Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/16/2001 9:10:59 PM EDT
Have been looking at new pickups for a while, and can't seem to choose between half and 3/4 ton versions. I plan on carrying a relatively light-weight truck camper occasionally, and like the beefier driveline of a 3/4 ton model. However, the half tons are the only ones that are routinely advertised at well below sticker price, and most of the 3/4 tons only come with oversized engines (i.e., 6 liters for the GM models — a far cry from the old days when you could even order one with a 6 cylinder engine). Fuel economy is a big consideration for me - Once you get below 14 MPG or so in the city, the gas bills really start to add up! Anyone have any recommendations?
Link Posted: 10/16/2001 9:12:57 PM EDT
Go with a half ton 4x4, they have that beefy look you and I both like...[:D]
Link Posted: 10/17/2001 8:00:51 AM EDT
Obviously, since gas mileage is a consideration, the Dodge 2500 V10 is out the question. I would go with the new Dodge (2002) 1500 (1/2 ton) and their new v6 Magnum motor. Dodges stats show it as getting real good mileage.
Link Posted: 10/17/2001 8:03:48 AM EDT
If you do much driving on dirt roads, you may want to get the 1/2 ton. My 3/4 ton Ford 1980 would really jar me around.
Link Posted: 10/17/2001 8:08:29 AM EDT
Yep, I like the way they look too, but I don't want the extra expense, weight or tire alignment headaches of 4WD. I can count on one hand the number of times my current mini-truck ever been anywhere that might require 4WD. Also, I tend to own a vehicle till the wheels fall off, so there's no resale advantage in 4WD. 3/4 tons tend to be a tad heavier, so there's a slight fuel economy penalty. Also, the EPA doesn't rate the fuel economy of most 3/4 tons, so you really can't compare various brands and engine combinations. I've heard that the 6L GM is a real fuel guzzler, while the 5.3(?) and 4.6(?) are exceptionally fuel-efficient. Both of the Ford OHCs are also supposed to be very efficient, with the new small Dodge OHC and old 360 being considerably less so. On the other hand, the beefier drivetrain on a 3/4 ton probably more than makes up for any small fuel economy penalty in longer life expectancy. Also, I think you can still get a 3/4 ton without ABS, which is an advantage as far as I'm concerned. Finally, there's ride quality. I haven't driven any of the newest 3/4 tons, but the older models didn't handle or ride nearly as nice as the 1/2 tons. The new Dodge 1/2 ton is supposed to handle really nice — better than the Tundra.
Link Posted: 10/17/2001 8:09:19 AM EDT
3/4 ton with a Diesel is the way to go. Much heavier duty components.Bigger Differential.Bigger brakes.Heavier Full floater axles.Better gear availability Forget the above if it is more of a commuter cpermd
Link Posted: 10/17/2001 8:10:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SS109: If you do much driving on dirt roads, you may want to get the 1/2 ton. My 3/4 ton Ford 1980 would really jar me around.
View Quote
That's right. The things actually ride better with a heavy weight in the back! If fuel economy is a concern, forget the Ford V10 also. My dad's 2000 F250 4wd hasn't seen a gas station it doesn't like.
Link Posted: 10/17/2001 8:15:19 AM EDT
Sometimes a bigger engine will get better mileage than a smaller one. My company truck has 4.6.liter with 5 speed trans and only gets about 12 mpg. My personal truck has the 5.4 with auto and gets 16-17. Both are usually fairly lightly loaded. Plus the smaller engine is badly underpowered. I think all the manufacturers make what they call a heavy 1/2 that be what you're looking for.
Link Posted: 10/17/2001 8:16:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/17/2001 9:49:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SS109: If you do much driving on dirt roads, you may want to get the 1/2 ton. My 3/4 ton Ford 1980 would really jar me around.
View Quote
Agreed. Unless you regularly need to haul a load, I'd opt for a 1/2 ton. I have an F250 light duty, which is the same as a F150 save for the suspension. The 150 rides significantly better.
