What do I do?

[peneumbra]

I'm not sure what the primary use of your truck is - the Duramax in question - but I feel much more comfortable putting money into improvements on an older, solid truck than I do on a new one.

If you like diesels, and I do (the noise, the smell, the... romance, shall we say, of burning glorified kerosene; added to which is the fact that I occasionally pull stock trailers loaded with bison) then consider purchasing an older rig in non-rusty condition, and making it better; making it your own truck.

From talking to lots of dieselheads, I think the most efficient, most economical diesel you can operate in a light truck is the 12-valve Cummins with aftermarket improvements. The 7.3 Fords have lots of fans as well, but it seems to me that you want to keep it as simple as possible, and a six just has less moving parts.

I have a '94 Chevy 1.25 ton 4x4 (3500HD) with an old 6.5 GM, a 4L80 automatic, and 4.88 gears. Is it fast? No. Is is smooth to ride in? No. But it still gets 13+ miles per gallon, and I'll be able to keep it running, comfortably enough for me, for many years on a lot less than $30,000. When this engine wears out, I'll likely drop a 12-Valve Cummins in it, or possibly even a C7 Cat. I could even install air-ride seats if I get tired of bouncing around.

In sum: I'd rather have an older truck I know inside and out, than a new one that requires Monthly Payments(!!), gets poor milage due to modern "advancements," and requires a PhD. to work on...

 

[goodtimes]

I dunno, seems to me the Ram Brand is doing a fine job of marketing the GAS powered Power Wagon as well as the Ferd folks do with the GAS powered Raptor for the sole purpose of leaving the pavement. I see no difference in chassis durability between gas vs. diesel chassis with the big 3 pickups. Not sure where you are coming from on this one sir. The people that think they need a diesel either really “WANT” a diesel or have not pulled out a calculator to see diesels are not the best bang for the buck in the long run.

Just general observations. People around me with the gassers seem to have more chassis related issues (unit bearings going bad, steering components wearing out, etc) than I do with my diesel.

I'm with you on the total cost of ownership - gassers win hands down 98% of the time. I just think that with a more robust chassis, the gassers would win 99.5% of the time. Durability of the entire truck is what brought me back to a diesel - not the durability of the engine alone.

The last decade has given us some fantastic gains in the durability and service life of gas engines - I'd like to see the same sort of improvements in the chassis. Get away from the tie rod ends that are the size if my little finger, get rid of the non-serviceable unit bearings that only last 70,000 miles, build an idler arm that will stand up to more than the tiniest load, etc. Diesels certainly aren't immune to chassis problems (IE: the dodge unit bearings) - but with little more than regular maintenance it's not uncommon to see a Ram diesel truck go 300,000+ miles. There aren't too many gassers out there giving that many miles back - assuming the same amount of maintenance & similar use.

As for the power wagon & raptor - they're niche vehicles just like the Jeep rubicon, so naturally they'll excel in what they were built for - but they're still niche vehicles. Put those bigger axles, better brakes, more robust steering components, etc. under a base model truck (even if they omit the lockers, winch, etc) and you're looking at what I'm referring to. Something more along the lines of a real "work" truck instead of a "commuting" truck. Hell, bring back the old "heavy half" and "heavy 3/4" ton options.

Some people can actually benefit from a truck being a truck, rather than a truck being a car that looks like a truck.

Do I honestly believe that it will ever happen? No - I don't. And that's why I think we'll continue to see people buying diesel powered trucks, despite the higher overall cost of ownership.

 

[ericvs]

(note: I always do this. Start typing and end up with an essay, bear with me, I re-read it and don't feel like I am just rambling. Also, thanks for all the responses. Very helpful)

No updates as of yet. Still running my truck, just trying to soak it all up and figure out my next move. At the moment, I am planning on getting rid of my current Duramax, then figure out what I need to do.

