Derodeo

I'd suspect that power running boards would be completely useless if there's any real accumulation of ice, snow or mud. I've seen what happens to those short manual pop-out boards available on F-150s (for box access) in these conditions - they often last only a few weeks before permanently seizing. I don't like the standard 6" GM boards though. Not attractive, too wide and positioned in such a way that it is difficult to just avoid by stepping over them. If it was only me I would be happy to remove them and not replace them but the rest of my family isn't as tall.

I don't know what the additional weight of of a 20" wheel and tire is but I can assure you GM did not spend a lot of money manufacturing special low weight large rims. And tires weigh far less than rims. And unsprung weight is something a number of you need to do some research on - it has a serious impact on acceleration, fuel economy and overall handling. And there is a reduction in carrying capacity with low profile tires, that's why heavy duty trucks come with 17" wheels and only 17" wheels. And why a maximum towing package for light-duty trucks comes only with 18" wheels. I've got no problems with the bling folks. I find it unfortunate that I will likely have to buy large rims because they are packaged with high-end trim line options (other than with a maximum towing package). And because paying extra to effectively cripple a new truck is not something a rational person should do.

Personally I think larger rims are just part of a bling over substance increasingly urban truck driver mentality and manufacturers who exploit that market for increased profits and reduced vehicle capability in the light-duty market. Yes I can see a certain aesthetic appeal of larger wheels and tires. Maybe also a tiny improvement on the skidpad (because racetruck eh). But that is about as far as the advantages go. In return as tires and wheels get larger and heavier you get poorer acceleration and fuel economy. And not just a little bit worse, significantly worse. Short and stiff sidewalls mean less ride comfort. Far more susceptible to road hazard damage. That would be the last thing I desire in a truck that is going to be used as a truck. Grip, braking performance, ride comfort, and steering feel all suffer from the additional unsprung weight - and unsprung weight is the worst kind of weight. You don't see performance cars with huge heavy wheels on them now do you? And I haven't even mentioned the added upfront cost. And it's a cost that keeps on adding with every tire replacement and every fuel fill.

With cylinder deactivation, the same 4 cylinders are always the ones deactivated.

Over the last couple of decades I got used to contemporary engines using so little oil I'd never check my oil level between changes. Then I bought a new 2011 Lincoln MKX with a 3.7L. When new it was using a lot of oil, way more than was typical for that engine but far less than what Ford considers a problem. I eventually solved the problem by doing the opposite of what the owner's manual recommended for a break-in procedure. Essentially that meant WOT whenever possible. That's something I'll keep in mind if it happens again on a new truck but if the problem is endemic to cylinder deactivation technology then it likely won't help.

Was told 12 weeks (in Canada). That's also how long it was taking the dealer to receive their own orders. 12 weeks is OK with me - last 2 vehicles I factory ordered took16 and 17 weeks.

I have that feature on my 2011 Lincoln MKX (part of the fantastic adaptive cruise control option) and, at least the way Ford does it, it is not aggravating in the least. Typically the only time it activates is when the vehicle ahead of you slows down quite suddenly to make a turn.and the computer calculates that based on your current speed you might rear-end it. That's not a bad thing to get extra warning about.