Link Posted: 10/17/2001 12:28:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/17/2001 12:23:01 PM EDT by Skibane]
raco2000, sounds like you might be having some mechanical problems with that 4.6 — I've never heard of anyone getting that kind of mileage, unless you're seriously overloaded and flogging the hell out of it! I like the light duty 3/4 ton concept, except that, again, GM only offers the 6L as the base engine (IDIOTS!!!) on their LD model. Also, you don't get that beefier rear end and transmisson that the HD models have, so it may not last quite as long in similar service. The extra payload over the 1/2 ton models would sure be a plus, though. I'd love to have diesel, if they weren't so damned expensive up front! Paying 4 grand over a base gasoline V8 is pretty hard to swallow, even if you do make up the difference in cheaper fuel costs at around 150K or so. Detroit Diesel has been trying to sell a small diesel V6 to DaimlerChrysler that would be more to my liking. The Cummins is still a little big for my needs, and still costs way too much. Guess GM needs to offer a "mini-duramax", for about half the cost of their big one... I had even been looking at Isuzu, Mitsubishi and Hino COE class 3 and 4 trucks, with a possible eye towards putting a pickup-style bed (or even a utility bed-Nice!) on the back. They offer large 4 or smallish 6 cylinder diesels - not particuarly inexpensive, either, but built like tanks and very rebuildable. Alas, the ride and cab (dis)comfort would just about kill ya.
Link Posted: 10/17/2001 1:10:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/17/2001 1:06:41 PM EDT by Unrepentant_Sinner]
Unless you are dragging a heavy trailer down the road or constantly hauling alot of weight, 3/4 tons are a waste of money. On our ranch we have switched to almost all 1/2 tons, just because they are better overall. We have three 3/4 tons with bale beds on them that almost never get used unless we are feeding or haying, mainly because they are rough riding bastards that get bad fuel milage (not one 3/4ton of 1 ton gets over 13 mpg on the highway, 1/2's average maybe 15mpg). And four 1 tons duelly POS's, that are such a pain in the ass for the same reasons plus the headache of the duel wheels. Half-ton is the only way to go unless you are really using them hard...or just want to look "cool" because you have a big pickup.
Link Posted: 10/17/2001 2:57:17 PM EDT
I just have to ask - are you dead-set on a NEW pickup? Because, what you say you want sounds exactly like a Chevy/GMC C10/K1500 with 6.2L diesel. The 88-92 models have a nice ride, more comfortable cab, and are just as capable as the earlier models. Some of you will laugh, but I don't know anyone who's had a 6.2L and wasn't happy with it for light duty use with occasional heavy-duty use. My '85 K10 has a 4-speed manual, 3.08 gears, 31" tires, either 155K or 255K miles, and when empty gets 20-23mpg highway and about 18 city. I've hauled 7500lbs of Bobcat & trailer before and still got 14mpg. If I'm hauling 1500-2000lbs around I can't even feel the weight back there - there's a hill on the way to work that I have to take from a dead stop, and my average speed at a marker about 1/4 mile up the hill is 45mph without a load and 42-44mph with a 1500lb load. It may or may not be what you're looking for, but it sure can't hurt to check one out if you don't live in the Rust Belt.
Link Posted: 10/17/2001 3:06:12 PM EDT
I have a 95 Ext. Cab Z-71 Chev. 1/2 ton with a 350 that gets about 14 around town. It will get up to 20 on the road coming back from the Sierras to Los Angeles. The ride is good and in retrospect it was the truck for me. Never planned on towing so the light duty transmission was never an issue.
Link Posted: 10/17/2001 3:45:20 PM EDT
Here in the northern Rockies the 3/4 ton, diesel, stick, 4X4 is the way to go. You've got the range, power, hauling capacity & snow capability you need. If you don't get off the pavement very much or are a low-elevation flatlander you would likely be better served by a "city truck", aka gas,1/2 ton, and still look the part. Regarding 2WD, you don't see to many 2WDs in these parts. Those are best in the places that don't get much winter or cold temps like down south.