I would like one vehicle to do it all. I don't have space for a commuter vehicle, so all duties fall to one vehicle from daily driving to weeknight/weekend excursions with lots of gear and a couple of friends (with the occasional week long trip thrown in for good measure)

I have gone over the list many times and based on how I use my vehicles, I feel that a truck fits my needs the most. Is it the most economical? no. is it the most practical for how I use it? yes. Will it be excessive for my usage? Maybe, but I do use it as a truck, just not a work truck, but aren't you supposed to work hard and play harder or something like that. haha! Am willing to spend a bit more money to get a vehicle that works for me and I like? yes, to a point (which is part of the dilemma.)

Soo based on all this thinking, I would like to get another truck.

Now the 2nd issue. I would really 'like' another diesel. I am currently of the thought that if you own a truck, might as well own a diesel truck. Do I need diesel? Nope, I don't tow 80%GVWR 80% of the time, so a gas would most likely suffice, buuuut. peneumbra sums it up nicely:

If you like diesels, and I do (the noise, the smell, the... romance, shall we say, of burning glorified kerosene; added to which is the fact that I occasionally pull [ed note:] I don't tow bison but I do occasionally tow a travel trailer across the cascade range...)

I also believe that properly running diesels are easier on the environment than a similar sized, properly running gas engine. I have read lots on both and stand by this way of thinking (but am open for discussion). I guess diesels make just me feel good. (is that so bad??).

Other 'would like' is a crew cab. I am over the extended cab and couldn't imagine not having at minimum the rear suicide style doors. I have more than two people in the truck frequently and feel that everyone (except those in the b***ch seats) should have their own doors. This rules out lots of the older trucks unfortunately. I am being picky here, but I don't think that is a terrible thing.

Based on my research, I feel that these years and engines are what I am looking for If I was to buy used:

2004 - 2007 Duramax - Doesn't have the all emissions stuff yet, but they are computer controlled. Used market is very expensive for the LBZ engine. As noted earlier by zoomad75, the LLY had overheating issues that were driver induced. This is my fear with an LLY. LBZ's are pricey. Not much under 80k miles under 30k, that is a lot of scratch for a 5 year old rig.

2003-2006 cummins - pre 6.7L cummins. They are cheaper (still would have a payment though), but I am not convinced on the rest of the truck. A friend owns a 2006 3500 and summed it up as follows: "Dodge is the lowest of the big 3, so little things break a lot. Tranny's are a weak link." Interesting. Still the price is better and these years seem to have more crew cabs available

pre 6.0L PSD ford - lots of crew cab 7.3L fords out there, however, my mechanic mentioned it is tough to get those engines over 12mpg (14mpg and you are doing great!). I have not heard a lot about this, but he has nothing to gain from telling me this info, so no reason to lie. In my (half assed) attempt at something somewhat environmental, this seems like a pretty big ding as I am getting around 20mpg with the duramax (not great, but not 12mpg)

I might be spending a bit more money on a diesel, but I have been VERY happy with my duramax and wished it hadn't come to this, but maybe this is a sign to try something different (cummins??)

 

[bfdiesel]

Check out cummins forum they have all the big problems noted over there. I had a LB7 duramax that ate injectors like candy. Good truck for a while typical Chevy problems like front end. The third set of injectors and water pump going out pushed me to trade it for a 2007 mega cab 5.9 cummins. Also a good truck while I had it only problem I had is the valve cover gasket went bad and was cutting out the rear three cylinders. The reason I got rid of it was that after the lb7 I don't trust common rails. You can just about rebuild most the older diesels for what a common rail injection system costs to rebuild.

Just 2 penny's

 

[lstzephyr]

I think you would be well served by a 24v quadcab dodge from 98.5 to 2002. I know you want a crew cab and whatnot but bear with me. The quad cab would give you seats for plenty of people plus gear in the bed. I have ridden in the back of one which wasn't so bad and I'm 6'2". The only real problem areas are the lift pump and a good reliable aftermarket fass or airdog should handle that. The other advantages would be that with a short bed and a quad cab it wouldn't super big. It would also be able to pull around 20mpg. There are a bunch around and since everyone either wants the 12v or the 3rd gen crew they are more affordable. Just a thought.

