Dodge,Ford,Chevy------who wins?

1356713

Comments

  • KCRamKCRam Member Posts: 3,516
    The stroke on the Cummins is definitely longer...

    Cummins B series 5.9L I6:
    Bore: 4.02"
    Stroke: 4.72"

    Navistar T444E 7.3L V8:
    Bore: 4.11"
    Stroke: 4.18"

    As for the valve adjustments, the 12 valve is first adj at 24K, then every 48K afterwards. The 24v Cummins is now 150K! True, the Nav doesn't need one until about 150K either, but you have to worry about coolant-induced cavitation in the cylinder sleeves, something that can't occur in the Cummins. You have to keep that coolant additive (Fw15) in there and replenished at all times, or the engine will literally eat itself alive.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    mharde,

    I just spoke with my dad again this morning since it is Father's Day. To answer your question, he does tow in O/D. He never tows lower than 4th. He's got the manual tranny with his 1997 Powerstroke. He says he has no problem towing in O/D because he has the 4.10. Since you have the 3.55, that explains why you would have trouble towing in O/D. As far as my dad liking to drive, he does have 30,000 miles on his truck over about a two year period.
  • bdonbdon Member Posts: 30
    Which extended cab 1/2 ton truck has the most comfortable rear seat? I'm looking for a truck as a 2nd family vehicle and need to be able to get my kids and / or friends back there when necessary. Not that I'll be taking any long vacations in it, but I'd like them to be as comfortable as possible when they're back there.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    the current chevy's are ok, decent padding. the dodges are kinda like church pews, very flat. (last time i was in one was a '96 model). the fords seem very low to the ground to me, but i'm a big guy. the new chevy's will have enormous back seats with optional bucket seats in the back of the extended cabs. i say that--- i haven't read that is an option, but one of the show trucks saw of the '99 chevy's was an extended cab with 4 bucket seats. only problem is the '99 chevy's will have 3 doors while Ford and Dodge have 4. let us know how it goes!
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    Hey Jim2,
    I'm sorry I didn't respond in the Chevy 99 topic about those headrests. A dealer who works here locally said there is plenty of aftermarket companies for headrests. Now, he didn't give me any details, but he said any Ford dealer should be able to work for you. Its worth checking out.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    I was scanning the Popular Mechanics site and came across their Top 10 best seller list for 1997. We all know that the Big Three full size trucks all made the list with the Ford F-Series at #1 and the Chevy C/K at #2. I believe the Ram was #5 or #6. Here were some of the comments on the 1/2 ton versions of the three trucks.

    Ford F-Series - They said the Ford had the most car like drive of any truck on the planet. It had stable handling anda well thought out interior. On the downside, it had the worst mpg, was the slowest inthe slalom, and had the longest braking distance.

    Chevy C/K - It had the most powerful V-8, was quickest from a dead stop and had the strongest passing punch. They said the tires contributed to a bouncy highway ride when empty. They also said that it had the most uncomfortable rear seat of any of the extended cabs. They weren't too critical of the single rear door, since Dodge was the only truck offering the quad at the time.

    Dodge Ram - They said the four door design and the built-in seatbelts gave he Dodge the best rear seat comfort. The Ram outhandled and outbraked the Ford and Chevy easily. It also had better mpg than Ford and Chevy. I found that a little surprising, since I thought Chevy did a little better. The downside was the weight of the truck which made it significantly slwoer than Ford and Chevy.

    That's just another perspective. The 1997 sales figures have been given before, but risking being repetitive, here they are again:

    Ford F-Series - 746,111
    Chevy C/K - 553,729
    Dodge Ram - 350,257

    They said the combination of the Chevy C/K and GMC Sierra was 20,708 units less than the F-Series, so the GMC must have sold 171,674 Sierras.

