This is Vulpine's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Vulpine's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Vulpine
Recent Activity
That's what I get for not having editing capabilities in the PUTC forums.... I'd already put that in on the original statement and don't have an obvious way to delete the correction. Ah well. That's what I get for commenting on so many different forums. Some are easy to edit, others are impossible to edit.
Small correction to the above statement: "I've also made one specific change--the engine air filter--to a high-flow version..." No, I haven't made that change on this truck yet, I meant to add, "... in previous vehicles..."
@papajim: I intend to stick to the maintenance schedule as long as it's under warranty (I paid to put bumper-to-bumper out to 6 years, in line with the drivetrain warranty.) Said schedule suggests those differential and transfer case oil checks every 7500 miles but doesn't recommend changing the oil (transmission fluid, actually) until 50,000 miles under extreme use conditions. As for the mileage, I do agree that manual checks are more accurate than the running calculated checks by the computer but they're usually not all that far off and typically on the low side, at least so far for me. I've also made one specific change--the engine air filter--to a high-flow version that has netted me a few more horses (2%-3% improvement) and a range improvement of 10% or more with previous vehicles. So I'm going to go about 5000-10000 miles to get a baseline figure and then see what a filter upgrade does for me.
@Jeff s (whichever one you are): I'm getting used to the truck but it still feels too large. There are other factors too which almost make me wish I hadn't chosen the side steps to climb in, though it's a bit of a stretch for me to get in without them. When it comes to features, like I said, there's automation that I have become used to in the lower-priced Jeep that are lacking in the Colorado, for all that I had come to expect them. However, I am exceedingly pleased with the infotainment stack after taking about 20 minutes to familiarize myself with it and make certain settings. Add to this the Apple Car Play and I certainly don't need the NAV system they tried to foist on me. My one displeasure is the fact that the plinth for the jump seats in back takes up so much floor. If I fold the seats up, that usually means I want to put something on the floor and fully half of the available floor space is occupied. I'm tempted to remove the seats (or have them removed) but do have a slight, occasional, need to carry two other (small) people. I want to study the layout a little more and see just how easy it would be to remove the seats and plinth and re-install them at need. That said, accessibility to that area is easy--much easier than going Crew Cab. The space is exactly what I was looking for, albeit more cluttered than I like for the moment. Maybe I could come up with a more functional system similar to Honda's or Toyota's. The 3.6L V6 is strong. For all that I've had so many different vehicles in my life, this engine puts out more horsepower and torque than any previous one for me. Most of my cars and trucks have been at or below 200 horses (Ok, 205 in my Camaro) and with eight speeds this beastie wants to leap off the line, as it were. A long time ago, I made the statement that I wanted a vehicle that could at least get out of its own way; this truck does it despite weighing almost 1000# more than that Camaro with an engine 0.2L smaller than the Camaro's. I actually find it hard to avoid jack-rabbit starts after any stop. So far, I've only had it on the freeway two times, only once for a distance of about 10 miles. Clearly, it gets up to speed quickly and rides smoothly. That 10-mile stretch also showed me my best average fuel economy as over a total 50-mile period before resetting the calculator it showed a combined fuel economy notably over 20mpg while my in-town driving is running around 18.5-19.5mpg. No, I haven't yet tried to actually measure highway and town economy separately as I'm still getting used to how the truck drives. I do know that at a steady speed, even at 45-50mph, the instantaneous display often goes over the 30mpg mark, though any acceleration at all brings it back down to near 20. I currently have 204 miles on her.
@Jeff s: "I agree with Vulpine for the most part that papajim has tried his best to destroy Ford because he had a tranny issue 10 years ago on a used Ranger." --- Your statement, starting with this sentence, simply doesn't make sense. This is how people know you are not the "REAL Jeff S". Not one part of what you said had any connection to what I stated to papajim and Fullsize.
