New F-150 vs. Silverado (spec vs. spec)
Registered User
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 2,368
From: OR
well, the new f-150 better be nicer because isn't it going to be a bit more expensive?
Would be interesting to see a pickup with a IRS in the back, like that concept GM had.. Better handling and more room...
Would be interesting to see a pickup with a IRS in the back, like that concept GM had.. Better handling and more room...
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,178
From: Payson, AZ USA
Originally posted by PacerX
Gloria,
"You guys are funny............ you are the ones getting worked up over articles written by people who have driven all of the trucks back to back. I think this is great fun."
First, I'm not getting worked up. I have the same dispassion of any professional engineer looking at something from an empirical viewpoint as I do when I'm comparing steel specs.
"A" is better than "B" because of "X" number, "Y" number and "Z" number. No emotion at all.
Second, automotive writers are universally horribly ignorant. Yeah, OK... one or two might know what they are talking about, but THEY'RE RARE. I do this stuff for a living. Those that CAN, DO. Those that CAN'T either write about it or teach.
With dispassionate analysis, there's no question that the Chevy pounds the snot out of the Ford in the spec department. Again, the numbers don't lie.
"As one person mentioned........ noone buys a truck based on a spec sheet. They go out, drive it, price it, and buy the one they like. If hp was all that sold a truck, then the Silverado would have outsold the F-series for most of the last 25 years."
I do. Bought a car off the spec sheet - my current 2001 Camaro SS. Fastest machine I could get my hands on at the time for less than $40,000.
I buy trucks the same way.
MOST PEOPLE, methinks, buy trucks because of emotion, not reason. They like the styling (completely subjective), like the name (generally based off of rumor and innuendo), or just because they like the color.
"Please show me where the 6.0 is available in ANY normal 1/2 ton Silverado/Sierra.
It is in the 1500HD (which is a 3/4 ton with a 1/2 ton name on it) in 300hp form (same as new 5.4L). It is available in the GMC Denali/C3 in 320hp form at over $40K. And, it is available in the Silverado SS in 345hp form at over $40K. It is not available in ANY other 1/2 ton GM truck. Thus, using it as a basis for your arguement is grasping at straws a bit."
No it isn't. You brought up the 5.4 liter, I didn't. I merely pointed out that Chevy had a motor available in the 1500's that matched the 5.4 3V step for step... apart from being lighter, smaller (physically), simpler and more efficient.
"Argueing about which interior is of better quality is a little silly when you have never been in one of the vehicles you are argueing about.......... don't ya think????"
Gloria, I never mentioned the interior once. Just the specs. Hey, maybe the Ford has an interior so damned beautiful that it makes up for the sub-par specifications.
"The people who are writing articles about this truck drive everything (short of the brand specific web sites). Thus, their "opinion" on interior quality is a bit more valid than yours or mine."
WRONG. I did interior and exterior build quality FOR A LIVING for years. Some typewriter jockey, labotomy-outpatient car-rag writer with a liberal arts degree can teach me precisely NOTHING about it.
***NOTE: Guion is excepted from my commentary on automotive writers of course. He's the only reason I have any faith whatsoever in them.***
Gloria,
"You guys are funny............ you are the ones getting worked up over articles written by people who have driven all of the trucks back to back. I think this is great fun."
First, I'm not getting worked up. I have the same dispassion of any professional engineer looking at something from an empirical viewpoint as I do when I'm comparing steel specs.
"A" is better than "B" because of "X" number, "Y" number and "Z" number. No emotion at all.
Second, automotive writers are universally horribly ignorant. Yeah, OK... one or two might know what they are talking about, but THEY'RE RARE. I do this stuff for a living. Those that CAN, DO. Those that CAN'T either write about it or teach.
With dispassionate analysis, there's no question that the Chevy pounds the snot out of the Ford in the spec department. Again, the numbers don't lie.
"As one person mentioned........ noone buys a truck based on a spec sheet. They go out, drive it, price it, and buy the one they like. If hp was all that sold a truck, then the Silverado would have outsold the F-series for most of the last 25 years."
I do. Bought a car off the spec sheet - my current 2001 Camaro SS. Fastest machine I could get my hands on at the time for less than $40,000.
