• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Which 1500 truck to buy and why?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Blieb
What's wrong with Ecoboost? All the research I've done thus far has it getting slightly better mileage and putting down 365 horses compared to chevy's 305hp.

Too bad the raptor is such a gaudy look at me type truck. It's just sick but I'm sure I'd probably have to worry about getting car jacked or wondering if my truck would be there when I went to get in it.
 
OILFIELDTRASH said:
Blieb
What's wrong with Ecoboost? All the research I've done thus far has it getting slightly better mileage and putting down 365 horses compared to chevy's 305hp.

Too bad the raptor is such a gaudy look at me type truck. It's just sick but I'm sure I'd probably have to worry about getting car jacked or wondering if my truck would be there when I went to get in it.
Click to expand...


I don't think there is anythign wrong, yet. Its just a case of not wanting to be a first year buyer.
Yea you can simulate lots of stuff in the lab. But until you give it to a bunch of idiots (read general driving public) you never know what will happen.

i.e. you think toyota knew its engine were going to sluge but let them out, GM and intake gaskets, Honda and Auto trans, etc...
 
JulesMaximus said:
Southern California is considered the car capital of the world...or at least it used to be. I consider San Diego part of Southern California.
Click to expand...

i have never heard anyone refer to southern california as the car capital. california is pretty pretentious, i bet the only people who think it is are the people who live there...
 
phreaqe said:
i have never heard anyone refer to southern california as the car capital. california is pretty pretentious, i bet the only people who think it is are the people who live there...
Click to expand...

I bet there are more cars in Southern California than there are people and cars in your entire state.

It's not pretense, it's fact.
 
Marlin1975 said:
I don't think there is anythign wrong, yet. Its just a case of not wanting to be a first year buyer.
Yea you can simulate lots of stuff in the lab. But until you give it to a bunch of idiots (read general driving public) you never know what will happen.

i.e. you think toyota knew its engine were going to sluge but let them out, GM and intake gaskets, Honda and Auto trans, etc...
Click to expand...

Nothing "wrong" with it. My thinking ... keeping #'s round ...
Eco = 24mpg max x 26 gal tank = 624 miles
5.0 = 20mpg max (I think?) x 26 gal tank = 520 miles
diff = 104 miles / 20 mpg = 5.2 gals needed by 5.0 to match.
5.2 gals difference * $4 / gal = $20.8 per tank to match ...

But the engine adds almost $1,000 to the build price! $1000 / 20.8 = 48 fill ups before you start making money back in gas mileage. Yes there are other factors that could play. Just rough math I was thinking.

Also, ecoboost is supposedly turbo charged. Sooo that's expensive maintenance down the road.

They did have a torture test and it did well. And they are putting it in several models, I think they had it in the Taurus last year. They did a F150 road show and guys that drove the Eco's said they were impressed.

If I were buying this year, I'd probably get the 5.0 just because of cost and unproven nature of V6 in a full size ... but that's just me. I don't plan on towing anything huge, so the fact that eco has lower max tow doesn't bother me.
 
JulesMaximus said:
I bet there are more cars in Southern California than there are people and cars in your entire state.

It's not pretense, it's fact.
Click to expand...

so car capital to you is based on the number of cars not on heritage or history or anything like that.....i think most would disagree with that statement and say that its more based on a place that played a part in the history of the automobile or at least has some significance other then lots of people live here....
 
Texashiker said:
And?

Chances are the people buying the fords, dodges and chevys are older, raised in the 60s, 70s, or 80s, back when "Buy American" meant you got a made in USA product.

I do not care what john doe down the street buys. As far as I know, he is an idiot that dropped out of school and buys ford because his daddy owned a ford.

There is no reason for blind brand name loyalty. Toyota makes a quality product, and at a price that beats ford, dodge and chevy.
Click to expand...

I agree that blind brand loyalty is an inherently stupid thing.

I can't agree with the price thing regarding Toyota vs. Big Three. When you match the config (V6 vs. V6, V8 vs. V8, 4 door vs. 4 door, 4x4 vs 4x4, etc), Toyota is always more expensive with the Tundra.

