You'll rust the frame out in 1000 years but that motor will still be going strong. Stay away from the next diesel in the lineup they replaced it with. It was nothing but trash.


----------



## bholler

GadDummit said:


> I don't know how "used" you're looking for, but if you decide to move up from the 1/2 ton for the camper, longevity, etc. you can't beat a good 1999-2003 F250 with that 7.3 Diesel. You'll rust the frame out in 1000 years but that motor will still be going strong. Stay away from the next diesel in the lineup they replaced it with. It was nothing but trash.


Or 10 years here at most.  Around here it is hard to find a 10 year old truck without serious rust issues.   To me you need to be some serious towing to make a deisel worth the added cost.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

begreen said:


> Looking at going up a notch from our old trusty Ranger to an F150, probably used. Wondering what thoughts  are on the payload ratings. Properly equipped Ford F150s appear closer to 1ton. Anyone have good experience with them? Most of the time the truck will be unloaded or with a light load. We would have a pop-up camper on it sometimes with a dry weight of about 1400# and a loaded weight of about 1800#.
> 
> Have a friend with a 2011 F150 Lariat with the heavy duty options (trans. oil cooler, heavy payload springs and firestone airbags). They tow a horse trailer and have this same camper on it. Said it has worked out great for them for the past 6 yrs.. Camper mfg. (Hallmark) says this is a common combo for them to outfit, yet when I go online I get opinions from two camps. One says it works great and the other says go huge, you never know what you might need in the future. I've done that in the past and often never used half of what I thought I'd use. I might still snag some good free wood, but that would be strictly local hauling. Any F150 owners out there want to comment?
> 
> https://www.autotrader.com/best-cars/top-7-light-duty-pickup-trucks-by-payload-capacity-241420



My 2010 F-150 4x4 Supercab has a payload capacity of 1735 lbs. (if my memory is not failing me). I'm usually a by-the-book kinda guy but it really seems to be under-rated. It doesn't look, feel or drive like it's overloaded until somewhere around 2600 lbs. I've had a lot more than that in it but only at slower speeds on local roads. Even overloaded to the hilt it has a decent amount of suspension travel left and drives and brakes well. Not like trucks from the 70's.

If you're buying a F-150 used I'd recommend 2010 or newer. 2010 was a major chassis redesign. Then the aluminum bodied F-150's were the next major change. That must have been around 2016 MY.


----------



## begreen

GTK. For F150 looking in the 2011-2014 range with low miles. Not too keen on the alum. body though it does allow for more payload. For a Silverado I can go more recent.


----------



## GadDummit

bholler said:


> Or 10 years here at most.  Around here it is hard to find a 10 year old truck without serious rust issues.   To me you need to be some serious towing to make a deisel worth the added cost.



Diesel is slightly higher cost in fuel, but the mileage and power per fillup vs ethanol more than make it a better option, especially if you opt for a standard (Man's!) transmission. The same truck will get 5-10 MPG less in gas as it would in diesel.

The last 7.3 I drove (1999) got 22 mpg whether or not I was towing anything. The newer (2015?) F150 I drove got 17.5 mpg unloaded, 15.3 with an 18ft boat behind it.


----------



## bholler

GadDummit said:


> Diesel is slightly higher cost in fuel, but the mileage and power per fillup vs ethanol more than make it a better option, especially if you opt for a standard (Man's!) transmission. The same truck will get 5-10 MPG less in gas as it would in diesel.
> 
> The last 7.3 I drove (1999) got 22 mpg whether or not I was towing anything. The newer (2015?) F150 I drove got 17.5 mpg unloaded, 15.3 with an 18ft boat behind it.


Yes but the purchase cost atleast here for used is easily double.  And yes the drive line will last much longer than gas.  But in our area the drivelines even on gas outlast the frame and body so to me unless you are putting on huge mileage numbers you wont make up the difference in purchase cost and maitenance costs.

We buy trucks and vans pretty often and have run the numbers many times and for us deisels dont make financial sense.  If you are in an area without the rust issues it would probably be different.


----------



## begreen

GadDummit said:


> Diesel is slightly higher cost in fuel, but the mileage and power per fillup vs ethanol more than make it a better option, especially if you opt for a standard (Man's!) transmission. The same truck will get 5-10 MPG less in gas as it would in diesel.
> 
> The last 7.3 I drove (1999) got 22 mpg whether or not I was towing anything. The newer (2015?) F150 I drove got 17.5 mpg unloaded, 15.3 with an 18ft boat behind it.


Just spoke with a fellow that has a 2003 Chevy diesel 3/4T truck and said similar things about it. He gets 22 mpg at 70mph, 17mpg towing his boat and with the camper I'm looking to buy on his truck. His truck has 206K on it and he won't part with it.


----------



## bholler

I just saw you are from texas so the rust issues are very different for you.  Also why are you comparing deisel to methanol numbers?  Gas gives you much better meilage than methanol.


----------



## bholler

begreen said:


> Just spoke with a fellow that has a 2003 Chevy diesel 3/4T truck and said similar things about it. He gets 22 mpg at 70mph, 17mpg towing his boat and with the camper I'm looking to buy on his truck. His truck has 206K on it and he won't part with it.


Our 2006 chevy 2500 6.0 gets about 18 highway without much load and 16 or so towing the work trailer or boat.  I have nothing against deisels I just dont see that they make sense for most people.  That is unless they are modified so they blow huge clouds of smoke for no reason.  Then i have a problem  with them.  But its frame is starting to rust pretty bad and has been patched twice already.


----------



## brenndatomu

bholler said:


> To me you need to be some serious towing to make a deisel worth the added cost.


Agreed. 1/2 the diesels on the road now are waaay underutilized...if people put pen to paper they would see the diesel option often does not pay off long term. That is why company's that run fleets of small trucks (trucks with a gas engine option) are turning away from diesels in droves.
Back on topic...you should be fine. I had a 1995 F150 for years and it hauled everything I threw at it without complaint, even though I had it overloaded a few times (2700 # of gravel) The newer F150s do have a larger load capacity than my 95 did for sure. I have since upgraded to a F250...just because I was too often overloading my truck...and I wanted a newer truck with doors on the extended cab area.


----------



## Lloyd the redneck

I'd say a half ton would work great for what you want, heavier duty trucks are nice but that's exactly what they are. Heavy (haha pickup) duty. They ride like a brick and if your doin most of your tooling around unloaded I'd pick a half ton. And we have all done it. Overload the crap out of em, just drive with care. Slow down and mind your stopping distances!


----------



## begreen

bholler said:


> Our 2006 chevy 2500 6.0 gets about 18 highway without much load and 16 or so towing the work trailer or boat.  I have nothing against deisels I just dont see that they make sense for most people.  That is unless they are modified so they blow huge clouds of smoke for no reason.  Then i have a problem  with them.  But its frame is starting to rust pretty bad and has been patched twice already.


That's very good. Most folks are reporting a few mpg less with that combo. General average on fuelly.com is 13.9. The F250 is about the same.


----------



## Lloyd the redneck

6.0 gas are notorious pigs for fuel mileage. My neighbor gets like 10. Pretty much all the time.


----------



## bholler

begreen said:


> That's very good. Most folks are reporting a few mpg less with that combo. General average on fuelly.com is 13.9. The F250 is about the same.


I put on aftermarket exhaust and a chip both of which made a huge difference in the mpg.  



Lloyd the redneck said:


> 6.0 gas are notorious pigs for fuel mileage. My neighbor gets like 10. Pretty much all the time.


There is either something wrong with his truck or he has a really heavy foot.  That is way low


----------



## begreen

Lloyd the redneck said:


> 6.0 gas are notorious pigs for fuel mileage. My neighbor gets like 10. Pretty much all the time.


I get much better than that with our current RV which is based on a 318 Dodge 3500 van. Highway mileage is in the 13-16mpg range depending on the speed more than anything.


----------



## begreen

From what I've read a stock a 2500HD 6.0L with the 4.10 gears is lucky to get over 13mpg. The folks with the 3.73 rear are doing a bit better.


----------



## bholler

Yeah we are not running 4.10s either. My old ford has 4.10s in it and it is a gas hog lucky to break 10 mpg.  Our chevy is also a stamdard which helps.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

begreen said:


> Just spoke with a fellow that has a 2003 Chevy diesel 3/4T truck and said similar things about it. He gets 22 mpg at 70mph, 17mpg towing his boat and with the camper I'm looking to buy on his truck. His truck has 206K on it and he won't part with it.


My son has a Duramax diesel. Fabulous Truck in every way but one. He now needs head gaskets. I could put 3 new engines in my gas engine silverado for what it will cost him for a head gasket job.  6- 8 K   Consequently the truck is setting in his garage for the last 6 months. Even just injectors are a $2K job. Unless you do some serious towing, im not sure a diesel is the right choice.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Seasoned Oak said:


> My son has a Duramax diesel. Fabulous Truck in every way but one. He now needs head gaskets. I could put 3 new engines in my gas engine silverado for what it will cost him for a head gasket job.  6- 8 K   Consequently the truck is setting in his garage for the last 6 months. Even just injectors are a $2K job. Unless you do some serious towing, im not sure a diesel is the right choice.



Agreed. Most people I see with diesels use them like a car. Not all, but most.

Today I went wood-cutting in my lowly gas powered F-150. I came back with a 2600# load of nice alder. I saw one other gas truck, a US Border Patrol pick-up hauling a very large box trailer up the mountain canyon I was cutting in. I'm sure it had sophisticated surveillance equipment (radar, infra-red telescopes, etc) inside as this road is only a mile from Canada. The big trailer looked loaded. I saw four trucks all morning, two diesels and two gas (one was mine). The two diesels both had young guys in them out for a joyride, empty beds, no trailers. You don't need a truck to do that (let alone a diesel). I could hear them coming from a mile away (the Border Patrol truck was stealthy). They left a stinky black haze that blanketed the canyon for five minutes. The Border Patrol truck left no discernable odor. 

Todays score for trucks that were actually doing real work:

Gas 100%
Diesel 0%


----------



## blades

7.3 is a good eng. but some issues due arise  Crank sensor was an early one. injector wiring is in the head gaskets around $750 for the gaskets. Turbo bearings  and gate.  Also Ford stopped making the GEM module for these and they are dang near un-obtainum from anywhere.  As to the box portion on all newer trucks -paper thin particularly the head of the box.  I have a 99 f350 v10  standard cab 4:77 gears  8mpg and it don't care if its loaded or empty. does everything a oil burner does except heavy load long haul mpg
06 f250 extra cab 5.4L  3:7x gears about 12 around town, full load and it is working hard. 
F2/350 heavier chassis and components  bigger brakes than 150. 
I had a 99 150 4.6 v8 forget the gears it did serve me well 180k with only normal maint issues - got sent down the road due to the red death we suffer with around here .
All three are 4wd -  the 250 I am the third owner and it was not properly maintained prior to me, so have some excessive issues- front suspension and drive train as compared to the 350. Both have same mileage  on them  apx.150k.
Ford gas units imperative to change oil every 3k, variable cam timing system picky about that. ( I only run synthetic ) 
GM is changing over on the larger v8 to VCT as well  I do not know what year that starts to appear vs the push rod blocks. Basically same as Ford system so oil caution also applies there. GM and Dodge seem to have a problem in the fuel vapor e-vap  systems as I am seeing more problems in that area appearing around 50K miles. 
I have found that it is best to just replace all coils and plugs when random misfires start appearing - a little pricey but saves multiple trips for the same problem to a dealership  or your own time. Cop systems Di-electrics start breaking down about 50-60k. Part of this is running plugs to 100k, that center electrode is almost non-existant by then. Evidently causes  a higher draw on the coils? just a guess nothing to back that up, but doing so has saved me from tearing hair out chasing the problem.
My observations from the random mix of stuff that comes through my shop- I am not an auto service center.


----------



## Highbeam

blades said:


> 7.3 is a good eng. but some issues due arise  Crank sensor was an early one. injector wiring is in the head gaskets around $750 for the gaskets. Turbo bearings  and gate.  Also Ford stopped making the GEM module for these and they are dang near un-obtainum from anywhere.  .



Sorry Blades, I own a 7.3 and am familiar with them. The crank sensor is a little push in sensor that takes a 10mm wrench to swap out if needed on the side of the road. Ford did a recall and the new ones don't fail. The injector wiring is under the valve covers and has nothing to do with the head gaskets. The wiring can fail and replacement is cheap, around 50$ per side, and all you have to do is remove the valve cover for it. Turbo bearings are not a common failure (it's just a bushing with oil), and the wastegate never fails. Maybe you are thinking about the 6.0?

I own a diesel and do enjoy it but I got a good deal. If replacing my current truck I would probably go gas.


----------



## Bad LP

begreen said:


> From what I've read a stock a 2500HD 6.0L with the 4.10 gears is lucky to get over 13mpg. The folks with the 3.73 rear are doing a bit better.


2015 2500HD w/4.10's empty. Tire pressure at 45PSI.

This mornings ride was 280 miles from 0400 to 0832. What I saw from the display in the last 50 miles. The high was high speed back roads 35-65 and the low was highway running 72-78. Hit more traffic than normal so that prevented the low from dropping into the 12's when I'm running up to 85-90.

High average 16.4

Low average 14.4

Pulling the 11,000 pound boat dumps the mileage into 6's.


----------



## begreen

That's decent, not sure why the national average is lower. Lead feet or they are all driving way over the speed limit.


----------



## Highbeam

begreen said:


> That's decent, not sure why the national average is lower. Lead feet or they are all driving way over the speed limit.



The on-board computers are notoriously inaccurate. I log each tank fill, miles driven, price per gallon, and mpg calculated with a calculator. Never trust the lie-o-meter!


----------



## Bad LP

Highbeam said:


> The on-board computers are notoriously inaccurate. I log each tank fill, miles driven, price per gallon, and mpg calculated with a calculator. Never trust the lie-o-meter!



Explain this. 

I know my normal trip is 275 miles to be exact. I just filled up with 18.26 gallons at 4:00PM. HOWEVER

I had to ditch my normal route home this morning due to traffic. I'm sure this added miles to the trip. I also drove to lunch and that is 10 miles round trip and I just went to Staples and filled up after so lets add another 5 miles.

It's fair to say I am a lot closer to going over 300 miles today so lets keep it at 300 miles.

300 miles at 18.26 gallons is 16.42 MPG. You're right The computer is off but in my favor. Even if I leave the known normal drive mileage alone and use my afternoon fuel purchase after the days driving I still got 15.06 MPG. I'm still happy with that.


----------



## Highbeam

Bad LP said:


> Explain this.
> 
> I know my normal trip is 275 miles to be exact. I just filled up with 18.26 gallons at 4:00PM. HOWEVER
> 
> I had to ditch my normal route home this morning due to traffic. I'm sure this added miles to the trip. I also drove to lunch and that is 10 miles round trip and I just went to Staples and filled up after so lets add another 5 miles.
> 
> It's fair to say I am a lot closer to going over 300 miles today so lets keep it at 300 miles.
> 
> 300 miles at 18.26 gallons is 16.42 MPG. You're right The computer is off but in my favor. Even if I leave the known normal drive mileage alone and use my afternoon fuel purchase after the days driving I still got 15.06 MPG. I'm still happy with that.



Explain what? Sometimes the sun even shines on a dog's butt. If you want real data you need to fill to the same level each time and use real numbers in a real calculator. Another fun fact is that speedometers (and therefor odometers) are often not accurate at all. Need to verify with GPS or the freeway "speedometer check stations".


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Highbeam said:


> Explain what? Sometimes the sun even shines on a dog's butt. If you want real data you need to fill to the same level each time and use real numbers in a real calculator. Another fun fact is that speedometers (and therefor odometers) are often not accurate at all. Need to verify with GPS or the freeway "speedometer check stations".



True, speedometers tend to read fast and odometers tend to read too high. But even though they are both driven off the same gear (for mechanical speedo's) it's possible for the two to be inaccurate in different directions due to the way mechanical speedometers convert rotary motion into a static display. I'm not sure if digital speedometers have the same issues or not.


----------



## Bad LP

Wow!

My GPS speed reads the same as the truck on two devices.

Some of you guys are wound way to tight.

If I need to be concerned over a few miles I'll fire up the HP 11C and save every shred of paper to prove my point. Fact is I clearly stated my point with facts and I will not go into battle over something so stupid. (My father was a 38 year software engineer for missile systems guidance) I know how engineers live with a slide rule. 

A snap shot of my drive today dismisses your theory on inaccuracy of on board systems. That is of course taking my word versus obtaining my head implanted micro GPS device reading a whatchmacallit only trying to prove to your post that I'm lying.  

I burn wood. I like to burn wood. I love the work (sometimes) of burning wood. My body needs the work out of burning wood.

I would never buy a half ton rated pick up again.


----------



## Grateful11

Wife has a Tundra with a 5.7L V8 4.30 rear end and 4WD. 5000 miles on it now and it's averaging 15.3 mpg by a calculator not the computer, computer says 15.9 mpg. She does a fair amount of hauling feed and seed and towing loads of hay and fertilizer and calves to the sale barn. She's towed as much as 8500# and said it tows better than any truck she's ever had. She grew on a dairy so she's driven about everything out there.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Grateful11 said:


> Wife has a Tundra with a 5.7L V8 4.30 rear end and 4WD. 5000 miles on it now and it's averaging 15.3 mpg by a calculator not the computer, computer says 15.9 mpg. She does a fair amount of hauling feed and seed and towing loads of hay and fertilizer and calves to the sale barn. She's towed as much as 8500# and said it tows better than any truck she's ever had. She grew on a dairy so she's driven about everything out there.



People who want their MPG numbers to reflect actual consumption need to correct for odometer errors whether using the trip computer or manually calculating. Those who just want a ballpark figure and don't care if it's off by 5% or even 10% can just ignore the built-in inaccuracies. Most, but not all, trip computers I've used and double-checked for accuracy are somewhat optimistic. And any odometer optimism adds on top of that. There is a 5 mile odometer check on the highway near my home that I use to check odometer accuracy for any new vehicle I buy.

So, yeah, it's true. Sometimes the numbers reported are pure fantasy and, if the odometer is optimistic even manually calculating your mpg won't uncover that error.


----------



## Jazzberry

I put well over 200,000 miles on a used 2001 Dodge 2500 Cummins and sold it for almost what I paid for it. Don't even want to tell you the mpg I was getting cause you wouldn't believe it. Had a smile on my face every time I started it up. Half ton pickups don't come close to that thing no matter what egos say. Funny thing is I am a devout Chevy guy currently with a half ton Chevy that I think is a great truck also. Even though I am happy with my 1/2 ton it will never measure up to my old Dodge Diesel.


----------



## Highbeam

Grateful11 said:


> Wife has a Tundra with a 5.7L V8 4.30 rear end and 4WD. 5000 miles on it now and it's averaging 15.3 mpg by a calculator not the computer, computer says 15.9 mpg. She does a fair amount of hauling feed and seed and towing loads of hay and fertilizer and calves to the sale barn. She's towed as much as 8500# and said it tows better than any truck she's ever had. She grew on a dairy so she's driven about everything out there.



The new half tons are coming with very high ratings for power, towing, and hauling plus get very good mpg while empty for some reason. I look at the tow ratings of some of these new half tons and find that they are actually higher than the 10,000 lb tow rating on my F350 diesel! Payload capacity is often close as well, my F350 has a 2400# capacity using real numbers from a scale compared to the GVWR.

Half tons from this last decade are not the same as half tons from the 90s. Also worth noting is that even the current F350 has MUCH higher ratings than my 2000 model year truck. They've all been "super sized". Even the fuel tanks are much larger across the board.

Most of the mpg advantage of the diesel is now gone through a combination of choking the diesel with emissions garbage and the technology for gas engines improving. I don't expect the premium on resale for used diesels will continue so recouping that extra purchase cost for the diesel will no longer be so easy. I've also seen repair bills for my diesel driving friends that are well over 6000$ for something silly like injectors that bolt onto the top of the engine. I worry about the day when a minor repair will cause my beloved diesel truck to be "not worth fixing".


----------



## Squirrely

This is quite the thread resurrection!   Shows how trucks are a perennially popular topic.

I've had good luck with small Toyota pickups, and always buy the cheapest single cab new, with a small engine, manual transmission, and no options so as to get the best mileage.

Greg


----------



## Squirrely

This is quite the thread resurrection!   Shows how trucks are a perennially popular topic.

I've had good luck with small Toyota pickups, and always buy the cheapest single cab new, with a small engine, manual transmission, and no options so as to get the best mileage.

Greg


----------



## brenndatomu

Highbeam said:


> I look at the tow ratings of some of these new half tons and find that they are actually higher than the 10,000 lb tow rating on my F350 diesel! Payload capacity is often close as well, my F350 has a 2400# capacity using real numbers from a scale compared to the GVWR.
> 
> Half tons from this last decade are not the same as half tons from the 90s. Also worth noting is that even the current F350 has MUCH higher ratings than my 2000 model year truck. They've all been "super sized". Even the fuel tanks are much larger across the board.


Yep. Just bought a new F250 at work, 10k # GVWR. That truck in the late 90s was 8600 # GVWR. F350 (SRW) was 9k, had to go to a F350 DRW to get 10k or up.
This new truck has a very firm ride...might loosen up with a few miles...dunno.


----------



## Grateful11

Highbeam said:


> The new half tons are coming with very high ratings for power, towing, and hauling plus get very good mpg while empty for some reason. I look at the tow ratings of some of these new half tons and find that they are actually higher than the 10,000 lb tow rating on my F350 diesel! Payload capacity is often close as well, my F350 has a 2400# capacity using real numbers from a scale compared to the GVWR.
> 
> Half tons from this last decade are not the same as half tons from the 90s. Also worth noting is that even the current F350 has MUCH higher ratings than my 2000 model year truck. They've all been "super sized". Even the fuel tanks are much larger across the board.
> 
> Most of the mpg advantage of the diesel is now gone through a combination of choking the diesel with emissions garbage and the technology for gas engines improving. I don't expect the premium on resale for used diesels will continue so recouping that extra purchase cost for the diesel will no longer be so easy. I've also seen repair bills for my diesel driving friends that are well over 6000$ for something silly like injectors that bolt onto the top of the engine. I worry about the day when a minor repair will cause my beloved diesel truck to be "not worth fixing".



Toyota uses an SAE standard for tow rating. Chevy, Ford and Dodge use their own standard for rating towing capacity. Her Tundra has a 38 gallon fuel tank, not too bad at $2/gallon but I hate to see it when it goes back up north $3.

"Toyota has certifications for its entire towing-equipped lineup, including every Toyota pick-up truck, SUV, and minivan. Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J2807 and has certification including a comprehensive test of the vehicle’s engine, transmission, cooling system, axles and structural rigidity to handle a rated load so customers will know that rated Toyota vehicles have survived the industry’s harshest test methods. "


----------



## Highbeam

Grateful11 said:


> Toyota uses an SAE standard for tow rating. Chevy, Ford and Dodge use their own standard for rating towing capacity. Her Tundra has a 38 gallon fuel tank, not too bad at $2/gallon but I hate to see it when it goes back up north $3.
> 
> "Toyota has certifications for its entire towing-equipped lineup, including every Toyota pick-up truck, SUV, and minivan. Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J2807 and has certification including a comprehensive test of the vehicle’s engine, transmission, cooling system, axles and structural rigidity to handle a rated load so customers will know that rated Toyota vehicles have survived the industry’s harshest test methods. "



38 gallons is really nice when you get 10 mpg. You can actually go 350 miles which is a 6 hour tow. Don't try and tell me that "you have to stop to pee anyway" because stopping to pee is easy. Stopping to refuel while towing a 35 foot long, 12' tall trailer, in an unfamiliar fuel station is a major pain. It cost the same to fill the 38 gallon tank twice as it does to fill my 24 gallon diesel tank three times. Just way easier to only do it twice!

Tow ratings are somewhat fake and not a real rating since it isn't stamped into the door jamb but however it's calculated the tow ratings have been rising fast for all full sized trucks.


----------



## Woody5506

I drive a '16 Silverado Duramax LTZ which is a company truck but my primary vehicle. The fact is, nobody needs a truck for it's full potential 100% of the time. All I can say is when I show up to haul something I don't think twice about weight. It's been nothing but solid and rides like a Cadillac compared to the 07 GMC duramax I drove before it.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Squirrely said:


> This is quite the thread resurrection!   Shows how trucks are a perennially popular topic.
> 
> I've had good luck with small Toyota pickups, and always buy the cheapest single cab new, with a small engine, manual transmission, and no options so as to get the best mileage.
> 
> Greg


Hows the rust ?  Mine was shot at 6yrs old.


----------



## Squirrely

Seasoned Oak said:


> Hows the rust ?  Mine was shot at 6yrs old.



Toyotas do have frame rust problems, but there's no snow or salted roads in Southern California. I bought this Toyota new in 1996. The pic is when I sold it in 2013. The frame and body were both rust free.







Greg


----------



## begreen

Woody5506 said:


> I drive a '16 Silverado Duramax LTZ which is a company truck but my primary vehicle. The fact is, nobody needs a truck for it's full potential 100% of the time. All I can say is when I show up to haul something I don't think twice about weight. It's been nothing but solid and rides like a Cadillac compared to the 07 GMC duramax I drove before it.


I ended up getting a Ford F150 with the heavy duty suspension and trailer package. You are sure right, these trucks are nothing like those of even just a decade ago. They are much quieter and a lot more comfortable. Unloaded it gets about the same mileage as my 4cyl old Ford Ranger which is astounding considering the difference in weight and payload. I've had about a ton load on the truck and it barely grunts. Lots of extra power from just a 3.5L six.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Is that new BG?  2017?


----------



## begreen

No, it is used. A 2013 model with the steel body, 3.5L ecoboost motor.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

begreen said:


> No, it is used. A 2013 model with the steel body, 3.5L ecoboost motor.


Good move. Iv found super deals on Regular cab,  4x2 trucks just a few Yrs old. Since everyone seems to want the 4x4 Ext cabs, the Regular cab 2 w Dr. prices come down fast. IIl be keeping my 20 yr old 4x4  ext cab 3/4 ton so i dont need another.


----------



## Squirrely

Seasoned Oak said:


> Good move. Iv found super deals on Regular cab,  4x2 trucks just a few Yrs old.



I always buy new, and cheap simple single cab stick shift 4 x 2 half ton's are my work truck of choice. 
The last one was $10k cash out the door. I used it for 17 years, sold it for $4k and applied the money to a new 2012 single cab, for a net cost of $15k cash out the door.





There's hardly anything to go wrong with them because they have no expensive options. It has metal non electric door keys and the windows roll up and down with a hand crank. With a small engine and a stick shift it averages 24 mpg loaded with materials.  And it earns its keep because it gets used every day for work. 

Greg


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Squirrely said:


> I always buy new,
> 
> Greg


That first year of depreciation is a deal breaker for me.  Im finding 2 to 3 yr old trucks for half price with 20 to 30 k  not quite broke in for a truck.  Ill probably get a 30+K truck for 15.


----------



## Squirrely

I don't consider $6k in depreciation amortized over 17 years to be taking much of a hit...

...and I love buying brand new trucks. 


Greg


----------



## Jazzberry

My advice is get what you want when you buy. Making payments for 5 years on something you wish you had spent a little more on and got what you really wanted sucks. Then maybe you'll be happy for many years like Squirrely.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Squirrely said:


> I always buy new, and cheap simple single cab stick shift 4 x 2 half ton's are my work truck of choice.



If you want a full sized 1/2 truck with M/T, I think you are stuck with one option and it's a diesel. Kind of a moot point for me because I prefer gas to diesel and an A/T has a number of important advantages these days. I won't be replacing my 8 year old F-150 until I can buy a better all electric half-ton. I figure that will be before my current truck reaches 16 years.

But, yeah, it's smart to conserve money that way (or by buying depreciated vehicles)until you reach your retirement goals. I'm always shocked how many people have NO plan for retirement.


----------



## timfromohio

Squirrely said:


> I always buy new, and cheap simple single cab stick shift 4 x 2 half ton's are my work truck of choice.
> The last one was $10k cash out the door. I used it for 17 years, sold it for $4k and applied the money to a new 2012 single cab, for a net cost of $15k cash out the door.
> 
> View attachment 200052
> 
> 
> There's hardly anything to go wrong with them because they have no expensive options. It has metal non electric door keys and the windows roll up and down with a hand crank. With a small engine and a stick shift it averages 24 mpg loaded with materials.  And it earns its keep because it gets used every day for work.
> 
> Greg





I drove a stripped down F150 for a decade - same configuration as your Taco.  Manual everything, 5sp, smallest engine available (V6), regular cab, short bed.  Extremely reliable, I routinely abused it, and it got 20mpg back/forth to work.  I paid $12k brand new for it and got $4k on a trade in.  I miss it!  Had to move on though - wife didn't like stick shift, have 2 kids (needed more than regular cab), and got tired on 1wd in NEOhio.  Great configuration though.  Not sure its an option anymore.


----------



## timfromohio

PS - when I traded it in it still had the original battery!


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Squirrely said:


> I don't consider $6k in depreciation amortized over 17 years to be taking much of a hit...
> 
> ...and I love buying brand new trucks.
> 
> 
> Greg


Sometimes it makes sense . Like when you get a pile of incentives and 0% interest.  And some trucks dont depreciate that fast like the standard cab 2Wd ones do. Ford gives load of incentives lately.


----------



## Hogwildz

The problem with running a 1/2 ton as a 1 ton is, no matter how much you beef up the shocks, springs, tires etc, the rear end, axles, housing, bearings & seals etc, are rated for 1/2 ton. Occasional loads would be fine, but constant 1 ton load, in time you're going to kill those gears, axles, bearings etc.

If it was merely a case of uprating springs etc, there would be no need or sales of 3/4 & 1 tons. The drivetrain, rear ratio,. and other components come into play when rating is involved, not just springs & air helper bags.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Hogwildz said:


> The problem with running a 1/2 ton as a 1 ton is, no matter how much you beef up the shocks, springs, tires etc, the rear end, axles, housing, bearings & seals etc, are rated for 1/2 ton. Occasional loads would be fine, but constant 1 ton load, in time you're going to kill those gears, axles, bearings etc.



That's a good point and I agree.

But most trucks I see around here are run with no load over 90% of the time. So in many cases it would make sense to have a 1/2 ton that could occasionally do the job of a 1 ton.


----------



## Hogwildz

WoodyIsGoody said:


> That's a good point and I agree.
> 
> But most trucks I see around here are run with no load over 90% of the time. So in many cases it would make sense to have a 1/2 ton that could occasionally do the job of a 1 ton.


Agreed.
I have loaded my Ranger full to equal about 1/3 cord of wood maybe a little more, but every time I was waiting for something to let loose. I don't do it anymore, as I have pole length delivered to my property and process on site. It's always that one time, that gets ya.


----------



## bholler

WoodyIsGoody said:


> That's a good point and I agree.
> 
> But most trucks I see around here are run with no load over 90% of the time. So in many cases it would make sense to have a 1/2 ton that could occasionally do the job of a 1 ton.


And absolutly people who use their trucks like that should have a 1/2 ton.  Or better yet a car and a beater truck like me.  Only use the truck when you need a truck


----------



## Hogwildz

bholler said:


> And absolutly people who use their trucks like that should have a 1/2 ton.  Or better yet a car and a beater truck like me.  Only use the truck when you need a truck


In this area of PA, you also have to watch your back with State Police, who will pull you over and drive your pick up on portable scales and fine you right on the spot. PA state & municipalities are all about collecting fines to line the coffers, although technically they are not supposed to do it for state & local income, Yeah okay


----------



## bholler

Hogwildz said:


> In this area of PA, you also have to watch your back with State Police, who will pull you over and drive your pick up on portable scales and fine you right on the spot.


We dont see that issue here.  If we did i would still be in trouble.  My 1 ton is only registered as a 1/2 ton.  And i am also regularly over a ton.


----------



## Lloyd the redneck

Oh boy. That is special.  The common man can't even use a pickup with out harassment from the state. Sad times


----------



## 3fordasho

WoodyIsGoody said:


> If you want a full sized 1/2 truck with M/T, I think you are stuck with one option and it's a diesel. .



Curious who offers this combination? (full sized half ton, manual transmission and diesel)


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

3fordasho said:


> Curious who offers this combination? (full sized half ton, manual transmission and diesel)



I think Dodge. Unless they stopped.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Lloyd the redneck said:


> Oh boy. That is special.  The common man can't even use a pickup with out harassment from the state. Sad times



You think that's bad, try driving your truck after you've had a 12 pack fishin' with the boys! The State don't give a hoot about one's individual freedoms, they might even take your license away just 'cause you were having a few cold refreshments on the lake on a sunny Saturday. And that's before they catch you over-loading it  with those three elk you shot on the way home from the lake! If they had a sense of fairness they would give you an award for getting three nice ones before the rest ran off and settin' a good example of how to safely distribute the weight in the bed when you have an extra heavy load.


----------



## Squirrely

WoodyIsGoody said:


> But most trucks I see around here are run with no load over 90% of the time. So in many cases it would make sense to have a 1/2 ton that could occasionally do the job of a 1 ton.



My single cab half ton is always loaded with tools and materials, but it's only about 600 pounds, so it suits my needs perfectly.The 4 cylinder engine, 5 speed manual transmission and 3.31 rear end combination make for decent mileage.




In 5th gear the engine turns 2,000 rpms @ 60 mph, And the average combined mileage of 24 mpg loaded. Unloaded freeway only mileage is better. I took an 800+ mile round trip to Sacramento and averaged 30.6 mpg. 

Greg


----------



## Lloyd the redneck

A dwi is pretty different from a few extra logs in the truck. If you are dangerously overloaded to the point it's hard to stay on the road I understand  but otherwise it happens. Sometimes you overload to save that last 2 hour round trip. But then drive accordingly slow down and give yourself lots of room to stop. Better yet take the road less traveled. If the extra weight was ruining the roads I see a reason for the enforcement but it's not.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Hogwildz said:


> The problem with running a 1/2 ton as a 1 ton is, .


The newer 1/2 ton weight specs have been creeping up to the point where they equal the older 3/4 ton . Even tow ratings are getting higher ,some 1/2 ton trucks are rated higher towing than my 1995 Silverado K2500 . I think the Mfg. are beefing up the 1/2 tons so they can claim best in class ratings.


----------



## Squirrely

Seasoned Oak said:


> The newer 1/2 ton weight specs have been creeping up to the point where they equal the older 3/4 ton . Even tow ratings are getting higher ,some 1/2 ton trucks are rated higher towing than my 1995 Silverado K2500 . I think the Mfg. are beefing up the 1/2 tons so they can claim best in class ratings.



This is true. The difference between my last half ton and this one is night and day. It's much larger and 400 pounds heavier. The old one was more of a mini pickup.


----------



## Woody5506

We routinely put 1 ton skids of aluminum oxide in my truck with zero issue. Plenty of times we've had to put 2 skids in which has also caused zero issues, but still it's something I'm glad only needs to be done every so often and not daily.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Lloyd the redneck said:


> A dwi is pretty different from a few extra logs in the truck. If you are dangerously overloaded to the point it's hard to stay on the road I understand  but otherwise it happens. Sometimes you overload to save that last 2 hour round trip. But then drive accordingly slow down and give yourself lots of room to stop. Better yet take the road less traveled. If the extra weight was ruining the roads I see a reason for the enforcement but it's not.



Well,  all I had is 6-7 beers during a day on the lake, maybe it was 8 or 9, I'm not sure but I wasn't having any trouble keepin' it between the lines. And those three elk in the bed might be a few hundred pounds over the legal limit but I loaded them forward and the weight is down low. And while it's true I was technically just inside the city limits when I shot those elk (I shot across the road that is the city limits, don't worry, I looked both ways and no cars were coming), the fact is, the entire herd was in the county proper and hunting season started in a mere 12  hours. I swear that officer just wanted to mess with my freedoms! So sad that a reasonable man can't do as he reasonably pleases!

The point is that standards exist for a reason (the law can't be subjective). A DWI is .08, hunting season starts at a specific time of day and in a specific geographical area, a truck is rated to carry up to a specific load and it's not legal to hunt when there is a public road between you and your prey. That said, most cops I've met are only going to pull you over for being over-loaded if it looks unsafe to them. Most personal trucks over-loaded a little bit and driving in an otherwise responsible manner are not going to get attention from law enforcement. Commercial trucking is a different matter. The limits are strict and the operators are expected to abide by the limits exactly.

Have I ever over loaded my truck? You bet I have. It's rated at 1750 and I have had it grossly overloaded on public roads (more than double). I drove a mile on a deserted Forest Service road at 15-20 mph. Then I turned onto a State road with no visible traffic and drove 100 yards at 20 mph before turning onto a private road. I was ready to take a ticket (although the chances were as close to nil as you can get). But I wouldn't disparage law enforcement if I had been ticketed. I broke the law and deserved a ticket if caught! I don't see this as a taking of my individual freedom as much as I see it a tool to make it safer for all.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Back when there were no worries:


----------



## jwfirebird

you see ranger size trucks carrying stuff like that here all the time, live in a rural area, or tractor attachments hanging out and over, back wheels rubbing. hay you see alot too on all the size trucks just as high you can stack it without it tipping. im sure thats within specs.. 


i worked on alot of trucks, mine and i worked at a fleet place, and my families, dodges leak everything and the electrics are terrible and expensive, had a f150, bronco, 550, 250 work van, all left me stranded more than once, the 550 in the middle of jan, waiting for a tow in something like that is a few hours every time too, none of my gms ever left me even broke. they just like to rust so i always get them zeibarted. 


the newer ratings seem like sales gimmick more than anything had a 89 c1500, f44 350 was probably rated for 1k or less gvw but i had more than a ton in it a bunch of times, hauled it fine, nice and stable, stopped good,  was setup like a 1500hd, my avalanche is too, 3/4 hydroboost, disc brakes all that, i would never haul more than a 5 hundred in any half ton they are all way too squishy, well all but dodge but they ride too bad unloaded too put up with it.


----------



## Sean McGillicuddy

Some call them Ranger-250's


----------



## sloeffle

Not to beat the dead horse.

I bought a 3/4 ton for greater stopping power / bigger and heavier duty brakes. I can care less about HP and tow ratings. Any modern truck 1/2 ton can tow a lot but I would like to see it stop it in a pinch.

To quote my buddy's dad, who has been a grain farmer all of his life: "it is better to have too much truck than not enough"


----------



## Jazzberry

If I had 2 trucks side by side, one my old rough riding noisy 2001 Dodge 4x4 2500 diesel and a late model comfy quiet 1/2 ton I would jump in the Dodge every single time. Something about being in a real truck makes me happy.


----------



## blades

Running gear - that is the difference  as you move up the scale, Ford at one time made a heavy 1/2 ton ( or call it light duty 3/4 ton) - basically a 250 chassis with lighter springs and a 150 body-last ones were about 1997.  starting with the 98/99 models the bodies and chassis were the same for the 250/350 pumpkins and axles were different between the two, by 02/03 everything except the springs were the same. 06 is a transitional year lot of odd stuff there that wasn't carried forward into 07( 250/350)  don't remember when the 150 got the torsion front end support might have been with the body style change around 96/97 model year that carried on until about 03 when it went back to a coil/ strut type assembly up front. Can't say where it's all at after 06 as I haven't had anything newer than that to wrench on.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Planning to get new or (almost new truck in the next 6 months or so but ill keep my older trucks for the grunt work.  Also for trips in the woods ,i dont care if my  23 or 25 yr old truck gets another scratch on the paint or gets all muddy.  The new one will rule the road in the asphalt jungle.


----------



## jetsam

Seasoned Oak said:


> Planning to get new or (almost new truck in the next 6 months or so but ill keep my older trucks for the grunt work.  Also for trips in the woods ,i dont care if my  23 or 25 yr old truck gets another scratch on the paint or gets all muddy.  The new one will rule the road in the asphalt jungle.



I do a motorcycle and a subcompact car for going to work and the grocery store, ratty old truck for banging through the woods and hauling stuff.

Guess which of those is more fun, though.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

jetsam said:


> I do a motorcycle and a subcompact car for going to work and the grocery store, ratty old truck for banging through the woods and hauling stuff.
> 
> Guess which of those is more fun, though.



Obviously the motorcycle is more fun!


----------



## Dobish

i beat up my truck every day, whether I like it or not! At this point, its mostly rust, but its probably the best $300 I have spent in a while... That being said, i realize that I should not be putting more than 1/2 ton in it... but i do, and I drive VERY slowly and only short distances....


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Dobish said:


> i beat up my truck every day, whether I like it or not! At this point, its mostly rust, but its probably the best $300 I have spent in a while... That being said, i realize that I should not be putting more than 1/2 ton in it... but i do, and I drive VERY slowly and only short distances....
> View attachment 200799


And parts are cheap for these classics. i just got a 93  1/2 ton with a stick for a gift ,put a classic plate on it. My new mountain camping truck.


----------



## jetsam

Seasoned Oak said:


> And parts are cheap for these classics. i just got a 93  1/2 ton with a stick for a gift ,put a classic plate on it. My new mountain camping truck.



Maybe I should see if those plates are any cheaper. My old banger has 17 years on your 'classic'. 

Related trivia: Did you know that Dodge was still putting oil bath air filters on 3/4 ton trucks in the late 70s?  I thought those things were gone in the 60s, except for heavy equipment.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Plate is a one time charge in PA ,about $12 more than the 1 yr plate but its good indefinitely.  No 1 yr renewal. Plus a hear yur insurance is 1/2 price with this plate so thats a much bigger savings.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

My daily driver truck is a 95 K2500 Silverado in fabulous condition. 23 yrs old. I dont think you can get a classic tag for a heavy truck.


----------



## jetsam

I'm sure NY is very different. Between licensing, inspection, and insurance, buying the truck is the smallest expense.


----------



## Dobish

Seasoned Oak said:


> And parts are cheap for these classics. i just got a 93  1/2 ton with a stick for a gift ,put a classic plate on it. My new mountain camping truck.


This one's the extended cab with automatic (i wish it was stick), a tape player, an after market 6 disc cd-changer, and a welded (rusted) in tow ball that is perfect for making sure you smash your shins.  I think it might hit 200K in the next few months! its my daily driver as well...


----------



## Sean McGillicuddy

Dobish said:


> This one's the extended cab with automatic (i wish it was stick), a tape player, an after market 6 disc cd-changer, and a welded (rusted) in tow ball that is perfect for making sure you smash your shins.  I think it might hit 200K in the next few months! its my daily driver as well...


----------



## jetsam

Dobish said:


> This one's the extended cab with automatic (i wish it was stick), a tape player, an after market 6 disc cd-changer, and a welded (rusted) in tow ball that is perfect for making sure you smash your shins.



I will see your rusty welded-on shin-bashing ball and raise you...






Three vacant ball holes, an extra reciever in case the other 4 balls are not satisfactory, a vacant pintle hook mount, and on the front of the truck...







Two rusty welded-on balls and a square reciever in case you don't like the first two. And as a bonus...







Toolbox also contains ball hitches. You know, in case you run out.


Don't ask me, it was like this when I got it!


----------



## Dobish

jetsam said:


> I will see your rusty welded-on shin-bashing ball and raise you...
> 
> View attachment 200835
> 
> 
> Three vacant ball holes, an extra reciever in case the other 4 balls are not satisfactory, a vacant pintle hook mount, and on the front of the truck...
> 
> 
> View attachment 200836
> 
> 
> Two rusty welded-on balls and a square reciever in case you don't like the first two. And as a bonus...
> 
> 
> View attachment 200837
> 
> 
> Toolbox also contains ball hitches. You know, in case you run out.
> 
> 
> Don't ask me, it was like this when I got it!


holy balls....


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Got my radiator support panel for the 93 at the u pull it today.  $30 and about 20 minutes work.  A new one was only $70 but the shipping was also $70. 
Either way thats cheap for a 5 foot by 2 foot high steel  structure that the radiator and the 2 front fenders mount to.  Still need a windshield ,brake cyl, and  fix the wipers and she will be ready to mount the classic tags.


----------



## jetsam

Nice. I just got new power steering lines in (had  leak and it was hard to spot, because the snowplow hydraulics were leaking onto the power steering leak, and it's the same fluid). I need to get the new carb's choke hooked up to the cab and I'll be ready to plow!

It still needs electrical troubleshooting to get the blinkers going - and an exhaust system - to be street legal, but I didn't buy it to go on the street, so that stuff's low priority.


----------



## jwfirebird

you can put non commercial plates on a truck, many people dont know because they dont tell you crap at the dmv, its a bit cheaper. the antique plates are the same price but you can put them basically anything over 26 years in ny. the ins is way cheaper though i have agreed value from grundy and its 156 a year. obviously varies by the area and car, all sorts of regs too, garage and other cars to drive to work, seems easy to me no mileage restriction


----------



## festerw

I looked at classic plates in PA when I had my old truck.  The thing that stopped me was the fact that PennDot specifies any truck with a Antique, Classic or Vintage plate isn't allowed to carry a load, which sort of defeats the purpose of a truck.

I'm sure you could get away with it but my travels would take me on decently patrolled state highways.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

festerw said:


> I looked at classic plates in PA when I had my old truck.  The thing that stopped me was the fact that PennDot specifies any truck with a Antique, Classic or Vintage plate isn't allowed to carry a load, which sort of defeats the purpose of a truck.
> 
> I'm sure you could get away with it but my travels would take me on decently patrolled state highways.


I asked the Notary if there are any restrictions and she said only that its not your daily driver. But i guess she may be unaware about load restrictions.


----------



## festerw

Seasoned Oak said:


> I asked the Notary if there are any restrictions and she said only that its not your daily driver. But i guess she may be unaware about load restrictions.



Yea there are a few restrictions, not daily is technically only one day a week.

FACT SHEET July 2017 - over - Antique, Classic Vehicles and Vintage Registration Plates

PURPOSE This fact sheet outlines the policy for issuance of antique, classic and vintage registration plates. 

DEFINITION OF ANTIQUE AND CLASSIC MOTOR VEHICLES AND VINTAGE REGISTRATION PLATES Antique Motor Vehicle - A motor vehicle, but not a reproduction thereof, manufactured more than 25 years prior to the current year which has been maintained in or restored to a condition which is substantially in conformance with manufacturer specifications. Classic Motor Vehicle - A motor vehicle, but not a reproduction thereof, manufactured at least 15 years prior to the current year which has been maintained in or restored to a condition which is substantially in conformity with manufacturer specifications and appearance. Vintage Registration Plates - A vintage registration plate is a “period-issued” registration plate from 1906 to 1976 to be displayed on an antique or classic vehicle with the same corresponding model year. Vintage registration plates are not manufactured or issued by PennDOT. Applicants are required to provide the vintage registration plate they wish to display on their antique or classic vehicle.
*

USE OF ANTIQUE, CLASSIC AND VINTAGE REGISTRATION PLATES The use of antique, classic and vintage registration plates is governed by Section 1340 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, which states: “It is unlawful for any person to operate a motorcycle or vehicle with antique, classic or vintage registration plates for general daily transportation. Permitted use shall be limited to participation in club activities, exhibits, tours, parades, occasional transportation and similar uses.” Occasional transportation and similar uses are defined as no more than one day a week. Although buses and trucks are eligible for antique, classic and vintage registration plates, buses MAY NOT be used to transport passengers and trucks MAY NOT haul cargo. Antique, classic and vintage registration plates are not available for motorized pedalcycles or motor homes. No registration configuration will be duplicated. PennDOT recommends that applicants verify if the configuration of the vintage registration plate can be issued by checking the configuration on PennDOT’s website. To check personalized registration plate availability, visit PennDOT’s Driver and Vehicle Services website, www.dmv.pa.gov and select the Plate Availability link from the list of services under the Online Services heading. *

EXPIRATION OF ANTIQUE AND CLASSIC REGISTRATION PLATES Antique and classic registration plates and vintage registration plates (when displayed on an antique or classic vehicle) are permanent and are issued for the life of the vehicle while it is owned by the present owner. If the present owner sells the vehicle, the registration plate remains with the seller/owner and may be used on another qualified vehicle, provided the proper registration and title fees are paid. However, if ownership is transferred between spouses, or between parent and child, the original registration plate may be transferred with a title fee and a transfer fee. If the owner sells the vehicle and wants to give the new owner the registration plate, the seller must write a letter of release for the registration plate and give it to the new owner. The new owner should forward the letter to PennDOT, along with all appropriate documents and fees when applying for title and registration of the vehicle. The new owner must pay the full registration fee in order to use the registration plate. The transfer fee is not required in this case.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

I wont be hauling much cargo ,but i will be using it more than 1 day a week.  I dont think there is any monitoring being done and i dont rack up very many miles in  a years time. Less than 1000 .  Since i have 2 other newer vehicles it cant be considered my daily driver.


----------



## jetsam

They will ticket you for using a truck with historical plates in NY.  Basic liability insurance + registration for one year costs much more than the truck did. I explained to my agent that the truck would be lucky to get 500 miles a year on it, but that didn't get me far.

I guess $60 a month is not the end of the world, but it galls me that it costs the same if I wanted to add a new driver who drove the truck 30,000 miles a year, or if I wanted to add a fourth vehicle that really doesn't go on the road much. :\


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Glad i dont live in NY state .After the first year my  operating cost will be about $10 a month for Liability insurance and gas .The $75 for the classic plate is a one time charge. Even the first year its only $16.25 a month figuring in the cost of the plate.


----------



## jetsam

Seasoned Oak said:


> Glad i dont live in NY state .After the first year my  operating cost will be about $10 a month for Liability insurance and gas .The $75 for the classic plate is a one time charge. Even the first year its only $16.25 a month figuring in the cost of the plate.



I could go that route too, but 1) you're risking a ticket every time you go on a road and 2) the insurance won't cover any claims unless you can prove you were on your way to a parade or a car show.

At that point, since you are already functionally uninsured and also risking a ticket for your plates  any time you drive on a road.... why pay for this? I can get the same treatment for free by just not putting any plates on it. 


Hey officer, I was just on my way to the Work In Progress Car Show in some really boring place you've never heard of. Starts any minute now.  So, did you pull me over because my car is so cool?


----------



## jwfirebird

not that much of a stretch to me, those old trucks are cool and interesting, as much as any old car. my uncle has an old snow king he plays with that more than the duster and cuda. funny part is he worked for rochester tuning carbs for mostly gms forever. you see old cars at the show all the time 

i have them on my firebird and i have not been pulled over since i had them let alone anyone care whats on the car, inspection guy said between you and the cops all i check is safety stuff.

gready ny bastards want 50 per year for all 4 of my cars, my truck is registered as a car too. law says you cant go on expressways with car plates on a truck but no one is checking that around here and when before it was 50 to 100% more depending how much you told them you were going to haul 

most people around here have the farm plates, i dont think you have to pay for insurance or reg with those but same restrictions, you see them driving way further but hows to say you arent going to the feed store in the city

theres always some show or cruise you could say are going to, im for anything that gives the greedy bs less money because most of what we pay goes in there pocket one way or another


----------



## jetsam

jwfirebird said:


> not that much of a stretch to me, those old trucks are cool and interesting, as much as any old car. my uncle has an old snow king he plays with that more than the duster and cuda. funny part is he worked for rochester tuning carbs for mostly gms forever. you see old cars at the show all the time
> 
> i have them on my firebird and i have not been pulled over since i had them let alone anyone care whats on the car, inspection guy said between you and the cops all i check is safety stuff.
> 
> gready ny bastards want 50 per year for all 4 of my cars, my truck is registered as a car too. law says you cant go on expressways with car plates on a truck but no one is checking that around here and when before it was 50 to 100% more depending how much you told them you were going to haul
> 
> most people around here have the farm plates, i dont think you have to pay for insurance or reg with those but same restrictions, you see them driving way further but hows to say you arent going to the feed store in the city
> 
> theres always some show or cruise you could say are going to, im for anything that gives the greedy bs less money because most of what we pay goes in there pocket one way or another



Hey that's an idea... the truck does qualify for agricultural plates according to the DMV... so maybe that will help me with the insurance. I'll make some calls!


----------



## Seasoned Oak

jetsam said:


> I could go that route too, but 1) you're risking a ticket every time you go on a road
> 
> View attachment 200978


Im not worried. No 1 the statute does allow for occasional transportation . I estimate i got stopped in traffic perhaps 3 or 4 times in 45 years . How on earth can anyone tell how often you drive a particular vehicle. I do have to run the truck at least once or twice a week just to keep it in running condition ,battery charged ect. If by chance im in an accident ,i cant see my insurance company trying to deny a claim because i wasnt on my way to a car show. And i do have to get yearly inspections with a classic tag.  Its not my daily driver but i wont hesitate to use it when i want to.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Im not worried. No 1 the statute does allow for occasional transportation . I estimate i got stopped in traffic perhaps 3 or 4 times in 45 years . How on earth can anyone tell how often you drive a particular vehicle. I do have to run the truck at least once or twice a week just to keep it in running condition ,battery charged ect. If by chance im in an accident ,i cant see my insurance company trying to deny a claim because i wasnt on my way to a car show. And i do have to get yearly inspections with a classic tag.  Its not my daily driver but i wont hesitate to use it when i want to.


 Ok but what about the restriction of no cargo?  Not much of any way around that one.  And honestly what makes you think they would not deny a claim if you are in clear violation of state law and your insurance policy.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> Ok but what about the restriction of no cargo?  Not much of any way around that one.  And honestly what makes you think they would not deny a claim if you are in clear violation of state law and your insurance policy.


State law does allow occasional transportation use. Im not going to use it to haul loads of stone. its a half ton and i have a 3/4 ton truck for that.  My insurance co already has reduced rates for vehicles that are used occasionally regardless of what kind of plate they have. This truck also has a cap. Ill be using it for camping at my local gun club. "occasionally"    Iv also drove overloaded a hundred times in my 3/4 ton truck cuz it only had a half ton sticker  and never had a problem ,by finally after 15 yrs i got it upgraded.  Wont matter cuz the $158 fee is waived for retired people in PA another perk of the fine folks wasting money on lottery tickets.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> State law does allow occasional transportation use. Im not going to use it to haul loads of stone. its a half ton and i have a 3/4 ton truck for that.  My insurance co already has reduced rates for vehicles that are used occasionally regardless of what kind of plate they have. This truck also has a cap. Ill be using it for camping at my local gun club. "occasionally"    Iv also drove overloaded a hundred times in my 3/4 ton truck cuz it only had a half ton sticker  and never had a problem ,by finally after 15 yrs i got it upgraded.  Wont matter cuz the $158 fee is waived for retired people in PA another perk of the fine folks wasting money on lottery tickets.


Yes you can use it for occasional transport.  But you cannot use it to haul cargo.  That means no camping gear even.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> Yes you can use it for occasional transport.  But you cannot use it to haul cargo.  That means no camping gear even.


Ill take my chances. With all the guys out there hauling a ton or more on their half ton trucks and i dont hear much about anyone getting tickets.


----------



## Dobish

Seasoned Oak said:


> Ill take my chances. With all the guys out there hauling a ton or more on their half ton trucks and i dont hear much about anyone getting tickets.



I got pulled over with a dumpster load (nowhere near being overloaded).  Cop thought I was boozing it up after a day of work, saying I was swerving and crossed the line 3 times in 100 yards or something like that.  She walked up to the window, and asked me where I was headed, so i told her I was going to my office, "was I drinking"- "No officer", "are you having issues controlling your vehicle?" - "No officer, but my steering wheel has a lot of play in it. If you don't mind, I will show you that I can move it without my wheels turning", "oh, ok. Well be safe then"

*This has nothing to do with being the majority of this thread.


----------



## jetsam

NY doesn't have occasional use- it's only for going to car shows.   The insurance companies are on the same page, because first thing my insurance agent said when I said 'historical plates' was 'We won't cover any claims unless you can prove you were on the way to a car show'.

$800 a year for liability insurance will shake out to about $16 per mile on that truck. I can hire a chauffered limousine to conduct my concrete and lumber in luxury from Home Depot to my house for that.  ("Those 6x6s go around the back, Jeeves. I'll be over here enjoying a beverage if you need me.")

