I love my old beat up Yukon with its pushrods
09-07-2011, 10:39 PM
#41
We are all entitled to opinions, but I'm STILL waiting to be shown how my "opinion" is wrong when I say that clearly GM had Ford beat by a longshot when it came to truck powertrains.
09-07-2011, 10:44 PM
#42
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,123
Received 4,824 Likes
on
2,571 Posts
Just because it's faster doesn't mean its better.
Hence it's opinion and not fact.
And I see a lot of lightnings. Just because it's a "sport" truck doesn't mean t can't tow or be a work horse...again, your opinion.
Hence it's opinion and not fact.
And I see a lot of lightnings. Just because it's a "sport" truck doesn't mean t can't tow or be a work horse...again, your opinion.
09-07-2011, 10:52 PM
#43
Okay, then tell me how the Vortec is worse. Better output, easier to work on, sounds better. I'm not even going to start the "which one lasts longer" crap because it's pretty darn close.
Yes but the person whom everyone is claiming I swore off to hell I doubt was referring to Lightnings when he spoke of his experience with Ford work trucks. For every Lightning I see, there are 250 regular F-series trucks that I'll see after.
Yes but the person whom everyone is claiming I swore off to hell I doubt was referring to Lightnings when he spoke of his experience with Ford work trucks. For every Lightning I see, there are 250 regular F-series trucks that I'll see after.
09-07-2011, 11:05 PM
#44
Coal
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Freaking everywhere
Age: 31
Posts: 7,363
Received 137 Likes
on
91 Posts
Okay, then tell me how the Vortec is worse. Better output, easier to work on, sounds better. I'm not even going to start the "which one lasts longer" crap because it's pretty darn close.
Yes but the person whom everyone is claiming I swore off to hell I doubt was referring to Lightnings when he spoke of his experience with Ford work trucks. For every Lightning I see, there are 250 regular F-series trucks that I'll see after.
Yes but the person whom everyone is claiming I swore off to hell I doubt was referring to Lightnings when he spoke of his experience with Ford work trucks. For every Lightning I see, there are 250 regular F-series trucks that I'll see after.
09-07-2011, 11:15 PM
#45
Sheesh I hate splitting hairs, but....
Yes.
Wrong.
Fact. Fact. Opinion.
Yes.
Wrong.
Fact. Fact. Opinion.
09-07-2011, 11:17 PM
#46
Yep, pretty much. Each of us has a difference of opinion, and those of us secure enough to express them while respecting the opinions of others don't need to pass them off as "fact".
Last edited by teranfon; 09-07-2011 at 11:19 PM.
09-07-2011, 11:54 PM
#47
Coal
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Freaking everywhere
Age: 31
Posts: 7,363
Received 137 Likes
on
91 Posts
Then please, by all means, enlighten me. Please show some physical proof where it has been stated, without a shadow of a doubt, that GM's are better cars, are easy to work on, produce more power than other brands, and are then by default better.
I'm waiting. I think we would all like to see that.
I'm waiting. I think we would all like to see that.
09-08-2011, 12:01 AM
#49
Okay, since we all clearly can't get along, let me try this another way:
It is my opinion, and not a FACT, that a 2003 GM V8 small block OHV is a better motor than a comparable 5.4 Ford DOHC. I also believe that GM has smoother and far more responsive automatic transmissions.
It is a fact, however, that 9 times out of 10 after driving a Ford and then a GM, the General's engine/transmission impresses me far more. I don't understand why you people are acting like I'm saying that the color blue looks red. This is pretty much common knowledge, and widely known by pretty much all of automotive academia. I never said Ford's are junk; I'd gladly drive a 5.0 Mustang (yes, even over a Camaro with its pushrods). I also like their smaller offerings.
But, and here we go again, an Escalade that does 0-60 in 7.4 vs a Navigator in 9.9 with "the more sophisticated motor", well, forgive me for being so ridiculously out of line cocky as to infer that GM may have had the advantage there. Bring back the firing squads!! I'd rather get 10 MPG and smile when I hit the gas than just get 10MPG. Therefore, it is my OPINION, that this makes it a better powertrain.
It is my opinion, and not a FACT, that a 2003 GM V8 small block OHV is a better motor than a comparable 5.4 Ford DOHC. I also believe that GM has smoother and far more responsive automatic transmissions.
