Are you an EV owner who has received a shockingly high quote for repairs? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to [email protected] by Friday, May 26 for more details.




  • dave40dave40 Member Posts: 582
    The Truck fad is here to stay!
    Show your Truck to the world at

  • sellmeatrucksellmeatruck Member Posts: 20
    I think we'll continue to have many more trucks. They're generally safer, your visibility is better, performance is good and they're easier to work on than front wheel drive vehicles. I have a couple of trucks, and it is more difficult to park them & maneuver around narrow ways, but they hold their value so well & last so long.
  • bronco1031bronco1031 Member Posts: 1
    F-150 XLT 4x4 supercab: no "pistonslap", jet black, auto everything and a great ride.

    Unlike many fellow truck owners, I dont owe much a grudge against other brands just because Im driving oval blue. Over the years Ive had my chance to ride some great trucks and some good trucks....hardly any BAD trucks.

    True, cars are "nifty" and cheaper, and in some cases downright exhilerating. But so what if it cruises at 120mph and has great jump time: who needs a speeding ticket with overinflated insurance rates as they are already?

    Choosing a truck is choosing a mentality; an image; a lifestyle. Trucks provide comfort, durability, GREAT residuals (overall) and much more utility than their midget cousins (cars).
    People on this list have mentioned the "commanding view", which I find VERY helpful for city driving.

    Gas guzzlers? You betcha. But somebody has to subsidize the gas companies (joke).

    Here in Wyoming/Colorado, 4x4 is essential for ski trips and winter driving. However, 4x4 will never compensate for careless driving. I shudder every time I see the careless SUV driver down in the snowy bank b/c they thought they could "buy" safety. (sadly, truckers, too).

    For all car lovers who happen to be reading: try a truck for ONE certainly wont do you any harm and you might end up never going back to driving something which separates your [non-permissible content removed] from the ground by less than two/three feet.

    Also, for SUV owners: PLEASE MAKE YOUR PHONE CALLS AT HOME OR IN THE OFFICE....and dont try the off-roading: the only person you would end up entertaining is the insurance company.

    Life is short, drive a truck. :>
  • mikey43mikey43 Member Posts: 74
    W L
    0 2

    Oh well, there's still 14 more to go :-)
  • danbodandanbodan Member Posts: 23
    Trucks are starting to drive like cars. They are picking up a even bigger market by doing this. Drive a Toyota Tundra and tell me how many cars are that quite in them. Volkswagon, Cadilac and others will have one soon. I sold both my Rx7 and 3000Gt because they were not as fun to drive as a truck. I love to watch people at Home Depot put lumber or bricks in the trunk of their car. Trucks are here to stay.
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Member Posts: 358
    I'm a big guy (6'5", 265 lbs) so if I want to ride without being squished, I can either get a truck, a full-size SUV, or a luxury automobile (cadillac,
    lincoln, big buick, etc.). I can't afford (or I should say I choose not to afford) the latter two.
    I'm the type of truck owner that a lot of other truck owners hate. I have a Z71 that's never been off road, never towed anything and only light hauling (gotta love that trunk space!). I have no real need for a truck, other than my size as mentioned, but it's just really cool looking and really convenient. Plus, the 5.7L Vortec (I have a '98) is awesome and extremely economical (see my posts in the 'Gas mileage' topic) for its size.

  • jcmdiejcmdie Member Posts: 594
    There aren't "good" or "bad" reasons to own a truck. It's all about preferences and what is best suited to your needs. I have a brother that lives in a very cogested area of the city and he has a honda prelude. Any thing larger and he would never find a parking spot.
  • lkarshlkarsh Member Posts: 2
    My husband and I just purchased a '00 Dodge Ram 2500 4x4 Quad Cab, long bed with the Cummins and we love it! We have two small children who fit nicely in the back. I've noticed where we live (Alpine, CA, ~25 miles east of San Diego in the foothills), there are lots of the extended cab models roaming the streets. (Of course, there are just as many SUVs.)

    I've always loved trucks--wanted one when I turned 16, but my mother wouldn't allow it, saying to me "Girls don't drive trucks." When I was able to make my first vehicle purchase of my own, I chose a Ford Ranger. It was a great little truck for a single gal living at the beach.

    In the past, we've also owned a small Toyota pick-up (great little trucks) and an '84 Chevy Silverado with 6.2L diesel. Sadly, the Chevy threw a rod two weeks ago, which led to the purchase of our new Dodge.

