Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Midsize Pickup Comparo

1910121415

Comments

  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    Under anything that resembles normal day to day use, fade will not be a factor. You could cap off the rears completely under normal use and not notice much if any difference.

    Lose the rear brakes, and anything other than "NORMAL" stops can and will result in the vehicle swerving. The rear brakes help keep the rear where it belongs. Been there done that!

    Lose them when towing and it can become critical in a hurry! :sick:

    Kip
  • asaasa Member Posts: 359
    Maybe it's just me, but I find it easier to replace pads on disc brakes than replace shoes on drums.
  • 2005lekc2005lekc Member Posts: 145
    Definitely easier unless the pistons are frozen.

    OkieScot
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    Definitely easier unless the pistons are frozen.

    :) Yep, and it is kind of Ironic. The frozen pistons may have been the reason the pads needed replacing. :sick:

    Kip
  • countsmackula1countsmackula1 Member Posts: 61
    Discs are inherently less complicated, transfer heat better, and thus, resist fade better. The only reason Toyota is using drums in the rear is to trim costs.(Their official reason is that is helps hold the vehicle on a hill when parked) Anyone ever tried to clean drums caked with off-road debris? I rest my case.
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    Seems to me that rear disc hold a parked vehicle a little better if the front of the vehicle is up hill, than drums do!

    If given a choice I would prefer disc all around. :)

    Kip
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    Actually, that probably isn't true for most designs.

    Drum brakes offer a significant increase in contact area over a disc brake. In addition, most drum designs will assert far more contact pressure from the parking brake than anytime the foot brake is used.

    Another advantage of rear drums is the parking brake designs are far less complicated and less expensive to repair than a rear disc set-up.

    Regards,
    Dusty
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    This thing seems dead!
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    Actually, that probably isn't true for most designs.

    You might wish to re-read and comprehend what I said!

    In addition, most drum designs will assert far more contact pressure from the parking brake than anytime the foot brake is used.

    Wonder why they went to all that expense to create hydraulic brakes when a simple cable design is more effective? According to your statement. :confuse:

    Kip
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    "Seems to me that rear disc hold a parked vehicle a little better if the front of the vehicle is up hill, than drums do!"

    Yeah. I read and comprehended what you wrote. Doesn't change my opinion nor the law of physics.

    As pointed out by a few other posters, disc brakes have their advantages over a drum design. However, that does not mean that a drum brake design is deficient when used within the the capabilities of the design.

    Depending on the vehicle platform, since rear brakes contribute between 15 and 20% of the vehicles braking needs, the lower manufacturing cost of the components and design is perfectly suited for most rear brake applications. For a rear braking system the cost-benifit ratio is in favor of the drum brake.

    Today, most vehicles using a rear brake system are on trucks, including those that go far beyond the 18,000 GVW limit. On a truck especially, where the vehicle can see a very wide difference in axle loading, drum brakes perform very, very well while offering a lower cost for components and reduced cost at maintenance.

    Yes, if a vehicle is driven in deep water a disc system will most assuredly perform better. At higher payloads, however, drums systems are designed for the weight rating of the vehicle and except in very rare situations perform more than adequately.

    There is a downside to rear discs on light duty pickups, besides the complexity caused by the parking brake configurations and subsequent increased cost of replacement parts. And that is an increase in maintenance. Unfortunately in actual practice, rear discs will require more repair because the design does not lend itself to the light application required by most vehicles.

    Our company has run various vehicles that came in both configurations, and we experienced far more repair on the rear disc systems caused by stuck or frozen pistons or parking brake components. Rear discs are not exercised enough to ensure adequate piston movement to prevent becoming stuck in position. On some systems, like F150s, their parking brake design for the rear disc often stops working due to corrosion.

    As to why some manufacturers use rear disc designs, well in most cases its because they know that many people think that "more is better" and that rear discs are inherently more effective.

    Regards,
    Dusty
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    Drum brakes activated by cables may be the best thing since sliced bread.

    Your explanation of the whys and whats was interesting and seems reasonable.

