Options
'99 Silverado/Sierra vs. F-150
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I am happy with my SILVERADO.
i could see an older one being off seeing that it was not digital, but the digital ones are probably pretty precise
didnt even know that they had computers in vehicles then, except i know that the cadillac was extremely advanced for its time
Yep, it was all electronic. I found it out when my ground wire came off of my output shaft speed sensor on the back of the tranny and my speedo went dead.
fordtough1,
I appreciate you coming in and telling everyone what's up. Like Chevy's not putting out what they are supposed to, and the speedo's being off. About the Cobra's, I actually brought that up in an effort to be objective and point out that numbers quoted by companies are sometimes inflated (however, at least Ford is currently fixing the Cobra problem). It's what happens on the dyno at the rear wheels that counts. I might also warn you that some people active in this thread are quite sensitive yet also volatile when you say anything about their beloved Chevy's. Remember, I got your back.
Remember the sales figures that you claim didn't exist?? Post 137 in toic 863. Do the math. Ford outsells GM combined and ask kcram--I think it's the third straight year. I know.....it was awile ago....but I feel vindicated.
Maybe 10 cruising with the wind?
With that said, the Excursion is not going to get awesome gas mileage. The Excursion with the V-10 is like a Suburban with the 454. The Excursion with the V-10 and 3.73 axle ratio will probably get 10-11 in around town and 14 on the hwy. Yoiu can probably expect 8-10 towing. Trailer Life Magazine did a pre-release test run with the Excursion towing a decent size trailer.
Now I know why the Navy isn't building any more FFGs!!
I'd be interested to see the tow ratings. I don't have the Excursion figures in front of me, but I'd guess it is the standard 10,000 conventional tow rating for Ford 3/4 and 1 ton trucks. I'll verify that tow rating for the Excursion when I get home and look up that Trailer Life article. They usually post that info, although there the article was a prerelease article, so it may not be in there.
Looking at my 1999 Tow Rating book, it says the max tow rating for the Suburban is 10,000 pounds with the 7.4L V-8 and 4.10 axle ratio. If you use the 6.5L diesel or one of the other V-8s that tow rating drops to 8,000 pounds and lower. If you have other tow ratings for the Suburban or have better info on the Excursion tow ratings, please post them so I don't mislead anyone.
As for mpg, I think the Trailer Life article quoted some of those as well. I'll look them up. I still can't imagine them being much different than the Superduty. The Superduty also has a diesel option.
I can't say for sure, but I suspect Chevy has a footnote by any of their tow ratings over 10,000 that say the same thing. Of course, Chevy has very few tow ratings in excess of 10,000 pounds. As discussed in previous posts, their max tow ratings are thousands below Ford and Dodge in most cases, and never higher. The new Chevy heavy duty line might address this deficiency.
i wonder what the tow rating would be when they put the new gas and the new diesel in it??
Tow rating 10,100 GMC 10,000 Ford
Braking from 60 mph 142 feet GMC 167 feet Ford
0-60 mph 9.1 seconds GMC 10.1 Ford
1/4 mile 16.8 seconds @ 82 mph GMC 17.5 @ 77.7 Fd
The GMC also has better handling, ride, A/C and it even fits in a standard garage.
I do like the looks of the F-250 super duty, but it is way more truck than I need. It is the rear end of the Excursion that makes me look the other way. It looks like a large mini van - almost as bad as the Lincoln Navigator. That is also one ugly truck.. Of course looks are subjective - one mans dog is anothers dream. I guess when you compare the Excursion to the Navigator or to the F-150 Tauras it is not really that bad.
A 1/2 ton Silverado with a V-8 will be faster than my Ford 1 ton dually with a V-10 or the diesel, but it's not going to do everything my truck will do. Apples to apples is the Suburban with the 454 and the 4.10 axle ratio and the Excursion with the V-10 and 4.10 axle ratio. I'm sure the Suburban would fare just fine. Regardless of which vehicle won, it would be close. Yukon vs Excursion is not apples to apples.
Like I said, 10,000 pounds is pretty much the max conventional tow rating. It's not that you can't go higher, but I know Ford and Dodge don't recommend it. Ford won't classify a truck higher than 10,000 for conventional towing. It's just not that safe towing that much weight on a hitch. A fifth wheel hitch has a lot more stability, which is why the rating is higher. Most (if not all) conventional tow trailers are under 10,000 pounds. The 3/4 ton Superduty with the V-10 is rated to tow over 14,000 pounds, depending on what setup you get. However, Ford will not rate it to tow more than 10,000 with a conventional trailer. Since the Excursion can't tow a fifth wheel, 10,000 is going to be the max Ford will rate it.
