Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
15 minutes ago, Transient said:


 

 


Consumer reports rankings are based on opinions, not actual testing of the product. This is contrary to everything else they rank.


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

 

Right.

 

Back in reality, they ask thousands of vehicle owners like myself what problems we’ve had with new vehicles. Those “opinions” aka actual results are what they used to issue a new GM truck categorization of “Do Not Buy” because of poor reliability. 

  • Like 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, MaverickZ71 said:

Right.

 

Back in reality, they ask thousands of vehicle owners like myself what problems we’ve had with new vehicles. Those “opinions” aka actual results are what they used to issue a new GM truck categorization of “Do Not Buy” because of poor reliability. 

May I ask why you drive it? Resale value is through the roof, now is the time to trade in! I thought about it to get a better trim and I haven't had any major issues with mine.

Posted
Right.
 
Back in reality, they ask thousands of vehicle owners like myself what problems we’ve had with new vehicles. Those “opinions” aka actual results are what they used to issue a new GM truck categorization of “Do Not Buy” because of poor reliability. 
Riiiight....

Just because it's not your reality doesn't mean it isn't reality. I received and responded to the consumer reports survey in early 2006, which i found odd because I only had the car in question for a few weeks.

Furthermore, surveys like the one Consumer Reports sends out have a lack of credibility. They could suffer from one or more of the following issues: Inadequate response options, rating level inconsistencies, assuming prior knowledge or understanding, leading questions, ambiguous or unintelligible questioning, excessive open-ended questions, or lengthy surveys.

The best means to rank a vehicle is long term testing. This is why many publications, such as MotorTrend; Automobile Magazine; The Fast Lane Truck; etc buy vehicles as long term testers and report on them. TFL just completed a 1-year ownership of the Silverado Trail Boss LT with the 5.3 and they had zero issues. They called it "bullet proof", whereas their prior long term test truck, a Ram Rebel, had a couple issues.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Posted
1 hour ago, MaverickZ71 said:

I don’t care if you just pulled the article out of your ass 2 minutes ago. The point is, Ford has been the bestselling truck for 44 years straight. Anything else is old, fake news. 

No, they have not been the best selling truck for 44 years straight..

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, MaverickZ71 said:

I don’t care if you just pulled the article out of your ass 2 minutes ago. The point is, Ford has been the bestselling truck for 44 years straight. Anything else is old, fake news. 

Wrong don't know where you read that, yes Ford does sell a lot of trucks but most are fleet sales or leases due to them being cheaper to buy in a fleet sales compared to GM or Ram. Company's that buy or lease fleet trucks from 10 to 40 or more trucks run them for about 2-3 years and dump them for high mileage or what ever and then the whole process starts over again. They don't care what brand it is as its all about the money.

 

Ever go by a road side used truck dealer and see the whole lot filled with white Ford trucks? Those are fleet trucks dump from company's that are about 2-3 years old with 100s of thousands of miles and you might find some if any with kind of low miles those trucks were problem trucks that was costing them money to be maintained.   

Posted
1 hour ago, MaverickZ71 said:

I don’t care if you just pulled the article out of your ass 2 minutes ago. The point is, Ford has been the bestselling truck for 44 years straight. Anything else is old, fake news. 

 

WoW.......speaking of asses. Geez take a chill, extremely sensitive for any particular reason?

  • Haha 1
Posted

I wouldn’t drive a Ford even if I won it or was given one. My step dads ecobust was a joke. Ford CLAIMS best in class fuel economy and that piece of $h!t never hit 18 mpgs.  Ford lies and does a great job doing it and making people think it through there Bryan Crankston one ads. I couldn’t stand driving or riding in it. The cheap plastic interior is everywhere. Yet they get better praise then GM trucks??  

Also my father in law, brother in law, and nephew are all Ford fanatics. They’re excuses for how terrible the 6.0L and 6.4L diesels was hilarious and when the 6.7L came out the so called “underrated “ Duramax according to them, embarrassed it in all magazine testing.  It wasn’t until THIS year Ford finally beat the Duramax up the IKE Gauntlet, but did it while having a transmission temp that was running pretty hot, while the Duramax handled the Ike Gauntlet without issues. 