That said get what makes you happy dude. Who cares if you "need" it. If you can afford it, you want it and it serves your purposes then go for it.

 

[zoomad75]

Just general observations. People around me with the gassers seem to have more chassis related issues (unit bearings going bad, steering components wearing out, etc) than I do with my diesel.

I'm with you on the total cost of ownership - gassers win hands down 98% of the time. I just think that with a more robust chassis, the gassers would win 99.5% of the time. Durability of the entire truck is what brought me back to a diesel - not the durability of the engine alone.

Some people can actually benefit from a truck being a truck, rather than a truck being a car that looks like a truck.

Do I honestly believe that it will ever happen? No - I don't. And that's why I think we'll continue to see people buying diesel powered trucks, despite the higher overall cost of ownership.

Here's the thing, I see all brands of trucks come through our shop. Customer's and trades alike. A 3/4 ton truck has the same bits and pieces under it if it is a gas engine or a diesel. Guess what, on the the GM stuff I see the same issues you are talking about on a 3/4 ton with gas engine or diesel. Idler arms and pitman arms are a regular deal with 100k plus miles on them. Sooner if they have a lift or get the snot beat out of them off road or on a ranch. The Dodge and Ford 3/4 tons eat ball joints and unit bearings with similar usage. What skews the viewpoint is very few 3/4 tons are sold with gas engines in the first place. GM sells them, but no where near the amount that they sell with dirtymax engines in them.

I'll take your statement about more "car-like" trucks and turn it around a little. Trucks built to ride like cars came about because driving trucks went from being used to work with them to becoming the fashionable thing to drive when fuel is cheap. In order to keep sales up, they watered the trucks down to ride better and cater more to the former car buying crowd. If fuel prices stay up, which they probably will, some of the posers driving trucks that never intend to use them to their full capability in hauling/towing will go back to cars or crossovers in order to save fuel costs. Put simply if the masses weren't asking for comfy pickups to drive you wouldn't have all the manufacturers building them. Why else would Toyota and Nissan build a 1/2 ton truck? Because there is a giant market out there.

Sure, people are still going to buy them. What nobody talks about is when those that really have no need for a 395hp/765 tq beast get surprised by $90-100+ Oil changes or costly out of warranty repairs. Those are the ones in sticker shock thinking we are insane for charging what it takes to fix them. I've had some come to the reality that they don't need a truck like that right on my service drive. I've taken them to our sales staff to look into trading them off.

I'm probably our sales staff's worst nightmare as I've spoken that type of reality to prospective sales customers looking at trucks. I don't follow the logic some sales folks have to push customer's into something they may not need. I'll explain the costs of ownership and ask what the intended use is. Some need it, many don't. Plain and simple.

 

[goodtimes]

Trucks built to ride like cars came about because driving trucks went from being used to work with them to becoming the fashionable thing to drive when fuel is cheap. In order to keep sales up, they watered the trucks down to ride better and cater more to the former car buying crowd.

That's the problem. Trucks are being built to compete with cars. The result is that people who need a truck end up buying 'more' truck than they need so it doesn't fall apart at 100K miles. In today's market, "more truck" = diesel. If people could get "more truck" with a gas engine - many (myself included) would probably go that way. That's all I'm saying. If you could get a gas engine in a truck that hasn't been watered down to meet the soccer mom's needs, more people would buy them instead of the diesels.

While there is certainly some overlap with parts from a 3/4 ton gasser to a 3/4 ton diesel - it's not 100%. Putting a diesel engine in place of a gas engine adds a significant amount of weight - weight that has to be supported with stiffer springs, bigger bearings, stronger axle housings, etc. It's the general downsizing of these components ("value engineering") that is creating the durability issues in trucks that see what would traditionally be considered "heavy duty" use. The diesel powered trucks are subject to it as well - but it doesn't seem as pervasive as the gas trucks. It's like the manufacturers have decided that the only heavy duty truck they are going to build is going to have a diesel engine in it (outside of the niche vehicles already mentioned - which generally don't qualify as a "work" truck).