As you said, vehicle appearance is a matter of preference. I like the rear doors on the Excursion. Chevy is supposedly building another big SUV that will be bigger than the Excursion. For both manufacturers, it's a macho thing. The Excursion was a natural progression since they had the new Superduty frame and they didn't have a SUV as big as the Suburban.
Kind of like the S-10 and it's bigger twin: Silverado??
the magazine compared the Yukon XL, not the Yukon. GMC is keeping the Yukon name, but is dropping the suburban name. The new GMC "suburban" is called the Yukon XL, for extra long, i guess.
It is still a half ton offering. but i am surprised that this half ton GMC has higher tow rating than the EXcursion. might check on those numbers.
the test was of the 1/2 ton Yukon XL, but you can currently order the 3/4 version with the 6.0 v8. THe 1/2 ton has coil link rear suspension, was a big reason why the GMC fared so much better off road AND on road. the 3/4 GM 'suburbans' are getting the normal leaf spring package, which would make them a little rougher riding.
The 1999 Tow Rating book I have doesn't show any Chevy 1/2 ton truck with a tow rating in excess of 8,200 pounds. The C1500 Suburban is rated at 6,500 pounds with the 5.7L V-8 and 8,000 pounds with the diesel. The C2500 Suburban with the 7.4L V-8 is rated at 10,000. The tow rating book I have is already outdated since it came out at the beginning of the year. It's also not all inclusive. For example, there are no listings for the 6.0L. They may not have been available when the book went to print.
S-10 is the Silverado's little brother so what is the problem with a slight family resemblance?
Even I must give Ford some credit for the F-150 - It sells more than any other..
The environmentalist gave Ford a marketing coup by announcing the Excursion as enemy #1. Free publicity. Tree huggers aren't the market.
I parked my truck next to a new black dually GMC Sierra 3500 4x4 at lunch today. Both trucks were the equivalent offering from Ford and Chevy. There was no comparison. The GMC looked like a Tonka truck next to mine. And we've already discussed the tow ratings, so we know the performance followed the same line as the appearance.
ford targeted about 50,000 in sales. i think the suburbans sold around 80K last year. those were mostly to the soccer moms. i can't see the mall and soccer moms wanting something bigger, thats why the expedition and tahoe are selling well, they are a more manageable and parkable size. Unless they really are a lot of people out there who need a diesel SUV to go get groceries...
yeah, there are outfitters and such that could justify this vehicle, but i've seen lots of suburbans tried before, and usually a truck ends up being more "useful" than the SUV does.
I'm still trying to get some more feedback from people who have the Gale Banks modifications to see if it's worth the investment. I figure if I opt to do the Banks mods, next May would be a prime time. I'm planning a road trip to Southern CA, which is where Banks is located. I figure by the time I pull out of here in May, the truck will have over 30,000 miles on it. The trip down there will add another 3,500, so my warranty will almost be expired. Then again, I could buy a snowmobile (another thing on my wish list for next year) for the cost of the Banks mods and the vacation to CA. Maybe Ed McMahon will call.....
I, too, would go for the best price for a given package. No absolute brand loyalty. Even for BMW. However, I admit that no matter how logically I approach this truck-buying thing (I am a computer field type), there would be emotional preferences that would affect the choice of one truck over the other. How many dollars this preference means is yet to be determined.
What I really want is a truck that was not made on Monday morning or Friday afternoon. I want it to not fail unnecessarily or prematurely. I just want to have fun (like a teenager?).
You know: 3/4 ton, extended cab, extra door on drivers side, all comfort options, tow package, 4x4. Daily commuter in medium elevation (snow four or five times a year with morning after ice). Towing a 4-5000 pound trailer two or three times a year.
I lurk amongst these postings to be able to look at and make an educated choice from the trucks on the lot when I shop. After discarding all the “my trucks better than your truck (‘cause I couldn’t bear to admit that I screwed up)” epistles, it is actually very educational.
Thank you all. Adrian.