    By the way, if anyone wants a dry, text book discussion of torque and horsepower, I found an article at the link below.

    www.off-road/hummer/tech/power.html
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    The link for the torque/hp article is:

    www.off-road.com/hummer/tech/power.html
  • bdonbdon Member Posts: 30
    Thanks for the feedback. I also have heard that the rear seat in the 99 Chevy/GMC is going to be easily the largest and most comfortable of the three. I wish I could wait, but I need something now. Plus, with that strike, who knows when the 99's will actually hit the lots. I think I'm either going to lease something for a couple of years of buy a late model used truck to get by for a year or two. That will get me past the first model year after the redesign and who knows, maybe the 2000 GMs will even have a 4th door. That is, if they settle this strike in time to get those out.
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    bdon,

    The way this strike is heading, you might want to buy a Ford or Dodge now. Who knows when Chevy is coming back.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    this is perfect example of how bad this thing is hurting GM. i guarantee there are loads of people in bdon's same predicament.
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    Especially when the Fall intros are coming. GM might be late to the new model party. I bet dealers are getting a little nervous, especially the small ones that only have one or two brands. Service will prop up the buisness but salesmen will be definately hurting.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    The CNNfn website has an article today saying that June truck sales for Ford, buoyed by sales of Rangers and the F-Series, set an all-time monthly record for any manufacturer. In the month of June, Ford truck sales totaled 242,906 units. That was a 16.3% gain over June truck sales for Ford last year.
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    geez, How many F series are they going to sell this year? Will Ford come close to seven figures especially with GM hurting?
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    Thanks kcram, it looks as though Ford is on pace to sell 800k. With the launch of the new silverado in question, they could pick up another 75k in sales. The UAW is killing GM this year as they did with the Malibu release a few years back.
    How many plants does Dodge have for their Ram truck? Might be time to get a third shift.
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    Hey Brutus, did you get your truck yet?
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    I just entered a post in the SuperDuty Delivery Issues about the status of my truck. The delay actually worked to my advantage. I changed my strategy and qualified for a combo truck/truck camper loan and decided to get a new cabover camper to take back to Alaska with me when I move back at the end of the year. I elaborated on the reason for my decision in the other topic area.
  • KCRamKCRam Member Posts: 3,516
    Chrysler has announced the expansion of both Mexican Ram plants, and expects to produce at least an additional 50,000 Rams per year, almost all of which will be US spec. Chrysler also stated in a press release a few weeks back that the Lago Alberto truck plant will produce a Ram-based SUVas part of the expansion, then Popular Mechanics announced that the Dodge Adventurer has finally been given the green light, so expect it from this plant. Still no official word on a Ram Crew Cab, but it would likely be Mexican as well. No plans have been made or rumored to expand either of the two US Ram plants.
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    I'm confused. What is the Adventurer? Plus, how does the UAW feel about this expansion in Mexico and not in the states? Please update me.
  • KCRamKCRam Member Posts: 3,516
    The Adventurer will be an Expedition-sized four door SUV, possibly larger then the Ex to take on the 1500 Suburban more effectively as well.

    The UAW hasn't said anything about this, at least not in public. The two US Ram plants are pretty much maxed, so I guess it's a matter of being bale to expand the physical building that is keeping those lines unchanged.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    I've heard that Ford planned to build an SUV on the Superduty platform. Is that maybe what the Adventurer is?
  • mikec13mikec13 Member Posts: 26
    The Ford superduty SUV is called Excursion. I stumbled upon a link to a Ford magazine that has a picture and small write up. It's at http://www.fordworldnews.com/index.html/ford_excursion.htm
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    What would the Adventuer be called in Germany?
    Just wondering......
  • valhalavalhala Member Posts: 7
    Yes, the new ford "Suburban Fighter" is most likley going to be called the Excursion. It is quite a vehicle. I'm 6' tall and it's a good 6-8" taller than me. It will have the 5.4L standard with the new V10 and the "Power Stroke" as options. It will be very nice but very large.
  • valhalavalhala Member Posts: 7
    As far as power plants go, yes GM does offer the most power 8 cylinders. their new silverado will have even a better range of engines. They will have a new 6.0L that is going to make about 300hp. thats quite a bit more than anyone elses.
    Dodge fans always talk about the 5.9L and how great it is, its way under powered. it only makes 245hp, the ford 5.4L makes 235 with 1/2L less displacement. Dodge has a great design team and the best markiting out of the big three but their quality sucks. if you look at all the interior moldings and pannel work its rough on the edges and there are gaps between the pieces. i like their designs but would never buy one (VERY POOR QUALITY). thats why i think this merger with the germans will be great for dodge. who better to help them with quality than the germans. But in my opnion Ford trucks are the best overall. they may not have the most powerful engines and they may have terrible auto trans but they are the best. anyone that is going to use a truck for what a truck is ment for anyways would never get a auto trans. you need to have a stick. (sorry aobut any spelling mistakes at work typing fast.)
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    The 6.0L with 300hp is the competition for the Ford and Dodge V-10 engines, not the 5.4L and 5.9L V-8 engines.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    I should say, it appears to be the competition for the V-10 engines based on the hp. What's the torque of the engine? That's the more important figure on the large engines.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    Brutus

