I yield my place sir.

 

The 2004 F150 doesn't need to be better than the Silverado, it needs to be better than the 2003 F150.

Ford people will buy Fords, Chevy people wil buy Chevys, Dodge people will buy Dodges. This will continue, as long as each manufacturer keeps improving on the previous product.

From what I've seen, the 2004 F150 is better than the 2003. Stiffer frame, improved front and rear suspension, better handling and ride, rack and pinion steering, fresh interior and exterior styling, and more power. More interior room, standard ABS.

All of these changes will result in a better driving experince. It may or may not be a better truck than the Silverado, however, it might be a better car. Trucks have become more carlike over the years due to consumer demand, and in this respect, the new F150 raises the standard.

Competition is a good thing, it forces GM to make even more improvements to its Silverado.

 

ummm......... I don't agree with you here. That's like saying the 2007 Camaro doesn't need to be better than the 2007 mustang, or the 2007 WRX or the 2007 Lan Evo, as long as it's better than the 2002 Camaro.

You're not competing with your old models, you're competing with your COMPETITORS current models. While truck buyers tend to be very brand-loyal, new buyers aren't going to buy a truck based on the fact that it's better than the last years model, they'll buy it based on the fact that it's better than the competition.

 

Yes, the 231hp base 4.6 seems a little lacking, but i believe i'v read somewhere that it too will get the 3v treatment sometime soon. Give it the good like the 3v 5.4, and i don't see why they couldn't boost power to sub-260's and Tq over 300+lb-ft.

As for the 2004 F-150, it looks to be an excellent truck and will almost surely remain a best-seller in its class. Pacer may not be impressed, but i am. I'll hold off further judgment till i take one for a test drive.

 

Dumbass.

You know damned well that you compred the 4.8 and 4.6 because the 5.3 can't keep up with the new 3-valve 5.4

edit: I just read down and your only rebutal for the 5.4 was the 6.0!!?!? The 6.0 is in GM's 3/4 ton truck... if you want to go there, then you need to start comparing it to the F250, which is up for redesign next year.

And let's not even get into the interior, frame, or suspension, where the F150 IMO is spanking the living hell out of the Silverado.

And yeah, the Nissan is automatically a "piece of trash" since it's by an import company. We all know the 5.6L that's based on the 60,000 dollar Q45's motor is junk, right?

 

It's going to be a problem for GM when the "not so loyalists" drive a $30K silverado and it feels like a $20K truck and then go drive a $30K ford and it feels like a $30K truck in comparison.

These buyers probably won't care about towing capacity, payload, or performance, because almost any truck these days offers way more than they need.

GM makes a good truck, but they are going to have to "kick it up a notch" if they want to stay at the front.

 

Especially in terms of interior design and quality.

I'd be pissed if I drove a 55k dollar Cadillac Escalade and then went and sat in a 20k dollar F150 and saw it had a much nicer dash design.

FWIW, my dad bought a brand new 02 F150 about a year ago to the day for 11,450 plus taxes!

 

6 banger???

 

Yep, 4.2L V6, 5-speed manual, A/C, AM/FM Cassette

Laser red w/ grey interior

It's a very basic truck, but when it only cost 11k brand new, who cares?

 

I disagree. If I were shopping for a truck nowadays (and with today's incentives, I'm always shopping), I'd shop all three brands. Oh, in fact, that's exactly what I've been doing.

I'm curious to see if anyone breaks the current trend in trucks, that trend being towards vehicles that are heavier, more expensive, have lower ground clearance, and have a greater liftover height. It's pretty clear that somewhere along the way, the OEMs are loosing touch with their traditional consumers. Fine and dandy, until gas prices reach the point where the casual buyers latch on to a new trend.

 

The 4th gen was better performing car than the Mustang, but the Mustang outsold it. Ford spent their effort improving the Mustang, not trying to make it perform better than the Camaro. It seems to have worked out well for the Mustang.

Competition is good for the consumer, to a point, until the consumer loses a choice (i.e. Camaro). Sometimes it makes more sense not to compete, but instead differentiate yourself from the competition. In Fords case, it seems they are shooting for a truck with the most car-like ride, comfort, ergonomics and styling, at the expense of Hp, towing capacity, etc.

At this point, nothing Ford or GM does will drastically change the balance of their target buyers. They need to continue to improve thier product to reduce their market share erosion from the Imports. Every Tundra or Titan sale was a potential domestic truck sale.

 

Wow. Dumbass. I'm crushed.

Once again, since your single-digit IQ can't keep up (or READ), BASE V8 vs. BASE V8.