    Despite the laws of physics and other things you mentioned,

    "Seems to me that rear disc hold a parked vehicle a little better if the front of the vehicle is up hill, than drums do!" :)

    Kip
  • sporttracbabesporttracbabe Member Posts: 1
    I love my Sport Trac so much I've started a new Sport Trac community. Please register there and help this new fan/owner site grow:

    http://sporttracclub.21.forumer.com/

    Thanks!
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    Most parking brake systems typically provide a holding pressure of between 200 to 400 foot pounds, depending on how the designs are executed, of course. If a vehicle actually uses the disc brake for the parking brake, the contact area is usually around sixteen square inches (thats both sides of the pads, by the way) per wheel, versus 40 to 70 on a drum system. In actual practice the holding force is often less on many rear disc designs because constant high pressure on the piston will cause the brake fluid to over come the piston seal.

    A rear drum parking brake is much more effective at holding a vehicle than a rear disc brake, by design. But in reality most rear disc braking systems utilize a rear drum for the parking brake anyways. In any system I've seen or worked on the drums and shoes are about 1/4 the size of a conventional rear drum brake. It's referred to as "drum-in-hat" and I'm having a little trouble thinking of a vehicle that doesn't use it at the moment.

    The US Department of Transportation actually specifies holding force requirements on automobile and truck manufacturers for parking brake systems, and ANSI has a test procedure for evaluating them. So in actual practice, regardless of the system, they both must meet minimum requirements.

    Dusty
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Thanks for the informative post. Most of that I did not know!
  • bamaboy4bamaboy4 Member Posts: 1
    between the Toyota Tacoma, Chevy Colorado, and gmc canyon wich would you suggest asking for and why. Thanks
  • jfritschjfritsch Member Posts: 958
    You want to limit your selection to the Tacoma, Frontier or Honda Ridgeline.

    Test drive a Colorado/Canyon vs the others and see why. (Poor build quality, cheap interior etc, it also has the largest turn radius of the bunch despite being the smallest truck (44ft), and the lowest tow rating, and only a 5 cylinder engine) Even if you could get 10,000 off MSRP (the 30000 4wd model) it is no deal. Its MSRP is very high too..

    I believe the Frontier has the highest tow rating and most powerful torquey engine, With the Tacoma and Ridgeline having the best interior quality.

    The Ridgeline is a nice piece but the 4wd would not be as good as the Tacoma or Frontier for off roading. The ride is much better though, almost car like. And great quality. Neat trunk to store things under the bed, however it looks kinda like a small Avalanche.

    $3000-4500 off msrp should be doable on the Frontier or Tacoma, with $5000-$6000 off MSRP for the Ridgeline. If you are looking at $23000 (4wd crew cab), then you are looking at the Frontier or Ridgeline, with the Tacoma about $1500 more. These are for moderately optioned trucks.

    Do not even think of a Colorado or Ranger(no crew cab option but still), unless someone insists on giving it to you free. This should be obvious after your inspection of the trucks.

    Happy Hunting
    --jjf

    between the Toyota Tacoma, Chevy Colorado, and gmc canyon wich would you suggest asking for and why. Thanks
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    Good post! :)

    Kip
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I'd pick any of the other vehicles in this discussion before adopting the GM twins' reliability problems and cheapo materials.

    If you don't do a lot of off-roading, I'd go with a Ridgeline (they are available for well under invoice I believe). If you want to tow or do some serious off-roading, I'd go with the Frontier or Tacoma. If you need V8 power, and ONLY if you need V8 power, would I go with the Dodge Dakota - only to tow though.
  • maple2maple2 Member Posts: 177
    if you want to be ridiculed and constantly made fun of go ahead and get the ridgeline. very poor attempt at cracking the truck market by honda imo :sick: otherwise any of the other choices would be fine
  • jfritschjfritsch Member Posts: 958
    Except of course for the Colorado/Canyon. Curiously when I drive in my brother's Ridgeline we've been approached twice with questions and admiration. And thats the few times i'm with him. In my trusty Frontier I'm ignored. You do want about $6000 off though.

    GM and Ford are losing billions producing 2 million trucks so trying something different probably isn't all that stupid.

    --jjf

    if you want to be ridiculed and constantly made fun of go ahead and get the ridgeline. very poor attempt at cracking the truck market by honda imo otherwise any of the other choices would be fine
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    For what it is designed to do and the market it is after, it works !

    For some reason, some people hold onto the idea that all P/U trucks should look like they always have, ride like they always have and handle like they always have.

    And those people will not change their minds, at least not openly! However they will ridicule those that don't agree with them.

    However when the young ladies are swarming all over the Ridgeline owner. Too bad for the "Square Truck" guy! :surprise:
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    However when the young ladies are swarming all over the Ridgeline owner.

