# What Brand Is Yours?



## Last Man Standing

I looked around and only found one poll about this and it was way back. It was really limited in brands to choose from so I added a bunch. I decided to list chevys and gmcs separately, although they're practically the same, there are subtle differences and I know people who swear that they are very different and wouldn't be caught dead in the other brand. I noticed that the other poll turned into an argument on why everyone's brand was better than everyone else's. If you want to explain why you own one or would own one then go ahead! But I'm just curious what brand has the most owners on this forum. Besides, I already know what brand is the best... :twisted:


----------



## MKP

I have a 1989 GMC S15 that I have because my Grandpa gave it to me. Its now has 225,000 miles and is still going. That things taken me to hell and back. Hunting and fishing all over the Manti and the San Rafael Swell. Its a tough little bugger.


----------



## stimmie78

I have Ford Bronco II. It's a great little fishing buggy. 18+ MPG when cruising around in the mountains. But I WANT a 2010 or newer GMC half ton crew cab... an 11 with the all terrain package with a 6.2L would be awesome, but the 5.3L is more than enough for my needs. Some day I'd love to put a GM 4.3L/4L60 in my Bronco II... But that would be far down the road...


----------



## Huge29

Last Man Standing said:


> I decided to list chevys and gmcs separately, although they're practically the same, there are subtle differences and I know people who swear that they are very different and wouldn't be caught dead in the other brand.


They are identical with the only differences being cosmetics made in the same factories with all parts being identical...anyone saying differently is a *\-\* as is anyone driving either one. :mrgreen:


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

Well, which should I vote for? The one I own or the one I want to own?


----------



## Last Man Standing

BirdDogger said:


> Well, which should I vote for? The one I own or the one I want to own?


Whichever brand you like the best or think is most deserving I guess.


----------



## Last Man Standing

Huge29 said:


> They are identical with the only differences being cosmetics made in the same factories with all parts being identical...anyone saying differently is a *\-\*


I know that, I was mostly trying to give a fair shot to each make.  


Huge29 said:


> ...anyone saying differently is a *\-\**as is anyone driving either one.* :mrgreen:


Now you're just looking for a fight, ain't ya huge? :twisted: O*--


----------



## Kevin D

My problem is I have 2 trucks....a 1997 Ford F250 that is my work/hunting truck and a 2008 Dodge Ram 2500. I really like my Dodge, but how can I vote against the Ford that has been the most dependable and cheapest/mile vehicle I've ever owned?? I dunno, you gotta give me 2 votes.


----------



## campfire

Isn't this subject a little like politics or religion?  I have driven a lot of trucks in my lengthening life and this I have found: all manufacturers make a variety of different typs of trucks from light duty to very heave duty and it really is not fair to compare a light duty truck of one to a heavy duty truck of another brand. This said I fave been a ford man most of my life.


----------



## campfire

Here is a side note that at least I think is interesting. When Ford bought Cummins, makers of diesel engines that most folks would consider pretty good, they did not stop putting "International" Power Strokes in their own pickups. I presume this is for marketing reasons. "If it aint broke, don't fix it".


----------



## Critter

campfire said:


> Here is a side note that at least I think is interesting. When Ford bought Cummins, makers of diesel engines that most folks would consider pretty good, they did not stop putting "International" Power Strokes in their own pickups. I presume this is for marketing reasons. "If it aint broke, don't fix it".


Ford did not ever own Cummins, they had some stock in the company but never a controlling share and a few years ago the got rid of all the stock that they had. It is a common mistake that some make since Ford did and still does offer the Cummins motor in some of there larger trucks. Also Ford and International have split the sheets so to speak as of a couple of years ago. Ford now builds their own design of a diesel as the 6.7 Powerstroke.

Now after saying that I will say that I have driven all of the big 3 trucks. The company that I retired from would just buy from the lowest bidder which was usually GM and of the 6 trucks that I drove over a 33 year carer with over 200,000 on each of them I didn't have a lemon in any of them. Personally I drive a 1996 Ford Powerstroke.


----------



## Bax*

I drive a Tacoma. Not because I think it is the best truck on the road (although I think it is a decent truck), but because I dont own any toys to tow around, and couldnt fit a larger truck in my garage.