Link Posted: 10/17/2001 4:02:33 PM EDT
You only need 4 wheel drive when you don't have it. 2wheel drive PU's ride much nicer. But your not goin in the mountains without 4wd
Link Posted: 10/17/2001 6:49:49 PM EDT
NH2112, I have to say that a used 6.2 GM diesel was NOT one of the trucks I was considering! However, you do have a good point — They don't have a reputation for being the toughest engine in heavy service, but plenty of people still liked them otherwise. I have an uncle who has one in his Suburban, and loves the hell out of it, although he has had to replace the auto transmission (4R70?) a couple of times. And, as you mentioned GM was smart enough to offer that engine on some half-ton models, so you could even get one that rode decent! Furthermore, I'm guessing that they probably aren't the most expensive diesels on the used market. After I'm done posting here, I'm going to check AutoTrader to see what they typically sell for. Talyn, we don't get much snow or mountains here in South Texas. I've got another uncle who lives in Iowa that can't understand why he sees so many 4WD trucks down here! True, there are a few ranchers that really need them, but a lot of folks here have them mostly as sort of a status symbol — plus the extra resale value.
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 9:20:04 PM EDT
Skibane, (a Rush reference, perhaps? I saw the name in some album liner notes before.) Another option would be a 6.5L diesel truck - 92 and 93 models used the older but more reliable mechanical injector pump, plus they were turbocharged. My favorite thing about GM is they were the only automaker to offer a 1/2 ton diesel option, and you could get it in every 1/2 ton platform. Plus, you could get the 1/2 tons with the excellent NVG4500 manual transmission, and I believe the 4L80E automatic was also available The 10-bolt GM axle wasn't the strongest one around, but if you're only going to haul occasionally it'll stand up just fine. My salvage-yard 10-bolt is still going strong after 68K miles or so, including probably 10K with at least 1/2 ton in the bed or a good-sized trailer behind. As far as maintenance goes, I'd look for something with all the maintenance records - a fleet truck would be perfect if it's not beat up. These engines do have their quirks, but what doesn't? The worst thing I've had to do on mine is change the fuel pump, but that might have seemed bad simply because it was November and cold and raining and I was doing it outside. Anyway, I love my 6.2L for what I use it for. I'd buy another one to use as a daily driver in a heartbeat. As an aside, a friend has an 84 C2500 that he just swapped a turbo Cummins 3.9L and TH400 out of a bread truck into - I'd love that for my grocery getter!
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 9:43:22 PM EDT
I have had several GM PUs over the years. 84 1 ton 9200 GVW SRW 6.2 - had 150,000 on it when I bought it, old Ky Power Utility body. Put that much more on it. Changed engine and OH the TB-400. Worthless 4wd. Got well financially on it so can't complain. (Sold it for 500 less than I paid 5 yrs before!!) Pulled my racecar OK too. 95 Ext cab, 8' 3/4 ton 2wd, 8600 GVW, bought new. 12mpg carrying constant 2000 LB load. Brakes were a little weak but no out of warranty repairs. 98, same as above. Better turning radius. Lots more power (Vortech). Same economy. Was a cheap trade up from the 95. 2001 3/4 HD 9000+ GVW Brakes on this one WORK! Better ABS too. Got f***** air bags that I had to disable. forced me into 4.11 rear. 12.5 mpg, 2200 LB load. On REAL gas, not gasohol, gets 13.75, mostly town. Better on trip. Cost me over the 98 due to DAMN airbags, HD, soft used market. None of the three new trucks have had an out of warranty repair. Very minor warranty repair. One rr grease seal, wiper blades, front pads, little else. I don't give a rats behind about milage. I want adequate power and good reliability. I HATE little engines! To me, 4wd is useless. But then I think 6' bed ext cab grocery getters are silly too - buy a car! Use these for work so can write off the mileage. Remeber a place I worked about 1980. Had Ford vans (YUCK). One was V8, one 6 cyl. Identical load. Traded drivers. V8 beat 6 cyl 4-5 MPG EVERY time. 6 wouldn't get out of its own way. Engine size, if adequate has little effect on milage. Driver, load, vehicle characteristics mean much more.