    That is the funniest statement I've read all week!
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    My last 2 trucks were a Red 96 Ram Sport, then a White 98 Ram Sport. Really enjoyed both as TRUCKS!

    However the Ridgelines are "Chick Magnets"! :shades:

    It can really get embarrasing. Walk out of school and there are several of the better looking cheer leaders sitting on and in the Ridgeline. Walk out of work and females are waiting. If you have a girlfriend or wife this could be hazardous to your health! :sick:

    Meanwhile the conventional truck owners are all gathered together saying "UH HUH...We bad, We bad"! :cry:

    Sorry couldn't help myself. Forgot to take the medication!

    Kip
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    However the Ridgelines are "Chick Magnets"!

    Perhaps they like the Ridges better than Rams and Tacos and Canyons.
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    :)
  • ajbchoajbcho Member Posts: 44
    if you want to be ridiculed and constantly made fun of go ahead and get the ridgeline. very poor attempt at cracking the truck market by honda imo otherwise any of the other choices would be fine

    The kiddie play area is down the hall, to your right.
  • maple2maple2 Member Posts: 177
    The kiddie play area is down the hall, to your right.

    Yes i know that thanks. Where do you think i got to check out all the ridgelines? Certainly not hanging out with the big boys
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I'm 19, and have managed not to deride other people's choice of vehicle. Can't you, too? Or are we so insecure we must refer to other people's vehicles with baseless (and pointless, might I add) comments that add nothing to the discussion?

    If you must, use me as a punching bag. What a girly man I am, I have a red 4 door Honda sedan, and a blue sedan as well. Both are automatics. Fire away.
  • ajbchoajbcho Member Posts: 44
    Yes i know that thanks. Where do you think i got to check out all the ridgelines? Certainly not hanging out with the big boys

    You've proved my point. Thanks for playing.
  • driver56driver56 Member Posts: 408
    what the original poster (almost sixteen)thinks about all this info being passed around.
    Are you any closer to making a choice?
  • obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    I was wondering the same so I checked and his first and last post was on February 26. So after posting his question, looks like he never came back.......course that's nothing new here.
  • clarkkentclarkkent Member Posts: 154
  • clarkkentclarkkent Member Posts: 154
    Don't get me wrong, but it seems that Honda is VERY ashamed
    of the lenght of the Ridgeline bed. :mad:

    I have searched EVERY Honda site for the spec. Honda has all the specs. on the web EXCEPT the inside lenght of the bed, (with the tailgate up)

    They tell me it's 6.5" with the tail gate down. That is not the size of the bed. That is the size of the bed + the tailgate.

    Does anyone know the true lenght of the inside of the actual bed. Just the bed.

    Thanks, CK :)
  • driver56driver56 Member Posts: 408
    From what I gather, the Ridgeline offers only one bed length, and that would be 5 feet.
  • jfritschjfritsch Member Posts: 958
    It's 5 feet, the same as the SB Frontier and Tacoma. The Dodge Dakota Crew is 5'4''.

    --jjf
  • gd113gd113 Member Posts: 114
    Two years later and people still can't get over it. If you don't like it it's time move. The Ridge has done fine be me.
  • KCRamKCRam Member Posts: 3,516
    ...then your posts will be removed. Knock off the childish remarks.

    kcram - Pickups Host
  • goodegggoodegg Member Posts: 905
    I needed a weekend type hauler so I bought a 2006 Frontier XE with 2800 miles on it. 4cyl with a 5spd manual.

    That was 3 weeks ago and I now have 4800 miles on it cause it took it on 2 road trips where I needed to haul some items.

    What a great truck. Solid. Quiet. Peppy. Very steady on the highway even at 80mph. I've always thought Honda had a lock on 4 cyl. motors but this truck's is awesome.

    The Frontier's redesign for 2005 really refined the truck. I like it better than the Tacoma. Less money too. Very comfortable for a truck. Nissan should sell a ton of 'em.
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    Toyota and Nissan (Datsun) have been building quality 4 cylinder engines since just before dirt was invented. :)

    A few years ago a friend bought an old "Datsun" with the sole purpose of installing a very radical Pontiac 400 cu in engine and Turbo 400 tranny.

    The Datsun had around 200K on the clock and looked as though it had spent most of its life in a third world country. It's engine was to be rebuilt, if possible, and installed in a boat.

    Before removing the engine he ran a compression check just for the heck of it. Compression was within specs on all but one of the cylinders. After removing the head he found either a burned valve or hole in the head gasket, I don't remember which.