It gets me where I want to go, and it looks pretty good in my opinion 8)


----------



## campfire

Critter,
Thanks for the updated and corrected info. Do you know how Ford and International resolved "Powerstroke" trademarking? Or was "Powerstroke" always a Ford trademark?


----------



## Critter

campfire said:


> Critter,
> Thanks for the updated and corrected info. Do you know how Ford and International resolved "Powerstroke" trademarking? Or was "Powerstroke" always a Ford trademark?


The name Powerstroke was always a Ford trademark name. The International designation for the 7.3 was T444E and 99% of the parts will interchange with each other. The relationship started to sour with the introduction of the 6.0 which with Fords programing and emission equipment for a light truck marked its downfall. There were a couple of law suits between Ford and International concerning the 6.0 and when the 6.4 came out Ford or International decided not to renew the contract because of the law suits. That's when Ford decided to build their own design diesel engine which became the 6.7.

As for heavy duty trucks from Ford the F650+ I believe that you can still get the International, Cummins, Cat, or Detroit engines in them I believe.


----------



## mikevanwilder

I went with GMC, yesterday I bought my first, an 08 GMC 1500 extended cab. Its not the first I've owned I have a 84 GMC Sierra 2500 that my dad bought in 1983. I took it over about 8 years ago. I love GMCs I'm a 4 generation owner in my family and all of the trucks we've owned have lasted forever with very minor repairs. I will not own a Ford because when I was younger my grandpa traded a GMC for a Ford and that POS gave us nothing but problems and it ended up breaking down on us on a hunting trip that we had to walk forever to get help. As a 10 year old it left quite an impression on me. 
I'm not saying there all bad and in todays times it seems most of the vehicles are pretty reliable. 
Dodges are ok if its a Cummins and the transmission has been upgraded, wont own a gas Dodge. At my work that is all we have and they are crap. Anyway just my opinion.


----------



## legacy

Just bought a 2012 GMC 2500HD Crew Cab with the 6.0L and love it!


----------



## stimmie78

legacy said:


> Just bought a 2012 GMC 2500HD Crew Cab with the 6.0L and love it!


If you're going to tow with it and need 12v power at your trailer make sure you hook up the wires under the hood by the fuse block.. You'll also need a 40Amp j-case fuse.


----------



## Clarq

I own a Dodge Ram from 2000 and I love everything about it except the gas mileage it gets. It's given me very few problems since I got it 4 years ago.


----------



## Cooky

One of these.

[attachment=1:3bg6ghjz]Grill.JPG[/attachment:3bg6ghjz]

[attachment=0:3bg6ghjz]Grill 2.JPG[/attachment:3bg6ghjz]


----------



## tapehoser

2007 Ford Expedition.....cuz I have 5 kids that'll be as big as me....2 that already are. It's downright roomy and powerful.

Hasn't given us a lick of problems.


----------



## .45

Cooky said:


> One of these.


[attachment=0:ss3d80wt]Grill.JPG[/attachment:ss3d80wt]

There is something way wrong with that picture Cooky !!! :twisted:

Chevy.........all day long!!


----------



## proutdoors

Chevy, GMC, Dodge....all owned and controlled by the government. Only the Blue Oval is worthy of my money.


----------



## Huge29

*yo*



proutdoors said:


> Chevy, GMC, Dodge....all owned and controlled by the government. Only the Blue Oval is worthy of my money.


I concur, but I thought you were moving to the Toy dept as they are now semi American made??


----------



## proutdoors

I thought about it, but my loyalty to the Blue Oval won out.


----------



## JERRY

Blue Oval/Ford. Chevy before they were Government owned!


----------



## Last Man Standing

Who cares about Government owned as long as they still make a better truck, which they do!  But maybe gov involvement isn't such a bad thing, seeing as how Ford managed to lose 7.14 million in 2010, whereas GM (which is so many more brands in one) lost 6.5 mil, while at the same time managing to pay the gov 11.2 billion in bailout returns. Sounds to me like the restructuring did something.