 

[Larry]

That's the problem. Trucks are being built to compete with cars. The result is that people who need a truck end up buying 'more' truck than they need so it doesn't fall apart at 100K miles. In today's market, "more truck" = diesel. If people could get "more truck" with a gas engine - many (myself included) would probably go that way. That's all I'm saying. If you could get a gas engine in a truck that hasn't been watered down to meet the soccer mom's needs, more people would buy them instead of the diesels.

While there is certainly some overlap with parts from a 3/4 ton gasser to a 3/4 ton diesel - it's not 100%. Putting a diesel engine in place of a gas engine adds a significant amount of weight - weight that has to be supported with stiffer springs, bigger bearings, stronger axle housings, etc. It's the general downsizing of these components ("value engineering") that is creating the durability issues in trucks that see what would traditionally be considered "heavy duty" use. The diesel powered trucks are subject to it as well - but it doesn't seem as pervasive as the gas trucks. It's like the manufacturers have decided that the only heavy duty truck they are going to build is going to have a diesel engine in it (outside of the niche vehicles already mentioned - which generally don't qualify as a "work" truck).

We are really hijacking 613Duramax’s thread so I hope he doesn’t mind. :sombrero:

Goodtimes,

I agree, in general all auto manufacturers are building trucks for people that should be driving cars. For the past decade+ HD trucks are thing to have like custom hippy vans were in the 70’s. Manufacturers building trucks for people that should be driving cars is how us truck guys get saddled with crap like electric shift transfercases, IFS (on GM), lack of manual transmissions, leather this, electric that, where a new truck costs 50K. That aside, I still do not see what you are saying where one must buy a diesel (more truck than they need) because gasoline trucks are watered down to meet soccer mom needs.

Lookie here….

As an example, let’s look at a popular truck configuration: 2013 Chevrolet 2500HD 4x4 Crew Cab Short Bed

Gas
GVWR: 9,500 lbs.
Payload: 3,189 lbs.

Diesel
GVWR: 10,000 lbs.
Payload: 2,830 lbs.

While the diesel does have a higher GVWR the actual payload is less because the diesel package weighs more. In the case of GM (Ram and Ford are no different), there are no major chassis differences between a 2500HD gas vs. diesel other than the diesel gets a higher rated front torsion bar to support the added weight of the diesel. The other front suspension components are the same between gas and diesel. The rear axle gets bumped up to an 11.5” ring gear on a diesel from a 10.5” on the gas to support the high torque of the engine. Not that the 10.5" rear axle is any weakling by any means. And the rear springs are actually the same part numbers for both gas and diesel.

You say people buy more truck than they need so they don’t fall apart at 100K so they buy a diesel. I don’t see where you get that misguided notion. Bodies are the same, 98% of the chassis components are the same so where do you come up with this? Ask any dealer (GM, Ford, Dodge) which powertrain surfaces with more issues at 100K, a gas or diesel. The diesel powertrain will be the first place winner with costly issues over a gas any day.

Look at fleet purchases, the majority of fleets that run ¾ and 1 ton pickups DO NOT buy diesels, they buy gasoline trucks because the inception cost is less, maintenance is less, it takes too long for a diesel truck to pay back on the investment, and the gas powertrains are simply more durable over the long run. Next time you see a stripped down Silverado, RAM or Ford used as a construction company work truck, highway department work truck, etc. listen them when they run. Heck, in your area that are plenty of Border Patrol trucks on HD chassis that all run GAS! Fleets predominantly go with gasoline unless they are used for continuous towing or loaded to extremely high GVWR ranges at all times where they will buy a diesel when it makes sense. It is the personal use light truck buyer that seems to think they need diesels. See my post #7 above commercial vans. The commercial van situation is no different than pickups. As I said in post #7, unless someone is towing a huge 5th wheel trailer all over the country, hotshotter moving cars from auction to dealer, towing a backhoe on a daily basis or whatever, diesels are not really needed for what most people need in a ¾ or 1 ton truck. Your argument holds no merit but is sadly consistent with the majority of personal use truck buyer’s misguided mindset.