I drove an '18 Silverado last Friday while I had my new Colorado in to have some accessories installed (a loaner with about 700 miles on it.) Really guys, how can you possibly be comfortable driving something that big? It felt huge compared to my Colorado which itself feels gigantic next to my old Ranger. That said, I really can't imagine one of these with a tiny four-cylinder engine in it, even if that engine is turbocharged. And when you consider its towing/hauling capabilities is hardly any more than my V6 offers in my (slightly) smaller Colorado; why would anyone want this? If you ask me, this is a huge mistake on GM's part... no better than many of their other ill-conceived concepts. This engine in the Colorado could easily replace the V6 currently carried and probably offer improved economy at the same time. It wouldn't bother me nearly as much as it does in the huge Silverado.
"The new GM engine intends to eventually replace the big V6 in pickups with a sophisticated and powerful sub-three liter engine. For anybody hoping for FE there's your cupcake! It has over 300 HP and over 300 torque, so it should be suitable for daily use, and it's a turbo so it should be happy pulling a load as well. Because it's not a six, it should be very smooth. Because it has a 180 degree crank the exhaust should sound very racy, unlike the competition's truck that needs an audio speaker to cover the sound of the sewing machine under its hood. Coupled to a modern automatic trans it should be a solid daily driver, with some HD pretensions What's not to like?" ---- Posted by: papajim Everything. That full-sized truck can't do that much more than my normally-aspirated V6 Colorado and gets worse fuel mileage! Only 200 pounds more towing capacity. The only advantage that big truck has is the overall area/volume of the bed and even that's not much larger than the Colorado's, either.
"Highly disappointing, hmm would I rather have a proven Ford ecoboost 2.7 V6 with considerably more power and 3 mpg better highway fuel economy, or would I rather have this new 4 cylinder?" ---- Posted by: Texas1836 Given those choices, I'd take the Ford. But I'd rather see a turbo version of GM's 3.6L V6 instead.
Note: the above was meant for PapaJim AND Fullsize Only.
"Seriously. If Ford is hitting home runs why is their stock at a five year low? It's an important question that you chose not to answer. Posted by: papajim | Oct 9, 2018 11:45:28 AM" > If you bother to pay a little bit of attention to history, GM bankrupted itself by making a lot of very poor decisions over the course of about 20 years and especially so between 1998-2008. Some of it had to do with their designs, some with attempts to cut costs and some by shutting down brands who had very loyal owners. They also made horrendous mistakes with two very specific vehicles, one a sport pickup originally aimed for the Camaro crowd but priced to the Corvette crown and the other by wasting incredible amounts of R&D money on the Chevy Volt, which after all was said and done used very little of that research in the final product. (For instance, they spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to develop a 3-cylinder engine and ended up installing an off-the-shelf 4-cylinder.) Oh, GM made many expensive mistakes that drove them to where they were in '08. But Ford didn't do much better; they only started making their mistakes 10 years later and bet their Badge on a private loan vs the others taking the government loan. Now Ford is battling its own later 10 years of mistakes, starting with the idea of making their pickup trucks--- their pure profit machine--- out of expensive aluminum that's eating much of that gross profit the F-series used to make. Dropping the Ranger was another while dropping Mercury and trying to revive Lincoln added to the bill. Mistake on mistake on mistake. Sure, the F-150 is almost as popular as it used to be but the profits just aren't there any more. Not like they used to be, anyway. Going all aluminum on the body was NOT the best way to reduce weight, even though it did help drop about 15% of the older steel-bodied weight. Is either one really any better than the other? Is Ram any better? Not really. They all serve the same purpose and they are all grossly overpriced. Ford's idea to build to the top 20% and sell to the rest simply isn't working. A lot of the people BUYING those top 20% rigs simply can't afford them while Ford let their automotive line pretty much die on the vine. GM and FCA both are losing their automotive lines too...trying to milk the CUV market for all its worth before it, too, dies. Problem is, at today's pricing, any notable increases in gasoline prices (and by extension, diesel) is pretty much going to destroy the big truck market... the mid-sizers will survive a little longer but the demand is going to reverse... with people begging for smaller vehicles that can pull the cost of driving back down to more comfortable levels. Keep in mind, even my new Colorado will cost in excess of $40 to fuel at today's prices; my wife's Jeep Renegade only costs $20 to refuel and goes almost as far on a tank of gas.