    We have a road ranger trailer that we haul to the local desert for camping. The truck works well for our purposes, because you can load up sand toys, firewood, etc. in the back and then haul the trailer behind.

    Hurray for trucks!
  • artpartp Member Posts: 156
    A previous post...

    > I love to watch people at Home Depot put lumber > or bricks in the trunk of their car.

    What I like even better is a mini-van or car going down the road, crippled, with a Christmas tree tied to the roof!

    Love my Tundra!
  • glenn2glenn2 Member Posts: 39
    not for a day or two
  • SWCSWC Member Posts: 10
    I own an 89 3/4 ton Chevy work truck and recently purchased a 99 Ford F150 Ext.Cab 5.4, and the difference is amazing! I realize the Ford is a decade newer, but the "creature features" of the Ford probably wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the high demand for these vehicles. How many years have trucks been around before leather became an option? The public demand for quality trucks with luxury vehicle features has resulted in the beautiful machines we see on the roads today.
  • moudry1moudry1 Member Posts: 61
    Disco kinda sucked though.
  • fordtough1fordtough1 Member Posts: 14
    I use my truck in every way a truck was meant to be used. I pull hay, tractors, fourwheelers, boats, firewood and any thing else I need too. I hunt and use four wheel drive on almost a daily basis. The bed is all scratched up with a few scratches on the outside from woods. It is just my lifestyle. I need a truck. BTW I have a 97 F-150 extended cab 4x4 ORP 5.4
  • tommctommc Member Posts: 66
    Remember back in 70 I got out of the Army. Took off for Calif. Couple guys had older Ford pickups. Seemed strange to me but after a couple days, I really got to liking the concept. Seemed like the real deal even back then and I doubt it will change any time soon. Only problem is now that the trucks are getting crazy in prices. What's with 35,000 dollar trucks? Huge boxcar SUVs with 5'2 women driving all by themselves? This part of the deal is getting insane, but trucks are too practical to go away. tom
  • mx270mx270 Member Posts: 1
    My first vehicle was a car and the rest pickups. I use mine for function only. Hauling, bouncing through pastures, or pulling trailers, my machine is used and abused. Driving through midwest cities, I have to wonder how many times a year a 4x4 extended cab is actually put in four wheel drive?? Coincidering my two wheel drive gets me there and back no problems. Owning a pickup for many many people has to be convenient. Not needing to borrow one when you buy a 4' x 8' sheet of plywood is great. In time, high prices and fuel mileage will begin to wear down the appeal. The novelty of the "cowboy" image will wear off as well. I will admit, however, four wheel drive looks cool and even though I have no use for one, I would like to own one anyway.
  • gwmooregwmoore Member Posts: 230
    I'm tired of arguing about how much more functional 4wd is than 2wd. I guess it depends on your lifestyle. But if you got a truck to use it for what it was really designed (fishing & hunting & camping at off-road destinations, towing boats, hauling stuff to raw & muddy work-sites, etc.), 4wd is purely functional (i.e. allows you to get to special places and back home without getting stuck).

    Besides, as the new 4wd trucks have evolved to have a lower center of gravity (i.e. new Sierra/Silverado, Dakota, & even the tindra), you can hardly tell the 4wd, by their looks, from a 2wd.
  • afs11afs11 Member Posts: 86
    I have just ordered a 2000 Chevy Silverado 4WD LT Ext.Cab 4-dr. P/U.

    I was looking at some cars, but thought why would I want a car? This truck will have the comfort, convenient & utility all rolled into one.

    It will use more gas, but I'm will to spend the money for a much safer automobile. The truck has a real frame, not some unibody front wheel system.
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Member Posts: 358
    I see your point, but probably the main reason to buy a car over a truck is price. You can get a well loaded Grand Prix SE, for example, for under 20K with some bargaining. Then, you'll get a smoother ride, 30 mpg and more rear-seat leg room. That's not enough reason for me, though. I love trucks.
  • afs11afs11 Member Posts: 86
    My pickup is a Chevy (4-dr), with 4WD & the Z71 pkg. I have ordered it with the FW1 shock absorber damping system.

    With this system it will have a smooth ride when I want & I can adjust the dampnig to firm when I need too!