 

[DoMiNiC1]

Being a "car/truck guy" and financial logic rarely walk hand and hand. :ylsmoke:

 

[goodtimes]

Fleet trucks? Fleet owners don't look more than a couple years down the road since the trucks are getting replaced anyway - so who cares if they fall apart? Border Patrol? They have a virtually unlimited budget for repairs and replacement. Construction? How often do they leave the paved road for more than 50 feet? Highway department? Their budget isn't as big as the Border Patrol's is - but much like the average construction guy - they don't leave the pavement for much.

If you think I'm misguided - Ok. I'm fine with that; it keeps the world interesting. It doesn't change the fact that based on personal observation, the diesel trucks stand up to more hard use than their gasser counterparts. Been there, done that - and I'll continue to advocate a more robust chassis with a modern gas engine. Until then, I'll make due with the robust chassis and a diesel engine.

 

[Clutch]

Larry, wadda 'bout those guys who really do not want/need a fullsize truck, yet a car isn't enough either. Is it ok to lust after a small diesel in our Tacomas? Those HiLuxes seem to do a-ok, in the land dahn-undar...the upcharge isn't too bad, fuel economy is at least 10 mpg's better shouldn't take too long to get that money back.


Weight in (kg) isn't too far off between the two.

Gas: kerb: 1805 GVM :2810

Diesel: kerb: 1915 GVM :2780


Gross trailer weight braked are the same between the two.

2500 (kg)

http://www.toyota.com.au/hilux/compare-specifications?vehicleId=1301,1299

 

[Larry]

Fleet trucks? Fleet owners don't look more than a couple years down the road since the trucks are getting replaced anyway - so who cares if they fall apart? Border Patrol? They have a virtually unlimited budget for repairs and replacement. Construction? How often do they leave the paved road for more than 50 feet? Highway department? Their budget isn't as big as the Border Patrol's is - but much like the average construction guy - they don't leave the pavement for much.

If you think I'm misguided - Ok. I'm fine with that; it keeps the world interesting. It doesn't change the fact that based on personal observation, the diesel trucks stand up to more hard use than their gasser counterparts. Been there, done that - and I'll continue to advocate a more robust chassis with a modern gas engine. Until then, I'll make due with the robust chassis and a diesel engine.

Okay, first you are saying there are no good gas HD truck chassis. I show you there is virtually no difference between gas and diesel chassis and provide examples where gas chassis are used in real world “work” and you shot holes in it every time. Your personal observations are made through some sort of odd eye glasses that only you can see through but it is entertaining. Again, the HD pickup truck chassis from GM, Dodge and Ford are the same between gas and diesel outside of such small items to even speak about and those items sure don’t make the chassis any more robust. You my friend, make absolutely no sense in your observations or comments and apparently lack industry experience. LOL…only a friend will tell ya rngartis

Larry, wadda 'bout those guys who really do not want/need a fullsize truck, yet a car isn't enough either. Is it ok to lust after a small diesel in our Tacomas? Those HiLuxes seem to do a-ok, in the land dahn-undar...the upcharge isn't too bad, fuel economy is at least 10 mpg's better shouldn't take too long to get that money back.


Weight in (kg) isn't too far off between the two.

Gas: kerb: 1805 GVM :2810

Diesel: kerb: 1915 GVM :2780


Gross trailer weight braked are the same between the two.

