Printable View
I had a built 80 for 4 years...OME, slee arms, ARB, f&r lockers. Warn 12k...etc....easily the best truck I've ever had....but I need some modern touches as life moved on...mainly some pick up speed. The 80 for me was a first true love, I'll never forget her and she taught me much.
If I got back in the LC game id be looking at a 100 series too. Although if my wallet was bottomless a built 200 is really fucking cool.
The 4.7 is a bit under powered too.
200s are tits. At that price point though, there are a slew of options, that are better buys IMO.
I'd might even go Sequoia. If going to that size of a SUV.
http://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M4...c31H0&pid=15.1
Either of those will put you well into newer 4R territory, and I don't need a land yacht.
You scored on that thing. Well done.Quote:
Originally Posted by basinbeater
Totally agreed on the ugly part, I think the front end pf all the new Toyota trucks need another redesign immediately.
Yeah I like having a lift up gate too (like my Durango) so I have a sheltered place to hang when it's hot and sunny or raining.
Buddy has one and loves it, says it has no problems towing his enclosed sled trailer, no clue what that weight but probably not super heavy. I know he's getting a good bit less than what he expected for MPG but I think that is a common story for that engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by klauss
^^^^^^^Looks like a transformer, but not as funky as the front end of a 4runner fo sure.
It's sorta sad that all these new trucks basically look the same. Sure, they change the grill and the headlights but really they're all aiming for the same basic target. The auto industry is so boring and homogenous right now the in the States. Not saying I'd turn down a new crew cab truck if somebody was offering, but it sure looks like these options are just offering the illusion of choice in a marketplace that is saturated with sameness.
My '99 just rolled over 300K. Beside regular maintenance, I've replaced the heater coil, suspension control arm, and the windshield washer pump. I been wanting a new truck for awhile now but as long as this one is still going strong I'll keep rolling in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirshredalot
Aerodynamics and function. There are only so many ways to hit an aero target and all of them have a similar enough intended purpose that the end result ultimately has to end up looking about the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruiser
I hear you. I get that there are a whole host of sensible reasons that these vehicles all look the same. It just kind of bums me out because the auto mfgs have all the tech to bring new and innovative products to market and yet they are incapable of doing so due to the crushing demands of competing in the modern marketplace and conforming to the regs set forth by the various regulatory agencies overseeing which vehicles can legally cruise the roads on multiple continents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravitylover
Or maybe truck makers could try to hit actual goals that would really affect people. 2000 Tundra 4wd with biggest motor, 13/16 mpg. 2015 4wd with biggest motor, 13/17 mpg. 1985 F150 5.0L 4wd 13/16 mpg. 2015 F150 4wd 5.0L 15/21 mpg. It's cool that these things can pull a house but how many of these grocery getters are pulling anything? Why not actually offer a mid-size pickup (that is probably the same size as an older full-size) with new technology that actually gets decent mpg? I'd buy one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruiser
I bought a '13 F150 ecoboost mostly on the hype of higher mpg and am sorely disappointed in that dept. 16/17ish combined mpg. I like the pickup but it's much bigger than I really need. I could have bought a Taco which would probably get about the same. My '97 Landcruiser with a 5" lift, lots of heavy armor and 35" tires gets between 11-13 mpg. A '15 LC gets a combined reported 15 and I bet it's actually lower in the real world. Before my "upgrades", I would get a combined 16 and occasionally hit 20 on the highway. And the new LC is a big pig that won't fit a lot of places you would actually want to go off road. Bring the 70 series diesel to the US! Awesome off road capabilities in stock form and 25-28 mpg. And once again, an $80k car that drifts so far from the original intentions of the vehicle means no self respecting person who actually drives on dirt will ever buy one unless you need the extra space for Costco trips or to have something cool to pull your golf clubs out of.
Yes, maybe the auto industry in the US could actually build some things with current tech, they just don't because we keep buying bigger. It's all a sham in favor of manufacturer and oil industry profits.
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/a...5&d=1455561238
Like a Honda Ridgeline?Quote:
Originally Posted by Conundrum
(ducks)
The new forthcoming Ranger sounds good and if Ram would release the one they sell in Mexico that would be good too. Thre are a host of small 4 door pickups in the pipeline that make sense, whether we get them here in the states remains to be seen.