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 9:50:09 PM EDT
Get a half ton. No one has a need for a high capacity pickup truck. They are the vehicle of choice for terrorist who wish to haul large amounts of fertilizer and ram security gates.Join me in calling for a ban of these vehicles of mass destruction. Figured I'd say it before somebody else did.[:D]
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 10:07:55 PM EDT
Don't forget about tires. Half tons use two plies, 3/4 tons use considerably more expensive 4 ply tires.
Link Posted: 10/18/2001 10:26:01 PM EDT
Don't think we need to worry about 3/4 tons being banned as a terrorist threat — the enviro-whackos will be banning them long before then! MickeyMouse, I agree that reliability is MUCH more important than fuel economy. You can burn a hell of a lot of fuel before you equal the cost of an out-of-warranty engine or transmission repair. I do most minor repairs myself, but absolutely HATE to be without transportation while the vehicle is in the shop. Ranks right up there with going to the doctor for a prostrate check or the dentist for a root canal... I would also agree that engine size has little effect on fuel economy, but ONLY among the small-blocks. Once you move up to big-blocks, the fuel economy penalty can be pretty severe. There just doesn't seem to be any way of squeezing more than 12 city MPG out of a 7.4/8L GM V8 or Dodge/Ford V10. NH2112, you're the only person I've ever met that actually caught the Rush album liner reference — and it's a pretty obsure one at that! Have always had a soft spot for those Canook hosers. I'm assuming the "2112" part of your screen name is also Rush-related, but the "NH" part escapes me... The AutoTrader.com search for GM diesels didn't turn up much — Apparently, having the diesel engine isn't something that most people want to mention in the advertisement! Next stop is the local newspaper classifieds.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 6:03:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/19/2001 6:03:41 AM EDT by MickeyMouse]
slt223 Yes tires on 3/4 are somewhat more expensive because there is more to them. Not a huge difference but some. My heavily loaded 3/4 ton PU runs a set of tires about 60,000 miles. That figures out to around 3/4 of a cent per mile for $400 worth of tires. SO? GM diesel pickups are not cost effective. Much more expensive when new. Moderate fuel cost advantage is never enough to pay for higher first cost. 6.2 had problems. But then, so did 6.5 and even the new Japanese engine. It may be worst of all from my GM employee spy... Have always wondered what small percentage of sales they are? Agree GM big block engine inherently uses more fuel. Has to do with many factors such as heat rejection to coolant, higher exaust temp etc. Not needed for a grocery getter! If you will work it get a 3/4. If you won't get 1/2. In each there are two GVW ratings, lite and heavy. The lite 1/2 is a POS that can barely carry itself, fuel and two adults. The "heavy half" is well suited to all but moderate sized trailers or bed loads. It is interesting to note that all trucks are rated in GVW. Payload numbers are scarce. What they HATE to reveal is what the damn thing weighs empty!!!! Do a test drive and head for the scale. Very enlightening! GVW - Empty = payload. (Fuel @~6LB/gallon, passengers at 175 each etc.) Exceeding GVW leads to BIG problems. Pay more attention to it than the rubbery 1/2 vs 3/4 "ton" ratings! I just re-read your post. REALLY read it! Did did you say CAMPER?? Lite? How many pounds? Find out!! Those things can be REAL heavy if you mean one with beds and all, not just a "cap"!!!!!! They are terribly top heavy as well which really changes the suspension requirements. Why do you think they build "CAMPER SPECIALS"? It ain't just the weight bubba! Please clarify about "camper".