----------



## proutdoors

Last Man Standing said:


> Who cares about Government owned as long as they still make a better truck, which they do!  But maybe gov involvement isn't such a bad thing, seeing as how Ford managed to lose 7.14 million in 2010, whereas GM (which is so many more brands in one) lost 6.5 mil, while at the same time managing to pay the gov 11.2 billion in bailout returns. Sounds to me like the restructuring did something.


First, your numbers are completely bogus. Second, GM didn't restructure.....they simply RIPPED off thousands of investors and gave stock to an incredibly corrupt union. :O•-:

Uh-oh, I best be careful or the 'stick to the EXACT issue' cop will be writing me another ticket............


----------



## pkred

no Jeep category?


----------



## Last Man Standing

proutdoors said:


> First, your numbers are completely bogus. Second, GM didn't restructure.....they simply RIPPED off thousands of investors and gave stock to an incredibly corrupt union. :O•-:


 1. I gleaned my numbers from the 2010 annual financial reports of both Ford and GM, respectively. I'm not saying that I'm correct, but what leads you to think they're wrong? 2. As for the restructuring, I've sifted through the government papers and legal notes and I've found that this guy (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/78781/obama-gm-detroit-auto-bailout-worked) summed it up in a much more articulate way than I would have when he says...


> GM had to promise to slim down dramatically--cutting jobs, shuttering factories and shedding brands--to win its lifeline. The firm was forced to declare bankruptcy. Shareholders were wiped out. Top managers were swept aside. Unions did win some special favours: when Chrysler was divided among its creditors, for example, a union health fund did far better than secured bondholders whose claims should have been senior. Congress has put pressure on GM to build new models in America rather than Asia, and to keep open dealerships in certain electoral districts. But by and large Mr Obama has not used his stakes in GM and Chrysler for political ends. On the contrary, his goal has been to restore both firms to health and then get out as quickly as possible. GM is now profitable again and Chrysler, managed by Fiat, is making progress. *Taxpayers might even turn a profit when GM is sold.*


That sounds like a pretty extensive RESTRUCTURE to me. Yeah the investors got screwed, but if the bailout didn't happen they would've been SOL anyhow when GM tanked. I'm anti-obama, but this was one bailout that worked and was well worth it.


proutdoors said:


> Uh-oh, I best be careful or the 'stick to the EXACT issue' cop will be writing me another ticket............


I hope that's not the case, I don't mean to start any sort of argument. Hell, if I'm incorrect I'm alway glad to know it.


----------



## Huge29

proutdoors said:


> Uh-oh, I best be careful or the 'stick to the EXACT issue' cop will be writing me another ticket............


I don't see that happening on this topic; it is very much related to the topic.

For LMS to defend the bailout is laughable. Not only were bondholders literally screwed out of money, laws were broken to make the restructure happen with GM and Chrysler. That is indefensible. I am Ford first, but didn't really mind either of the other two until the bailouts happened employing illegal bankruptcy procedures to acquiese to the unions demands. 
To defend them saying they didn't lose as much as Ford who made it on their own is the logic of a 12-year old, Ford was able to weather the storm due to much better strategy and financial strength. Those "net income" figures contain a lot of fluff especially in losing years when they are able to shift expenses that are considered "one-time"....enough of that. 
To give the ownership to unions??? I am actually sincerely interested to see just how this train wrecks; to hire the fox as the new security company of the hen; house shall be interesting. The very essence of unions....now being a majority shareholder...wow! They are the reason GM is in so much trouble and you think they were messed up before needing a government bailout now that an entity that has its primary focus to milk as much from the cow now makes the decisions for how the dairy is ran it may be impossible to describe the long term results without using the word "cluster." To be a superficial fan of the truck because you like the clean lines knock yourself out, but as a taxpaying American...dig a little deeper. Horsesma hit it on the head! 
All that aside from quality, which LMS seems to think that the Obama motors is the superior one...obviously anyone can bring up "their story", but my 04 F150 with 140K miles has had one single repair that is not routine maintenance that is the battery. I traded in my 93 Ranger for it that has 196k miles that had two clutch jobs and a battery. Compare that to my next door neighbors '05 Tahoe that just got a new transfer case and a drive line and the dealer still can't figure out what is wrong, I told him just to change the logo... :mrgreen:


----------



## Last Man Standing

Huge29 said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-oh, I best be careful or the 'stick to the EXACT issue' cop will be writing me another ticket............
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see that happening on this topic; it is very much related to the topic.
Click to expand...