It is a fact, however, that 9 times out of 10 after driving a Ford and then a GM, the General's engine/transmission impresses me far more. I don't understand why you people are acting like I'm saying that the color blue looks red. This is pretty much common knowledge, and widely known by pretty much all of automotive academia. I never said Ford's are junk; I'd gladly drive a 5.0 Mustang (yes, even over a Camaro with its pushrods). I also like their smaller offerings.
But, and here we go again, an Escalade that does 0-60 in 7.4 vs a Navigator in 9.9 with "the more sophisticated motor", well, forgive me for being so ridiculously out of line cocky as to infer that GM may have had the advantage there. Bring back the firing squads!! I'd rather get 10 MPG and smile when I hit the gas than just get 10MPG. Therefore, it is my OPINION, that this makes it a better powertrain.
09-08-2011, 12:02 AM
#50
Then please, by all means, enlighten me. Please show some physical proof where it has been stated, without a shadow of a doubt, that GM's are better cars, are easy to work on, produce more power than other brands, and are then by default better.
I'm waiting. I think we would all like to see that.
I'm waiting. I think we would all like to see that.
09-08-2011, 12:05 AM
#51
Coal
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Freaking everywhere
Age: 31
Posts: 7,363
Received 137 Likes
on
91 Posts
Okay, since we all clearly can't get along, let me try this another way:
It is my opinion, and not a FACT, that a 2003 GM V8 small block OHV is a better motor than a comparable 5.4 Ford DOHC. I also believe that GM has smoother and far more responsive automatic transmissions.
It is a fact, however, that 9 times out of 10 after driving a Ford and then a GM, the General's engine/transmission impresses me far more. I don't understand why you people are acting like I'm saying that the color blue looks red. This is pretty much common knowledge, and widely known by pretty much all of automotive academia. I never said Ford's are junk; I'd gladly drive a 5.0 Mustang (yes, even over a Camaro with its pushrods). I also like their smaller offerings.
But, and here we go again, an Escalade that does 0-60 in 7.4 vs a Navigator in 9.9 with "the more sophisticated motor", well, forgive me for being so ridiculously out of line cocky as to infer that GM may have had the advantage there. Bring back the firing squads!! I'd rather get 10 MPG and smile when I hit the gas than just get 10MPG. Therefore, it is my OPINION, that this makes it a better powertrain.
It is my opinion, and not a FACT, that a 2003 GM V8 small block OHV is a better motor than a comparable 5.4 Ford DOHC. I also believe that GM has smoother and far more responsive automatic transmissions.
It is a fact, however, that 9 times out of 10 after driving a Ford and then a GM, the General's engine/transmission impresses me far more. I don't understand why you people are acting like I'm saying that the color blue looks red. This is pretty much common knowledge, and widely known by pretty much all of automotive academia. I never said Ford's are junk; I'd gladly drive a 5.0 Mustang (yes, even over a Camaro with its pushrods). I also like their smaller offerings.
But, and here we go again, an Escalade that does 0-60 in 7.4 vs a Navigator in 9.9 with "the more sophisticated motor", well, forgive me for being so ridiculously out of line cocky as to infer that GM may have had the advantage there. Bring back the firing squads!! I'd rather get 10 MPG and smile when I hit the gas than just get 10MPG. Therefore, it is my OPINION, that this makes it a better powertrain.
Now you have it
09-08-2011, 12:07 AM
#53
Your Friendly Canadian
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Age: 31
Posts: 17,427
Received 1,484 Likes
on
1,048 Posts
So it's a fact that your opinion of Chevy is higher than Ford's?
09-08-2011, 12:30 AM
#54
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,123
Received 4,824 Likes
on
2,571 Posts
09-08-2011, 12:33 AM
#55
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,123
Received 4,824 Likes
on
2,571 Posts
It is a fact, however, that 9 times out of 10 after driving a Ford and then a GM, the General's engine/transmission impresses me far more. I don't understand why you people are acting like I'm saying that the color blue looks red. This is pretty much common knowledge, and widely known by pretty much all of automotive academia. I never said Ford's are junk; I'd gladly drive a 5.0 Mustang (yes, even over a Camaro with its pushrods). I also like their smaller offerings.