"edit: I just read down and your only rebutal for the 5.4 was the 6.0!!?!? The 6.0 is in GM's 3/4 ton truck... if you want to go there, then you need to start comparing it to the F250, which is up for redesign next year."

Once again, idiot, THE 1500HD is available with the 300hp 6.0 liter GM engine.

That's a 1/2 ton.

http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/index.html



"And let's not even get into the interior, frame, or suspension, where the F150 IMO is spanking the living hell out of the Silverado."

Really? And when, pray tell, have you driven such a machine? SPECS, you cretin, fork over some SPECS. Note AGAIN, this is just specifications, and your OPINION has nothing to do with the NUMBERS.



"And yeah, the Nissan is automatically a "piece of trash" since it's by an import company. We all know the 5.6L that's based on the 60,000 dollar Q45's motor is junk, right?"

Yeah, we're pretty much sure of it.

DOHC 5.6 liter putting out 300hp and 375 lbs.-ft. gets buried by 6.0 liter OHV, 4 year old motor. Film at 11.

While Nissan is spouting nonsense about closed-section frames, they neglect to mention that the CROSSMEMBERS are open-section stampings. Oooops.

Hmmm... they look like they're riveted instead of perimeter welded also...

Nissan is going to get the ever-loving $*&@^#*^ kicked out of them, just like Toyota has.



One more thing...

"'99 Lexus GS400 - Nakamichi sound, Xenon, 300HP w/ 5-speed paddle-shift manumatic. 14.44@98.38 - F&R STB, F&R LCB, etc"

It takes a ricer to post a mid-14 below 100mph in his signature.

Bitchin stereo.

Slow-a$$ car.


***EDIT:***

WAIT A SECOND...

YOU HAVEN'T EVEN RUN THE THING AT A TRACK AND POSTED A CARTEST TIME???

http://www.gulfcoastrealestatenews.com/PR/mycar.jpg

You're too lame for words.

 

Nowhere in your initial post did it say "base", nor would it have mattered if it did. You insinuated that because the 4.8 is superior to the 4.6, then the new F-150 is inferior overall. And that's a pretty big assumption to make considering you have no other objective analysis of the other two motors, or anything else (frame, interior, suspension, transmission, etc) for that matter.


The 1500HD is a 3/4 ton truck with a 1/2 ton nomenclature. Ask anyone who knows what they're talking about if you don't want to believe me. It's the same story with the 2500HD and the 3500... they're both 1-ton trucks.

Yes, actually I did get to ride in one July 4th. The interior advantage is an opinion, true... but I'm not quite sure why you feel your opinion is welcome in this thread, while other's opinions aren't... unless of course you are feeling insecure.

I'm also fairly certain that with the approximately 900% (no there's not an extra zero there) increase in torsional stiffness over the previous year model, that the F150 is doing pretty well in the chassis department as well.

No I haven't been able to locate each truck's frame's natural resonant frequencies or 'give' per pound... but then again information like that is rarely ever published except among the designers themselves, so all we can really do is make some sort of assumption.



Interesting to see that you seem to base your entire opinion of a motor on the numbers that it puts down. There's quite a bit more to a motor than that. I'll let you drive my 300 horsepower V8 and then a 300 horsepower Mach 1 and tell me if you can tell a difference. If you can't, you need to retire from this message board before you waste too much more time reading magazines and then copying the specs down for us to see.

And for what it's worth, I said nothing about the Titan's frame, which I think from what I've heard previously is going to not be very competetive. The Tundra's frame is much more competetive, though... and when the ground-up redesign comes up for 05 I bet they'll learn from their mistakes (the brakes for example, which were too derived from the Tacoma for a truck the size of the Tundra)


Ricer? OK, sure. That's the first time in 5 years on this board that I've ever heard somebody define "ricer" as somebody who puts a mid 14 in their sig.

1- My car is stock (the mods I have are for handling, not power)
2- My car can run with most stock LT1s all day long... that's not fast enough?
3- This car's 'main objective' is not to be fast. It's to be comfortable, well-made, reliable, fun to drive, reasonably quick, and luxurious. I think it does a very good job of combining all of those into one package.
4- All you need to do is read my disclaimer- I'm not sure if I wan't to rag this car out like that yet... so no, I haven't taken it to the track yet. But since you seem to be so hung up on specs in magazines and such, I could give you several links that show anywhere in the range of 14.1 @ 100.1 to 14.7 @ 95.8 for this car... if that would make you happier?