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 6:04:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/19/2001 6:23:59 PM EDT by NH2112]
Skibane, The NH stands for New Hampshire (where I live) and the 2112 is obviously Rush's landmark concept album. I picked that for my username because it was easy to type, and stood for something.....and because it'll fit on a license plate if I ever get personal tags! You may be able to find something in your neck of the woods that interests you at [url]http://www.62-65-dieselpage.com/classad.htm[/url]. Plus if you go back to the main page there's a lot of info available. MickeyMouse, I'd have to agree with you that a new GM diesel truck (or any new diesel truck, for that matter) isn't cost-effective unless you put more than 25K or so on it per year, and if you plan driving it till it's dead instead of selling it after 4-6 years. You pay more for them when new and get less at resale time, so buy used and let the original owner take the big hit in the wallet. If there's one thing I can't stand to see it's a soccer mom in a PSD Excursion or SuperDuty that NEVER sees trailering or a load that blocks the rearview mirror, and [i]may[/i] get 10-15K per year on it. I will never understand why someone will buy a vehicle that's so obviously inferior for what they plan to use it for, all in the name of status.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 7:28:18 PM EDT
MickeyMouse, we are indeed talking slide-in truck camper here. I haven't bought it yet, but the idea is to keep it on the light side (think 9 foot Jayco instead of 11 foot Lance or Bigfoot!). As a long-time RVer, I'm well aware of the weight considerations. A half-ton pickup might be pushing the GCWR a little bit, but it will only be used to carry the camper occasionally. I wasn't aware that the GM diesels were significantly more expensive than the Navistar or Cummins — Each of them adds about $4K to the suggested retail price, from what I've seen. Where's the extra cost?
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:15:44 PM EDT
If youy need a truck get a 3/4 ton. 1/2's are seriously lacking except for light-mid towing and the occasional appliance purchase. Put 20 sheets of 1/2 plywood in the back and you will be dragging your bumper on the pavement. Tow anything with a gas engine and milage really suffers. My Cummins Ram gets 19-20 mpg and weighs 7300 empty. Pull a 10k load and still gets 16+ mpg. Lots of metal around you. Diesel is the only way to go in a 3/4 in my opinion the fuel pays for the extra cost of the diesel engine in under 70k miles and the engine is not recomended for a rebuild until 400k miles. Resale is much greater as well.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 9:40:26 PM EDT
I'd bet you'll have to drive quite a bit more than 70K to make up the difference in fuel economy alone. At $1.20 a gallon, a diesel that gets 20 MPG will cost you $4200 to go 70,000 miles. With a gas engine that gets 15 MPG, the same $1.20/gallon will cost you $5600 to go 70K. That's just a $1400 difference. If you could talk the dealer into letting you have the diesel for $3K more than the gas engine, you'd still need to drive around 150K to break even on fuel costs alone. True, the diesel would last much longer than the gas engine, but diesels also tend to be more expensive to rebuild. Having said all that, I sure wouldn't mind owning one...
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 9:58:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/19/2001 9:55:01 PM EDT by newblkrifle]
If you are not towing, buy a half-ton. Dodge has one good thing: the Cummins diesel motor. Everything else Dodge is JUNK! Good thing you don't need that diesel! My GMC 5.3 moves a hell of alot better than any diesel as long as it's not loaded with a million pounds. It is an extended cab half-ton 4x4. It also gets 18mpg on the highway if you are nice to it. Up until now, the GM diesels were piles of underpowered shit! Dont buy a 6.5! They suck in every way! Diesels are too goddamn expensive and no fun to drive unless you are towing 10,000 pounds. Sorry about the swearing! At least I didn't say (and never will) the F word! (ford)
Link Posted: 10/20/2001 5:47:12 PM EDT
Skibane, you say GM base engine in LD model is 6L. I don't know, you may be right about that. But if one manufacturer won't build what you want, go to one that will. Both Ford and Dodge put small engines in thier trucks. I personaly prefer Ford over Dodge, but it is because of the local dealer not the product.
Link Posted: 10/20/2001 6:03:21 PM EDT
My 95 GMC half ton is a 4x4 w/ 350, and I love it. It has gotten me through some rough spots here in western Montana and I have rarely needed the 4WD. But it is nice to know its there if I need it. I get around 14-16 around town and 20-21 mpg on the highway, thanks to the 5 speed trans. Great truck.