I think the Tundra is a good truck, but I couldn't recommend it over the $ value of the F-series and GM trucks. They also haven't got any serious variants beyond their gas V8. With the domestics, you can get Diesel trucks that can and will take a beating for many many many hundreds of thousands of miles. There's a natural gas contractor company that I do IT for, they have a fleet of mostly Dodge but also a few Ford/GM diesel 4x4 trucks, and the average mileage is well over 300k, with some over half a million miles on the original motor and tranny.

Trucks are generally tough. And they have definitely been the best overall thing the domestics have produced over the past 30 years or so on average.
 
Blieb said:
Nothing "wrong" with it. My thinking ... keeping #'s round ...
Eco = 24mpg max x 26 gal tank = 624 miles
5.0 = 20mpg max (I think?) x 26 gal tank = 520 miles
diff = 104 miles / 20 mpg = 5.2 gals needed by 5.0 to match.
5.2 gals difference * $4 / gal = $20.8 per tank to match ...

But the engine adds almost $1,000 to the build price! $1000 / 20.8 = 48 fill ups before you start making money back in gas mileage. Yes there are other factors that could play. Just rough math I was thinking.

Also, ecoboost is supposedly turbo charged. Sooo that's expensive maintenance down the road.

They did have a torture test and it did well. And they are putting it in several models, I think they had it in the Taurus last year. They did a F150 road show and guys that drove the Eco's said they were impressed.

If I were buying this year, I'd probably get the 5.0 just because of cost and unproven nature of V6 in a full size ... but that's just me. I don't plan on towing anything huge, so the fact that eco has lower max tow doesn't bother me.
Click to expand...

Newer turbo motors with well-designed cooling systems are extremely reliable. Agreed that I'd be hesitant to be a first-year-adopter, but it should be a truly excellent powerplant.
 
EcoBoost engines have been around in one form or another since their intro in 2007 in a prototype Linlcoln. More recently, it's the same engine as the Taurus SHO, which was released in 2009.
 
SparkyJJO said:
Oh the "flexy frame is better" stuff again? lol sure. Until all that flexing busts things free. Tell me, how well does metal hold up to bending over and over vs staying rigid? Last I checked, bending metal causes fatigue, which weakens it until it finally breaks.

Take a piece of metal and bend it back and forth several times, then get back with me on how well it holds up.
Click to expand...

http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/991288-fully-boxed-frame-on-superduty-your-opinions.html

The F-250 has a C frame. Those guys prefer it because you can clean it out. One guy says if semi tractors were fully boxed they would need stronger welds to prevent breaking.

Makes sense. More rigidity means more stress at certain spots.
 
phreaqe said:
so car capital to you is based on the number of cars not on heritage or history or anything like that.....i think most would disagree with that statement and say that its more based on a place that played a part in the history of the automobile or at least has some significance other then lots of people live here....
Click to expand...

It's just a fucking term I've heard the automotive press throw around over the years. It has nothing to do with me or anyone else in California. Jesus H Christ...let it go skippy. 🙄
 
i would much rather have a rigid frame and parts designed to flex in the suspension. much easier to control bushings and springs rates than bending metal.
expidition portal has many threads debating between flexy or non-flexy, With many very experenced people on both sides.

and... there are more people in one county in ca than in the entire state i live in, but the people here, in general, do need trucks to live.

to shop at something more than walmart we have to drive over a mountan pass to park city or salt lake city, or the passes between us and cheyenne.
 
Blieb said:
Nothing "wrong" with it. My thinking ... keeping #'s round ...
Eco = 24mpg max x 26 gal tank = 624 miles
5.0 = 20mpg max (I think?) x 26 gal tank = 520 miles
diff = 104 miles / 20 mpg = 5.2 gals needed by 5.0 to match.
5.2 gals difference * $4 / gal = $20.8 per tank to match ...

But the engine adds almost $1,000 to the build price! $1000 / 20.8 = 48 fill ups before you start making money back in gas mileage. Yes there are other factors that could play. Just rough math I was thinking.

Also, ecoboost is supposedly turbo charged. Sooo that's expensive maintenance down the road.

They did have a torture test and it did well. And they are putting it in several models, I think they had it in the Taurus last year. They did a F150 road show and guys that drove the Eco's said they were impressed.

If I were buying this year, I'd probably get the 5.0 just because of cost and unproven nature of V6 in a full size ... but that's just me. I don't plan on towing anything huge, so the fact that eco has lower max tow doesn't bother me.
Click to expand...