The following 4 users liked this post by Sarlacc:
09-08-2011, 06:00 AM
#56
Then please, by all means, enlighten me. Please show some physical proof where it has been stated, without a shadow of a doubt, that GM's are better cars, are easy to work on, produce more power than other brands, and are then by default better.
I'm waiting. I think we would all like to see that.
I'm waiting. I think we would all like to see that.
For the 394834923829832398th time, THIS IS ALL I'M SAYING! I will be the first to admit that they lack just as badly in other areas. A 10 year old Pontiac GTP (for example) is a POS, probably falling apart, hideous interior and exterior, but step on the gas and it is still competitive with even today's cars.
Of course there are exceptions, but generally this is how it is, and this is all I was saying.
I'm sorry it offends some of you so badly that I think of this as more of a fact than an opinion, but the experts tend to agree with me. I'm just saying...
I can't believe I even spent time doing this, because it won't change anything anyone says (or thinks), but here ya go.
These professional reviews seem to support my OPINION that generally, GM knows what it's doing under the hood. (So, does that make it a fact?)
Originally Posted by ajt123
Motor Trend, 2001
Hard performance numbers are cold indicators of a vehicle's raw abilities, and as we've already mentioned, the two SUVs couldn't be more disparate here, as well. With a more powerful engine and better chassis dynamics and brakes, the Escalade soundly outdoes the Navigator. Besides the obvious bragging rights, these numbers also indicate an increased level of on-road control, comfort, and confidence. And there's nothing quite like hurtling to 60 mph in a 5800-lb SUV in just 7.4 sec. It makes you feel powerful and important, to be sure, and sounds wonderful doing it.
InsideLine 2009
Well, it didn't work out that way. Simply put, the Ford got beaten on our 11.5-mile test grade, coming in dead last by 27 seconds in a test that should have stressed it least. It was the only truck to drop below 50 mph, sagging to 47.8 mph at one point, and it spent the most time at wide-open throttle.
None of this should be a surprise. Physics suggests that a tepid 5.4-liter V8 that makes 310 hp (in the heaviest truck, no less) should not be able to out-tow others that boast 380 hp and up. Physics is right.
This 2009 Ford F-150 is a nice truck in many ways, but it's clearly time for a new engine. The 5.4-liter V8 is simply being asked to do too much…..
If lots of motor makes a trucker's life easier, the 2009 Chevy Silverado proves it with a stout 6.2-liter V8 that cranks out 403 hp — the class of the field by 13 horses.
This pays off big at the test track, where the Silverado beats the rest with a 6.6-second run to 60 mph from a standstill (6.3 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip)
InsideLine 2006
Big numbers on paper don't always translate directly to the pavement, but in this case the Silverado backed up its spec sheet. At the test track, the 7,420-pound Chevrolet ran from zero to 60 in just 8.4 seconds and crossed the quarter-mile in 16.5 seconds at 83.1 mph. Those numbers not only leave the Ford (9.6, 17.1) and Dodge (10.1, 17.4) sucking diesel smoke, they're in the range of several midsize SUVs we've tested recently.
Hitching up the big Axis trailer was the real test, however, and the Silverado walked away from the Dodge and Ford there, too. With the trailer in tow and over a ton of bricks in the bed, the Chevrolet maintained the highest average speed up the pass and covered the 12-mile distance nearly a minute faster than both the Dodge and Ford. On the steepest sections of the grade (up to 7.2 percent), the Silverado was the only truck that could maintain constant acceleration. It also delivered the best overall fuel economy for the climb at 7.3 mpg.
We kept the transmission in tow/haul mode throughout the climb and it worked flawlessly. Every shift was firm and its timing was perfect. With six gears to play with, we thought it might get too busy trying to find just the right ratio, but it didn't jump around any more than the others.
It was the best transmission on the way down the hill, too. As soon as we touched the brake pedal, it downshifted a gear. And as our speed gradually slowed, it kept on dropping gears, all the way down to 1st by the time we hit the stop sign at the end of the off-ramp.
IL 2007
This is a truck with a sophisticated, sweetly composed drivetrain. The engine pulls seamlessly from just off idle to its 6,000-rpm redline and is perfectly matched to a six-speed automatic transmission that shifts with velveteen smoothness. There's a small switch on the column-mounted shift lever for manual shifts, but left to its own devices, this 5,309-pound two-wheel-drive truck hauls to 60 mph in just 6.5 seconds and rips through the quarter-mile in 15.0 seconds at 92.1 mph.