I buy trucks the same way.
MOST PEOPLE, methinks, buy trucks because of emotion, not reason. They like the styling (completely subjective), like the name (generally based off of rumor and innuendo), or just because they like the color.
"Please show me where the 6.0 is available in ANY normal 1/2 ton Silverado/Sierra.
It is in the 1500HD (which is a 3/4 ton with a 1/2 ton name on it) in 300hp form (same as new 5.4L). It is available in the GMC Denali/C3 in 320hp form at over $40K. And, it is available in the Silverado SS in 345hp form at over $40K. It is not available in ANY other 1/2 ton GM truck. Thus, using it as a basis for your arguement is grasping at straws a bit."
No it isn't. You brought up the 5.4 liter, I didn't. I merely pointed out that Chevy had a motor available in the 1500's that matched the 5.4 3V step for step... apart from being lighter, smaller (physically), simpler and more efficient.
"Argueing about which interior is of better quality is a little silly when you have never been in one of the vehicles you are argueing about.......... don't ya think????"
Gloria, I never mentioned the interior once. Just the specs. Hey, maybe the Ford has an interior so damned beautiful that it makes up for the sub-par specifications.
"The people who are writing articles about this truck drive everything (short of the brand specific web sites). Thus, their "opinion" on interior quality is a bit more valid than yours or mine."
WRONG. I did interior and exterior build quality FOR A LIVING for years. Some typewriter jockey, labotomy-outpatient car-rag writer with a liberal arts degree can teach me precisely NOTHING about it.
***NOTE: Guion is excepted from my commentary on automotive writers of course. He's the only reason I have any faith whatsoever in them.***
While you are comparing "specifications only," please show all of the handling and acceleration numbers......... unladen, laden, and towing. Also, dyno charts showing the numbers "under the curve" would be helpful to get a real feeling for exactly how these two engines (you know, with the GM engine being so far superior to the Triton) make their power.
Also, while comparing these specs, please show dynamic analysis of frame strength and torsional rigidity of the respective frames........ .seeing as how Ford obtained half of their weight gain with the new frame. This analysis can also show, or simulate what a stiffer and stronger frame does for the handling of the vehicle........ both laden and unladen.
Now, did all of that sound completely ridiculous???? Of course it did. However, to bring specs into a conversation as the sole basis for a purchase decision......... don't you think that you need ALL the specs???? Or, do you only want to look at the ones that support your premise????
This is what I am talking about when I talk about bias. Notice that in my posts I did not express my opinions on the truck, because that is speculation at best at this point. Just like you using only the specs that support your premise reduces your arguement to speculation also.
The point being that we do not know all of those specs. Thus, the only thing we can debate at this time is the subjective opinion of editors who may or may not be biased.
Finally, to buy a vehicle based on specs or numbers alone is frightening at best. I drive my vehicles........... I do not drive their specs. Numbers alone only tell half of a story. To me, a vehicle purchase is far too large to buy on only half of the story.
However, that may just be me.
BTW, I debate Fords, Dodges and GM's. We currently own 4 GM products, 3 Fords, and 1 Mazda. No Dodges........... I just cannot get into Dodges.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 503
From: Big Orange Country!
You guys (and gals) crack me up! Ford guys gonna buy Fords and Chevy guys gonna buy Chevys. Most truck buyers don't change brands, plain and simple. At least that's how it was where I sold trucks. Hardly anyone came in with a Ford to trade for a Chevy. On the rare occasion they did, most of the time we couldn't trade with them because we couldn't put enough money in it to trade with them. The reason you ask, well we couldn't sell used Fords. They would sit there forever. We would end up losing money on them most of the time. I'm sure it was similar at the Ford lot, but I never sold Fords so I'm just guessing. When you add GMC and Chevy and compare that to Ford, the number are usually pretty darn close.
Keep it up, this is entertaining!
Keep it up, this is entertaining!
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
"First thing.......... fine........... you are an engineer. Please show the same specs for the 5.4L F150 vs the 5.3L Silverado. Again, do not use the 6.0 as it is ONLY available in a couple of specific models in the 1/2 ton truck."