    the 6.0 is NOT competition for the V-10 engines. it is the base engine in the 3/4 ton and above trucks, which puts it at competition with the 5.4 and 5.9. But, right now the only engine bigger than the 6.0j that you can put in the 3/4 ton Silverados is the 6.5 diesel. Chevy has yet to release any info whether they will keep the 454 as the gas Big block, or design a new engine, ie. ~7 liter v-8 or v-10.
  • KCRamKCRam Member Posts: 3,516
    The 6.0 is rated at 300 hp, but just 350 lb-ft of torque. Any midsize V8 can match that. Compare that to the 454s rating of 290/410, which we all know is detuned.
  • valhalavalhala Member Posts: 7
    the 6.0L is made to compete with the 5.4L and the
    5.9L they have not said anything about a possible V10 yet. the 10's will still make far more torque that the 6L
  • stanfordstanford Member Posts: 606
    Of course, the V10 is really close to being the base engine in the Ford Super Dutys. Standard on the larger trucks, and a ~$200 option on the smaller ones. I'd guess that there won't be too many SD 5.4s on the road.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    for $200, its hard not to get the v10. you give up mileage, but the 5.4 doesn't give you good mileage anyway, so why not.

    still the 6.0 has a fatter torque curve than ford's upgrade v10. actually equal or higher torque at less than 2000 rpms. i don't think just any midsize v-8 can match that, whaddya say kcram :). and the 6.0 should get much better mileage.


    for ford, i'm curious to see if the new "pumped" 5.4 for next year will be strong enough for the superdutys. the added torque and hp should make it a very competitive engine in the light trucks. will the v10s get the same treatment, anyone?
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    Any V-8 that cranks out 300hp is definitely trying to compete with the V-10, at least on paper. Let's face it, a lot of pickup drivers now-a-days are looking for big hp rather than lb-ft of torque. The real bonus of a big engine is a pickup is the torque. As mentioned above, the 454 will provide less horses, but will obviously be much more satisfying for the heavy duty jobs the 454 can do with the extra torque. I understand the fatter torque curve, but what to do when you need more than 350 lb-ft? You opt up to the 454.

    I'm sure there is a reason, but why would you need 300 hp in a pickup without the corresponding increase in lb-ft of torque that is provided by a V-10 or the 454 unless you were only interested in beating someone from light to light or gas station to gas station. It sounds like a loaded, bias question since I am a Ford fan, but even if it was a Ford engine, why would we need so many horses without the additional torque?
  • stanfordstanford Member Posts: 606
    Why should the 6.0l get much better mileage than the 6.8l? I doubt that fuel flow is very different, and from what I've heard the Ford motor is slightly more efficient.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    Brutus, i had to laugh at your response. it is a little biased. i don't think anyone has ever complained of too much hp. :)

    it seems everyone thinks chevy pumped this engine up so it would compete with the v10s. No. there technology has horsepower there. and effieciency, stanford. these engines are getting BETTER MILEAGE THAN THE ENGINES THEY REPLACE. the new chevy's get more power out of the same amount of gas, because of better engineered induction and ignition. sorry, but chevy leads the pack in that department. torque is a very hard number to pump up. it is very dependent on the bore and the stroke. but horsepower increases as the engine "burns fuel" better.

    the 6.0 will probably get about the same mileage as the current 350. Remember what i'm trying to say-- same fuel flow- better, more efficient burn.

