This is Vulpine's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Vulpine's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Vulpine
Recent Activity
"In some places just getting a customer to walk in the door is a big expense for car dealers. They spend a TON on TV ads and coupons and all that crap. For them a free cup of good coffee or a nice place to relax while you wait on your oil change is a small cost compared to newspaper ads. "Same goes for simple maintenance like oil changes and service." ---- Posted by: papajim In this case, the two dealerships are only about 300 yards apart. Just different owners.
"nothing wrong with those Bridgestone tires for sure. I would keep the OEM tires on the truck until some tire store is having a great deal on the Bridgestones in hopes of saving a few bucks." --- That's what I did on my '08 Wrangler Unlimited and I seemed to get better performance both on and off the road with them. As such, unless something notably better comes along between now and then, the Revo/2 will be my replacements in all five locations. "The reason I harped on the fluids is because A it's cheap insurance B you mentioned that you'll be doing some towing" "If your truck came with a locker, it's important to follow their break in routine." --- No argument there. I have to take delivery first, however, so I can learn their service schedule. Funny thing with the dealership though... They're giving me two free oil changes and little more with the deal, vs the Jeep dealership giving oil changes (multiple) and a free car wash on demand while under warranty. --- Meanwhile, it looks like we'll be placing the order for a '19 model since we haven't heard back from the dealer exchange for the green one I wanted. Since green isn't a color option for the '19s, I'll be going Pacific Blue. Otherwise, the trucks will be identical.
"Check and see if GM equipped your particular model with a locking rear end. My truck came with an Eaton M-Locker, but the trucks they're building now probably have some kind of E-locker." ---- Posted by: papajim ••• Specifically ordered that, so not a concern. As for break-in, I disagree with FRGD. What I do, however, is go through that first thousand miles pretty quickly... like within one week. For me, the best break-in is a long run to help everything settle into place. I've done this with every one of my cars bought new since my '96 Camaro and achieved good reliability. Besides, I enjoy driving. I can agree with fluid changes though I admit I've never changed either transmission or differential fluids before schedule and never had any trouble with them in that way. I do have a shop I go to for most of that sort of work (outside of dealership) since the HOA where I live doesn't permit driveway mechanics. Depending on the factory tires, I may even change those out right away as I really like the Bridgestone A/T Dueler Rev/2 for both on- and off-road performance. I won't be riding the trails with this truck but I spend enough time in dirt, mud and snow that a good all-around tire is recommended. Will have a lot to learn about the truck's capabilities so may be pushing some of its handling and performance limits early on (that doesn't mean driving it like I stole it, though.)
Oh, and I'm NOT paying the $40K. With discounts, incentives and a "Conquest bonus", I'm down to about $36K. Not great, but it keeps me under that $40K.
"Dropping $40k plus for a six cylinder compact truck makes my head spin. It was not that many years ago when a really nice compact pickup with an auto and nice seats could be had around $30k. Today $30k is the entry-level half ton truck, but at least you're getting half ton capability at that point. The compact trucks need to deliver a lot more (diesel?) if these companies want to get the big bucks." ---- Posted by: papajim --- I agree; I don't like paying that much for a truck... ANY truck. But car prices across the board have risen to ridiculous levels. Finding something less than $20K that's not a stripper is almost impossible. $30K is the new $20K, if you know what I mean. And it's obvious that people are willing to pay that much and more to get what they want.
"Be sure to tell us how it goes. Was there one key feature, or was there anything from the test drive, that really made the sale?" ---- Posted by: papajim If I had to claim one key feature, I'd have to say it was front leg room behind the wheel. While I may be average sized, my wife is very long-legged, standing at 6' tall. Over the years, we've gone to auto shows and compared all the smaller and even larger trucks. You'd be surprised at how many of even the full-sized models are too cramped for her behind the wheel. Yet, weirdly, her tiny Fiat 500 and later her Jeep Renegade has all the room she wants and the wheel never touches her thighs. So legroom behind the wheel was critical in the event she has to drive it because her car is in the shop (which hasn't happened yet.) There were other factors, though. You know I don't like big trucks and one of their worst factors is their width, especially on narrow country roads where a meet between two full-sized pickups have them BOTH putting their off-side wheels in the grass. At about 10" narrower, the mid-sizer reduces that issue and can squeeze through places a full sized truck can't go. After that, it was the doors of the extended cab. Fortunately most of the mid-sizers kept the clamshell style, or 'suicide doors' for the back, which makes accessing the floor of the back seat much easier when loading/unloading and doesn't have you walking around the front-hinged back door that GM and RAM have put onto their full-sized models. Much as I like the look of the Ram full-sized truck, I'd never buy their extended cab because of that stupid decision. They could have kept the B-pillar and still had 'suicide doors' on it. Finally, it came down to engine choice. I realize the Ford's Ecoboost engine offers as much (or more) horsepower and torque as the Chevy V6 but I'm concerned about the engine's longevity under load. While for everyday driving the Ecoboost would have served well, the wife and I are considering some form of travel trailer and I don't trust the tiny turbo-four to handle long runs with that kind of drag on the tail. Most of you here argue loudly about how the turbos have the power but lose the economy under load and I've watched for myself how even the turbo diesels will blow on a grade, often starting an engine fire in the process. Oh, turbos are good, but their reliability is still questionable under heavy loads. The Colorado's towing limit is 7000# which, while a turbo-four could certainly get it moving more quickly, could possible overheat on a long grade under that load. I prefer reliability over power. And that touches a personal issue; I've never had long-term luck with any Ford I've owned. Oh, my little Ranger performed alright for me but to need the hydraulics rebuilt on the clutch in less than 20K miles? Even my '90 F-150 needed an exhaust manifold due to a very obvious crack (turned out to be broken) before I could register it when I bought it at barely 100K miles on it. My GMs and Chrysler/FCA products never did that to me. I know people love their Fords but how many original owners really keep them more than 6 years or so? My old Camaro managed over 160,000 miles before it died and my little Saturn Vue was over 140,000. I keep my cars. I want them reliable.