This is much quicker than the Lincoln Mark LT, which takes 9.6 seconds to get to 60 mph and then reaches the quarter-mile in 17.1 seconds at 80.9 mph. It's even noticeably quicker than the Cadillac Escalade EXT that gets to 60 mph in 7.0 seconds and runs the quarter-mile in 15.5 seconds at 90.6 mph.
IL2011
The 2011 GMC Sierra Denali wins because it does the important truck things well. It accelerates, brakes and just plain drives better in just about any situation, towing or not. And on the big hill it holds its own with the slightly more powerful Ford. On top of that, it costs significantly less to buy and it drinks less fuel.
CAR AND DRIVER 4/11
The current F-150 has always fared well against the competition, but prior to 2011, it lacked a punchy engine. The 310-hp, 5.4-liter V-8 with 365 lb-ft of torque was simply outgunned
CAR AND DRIVER 2007
Ford's 300 horses are weak ones, too, making the F-150 the hindmost in acceleration..
Hard performance numbers are cold indicators of a vehicle's raw abilities, and as we've already mentioned, the two SUVs couldn't be more disparate here, as well. With a more powerful engine and better chassis dynamics and brakes, the Escalade soundly outdoes the Navigator. Besides the obvious bragging rights, these numbers also indicate an increased level of on-road control, comfort, and confidence. And there's nothing quite like hurtling to 60 mph in a 5800-lb SUV in just 7.4 sec. It makes you feel powerful and important, to be sure, and sounds wonderful doing it.
InsideLine 2009
Well, it didn't work out that way. Simply put, the Ford got beaten on our 11.5-mile test grade, coming in dead last by 27 seconds in a test that should have stressed it least. It was the only truck to drop below 50 mph, sagging to 47.8 mph at one point, and it spent the most time at wide-open throttle.
None of this should be a surprise. Physics suggests that a tepid 5.4-liter V8 that makes 310 hp (in the heaviest truck, no less) should not be able to out-tow others that boast 380 hp and up. Physics is right.
This 2009 Ford F-150 is a nice truck in many ways, but it's clearly time for a new engine. The 5.4-liter V8 is simply being asked to do too much…..
If lots of motor makes a trucker's life easier, the 2009 Chevy Silverado proves it with a stout 6.2-liter V8 that cranks out 403 hp — the class of the field by 13 horses.
This pays off big at the test track, where the Silverado beats the rest with a 6.6-second run to 60 mph from a standstill (6.3 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip)
InsideLine 2006
Big numbers on paper don't always translate directly to the pavement, but in this case the Silverado backed up its spec sheet. At the test track, the 7,420-pound Chevrolet ran from zero to 60 in just 8.4 seconds and crossed the quarter-mile in 16.5 seconds at 83.1 mph. Those numbers not only leave the Ford (9.6, 17.1) and Dodge (10.1, 17.4) sucking diesel smoke, they're in the range of several midsize SUVs we've tested recently.
Hitching up the big Axis trailer was the real test, however, and the Silverado walked away from the Dodge and Ford there, too. With the trailer in tow and over a ton of bricks in the bed, the Chevrolet maintained the highest average speed up the pass and covered the 12-mile distance nearly a minute faster than both the Dodge and Ford. On the steepest sections of the grade (up to 7.2 percent), the Silverado was the only truck that could maintain constant acceleration. It also delivered the best overall fuel economy for the climb at 7.3 mpg.
We kept the transmission in tow/haul mode throughout the climb and it worked flawlessly. Every shift was firm and its timing was perfect. With six gears to play with, we thought it might get too busy trying to find just the right ratio, but it didn't jump around any more than the others.
It was the best transmission on the way down the hill, too. As soon as we touched the brake pedal, it downshifted a gear. And as our speed gradually slowed, it kept on dropping gears, all the way down to 1st by the time we hit the stop sign at the end of the off-ramp.