I will say though that my 99 F-150 4.6 Auto with 3.55 LS did a great job of towing a 2100 lb. auto transport with a 4400lb. 71 GMC pickup on it. Add on the regular 1500lbs. of crap I keep in the back and that is a good load. I towed it 600 miles with OD off at 65mph and got 12.0 mpg. I am very pleased with my truck. It performed flawlessly. I had my doubts at first with the small eight. I love this truck. It is the epitome of trucks in this class.
I also rode in a Suburban today and it was nice as well but it was not built as well as any Ford (truck) I have been riden in or driven.
I am a true Ford fan.
See how easy it becomes? Soon you'll be spouting as many opinions as us!! Thanks for the clarification, I understand.
Roc
"The '99 Initial Quality Study 2 is based on 41,004 owners of '99 model-year vehicles and monitors the number of problems new-vehicle owners face during the the first three months of onwership. The study is the industry benchmark of initial vehicle quality standards and is measured in terms of problems per 100 vehicles and covers 135 specific problem areas across nine problem categories."
The magazine listed the top 3 vehicles in six categories of vehicles (Compact pickup, fullsize pickup, mini sport/utility, compact sport/utility, fullsize sport/utility, luxury sport/utility). The top three for fullsize pickups, in order were: 1)Ford F-Series light-duty; 2) Dodge Ram; 3) Ford F-250 super-duty. The top three for compact were: 1) Dodge Dakota; 2) Mazda B-Series; 3) Ford Ranger. No '99 Silverados or other Chevys in the bunch.
The only Chevy that ranked in the top 3 in any category was a the Chevy Tahoe, which ranked 2nd in fullsize sport/utility, just behind the Toyota Landcruiser and just ahead of the 3rd place Expedition (the Explorer finished 3rd in the compact SUV category).
I'm not sure if the discussion of the new Excursion showed up here or not, but I did read some interesting "green" info about it in the Sport Truck mag and a couple of other mags. It will be classifed as a LEV (Low Emissions Vehicle). It will have 45% less emissions than required. It's also made from 20% recycled parts and 85% of it's parts can be recycled. In their test on flat hwy, it got 18.1 mpg with the diesel engine. The 2000 F-Series will also be classifed as LEV.
The best resale figure is one stat that has no significance for me. But, if I'm not mistaken, the fine print says that Chevy got the resale info from J.D. Power and Associates, which is the same reporting agency that you don't agree with on the Quality report. The resale figures are skewed by the fact that Ford has a good chunk of sales to fleets and RVers who use and abuse their trucks more.
Another factor that may play into it is the purchase price. I've heard that it's pretty hard to get a current model year Chevy for close to dealer invoice. I've only heard that as a rumor, so I'm definitely not stating it as fact. I do know that you can get a Ford for within $1,000 of dealer invoice, and often closer to $500 over invoice, if you do a little shopping. If someone can get a new Ford for $3,000-$4,000 below MSRP, it will drive down the price people are willing to pay for a used Ford. For example, if the window sticker of a new Ford is $30,000 and all of the dealers charged that much for the truck, someone would have a lot better luck selling their used Ford with 10,000 miles on it for more than if the dealers were all selling the trucks for $26,000.
By the way, if you have the resale info, it's be informative if you could post it. I've always been interested to know exactly how much higher the resale value is and what period the figures represent. I believe it's a 10 year period, but I'm not sure when that period supposedly started and when it ended. It would also be interesting to see how it is calculated. Is the resale value based on the ratio between actual resale price and MSRP or is it between actual resale price and actual purchase price? The latter would be a better indicator, but personally, I think an even better indicator would be average resale divided by average purchase price.
With that said, any manufacturer can find a figure or a study or a poll to support their position. That's why I don't put too much stock in the claims of any of the Big 3 when it comes to quoting those things. Hard data like sales figures are fact and not subjective, although I guess someone could argue that the purchasers of the leader in the market are all brain-deficient, but that would be a real stretch.
I'd say it's out for debate whether or not recalls or TSBs are good indicators of quality. Recalls and TSBs are almost always voluntary. It seems to me that recently one of the Big 3 lost a major lawsuit because there was undeniable evidence that they knew a defect could cause a fire during an accident, but didn't issue a recall because it wasn't cost effective compared to paying off the number of wrongful death lawsuits. If I'm not mistaken, they actually had a dollar figure per death precalculated.
