Half Ton Pickup Review

catfishmontana wrote:

45Ricochet wrote:
Its kind of funny how you have x amount of rags rating these and the results can be sooooo different :B

Exactly, I refuse to much stock in anything written anymore. These reviews seem like hogwash all the way around.

On the Dodge=
Dislikes: With a loaded trailer the Ram returned the worst fuel economy. That cushy air-suspension ride comes at the cost of the lowest cargo and towing capacities by a considerable margin.

Translation= The Dodge was the worst truck at being a truck, so we voted it the winner...

fordsooperdooty

Hey where you been? I missed your input around here :B

Heisenberg wrote:

Ron3rd wrote:
Tundra owner here, and I would like to know where they pulled the 18.1 mpg from, their nether regions? Otherwise love the truck.

Are you saying 18.1 is short or too generous?

Generous. They might be going by the EPA rating, I don't know. The Tundra can get 18 mpg on the freeway in cruise control on level ground, but not in everyday city driving. Around 13.5 mpg is more realistic in everyday city/highway combined driving.

Engineer9860 wrote:

catfishmontana wrote:

45Ricochet wrote:
Its kind of funny how you have x amount of rags rating these and the results can be sooooo different :B

Exactly, I refuse to much stock in anything written anymore. These reviews seem like hogwash all the way around.

Consumer Reports poo-pooed all over the Suzuki Samurai. Even after that I bought one and drove it 1/4 million miles.

As with anything, the stories printed in magazines are subjective. People's opinions, nothing more.

Just because someone calls their self "an auto industry insider" doesn't mean that their opinion on a particular car is any more valid than your next door neighbor's.

I've actually always wanted a Samurai.

Ron3rd wrote:
Tundra owner here, and I would like to know where they pulled the 18.1 mpg from, their nether regions? Otherwise love the truck.

Are you saying 18.1 is short or too generous?

Tundra owner here, and I would like to know where they pulled the 18.1 mpg from, their nether regions? Otherwise love the truck.

engineer9860 wrote:
Consumer Reports poo-pooed all over the Suzuki Samurai. Even after that I bought one and drove it 1/4 million miles.

We got the same out of a 1980 Citation.

catfishmontana wrote:

45Ricochet wrote:
Its kind of funny how you have x amount of rags rating these and the results can be sooooo different :B

Exactly, I refuse to much stock in anything written anymore. These reviews seem like hogwash all the way around.

Consumer Reports poo-pooed all over the Suzuki Samurai. Even after that I bought one and drove it 1/4 million miles.

As with anything, the stories printed in magazines are subjective. People's opinions, nothing more.

Just because someone calls their self "an auto industry insider" doesn't mean that their opinion on a particular car is any more valid than your next door neighbor's.

Nice to see things progressing with technology, both Ram and Ford showing that you can have great power and decent fuel economy in a 1500 series pickup. I applaud Ram for being bold and using coil springs, but this truck is dangerously close to losing it's "1/2 ton" status. A 1200 pound payload is pretty pathetic (considering that a VW Jetta has over 1100) and makes the truck pretty useless for hauling a family and pulling a decent size trailer unless you don't mind overloading. If they would stiffen those coils just a touch and bump the payload up to 1600 it would be right up at the top of my list.

45Ricochet wrote:
Its kind of funny how you have x amount of rags rating these and the results can be sooooo different :B

Exactly, I refuse to much stock in anything written anymore. These reviews seem like hogwash all the way around.