 

"Nowhere in your initial post did it say "base", nor would it have mattered if it did. You insinuated that because the 4.8 is superior to the 4.6, then the new F-150 is inferior overall. And that's a pretty big assumption to make considering you have no other objective analysis of the other two motors, or anything else (frame, interior, suspension, transmission, etc) for that matter."

I've said BASE V8's over and over again. I posted specifications.

Figure out a way to put a number, ***A REAL NUMBER*** on an interior and we'll compare them.

Suspension? It's hard to claim a better suspension in a vehicle that weighs in at a WHOPPING 600 lbs. heavier than the Chevrolet... especially since the payload and towing capacities are lower.

PS - The GM automatics are going to be better than their Ford counterparts also. Disagree? Well, they make TH-400 and TH350 conversion kits for Mustangs... I don't see too many Camaros running around with Ford automatic transmissions...

Rolls Royce and BMW use GM automatics.



"Yes, actually I did get to ride in one July 4th. The interior advantage is an opinion, true... but I'm not quite sure why you feel your opinion is welcome in this thread, while other's opinions aren't... unless of course you are feeling insecure."

First, I offered no OPINION in the specification comparison. I gave NUMBERS. Numbers is numbers.

Opinions are welcome... stupid opinions will be castigated as appropriate... like yours... from RIDING in the truck. Not DRIVING it, RIDING in it.

Hey, how fast does CARTEST say it is???



"Interesting to see that you seem to base your entire opinion of a motor on the numbers that it puts down."

Ummm.... WHAT THE F^CK ELSE MATTERS??? I run a car on the street with an OPEN EXHAUST.

Smooth? Smooth idle means you don't have enough cam.

Fuel economy???



"I'll let you drive my 300 horsepower V8 and then a 300 horsepower Mach 1 and tell me if you can tell a difference."

I got a better idea. Standing quarter mile - I'll put $50 on the Mach 1 to win.

The OTHER difference between your 300 horsepower and the Mach 1 is that I'll bet the Mach 1 owner will be willing to actually RUN his.

After you LOSE, you can explain what a wonderful motor you have.

Wow... I just put down a bet for a Ford to WIN... that's different.



"The Tundra's frame is much more competetive, though... and when the ground-up redesign comes up for 05 I bet they'll learn from their mistakes (the brakes for example, which were too derived from the Tacoma for a truck the size of the Tundra)."

Welp, they've screwed it up TWICE now. How many chances do they get before we can all agree that Toyota can't build a pickup truck TO SAVE THEIR LIVES.



"That's the first time in 5 years on this board that I've ever heard somebody define "ricer" as somebody who puts a mid 14 in their sig."

A mid-14 doesn't make a person a ricer.

Posting a mid-14 THAT YOU HAVEN'T EVEN RUN DOES.



"1- My car is stock (the mods I have are for handling, not power)"

Obviously.



"2- My car can run with most stock LT1s all day long... that's not fast enough?"

Excuse me... I'd be willing to bet most stock LT1's (if anyone can actually FIND a stock LT1 now) would actually be willing to run their cars... instead of downloading CARTEST.



"3- This car's 'main objective' is not to be fast."

Good, because it isn't.



"4- All you need to do is read my disclaimer- I'm not sure if I wan't to rag this car out like that yet..."

Hmmmm.... all that superior Japanese quality can't survive a few runs downs a dragstrip? IT'S AN AUTOMATIC FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.

RICER.

RICE RICE RICE RICE RICE.

"My car runs a VIRTUAL 14.48..."

Go buy some stickers... or maybe a new software package to tell you how fast/slow your car MIGHT be.

 

I find it interesting that everyone bashes GM for releasing a 1500HD that's basically a 3/4-ton, as if it'd be somehow better if it had lighter-duty transmission, axles, brakes, and frame, and was rated for less GVWR (just like Ford's King Cab or the half-ton Avalanche). It seems here that GM assumes that anyone who "needs" a 6.0 L in a non-sport model will also need cargo and towing capabilities greater than that of a standard half-ton.

But, in this world where the truck is used as a fashion statement just like nipple rings and mineral water, I guess that real-world capabilities are a hinderance rather than a bonus.

And with regards to those frame-stiffness improvement numbers being tossed around - if we don't know where the previous frame was (other than "crappy"), then why is a "900% improvement" significant in any way? It's also somewhat noteworthy that torsional stiffness may actually work against you in off-road situations due to the limited suspension travel of softly-sprung half-ton trucks, but when you're negotiating potholes in the supermarket lot then some of this is probably a non-issue.

I think at this point I'm just listening to myself speak - after all, I do remember getting flamed in the Lounge for suggesting that ride quality was far less significant than cargo capacity or handling when discussing pickups.