They have a laundry list of rules about farm plates, but there's also "agricultural" plates which are less restrictive. If there's an insurance discount for that, it may be my way through the maze.  I'll update once I get a couple quotes.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

How do you prove your on your way to anywhere?   Liability only is about $120 a yr for occasional use designation, so $10  a month. Even when i had a brand new vehicle with full coverage it was never $800 a yr ,i think like $550


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> How do you prove your on your way to anywhere?   Liability only is about $120 a yr for occasional use designation, so $10  a month. Even when i had a brand new vehicle with full coverage it was never $800 a yr ,i think like $550


Yes you can use a vehicle with classic plates occasionally in pa.  But that still doesn't get rid of the flack that you can't haul cargo in it.  And yes you probably won't get pulled over but if you do there goes your savings.  And if you get in an accident using your truck in a way you are not allowed to good luck with your insurance company.  To me it is not worth the risk.  And my truck is used commercially anyway so I couldn't get them regardless


----------



## Seasoned Oak

We had this same discussion on another thread about all the guys overloading their half ton trucks with pellets and wood. Didnt change anyones mind about it ,everyone doing it planned to continue overloading it.  No one had ever got fined for it althought its possible and its something you can readily see ,an overloaded truck with the bumper dragging.  I was against it because it can be dangerous to yourself and others and can also damage the truck. Even if i got pulled over i highly doubt i would get fined for some camping gear.  On the slightest chance i would get a fine for having "cargo" in the truck (which i highly doubt) one year of not having to pay a registration fee would probably cover it so  im not worried. And there is NO way my insurance co would not cover an accident for a technicality over the type of license plate ,i call BS on that one!


----------



## jetsam

Seasoned Oak said:


> We had this same discussion on another thread about all the guys overloading their half ton trucks with pellets and wood. Didnt change anyones mind about it ,everyone doing it planned to continue overloading it.  No one had ever got fined for it althought its possible and its something you can readily see ,an overloaded truck with the bumper dragging.  I was against it because it can be dangerous to yourself and others and can also damage the truck. Even if i got pulled over i highly doubt i would get fined for some camping gear.  On the slightest chance i would get a fine for having "cargo" in the truck (which i highly doubt) one year of not having to pay a registration fee would probably cover it so  im not worried. And there is NO way my insurance co would not cover an accident for a technicality over the type of license plate ,i call BS on that one!



It's not a technicality. They're selling a much cheaper policy that only covers the same activities allowed by historical plates, and they're up front about it.

Interestingly, the DMV's website does not match the actual NY vehicular code. The DMV says, "Historical license plates are new plates that DMV issues to a vehicle that was manufactured more than 25 years before the current calendar year and that is used only as a collector’s item or exhibition piece. The vehicle must not be used for daily transportation."

 The actual law says, "For each motor vehicle which is owned and operated as an exhibition piece or collectors item, and is used for participation in club activities, exhibit, tours, parades, occasional transportation and similar uses, but not used for general daily transportation..."

Note the "occasional transportation" in the middle!

I guess it's more profitable to enforce their version than the actual law?  Dunno.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

In  PA   "Classic" is different then  "Antique"   and have different designations. Classic Veh. need only be 15 yrs old. A 2002 vehicle could get a classic tag . Classic must be inspected yearly cuz they are used more and expected to log more miles . Antique 25 yrs old. Antique can not drive at night.  My insurance company has different policies depending on use.  Some of the categories are  Work, Family, Occasional use ect.  Im sure car insurance is different from state to state .  And certaily lic plates and their Req. are different


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

jetsam said:


> Interestingly, the DMV's website does not match the actual NY vehicular code. The DMV says, "Historical license plates are new plates that DMV issues to a vehicle that was manufactured more than 25 years before the current calendar year and that is used only as a collector’s item or exhibition piece. The vehicle must not be used for daily transportation."
> 
> The actual law says, "For each motor vehicle which is owned and operated as an exhibition piece or collectors item, and is used for participation in club activities, exhibit, tours, parades, occasional transportation and similar uses, but not used for general daily transportation..."
> 
> Note the "occasional transportation" in the middle!
> 
> I guess it's more profitable to enforce their version than the actual law?  Dunno.



I don't see any discrepancy between the administrative interpretation and the actual statute. The administrative interpretation is not as specific (doesn't go into the level of detail of what is allowed) but they both agree that daily transportation is not allowed. The administrative interpretation does not disallow "occasional transportation", it just doesn't mention it.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Seasoned Oak said:


> Antique 25 yrs old. Antique can not drive at night.



Say you're driving your "antique" 1991 Corvette 200 miles home after showing at a neighboring Vette club car show. If it gets dark on the way home you have to pull over and get a motel?


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> We had this same discussion on another thread about all the guys overloading their half ton trucks with pellets and wood. Didnt change anyones mind about it ,everyone doing it planned to continue overloading it.  No one had ever got fined for it althought its possible and its something you can readily see ,an overloaded truck with the bumper dragging.  I was against it because it can be dangerous to yourself and others and can also damage the truck. Even if i got pulled over i highly doubt i would get fined for some camping gear.  On the slightest chance i would get a fine for having "cargo" in the truck (which i highly doubt) one year of not having to pay a registration fee would probably cover it so  im not worried. And there is NO way my insurance co would not cover an accident for a technicality over the type of license plate ,i call BS on that one!


You obviously have not been involved in many insurance claims if you think they would not deny a claim for a "technicality"  which is actually a clear violation of the law.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

bholler said:


> You obviously have not been involved in many insurance claims if you think they would not deny a claim for a "technicality"  which is actually a clear violation of the law.



I agree, but the denial of coverage would be because the vehicle was being used for purposes that fall outside the insured uses. If it was just a fender-bender they might look the other way but, if you had the misfortune of causing someone death they would all of a sudden become very serious about enforcing the terms of the policy.


----------



## bholler

WoodyIsGoody said:


> I agree, but the denial of coverage would be because the vehicle was being used for purposes that fall outside the insured uses. If it was just a fender-bender they might look the other way but, if you had the misfortune of causing someone death they would all of a sudden become very serious about enforcing the terms of the policy.


Yes but many classic policies also have clauses in about adhering to regulations.  But you are right a simple fender bender would probably not get challenged.  But total someone's new BMW they might.


----------



## Lloyd the redneck

I don't license or insure my vehicles. Only one of them. The one my wife drives. And mostly cause the other 4 only see dirt roads and never make it into town!


----------



## bholler

Lloyd the redneck said:


> I don't license or insure my vehicles. Only one of them. The one my wife drives. And mostly cause the other 4 only see dirt roads and never make it into town!


You do realize you can still have an accident even out of town and on dirt roads right.  Guys like you driving without insurance raise the rates for the rest of us thanks for that.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> You obviously have not been involved in many insurance claims if you think they would not deny a claim for a "technicality"  which is actually a clear violation of the law.


If that were the case millions of accidents would not be covered as most of the time people are violating traffic laws during the accident. Running a stop sign ,speeding ,falling asleep ect ect. Iv had a few accidents in my 45 year driving career. At no time did my insurance company ever ask what kind of registration plate i had on my truck ,or if i even had any at all. Their only concern was who was at fault to figure out whos insurance pays the claim.  And if i had any claims in the previous 3 years they add a surcharge for a period of time.  Honestly i did not see a fraction  of this blowback to those driving a seriously overloaded truck which is a real danger to all those on the road as opposed to arguing over the definition of "occasional driving"    and insurance company policies. If you kill someone or cause a serious accident cause your truck is overloaded is light years away from getting in a serious accident while driving your classic vehicle 2 days in a weeks time vs one.  Any way when i get the policy ill read it carefully ,but i dont expect to find "the type of registration plate" in the list of reasons for denial of coverage. Im only getting liability ins. not full coverage .


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> You do realize you can still have an accident even out of town and on dirt roads right.  Guys like you driving without insurance raise the rates for the rest of us thanks for that.


Wow you sure are paranoid BH ,how do you sleep at night . Lighten up if you dont want to turn into an angry old man. If he gets into an accident without insurance on a dirt road he will pay for it the old fashioned way ,"out of pocket" .


----------



## Seasoned Oak

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Say you're driving your "antique" 1991 Corvette 200 miles home after showing at a neighboring Vette club car show. If it gets dark on the way home you have to pull over and get a motel?


Many times these are transported on a car carrier. But that is one requirement of an antique tag ,probably partly because no yearly inspections are required.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Wow you sure are paranoid BH ,how do you sleep at night . Lighten up if you dont want to turn into an angry old man. If he gets into an accident without insurance on a dirt road he will pay for it the old fashioned way ,"out of pocket" .


What about if he hits another car?  Did you ever notice that charge on your insurance for uninsured motorists?  How much do you think that charge is on our commercial policy with 6 vehicles on it?  Our trucks are on back dirt roads many times and could easily be hit by someone there.  And if they don't have insurance mine has to cover it.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> If that were the case millions of accidents would not be covered as most of the time people are violating traffic laws during the accident. Running a stop sign ,speeding ,falling asleep ect ect. Iv had a few accidents in my 45 year driving career. At no time did my insurance company ever ask what kind of registration plate i had on my truck ,or if i even had any at all. Their only concern was who was at fault to figure out whos insurance pays the claim.  And if i had any claims in the previous 3 years they add a surcharge for a period of time.  Honestly i did not see a fraction  of this blowback to those driving a seriously overloaded truck which is a real danger to all those on the road as opposed to arguing over the definition of "occasional driving"    and insurance company policies. If you kill someone or cause a serious accident cause your truck is overloaded is light years away from getting in a serious accident while driving your classic vehicle 2 days in a weeks time vs one.  Any way when i get the policy ill read it carefully ,but i dont expect to find "the type of registration plate" in the list of reasons for denial of coverage. Im only getting liability ins. not full coverage .


I have news for you they don't ask because they already know.  And I am assuming those accidents weren't involving vehicles with classic car registrations and insurance and all of the restrictions that go along with them


----------



## Seasoned Oak

WoodyIsGoody said:


> daily transportation is not allowed. The administrative interpretation does not disallow "occasional transportation", it just doesn't mention it.


"Occasional driving" is a very subjective ,and ambigious term.  Another thing is how would it be proven when and how many times you have driven a vehicle in a particular period of time. An officer stopping you for whatever,would have no way of knowing .  Just the fact that you have seferal other normally registered newer vehicles is your proof that your classic Veh is NOT your daily driver. And you can only drive one at a time. I always thought it unfair to pay the same amount of insurance on each vehicle you own, even thought you can only ever drive one at a time. But i guess from the Ins companies point of view ,you could be loaning them to family members or something  ,and all are actually on the road at the same time


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> What about if he hits another car?  Did you ever notice that charge on your insurance for uninsured motorists?  How much do you think that charge is on our commercial policy with 6 vehicles on it?  Our trucks are on back dirt roads many times and could easily be hit by someone there.  And if they don't have insurance mine has to cover it.


I expect that charge we all pay is 99.9% from irresponsible motorist who are driving ON the street without insurance. And there arr a LOT.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

We all pay that uninsured motorist fee. But sometimes i wonder how that is even legal for the Ins to be charging us.  im guessing its to protect US from the many drivers who dont have ins. who hit US , it just seems so unfair we have to pay for this. Should be  fund that uninsured motorist pay int when they get caught.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> We all pay that uninsured motorist fee. But sometimes i wonder how that is even legal for the Ins to be charging us.  im guessing its to protect US from the many drivers who dont have ins. who hit US , it just seems so unfair we have to pay for this. Should be  fund that uninsured motorist pay int when they get caught.


Exactly we are all paying for insurance for people like Lloyd who don't think anything will ever happen.  And dirt roads are still roads and unless they are all private roads you need insurance to drive on them.  He is not driving without insurance he is driving with insurance we pay for.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> Exactly we are all paying for insurance for people like Lloyd who don't think anything will ever happen.  And dirt roads are still roads and unless they are all private roads you need insurance to drive on them.  He is not driving without insurance he is driving with insurance we pay for.


There is mechanism for that and if you dont cover an accident you cause you can be sued to recover damages. I guess it just easier for the insurance  companies to slap the cost onto their already paying customers than to sue the absconders. I still dont think that should be allowed by law.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> There is mechanism for that and if you dont cover an accident you cause you can be sued to recover damages. I guess it just easier for the insurance  companies to slap the cost onto their already paying customers than to sue the absconders. I still dont think that should be allowed by law.


They will typically go after the uninsured but many times they can't get any money.  But none of that changes the fact that he is driving on insurance the rest of us are paying for.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> They will typically go after the uninsured but many times they can't get any money.  But none of that changes the fact that he is driving on insurance the rest of us are paying for.


Actually its insurance that pays you if you are hit by an uninsured ,they dont pay the guy that dont have insurance unless the accident is YOUR fault. In that case your ins. would pay anyway .


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Actually its insurance that pays you if you are hit by an uninsured ,they dont pay the guy that dont have insurance unless the accident is YOUR fault. In that case your ins. would pay anyway .


Yes I know that.  We are paying for his liability insurance.


----------



## Lloyd the redneck

I'm my own insurance company. When I hit a tree I have to pay myself to fix it


----------



## bholler

Lloyd the redneck said:


> I'm my own insurance company. When I hit a tree I have to pay myself to fix it


Yes but what happens if you hit another car?  What happens if someone is hurt or killed?  The other drivers in your state pay for your liability insurance no way around it.


----------



## jetsam

Lloyd the redneck said:


> I'm my own insurance company. When I hit a tree I have to pay myself to fix it



When I hit a tree I let the truck and the tree sort it out between the two of them. It's a good system.


----------



## Lloyd the redneck

I never meet another car


----------



## jetsam

It sure is tough to find an insurance company that offers liability-only coverage on an occasional use vehicle. I already have 2 cars and a motorcycle on the road, and they're nuts if they think I'm paying $60 a month for a truck that won't even go on a public road in a normal month.

I thought Hagerty was going to be my ticket, but they won't touch an offroad vehicle (or sell liability-only policies).

If I don't get ear cancer fron being on the phone with insurance companies all day, I will apparently be turning into one of the people bholler doesn't like.


----------



## bholler

Lloyd the redneck said:


> I never meet another car


Never???   Regardless if they are public roads you need insurance to drive on them and you are relying on other to pay your insurance.


----------



## Dobish

i found out that my truck has this cool retractable light in the engine compartment!


----------



## jetsam

Dobish said:


> i found out that my truck has this cool retractable light in the engine compartment!
> 
> View attachment 201075



I found a bunch of new lights on my truck by looking through the factory service manual's wiring diagrams. I've been messing with that because I'm trying to get the blinkers working. Got a bunch of stuff eliminated, waiting on my steering wheel puller to arrive so I can test the switch in the column.

I am finding with this truck that a lot of what it needs is repairing someone else's repairs... like the mashed-with-a-wrench hydraulic line, or the way that "the battery will go dead if you connect the dome light" (because someone replaced the bulb holder with one that grounds the ring directly to the cab, which means you're cutting all three switches out of the ground-interrupt circuit).  Or like the exhaust shop will laugh at me because the tailpipe has 10 beer cans on it.


----------



## Jazzberry

Hey I think you bought my old truck. Should be half a roll of baling wire and a roll of duct tape under the seat.


----------



## jetsam

Jazzberry said:


> Hey I think you bought my old truck. Should be half a roll of baling wire and a roll of duct tape under the seat.



No, but I did get a tire patch kit from an alternate universe in the toolbox!


----------



## Dobish

jetsam said:


> No, but I did get a tire patch kit from an alternate universe in the toolbox!
> 
> View attachment 201084


that is sort of like my margarita mix the other day! I wonder if they are related


----------



## saewoody

So does all this insurance talk only apply to half-ton pickup trucks? [emoji848][emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jetsam

All The Best Stuff Happens After The Derailment.™


----------



## jetsam

Dobish said:


> that is sort of like my margarita mix the other day! I wonder if they are related
> View attachment 201085



No, check the ingredients.

That's not from an alternate universe; the expiration date really IS 3018.


----------



## Dobish

I suppose i didn't think about it that way,  just the feb 30, 2018 date


----------



## Lloyd the redneck

Let's be realistic it won't last a week in the house !


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Lloyd the redneck said:


> Let's be realistic it won't last a week in the house !



In my house it would last until I had a guest that didn't like my fresh lime margaritas. 

Which hasn't happened in over 30 years.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Insurance agent came by to take pictures of my Classic truck today. Not only is the insurance half price but it includes Comprehensive and Collision in addition to Liability.  I asked about denial of claims due to violating the registrations rules and he said  the only thing they care about is their own(insurance Co) rules.  Said they have a list of guidelines , nothing whatsoever about "cargo"  but they have an annual mileage guideline of roughly 2500 miles Yr and its flexible.  This is good news cuz i dont even put that many miles on my daily driver.  He did say every Ins company has different rules.


----------



## jetsam

Seasoned Oak said:


> Insurance agent came by to take pictures of my Classic truck today. Not only is the insurnace half price but it includes Comprehensive and Collision in addition to Liability.  I asked about denial of claims due to violating the registrations rules and he said  the only thing they care about is their own(insurance Co) rules.  Said they have a list of guidelines , nothing whatsoever about "cargo"  but they have an annual mileage guideline of roughly 2500 miles Yr and its flexible.  This is good news cuz i dont even put that many miles on my daily driver.  He did say every Ins company has different rules.




What company?


----------



## Seasoned Oak

jetsam said:


> What company?


Dont know yet. I didnt get the paperwork yet. My agent works with multiple companies to get the best price. Funny though i do know its not the same company i have my other 2 vehicles insured with.  Another odd thing about car insurance is other companies give better prices to new customers than long time customers. My son changes insurance often ,mostly because competitors are offering lower prices to new customers. i may try this myself cuz my car insurance has been going up every year and im accident free.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

saewoody said:


> So does all this insurance talk only apply to half-ton pickup trucks? [emoji848][emoji6]
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not sure about that but some companies charge more for  4X4 .I guess they figure you wont be out joy riding in the snow if you have a 2x4.


----------



## saewoody

Seasoned Oak said:


> Not sure about that but some companies charge more for  4X4 .I guess they figure you wont be out joy riding in the snow if you have a 2x4.



That comment was actually tounge-in-cheek, because the topic had gone a ways off course.  

But you are right about charging more for 4x4. Its all about statistics; and 4x4 claims must be must be overall more costly to the insurance companies. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Insurance Company rejected the truck because paint job is not in mint condition.  Not sure why since the insurance company is not paying for paint job upkeep but thats the rub. I may have to get regular Liability same as my other vehicles. Still working on it. Trying to find a better deal on my current rides since Penn National has been raising rates every year.  Went from $225YR to $300 per vehicle in just 2 to 3 yrs,no accidents.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Insurance Company rejected the truck because paint job is not in mint condition.  Not sure why since the insurance company is not paying for paint job upkeep but thats the rub. I may have to get regular Liability same as my other vehicles. Still working on it. Trying to find a better deal on my current rides since Penn National has been raising rates every year.  Went from $225YR to $300 per vehicle in just 2 to 3 yrs,no accidents.


They rejected it because the policy is for collector cars not beater trucks.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

bholler said:


> They rejected it because the policy is for collector cars not beater trucks.



Them are fighting words!


----------



## bholler

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Them are fighting words!


No I believe he said it was a beater truck no offence intended at all.  Mine is a beater and I love it.


----------



## Lloyd the redneck

Just send them a photo shopped picture. With good paint!


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

bholler said:


> No I believe he said it was a beater truck no offence intended at all.



Just because it's a little beat up doesn't mean it's not collectable! Some people ONLY collect beat up trucks.

It's pretty hard to fake a good patina!


----------



## bholler

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Just because it's a little beat up doesn't mean it's not collectable! Some people ONLY collect beat up trucks.
> 
> It's pretty hard to fake a good patina!


Yes but I have had quite a few vehicles with collector car insurance and have 2 now.  The companies offer reduced rates because collector cars are typically babied and not driven much so the risk is low for them.  When they see a beat up old truck or car for that matter they know it is much more likely to get beaten on.  Because of that their risk is much higher.


----------



## jetsam

I pulled the steering wheel today and got the blinker switch out. It checked out okay, so I'm back to being stumped about the blinker problem. I am now thinking that since Dodge is so fond of ground-interrupt schemes, this problem was introduced when they put the Chevy bed on it. I am going to disconnect the whole back half of the truck's wiring and see if thr blinkers work then- I bet they do.

Installed a choke cable and figured out how to set minimum plow height with the chain after that. Who puts in a carb with a manual choke and then doesn't hook it up to anything? 

Today I also hit the milestone of having messed with the carb without pouring half of the oil out of the air cleaner. Go me!


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Actually the truck is in excellent shape, it was just dirty from sitting under a tree ,i had no idea the ins agent was going to show up with a camera. I wouldnt call it a beater truck ,i take very good care of all my vehicles ,dont beat any of em.  Good news i got it covered. Wound up Getting it covered with my regular company who after requoting my whole policy im actually paying $489  yr for 3 vehicles. I was paying $596 up to this point. So  less than free for the 3rd Truck. Also no restrictions of any kind. Couldnt have worked out better. Ill post a picture when i get it cleaned up.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

One other thing ,i never get the minimum coverages. They are ridiculous, something like  1000/5000 in PA.     I have the 100000/300000      first number is property damage ,second is bodily injury.


----------



## NateB

bholler said:


> What about if he hits another car?  Did you ever notice that charge on your insurance for uninsured motorists?  How much do you think that charge is on our commercial policy with 6 vehicles on it?  Our trucks are on back dirt roads many times and could easily be hit by someone there.  And if they don't have insurance mine has to cover it.



Here is what happened to me.  I had a guy run a stop sign right in front of me, and I hit him in the side.  He had no insurance, and I did not have uninsured motorist coverage, and guess what.  I did not get a penny.  The best thing was he had a fake address on his license, and when I went to file a civil suit the lady at the desk said don't bother.  The guy has 31 warrants and they can't find him, so save your hundred bucks.  I fixed the 3300 in damages myself for 300, and kept on truckin.(the car cost me 750)


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Actually the truck is in excellent shape, it was just dirty from sitting under a tree ,i had no idea the ins agent was going to show up with a camera. I wouldnt call it a beater truck ,i take very good care of all my vehicles ,dont beat any of em.  Good news i got it covered. Wound up Getting it covered with my regular company who after requoting my whole policy im actually paying $489  yr for 3 vehicles. I was paying $596 up to this point. So  less than free for the 3rd Truck. Also no restrictions of any kind. Couldnt have worked out better. Ill post a picture when i get it cleaned up.


Ok then I am sorry I thought you had said that I was mistaken.  Again no offence intended at all by the term beater truck.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> Ok then I am sorry I thought you had said that I was mistaken.  Again no offence intended at all by the term beater truck.


None taken.  But you are partially right  ,it may have  a classic tag , and be 24 yrs old and in very good shape but i doubt if i could get even  1K  for it if i  tried to sell it. So not a classic price.  Not exactly a collectors item.


----------



## jetsam

I'd just like to take a moment to proudly salute my fellow beater owners everywhere.





When I was in the military, I had a new motorcycle, but my cars worked on The $500 Rule.  I never paid more than $500 for a car. If repairs cost over $500, I got a new car.  Scoff if you want to, but 1) It kept me rolling when money was tight, and 2) It gave me a lifelong ability to fix cars!


----------



## bholler

jetsam said:


> I'd just like to take a moment to proudly salute my fellow beater owners everywhere.
> 
> View attachment 201249
> 
> 
> When I was in the military, I had a new motorcycle, but my cars worked on The $500 Rule.  I never paid more than $500 for a car. If repairs cost over $500, I got a new car.  Scoff if you want to, but 1) It kept me rolling when money was tight, and 2) It gave me a lifelong ability to fix cars!


I only paid $600 for my 1 ton truck with 70000 miles.  But then I paid $700 for a parts truck with a dump bed.  But now I have a good beater work truck for about $2600.


----------



## Ashful

So, I lost it somewhere in the last 8 pages.  What did you get, begreen?


----------



## Seasoned Oak

jetsam said:


> I'd just like to take a moment to proudly salute my fellow beater owners everywhere.
> 
> View attachment 201249
> 
> 
> When I was in the military, I had a new motorcycle, but my cars worked on The $500 Rule.  I never paid more than $500 for a car. If repairs cost over $500, I got a new car.  Scoff if you want to, but 1) It kept me rolling when money was tight, and 2) It gave me a lifelong ability to fix cars!


I qualify ,my brother gave me this truck.
Hats of to you Jetsam ,you have a rare quality in that you are not the least bit  extravagant or  and you dont have that keep up with the jones sickness. I could care less what others think of what i drive and where and how i live.  What ever i do or buy ,its all for my family and my own pleasure and use ,never to impress.  Too many out there spending money they dont have ,buying things they dont need ,to impress people they dont even like! How nuts is that!


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Seasoned Oak said:


> I qualify ,my brother gave me this truck.
> Hats of to you Jetsam ,you have a rare quality in that you are not the least bit  extravagant or  and you dont have that keep up with the jones sickness. I could care less what others think of what i drive and where and how i live.  What ever i do or buy ,its all for my family and my own pleasure and use ,never to impress.



I agree strongly with this sentiment.

Keep in mind, buying for function and value does not limit you to buying used. I always buy new vehicles, well, since 1995 anyway. It has nothing to do with impressing anyone, I buy the machine I need. New vehicles come with new tires, new fluids, new wiper, new filters,  new engines, new gas tank senders, etc. I can also order them to my required specs in terms of final drive ratio, engine size, tow capacity, etc.  without having to shop around the used market looking for a match in the elusive three-way triangle of specifications, price, condition. I end up with the vehicle I NEED, not the one I FOUND.

The net effect of this decision is I save A LOT of time for either doing things I enjoy more, or, freeing up time to make more cold, hard cash. I bought my 1993 van new. I didn't sell it until seventeen years later, 2010, when needs changed and I bought my F-150 XLT new. It's seven years old and I've spent almost zero time/money on it. I won't replace it until I see an electric truck I like better in 10 years or so. Was it cheap? In terms of money, no. I needed 4x4 for horse/hay/firewood duty in muddy fields and roads, not to mention mountain snow. Was it cheap in terms of time/practicality? Yes, very much so. A screaming deal!

New vehicles are not necessarily bought to impress.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

I agree Woody , nothing at all wrong with a new ride. Keeping them a long time makes sense too, cuz you know it was taken care of since new. Is why i decided to put the money in repairs for this truck cuz it was always cared for well.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Wish this truck had a tachometer in it , Its so quiet i cant tell when to downshift. Upshift has a dash light but i dont think its that accurate.  Rides like a car ,after the last 15 years in a 3/4 ton truck im used to my fillings falling out going over RR tracks empty.


----------



## SuperSpy

I've never really been a big truck guy.  My current '03 S10 ZR2 has been the best vehicle I've ever owned.  I've hauled a full box of firewood + big steel dump trailer also filled with firewood and while I wouldn't want to haul that load long distances it pulls it home no problem.

Sadly I live in Michigan so I'm always fighting rust.  This summer I had to patch a hole in the box where the rust got it, but it's still going strong.

Plus it eats snow for dinner which comes in handy as my road is one of the last to see a plow truck.


----------



## Dobish

SuperSpy said:


> I've never really been a big truck guy.  My current '03 S10 ZR2 has been the best vehicle I've ever owned.  I've hauled a full box of firewood + big steel dump trailer also filled with firewood and while I wouldn't want to haul that load long distances it pulls it home no problem.
> 
> Sadly I live in Michigan so I'm always fighting rust.  This summer I had to patch a hole in the box where the rust got it, but it's still going strong.
> 
> Plus it eats snow for dinner which comes in handy as my road is one of the last to see a plow truck.



my truck came from wisconsin... that's why its name is ole' rusty


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Anyone familiar with smoke on a warm startup. Cold startup no smoke. Once motor is warmed up each start produces smoke for a few seconds. This is a 93 V6  half ton chevy.  I think its valve seals.


----------



## SuperSpy

Blue smoke or white smoke?


----------



## Seasoned Oak

SuperSpy said:


> Blue smoke or white smoke?


Bluish white


----------



## Soundchasm

begreen said:


> Looking at going up a notch from our old trusty Ranger to an F150, probably used. Wondering what thoughts  are on the payload ratings. Properly equipped Ford F150s appear closer to 1ton. Anyone have good experience with them? Most of the time the truck will be unloaded or with a light load. We would have a pop-up camper on it sometimes with a dry weight of about 1400# and a loaded weight of about 1800#.
> 
> Have a friend with a 2011 F150 Lariat with the heavy duty options (trans. oil cooler, heavy payload springs and firestone airbags). They tow a horse trailer and have this same camper on it. Said it has worked out great for them for the past 6 yrs.. Camper mfg. (Hallmark) says this is a common combo for them to outfit, yet when I go online I get opinions from two camps. One says it works great and the other says go huge, you never know what you might need in the future. I've done that in the past and often never used half of what I thought I'd use. I might still snag some good free wood, but that would be strictly local hauling. Any F150 owners out there want to comment?
> 
> https://www.autotrader.com/best-cars/top-7-light-duty-pickup-trucks-by-payload-capacity-241420



I'm the last guy to know anything automotive, but if I ever get another small truck (Tacoma 4wd bought new in '02), the very first thing I'll do, perhaps even before waxing it, is get a set of Timbren helper springs for the rear.  They don't come into play unless you're loaded, so it's a stock ride otherwise.

Since I had a camper shell, I had to install a 1" lift kit to get the gap back, but these things are amazing.  No signaling aliens with headlights, no squatting, weaving, bobbing or drifting around.  It is a VERY confident feeling.  Almost every weekend me and my little trailer are out at 6,000# GVW.  4600# for the truck and 1400# for the trailer.  No instability at all.  None.

And for the scores where there wasn't a second trip, I'm sure I've loaded 1500# or more for close trips.  Slow and steady no problem...

https://wheelersoffroad.com/product...timbren-rear-suspension-enhancement-kit-2626/

Overall, this is the best "one and done" solution I've ever seen.  Stupid truck would squat with a 32 oz Big Gulp straight from the factory!  I was embarrassed to get 160# of softener salt.

One other thing - make note of where the CAT scales are and go use them.  Cheap, cheap, cheep.  Very helpful to have the facts to stick within guidelines.  Also useful when people are shouting MPG results.  

You've got quite the thread here!!


----------



## Soundchasm

begreen said:


> The Ford Ranger with Timbrens has worked for me for a long time including when I was younger and moved a lot more stuff.



So I'm preaching to the choir  Hah!  My bad...


----------



## jwfirebird

would rather have air bags like the air lift setup. timbrens are solid and non adjustable. the bags arent very expensive and you can adjust them to whatever you are hauling from stock ride to 7k camper i haul with yukons and avalanches. they come with caddy type suspension and i want that whole reason i like it on back roads i live on, but they are not safe feeling like a 2500 when loaded, and with dual rate shocks like kyb gas adjust and air bags you cn make it feel like one with any load




blue black smoke is oil, white is water, like intake or head gaskets. you can look at the plugs typically and see whats going on


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Soundchasm said:


> if I ever get another small truck (Tacoma 4wd bought new in '02), the very first thing I'll do, perhaps even before waxing it, is get a set of Timbren helper springs for the rear.  They don't come into play unless you're loaded, so it's a stock ride otherwise.
> Stupid truck would squat with a 32 oz Big Gulp straight from the factory!  I was embarrassed to get 160# of softener salt.
> .
> 
> You've got quite the thread here!!


Its a shame when you have to throw away factory parts from a new truck. Poor design . My tacoma (1999) was the same ,a few cement blocks and the bed was riding the bumper blocks. MPG was terrible and lots of expensive parts kept failing,not to mention rust rust rust. Promptly got rid of it an d all the problems that came with it at only 76000 miles.  Been driving various GM trucks since  1985 and never had one near as useless as that tacoma. Ill stick with the home team.


----------



## jwfirebird

that's all I buy now they are the most reliable, cost and  looks don't matter to me if its in the shop all the time

not really the home team though every parts says hecho en mexico for some reason, lol


----------



## WiscWoody

My thoughts are that diesels are expensive to both buy and maintain and if I’m not going to tow a lot and I mean A LOT of weight then I’ll stick to a gas engine. For myself I like a standard cab truck with a big long box. Many of the newer trucks have small cargo boxes and roomier cabs. I have both a ‘78 F-150 long box in good shape and a 2003 F-250 long box in good shape also. I found the Newer truck this last summer with 108,000 miles on it. The interior is like new and there is no rust on the truck. I paid $11,500 for it. Can I show it off? Thank you....


----------



## WiscWoody

I see there was some chat about collector plates. I have them on my 1978 F-150 long box. They cost $200 here in Wisconsin then after that you never need to buy tabs again. The restrictions are, twenty years or older, no use in January, other than then you can drive anytime You can haul anytime. No commercial use, must have at least one other vehicle with standard plates.


----------



## WiscWoody

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Say you're driving your "antique" 1991 Corvette 200 miles home after showing at a neighboring Vette club car show. If it gets dark on the way home you have to pull over and get a motel?


I suppose a antique vehicle would mostly be driven during the summer when the days are long. But it is overly restrictive IMO and here in Wisconsin there is no such rule. On the other hand I think that daytime driving is safer.


----------



## jwfirebird

its usually pa that has the laws that make more sense than ny. not in this case i guess. here they get 50/yr basically same as any car the only thing you save on is insurance.
wish they had the option of one time fee, but that would be less in politicians pocket never happen


----------



## Seasoned Oak

SuperSpy said:


> Blue smoke or white smoke?


Been trying to determine that since you asked ,id say blue. Im pretty sure its valve seals but thats such a big job ,when actually its just annoying not really a big deal,Think ill just live with it.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

WiscWoody said:


> I see there was some chat about collector plates. I have them on my 1978 F-150 long box. They cost $200 here in Wisconsin then after that you never need to buy tabs again. The restrictions are, twenty years or older, no use in January, other than then you can drive anytime You can haul anytime. No commercial use, must have at least one other vehicle with standard plates.


That seems high ,i paid $75 in PA. I drive the truck whenever i want to ,no restrictions. the notory said its not supposed to be your only vehicle but dont ask for proof of another. Antique plates have more restrictions ,classic very few.


----------



## WiscWoody

Seasoned Oak said:


> That seems high ,i paid $75 in PA. I drive the truck whenever i want to ,no restrictions. the notory said its not supposed to be your only vehicle but dont ask for proof of another. Antique plates have more restrictions ,classic very few.


Here in Wisconsin when you apply for the collector plates they automatically check to see if you have a normally plated vehicle to drive. You do need to send specifically shot photos of the vehicle that your wanting collector plates for but they don’t seem to deny less than pristine examples as I’ve seen some that didn’t look too good with the special plates on the road. Yeah the $200 might be more than some states for the plates but it saves the $75 minimum a year thereafter and if your like me I keep my vehicles for many many years now. Me being 55 now both trucks I have now I’ll problably have until I kick the bucket and my daily driver car I’ve had for 15 years now and I’d like to get 20 out of it, a Toyota.... so it’s doable.


----------



## WiscWoody

Seasoned Oak said:


> Been trying to determine that since you asked ,id say blue. Im pretty sure its valve seals but thats such a big job ,when actually its just annoying not really a big deal,Think ill just live with it.


A valve job can be a big job on some cars or trucks but on my ‘78 F-150 it’s not bad at all as everything in the engine bay is wide open and there’s not much to getting the single head off and out of the inline 6 300 engine. Well, there’s a photo for that...lol

PS, I paid $1000 for this truck in 2010 and I put another thousand into it for new window seals and some engine work. You may have figured out that I can talk about my trucks all day long lol...


----------



## Seasoned Oak

The cost of the classic plate was only about $10 more than the regular plate .  Technically you not supposed to haul cargo in it but i rarely ever get stopped for any reason so i figured id try it. I have another 3/4 ton truck for hauling anyway. Those plates are $158 yr but will be $10 YR after this yr for retired folks 62 and over. (Me)


----------



## WiscWoody

Seasoned Oak said:


> The cost of the classic plate was only about $10 more than the regular plate .  Technically you not supposed to haul cargo in it but i rarely ever get stopped for any reason so i figured id try it. I have another 3/4 ton truck for hauling anyway. Those plates are $158 yr but will be $10 YR after this yr for retired folks 62 and over. (Me)


Oh.... so that’s not you in the photo to the left then...? Haha.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

WiscWoody said:


> View attachment 217045
> 
> A valve job can be a big job on some cars or trucks
> ...


Doesnt need a valve job just valve seals ,but that can be a lot of work too. Usually have to  blow air in the cylinder to keep the valves from falling in after you remove the rocker arms and springs. Probably just live with the puff of smoke on startup.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

My


WiscWoody said:


> Oh.... so that’s not you in the photo to the left then...? Haha.


 My son ,now 11 yrs old.


----------



## WiscWoody

Seasoned Oak said:


> Doesnt need a valve job just valve seals ,but that can be a lot of work too. Usually have to  blow air in the cylinder to keep the valves from falling in after you remove the rocker arms and springs. Probably just live with the puff of smoke on startup.


Oh yeah, I just had a neighbor do that to my ‘78 last spring. Little neoprene things. It run me $80 to have it done but I didn’t get a puff of smoke on startup, it was just using a lot of oil. I also had some blow-by going on and I tried the CerTech ceramic treatment and it seems to have worked. I’ll have the engine rebuilt in a few years anyways though.


----------



## Ashful

From questions on purchasing a 2011 F150 to replacing valve seals on 40 year old engines, in nine pages.  This one's cooked.


----------



## jetsam

All The Best Stuff Happens After The Derailment™


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Half ton pickups covers a broad range


----------



## Stelcom66

GadDummit said:


> Diesel is slightly higher cost in fuel, but the mileage and power per fillup vs ethanol moreven than make it a better option, especially if you opt for a standard (Man's!) transmission. The same truck will get 5-10 MPG less in gas as it would in diesel.
> 
> The last 7.3 I drove (1999) got 22 mpg whether or not I was towing anything. The newer (2015?) F150 I drove got 17.5 mpg unloaded, 15.3 with an 18ft boat behind it.



Unfortunately I believe the only manual transmission available in a full size truck for the last 10 years or so was in the Dodge 2500 with the diesel. Even 4x4 trucks 15 years old with a manual tended to be RWD. I'd prefer to have a standard transmission, and especially in the Dodge 2500, but that won't happen unless I win the lottery.


----------



## Tar12

Stelcom66 said:


> Unfortunately I believe the only manual transmission available in a full size truck for the last 10 years or so was in the Dodge 2500 with the diesel. Even 4x4 trucks 15 years old with a manual tended to be RWD. I'd prefer to have a standard transmission, and especially in the Dodge 2500, but that won't happen unless I win the lottery.


I recently bought a rust free 1997 dodge 2500 gas 4x4 manual transmission that I totally rebuilt...fresh Mopar Performance long block and went throughout it bumper to bumper...it will haul.


----------



## Stelcom66

Tar12 said:


> I recently bought a rust free 1997 dodge 2500 gas 4x4 manual transmission that I totally rebuilt...fresh Mopar Performance long block and went throughout it bumper to bumper...it will haul.



Oh wow, you lucky! I like the style of that generation. Does it have the 318 V8? I don't think the 360 came with a manual, or maybe it did back then, but I see it's a replacement engine. I'll bet it does move.


----------



## Ashful

I actually ended up a Dodge customer in 2005, when I was shopping for a new 1/2 ton, and learned that Chevy had stopped offerering manual trans in 4x4 V8 extended cab pickups.  Fast forward ten years, and Dodge stopped offering manual trans, as well.  Even Toyota, always a bastion of the manual transmission, does not currently offer a manual trans in a full-size pickup.

I just bought a new(er) pickup, and settled for auto, which I told myself I wouldn't mind anymore.  In truth, it’s not that bad in good weather, but it scares the chit out of me in the snow.  I just can’t feel what’s happening under me nearly as well, with auto trans.


----------



## Tar12

Stelcom66 said:


> Oh wow, you lucky! I like the style of that generation. Does it have the 318 V8? I don't think the 360 came with a manual, or maybe it did back then, but I see it's a replacement engine. I'll bet it does move.


It actually came stock with the 360....by haul I meant it is geared low 4.10 and can haul/tow a lot of weight...I skid a lot of big  logs with it...now my other Dodge with the 8.0 will really haul! lol


----------



## Stelcom66

Tar12 said:


> It actually came stock with the 360....by haul I meant it is geared low 4.10 and can haul/tow a lot of weight...I skid a lot of big  logs with it...now my other Dodge with the 8.0 will really haul! lol



Got ya - both sound like good trucks for hauling wood.


----------



## Tar12

Stelcom66 said:


> Got ya - both sound like good trucks for hauling wood.


Got a 12K Winch on the 8.0...that winch has saved me a lot of work!


----------



## Stelcom66

Ashful said:


> I actually ended up a Dodge customer in 2005, when I was shopping for a new 1/2 ton, and learned that Chevy had stopped offerering manual trans in 4x4 V8 extended cab pickups.  Fast forward ten years, and Dodge stopped offering manual trans, as well.  Even Toyota, always a bastion of the manual transmission, does not currently offer a manual trans in a full-size pickup.
> 
> I just bought a new pickup, and settled for auto, which I told myself I wouldn't mind.  It's not that bad, in good weather, but it scares the chit out of me in the snow.  I really hate anything other than manual transmission, for driving in snow.  I just can't get a feel for what's happening under me, with auto trans.



I also settled for a 2001 automatic Silverado a few years ago, had to trade it in along with my manual trans. Subaru Forester for a larger SUV since due to a job change I couldn't justify two vehicles. The consolation is, most modern automatics to as well as or sometimes better than manuals for MPG - at least according to www.fueleconomy.gov. For snow though, I also definitely prefer manual. The Silverado 1500 was fine loaded up many times (and likely overloaded) with firewood over short distances.


----------



## Stelcom66

Tar12 said:


> Got a 12K Winch on the 8.0...that winch has saved me a lot of work!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 218092



Nice! 8 liters, is that a V10? Cool two-tone. The photo reminds me I need to check with a place that routinely leaves pallets for the trash hauler to take away.


----------



## Tar12

Stelcom66 said:


> Nice! 8 liters, is that a V10? Cool two-tone. The photo reminds me I need to check with a place that routinely leaves pallets for the trash hauler to take away.


It is the V10.


----------



## Ashful

It kills me that Dodge has stopped making pickups with big motors.  Even the SRT-10, which was cool, was about the most useless truck ever made.  I’d have gladly laid down more cash, if I could buy a 1500 4x4 with the 6.4L SRT V8 or the SRT V10, if they had the good sense to build one.  A 5000 lb. pickup with less than 6 liters is a turd, no matter how you slice it.

Not a dig against Dodge, specifically.  Chevy and Ford are even worse, in this regard.  I just name Dodge, because high horsepower was their primary marketing, whereas Ford marketed on legacy/popularity and Chevy marketed on reliability.

“Sensible” fuel economy is ruling over horsepower, these days.  Yes, they get more horsepower out of today’s 5.7 liter motor, than they did out of yesterday’s 7 liter motor... but I’d like to have today’s 7+ or 8 liter in a 1500 pickup.


----------



## edyit

if you're buying a truck for fuel economy you're doing it wrong


----------



## Ashful

edyit said:


> if you're buying a truck for fuel economy you're doing it wrong


Different strokes for different folks, but yes... our priorities are aligned.  My current truck uses much less fuel than my car.


----------



## Tar12

Ashful said:


> It kills me that Dodge has stopped making pickups with big motors.  Even the SRT-10, which was cool, was about the most useless truck ever made.  I’d have gladly laid down more cash, if I could buy a 1500 4x4 with the 6.4L SRT V8 or the SRT V10, if they had the good sense to build one.  A 5000 lb. pickup with less than 6 liters is a turd, no matter how you slice it.
> 
> Not a dig against Dodge, specifically.  Chevy and Ford are even worse, in this regard.  I just name Dodge, because high horsepower was their primary marketing, whereas Ford marketed on legacy/popularity and Chevy marketed on reliability.
> 
> “Sensible” fuel economy is ruling over horsepower, these days.  Yes, they get more horsepower out of today’s 5.7 liter motor, than they did out of yesterday’s 7 liter motor... but I’d like to have today’s 7+ or 8 liter in a 1500 pickup.


This is why I search these older trucks out for wood duty.Many moons ago I ran a 3/4 ton Chevy 4x4 with a built 454 in it....wish I had another one....


----------



## blades

I am still a proponent of " No Replacement for Displacement"   but with trends as they are ( thanks EPA for nothing) unless you go classic you generally are sol in the 1/2 class  . Don't think Ford  even offers a manual in 3/4T or 1T classes either anymore. They were rare enough back as far as 2003 already.  With newer auto trannies offering up 8,9,10 gears kinda becomes a moot point -except for the god awfull prices.  With used unit pricing sky high as well. Hard to come to grips with units pricing 5 times my first home- which is still standing- can't say that about the 64 Olds or the 70 Buick I had at the time about 1977.  Course my current home (recently purchased) is about 6 times the average new truck cost-  which is pretty much what it was back in 77 I suppose, now that I think about it. Just didn't seem that way back then.


----------



## jetsam

blades said:


> I am still a proponent of " No Replacement for Displacement"   but with trends as they are ( thanks EPA for nothing) unless you go classic you generally are sol in the 1/2 class  . Don't think Ford  even offers a manual in 3/4T or 1T classes either anymore. They were rare enough back as far as 2003 already.  With newer auto trannies offering up 8,9,10 gears kinda becomes a moot point -except for the god awfull prices.  With used unit pricing sky high as well. Hard to come to grips with units pricing 5 times my first home- which is still standing- can't say that about the 64 Olds or the 70 Buick I had at the time about 1977.  Course my current home (recently purchased) is about 6 times the average new truck cost-  which is pretty much what it was back in 77 I suppose, now that I think about it. Just didn't seem that way back then.



But the trucks you miss are much cheaper now! Of course you have to fix them a lot   (I have a 1976, and it only cost $750 but requires much regular fixing.   )


----------



## Ashful

Tar12 said:


> This is why I search these older trucks out for wood duty.Many moons ago I ran a 3/4 ton Chevy 4x4 with a built 454 in it....wish I had another one....


Not a bad way to roll, if you're into that.  But my point was that old 454 was barely 400 hp, and today we get 700 hp out of a 378 cid Hellcat.  I want today's 454 cid... 800+ hp?

While I adore classics, I have no desire to go back to old trucks for my daily drivers.


----------



## Tar12

Ashful said:


> Not a bad way to roll, if you're into that.  But my point was that old 454 was barely 400 hp, and today we get 700 hp out of a 378 cid Hellcat.  I want today's 454 cid... 800+ hp?
> 
> While I adore classics, I have no desire to go back to old trucks for my daily drivers.


I understand this and would love to have 800 ponies of non diesel under the hood.these trucks are not my daily drivers but work horses with out payments and this how I like to roll..I work these trucks pretty hard...I wouldn't dare put a new truck through what I put these trucks through..so I don't have to cry if I skin one up...


----------



## jwfirebird

90 percent of the people i know couldnt  tell you what size engine was in their truck unfortunately, i feel the same though its a tool not a race car. i need it to reliably get me to work or pull my camper, whatever. i have a 5.3 which is the smallest engine i ever had and its got the most power and fuel economy of any ive ever had, it will get 20-22 and tow my 33 ft camper as fast as i want. the reliability for driving to work is the most important to everyone i know that has a new truck over anything else, you cant do the job at all if your truck is in the shop all the time. if that means less power or simple everything so be it


----------



## Ashful

jwfirebird said:


> i feel the same though its a tool not a race car.


If it moves, you can race it.  Heck, I used to race Maryland blue claw crabs.  




jwfirebird said:


> the reliability for driving to work is the most important to everyone i know that has a new truck over anything else, you cant do the job at all if your truck is in the shop all the time. if that means less power or simple everything so be it


Reliability is a given, these days.  I have some big displacement vehicles, including a sedan with a bigger motor than you can buy in any 1/2 ton pickup today, and these aren’t any less reliable than my pickup.  These aren’t home-grown hot rods, a few hiccups aside, all of the manufacturers seem to have a pretty good handle on reliability.


----------



## blades

Tar12 said:


> I understand this and would love to have 800 ponies of non diesel under the hood.these trucks are not my daily drivers but work horses with out payments and this how I like to roll..I work these trucks pretty hard...I wouldn't dare put a new truck through what I put these trucks through..so I don't have to cry if I skin one up...


 and they are made of REAL METAL


----------



## Ashful

blades said:


> and they are made of REAL METAL



Which rusts.  The worst I’ve ever owned was a 1978 Ford... I could almost see that thing rusting, if I sat and watched it for any period of time.  And while the dash and body were indeed made of metal, it was still filled with plenty of low-quality 1970’s plastic that just crumbled in your hands.  I still have painful memories of rebuilding the instrument cluster, in that Ford, not to mention the horrendous heater controls.

If you’re going to compare materials, you can’t beat new.  Materials science didn’t even exist, as an area of consideration, when some of these old trucks were made.

My face far prefers a modern airbag, to the unprotected metal dash of my old pickups, in event of collision.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> If you’re going to compare materials, you can’t beat new.  Materials science didn’t even exist, as an area of consideration, when some of these old trucks were made.


Nothing beats my  Former 1999 toyota tacoma for rust ,i swear i could "hear" it rust.  Hard to believe in 1999 they (toyota)couldnt figure this out.


----------



## blades

My 1980 King cab 4x4 Nissan holed thru on the body panel seams in 3 years.  Carburetor jets went south in 6 months along with the  # 8 wheel bearings up front.  The front end had 8 bearings per side in the front wheel hub assemblies. Only reason I got that little truck was the big three had next to zero inventory on dealer lots- can't remember why though.

1970 that was apx when the companies started to switch over to electrostatic applied baked on coatings as opposed to the  etching type primers ( one of the first EPA air quality suits) - problem was that the base metal was not sufficiently clean enough before hand. I remember the engineers at AO Smith having a devil of a time tracking that down - remember the big round rust spots that would appear - those were caused by areas of the base metal not being clean enough- it is better now days but still a problem particularly where body welds are.  the paint line at Brigss and Stratton was close by my place of employment . There were days when you could not breath because of the volatile emissions from same.


----------



## blades

baked on coating v/s etching primers - the big 3 went to dip tank rust proofing to get around the problem in the late 70's


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Most carmakers were doing a pretty good job by 2000 ,iv seen some pretty bad rusted out tacomas in the early 2000s too.  Some of em it was falling off in slabs under the box and rear frame. Frames were rusting out bad too not just the bodys.


----------



## blades

toyota- replacing frames under warranty used to be the japan steel wasn't to hot and the anti rust coatings were even worse, lot of the supply comes from the mainland chi-com area now- back to square one. case in point grade 8 or higher bolts from chi-com supply failing vs US made hanging in there.  i can't remember a new building falling down on its own here - plenty of reports over there. Capacitors -another area. Dell had a heck of problem with those- may be still does.


----------



## jwfirebird

ive never brought myself to buy anything foreign but fords and dodges ive had plenty and after 2000 they are terrible, ford work trucks leave me stranded a number of times was in the shop a few times a year on average it was much more the first few years for a week or two you cant work

the dodge had undersized wires one everything and stupid designed fuse box they use still because it makes them 1k every time they replace it, leaked every fluid, wheels fall off with no noise or worning. got traded in early

the chevies we had were work truck with plow, gas engine 2500 like the others, one had a cluster issue and intake gaskets, neither ever left me stranded any where they were you can drive it till we get the parts at the dealer, down for a couple hours


----------



## bholler

blades said:


> toyota- replacing frames under warranty used to be the japan steel wasn't to hot and the anti rust coatings were even worse, lot of the supply comes from the mainland chi-com area now- back to square one. case in point grade 8 or higher bolts from chi-com supply failing vs US made hanging in there.  i can't remember a new building falling down on its own here - plenty of reports over there. Capacitors -another area. Dell had a heck of problem with those- may be still does.


Yes but at least toyota did something about their rust issues.  All 3 american companies have serious rust issues with their trucks on frames break lines body etc and they do nothing about it.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> Yes but at least toyota did something about their rust issues.  All 3 american companies have serious rust issues with their trucks on frames break lines body etc and they do nothing about it.


 GM rust issues were fixed long before toyotas,(early 90s) . Toyota was the only major Mfg having seroius rust issues into the 2000 model year.  Not to mention, weak springs ,lousy MPG and numerous gas ,oil leaks on my tacoma with only 76k on the clock. My older GM trucks were way more reliable without th erust issues back to 93. Im still using them today ,while someone else is suffering with that tacoma.


----------



## blades

vechicle problems - i do not particularly blame US automotive engineers but i do blame the  golbaly sourced suppliers of various assemblies.  Course there are times that I would love to get a couple of  those design engineers by the dingles. Course I am just an old grease monkey with a in-depth elctro-mechanical background.- what the heck do I know. had to repair something non automotive the other day- only cost me 4 stitches.  unfinshed edge in a area that is touchy feelly only  for .0001 cent that edge could have been de-burred. *&^%$#@%&%$##$#


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> GM rust issues were fixed long before toyotas,(early 90s) . Toyota was the only major Mfg having seroius rust issues into the 2000 model year.  Not to mention, weak springs ,lousy MPG and numerous gas ,oil leaks on my tacoma with only 76k on the clock. My older GM trucks were way more reliable without th erust issues back to 93. Im still using them today ,while someone else is suffering with that tacoma.


Then why did the brake lines rust off of our 06 04 both 2500s and my 03 trailblazer all before they were 10 years old.  Cab corners and rocker panels on the 04 were rotted out by 2010.  And the frame on our current 06 has been patched twice and we were told we will probably need a whole new drivers side frame rail by inspection next year.  And that is on a truck we bought in 2012 with 25000 miles on it and had been in a garage that whole time.  Mechanically the 2500 trucks are great but they have electrical issues and rust problems.


----------



## gerry100

Had a 99 F150 bare bones work truck (6 cyl) that I worked and overworked in the wood lot.

Do not buy one that has been left parked in the grass for long periods of time. Constant moisture destroyed the frame


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> Mechanically the 2500 trucks are great but they have electrical issues and rust problems.


My extended family has  at least 20+ GM vehicles ranging from 1993 to present experiencing none of these issues.  I drive a 93 and a 95 GM silverado truck daily for work , no issues other then the occasional muffler and sometimes a sensor.   So it appears this is not a country wide brand wide problem your having. I live in central PA as well so i get the same road salt in winter but wash the underside at least in spring. My GM trucks also had none of the other numerous problems i had with the toyota,and when they did need a part it was reasonable in price, unike the tacoma. After the rear main seal started leaking(tacoma) i got rid of it as fast as i could.  IV had Mostly GM since 1974 ,only other rust problems i had other then the toyota was with 80s ford trucks.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> My extended family has  at least 20+ GM vehicles ranging from 1993 to present experiencing none of these issues.  I drive a 93 and a 95 GM silverado truck daily for work , no issues other then the occasional muffler and sometimes a sensor.   So it appears this is not a country wide brand wide problem your having. I live in central PA as well so i get the same road salt in winter but wash the underside at least in spring. My GM trucks also had none of the other numerous problems i had with the toyota,and when they did need a part it was reasonable in price, unike the tacoma. After the rear main seal started leaking(tacoma) i got rid of it as fast as i could.  IV had Mostly GM since 1974 ,only other rust problems i had other then the toyota was with 80s ford trucks.


I see many 2000 + gm trucks with bad rockers bad cab corners bad bumpers etc driving around.  The cab rust seems to be worse on the extended and crew cab versions our 06 regular cab has no body rust at all.  But the frame is bad.  And the brake lines all needed redone long ago.  Our mechanic said he has to do lots of gm lines because they used uncoated lines when everyone else had gone coated.  Honestly my 1990 f250 has fewer rust issues than our 04 2500.