I guess I don't have a problem with a manufacturer admitting (post-release) that they have found a better/safer thing they could have done to a vehicle, and then telling the public to bring it on and they'll fix it for free. TSBs are the same thing. It alerts mechanics to potential problems, so that when someone brings their vehicle in with a similar complaint, the mechanic can look immediately to that area, rather than starting from scratch and spending much longer trying to figure out the problem (and possibly not finding the right thing).
Since most decisions to issue a recall or TSB is usually voluntary, the willingness to issue either can hinge on company philosophy. Some recalls are forced by regulators (even some of the voluntary ones that are done under pressure of impending mandatory one by regulators), but those are a small minority of the recalls.
Service bulletin: courtesy info provided by manufacturer's engineers to dealers, so mechanics can address maintenance issues quickly for the consumer.
Recall: Manufacturer's engineers have identified problems that might represent potential safety hazards, so the manufacturer will agree to fix something for free.
Like I've said before, what is wrong with a manufacturer volunteering to fix something for free? One of my recalls was because there was a very remote possiblility that an object of a very specific size, flying off the ground at a very specific angle might manage to slice a brake line. Ford issued a voluntary recall for something that had very little potential liability for them. Although I do my routine oil changes at the local lube-n-tune, I take it into the dealer about every 10,000 miles for the routine servicing and tell them to take care of any recall items.
Where did you get the most loyal customer stat from? Maybe a J.D. Power & Associates study? Those guys that you said had no credibility? How do you pick and choose which study to believe? "This one says nice things about Chevy, so it's good. This one says Chevys aren't as good, so it's bad." Take a look at my post about the J.D. Power & Associates study. I quoted where I found it and how they tabulated their info. That doesn't mean you shouldn't quote a study that you've heard about but haven't actually seen. You should however qualify the statement by saying something like, "I've heard that Chevy has the highest customer loyalty".....and then admit you heard it on the Chevy commercial.
Ford's shifty history goes back farther than GM? See paragraph above.
I've never said that Chevy is an inferior truck. I will say that Chevy doesn't currently make a truck that can do what I need my truck to do as effectively or efficiently as my truck can do it. But remember, I have a 1 ton dually 4x4 in snow country with a 4000+ pound slide-in camper. The Ford and Dodge duallys far out number the Chevy duallys up here, and there is a reason for it.
Not sure about the welding comment. It is my (unprofessional, of course) experience that welded components are stronger than formed materials. I had a material strength course in college that covered this, using the Northridge earthquake as a case point. In several instances of structure failure, (bridges in general, but included several other structures) metal components that were welded together failed within the component, not at the weld. I saw several examples where 1/2" steel sheared the length of a component, only to be stopped by a weld. Not once did I see an example (several in-class, a few on-site, and about a hundred slides) and I do not recall ever once seeing a weld fail. Feel free to correct me, I am just reporting what I remember, I am not a professional welder.
Also, a while ago it was mentioned that Chevy's frames are hardly ever totaled, mainly repaired. I remember reading somewhere that Chevy's new frame is a hydroformed three piece segment. It is not designed to provide front to back strength, rather it is designed to deflect and buckle in an impact, reducing the amount of energy transmitted into the passenger cabin. I have also heard that while it works well in high speed impacts, it also will deform in low speed impacts. This might mean that noticible deflection in the frame might be noticeable in a 10 mph accident, requiring frame straightening. Due to the three-piece section, if you are rear-ended by another truck going 45 mph faster than you, the rear section will deform and buckle. You, the driver, will not feel the effects of a 45 mph impact, but perhaps a 20 mph impact, much less, saving you from more significant injury. (As a note, just because you don't drive a new Chevy doesn't mean you are in significant risk in an accident. All frames will deflect/buckle/reduce the energy in an accident. The Chevy will just likely deflect/buckle/reduce more. How much more? I don't know. And I am not about to do the math, I don't have an extra month or so to waste. So don't ask.)
The good news with Chevy's new frame? It will reduce the amount of energy in an accident. The bad news? You will have to have your frame straightened/replaced more often than someone who doesn't have a hydroformed three piece frame. The good news? You may only have to repair/replace a third of the frame, not the whole thing, saving you and Chevy time and money.