I finally got my stepdad to trade his ecobust in for a new Sierra and he averages 22 with it. 4 mpgs is a huge difference and GM does it without false propaganda!  

 

As for sales, I could careless who sells more, I’ve had great luck with GM and the one vehicle I didn’t, they treated me right. 

  • Like 1
Posted

Everyone always has their own opinion because everyone experiences the vehicles they own differently from someone else. If we’re going strictly by warranty repairs and then out of warranty repairs, my Fords Expedition and Ranger have been number 1 and number 2, Buick Verano at 3, Silverado at 4, a GMC Canyon at 5 and a Dodge Dart at 6. Hand down both my fords were more reliable than any GM product I’ve owned. It’s also my person opinion that in the half ton market, GM didn’t even show up to the party with the last two generations of trucks when it came to luxury. And only now, just barely.

Then again, I will gladly drive anything that puts a smile on my face. I couldn’t give a darn what badge is on the nose. All of the brands will screw you given the chance. Doesn’t pay to have any loyalty.

Posted (edited)

I traded my Ecopoop '17 lariat due to leaking oil and coolant and 30+ days in the shop. My last GM was a '05 yukon - 5.3 like my '19 Sierra. That ford upset me so much, i felt lucky not to end up in the hospital from it.

 

Ford rides a little smoother.. and that is about it. i will take the old 5.3 starting on the first compression stroke every time... over the Ford two turbos with oil and coolant lines done on the cheap... plastic valve cover and oil pans... all oozing and fighting the dealer on every drip.

 

No Fords in my future!

 

As far as Rams go, my dad has had three since '13. Only lost one tranny under warranty on the '13. The other two were solid.

Edited by PPK
  • Like 1
Posted
5 hours ago, RStrain56 said:

I'd just read something earlier about the sales, and now your post has me wondering who's right, emoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.png

Car and Driver has Ram in third with 563,676 and Chevrolet in second with 586,675.

To me, it's not really relevant as a buyer so much as it just promotes a bragging right for die hard fanboys all over. I think the big 3 have pushed one another so much the last few years that we're all benefitting because of it. I almost bought a Ram Limited, but just couldn't pull the trigger and went with Chevy instead.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk
 

GoodCarBadCar has Silverado @ #2 with 593,057 and Ram third with 563,676.

 

 

Posted

As far as I am concerned, GM trucks are GM trucks, which mean Chevrolet/GMC are the same since they practually are.  Same engines, same components.  They get combined in my book for total GM truck sales so it is GM, RAM, and FORD Motor Company. 

  • Like 1
Posted

For many years I’ve been participating in automotive forums of just about every manufacturer. One common theme is that a large percentage of posts are by complainers rather than the majority who are happy with their vehicles. 

  • Like 3
Posted
5 hours ago, Colossus said:

As far as I am concerned, GM trucks are GM trucks, which mean Chevrolet/GMC are the same since they practually are.  Same engines, same components.  They get combined in my book for total GM truck sales so it is GM, RAM, and FORD Motor Company. 

Your 100% right I could never figure that one out either as GMC is made on the same production line as Chevy why are they not combined together as total sales. But all in all I really don't care about sales numbers on who is leading. 

Posted
58 minutes ago, LowCountryDenali said:

For many years I’ve been participating in automotive forums of just about every manufacturer. One common theme is that a large percentage of posts are by complainers rather than the majority who are happy with their vehicles. 

I've been very happy with all of my new F-150s,  Sierras, and now Silverado.... I will say the most fun truck to drive was my 2016 regular cab F-150 2.7 eco.. Really light truck, and lots of low end torque.... 

  • Like 2
Posted

Pretty sure i read somewhere the discrepancy for the RAM numbers is they add their RAM PRO MASTER VAN numbers to their trucks 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    342,913
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Smitty462
    Newest Member
    Smitty462
    Joined
  • Who's Online   4 Members, 0 Anonymous, 534 Guests (See full list)


  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...