    The rear seat room is about the same as the GP SE.
    It will cost more, but if you want to resell in a couple of years you will get alot more the any car!
  • powerisfunpowerisfun Member Posts: 358
    You're right about the higher resale value of trucks. I think most people don't look at that, they just look at the initial cost and payments.
    A $400 dollar payment looks a lot better to them than a $600 one. That's good, though, because if everyone thought like us, trucks would be even more popular and the price would be even higher.
    Personally, my wife and I own both a car and a truck I like them both. If I had to give up one of them, though, it would definitely not be the truck.

  • bluebeastbluebeast Member Posts: 258
    Been in a truck since I graduated from high school in 1977 !!!!!!Most truck owners are just starting to see the daylight!!!
  • drzoomdrzoom Member Posts: 4
    I have owned nothing but trucks since 1980 and I was in a head on collision (not my fault) and my truck saved my life because the frame under the body absorbed most of the shock of the collision. The poor person who hit me didn't fair so well. The accident occured as the driver of the other vechile (a Ford Taurus )had an seizure and passed out behind the wheel. I had no advanced warning what so ever and could do nothing to prevent the collision. I'll never own a car over a truck.

  • tavisgtavisg Member Posts: 8
    Ever since I got the license to drive in 92, I drove trucks. My first vehicle was a 88 Blazer. Piece of crap, but I still loved it. You see, the wet behind the ears crowd thinks like you older dudes. No fad, just realization.
  • cookie1cookie1 Member Posts: 68
    Unfortunately, I feel the truck fad is coming to an end, not entirely, just slowing down. If you look at the re-sale value of the trucks, they are really coming down in price. Almost everyone who wants a truck now has one, so there is starting to become an abundance of trucks on dealers lots.
    Even the 1999 Chevy's have rebates on them and that has rarely been done before, especially for a new re-design truck such as the Chevy's. Any arguments on this??
  • was67was67 Member Posts: 4
    I don't think truck popularity is going down. There are people waiting three to five months to get their hands on a custom-ordered Super Duty because Ford can't build them fast enough.

    The other thing to consider is that there are more truck choices than ever before. Just because one make/model isn't doing as well as expected doesn't mean the others aren't making up for it.
  • jlc4jlc4 Member Posts: 16
    I have to agree that the truck mania is not a fad but a bunch of smart people making smart choices. besides who drives from the rear seat anyway.

  • rrichfrrichf Member Posts: 211
    Actually, my wife does a very good job of driving from the back seat! :)
  • jlc4jlc4 Member Posts: 16
    Rich, so your saying not only is she smart but ambi and pedidextrous too? all kidding aside thanks for the come back. wishing everyone a happy, prosperous and good fortune trucking new year.
  • chadc777chadc777 Member Posts: 54
    >>>>Previous post: ...and my truck saved my life because the frame under the body absorbed most of the shock of the collision.

    Sorry, but I just have to dispel this myth that everyone keeps repeating. A rigid frame is actually far worse in an accident because it does NOT absorb the impact. It does not give at all and transmits that impact to he driver buckled into the seat. The real reason rigid framed truck fare better in many accidents is simply because of their weight and that is also part of the reason that vehicles that are thousands of pounds lighter that wreck with a truck look so bad. The other reason they look so bad is they are designed to crumple on impact (crumple zones) and that design truly does absorb the impact (rather than the driver).

    You'll note that the new Chev. Silverados have incorporated crumple zones from what I have heard, so I imagine they will look more trashed after an accident that a truck of equal weight am similar design except without crumple zones. They will likely be a safer truck for it though, even though vehicles designed to truly absorb impact generally take less of a hit before being deemed "totaled" by insurance. Once they crumple, they can not be fixed.

    So the next time someone says there truck is safer because it absorbs the impact with it big heavy frame, you know they are misinformed. Feel free to correct them so it will stop getting repeated. It is the weight of the vehicle that is prevailing. Now imagine you were in an accident with a vehicle of equal weight. Would you be safer in a rigid frame truck hitting another heavy rigid frame truck head on? Or would a driver fair better in a small car with crush zones hitting another small car with crush zones head on? The car drivers would come out better.

    Now if that same little cars gets hit by a truck weighing a few thousand pounds more, it will get smashed. If they start putting crush zones in trucks they will be far safer and may even be safer for smaller vehicles on the road because the truck will absorb some of the energy rather than forcing the already smaller vehicle into absorbing it all.