----------



## bholler

Oh and 4 different plugs in the dash of the 06 had wires melt off the back of them 2 of which had recalls issued for causing fires after ours melted and we fixed them.  1 did it on the 04.  The headlight sockets keep melting on my trailblazer


----------



## bholler

All of that being said both trucks have been good work trucks and neither ever let us sit and the 6.0 has plenty of power and with a few minor changes gets decent gas mileage for a 3/4 ton gas truck.  The trailblazer on the other hand not so great on many counts


----------



## jwfirebird

will only buy gm because the the others are way worse, that said the are really getting bad. the newer the worse they are. cars and trucks. I will get it zeibarted and that takes care of a lot of the common issues
the wife has a Lucerne, a lot of dum engineering electrical issues on that. but worse on everything else so I'm stuck fixing it and trying to make it so it wont break again when I come across one, like the fuel pump and fuse issues with having it under the seat


----------



## blades

no matter what make  its a 50/50 shot. The effort to lighten anything and everything has been and still is detrimental to the integrity of the units.  The kind of hit my recent 2014 suv took( totaled) would have bounced off my 64 Galaxy -  Course back then gas was 17-34Cents /gal so we really didn't care in that area. In 77 or 78 that became an issue. Ran my 85 f350 6.9 into the ground. I do not know how many miles, as that stopped working around 250k. Around 2006-8 the frame became an issue- not that there was that much left on the frame any way by then, snow plowing beats the h out of equipment. replaced with a 99- 350 sold that a couple weeks back more because i just didn't want spend a large sum on it and that v10 while strong as it ever was combined with 4.77 rear end just wasn't doing me any favors, bit of sellers remorse here but it was just sitting more than doing and that gets pricey in its own wright. I quit the plowing game this year and that was its main function. It has gotten too expensive to keep more than 2 units on the road. My minimum travel is 96 miles a day. That =  apx. $550 in fuel cost per month. +ins and maintenance on my 250 which gets double the mileage of 350.  Course it struggles a bit when towing 10,000 # but that is infrequent.


----------



## bholler

blades said:


> no matter what make  its a 50/50 shot. The effort to lighten anything and everything has been and still is detrimental to the integrity of the units.  The kind of hit my recent 2014 suv took( totaled) would have bounced off my 64 Galaxy -  Course back then gas was 17-34Cents /gal so we really didn't care in that area. In 77 or 78 that became an issue. Ran my 85 f350 6.9 into the ground. I do not know how many miles, as that stopped working around 250k. Around 2006-8 the frame became an issue- not that there was that much left on the frame any way by then, snow plowing beats the h out of equipment. replaced with a 99- 350 sold that a couple weeks back more because i just didn't want spend a large sum on it and that v10 while strong as it ever was combined with 4.77 rear end just wasn't doing me any favors, bit of sellers remorse here but it was just sitting more than doing and that gets pricey in its own wright. I quit the plowing game this year and that was its main function. It has gotten too expensive to keep more than 2 units on the road. My minimum travel is 96 miles a day. That =  apx. $550 in fuel cost per month. +ins and maintenance on my 250 which gets double the mileage of 350.  Course it struggles a bit when towing 10,000 # but that is infrequent.


Your galaxy may have faired better but your body would not have.


----------



## Ashful

Wow, a few of you guys have record-level bad luck.  I think I'd give up on driving, if my vehicles broke down at that rate.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Its surprising how long they last with a little care.  I guess thats why there are 100 year old model Ts on the road today.


----------



## Sean McGillicuddy

Seasoned Oak said:


> Its surprising how long they last with a little care.  I guess thats why there are 100 year old model Ts on the road today.



My 2008 Taco has over 328,500 miles so far ..


----------



## sloeffle

Every manufacturer has had some lemons over the years. IMHO, it is how the do afterwards that determines if they get my hard earned money.


----------



## jetsam

Ashful said:


> If it moves, you can race it.  Heck, I used to race Maryland blue claw crabs.



How do you hot rod a crab?  High carbohydrate crab chow?  Leg tip waxing? Racing stripes and a spoiler?


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Sean McGillicuddy said:


> My 2008 Taco has over 328,500 miles so far ..


Im sure they made some changes after paying for bad frames for so many trucks. Im just surprised that they were that bad for so long  .  I feel most cars and trucks are made pretty solid in the last few years ,if they want to remain in business for long.


----------



## Ashful

jetsam said:


> How do you hot rod a crab?  High carbohydrate crab chow?  Leg tip waxing? Racing stripes and a spoiler?



Geez, we were 10 years old... so no foresight, let alone degrees in materials engineering.  We just raced the meanest most pissed-off thing we managed to catch that morning.

No joke, the Sandpiper newspaper on Long Beach Island NJ used to sponsor these races.  Point being... don’t tell me a pickup truck ain’t a race car, ‘cuz I’m driving it like it is one, when there’s no load on the hitch.


----------



## rox3406

I def agree with blades. Doesn’t matter what you buy now. It’s all trash. I’m shop Forman at a shore town in nj. I have flipped both the dpw and police fleet many times through the big three. The newer it is the faster it falls apart. We can barely keep anything for a full ten years. Even the medium duty trucks. It’s sad.


----------



## rox3406

On the same note one thing my guys haven’t figured out how to kill yet is the fleet of 7 Kabota rtv110c that we have. They see 10k miles a year and just get filters and fluids. At least on nw thing made that hasn’t been a full disappointment


----------



## Stelcom66

Someone mentioned "There's no replacement for displacement" - I'm not a mechanical engineer but I'd think over the long run that holds true. There are some companies now putting small (less than 2 liters) 4 cylinder turbos in medium sized vehicles. Sure, they'll get decent or maybe great fuel economy for the vehicle's size, but I wonder how can such an engine be durable over many miles. I'll admit the Ford F150 does great with the 3.5 V6, in both performance and fuel economy. That's not an extreme example of small engine though, so the durability of that may be reasonable. The trend seems to be though, less displacement with more power. I wonder if that will increase the value of older trucks on the market. 

I had a 2001 Silverado with the 4.8 V8. Wish I could have kept it, a great engine. For a while I had a company van, a GMC Savanah 2500 with that engine with 250k miles, averaged (mostly highway) about 16 mpg. To me it's amazing when I hear of full size 4x4 trucks getting 20+ mpg.


----------



## Stelcom66

Sean McGillicuddy said:


> My 2008 Taco has over 328,500 miles so far ..



Wow - a lot of miles, especially considering it's a 2008. The V6? Glad to see they still offer a manual transmission (I think they do) in the Tacoma.


----------



## Sean McGillicuddy

Stelcom66 said:


> Wow - a lot of miles, especially considering it's a 2008. The V6? Glad to see they still offer a manual transmission (I think they do) in the Tacoma.



Automatic..


----------



## jetsam

I got my 76 Dodge back into plowing form yesterday. It had lost power to the lift cylinder, so much that I couldn't pick the plow up anymore.

I replaced the pressure line to that cylinder (it was probably original equipment according to the markings... that's 41+ years!)  I also got in the engine compartment to tighten my squeaky power steering belt, and found the snowplow belt was also loose. Tightened both of them up, and we're ready for snow.  (I'm HOPING for snow; I've put a lot of work into that truck this year and I want to play with my toys!)







As a side note... that plow pump is held up by one bolt. You swing the whole pump to tension the belt, then tighten the bolt. How are you supposed to keep tension on the pump while you crank the bolt down?  I used a cargo strap, but I doubt that's the way it's supposed to work.


----------



## Stelcom66

jetsam said:


> I got my 76 Dodge back into plowing form yesterday. It had lost power to the lift cylinder, so much that I couldn't pick the plow up anymore.



Great to see a truck that age back in service again. Yea with those great and practical toys I can see why you'd want snow!


----------



## jetsam

Stelcom66 said:


> Great to see a truck that age back in service again. Yea with those great and practical toys I can see why you'd want snow!



Also, chicks dig old trucks.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

And a chicken on every plow!


----------



## Ashful

jetsam said:


> Also, chicks dig old trucks.
> 
> View attachment 218902


It looks like we have some of the same chickens, odd as I only have four.  I spy a Plymouth Barred Rock on the plow, and what could be a Light Brahma on the ground.

Here’s our flock.  Sorry, no old trucks.


----------



## jetsam

Ashful said:


> It looks like we have some of the same chickens, odd as I only have four.  I spy a Plymouth Barred Rock on the plow, and what could be a Light Brahma on the ground.
> 
> Here’s our flock.  Sorry, no old trucks.
> 
> View attachment 218903



There's four flavors in there, which I refer to as "Red", "Brown", "Yellow", and "White".  My wife does have fancier names for them, but mine seem to work fine.   There's a picture with one of the yellow ones demonstrating her chickenlike survival skills. Or maybe it's Limbo practice.






And there they are uncompressed:






One of the brown ones is missing, probably ratting around under that big fir to the left.


----------



## Ashful

That White one is a light Brahma.  You can ID them by the feathered feet.  They come from Tibet!

Back to your regularly scheduled program...


----------



## Stelcom66

Ashful said:


> It looks like we have some of the same chickens, odd as I only have four.  I spy a Plymouth Barred Rock on the plow, and what could be a Light Brahma on the ground.
> 
> Here’s our flock.  Sorry, no old trucks.
> 
> View attachment 218903



But at least you mentioned Plymouth, related to Dodge.


----------



## jetsam

Stelcom66 said:


> But at least you mentioned Plymouth, related to Dodge.



MOPAR chickens: Built to last, but definitely wired wrong.


----------



## jwfirebird

lol. unlike new anything, whatever works is how you do it. i normally stick a pry bar or pipe in to space it and tighten it with the other hand. you may have to find something to stick in it to keep the space if it backs off again. if it was me i would make another point to put anther bolt in the back if possible


----------



## Ashful

BTW... my chickens are out in the coop tonight with no heat, at 6F.  It's the coldest these young birds have experienced so far, in their 15 months of life, but surely not the coldest we get in the average year.  Cold-hearty breeds, so we'll see how they do with it.  I'm used to seeing a few consecutive nights below 0F, each year.


----------



## jetsam

Ashful said:


> BTW... my chickens are out in the coop tonight with no heat, at 6F.  It's the coldest these young birds have experienced so far, in their 15 months of life, but surely not the coldest we get in the average year.  Cold-hearty breeds, so we'll see how they do with it.  I'm used to seeing a few consecutive nights below 0F, each year.




It's 15 outside and 20 in the coop here. Going down to 4° tonight.  They look okay though.  (I put 4 cameras out there when I built the coop, so they're under 24 hour video surveillance for my wife's chicken-obsessing pleasure. It's also a great way to make friends.  Me: "And so all 4 chicken cameras are live on the internet 24 hours..."  Whoever I'm talking to: "- I think I hear my toaster going off..." *runs*


----------



## jetsam

Do you suppose begreen is holding off on axing this thread because he started it.... or do you think we finally converted him??

All The Best Stuff Happens After The Derailment™


----------



## Ashful

This one went OT 26 pages ago, chickens make it no worse.  You got AC power out there at the coop, or is it all solar?  Heat?


----------



## jetsam

Ashful said:


> This one went OT 26 pages ago, chickens make it no worse.  You got AC power out there at the coop, or is it all solar?  Heat?



I was going to go solar, but then my wife said she wanted a 40w heater going 24x7. When I added up the power requirements, the panels were too big for the roof given the shading.  I gave up and rented a trencher- which allowed me to do wired networking, too.  (Then she did even more research and decided there wouldn't be a heater.)  I think I am better off this way anyway, as I'm pushing out a lot of video bandwidth out of there.

The AC is running the chicken door (<5w, 10 seconds per day), the POE switch for the cameras, a 2w LED bulb that she has on a timer (something about making their days a couple hours longer in the winter for egg production), and a livestock bucket heater (a 25w thermostatic immersion heater that keeps their drinking water liquid).  The cameras are powered off the power-over-ethernet switch. They're very cheap and "support" POE via a dongle that splits the power out right before the camera. I haven't measured overall power usage on that setup because I stopped caring when I pulled the AC line out there. 

I don't allow any direct access to the cameras for security reasons (they're a nightmare, security-wise), but I do stream a low-res version of all 4 out to Ustream so my wife can watch from work (which she actually does.)   Take a peek if you want to know what chickens do when you're not watching (hint: same as they do when you are watching).


----------



## Ashful

That is crazy, but very cool!  I wish I had AC at mine, but not enough to do anything about it.  These chickens were for my son, and his interest in them is already waning, so I’m not sure I’ll even replace this flock when they’re done.  The only real challenge is the liquid water thing, and I have a simple solution that works reasonably well when the sun is shining.  They probably get a little thirsty late in the day on cloudier days, but they’ll survive.  

I debated the timer/light thing, but chose against it.  They’re only born with so many eggs, so the faster you play them out, the longer you’re stuck feeding a menopausal chicken.

From the sound of it, your wife is not going to let you eat them, when they’re done laying.


----------



## jetsam

Ashful said:


> That is crazy, but very cool!  I wish I had AC at mine, but not enough to do anything about it.  These chickens were for my son, and his interest in them is already waning, so I’m not sure I’ll even replace this flock when they’re done.  The only real challenge is the liquid water thing, and I have a simple solution that works reasonably well when the sun is shining.  They probably get a little thirsty late in the day on cloudier days, but they’ll survive.
> 
> I debated the timer/light thing, but chose against it.  They’re only born with so many eggs, so the faster you play them out, the longer you’re stuck feeding a menopausal chicken.
> 
> From the sound of it, your wife is not going to let you eat them, when they’re done laying.



The original plan was to eat them also, but that was before she named them. 

A lead acid battery, a charge controller, and a 30+w solar panel would let you run an LED lightbulb and a livestock bucket heater out there for not too much investment (the heater shouldn't run very much indoors out of the wind; the one I have is supposed to heat to 35° before it shuts off).  Looks like a couple companies out there make smaller 12v deicers.


----------



## firefighterjake

jetsam said:


> Do you suppose begreen is holding off on axing this thread because he started it.... or do you think we finally converted him??
> 
> All The Best Stuff Happens After The Derailment™



My 1/2 ton pick up, a Nissan Titan, failed to start this morning . . . just way, way too cold (plus it doesn't help that the battery is original to the 2010 truck.)


----------



## WiscWoody

Ashful said:


> It kills me that Dodge has stopped making pickups with big motors.  Even the SRT-10, which was cool, was about the most useless truck ever made.  I’d have gladly laid down more cash, if I could buy a 1500 4x4 with the 6.4L SRT V8 or the SRT V10, if they had the good sense to build one.  A 5000 lb. pickup with less than 6 liters is a turd, no matter how you slice it.
> 
> Not a dig against Dodge, specifically.  Chevy and Ford are even worse, in this regard.  I just name Dodge, because high horsepower was their primary marketing, whereas Ford marketed on legacy/popularity and Chevy marketed on reliability.
> 
> “Sensible” fuel economy is ruling over horsepower, these days.  Yes, they get more horsepower out of today’s 5.7 liter motor, than they did out of yesterday’s 7 liter motor... but I’d like to have today’s 7+ or 8 liter in a 1500 pickup.


Isn’t because of the fuel mileage regulations? Isn’t that why trucks are going to aluminum bodies and smaller turbocharged engine? You work for big oil don’t you?


----------



## WiscWoody

Ashful said:


> Which rusts.  The worst I’ve ever owned was a 1978 Ford... I could almost see that thing rusting, if I sat and watched it for any period of time.  And while the dash and body were indeed made of metal, it was still filled with plenty of low-quality 1970’s plastic that just crumbled in your hands.  I still have painful memories of rebuilding the instrument cluster, in that Ford, not to mention the horrendous heater controls.
> 
> If you’re going to compare materials, you can’t beat new.  Materials science didn’t even exist, as an area of consideration, when some of these old trucks were made.
> 
> My face far prefers a modern airbag, to the unprotected metal dash of my old pickups, in event of collision.


I don’t know... I like my 78 F-150 and after all these years it’s still in good shape and it has a small inline 6 300 engine too but it brings the wood home no problem, starts even in the coldest norther cold no problem etc. I guess if I was driving in the cities again I’d worry more about safety though. Up here there is no traffic, in fact... in the winter you can go for miles sometimes on the highway and not see another vehicle.


----------



## jetsam

WiscWoody said:


> View attachment 219145
> 
> I don’t know... I like my 78 F-150 and after all these years it’s still in good shape and it has a small inline 6 300 engine too but it brings the wood home no problem, starts even in the coldest norther cold no problem etc. I guess if I was driving in the cities again I’d worry more about safety though. Up here there is no traffic, in fact... in the winter you can go for miles sometimes on the highway and not see another vehicle.



Can you post a picture of that truck with some chickens on it?


----------



## WiscWoody

I had a 1994 Ford Ranger 4x4 that I drove through 14 sloppy city salt laden winters in Minnesota and it never had a rust problem except some on the tailgate that is a very common truck problem. The bottom 1/3 of the body was galvanized steel and I washed it when the roads would clear up in the winters. There was rust on the undercarriage but not like the frame or springs were falling apart. I sold the truck when a small truck didn’t suit me any longer. Now I drive long bed pickups.


----------



## WiscWoody

I know this is off topic.... but I wander where page 11 on this thread is? It goes from page 10 to page 12...?


----------



## jetsam

WiscWoody said:


> I know this is off topic.... but I wander where page 11 on this thread is? It goes from page 10 to page 12...?



Every thread with more than 2 pages does that as far as I can tell. To get to page 11, click page 10 and then click "NEXT >" .


----------



## firefighterjake

WiscWoody said:


> I know this is off topic.... but I wander where page 11 on this thread is? It goes from page 10 to page 12...?



It's like Floor 13 in a highrise . . . it may or may not be there.


----------



## Stelcom66

WiscWoody said:


> View attachment 219145
> 
> I don’t know... I like my 78 F-150 and after all these years it’s still in good shape and it has a small inline 6 300 engine too but it brings the wood home no problem, starts even in the coldest norther cold no problem etc. I guess if I was driving in the cities again I’d worry more about safety though. Up here there is no traffic, in fact... in the winter you can go for miles sometimes on the highway and not see another vehicle.



I'd love to have a pickup truck with that engine and a manual transmission, probably it was a 4 speed that year. Wow that's in nice shape. Is it 2WD? I had a 1980 Ford Club Wagon with that engine and believe it or not a 4 speed manual on the floor. I wouldn't mind 2WD for occasional use, the concern would be getting into an area to get wood with snow on the ground when empty. When full with wood, 2WD would probably be fine.


----------



## WiscWoody

Stelcom66 said:


> I'd love to have a pickup truck with that engine and a manual transmission, probably it was a 4 speed that year. Wow that's in nice shape. Is it 2WD? I had a 1980 Ford Club Wagon with that engine and believe it or not a 4 speed manual on the floor. I wouldn't mind 2WD for occasional use, the concern would be getting into an area to get wood with snow on the ground when empty. When full with wood, 2WD would probably be fine.


Thanks and yes it is a 2WD truck. It’s mostly all original except for the wheels. The tranny is a B/W T-18 granny geared 4 speed that’s supposed to be a good tough gear box. It has the 9 inch rear end too. It runs good for a old truck.  I have a 4WD Ford also I put a photo of here in a earlier post but WTH here it is again. Lol. I don’t drive either truck much in the winter.... I will own both until I’m gone I’m sure.


----------



## Stelcom66

You're welcome and nice F250 as well. That gen never gets old looking, not that old is bad! I had a 2002 SUV and a 2001 4WD truck, traded them in for a large SUV with the intent of using it like a truck at times. But... many ads I see for firewood that are 'u pickup' base the price on a pickup truck full. While the SUV has 48" between the wheels wells and I cut plywood to protect the floor and sides, there's nothin' like a real truck for some duties.
The SUV's bed is maybe about 6' and change. Damn your older trucks are in good shape!

I'm may research opinions/experiences with RWD in snow. Earlier this year I had a company GM Savanah. I put a couple of large stumps in back, would back in the driveway when I knew snow was coming (slight incline pulling out) and was surprised how well the RWD van did. I know the easiest/best thing to do would be simply buy and old 2WD truck, but the budget has changed.


----------



## WiscWoody

Stelcom66 said:


> You're welcome and nice F250 as well. That gen never gets old looking, not that old is bad! I had a 2002 SUV and a 2001 4WD truck, traded them in for a large SUV with the intent of using it like a truck at times. But... many ads I see for firewood that are 'u pickup' base the price on a pickup truck full. While the SUV has 48" between the wheels wells and I cut plywood to protect the floor and sides, there's nothin' like a real truck for some duties.
> The SUV's bed is maybe about 6' and change. Damn your older trucks are in good shape!
> 
> I'm may research opinions/experiences with RWD in snow. Earlier this year I had a company GM Savanah. I put a couple of large stumps in back, would back in the driveway when I knew snow was coming (slight incline pulling out) and was surprised how well the RWD van did. I know the easiest/best thing to do would be simply buy and old 2WD truck, but the budget has changed.


If you have snow tires in the back and some weight in the bed you can do pretty well in a 2WD. There’s some videos on YouTube like “ 2WD vs 4WD” showing how some can drive a 2WD and not get stuck and many are farmers. All of the wood I burn in my house I scrounge within a few blocks of here and I haul it with my ATV and Polar trailer but there’s a guy up here that sells me good dry maple by the truck load and I fill up the ‘78 heaping full for $25 a load then I drive it a few miles and I sell it and stack it for cabin rental owners who don’t have any way to go get their own wood for $150. It’s about 2 face cord worth. I don’t do it a lot bit maybe a dozen times a summer. l also mow the cabins in my mowing business and I for the most part pull my mowing trailer all summer long in the old Ford.


----------



## Ashful

WiscWoody said:


> Isn’t because of the fuel mileage regulations? Isn’t that why trucks are going to aluminum bodies and smaller turbocharged engine? You work for big oil don’t you?


I'm no expert on the reg's, but I thought they were all fleet average requirements, not impositions on any single vehicle.  I don't think there's any reg's preventing them from stuffing the SRT-10 engine into a 1/2 ton pickup, just perceived lack of market demand.

So, You can buy a sedan or coupe with a 6.4L engine, but can't find anything larger than 5.7L in a full-size 1/2-ton  pickup... that makes sense.  [emoji57]

No, I don't work in the oil industry.


----------



## jetsam

We got TWO INCHES of snow.... which was enough for me to play with my toys!!  Huzzah!


----------



## WiscWoody

Ashful said:


> I'm no expert on the reg's, but I thought they were all fleet average requirements, not impositions on any single vehicle.  I don't think there's any reg's preventing them from stuffing the SRT-10 engine into a 1/2 ton pickup, just perceived lack of market demand.
> 
> So, You can buy a sedan or coupe with a 6.4L engine, but can't find anything larger than 5.7L in a full-size 1/2-ton  pickup... that makes sense.  [emoji57]
> 
> No, I don't work in the oil industry.


Who has a 6.4L engine? The new Corvette Z06 has a 6.2L and the Dodge SRT Hellcat engine is the same size. I don’t want to get in a big debate about how much power or displacement is enough to get the job done in. Struck but I think a 5.7L or a 350CI (well 348...) should be fine. My F250 has the 2 valve 5.4 and it’s enough to pull what I have but if you want to really pull then you get the diesel that’ll pull something like 14,000 pounds. But that’s in a Super Duty... not a 1/2 ton which is what the thread is about I guess. Chow.


----------



## Ashful

WiscWoody said:


> Who has a 6.4L engine?


The SRT 392 cars are all 6.4L.  This includes the SRT 392 Challenger, Charger, Jeep Grand Cherokee, and Durango.

The Hellcat is the same motor with a forged crank and different heads, bringing displacement down to 6.2L.



WiscWoody said:


> I don’t want to get in a big debate about how much power or displacement is enough to get the job done in.


“Just enough” is never very interesting.  If it were, I’d drive a Toyota Camry.


----------



## Stelcom66

Some would think I'm crazy for doing this, today I did use the SUV as a (sort of) pickup truck. It's got 48" between the wheel wells, so overall the capacity is maybe about the same as a compact pickup truck not considering the weight capacity. I bought the wood from a place that sells them in 'hoops'. Certainly not cost effective, but I'm kind of running behind.This is the first time I've paid for wood in almost 2 years thanks to neighbors that had trees taken down.


----------



## WiscWoody

Ashful said:


> The SRT 392 cars are all 6.4L.  This includes the SRT 392 Challenger, Charger, Jeep Grand Cherokee, and Durango.
> 
> The Hellcat is the same motor with a forged crank and different heads, bringing displacement down to 6.2L.
> Huh, I just can’t keep all of the names straight I guess. I looked at their web page for the cars and it said they were 6.2L cars so I thought they all were.... my bad.
> 
> “Just enough” is never very interesting.  If it were, I’d drive a Toyota Camry.


I guess I don’t know what all of the names on the Challenger are and mean. I just looked on the Charger web page and it said there was a optional Hellcat engine in 6.2L size so I thought they would all be 6.2’s, including the Challengers. I’ve never been a Dodge guy but I know they make some awesome performance cars.

 I drive a old 2000 Toyota Echo most of the time and my trucks when I need them,  a little bit less than a Camry yeah...  it gets me around cheaply and I just can’t get rid of it until it dies someday. Oh yeah, it’s a 1.5L... you probably wouldn’t want to drive it....lol


----------



## WiscWoody

Stelcom66 said:


> Some would think I'm crazy for doing this, today I did use the SUV as a (sort of) pickup truck. It's got 48" between the wheel wells, so overall the capacity is maybe about the same as a compact pickup truck not considering the weight capacity. I bought the wood from a place that sells them in 'hoops'. Certainly not cost effective, but I'm kind of running behind.This is the first time I've paid for wood in almost 2 years thanks to neighbors that had trees taken down.
> 
> View attachment 219337


Bring it home whatever way you can... there’s times I go by a big paper mills wood lot up here and I stop to see if they have any free broken junk, usually red oak that I can pile into my small Toyota. It’s a old beast, I don’t care if it makes a mess in it. I just want to get it home.


----------



## jetsam

Stelcom66 said:


> Some would think I'm crazy for doing this, today I did use the SUV as a (sort of) pickup truck. It's got 48" between the wheel wells, so overall the capacity is maybe about the same as a compact pickup truck not considering the weight capacity. I bought the wood from a place that sells them in 'hoops'. Certainly not cost effective, but I'm kind of running behind.This is the first time I've paid for wood in almost 2 years thanks to neighbors that had trees taken down.
> 
> View attachment 219337



There's a couple tree services around here that advertise on Craigslist when they are taking down trees. If I see one of those ads nearby on one of my days off, I'll usually go over and fill up the old trailer at least once. It's free firewood for me, and less wood to dispose of for the tree service.

The driving back and forth is a pain, but I don't have to drag any trees out of the woods, so it's kind of a wash in terms of the amount of work involved. On the plus side you often don't even need to fire up the chainsaw to get a trailer load of wood; on the minus side it tends to be bucked to fairly random lengths, so you do wind up doing some sawing before splitting.


----------



## Ashful

WiscWoody said:


> I guess I don’t know what all of the names on the Challenger are and mean. I just looked on the Charger web page and it said there was a optional Hellcat engine in 6.2L size so I thought they would all be 6.2’s, including the Challengers. I’ve never been a Dodge guy but I know they make some awesome performance cars.



Heck... I’d take the 6.2L Hellcat motor in a 1/2 ton, too!

Not a “Dodge guy” here, either.  Historically, they’ve been junk, but the SRT cars are actually impressively good cars.  Challenger, Charger, Durango, or Cherokee, the motors are all the same:

SRT 392 = 500hp 6.4L naturally aspirated 

SRT Hellcat = 700hp 6.2L supercharged

Just odd that one can buy these motors in Durango’s, and even Jeep Cherokee’s, but not in a full sized half ton pickup.  That was all I was getting at.  



WiscWoody said:


> I drive a old 2000 Toyota Echo most of the time and my trucks when I need them,  a little bit less than a Camry yeah...  it gets me around cheaply and I just can’t get rid of it until it dies someday. Oh yeah, it’s a 1.5L... you probably wouldn’t want to drive it....lol



I’ve owned and driven much older and cheaper cars than that, but... never with an engine smaller than a 2.0 turbo or 2.4L natural)


----------



## Stelcom66

WiscWoody said:


> Bring it home whatever way you can... there’s times I go by a big paper mills wood lot up here and I stop to see if they have any free broken junk, usually red oak that I can pile into my small Toyota. It’s a old beast, I don’t care if it makes a mess in it. I just want to get it home.



 I was wondering about wood I've seen laying around for a while. I wouldn't mind the mess either, the plywood I had in the back of the SUV did an OK job. I researched gathering wood and found an article from a couple years ago about a project here in Conn. where trees were being removed along the highway. It stated it's not legal to take that wood, and stopping on the highway do get it can be dangerous. But - that's a whole different situation compared to wood along a side road that's been there a while. Good idea too re: tree companies when they're taking down trees.


----------



## Ashful

Stelcom66 said:


> I was wondering about wood I've seen laying around for a while. I wouldn't mind the mess either, the plywood I had in the back of the SUV did an OK job. I researched gathering wood and found an article from a couple years ago about a project here in Conn. where trees were being removed along the highway. It stated it's not legal to take that wood, and stopping on the highway do get it can be dangerous. But - that's a whole different situation compared to wood along a side road that's been there a while. Good idea too re: tree companies when they're taking down trees.



Just knock on the property owners door and ask.  Often, they’re glad to see it gone.

I get a lot of my wood off the PA Turnpike.  They have purchased the right of way from the owners of the land it thru which it was constructed, but the prior owners still own the land.  When the turnpike commission clears trees and leaves them on his land, we take them out thru the woods.   You are right about not accessing anything from the road, no parking allowed on the turnpike.


----------



## Stelcom66

Ashful said:


> Just knock on the property owners door and ask.  Often, they’re glad to see it gone.
> 
> I get a lot of my wood off the PA Turnpike.  They have purchased the right of way from the owners of the land it thru which it was constructed, but the prior owners still own the land.  When the turnpike commission clears trees and leaves them on his land, we take them out thru the woods.   You are right about not accessing anything from the road, no parking allowed on the turnpike.



Nice having that option. In Conn. I remember hearing about some state offering for firewood to pick up, unfortunately when I just checked on the details I saw that it's been discontinued.

"Thank you for your interest in DEEP’s Homeowner Firewood Program.  Please note that we are suspending this program until further notice.  This is the result of reduced interest in the program due to lower costs for heating fuels and limitations on our Forestry Staff."


----------



## WiscWoody

Up here there’s so much hardwood and it’s rural so I know most of the people around here. I’m always asking about wood. It pretty much heats the house for me.


----------



## WiscWoody

Ashful said:


> Heck... I’d take the 6.2L Hellcat motor in a 1/2 ton, too!
> 
> Not a “Dodge guy” here, either.  Historically, they’ve been junk, but the SRT cars are actually impressively good cars.  Challenger, Charger, Durango, or Cherokee, the motors are all the same:
> 
> SRT 392 = 500hp 6.4L naturally aspirated
> 
> SRT Hellcat = 700hp 6.2L supercharged
> 
> Just odd that one can buy these motors in Durango’s, and even Jeep Cherokee’s, but not in a full sized half ton pickup.  That was all I was getting at.
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve owned and driven much older and cheaper cars than that, but... never with an engine smaller than a 2.0 turbo or 2.4L natural)


Oh ok, I didn’t read into the messages that well I guess... if you want to see what big displacement does and have Netflix, watch season 1 episode 10 of Roadkill. The guys are having fun in a car with a custom built 727. They stopped for gas once and they said they went 80 miles on 15 gallons but it was liters where they were at, down under.


----------



## Ashful

Will have to check that out!  Never owned anything in the 700 CID territory, myself.  That’s serious big dollar stuff, I imagine.  Been in the presence of a 640 cid supercharged Mustang, years ago, which was just crazy enough.


----------



## WiscWoody

Ashful said:


> Will have to check that out!  Never owned anything in the 700 CID territory, myself.  That’s serious big dollar stuff, I imagine.  Been in the presence of a 640 cid supercharged Mustang, years ago, which was just crazy enough.


Yeah they were talking well into the six figures for how much The builder had into the car.


----------



## jwfirebird

cant imagine being able to spend that much on a toy


----------



## WiscWoody

jwfirebird said:


> cant imagine being able to spend that much on a toy


The 1% club can have all kinds of fun toys.


----------



## Stelcom66

WiscWoody said:


> Up here there’s so much hardwood and it’s rural so I know most of the people around here. I’m always asking about wood. It pretty much heats the house for me.



That's a great situation to be in. They want it gone, and you want it. I wish I was more rural.


----------



## WiscWoody

Stelcom66 said:


> That's a great situation to be in. They want it gone, and you want it. I wish I was more rural.


It’s rural and it’s a national hardwood forest area. A good place for many paper mills including Scott paper, Kimberly-Clark, Domtar, Boise Cascade papers, Wausa paper and more and many hardwood lumber mills including a big Louisiana Pacific mill. I imagine all along the northern part of the country theres mills like here. There’s a lot of Elm, Oak, Maple, Ironwood, Birch, Poplar and some hickory to cut and burn. I really didn’t think of it when I built my house here. I lived in the Minneapolis area back then and no one I knew there burned wood but after I moved here I quickly realized it was the way to go and it’s worked out well. About half of the homes that are not in the small villages- the homes out in the woods around northern Wisconsin burn wood for heat. I guess I’m getting off the subject here ....


----------



## jetsam

WiscWoody said:


> I guess I’m getting off the subject here ....



Yeah, let's get back to chickens.  I mean, snow removal.

It's finally warming up into the high 20s here and we're getting up to a foot of snow tomorrow, followed by a windy day wirh 50mph gusts! That means TWO days where I get to play with my toys!  (I also may well get to try the generator; I have a high risk power line.)

And speaking of chickens, we have more single-digit highs coming up after the snow. The wife has been researching cold weather chicken maintenance again. I got sent out to seal up any low-lying cracks in their coop, but the gable vents are staying wide open and they don't get a heater.   Apparently if you seal up their coop, the water from their own respiration gives them frostbite.


----------



## Ashful

It was -1F this morning, when I took water out to them.  Same instructions as the last few days, “drink quick, while it’s liquid!”


----------



## Dobish

Ashful said:


> It was -1F this morning, when I took water out to them.  Same instructions as the last few days, “drink quick, while it’s liquid!”


apparently putting a bottle of salt keeps the chicken water from freezing?

I have to buy new tires on my truck... i don't really want to do that


----------



## jetsam

Ashful said:


> It was -1F this morning, when I took water out to them.  Same instructions as the last few days, “drink quick, while it’s liquid!”



Idea: keep a brick or large rock on your stove at all times. Whenever you go out to do a chicken thing, throw the hot brick in the water and throw the cold brick on the stove.

Insulate the bucket and I bet one hot brick will go all day!


----------



## Ashful

Nice idea!  Okay... this is getting too OT, even for me.  New thread started.

https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/frozen-chicken.166247/


----------



## Dobish

i thought i would share this very insightful post


----------



## jetsam

Dobish said:


> i thought i would share this very insightful post
> View attachment 225642



Is it about doing 60 in neutral with 0 coolant temp, or about 200k miles? 

I got a HEI conversion to replace the coil, distributor, and associated crud in my old dodge. If winter ever ends I'm going to put it in and see how she likes it!


----------



## Dobish

jetsam said:


> Is it about doing 60 in neutral with 0 coolant temp, or about 200k miles?
> 
> I got a HEI conversion to replace the coil, distributor, and associated crud in my old dodge. If winter ever ends I'm going to put it in and see how she likes it!


the 200K roll over... oil temp has no time to warm up by the time i get on the highway, and neutral is really Overdrive   I like to know if someone steals the truck, they will most likely blow the engine


----------



## Stelcom66

Cool! What kind of truck? I ended up trading in my SUV for an older truck. For me the utility of a pickup truck had priority of the luxury of the SUV. This is a 2002 Silverado, previously I had a 2001. I've already got a couple leads for sources of wood. At some point I may also get an older economical car, but this is fine for now.

Jetsam, what engine is in your Dodge, 318 V8? I had a 1980 with the 225 slant 6, 4 speed on the floor.


----------



## jetsam

Stelcom66 said:


> Cool! What kind of truck? I ended up trading in my SUV for an older truck. For me the utility of a pickup truck had priority of the luxury of the SUV. This is a 2002 Silverado, previously I had a 2001. I've already got a couple leads for sources of wood. At some point I may also get an older economical car, but this is fine for now.
> 
> Jetsam, what engine is in your Dodge, 318 V8? I had a 1980 with the 225 slant 6, 4 speed on the floor.



It's a beat to hell 1976 Sno Fiter with a 318, 4 gears. Lots of surprises for me as to what Dodge was doing in 1976. Factory oil air cleaner, which was pretty much unheard of in passenger vehicles in the mid 70s.  Full time 4wd with the fancy hubs that you don't  have to get out into the snow to lock. Electrical system that appears to have been designed in the 1940s. 

It's getting new ignition and fuel pump this summer, and if time allows (I have a shed to build and a mountain of wood to get and split) I'm going to completely rewire it too. The factory wiring was comically bad when it was new, and it hasn't aged well either.


----------



## WiscWoody

jetsam said:


> Is it about doing 60 in neutral with 0 coolant temp, or about 200k miles?
> 
> I got a HEI conversion to replace the coil, distributor, and associated crud in my old dodge. If winter ever ends I'm going to put it in and see how she likes it!


Winter will never end.... get more wood!


----------



## Stelcom66

jetsam said:


> It's a beat to hell 1976 Sno Fiter with a 318, 4 gears. ...



Oh yea, a Sno Fiter! I remember someone in the 80s having one of those, a brown one and now it's driving my crazy who. Maybe it was a boyfriend of my sister's. I recall it had a long decal or stripe on the side. I think it would be great to recondition yours. I can appreciate the amount of work involved. I've never heard of a an oil air cleaner. If it rained my 1980 Ram 150 sometimes wouldn't start (speaking of electrical) and it could be resolved by drying the inside of the distributor cap with a hair dryer. Sounds like the factory wiring/connectors is another thing that's improved over the years

I hear ya re: other projects. Sometimes I wish I bought my wood split so I wouldn't have to make time to split it so I could do other things, but that's why it's been free lately.


----------



## WiscWoody

Looks like they were tough trucks.


----------



## Stelcom66

WiscWoody said:


> View attachment 225660
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like they were tough trucks.


 
That has the decal I was talking about! Maybe that was standard on the Sno Fiter. IMO a nice looking truck.


----------



## jetsam

Oil air cleaners were common up until the late 50s, I think, and disappeared when paper filters took over in the early 60s. Some new vehicles still use them to this day, but it's mostly heavy equipment.

Oil air filters don't filter as well as paper, but they can handle much dirtier conditions.  Pain in the ass when you're  working on the carburetor, though.


----------



## blades

Just a couple of the reasons I never got into Dodge trucks.  had a couple buddies with those,spent more time under than in them.


----------



## Stelcom66

Interesting re: the oil air cleaners that I never heard of. 

This time I got a regular cab, 8' bed. Always wanted an 8' bed since my 1980 Dodge. I rarely have passengers now, so more room for wood. I made a box for loading groceries from the back. The box isn't huge so it can be easily removed/stored when hauling wood. I was considering a typical box behind the cab, but I wanted to use the plywood I bought to put on the floor and sides of the Honda Pilot when I hauled things - a form of recycling which I've been more into lately.


----------



## blades

Pallet parts into a box slot on either end for chainsaw bar 2 saws per box , keeps them from going every where. never liked those plastic things


----------



## jwfirebird

that's why I like the avalanche, you can fit 4x8 stuff in it and close the tail gate and tool boxes on the side in the fenders, you can do both.

I have seen oil air filters, not so much any more but I used to work on generators and the older diesel ones had it


----------



## Dobish

sure enough, right after ole rusty hit 200K, she started leaking antifreeze all over the place and the brakes were all metal crunchy sounding... I got everything taken care of, and now it won't start without laying my foot on the gas....


----------



## Stelcom66

Dobish said:


> sure enough, right after ole rusty hit 200K, she started leaking antifreeze all over the place and the brakes were all metal crunchy sounding... I got everything taken care of, and now it won't start without laying my foot on the gas....



This is the 1994 Chevy? Congrats on hitting 200k, sorry to hear about the troubles. Hopefully it does start and can still be driven. Is it a 350 V8?


----------



## jwfirebird

probably vacuum leak or iac, trying to remember the one they have. some can clean and put back

just about broke in for a tbi sbc. I had a 89 I had for 10 years don't think I put more than a couple hundred bucks into. was over loaded and towed my camper a ton


----------



## Ashful

Dobish said:


> sure enough, right after ole rusty hit 200K, she started leaking antifreeze all over the place and the brakes were all metal crunchy sounding... I got everything taken care of, and now it won't start without laying my foot on the gas....


My 1995 Chevy pickup was the singularly most unreliable vehicle of any type I have ever owned, by a substantial margin.  In fact, I replaced so many damn parts on that thing (which I sold in 2005), that it was less reliable than any combination of three or four other vehicles I’ve owned, combined.  At less than 10 years old, it seemed to have more problems any 20+ year old vehicle I’ve driven, so I’m amazed you still have the patience to have one running at all.

The real irony is that I replaced it with a 2005 Dodge, and wasn’t very happy to buy Dodge (on former reputation), but they were the only ones still offering manual transmission with a v8 extended cab.  I owned that Dodge for 12 years, and the only repair it ever required was one ripped rubber CV boot on the front left.  Total lifetime repair cost over 12 years was somewhere around $30.

Reputations developed 40+ years ago are apparently a very poor indicator of current fleet quality or reliability.  I’ve since owned three Dodge products (that original Dodge, a newer RAM, and an SRT), and have not had to have a single repair on any of them.  Yet they can’t escape a poor reliability reputation developed in the 1970’s, earned two owners prior (Chrysler -> Benz -> Fiat).  Go figure.


----------



## Dobish

jwfirebird said:


> probably vacuum leak or iac, trying to remember the one they have. some can clean and put back
> 
> just about broke in for a tbi sbc. I had a 89 I had for 10 years don't think I put more than a couple hundred bucks into. was over loaded and towed my camper a ton


I bought the truck for 300$ and have really only spent money on tires.  When it does start,  it runs smooth. So it seems like it's spark related not vacuum hose.  It's from Wisconsin,  so the whole thing is pretty rusted out. I'm not going to put a ton into it.


----------



## jwfirebird

ign will make it run rough at idle
if it runs smooth just wont idle its idle function is messed up, which is the idle air control or some of the emmisions garbage, haven't worked on it in forever though been a lot of different vehicles in between, I would search full size chevy forum they had a lot of threads on common vacuum leak areas. I think the egr is one


----------



## jwfirebird

Ashful said:


> My 1995 Chevy pickup was the singularly most unreliable vehicle of any type I have ever owned, by a substantial margin.  In fact, I replaced so many damn parts on that thing (which I sold in 2005), that it was less reliable than any combination of three or four other vehicles I’ve owned, combined.  At less than 10 years old, it seemed to have more problems any 20+ year old vehicle I’ve driven, so I’m amazed you still have the patience to have one running at all.
> 
> The real irony is that I replaced it with a 2005 Dodge, and wasn’t very happy to buy Dodge (on former reputation), but they were the only ones still offering manual transmission with a v8 extended cab.  I owned that Dodge for 12 years, and the only repair it ever required was one ripped rubber CV boot on the front left.  Total lifetime repair cost over 12 years was somewhere around $30.
> 
> Reputations developed 40+ years ago are apparently a very poor indicator of current fleet quality or reliability.  I’ve since owned three Dodge products (that original Dodge, a newer RAM, and an SRT), and have not had to have a single repair on any of them.  Yet they can’t escape a poor reliability reputation developed in the 1970’s, earned two owners prior (Chrysler -> Benz -> Fiat).  Go figure.



really 2000 and later are the worst, I know a ton of pre 2000 ones that lasted forever, my dadsidea of an oil change is wait till its down a quart. still see it around though he bought a newer chevy because of the rust. 
I know probably a dozen people that have bought a post 2000 1500 ram and had all sorts of issues, the fuse boxes are stupid design and they wont change it because its a grand in the dealers pocket every time. the wheels have fallen off all of the people I knows too, I had the pleasure of trying to fix one the hub plus axle, caliper, bracket everything gets destroyed and dodge parts are twice as much as chevy ones


----------



## Dobish

it idles fine once it has started and i give it a couple of pumps on the gas. It either starts up on the first crank and keeps going, or just suddenly stops.


----------



## Ashful

jwfirebird said:


> really 2000 and later are the worst, I know a ton of pre 2000 ones that lasted forever, my dadsidea of an oil change is wait till its down a quart. still see it around though he bought a newer chevy because of the rust.
> I know probably a dozen people that have bought a post 2000 1500 ram and had all sorts of issues, the fuse boxes are stupid design and they wont change it because its a grand in the dealers pocket every time. the wheels have fallen off all of the people I knows too, I had the pleasure of trying to fix one the hub plus axle, caliper, bracket everything gets destroyed and dodge parts are twice as much as chevy ones



I never had to open the fuse box, so no experience there.  In fact, I can’t remember ever having to open the fuse box on any vehicle I’ve owned in the last 20 years, it’s just a non-issue for me.

Car manufacturers do not refuse to fix known reliability problems, because “its a grand in the dealers pocket every time.”  Intentionally creating or ignoring quality problems is a surefire way to lose massive business, as the big 3 all learned the hard way, 30 years ago.

I also find it very hard to believe that every person you’ve known with a Dodge truck has had the wheels fall off, that would make for quite a news story and subsequent vehicle recall.  I do believe it’s possible you knew ONE person who’s ONE wheel fell off their ONE Dodge truck, I had the same happen with my Ford truck.  In my case, it was a failed wheel bearing, due to a previous repair that was not executed correctly by some owner or mechanic prior to me owning the vehicle.

I remember looking at the 5@5.5 inch lug pattern on my first Dodge, at laughing at how wimpy it looked in comparison to the 6@5.5” pattern on my prior Chevy, but it has never been an issue.  My Chevy was undoubtedly built heavier, in all the places it didn’t matter, but that did not translate into reliability.  Of course, I’m comparing a 1995 Chevy to 2005 and 2015 Dodge products, which is hardly fair.  I assume they have all gotten better over the course of two decades.


----------



## Stelcom66

Ashful said:


> The real irony is that I replaced it with a 2005 Dodge, and wasn’t very happy to buy Dodge (on former reputation), but they were the only ones still offering manual transmission with a v8 extended cab.



Unfortunately even used manual transmission full size pickup trucks are very hard to find. I looked for quite a while. I believe the last ones were around 2005 or so. But, the GM 4 speed auto (L460?) seems fine, simple as it is. Looking at the EPA figures, for some reason some full size pickup trucks actually get slightly better fuel economy with the automatic. Some new truck transmissions are I believe 9 speeds. I know someone with a 2018 that needed the whole thing replaced (under warranty) due to a rough shifting situation that couldn't be resolved with a repair.


----------



## Ashful

Stelcom66 said:


> Some new truck transmissions are I believe 9 speeds. I know someone with a 2018 that needed the whole thing replaced (under warranty) due to a rough shifting situation that couldn't be resolved with a repair.



My 2015 truck and 2016 car have slightly differing versions of the same 8 speed auto trans.  It’s all they offer on big v8’s now.

The 8 speed auto gets better numbers in every style of racing, at least in the SRT cars, but the manual is still more fun.  I also prefer manual when it’s slippery outside.


----------



## jetsam

Stelcom66 said:


> Unfortunately even used manual transmission full size pickup trucks are very hard to find. I looked for quite a while. I believe the last ones were around 2005 or so. But, the GM 4 speed auto (L460?) seems fine, simple as it is. Looking at the EPA figures, for some reason some full size pickup trucks actually get slightly better fuel economy with the automatic. Some new truck transmissions are I believe 9 speeds. I know someone with a 2018 that needed the whole thing replaced (under warranty) due to a rough shifting situation that couldn't be resolved with a repair.



I bought my first automatic ever a few years ago when I bought a new car- because the fuel economy was better, and the high gear on the stick was much lower than the high gear on the auto. It was kind of sad, and I still don't like the automatic very much.


----------



## jwfirebird

I had to fix my father inlaws and my brother both bought 1500 quad cabs, those are just the people I am related too, personally know a lot more we ahd a bunch were I worked that had the same issues, they were traded early for  chevies for reliability, all the work trucks and plows that were chevies had nothing but brakes and one of a half dozen had the cluster fail.

every dodge truck(Dakota to 3500) has the bcm under the fuse box right behind the headlight right where it gets all the salt and water and still is there, chevyies are always inside.
the wheel bearing separates without notice, they had them from almost new and didn't make any noise, he was on his way to my house was making noise for maybe 5 miles he said, then it fell off

they wernt beaten, neither have campers, my father inlaw has another comuter and once in a while hauls a 600lb qd, brother just drives it empty to work. both had the first wheel fall off within 60k


----------



## jwfirebird

Dobish said:


> it idles fine once it has started and i give it a couple of pumps on the gas. It either starts up on the first crank and keeps going, or just suddenly stops.


if you go on rock auto and look up idle air control for it will show you what I'm talking about, they o back and forth and meter air at idle, but the can stick closed or not work so good when they get some miles. a lot of times I just clean the cone good and the seat in the tb.then try it first. might need reset(which on a tbi is just unplug the battery a while).  its a very tiny area it has to meter and it gets a bunch of carbon build up. then it wont idle but will run fine other wise on the other parts of the tb and fuel injectors


----------



## Dobish

jwfirebird said:


> if you go on rock auto and look up idle air control for it will show you what I'm talking about, they o back and forth and meter air at idle, but the can stick closed or not work so good when they get some miles. a lot of times I just clean the cone good and the seat in the tb.then try it first. might need reset(which on a tbi is just unplug the battery a while).  its a very tiny area it has to meter and it gets a bunch of carbon build up. then it wont idle but will run fine other wise on the other parts of the tb and fuel injectors


thanks!


----------



## Stelcom66

jetsam said:


> I bought my first automatic ever a few years ago when I bought a new car- because the fuel economy was better, and the high gear on the stick was much lower than the high gear on the auto. It was kind of sad, and I still don't like the automatic very much.



That's the case with every auto/manual comparisons I've seen, high gear is lower or much lower than than the same vehicle's auto. I wondered about the reasoning - I've heard the manufacturers justification was 'so the customer wouldn't have to downshift as much'! Ya'd think if you bought a manual, you know you're gonna have to shift! I had a Subaru Outback that ran around 3100 rpm at 65 mph in 5th (standard trans) while the auto (different year but exact same gear/diff ratio) I had was around 2650. Agreed it's kind of sad. My plan is to eventually get a older economical car, I want that to be a manual. I test drove one a manual trans. car a month ago and it made want one again big time.

Glad I got the truck though - got a load of wood last weekend. A lot of trees fell or split (especially pine) around here last month due to heavy wet snow and wind. The homeowner appreciated that I took it away.


----------



## jwfirebird

had a ton of commuter cars over the years, the wife does 30k per year and i go 30-50k for the last 20 years. i had a dodge neon, that was the typical 4 cyl 5spd. it got 32-33 if you kept it to 55. but alot of my driving is highway and all those types of cars really tank because of the rpm like you say, was like 28-30 at 65. i have had gm w bodies, cutlass supreme, grand prix, and two monte carlos, they all get 35 on crap gas and 38 if i find real 100 gas hwy only and at 65 mph. they are tuned for low end torque and run about 1800rpm. as long as you get the mid package, not sport
the wife i get gm h body, if you get the base 3800 they get 32 mpg too, she had a bonniville, and 2 lucernes, she drives like john force, they hold up fine anyway. 
normally keep a car 200 to 300k they seem to be better at not needing much maintenace

never liked autos either but not much choice anymore if you want something decent.


----------



## jwfirebird

Stelcom66 said:


> Unfortunately even used manual transmission full size pickup trucks are very hard to find. I looked for quite a while. I believe the last ones were around 2005 or so. But, the GM 4 speed auto (L460?) seems fine, simple as it is. Looking at the EPA figures, for some reason some full size pickup trucks actually get slightly better fuel economy with the automatic. Some new truck transmissions are I believe 9 speeds. I know someone with a 2018 that needed the whole thing replaced (under warranty) due to a rough shifting situation that couldn't be resolved with a repair.



really pointless these million speeds are, the rear gear is the same, overall ratio is the same as the 4l60(pretty close) which is 95 percent of your driving. so all your real world mileage is based on engine, overall locked ratio, and areo dynaics. so my 04 5.3 avalache gets exactly the same mileage real world same conditions as the neibors and my dads new 17 s with same engine


----------



## Ashful

jwfirebird said:


> really pointless these million speeds are, the rear gear is the same, overall ratio is the same as the 4l60(pretty close) which is 95 percent of your driving. so all your real world mileage is based on engine, overall locked ratio, and areo dynaics. so my 04 5.3 avalache gets exactly the same mileage real world same conditions as the neibors and my dads new 17 s with same engine



All of the newer pickups have sad wimpy rear gear ratios.  3.23 is standard on Dodge’s most popular package (Big Horn) highway queens, and Chevy and Ford are very similar.  I had to search long and hard to find one with 3.93 gears and the other options I was seeking.

My old trucks were all 3.93 - 4.11, and I just don’t like the way the lower ratio rears drive.  I’m only doing 5k miles per year on that truck, so MPG isn’t even a consideration.


----------



## jwfirebird

my father and i tow 30+ campers, made sure it was towing gears, they both have 3.73. most of the chevies have those on z71 or towing/plowing setups. not sure on the neighbors but given the mileage he said when asking probably the same too, 354 s are pretty popular on them though it only gives you 1 or 2 more highway miles. i have only seen one 323, was a early 2000s v6 std cab my brother had for a while. sadly bought a new dodge 1500 when he got a trailer though(his friend works at a dealer) have to see what those get, think he has the smaller v8

dont know much about the others except the work trucks we had, i kinda kept an eye on maintenance and stuff on those, most everything was pre 2008. seems like the dodge ones  all had too much rpm and was most of the problem with the hemi mileage. but every gm 6.0 was the same basically the same 11-15 mpg because of 4.10s


----------



## Stelcom66

jwfirebird said:


> i have had gm w bodies, cutlass supreme, grand prix, and two monte carlos, they all get 35 on crap gas and 38 if i find real 100 gas hwy only and at 65 mph. they are tuned for low end torque and run about 1800rpm. ....



You both put on some serious miles! Interesting you mention the GMs with the V6s - I was considering those too. I've heard of someone buying a 4 cyl manual asking if there's something wrong since the highway rpm was so high, and their much larger Regal or Impala was not only turning less than 2k rpm on the highway but getting better miles per gallon at that! Very interesting you're getting about the same. or maybe even better than a 4 cyl w/manual on the highway. I'm probably close to 30k/year with the company van - but since I bring it home I can go with something with high miles for a car, won't use it for commuting. Yes the manual transmissions are enjoyable but I do like the comfort of a mid size or larger GM (or other co.'s) car.

Years ago my son had a '95 Cutlass Supreme - I really liked that car. Smooth engine (3.1V6) and ride. I don't think it had a tach though. I did 3 trips to his new house via highway about 20 miles away with the Silverado, the rest mostly local town roads since I've filled up. I'm a couple notches below half a tank, 245 miles since filled up. Just estimating/judging that is not bad considering it's a 5.3 V8. I know the Honda Pilot's tank was smaller, but at 245 miles I'd be around 1/4 of a tank. So, it seems the truck's economy can't be that much worse than the Pilot's.

And... I couldn't fit this in the Honda.


----------



## jwfirebird

my cutlass was about same year and engine, about 250k i traded it for the grand prix, had the 3.1 too, that one i put over 300k on and same mileage as new i had to rebuild the trans on that one and replace the alt, none of the other ones though. the first monte was an 04 with the 3400, basically same as the 3100. 200k on that the fuse box had some loose pins. the fool at monroe told me you are going to have to replace intake manifold  gaskets, never did. the first thing i do with all my gms is flush the dex crap and fill it with prestone extended life. alot of people had the brown crud but was fine anyway, my mother has had two impalas same deal. the one i have now is the 3500, 240hp and still same mileage but if i got to pass a truck or something i can do it in a safe distance 

the only ones i have had to get into the engine is the 3800 in the wifes bonneville and the first lucerne, they have stupid plastic intake manifolds and elbows that leak. they have a update though with thinker stuff lower gaskets and stuff i dont think it was 200 bucks for all that. one trans in the bonniville but she had it like 250k too. those cars are nice so is the lucerne, we always take those  when we are going somewhere, gets it too if you want to go but if you are easy on the gas over 30 mpg is easy. and huge trunk if you got kids crap 

reallty none of those suvs dont get very good mileage, why we have the cars

the trucks normally 18 local 20-22 i get with my ave, most of the trucks with the 5.3 are the same too


----------



## begreen

Stelcom66 said:


> I know someone with a 2018 that needed the whole thing replaced (under warranty) due to a rough shifting situation that couldn't be resolved with a repair.