Link Posted: 10/20/2001 8:44:04 PM EDT
Skibane, If you are serious about a camper, you should probably skip the 1/2 ton. The truck's carrying capacity is not nearly as important as those big ass brakes the new 3/4 tons have. They also tend to have bigger sway bars and better steering knuckles. I would be concerned about safety. Especially if you camp in some out of the way BFE places. Probably the best split of power, price, and economy would be a Ford Super Duty with the 5.4, auto trans, and 3.55 gears. This truck should get in the high teens unladed on the freeway, and tow and haul whatever you wanted. I bet that if you look hard enough, you can find one in XL trim for LESS than a comparably equipped F-150. You know, one of those white fleet truck types. A good second would be a USED Ford or Dodge diesel. (sorry GM guys, 6.2s and 6.5s not a very industrial diesel. Lousy front suspension too!) Let some one else take the initial loss on that 4K engine option. The problem on an oil burner besides high initial cost is that diesels tend to be more maintenance intensive, considering oil volume, and fuel & air filter issues. Good Luck
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 8:29:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Right-Wing: sorry GM guys, 6.2s and 6.5s not a very industrial diesel.
View Quote
Can't argue with this, not when comparing them to Cummins & Navistar. But they'll still last about twice as long as most any gas engine out there (and the ones that do last a long time don't have the power he needs, i.e., 22R) and industrial longevity wasn't on his short list.
Lousy front suspension too!
View Quote
I hope you're referring to the IFS GM suspension, because GM's 73-87 4WD front suspension is still THE standard by which all others are judged. Up here you can get almost as much for an 85 GM fullsize K10/K1500 as you can for a 95, because nothing handles a plow like the 73-87 GM front end. Dodge has those silly unitized front wheel bearings and spindle-less hubs that are a step backwards from even their 75-79 styles - at least you could maintain the old ones! - and there's too much stuff to loosen up and chop the hell out of your tires in a Dodge front end. F150s have an even more complicated and delicate front suspension as well. You can buy an F250 SuperDuty, but its front suspension is no better than a K20's. Every year I see fewer people plowing with their new "rides like a car" trucks and going back to the old GM K-trucks (and paying big bucks for them too!) When you consider that plowing is the only use that puts a load on the front suspension, that says a lot for the GM front end.
diesels tend to be more maintenance intensive, considering oil volume, and fuel & air filter issues.
View Quote
Another nice thing about the 6.2L & 6.5L is they don't need 11-quart oil capacities for their intended uses. I run a 2-quart filter on mine, and nominal oil capacity is a little under 8 quarts. Change it every 2500 miles, and for added peace of mind have a couple oil analyses performed every year. Fuel filters? I'm not a big fan of my 6.2's single fuel filter, but I've never had a problem with it - open the drain every week or 2 with the engine running, and any water/contaminants will come out. Do it more often in the wintertime or keep the tanks full to minimize condensation from the heated fuel returning to tank. Change the filter every 15K or so. Better yet, put in a Racor water separator for $100 and any good spin-on filter assembly. Air filter? It's a $12 NAPA Gold that I change every 3 or 4 oil changes, or whenever it looks dirty. My oil analyses never show excessive silica levels, so the filter's doing fine. I have to say I agree with you on the 3/4 ton's brakes and components. Right now all I have is a 1/2 ton, and I don't want a new vehicle, so my solution is to swap in a Dana 44/14-bolt from a 76 K20. I have to say that my 1/2 ton brakes have always been more than adequate for anything I've hauled or towed, though - I'm really doing the swap for the full-floater rearend. Just call me the forum's 6.2L defender - I realize it's not perfect, but I haven't yet seen a gasser V8 that will outpull it [b]and[/b] get better mileage, either under a load or empty. And that's without a turbo - put one of those on and a 6.2 FEELS like a warmed-over EFI 350 and pulls like a 454 or 460. And did I mention getting better mileage with a heavy load than either of those get empty? [:D]