48 fillups isn't much. That would take me about 2 years
 
Test drove Ford and Chevrolet offerings yesterday. Chevy has some very decent pricing and the trucks exterior looks great. The 5.3 v8 in the chevy seems very underwhelming. Didn't even bother driving the 4.8 v8. The interior feels cheap as well. I own a mid level Colorado and it is every bit as nice as a fully loaded Silverado. Overall I was not happy with chevy's trucks even though they are pretty cheap compared to Ford.
The exterior of the Ford wasn't as appealing as the chevy IMO unless you went into the platinum or limited edition f-150's but then you're up near 50K. The interior of the Ford was excellent. It seemed to have more room, more features, dash had much more information and it was easily accessible, overall just looked much nicer and had a more refined appeal to it. The 5.0 motor seemed adequate but the real gem was the ecoboost. It had a very slight lag while waiting on the turbo to spool up but when it hits the truck just seems to pull like crazy. It didn't seem like it was going fast but the speedometer just kept rising very fast (well fast for a truck). I even test drove a f-150 limited with the 6.2 v8. The 6.2 is a beast. It sounds like a drag car when you punch it and power everywhere but honestly it wasn't like night and day compared to the Ecoboost and the Ecoboost also is rated at 22mpg highway while the 6.2 is 18mpg. The ford also gave a better ride and even my wife agreed.
Without a doubt my next truck will be a ford Ecoboost. I'm going to wait and see if Ford offers more rebates in the near future and if I can sale my current vehicle myself so the stealership doesn't rape me on my trade in.
 
Last edited:
Good to see all the pickup truck drivers waving their huge cocks around again. I'm surprised that any of them find the room for their massive balls in anything short of a long-box. Why would OP care how well any truck lasts out in the oilfields or on a contractors jobsite? You don't cook a Thanksgiving turkey in a microwave. I'm surprsied you don't all own Megacabs cuz nothing else has room for your huge volume of misconception and ego.

Dear OP,

For the uses you have stated, ANY of the current and previous generation full-size, half-ton pickups will perform reliably for the tasks you have and will choose. Sure, there are lemons in every batch, but there is no way for you to know which truck that is going to be, so you're just gonna have to take your chances. How well you maintain the vehicle and how much abuse you put it through will matter far more to the longevity of the truck than what nameplate is on the front. Unless, of course, you plan on running it through a Desert Sands obstacle course on a daily basis (like most of the truck owners here).

Go out and drive one each of the following:

Dodge Ram 1500
Chevy or GMC 1500
Ford F-150
Toyota Tundra
You can skip the Honda Ridgeline, it's not full-size, the bed is too small for your needs and the fuel economy benefit is negligible.
You may want to consider a Chevy Avalanche and see if it's size will work for you.

Let your salesman know that you want a nice, long test drive and that you won't be buying anything until you have driven each one. If he pitches a fit, go find another dealer. Pay attention to how things are layed out. Can you easily reach the things you need most? Pull into an empty parking lot and check out the turning radius. Try some hard braking to see how well it stays in control. Just like everyone has different tastes in mattresses, so is the ride of a truck. Drive it for awhile and see if you like the ride. You will like some and hate others. Eliminate the ones you don't feel great about.

Then, figure out exactly which features you want in the truck and price them out. If only one truck felt good, then this will be very easy.

Finally, ignore most of the info here. It's just plain brand ego running like rats out of a burning building and each one knows that there's only one way out.
 
Just wanted to comment on the new dodges coil rear suspensions, one contract operator I know in the oilfield had to replace his 2010 dodge since the rear suspension gave so much trouble that he had to trade off the truck for something more reliable. He was only carrying around 200lbs on tools in the box as well so it was never really loaded. The roads however are always horrible that there driving on.

We use GMC 2500's at work and there pretty decent trucks all of them have gas engines that do burn a ton of gas but it's too cold here to run diesels.
 
Rezist said:
We use GMC 2500's at work and there pretty decent trucks all of them have gas engines that do burn a ton of gas but it's too cold here to run diesels.
Click to expand...

do you work in ND or Alaska?

we do not have too much trouble with our diesels in cold weather as long as we run additive and keep the older trucks plugged in at night. We see -40*F a few times per winter here, and much more frequent in ND.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top