    Whatever it was was not a big deal. He replaced gaskets and seals that might start to leak and closed it back up. "That engine was just to good inside to overhaul", he said. :)

    Kip
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    I like the way (most) Nissan motors are designed and assembled. They typically utilize high microfinish crankshaft journals and exceptionally true cylinder bores. Friction as measured by one article in the Journal of the SAE indicates very low friction numbers. I've worked on and seen a lot of motors and only ever had one apart (chain tensioner failure). Nissan's typically can go the full distance without excessive oil usage and still keep their compression, as already mentioned.

    Dusty
  • johnboy8johnboy8 Member Posts: 2
    With all of the experienced people on this site I'm hoping you can help me select a new truck. I need a solid truck that will pull 4500lbs upon occasion. I would like it to get good gas mileage when I'm not towing with the prices being so high. What P/U trucks would you guys/gals suggest?

    JohnBoy
  • jfritschjfritsch Member Posts: 958
    The last 3-4 pages should give you all the discussion on the mid size. You're down to the Toyota Tacoma, Nissan Frontier, Honda Ridgeline. Nix on the Colorado/Canyon or Dodge Dakota, or Ford Ranger/MazdaBxxx. If you can work 10-11k off MSRP for a Dakota it may be passable in the V8 if you can stand the cheap materials and need the pull.

    You want about 4-5k off a 4wd tacoma, 3500-4500 off MSRP for a Frontier, or 5-6k off a Ridgeline. These are for 4wd crew cab auto models. Now get to the dealer for your test drives.

    --jjf

    With all of the experienced people on this site I'm hoping you can help me select a new truck. I need a solid truck that will pull 4500lbs upon occasion. I would like it to get good gas mileage when I'm not towing with the prices being so high. What P/U trucks would you guys/gals suggest?

    JohnBoy
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    I completely disagree.

    I think the V8 Dakota is actually the best vehicle for this kind of job. In this segment it is the Dakota that stands out as the intended work vehicle. The 4.7 motor is smooth and produces exceptional low-end torque within a fairly broad power range. The V8 comes with an extremely hearty, capable and reliable 545RFE, six speed automatic, the stiffest frame in a mid-size pick-up, and the largest cargo and passenger room. It also has the highest towing capacity.

    The interior is quite bland, but the unfortunately Germanic-looking interior materials are of very good quality. On my son's last leave home he had a rented Dakota for three weeks. I managed to have it for one of those days. Compared to my 2003 Dakota Sport, the newer versions are quieter, have a smoother ride and improved handling. It was a very solid truck with no rattles or squeaks at 14K.

    Regards,
    Dusty
  • jfritschjfritsch Member Posts: 958
    Looking at the sales figures for the Dakota, I'm sure Chrysler wishes there were more folks like this Chap. In any event, test drives and comparison will tell.

    I was in this fellow's boat and was considering a Dakota. Unfortunately I test drove and inspected the competition and its 3rd from the end ahead of the Ranger and Colorado and 4th from the top. Of course, offerings from Mitsubishi (Raider, a Dakota knock off) and Isusu (Colorado copy) are beneath contempt unless LOTS off.

    You do want about 10k off MSRP for the Dakota (28-32k) Silverado, Trailblazer etc. A look at 1yr wholesale values will tell you why.

    --jjf

    completely disagree.

    I think the V8 Dakota is actually the best vehicle for this kind of job. In this segment it is the Dakota that stands out as the intended work vehicle. The 4.7 motor is smooth and produces exceptional low-end torque within a fairly broad power range. The V8 comes with an extremely hearty, capable and reliable 545RFE, six speed automatic, the stiffest frame in a mid-size pick-up, and the largest cargo and passenger room. It also has the highest towing capacity.

    The interior is quite bland, but the unfortunately Germanic-looking interior materials are of very good quality. On my son's last leave home he had a rented Dakota for three weeks. I managed to have it for one of those days. Compared to my 2003 Dakota Sport, the newer versions are quieter, have a smoother ride and improved handling. It was a very solid truck with no rattles or squeaks at 14K.

    Regards,
  • jfritschjfritsch Member Posts: 958
    Looking at the sales figures for the Dakota, I'm sure Chrysler wishes there were more folks like this chap. In any event, test drives and comparison will tell.