    from a dead stop, the 6.0 will only be better than the 350, or dodges 360, or fords 5.4, because its torque is only slightly above those. the 300 hp will be felt when you've got a 8000 lbs latched on, and you floor it get around someone, or maybe merge in traffic. engines with similar torque, like the 350, the 360, the 5.4, and chevy's 6.0 can basically do the same amount of work--that is the torque number. how fast they can do that work is the horsepower.

    its not like the 6.0 is race engine, but it is going to be the best running mid size v8 on the market, (on paper right now). come on Brutus, if you got the same gas mileage in your v10, would you complain if it was 400 hp instead of 270. :)

    stanford

    i disagree with the fact the Ford motors are more effiecient. friend who runs big south texas ranch just bought '98 1 ton, 4x4, ext cab, lwb, chevy with 454. 300hp, 410ftlbs. said power is incredible, will scratch tires in 4th gear if you are going slow and floor it. gets about 12-13 mpg with 4.10 rear, and only has 2000 miles on it, so not quite broke in yet. fords v10, is .6 less liters, less horsepower, and same or worse mileage. heard a couple of v10 owners in here or somewhere report mileages ranging from 10-13.
    jus wait to chevy's new big block comes out.


    the 6.0 is chevy's mid level v8. if this engine is supposed to compete with the v10s. why is it available in the light duty 3/4 tons, and why is it going to be the standard engine on the heavy dutys? ford doesn't put the 6.8 standard in the superduty's, dodge doesn't put the v10 standard in the 1 tons, and chevy always put the 350 standard in its 3/4 and one tons. thats the way the industry works. do you really think that is the biggest engine chevy is ever going to make. chevy's heavy duty's don't get the redesign until 2000, then you will see chevy's redesigned big engine, just like the 6.8 is ford's big engine and the 8.0 is dodge's. you don't see it now, because there isn't a truck to put it in.

    the only thing i question chevy on is the 4.8. i'm not sure why chevy made the 4.8. i can't see the need for 4 v8s. ( assuming the new big block will be a v8) i don't see why the 4.8 would be a good option on pickups when you can go from the high mileage v-6 to the 5.3 that has 260 hp that gets 15-20 mpg. that's the one thing i question chevy on.

    have any of these critics ever driven a chevy? i totally understand not buying a truck for things other than the engine. i feel horsepower should not be the only reason you decide on a truck. but the current chevy vortecs are incredible. i don't own one, but i've borrowed and pulled with one, and driven a couple others. i've also driven dodge's 360 and fords 5.4 the don't compare. dodge has the closest power to the vortec 350, but doesn't have the low end torque, or fuel mileage. and now chevys new engines are going to be better yet. to me, there is no debate (on engines, that is).
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    cdean,

    Your friend from Texas is full of it. I own three 95, 305's, 1/2 ton Chevys and they pull around 14mpg. I just don't buy it.
    Yeah, I own other Chevys too and I'll agree with some of your comments about Chevy power. Their engines have never given me grief but they really don't outdo my Fords either. This has been largely a myth brought about by Chevy fans to overcompensate for lousy trucks. I should know.
    The deal is that none of the companies make identical engines in terms of displacement, therefore sparking these types of arguments. You can compare a v-8 to a v-10 but how fair is it? A 5.4 to a 5.9?
    As a buisness owner, I look at quality of build. I need a reliable engine that will give me the fewest headaches--not more horsepower or a better torque curve. The soundness of Ford's overall package with the most reliable engine is very appealing to me. Vortec this, Vortec that, she will still cost me more than any Triton.
    I used to be a big Chevy fan but I have been dismayed at GM's attempt to lure customers by avaiability of V-8s and not overall quality. They have been slow to respond to trends(fourth-door?). They also lack and real guts to enter the diesel market with their phony Detroits.
    Sure, I love a good 67 Firebird or any Vette but their trucks lately have fallen behind. Remember, not just behind Ford but also---GASP!!!-Dodge!! Can you imagine if you brought that idea up 30, 20, even 10 years ago?
    Now with this strike, GM really is hitting the mat. People will be saying:"Hey!--where's my 6.0?!!"
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    rocles
    i can tell you why your trucks get bad gas mileage. first of all, the 305 has always gotten the same, if not worse mileage than the 350. Its the thing about "the smaller engine working harder." plus i think you said a while back that you have 3.08s, correct? i can't remember. if you do, then that is a really bad package. those are very tall gears to ask a 305 to do what you put them thru on a daily basis.