Beat me to it, was just going to post that.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Chupacabra
http://www.wcti12.com/image/view/-/3...ine-01-jpg.jpg
I want one.
^At that point why not get an SUV like a pilot…
That bed is good for absolutely nothing. Similar to the new Ford Ranger with the fake roll bar that takes up like 50% of the bed rails.
who bought the colorado/canyon?
I like the size of the f150/tundra and I am not even a natural born U.S. citizen. Have I been indoctrinated?
Sort of....it's a step in the right direction. They are saying it's going to 18/26 mpg. I'm looking for an all in from the truck companies. I don't want a Honda Pilot with a small bed added to the back. I'm probably too unique in my wants sort like TGR and the dream ski wagon. Basically I want a pickup somewhere between 2000 Extra cab Tacoma or Tundra sizeish with a 6' bed (so I can put a topper on in and sleep back there and actually fit a few pair of ski without having to open the back of the cab, towing capacity of 5-7,000 pounds, selectable 4wd (not a Pilot AWD system) rear e-locker, new engine tech like the 2.7L Ecoboost or small Turbo diesel that will put out 30 mpg. I know not many people want this so maybe it will never happy but the tech is there.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Chupacabra
The Ridgeline fits a spot in the line-up but doubt I would like it. I'm just too picky. It will probably be pretty sweet for those who get off the beaten path a little and need or want a a pickup a little. Just seems like if you are going to strip a lot of what makes a pickup a pickup, you should be doing better than 26 max mpg. Some of the new 1/2 tons are doing 17/25, 16/24, etc. If much larger 1/2 tons can get really close to the Ridgeline numbers and can tow more, haul more, and weigh more, why can't the Ridgeline get better mpg?
I'd really like to see some manufacturer partnerships happening to achieve these type of goals. If the trucks are going to all look the same anyway, why not take the best parts of each.
Approximately $15,000 to $25,000 saved (depending on specs) is a pretty decent "point."Quote:
Originally Posted by east or bust
It's not going to suite everyone. My wife wants one really badly, it's probably her next car, right now she has a 2015 Nissan Rogue.
Exhibit A on why the marketing department runs modern auto companies: only 45 days into 2016 and already shopping to replace a 2015.Quote:
Originally Posted by Huck_Schmuck
How is 1600 lbs bed capacity good for nothing? It's a bigger bed than the dual cab options from Chevy and Toyota.Quote:
Originally Posted by east or bust
Throwing mountain bikes, sheets of plywood and many other things are easier in that useless bed than into the back of a suv.
I've pretty much ruined my little Jeep Patriot cuv in using it like a little pick-up. Not everyone wants or needs a full size monster, would be nice if they brought back the true small size pick-up with efficient little 4 banger.
I'm with you. Big trucks with tiny beds doesn't make sense to me. Big pickups with big beds (5-8 ft), medium pickups with medium beds (5-6 ft), and little pickups like a Ridgeline with a little bed that gets proportionately better mpg than the big trucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by shirk
I looked for a long bed (8 ft) for awhile and they were all special order but I had countless 4.5 ft bed options on 1/2 and 3/4. Ridiculous.
And people jump on Honda saying it's not a real bed when the rest of them offer plenty of trucks with almost no real bed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conundrum
Trucks have gone from true work horse to a lifestyle vehicle.
Exactly. I don't think it's a real bed on the Honda but it took me months to find an F150 with a 6+ ft bed. Such a pain in the ass. I laugh at all these giant trucks with tiny little beds. What's the point? I guess looking cool and driving a "truck".
Chevy and Ford didn't even offer a four door long bed half ton for 2015. Ford is supposed to add one for 2016.
Cruiser, I don't get your comments at all here. On the one hand you seem to be talking about appearances, but you are also referring to technology.
In US, Canada, Australia, I'm seeing a large range of quite different trucks. If you're superficial enough to care a lot about appearance, most current Rams, GMCs, and fords are instantly recognizable a mile away because of their very different front end designs. Std cabs with 8 foot beds, extended cabs with long beds, crew cabs with long or stupid short beds. U.S. now getting more midsize trucks, Australia getting more full size trucks. Dodge Ram with air suspension for off road vs Hiway clearance. Small, med, large diesels. Large gas engines, sm and med engines with turbos, 8 and now 10 speed transmissions that let you run a big rear end ratio for towing but have low rpms on the hiway.
There's more variety and actual choice in the truck market than there's ever been.