2500 (kg)

http://www.toyota.com.au/hilux/compare-specifications?vehicleId=1301,1299

That isn’t even the same thing as what this topic was about. Sure the diesels in other countries are lust worthy and we wish we had them here too. But the reality is the US emissions ruin them resulting in over complexity and poor reliability. Bring those same trucks and great little diesel engines here, saddle them with US emissions equipment and calibrations and see how reliable they become. I guess we will find out shortly when the new diesel Jeep Grand Cherokee gets some US miles on it. We'll be seeing a Ram 1500 light diesel shortly as well. Time will tell but I don't see them having any real advantage over gas either over the life of the vehicle other than satisfying the wants of the owner.

 

[Clutch]

That isn't even the same thing as what this topic was about. Sure the diesels in other countries are lust worthy and we wish we had them here too. But the reality is the US emissions ruin them resulting in over complexity and poor reliability. Bring those same trucks and great little diesel engines here, saddle them with US emissions equipment and calibrations and see how reliable they become. I guess we will find out shortly when the new diesel Jeep Grand Cherokee gets some US miles on it. We'll be seeing a Ram 1500 light diesel shortly as well. Time will tell but I don't see them having any real advantage over gas either over the life of the vehicle other than satisfying the wants of the owner.

Well since this thread is swerving from the OP's original question. LOL , and i am having a slow day at work...

I was referencing you guys are talking about most people that have big 3/4-1 ton trucks and "should" drive cars. But there is that market segment like myself, that would love the fuel economy of a Jetta TDI, but would kill it pretty quick, because of my lifestyle...and on the other hand a 3/4-1 ton is over kill, even a half ton is bit much. The Tacoma's, HiLuxes, Frontiers, and such...are just about the perfect size for play and light utility for quite a few people. But the fuel economy is rather lacking. I average 18 mpg in mixed driving with my Tacoma. High twenties or a smidge over 30 mpg's sure would be nice, even with diesel costing more here. You can get your money back fairly quick. I tend to keep my vehicles for 15 years, so I would get the up-charge money back in the first 3-5 years of ownership. That is figuring current fuel cost. Looking at the VW website, the TDI option in the Jetta is only $1300 more over petrol, while the Touareg is $3500...not sure why the big jump in price, still less of an upcharge compared to 3/4-1 tons, which is closer to $8,000 if I am not mistaken.


I'm betting we are going to see more turbo petrol engines coming down the pike, so the complexity is going to be about the same as a modern diesel, and I don't think they will get the same fuel economy as we see with small diesels.For an example what we are seeing with the Eco-Boost Ford V6...it doesn't get that much better fuel economy over the 5.0 V8, just makes more power. Wondering if that 5 cylinder diesel that is available in the Ford Euro market get the F150 closer to 30 mpgs?

Thought the Euro-5 requirements are stricter than ours? I would assume that if they can do ok in Europe, should be no problem here.

 

[ericvs]

(ugg, an essay. again - can someone edit this for me!)

We are really hijacking 613Duramax's thread so I hope he doesn't mind. :sombrero:

never a problem! This is gold, Larry!:ylsmoke: Although, I just realized I might have to change my username if I change powertrains... Maybe 613 8.1L? haha.

...which powertrain surfaces with more issues at 100K, a gas or diesel. The diesel powertrain will be the first place winner with costly issues over a gas any day...

Might this be because there are more diesel trucks than gas trucks? As noted:

What skews the viewpoint is very few 3/4 tons are sold with gas engines in the first place. GM sells them, but no where near the amount that they sell with dirtymax engines in them.

so as an example, if there are lots of 3/4ton (and most of those have diesel). These issues with 3/4ton pickups would just happen to be more frequently a diesel issue. ?

Also, I wonder if there are fewer diesel techs out there, therefore fewer at each dealer (or none) and therefore a diesel issue is a much bigger problem, and more costly, than a comparable gas engine issue. ??