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The 6.0 is available in the 1500HD, which is a 1500 series GM truck. This like comparing GT Rustangs to V6 Camaros, what's the point of that exercise when the LS1's would blow them into the weeds? If I want the most powerful 150/1500 series truck I can buy - IT AIN'T THE FORD. The output numbers may be basically identical for the top small motors, but there's the minor issue of the 600 lbs. or so the Chevy DOESN'T HAVE TO HAUL AROUND and the base V8's are Chevy all the way.
"While you are comparing "specifications only," please show all of the handling and acceleration numbers......... unladen, laden, and towing."
Here... write this one on your heart... the Chevy's faster. With a 600 lbs. weight differential, I'd expect a 5.3 liter to be just as quick (or quicker) as the 5.4, and the 6.0 is going to show it taillights RIGHT QUICKLY.
Loaded, unloaded, doesn't matter. Power to weight is 100% Chevrolet where the 150/1500's are concerned. SIX HUNDRED POUNDS - an entire LS1 only weighs 411 lbs. I could throw my Camaro's engine in the back of it and THE CHEVY IS STILL A BETTER PERFORMER.
Handling? Who cares? IT'S A TRUCK. Buy a Miata if you care about autocrossing.
"Also, dyno charts showing the numbers "under the curve" would be helpful to get a real feeling for exactly how these two engines (you know, with the GM engine being so far superior to the Triton) make their power."
Here... write this on your heart too... having to haul around 600 lbs. less than the F150 is like bumping your dyno charts 10-15% on a vehicle of this weight. The 4.8 eats the 4.6 for lunch. 40hp and 600 lbs. is a HUGE difference.
I don't know why anybody still wants to fight this battle. GM V8's have been eating Ford for lunch since God was a Private First Class. One little hiccup with the 5.0's, and carnage for Ford from the '93 LT1 on.
"Also, while comparing these specs, please show dynamic analysis of frame strength and torsional rigidity of the respective frames........ .seeing as how Ford obtained half of their weight gain with the new frame. This analysis can also show, or simulate what a stiffer and stronger frame does for the handling of the vehicle........ both laden and unladen."
Sure, just as soon as you provide an answer as to EXACTLY how much a 1hz higher natural frequency is worth OBJECTIVELY to handling. None of this "it feels better" nonsense, I want a NUMBER. You could start by correlating spring rates to natural frequency, factoring in the difference in weight (more WEIGHT = STIFFER SPRINGS to match jounce and rebound characteristics).
"Now, did all of that sound completely ridiculous???? Of course it did. However, to bring specs into a conversation as the sole basis for a purchase decision......... don't you think that you need ALL the specs???? Or, do you only want to look at the ones that support your premise????"
K, lemme 'splain something here...
1) Being overweight stinks.
2) Being underpowered stinks too.
3) Being overweight AND underpowered relative to the industry benchmark MEANS YOU'RE DRIVING A NEW FORD F-150.
I didn't design the thing. Ford did, and DID IT POORLY WITH RESPECT TO THESE PARAMETERS. If you think having a nifty interior makes up for it, great - go buy one. If you think the the frame is rigid enough to make up for a porky design - terrific.
"This is what I am talking about when I talk about bias. Notice that in my posts I did not express my opinions on the truck, because that is speculation at best at this point. Just like you using only the specs that support your premise reduces your arguement to speculation also."
Please explain to me how a 600 lbs. difference in weight is speculation. Follow that up with a lower towing capacity, lower fuel economy, and a lower payload and an engine that has an overhead camshaft being buried by a motor with pushrods by FORTY HORSEPOWER, that also happens to be lighter and give better fuel economy.
Don't like the numbers? Blame Ford. They blew it, I didn't.
This turd HAD BETTER have a terrific interior - an interior that "shocks and awes", because if it doesn't, Ford is going to lose even more ground to GM in trucks.
"The point being that we do not know all of those specs. Thus, the only thing we can debate at this time is the subjective opinion of editors who may or may not be biased."
What opinions? ALL I GAVE WERE SPECIFICATIONS.
Weight, payload, towing capacity, power, torque, fuel economy. FOR BASE V8 and TOP SMALL V8, in the 150/1500 series of trucks, the Ford got pounded.