    I was in this fellow's boat and was considering a Dakota. Unfortunately I test drove and inspected the competition and its 3rd from the end ahead of the Ranger and Colorado and 4th from the top. Dodge sweetened the deal by getting rid of the 7/70 powertrain warranty (down to 3/36). Of course, offerings from Mitsubishi (Raider, a Dakota knock off) and Isusu (Colorado copy) are beneath contempt unless LOTS off.

    You do want about 10k off MSRP for the Dakota (28-32k) Silverado, Trailblazer etc. A look at 1yr wholesale values will tell you why.

    --jjf

    completely disagree.

    I think the V8 Dakota is actually the best vehicle for this kind of job. In this segment it is the Dakota that stands out as the intended work vehicle. The 4.7 motor is smooth and produces exceptional low-end torque within a fairly broad power range. The V8 comes with an extremely hearty, capable and reliable 545RFE, six speed automatic, the stiffest frame in a mid-size pick-up, and the largest cargo and passenger room. It also has the highest towing capacity.

    The interior is quite bland, but the unfortunately Germanic-looking interior materials are of very good quality. On my son's last leave home he had a rented Dakota for three weeks. I managed to have it for one of those days. Compared to my 2003 Dakota Sport, the newer versions are quieter, have a smoother ride and improved handling. It was a very solid truck with no rattles or squeaks at 14K.

    Regards,
  • greayregsgreayregs Member Posts: 9
    I'm considering buying a 05 Dakota 4x4 Club Cab SLT, 4.7 V8 with only 2,000 miles. I worry about reliability given the ratings by Consumer reports. Also looking at used Rangers and Tundras.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    My family had bad luck with Chryslers, but my aunt had a Dodge truck for three years and it was generally a good vehicle. I think their trucks are a better commodity than their cars.
  • jfritschjfritsch Member Posts: 958
    Is this car with a dodge dealer? With only 2000 miles that is unusual even for a demo. I share your deal with the reliability but at least that year has the 7/70 powertrain warranty. (if you are 2nd owner you must xfer.with 100 fee)

    You would want to pay very close to wholesale for it as this truck isn't in high demand. You might also want to see my message 14394 in the Accord prices paid forum for useful info on how to buy a car. Smoking out 10000 off a Silverado, Dakota, F series this summer may have you reconsider buying used.

    Good luck
    --jjf

    I'm considering buying a 05 Dakota 4x4 Club Cab SLT, 4.7 V8 with only 2,000 miles. I worry about reliability given the ratings by Consumer reports. Also looking at used Rangers and Tundras.
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    I was in the fleet management business for a number of years and are very high on Dodge trucks. The Dakota has experienced a varied quality history over the years, with the first generation being very good, then a slip, then an upswing. A number of local companies use the Dakota along with S-10s and Rangers, as well as Time-Warner and Rochester Gas & Electric Co. From the reports that I've heard they have been generally pleased with them, especially in recent years.

    At 78,000 miles my own 2003 has been very good. I've had two recalls, one for a wiper motor and another for upper ball joints. I've had a heater fan blower resistor fail (a common Dakota problem), but they have a revised component that appears to have resolved the problem. I complained about a slight binding sensation in the steering wheel and they replaced the intermeiate steering shaft at no charge even though I was out of warranty.

    Most of the Dakota owners I talk to are pleased with them and report few problems. I disregard Consumers Reports because I believe their reporting reliability is much worse than average. I have no faith in them. I wouldn't try to convince you that the average Dakota will have as low a incidence of repair as a Tacoma or a Frontier (although I've hearing some bad things about new Frontiers lately). However, that being said I wouldn't have bought a Dakota if I thought they were terrible or as bad as an S-10. In my experience they are very solid and durable. When there is a problem it is generally a low cost item. The 2003 Dakota works for me and is my everyday ride. It's been faithful and runs great. If you can get past the current German designed interior I think you'll find the Dakota does more for less money, and the newer ones have higher component quality than previous versions. The Dakota will get a complete interior refresh, a stiffer frame, a new 4.7 upgrade to 295 horsepower, and numerous refinements for 2008.

    Good luck with your decision.

    Best regards,
    Dusty
  • poncho167poncho167 Member Posts: 1,178
    Sorry I don't agree with you about CR. I don't consider them legitimate when it comes to auto reviews/tests, etc. Their recent scandal involving the outsourced childs safety seats helps confirm my already biased opinion of this company.

    CR is good for: appliances, tractors, televisions, etc.
This discussion has been closed.