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 8:43:29 AM EDT
NH2112, Hey Man, I'm not dogging your truck. You are correct the 73-87 K series is one of the designs the others are judged by. They are just getting scarce to find in good shape anymore. No extended cab option either(if that's what you need). I am merely saying that to find a truck in the 5 years old or less category, Henry has it wrapped up. If you want to 3/4 up your truck, all you need to do is swap out the knuckles out on your front end - the center section is the same on both the 1/2 ton and 3/4 ton trucks. Dana and GM. If you can find a floater 14 bolt drop it in. That is one of the finest desings going. I maintain that for a NEWER style all purpose HD rig, the Super Duty is hard to beat. Later
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 10:08:20 AM EDT
Right-Wing, I didn't mean to sound like I was taking anything personally, because I wasn't. I realize that there's no right or wrong choice because your experiences with a particular vehicle may have been as bad as mine were good. It's just that I [b]LOVE[/b] to talk/debate about trucks as much as guns - I'll do it till my throat is bleeding LOL - and once I get going I have a hard time stopping! [:D] Believe me, if Ed McMahon paid me a visit on Super Bowl Sunday I'd have a brand-new Cat 3126-powered 6-speed Crew Cab F450 Super Duty 4x4 sitting in the yard as soon as they could get one to my specs. I'd [b]find[/b] big stuff to haul with that! I sure don't think the 73-87 GMs are the be-all, end-all, conversation stoppers when it comes to trucks - but I do think (and have plenty of experience to back it up) that in just about every area but the subjective ones (comfort, gauge placement, etc) they'll hold their own when compared to vehicles 10 or 15 years newer. I guess you can look at it as either "I'm glad to see the new trucks haven't been SUV'd into wimpiness" or "it's funny how 10-15 years of technological improvements didn't really increase the capacity of pickups very much."
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 10:14:25 AM EDT
Skibane, Get yourself a 3/4 ton diesel! My '01 Dodge 3/4 4x4 Cummins Auto gets 21mpg, and I drive 25k miles each year through the worst urban traffic. Ford and GM diesels will get a little less mpg, but MUCH better that a gas-burner. My brother's real happy that his "95 Chev 3/4 4x4 gasser V8 get 14 mpg! My prior truck was a '98 Dakota 4X4, 5sp, and the very best mpg I ever saw from the V6 was 18, once! You'll pay a little more up front, save money on fuel, then recoup the initial cost on re-sale. Good luck.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 11:13:04 AM EDT
If you want a commuter vehicle in the shape of a truck, get a 1/2 ton with a 6 cyl If you want aa commuter vehicle in the shape of a truck that you can use for household loads and pulling an occasional trailer, get a 1/2 ton with the biggest 8 cyl offered. If you want to use a slide in camper, think 3/4 ton or maybe even 1 ton, with a diesel engine. The key is gross vehicle weight. I have been looking at slide-ins for my 3/4 2000 Ram diesel. Many of the campers are technically too heavy to be used in a 3/4 ton truck! The camper manufacturers all try to tell you that you have enough truck, but their fine print tells a different story. They always list DRY wieght, but have you ever camped without water? or food? or "stuff"?
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 11:38:59 AM EDT
Depends on the use of the truck. For commuting and carrying medium loads I would buy a 1/2 ton truck. I own a construction company an currently have 2 GMC 1/2 ton 4 wheel drives with v8's. One has a 105 gallon diesel tank along with tool boxes and carrys this load very well. If you are carrying or trailering very large loads I would recommend the 3/4 ton with a diesel, if not the 1/2 ton with a 8cyl.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 12:53:27 PM EDT
I [b]LOVE[/b] to talk/debate about trucks as much as guns - I'll do it till my throat is bleeding Believe me, if Ed McMahon paid me a visit on Super Bowl Sunday I'd have a brand-new Cat 3126-powered 6-speed Crew Cab F450 Super Duty 4x4 sitting in the yard Preach on Brother, I am with ya! I am a truck guy too! I can jaw on about the damn things for hours - just ask the wife!!
Top Top