  • wannarangerwannaranger Member Posts: 20
    I as yet don't own a truck because my mother has said for years (I'm 36) that girls don't drive trucks. I never told her that my brother's helped teach me to drive in Ford F150's but I took my driving test in a tank (an early 80's model Impala). I got a 95 on the written, but a 70 on the driving because all of my experience was in a truck and not taking the test in a truck made me uncomfortable. I currently have a 95 Firebird (V6) and I like it, but I have always wanted a Ford Ranger (with the flairside bed). I put the Bird' in the paper, but at this time of the year it's slow going. I may put it in the Auto Trader Magazine I've had better success in selling my last 3 cars that way. I love the ride of the Ranger and was surprised by the power of the 4 cylinder. I know, I should go for the 6 but if I can't get the deal I want on the 2000 V6, I'll take the lower price on the 1999. The sticker price was $16,080 + $149 for pin-stripping. They had a sale price sticker which read: Was: $17,??? Is: $13,144...which means the nice dealer is telling me that I am saving least $4000 on this truck. Who is he kidding? I plan on putting $3000 down which will give me half of what I estimated the taxes to be. Trucks will be #1 on my list everytime! :)
  • rrichfrrichf Member Posts: 211
    Your last paragraph rejuvenates the illusion of a rigid frame absorbing energy. The rigid frame really transmits the energy to the smaller vehicle and, unfortunately, higher from the ground.

    Where I live, the younger drivers of those hopped up Honda Civics seem to aim rather than drive. My nightmare is hitting one with my three and a half ton F-250. When a vehicle of 7000 pounds hits one barely over 2000 pounds there isn't much left to the imagination, especially when my frame is about 12" above the crumple zones. You know who looses.

  • gwmooregwmoore Member Posts: 230
    A little correction. You said that when someone says "truck is safer because it absorbs the impact with it big heavy frame", they are incorrect. Well, that's not true. Sure, everyone has heard that impact absorbing frames are the best. They are, look at race cars. But, the heaviest parts of a truck are the frame, engine, and transmission. That weight tranfers into momentum. That momentum carries through smaller objects in the case of an accident, rather than stopping hard and fast. That's what turns the smaller cars that look like hell after an accident into crumple zones. So really, there is a lot to be said for "big heavy frames". Would it be better for them to have crumple zones, probably, but pickups are designed for different uses, and whether crumple zones are complimentary with those uses is yet to be seen. But until then, I'm happy to have a big heavy frame in my truck in any accident except with a solid wall, tree, or bigger truck. I know I would rather have that big heavy, and yes even stiff, frame in an accident with a little car than be in that car with the crumple zones.
  • chadc777chadc777 Member Posts: 54
    >>>>>>gwmoore:A little correction. You said that when someone says "truck is safer because it absorbs the impact with it big heavy frame", they are incorrect. Well, that's not true.

    Please reread my statement and the explanation. As I said, it is true that the rigid frame does not absorb the impact and as you basically went on to explain in your own words what I already explained...

    >>>>>gwmoore: ....That weight tranfers into momentum. That momentum carries through smaller objects in the case of an accident, rather than stopping hard and fast.

    Exactly. It smashes through the lighter vehicle rather than absorbing some of the impact.

    The whole point of my message was arguing the reasoning that a previous poster used for a trucks safety in accidents. I don't argue a truck comes out on top in an accident with a smaller lighter vehicle. I was just arguing the reason. It it does not "absorb the impact better" as a previous poster states.

    >>>rrichf:Your last paragraph rejuvenates the illusion of a rigid frame absorbing energy. The rigid frame really transmits the energy to the smaller vehicle...

    rrichf, please reread the last paragraph of my post. I stated that a truck "with crush zones" (not a rigid frame as you may have thought I said) would be easier on a lighter vehicle because the trucks crush zones would absorb at least some of the impact rather than transmitting all (or most if you want to get technical) of the energry to the smaller vehicle.

    We are all saying the same thing as far as a heavy rigid frame trashing a small car, I was originally just trying to explain why saying "the rigid frame absorbs the energy" is innacurate.

  • meredithmeredith Member Posts: 575
    After 30 or more days of inactivity....

    this topic is being "frozen." It will be archived or deleted in the next 10 days or so.

    Front Porch Philosopher
    SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host
This discussion has been closed.