    plus in 1995, GM pulled a goof. they derated the horsepower on all their engines about 10 hp. example, the 350 went from 210 to 200. that was the year before the Vortec. i don't know if it was marketing ploy, so they say their engines increased "this Much", or if they did it for CAFE reasons. but what happened is the engines got terrible mileage that year. they didn't have near the power either. I own a '94 with a 350. business i worked for had 2 exact same trucks as mine, with the 350, '95 models, and get 2 less mpg than mine. you picked a bad year to buy chevy.

    my uncle owns a '92 crew cab 4x4, solid front axle, 4.10 gear. truck weighs 7200 empty. gets 13 mpg with his throttle body 454. believe it.

    one last thing, how are the triton engines less expensive to maintain than the vortec. i've never heard of any probs with the vortecs from anyone, but i've heard several probs with the 5.4, especially when it first came out. there are some reports in here of it.
  • glenn2glenn2 Member Posts: 39
    Ford,Chevy,Dodge. Now there's a good topic for discussion. they are all good trucks if you use them for what they were designed for. If you need to "work" a truck, buy a Dodge. If you need to tow a heavy load, RV,Boat,etc., buy a Ford. If you need something for the little lady to run to the supermarket in, buy a Chevy.
  • mharde2mharde2 Member Posts: 278
    That was great...I like that. :)
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    Hmm, work a Dodge? Sounds like starting the engine does that!
    cdean,
    Horrible consolation that 95 was a bad year to buy Chevy. There shouldn't be a "bad" year for any manufactuer. Second, yes they have 3.08 rears but where does the mpg derive from? Average payloads of 1100 lbs shouldn't be too much for that ratio. What do you mean "work harder"? If I had 350s, there probably wouldn't be much difference in the mpg. I don't tow or weigh her down! If I had a six, I would think twice but the 305 is proven. So what gives? Chevy sucks. Plain and simple.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    you missed what i said, Rocles. the 3.08s, IMO, are just not feasible rear ends unless you do long stretches of driving. that is a really tall gear, and engines strain just to move the vehicle themselves, much more with a exta 1100 lbs. One place i worked had a '94 Z71 with 3.42 rear end and 350. it got 15 mpg avg driving by the turd workers i'm sure you know about, that don't care when its not their vehicle. we also had a '95 z71, with a 3.08 rear end and 350. It got 10-11 mpg when driven by employees. kinda hard to believe if you think the higher the ratio, the better the gas mileage. thats not the way it always works. if you are starting and stopping all day on your 10 speed bike, with a friend on the handle bars, you can't do it in top gear, you're not strong enough.

    the only engine from chevy i've seen that got better mileage with 3.08s than with 3.42 or 3.73 is the 6.5 diesel in the half ton, it fetched about 22-24. i'm willing to bet a 3.73 would get the same mileage you are getting now, and the trucks would drive much better. plus the 305 puts out significantly less torque than the 350, meaning you really have to put your foot into if you load it with gears like 3.08s. people have asked for advice between the 305 and 350, and i've always told them, the 350 will get the same mileage, and have better power.

    by saying a bad year to buy chevy, i meant specifically the engines, because the hp was less and the mileage was worse that year.

    so why exactly are your reasons for thinking the chevys suck like you say they do. you've given reasons why you are dissappointed in the dodges, but you've never said anything more than chevy's suck. trannies failed on you, if i remember, too lazy to look up. strange, since gm puts out the best automatic by far in the business. what specifically is this quality difference? my experience with the fleets i use to run with, the GMs were flawless, and got abused daily, 350s and a couple of 6.5s. the fords were good trucks too, but cost us WAY more money. they were powerstrokes that started dropping injectors after warranty was out. and 4 or 5 injectors per truck, $800-900 per injector, we could have bought an entire replacement gas engine for what we paid to fix the each of the powerstrokes. plus we were getting 7 mpg, but that was mainly because of the 5.13 rears.
  • stevekstevek Member Posts: 362
    I always hear that ford outsells chevy. BUT if you put chevy and gmc sales together (since they are identical trucks) gm blows away ford. chevy is a more refined truck, the ford(f250 and up) is a stronger truck dodoge got the best diesel but the front end sucks.

