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.
WHEN IS THE TRUCK FAD GONNA END?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Show your Truck to the world at
http://community.webtv.net/dp2000/TRUCKFORCEACTION
AWESOME DAVE-40
COMMANDER IN CHEIF/U.S.TRUCK FORCE
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 month...it 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. :>
0 2
Oh well, there's still 14 more to go :-)
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.
-powerisfun
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!
> 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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
-powerisfun
Dr.Zoom
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??
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.
jlc4
Actually, my wife does a very good job of driving from the back seat!
Rich
jlc4
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.
Chad
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.
Rich
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.
Chad
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