Claiming one seat is more comfy than another is an OPINION. Showing one engine to be FORTY HORSEPOWER more powerful than the other is FACT.
"Numbers alone only tell half of a story. To me, a vehicle purchase is far too large to buy on only half of the story."
I'd prefer the half of the story I know right now to not include chapters titled:
***Fat Trucks Need Love Too.***
***600 lbs. Just Means There's More of Me to Like.***
***40 Horsepower Really Isn't a Glaring Deficit***
***How Develop a Truck 4 Years After Your Competition Does and STILL Fail to Match Them.
***Towing Capacity? Who Cares? I've Got a Nifty Interior.***
***Thank God for Toyota, or I Might be the Worst Full Size, 150/1500 Series, Truck in the Industry.***
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The 6.0 is available in the 1500HD, which is a 1500 series GM truck. This like comparing GT Rustangs to V6 Camaros, what's the point of that exercise when the LS1's would blow them into the weeds? If I want the most powerful 150/1500 series truck I can buy - IT AIN'T THE FORD. The output numbers may be basically identical for the top small motors, but there's the minor issue of the 600 lbs. or so the Chevy DOESN'T HAVE TO HAUL AROUND and the base V8's are Chevy all the way.
"While you are comparing "specifications only," please show all of the handling and acceleration numbers......... unladen, laden, and towing."
Here... write this one on your heart... the Chevy's faster. With a 600 lbs. weight differential, I'd expect a 5.3 liter to be just as quick (or quicker) as the 5.4, and the 6.0 is going to show it taillights RIGHT QUICKLY.
Loaded, unloaded, doesn't matter. Power to weight is 100% Chevrolet where the 150/1500's are concerned. SIX HUNDRED POUNDS - an entire LS1 only weighs 411 lbs. I could throw my Camaro's engine in the back of it and THE CHEVY IS STILL A BETTER PERFORMER.
Handling? Who cares? IT'S A TRUCK. Buy a Miata if you care about autocrossing.
"Also, dyno charts showing the numbers "under the curve" would be helpful to get a real feeling for exactly how these two engines (you know, with the GM engine being so far superior to the Triton) make their power."
Here... write this on your heart too... having to haul around 600 lbs. less than the F150 is like bumping your dyno charts 10-15% on a vehicle of this weight. The 4.8 eats the 4.6 for lunch. 40hp and 600 lbs. is a HUGE difference.
I don't know why anybody still wants to fight this battle. GM V8's have been eating Ford for lunch since God was a Private First Class. One little hiccup with the 5.0's, and carnage for Ford from the '93 LT1 on.
"Also, while comparing these specs, please show dynamic analysis of frame strength and torsional rigidity of the respective frames........ .seeing as how Ford obtained half of their weight gain with the new frame. This analysis can also show, or simulate what a stiffer and stronger frame does for the handling of the vehicle........ both laden and unladen."
Sure, just as soon as you provide an answer as to EXACTLY how much a 1hz higher natural frequency is worth OBJECTIVELY to handling. None of this "it feels better" nonsense, I want a NUMBER. You could start by correlating spring rates to natural frequency, factoring in the difference in weight (more WEIGHT = STIFFER SPRINGS to match jounce and rebound characteristics).
"Now, did all of that sound completely ridiculous???? Of course it did. However, to bring specs into a conversation as the sole basis for a purchase decision......... don't you think that you need ALL the specs???? Or, do you only want to look at the ones that support your premise????"
K, lemme 'splain something here...
1) Being overweight stinks.
2) Being underpowered stinks too.
3) Being overweight AND underpowered relative to the industry benchmark MEANS YOU'RE DRIVING A NEW FORD F-150.
I didn't design the thing. Ford did, and DID IT POORLY WITH RESPECT TO THESE PARAMETERS. If you think having a nifty interior makes up for it, great - go buy one. If you think the the frame is rigid enough to make up for a porky design - terrific.
"This is what I am talking about when I talk about bias. Notice that in my posts I did not express my opinions on the truck, because that is speculation at best at this point. Just like you using only the specs that support your premise reduces your arguement to speculation also."