Could it also be attributed to how easy it is to make monster power numbers with simple tuners? I don't chip mine, but it is so easy to get those already high numbers sky high with the push of a button. That cannot be good for longevity and could be the death of so many diesels before their time.

In terms of high mileage diesel engines, I know these aren't the same, but why can't a diesel pickup diesel get the same kind of miles as a long haul truck? Do pickup owners tend to slack more on regular maintenance? Do those truckers just fork over huge cash to keep their rigs running? I know they are hauling huge loads all the time, but seems like if they can get super high miles from their engines, so can I.

The bodies are the same, 98% of the chassis components are the same

As far as longevity, if the chassis are the same and just the engine is the issue, what if all the emissions stuff has been removed, or wasn't there to begin with (like my list I posted above)? Would that push the advantage back to the diesel engine? What if the regular maintenance schedule was altered to suit a diesel powertrain would that push the diesel back in front? What could I do to make the diesel more reliable than it's comparable gas counterpart?

Time will tell but I don't see them having any real advantage over gas either over the life of the vehicle other than satisfying the wants of the owner.

Damn Larry, you are shooting my diesel dreams all to heck!

Those HiLuxes seem to do a-ok, in the land dahn-undar...the upcharge isn't too bad, fuel economy is at least 10 mpg's better shouldn't take too long to get that money back.

Truthfully, this is what I think would suit me best (minus all the govts annoying meddling), but again, can't get it.

(changing pace)

What are some thoughts on the IFS? I know they get a bad rap most of the time, but in my readings/research, I have heard numerous times that if you leave an IFS truck at stock height with stock tires, the IFS ends up costing less and being less hassle than a SFA. Major issues arise when people try and jack an IFS truck up. I figure, if you want a 6" lift on a truck, go SFA, but if you want a 'lower' cost front end and are willing to leave it alone, go with IFS. Also, why does a truck have to rattle your teeth out? Can't they make a robust truck rides nice? I really am not concerned with ride comfort (but maybe I am spoiled with the IFS), but seems like if you can make it right, you can also have it ride right. Doesn't need sport handling and all the leather and electric this and that, but improving ride comfort over long drives could reduce driver fatigue. That can't be a bad thing

 

[Clutch]

Truthfully, this is what I think would suit me best (minus all the govts annoying meddling), but again, can't get it.

I think they would sell like hot cakes if available, and priced right. Sure I look at fullsizes, but quickly come to my senses...in all reality, don't need anything that big for 98% of the activities that I do. Maybe if F150's were sized like they were in the 80's, then yeah I could see owning one, amazing how big a F150 is now-a-days.

(changing pace)

What are some thoughts on the IFS? I know they get a bad rap most of the time, but in my readings/research, I have heard numerous times that if you leave an IFS truck at stock height with stock tires, the IFS ends up costing less and being less hassle than a SFA. Major issues arise when people try and jack an IFS truck up. I figure, if you want a 6" lift on a truck, go SFA, but if you want a 'lower' cost front end and are willing to leave it alone, go with IFS. Also, why does a truck have to rattle your teeth out? Can't they make a robust truck rides nice? I really am not concerned with ride comfort (but maybe I am spoiled with the IFS), but seems like if you can make it right, you can also have it ride right. Doesn't need sport handling and all the leather and electric this and that, but improving ride comfort over long drives could reduce driver fatigue. That can't be a bad thing

Hummer H1's are IFS/IRS....


If you don't mess with bracket lifts, and just do mild off-road, you should be fine. I know it is an apples to oranges comparison...I never had any problems with the IFS
on the Toyotas I have owned. the one Yota I did own with SFA rode pretty rough even with Downey suspension, and had no real advantage over the IFS...actaully I can drive faster/safer/more comfortably down a fire-road with IFS.

Or if you want something more serious for a 3/4 ton, Killer Offroad and Dixon Bros make long travel kits...not cheap though!

http://www.killeroffroadfab.com/products

http://www.dixonbrosracing.com/content/blogcategory/12/5/