IL 2007
This is a truck with a sophisticated, sweetly composed drivetrain. The engine pulls seamlessly from just off idle to its 6,000-rpm redline and is perfectly matched to a six-speed automatic transmission that shifts with velveteen smoothness. There's a small switch on the column-mounted shift lever for manual shifts, but left to its own devices, this 5,309-pound two-wheel-drive truck hauls to 60 mph in just 6.5 seconds and rips through the quarter-mile in 15.0 seconds at 92.1 mph.
This is much quicker than the Lincoln Mark LT, which takes 9.6 seconds to get to 60 mph and then reaches the quarter-mile in 17.1 seconds at 80.9 mph. It's even noticeably quicker than the Cadillac Escalade EXT that gets to 60 mph in 7.0 seconds and runs the quarter-mile in 15.5 seconds at 90.6 mph.
IL2011
The 2011 GMC Sierra Denali wins because it does the important truck things well. It accelerates, brakes and just plain drives better in just about any situation, towing or not. And on the big hill it holds its own with the slightly more powerful Ford. On top of that, it costs significantly less to buy and it drinks less fuel.
CAR AND DRIVER 4/11
The current F-150 has always fared well against the competition, but prior to 2011, it lacked a punchy engine. The 310-hp, 5.4-liter V-8 with 365 lb-ft of torque was simply outgunned
CAR AND DRIVER 2007
Ford's 300 horses are weak ones, too, making the F-150 the hindmost in acceleration..
Flames, smart ass remarks, "belittling" aside, is it so ridiculous for me to say that I like my Yukon mostly because of the power/way it drives? I'll even go out on a limb and say that I believe it to be a fact that no comparable Ford of the same year gives it very much competition under the hood.
The following users liked this post:
05TLdcc (09-08-2011)
The following 2 users liked this post by phee:
Aman (09-08-2011),
CLtotheTL32 (09-08-2011)
09-08-2011, 10:10 AM
#59
Okay, since we all clearly can't get along, let me try this another way:
It is my opinion, and not a FACT, that a 2003 GM V8 small block OHV is a better motor than a comparable 5.4 Ford DOHC. I also believe that GM has smoother and far more responsive automatic transmissions.
It is a fact, however, that 9 times out of 10 after driving a Ford and then a GM, the General's engine/transmission impresses me far more. I don't understand why you people are acting like I'm saying that the color blue looks red. This is pretty much common knowledge, and widely known by pretty much all of automotive academia. I never said Ford's are junk; I'd gladly drive a 5.0 Mustang (yes, even over a Camaro with its pushrods). I also like their smaller offerings.
But, and here we go again, an Escalade that does 0-60 in 7.4 vs a Navigator in 9.9 with "the more sophisticated motor", well, forgive me for being so ridiculously out of line cocky as to infer that GM may have had the advantage there. Bring back the firing squads!! I'd rather get 10 MPG and smile when I hit the gas than just get 10MPG. Therefore, it is my OPINION, that this makes it a better powertrain.
It is my opinion, and not a FACT, that a 2003 GM V8 small block OHV is a better motor than a comparable 5.4 Ford DOHC. I also believe that GM has smoother and far more responsive automatic transmissions.
It is a fact, however, that 9 times out of 10 after driving a Ford and then a GM, the General's engine/transmission impresses me far more. I don't understand why you people are acting like I'm saying that the color blue looks red. This is pretty much common knowledge, and widely known by pretty much all of automotive academia. I never said Ford's are junk; I'd gladly drive a 5.0 Mustang (yes, even over a Camaro with its pushrods). I also like their smaller offerings.
But, and here we go again, an Escalade that does 0-60 in 7.4 vs a Navigator in 9.9 with "the more sophisticated motor", well, forgive me for being so ridiculously out of line cocky as to infer that GM may have had the advantage there. Bring back the firing squads!! I'd rather get 10 MPG and smile when I hit the gas than just get 10MPG. Therefore, it is my OPINION, that this makes it a better powertrain.
Classic stuff here! Please keep it coming! Oh this Funny Internet thead is...err...wait a second I'm in Car Talk...WTF!
09-08-2011, 10:28 AM
#61
Funny, isn't it? Now he's searching around the internet, looking for information that only supports his biases, to "prove" to us about the inferiority of all the Dodges and Fords. And what really makes it interesting, is that he doesn't even actually own the vehicle he's attempting to say triumphs all. He's never owned one. Or the vehicles he likes to belittle. I wonder who actually owns the Yukon. Mom? Dad?