Please explain to me how a 600 lbs. difference in weight is speculation. Follow that up with a lower towing capacity, lower fuel economy, and a lower payload and an engine that has an overhead camshaft being buried by a motor with pushrods by FORTY HORSEPOWER, that also happens to be lighter and give better fuel economy.
Don't like the numbers? Blame Ford. They blew it, I didn't.
This turd HAD BETTER have a terrific interior - an interior that "shocks and awes", because if it doesn't, Ford is going to lose even more ground to GM in trucks.
"The point being that we do not know all of those specs. Thus, the only thing we can debate at this time is the subjective opinion of editors who may or may not be biased."
What opinions? ALL I GAVE WERE SPECIFICATIONS.
Weight, payload, towing capacity, power, torque, fuel economy. FOR BASE V8 and TOP SMALL V8, in the 150/1500 series of trucks, the Ford got pounded.
Claiming one seat is more comfy than another is an OPINION. Showing one engine to be FORTY HORSEPOWER more powerful than the other is FACT.
"Numbers alone only tell half of a story. To me, a vehicle purchase is far too large to buy on only half of the story."
I'd prefer the half of the story I know right now to not include chapters titled:
***Fat Trucks Need Love Too.***
***600 lbs. Just Means There's More of Me to Like.***
***40 Horsepower Really Isn't a Glaring Deficit***
***How Develop a Truck 4 Years After Your Competition Does and STILL Fail to Match Them.
***Towing Capacity? Who Cares? I've Got a Nifty Interior.***
***Thank God for Toyota, or I Might be the Worst Full Size, 150/1500 Series, Truck in the Industry.***
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
One more thingy...
I was one of, if not THE, most outspoken critic of the Silverado SS relative to the Lightning (BTW - it was all based on the SPECS also).
If the Lightning is going to maintain anything like the current power output when it changes over to the new platform, I might have to take that back.
Over 600 lbs. is a vast difference in weight, and Ford had better step up to the plate in a big way to stay ahead of a regular cab Silverado SS such as the one that is rumored.
I was one of, if not THE, most outspoken critic of the Silverado SS relative to the Lightning (BTW - it was all based on the SPECS also).
If the Lightning is going to maintain anything like the current power output when it changes over to the new platform, I might have to take that back.
Over 600 lbs. is a vast difference in weight, and Ford had better step up to the plate in a big way to stay ahead of a regular cab Silverado SS such as the one that is rumored.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,178
From: Payson, AZ USA
LOL........... you didn't get it.
What I posted there was in jest. It was meant to take the "using the specs" thing to the ridiculous. Unfortunately......... you took it as a challenge. Ho hum.
You also do not get what I have been trying to get across. I have never said that the new F150 is gods gift. It will not end world hunger........ or promote world peace. It may not be as fast as a Chevy either. However, do you not think it is a little narrow minded to pronounce any vehicle a POS........... an also ran............ or not even up to the competition when you have NEVER seen one......... NEVER sat in one.......... and NEVER driven one???
Of course you will not agree with me, as you are a completely brand biased Chevy guy. That is ok. I just find that people who are too brand biased have a tendency to miss out on some really great vehicles out there. Their loss. (disclaimer........ you claim to like the Lightning......... yet offer small jabs at it. The '04 Lightning will be like the '03. The '05 will have 500hp and is rumored to smoke the upcoming Ram SRT-10. I don't see the rumored standard cab 400hp SS Silverado running with that crowd........ although it should be a very nice truck)
One final thing.......... as this is my last post on this absurd topic. Please tell me which Chevy store that I can go to, to buy a regular cab 6.0 C1500........... how about the same in a K1500. How about an extra cab 6.0 C or K 1500 (SS and Denali does not count.......... they are AWD only). Yea........... thats what I thought. Thus, if you want to say that GM's top 1/2 ton engine offering is heads and tales above Fords........ I can stoop to that odd reasoning and say that you are entirely incorrect. GM does not offer a 1/2 ton truck with any V8 that offers 380hp and 450lb ft of torque stock. Or a Crew Cab with a 340hp, 420lb ft of torque 5.4 (your only crew cab is the 1500HD with the 300hp 6.0). Ahhhhh, you say.......... but those are special edition, or limited production vehicles and are supercharged......... and you can't get those engines in the regular F150's. Exactly. That is my point with the 6.0.