You're right, it is. But stuff like this isn't...


Huge29 said:


> To defend them saying they didn't lose as much as Ford who made it on their own is the logic of a 12-year old, Ford was able to weather the storm due to much better strategy and financial strength.


First off, It's ironic that you say I have the logic of a 12 year old when insulting my intelligence like that is itself childish. Not to mention, that you TWISTED my words. Reread Huge, although I rooted for Chev's as my favorite I was in no way defending GM's products or the corporation itself by using those dollar figures. I was defending the efficacy of the bailout. I didn't say that because GM lost less money than ford that they are king. I was saying that although they had to pay 11 billion dollars back to taxpayers, they still managed to lose less. Ford weathered the recession on it's own and I give them big credit for that. What I meant to illustrate with those figures was that the new slimmer GM was able to accomplish a pretty big feat. Beating out Ford on losses is not something the old, overgrown, greedy GM would have been able to do. 


Huge29 said:


> I am actually sincerely interested to see just how this train wrecks; to hire the fox as the new security company of the hen; house shall be interesting.


Well, I'm not sure what train you're watching, but in reality they're currently the #1 automaker in total global sales. Or how about the fact that in 2009 before Obama (again, who I dislike) stepped in, their US sales were down 30% from 08. Part of a trend of negative sales figures that had occurred since 1999. In 2010, US sales were +6% the first positive gain in 11 years. Then in 2011 US sales jumped to +30%, a whopping increase compared to the past. The numbers don't lie. Imagine the impact on the GLOBAL economy if the number one automaker went completely belly up. Huge, As for the laws that were broken in the Chapter 11 Reorganization of GM, I'm curious what you're even talking about. I don't doubt it, but please enlighten me. For those who are talking negatively about government involvement, I suspect that most of you don't know the whole story. Like the fact that Canada's government owns part of GM and that European countries also contributed to it's bailout.


Huge29 said:


> "cluster"


 Exactly so, but a cluster that continues to function well. When I stopped being a "superficial" consumer and dug deep like a good "tax paying american" I found that out.

My bottom line is, Yes I like the looks of Chevys. Yes I think they are built more solidly. No, it does not bias my opinion of the parent company. No, I don't think the government is evil and is using GM to wield political influence. And most importantly, YES, the bailout of the auto industry WORKED.


----------



## Huge29

I had no intention of insulting you or your intelligence, but again, to say this loss vs. that loss really has no meaning. Obviously, the company that just defaulted on billions of debt and therefore had the debt all wiped off the sheet (no interest expense to pay now) vs. the company that has lived up to its obligations and paid its debtors as agreed....guess which one will be the most profitable in the short term?
GM and Chrysler are quite similar and some of the figures below treat the two as similar.


Last Man Standing said:


> My bottom line is, Yes I like the looks of Chevys. Yes I think they are built more solidly. No, it does not bias my opinion of the parent company. No, I don't think the government is evil and is using GM to wield political influence. And most importantly, YES, the bailout of the auto industry WORKED.


I think you have done what humans naturally do, seek information that supports your preconceived notions and clung onto it...we all do the same, but what has happened should be troubling. Just like Zions Bank....my former employer-got a huge bailout and years later have no plan to pay the debt back and have made zero effort to do so...pretty troubling for all tax paying Americans. To say that the bailout was a success is extremely shortsighted. We have not seen anything yet, only time will tell if it worked. 
As to the illegal treatment of bondholders, I am surprised this is news to you being such a diligent fan, just look it up; I think Chrysler's was slightly worse, but most articles will be heavily biased one way or the other. Essentially most of these corporations are incorporated in Delaware and therefore are governed by DE law and promises were made to the unions that could only come through if bondholders were treated just like stockholders and told to pound sand and that is what happened and the unions were given preferential treatment.
Just a few other points that may contradict the Kool Aid currently being served by the majority stockholder--the "may be a profit" for taxpayers statement--you didn't write that with a straight face, right? To even break even all of the stock has to be issued at $53/share--look up that current price at less than half that price and we quickly see a loss of north of $20B.
Anywho, back to the actual "quality issue":


> GM, Chrysler ....They are now building such wonderful cars that they have achieved total dominance of the Forbes "Worst Cars on the Road" list, which we could also call the "Bottom Eleven." GM and Chrysler account for nine of the cars among the bottom eleven. In other news, the UAW is grateful for your generosity in keeping their union from disappearing. It appears you've achieved little else with your donation.