Not going to argue, PJ. Looking forward to delivery either via dealer exchange (there's one almost exactly as ordered barring a few accessories about 100 miles away) or direct order from Chevy.
@Papajim: I went for the 8-speed since the 9-speed in my wife's Jeep is doing so well. I expect it will need some training in my driving style but anticipate no issues. The 3.6 is a descendant of the 3.8 I had in my '96 Camaro so again don't anticipate any significant problems outside of difficulty in replacing spark plugs when that time comes due. I also expect reasonable economy, probably better than EPA rating since I don't drive 80mph all the time. At 300 horses, it's 100 horses more than the Camaro and should be enough to comfortably tow any camper the wife and I elect to purchase. Meanwhile, it will actually be more truck than I really wanted in size but the need for towing ultimately made the Colorado the best available choice.
"But yes 2.7 will out run 6.2 in real life. And yes GM has now started down the turbo path." --- Posted by: frankinFL Yeah. Too bad it's a 2.3 not a 2.7, hmmm?
"ANNNND for 4 to 6K more, (roughly 10 to 15%) maybe less depending on incentives," --- True. "I can put you into a full size truck that has A LOT more HP," --- or not... "interior room," --- wasted space... "cargo capacity," --- almost never used... "and actually does tow all at nearly the same MPG." --- until loaded. Sure, the ecoboost does generate a lot of power in that tiny engine but compared to a N/A V6 at the SAME horsepower ratings, the turbo sucks more gas under equal loads. It's only when empty that the turbo saves more gas than the N/A. This has been proven right on this site multiple times.
Ordered a Colorado. I like the looks of the Ford but I just don't trust that engine to hold up if I do any towing over long distances (like with a camper from PA to FL and back on a bi-annual basis.) The Colorado's V6 with the same HP and torque simply wouldn't be working as hard. Yes, I did use the site to get pricing and the pricing is very similar between the Ranger and the Colorado. My issue is with trust and I simply cannot trust Ford to have the longevity I require. No Ford I have owned has lasted over 90,000 miles without major breakdowns.
I am very leery about going Ford for a mid-sized truck. There is much about the mid-sizer that appeals, but the grill reminds me too much of a small-mouth bass gasping for water. I'm also not all that certain about the sole engine choice being the 2.7 EcoBoost when I have the possibility of needing to tow a 3000# - 7000# travel trailer coming. Sure, the engine may be capable, but my prior experiences with Fords and the fact that in farming country I see far too many Ford pickups sitting on the field corner with a For Sale sign in the window suggests the Fords are not as reliable as they would like you to believe. My own 4-cylinder Ford loses about 20-30% of its horsepower when the temperature rises above 90°F, even with the AC compressor switched off though it runs surprisingly well for 112 horses at lower temperatures (finally got it broken in to where it runs like new otherwise. Previous owner never exceeded 45mph other than driving it home from the dealership 21 years ago.) At 27,000 miles on the odometer (certifiable) it will be a bargain for anyone who wants a clean, low-mileage '97 Ranger. Even have the original factory radio packed away in a box for anyone wishing to restore it. But no, I've never had any real luck with Fords since I owned my first one, though I admit there have been several over the years that appealed to my aesthetic sense, like the new Ranger (minus that mouth-breather grill.) Oh, and just so y'all know, I WILL be ordering a new truck within a month, maybe sooner.
"Which comment was from the Faux Fox?" ---- Posted by: papajim Any comment before that "No" in this thread. I haven't looked at other articles on PUTC for over a week.
Note: The "No" comment above is from the real Vulpine.
"Looks to me that the judges thought the GM was pretty crappy but it won because of tenths of a second here and there? Ford won this hands down." --- No, it wouldn't. Had it not been for those performance numbers, RAM would have won as the most stable and confident truck of the bunch. RAM only lost because it had 80 fewer horses than the other two.