Oh, I like to have my truck handle well also. After all, I don't just drive it in a straight line. Also, it doesn't always have 8500lbs behind it, or 1000lbs of steel in the bed. Corners are fun........ and they can even be fun in a truck.
It boils down to you not getting it. You are like the pollster who words a question to get a predetermined answer.......... and then reports those answers as absolute fact. Your "facts" are your opinions because they are not complete............ and we all know what they say about opinions.
Well, time to go back to work restoring the 68 C10 Longbed (we are the second owners), the 68 Camaro SS 396/375 (in Corvette Bronze........ very nice and rare color), the 66 Yenko Stinger (YS-100, only the original race engine needs to be put back together and reinstalled. We would like to vintage race it), and especially the 37 GMC 3-ton cab/chassis (100% rust free, we would like to make it into a flatbed with a diesel....... to tow some of the others to shows or races). Yep.......... guess I am a real brand biased.
What I posted there was in jest. It was meant to take the "using the specs" thing to the ridiculous. Unfortunately......... you took it as a challenge. Ho hum.
You also do not get what I have been trying to get across. I have never said that the new F150 is gods gift. It will not end world hunger........ or promote world peace. It may not be as fast as a Chevy either. However, do you not think it is a little narrow minded to pronounce any vehicle a POS........... an also ran............ or not even up to the competition when you have NEVER seen one......... NEVER sat in one.......... and NEVER driven one???
Of course you will not agree with me, as you are a completely brand biased Chevy guy. That is ok. I just find that people who are too brand biased have a tendency to miss out on some really great vehicles out there. Their loss. (disclaimer........ you claim to like the Lightning......... yet offer small jabs at it. The '04 Lightning will be like the '03. The '05 will have 500hp and is rumored to smoke the upcoming Ram SRT-10. I don't see the rumored standard cab 400hp SS Silverado running with that crowd........ although it should be a very nice truck)
One final thing.......... as this is my last post on this absurd topic. Please tell me which Chevy store that I can go to, to buy a regular cab 6.0 C1500........... how about the same in a K1500. How about an extra cab 6.0 C or K 1500 (SS and Denali does not count.......... they are AWD only). Yea........... thats what I thought. Thus, if you want to say that GM's top 1/2 ton engine offering is heads and tales above Fords........ I can stoop to that odd reasoning and say that you are entirely incorrect. GM does not offer a 1/2 ton truck with any V8 that offers 380hp and 450lb ft of torque stock. Or a Crew Cab with a 340hp, 420lb ft of torque 5.4 (your only crew cab is the 1500HD with the 300hp 6.0). Ahhhhh, you say.......... but those are special edition, or limited production vehicles and are supercharged......... and you can't get those engines in the regular F150's. Exactly. That is my point with the 6.0.
Oh, I like to have my truck handle well also. After all, I don't just drive it in a straight line. Also, it doesn't always have 8500lbs behind it, or 1000lbs of steel in the bed. Corners are fun........ and they can even be fun in a truck.
It boils down to you not getting it. You are like the pollster who words a question to get a predetermined answer.......... and then reports those answers as absolute fact. Your "facts" are your opinions because they are not complete............ and we all know what they say about opinions.
Well, time to go back to work restoring the 68 C10 Longbed (we are the second owners), the 68 Camaro SS 396/375 (in Corvette Bronze........ very nice and rare color), the 66 Yenko Stinger (YS-100, only the original race engine needs to be put back together and reinstalled. We would like to vintage race it), and especially the 37 GMC 3-ton cab/chassis (100% rust free, we would like to make it into a flatbed with a diesel....... to tow some of the others to shows or races). Yep.......... guess I am a real brand biased.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 538
Originally posted by 94LightningGal
I don't see the rumored standard cab 400hp SS Silverado running with that crowd........ although it should be a very nice truck)
I don't see the rumored standard cab 400hp SS Silverado running with that crowd........ although it should be a very nice truck)
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,724
From: Hebron, KY
I didn't read all of the replies, but it seems the numbers are close enough that Ford guys will stay in their camps and Chevy guys theirs. As noted, pricing and trim levels should also be taken into account for the comparison.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
"What I posted there was in jest. It was meant to take the "using the specs" thing to the ridiculous. Unfortunately......... you took it as a challenge. Ho hum. "
Yes, it was ridiculous, but it wasn't a challenge. I have no emotional attachment to this - I don't have to - the numbers make my case for me.
