Discussion in 'OT Driven' started by albuffit, Jul 10, 2008.
and how is the gas mileage? they go for a lot less than a silverado.
All four ball joints go out at around 40k. You will get worse gas mileage even though you have a smaller motor than a Silverado.
Mine has treated me good... 08 F150 STX.
Gas milage is 14-16 in town.. Same are i was getting in my 06 3.0 Ranger.
So bigger truck..little more money same gas...
both are comparable, yes
I have a 96 longbed XL that is at the age where the starter, clutch, alternator, and radiator, thermostat, and water pump have been replaced, but the engine is running strong.
Cant beat the silverado's power train in that class.
Ford can never get their front suspension right on trucks. Either they have tow in problems, sagging torsion bars, bad ball joints, or just over all poor suspension. This goes for rangers and F-series.
On that note, currently ford has surpassed GM in looks IMO. However, past modle silverado's struck my fancy a little better than the ford's though the fords still look good.
Ford interiors are a little better, more comfortable, less cheapie.
So IMO it all depends on what you want to do with the truck.
Ford certainly didnt get best selling truck for like 14 years straight by making a complete shit box.
+1 Good Point....
All depends on what you will use it for... Now-a-days.. the Trucks are so similar in almost all aspects.
not a 1/2ton. but my buddy drives a power stroke, and i have a duramax. I have more power, and with the allison tranny i tow better. i think his suspension is better tho
youre right on all 3
the 6.0 is junk though
Depends what years are you looking at? Some of the Early 04+ F150s had injector problems. Had one that just got out of warranty (2005MY), had a no start/long crank problem, had to replace all 8 injectors and plugs (1500+ in repairs). Still not a fan of the Vortec system either. GM intakes and intake gaskets dont like the GM coolant.
ford transmissions has always sucked
LOL at a Chevy setting the reliability benchmark.
You can make fun of chevy cars all you want, and I'll be right there with you.... but when it comes to trucks, GM knows what the fuck they're doing.
GMC Sierra > *
4L60/65E + 10 bolt rear axles FTL
Um, that's why you get the 6L80/6L90 equipped trucks.... or the allison.
Which ball joints?
since we're talking about front suspension then I'm assuming he means the ones attaching the spindles to the upper and lower control arms.
Ugh, I have that suspension on my car. Worst design ever. There's nothing to keep the suspension arms from flexing forwards and backwards, and that kills the outboard ball joints and inboard pivots in no time flat. I don't even want to think about what would happen on a truck that sees any offroad action.
It all flexes, most cars have MacPhearson strut now and those have ball joints too, and they flex and wear out. The Ford ball joints just tend to do it sooner than most. In fact it's extremely rare to find a vehicle built in the last 20-30 years that doesn't have a ball joint or 2 in the front suspension.
Pretty much all of the baja 1000 trucks use a double-a-arm front suspension with two uniballs. They're tough as balls.
Try BECAUSE you have a smaller motor than a Silverado. The puny-ass engines they put in the F150s just don't have enough power to move a truck that big and heavy as efficiently as the bigger Chevy motors.
It's not the same. MacPherson struts and dual-wishbones both are designed to resist flexing by pushing and pulling on the mounting points; four-bar suspension resists flexing by twisting the mounting points, which are usually steel bushings. So whenever the suspension moves up/down while those bushings are being twisted, the vast majority of the friction and wear is inflicted upon the edges of those bushings, instead of across the entire bushing surface.
When I got my car, three of the eight control arms had inboard bushings so badly worn that they'd cracked and it wouldn't pass inspection.
- - -
The main reason for having four-bar front suspension (instead of struts or dual-wishbones) is that, when you turn a corner, it pushes the inside wheel forward in the wheelwell, and pulls the outside back in the wheelwell; this allows the wheels to turn more sharply before impacting the wheelwell liner than they otherwise would be able to.
That's why my Passat has them, and GTi's and Jetta's don't -- the Passat is longer, so the wheels need to turn more sharply to provide a similar turning radius. It's nice to be able to turn a sharper corner than most cars, and it wouldn't pose nearly as much of a durability problem if the front suspension didn't also anchor the driveaxle, but since it is that way, I'd rather have had the durability and sacrificed the sharp turns.
Anyway, avoid four-bar suspension whenever you can, because there's no scenario in which it's as durable or more durable than other options; dual-wishbone provides the same handling, and it can even provide the same turning radius as long as the wheelwells are a little larger.
Good point, I had forgotten about that suspension style. Mostly cause I'm no fan of the VW and rarely worked on em. But that's just personal taste.
what makes you say that?
because it loves to drink gas