Strangely, from what I've seen so far, the RAM tends to come with the most complete packages. My Z71 lacks a lot of features that came in my wife's Renegade... like automatic wipers, adjustable light sensitivity for the automatic headlamps and numerous other things that are just plain convenient. I'm having to get used to a bit of a downgrade, considering the Z71 is three years newer than the Renegade.
"It looks ugly and it doesn’t go with bar grill, now if we’re talking about ford or ram I prefer the Ford one over this two. I always thought that FIAT TRUCK AND GARBAGE MOTORS TRUCK ARE FOLLOWERS. Ford always comes out with something new with out following anybody why? Because is the best and the best never rest." ---- Posted by: Chingon Ford followed Ram into the Fake Big Rig look. So you can't say Ford is all THAT much of a leader. They also seem the last one to come away from that Fake Big Rig look, too. Me? I'm quite happy with the Z71 I bought. I'll tell you now that if it had a grill covered with chrome, I would have had every bit covered either in black or made the bar body-colored (Pacific Blue) or both.
"Tundra 5 lug wheels Tacoma 6 lug wheels" ---- Posted by: water --- So what? These are both minimum-spec models. It should make little to no difference.
"Ford had opportunity to make a big splash, but came up with a car based truck. I mean they couldn't sell Taurus'...abandoning the car market. And then they show up with this thing. Come on Ford. Big disappointment!" ---- Posted by: TNTGMC --- Sorry, I do not agree with that kind of thinking. They created a truck--body on frame--that they believe mid-size truck owners will want. I personally expect the Ranger to sell in numbers competitive with the Tacoma, if not better. I'm disappointed by their choice of drivetrains, NOT their choice of body styles.
For what it's worth, I delayed making a decision on a truck until more information on the Ranger had come out; after all, I was driving an older Ranger at the time. No, I still don't like Ford but I was willing to buy one IF it could satisfy my wants and needs. Having just one engine choice then tying it to the towing specs they did pretty much destroyed Ford's suitability for me.
"@ vulpine GM has 2 wonderful V8 engines that are proven machines. They are reliable, durable, And fuel efficient! Especially the most powerful V8 produced in a half ton! People absolutely love the 6.2L!! And in all of that GM doesn't have to brag about class leading nonsense. They let their trucks do the talking!" ---- Posted by: TNTGMC ---- Am aware and driving a Silverado with one today... A loaner while accessories are being installed on my Colorado. Certainly a lot of power in that V8 but for my needs, absolute overkill! For that matter, the Silverado itself 'feels' huge even compared to the Colorado, and it feels large indeed compared to my old Ranger. I almost can't believe anyone would want to drive something that big, voluntarily.
"@ vulpine Have you heard Ford has a 2.7 Ecoboost in full size trucks and people love it?" ---- Posted by: just the truth --- That doesn't mean I have to like it. I simply don't trust it.
Honestly, that Tundra is one of the best-looking full-sized trucks out there... No fake Big Rig look to it. If I were a full-size proponent, I'd probably be willing to take the Tundra. Even the Tacoma looks better, but now it looks too much like the Ford Ranger.