"You also do not get what I have been trying to get across. I have never said that the new F150 is gods gift. It will not end world hunger........ or promote world peace. It may not be as fast as a Chevy either. However, do you not think it is a little narrow minded to pronounce any vehicle a POS........... an also ran............ or not even up to the competition when you have NEVER seen one......... NEVER sat in one.......... and NEVER driven one???"
Here's a little hint at what happens in automotive engineering...
Bunch of folks get together in a room. Their job is to determine what the next generation full size 1/2 ton truck should be like. Somebody grabs a dry-erase marker and starts writing things down. At the very top of the list for the truck you are going to find the following things:
Power.
Fuel economy.
Payload.
Towing capacity.
Vehicle weight.
I guarantee you that within the first 10 things that get written down, all of these features are going to be included.
You can claim it as bias, but I fail to see how a numerical analysis of manufacturer published specifications is bias.
The trucks selected are as close in specification as I can get them.
Extended cab, base V8, 1/2 ton, 2wd.
Pick something else if you would like and we'll toss the numbers out and see what happens.
"Thus, if you want to say that GM's top 1/2 ton engine offering is heads and tales above Fords........"
I don't have to say it. The 3V 5.4 is not a good comparison with the 6.0 liter. For no power advantage it is heaver, more complex and less efficient.
The blown examples of the 5.4 are hella-cool, and you'll never hear me defend the Silverado SS as a great truck. So, I'll be the first to admit that the Lightning is the benchmark for a full-size performance truck.
"Oh, I like to have my truck handle well also. After all, I don't just drive it in a straight line. Also, it doesn't always have 8500lbs behind it, or 1000lbs of steel in the bed. Corners are fun........ and they can even be fun in a truck."
Ummmm.... OK. Have fun cornering in your truck. The point of this exercise is beyond me, but hey... whatever floats your boat. Maybe I'll take my beater Aries out drag racing sometime.
"Well, time to go back to work restoring the 68 C10 Longbed (we are the second owners), the 68 Camaro SS 396/375 (in Corvette Bronze........ very nice and rare color), the 66 Yenko Stinger (YS-100, only the original race engine needs to be put back together and reinstalled. We would like to vintage race it), and especially the 37 GMC 3-ton cab/chassis (100% rust free, we would like to make it into a flatbed with a diesel....... to tow some of the others to shows or races). Yep.......... guess I am a real brand biased."
I never said you were brand loyal, just that your analytical capabilities in this area are flawed.
"Yes, it was ridiculous, but it wasn't a challenge. I have no emotional attachment to this - I don't have to - the numbers make my case for me.
"You also do not get what I have been trying to get across. I have never said that the new F150 is gods gift. It will not end world hunger........ or promote world peace. It may not be as fast as a Chevy either. However, do you not think it is a little narrow minded to pronounce any vehicle a POS........... an also ran............ or not even up to the competition when you have NEVER seen one......... NEVER sat in one.......... and NEVER driven one???"
Here's a little hint at what happens in automotive engineering...
Bunch of folks get together in a room. Their job is to determine what the next generation full size 1/2 ton truck should be like. Somebody grabs a dry-erase marker and starts writing things down. At the very top of the list for the truck you are going to find the following things:
Power.
Fuel economy.
Payload.
Towing capacity.
Vehicle weight.
I guarantee you that within the first 10 things that get written down, all of these features are going to be included.
You can claim it as bias, but I fail to see how a numerical analysis of manufacturer published specifications is bias.
The trucks selected are as close in specification as I can get them.
Extended cab, base V8, 1/2 ton, 2wd.
Pick something else if you would like and we'll toss the numbers out and see what happens.
"Thus, if you want to say that GM's top 1/2 ton engine offering is heads and tales above Fords........"
I don't have to say it. The 3V 5.4 is not a good comparison with the 6.0 liter. For no power advantage it is heaver, more complex and less efficient.