I realize that Ford has had some doozies like the Windstar and going back 40 years the Pinto, but those are fairly ancient history unlike the Aveo....anywho. I think GM use to make decent stuff, but I just can't look at them as the same anymore. I sure hope the car buyers keep in mind this huge burden to the US that these two companies have created and don't support them, but maybe I am just crazy in rewarding the companies that are responsible in paying their bills and not getting special govt treatment, just the same way I don't bank at Zions, as if I would, working for a competitor....


----------



## proutdoors

GM shareholders were FORCED to take massive losses, so erasing BILLIONS right at the beginning of the bailout makes it much easier to make a profit, yes? And, as huge mentioned, it is fancy accounting that was used to 'show' GM paid the government back, not to mention the flailing stock prices. Now, when you take into account how Obama and his regime have FORCED companies and government fleets to buy GM vehicles, one can see hoe they are being continually bailed out by the taxpayer. 

As for 'quality'....the Chevy Volt.......DOH!


----------



## .45

Some people just don't like apple pie.... :roll:


----------



## proutdoors

.45 said:


> Some people just don't like apple pie.... :roll:


Not when it is laced with arsenic........


----------



## Last Man Standing

Huge, I think you've got some preconceived notions yourself. You and pro choose to ignore my other examples of GM's improvement and keep picking at the loss vs. loss and stockholder issues. I admitted that the stockholders were screwed. But you have to admit that if GM went bankrupt and shed it's extra weight without gov involvement they would've been screwed just the same. You keep saying that I want to vindicate GM and am scrambling to find evidence to support my claims. I've admitted that GM messed up and as a company they have made very bad decisions, bad enough to keep some people from ever buying their products again. Hell, bunch of 'em were crooks for sure. But I was never defending them as a company or defending Chev's as a brand with those dollar figures. I was defending the effect of the BAILOUT. You are the one who can't seem to stop touting Ford's integrity and honesty. I agree the whole situation is one big turd sandwich. But for the sake of ending this pointless conversion, I'll come around and side with ya.... So here it is. Bailouts suck. They never work. The governments involvement in anything is evil and illegal. GM's executive are all bastards. Even if they get replaced the new ones will be too. They make a shoddy truck at best. They will never be deserving of anyones money ever again, no matter the changes they make. Obama is in a secret combination with Satan. Fords are the best driving machine ever made. I want one so bad and the only reason I ever denied it is cause I'm jealous.


----------



## proutdoors

How old are you? :roll:


----------



## Last Man Standing

proutdoors said:


> How old are you? :roll:


12 according to Huge.


----------



## proutdoors

I would say that's about right based on your responses.................


----------



## Last Man Standing

proutdoors said:


> I would say that's about right based on your responses.................


Thanks. I just wanted to voice my opinion that the bailout was the lesser of two evils. I'll refrain from thinking from now on.


----------



## proutdoors

You can think, but you have to admit your responses have been childish, yes?

Food for thought: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 55834.html



> None of this suggests that we should be unhappy with the recent success of General Motors and Chrysler. Their revival is a very encouraging development. But to claim that the car companies would have collapsed if the government hadn't intervened in the way it did, and to suggest that the intervention came at very little cost, is a dangerous misreading of our recent history.


 I hope you take the time to read this, as it may shed some light on the hidden/true costs of government intervention (bailouts) entail.


----------



## Last Man Standing

proutdoors said:


> You can think, but you have to admit your responses have been childish, yes?