Been reading that there have been complaints and problems with early versions the new 10 speed transmissions. The design is common to Ford and Chevy (co-developed), but Fords seem to be having more issues. Not sure if that is just higher sales volume or what. Part of the issue appears to be with the computer programming which there is a tech bulletin recall for. There was also a faulty park pin issue.


----------



## begreen

Ashful said:


> All of the newer pickups have sad wimpy rear gear ratios.  3.23 is standard on Dodge’s most popular package (Big Horn) highway queens, and Chevy and Ford are very similar.  I had to search long and hard to find one with 3.93 gears and the other options I was seeking.
> 
> My old trucks were all 3.93 - 4.11, and I just don’t like the way the lower ratio rears drive.  I’m only doing 5k miles per year on that truck, so MPG isn’t even a consideration.


3.73 is common with the trailer tow pkg on Fords. I haven't felt underpowered even with a full load going up through a mountain pass.


----------



## jwfirebird

ford see to have that issue with everything, all there cars and trucks are over complicated so they can say they have the newest technology, they dont take the time to research the life of it though so nothing but recalls for fires and wires harnesses. 

they had all the spark plug issues we had explorers and expeditions at work all kind if issues. the thing would take off some times and almost hit some one that was on top of the chance of fire in the dash if you want to use your cruise. 

have to have special tools to do just about anything really on the trucks


----------



## Ashful

begreen said:


> 3.73 is common with the trailer tow pkg on Fords. I haven't felt underpowered even with a full load going up through a mountain pass.



3.73 is better than what I’ve been seeing on most 2015 and up trucks.  Really, with the 8 speed tranny’s, it’s not an issue of power, but of driving personality.  I want to feel those shifts, and the 3.23’s and the like almost drive like a CVT.


----------



## jwfirebird

ive read the are better if you get it tuned or get something you can change trans parameters with, people complain they don't hold the gear the wont either, sucks towing


----------



## Ashful

jwfirebird said:


> ive read the are better if you get it tuned or get something you can change trans parameters with, people complain they don't hold the gear the wont either, sucks towing


True, but any trans tuning voids your warranty, which might be 7+ years and 70,000 miles, on some new vehicles.  Just not worth the risk/headache, esp. in light of some of the troubles others have had when installing these.

The current truck is the only auto I’ve owned in a truck in 20+ years, but the up-shift and down-shift points seem pretty good with the 3.92 gears.  There is a “tow/haul” button, that when engaged, delays all of the up-shifts and is more aggressive on down-shifting when decelerating.  In other words, in a way that anyone used to driving old big displacement vehicles would be fond of.

I have the same transmission in my car, but with programmable shift points and selectable shift personalities.  In Track mode, it feels like someone kicking you in the pants, each time it shifts.  I was looking for some of the same in my truck, which is why I had such distaste for the 3.23 gears.


----------



## jwfirebird

if you have the program yourself like hpt you can back anytime. just holding the gear would be worth it to me,, thing I hate the most about normal autos.another reason I got the year I did I don't like the multi gear crap and all the extra nonsense
what I did to my firebird, its auto in d but stays there in 2 or 1 if you are going to blow the engine or not. hate when cars decide for you


----------



## Ashful

jwfirebird said:


> if you have the program yourself like hpt you can back anytime. just holding the gear would be worth it to me,, thing I hate the most about normal autos.another reason I got the year I did I don't like the multi gear crap and all the extra nonsense
> what I did to my firebird, its auto in d but stays there in 2 or 1 if you are going to blow the engine or not. hate when cars decide for you



I’ve had manual valve body cars and trucks, and my car can be set to manual, using stick or paddle shifters.  Cool and fun for muscle cars, but a waste in a pickup.  The only thing I dislike about the auto in the truck is bad weather driving.


----------



## blades

Even more fun with auto sensing 4wd- I can't lock it on or off, just does it's own thing ( 2016 Escape)  Worked well enough on the ice covered roads last week.  This whole 4k # vs 8k# pound vehicle change for daily driving is still some what new to me.  ( ain't used to dragging my butt on the ground.)
 Main thing though is the volume of go juice is 50%or better less/ week.


----------



## begreen

jwfirebird said:


> ive read the are better if you get it tuned or get something you can change trans parameters with, people complain they don't hold the gear the wont either, sucks towing


Don't most trucks with a camper package have a tow/haul switch that changes the upshift/downshift points? Our 2001 Dodge and 2013Ford have this. The Ford also has manual override on the transmission if you want to hold it in a gear.


----------



## jwfirebird

only familiar with the chevy ones but its annoying to me(holds it way too long in all the chevs I have driven) in tow haul whether I am hauling my 33 ft camper or anything else really, holds the gear way to long, ive got a loud muffler too makes it worse but I don't use it. my ave shifts quick in normal. I'm not sure if it has been programed, I have driven a few other aves, they had 3.54s but this feels quite different, and came with a bunch of other aftermarket stuff so I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## jwfirebird

Ashful said:


> I’ve had manual valve body cars and trucks, and my car can be set to manual, using stick or paddle shifters.  Cool and fun for muscle cars, but a waste in a pickup.  The only thing I dislike about the auto in the truck is bad weather driving.


90 percent of my use in a pickup is towing, I wish since I cant get a manual, it would just stay in the gear I said, really nice towing big stuff down the highway and what I miss most about the man trucks  I had


----------



## blades

Tow haul ford-  been in my trucks since 99 likely before, keeps it out of overdrive, never really noticed it staying in a gear longer, could be . the ones I have used for heavy towing had pretty tall gears  close to 4 or like my old 99 f350 4.77. 2 f250's currently  gasser at 3.73 (5.4)  diesel at 3.5  (6.0). gasser maxs out at 14 mpg no load , 6.0 15mpg with a full load  at highway speeds 65-70 mph ( this one is slightly modded epa wise)


----------



## Ashful

blades said:


> Even more fun with auto sensing 4wd- I can't lock it on or off, just does it's own thing ( 2016 Escape)  Worked well enough on the ice covered roads last week.  This whole 4k # vs 8k# pound vehicle change for daily driving is still some what new to me.  ( ain't used to dragging my butt on the ground.)
> Main thing though is the volume of go juice is 50%or better less/ week.



Mine only has old school 4wd lock, but most of the Dodge pickups now have an auto 4wd setting that I think I’d like for driving on half-plowed roads.  I find myself constantly engaging and disengaging 4wd as I traverse from cleanly plowed to drifted over road surfaces.  I didn’t mind it much when I had a transfer case shift lever to pull, but it’s a major PITA with this push button crap on the dash.


----------



## bholler

I have driven a few vehicles with auto settings on 4wd and i was not impressed.  I found they took to long to engage.  It is nowhere near as good as a true awd system.  My wife now has an escape and unless it is really deep snow it will embarass my 4wds.


----------



## WiscWoody

I got my ‘78 F-150 back on the road today after resting it for the long winter up here. I’ve had the truck for 8 years now and I didn’t pay much for it, well....$1000. It has the 300/6 engine and the B/W T18 granny gear transmission and is a reliable old truck. I pull my lawn care (mower) trailer with it all summer.


----------



## blacktail

jwfirebird said:


> really 2000 and later are the worst, I know a ton of pre 2000 ones that lasted forever, my dadsidea of an oil change is wait till its down a quart. still see it around though he bought a newer chevy because of the rust.
> I know probably a dozen people that have bought a post 2000 1500 ram and had all sorts of issues, the fuse boxes are stupid design and they wont change it because its a grand in the dealers pocket every time. the wheels have fallen off all of the people I knows too, I had the pleasure of trying to fix one the hub plus axle, caliper, bracket everything gets destroyed and dodge parts are twice as much as chevy ones


3 guys at work bought Dodges with the 4.7 and they all crapped the bed. 
A Durango that lost oil pressure going across a long bridge with nowhere to pull over and seized. 
A Dakota that intermittently lost oil pressure on a hunting trip. It limped back to town and the dealer took it on trade even with the knocking sound. It was traded in on a 2500 diesel that needs regular front end rebuilds. 
A 1500 that was taken back as a lemon. The dealer kept chasing rattles in the engine and took it back when they found nuts and bolts in the bottom of the oil pan. 

A friend just traded in his 2500 last week because it kept eating front ends and steering boxes.


----------



## Medic21

blacktail said:


> 3 guys at work bought Dodges with the 4.7 and they all crapped the bed.
> A Durango that lost oil pressure going across a long bridge with nowhere to pull over and seized.
> A Dakota that intermittently lost oil pressure on a hunting trip. It limped back to town and the dealer took it on trade even with the knocking sound. It was traded in on a 2500 diesel that needs regular front end rebuilds.
> A 1500 that was taken back as a lemon. The dealer kept chasing rattles in the engine and took it back when they found nuts and bolts in the bottom of the oil pan.
> 
> A friend just traded in his 2500 last week because it kept eating front ends and steering boxes.



In 6 years and two RAMs i have driven 70,000 miles with zero repairs.  

In the last month in my shop I've put a camshaft and lifters in a GM 5.3 @ 60k miles, VERY common problem.  I've replaced a 4.2l in an envoy for a engine knock.  I've replace a set of turbos on a 3.5 ecoboost, also a VERY common problem.  I've also done a set of cam phasers on a 5.4L.  I stock the cam phasers if that tells you anything about how common that is.  I run the shop part time outside my full time Paramedic job.  

My point is all manufacturers have common problems and issues.  When I worked in the dealerships I did warranty work everyday on heavy engine and transmission work.  They all break.


----------



## blades

Got a call last night about 6pm, my 6.0 went south. Lost power on freeway and no restart no smoke of any kind that the driver noticed and no check eng lite- so thinking fuel system - common problem here is the fuel control module.  ( xxxx computer controls) or could be low pressure tank pump. course there is always the simple plugged fuel filter, If i remember correctly there is more than one.  Not sure on the 6.0 but the 7.3 would do this with a bad crank sensor. Not much I can do,it is out at a shop in the hinter land right now. it would have been mega dollars to tow back to my own shop . As it was I put about 200 miles on last night chasing around in my Escape. So that puts both trucks out of commission the other is waiting on trany lines that rotted out.  Salt in the wound- the V10 I sold last fall is running fine, normal for me. ( must be some kind of virus) almost forgot came back to my shop to get friends 150- yep dead battery and I had changed jackets  forgot the shop keys cables and charger in shop, of course. ( we need the gif of head banging on wall here)


----------



## Ashful

blacktail said:


> 3 guys at work bought Dodges with the 4.7 and they all crapped the bed.
> A Durango that lost oil pressure going across a long bridge with nowhere to pull over and seized.
> A Dakota that intermittently lost oil pressure on a hunting trip. It limped back to town and the dealer took it on trade even with the knocking sound. It was traded in on a 2500 diesel that needs regular front end rebuilds.
> A 1500 that was taken back as a lemon. The dealer kept chasing rattles in the engine and took it back when they found nuts and bolts in the bottom of the oil pan.
> 
> A friend just traded in his 2500 last week because it kept eating front ends and steering boxes.



Wow.  I had a 4.7L Dodge for 12 years, and not a single repair in that time.  Only sold it because it was starting to get some rust in the rear fenders after 12 years of bad weather driving, sitting outdoors, and never washing it.  Your friends do know that you need to change the oil in theses things?


----------



## Medic21

blades said:


> Got a call last night about 6pm, my 6.0 went south. Lost power on freeway and no restart no smoke of any kind that the driver noticed and no check eng lite- so thinking fuel system - common problem here is the fuel control module.  ( xxxx computer controls) or could be low pressure tank pump. course there is always the simple plugged fuel filter, If i remember correctly there is more than one.  Not sure on the 6.0 but the 7.3 would do this with a bad crank sensor. Not much I can do,it is out at a shop in the hinter land right now. it would have been mega dollars to tow back to my own shop . As it was I put about 200 miles on last night chasing around in my Escape. So that puts both trucks out of commission the other is waiting on trany lines that rotted out.  Salt in the wound- the V10 I sold last fall is running fine, normal for me. ( must be some kind of virus)



Most likely FICM.  If you look hard enough on the internet you can find out how to replace the rectifiers in it for a fraction of the cost of a new one.


----------



## Ashful

bholler said:


> I have driven a few vehicles with auto settings on 4wd and i was not impressed.  I found they took to long to engage.  It is nowhere near as good as a true awd system.


Good info,  now I don’t feel as bad about skipping that option.  It wasn’t available on the package that had the heavy duty rear springs and 3.92 rear, for whatever reason. 



bholler said:


> I My wife now has an escape and unless it is really deep snow it will embarass my 4wds.


We’ve had an Audi Quattro, a Jaguar X-Type, two Mercedes 4-Matic, and one Volvo AWD.  They will all embarrass every 4wd truck on this forum, for on-road driving in the snow, unless there’s more than a foot unplowed on the road (which basically never happens here).  I hear the Subaru AWDs are the same, actually probably better than the Jag or Volvo.  There is just no beating a good AWD system, on the road... but they can’t tow my trailer.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Medic21 said:


> My point is all manufacturers have common problems and issues.  When I worked in the dealerships I did warranty work everyday on heavy engine and transmission work.  They all break.


So true. The thing i like about my GM trucks is when they do break (not very often) parts are cheap and readily available. Mostly GM products for my extended family,very few problems or complaints. Also have a dodge truck for 15 years. Very few repairs. In the market for a new or almost new Silverado this summer. It does help to keep them maintained well.


----------



## blades

i will look into the ficm rectifier suggestion. Couple hours back looked up the problem- after 3 pages i booked marked it for later reference. long and short of it,pick your poison to start with and good luck. I've danced to that tune before. 200k + miles any of the suggestions are valid. It is possible there might be  code/s in the ecm. No tools with me last night. Had to get it off the freeway by that time it was 0darkthirty.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> So true. The thing i like about my GM trucks is when they do break (not very often) parts are cheap and readily available. Mostly GM products for my extended family,very few problems or complaints. Also have a dodge truck for 15 years. Very few repairs. In the market for a new or almost new Silverado this summer. It does help to keep them maintained well.


I have had bad vehicles from all 3 american companies.  Bad transmissions and differentials from dodge.  Bad electrical and rust issues from gm.  Never had major problems with and ford trucks but filed a lemon law suit for a mercury sable.  The eorst vehicle i have owned is between a 3/4 ton dodge van that sable or my current trailblazer.  Our current chevy 2500 has been great mechanically but has rust issues and has had electrical problems as well


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> So true. The thing i like about my GM trucks is when they do break (not very often) parts are cheap and readily available. Mostly GM products for my extended family,very few problems or complaints. Also have a dodge truck for 15 years. Very few repairs. In the market for a new or almost new Silverado this summer. It does help to keep them maintained well.


I also dont find gm parts any cheaper than ford or dodge at all honestly.


----------



## Ashful

bholler said:


> I also dont find gm parts any cheaper than ford or dodge at all honestly.



I was wondering about that.  It’s been years since I’ve owned a GM product, but they used to be no cheaper than the rest.

The exception was small block aftermarket engine components, where the Chevy and Ford small block parts were always much cheaper than anything else.  That speaks more to demand and volume, than design.


----------



## bholler

Ashful said:


> I was wondering about that.  It’s been years since I’ve owned a GM product, but they used to be no cheaper than the rest.
> 
> The exception was small block aftermarket engine components, where the Chevy and Ford small block parts were always much cheaper than anything else.  That speaks more to demand and volume, than design.


Yeah if you are talking about aftermarket performance parts chevy still wins there price wise.  The ls parts are everywhere so the parts are generally cheaper.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> I also dont find gm parts any cheaper than ford or dodge at all honestly.


Probably not the big three but, I was mostly comparing it to a toyota  truck i had for awhile and it needed parts often and they were always a lot more than the GMs. Needed a front disc caliper for my 1 ton Silverado dump truck once.Rebuilt caliper was $26, lifetime guarantee. I was expecting a lot more as its a big caliper. Just one example.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Whenever the automaker changes design and part numbers the price goes up. I remember selling GM universal joints while running the families auto parts store. One particular part number fit a boatload of different years and models. I believe the price was $7.50 . Part numbers fitting only one or two years were easily 2 or 3 times that even though they were roughly  the same size and design. GM used to keep a lot of the same parts going thru a lot of model years. Not sure if they still do anymore.


----------



## Medic21

blades said:


> i will look into the ficm rectifier suggestion. Couple hours back looked up the problem- after 3 pages i booked marked it for later reference. long and short of it,pick your poison to start with and good luck. I've danced to that tune before. 200k + miles any of the suggestions are valid. It is possible there might be  code/s in the ecm. No tools with me last night. Had to get it off the freeway by that time it was 0darkthirty.



http://www.powerstroke.org/forum/at...cm-repair-procedure-ficm_repair_procedure.pdf

I have done a few.  I used to stock them but, I'm not seeing it as often now.

As far as losing power on the Power Strokes and dying.  The FICM is number 1, high pressure oil pump or leak issues is a close second.  Cam sensors and fuel pressure on the low side.  If you have a scanner check FICM voltage while cranking.  Needs, I believe, 42 volts to fire.  If that voltage is there it is ok.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Probably not the big three but, I was mostly comparing it to a toyota  truck i had for awhile and it needed parts often and they were always a lot more than the GMs. Needed a front disc caliper for my 1 ton Silverado dump truck once.Rebuilt caliper was $26, lifetime guarantee. I was expecting a lot more as its a big caliper. Just one example.


Really a toyota?  I had a beater tacoma i bought for $500 with 275000 miles on it.  I beat the crap out of it in the woods for 3 summers in that time i put 6000 miles on it almost all on the dirt.  I only drove it on the road the first year till i rolled it the first time.  After that it wasnt exactly street legal anymore.    And i did nothing to it but add oil to it and occasionally roll it back onto its wheels.  And it just kept running it only died when i misjudged the depth of a mud hole and swamped it.  I got it running again but it was never the same.  I have never had anything but fantastic reliability from toyotas.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> Really a toyota?  .


Was a 1999 with only 75000 miles on it.  Only good thing i can say about it is it had lots of power.  Springs were crap, bottomed out with a few cement blocks in the back .MPG was crap. You could almost hear it rusting. Paper thin body panels ,leaning against the side might put a dent in it. Put more replacement parts on it than any GM product i ever had and those parts were a lot more expensive.
I could go on and on.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Was a 1999 with only 75000 miles on it.  Only good thing i can say about it is it had lots of power. Springs were crap, bottomed out with a few cement blocks in the back .MPG was crap. You could almost hear it rusting. Paper thin body panels ,leaning against the side might put a dent in it. I could go on and on.


Like our 06 chevy with 75000 miles that has had the frame patched 4 times already and i dont trust it to tow our masonry trailer anymore because of the frame.  Atleast toyota recalled theirs.  Not to mention the brake lines and fuel lines that rusted by 45000 miles.  Again no recall.  They did recall one of the plugs that melted off but not the other 6.  Every company has good years a nd bad years.  And you can get a bad one even from those good years.  I have no brand loyalty it makes no sense you have to research each vehicle to decide what works best for you.


----------



## Ashful

bholler said:


> Every company has good years and bad years.  And you can get a bad one even from those good years.  I have no brand loyalty it makes no sense you have to research each vehicle to decide what works best for you.


Amen.

That's why I only buy 1960's Jaguars.


----------



## bholler

Ashful said:


> Amen.
> 
> That's why I only buy 1960's Jaguars.


Lol


----------



## Stelcom66

jwfirebird said:


> my cutlass was about same year and engine, about 250k i traded it for the grand prix, had the 3.1 too, that one i put over 300k on ...
> 
> the only ones i have had to get into the engine is the 3800 in the wifes bonneville and the first lucerne, they have stupid plastic intake manifolds ...
> 
> the trucks normally 18 local 20-22 i get with my ave, most of the trucks with the 5.3 are the same too



Sounds like the 3.1 was very good engine. Something went on my son's Cutlass, maybe the intake manifold but at that time it made sense to move onto something else. Bummer to hear about the 3.8 with the plastic intake manifolds, I didn't realize that. I did some research and as you said somewhat common. Again, a change for a reliable basic engine that ended up causing trouble. That 3.8 V6 goes back to the 1960s, I'll bet they didn't have plastic then. That's why I believe new isn't always best or better, not just with vehicles but appliances. Years ago refrigerators and washer/dryers would last 15 years or more, certainly not the case with mine.The 3.8s weren't nearly as smooth though years ago. My friend had one in his '76 Olds Starfire. Not smooth at all at idle. I think it was resolved with the cylinder firing order and balance shafts. I remember I test drove one in I think a '65 Buick Special with a 3 on the tree.

If you're getting 18 mpg or more with your Avalanche you're definitely getting better MPGs than I was with the Honda Pilot. I do like the 5.3 that I have in the 2002 Silverado I bought recently. It never seems like it really needs to work hard.


----------



## blades

Vehicles for me have been a crap shoot, even the couple brand new ones I have owned US or  Japanese. Everything has become so much more complex now  and excessively expensive to repair that it is mind boggling.  I live in the winter chemical corrosion belt which just compounds the difficulties. A lot of repairs I can do myself, finding the particular  system culprit is the hard part. Understanding that codes are only showing the results of  1 or more system failures and are in no way indicative of the actual problem, most of the time, is difficult for most. A little tid bit- you have 2 ground circuits they are essentially independent of each other- one is chassis ground , the other is electrical  ground  running though various control modules which make and break the circuit on the Neg. leg.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> Every company has good years a nd bad years.  And you can get a bad one even from those good years.  I have no brand loyalty it makes no sense you have to research each vehicle to decide what works best for you.


All i can go on is past experience. Had a few fords over the years trucks, in the 80s and a car in the 90s . All plagued with numerous problems. Ill probably never buy another although i know there are lots of good ones out there,i just cant seem to get one. Even with research its the luck of the draw.  Some just cant take these road salt winters in PA.


----------



## Jazzberry

Vehicles ince 2002
Used 2001 Dodge Cummins-- Favorite truck by far. wish I never sold it. No repairs other than Hot Rodding
2007 Bought a new 2008 Vette (was wifes daily) Awesome but it should have been a weekend toy. Not a daily driver. No repairs other than dealer replaced the driver seat cover due to wear. Sold 4 1/2 years later @ 36,000 mi for close to purchase price.
Used 2013 Impala LTZ with 36 k replaced 2 sensors total under $75.00 Gave to daughter still running strong close to 200k now and unreal power and gas mileage.
Used 2006 Chevy (aluminum L33 motor) half ton 4x4 Z71 with 60K now at 150k had key ignition replace and heater sensor less than $125.00
You guys are buying the wrong vehicles.
Knocking on wood.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> All i can go on is past experience. Had a few fords over the years trucks, in the 80s and a car in the 90s . All plagued with numerous problems. Ill probably never buy another although i know there are lots of good ones out there,i just cant seem to get one. Even with research its the luck of the draw.  Some just cant take these road salt winters in PA.


Yes i know our chevy truck and my trailblazer cant.  My 1990 ford frame is perfect still.  And our ford van doesnt have any rust at all yet but it is a 2010 so much newer.  But it does have 165000 miles and we have had no issues other than a plug blowing out fixed under warranty.


----------



## Dobish

i haven't been able to get the truck not to start again for the last couple of days. all i did with it was load it up with some wood


----------



## jwfirebird

dodge stuff for the hemi dodge I work on is about two to three times more than for my ave. they are both 04, but has half the mileage, the ave you can get half shafts and hubs about 40-50 I just did them at 180k. they were 120 and 100 for the hubs on the dodge and a terrible job everything was seized, needed dealer only bolts you couldnt get access to. on the chevy you can get the axle out of the way bye zipping out 6 bolts. 
I just thought of a few other things ive had to do to the dodge, fuel pump, cam and lifters, it leaked everything, the side bars fell off and I had to make new brackets because there wasent enough frame to attach them anymore sure there was more. 

I started getting my gms zeibarted, one of gms biggest problems I guess but that really takes care of it


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> Yes i know our chevy truck and my trailblazer cant.  My 1990 ford frame is perfect still..


Must be dependent on what year it is. My 1995 2500 Silverado frame is near perfect shape, for a truck 23 yrs old. Even the body has very little rust. My 93 Silverado has  more surface rust on the frame but nothing deep. The toyota had way more frame rust and was very deep to the point of collapsing and was years newer.


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> All i can go on is past experience.


Sort of ironic, that you’re posting that statement on a forum where people come to benefit from the experience of others, no?

You have much more to go on, than your own very narrow past experience.  Internet forums, auto industry publications, consumer reports, truecar, edmunds, kelly, etc., etc., etc.


----------



## blades

Still luck of the draw.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Must be dependent on what year it is. My 1995 2500 Silverado frame is near perfect shape, for a truck 23 yrs old. Even the body has very little rust. My 93 Silverado has  more surface rust on the frame but nothing deep. The toyota had way more frame rust and was very deep to the point of collapsing and was years newer.


Yeah ours is an 06 and needed patched the first time in 2012.  If it hadnt been patched i am sure the frame would have broken by now.  But the body has little rust on it.  Ford really doesnt seem to have to many issues with frame rust but more with body.  The same for dodge.  Honestly in this area it is hard to find many road worthy gm trucks from the 2000s.  A large percentage of them have frames that are to far gone.  But they claim there is no problem with that or the brake lines or fuel lines.  And toyota gets crap for a problem they issued a recall for.


----------



## Ashful

blades said:


> Still luck of the draw.



To some small degree, yes.  But you can avoid the high prevalence of certain specific problems, by doing your research.  My example above, avoid vintage Lucas electronics, unless you like playing with that sort of thing.


----------



## jwfirebird

bringing up bad memories with the ford 6.0, definitely the worst work truck we had, left me stranded a million times. was in the shop 3 or 4 times a year when it was new, every time lost work time and not fun waiting for a tow for hours in january because you have to wait for something that can pull a 12k truck and 12k trailer

not luck of the draw if you see tons have issues with the same thing


----------



## Medic21

jwfirebird said:


> bringing up bad memories with the ford 6.0, definitely the worst work truck we had, left me stranded a million times. was in the shop 3 or 4 times a year when it was new, every time lost work time and not fun waiting for a tow for hours in january because you have to wait for something that can pull a 12k truck and 12k trailer
> 
> not luck of the draw if you see tons have issues with the same thing



I was a Ford Truck Tech when the 6.0 came out.  I despised them until I opened my own shop.  Embrace the junk chit, it pays your bills as a Technician.  Beside just when you thought it couldn't be worse they threw in the 6.4L abomination with its dual turbo and egr cooler nightmare.  Now it's the 6.7L and not looking too much better.  Egr coolers, turbos, and now dropping injector seats destroying pistons and blocks.

There is a reason I worked on Fords and drove Dodge.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> Sort of ironic, that you’re posting that statement on a forum where people come to benefit from the experience of others, no?
> You have much more to go on, than your own very narrow past experience. Internet forums, auto industry publications, consumer reports, truecar, edmunds, kelly, etc., etc., etc.
> .


Well i believed the opinions of others(like consumer reports) about the toyotas ,and got a real world experience by buying one and finding they are not all so great after all.
. Have 46 yrs of my own with many cars and trucks of various makes. I managed a family auto parts store and repair shop for 10 years,thousands of repairs on all makes and model vehicles so iv seen a lot of repairs in that time.So i dont think my experience is so narrow. In the end ill go with what i think is best from past experience every time. Ill listen to anyones opinion but it may go in one ear and out the other. No offense.


----------



## sportbikerider78

Over my short 39 yrs on this earth, I have heard countless stories of chevys, chryslers and fords with transmissions that died in the first 50k miles. Most recently, this last year, a coworker had the transmission die on his 30k mile chevy Equinox.  Then so many injector and safety alarms that he hasn't driven it nearly a mile without an engine light on.  He tried to lemon law it, it was at the dealer so much.  They never got it fixed.  Meanwhile, I was driving my 2006 Acura with 130k on the clock, that never had a problem.  

Too many stories like this for me to buy American.  Not that anyone is trying to convince me.  Everyone has their own experiences.  Everyone has their own bias.  I think a big part of it is just continuing to buy what you grow up with and who you grow up around.
When I visit friends in KY, I think I'm the only foreign SUV driver in 100 miles.


----------



## blades

EGR- has no place on any engine- why feed gunk and grit back into critical areas? Worst possible thing for direct injection type units.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

sportbikerider78 said:


> Everyone has their own experiences.  Everyone has their own bias.


Since its well established that they all break, all have bad model years and designs at times i have to consider other factors. 
 I would say im bias to American brands. As a small business owner, i tend to buy from(patronize) those that buy from me. Iv never sold a house to any foreigners from Japan or South Korea or Germany so i wont be buying any cars or trucks from them in general. With all their faults American brands (mostly GM) have kept me going daily for 46yrs,and extended family for 56yrs. I guess its possible that iv had an exceptional string of good luck or its also possible that i take very good care of my vehicles even in my driving style. In the end they are all just a few tons of vinyl, glass, aluminum and steel and some lubricants.


----------



## blades

Gm v6 80's oil pumps would self destruct apx 50-60k miles, same for the auto tranny's in the full size gm cars.  Gm 80's design flaw rear drum brakes even with the supposed fix they still would  not go more than 10k city driving.  There was a hack we used to solve it- Gm never did get it right.  70'sLots of nit picky stuff all makes.  50's &60's units were pretty reliable just normal stuff for the most part. 80's were the start of a lot of computer integration and then the nightmares started it was also a time where the imports were grabbing a lot of market share based on price and supposed reliability? But they would rust out real quick around here. Good, bad or indifferent all the makes had their problems and still do.  Way back , rule of thumb, never buy a car that went down the assembly line on Monday or Friday.   Gm plant- Janesville Wi, circa 70's, Hazard pay extra $0.25/ hr for driving units off assembly line. Honest! I lived in Beloit wi at that time, big employers were gm and chrysler in Bellview IL. a lot stories.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

sportbikerider78 said:


> When I visit friends in KY, I think I'm the only foreign SUV driver in 100 miles.


That may be evidence that not all are experiencing  the horror stories that you are hearing about. Also the ones who have no problems are not as vocal about it.


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> .So i dont think my experience is so narrow. In the end ill go with what i think is best from past experience every time. Ill listen to anyones opinion but it may go in one ear and out the other. No offense.


Not an insult.  The experience of any single individual, when compared to the millions of cars on the road, is by definition of the word, very narrow.  That’s where things like cost of ownership, calculated from the service records of thousands (sometimes tens of thousands) of examples of each individual make and model, is much more valuable than any personal experience.  That’s all I was saying.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Sometimes the difference in scores of the worst rated models and the best is not a great deal. One thing i can credit foreign brands with is forcing the homegrown brands to do better. Doesnt seem to have worked with the jeep brand though. One thing that dont show up on service records is driving style. The wife can burn through rotors(and brakes) in a few thousands miles.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

sportbikerider78 said:


> .a coworker had the transmission die on his 30k mile chevy Equinox  Meanwhile, I was driving my 2006 Acura with 130k on the clock, that never had a problem.
> .


I dont think you can judge the whole brand by this. I dont think all toyotas are bad just because i got one that was. My SIL has an 2003 Equinox that never had a problem. Now drives a 2014 Equinox without any problems. Still has the 03 with over 250000 Mile on it. I would totally try a Ford again even after some not so great one,s in the past.That was in the 80s so i cant compare that to the new ones. I still think overall they are a good car company.


----------



## jwfirebird

they are all I would buy too but not any them, I wouldn't buy a 4 cyl anymore they seem to have engineering issues aside from not being better on gas than my 240hp 6 cylinder. wouldn't buy the Malibu size ones or smaller, don't fit me but some parts aren't built well
wouldnt buy the small suv or trailblazer or that size stuff for the same reasons under built and get the same mileage as full size stuff


----------



## blades

don't look now but everything is "underbilit" for purpose intended all in an effort to achieve mpg ratings. No way a full size blazer gets the same as an equinox mpg wise with the same hp to weight ratio.  Then there is the towing issue to add to that.  now you can play with gearing a bit to get them close but there are going to be trade offs somewhere.


----------



## bholler

jwfirebird said:


> they are all I would buy too but not any them, I wouldn't buy a 4 cyl anymore they seem to have engineering issues aside from not being better on gas than my 240hp 6 cylinder. wouldn't buy the Malibu size ones or smaller, don't fit me but some parts aren't built well
> wouldnt buy the small suv or trailblazer or that size stuff for the same reasons under built and get the same mileage as full size stuff


I am curious what issues you are referring to with 4 cylinders?  I have owned many 4s 6s and 8s through the years and i have never had a reliability issue with a 4.  Granted i have had some great 6s and 8s to but all of the 4s have been extremly reliable.  And yes if you put an underpowered 4 in a large vehicle it wont get good mpg but all of our 4cylinders got great mpg for the vehicle they were in.  My wifes current escape for example has the 2.0t which after their initial turbo problems have help up very well.  It has close to 300 hp and depending on your driving can easily get 28 mpg on the highway.  And that is on an awd vehicle.  I agree the trailblazers are crap but they drive way better than a tahoe.  And most other midsized suvs dont get much better mpg than full size but the smaller unibody ones blow the full sized stuff out of the water in that regard.


----------



## bholler

blades said:


> don't look now but everything is "underbilit" for purpose intended all in an effort to achieve mpg ratings. No way a full size blazer gets the same as an equinox mpg wise with the same hp to weight ratio.  Then there is the towing issue to add to that.  now you can play with gearing a bit to get them close but there are going to be trade offs somewhere.


Yes absolutly full sized stuff still has a place no matter what power suspension etc you have you need some weight there to be able to control and stop a trailer.  That is why we have full sized stuff but we drive her escape most places.  And it actually tows small trailers pretty well


----------



## blacktail

sportbikerider78 said:


> Meanwhile, I was driving my 2006 Acura with 130k on the clock, that never had a problem.
> 
> Too many stories like this for me to buy American.



My 4runner hit 250k last week. Front wheel bearings at 236k are the only repair it's ever needed. Regular stuff like tires, brakes, battery, plugs, wires, and a few bulbs have been replaced over the years but everything else is original.


----------



## jwfirebird

all those smaller gms have all kinds of "known"  issues, the windows are designed cheap to break and fall down, they have all sorts of engine issues. my fil has an almost new Malibu been in the shop two or three times for different engine sensors and one was the head or manifold for egr poor design and constant lights on.

the blazers and all those little suvs (any brand really, they put way undersized engines for the weight and its a brick) get crap mileage, I was talking about the real full size stuff, Tahoe Yukon subrban, they get the same as my ave, 18l 22hwy real world. that's all you hear from real people with all the smaller ones so why bother buying one that's got half the towing and you could fit on one of those trailblazers in the back of my ave


----------



## bholler

jwfirebird said:


> all those smaller gms have all kinds of "known"  issues, the windows are designed cheap to break and fall down, they have all sorts of engine issues. my fil has an almost new Malibu been in the shop two or three times for different engine sensors and one was the head or manifold for egr poor design and constant lights on.
> 
> the blazers and all those little suvs (any brand really, they put way undersized engines for the weight and its a brick) get crap mileage, I was talking about the real full size stuff, Tahoe Yukon subrban, they get the same as my ave, 18l 22hwy real world. that's all you hear from real people with all the smaller ones so why bother buying one that's got half the towing and you could fit on one of those trailblazers in the back of my ave


Ok many of the smaller suvs are not underpowered at all.  Our escape certainly isnt my freinds pathfinder isnt my freinds and my sils rav arent my bils 4runner isnt.  And they all can get mid to upper 20s depending on your driving.  My trailblazer certainly isnt underpowered and has plenty of towing capacity.  But no the mpg are no better than the tahoes.  It does drive much nicer though.  

I think you may be confusing the trailblazer with another vehicle.  They were body on frame trucks.  They came in a standard and extended version.  Extended is as long as a tahoe and has a real 3rd row that can seat adults comfortably.  It was offered with a 275 hp straight six (not underpowered) or the 5.3 the same motor and trans as most tahoes and suburbans.  They even made an ss eith the 6 liter. 

Yes they have electrical issues.  But the full sized stuff from the time had many of the same issues.  Yes they have rust issues but again so do the full sized.  The only problem they have that the bigger stuff doesnt is with the goofy front axle setup.


----------



## Stelcom66

Jazzberry said:


> Vehicles ince 2002
> Used 2001 Dodge Cummins-- Favorite truck by far. wish I never sold it. ....



Those things are still incredibly expense used. I've seen that year (with the diesel) listed for $10k or more recently with a body in good shape.


----------



## Stelcom66

jwfirebird said:


> ...the blazers and all those little suvs (any brand really, they put way undersized engines for the weight and its a brick) get crap mileage....



I was looking for a Silverado with the 4.8 V8 like I had before, but I've heard and research shows the 4.3 V6, 4.8 and 5.3 V8s get close to the same MPGs. As you mentioned - weight and wind resistance are significant factors. So far in the month owning the 5.3 the MPGs seem almost identical to the 4.8.


----------



## jwfirebird

I know a ton of people that have (had) the mid size truck frame vehicles and one that got the 6.0, hes the only one that's still got it because he only drives it to shows and the track. all the other ones have either got something that gets better milage, they get terrible mileage for the power and weight and wont tow anything I need

they have all sorts of issues too, that frame has electrical issues and the head cracks on the inline engines, that totals it most times or gets sold to some chump that doesn't read the common problems before buying a car. gm had a recall but they capped it at 100k before everyone normally has a problem. 

I drive all rural two lane, there are always trucks and tractors and not much room, theres always a line of those little suvs behind them, not me. 
I would never buy a foreign car really don't care, I ve heard people at work and that talking about there Honda and stuff, the cost of the maintenance stuff is way higher though, and I just cant give my money to a different country


----------



## bholler

Stelcom66 said:


> I was looking for a Silverado with the 4.8 V8 like I had before, but I've heard and research shows the 4.3 V6, 4.8 and 5.3 V8s get close to the same MPGs. As you mentioned - weight and wind resistance are significant factors. So far in the month owning the 5.3 the MPGs seem almost identical to the 4.8.


If you do allot of highway driving the smaller motors will get better mpg.  But around town or with a load they will be similar.  Many times with an edge to the bigger motor.  It all depends what you will be using it for.


----------



## jwfirebird

the full size ones ride like buicks too, if you want not a big fan.85 percent of m use is towing one of a couple big trailers I put air bags an dkyb shocks on my Yukon and the ave I have now because soft is not good for trailers


----------



## blades

2016 Escape 2.5  turbo  4wd ,cold weather 24.5mpg  now  that things have progressed above35 deg 27.5mpg.  my drive is 100 miles a day 90% at apx 72mph the other 10% is in town it will sidle up to apx 28 or so  as it gets a bit warmer. How you drive has a major effect- rabbit starts and charging up to stops   drags mpg down significantly.
 Towing duties fall on  my trucks  although the Escape is rated at apx 3500# towing capacity. Likely fry the tranny if that was a constant use.  For me it is mostly a commuter unit.


----------



## jwfirebird

bholler said:


> If you do allot of highway driving the smaller motors will get better mpg.  But around town or with a load they will be similar.  Many times with an edge to the bigger motor.  It all depends what you will be using it for.



 a lot of the dealers order them with taller gears too, since most people that buy them know the difference, so you would see 4.3 and 4.8 a lot with the 3.23 gears, worth some hwy mpg


----------



## bholler

jwfirebird said:


> I know a ton of people that have (had) the mid size truck frame vehicles and one that got the 6.0, hes the only one that's still got it because he only drives it to shows and the track. all the other ones have either got something that gets better milage, they get terrible mileage for the power and weight and wont tow anything I need
> 
> they have all sorts of issues too, that frame has electrical issues and the head cracks on the inline engines, that totals it most times or gets sold to some chump that doesn't read the common problems before buying a car. gm had a recall but they capped it at 100k before everyone normally has a problem.
> 
> I drive all rural two lane, there are always trucks and tractors and not much room, theres always a line of those little suvs behind them, not me.
> I would never buy a foreign car really don't care, I ve heard people at work and that talking about there Honda and stuff, the cost of the maintenance stuff is way higher though, and I just cant give my money to a different country


Yes they had issues with the heads the first year out it was fixed after that.  The power to weight ratio for the 4.2 is about the s a me as an avalanche with the 5.3 and it is higher with the 5.3.  And as you said it gets similar mpg.  So where is the problem there?

No they dont tow as much as a full size but they tow better than other mid sized stuff.  It all depend on your needs.  I have my f250 and my j10 or the work truck or van if i need to tow something heavy.  But the tb tows our bayliner very well on vacation.

As far as the foreign car thing you do realize how many of those cars are made here and how many domestic cars are not dont you?   And chrysler was owned by daimler and now fiat so not really domestic either.


----------



## bholler

jwfirebird said:


> the full size ones ride like buicks too, if you want not a big fan.85 percent of m use is towing one of a couple big trailers I put air bags an dkyb shocks on my Yukon and the ave I have now because soft is not good for trailers


Yeah they either wallow around like a boat or bounce around like crazy depending on the suspension.  Neither is very comfortable on the twisty mountain roads i usually drive.  Obviously if you are towing big trailers you need a full size but most dont do that.


----------



## bholler

blades said:


> 2016 Escape 2.5  turbo  4wd ,cold weather 24.5mpg  now  that things have progressed above35 deg 27.5mpg.  my drive is 100 miles a day 90% at apx 72mph the other 10% is in town it will sidle up to apx 28 or so  as it gets a bit warmer. How you drive has a major effect- rabbit starts and charging up to stops   drags mpg down significantly.
> Towing duties fall on  my trucks  although the Escape is rated at apx 3500# towing capacity. Likely fry the tranny if that was a constant use.  For me it is mostly a commuter unit.


Yeah i said we had the 2.0 earlier but i was wrong it is the 2.5 like yours.  We have to many vehicles to to keep track of between work trucks personal daily drivers and classics.

But so far we are really happy with the escape.


----------



## bholler

jwfirebird said:


> a lot of the dealers order them with taller gears too, since most people that buy them know the difference, so you would see 4.3 and 4.8 a lot with the 3.23 gears, worth some hwy mpg


Yes and again it depends what you need.  Nothing wrong with the higher gearing as long as it works for what you need.


----------



## bholler

To be clear i have absolutly no issue at all with the full sized stuff.  But many people have no need for them at all.  And there absolutly is a big advantage in mpg handling and maneuverability with smaller vehicles.  And dispite your claims there is absolutly no inherent durability advantage going to full sized trucks over smaller vehicles.  Some of the smaller ones will be better some will be worse.


----------



## WiscWoody

I sure like my lowly 2000 Toyota Echo, I only paid $5600 for it back in 2002 with 26,000 miles on it and I’ve only done oil changes to it (53 times so far with good synthetic oil and good synthetic filters too) and replaced the serpentine belt twice. Oh, and I put new plugs in it a few times too. It’s been hit hard twice and I hit a deer with it and it looks like hell and is a local legend in my town of 326 but I am determined to drive it into the ground as I said I would when the seller handed me the keys to it. It’s been my daily driver for 16 years now and I hope to get another 5 out of it. I have some other vehicles that are in new condition but they’re too nice to drive lol....

Edit....oops. I guess this is a truck thread isn’t it?


----------



## Stelcom66

blades said:


> 2016 Escape 2.5  turbo  4wd ,cold weather 24.5mpg  now  that things have progressed above35 deg 27.5mpg....



That is very decent MPGs for an SUV. I just read Ford will only sell 2 sedans in the U.S. a few years from now, the Mustang and Focus. Partly because as noted, SUVs and even full size pickups are getting good (for their size or in general) MPGs these days.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

I just read post of a 2014 SIlverado getting 34,6 MPG on a trip with a 4.3 V-6 . This is hard to believe.  This is the truck im considering buying this year and while getting some info on it i ran across this article. I would think this is only possible with a diesel.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/community/index.php?threads/49623/


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> I just read post of a 2014 SIlverado getting 34,6 MPG on a trip with a 4.3 V-6 . This is hard to believe.  This is the truck im considering buying this year and while getting some info on it i ran across this article. I would think this is only possible with a diesel.
> 
> http://www.cleanmpg.com/community/index.php?threads/49623/



I had that exact configuration, but with a 5 speed manual trans.  Even without a load or trailer, it would have trouble keeping over 65 MPH in the hills, a major point of frustration for my then-daily commute.  It was short on power to maintain speed in 5th gear, and over-revving in 4th gear.

When I’d pull a trailer, that number would drop to 45 - 55 mph, depending on trailer weight.  I found it just completely un-drivable, on the hilly highways north and west of here, that I was regularly driving in those years.

On the other hand, it was great around town.  Truly no issue.  Plenty of torque for city driving, just fell short on HP at highway speed.  The depressing thing was, despite this sacrifice in HP, I was netting the same average mileage as my buddies with v8’s.  I may have done slightly better on the highway, but they were doing better around town.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> I had that exact configuration, but with a 5 speed manual trans.  .


What year was yours? Same HP?


----------



## jwfirebird

the campers I have and had where about 6500 dry and the wife always packs like we are going to be gone for a month, so with tanks and coolers and crap probably 8k or more.

I don't think I ever said why I have the opinions I do, until recently I was a field tech (electronics) for 20 years, and have had probably two dozen cars or so most of the time I bought and drove my own. but I just carry a few tools sometimes was out of state. at first I bought any of the us three that you could put some tools in. I had a beater mileage car and some truck normally at the same time. 
 when they stuck me with what they wanted I had a bunch of those little suvs and mini vans, some pickups etc.
the ones I bought, escort,f150, bronco, Cherokees, liberties, the one they did were the fords, exploder, expedition, 
once I started buying the gm w bodies they were a lot more reliable more fuel efficient, could fit as many tools and crap. never had to mess with those but the f150 was the only one I got a nasty letter from AAA about towing to many times. 

we get a lot of snow here too they are the best normal day to day snow vehicle too, a lot of people evn around here don't believe me when I say that but with the right tires ad all the electronics tat actually help instead of hurt like the ford and dodge ones. most of the time I drive it like summer. the only reason I slow down is traffic times you have some fool pulling out in front of you. the worst vehicles were the trucks and suvs like the jeeps, you had to leave the 4wd on all the time if you wanted to drive as fast as I do in the car safely


----------



## jwfirebird

Ashful said:


> I had that exact configuration, but with a 5 speed manual trans.  Even without a load or trailer, it would have trouble keeping over 65 MPH in the hills, a major point of frustration for my then-daily commute.  It was short on power to maintain speed in 5th gear, and over-revving in 4th gear.
> 
> When I’d pull a trailer, that number would drop to 45 - 55 mph, depending on trailer weight.  I found it just completely un-drivable, on the hilly highways north and west of here, that I was regularly driving in those years.
> 
> On the other hand, it was great around town.  Truly no issue.  Plenty of torque for city driving, just fell short on HP at highway speed.  The depressing thing was, despite this sacrifice in HP, I was netting the same average mileage as my buddies with v8’s.  I may have done slightly better on the highway, but they were doing better around town.



 I don't believe mileage claims unless it talking to some one I know, most of the people I know that have had that engine isn't much better than the 8


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> What year was yours? Same HP?


Good point.  Mine was a 1995 K1500 Silverado.  I haven’t found any official listing of it’s spec, but consumerguide.com puts it at only 200 hp / 255 lb-ft.  This latest model year is listed at 285 hp / 305 lb-ft., for the same displacement.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

My 1993 Silverado Ext cab 1/2 ton with a 4.3l V-6  5speed  only makes 160 HP.   The new 4.3s i believe are 285.  Quite a jump. My 95 with 350 V8 only made 200.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> Good point.  Mine was a 1995 K1500 Silverado.  I haven’t found any official listing of it’s spec, but consumerguide.com puts it at only 200 hp / 255 lb-ft.  This latest model year is listed at 285 hp / 305 lb-ft., for the same displacement.


I think that 40HP jump was in 96 but i could be wrong. If yours had sequential fuel injection it was the higher HP. Before that it was 160.


----------



## bholler

Ashful said:


> I had that exact configuration, but with a 5 speed manual trans.  Even without a load or trailer, it would have trouble keeping over 65 MPH in the hills, a major point of frustration for my then-daily commute.  It was short on power to maintain speed in 5th gear, and over-revving in 4th gear.
> 
> When I’d pull a trailer, that number would drop to 45 - 55 mph, depending on trailer weight.  I found it just completely un-drivable, on the hilly highways north and west of here, that I was regularly driving in those years.
> 
> On the other hand, it was great around town.  Truly no issue.  Plenty of torque for city driving, just fell short on HP at highway speed.  The depressing thing was, despite this sacrifice in HP, I was netting the same average mileage as my buddies with v8’s.  I may have done slightly better on the highway, but they were doing better around town.


The new 4.3s are pretty different direct injection vvt etc.  But i still dont beleive 30+ mpg real world out of that vehicle.  My sister just got one so i can report on it soon.


----------



## bholler

jwfirebird said:


> I don't believe mileage claims unless it talking to some one I know, most of the people I know that have had that engine isn't much better than the 8


Again that depends how and where you drive.  It can get allot better in the right situation.  And hell the new 4.3s have more power than the older 5.3s


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> Again that depends how and where you drive.  It can get allot better in the right situation.  And hell the new 4.3s have more power than the older 5.3s


And the older 5.7s. My 95 K2500 only ,makes 200HP.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> The new 4.3s are pretty different direct injection vvt etc.  But i still dont beleive 30+ mpg real world out of that vehicle.  My sister just got one so i can report on it soon.


ID be interested to know that. Im in the market for this particular truck but have been wondering which is the best engine size. I wont be doing any heavy towing ,but i am looking for good MPG as i do a lot of driving empty on flat terrain


----------



## bholler

jwfirebird said:


> the campers I have and had where about 6500 dry and the wife always packs like we are going to be gone for a month, so with tanks and coolers and crap probably 8k or more.
> 
> I don't think I ever said why I have the opinions I do, until recently I was a field tech (electronics) for 20 years, and have had probably two dozen cars or so most of the time I bought and drove my own. but I just carry a few tools sometimes was out of state. at first I bought any of the us three that you could put some tools in. I had a beater mileage car and some truck normally at the same time.
> when they stuck me with what they wanted I had a bunch of those little suvs and mini vans, some pickups etc.
> the ones I bought, escort,f150, bronco, Cherokees, liberties, the one they did were the fords, exploder, expedition,
> once I started buying the gm w bodies they were a lot more reliable more fuel efficient, could fit as many tools and crap. never had to mess with those but the f150 was the only one I got a nasty letter from AAA about towing to many times.
> 
> we get a lot of snow here too they are the best normal day to day snow vehicle too, a lot of people evn around here don't believe me when I say that but with the right tires ad all the electronics tat actually help instead of hurt like the ford and dodge ones. most of the time I drive it like summer. the only reason I slow down is traffic times you have some fool pulling out in front of you. the worst vehicles were the trucks and suvs like the jeeps, you had to leave the 4wd on all the time if you wanted to drive as fast as I do in the car safely


The w body cars are pretty good in the snow.  But are a joke compared to a good all wheel drive vehicle.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> ID be interested to know that. Im in the market for this particular truck but have been wondering which is the best engine size. I wont be doing any heavy towing ,but i am looking for good MPG as i do a lot of driving empty on flat terrain


She has only had it a few weeks but i will ask her


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> And the older 5.7s. My 95 K2500 only ,makes 200HP.


Hell the four cylinder in our escape has more hp than most 90s v8s.  

No where near the tourque though


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Its possible that higher HP and some high overdrive gears could return some good MPG numbers.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> Hell the four cylinder in our escape has more hp than most 90s v8s.
> 
> No where near the tourque though


They used to make a good hybrid in that escape for about 5 years
 Up to 36 MPG ,fantastic for an SUV. Ford should do one in electric,toyota was able to get 120miles out of a RAV4 with a NIMH battery .Fordrs could do better with Li-ion


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Its possible that higher HP and some high overdrive gears could return some good MPG numbers.


Yes that can happen but you also have to consider the tourque curve.  Most smaller displacement motors only have power at higher rpms.  So if you need that power for a heavy vehicle or to haul you will be running allot higher rpm than a v8 with good low end tourque.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> They used to make a good hybrid in that escape for about 5 years
> Up to 36 MPG ,fantastic for an SUV. Ford should do one in electric,toyota was able to get 120miles out of a RAV4 with a NIMH battery .Fordrs could do better with Li-ion


I am pretty sure they still make the hybrid i am not sure though.


----------



## bholler

On a related note i just took my f250hd to pick something up about an hour away and i checked the mpg for the first time i was amazed i got almost 12 mpg i assumed i would have been in single digits with the gearing i have


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> I am pretty sure they still make the hybrid i am not sure though.


Not in the escape,2011 or 12 was the last.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Not in the escape,2011 or 12 was the last.


Yeah i just checked.  Not sure why they dropped it.  Low sales i guess.  I see the american manufacturers are dropping most of their cars again.  Not sure why they didnt learn their lesson last time fuel spiked and no one wanted their trucks and suvs anymore.  I guess time will tell how it works out.


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> I think that 40HP jump was in 96 but i could be wrong. If yours had sequential fuel injection it was the higher HP. Before that it was 160.



You might be right, but I can’t find a listing of the 160 hp 4.3L with a 5-speed manual, only the 200 hp version.  I also seem to remember “Vortec” being on the valve covers or plastic intake cover, which is what I think they called that later sequential injection version.

It’s also entirely possible I owned a 1996 K1500... but memory tells me it was a 1995.


----------



## jwfirebird

thats what everyone thinks about the suvs around here too but its pretty simple if you are stopping half the weight you stop in half the distance. the best vehicle i ever had was the escort, had big lug snows and a manual trans, no nanny crap. how fast you can stop in the snow when you cant see much in front your hood is alot more important that how fast you can accelerate. fwd is way better, its trying to keep you in line when you put on the gas, awd or 4wd will try to push you the wrong way. you have to leave it on ad that wears stuff out and uses gas. the w bodies, and the wifes car arent quite as good they are a bit heavier, and i get all seasons. they are almost as good with driving out if state snows are a pain. 



the 89 tbi i had was a 350, 5sd, f44. like a 1500 hd but the gears were under 3.10. it got 22 mpg though if i took it on the road. it pulled my old camper fine though. wasent going to win any races though. the ave and yukon pull stuff down the hwy alot bettter


----------



## jwfirebird

8


bholler said:


> Again that depends how and where you drive.  It can get allot better in the right situation.  And hell the new 4.3s have more power than the older 5.3s



again i only use mine for towing and work but if the real world mileage is even within two mpg which i think it would be, it would be worth having the 5.3. i think the 4.8 and all those they all get get with in a couple. and if resale matters would be the more desirable. i think weight has more to do with it, like the quad cab long bed would get less. and the std cab short bed 2wd would get the most mpg, especially if talking more local type driving


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> You might be right, but I can’t find a listing of the 160 hp 4.3L with a 5-speed manual, only the 200 hp version.  I also seem to remember “Vortec” being on the valve covers or plastic intake cover, which is what I think they called that later sequential injection version.
> 
> It’s also entirely possible I owned a 1996 K1500... but memory tells me it was a 1995.