"We're certainly not arguing this is the perfect or definitive truck test, but it is the best we could do with the trucks we had. And we hope there's something in our stories you find informative or thought provoking, even if you already know which one-ton is best." ---- Posted by: Mark Williams With the i-6 diesel being their strongest engine in the class you requested, it leads me to wonder how a V8 or even an i-8 would do. Based on your testing, another 80-100 horses might have beaten both of the others across the board.
"Maybe I missed it but I'm wondering how many miles these trucks had on the odometer. "An observation about the Ram having a "rough 1-2 shift" on the automatic trans reminds me that a really new truck with less that 1000 miles on the clock may not have adapted to real world conditions yet. Thoughts? "I had a tuneup on my truck in early June and I can tell that the computer still seems to be adapting, unless it's my imagination. Do other drivers have similar experiences?" ---- Posted by: papajim A valid observation, papajim. I've noticed that many modern transmissions now attempt to learn the operator's driving habits while originally being set for 'most economical' shifting out of the factory. As such, hard acceleration and other personal habits take a while to learn just when to trigger up- and down-shifts. Weather conditions, too, can have an effect, especially now that most vehicles have a mass-air sensor that inhibits performance under exceedingly hot temperatures (over 90°F). My own FCA product performed similarly when first purchased and took a few months (and some manual shifting to 'teach' shift points for grades) before the shifts became almost unnoticeable under most conditions.
"I am shocked by the bed length comparison. Chevy 78.6, Ford 98.1 and Ram 98.3. Why would anyone get a one ton truck with a 78 inch bed?" ---- Posted by: Lefty54 Why not? Not everybody needs an eight-foot bed, especially if the truck is used more for towing than hauling (and these trucks were especially tested for towing.) And remember, the brands were given the choice of what truck to send, outside of the performance specs demanded for the test. Chevy chose to send the shorter truck and it appears to have helped them win the competition.
Sounds to me like with all things considered, the Ram is the better pick, even if it is slower and thirstier. When you're towing, control and data are important and while the Chevy offered a modicum of control (notably better than Ford) the Ram offered the best control. Meanwhile, the Ram offered enough data, even if not as much as the Ford. Personal pick? Absolutely NOT the Ford... too many things wrong with it. If it weren't for the things it did right, I think it would have lost to the Ram. The Chevy may have won but the Ram still reads as the better choice for a working truck, even with the noise levels. And remember, the Ram came 80 horses shy of the other two, which is one reason why they had worse acceleration numbers, along with the oddball gearing which may have stressed the six more than it would have a V8 Cummins.
It's not a truck any more; it's a car with an open back porch. There's an old saw, you know. It goes, "A fool and his money is soon parted." Anyone buying this isn't buying it for work, he's buying it for status and status alone. I feel sorry for anyone paying anywhere near MSRP for it. Even at half of MSRP, it's over-priced.
@oxi: "This only proves once again justice in this nation is not about our laws, but who has the $$$ and that is reckless and dangerous." --- The fallacy in your argument is that GM did NOT have the $$$, so by your reasoning the government should have let them die twice over. Oh, I agree GM made many mistakes. They dropped popular models and started importing from their European and Asian subsidiaries rather than designing and building at home. They later dropped entire, popular, brands in their effort to reduce costs, rather than paying attention to what their customers really wanted and would have been willing to pay for. No, GM deserved to die but if it had, hundreds of thousands more people would have been unemployed and unlikely to find jobs in a region that was already job-starved. I don't consider GM any better today but at least now they're listening... somewhat.
" but the reality is, the Ranger dominated in prior to 2004, which was about the time Ford decided to ax the Ranger." --- And I expect the new Ranger will have the exact effect they were fearing.
There's only one American-branded truck that looks halfway decent--and its interior looks as cheap as an Atari 2400. Of the Japanese brands, one looks decent, one looks okay and one is trying too hard to look American. I'd have to put a good customizing shop on that Toyota before I'd willingly own one. At least with the Nissan a bit of work from a skinning shop would cover up its flaws. Upcoming mid-sizers? Overpriced. The Ford looks okay but I simply don't trust the brand (after 40 years of experience driving Fords and owning three of them) and the Jeep is overkill at the price. I'm in the market for a new truck and honestly I STILL don't know what I'll eventually choose. The choices are simply too limited.
Too expensive by far. I like the idea of independent rear suspension but I'm not going to pay that much for ANY pickup truck, much less a supposed mid-sized truck that's only marginally smaller than a full-size.
"I don't see how this is a safety issue. I agree with the first comment. If you need a camera, you shouldn't be driving." ---- Posted by: dapetik You'd be singing another tune if that were your toddler on his tricycle behind your truck just as you start backing out of the driveway. They've always been dangerous to back because you simply can't see what's below bed-lip level. With a camera, you'd know if some child or other loved family member were standing, sitting or lying there.