Hey, my mother owns a Honda Accord Hybrid and a Nissan 350Z roadster. If anyone likes I can give detailed factual information in regards to their performance and how they are the best in their respective classes.
09-08-2011, 10:33 AM
#63
Your Odyssey is nothing compared to my Sienna, has more cupholders then you can count, super advance vvti engine.
I say we take both cars and have tug-a-war to see would win LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD5hh...layer_embedded
I say we take both cars and have tug-a-war to see would win LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD5hh...layer_embedded
09-08-2011, 10:36 AM
#64
Coal
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Freaking everywhere
Age: 31
Posts: 7,363
Received 137 Likes
on
91 Posts
First of all, I never said, in any way, shape, or form, that GM is the greatest car on earth. I simply stated something that most people (amateurs and professionals..and even AZ members) already know--that one area where GM is usually at the front is with their powertrains. Audi? Great Interiors. VW? Practical. Honda? Reliable. Jaguar? Elegant. GM? Competent powertrains. I don't know where some of you have been hiding but this isn't a newsflash.
For the 394834923829832398th time, THIS IS ALL I'M SAYING! I will be the first to admit that they lack just as badly in other areas. A 10 year old Pontiac GTP (for example) is a POS, probably falling apart, hideous interior and exterior, but step on the gas and it is still competitive with even today's cars.
Of course there are exceptions, but generally this is how it is, and this is all I was saying.
I'm sorry it offends some of you so badly that I think of this as more of a fact than an opinion, but the experts tend to agree with me. I'm just saying...
I can't believe I even spent time doing this, because it won't change anything anyone says (or thinks), but here ya go.
These professional reviews seem to support my OPINION that generally, GM knows what it's doing under the hood. (So, does that make it a fact?)
I stopped after realizing that this won't change anything. It's still just an opinion, right? What do professionals know. It's going to be a piece of cake to find Ford Strengths vs. Weaknesses in 2 seconds, too. Do a search somewhere along the lines of "Shittiest domestic interiors", and you'll get tons of GM hits! Shittiest drivetrains? Not so much.
Flames, smart ass remarks, "belittling" aside, is it so ridiculous for me to say that I like my Yukon mostly because of the power/way it drives? I'll even go out on a limb and say that I believe it to be a fact that no comparable Ford of the same year gives it very much competition under the hood.
For the 394834923829832398th time, THIS IS ALL I'M SAYING! I will be the first to admit that they lack just as badly in other areas. A 10 year old Pontiac GTP (for example) is a POS, probably falling apart, hideous interior and exterior, but step on the gas and it is still competitive with even today's cars.
Of course there are exceptions, but generally this is how it is, and this is all I was saying.
I'm sorry it offends some of you so badly that I think of this as more of a fact than an opinion, but the experts tend to agree with me. I'm just saying...
I can't believe I even spent time doing this, because it won't change anything anyone says (or thinks), but here ya go.
These professional reviews seem to support my OPINION that generally, GM knows what it's doing under the hood. (So, does that make it a fact?)
I stopped after realizing that this won't change anything. It's still just an opinion, right? What do professionals know. It's going to be a piece of cake to find Ford Strengths vs. Weaknesses in 2 seconds, too. Do a search somewhere along the lines of "Shittiest domestic interiors", and you'll get tons of GM hits! Shittiest drivetrains? Not so much.
Flames, smart ass remarks, "belittling" aside, is it so ridiculous for me to say that I like my Yukon mostly because of the power/way it drives? I'll even go out on a limb and say that I believe it to be a fact that no comparable Ford of the same year gives it very much competition under the hood.
You're right, this is pointless, because trying to win an argument on the internet is like winning the special olympics.
09-08-2011, 10:37 AM
#65
Your Odyssey is nothing compared to my Sienna, has more cupholders then you can count, super advance vvti engine.
I say we take both cars and have tug-a-war to see would win LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD5hh...layer_embedded
I say we take both cars and have tug-a-war to see would win LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD5hh...layer_embedded
Not fair. Even thought the Chevrolet folded and collapsed, it clearly sounded better. That is fact.