Mine is a 93 2WD Ext cab with a 5 Speed manual ,its 160 HP . Runs fine around town ,no powerhouse for sure. I sure the new ones would runs rings around it with better MPG to boot


----------



## bholler

jwfirebird said:


> thats what everyone thinks about the suvs around here too but its pretty simple if you are stopping half the weight you stop in half the distance. the best vehicle i ever had was the escort, had big lug snows and a manual trans, no nanny crap. how fast you can stop in the snow when you cant see much in front your hood is alot more important that how fast you can accelerate. fwd is way better, its trying to keep you in line when you put on the gas, awd or 4wd will try to push you the wrong way. you have to leave it on ad that wears stuff out and uses gas. the w bodies, and the wifes car arent quite as good they are a bit heavier, and i get all seasons. they are almost as good with driving out if state snows are a pain.
> 
> 
> 
> the 89 tbi i had was a 350, 5sd, f44. like a 1500 hd but the gears were under 3.10. it got 22 mpg though if i took it on the road. it pulled my old camper fine though. wasent going to win any races though. the ave and yukon pull stuff down the hwy alot bettter



You are absolutly correct about the weight.  The problem with that argument is that our escape weighs the same as your w platform car so that argument doesnt hold true.  And if you think a good awd system will pull you in any way you dont want when you hit the gas you have obviously never driven one. 

Now as far as using more gas and wearing stuff out that simply isnt true.  Our escape is awd which means it is always on it sends power where it needs to go.  And it gets better mpg than the w body stuff.  And there are lots of awd vehicles that regularly go well over 200,000 with no issues.


----------



## bholler

jwfirebird said:


> 8
> 
> 
> again i only use mine for towing and work but if the real world mileage is even within two mpg which i think it would be, it would be worth having the 5.3. i think the 4.8 and all those they all get get with in a couple. and if resale matters would be the more desirable. i think weight has more to do with it, like the quad cab long bed would get less. and the std cab short bed 2wd would get the most mpg, especially if talking more local type driving


It would only be worth having the 5.3 if you need it.  And 2 mpg can add up quick when you put on allot of miles


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> To some small degree, yes.  But you can avoid the high prevalence of certain specific problems, by doing your research.  My example above, avoid vintage Lucas electronics, unless you like playing with that sort of thing.


I guess your right about the research. Found out some % of late model full size GMs starting in 2014 have been developing vibrations that cant easily be fixed or causes pinpointed. Some have it,most dont.  A good long test drive is one way to weed em out.


----------



## jwfirebird

i have driven aton, the car based awds are most times fwd anyway, but they are random feeling, on curves and stuff in the snow and the nannies fight you. all my chevy trucks have it too, leave it in two because of that. probably 80 percent of my commute is curves before the roads get plowed in the morning
my w body coupes get 30-32 rural roads(crap gas) with stops and 35-36 with crap gas hwy 38 real gas. dont see any suv getting that real world. they are low 3ks for weight most suvs ive read about are a k more or more


----------



## jwfirebird

Seasoned Oak said:


> Mine is a 93 2WD Ext cab with a 5 Speed manual ,its 160 HP . Runs fine around town ,no powerhouse for sure. I sure the new ones would runs rings around it with better MPG to boot



i think the tbis got the best mileage, that was the case for me, the vortecs with the junk poppets were the worst. they had a mpfi retrofit kit though,that gave me 3 more but still four less than the 5.3


----------



## bholler

jwfirebird said:


> i have driven aton, the car based awds are most times fwd anyway, but they are random feeling, on curves and stuff in the snow and the nannies fight you. all my chevy trucks have it too, leave it in two because of that. probably 80 percent of my commute is curves before the roads get plowed in the morning
> my w body coupes get 30-32 rural roads(crap gas) with stops and 35-36 with crap gas hwy 38 real gas. dont see any suv getting that real world. they are low 3ks for weight most suvs ive read about are a k more or more


No your chevy trucks are not awd if you can put it in 2wd what you have is not awd it is auto 4wd.  That is absolutly not the same thing.  Go drive a real modern awd then get back to me.  Yes ours and many others are front wheel drive to start with but they transfer power to what ever wheel needs it and away from any that are slipping.  And you dont feel a thing it just keeps going in a straight line.

Now as far as weight look up 2015 escape or any similar stuff.  Most are around 3500.  I looked up allot of w body stuff and most are guess what right around 3500.

Also none of them are rated anywhere near the meilage you are claiming  they are much closer to the ratings of the small unibody suvs. So what w body are you talking about that magically exceeds the mpg ratings by that much?  I know none that i have driven come anywhere near that.


----------



## jwfirebird

I guess I don't know what I'm talking about you know some people just always have to be right

ive had 5 w bodies they have all gotten way better mileage than the mfg ratings and everyone I know that has had an suv has gotten way worse real world driving especially the people who have the more city trips. normally say 22 city and high 20s hwy if you ask an honest person. a ton of people around that have them probably 3 to 1 or 4, if you count trucks compared to cars. but not many care about the mileage.

the difference in a couple mpg is negligible to me even if you figure the commute I have which is way more than most, 300 miles a week at 20 mpg( and 2.80 gas price) is 42, 18 is 46, 22 is 38


----------



## bholler

jwfirebird said:


> I guess I don't know what I'm talking about you know some people just always have to be right
> 
> ive had 5 w bodies they have all gotten way better mileage than the mfg ratings and everyone I know that has had an suv has gotten way worse real world driving especially the people who have the more city trips. normally say 22 city and high 20s hwy if you ask an honest person. a ton of people around that have them probably 3 to 1 or 4, if you count trucks compared to cars. but not many care about the mileage.
> 
> the difference in a couple mpg is negligible to me even if you figure the commute I have which is way more than most, 300 miles a week at 20 mpg( and 2.80 gas price) is 42, 18 is 46, 22 is 38


If you think auto 4wd is the same as awd no you dont know what you are talking about.  We had an impala mid 2000s and it was a nice car no problems with it we got low 20s around town and in the mountains mid to upper 20s highway.  Just sliggtly better than tge escape.  Unfortunately we had it less than a year and hit a deer totaling it.  But it was a good car.  A little boring to drive and quite a bit of body roll but very comfortable.


----------



## Stelcom66

WiscWoody said:


> View attachment 226125
> View attachment 226126
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure like my lowly 2000 Toyota Echo, I only paid $5600 for it back in 2002 with 26,000 miles on it and I’ve only done oil changes to it (53 times so far with good synthetic oil and good synthetic filters too) and replaced the serpentine belt twice. Oh, and I put new plugs in it a few times too. It’s been hit hard twice and I hit a deer with it and it looks like hell and is a local legend in my town of 326 but I am determined to drive it into the ground as I said I would when the seller handed me the keys to it. It’s been my daily driver for 16 years now and I hope to get another 5 out of it. I have some other vehicles that are in new condition but they’re too nice to drive lol....
> 
> Edit....oops. I guess this is a truck thread isn’t it?



Thanks for posting the photos - was curious when you said it's a local legend in your town! (I'd like to live in a small town like that) Although it's a truck thread your post is significant since some have (and I hope to at some point) an economical, older (for me preferably manual trans.) car when a truck isn't necessary. I'd probably just have collision on one vehicle to keep insurance costs down. That's cool you've had a vehicle that long, and may for a few more years to come.


----------



## Stelcom66

Seasoned Oak said:


> My 1993 Silverado Ext cab 1/2 ton with a 4.3l V-6  5speed  only makes 160 HP.   The new 4.3s i believe are 285.  Quite a jump. My 95 with 350 V8 only made 200.



I wish I found a truck like that. I believe 2005 was the last year for the manual transmission in full size GM pickups, and they were only available in regular cab work truck trim. I do like the older Silverado I recently bought although it's an automatic. If I won the lottery I'd consider a new one with the 4.3 V6 given today's power rating. I believe my 2002 5.3 V8 is rated at the same horsepower as the new V6.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Stelcom66 said:


> If I won the lottery I'd consider a new one with the 4.3 V6 given today's power rating. I believe my 2002 5.3 V8 is rated at the same horsepower as the new V6.


My brother gave me the 93 with the 5Sp. He didnt want to go in for new brake lines and a few other repairs to keep it on the road,and i didnt want to see him scrap it for the sake of a few repairs.    
Im looking at 2014s to 2016s  with relatively low mileage for around 20 to 25k .  While i like standard shift the knees cant take it much longer so im ok with a 6 or 8 speed AT. I posted a link a few pages back to a 2014 getting 32 MPG on a trip.Thats fantastic if its possible.


----------



## Stelcom66

Seasoned Oak said:


> My brother gave me the 93 with the 5Sp. He didnt want to go in for new brake lines and a few other repairs to keep it on the road,and i didnt want to see him scrap it for the sake of a few repairs.
> Im looking at 2014s to 2016s  with relatively low mileage for around 20 to 25k .  While i like standard shift the knees cant take it much longer so im ok with a 6 or 8 speed AT. I posted a link a few pages back to a 2014 getting 32 MPG on a trip.Thats fantastic if its possible.



Yes, today's automatics help achieve better MPGs than the manuals did. Fueleconomy.gov actually shows that the automatics in full size trucks get slightly better MPGs than the manuals.


----------



## sportbikerider78

All of that MPG for the full size SUV's goes out the window when you daily rock those things up huge hills.  I live in a very hilly area.  Everything gets much worse avg MPG because of it.


----------



## blacktail

jwfirebird said:


> and I just cant give my money to a different country



Just buy used.


----------



## sportbikerider78

jwfirebird said:


> its trying to keep you in line when you put on the gas, awd or 4wd will try to push you the wrong way.



You need to research more about vehicle dynamics.  Good AWD and 4WD are amazing systems with snow and handling.
FWD is by all measure, the worst handling.

In this neck of the woods..if you don't have AWD or 4WD, you don't get home with significant accumulation.


----------



## bholler

sportbikerider78 said:


> You need to research more about vehicle dynamics.  Good AWD and 4WD are amazing systems with snow and handling.
> FWD is by all measure, the worst handling.
> 
> In this neck of the woods..if you don't have AWD or 4WD, you don't get home with significant accumulation.


Well front wheel drive is above rwd and possibly even with 4wd but awd will run circles around them all


----------



## bholler

sportbikerider78 said:


> All of that MPG for the full size SUV's goes out the window when you daily rock those things up huge hills.  I live in a very hilly area.  Everything gets much worse avg MPG because of it.


You dont have to tell me we live ontop of a ridge with a montain infront and to the right of us and a lower ridge wrapping the other two sides.  Everything is up and down


----------



## sportbikerider78

bholler said:


> Well front wheel drive is above rwd and possibly even with 4wd but awd will run circles around them all


On dry..awd and rwd always win for handling.  For traction in snow...it really is vehicle dependant if awd or 4wd is better.
FWD wins at nothing.  Bad handling in dry and marginal performance in snow..but..yes..better than rwd.


----------



## bholler

sportbikerider78 said:


> On dry..awd and rwd always win for handling.  For traction in snow...it really is vehicle dependant if awd or 4wd is better.
> FWD wins at nothing.  Bad handling in dry and marginal performance in snow..but..yes..better than rwd.


In most cases i agree with you but i have had some fwd that did better in snow than allot of 4wd.  But you are right it is absolutly vehicle dependant.  There are tons of variables but a good awd system will win every time.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> My brother gave me the 93 with the 5Sp. He didnt want to go in for new brake lines and a few other repairs to keep it on the road,and i didnt want to see him scrap it for the sake of a few repairs.
> Im looking at 2014s to 2016s  with relatively low mileage for around 20 to 25k .  While i like standard shift the knees cant take it much longer so im ok with a 6 or 8 speed AT. I posted a link a few pages back to a 2014 getting 32 MPG on a trip.Thats fantastic if its possible.


I think it is possible but not likely with most people driving normally


----------



## Ashful

blacktail said:


> Just buy used.



He already says he does, which really makes the whole statement more entertaining.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

[


bholler said:


> I think it is possible but not likely with most people driving normally


From the article:
"Overall the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado LT with the really nice 4.3L V6 has provided a darn decent 30.0 mpg (29.0 mpgUS actual) over the course of 350 miles of Interstate and 230 miles of city travel. That is pretty hot for a truck of this size.Our drive of the 2014 Silverado with the 4.3L V6 proved that it was not only powerful but very fuel efficient putting a lot of distance between its predecessor despite having the same displacement."


Thats a pretty long drive. Looks like  typical  all day highway trip F*rom Gurnee, IL to Fort Wayne, IN. *
I have a very soft driving style, but i do drive the speed limit plus 5. Article does not give the avgt speed ,im assuming its at the speed limit*.*


----------



## Seasoned Oak

On the  GM MPG forums about the best MPG iv seen with a 4.3 is 27 but with a 4WD which is usually lower than a 2WD


Still way more than im used to. My 93 V6 gets about 10 around town, im sure it wont top 20 on the Hwy. OF course its only 160 HP back then.


----------



## duramaxman05

bholler said:


> On a related note i just took my f250hd to pick something up about an hour away and i checked the mpg for the first time i was amazed i got almost 12 mpg i assumed i would have been in single digits with the gearing i have


We have a 2018 f250 4x4 with the 6.2 and 4.30 gears. We are a 12mpg


----------



## bholler

duramaxman05 said:


> We have a 2018 f250 4x4 with the 6.2 and 4.30 gears. We are a 12mpg


Wow is that empty?  I would have expected better.  Mine is a 1990 with a 351 c6 3 speed auto and 4.10 gears


----------



## Dobish

bholler said:


> Wow is that empty?  I would have expected better.  Mine is a 1990 with a 351 c6 3 speed auto and 4.10 gears


i fill my tank about once a month in ole rusty. i'm roughly 13mpg


----------



## duramaxman05

bholler said:


> Wow is that empty?  I would have expected better.  Mine is a 1990 with a 351 c6 3 speed auto and 4.10 gears


Yes that is empty. It's only got a couple hundred miles on it. That's also city driving and a little hwy. It's a big truck so I didn't expect it to get too good. It's just our garage queen and is gonna pull the camper. Definitely not our daily driver


----------



## bholler

duramaxman05 said:


> Yes that is empty. It's only got a couple hundred miles on it. That's also city driving and a little hwy. It's a big truck so I didn't expect it to get too good. It's just our garage queen and is gonna pull the camper. Definitely not our daily driver


Yeah mine was highway i am sure it is less around town or in the hills.


----------



## duramaxman05

bholler said:


> Yeah mine was highway i am sure it is less around town or in the hills.


I know the lower 4.30 gears will suffer fuel mileage on the interstate, but they sure make the truck feel more powerful than the 3.73 gears.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Dobish said:


> i fill my tank about once a month in ole rusty. i'm roughly 13mpg


95 Must have been when they started using better steel, painfully little rust after 23 salty PA winters.


----------



## Dobish

Seasoned Oak said:


> 95 Must have been when they started using better steel, painfully little rust after 23 salty PA winters.


it came from wisconsin, was a work truck for a landscaping company for a lot of years, and i'm pretty sure it never saw a car wash... **(i washed the hood once, but i'm afraid it will fall apart if i wash the sides or under carriage)


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Dobish said:


> it came from wisconsin, was a work truck for a landscaping company for a lot of years, and i'm pretty sure it never saw a car wash... **(i washed the hood once, but i'm afraid it will fall apart if i wash the sides or under carriage)


Had a 1999 toyota i felt the same way about and it was only 7 yrs old at the time. Only thing coming off My 95 is the clear coat on the paint.


----------



## Stelcom66

For the first time since I bought the 2002 Silverado in March I filled it and calculated the MPGs at 14.6. As suspected, about the same as the Honda Pilot. In 340 miles about 27% highway, it's the 5.3 V8 so no complaints. I know the new trucks can do better.


----------



## Stelcom66

duramaxman05 said:


> We have a 2018 f250 4x4 with the 6.2 and 4.30 gears. We are a 12mpg



It'll probably improve a bit over time.


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> Had a 1999 toyota i felt the same way about and it was only 7 yrs old at the time. Only thing coming off My 95 is the clear coat on the paint.



The body on my 1995 Silverado held up pretty well, at least as of when I sold it in 2005.  But the brake lines and exhaust all fell apart at 6 - 8 years of age.  It seemed to happen to each of my buddies with Chevy pickups, within a year or three of my own.  Pathetic.


----------



## bholler

Ashful said:


> The body on my 1995 Silverado held up pretty well, at least as of when I sold it in 2005.  But the brake lines and exhaust all fell apart at 6 - 8 years of age.  It seemed to happen to each of my buddies with Chevy pickups, within a year or three of my own.  Pathetic.


The same as our newer ones.

I bought a new project today and agreed to sell the j10 to a freind.  I picked up a 1990 bronco really cheap almost rust free with really nothing wrong with it other than needing paint and it has a fuel issue.  Once i get it running i am getting rid of my pos trailblazer.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> The body on my 1995 Silverado held up pretty well, at least as of when I sold it in 2005.  But the brake lines and exhaust all fell apart at 6 - 8 years of age.  It seemed to happen to each of my buddies with Chevy pickups, within a year or three of my own.  Pathetic.


Have never changed any brake lines in the 15 yrs or so i have the truck. Probably washing the salt off in the spring helps. Exhaust is a very corrosive item on any vehicle,6 to 8 yrs is a long time for exhaust pipes.My toyota went thru exhaust parts much faster,and they were a lot more expensive to replace.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Have never changed any brake lines in the 15 yrs or so i have the truck. Probably washing the salt off in the spring helps. Exhaust is a very corrosive item on any vehicle,6 to 8 yrs is a long time for exhaust pipes.My toyota went thru exhaust parts much faster,and they were a lot more expensive to replace.


They had probably rusted and been replaced with coated lines already if that is the case


----------



## WiscWoody

Stelcom66 said:


> Thanks for posting the photos - was curious when you said it's a local legend in your town! (I'd like to live in a small town like that) Although it's a truck thread your post is significant since some have (and I hope to at some point) an economical, older (for me preferably manual trans.) car when a truck isn't necessary. I'd probably just have collision on one vehicle to keep insurance costs down. That's cool you've had a vehicle that long, and may for a few more years to come.


That’s what I figured, I’d have a small economical car that didn’t cost much to buy and fuel up and then I’d have a truck too for when I’d need it. The ECHO only costs me $22 a month to insure it for liability and it gets around 38-42 mpg nowadays. It’s a manual also. You can still find these cars for sale with not a lot of miles on them for just a few thousand dollars. I will likely be looking for another one when this one finally goes into the ground.


----------



## BrotherBart

The brake lines on my Suburban rotted. On a winding back road one day I came up behind a guy on a bicycle and decided to pass him rather than slam on the brakes. Almost head on'ed a car coming the opposite direction around a curve. When I got home and went to stop at the mailbox I pressed the brake peddle and just keep going. Glad I didn't try to stop behind the guy on the bike or 7,100 pounds of truck would have squashed him like a bug.

Replaced the brake lines with stainless steel ones.


----------



## WiscWoody

i get around just fine up here with my little Toyota with just a pair of Cooper snow tires on the front. This winter we got 96 inches of snow. I think I was stuck maybe 3 or 4 times this last winter and I got myself out of them all myself with just a little shoveling and rocking. But yes, a 4wd would be nice to have in the winters up here.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

I did replace some brake lines on the 93. A very small inexpensive repair for an otherwise good dependable truck.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> I did replace some brake lines on the 93. A very small inexpensive repair for an otherwise good dependable truck.


Unless they blow out on the road then it can be kind of a big deal


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> Unless they blow out on the road then it can be kind of a big deal


Which is why one of the the two things commonly made in stainless steel are brake lines along with exhaust pipes an mufflers,also prone to excessive corrosion. SS brake lines should be standard equipment on every vehicle for a part so inexpensive and so vital to safety.


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> I did replace some brake lines on the 93. A very small inexpensive repair for an otherwise good dependable truck.



Not small or inexpensive, when their failure causes an accident.  I had my fronts go out on the 95 Silverado when stopping from 55mph into a very busy intersection.  Could have easily killed me.  Sadly, I think most car companies are still not using stainless here, but somehow I see more failures of brake lines in GM trucks and vans, than any other.  



Seasoned Oak said:


> Exhaust is a very corrosive item on any vehicle,6 to 8 yrs is a long time for exhaust pipes.



That was true for decades, but not since 1990.  Example, my 2005 Dodge still had the original pipes when I sold it in 2017, and they still even looked almost new, despite it being used mostly in bad weather.  On that truck, it was the body that started showing rust after 12 years, not the exhaust or brake lines.  I replaced it for purely cosmetic reasons, it was just starting to look a little trashy.  

Stainless exhaust is no longer the realm of exotic super cars, I can’t believe Chevy is one of the few still not using it.  All of my current cars have stainless exhaust, from the factory.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Exhaust corrosion depends somewhat on driving style.I do almost exclusive short trips where the engine seldom even warms up to operating temp,a death sentence for exhaust parts. I do agree, for the price of new trucks these days SS should be standard on all. Both Brake lines and exhaust.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Which is why one of the the two things commonly made in stainless steel are brake lines along with exhaust pipes an mufflers,also prone to excessive corrosion. SS brake lines should be standard equipment on every vehicle for a part so inexpensive and so vital to safety.


Yes they ahould be but they arent


----------



## blades

they were for awhile on some units  now we are back to plated steel lines, don't know what kind of steel and plating but it ain't worth squat in my parts. Lines going bad in 3-4 years sometimes less.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Looking at new trucks now. May go in for the 2 year lease. $339Mo. So many changes and improvements(Power, MPG ect.)  on the horizon would be nice to trade up every 2 years. Can always buy it at end of lease if its a keeper. Of course id keep my classics for the grunt work.


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> Looking at new trucks now. May go in for the 2 year lease. $339Mo. So many changes and improvements(Power, MPG ect.)  on the horizon would be nice to trade up every 2 years. Can always buy it at end of lease if its a keeper. Of course id keep my classics for the grunt work.


Knowing we have similar thoughts on MPG vs horsepower, I’m not sure I’d assume the changes are improvements.  I find that getting what I want in a truck is getting very difficult, as they’re moving more and more toward satisfying the lumbersexual highway queen market, than what I’m looking for.  

My ideal truck:

1/2 ton chassis with independent front end
4wd with posi diff
3.93 - 4.11 gears
400 cid (6 liter) MINIMUM displacement
Heavy duty rear suspension
- min tongue weight > 1000 lb w/o WDH
- min GTWR > 10,000 lb
Quad cab with 6.5’ bed

This crew cab with 5.5’ bed, that seems to have become the standard configuration in the last few years, bothers me most.  I need a back seat for dry gear and around-town passengers, but it doesn’t need to be limousine size.

I’m also xomfounded by the too-short gears (3.15 - 3.23!) that’s become the norm in 1/2 tons.  Finally, why can I buy a 6.2L coupe, sedan or mini SUV, but I can’t get that motor in a 1/2 ton full-size pickup?


----------



## Sean McGillicuddy

I have been driving some rentals lately
1st  2018 F-150 nice truck but I was looking to tow ..
2nd 2018 Tundra a little behind in the times and one thirsty bastard
3rd 2018  F-250 turbo diesel .. Holy sh*t nice truck .. 17 to 19 avg miles . haven't towed yet..
I hope they take there time putting a new frame on my Tacoma ...(335,500 miles so far )


----------



## blades

i like to go after a 2018 250 or 350 - but those prices are just insane - it's a truck- not a limo and have no use for DEF  and EGR systems , bad enough I have to deal with EGR on my 04-


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Since iv been driving  a 2WD half ton truck for the last 6 months iv found it to have some definite advantages over my 4wd 3/4 ton of similar age. First turning radius is tighter. Second ride is so much softer, floats over RR tracks.With my 3/4 ton i have to hold on to my teeth fillings over RR tracks. Im sure these things have evolved with the newer models so ill have to test drive a range of options. Dont think i need 4wd in a new truck,when conditions are that bad ill be using the older 4wd truck anyway.If i didnt already have a dependable 4WD id get it in the new truck.  So im on the fence about that.Definitely want the posi lock rear. I do like the extended cab over the crew cab. Mostly gear in there not people.


----------



## Ashful

If buying new, you can still order extended/quad cab.  You won’t find many used, though, which makes finding a clean one with the other options you want an issue. I didn’t want to spend new truck money, having bought a new car in the same year, so my options were more limited.


----------



## Stelcom66

bholler said:


> The same as our newer ones.
> 
> I bought a new project today and agreed to sell the j10 to a freind.  I picked up a 1990 bronco really cheap almost rust free with really nothing wrong with it other than needing paint and it has a fuel issue.  Once i get it running i am getting rid of my pos trailblazer.



Why don't you like the Trailblazer? I never owned one, don't know much about them but it was in the running when I was looking large used SUVs. I'd assume since it's a straight 6 it would be pretty smooth.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> My ideal truck:
> 
> 1/2 ton chassis with independent front end
> 4wd with posi diff
> 3.93 - 4.11 gears
> 400 cid (6 liter) MINIMUM displacement
> Heavy duty rear suspension
> - min tongue weight > 1000 lb w/o WDH
> - min GTWR > 10,000 lb
> Quad cab with 6.5’ bed
> 
> ?


Wouldnt a 3/4 ton  be  better fit for most of these requirements except for the first one? GM used to make a HD half ,i dont see it offered anymore though.


----------



## bholler

Stelcom66 said:


> Why don't you like the Trailblazer? I never owned one, don't know much about them but it was in the running when I was looking large used SUVs. I'd assume since it's a straight 6 it would be pretty smooth.


Rust electrical hvac and problems on many of them.  Crap mielage because of an antique of a transmission.  Absolutly everything on it is a nightmare to work on.  The front diff mounts to the side of the oil pan then the cv shaft goes through a hole in the oil pan.   I should have done more research before buying it.  But it does handle nice and tows well.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Wouldnt a 3/4 ton  be  better fit for most of these requirements except for the first one? GM used to make a HD half ,i dont see it offered anymore though.


Yes


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Some interesting developments coming in the 2019 trucks.10 SP transmissions. 3L Duramax Diesel Engine.  Not a fan of the start ,stop Tech.  ID pass on that unless its controllable. Love the new body style.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> Finally, why can I buy a 6.2L coupe, sedan or mini SUV, but I can’t get that motor in a 1/2 ton full-size pickup?


In exploring the 2018s build and price site there is an option to select the 6.2 L 8Cy.


----------



## Stelcom66

If I won the lottery - good to see Dodge still has a manual transmission available, but as it's been for several years just with the 6.7L straight 6 diesel engine in the 2500 and 3500. True engines are getting smaller with turbos. Efficient yes but I wonder about durability as they get up there in miles.

If I could buy new I'd definitely consider the 4.3 V6 in a GM truck. It puts out I believe more horsepower (naturally aspirated) now than my 5.3 V8. I don't tow, but do loads of firewood. That may be another subject at some point - how much is too much for a 1/2 ton 8' bed.


----------



## Medic21

Stelcom66 said:


> If I won the lottery - good to see Dodge still has a manual transmission available, but as it's been for several years just with the 6.7L straight 6 diesel engine in the 2500 and 3500. True engines are getting smaller with turbos. Efficient yes but I wonder about durability as they get up there in miles.



Starting to see a lot of turbo replacements in the 3.5 EcoBoost.  That along with timing chain and Cam Phasers.  Chevy AFM motors are eating camshafts.  

I went to a 2500 dodge three years ago.  Ram won over Ford only for the solid front axle.  Grew up on Chevy, turned wrenches in Ford dealerships before becoming a paramedic and run my own shop.  No vehicle is perfect and they will all break.  I do see more common failures in ford and chevy though.  That said if I was to buy a new 1/2 ton tomorrow it would be a F150 with a 5.0.  More payload and towing than any other 1/2 ton and equal to a Chevy 3/4 ton SRW.

If your worried about mpg buy a Prius


----------



## duramaxman05

blades said:


> i like to go after a 2018 250 or 350 - but those prices are just insane - it's a truck- not a limo and have no use for DEF  and EGR systems , bad enough I have to deal with EGR on my 04-


We just bought a new f250. I got to say it drive and rides real good. We got the 6.2. Plenty of power. I didn't see the need to spend another $9000 on the diesel for no more than We will use.


----------



## Sean McGillicuddy

That looks like the one I have in grey.


----------



## saewoody

bholler said:


> Rust electrical hvac and problems on many of them.  Crap mielage because of an antique of a transmission.  Absolutly everything on it is a nightmare to work on.  The front diff mounts to the side of the oil pan then the cv shaft goes through a hole in the oil pan.   I should have done more research before buying it.  But it does handle nice and tows well.



Went through that nonsense with my BIL trailblazer to do a timing chain. Gotta drop the oil pan to get to a single bolt inside the engine!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## saewoody

Seasoned Oak said:


> Looking at new trucks now. May go in for the 2 year lease. $339Mo. So many changes and improvements(Power, MPG ect.)  on the horizon would be nice to trade up every 2 years. Can always buy it at end of lease if its a keeper. Of course id keep my classics for the grunt work.



My father is the sales manger at a dodge dealership. He keeps telling me what a great deal I can get on a leased truck. Admittedly it is a good deal if you are used to leasing or willing to buy new. The problem is that the down payment is usually more than what I am willing to pay for a 15 year old high mileage truck!  And then there’s the payments. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stelcom66

saewoody said:


> My father is the sales manger at a dodge dealership. He keeps telling me what a great deal I can get on a leased truck. Admittedly it is a good deal if you are used to leasing or willing to buy new. The problem is that the down payment is usually more than what I am willing to pay for a 15 year old high mileage truck!  And then there’s the payments.



That's close to what I did, paid ~ $4400 for a high mileage 16 year old truck. I'm fortunate to have a company van so I'm not concerned about the mileage and fuel economy since I drive it 3 days a week on average. With new there's also higher taxes - in my town quite high. I can certainly see why a new truck would be great, they look fantastic like the Ford pictured above, ride as well as some cars, and some may get almost as good MPGs as my former Subaru Forester did. But for some of us it's just not an option. I still like looking at new models and reading about the specs.


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> Wouldnt a 3/4 ton  be  better fit for most of these requirements except for the first one? GM used to make a HD half ,i dont see it offered anymore though.



Yes, 3/4 ton has its advantages.  But there are 1/2 ton trucks that meet my requirements, and since the majority of my mileage is just commuting, the 1/2 ton advantages win out.  That is... if the big 3 would stop trying to turn their 1/2 ton trucks into soft-riding grocery getters.

Some of us use our trucks like real trucks on the weekends, and then drive them to the airport on Monday.  I’ve had a fully-loaded 7000 lb GTWR tandem axle trailer on the back of mine twice in the last seven days, but it also carried my butt to my office job thrice, in that time.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

saewoody said:


> My father is the sales manger at a dodge dealership. He keeps telling me what a great deal I can get on a leased truck. Admittedly it is a good deal if you are used to leasing or willing to buy new. The problem is that the down payment is usually more than what I am willing to pay for a 15 year old high mileage truck!  And then there’s the payments.
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Iv already got 2 .  20+Yr  high mileage trucks for knocking around town and occasional hauling.What im looking for is a replacement for the family van thats getting up there in age and miles. I need something with low or no miles that i can jump in and drive half way across the country in comfort and haul or light towing if need be.Wife suggested a NEW truck, so who am i to argue that?


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> I’ve had a fully-loaded 7000 lb GTWR tandem axle trailer on the back of mine twice in the last seven days, but it also carried my butt to my office job thrice, in that time.


What are you driving?


----------



## Stelcom66

Seasoned Oak said:


> Wife suggested a NEW truck, so who am i to argue that?



Good deal - it's usually the guy who suggests that! And you have a very nice brother for giving you that older Chevy with the manual transmission!


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Stelcom66 said:


> Good deal - it's usually the guy who suggests that! And you have a very nice brother for giving you that older Chevy with the manual transmission!


Thanks Stelcom66.  My only brother and i lost him yesterday May 2  at 71 yrs old.  He brought that up on a car carrier last fall all the way from the smoky mountains of Tennessee. Ill be going down there Saturday to pay my respects. Retired Navy and Vietnam Veteran. Hes been a Chevy guy for 50YRs  has a couple of 57s in his garage.


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> What are you driving?




RAM 1500 4x4 crew cab with 5.7L Hemi, 8 speed auto, 3.92 posi rear, and HD rear springs.  It works, but I’d prefer the shorter quad cab with a foot more in the bed.


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> Thanks Stelcom66.  My only brother and i lost him yesterday May 2  at 71 yrs old.  He brought that up on a car carrier last fall all the way from the smoky mountains of Tennessee. Ill be going down there Saturday to pay my respects. Retired Navy and Vietnam Veteran. Hes been a Chevy guy for 50YRs  has a couple of 57s in his garage.



Sorry to hear about your loss.


----------



## begreen

Seasoned Oak said:


> Thanks Stelcom66.  My only brother and i lost him yesterday May 2  at 71 yrs old.  He brought that up on a car carrier last fall all the way from the smoky mountains of Tennessee. Ill be going down there Saturday to pay my respects. Retired Navy and Vietnam Veteran. Hes been a Chevy guy for 50YRs  has a couple of 57s in his garage.


Sorry to hear this Oak. He sounds like a great brother, gone too soon.  I've lost both parents, but no siblings yet, butI know it's coming. My condolences to your family.


----------



## Stelcom66

Seasoned Oak said:


> Thanks Stelcom66.  My only brother and i lost him yesterday May 2  at 71 yrs old.  He brought that up on a car carrier last fall all the way from the smoky mountains of Tennessee. Ill be going down there Saturday to pay my respects. Retired Navy and Vietnam Veteran. Hes been a Chevy guy for 50YRs  has a couple of 57s in his garage.



OMG I am so sorry to hear that Oak. Thanks to your brother for his service to our country. My condolences, he sounded like a great guy in more ways than one.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Thanks all, He was truly my hero and role model. One big reason why i always have so much respect for veterans ,and military in general, never having the honor to have served. You can protest the war, but never protest the soldier.


----------



## saewoody

Seasoned Oak said:


> Thanks Stelcom66.  My only brother and i lost him yesterday May 2  at 71 yrs old.  He brought that up on a car carrier last fall all the way from the smoky mountains of Tennessee. Ill be going down there Saturday to pay my respects. Retired Navy and Vietnam Veteran. Hes been a Chevy guy for 50YRs  has a couple of 57s in his garage.



Very sorry to hear about the loss of your brother. We will keep you and your family in our thoughts and prayers.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Seasoned Oak

GM will be introducing a 4cy 2.7L turbo engine for 2019 for their half tons. 310 HP and 348lbs torque. 8 Speed transmission .Can deactivate cylinders on low power draw and run on 2 cyl.  
Zero to 60 is reported to be under 7 sec. No MPG estimates yet until closer to launch. May be worth waiting for. Body Styling looks great if no changes are made to prototype.


----------



## Stelcom66

Interesting - that's more power and torque than my 2002 5.3L V8, and almost half the displacement, with the transmission having double the speeds. 

Where did you see the prototype? It would seem crazy a 2.7L 4 cyl being in a full size pickup, but that follows the trend of Dodge and Ford.


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> GM will be introducing a 4cy 2.7L turbo engine for 2019 for their half tons. 310 HP and 348lbs torque. 8 Speed transmission .Can deactivate cylinders on low power draw and run on 2 cyl.
> Zero to 60 is reported to be under 7 sec. No MPG estimates yet until closer to launch. May be worth waiting for. Body Styling looks great if no changes are made to prototype.



I own two vehicles with variable displacement engines.  I am not a fan, and the first button I push every single time I start them is the one that disables that system.  Their behavior is like that of the old downshift linkage between the accelerator pedal and a traditional auto trans, in that it does nothing under mild acceleration, only kicking in when you push the pedal way down.  It makes gentle acceleration impossible.

I buy vehicles with large displacement engines for this seamless power behavior, not because I want to maximize my MPG.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> I buy vehicles with large displacement engines for this seamless power behavior, not because I want to maximize my MPG.


I think the cyl deactivation is across the line right up to the 6.2. The start-stop would annoy me ,i hope there is a way to deactivate that. Except in line at drive thrus like the bank.


----------



## Stelcom66

There's significant amount trouble reports with the AFM (cyl deactivation) system, and information how to deactivate it.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Stelcom66 said:


> There's significant amount trouble reports with the AFM (cyl deactivation) system, and information how to deactivate it.


Im ok with new tech as long as i have a warranty. If it does happen to be problematic, i would trading up after 2 yrs. Also not sure how much savings there are going from 4 cyl to 2 ,may not be worth it anyway. I do think it will require premium fuel due to the high compression.


----------



## begreen

Seasoned Oak said:


> I think the cyl deactivation is across the line right up to the 6.2. The start-stop would annoy me ,i hope there is a way to deactivate that. Except in line at drive thrus like the bank.


I've had start stop tech on cars for the past 12 years. It has worked seamlessly and does save fuel and reduces emissions. Done right it just works.


----------



## Stelcom66

Could GM finally be retiring the 4.3 V6? From an article I found "Chevrolet says the new 2.7-liter engine is more powerful and efficient than the 4.3-liter V6 it replaces...." Of course the 4.3 isn't as efficient as the new 2.7 4cyl will be, but it has proven to be very reliable.

Sign of the times I guess. Along with that, Subaru will finally stop offering a manual transmission in the Forester, and maybe the Impreza and Crosstrek as I've heard it'll only be available in the BRZ for 2019.


----------



## firefighterjake

Stelcom66 said:


> Could GM finally be retiring the 4.3 V6? From an article I found "Chevrolet says the new 2.7-liter engine is more powerful and efficient than the 4.3-liter V6 it replaces...." Of course the 4.3 isn't as efficient as the new 2.7 4cyl will be, but it has proven to be very reliable.
> 
> Sign of the times I guess. Along with that, Subaru will finally stop offering a manual transmission in the Forester, and maybe the Impreza and Crosstrek as I've heard it'll only be available in the BRZ for 2019.



I suspect the WRX will continue to have a manual . . . at least I hope so . . . I know today's automatic transmissions are just as good, if not better, than manuals in terms of fuel economy and performance, but there is just something more engaging about rowing through the gears that makes me enjoy driving my vehicle vs. just going from Point A to Point B.


----------



## begreen

I think gear shifting days are numbered as more electric cars come online. This is the first time I have been without a shift vehicle in over 50 years. I do miss it, except when stuck in gridlocked traffic.


----------



## Stelcom66

firefighterjake said:


> I suspect the WRX will continue to have a manual . . . at least I hope so . . . I know today's automatic transmissions are just as good, if not better, than manuals in terms of fuel economy and performance, but there is just something more engaging about rowing through the gears that makes me enjoy driving my vehicle vs. just going from Point A to Point B.



Yes, it would make sense for the WRX as well, I forgot about that model. True automatic transmissions are typically more efficient these days. But, the appeal for a manual is still there for me as well. I had a CVT in a company SUV a few years ago, the fuel economy was very good. The jury may still be out on those - but I haven't heard too many negative reports about Subaru CVTs. The Jatco CVTs used in Nissans and the company Jeep Patriot I had were known for failures above 100k miles. Seems like CVT development has waned in favor of multiple gear automatics. Considering trucks though - a CVT seems out of the question. Especially with a load of wood, gears would make more sense than a belt.


----------



## bholler

Stelcom66 said:


> Yes, it would make sense for the WRX as well, I forgot about that model. True automatic transmissions are typically more efficient these days. But, the appeal for a manual is still there for me as well. I had a CVT in a company SUV a few years ago, the fuel economy was very good. The jury may still be out on those - but I haven't heard too many negative reports about Subaru CVTs. The Jatco CVTs used in Nissans and the company Jeep Patriot I had were known for failures above 100k miles. Seems like CVT development has waned in favor of multiple gear automatics. Considering trucks though - a CVT seems out of the question. Especially with a load of wood, gears would make more sense than a belt.


I wouldnt say out of the question for trucks.  The durability is not there yet for heavy duty applications but i am sure it could be done.  And the ability to hold in the peak of the power band could be very usefull in that application.


----------



## bholler

That being said i was not a fan of the few cvts i have driven.  It just feels strange.  I am sure i would get used to it if i drove one all the time but it is strange not to feel shifts.


----------



## Ashful

firefighterjake said:


> I suspect the WRX will continue to have a manual . . . at least I hope so . . . I know today's automatic transmissions are just as good, if not better, than manuals in terms of fuel economy and performance, but there is just something more engaging about rowing through the gears that makes me enjoy driving my vehicle vs. just going from Point A to Point B.



My wife refuses to give up her current car, as finding a performance sports wagon with manual trans has become impossible in our country.  European makers still manufacture and sell them there, but refuse to endure the expense of emissions testing them for the US standards.

I just bought my first auto in 2016, because the manual trans was not available in the model I wanted, for governmental BS reasons I won’t go into now.  There is a 2-door version of the same drivetrain that is available in manual, but the auto beats it under every track condition.  That doesn’t make it more fun, but it is some consolation.  Paddle shifters help in the mourning process, too.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

When considering a new truck , blazing acceleration is not my top concern. But under 7 second times from zero to 60  does sound appealing when its coupled with mid 20s MPG ratings. The V6 already does 24 hwy. I dont see how they could go backwards from there.  It will be interesting to see the towing capabilities of this new engine/ 8sp. tranny matchup.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> My wife refuses to give up her current car, as finding a performance sports wagon with manual trans has become impossible in our country.  .


 Mine as well ,only the car she wants does come in a standard shift. For me shifting has become a chore as the knees wear out. So the (shift) to automatics in trucks is OK with me. My son will be inheriting my standard shift truck when he turns 16.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ford has an interesting option ,a 3.5 eco boost V6 engine with a whopping 450HP . But it seems to add 15 K to the the sticker price. Takes a $35000 truck right up to 50K. Also 10 Sp automatics. So far Dodge has the best lease deal at $149 a month for 24 months, but id rather pay more for the GM or the Ford both at around $300 Month.


----------



## begreen

They are really pushing the tech and price hard. They are only putting that race engine in the Raptor model, thus the high price. On the XL with the normal 3.5 ecoboost it adds $3000. . That's what's in my truck. That has 375 horsepower and 470 ft lb. torque. I've loaded the truck up with a ton and it still pulls quite well, even up mountain grades.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

begreen said:


> On the XL with the normal 3.5 ecoboost it adds $3000. . That's what's in my truck. That has 375 horsepower and 470 ft lb. torque. I've loaded the truck up with a ton and it still pulls quite well, even up mountain grades.


Ill be looking into this model when it comes time to decide on a truck. Id pony up the 3k for that much HP. Unless something changes ill be waiting on the 2019 models to come out. At this point its between the GM and the Ford.  Does your truck have the 10 Sp tranny?


----------



## bholler

I got the bronco running today.  It was easy just a fuel pump.  And looking it over it doesnt need to much work a little bit of rust repair and a paint job.


----------



## Ashful

bholler said:


> I got the bronco running today.  It was easy just a fuel pump.  And looking it over it doesnt need to much work a little bit of rust repair and a paint job.


I hope you're choosing white.


----------



## bholler

Ashful said:


> I hope you're choosing white.
> 
> View attachment 226792


Lol i dont think so


----------



## begreen

Seasoned Oak said:


> Ill be looking into this model when it comes time to decide on a truck. Id pony up the 3k for that much HP. Unless something changes ill be waiting on the 2019 models to come out. At this point its between the GM and the Ford.  Does your truck have the 10 Sp tranny?


No, mine has the 6 speed.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

begreen said:


> No, mine has the 6 speed.


What kind of fuel mileage do you get with that?


----------



## Ashful

I was thinking about this thread while driving yesterday, and noting that physics generally agrees with my experience, in that every 4600 lb. pickup I’ve ever owned gets the same local mileage.  Engine displacement has almost no effect in the mileage I see:

4.3L V6 Chevy K1500 5sp. manual = 14 MPG
4.7L V8 Dodge 1500 6sp. manual = 14 MPG
5.7L V8 Hemi Ram 1500 8sp. auto = 14.6 MPG

Bottom line, when you’re accelerating the same weight to the same velocity over the same time interval, you’re going to use roughly the same amount of fuel.  There is no magic bullet, here.

Get to constant highway speeds, and then the game changes.  There the acceleration factor diminishes, and drag and efficiency take over.  However, I almost never drive my pickup truck on a highway, it’s all local use.


----------



## begreen

Seasoned Oak said:


> What kind of fuel mileage do you get with that?


It varies radically with the terrain and load. Best case scenario is 55mph on a flat road where it will average 24mpg, but we are in hilly and mountainous country so I rarely see that. Average 65mph freeway driving is about 19mpg. Average winter hilly local driving is 14.6mpg  with short trips and about 16mpg in summer. (To get into town I have to drop down 400ft, then back up 600ft.) Fully loaded 65mph freeway driving about 14-15mpg. Mountain driving really kills mileage when fully loaded. (As Sportbikerider warned me!)  I have a friend with a 2015 F150 with the 5.0 l V8 and his average mileage is just as good with a less complex engine. I bought used, but if new the V8 would be my choice. My truck is the steel body version. The new aluminum body model is 700# lighter for the biggest version and has the 10 speed auto. Mine is also a 4x4 which adds weight and reduces mileage.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Interesting that you(Ashful) get better MPG with the Larger engine and auto tr. Im not even getting that much locally .Somewhere between 8 and 11.  Dont know where they get the city figures of 16 to 18 on the EPA test. That said the Forum for multiple owners of newer GM trucks reports an average of 17 combined which is way better than i ever see. Even our family hauler Dodge V6 used to get 25-26 on a trip now cant even crack 20 on  trip. Id say my usage is 95% city and 5% Hwy, for the trucks and 70-30% for the family van. The 2019 Dodge truck will do brake regeneration into an e-assist battery ,so that may help city numbers.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Begreen: Those are pretty good numbers. Especially give the HP that engine is making. ID be happy with anything remotely close to that. For the MPG differences were talking the larger engines seem to be the better choice. I dont need 4WD as im keeping my HD truck for bad weather and hauling.


----------



## Medic21

Seasoned Oak said:


> Interesting that you(Ashful) get better MPG with the Larger engine and auto tr. Im not even getting that much locally .Somewhere between 8 and 11.  Dont know where they get the city figures of 16 to 18 on the EPA test. That said the Forum for multiple owners of newer GM trucks reports an average of 17 combined which is way better than i ever see. Even our family hauler Dodge V6 used to get 25-26 on a trip now cant even crack 20. Id say my usage is 95% city and 5% Hwy, for the trucks and 70-30% for the family van. The 2019 Dodge truck will do brake regeneration into an e-assist battery ,so that may help city numbers.



My thoughts on the mileage as a tech do not line up with what the makers advertise.  The one thing that will always make a difference is driving habits.  

I drive a truck part time that has a C15 Cat at 600+ HP.   my boss has a Cummins ISX 2015 that has 450 HP.  We pull identical loads and identical trips.  I get 6.3-6.5 mpg and he gets 5.5-5.8.  Why?  Horsepower and engine displacement works backwards.  Larger displacement and higher horsepower works more efficient when driven sensibly.  I have the power to dump black smoke and get 90,000 lbs up to 65 mph in less than a mile but, I choose to drive it easy.  He has to get on his engine to get to speed in 1.5 miles and it drinks fuel doing it.

As I stated earlier in this thread the 3.5l ford is a good motor but, I've been replacing turbos on occasion in the last year.  Most are 100k+ trucks but, it's happening.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

I do a lot of short trips.Much of the time the engine hardly even warms up to operating temps. That will factor into the equation as well. MPG always suffers under those conditions.


----------



## begreen

Seasoned Oak said:


> I do a lot of short trips.Much of the time the engine hardly even warms up to operating temps. That will factor into the equation as well. MPG always suffers under those conditions.


Yes, my local driving is about 7 miles into town, 14 mile round trip. The truck is just getting warmed up in the winter. Fortunately I don't take many long trips with it, so a big tankful lasts a couple months or more. But when I do take a trip there likely is a camper on it which adds mucho weight and some more wind resistance.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Youve got that volt for running errands Bg so no gas at all ,cant beat electric for short local trips. Coming to a light truck soon i hope. Dodge is expected to do a light hybrid for 2019 but its not a plug in. More like a prius type propulsion electric assist with regeneration. Will be interesting to see if this moves the needle much as far as MPG.


----------



## begreen

Yes, the Volt milage at this time of year is coming from the sun. If done well, a hybrid drive should help quite a bit. Wonder if they are adapting the drive off of the Pacifica?


----------



## Stelcom66

Ashful said:


> I hope you're choosing white.
> 
> View attachment 226792



Congrats on getting the Bronco going. I have a feeling that highway picture was taken in 1995.


----------



## Stelcom66

Ashful said:


> I was thinking about this thread while driving yesterday, and noting that physics generally agrees with my experience, in that every 4600 lb. pickup I’ve ever owned gets the same local mileage.  Engine displacement has almost no effect in the mileage I see:
> 
> 4.3L V6 Chevy K1500 5sp. manual = 14 MPG
> 4.7L V8 Dodge 1500 6sp. manual = 14 MPG
> 5.7L V8 Hemi Ram 1500 8sp. auto = 14.6 MPG



Calculated my 2002's 5.3 V8 1500 4sp. auto - also right in the range at 14.6 MPG. That was with about 27% highway. That's what I've heard - the V6s and different displacement V8s get about the same overall in full size pickup. The data above coincides with the fueleconomy.gov ratings that show with full size pickup trucks automatic transmissions get slightly better mileage.


----------



## Stelcom66

Looks like the GM 4.3 V6 is staying around, a good choice for those who don't have the option for the newer engines. This is in reference to the new 2.7 4 cyl.:

"In addition to being about 80 pounds lighter than Chevy’s 4.3-liter V6 (which will still be offered as the standard engine on Work, Custom and Custom Trailboss trucks)...."

Read more: http://autoweek.com/article/trucks/...rprising-all-new-27-liter-turbo#ixzz5G9l1qgBt


----------



## bholler

Stelcom66 said:


> Congrats on getting the Bronco going. I have a feeling that highway picture was taken in 1995.


Thanks it was much easier than i expected.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Stelcom66 said:


> This is in reference to the new 2.7 4 cyl.:
> 
> Read more: http://autoweek.com/article/trucks/...rprising-all-new-27-liter-turbo#ixzz5G9l1qgBt


Its surprising it will use regular gas . Would have thought the higher compression would call for Premium. Very interested to see the numbers on this when it gets closer to launch.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> I got the bronco running today.  It was easy just a fuel pump.  And looking it over it doesnt need to much work a little bit of rust repair and a paint job.


Those wheels bring back memories.


----------



## begreen

Seasoned Oak said:


> Dodge is expected to do a light hybrid for 2019 but its not a plug in. More like a prius type propulsion electric assist with regeneration. Will be interesting to see if this moves the needle much as far as MPG.


Looks like a wimpy hybrid system, not really Prius-like afterall. It's just a 48V motor/generator that can add a little torque when run as a motor. The battery pack is a measly 430wh.


----------



## Ashful

begreen said:


> Looks like a wimpy hybrid system, not really Prius-like afterall. It's just a 48V motor/generator that can add a little torque when run as a motor. The battery pack is a measly 430wh.



What’s the expected boost in MPG?  It seems such a system would still have appreciable advantage around town, charging during braking and delivering during acceleration, even with a relatively small battery.  Definitely not Prius-like, but perhaps another worthy alternative?


----------



## begreen

Ashful said:


> What’s the expected boost in MPG?  It seems such a system would still have appreciable advantage around town, charging during braking and delivering during acceleration, even with a relatively small battery.  Definitely not Prius-like, but perhaps another worthy alternative?


I guess we'll see once real world usage and testing shows up.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

begreen said:


> Looks like a wimpy hybrid system, not really Prius-like afterall. It's just a 48V motor/generator that can add a little torque when run as a motor. The battery pack is a measly 430wh.


Not sure why Dodge is offering that $149 lease right now, i guess to clear out the 2018s. Not often its that low. Thats about half of what GM and Ford are doing. Terrific deal if your in the market now.


----------



## begreen

Yes, that looks like  a good deal.


----------



## Stelcom66

I needed a 2x6x 13 or so.. the closest size was 16. Wasn't sure how I was going to transport it, brought a towel and rope. Was thinking of propping it on the roof, angled down toward the tailgate. I had the back sliding window open on the way to Lowes, walking back to the truck I then thought - take advantage of that. Of course it went to the windshield, I put a towel around the end of it. As shown the most it stuck out was about 2 1/2'.


----------



## festerw

Ashful said:


> I was thinking about this thread while driving yesterday, and noting that physics generally agrees with my experience, in that every 4600 lb. pickup I’ve ever owned gets the same local mileage.  Engine displacement has almost no effect in the mileage I see:
> 
> 4.3L V6 Chevy K1500 5sp. manual = 14 MPG
> 4.7L V8 Dodge 1500 6sp. manual = 14 MPG
> 5.7L V8 Hemi Ram 1500 8sp. auto = 14.6 MPG
> 
> Bottom line, when you’re accelerating the same weight to the same velocity over the same time interval, you’re going to use roughly the same amount of fuel.  There is no magic bullet, here.
> 
> Get to constant highway speeds, and then the game changes.  There the acceleration factor diminishes, and drag and efficiency take over.  However, I almost never drive my pickup truck on a highway, it’s all local use.



This makes me feel better about the 15mpg I get in my 04 4.7 4 speed auto Tundra Double Cab.


----------



## Ashful

festerw said:


> This makes me feel better about the 15mpg I get in my 04 4.7 4 speed auto Tundra Double Cab.


Hah... those are just my pickups.  My last two cars (hatchback and a sedan) were 8 mpg and 12 mpg, with my usual commute (local country roads).  Both had motors just _slightly_ bigger than 5.7 liters.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Eventually electric or electric assist will take over the short trips in just about every class of vehicle.IMHO. Makes so much more sense. Instant torque, low operating cost per mile,a filling station in every home,multiple ways to generate fuel,no harm to motors not getting up to temp. at present about one third the cost of fuel.(electric vs gasoline),ability to recover braking energy ect. And loads of power for the HP lovers.


----------



## Stelcom66

Seasoned Oak said:


> Eventually electric or electric assist will take over the short trips in just about every class of vehicle.IMHO. Makes so much more sense. Instant torque, low operating cost per mile,a filling station in every home,multiple ways to generate fuel,no harm to motors not getting up to temp. at present about one third the cost of fuel.(electric vs gasoline),ability to recover braking energy ect. And loads of power for the HP lovers.



Makes good sense. I believe GM and Dodge offer electric assist on the new V6 engines. maybe the V8s? This may be the new technology trend, not really a hybrid but the net result like a hybrid is less fuel used and torque. That's the advantage of electric motors - all the available torque is on hand. That's why (I believe) locomotive's wheels are electric motors, no transmission needed.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Im anxiously looking forward to news of the GM 4Cy turbo. Hard to wrap my head around a 4cy in a full sized pickup truck but 325HP is plenty for average use. Even with 2Cy deactivated for cruising your still left with enough HP to maintain Hwy speed.(unless your towing)


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> ...but 325HP is plenty for average use.


Define “plenty”.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> Define “plenty”.


Probably for a good percentage of truck owners it is plenty. 40 more than their entry level engine right now. Of course if you have a need for 400+ Hp you can get that too.


----------



## rudysmallfry

begreen said:


> From what I've read a stock a 2500HD 6.0L with the 4.10 gears is lucky to get over 13mpg. The folks with the 3.73 rear are doing a bit better.



I have Chevy 2500HD with the 6.0 with the 3.73 gears. I get about 18mpg when not towing my horse trailer. I do agree with others who say the body will rust out on most trucks before the engine and other parts are worn out. Then again I'm in New England with all the snow and salt.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

rudysmallfry said:


> I have Chevy 2500HD with the 6.0 with the 3.73 gears. I get about 18mpg when not towing my horse trailer. I do agree with others who say the body will rust out on most trucks before the engine and other parts are worn out. Then again I'm in New England with all the snow and salt.


Thats not bad MPG for a larger 8cy, im assuming that Hwy miles.What year is that? Could probably improve on that with an 8 or 10 speed tranny.


----------



## Stelcom66

Seasoned Oak said:


> Thats not bad MPG for a larger 8cy, im assuming that Hwy miles.What year is that? Could probably improve on that with an 8 or 10 speed tranny.



I was going to say that's very good for a 3/4 ton and that engine. It is impressive that the new GM 4 cyl. engine is good for 325 hp. I just wonder what the reliability will be like, especially when older.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Stelcom66 said:


> I just wonder what the reliability will be like, especially when older.


For me its not an issue as im planning a 2 yr lease.


----------



## Stelcom66

Probably highway MPGs will be great with the 4 cyl.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Seasoned Oak said:


> . Hard to wrap my head around a 4cy in a full sized pickup truck but 325HP is plenty for average use.