Gas mileage report: 5.4L V8 auto, ext cab 4x4 off road, 3.73 gears. In town averaging 16 mpg. Freeways averaging 20, not including one 560 mile trip from Lincoln, NE to Milwaukee, WI with a completely full load in cab, completely full load under tarp in bed, and a completely full 6' x 12' Uhaul towing behind. Several boxes of books, a large oak desk, large oak cabinet and a heavier-than-it-looks oak table included with the normal I'm-moving-to-a-new-house stuff. I have no guess as to the weight, but it was heavier than heck. I kept it out of OD, it never shifted out of third, even on some rather long uphill climbs. Averaged 17 mpg.
One more thought before I go. The front and back bumpers on Chevy appear to be lower than my Ford F-150. This does affect the outcome in an accident somewhat. If this is true, when a Chevy truck gets rear-ended, the "crumple zones" of the hydroformed three piece will come in handy. If a Ford gets hit, the non-deflecting frame with a higher bumper may force the energy down and under the truck. I have heard of a truck getting rear ended by a Corvette going about 60 mph faster than the truck. Got caught fiddling with the stereo coming up to a stop light, I guess. Vette hit, got pushed under the truck. Shaved the top of the vette off. Damage to the vette was total, including the driver. Damage to the truck: some small dimples in the bumper, two blown tires, minor frame misalignment and some underbody damage. Driver was fine. Just thought I'd share.
Sorry about the long post.
No, your deductions are not common sense, and I don't think a reasonable comparison can be made between Ford F-150 frame and the Chevy Silverado frame by an engineer who hasn't done the calculations, let alone a non-engineer. Hydroforming is a much different process than welding, so even though you are comparing two similar looking frames, manufacturing methods used to make the two are not the same, so the two cannot be compared by the standard "this one uses newer technology so it must be better" approach. Honestly comparing the two frames would require an in-depth material strength calculation which would likely cause headaches for the most skilled engineers with all the latest relevant computer software. Sure, any non-engineer can deduct logical reasoning through observation, but that doesn't mean its right. Common sense doesn't lead one to think the hydroformed frame is stronger. In any complex structure, the highest load concentrations will most likely exist in the corners, where one section meets another. In a welded frame, these connections are welded together, and you get back to the statement that welded joints can be stronger than the rest of the structure. With a hydroformed frame, which I am going to have to make the assumption that material thickness is constant throughout the structure, there is no reinforcing of the corners, and there is constant material strength through the entire structure. In the corners, where load concentration is high, the constant material strength creates a weak spot. If this is how Chevy engineers designed it, I would expect to see frame failure originating from corners. Maybe the engineers at Chevy made the frame thicker in these areas. I don't know. I don't work for Chevy (although I would consider it if they offered) and I don't know any who does. I am not about to waste the next few months crawling around various pickups with calipers and a notepad to prove you wrong. But I also don't think anyone can definitively say I am wrong unless they have either done the calculations themselves or have true scientific proof.
I may be wrong about the Chevy frame being a 3 piece, but I honestly believe I read it somewhere. I will try to find out where, but no promises. And for the record, my Ford has never been to the shop, doesn't need to go, tows better than I will ever honestly need it to, and has more than enough power to satisfy me.
When you break a bone, the calcium that builds up in the break does not come from the bone, rather from the blood, therefore the rest of the bone does not become weaker, it retains the same strength level. You are correct that the point where the bone broke will become stronger than the rest of the bone. The bone is therefore no more likely to break than before, but more likely to break in a different place than before.
Off-Road had a much more informative comparison of the Silverado and the F-150. They rated seven factors and assigned points. The highest score by either truck in any component was an 8, so I'm guessing the scale was 1-8 or that neither truck warranted a 10 in any category.
There was one rating area that the magazine said wasn't going to reflect accurately because the F-150 design in this area was changed from their test model. The topic area was "Ease of changing into 4wd". The F-150 they tested had a floor mounted shifter. The current F-150 has the knob on the dash. As tested, the Ford ranked a 4 because of the floor shifter compared to a 7 for the Silverado.
Ignoring that ranking area, the test was a dead heat. The trucks were within one point of each other in all areas except for two areas. The Chevy scored a 8 in mpg compared to a 6 for the Ford. The highest mpg they could get from the Ford was slightly over 16. The highest they got with the Chevy was around 19. I'm not sure which rear end either truck had. The Ford outscored the Chevy in handling with an 8 compared to a 6 for the Chevy.
All in all, total the points up and it's even, which is realistically how close the Silverado and F-150 are once we put our personal bias aside (obviously, me included).