The following 3 users liked this post by teranfon:
09-08-2011, 11:08 AM
#67
You show me someone who buys for power train ONLY, and i'll show you a moron :wink: In all seriousness, I'm glad you like your 2003 yukon. Shit is fast for a big ol' truck, you just have to look past the rest of it
You're right, this is pointless, because trying to win an argument on the internet is like winning the special olympics.
You're right, this is pointless, because trying to win an argument on the internet is like winning the special olympics.
Last edited by teranfon; 09-08-2011 at 11:10 AM.
09-08-2011, 12:22 PM
#68
Coal
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Freaking everywhere
Age: 31
Posts: 7,363
Received 137 Likes
on
91 Posts
Most everyone I know that has purchased a truck takes into account all of it's components. Suspension, axles, brakes, and frame is certainly considered. Even such things as interior, styling, quietness, and fit and finish is also a deciding factor. Throughout the years I've used all the domestic manufacturers and the trucks have been worked hard. They need to be. If they don't, then things don't get done and deadlines not realized. They're all registered as commercial use and used accordingly. From my experience, since the mid-nineties, the Fords have excelled overall. Does this mean the Dodges and Chevrolets weren't capable? Of course not, but I cannot deny my experiences and the experiences of others. They are all excellent trucks (I absolutely love the 5.7 in the Ram), and I would consider all again in the future. To limit myself, based on fanboy loyalty, would not only be childish, but economically foolish as well. To claim that sound and a slightly better 0-60 time is the deciding factor is best left to those that don't understand vehicle dynamics and blindly choose to identify themselves with a particular brand.
09-08-2011, 12:27 PM
#69
Your Friendly Canadian
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Age: 31
Posts: 17,427
Received 1,484 Likes
on
1,048 Posts
In the OP's defense, not everyone uses trucks for what they're really meant to do (at least in my opinion). I have friends with trucks, and none of them have ever seen a hitch or been off road. To them, maybe power and acceleration is something that matters more. They're never going to use the suspension or really anything else a truck is meant for.
09-08-2011, 12:33 PM
#71
In the OP's defense, not everyone uses trucks for what they're really meant to do (at least in my opinion). I have friends with trucks, and none of them have ever seen a hitch or been off road. To them, maybe power and acceleration is something that matters more. They're never going to use the suspension or really anything else a truck is meant for.
09-08-2011, 12:35 PM
#72
Your Friendly Canadian
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Age: 31
Posts: 17,427
Received 1,484 Likes
on
1,048 Posts
Because they're teenagers with egos the size of Texas. 
Like it or not, that demographic makes up a huge part of truck sales.
Like it or not, that demographic makes up a huge part of truck sales.
09-08-2011, 12:47 PM
#73
Registered but harmless
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Age: 59
Posts: 14,841
Received 1,102 Likes
on
763 Posts
More likely applies to 95% of Range Rover, Land Cruiser/Lexus GX/LX, Hummer H1/H2/H3, BMW and Mercedes SUV owners in SoCal.
09-08-2011, 12:57 PM
#74
I 100% agree with you Terry, and I have the same thinking as well. You know, the reliability of the truck has a lot to do with how it's kept. Even though you probably beat your trucks, you still take care of them, which is a factor of why they run strong for a long time.
09-08-2011, 12:59 PM
#75
09-08-2011, 01:05 PM
#76
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
tl;dr
cliffs?
cliffs?
09-08-2011, 01:17 PM
#77
09-08-2011, 01:21 PM
#78
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,123
Received 4,824 Likes
on
2,571 Posts
I disagree...when Dodge/Chrysler upgraded the caravan/town car for 2011 bringing a much nicer interior and the new 3.6 pentastar, it became a very viable minivan.
While the exterior styling isn't the greatest compared to the others, it now competes...IN MY OPINION.
While the exterior styling isn't the greatest compared to the others, it now competes...IN MY OPINION.
09-08-2011, 01:23 PM
#79
What do they drive like now? I know they're very affordable, but I've also heard they're much better than they were.
09-08-2011, 01:26 PM
#80
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,123
Received 4,824 Likes
on
2,571 Posts
It also had the new 3.6...decently potent engine with really decent gas mileage.
If the suspension is anything like they've done with rest of their cars..its a winner in my book...especially because of the cost by comparison.
The only thing you lose out on is the resale values if thats important to you.