Correction :The HP rating is 310 , not 325 . Still 25 more than the V-6 though.


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> Correction :The HP rating is 310 , not 325 . Still 25 more than the V-6 though.


What’s the heaviest trailer you’ll be pulling at highway speeds?  Around town is never the issue on these, it’s always maintaining 65 mph while going up some of those central-PA hills, that causes cursing and frustration.

Me?  I’m still thinking of adding a supercharger to my 5.7L Hemi.  ;-)


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> What’s the heaviest trailer you’ll be pulling at highway speeds?  Around town is never the issue on these, it’s always maintaining 65 mph while going up some of those central-PA hills, that causes cursing and frustration.
> 
> Me?  I’m still thinking of adding a supercharger to my 5.7L Hemi.  ;-)


Probably NO trailer .  If i have to pull anything heavy id want a HD 3/4 ton for the heavy brakes and 12K towing capacity ,which i already have for the grunt jobs. Lots of choices for high HP . You would want the 6.2 i assume. Good solid engine with lots of power to spare. Respectable Hwy MPG to boot.


----------



## woodhog73

Sorry I didn’t even read the thread......too long.....long time F150 owner a few different years currently 2017 f150 5.0 and its Awesome get 20.5 mpg around town and highway mix and pull a 5,000 camper at 14mpg over 700 miles what more can I say ?


----------



## Seasoned Oak

woodhog73 said:


> Sorry I didn’t even read the thread......too long.....long time F150 owner a few different years currently 2017 f150 5.0 and its Awesome get 20.5 mpg around town and highway mix and pull a 5,000 camper at 14mpg over 700 miles what more can I say ?


Thats amazing.My in town MPG is the pits. 9 with the HD 8cyl 3/4 ton  and 11 with the v6 half ton.


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> Thats amazing.My in town MPG is the pits. 9 with the HD 8cyl 3/4 ton  and 11 with the v6 half ton.


lead foot.

I drive hard by most folks' standards, and I'm still clearing 14 MPG with a 5.7L Hemi and 3.92 rear in my half ton.


----------



## bholler

Ashful said:


> lead foot.
> 
> I drive hard by most folks' standards, and I'm still clearing 14 MPG with a 5.7L Hemi and 3.92 rear in my half ton.


Hell i just checked the mpg of my bronco with 5.8 and 3.55s and i got 14 after 3 weeks.  That is assuming my odometer is accurate which probably isnt a safe assumption.  And it was driven pretty hard to.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> lead foot.
> I drive hard by most folks' standards, and I'm still clearing 14 MPG with a 5.7L Hemi and 3.92 rear in my half ton.



Most of my in town driving is less than a mile,stop and go. Plus theses trucks are old. But i doubt id get the official city MPG with a new truck that rarely warms up to operating temps.


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> Most of my in town driving is less than a mile,stop and go. Plus theses trucks are old. But i doubt id get the official city MPG with a new truck that rarely warms up to operating temps.



Same here.  My commute is so short that it’s just reaching operating temp when I’m shutting it off.  That’s why I’m only getting 14 MPG, and not the advertised (high 20’s?) MPG.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> Same here.  My commute is so short that it’s just reaching operating temp when I’m shutting it off.  That’s why I’m only getting 14 MPG, and not the advertised (high 20’s?) MPG.


I believe your truck is rated somewhere around 14 city 20 hwy.


----------



## Jazzberry

Seasoned Oak said:


> I believe your truck is rated somewhere around 14 city 20 hwy.



I get 14 in the mountains with my 06 Chevy 4wd. Get 18 - 19 on the highway when Im in the flatlands and can use od.


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> I believe your truck is rated somewhere around 14 city 20 hwy.


city/hwy = 15/21 mpg.  My driving is almost entirely rural roads, so somewhere between city and highway.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Heres something Ashful may want under his xmas tree this year! Although it is only a V-6. Pricey.  
https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...ited-adds-450-hp-raptor-v-6-engine/864614002/


----------



## Ashful

Very cool!  Although, I have to admit, I’ve become somewhat biased against Ford trucks.  It’s probably an unfair mental carry-over from the complete turd F150’s they were making 15 - 20 years ago, but there it is.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> Very cool!  Although, I have to admit, I’ve become somewhat biased against Ford trucks.  It’s probably an unfair mental carry-over from the complete turd F150’s they were making 15 - 20 years ago, but there it is.


I had a couple in the 80s ,none of which i found to have many redeeming qualities. My first chevy put an end to any more fords at the time. Fast forward i would be tempted to give em another try if the deal was right.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> I had a couple in the 80s ,none of which i found to have many redeeming qualities. My first chevy put an end to any more fords at the time. Fast forward i would be tempted to give em another try if the deal was right.


To be fair not many American vehicles from the 80s (at least early to mid 80s) had allot of redeeming qualities


----------



## Ashful

bholler said:


> To be fair not many American vehicles from the 80s (at least early to mid 80s) had allot of redeeming qualities



Lol... well said!


----------



## WiscWoody

I like Ford trucks, the regulars here have probably seen them before... the ‘78 F-150 300/6  I got for $1100 with new tires and the ‘03 F-250 was a southern truck with a 5.4L 2 valve (less problems than the 3 valver) and low miles. I paid $12k fo fit last year and for the condition it was in and the fact that they replaced the ball joints, tie rod ends and all front end bushings and I thought it was well worth it. I use the 78 exclusively to tow my lawn care trailer and the red truck for hauling and a old Toyota for gas mileage on long rural trips to the stores. My next truck will likely be a diesel with the recent skid steer purchase but I’ll have to get by with what I have for a few years at least.

PS- the 5.4 in the 250 is a bit of a dog for a 7000 pound truck but I did just two mods to it, I had a Y pipe welded in to replace the restrictive one that Ford had on it and and I found a used K&N filter kit on eBay and put that in at the same time and it feels like I picked up 20hp! Not bad for a few hundred bucks.


----------



## bholler

WiscWoody said:


> View attachment 228412
> View attachment 228413
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like Ford trucks, the regulars here have probably seen them before... the ‘78 F-150 300/6  I got for $1100 with new tires and the ‘03 F-250 was a southern truck with a 5.4L 2 valve (less problems than the 3 valver) and low miles. I paid $12k fo fit last year and for the condition it was in and the fact that they replaced the ball joints, tie rod ends and all front end bushings and I thought it was well worth it. I use the 78 exclusively to tow my lawn care trailer and the red truck for hauling and a old Toyota for gas mileage on long rural trips to the stores. My next truck will likely be a diesel with the recent skid steer purchase but I’ll have to get by with what I have for a few years at least.
> 
> PS- the 5.4 in the 250 is a bit of a dog for a 7000 pound truck but I did just two mods to it, I had a Y pipe welded in to replace the restrictive one that Ford had on it and and I found a used K&N filter kit on eBay and put that in at the same time and it feels like I picked up 20hp! Not bad for a few hundred bucks.


I like fords to i currently have 2 1990s a f250 and a bronco.  And my wife has an escape.  But i am far from a ford guy.  I pick the vehicle that meets my needs that i can find at a good price.  They all have their issues.  All trucks have rust issues.  Our chevys have electrical problems.  Dodges had transmission and diff problems.  Ford beds still rust out.  Toyota had tust problems.  And pn an on.


----------



## WiscWoody

I wander if the newer aluminum bodied Fords will have a corrosion problem in salty states? Of course the underbody will still rust as always especially in the north like up here. Salt sucks and I let my trucks sit when it’s sloppy on the roads but I think my next truck I’ll buy with rust on it so I don’t have to worry about keeping it so nice. I’ll have 3 trucks then.


----------



## bholler

WiscWoody said:


> I wander if the newer aluminum bodied Fords will have a corrosion problem in salty states? Of course the underbody will still rust as always especially in the north like up here. Salt sucks and I let my trucks sit when it’s sloppy on the roads but I think my next truck I’ll buy with rust on it so I don’t have to worry about keeping it so nice. I’ll have 3 trucks then.


I dont know.  All i know is that everyone else that tried it ended up with galvaninic corosion problems where steel met aluminium.  And the aluminum rear gates on tahoe suburban etc corrode some and the paint flakes off.  But only time will tell.  My trucks cant sit when it snows i have to plow and we still have to work.  I guess the bronco would be able to.


----------



## WiscWoody

bholler said:


> I dont know.  All i know is that everyone else that tried it ended up with galvaninic corosion problems where steel met aluminium.  And the aluminum rear gates on tahoe suburban etc corrode some and the paint flakes off.  But only time will tell.  My trucks cant sit when it snows i have to plow and we still have to work.  I guess the bronco would be able to.


Yup, that’s why I want a truck with some rust that I wouldn’t care so much about, then I can plow with it too and haul the skid around to unbury customers after big dumps.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

I escaped the rust problems of the 80s and 90s with various chevy trucks from an 82 with no rust at all up to  a 95 with very little rust, but i know there were w lot who didnt. I never had a vehicle with any significant rust until i got a 1999 toyota tacoma. You could almost watch it get worse by the day. The paper thin body panels didnt help it either. Along with a myriad of mechanical problems that developed in a relatively short period of time,it was by far the worst vehicle iv ever owned.


----------



## Ashful

Again, you guys are basing your “likes” on stuff each of these brands made 15 - 40 years ago, which may have nothing to do with what they make today.  The team who designed your ‘78 Ford is long retired... or dead.


----------



## WiscWoody

Seasoned Oak said:


> I escaped the rust problems of the 80s and 90s with various chevy trucks from an 82 with no rust at all up to  a 95 with very little rust, but i know there were w lot who didnt. I never had a vehicle with any significant rust until i got a 1999 toyota tacoma. You could almost watch it get worse by the day. The paper thin body panels didnt help it either. Along with a myriad of mechanical problems that developed in a relatively short period of time,it was by far the worst vehicle iv ever owned.


I remember you saying that the Tacoma didn’t do so well body wise... I had a 94 Ranger that did quite well, there was no rust on the body except a little on the venerable tailgate bottom after 12 years of northern winter driving. I learned that the bottom 1/3 of the Ranger body was galvanized by Ford. There’s no way I could go back to a small truck again, now I want long box trucks- the wood I can haul the better right?


----------



## WiscWoody

Ashful said:


> Again, you guys are basing your “likes” on stuff each of these brands made 15 - 40 years ago, which may have nothing to do with what they make today.  The team who designed your ‘78 Ford is long retired... or dead.


That’s cuz we like talking about our trucks, they’re part of family for me just like my dogs are too lol.


----------



## Dobish

Seasoned Oak said:


> I escaped the rust problems of the 80s and 90s with various chevy trucks from an 82 with no rust at all up to  a 95 with very little rust, but i know there were w lot who didnt. I never had a vehicle with any significant rust until i got a 1999 toyota tacoma. You could almost watch it get worse by the day. The paper thin body panels didnt help it either. Along with a myriad of mechanical problems that developed in a relatively short period of time,it was by far the worst vehicle iv ever owned.



I miss my '09 tacoma. It was a great truck with SO MANY cupholders. And it cold fit a bottle of wine in just about every wine... It was a little 4 cylinder manual transmission. It kept its value so well that I basically sold it for the same as I paid for it and used it for 5 years.

Ole Rusty was the best $313 I have ever spent on a truck though   The other day my son wanted to take it to the car wash, and I told him no. he turns to me and says... oh yeah, it might just fall apart. can we just wash the top?


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Dobish said:


> It kept its value so well that I basically sold it for the same as I paid for it and used it for 5 years.


 I got about the same as i paid for mine ,but i only had it a year and i put money in it constantly the whole year. For a  6 Cy manual tranny it got horrible MPG as well.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> Again, you guys are basing your “likes” on stuff each of these brands made 15 - 40 years ago, which may have nothing to do with what they make today.  The team who designed your ‘78 Ford is long retired... or dead.


I would give any one of the big 3 another try ,chances are the new trucks from  all 3 are nothing like the old ones. As far as toyota goes that ship sailed and its not coming back.


----------



## WiscWoody

I just took the mileage for my ‘78 F-150 for the first time, I got 10.8 mpg from the 6 banger towing a 14x6.5 mowing trailer with either a 800 or a 1350 pound mower on it and some other yard garb, not real heavy but it’s a constant companion on the truck. Not too good but no surprise I guess. I take it slow on the highways with it at around 50 mph but I don’t go too far with it, it does not have a OD transmission.


----------



## bholler

WiscWoody said:


> I just took the mileage for my ‘78 F-150 for the first time, I got 10.8 mpg from the 6 banger towing a 14x6.5 mowing trailer with either a 800 or a 1350 pound mower on it and some other yard garb, not real heavy but it’s a constant companion on the truck. Not too good but no surprise I guess. I take it slow on the highways with it at around 50 mph but I don’t go too far with it, it does not have a OD transmission.


10.8 isnt bad at all for a 40 year old truck especially towing.  I am assuming that is the straight six.  They were great motors.  Not fast but tons of torque.  

I am amazed by my new bronco.  Just took it 1.5 hours on the highway.  Cruises along great at 75 to 80 at around 2500 rpm.  No shakes or anything.  This from a truck that say outside unused for 3 years and i paid 500 for.  All it needed was a relay and a fuel pump.  Best deal i ever got.

I will start doing the little bit of needed rust repair soon after i fix a few annoyances on my truck.


----------



## WiscWoody

bholler said:


> 10.8 isnt bad at all for a 40 year old truck especially towing.  I am assuming that is the straight six.  They were great motors.  Not fast but tons of torque.
> 
> I am amazed by my new bronco.  Just took it 1.5 hours on the highway.  Cruises along great at 75 to 80 at around 2500 rpm.  No shakes or anything.  This from a truck that say outside unused for 3 years and i paid 500 for.  All it needed was a relay and a fuel pump.  Best deal i ever got.
> 
> I will start doing the little bit of needed rust repair soon after i fix a few annoyances on my truck.


Yes the truck has the 300/6 engine and I’ve heard lots of good things about the engine.


----------



## bholler

WiscWoody said:


> View attachment 228467
> 
> Yes the truck has the 300/6 engine and I’ve heard lots of good things about the engine.


Yeah great motor.  Not lots of fun but a very durable workhorse.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

I dont see a lot of 80 and 90s cars on the road anymore. You would think since truck are used harder that there would be more cars than trucks still in use. A lot more older trucks than older cars for some reason. Probably cuz car owners value low miles on their primary vehicle so they opt for new more often.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> I dont see a lot of 80 and 90s cars on the road anymore. You would think since truck are used harder that there would be more cars than trucks still in use. A lot more older trucks than older cars for some reason. Probably cuz car owners value low miles on their primary vehicle so they opt for new more often.


I see plenty of 80s and 90s cars on the road here.  I dont know if it is as many as trucks but pretty close.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> I see plenty of 80s and 90s cars on the road here.  I dont know if it is as many as trucks but pretty close.


 During car shows, and car cruises around here but not as everyday drivers.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> During car shows, and car cruises around here but not as everyday drivers.


We still see quite a few as daily drivers.  But one thing to consider is that many times truck are not used as a primary vehicle.  Because of that they see many fewer miles which means longer life.  I also dont think unibody vehicles will last as long.  A body pn fram vehicle with a rusty body can still be perfectly safe and functional.  On a unibody it isnt.  Lots of the older daily driver cars we see are old full sized stuff that is body on frame.  They also are the typical type that would be owned by seniors and see few miles.  So they can be had pretty cheap in good condition.  A quick scan of craigslist in our area shows lots of old caprices cadilacs crown vics etc for sale low miles and cheap.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Im sure book value has something to do with it. Since trucks seem to hold their value and suffer less depreciation than most cars. Owners are far more likely to fix rather than junk a higher value vehicle.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Im sure book value has something to do with it. Since trucks seem to hold their value and suffer less depreciation than most cars. Owners are far more likely to fix rather than junk a higher value vehicle.


True


----------



## Jazzberry

My son still has my old 72 Chevy stepside I gave him when he turned 16. We just had his 40th birthday party last night. I bought it around 1985 or so.


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> Im sure book value has something to do with it. Since trucks seem to hold their value and suffer less depreciation than most cars. Owners are far more likely to fix rather than junk a higher value vehicle.



Also, the personality and interests of the driver.  Wrench turners are probably more likely to own an old truck than an old Buick.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Good friend of mine bitching every day about his 5 YR old Dodge Ram. First the rocker panels are rusting out already now the exhaust system is falling off. He is looking to upgrade but probably wont go Dodge. I may consider a new Dodge Ram but it will be have to be a lot cheaper than a GM or even a ford product for me to bite ,and i dont plan to keep it past the warranty anyway.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> Our 2006 chevy 2500 6.0 gets about 18 highway without much load and 16 or so towing the work trailer or boat.  I have nothing against deisels I just dont see that they make sense for most people.  That is unless they are modified so they blow huge clouds of smoke for no reason.  Then i have a problem  with them.  But its frame is starting to rust pretty bad and has been patched twice already.


Thats more than i got with a toyota tacoma manual tranny and a 6cy. And also every other truck iv ever owned. I hope to do  better with a new truck but the new Silverados are not scheduled to come out until Jan 19 .


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> Good friend of mine bitching every day about his 5 YR old Dodge Ram. First the rocker panels are rusting out already now the exhaust system is falling off. He is looking to upgrade but probably wont go Dodge. I may consider a new Dodge Ram but it will be have to be a lot cheaper than a GM or even a ford product for me to bite ,and i dont plan to keep it past the warranty anyway.


I always felt the same, watched my buddies buy late 1990's Dodge trucks, and they seemed to always have issues.  Then again, I was having even more issues with my Chevy, at the time, but wouldn't have admitted to that.

I resorted to buying my first Dodge truck in 2005, when I was in the market for a new truck, and found GM wouldn't give a manual trans anymore.  Dodge was the only one left who did manual trans with a V8 and extended cab, at that time.  I remember looking it over, and pointing out how much better my old Chevy was in several areas, at least in my head.

But whereas the Chevy required new 4wd solenoids, all new exhaust, and had numerous computer/injection system problems in it's first 10 years... I owned that 2005 Dodge for 12 years with only one repair.  That repair was a torn rubber boot on a front CV joint, total cost was about $100 for parts + labor.  It was, by a very long margin, the most reliable truck I ever owned.

I bought a 7000 lb. GTW trailer when the truck was 10 years old, and that truck was really only legal to tow 5500 lb.  So, when it started to just get the hint of rust in the rear fenders in year 12, I used it as an excuse to trade the truck in.  This time, I had none of my past qualms about going with a Ram.

I think all three American manufacturers put out some pretty crappy vehicles in the past, and maybe Dodge was at the bottom of the pool, but it seems Daimler really did a good job of cleaning up their act.  My 2005 Ram had a few key Daimler, Getrag, and Bosch components.  The trans was Getrag.  My '16 SRT has an interior that looks like an upgraded and updated version of our '12 Mercedes E-class, lots of similarities there.  My '15 Ram shares a few components with that but you can see where they're diverging from the Dodge branding.  It will be interesting to see how Fiat changes them over the next 5 - 7 years, now that they've taken over the brand.


----------



## bholler

Ashful said:


> I always felt the same, watched my buddies buy late 1990's Dodge trucks, and they seemed to always have issues.  Then again, I was having even more issues with my Chevy, at the time, but wouldn't have admitted to that.
> 
> I resorted to buying my first Dodge truck in 2005, when I was in the market for a new truck, and found GM wouldn't give a manual trans anymore.  Dodge was the only one left who did manual trans with a V8 and extended cab, at that time.  I remember looking it over, and pointing out how much better my old Chevy was in several areas, at least in my head.
> 
> But whereas the Chevy required new 4wd solenoids, all new exhaust, and had numerous computer/injection system problems in it's first 10 years... I owned that 2005 Dodge for 12 years with only one repair.  That repair was a torn rubber boot on a front CV joint, total cost was about $100 for parts + labor.  It was, by a very long margin, the most reliable truck I ever owned.
> 
> I bought a 7000 lb. GTW trailer when the truck was 10 years old, and that truck was really only legal to tow 5500 lb.  So, when it started to just get the hint of rust in the rear fenders in year 12, I used it as an excuse to trade the truck in.  This time, I had none of my past qualms about going with a Ram.
> 
> I think all three American manufacturers put out some pretty crappy vehicles in the past, and maybe Dodge was at the bottom of the pool, but it seems Daimler really did a good job of cleaning up their act.  My 2005 Ram had a few key Daimler, Getrag, and Bosch components.  The trans was Getrag.  My '16 SRT has an interior that looks like an upgraded and updated version of our '12 Mercedes E-class, lots of similarities there.  My '15 Ram shares a few components with that but you can see where they're diverging from the Dodge branding.  It will be interesting to see how Fiat changes them over the next 5 - 7 years, now that they've taken over the brand.


I agree completly all companies have had problems and they all will in the future.  I have had good experiences and bad with all of the big 3 and with some imports.  Being brand loyal over decades just doesnt make sense to me they change so much over time.  I just look for a vehicle that meets my current needs and is in the price range i am looking for.  Right now all of our personal daily drivers are fords but i am by no means a ford guy.  If i were buying a new truck right now it wouldnt be a ford i just dont like the look compared to the other 2.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> If i were buying a new truck right now it wouldnt be a ford i just dont like the look compared to the other 2.


I think all 3 look very good for the 2019 model . Ford is looking a lot  better the last few years. Im not a fan of how high off the ground they all seem to be going. Us old timers are having a hard time crawling in and out.


----------



## vtwoodheater

I have never bought/driven a truck based on the "look".  Interior or exterior.  They are tools for me.  I do not own a "pleasure" truck.  That being said, you couldn't give me a ford 

My grandfather told me over 25 years ago: "at best, a vehicle is a depreciating asset".


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> I think all three American manufacturers put out some pretty crappy vehicles in the past,  .


They certainly did. And all 3 have, and have had the capability of putting out great trucks and did at times. I still plan to do a test drive of each of the big 3. I have an open mind. Since im not likely to keep it past the warranty, so im not worried about past issues. Wife is voting for the SIlverado based on looks at this time so theres,THAT.


----------



## bholler

vtwoodheater said:


> I have never bought/driven a truck based on the "look".  Interior or exterior.  They are tools for me.  I do not own a "pleasure" truck.  That being said, you couldn't give me a ford
> 
> My grandfather told me over 25 years ago: "at best, a vehicle is a depreciating asset".


I dont care that much about looks but right now all 3 are pretty good mechanically so it would come down to price and personal preference to me.  And personally i dont like the look of the new fords as much.

Why so against fords out of curiosity


----------



## Seasoned Oak

vtwoodheater said:


> I have never bought/driven a truck based on the "look".  Interior or exterior.  They are tools for me.  I do not own a "pleasure" truck.  That being said, you couldn't give me a ford
> My grandfather told me over 25 years ago: "at best, a vehicle is a depreciating asset".


We will be replacing our current family vehicle with a truck so i guess you could call it a "pleasure truck" and the insurance Company will as well. Looks(and even color) will play a part in the final decision. It definitely will NOT be white ,green or blue. I havnt owned a ford for 40 yrs but im not ruling them out. All vehicles are depreciating assets ,since my health is also a depreciating asset i plan to enjoy the twilight of my years. No way, im lookin at an ugly truck every day.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> We will be replacing our current family vehicle with a truck so i guess you could call it a "pleasure truck" and the insurance Company will as well. Looks(and even color) will play a part in the final decision. It definitely will NOT be white ,green or blue. I havnt owned a ford for 40 yrs but im not ruling them out. All vehicles are depreciating assets ,since my health is also a depreciating asset i plan to enjoy the twilight of my years. No way, im lookin at an ugly truck every day.


No not all.  Are depreciating assets.  Some can actually appreciate quite a bit if you pay attention and buy at the right time.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> No not all.  Are depreciating assets.  Some can actually appreciate quite a bit if you pay attention and buy at the right time.


Of course collectables, not many trucks n that category lately.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Of course collectables, not many trucks n that category lately.


There are tons of trucks in that category.  70s 80s and early 90s suvs are the thing right now that can still be bought cheap but are climbing in value.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

I think Vtwoodheaters GF was referring to newer cars and trucks bought and used as commodities , not antiques which if kept up certainly increase in value.


----------



## vtwoodheater

When is the last time you put a cord of wood in a 1986 Suburban, or a '92 full-size Bronco?  Really?  When those vehicles were being produced, the term SUV hadn't even been coined.


----------



## bholler

vtwoodheater said:


> When is the last time you put a cord of wood in a 1986 Suburban, or a '92 full-size Bronco?  Really?  When those vehicles were being produced, the term SUV hadn't even been coined.


In them no but lots of people pull trailers with them.  And actually sport utility vehicle became a class of vehicle in 1975.  And regardless i didnt realize hauling firewood was a requirement for every vehicle.  I have a truck for that.  I have my bronco for fun.


----------



## vtwoodheater

In the half ton pickup thread....


----------



## bholler

And there are plenty of trucks that are climbing in value.  Many are alread pretty high but 70s and 80s dodges are still cheap but climbing now


----------



## bholler

vtwoodheater said:


> In the half ton pickup thread....


It stopped being a half ton pickup thread a long time ago.  And i was commenting on your statement which simply said vehicles.  Nothing about age or type.


----------



## SuperSpy

Wife hit a deer in her car so while it's in the shop she's driving my S10 ZR2 while I borrow my parents' farm truck.  03 Ram 2wd with a 6.7 Cummins, 5-speed manual, and a 4.10 axle is about as polar opposite of a truck as its gets to mine.

My S10 while it struggles hauling heavy stuff, has never gotten stuck (and I've taken it through some pretty nasty mud/snow), this Ram has about 0 traction off road, but would happily pull a house up a hill on the freeway at 75 MPH (at 2600 RPM).


----------



## Highbeam

SuperSpy said:


> Wife hit a deer in her car so while it's in the shop she's driving my S10 ZR2 while I borrow my parents' farm truck.  03 Ram 2wd with a 6.7 Cummins, 5-speed manual, and a 4.10 axle is about as polar opposite of a truck as its gets to mine.
> 
> My S10 while it struggles hauling heavy stuff, has never gotten stuck (and I've taken it through some pretty nasty mud/snow), this Ram has about 0 traction off road, but would happily pull a house up a hill on the freeway at 75 MPH (at 2600 RPM).



They still use 5 speeds? Wait now, in 2003 they didn’t have a 6.7.


----------



## SuperSpy

Oh you're right, it is a 5.9 based on the VIN.  Still annoying as hell to drive because of the ratio and razor thin power band.


----------



## Jazzberry

SuperSpy said:


> Oh you're right, it is a 5.9 based on the VIN.  Still annoying as hell to drive because of the ratio and razor thin power band.



 You can take off in 3rd almost as easy as second and not shift as much. First is only for crawling.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Little be little Specs are leaking out for GMs 4cy Turbo wiht 310 HP. I was wondering what the EPA MPG estimates were. 20 City and 23 Hwy according to a recent article. Less than either Dodge or Fords new trucks. Some ford models do 26 Hwy and Dodge 25 .I would think the Hwy number would be higher for GM. Both GM and Ford are reporting around 30 with their small diesels.


----------



## jetsam

I was reading up on cylinder deactivation. GM has 1-8 variable cylinder trucks coming out this year (Silverados and Sierras).

It sounds awesome, but the MPG improvements aren't as big as you'd think.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gene...-management-cylinder-deactivation-technology/


----------



## Seasoned Oak

jetsam said:


> I was reading up on cylinder deactivation. GM has 1-8 variable cylinder trucks coming out this year (Silverados and Sierras).
> It sounds awesome, but the MPG improvements aren't as big as you'd think.


It looks like GM is lagging behind in the MPG area Compared to Ford and Dodge.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/c...ts-optional-turbocharged-four-cylinder-engine


----------



## Stelcom66

Used to be Chevy/GM were typically returning the best mpgs. That's the early 2000's gen. I was surprised to see my last tank average with my 2002 Silverado, I know the figures are certainly low by today's standards - with about 70 - 75% highway driving I got 429 miles out of a tank. The gauge was a bit under the 1/8 mark, which came out to be 16.4 mpg. This tank will last a while, last month bought a 1999 (yep almost 20 years old) Honda Accord. It's an EX with a 5 speed manual. It's got 169k, feels more like 60k. Believe it or not it's a pleasure to drive. Keeping the truck of course - that will now be mainly for wood hauling duties. One advantage of a company vehicle is being able to buy old high mileage (hopefully reliable) vehicles.

On a wood stove note - split wood today for the first time this season, got the stove going last week. Replaced the door gaskets with 3/8" diameter, the manual called for 7/16". Seems Ok but next time will probably order one online, couldn't find 7/16" locally. Fortunately the length was enough for both doors.


----------



## Stelcom66

jetsam said:


> I was reading up on cylinder deactivation. GM has 1-8 variable cylinder trucks coming out this year (Silverados and Sierras).
> 
> It sounds awesome, but the MPG improvements aren't as big as you'd think.




When it was first introduced I heard it was somewhat troublesome. I believe that was called Active Fuel Management - the engine would operate temporarily on 4 cylinders, so it was 8 or 4. There's discussions and instructions online how to deactivate it. This new system seems completely different.


----------



## jetsam

Stelcom66 said:


> When it was first introduced I heard it was somewhat troublesome. I believe that was called Active Fuel Management - the engine would operate temporarily on 4 cylinders, so it was 8 or 4. There's discussions and instructions online how to deactivate it. This new system seems completely different.



Yeah, it was a mess at first, but they first screwed it up about 40 years ago in 1981, so they've had time to sort it out a bit.

The 2019 trucks will have a new flavor that goes all the way down to 1 active cylinder, so we'll see how that works out.


----------



## firefighterjake

Stelcom66 said:


> Used to be Chevy/GM were typically returning the best mpgs. That's the early 2000's gen. I was surprised to see my last tank average with my 2002 Silverado, I know the figures are certainly low by today's standards - with about 70 - 75% highway driving I got 429 miles out of a tank. The gauge was a bit under the 1/8 mark, which came out to be 16.4 mpg. *This tank will last a while, last month bought a 1999 (yep almost 20 years old) Honda Accord. It's an EX with a 5 speed manual. It's got 169k, feels more like 60k*. Believe it or not it's a pleasure to drive. Keeping the truck of course - that will now be mainly for wood hauling duties. One advantage of a company vehicle is being able to buy old high mileage (hopefully reliable) vehicles.
> 
> On a wood stove note - split wood today for the first time this season, got the stove going last week. Replaced the door gaskets with 3/8" diameter, the manual called for 7/16". Seems Ok but next time will probably order one online, couldn't find 7/16" locally. Fortunately the length was enough for both doors.



Had a 2003 Honda EX coupe with a five speed manual transmission that I bought used and ended up finally selling after it cracked the 200K mark. I sold it cheap to a friend who gave it to his son who was just learning to drive. Eventually the engine had to be replaced and it was sold after a couple of years. However, he said his son (and me to a degree) really liked the car and last week he saw the car was for sale yet again . . . it's still out there and being driven apparently.


----------



## Ashful

jetsam said:


> The 2019 trucks will have a new flavor that goes all the way down to 1 active cylinder, so we'll see how that works out.


My gripe with all of the systems that I’ve driven (two of my cars have this) is they put way too much hysteresis into the control.  You’re cruising along, and it drops into 4-cyl mode, but then doesn’t have enough power to continue climbing the hill.  So, you give it a hair more gas, and nothing.  A hair more, nothing.  Then you push the pedal a little farther, and it jumps back to 8-cyl mode and lurches forward quickly enough that your passengers give you a glance.  So, you back off a bit, and the car accelerates comfortably.  Then as you reach the desired speed and back off the gas, it drops back to 4-cyl mode, and you start the process all over again.

It’s good that we’re still able to disable these systems, I really dread the day that changes.  For those who aren’t following what I’m saying, think back to some of the bad automatic transmissions you’ve probably driven in the past.  They either won’t downshift until you have to press the pedal way too far, or aren’t happy staying in the proper gear.


----------



## sportbikerider78

I've decided that I'll drop my car in 2 years and get a pickup for my daily sales mule.  I'm looking forward to it.  I'll buy used, in the $18-25k range.  Hopefully, 2-3 yrs old.  Right now my eyes are on Tundra and Titan.  I'm not sure I would want a Titan w/the Cummings diesel for lots of turning it off and back on again as I make sales calls.  We will see.


----------



## jetsam

Ashful said:


> My gripe with all of the systems that I’ve driven (two of my cars have this) is they put way too much hysteresis into the control.  You’re cruising along, and it drops into 4-cyl mode, but then doesn’t have enough power to continue climbing the hill.  So, you give it a hair more gas, and nothing.  A hair more, nothing.  Then you push the pedal a little farther, and it jumps back to 8-cyl mode and lurches forward quickly enough that your passengers give you a glance.  So, you back off a bit, and the car accelerates comfortably.  Then as you reach the desired speed and back off the gas, it drops back to 4-cyl mode, and you start the process all over again.
> 
> It’s good that we’re still able to disable these systems, I really dread the day that changes.  For those who aren’t following what I’m saying, think back to some of the bad automatic transmissions you’ve probably driven in the past.  They either won’t downshift until you have to press the pedal way too far, or aren’t happy staying in the proper gear.



I had a 1964 Chevy Impala with a 3 speed Powerglide. The powerglide was indestructible but it was also insane. It shifted whenever, in whatever direction, for reasons that were really only clear to it.  I don't know if it was faulty or if they all 'worked' that way, but I am guessing the latter.


----------



## Chas0218

I'm not sold on these small displacement turbo motors. I know you can get descent longevity out of a forced induction motor but the rings do wear quicker. I have seen a number of ecoboost fords at and after the 100k mile mark blowing smoke. I think the only motors that you will see decent longevity out of are the forced induction diesels not to mention that you will see a lot better MPG numbers out of the diesel at least if you use as a truck most the time. My truck just sits and I drive a commuter car so MPG doesn't really matter to me I need the towing and hauling capacities.


----------



## Ashful

Chas0218 said:


> I'm not sold on these small displacement turbo motors. I know you can get descent longevity out of a forced induction motor but the rings do wear quicker. I have seen a number of ecoboost fords at and after the 100k mile mark blowing smoke.



Maybe my viewpoint is skewed, I used to work in Germany, but I believe they are largely responsible for this.  They were doing 100 hp per liter in daily commuters 25 years ago, but due to the speeds they drive (Autobahn), they also tend not to keep cars nearly as long as we do.  Longevity does not mean the same thing, over there. 

But I am a fan of them.  It can be a heck of a lot of fun to drive a hot little A3 or 500 Abarth, when you’re used to big honkin’ V8’s.


----------



## Ashful

sportbikerider78 said:


> I've decided that I'll drop my car in 2 years and get a pickup for my daily sales mule.  I'm looking forward to it.  I'll buy used, in the $18-25k range.  Hopefully, 2-3 yrs old.  Right now my eyes are on Tundra and Titan.  I'm not sure I would want a Titan w/the Cummings diesel for lots of turning it off and back on again as I make sales calls.  We will see.



I’ve never looked at Toyota trucks, but I think you’re going to need to adjust your price range.  Even a 2 year old gasser with 4wd is going to be right at the top of that range, diesel will be a good bit more.


----------



## sportbikerider78

Ashful said:


> I’ve never looked at Toyota trucks, but I think you’re going to need to adjust your price range.  Even a 2 year old gasser with 4wd is going to be right at the top of that range, diesel will be a good bit more.


Maybe with the Toyota,,,but not the Nissan.  

In 1 year this will be $23k.
https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/inven...=false&filtersModified=true#listing=221053252


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Does anyone have a problem with the stop-start that seems to be going into all the trucks lately. Seems like something that would annoy me a great deal. It also can be disabled in some cases.


----------



## SuperSpy

I drove a loaner 2018 F150 Platinum (3.5L Ecoboost/10-speed auto) when I was having some vehicle work done and about halfway through the first day I noticed myself 'pumping' the brakes at a stop to fool the computer into not shutting down the engine.

I know they are designed with start/stop in mind but I still can't believe it isn't harder on the engine.  I think there was an option in the dash display to disable it, but I didn't want to change it when I was going back to the dealership in 3 days.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

SuperSpy said:


> about halfway through the first day I noticed myself 'pumping' the brakes at a stop to fool the computer into not shutting down the engine.


About the only place i would welcome this, is in line at the drive up teller window at the bank. Or at a fast food drive up.


----------



## Stelcom66

That's got to be a lot of wear & tear being stuck in stop and go traffic.


----------



## Stelcom66

firefighterjake said:


> Had a 2003 Honda EX coupe with a five speed manual transmission that I bought used and ended up finally selling after it cracked the 200K mark. I sold it cheap to a friend who gave it to his son who was just learning to drive. Eventually the engine had to be replaced and it was sold after a couple of years. However, he said his son (and me to a degree) really liked the car and last week he saw the car was for sale yet again . . . it's still out there and being driven apparently.



Ideally I would have bought a gen 7 (2003 +) Accord, that engine has a timing chain. I wonder what caused the engine to fail in yours. You do see a good number of older Accords out there. I've had Subarus for years - while I never had a failure it was a matter of when, not if my 2002 Forester's head gaskets would need replacing. I wanted something that could likely hit 200k like yours without major maintenance. Although I know just due to age I'll need components replaced on this '99, and I it could end up with high maintenance costs. I do miss the Subaru's heated seats.


----------



## Ashful

Stelcom66 said:


> Ideally I would have bought a gen 7 (2003 +) Accord, that engine has a timing chain. I wonder what caused the engine to fail in yours. You do see a good number of older Accords out there. I've had Subarus for years - while I never had a failure it was a matter of when, not if my 2002 Forester's head gaskets would need replacing. I wanted something that could likely hit 200k like yours without major maintenance. Although I know just due to age I'll need components replaced on this '99. I do miss the Subaru's heated seats.


Accords, Subarus... we don't care what your wife drives.  This thread is about pickup trucks.


----------



## bholler

Chas0218 said:


> I'm not sold on these small displacement turbo motors. I know you can get descent longevity out of a forced induction motor but the rings do wear quicker. I have seen a number of ecoboost fords at and after the 100k mile mark blowing smoke. I think the only motors that you will see decent longevity out of are the forced induction diesels not to mention that you will see a lot better MPG numbers out of the diesel at least if you use as a truck most the time. My truck just sits and I drive a commuter car so MPG doesn't really matter to me I need the towing and hauling capacities.


There have been many very durable turbo gas motors through the years.  No reason these cant be as well.  I hope so my wifes escape has one.


----------



## Jazzberry

jetsam said:


> I had a 1964 Chevy Impala with a 3 speed Powerglide. The powerglide was indestructible but it was also insane. It shifted whenever, in whatever direction, for reasons that were really only clear to it.  I don't know if it was faulty or if they all 'worked' that way, but I am guessing the latter.




You sure that Power Glide wasn't a 2 speed? Wasn't aware Chevy made a 3 speed Power Glide. My best buddy had a 64 Impala with a 2 speed PG and he used to get scratch four or five times when he took off using neutral lol. Those things would take some unbelievable abuse.


----------



## Stelcom66

The Powerglide was 2 speeds. I think the Turbo Hydramatic was 3. I had a Powerglide in my 1967 Chevy Caprice. I managed to break it though - or maybe the previous owner. It started slipping really had. I had a used replacement installed by Aamco in '75 for just $100. Drove the car for a few more years. Watched it turn over to 00000 miles. (100k). That was kind of a big deal back then.


----------



## jetsam

Jazzberry said:


> You sure that Power Glide wasn't a 2 speed? Wasn't aware Chevy made a 3 speed Power Glide. My best buddy had a 64 Impala with a 2 speed PG and he used to get scratch four or five times when he took off using neutral lol. Those thing would take some unbelievable abuse.



Maybe it was... it's been a lot of years.  Wikipedia is backing you up here so I am going to concede the point.

(My brain is still insisting it was a 3 speed...)


One time I was doing maybe 65 and I dropped something on the floor. I leaned over to snag it and whacked the column-mounted shifter on the way back up, and the transmission wound up in reverse.  I slid down the road while I tried to whack it back into neutral, then coasted off the road and gave it a few minutes to cool off.

Decided to see if I could limp down the road enough to get to a transmission shop.... and that thing was FINE. Just like nothing happened, and I had just slammed a 3500 pound car into it, more or less.

I still didn't like it, but I sure respected it after that!


----------



## Chas0218

bholler said:


> There have been many very durable turbo gas motors through the years.  No reason these cant be as well.  I hope so my wifes escape has one.


The cars with turbos isn't the problem it is the trucks. They are producing higher boost to get the HP and torque numbers where cars don't need much more than 3 #or 4#. The little displacement motors in trucks need 8# or more boost to get those numbers to compare to the larger V8 displacement motors. The problem is people buying trucks for the status symbol more so than needing it then we wouldn't need these trucks to get higher MPG.

I buy my vehicles for their intended purpose, when I drive my truck it is either towing for hauling and seldom gets driven otherwise. Nothing against anyone daily driving a pickup as they can be but I don't think people should complain about MPG ratings if they are buying a truck. They aren't meant to be commuter cars. When I first bought my truck I was commuting 70 miles a day and get 15 MPG for what it was costing driving it to work everyday it paid for my wife's monthly car payment.


----------



## Chas0218

Stelcom66 said:


> The Powerglide was 2 speeds. I think the Turbo Hydramatic was 3. I had a Powerglide in my 1967 Chevy Caprice. I managed to break it though - or maybe the previous owner. It started slipping really had. I had a used replacement installed by Aamco in '75 for just $100. Drove the car for a few more years. Watched it turn over to 00000 miles. (100k). That was kind of a big deal back then.



2 speed and overdrive, pretty much the only transmission drag race cars run. The more Street/Strip guys run the 3 and 4 speeds but mostly 3 speed turbo 400 trans and the Ford C6 (I think that's what it's called). I'm a Chevy guy so not sure on the Ford transmission.


----------



## Chas0218

Ashful said:


> Maybe my viewpoint is skewed, I used to work in Germany, but I believe they are largely responsible for this.  They were doing 100 hp per liter in daily commuters 25 years ago, but due to the speeds they drive (Autobahn), they also tend not to keep cars nearly as long as we do.  Longevity does not mean the same thing, over there.
> 
> But I am a fan of them.  It can be a heck of a lot of fun to drive a hot little A3 or 500 Abarth, when you’re used to big honkin’ V8’s.



There is one issue we have here in the States it is called EPA/emission requirements. In Europe they run a lot of diesels and get great MPG 50+ the gas motors also get great mileage compared to the State side counter parts because there is less of a restriction on emissions. A big issue in the past was BMW was popping engines faster than a 70 year old popping the little blue pill living in the villages. This was because of the adding Ethanol in our fuels which wasn't taken into account at the factory in Germany causing the engine to run lean and burning holes in pistons, scoring cylinders, and melting valves.

So because of our emission requirements the diesels and gas motors here in the States are getting less MPG and wearing out faster. I'm not going to get into detail but it has to do with running engines as lean or rish as possible along with lighter weight oils to reduce rotational mass and drag within the engine, ect. All of this is to get the best possible smog rating from a motor. I'm by no means a mechanical engineer so take my knowledge about this with a grain of salt but am a bit of a gear head. I think there is a trade-off to some extent you can get better MPG which means emitting less Greenhouse gasses or get the emissions down but burn fuel less efficiently and emit more greenhouse gasses but try to purify those gasses instead.


----------



## bholler

Chas0218 said:


> The cars with turbos isn't the problem it is the trucks. They are producing higher boost to get the HP and torque numbers where cars don't need much more than 3 #or 4#. The little displacement motors in trucks need 8# or more boost to get those numbers to compare to the larger V8 displacement motors. The problem is people buying trucks for the status symbol more so than needing it then we wouldn't need these trucks to get higher MPG.
> 
> I buy my vehicles for their intended purpose, when I drive my truck it is either towing for hauling and seldom gets driven otherwise. Nothing against anyone daily driving a pickup as they can be but I don't think people should complain about MPG ratings if they are buying a truck. They aren't meant to be commuter cars. When I first bought my truck I was commuting 70 miles a day and get 15 MPG for what it was costing driving it to work everyday it paid for my wife's monthly car payment.


I ran 9 on my eclipse for years and it lasted till i traded it well over 200000 miles.  It has been done for years.  I agree they are not good for work ttucks yet but if they keep at it they will get there.


----------



## Ashful

Chas0218 said:


> 2 speed and overdrive, pretty much the only transmission drag race cars run. The more Street/Strip guys run the 3 and 4 speeds but mostly 3 speed turbo 400 trans and the Ford C6 (I think that's what it's called). I'm a Chevy guy so not sure on the Ford transmission.



This is correct.  I’ve had two C6’s, both converted to manual valve body, and bullet-proof.  And to tie this back to the OP, both came out of Ford pickup trucks, before going into my hot rods.


----------



## SuperSpy

Seasoned Oak said:


> About the only place i would welcome this, is in line at the drive up teller window at the bank. Or at a fast food drive up.


Yeah, I wouldn't have minded if it waited 30 seconds or so after stopping, but IIRC it was like 3-4 seconds it would wait (basically as soon as the vehicle came to a complete and definite stop).  If it was configurable it would be an ok feature, although I can't imagine it saves that much gas overall unless you spend a lot of time in stop-and-go traffic.


----------



## jetsam

SuperSpy said:


> Yeah, I wouldn't have minded if it waited 30 seconds or so after stopping, but IIRC it was like 3-4 seconds it would wait (basically as soon as the vehicle came to a complete and definite stop).  If it was configurable it would be an ok feature, although I can't imagine it saves that much gas overall unless you spend a lot of time in stop-and-go traffic.



The press release said the fuel savings on 1 cylinder operation could hit 8%, so in the real world ... :/


----------



## Ashful

SuperSpy said:


> Yeah, I wouldn't have minded if it waited 30 seconds or so after stopping, but IIRC it was like 3-4 seconds it would wait (basically as soon as the vehicle came to a complete and definite stop).  If it was configurable it would be an ok feature, although I can't imagine it saves that much gas overall unless you spend a lot of time in stop-and-go traffic.



I used to get rental cars with this feature in Germany.  At least on those (Mercedes), the car would only shut off if you pushed the brake pedal well past what was required to stop and hold the car.  Essentially, push half way to stop and hold, push all the way to the floor to shut off.  This was designed to make it possible to sit at a traffic light without shutting the car off, although being Germany, folks would give you nasty glances if you did.


----------



## Stelcom66

.


jetsam said:


> The press release said the fuel savings on 1 cylinder operation could hit 8%, so in the real world ... :/



I really wonder what it would be like driving a V8 on one cylinder


----------



## woodhog73

Chas0218 said:


> The cars with turbos isn't the problem it is the trucks. They are producing higher boost to get the HP and torque numbers where cars don't need much more than 3 #or 4#. The little displacement motors in trucks need 8# or more boost to get those numbers to compare to the larger V8 displacement motors. The problem is people buying trucks for the status symbol more so than needing it then we wouldn't need these trucks to get higher MPG.
> 
> I buy my vehicles for their intended purpose, when I drive my truck it is either towing for hauling and seldom gets driven otherwise. Nothing against anyone daily driving a pickup as they can be but I don't think people should complain about MPG ratings if they are buying a truck. They aren't meant to be commuter cars. When I first bought my truck I was commuting 70 miles a day and get 15 MPG for what it was costing driving it to work everyday it paid for my wife's monthly car payment.



I haven’t read this entire post. But just want to say I drive a 2016 f150 with the 5.0 and it’s not that hard to get 20mpg avg empty no pay load no towing with a light foot. When I tow my camper or trailer it drops. I can’t say 20mpg is that terrible for commuting.

But as far as turbos ? Or super chargers ? The Ford 3.5 eco boost is a beast. Best motor in the half ton class of trucks no question about it. It gets over 20mpg unloaded. But towing it’s an animal. My buddy had an older f250 with the V10 triton and traded it on the 3.5 eco boost in an f150 and it destroys the V10 towing a 5th wheel 8,000 lb camper. I didn’t believe it till I was in his truck. The 3.5 ecos will run high mileage plenty out there with 150,000 miles etc  look it up. But towing a big camper and stepping on the gas you feel the truck accelerate kinda like a diesel. No other gas motor i know of will put you in the seat when mashing the pedal and towing 8,000 lbs like the 3.5 eco boost. It’s an impressive motor. As far as towing 8,000 lb with a half ton that’s another discussion. I wouldn’t buy a 1/2 ton for a camper that big. But my friend did. There’s no reason I can think of why the 3.5 eco boost isn’t offered in the 3/4 ton other than Ford must assume the typical buyer wont want it. Too Bad. Shame cause it’s a power house.


----------



## Stelcom66

woodhog73 said:


> I haven’t read this entire post. But just want to say I drive a 2016 f150 with the 5.0 and it’s not that hard to get 20mpg avg empty no pay load no towing with a light foot. When I tow my camper or trailer it drops. I can’t say 20mpg is that terrible for commuting.
> 
> But as far as turbos ? Or super chargers ? The Ford 3.5 eco boost is a beast. Best motor in the half ton class of trucks no question about it. It gets over 20mpg unloaded. But towing it’s an animal. My buddy had an older f250 with the V10 triton and traded it on the 3.5 eco boost in an f150 and it destroys the V10 towing a 5th wheel 8,000 lb camper. I didn’t believe it till I was in his truck. The 3.5 ecos will run high mileage plenty out there with 150,000 miles etc  look it up. But towing a big camper and stepping on the gas you feel the truck accelerate kinda like a diesel. No other gas motor i know of will put you in the seat when mashing the pedal and towing 8,000 lbs like the 3.5 eco boost. It’s an impressive motor. As far as towing 8,000 lb with a half ton that’s another discussion. I wouldn’t buy a 1/2 ton for a camper that big. But my friend did. There’s no reason I can think of why the 3.5 eco boost isn’t offered in the 3/4 ton other than Ford must assume the typical buyer wont want it. Too Bad. Shame cause it’s a power house.



Sounds like 'There's no replacement for displacement' no longer applies. 20mpg IMO is great for a truck. The Honda Pilot I had (also with a 3.5 V6) once got 17mpg with 90% highway driving, the best it ever did.


----------



## Ashful

Stelcom66 said:


> Sounds like 'There's no replacement for displacement' no longer applies.



It still counts for something!  The Ford eco boost is impressive, a friend drives one and pulls his 9000 lb camper all over the country with it.  But the HP and torque are both lower than the 5.7L Hemi, and the power band is narrower.

He does beat me on MPG, but since I normally only use mine for towing and bad weather, it is not a factor for me.

Plus, worst of all... it’s in a Ford.  [emoji2961]

Full disclosure, I’ve only been in that truck unladen, never with a tow.


----------



## Chas0218

Ashful said:


> It still counts for something!  The Ford eco boost is impressive, a friend drives one and pulls his 9000 lb camper all over the country with it.  But the HP and torque are both lower than the 5.7L Hemi, and the power band is narrower.
> 
> He does beat me on MPG, but since I normally only use mine for towing and bad weather, it is not a factor for me.
> 
> Plus, worst of all... it’s in a Ford.  [emoji2961]
> 
> Full disclosure, I’ve only been in that truck unladen, never with a tow.


I have to agree, there isn't any replacement for weight of tow vehicle either. If that 9000lbs. camper ever gets whipping that little F150 will be in the ditch  or worse on its lid. Just because it is rated for the weight doesn't mean it should be pulling something that big.  I would never feel comfortable pulling a 5th wheel camper or trailer with a truck that weighs 1/3 or less the setup. It can tow all that weight but safely is a whole other story.

I have pulled my boat with 4 different vehicles and out of those 4 vehicles my father in laws Silverado 1500hd towed it the best with the best gas mileage. At the pump the mileage was 13mpg. The f150 eco boost did ok but only got 8 mpg my 1500 5.3 silverado got 11 and my fathers Ram 5.7 hemi got 11 mpg. The ecoboost didn't have any more "a$$" than the other trucks when towing the same road same boat. I did notice the Ecoboost motor was at higher RPM for the majority of the trip.

The trip was 260 miles round trip and the boat was a 23' Pro-Line weighing 5000lbs.

For me personally my next truck will be a diesel no matter what brand. I'm not brand loyal just base my purchases from personal experiences. My next truck will likely be a 2500 ram diesel. Ram didn't used to have all the creature comforts other brands had but have come a long way from the utilitarian style and much more dependable. Also their packages are more customized so I can get a specific package in the truck that I will utilize without having to pay more for the options I won't need or use.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Stelcom66 said:


> .
> 
> 
> I really wonder what it would be like driving a V8 on one cylinder


Slow


----------



## Stelcom66

Chas0218 said:


> I have to agree, there isn't any replacement for weight of tow vehicle either. If that 9000lbs. camper ever gets whipping that little F150 will be in the ditch  or worse on its lid. Just because it is rated for the weight doesn't mean it should be pulling something that big.  I would never feel comfortable pulling a 5th wheel camper or trailer with a truck that weighs 1/3 or less the setup. It can tow all that weight but safely is a whole other story.
> 
> I have pulled my boat with 4 different vehicles and out of those 4 vehicles my father in laws Silverado 1500hd towed it the best with the best gas mileage. At the pump the mileage was 13mpg. The f150 eco boost did ok but only got 8 mpg my 1500 5.3 silverado got 11 and my fathers Ram 5.7 hemi got 11 mpg. The ecoboost didn't have any more "a$$" than the other trucks when towing the same road same boat. I did notice the Ecoboost motor was at higher RPM for the majority of the trip.
> 
> The trip was 260 miles round trip and the boat was a 23' Pro-Line weighing 5000lbs.
> 
> For me personally my next truck will be a diesel no matter what brand. I'm not brand loyal just base my purchases from personal experiences. My next truck will likely be a 2500 ram diesel. Ram didn't used to have all the creature comforts other brands had but have come a long way from the utilitarian style and much more dependable. Also their packages are more customized so I can get a specific package in the truck that I will utilize without having to pay more for the options I won't need or use.



I've never towed. Interesting when towing the eco boost returned the lower mpg. I guess displacement still applies when towing. If I had won that 1.6 billion, or even part of it - I'd buy a Ram 2500 diesel with the manual transmission if it's still offered. If not, I'd look for a used one.

Now that I have a car the mpg I get with the truck really isn't a concern. I'll mostly use it when needed, or because I miss driving it which will happen.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Been pricing out new Silverados and coming up with around $45k for what i want. Also iv found a half dozen 2017s with crazy low miles 2k ,4k ,5K ect and loaded with even more options than the 45k new trucks for around 30k . Not sure i want to lose 15k in the first year of operation. Seriously considering one of these practically new low milers. Looking at the 5.3 engine and the 6.2.


----------



## Ashful

Stelcom66 said:


> If I had won that 1.6 billion, or even part of it - I'd buy a Ram 2500 diesel with the manual transmission if it's still offered. If not, I'd look for a used one.


With $1.6B, you’d do better to buy the east-coast network of Ram dealerships, and then hire General Managers to run each one, for you.  Or better yet, diversify, buy a few dealerships within each brand.


----------



## blades

Big loads require more guts in the drive train/ stopping. You can move anything if you have enough gear ratios. I am still a believer in no replacement for displacement.  Slush boxes are the let down in the scheme of things. they have definite life spans. If you are doing a lot of heavy towing then spend the coin for a good quality tranny cooler - the factory ones if so equipped are inadequate.  towing wise it's low end torque that gets the job done. Long hauls the diesel wins hands down around town horse apiece - over the past 25 years  all fords 6.9 diesel F350, V10 F350, and a 6.0 f250 diesel turbo  emissions  deleted these were/are my heavy work units. I do not remember mpg on the 6.9 , v10 with a 4.77 rear end was 10mpg , 6.0 is 15mpg  (don't remember the rear end right now) @65 mph with 10k+ behind.  Current grocery cart 16 Escape 2L turbo 30mpg no load 6x10 trailer on back and a 1/3 cord green ( about max towing weight) 15mpg at 70 mph- not bad but does get tossed around in a bad wind or not so hot road surfaces.  Trailer is wider than the Escape so there is a drag factor involved as well not to mention the trailer tail gate that acts like parachute. even with the full load I can easily pass other vehicles at 70 mph quickly and efficiently, but i definitely know the trailer is back there.  Stopping take a little planning though as I can feel the push from the trailer.