    Now if we could combine all three, we could have a decent vehicle:
    1. dodge diesel
    2. ford chassis
    3. chevy comfort
    Looks are up to the individual.
  • stanfordstanford Member Posts: 606
    Actually, the Ford trucks sell right around the combined Chevy/GMC numbers. This year, because of the strike, I believe they're ahead.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    Ford beat the combined Chevy/GM numbers last year and will likely do it again this year because of the intro of the Superduty. However, I believe last year was the first year that they did beat the combined numbers. If the GM and Chevy are identical trucks, why doesn't GM call them both the same thing and claim that they have the best selling truck in the US. There has to be a reason that they don't want to combine them and make that claim.

    The critics say the F-150 provides the most car-like ride. The Chevy back seat in the extended cab is considered to be the most comfortable. The comfort aspect is a toss up. I'd say the biggest Chevy advantage is their V-8 engines. More power and better mpg. People will argue about the Cummins vs Powerstroke. They are both good engines.

    I'd give Ford the nod for overall quality when you factor in all components of the truck. But, then again, we all know I'm bias.
  • KCRamKCRam Member Posts: 3,516
    Ford has outsold Vhevy/GMC combined for the last two years running - and it's not been closer than 50,000 trucks, either. GM is fading fast, and the strike won't help.
  • glenn2glenn2 Member Posts: 39
    An old friend told me the best thing about owning a Chevy Truck is that your never bored, you always have something to do, work on it.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    that's funny, glenn2. i've owned 2 chevy's over the past 10 years and never done anything but change the oil.
  • glenn2glenn2 Member Posts: 39
    Two Chevys with no problems??? cdean you truly live a charmed life.
  • stevekstevek Member Posts: 362
    I was a pontiac man in my sport car days(still got my 77 firebird in original condition), hated chevys. But now my 89 s10 got 185K with no problems, my 97 K1500 will go anywhere pull anything and faster than my pontiac.
  • mirrmirr Member Posts: 1
    As I look in my driveway, I see a 1976 GMC ½ ton, a 1983 Ford Bronco, a 1987 Chevy ½ ton, a 1991 2500 Dodge diesel and a 1996 Dodge 1500 Club Cab. Which one is the best? Who knows, they each serve a different purpose. The GMC and Dodge diesel are work/business trucks, the Bronco is hubbys hunting truck, the Chevy is 17 year old sons truck and the Dodge Club Cab is the "family vehicle". (The GMC, Chevy and Bronco have had motors replaced in the last 3 years.) At one time we had a 1991 Chevy ext. cab but it just wasn't tough enough for our country dirt roads. From my experience of riding in the back seat (you know how it is when traveling with another couple, guys in the front and girls in the back) of the Chevy ext. cab and the Dodge Club Cab, the Dodge is far more roomier and comfortable hands down! I would say that of all the trucks we have owned, the Dodge's are by far our favorite. However, I told hubby that riding 3-4 hours in back of any club cab is for the birds. Needless to say, you know the only choice we have at this point, hopefully soon I will be looking in the driveway and instead of seeing the 1996 Dodge Club Cab, I see a 1999 Ford F-250 Crew Cab 4X4 Diesel! (Won't I look cool at the supermarket in that!)
  • wolf2wolf2 Member Posts: 12
    I've only had one truck a 95 Ram 4x4 SB.
    Other than the steering column problems,
    I like it. But because of the constant column
    probs, its getting, actually has been, traded in
    for a 99 Ford F250 XLT SC 4X4 SWB 5.4 3.73 SD.
    I wanted an extend cab, and was going to go with
    Dodge again but they have not fixed the column problem for the 99 year, so F'em...I went with
    Ford. Hope I don't have problems with it!!

    cya
    Vaughn
This discussion has been closed.

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.