@papajim: "I think the 2.3 is going to be a great package with the 10 speed in the Ranger. Like you, I doubt the towing numbers in that report. There's an effort underway at the Big 3 to sell the idea that 90 percent of a buyer's needs are well met by the midsize trucks. Their goal is to keep raising the bar in midsize along with the ATP." ---- Posted by: papajim Granting that the new ecoBoost 2.3L is not the same engine as my '97 Ranger's, I still have to question the durability of such a small engine having to power effectively 3x the load of a normally-aspirated version. When I've driven an N/A 2.3 for several years and have seen how that engine responded, especially in hot weather, then having a similar engine with 3x the output is simply asking for trouble to pull nearly 3x the load for any length of time. Oh, I'm not arguing that it has the power. Heck, at higher altitudes it's going to keep most of that 300 horses where an N/A V6 will lose about 30% of its power. But that little four doesn't have the mass to absorb the kind of heat generated under load and unless that thing has a HUGE radiator it's not going to have enough cooling capacity to keep up with that load--even if you include a transmission cooler (or maybe especially.) Am I an automotive engineer? No. I acknowledge that. However, I have been driving now for nearly 50 years in many types of vehicles and yes, even towing with them. Moreover, I've watched what's been happening to turbo-boosted engines for nearly 40 of those years, starting with an early Fox-body Mustang purchased by a friend AND working with my father-in-Law in his retail garage in central Pennsylvania. Believe me, I've seen turbos blow in nearly every type of ICE engine and sometimes they're quite spectacular--assuming the engine itself holds together. I also see the long oil stripes laid down by street racers when they blow their engines on nearby streets and highways. You can always see when the engine blew and how far the car got afterwards for months after the fact. I don't have to be an engineer to know what happened. Here are a couple turbocharger failures for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOdJ2gd4hOQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QC5sUPFAIw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DJk8Cbpf5E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UTLqP7bop0
"Ford Ranger Tow and Haul numbers are class-leading. Not surprised." ---- Posted by: redbloodedxy No, they're not. Class tying, maybe, but not Class Leading.
Looking at the specs on the Ranger, I absolutely would NOT trust that truck at that towing load. The ecoBoost may offer the power but at that load limit, I seriously doubt the engine's longevity while towing.
@papajim: You're forgetting that RAM is investing into the mid-sized space... likely sharing the basic underpinnings with the Jeep version. It's just not scheduled for release until '20 or '21. Meanwhile, Ford is hinting at a true compact for '22.
"You can bet that when die-hards like my friend Vulpine have splurged on a new Colorado it means that the rest of the market has no problems with a five-thousand-pound "compact" truck loaded with comfort & convenience options." Not so sure I like my username being taken in vain like this but I have to state that at least for MY needs, the Colorado was the better choice. Your experiences may vary. Yes, my wife had some input on the choice but the truck is still mine while she has her Jeep. The room under the steering wheel was a major factor for her and the most popular mid-sizer--the Tacoma--doesn't have enough. The Colorado also has a stronger engine with more gears in the transmission, allowing for up to 1000# more towing capacity (depending on engine.) I've always stated that people should buy based on what they need over any personal desires; the Tacoma is in so many ways the better choice. But it wasn't the BEST choice because of a change in needs on my part. It also meant that I could no longer justify trying for a true compact truck because the towing needs exceeded what a compact would be able to tow by comparison. Could I have saved money by going with a Silverado, F-150 or Ram? Maybe. But I wouldn't have been happy with their extended cab configuration in the case of GM or RAM and honestly, after nearly 80 consecutive years of driving between my parents and myself, Fords just never proved their longevity to me; they tend to be replaced far more quickly than GM or Chrysler/Ram (FCA) products. I buy for the long term, not the short. I expect no less than eight years of service out of it and will be trying for twelve or more. I don't trade until I simply can't trust it any more OR my needs become so seriously different that a different vehicle is the more logical choice. So yes, I probably paid more than I might have for a Silverado Z71 equivalent but this smaller truck is the better bargain as far as I'm concerned.
"I have a question. Why does GM get so completely clobbered by Ford in full size trucks?" ---- Posted by: GM Blows Chunks Well, it's certainly not because they look any better or perform any better or are more reliable or more durable. I can't think of a single reason Ford should do so well compared to GM. Maybe that's because there isn't one outside of personal prejudice.
@rbo: "Toyota Tacoma is by far killing the wimpy Colorado!" --- Wimpy? I chose the Colorado because of two things: Stronger drivetrain for better towing/hauling and more legroom under the steering wheel. I also happen to like the Colorado's look better. I'm thinking Ford and Toyota are going to get into a bit of a fight, considering the Tacoma and Ranger look so much alike with their most recent/coming versions.