----------



## bholler

blades said:


> Big loads require more guts in the drive train/ stopping. You can move anything if you have enough gear ratios. I am still a believer in no replacement for displacement.  Slush boxes are the let down in the scheme of things. they have definite life spans. If you are doing a lot of heavy towing then spend the coin for a good quality tranny cooler - the factory ones if so equipped are inadequate.  towing wise it's low end torque that gets the job done. Long hauls the diesel wins hands down around town horse apiece - over the past 25 years  all fords 6.9 diesel F350, V10 F350, and a 6.0 f250 diesel turbo  emissions  deleted these were/are my heavy work units. I do not remember mpg on the 6.9 , v10 with a 4.77 rear end was 10mpg , 6.0 is 15mpg  (don't remember the rear end right now) @65 mph with 10k+ behind.  Current grocery cart 16 Escape 2L turbo 30mpg no load 6x10 trailer on back and a 1/3 cord green ( about max towing weight) 15mpg at 70 mph- not bad but does get tossed around in a bad wind or not so hot road surfaces.  Trailer is wider than the Escape so there is a drag factor involved as well not to mention the trailer tail gate that acts like parachute. even with the full load I can easily pass other vehicles at 70 mph quickly and efficiently, but i definitely know the trailer is back there.  Stopping take a little planning though as I can feel the push from the trailer.


How are you getting 30 mpg out of an escape 2.0t?  I cant average that with cruise set at 65 on a flat highway.


----------



## blades

check your tires pressure- was driving me nutz that I could not achieve more than about 25 mpg - dang dealer had tire pressure at 30 #- tire side wall states 50#  running at 49# warm temps above 50 - i will avg 30 hwy at apx 72 mph dropping down to 65 and the mileage goes down seems the sweet spot on mine is 71-72 mph  the daily run is 46.5 miles one way 7 mi back roads most are 50 mph about 1 mile though town@ 30mph then freeway for apx 35mi then back roads to shop avg 450mph.  Now that it is avg temp wise about 40deg outside running about 28 mpg on  reg ethanol. I can run non ethanol  or the higher test stuff but the mileage gain isn't enough to offset price. 73500 on the clock.  been a few days where the run one way was 31.5 mpg ( just might be something to those fuel warming gadets)
Run synthetic oil change every 3k.   Tires are a big part. Aggressive tread patterns cut mileage , If I have to go out in bad weather I take the F250 at around 8000 lbs it will stay on the road 98% of the time. Best I've done with the o4 deleted diesel  f250 has been 17 empty at 65mph on the speedo. worst was with a full cord of green ASH on 6x10 trailer at 70+ mph 13-14.5 mpg. heck I can live with that. same load at 65 mph will get 15 mpg+. Pulling 10K at 65 avg was 15mpg on a 3.5 hour run up north repeatedly, all freeway this past summer. 218000 mi on the clock in that unit. and it is a 4x4. I do not have any fancy reprograming chip in it. the 16 Escape is also a 4x4 some sort of self adapting engagement system on that- not real crazy about it though.

Note: with the turbos - need to put your foot in them every so often to keep the variable vanes working correctly- other wise they will carbon up and get stuck-


----------



## Ashful

blades said:


> dang dealer had tire pressure at 30 #- tire side wall states 50#


Holy crap... do NOT set your tire pressure according to what it says on the sidewall of the tire!  That is simply the maximum pressure the tire can handle (without danger of exploding) at maximum load.  You are supposed to set your tire pressure according to the sticker typically found in the driver’s side door jamb.  Here’s one from a Ranger or an Explorer:







Your dealer is probably saying, “this dang owner keeps setting his tires to 50#, he’s going to kill himself!”


----------



## blades

well you are right door says 35 psi- but as I come from a world of trucks and the tire is rated at 51psi for a max load of 1750 I will stay with my 49psi saves the time of constantly raising and lowering pressure when the trailer is on it  ( spare - door sticker 60 psi course that is one of those space saver units).  My trucks are all at 75psi. At 30psi I got a lot of alligatoring up front in 5k miles- do not see that happening now.  This primarily a front wheel drive unit, the 4x4 adds the rear- just the reverse of the trucks.


----------



## Chas0218

Ashful said:


> Holy crap... do NOT set your tire pressure according to what it says on the sidewall of the tire!  That is simply the maximum pressure the tire can handle (without danger of exploding) at maximum load.  You are supposed to set your tire pressure according to the sticker typically found in the driver’s side door jamb.  Here’s one from a Ranger or an Explorer:
> 
> View attachment 231992
> 
> 
> Your dealer is probably saying, “this dang owner keeps setting his tires to 50#, he’s going to kill himself!”


That is for a P rated tire it can't be set to anything above 35# because it is a 4 ply tire. The ply of a tire dictates how much pressure it should be set to, see the attached chart. B is usually the same as a P rated tire.

My truck has 8 ply A/T tires that are max 80 psi. If I only put 40 psi in them it would be very dangerous hauling anything close to my trucks  capacity. I usually run mine about 70 psi.


----------



## Ashful

Chas0218 said:


> That is for a P rated tire it can't be set to anything above 35# because it is a 4 ply tire. The ply of a tire dictates how much pressure it should be set to, see the attached chart. B is usually the same as a P rated tire.
> 
> My truck has 8 ply A/T tires that are max 80 psi. If I only put 40 psi in them it would be very dangerous hauling anything close to my trucks  capacity. I usually run mine about 70 psi.



My understanding was that the weight of the vehicle also has a bearing on proper pressure setting.  You can put 10-ply tires on a Dodge Neon, but you’re STILL not going to want to put 80 psi in them, or you’ll be riding on the center bead.  The door sticker number is the pressure that was determined to be correct for the proper load rating tire on THAT vehicle.  Putting higher ply-rated tires (they’re not actually rated in ply count anymore, another issue) on your vehicle does not increase its load rating, or necessitate higher pressure.


----------



## Isaac Carlson

I’m not going to get in a pissing match over tire pressure, but a tire has a load specific pressure rating.  Google “tire inflation table”. If it carries more weight, it needs more air, regardless of the tire construction.  If a car puts x lbs on a tire, it needs y lbs of air.  You don’t run around with 80 lbs of air in a daily driver.  I run my truck tires at 40-50 lbs when not hauling because it rides better and I have enough air for a light load if I need it.  If I’m loading heavy, it’s 80-100psi.  I have had them up to 110 psi when running interstate with a heavy load to keep the tires cool and help with stability.  I have E range tires in my truck.
The car gets 45-50 psi.  This helps with mileage, handling, and hydroplaning.  I don’t go abov 60 on a car.


----------



## bholler

Chas0218 said:


> That is for a P rated tire it can't be set to anything above 35# because it is a 4 ply tire. The ply of a tire dictates how much pressure it should be set to, see the attached chart. B is usually the same as a P rated tire.
> 
> My truck has 8 ply A/T tires that are max 80 psi. If I only put 40 psi in them it would be very dangerous hauling anything close to my trucks  capacity. I usually run mine about 70 psi.


Yes i run my trucks at 80 psi but they have 10 plys and they call for 80 psi.  He is talking about an escape unless he upped the load range of the tires it should be run at or a little above manufacturers recomended spec.  Not to mention overinflating that much will wear out the center of the tire fast and give you a crappy ride.


----------



## Jazzberry

Remember back when steel radials first came out? They used a lot less air than bias. Looked like everyone had 4 tires that were going flat.


----------



## blades

Now they have those tires out with about a 2" sidewall  on 30" rims stuck under what ever.


----------



## Chas0218

Ashful said:


> My understanding was that the weight of the vehicle also has a bearing on proper pressure setting.  You can put 10-ply tires on a Dodge Neon, but you’re STILL not going to want to put 80 psi in them, or you’ll be riding on the center bead.  The door sticker number is the pressure that was determined to be correct for the proper load rating tire on THAT vehicle.  Putting higher ply-rated tires (they’re not actually rated in ply count anymore, another issue) on your vehicle does not increase its load rating, or necessitate higher pressure.



It does kind of but the weight of the vehicle won't change the psi within the tire. If you don't believe me try this experiment. Take the vehicles weight off wheel and tire of one of your vehicles fill it to a specific pressure say 30 psi. Put weight back on the wheel and tire it will remain the same pressure or very close (within .5 psi). The weight of the vehicle won't change the pressure rating unless you are talking big rig status.  This is because the rubber tire displaces some of the air by flexing.

The other part of this is the weight of the vehicle and load range. Most passenger vehicles and small trucks will use a P rated tire (usually have a P or no letter on the side of the tire but have a LBS. rating) being that the vehicle won't always be carrying a heavy load. When you get into LT (light truck) or Load index ratings they do the same by specifying the load in lbs. or by ply (the chart I posted earlier). The heavier the vehicle and heavier payload rating call for heavier ply tire. Most half ton trucks would be fine with C rated tires, but if you do a lot of hauling and towing the stiffer sidewall of a heavier rated tire will help tame heavier loads.

You are right if he put 50psi in P rated tire he is just asking for trouble and you don't want to run a higher load rated tire at max pressure all the time unless you are constantly hauling or weighted down. 

I will admit that I use my 1/2 ton more as a 3/4 ton so when it was time to replace my spring shackles and shagging springs I opted for a bit of an upgrade. I added a set of 3/4 ton springs, 3/4 ton shocks, and 3/4 ton rated tires (E range tire). This helped tremendously hauling firewood and towing trailers. Not to mention I get a lot less cupping and scaling effect on the tires with the heavier rated tires.


----------



## blades

Ok guys I spent about 2 hours  wrapping my head around the  dang near  off the wall, convoluted, about as clear as mud, pressure tire rating, speed index, load rating, and what ever.   So here is my rule of thumb for general use everyday driving  take the max pressure listed on tire x 75%  that will put you just about dead on. If going to be at max vehicle load try about 90% of max tire pressure-  Now I am from the old school if my tires look like they are flat( bulging out at the bottom with a load on) I am increasing  the pressure to where they stand about normal ( roughly 90% of max).  Tire ply rating- that is just what it says but it does not mean that an E rated tire actually has 10 plies might only have 4 or 6 = the equivalent of the the old 10 ply  but just to muck up the works some more there are now 2 classes of E rated tires.  both rated 10 ply

So for all this hash.. the tires on my escape are 235/55/r17 99H .   the 99 is 1709 lbs load the H is 130mph, from what I gather this a metric radial but no marking such as s or st- x or xl indicating standard load or heavy load load ( no marking indicates standard load supposedly) , but 1709/ is over the top for most anything rated s or x.  Isn't this fun. 
For all this, Yep I am running too much pressure at 49psi supposedly, ah, but if I have the 6x10 trailer back there with 1 ton load ( rated at 35xx tow capacity- got recheck tongue weight ) maybe not.   You all have a great day.    oh ya oem door sticker is 35 psi all around- with what ever was the as shipped tires on it.


----------



## Jazzberry

blades said:


> Now they have those tires out with about a 2" sidewall  on 30" rims stuck under what ever.




Ya we got a few of that type up here. We get the "look at me crowd" from the valley with their monster trucks and rubber band tires. Especially during ski season. During the winter they must have a car and clothes contest at the local ski resort on the weekends.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Chas0218 said:


> I will admit that I use my 1/2 ton more as a 3/4 ton so when it was time to replace my spring shackles and shagging springs I opted for a bit of an upgrade. I added a set of 3/4 ton springs, 3/4 ton shocks, and 3/4 ton rated tires (E range tire). This helped tremendously hauling firewood and towing trailers. Not to mention I get a lot less cupping and scaling effect on the tires with the heavier rated tires.


The weakest link in that setup now is your braking system. Sure a 1/2 ton can carry a lot of weight with the right tires. But can you stop it? I recently had to do a panic stop with 1 ton of cement blocks on my 3/4 ton truck to avoid an accident  . No way would my 1/2 ton truck have stopped that fast with a ton of weight in the bed.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> The weakest link in that setup now is your braking system. Sure a 1/2 ton can carry a lot of weight with the right tires. But can you stop it? I recently had to do a panic stop with 1 ton of cement blocks on my 3/4 ton truck to avoid an accident  . No way would my 1/2 ton truck have stopped that fast with a ton of weight in the bed.


You also only have pretty chinsy retainer clips holding those axle shafts in place unlike most heavier trucks that are bolted in.  And lighter bearings spindles fewer wheel studs etc etc.


----------



## Chas0218

Seasoned Oak said:


> The weakest link in that setup now is your braking system. Sure a 1/2 ton can carry a lot of weight with the right tires. But can you stop it? I recently had to do a panic stop with 1 ton of cement blocks on my 3/4 ton truck to avoid an accident  . No way would my 1/2 ton truck have stopped that fast with a ton of weight in the bed.


You are correct, I have upgraded the pads and rotors. With a load of wood I can engage the ABS when stopping hard.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> You also only have pretty chinsy retainer clips holding those axle shafts in place unlike most heavier trucks that are bolted in.  And lighter bearings spindles fewer wheel studs etc etc.


Anyone who does brake jobs on these trucks can see the substantial difference in the size and capacity of the  3/4 ton and 1 ton setup. I have both a 3/4 ton truck and a 1/2 ton truck,so i use each for their intended purpose. The 1/2 ton  has a way better ride due to lighter suspension an no 4WD.So that gets the light duty work,and long trips.  Any kind of serious work, towing, pulling or hauling ,i feel much safer and less likely to damage something with HD truck .  Wheels too make a difference. Iv seen a half ton truck ruin a set of aluminum wheels trying to haul a camper that was a little too much for it.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Anyone who does brake jobs on these trucks can see the substantial difference in the size and capacity of the  3/4 ton and 1 ton setup. I have both a 3/4 ton truck and a 1/2 ton truck,so i use each for their intended purpose. The 1/2 ton  has a way better ride due to lighter suspension an no 4WD.So that gets the light duty work,and long trips.  Any kind of serious work, towing, pulling or hauling ,i feel much safer and less likely to damage something with HD truck .  Wheels too make a difference. Iv seen a half ton truck ruin a set of aluminum wheels trying to haul a camper that was a little too much for it.


Yes there is allot of difference for sure.  Way more than tires springs and brakepads.  The new pads and rotors may give more friction but with the smaller calipers and rotors there is more heat which can cause brake fade or boiling of the fluid.  Which is really scary.


----------



## bholler

Ok so yesterday out of curiousity i ran the tire pressure up to 45.  And there is no way i would ever drive it like that.  The traction was seriously compromised.  Traction and stability control qas kicking in all the time i am sure the stopping distance was seriously lengthened.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> You also only have pretty chinsy retainer clips holding those axle shafts in place unlike most heavier trucks that are bolted in.  And lighter bearings spindles fewer wheel studs etc etc.


The safest way for a half ton truck to deal with 1 ton plus loads is to use a small trailer. They are fairly inexpensive and greatly increase the load you can move. If i didnt already have a 3/4 ton truck i would do exactly that.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> The safest way for a half ton truck to deal with 1 ton plus loads is to use a small trailer. They are fairly inexpensive and greatly increase the load you can move. If i didnt already have a 3/4 ton truck i would do exactly that.


Yeah it is a good option for some people.  I have a 1 ton truck and easy access to several heavy trailers if i need more capacity.


----------



## Ashful

Lots of disrespect for the 1/2 ton pickup in the last page or few.  Claims that it’s stupid for commuting to a desk job, and useless for truck work, while it was out-selling the heavy trucks way before it was cool to drive a pickup.

For me, it’s the perfect compromise.  I will drive it to work on Friday, and pick up some lumber or shingles during my lunch break, for a weekend project.  Then I hook up my 7000 lb tandem axle trailer (with electric brakes) to fetch three or four cords of firewood on Saturday, pick up a new washing machine after church on Sunday, and then drive it to the airport on Sunday night, where it will sit in economy parking for the week.  I don’t need to spend $60k - $80k on a heavy duty truck, for any of those jobs, and I have honestly had many weekends like that.

The 1/2 ton truck deserves high praise, by those who actually use them for their intended purpose.  The crew cab also makes it an acceptable family vehicle, when towing one of my boats on vacation, just don’t make fun of me when I get a locking tonneau cover, to protect the luggage from rain or theft.  It’s not because I’m afraid to get my bed dirty, there was likely a yard of mulch in that bed the week before.


----------



## AlbergSteve

Ashful said:


> Lots of disrespect for the 1/2 ton pickup in the last page or few.  Claims that it’s stupid for commuting to a desk job, and useless for truck work, while it was out-selling the heavy trucks way before it was cool to drive a pickup.
> 
> For me, it’s the perfect compromise.  I will drive it to work on Friday, and pick up some lumber or shingles during my lunch break, for a weekend project.  Then I hook up my 7000 lb tandem axle trailer (with electric brakes) to fetch three or four cords of firewood on Saturday, pick up a new washing machine after church on Sunday, and then drive it to the airport on Sunday night, where it will sit in economy parking for the week.  I don’t need to spend $60k - $80k on a heavy duty truck, for any of those jobs, and I have honestly had many weekends like that.
> 
> The 1/2 ton truck deserves high praise, by those who actually use them for their intended purpose.  The crew cab also makes it an acceptable family vehicle, when towing one of my boats on vacation, just don’t make fun of me when I get a locking tonneau cover, to protect the luggage from rain or theft.  It’s not because I’m afraid to get my bed dirty, there was likely a yard of mulch in that bed the week before.


Thank you!


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> I don’t need to spend $60k - $80k on a heavy duty truck, for any of those jobs, and I have honestly had many weekends like that.
> 
> .


Exactly ,trailers are so much cheaper ,more useful and safer than overloading a half ton.. And dont cost anywhere near $60 -$80K .  As far as buying a gas miser for that occasional trip unloaded, that cost at  least 100-1000 times more than the gas you just saved.


----------



## bholler

Ashful said:


> Lots of disrespect for the 1/2 ton pickup in the last page or few.  Claims that it’s stupid for commuting to a desk job, and useless for truck work, while it was out-selling the heavy trucks way before it was cool to drive a pickup.
> 
> For me, it’s the perfect compromise.  I will drive it to work on Friday, and pick up some lumber or shingles during my lunch break, for a weekend project.  Then I hook up my 7000 lb tandem axle trailer (with electric brakes) to fetch three or four cords of firewood on Saturday, pick up a new washing machine after church on Sunday, and then drive it to the airport on Sunday night, where it will sit in economy parking for the week.  I don’t need to spend $60k - $80k on a heavy duty truck, for any of those jobs, and I have honestly had many weekends like that.
> 
> The 1/2 ton truck deserves high praise, by those who actually use them for their intended purpose.  The crew cab also makes it an acceptable family vehicle, when towing one of my boats on vacation, just don’t make fun of me when I get a locking tonneau cover, to protect the luggage from rain or theft.  It’s not because I’m afraid to get my bed dirty, there was likely a yard of mulch in that bed the week before.


As long as you know the limits of a 1/2 ton and dont exceed them i see absolutly nothing wrong with them.  Personally i need a heavier truck but most people dont.


----------



## Jazzberry

bholler said:


> As long as you know the limits of a 1/2 ton and dont exceed them i see absolutly nothing wrong with them.  Personally i need a heavier truck but most people dont.




Drive what you want. Don't let someone else's phsyco analysis determine what you want to drive. You like commuting in a 3/4 ton do it. Drive a Peterbilt if it makes you feel better.


----------



## bholler

Jazzberry said:


> Drive what you want. Don't let someone else's phsyco analysis determine what you want to drive. You like commuting in a 3/4 ton do it. Drive a Peterbilt if it makes you feel better.


I dont care what people think.  I have a 1 ton truck because i regularly carry heavy loads and that is what i need.  I only take issue with guys who buy a 1/2 ton and carry way more than it is intended for.  That endangers others on the road with them.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

If you need a heavy truck for a business as Bholler and I , its less hassle then a trailer.  But for the average homeowner occasionally hauling heavy loads, a trailer is a good substitute.


----------



## Jazzberry

bholler said:


> I dont care what people think.  I have a 1 ton truck because i regularly carry heavy loads and that is what i need.  I only take issue with guys who buy a 1/2 ton and carry way more than it is intended for.  That endangers others on the road with them.





bholler said:


> I dont care what people think.  I have a 1 ton truck because i regularly carry heavy loads and that is what i need.  I only take issue with guys who buy a 1/2 ton and carry way more than it is intended for.  That endangers others on the road with them.



I meant that in general not at you B. If you die not having any fun cause you are doing the smart thing you lose.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> If you need a heavy truck for a business as Bholler and I , its less hassle then a trailer.  But for the average homeowner occasionally hauling heavy loads, a trailer is a good substitute.


I have a heavy truck for work and one of my own.  Mine gets used for work as well at times though.


----------



## blades

dropped Escape tire pressure to apx38  mpg at 27.  for hauling stuff I have a pair of F250's a gasser and diesel , combined with a 5t trailer and the 6x10 trailer or a little 4x8 that has no problem  with a 1/2T on it.


----------



## bholler

blades said:


> dropped Escape tire pressure to apx38  mpg at 27.  for hauling stuff I have a pair of F250's a gasser and diesel , combined with a 5t trailer and the 6x10 trailer or a little 4x8 that has no problem  with a 1/2T on it.


You might like the awd system in it now that you actually have a contact patch on your tires.  It really is pretty good i would choose it over any of my 4x4s in the snow untill it gets to 6" or so.  At that point you need more ground clearance than the escape has.


----------



## Ashful

bholler said:


> You might like the awd system in it now that you actually have a contact patch on your tires.  It really is pretty good i would choose it over any of my 4x4s in the snow untill it gets to 6" or so.  At that point you need more ground clearance than the escape has.


Agreed.  I love AWD in the snow.  Way better on-road than any 4x4.

4x4 still wins once you leave the road, tho.


----------



## bholler

Ashful said:


> Agreed.  I love AWD in the snow.  Way better on-road than any 4x4.
> 
> 4x4 still wins once you leave the road, tho.


Only if the 4x4 has limted slip or lockers.


----------



## Ashful

bholler said:


> Only if the 4x4 has limted slip or lockers.


lol... who would buy one without!  

My current truck has the posi 3.92 diffs, a special order item from Ram, that I can't believe every person doesn't order.


----------



## bholler

Ashful said:


> lol... who would buy one without!
> 
> My current truck has the posi 3.92 diffs, a special order item from Ram, that I can't believe every person doesn't order.


Lots of people dont know the difference or care most people will never use it


----------



## Jazzberry

Ashful said:


> lol... who would buy one without!
> 
> My current truck has the posi 3.92 diffs, a special order item from Ram, that I can't believe every person doesn't order.




Wish I had some taller gears in my truck. Budget doesnt allow me to order a new truck. The gears are really needed in the mountains. I almost  never get to use 4th gear (OD).


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Im in the market  for a new truck and was originally only looking at 2WD but i may be changing that. First of all i find some lots dont have a single truck new or used thats 2WD. All 4WD.  Could be hard to sell a 2WD around here when the time comes. Secondly i was worried about the ride but ill have to do some test drives to find out if the new 2WD trucks ride any better. One of my older trucks is 4WD so i always have one available in case of snow .


----------



## blades

bholler said:


> You might like the awd system in it now that you actually have a contact patch on your tires.  It really is pretty good i would choose it over any of my 4x4s in the snow untill it gets to 6" or so.  At that point you need more ground clearance than the escape has.


  more like a rear wheel assist system fully automatic - which I am not fond of- the couple times last winter when it was on and I did not know ( there is no indicator or anything else that gives any idea) it i had set the cruise  control and then it kicked off  there by reducing the power drag and suddely I am doing around 75 it was set at 65.  as it is self engaging and dis-engaging things get a bit squirmy  on the back roads to my home- at the time tire pressure was around 30psi as I had just gotten the unit.   I am very familiar  with 4x4 both the current offerings on my trucks and true 4x4 from years gone by. ( not something you would want on city streets).


----------



## bholler

blades said:


> more like a rear wheel assist system fully automatic - which I am not fond of- the couple times last winter when it was on and I did not know ( there is no indicator or anything else that gives any idea) it i had set the cruise  control and then it kicked off  there by reducing the power drag and suddely I am doing around 75 it was set at 65.  as it is self engaging and dis-engaging things get a bit squirmy  on the back roads to my home- at the time tire pressure was around 30psi as I had just gotten the unit.   I am very familiar  with 4x4 both the current offerings on my trucks and true 4x4 from years gone by. ( not something you would want on city streets).


Do you have the intelligent 4wd or the active awd system?  From what you are describing i am guessing it is the 4wd system which is basically an auto 4wd that dimply sends power to the rear when it detects slipping.  The awd system regulates power to all 4 wheels not just front and back.  There is a screen you can go to to watch the distribution.  With our awd you really dont feel any engagement or disengagement.  You just have traction.  And btw i am pretty sure 30psi is to low.  

There are also plenty of vehicles still available with true 4wd systems but for on the road awd is far better.


----------



## bholler

But yes the 4wd system in the escape is not very good i really though they had stopped making it in 15 but i guess not.


----------



## Ashful

Jazzberry said:


> Wish I had some taller gears in my truck. Budget doesnt allow me to order a new truck. The gears are really needed in the mountains. I almost  never get to use 4th gear (OD).


No budget issues, here... but I still wouldn't buy a new truck.  It's just a complete waste of money, IMO.  I ordered the last one thru Chrysler Capital, they have what must be tens of thousands of them, off 2-year leases, on constant auction to dealers.  I was able to walk in there and basically give the exactly laundry list of features I wanted, and my dealer ordered one in with that exact configuration.  It had about 9k miles on it, and I saved about $17k over the price of buying new, a full third of the MSRP!

If you go that route, take some time to understand their condition ratings.  I insisted on one that was "A+", or whatever their highest condition rating was at auction, I don't remember their system now.  It might take a week or two for one that matches your criteria to come up, but I was willing to wait a week or two.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> No budget issues, here... but I still wouldn't buy a new truck.  It's just a complete waste of money, IMO. o.


Im leaning that way right now. Some of the leases have you paying 20K before giving it back and starting over. I can get what i want buying for 30k, for a truck that was  45k, 2-5 thousand miles ago in a year or 2 old. , so im thinking may as well buy it and have something to sell if i want to upgrade in a few years.


----------



## blades

16 Escape - ford calls both the 4wd and the steering system adaptive- I just can't find who or what it is adapted to. For what i use it for it is fine. Thought about one of those Prius ( not a fan of the mfg.)Too pricy for what they are and no towing ability to speak of.

Buying off lease- is a good bet.  If you can cut out the dealer in the middle. From what I could see around my parts off lease wasn't that great.

Getting back to the op  I had a 99 F150  ( bought new) set up as a heavy 1/2ton -  was a good truck for me at the time.  The usage on it was similar to what you spoke of.   For the heavy work I had a 80's f350 6.9 diesel and when that frame went south ( around 2000) then a 99 f350 V10. At the time diesel fuel pricing was way above gas. I now have a 04 F250 fully deleted emission wise 6.0 diesel - I am not in a metro area and so this is grandfathered in for a couple more model years after  2004 EPA wise.  The extra 10cents a gallon is offset by almost double the mileage of the V10 gasser ( that truck was a real beast- current owner has the same attitude about it). Trucks for me are for work/ hauling- I have not been following how those little displacement engines in the 150s have been holding up. Course I am still old school -" No Replacement for Displacement". 
I do not think there is anything out there that dosen't have some sort of issue- any mfg.


----------



## bholler

blades said:


> 16 Escape - ford calls both the 4wd and the steering system adaptive- I just can't find who or what it is adapted to. For what i use it for it is fine. Thought about one of those Prius ( not a fan of the mfg.)Too pricy for what they are and no towing ability to speak of.
> 
> Buying off lease- is a good bet.  If you can cut out the dealer in the middle. From what I could see around my parts off lease wasn't that great.
> 
> Getting back to the op  I had a 99 F150  ( bought new) set up as a heavy 1/2ton -  was a good truck for me at the time.  The usage on it was similar to what you spoke of.   For the heavy work I had a 80's f350 6.9 diesel and when that frame went south ( around 2000) then a 99 f350 V10. At the time diesel fuel pricing was way above gas. I now have a 04 F250 fully deleted emission wise 6.0 diesel - I am not in a metro area and so this is grandfathered in for a couple more model years after  2004 EPA wise.  The extra 10cents a gallon is offset by almost double the mileage of the V10 gasser ( that truck was a real beast- current owner has the same attitude about it). Trucks for me are for work/ hauling- I have not been following how those little displacement engines in the 150s have been holding up. Course I am still old school -" No Replacement for Displacement".
> I do not think there is anything out there that dosen't have some sort of issue- any mfg.


Deleting emissions is not grandfathered in.  You may not need tested but it is against federal law to remove emmisions equipment.


----------



## Isaac Carlson

The epa can eat all the rat tails they want, it won’t make any difference to those of us who don’t want it on there.  Claim what you want, the crap they put in new vehicles keeps them from getting decent mileage and power.  My truck benefited from the removal and the car doesn’t have half of it to start with(gotta love it when the mfg doesn’t use egr), and the second cat has been removed for a big gain in tq and mileage.  I have a turbo for it, but need to get an artermarket computer for it to use the turbo.


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> Im leaning that way right now. Some of the leases have you paying 20K before giving it back and starting over. I can get what i want buying for 30k, for a truck that was  45k, 2-5 thousand miles ago in a year or 2 old. , so im thinking may as well buy it and have something to sell if i want to upgrade in a few years.


Most of the stuff I looked at, off 2 year lease, had 12k - 14k miles on it.  Mine coming in at 9k miles was just a bonus, definitely not the norm.

But other than retaining the new carpet smell, I'm not really sure how much a difference of 3k - 5k miles matters today.  At least around here, road salt always kills my truck before the miles do.  Things start breaking due to rust and corrosion, before I wear them out on miles.


----------



## bholler

Isaac Carlson said:


> The epa can eat all the rat tails they want, it won’t make any difference to those of us who don’t want it on there.  Claim what you want, the crap they put in new vehicles keeps them from getting decent mileage and power.  My truck benefited from the removal and the car doesn’t have half of it to start with(gotta love it when the mfg doesn’t use egr), and the second cat has been removed for a big gain in tq and mileage.  I have a turbo for it, but need to get an artermarket computer for it to use the turbo.


Till it gets caught at inspection and you have to put it all back to make it legal to drive.   That is if your state has inspections.  If it does even without an emissions test they are supposed to do a visual inspection to make sure all components are there.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> But other than retaining the new carpet smell, I'm not really sure how much a difference of 3k - 5k miles matters today. .


No difference. Even 10 to 20k, id consider practically  a new truck depending on how it was maintained.


----------



## sportbikerider78

bholler said:


> Till it gets caught at inspection and you have to put it all back to make it legal to drive.   That is if your state has inspections.  If it does even without an emissions test they are supposed to do a visual inspection to make sure all components are there.


Everyone that wrenches on cars has a 'buddy' with access to the tax stickers to put on the windshield.  It has been that way forever.


----------



## Ashful

sportbikerider78 said:


> Everyone that wrenches on cars has a 'buddy' with access to the tax stickers to put on the windshield.  It has been that way forever.



Shh!


----------



## bholler

sportbikerider78 said:


> Everyone that wrenches on cars has a 'buddy' with access to the tax stickers to put on the windshield.  It has been that way forever.


Yes but if you get caught not only do you get a ticket they loose their licence


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Have had a month or so to evaluate my (Almost) new 2015 GMC 1500 standard cab 4x4 work truck. Replaced a 1993 standard shift with the same  V-6 engine. The biggest improvement by far is the power. I was extremely skeptical of another V-6 since the 93 had a paltry 160HP.  Was originally only looking at V-8s but since i ran across a deal i couldnt refuse it gave the V-6 a shot.
One test drive allayed all my skepticism. At 285 HP the new GM V-6 has all the power and acceleration i will ever need. It has a tow package but i do Zero towing. The truck is also hundreds of lbs lighter than the old one. IF i were doing any kind of serious towing i would have held off for the 8. The second biggest improvement is the MPG ,mid 20s hwy and around mid teens in town to avg out at about 22 combined. Another nice option is the backup camera.
The only real disappointment is the stiff ride party caused by the 4WD and tires,and another issue is the finicky 6 speed auto tranny. Up shifts are smooth and solid but downshifts are sometimes noticeably harsh. Many other late model GM truck owners have complained about this problem. Possibly the new 8 speed auto has fixed this.
  I got this 2015 for $13,700  while a new 2019  with the same specs price out at $39,600. While relatively high mileage at 120k its still quite a savings at 26k below new price for a 4 yr old truck in excellent condition, not a hint of rust anywhere,so i had to give it a shot. I couldnt find anything close to this new of a truck for this price. Just looking at the truck inside and out not knowing the mileage id have guessed 15 to 20 k on the odometer.


----------



## Stelcom66

Good choice and good price IMO. I know I'd certainly be fine with one of the newer 4.3 V6s. Yours puts out about the same power as my 4.8 V8 did that my son now has. 212k on that and the engine has been fine. The MPGs you're getting sound amazing to me for a 4WD truck. I've seen several other posts in the Silverado/Sierra forum mentioning the stiff ride. It's still probably better than my 2002 Silverado 1500 with the Z71 suspension. The 120k miles shouldn't be a concern with that engine. The 4.3 of that year I believe just happens to have the same displacement of the V6 from many years ago but it's been totally redesigned. Mine is also a standard cab, I just use it as a work truck, but is an LS.

While looking for a truck last year I saw a 2005 Silverado work truck, also red. It had the 4.3 V6, 4WD, and amazingly a 5 speed manual transmission - a very rare package. Being a manual transmission fanatic I would have bought it but the frame had quite a bit of rust. Does the 2015 work truck have crank windows? Probably air conditioning is standard. In the 2005 Silverado and Sierra work trucks I looked at there was none, and had crank windows.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Stelcom66 said:


> Being a manual transmission fanatic I would have bought it but the frame had quite a bit of rust. Does the 2015 work truck have crank windows? Probably air conditioning is standard. In the 2005 Silverado and Sierra work trucks I looked at there was none, and had crank windows.


This truck was listed as a work truck but has a lot of extra options. Yes AC is standard and its ice cold.It has power
 windows and power door lock as well as 2 remotes. Has a backup camera ,cargo lights as well as some LED lights under the bed rail which is nice. It has a trailer receiver package. Cruise control , factory Bed liner,chrome and wheel package. Does NOT have carpet which i like ,so much easier to clean. Has tranny trailer mode which uses transmission braking.    I like this as i dont have to use the brakes even on the steepest mountains although im sure i would if i had a heavy trailer hooked up but then the trailer has brakes as well. I was especially checking for rust as i know some late model trucks have rust problems ,some late model dodges and some mid to late 2000 GM trucks as as well which i found to be true looking at a 2009 GMC truck with severe rust which prompted me to search for much newer trucks.
It is a 6sp auto, i was especially trying to get away from my standard shift truck as all the shifting was getting to be a PIA especially during in town driving.


----------



## Stelcom66

Seasoned Oak said:


> This truck was listed as a work truck but has a lot of extra options...



Your truck sounds very similar to my neighbor's which he bought earlier this year, a 'new' 2018 Sierra work truck, but like yours had many options for a work truck. His has the 5.3 V8 and 2WD though. Vinyl seats, not sure about carpet. I'd be fine without carpet like my first truck, a 1980 Dodge D100. In fact I just vacuumed out my truck, would have been nice just to sweep it clean. I guess a manual transmission truck isn't as pleasurable to drive as a short throw transmission car with an easy clutch, especially in traffic. Plus, these days the automatics with 6 speeds or more end up returning better fuel economy than standards.

I was surprised how trucks only about 10 years old can have so much rust. My son's 2009 Dodge Ram has quite a bit already, more than my 2002 Silverado.


----------



## blades

always been an issue with the dodges- not foggiest why.   none of the newer stuff seems to last as long as in days past.. maybe its just my perspective


----------



## SpaceBus

blades said:


> always been an issue with the dodges- not foggiest why.   none of the newer stuff seems to last as long as in days past.. maybe its just my perspective



Some things really were better built, but some tings last longer now. In general cars and trucks are staying on the road much longer than they ever have. I see plenty of trucks and cars with rust on them that I feel like shouldn't, but most people just don't take care of their vehicles.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

SpaceBus said:


> Some things really were better built, but some tings last longer now. In general cars and trucks are staying on the road much longer than they ever have. I see plenty of trucks and cars with rust on them that I feel like shouldn't, but most people just don't take care of their vehicles.


This is why i am not worried about the odometer mileage.Got to be highway mileage to put that on in less than 4 yrs. Hwy mileage does not usually lower the lifespan of the vehicle if its taken care of. Motor is so quiet you have to check the Tach to know its running. But rust is hard to stop once it gets going so i dont want to deal with rust issues. Which can crop up with almost any brand. GM is now using aluminum in everything with a hinge,hood,doors and tailgate for 2019. (except the box). That should help with rust problems.


----------



## SpaceBus

Seasoned Oak said:


> This is why i am not worried about the odometer mileage.Got to be highway mileage to put that on in less than 4 yrs. Hwy mileage does not usually lower the lifespan of the vehicle if its taken care of. Motor is so quiet you have to check the Tach to know its running. But rust is hard to stop once it gets going so i dont want to deal with rust issues. Which can crop up with almost any brand. GM is now using aluminum in everything with a hinge,hood,doors and tailgate for 2019. (except the box). That should help with rust problems.



I can't wait for the carbon fiber future. No rust, super light, super strong, and easily shaped. It's already starting to show up in places you wouldn't expect. I have two tools by Dewalt with carbon in them, a hatchet and a hammer stapler (which didn't really work for what I wanted anyway). It won't be much longer now. Aluminum is my second favorite material behind CF. Ford was right on the money with an aluminum bed. My bed has some surface rust that I need to take care of soon. 

Snow clinging to the bottoms of the wheel wells, bed, and frame are what really kill these things. Slush filled with salt and other oxidizers that gets stuck on everything is even worse. It's like submerging the area in salt water. I'm going to try and DIY fluid film the underside and bed of my truck this year. It all comes down to maintenance, or lack thereof for most folks.


----------



## SpaceBus

Also, if I were in the market for a brand new half ton, it's a great time. Loads of great engine options and fuel economy is getting pretty good. It's about time MFG's started putting diesel and four cylinder engines in half tons. Pretty soon they will be out of low hanging fruit and trucks will stagnate again. I haven't seen the big 3 compete on half ton trucks for real in like 20 years.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

SpaceBus said:


> . It's about time MFG's started putting diesel and four cylinder engines in half tons. .


GM is putting a 4 cyl Turbo in  their half ton this year but the MPG numbers are disappointing. I would probably pass on that and get the 8 with  the cyl deactivation or the V-6. The also offer a 3.0 Diesel but the additional cost of these plus the expensive maintenance may not be worth the few mpgs.


----------



## MTY

I have a 79 F250 I bought new.  For a number of years in the mid 90's I had a 9' Lance on it.  It would cross the scales at well over 10K pounds.  Payload also includes any people on board.  I'd check GVWR before I bought.


----------



## WiscWoody

Nice looking truck and yes you can save a lot of money by buying a clean used truck. If the engine had regular oil changes then it’ll most likely last for a long time to come. My latest truck is a 2003 F-250 standard cab long box truck and your V6 has more power than it’s 5.4 V8 does and your mileage is much better. I now tow a 7000lb skid steer with a 3800lb 20’ trailer with my truck so I wish it was a diesel now but next truck I buy will be a diesel I think.


----------



## SpaceBus

Seasoned Oak said:


> GM is putting a 4 cyl Turbo in  their half ton this year but the MPG numbers are disappointing. I would probably pass on that and get the 8 with  the cyl deactivation or the V-6. The also offer a 3.0 Diesel but the additional cost of these plus the expensive maintenance may not be worth the few mpgs.



Yeah, the price increase for the diesels only make sense if you put loads of miles on the vehicle, plan on keeping it forever, or if you prefer them. 

The four cylinder might not be much more fuel efficient, but it probably costs a lot less than the V8 (production costs, not what the consumer pays), less weight, less moving parts, etc. I'm more of an inline engine fan than V anyway. For a work truck or someone that doesn't need the biggest and baddest that four cylinder makes a lot of sense. V (or any split plane configuration) engines have the most benefit for sporty or race cars. For the average on road vehicle an inline four or six is optimal. Honestly, unless a V8 is flat plane, I don't really see the point anymore. The Era of big cube engines is gone, but not forgotten. The proliferation of 60° V6 engines is also weird, aside from packaging an inline six would be smoother with a better torque delivery. Inline sixes are also awesome in sporty cars and can be made to sing at high RPM. 

I feel like all automobiles are hampered by traditions now. From the shape of the car to how it's built. Unfortunately people are horrible with change and it will probably take forever to see any meaningful change in the transportation sector. We need to get away from vehicles as lifestyle choices (I'm a big car guy, so guilty of this at one time or another) and see them as the tools they are.


----------



## blades

yep straight six are nice  Ford , American motor,  not sure on the GM.  Never had a Gm straight six,


----------



## SpaceBus

blades said:


> yep straight six are nice  Ford , American motor,  not sure on the GM.  Never had a Gm straight six,


The 300 is legendary as are the old slant sixes, AMC/Chrysler Jeep sixes (not counting the Dauntless), and of course the Cummins 6BT/ISB. I have very little first hand experience with the GM inline six engines, but I've never heard anything bad about them. Seven main bearings, naturally counterbalanced, 60 degree firing intervals, and great packaging just work well in trucks. Not that I dislike the hot rod V8 engines, they are just kind of unnecessary in a work vehicle. 

Folks just need to be honest and admit that modern trucks have become luxury vehicles. Even my used 06 Ram dually is a Laramie (just happened to have the options I needed) with leather and power seats! I don't think I even paid 20% of original MSRP for it, but it does have a few miles on it.


----------



## Jazzberry

I remember when I was around 17 or so my buddy had an old  48 or 49 maybe Chevy pickup with a bad bearing knock. We watched his dad drop the pan and pull some shims out of the bearings and presto the knock went away.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

SpaceBus said:


> The four cylinder might not be much more fuel efficient, but it probably costs a lot less than the V8 (production costs, not what the consumer pays), less weight, less moving parts, etc.  .


When you add in the complexity and additional parts plus the expense of the turbo and the cost of replacing or repairing that down the road plus they threw in a variable camshaft it may wind up as more moving parts. I think they were too far down the road in development when they realized there was not much benefit if any to adding a turbo to a 4cy. The thing i like about the Cyl deactivation of the 8 Cyl is you have an 8 when you need it and a 4 when you dont. With a lot less complication and expense of a turbo engine. They say the 8 can actually run on as little as 1 cyl . Time will tell but so far not much demand for the 4.  The 5.3  8cyl actually got better MPG 
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a25953794/chevrolet-silverado-four-cylinder-fuel-economy-test/


----------



## Seasoned Oak

I see Toyota made the LEAST reliable trucks list for this year again as well as last year. Along with Nissan for engine problems
"Among the issues reported, transmission trouble might be the most worrisome for truck buyers. (Rough shifting and a slipping transmission fall under this category.) Meanwhile, drivetrain issues were also noteworthy".

Also GM compact trucks(colorado) and GM HD 2500 were in there with a 4 yr run. Both for tranny issues. So it seems the half ton GMs got their tranny problems fixed but the other models got worse.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

SpaceBus said:


> Snow clinging to the bottoms of the wheel wells, bed, and frame are what really kill these things. Slush filled with salt and other oxidizers that gets stuck on everything is even worse. It's like submerging the area in salt water. I'm going to try and DIY fluid film the underside and bed of my truck this year. It all comes down to maintenance, or lack thereof for most folks.


 Aluminum or some high impact composite would make good wheel wells. Your right about them getting bathed in salt all winter.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Of course it was only a matter of time. 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...ws-10-trains-loaded-pickup-trucks/1794180001/


----------



## SpaceBus

After our house is finished and we build a garage I would be interested in an electric Ford Ranger or even better would be an electric (or even PHEV diesel) Wrangler pickup. I'll always have my diesel Dually for picking up loads of lumber, stone, sand, etc. But it would be nice to have something to haul my dogs around that is less than 20' long.


----------



## Stelcom66

SpaceBus said:


> The 300 is legendary as are the old slant sixes...



I had a 225 slant 6 in my first truck, a 1980 Dodge D100, 4 speed manual. Also had the 300 L6 in a 1980 Ford Club Wagon, also (a very rare) 4 speed manual with a floor shift. I also thought a modern inline 6 would be efficient in a pickup truck. I don't think the new Dodge Diesels are inline anymore, I believe the last one was the 5.9 Cummins.


----------



## SpaceBus

Stelcom66 said:


> I had a 225 slant 6 in my first truck, a 1980 Dodge D100, 4 speed manual. Also had the 300 L6 in a 1980 Ford Club Wagon, also (a very rare) 4 speed manual with a floor shift. I also thought a modern inline 6 would be efficient in a pickup truck. I don't think the new Dodge Diesels are inline anymore, I believe the last one was the 5.9 Cummins.


The 6.7 ISB is still an inline six cylinder. An inline six wagon with a manual is pretty much a unicorn. The GM wagons usually had a beefier rear end with positrac , were the fords the same way?


----------



## Stelcom66

SpaceBus said:


> The 6.7 ISB is still an inline six cylinder. An inline six wagon with a manual is pretty much a unicorn. The GM wagons usually had a beefier rear end with positrac , were the fords the same way?



So it still is an inline. I've owned some rare vehicles because they had manual transmissions. Add to the list a Ford Aerostar with the 3.0 V6 and a Plymouth Voyager with the 2.2 L4 with a 5 speed manual.

Don't know of the Fords had a rear end like the GMs.


----------



## Stelcom66

blades said:


> yep straight six are nice  Ford , American motor,  not sure on the GM.  Never had a Gm straight six,



Also had a company AMC wagon with their 258 straight 6. My parents had a Gremlin with the 232. That, and my Ford Aerostar, were terrible in snow. RWD with not much weight over the wheels. Had a Chevy Nova with the 250 straight 6. 

I wonder why inline configurations fell out of favor with trucks? With today's technology they'd certainly have less displacement with more power. Every one I've owned was pretty smooth, one of the characteristics of an inline configuration. I remember I test drove a '65 Buick Special with the 
231 V6 and 3 on the tree. Vibrated big time when idling, that's before they perfected the balance shafts. That engine was crude in it's beginning form, it was the 350 V8 minus 2 cylinders and not much else.


----------



## SpaceBus

I think it's a matter of engine length and pedestrian crash safety standards. Bumpers have to stick out further, hoot lines are lower, and there are less creases on the front of cars now.


----------



## Ashful

SpaceBus said:


> I think it's a matter of engine length and pedestrian crash safety standards. Bumpers have to stick out further, hoot lines are lower, and there are less creases on the front of cars now.



I was thinking the same.  Also, didn’t a lot of the longer engines go away when the manufacturers moved to cab-forward bodies?

BTW... I’ve said a dozen times here, but what kills me is that I can’t buy anything larger than a 5.7L Hemi in a 14,350 lb GCWR pickup truck.  Bring back the SRT-10, and put 4wd under it, already!  You can still buy a 6.4L Hemi in a number of different Dodge coupes and sedans... why not a pickup truck?!?


----------



## Zack R

Stelcom66 said:


> Also had a company AMC wagon with their 258 straight 6. My parents had a Gremlin with the 232. That, and my Ford Aerostar, were terrible in snow. RWD with not much weight over the wheels. Had a Chevy Nova with the 250 straight 6.
> 
> I wonder why inline configurations fell out of favor with trucks? With today's technology they'd certainly have less displacement with more power. Every one I've owned was pretty smooth, one of the characteristics of an inline configuration. I remember I test drove a '65 Buick Special with the
> 231 V6 and 3 on the tree. Vibrated big time when idling, that's before they perfected the balance shafts. That engine was crude in it's beginning form, it was the 350 V8 minus 2 cylinders and not much else.



Each of my vehicles has an inline 6, naturally aspirated with a timing chain, a solid configuration. I agree it's too bad these are not more common in modern vehicles.

1994 Land Cruiser (4.5L)
2000 M Roadster (3.2L)
2004 325Xi Wagon (2.5L)
2006 Jeep Wrangler (4.0L)

The land cruiser has 320k miles and we just returned from a 2500 mile road trip without any issues. At idle I can sit a cup of coffee on the valve cover and it won't spill. Very smooth....


----------



## SpaceBus

Zack R said:


> Each of my vehicles has an inline 6, naturally aspirated with a timing chain, a solid configuration. I agree it's too bad these are not more common in modern vehicles.
> 
> 1994 Land Cruiser (4.5L)
> 2000 M Roadster (3.2L)
> 2004 325Xi Wagon (2.5L)
> 2006 Jeep Wrangler (4.0L)
> 
> The land cruiser has 320k miles and we just returned from a 2500 mile road trip without any issues. At idle I can sit a cup of coffee on the valve cover and it won't spill. Very smooth....



You have some of the best of the best lined up there. I miss my six speed LJ all the time. Whilst in Afghanistan we had a ratty 90's land cruiser with the straight six. I'm not sure the oil had ever been changed or if any maintenance had been performed for that matter, but it didn't seem to make a difference to the LC. It's a shame BMW won't put their hottest engines in the wagons.


----------



## Zack R

Jazzberry said:


> Wish I had some taller gears in my truck. Budget doesnt allow me to order a new truck. The gears are really needed in the mountains. I almost  never get to use 4th gear (OD).



I'd use the term "shorter" gears to describe lower gearing to avoid confusion


----------



## Stelcom66

Zack R said:


> Each of my vehicles has an inline 6, naturally aspirated with a timing chain, a solid configuration. I agree it's too bad these are not more common in modern vehicles.
> 
> 1994 Land Cruiser (4.5L)
> 2000 M Roadster (3.2L)
> 2004 325Xi Wagon (2.5L)
> 2006 Jeep Wrangler (4.0L)
> 
> The land cruiser has 320k miles and we just returned from a 2500 mile road trip without any issues. At idle I can sit a cup of coffee on the valve cover and it won't spill. Very smooth....



Nice fleet of inline 6 engines! Amazing mileage on the Toyota, and still a very smooth engine.


----------



## Ashful

Stelcom66 said:


> Nice fleet of inline 6 engines! Amazing mileage on the Toyota, and still a very smooth engine.



Meh... smooth.  Sounds as exciting as a rainy afternoon.  Why on earth would you want “smooth”?

(Must be watched with sound ON)


----------



## Zack R

Ashful said:


> Meh... smooth.  Sounds as exciting as a rainy afternoon.  Why on earth would you want “smooth”?
> 
> (Must be watched with sound ON)




V8's are great - I'll never contest that..... sixes aren't so bad either. Same engine block in this one as my old landcruiser


----------



## SpaceBus

Ashful said:


> Meh... smooth.  Sounds as exciting as a rainy afternoon.  Why on earth would you want “smooth”?
> 
> (Must be watched with sound ON)



Have you heard a good naturally aspirated inline six? I like a good cross plane V8 as much as any American. That being said, a flat plane V8 sounds best every time. A V12 even better, but it would since it's made of two perfect engines.


----------



## Stelcom66

SpaceBus said:


> Have you heard a good naturally aspirated inline six? I like a good cross plane V8 as much as any American. That being said, a flat plane V8 sounds best every time. A V12 even better, but it would since it's made of two perfect engines.



Ever hear a V10? At least the Dodge Viper V10, doesn't sound like a better V8, more like a V6 for some reason. Not sure about the Ford V10s that were available a few years back. I do like the sound of the 5.3 V8 in my Silverado, and I like that it's smooth.


----------



## Ashful

SpaceBus said:


> Have you heard a good naturally aspirated inline six? I like a good cross plane V8 as much as any American. That being said, a flat plane V8 sounds best every time. A V12 even better, but it would since it's made of two perfect engines.



Only inline 6 I ever had my hands on was a slant 6 in a buddy’s old Plymouth Duster.  We tore that little thing outta there, and stuffed a proper 383 in its place.  [emoji41]

I love all things horsepower, and have driven 6-figure v12’s, but I’m thankful that a cheap big-displacement v8 can still put a smile on my face.  And as much as I love big-torque performance EVs, I can’t help but be a little sad that we are nearing the end of this noisy ICE era.


----------



## SpaceBus

SpaceBus said:


> Have you heard a good naturally aspirated inline six? I like a good cross plane V8 as much as any American. That being said, a flat plane V8 sounds best every time. A V12 even better, but it would since it's made of two perfect engines.





Ashful said:


> Only inline 6 I ever had my hands on was a slant 6 in a buddy’s old Plymouth Duster.  We tore that little thing outta there, and stuffed a proper 383 in its place.  [emoji41]
> 
> I love all things horsepower, and have driven 6-figure v12’s, but I’m thankful that a cheap big-displacement v8 can still put a smile on my face.  And as much as I love big-torque performance EVs, I can’t help but be a little sad that we are nearing the end of this noisy ICE era.



I'll miss the fire breathing big bore V8's. Look up some M Roadster (or coupe) and E46 M3 videos for good six cylinders. 8,000+ RPM! V12's tend to be found in exotics due to the sound and perfect balance. With perfect balance, and a short stroke, comes stratospheric peak RPM and beautiful music. Not to say you need RPM for good noise, at 4,000 RPM an American big block like a 454 sounds like a death metal choir.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> Only inline 6 I ever had my hands on was a slant 6 in a buddy’s old Plymouth Duster.  We tore that little thing outta there, and stuffed a proper 383 in its place.  [emoji41]
> .


There is one sweet sounding (and running) engine. My brother bought a brand spanking new 383 Plymouth Road Runner. Aside from the "meep meep" Road Runner horn that car had a great engine sound right out of the factory. I think it was $ 2995 new.  A nice one now goes for $35k-70k
.


----------



## SpaceBus

The slant six was a cool engine. Australians actually hop those up and a hemi-style head exists for them as well.


----------



## Ashful

SpaceBus said:


> The slant six was a cool engine. Australians actually hop those up and a hemi-style head exists for them as well.



Too small.  Next!

The slant-6 (also known as the “Economy 6”) is about as reliable as concrete.  It would probably make an ideal off-road engine, for its era:

1.  Reliable
2.  Unusually wide torque curve
3.  Low HP, but you don’t need that for 10 mph rock crawling

But it’s really hard for me to get too excited about any pushrod engine under 7 liters displacement.  My rock crawling days were short lived, and in the distant past.  Now I want something that can make 500 hp on the road, and reliable enough to commute or take road trips with the family.

Thankfully we are living in what I consider the second grand era of big-HP cars, there are literally dozens of options for 500+HP out there, some even under $50k.  I just can’t understand why they stopped putting these engines in pickup trucks, where they could actually be legitimately justifiable.


----------



## SpaceBus

Ashful said:


> Too small.  Next!
> 
> The slant-6 (also known as the “Economy 6”) is about as reliable as concrete.  It would probably make an ideal off-road engine, for its era:
> 
> 1.  Reliable
> 2.  Unusually wide torque curve
> 3.  Low HP, but you don’t need that for 10 mph rock crawling
> 
> But it’s really hard for me to get too excited about any pushrod engine under 7 liters displacement.  My rock crawling days were short lived, and in the distant past.  Now I want something that can make 500 hp on the road, and reliable enough to commute or take road trips with the family.
> 
> Thankfully we are living in what I consider the second grand era of big-HP cars, there are literally dozens of options for 500+HP out there, some even under $50k.  I just can’t understand why they stopped putting these engines in pickup trucks, where they could actually be legitimately justifiable.



Exactly! Trucks should have inline sixes, period. I used to have a 500+ HP daily driver, with a six speed manual, but I rarely miss it. My step dad had a 440 AWHP four door sedan, but his favorite car, and mine, is a Miata. All that power on surface streets just gets me into trouble, and it's not that fast anyway. If  you want to know what fast is, get a motorcycle. Your wife might not be pleased with you, but outside of F1, you won't go any faster. All summer I've been hearing guys howling off in the hills along the coast, I've been super jealous. My wife is glad I sold my bike though, and it's probably for the best since I could never stay out of trouble on it.


