Ford may knock Toyota. And, Ford may have a better-looking truck. But
Toyota is beating the pants off of Ford in terms of sales and
reliability. I don't want to see Ford go bankrupt because the next
time the Toyota dealer won't cut a good deal with me, I'll have
another half-way decent choice (Ford is #2 on my list). I think
Dodge Ram is the best-looking truck on the market, but my buying
selection is based on other (more important) factors. Safety has a
lot to do with the material between the driver's ears.

"jp2express" <jp2mail-tempforum (AT) noSpamyahoo (DOT) com> wrote

You just have to take your time. The current crop of product testers (at
the car mags) has spent 20 years brainwashing people to think 250 hp is not
enough for a family sedan, and 350 is not enough for a pickup. It's just
stupid. Don't listen to 'em.

"Joe" <Joe (AT) dontspam (DOT) net> wrote

very true.... think about the big trucks... Peterbuilts are running 530 hp,
pulling tractor/trailer rigs with an 80,000lb payload, while in my Tundra, I
have *only* 245 hp to pull my tundra with a 2,000lb gross payload, and a
trailer carrying up to a 5,000lb payload.

"Noon-Air" <Noon-Air (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote

while I agree the public has been brain washed, your comparing apples to
oranges.
That big rig has over 1450 pound foot of torque. When I started driving we
thought
250 HP was a huge engine, then the 300 hps came out, followed by Cummin's
Big Cam 350, and we were pulling 80,000 gross back then as well, more if you
were pulling over size over weight. When I was in the service we were
pulling M88 tank recovery vehicles behind a diesel V-8 Mack powered M123
series. a whopping 200hp to pull a track vehicle that weighed 70 tons. When
the A3 mod came out it got a 300 hp V-8 Cummins. One unit I was in actually
had a reo gas powered one, a whopping 160hp.
The common engine size in todays trucks is the 410-450 hp Detroit series 60,
or same hp Cummins ISM. The big engines areseldomg found in company trucks,
the owner ops with money to burn by the big engines. They are faster, but
the fuel economy drops like a rock. The cummins and detroits at "tuned" to
435 hp get on average 6.8 mpg.
Those 500 hp plus 1650 pound foot of torque engines drop to 6.4 mpg and
then only if driven with a light foot. Doesnt sound like much of a
difference till you start consider 150,000 miles a year, then it adds up
fast.


Whitelightning

jp2express wrote:
I had an '85 with a 22R / 4 speed manual, and I agree. The current
Tacoma is much bigger and more powerful. I have a closely geared 6
speed manual, which gets the load moving nicely and allows for proper
combos at almost any speed and hill combo. The weight and length of my
Access Cab help the overall handling compared to previous generations.

I've never driven a Tundra, so sorry I can't help with that.

When I've needed larger capacity on a daily basis, I've skipped right
over full size pickups, and especially the incredibly lame Big-3 hi-cube
vans, in favor of 14' Mitsubishi turbo diesel hi-cubes. They were
reliable, efficient, and handled great. Sprinters are good, too, but I
know you want an open bed.

Did you ever think of something like a 10-12' flatbed on a Mitsubishi
cabover? I used to get very attractive deals, complete with a warranty,
on 4 year olds from my local Ryder regional depot. Some are even
available with 4WD!

On Fri, 04 May 2007 03:28:57 GMT, "Whitelightning"
<white.lightning2 (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote:


When I started driving a family sedan could have 300 plus HP easily
and there was no exhaust emissions and they ran.You could order a
Pontiac family sedan with a 421 trpower which was arguably the most
powerfully engine ever put in a stock street car. My cousin had one in
a Catalinia with a 4 speed and 4.10 gears and that car was down right
scarey at times and did not really hook up until 3 gear because the
tires could not handle the torque applied to them in first and second.
(people that did not drive then really do not know about some of the
brutes that detriot made back then. Back then a 220 HP diesel OTR
rig was considered kinda top end and there was still a lot of gas OTR
rigs around too. Diesel OTR rigs overtook gas ones in HP in later
70's. When you play the torque number, all is not as it seems because
1400 ft lbs of torque at 1400 RPM does same work or makes same HP as
700 ft lbs at 2800 RPM or 350 ft lbs at 5600 RPM. It is all in how you
gear it to the load. There was a time that a gas powered triaxle dump
truck with a 427 was the truck to have for several years. I drove one
for a while in college and they did a fine job. Without doubt a diesel
in such a truck could get better MPG but they could not compete HP
wise at that time.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

"Noon-Air" <Noon-Air (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote

In the gasoline era, it would have been perfectly normal for a semi to have
100 hp. They managed to get where they needed to go. GMC made semi's with
4-71's in them. I'm not sure how much power that is, but it's not much.

I have a measly Ford 302 automatic with 185 hp. The truck weighs 5000, the
payload is about 1600 or so. The allowed trailer weight is a lot, like
7000. I only tow about 5000 with mine. It's extremely safe, because the
truck is long and heavy, but it takes me a long time to get up to full
crashing speed.

I've looked long and hard at the Fuso line. Very nice! I've never owned a
100% commercial vehicle, though, so I'm worried that I'd be in for a lot of
unpleasant surprises! Certainly, services are going to be more.

What kind of mileage does a Fuso get? I'd just want the lightest out there.
I know they make it with the turbo, but I'm not sure if it is standard or a
common option.

"B A R R Y" wrote:

jp2express wrote:
I haven't had one for a few years, but the examples I had typically at
least doubled the fuel mileage of the gas hi-cubes they replaced.

I'm sure the body choice would make a sizable difference in mileage,
with a flat or open body doing much better than a comparable box.

"Phisherman" <noone (AT) nobody (DOT) com> wrote

Ford still sell far more trucks than Toyota, so I can't see how you can say
"Toyota is beating the pants off of Ford in terms of sales." And despite all
the jawing, the various surveys tend to indicate there is very little
difference in reliability between Ford and Toyota Trucks. Toyota is
preceived to be a little better, but the actual difference is prbably very
slight, so I can't agree that "Toyota is beating the pants off of Ford in
terms of reliability" either.

Well I've tried twice to cut a deal with a Toyota dealer for a farm truck.
So far, no deal. I am driving a Nissan Frontier now. Maybe next time.

Ed