Perhaps. After I realized that my main point was being dodged repeatedly no matter the way I presented it, I sort of gave up trying to maintain any tact. I felt like my responses were being berated and that my intellect was being questioned. Your only response to all of my financial material other than my loss vs. loss analogy was to speak highly of Ford. I decided that it wasn't worth picking a fight. I'm new to the forum and don't want to be shunned from it because it has been a great resource for furthering my outdoor experiences. All I was trying to say was, IMO the bailout was one of two options, let GM die, or try and save it. Again, IMO it was an earnest attempt to choose the better option. Sorry for coming across childish.


----------



## proutdoors

No worries. Did you happen to read the article I linked?


----------



## Huge29

I enjoyed the discussion LMS and certainly didn't intend to berate or create any ill feeling. I think one saying comes to mind:


> A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.


Very sincerely, as to your "main point" I still wonder if the bailout was the best; hard to really ever know frankly. To have the main enemy of efficiency in the UAW as a primary shareholder along with the 2nd biggest being the government just doesn't sit well with me. Allowing the failure to occur the same way that any other business would have done (w/o the illegal treatments of bondholder) I think would have been better long term, but certainly more painful in the short run. Have a good evening and thanks for the good thread you initiated!


----------



## Last Man Standing

proutdoors said:


> No worries. Did you happen to read the article I linked?


I haven't. I fully intend to when I get the time. As of today I realized the life I thought I was leading is now in shambles. I reckon it's currently a little lower on my priority list than some other matters. Thanks for providing the link.


Huge29 said:


> I enjoyed the discussion LMS and certainly didn't intend to berate or create any ill feeling. I think one saying comes to mind:
> 
> 
> 
> A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
> 
> 
> 
> Very sincerely, as to your "main point" I still wonder if the bailout was the best; hard to really ever know frankly. To have the main enemy of efficiency in the UAW as a primary shareholder along with the 2nd biggest being the government just doesn't sit well with me. Allowing the failure to occur the same way that any other business would have done (w/o the illegal treatments of bondholder) I think would have been better long term, but certainly more painful in the short run. Have a good evening and thanks for the good thread you initiated!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I believe you all are wiser than I about this issue, and after some more extended reading I'm not sure I know one way or another anymore. The whole process is more convoluted and intertwines with so many different agencies and procedures that I have lost my original perspective of the legitimacy of the whole "cluster****" that went on/ is going on. I'm almost as confused as ever.


----------



## Fowlmouth

FORD!


----------



## wyogoob

Uh...what's a Nissan?

Any Pictures?


----------



## drsx

LMS! LMS! LMS! (Cheering)
Jk this a lame argument, admittedly I think LMS has handled himself very well actually.

P.S. I like Toyota Tundras


----------



## Last Man Standing

drsx said:


> P.S. I like Toyota Tundras


Secretly I do too. But they only look good with a lift and bigger tires. Stock, they're this big 'ol truck that comes on dinky tires. Like a big fat bulldog with little legs. My brother has one and it looks pretty bad***. Still kind of an old man truck IMO


----------



## wyogoob

Ford


----------



## a_bow_nut

Now that's a plow. goob.

Do they let you play with it?


----------



## wyogoob

a_bow_nut said:


> Now that's a plow. goob.
> 
> Do they let you play with it?


They?

It's my truck.


----------



## Last Man Standing

wyogoob said:


> They?
> 
> It's my truck.


Now that's a man's plow, the truck on the other hand... haha nah just kidding. That's a mans truck as well. Great pic goob.


----------



## waspocrew

[attachment=0:wc1gorxx]tacoma.jpg[/attachment:wc1gorxx]
Toyota. I'd love to put a lift on it, but can't spend the cash!


----------



## Paladin

My truck is an '03 Dodge 3500 4x4 w/ Cummins. I've had it since new, and now have 153K on it. It's been absolutely the best vehicle I have ever owned. Heck, I'm still on the original brake pads and batteries! I've literally done nothing to it other than regular maintenance and some performance upgrades.


----------



## brookieguy1

Buy what ya want. I like GM for my needs. I don't buy new anyway, so I need a truck that holds up, and the "blue oval" just doesn't do that as well.
I'm also pro-union, sorry. Yes those workers deserve $50.00 per hour to twist lug-nuts on. More so than the CEO deserves millions! The CEOs and other high-ups could give up 1/100th of their saleries and easily pay the meager Union rates. But no, they want all the money!