----------



## Ashful

My best friend was killed on a motorcycle, along with several others I’ve known.  So, I won’t be going that direction.  The likelihood of any one of us being in a major auto accident sometime in our life is pretty high, and the chances of dying from it if you’re on a motorcycle when it happens are damn near 100%.

Miatas are great cars for teenage girls to cruise around town.  If you want a small roadster that won’t cause your friends to secretly joke about your car behind your back, get a Shelby Cobra.  [emoji48]

(j/k... One of my buddies also had a hot-rodded Miata.  It was a hell of a lot of fun, but that didn’t stop us from making fun of it, either.)


----------



## OT_Ducati




----------



## SpaceBus

I don't know if you guys know this, but women hate Miatas. They think Miatas are cute, to look at. Top down ruins hair, there's no storage, seating is cramped, and it isn't plush. Women who like convertibles get Sebrings, or whatever. 

Shelby Cobras are just tiny English roadsters with american V8 engines. A modern Cobra is a Miata with a lot of power. Mazda created the Miata as an English roadster clone that wouldn't leave you stranded or wet. It's also one of the, if not THE, most raced car in the world. I don't see any one make American car racing series....


----------



## Jazzberry

Zack R said:


> I'd use the term "shorter" gears to describe lower gearing to avoid confusion



Our thinking is exactly opposite. Taller to me means higher as in going from a 3.40 to a 3.90


Zack R said:


> I'd use the term "shorter" gears to describe lower gearing to avoid confusion




Ya as usual it confuses the crap out of me.


----------



## Ashful

Jazzberry said:


> Our thinking is exactly opposite. Taller to me means higher as in going from a 3.40 to a 3.90
> 
> 
> 
> Ya as usual it confuses the crap out of me.


"Tall" *gears* and "short" *gears* are referring to the *gear* ratios. Tall (high) *gears* have LOWER numerical numbers such as 2.79, 2.90, 3.00, 3.25. Short (low) *gears* have HIGHER numerical numbers, such as 4.11, 4.30, 4.56, 4.88, 5.13, 5.36, etc.
*Rear-End Gearing Simplified - Bad-Ass Racing Engines*

www.badasscars.com/index.cfm/page/ptype=product/product_id.../prd398.htm


----------



## Stelcom66

SpaceBus said:


> Exactly! Trucks should have inline sixes, period. I used to have a 500+ HP daily driver, with a six speed manual, but I rarely miss it....



Thank you for your service to our country (I assume, saw that you were in Afghanistan). When looking at used pickup trucks last year I saw a rarity that I really wanted. It was a 2005 Silverado Work Truck with the 4.3 V6, 4WD and 5 speed manual. The frame was pretty bad though with rust. I posted about it on a Silverado/Sierra forum and someone asked 'How slow would that be?' An irrelevant question, I'm not buying a pickup truck to 'go fast', or race. It's mainly for hauling firewood, and typical homeowner chores.


----------



## Medic21

SpaceBus said:


> Whilst in Afghanistan we had a ratty 90's land cruiser with the straight six. I'm not sure the oil had ever been changed or if any maintenance had been performed for that matter, but it didn't seem to make a difference to the LC.



I'm gonna go out on a limb here...

Was it white?


----------



## SpaceBus

Medic21 said:


> I'm gonna go out on a limb here...
> 
> Was it white?


Ha, another team in my company had a white one with a manual I put a few miles on. Ours was a burgundy "Prado" automatic. It was paradise for folks that like Toyota's non US offerings.


----------



## Ashful

Stelcom66 said:


> When looking at used pickup trucks last year I saw a rarity that I really wanted. It was a 2005 Silverado Work Truck with the 4.3 V6, 4WD and 5 speed manual. The frame was pretty bad though with rust. I posted about it on a Silverado/Sierra forum and someone asked 'How slow would that be?'



I owned one of those, 1995 K1500 w/4.3L v6 and manual trans.  The thing couldn’t even maintain 65 mph on hills unloaded, and just forget pulling a trailer at highway speed, around here.  I had hills where I was having to hunt between second and third gear to keep it moving, at 35 mph on the PA Turnpike with 65 mph speed limit and everyone else whizzing by me at 80 mph.

It was also a complete maintenance nightmare.  I had more crap break on that truck in just four years (1999 - 2003), than maybe all of my other vehicles combined.  It was literally the biggest POS I have ever owned, and I’ve owned some bad vehicles.


----------



## SpaceBus

Ashful said:


> I owned one of those, 1995 K1500 w/4.3L v6 and manual trans.  The thing couldn’t even maintain 65 mph on hills unloaded, and just forget pulling a trailer at highway speed, around here.  I had hills where I was having to hunt between second and third gear to keep it moving, at 35 mph on the PA Turnpike with 65 mph speed limit and everyone else whizzing by me at 80 mph.
> 
> It was also a complete maintenance nightmare.  I had more crap break on that truck in just four years (1999 - 2003), than maybe all of my other vehicles combined.  It was literally the biggest POS I have ever owned, and I’ve owned some bad vehicles.



The 4.3 just isn't that great, and is inherently flawed by being a 90 degree V6. I know everyone thinks by being a 350 minus two cylinders it must be bulletproof, but it's just a dog.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

SpaceBus said:


> The 4.3 just isn't that great, and is inherently flawed by being a 90 degree V6. I know everyone thinks by being a 350 minus two cylinders it must be bulletproof, but it's just a dog.


I had a 93 V-6 Silverado and it was trouble free other than it was dog. You need a level hwy to maintain speed. As soon as you hit a hill your crawling. And thats with the truck bed EMPTY. That all changed in the last few years. The new ones (Ecotec)have just under 300HP and you would never guess it was a 6 under the hood. It has almost 100HP more than my K2500 with a 350 CU 8 cyl. eng. I  find myself inadvertently squealing the tires pretty often. I think its been completely redesigned. No longer the 350 with 2 cyl lopped off.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Stelcom66 said:


> . The frame was pretty bad though with rust. I posted about it on a Silverado/Sierra forum and .


Id stop right there with heavy frame rust. Had that with a toyota and dont want it again. That was pretty much my no. 1 deal killer when recently searching for a new(er) work truck. Along with some decent power and no stick shift.


----------



## Stelcom66

Seasoned Oak said:


> Id stop right there with heavy frame rust. Had that with a toyota and dont want it again. That was pretty much my no. 1 deal killer when recently searching for a new(er) work truck. Along with some decent power and no stick shift.



Didn't buy that one - instead a 2002 with the 5.3 V8. The frame is decent for it's age, noted also by others who have seen it. Yes I believe today's 4.3 V6 shares the same displacement of the old engine, and that's about it. Surprised the consensus is the 4.3 was that under powered - my Dodge with the 225 S6 and 4 speed manual was adequate, but it was only 2WD and that was before my wood burning/hauling days.


----------



## SpaceBus

Seasoned Oak said:


> I had a 93 V-6 Silverado and it was trouble free other than it was dog. You need a level hwy to maintain speed. As soon as you hit a hill your crawling. And thats with the truck bed EMPTY. That all changed in the last few years. The new ones (Ecotec)have just under 300HP and you would never guess it was a 6 under the hood. It has almost 100HP more than my K2500 with a 350 CU 8 cyl. eng. I  find myself inadvertently squealing the tires pretty often. I think its been completely redesigned. No longer the 350 with 2 cyl lopped off.



The new one is pretty decent, but has an odd style crankshaft because it's a 90 degree v6. It's a wonder they don't shake themselves apart, but the torque is pretty nice. That's really what's making you smoke those tires, not the peak HP.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Stelcom66 said:


> . Surprised the consensus is the 4.3 was that under powered - .


My 93 4.3 had just 160HP.  Thats pretty bad for an extended cab truck. Then again my 95 Ext Cab K2500 4x4 350 Cu in v-8 has just 200. They have come a long way HP wise.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

SpaceBus said:


> It's a wonder they don't shake themselves apart, but the torque is pretty nice. .


I actually tried to start it when it was already running. Cant hear or feel it running from inside or outside. Now i look at the Tach if im not sure its running.  They must have the balance right.


----------



## Zack R

SpaceBus said:


> I don't know if you guys know this, but women hate Miatas. They think Miatas are cute, to look at. Top down ruins hair, there's no storage, seating is cramped, and it isn't plush. Women who like convertibles get Sebrings, or whatever.
> 
> Shelby Cobras are just tiny English roadsters with american V8 engines. A modern Cobra is a Miata with a lot of power. Mazda created the Miata as an English roadster clone that wouldn't leave you stranded or wet. It's also one of the, if not THE, most raced car in the world. I don't see any one make American car racing series....



I wanted something faster than a Miata but more user friendly than a Cobra so I ended up with this. Just got back from a weekend road trip and it was a blast.


----------



## SpaceBus

Zack R said:


> I wanted something faster than a Miata but more user friendly than a Cobra so I ended up with this. Just got back from a weekend road trip and it was a blast.
> 
> 
> View attachment 246025



Nice. I love M roadsters, particularly the Z4 variant.


----------



## Ashful

Nice!  Z3?

I wanted something faster than a Miata too, so I bought anything else with 4 wheels.


----------



## Zack R

Ashful said:


> Nice!  Z3?



Yes - its a 2000 Z3 but with the M3 engine/powertrain and wider rear fenders aka the "M roadster". 240hp isn't a lot for modern cars but it's more than enough to motivate a small car like this.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

What would be a good reason to put smaller tires on a 4WD Pickup.   Mfg call for P265/70R17   and previous owner has P235/70R17 on the truck.


----------



## johneh

Cost of tires


----------



## MrWhoopee

Seasoned Oak said:


> What would be a good reason to put smaller tires on a 4WD Pickup.   Mfg call for P265/70R17   and previous owner has P235/70R17 on the truck.



The common belief that narrower tires provide better traction in snow (more lbs. per sq. inch of contact patch). I can neither confirm nor deny whether it's true.


----------



## SpaceBus

Seasoned Oak said:


> What would be a good reason to put smaller tires on a 4WD Pickup.   Mfg call for P265/70R17   and previous owner has P235/70R17 on the truck.


Price and gearing.


----------



## SpaceBus

MrWhoopee said:


> The common belief that narrower tires provide better traction in snow (more lbs. per sq. inch of contact patch). I can neither confirm nor deny whether it's true.


Narrower tires do work better in the snow, but it's usually not that much of a difference if all other things are equal.


----------



## Ashful

MrWhoopee said:


> The common belief that narrower tires provide better traction in snow (more lbs. per sq. inch of contact patch). I can neither confirm nor deny whether it's true.



It’s true.  If you don’t believe me, just try driving an unloaded dually in snow, I dare you!  There’s a reason army trucks have narrow knobby tires, they care more about “go” than “show”.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

So the whole reason for a wider tire is just looks?  Im wondering when replacing if i should go back to factory size.


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> So the whole reason for a wider tire is just looks?  Im wondering when replacing if i should go back to factory size.



Wide tires help in real soft mud or bogs, enhancing flotation when you can’t reach the bottom.  But on road in snow, a skinny tire always wins, flotation is the last thing you want at road speeds.

On road, it’s for looks, the same mentality as the idiots who put hi-lift jacks and snorkels on Jeeps that will never see five minutes of off-road in their life.


----------



## SpaceBus

Ashful said:


> Wide tires help in real soft mud or bogs, enhancing flotation when you can’t reach the bottom.  But on road in snow, a skinny tire always wins, flotation is the last thing you want at road speeds.
> 
> On road, it’s for looks, the same mentality as the idiots who put hi-lift jacks and snorkels on Jeeps that will never see five minutes of off-road in their life.



It's not entirely for looks, at least not in every case. For general snow and trail use, no point in wide tires. You gain no surface area with a wider tire, only a different shape (wider instead of narrower), until you start messing with tire pressures. Then the benefits of a wider tire become more apparent. If you have ever driven on sand, then you understand. Nonetheless, for most people it is a looks thing.

Also, military uses fairly wide tires. At least 10.5" on humvees and they get wider the heavier the vehicle. The off road only stuff also has large tires, and some of the vehicles use them for the floatation specifically. I don't know of any military vehicles still in use that still use narrow tires. The old Jeeps definitely did, but those also weighed nothing.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

I will probably revert back to the factory size on the door plate when replacing these tires. The ride is a little harsh so i think i may improve that with the recommended wider tire and a little less air pressure. Right now the air pressure is 45lbs and i rarely carry weight on this truck. Probably go with BF Goodrich LT tires . Lots of reviews noting the improved ride characteristics with the BF Goodrich.
BFGoodrich Advantage T/A Sport LT 265/70R17 115T Tire
.


----------



## SpaceBus

Seasoned Oak said:


> I will probably revert back to the factory size on the door plate when replacing these tires. The ride is a little harsh so i think i may improve that with the recommended wider tire and a little less air pressure. Right now the air pressure is 45lbs and i rarely carry weight on this truck. Probably go with BF Goodrich LT tires . Lots of reviews noting the improved ride characteristics with the BF Goodrich.
> BFGoodrich Advantage T/A Sport LT 265/70R17 115T Tire
> .



You probably won't bark the tires as often, but I doubt the ride will be any different. The truck will probably feel more confident at freeway speeds and maybe follow grooves more often as well. If anything the smaller diameter and narrower tire gave a better ride due to less unsprung weight.


----------



## bholler

SpaceBus said:


> It's not entirely for looks, at least not in every case. For general snow and trail use, no point in wide tires. You gain no surface area with a wider tire, only a different shape (wider instead of narrower), until you start messing with tire pressures. Then the benefits of a wider tire become more apparent. If you have ever driven on sand, then you understand. Nonetheless, for most people it is a looks thing.
> 
> Also, military uses fairly wide tires. At least 10.5" on humvees and they get wider the heavier the vehicle. The off road only stuff also has large tires, and some of the vehicles use them for the floatation specifically. I don't know of any military vehicles still in use that still use narrow tires. The old Jeeps definitely did, but those also weighed nothing.


I  think allot of that is due to where we are fighting.  If we were in Siberia they would switch to narrow tires.   But we have been in deserts for years where wide tires make sense


----------



## SpaceBus

bholler said:


> I  think allot of that is due to where we are fighting.  If we were in Siberia they would switch to narrow tires.   But we have been in deserts for years where wide tires make sense



I don't think the tires for the larger stuff like MATVs and RG30's can be made in narrower sizes and still accommodate the weight rating required. weight is the main reason the tires are wide. A fully kitted out RG30 weighs over 50,000 lbs and has three drive axles with six tires total. Dual wheels would be necessary to handle the weight with a narrower tire.


----------



## Ashful

SpaceBus said:


> It's not entirely for looks... Nonetheless, for most people it is a looks thing.


That was an awful long and rambling contradiction.  Yes, there are situations where width is advantageous, but none of them have anything to do with highway use in snow on a light truck.


----------



## SpaceBus

Ashful said:


> That was an awful long and rambling contradiction.  Yes, there are situations where width is advantageous, but none of them have anything to do with highway use in snow on a light truck.



Yes, but light trucks can go on more types of terrain than highways with snow. When driving on highways without snow (the condition of highways 99% of the time in on the Eastern Seaboard) wider tires are a benefit. Weight capacity also increases with tire width. I assume this is why six cylinder BMW X5's have steamroller tires.


----------



## bholler

SpaceBus said:


> I don't think the tires for the larger stuff like MATVs and RG30's can be made in narrower sizes and still accommodate the weight rating required. weight is the main reason the tires are wide. A fully kitted out RG30 weighs over 50,000 lbs and has three drive axles with six tires total. Dual wheels would be necessary to handle the weight with a narrower tire.


Yes obviously in some situations you need wider tires for load handling.  And i have 2 sets of wheels and tires for my bronco.  One 10.5 wide for on road and 1 12.5 for offroad which is usually aired down.  When i need to replace the road set i will probably go a little narrow for snow.


----------



## bholler

SpaceBus said:


> Yes, but light trucks can go on more types of terrain than highways with snow. When driving on highways without snow (the condition of highways 99% of the time in on the Eastern Seaboard) wider tires are a benefit. Weight capacity also increases with tire width. I assume this is why six cylinder BMW X5's have steamroller tires.


Weight capacity can increase with width but not necessarily.  My wide mud tires are much lower capacity than my much narrower all terrain tires on my trucks.


----------



## SpaceBus

bholler said:


> Yes obviously in some situations you need wider tires for load handling.  And i have 2 sets of wheels and tires for my bronco.  One 10.5 wide for on road and 1 12.5 for offroad which is usually aired down.  When i need to replace the road set i will probably go a little narrow for snow.



Two sets is the way to go. So many folks compromise with all season tires which are equally bad in all seasons. You save more money in the long run with a dedicated set of summer tires and winter tires, on road and offroad, etc.


----------



## blades

wide tires/ bigger tires that lot seem to like putting on their pu's can have adverse affects on the steering geometry. Had a acquaintance that put great big floaters on his chevy Blazer back in the mid 70's ( i think that's the right model name) at any rate that thing bounced around like on balloons and was impossible to use at freeway speeds which back then, around here, were a max of 55 mph.


----------



## bholler

blades said:


> wide tires/ bigger tires that lot seem to like putting on their pu's can have adverse affects on the steering geometry. Had a acquaintance that put great big floaters on his chevy Blazer back in the mid 70's ( i think that's the right model name) at any rate that thing bounced around like on balloons and was impossible to use at freeway speeds which back then, around here, were a max of 55 mph.


Yes which is why i dont run them on my bronco full time.  But really that has more to do with the tire construction than width.  Also most of the time big wide tires on trucks come with lift kits which raise the center of gravity and mess with steering geometry.  Which is why i only run 33 x12.5s for off road the largest i can go without a lift.


----------



## Ashful

SpaceBus said:


> Yes, but light trucks can go on more types of terrain than highways with snow. When driving on highways without snow (the condition of highways 99% of the time in on the Eastern Seaboard) wider tires are a benefit. Weight capacity also increases with tire width. I assume this is why six cylinder BMW X5's have steamroller tires.



Good point!


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Im not worried about snow performance. Usually dont even engage 4WD unless theres significant snow depth.Something over 8inches.  I usually go through most of the winter rarely using 4WD .


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Im not worried about snow performance. Usually dont even engage 4WD unless theres significant snow depth.Something over 8inches.  I usually through most of the winter rarely using 4WD .


Really.  I am in 4wd most of the time snow in on the road.  Yes i can drive in 2wd in everything but the bronco but it just works better in 4wd.  I find when i am in rwd vehicles mainly the work van i need to maintian more speed to make it up hills.  I prefer slower and safer.   Plus i often have a trailer behind me in work trucks.  The bronco just likes to turn around backwards in the snow with 2wd.  Even the dlightest throttle input brings it around.


----------



## SpaceBus

Unloaded my truck is spooky on packed snow in 2WD, even with Yokohama MTs. With a decent load in the bed I don't "need" to use 4WD, but the truck feels better. I wish the truck had a true locker, but the torsen works well enough.


----------



## bholler

SpaceBus said:


> Unloaded my truck is spooky on packed snow in 2WD, even with Yokohama MTs. With a decent load in the bed I don't "need" to use 4WD, but the truck feels better. I wish the truck had a true locker, but the torsen works well enough.


I dont really like locking the diffs in snow on the road.  The truck behaves better unlocked


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Usually too many bare patches and cornering that 4WD  just does not like. Yes for the few times when everything is snow covered or when having to drive in unplowed areas but not that often.


----------



## Ashful

bholler said:


> I dont really like locking the diffs in snow on the road.  The truck behaves better unlocked



Ditto.  My AWD cars all run circles around every 4wd pickup I have ever owned, for on-road snow.  4wd is great in deep virgin snow, but 90% - 99% of my snow driving is on half-drifted and rutted mixed conditions, where AWD is much better. 

I believe all of the newer RAM trucks have part-time 4wd auto (which I read to be more similar to AWD) and full-lock traditional 4wd.  Well, all RAMs except the Outdoorsman model, which is ironically what I had to buy to get the beefed up rear springs and 3.92 rear.  I sometimes wish I could have that transfer case, though, as I’m constantly shifting in and out of locked 4wd to manage varying conditions.


----------



## bholler

Ashful said:


> Ditto.  My AWD cars all run circles around every 4wd pickup I have ever owned, for on-road snow.  4wd is great in deep virgin snow, but 90% - 99% of my snow driving is on half-drifted and rutted mixed conditions, where AWD is much better.
> 
> I believe all of the newer RAM trucks have part-time 4wd auto (which I read to be more similar to AWD) and full-lock traditional 4wd.  Well, all RAMs except the Outdoorsman model, which is ironically what I had to buy to get the beefed up rear springs and 3.92 rear.  I sometimes wish I could have that transfer case, though, as I’m constantly shifting in and out of locked 4wd to manage varying conditions.


I am not a fan of the auto 4wd systems I have driven.  They just took to long to respond and then engaged hard.  But they were both mid 2000 gm systems.  But I was referring to locking the axles not the transfer case.

I do agree a good awd will run circles around 4wd in snow


----------



## Ashful

bholler said:


> I am not a fan of the auto 4wd systems I have driven.  They just took to long to respond and then engaged hard.  But they were both mid 2000 gm systems.  But I was referring to locking the axles not the transfer case.


I have never had a locker diff on a truck that I drove on-road, I imagine that would be downright scary in snow!  I have had lockers on dedicated off-road vehicles, and a full spool in one car, which was a touchy cornering just on wet pavement.

Never drove an auto 4wd, but it sounds like I’m not missing much, then, as that’s my interpretation of what they’re putting in the newer RAMs (other than the Outdoorsman model).  I will continue with my old-school 4wd.

BTW, they’ve also gone to push-button transfer case shifter, on the latest generation.  My 1975 truck had manual locking hubs and a lever to shift the transfer case, and I could instantly shift between 2wd/4wd with no delay or frustration.  My 1995 truck had auto-locking hubs and a lever to shift the transfer case, and there was some frustrating delay in shifting in/out of 4wd, in fact sometimes it wouldn’t shift if the hub solenoids got too wet (like, when it snows).  My 2005 truck kept the same system as 1995, but resolved the finicky solenoid issue, overall a good system, but now my 2015 truck is full push button.  The delay is back, in fact longer than usual, and it’s far less safe hunting for the right button (of five) to hit on the dash cluster in the dark when sliding on snow at night than grabbing a lever.  Of course, with the shifter as a big knob on the dash, right next to the volume control, I’m still having to train myself not to shift the damn thing into reverse at highway speeds, when I want to turn down the volume on the radio.


----------



## SpaceBus

The reason modern AWD cars do better is their advanced traction and stability control systems paired with a lower weight. They typically do better at stopping and handling, which is matched on dry pavement as well. For my situation on a long ish dirt road in an extremely rural area the ability to wade through feet of virgin snow is very useful. I also have chains for when it gets really nasty an icy. Generally I just don't go out in it. My wife's Abarth Cabrio does better on the hard pack, but her car has a set of dedicated snow and summer tires and a limited slip diff. 

The best option for snow for a four wheeled vehicle is three differentials each with a limited slip with locking ability. Only a handful of production vehicles have such a system. Transfer cases have their place, usually in extreme off road conditions.


----------



## Ashful

How do you like the Abarth?  Tried talking my wife into one, as a “fun car” for her, but she wasn’t biting.  They look like a hell of a lot of fun.

Their original US commercial campaign was fantastic.


----------



## bholler

Ashful said:


> I have never had a locker diff on a truck that I drove on-road, I imagine that would be downright scary in snow!  I have had lockers on dedicated off-road vehicles, and a full spool in one car, which was a touchy cornering just on wet pavement.
> 
> Never drove an auto 4wd, but it sounds like I’m not missing much, then, as that’s my interpretation of what they’re putting in the newer RAMs (other than the Outdoorsman model).  I will continue with my old-school 4wd.
> 
> BTW, they’ve also gone to push-button transfer case shifter, on the latest generation.  My 1975 truck had manual locking hubs and a lever to shift the transfer case, and I could instantly shift betw rt 6een 2wd/4wd with no delay or frustration.  My 1995 truck had auto-locking hubs and a lever to shift the transfer case, and there was some frustrating delay in shifting in/out of 4wd, in fact sometimes it wouldn’t shift if the hub solenoids got too wet (like, when it snows).  My 2005 truck kept the same system as 1995, but resolved the finicky solenoid issue, overall a good system, but now my 2015 truck is full push button.  The delay is back, in fact longer than usual, and it’s far less safe hunting for the right button (of five) to hit on the dash cluster in the dark when sliding on snow at night than grabbing a lever.  Of course, with the shifter as a big knob on the dash, right next to the volume control, I’m still having to train myself not to shift the damn thing into reverse at highway speeds, when I want to turn down the volume on the radio.


Other auto 4wd systems may work better I don't know.  I have the whole assortment of shifting systems.  My 90 f250 has manual hubs manual transfer case.  The 90 bronco has auto hubs and manual transfer case with a spool front and e locker rear.  The 06 Chevy has auto hubs with manual case limited slips.  And the 17 f250 has auto hubs and transfer case with an e locker rear.  But the front hubs on that can be locked manually which also locks the front diff.  They all work fine in the snow in 4wd as long as you don't lock the diffs. Well I haven't driven the new truck in snow yet but I have driven one with the same setup and it was fine.

But the best in the snow was my old and GMC safari work van.  That would just go anywhere.  My wife's awd escape is pretty darn good to.  But you can't do donuts lol.  But even the new truck won't let you turn off the traction control completely.  Even if you push the button to turn it off it just chirps the tires then cuts power.  It's just no fun.


----------



## SpaceBus

bholler said:


> Other auto 4wd systems may work better I don't know.  I have the whole assortment of shifting systems.  My 90 f250 has manual hubs manual transfer case.  The 90 bronco has auto hubs and manual transfer case with a spool front and e locker rear.  The 06 Chevy has auto hubs with manual case limited slips.  And the 17 f250 has auto hubs and transfer case with an e locker rear.  But the front hubs on that can be locked manually which also locks the front diff.  They all work fine in the snow in 4wd as long as you don't lock the diffs. Well I haven't driven the new truck in snow yet but I have driven one with the same setup and it was fine.
> 
> But the best in the snow was my old and GMC safari work van.  That would just go anywhere.  My wife's awd escape is pretty darn good to.  But you can't do donuts lol.  But even the new truck won't let you turn off the traction control completely.  Even if you push the button to turn it off it just chirps the tires then cuts power.  It's just no fun.



Always on traction nannies are the worst! It's good to see that after decades trucks are finally available with factory lockers. Does anyone make an electronic or air locking torsen diff? That would be the best of both worlds. Spool diffs are really spooky on the road, a friend of mine had one in a CJ7 and I thought we would die on dry pavement. I think that vehicle might have had more traction than most race cars, but always at the worst time. How do you like wheeling with the spool? Most of my wheeling has been done with torsen diff equipped vehicles, never had the luxury of a locker.


----------



## bholler

SpaceBus said:


> Always on traction nannies are the worst! It's good to see that after decades trucks are finally available with factory lockers. Does anyone make an electronic or air locking torsen diff? That would be the best of both worlds. Spool diffs are really spooky on the road, a friend of mine had one in a CJ7 and I thought we would die on dry pavement. I think that vehicle might have had more traction than most race cars, but always at the worst time. How do you like wheeling with the spool? Most of my wheeling has been done with torsen diff equipped vehicles, never had the luxury of a locker.


You would have to change out the whole carrier to go with an air or e locker.  I am sure someone makes one for your axle.  But they arent cheap which is why i have a spool in the front.  Spools are good offroad a little noisy but they work well.  On the front it doesnt seem to cause as many issues on road in the snow as they do in the rear.  If i was building a dedicated off roader i wouldnt bother with a locker.  I would just run a spool.  But they arent very good on road.


----------



## SpaceBus

Ashful said:


> How do you like the Abarth?  Tried talking my wife into one, as a “fun car” for her, but she wasn’t biting.  They look like a hell of a lot of fun.
> 
> Their original US commercial campaign was fantastic.
> 
> View attachment 246187



Her car is a Cabrio, which I think is really requisite for this car. I'm sure the hatchback is a bit quicker and a tiny bit more rigid, but having the top down is so worth it. It's an Italian car, so weird things have broken on it. The rubber exterior trim/molding is terrible and deteriorates very fast in the sun, the window regulators suck, and the tension clips in the soft top like to break (plastic). Otherwise it's awesome and I am never sad to drive the thing. Some day I'm going to get a tuning device and start messing with fuel and boost along with some other goodies. Realistically I think anything over 250 WHP would be overkill and unusable. Most men give me funny looks when I drive it, but some folks know what it is and they always want to chat. The car handles quite well, but I'm sure a Mini S/JCW would be objectively superior and a tough choice between the two. The Abarth is just so fun and never feels serious or fatiguing. The exhaust is amazing, but pretty loud. There are no mufflers, just cats and the turbo to reduce volume. The cabrio sacrifices a bit of practicality for a giant sunroof, but we have my Dually for trips that need payload capacity.


----------



## bholler

Toyota has had lockers at least on their suvs for quite a while i dont know about their trucks.  None i have had came with one.  All my toyotas were off road beaters so i just welded them


----------



## bholler

I also would not pay for an aftermarket locker unless you do a fair ammount of serious offroading.  A limited slip works well enough for just about everything.


----------



## SpaceBus

bholler said:


> I also would not pay for an aftermarket locker unless you do a fair ammount of serious offroading.  A limited slip works well enough for just about everything.



I don't plan on it, no need in my case. If I get another off road vehicle it will be a Ural Patrol 2WD. I really have come to prefer doing off roading with small stuff. Even Jeeps can be a bear in the woods. If I lived out west then things would be different. We have 25 acres and it's all super tight. My tractor is a tight fit at 65" wide.


----------



## bholler

SpaceBus said:


> I don't plan on it, no need in my case. If I get another off road vehicle it will be a Ural Patrol 2WD. I really have come to prefer doing off roading with small stuff. Even Jeeps can be a bear in the woods. If I lived out west then things would be different. We have 25 acres and it's all super tight. My tractor is a tight fit at 65" wide.


I generally go offroading at off road parks with trails made ror trucks.  Or on drivable trails in state parks.


----------



## SpaceBus

bholler said:


> I generally go offroading at off road parks with trails made ror trucks.  Or on drivable trails in state parks.


Yes, that's what I did in NC along with military trails (allegedly). Not much stuff like that around here, but there are loads of snowmobile and ATV trails. I find wheeling vehicles that can be used on road to be much more expensive and hard on the vehicle. Purpose built vehicles like side by sides and ATVs just handle the abuse much better. The only thing I like about taking out Jeeps and stuff like that is room for dogs.


----------



## bholler

SpaceBus said:


> Yes, that's what I did in NC along with military trails (allegedly). Not much stuff like that around here, but there are loads of snowmobile and ATV trails. I find wheeling vehicles that can be used on road to be much more expensive and hard on the vehicle. Purpose built vehicles like side by sides and ATVs just handle the abuse much better. The only thing I like about taking out Jeeps and stuff like that is room for dogs.


I find side by sides and atvs much more expensive i have about $4000 in my bronco now and i can drive it every day as well if i want.


----------



## bholler

And honestly i have had tons of fun with beater compact trucks that i have bought for well under $1000. A day or two with a welder and a couple hundred dollars in steel stock to make sure they dont break in half and you can beat on them untill they die.  I have done that with 3 tacomas.  A couple nissans and a ranger.  They usually last pretty long.  You probably have to buy a set of tires but you can usuall find a used set of all terrains and then transfer them to the new truck.  

The one taco got rolled enough times i had to cut the roof off and make a cage because you couldt sit in it any more but it kept running.


----------



## SpaceBus

Ashful said:


> I have never had a locker diff on a truck that I drove on-road, I imagine that would be downright scary in snow!  I have had lockers on dedicated off-road vehicles, and a full spool in one car, which was a touchy cornering just on wet pavement.
> 
> Never drove an auto 4wd, but it sounds like I’m not missing much, then, as that’s my interpretation of what they’re putting in the newer RAMs (other than the Outdoorsman model).  I will continue with my old-school 4wd.
> 
> BTW, they’ve also gone to push-button transfer case shifter, on the latest generation.  My 1975 truck had manual locking hubs and a lever to shift the transfer case, and I could instantly shift between 2wd/4wd with no delay or frustration.  My 1995 truck had auto-locking hubs and a lever to shift the transfer case, and there was some frustrating delay in shifting in/out of 4wd, in fact sometimes it wouldn’t shift if the hub solenoids got too wet (like, when it snows).  My 2005 truck kept the same system as 1995, but resolved the finicky solenoid issue, overall a good system, but now my 2015 truck is full push button.  The delay is back, in fact longer than usual, and it’s far less safe hunting for the right button (of five) to hit on the dash cluster in the dark when sliding on snow at night than grabbing a lever.  Of course, with the shifter as a big knob on the dash, right next to the volume control, I’m still having to train myself not to shift the damn thing into reverse at highway speeds, when I want to turn down the volume on the radio.



My ram is fabulous, just pull the lever when traveling under a certain speed. I've used it up to 35 MPH.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

My door plate call s for 36PSI and right now theres 45lbs in the tires.  I may reduce it to 36 to see if the ride improves.  I seldom carry more than 500-700 lbs of cargo.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> My door plate call s for 36PSI and right now theres 45lbs in the tires.  I may reduce it to 36 to see if the ride improves.  I seldom carry more than 500-700 lbs of cargo.


It will improve ride but hurt fuel economy slightly.  Probably not enough to notice at the pump.  What are the tires rated for?


----------



## Ashful

SpaceBus said:


> My ram is fabulous, just pull the lever when traveling under a certain speed. I've used it up to 35 MPH.


Yeah, I miss the lever.  Is your RAM an antique?  I had a lever on my '05, but all of the newer RAM's I've been in are push button.  Around here, the bodies rot at 10 years, thanks to the amount of salt and brine they use on the roads.  I kept that last one to age 12, and it was perfect mechanically with only 70k miles, but the doors and fenders were starting to rust.  It doesn't help that I drive my truck pretty much only in bad weather, and then it sits damp thru ever nice day, when a good drive might help to dry it out.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> It will improve ride but hurt fuel economy slightly.  Probably not enough to notice at the pump.  What are the tires rated for?


I think 45 is max. Roads are pretty bad around here so it may be worth it . And Rt 81 is suicidal. Been using Rt 80 whenever i go north and east, so much nicer drive.


----------



## SpaceBus

Ashful said:


> Yeah, I miss the lever.  Is your RAM an antique?  I had a lever on my '05, but all of the newer RAM's I've been in are push button.  Around here, the bodies rot at 10 years, thanks to the amount of salt and brine they use on the roads.  I kept that last one to age 12, and it was perfect mechanically with only 70k miles, but the doors and fenders were starting to rust.  It doesn't help that I drive my truck pretty much only in bad weather, and then it sits damp thru ever nice day, when a good drive might help to dry it out.



I guess you could call it an antique since it's an 06. Last year of non emissions diesel. This truck came from the south, so no rust. This last winter wasn't bad, but we try not to drive unless we have to when they salt and brine everything. Soon-ish I'm going to coat the under body and try and get this truck to last the rest of my life.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> I think 45 is max. Roads are pretty bad around here so it may be worth it . And Rt 81 is suicidal. Been using Rt 80 whenever i go north and east, so much nicer drive.


Yeah I'd try dropping pressure


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> ... And Rt 81 is suicidal.


Your opinion on that is questionable, unless you’ve driven the Surekill Deathway (aka Schuylkill Expressway).  Sometimes I send folks from the airport to here using that route, just for the fun of hearing their comments on it.  You know, things like, “I have never seen a road like that in my life!”  And, “How many people die on that road every day?”

It’s a road where the traffic continuously and instantly varies between 75mph and full-stop, and if you leave more than six feet between yourself and the guy in front of you, someone will jam their car into the gap to pass you.  Most of it is carved into a rocky hill side, between old railroad tunnels and the river, so fresh water springs or run-off trickling down thru the mountain rock and causing mini rock slides or freezing on the road adds to the winter fun.


----------



## bholler

Ashful said:


> Your opinion on that is questionable, unless you’ve driven the Surekill Deathway (aka Schuylkill Expressway).  Sometimes I send folks from the airport to here using that route, just for the fun of hearing their comments on it.  You know, things like, “I have never seen a road like that in my life!”  And, “How many people die on that road every day?”
> 
> It’s a road where the traffic continuously and instantly varies between 75mph and full-stop, and if you leave more than six feet between yourself and the guy in front of you, someone will jam their car into the gap to pass you.  Most of it is carved into a rocky hill side, between old railroad tunnels and the river, so fresh water springs or run-off trickling down thru the mountain rock and causing mini rock slides or freezing on the road adds to the winter fun.


I have driven both allot and yes the Schuylkill has more traffic so it is a pain.  But 81 is pretty bad.  You have fast aggressive drivers then people going 45 in the fast lane.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Was referring to the potholes in the road , not so much the other drivers driving habits. Many trips to JFK to fly to the other side of the globe, the most dangerous part of the journey is for sure the Schuykill Expressway.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Was referring to the potholes in the road , not so much the other drivers driving habits. Many trips to JFK to fly to the other side of the globe, the most dangerous part of the journey is for sure the Schuykill Expressway.


I never minded the expressway that much other than it took forever to get anywhere.


----------



## begreen

Seasoned Oak said:


> My door plate call s for 36PSI and right now theres 45lbs in the tires.  I may reduce it to 36 to see if the ride improves.  I seldom carry more than 500-700 lbs of cargo.


That should make a notable difference in ride. Trucks these days are sold with car tires on them. I put 10-ply load E rated tires on the F150. Ran them at 38# normally and 60/70# with the camper on.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Id say the reduction from 45 to 36PSI (Door plate recommended PSI) produced at least a 20 to 30% softer ride. Got one PSI tire indicator dash display that is off by 6lbs or so but thats probably common. Rt81 recently got a multi mile blacktop paving between Minersville and Frackville exits and is so much better. But 61 south going to pottsville will realign your front wheels. Hit a pothole there you could loose a VW beetle in.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Given the hoopla over the new GMC multi functional tailgate im wondering why they dont have an EXTENDABLE box option. Make a 6,5 Ft bed into an 8 foot bed at the push of a button. Should be easy enough.


----------



## SpaceBus

Seasoned Oak said:


> Given the hoopla over the new GMC multi functional tailgate im wondering why they dont have an EXTENDABLE box option. Make a 6,5 Ft bed into an 8 foot bed at the push of a button. Should be easy enough.


That would be an amazing option, but I think bed length is determined by wheelbase ultimately.


----------



## Ashful

SpaceBus said:


> That would be an amazing option, but I think bed length is determined by wheelbase ultimately.



Yeah, you’d have to move the rear axle to make it useful.  When I move 8 ft lumber on my 5.5’ bed, the truck almost pops a wheelie from the cantilevered weight behind the rear axle.


----------



## SpaceBus

Ashful said:


> Yeah, you’d have to move the rear axle to make it useful.  When I move 8 ft lumber on my 5.5’ bed, the truck almost pops a wheelie from the cantilevered weight behind the rear axle.


So far I've transported 12' lumber and haven't had any issues. I think beyond 14' the weight will tip the lumber out on bumps.


----------



## Ashful

SpaceBus said:


> So far I've transported 12' lumber and haven't had any issues. I think beyond 14' the weight will tip the lumber out on bumps.



Regular limber is fine, but try pressure treated!  I’ve been moving large loads of pressure treated 8-10 footers, recently.  The truck can take that weight in the front of the bed, no issues, but when a third or more is out past the tailgate it squats hard!  But that’s the price you pay for a crew cab on a 140” wheelbase, and that cab is great for family stuff, I just had it packed with sailing gear this afternoon!  I have a 7000# trailer for when loads are larger than the short bed can handle.


----------



## bholler

Ashful said:


> Regular limber is fine, but try pressure treated!  I’ve been moving large loads of pressure treated 8-10 footers, recently.  The truck can take that weight in the front of the bed, no issues, but when a third or more is out past the tailgate it squats hard!  But that’s the price you pay for a crew cab on a 140” wheelbase, and that cab is great for family stuff, I just had it packed with sailing gear this afternoon!  I have a 7000# trailer for when loads are larger than the short bed can handle.


You also have a 1/2 ton.  He has a deisel dually.    That big Cummins and he tranny up front is a bit of a counter weight.  And a lot stouter suspension in the back


----------



## SpaceBus

bholler said:


> You also have a 1/2 ton.  He has a deisel dually.    That big Cummins and he tranny up front is a bit of a counter weight.  And a lot stouter suspension in the back


It would be difficult to overload the truck with wood. I doubt there's enough room even with stakes.


----------



## Ashful

bholler said:


> You also have a 1/2 ton.  He has a deisel dually.    That big Cummins and he tranny up front is a bit of a counter weight.  And a lot stouter suspension in the back



The thread is about 1/2 tons, so I assumed he was talking about one.


----------



## SpaceBus

Ashful said:


> The thread is about 1/2 tons, so I assumed he was talking about one.


It's all good, just talking about trucks in general.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Only thing available right now is those cattle fence looking things that extend out to the end of the lowered the gate. And some lame gadgets that fit into the receiver hitch. Lots of time you need more room when not a lot of weight involved. One of my friends cant even fit his trail bike on the back of his 5.5 ft dodge without lowering the gate. Im liking the shorter wheel base for parking and turning radius but mostly for getting thru some really bad roads in the mountains. I already have the only sure fire long bed option,which is a long bed HD older truck when i need it with a HD Ladder Rack on it to carry my 20 Ft Scaffolding walkways.


----------



## Ashful

The issue is not a “shorter wheelbase”, Oak.  I believe they’ve been making the same 140 inch wheelbase for decades.  It is that the cabs have grown!

STD cab + 8’ bed = 140” wheelbase
Ext cab + 6.5’ bed = 140” wheelbase
Crew cab + 5.5’ bed = 140” wheelbase

Pick your poison, they’re all still available.   But the crew/5.5’ is overwhelmingly the most popular today on the 1/2 ton trucks, so pre-owned options are mostly that configuration.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> The issue is not a “shorter wheelbase”, Oak.  I believe they’ve been making the same 140 inch wheelbase for decades.  It is that the cabs have grown!
> .


My trucks wheelbase is 119.  So it is shorter than the norm.    STD cab with 6.6 Box.


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> My trucks wheelbase is 119.  So it is shorter than the norm.    STD cab with 6.6 Box.



Wow.   You can almost do a u-turn in the aisle of a parking lot!  [emoji3]


----------



## begreen

The F150 wheelbase varies from 122- 163" depending on config. The short wheelbase version is pretty navigable. The long-bed double cab is like steering the Queen Mary. Awkward in the neighborhood supermarket lot.


----------



## SpaceBus

Driving a quad cab long bed can be a bear. My truck is somewhere around 21' long including bumpers and Ms Spacebus won't drive it. After many years driving 30,000 lb six wheeled trucks with mail slot windows as long as a vehicle has good mirrors I can drive it. Armored humvees are especially annoying since the driver can't see the passenger side mirror and there's no rear window.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> Yeah, you’d have to move the rear axle to make it useful.  When I move 8 ft lumber on my 5.5’ bed, the truck almost pops a wheelie from the cantilevered weight behind the rear axle.


Not a problem with the 6.6Ft bed. Can either stack on top the gate to shift some of the weight toward the front. Or keep the gate down and 8 footers still dont reach the back of the gate. Iv been hauling my JD Mower in the back no problem as well as the kids Trail Bikes and building supplies on a daily basis for 90+% of my needs. I can see where i would be more limited with a 5.5 bed. Hauling the JD would be out.  Of course for heavy or longer loads i always have the option of a full size bed ext cab HD work truck on standby. In your case its the trailer.


----------



## Ashful

Seasoned Oak said:


> Not a problem with the 6.6Ft bed. Can either stack on top the gate to shift some of the weight toward the front. Or keep the gate down and 8 footers still dont reach the back of the gate. Iv been hauling my JD Mower in the back no problem as well as the kids Trail Bikes and building supplies on a daily basis for 90+% of my needs. I can see where i would be more limited with a 5.5 bed. Hauling the JD would be out.  Of course for heavy or longer loads i always have the option of a full size bed ext cab HD work truck on standby. In your case its the trailer.



Yeah, my 6.5’ bed with quad cab was definitely better for hauling heavy PT lumber, for the reasons you just mentioned.  The 5.5’ works okay, and has a much nicer (damn near limousine-scale) back seat for the family, but it’s all a compromise.  If I ever sell that tandem-axle trailer, it would be strong incentive to get back to a longer bed, but it’s honestly easier moving most stuff on the trailer!  Can’t imagine getting a mower in and out of the back of a pickup, but perhaps we have a different thing in mind when we say “mower”.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> Can’t imagine getting a mower in and out of the back of a pickup, but perhaps we have a different thing in mind when we say “mower”.
> 
> View attachment 246380


Had to order the 42 in deck vs the larger sizes in order to fit in the truck. That worked out well though as i dont get to mow that often an the grass gets high. So the smaller deck can power thru the high grass.


----------



## blades

very few configured that way around my parts standard cab short box


----------



## Ashful

blades said:


> very few configured that way around my parts standard cab short box


Yeah, but you also live where camo is considered formal wear, and most will say their favorite vegetable is bratwurst.  [emoji14]


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> Can’t imagine getting a mower in and out of the back of a pickup, but perhaps we have a different thing in mind when we say “mower”.


I use ramps to load the X350.


----------



## bholler

SpaceBus said:


> Exactly! Trucks should have inline sixes, period. I used to have a 500+ HP daily driver, with a six speed manual, but I rarely miss it. My step dad had a 440 AWHP four door sedan, but his favorite car, and mine, is a Miata. All that power on surface streets just gets me into trouble, and it's not that fast anyway. If  you want to know what fast is, get a motorcycle. Your wife might not be pleased with you, but outside of F1, you won't go any faster. All summer I've been hearing guys howling off in the hills along the coast, I've been super jealous. My wife is glad I sold my bike though, and it's probably for the best since I could never stay out of trouble on it.


I am picking up a 2000 miata for my wife tomorrow.  They are cheap reliable fairly good on gas and tons of fun.  She will mainly use it as a fair weather commuter but she might get back into racing after a bit.


----------



## Ashful

bholler said:


> ...but she might get back into racing after a bit.


Between bholler’s exrtreme 4-wheeling, and now this, I do believe Mr. and Mrs. Holler may qualify as the most interesting couple on hearth.com.


----------



## bholler

Ashful said:


> Between bholler’s exrtreme 4-wheeling, and now this, I do believe Mr. and Mrs. Holler may qualify as the most interesting couple on hearth.com.


I dont do any extreme 4 wheeling any more.  I now try to keep all vehicles upright.


----------



## SpaceBus

bholler said:


> I am picking up a 2000 miata for my wife tomorrow.  They are cheap reliable fairly good on gas and tons of fun.  She will mainly use it as a fair weather commuter but she might get back into racing after a bit.


If you have any questions, I know more about those cars than most people know about their spouse.


----------



## bholler

SpaceBus said:


> If you have any questions, I know more about those cars than most people know about their spouse.


It seems to be in really good shape just needs a new top.  Not a spec of rust on it.  And everything works even the ac.  The temp.didnt seem to go up at all with the ac on either which is good.


----------



## SpaceBus

bholler said:


> It seems to be in really good shape just needs a new top.  Not a spec of rust on it.  And everything works even the ac.  The temp.didnt seem to go up at all with the ac on either which is good.



How long do you plan on keeping the car? Canvas tops with glass windows are more expensive, but well worth the investment if this is a car that will be used regularly. Usually these cars have underwhelming AC performance, so good that you found one that can keep up. These cars usually don't overheat and the engine is fairly robust given the humble roots. The only thing that will kill this engine is revving it over 7,500 RPM and oil starvation (usually a money shift from fifth to second does this). 2000 is probably the best year of Miata, especially if she found one with a six speed. Keep an eye on the soft top drains (a trombone brush is excellent for this) and you should never have to deal with rust.


----------



## bholler

SpaceBus said:


> If you have any questions, I know more about those cars than most people know about their spouse.


I have worked on and driven a fair number of them just havnt owned one yet.  But thanks i wont hesitate to ask.  I am glad we found a nb they are my favorites other than the newest ones.


----------



## bholler

SpaceBus said:


> How long do you plan on keeping the car? Canvas tops with glass windows are more expensive, but well worth the investment if this is a car that will be used regularly. Usually these cars have underwhelming AC performance, so good that you found one that can keep up. These cars usually don't overheat and the engine is fairly robust given the humble roots. The only thing that will kill this engine is revving it over 7,500 RPM and oil starvation (usually a money shift from fifth to second does this). 2000 is probably the best year of Miata, especially if she found one with a six speed. Keep an eye on the soft top drains (a trombone brush is excellent for this) and you should never have to deal with rust.


I havnt driven it enough to know how well the ac works just that it puts out cold air.  A few i have worked on had over heating issues with the ac on.  But they also were modified so i dont know if it was due to that.  I am pretty sure the drans are clogged.  The trunk was wet but it was stored under roof untill he put it out for sale so no damage done.

And yes the special edition has a six speed the strut tower brace and limited slip diff.  And some other non performance stuff.


----------



## bholler

It does have a glass window but a vinyl top.  I will look at canvas though.  It is only $1800 with 115000 miles so plenty of room to fix the few issues.  The leather is worn but can easily be re dyed if it bothers her.  The doors cards are shot and there is a dent in the drivers side fender.  Otherwise i havnt seen any issues.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> I am picking up a 2000 miata for my wife tomorrow.  They are cheap reliable fairly good on gas and tons of fun.  She will mainly use it as a fair weather commuter but she might get back into racing after a bit.


Another member with a wife that likes performance cars ,what could go wrong, good luck BH i know how you feel. We may spot her in that miata on our way to McClure. My BIL sold his ,he is experiencing mid life "get rid of things "crisis.!


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Another member with a wife that likes performance cars ,what could go wrong, good luck BH i know how you feel. We may spot her in that miata on our way to McClure. My BIL sold his ,he is experiencing mid life "get rid of things "crisis.!


When i met her shecwas driving a 48 chevy pickup street rod that ran 12s as a daily driver lol.  Since then she has been spoiled with comfortable reliable cars.


----------



## SpaceBus

bholler said:


> I havnt driven it enough to know how well the ac works just that it puts out cold air.  A few i have worked on had over heating issues with the ac on.  But they also were modified so i dont know if it was due to that.  I am pretty sure the drans are clogged.  The trunk was wet but it was stored under roof untill he put it out for sale so no damage done.
> 
> And yes the special edition has a six speed the strut tower brace and limited slip diff.  And some other non performance stuff.



Nice, one of the best years and versions available. Where did it come from? I knew a kid in NC with a 2000 SE, but he was not kind to it. Those 99+ 1.8 BP engines had solid lifters with shims under the buckets. No hydraulic lifter noise, but more maintenance. The head flows slightly better than the early 1.8's as well. If a Miata is having overheating issues it usually comes down to the fans not turning on, especially if it is because the AC is on. Make an account on Miata.net if you haven't, loads of great info on there, like how to clean the drains, and a wealth of other really specific data.


----------



## bholler

SpaceBus said:


> Nice, one of the best years and versions available. Where did it come from? I knew a kid in NC with a 2000 SE, but he was not kind to it. Those 99+ 1.8 BP engines had solid lifters with shims under the buckets. No hydraulic lifter noise, but more maintenance. The head flows slightly better than the early 1.8's as well. If a Miata is having overheating issues it usually comes down to the fans not turning on, especially if it is because the AC is on. Make an account on Miata.net if you haven't, loads of great info on there, like how to clean the drains, and a wealth of other really specific data.


No idea where it is from.  For the price I didn't bother with a car fax or anything.


----------



## Ashful

bholler said:


> When i met her shecwas driving a 48 chevy pickup street rod that ran 12s as a daily driver lol.  Since then she has been spoiled with comfortable reliable cars.


I drove a car than ran 9's as a daily driver, in my 20's.  Then again, my commute was pretty darn short, back then.

My current daily driver runs high-11's on drag radials, or low-12's on street tires.

My 1/2 ton pickup (redux) is slower.


----------



## bholler

Ashful said:


> I drove a car than ran 9's as a daily driver, in my 20's.  Then again, my commute was pretty darn short, back then.
> 
> My current daily driver runs high-11's on drag radials, or low-12's on street tires.
> 
> My 1/2 ton pickup (redux) is slower.


Hers ran mid 12s on Street tires.  But they were 14" wide street tires.  She only had about $3500 in it though.  That is the benefit of having a father who builds street rods.  We were actually pretty near you when she had that.  We were going to textile at the time.  Or Philadelphia University after they changed the name.


----------



## Ashful

bholler said:


> Hers ran mid 12s on Street tires.  But they were 14" wide street tires.  She only had about $3500 in it though.  That is the benefit of having a father who builds street rods.  We were actually pretty near you when she had that.  We were going to textile at the time.  Or Philadelphia University after they changed the name.


Cool!  Maybe this will bring back some memories, the last of the old days in Philly, before the kids with obnoxious Japanese cars took over:


----------



## bholler

Ashful said:


> Cool!  Maybe this will bring back some memories, the last of the old days in Philly, before the kids with obnoxious Japanese cars took over:



Lol.  I drove a Japanese car part of that time.   An eclipse.  A firebird the other half.  When I was there it was a mix of imports and domestics.   That was the year before I went to college


----------



## Ashful

We've all committed sins in our past... I had a Japanese pickup truck in the late 1990's!

I cleansed myself with a 1970's Bronco.


----------



## bholler

Ashful said:


> We've all committed sins in our past... I had a Japanese pickup truck in the late 1990's!
> 
> I cleansed myself with a 1970's Bronco.


That eclipse was one of the best cars I have had.  I put over 200000 hard miles on it and other than regular maintenance it only needed a water pump a radiator and a power steering pump.  Granted when I got rid of it the turbo was shot and the clutch was slipping really bad but it still got me to work every day.

There are probably videos of both of us streetracing in Philly.


----------



## Ashful

Having kids makes you look back on stuff like this, and wonder how any of us are alive!  [emoji3]


----------



## festerw

bholler said:


> That eclipse was one of the best cars I have had.  I put over 200000 hard miles on it and other than regular maintenance it only needed a water pump a radiator and a power steering pump.  Granted when I got rid of it the turbo was shot and the clutch was slipping really bad but it still got me to work every day.
> 
> There are probably videos of both of us streetracing in Philly.



I had the Eagle version.  90 Talon TSi AWD, super fun car to drive, not so much to repair but it would do 100 in 3rd gear.


----------



## bholler

festerw said:


> I had the Eagle version.  90 Talon TSi AWD, super fun car to drive, not so much to repair but it would do 100 in 3rd gear.


I had a 95 gsx


----------



## johneh

1967 Pontiac Acadian Canso SD 327 4 speed first new car I bought 
17 years old saved every penny from every job I worked from 14 on 
My Mother thought I was nuts my Father loved it. Wish I still had it.
I was working for Jack May Pontiac my first year as an apprentice
Mechanic.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> Having kids makes you look back on stuff like this, and wonder how any of us are alive!  [emoji3]


Mostly the driving while inebriated


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Mostly the driving while inebriated


I never did that.  At least not on a road.  But I did used to drive like a complete idiot both on road and off.  I can't even begin to count the number of times I have rolled a vehicle off road.   Some of them were even on purpose lol.


----------



## bholler

And we did get the 2000 Miata.  So far it runs like a champ.


----------



## Ashful

bholler said:


> I never did that.  At least not on a road.  But I did used to drive like a complete idiot both on road and off.  I can't even begin to count the number of times I have rolled a vehicle off road.   Some of them were even on purpose lol.



Ditto.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> I never did that.  At least not on a road.  But I did used to drive like a complete idiot both on road and off.  I can't even begin to count the number of times I have rolled a vehicle off road.   Some of them were even on purpose lol.


Cant count the number of times i drove after too many, not that it was very wise but never got in any accidents or got any DUIs . The more tuned up i was the slower i drove, so if you were behind me and i was going 10 Mph,good chance i was in limp mode. Mostly on local in town roads. That was back when it wasnt such a major driving violation. Havnt done it since the 80s.


----------



## begreen

Not going to brag about past driving experiences, unsure about the statute of limitations, but I can say that none were in a half-ton pickup.

PS: The pickup is now sold.


----------