The blown examples of the 5.4 are hella-cool, and you'll never hear me defend the Silverado SS as a great truck. So, I'll be the first to admit that the Lightning is the benchmark for a full-size performance truck.
"Oh, I like to have my truck handle well also. After all, I don't just drive it in a straight line. Also, it doesn't always have 8500lbs behind it, or 1000lbs of steel in the bed. Corners are fun........ and they can even be fun in a truck."
Ummmm.... OK. Have fun cornering in your truck. The point of this exercise is beyond me, but hey... whatever floats your boat. Maybe I'll take my beater Aries out drag racing sometime.
"Well, time to go back to work restoring the 68 C10 Longbed (we are the second owners), the 68 Camaro SS 396/375 (in Corvette Bronze........ very nice and rare color), the 66 Yenko Stinger (YS-100, only the original race engine needs to be put back together and reinstalled. We would like to vintage race it), and especially the 37 GMC 3-ton cab/chassis (100% rust free, we would like to make it into a flatbed with a diesel....... to tow some of the others to shows or races). Yep.......... guess I am a real brand biased."
I never said you were brand loyal, just that your analytical capabilities in this area are flawed.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
Ford's still suck!
My kid's Mustangs have been in the shop more than I'd care to admit. They're costing me a fortune and I can't get rid of them 'cause nobody wants the headaches.... Fix Or Repair Daily is holding true to form, and I will never buy another Ford based on this nightmare experience.
Meanwhile my four Chevy's are running strong. They've only received regular maintenance since day one, with the only exception being my '95 Z/28, but then that was because my kid tried to play chicken with a row of garbage cans and lost... stupid kid didn't realize garbage cans don't move... but then he does drive a Mustang... or two.
I should've kept my '51 Chevy Pickup.
That darn thing was indestructible. 
My kid's Mustangs have been in the shop more than I'd care to admit. They're costing me a fortune and I can't get rid of them 'cause nobody wants the headaches.... Fix Or Repair Daily is holding true to form, and I will never buy another Ford based on this nightmare experience.
Meanwhile my four Chevy's are running strong. They've only received regular maintenance since day one, with the only exception being my '95 Z/28, but then that was because my kid tried to play chicken with a row of garbage cans and lost... stupid kid didn't realize garbage cans don't move... but then he does drive a Mustang... or two.
I should've kept my '51 Chevy Pickup.
That darn thing was indestructible.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
http://www.freep.com/money/autorevie...1_20030701.htm
This critic basically says the new F-150 is probably the best pickup ever BUT...
1) It's very heavy
2) It's expected to be much more expensive
I would add the facts that the new 3v 5.4 is really not all that impressive as PacerX has pointed out (and no, this is NOT bias talking this is just looking at the facts when compared to what's available from the competition), and the base V8 is not very stout (again as was discussed.)
This critic basically says the new F-150 is probably the best pickup ever BUT...
1) It's very heavy
2) It's expected to be much more expensive
I would add the facts that the new 3v 5.4 is really not all that impressive as PacerX has pointed out (and no, this is NOT bias talking this is just looking at the facts when compared to what's available from the competition), and the base V8 is not very stout (again as was discussed.)
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
I agree with the points made by PacerX. I also believe the new F150 will likely be a success, within certain bounds... but if so, due more to marketing and the "soft" attributes like fresh styling and interior. Its basic design parameters are lacking. It's very tough to convince people extra new curb weight is "a good thing"... especially without significant new power to push it (note to LightningGal: not everyone can afford the increased sticker, maintenance, and fuel guzzling of a Lightning-style supercharged V8).
But in the bigger picture, GM has already made the shift in realizing they need to devote much more to car development. It appears Ford is still stuck in 90's-think... that the F150 is and will always remain their cash cow. It appears GM is ahead in the transition to better cars... hopefully the next Camaro will be one of the fruit!
But in the bigger picture, GM has already made the shift in realizing they need to devote much more to car development. It appears Ford is still stuck in 90's-think... that the F150 is and will always remain their cash cow. It appears GM is ahead in the transition to better cars... hopefully the next Camaro will be one of the fruit!