----------



## KineKilla

I had to vote for Ford. 

I had a 96' F250 that was running great and towing my boat up parleys with 220k on the clock. Now, I have a '95 F150 with the same 351W motor as my other one but it only has 80k on it. And again, it tows my boat just fine.

All of my friends, family are Chevy guys. My friend just traded in his '08 because the valves were starting to give him grief, and last weekend his 2012 was overheating all the way from SLC to Gunnison...made for a hot drive in the 100+ weather. So, if 4 years lifespan and overheating when doing normal work is your idea of a good time....bowtie all the way! ;-)


----------



## Kingfisher

here is the truck i would like to have...


----------



## brookieguy1

KineKilla said:


> I had to vote for Ford.
> 
> I had a 96' F250 that was running great and towing my boat up parleys with 220k on the clock. Now, I have a '95 F150 with the same 351W motor as my other one but it only has 80k on it. And again, it tows my boat just fine.
> 
> All of my friends, family are Chevy guys. My friend just traded in his '08 because the valves were starting to give him grief, and last weekend his 2012 was overheating all the way from SLC to Gunnison...made for a hot drive in the 100+ weather. So, if 4 years lifespan and overheating when doing normal work is your idea of a good time....bowtie all the way! ;-)


Endurance is nice, but please disclose (and truthfully) the gas mileage you were achieving with those Ford salad wagons while towing. I guarantee that 2112 Chevy will be fixed for free. Ain't no fixin' that F150 with a W351. You'll suffer with that 9MPG towing 'till she dies, which will be at around 100,000 miles. Sorry, the "Blue Oval" just don't cut it. Fact.


----------



## wyogoob

The Ford/Chevy debate is pointless really; both are great vehicles.

An interesting sidebar note: Statistics say that more Ford pickups are stolen than any other brand, out numbering Chevy and GM combined nearly 2 to 1.

When my fancy-dancy pickup was new it was stolen twice in 6 months. I put 2 anti-theft devices on it and haven't had a bit of trouble since:


----------



## Kingfisher

most people buy a vehicle to meet their purposes and based on their experience of that of their friends (this excludes the die hard folks who are true to their brand because thier nascar hero drives one). i have been fortunate to work at a place where we go thru a lot of trucks, put a lot of miles on them and tortuous ones at that. we pull big trailers with lots of stuff including a komatsu track hoe thru the mountains all over the place. one trip we blew 7 tires and 3 rims. our trucks have more 4 wheel low gear on them than perhaps any around. point is, we put our trucks thru hell - 20 ot 30 k miles per year and most on dirt roads. we have driven primarily chevies and fords with a few dodges. that said here are the problems we have had most: chevies - 2 blown motors, one with compression so low (454) that at 100 k miles it needed low range to tow a set of atvs up boulder mountain, our last one went thu front end shocks every 3 months, was like a porpoise to drive, great motor, lous allison transmission, went thru 5 transfer cases and ultimately lost the tranny, would high center on the road berm, had to lift it 4 inches, the front torsion bar would slip out, our 1500 silverado followed our ford 350's into a site which were towing tandem axle trailers and hit a stump, lost a transfer case,... so with the fords we have never lost an engine or tranny, althought the triton v 10 was a wuss engine, had ball joints, front ends go out, they have adequate clearance without modification and the new batch of 6.7 liter diesels have been super. over the past 25 years we have had far more problems with our chevies than with our fords. that said, i had a personal chevy surburban that was great except for one tranny and the air conditioning, went 250k miles and was a reasonably dependable machine. base on my experience, i would buy a ford truck, i currently have both a ford and a dodge, getting rid of the dodge soon. that said, i am sure there are lots of folks out there who have had just as many troubles with fords and have had dependable chevies. based on our experience with about 23 trucks all with 100 to 180k miles each over the years, we are now straight ford truck at work.


----------



## DarKHorN

Huge29 said:


> They are identical with the only differences being cosmetics made in the same factories with all parts being identical...anyone saying differently is a *\-\* as is anyone driving either one. :mrgreen:


Oh it's on like donkey kong biotch.


----------

