Showing posts with label Cars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cars. Show all posts

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Car Geek Flame War... The Definitive Best Looking 'Vette Debate

Ok... best looking vette debate...

This is not about the most desirable, the most expensive, the best engines, the best handling... Simply the best looking vettes.

Primary weighting is on exterior looks, but tiebreakers can move to the interior.

Only production or copo models, road legal, and available for sale to the general public count (so no grand am, GT, or true grand sport vettes for example, as they were track only cars), nor do road legal replicas of track only cars.

On the other hand L-88 and ZL1 (vettes which really were meant to be track cars) with the big block hoods and the side pipes etc... DO count, because they were actually sold to real buyers as street legal road cars.

I cant decide between:

  1. Tunnel back C3 coupe (with or without the big block hood, flares, chrome bumpers, and duck tail or slant tail)
  2. C3 convertible (with or without the big block hood, flares, chrome bumpers, and duck tail or slant tail)
  3. C2 convertible (with or without the big block hood)
  4. Single light side cove C1 convertible ('56-'57)
  5. Double light C1 convertible, double taillight round tail ('58-'60)
  6. Double light C1 convertible, quad taillight boattail ('61-62)


Subsidiary question... sidepipes are awesome... but are they always better on every model they originally came on? I can't decide.

Oh and yeah... I don't think anything C4 or later is even in the top ten, or even top 15 of best looking vettes (given that 1 and 2 above are actually a half dozen different models each).

...MAYBE the ZR1, and square taillight C4s make it into the top 20... maybe.

Monday, April 25, 2011

Well... I'm not an old gangster pimp...


But I do own a Cadillac, and have a cane (and limp to go with it), and a fedora... No pinky ring though.


A note on the fedora thing: Mine is a pure beaver felt in natural dark brown, handmade by Steve Delk, the guy who did Harrison Fords hats for the last Indy movie. The hats for the first three were by Herbert Johnsons of Saville row, and were rabbit felt (three different felts and three different blocks as it happens, so the fedoras look very different in each movie, because they are).

Thursday, January 28, 2010

I had a pretty good day

Do you know what happens when you put your boot down on the pedal of an all wheel drive, six liter, twelve cylinder, twin turbocharged coupe with 553 horsepower and 479ftlbs of torque?

Well, I do.

You reach 60 miles per hour in a little under 5 seconds, with a BIG DAMN SMILE ON YOUR FACE.

I drove this today:



Damn... It isn't the prettiest thing in the world, but it is for damn sure the best car I've ever driven. Incredibly comfortable, fast, GREAT noise, refined, great handling... I love it.

It's a 200mph car and it feels as comfortable at 25mph as it does at 100mph. It's amazing.

Of course, for $267,000 (new, MSRP anyway) it had better be. Yeah... not gonna buy a car that costs as much as a house.

But still... damn.

Before that, my wife and I found a really decent, and very cheap, Greek/Armenian/Chicago diner food place that delivers, and we happen to be in the delivery area. Great gyros, great baklava... can't ask for more.

Also, I've lost eleven lbs in the last three weeks. Let's hope I can keep that up (not visiting the Greek place too much would be a good plan for that).

Thursday, January 07, 2010

Caps and Tops and Flares

and I'm not talking about fashion...

We're getting ready to move in a few months, and as part of that we were planning on picking up a truck cap.

Of course, there's advantages and disadvantages to a cap. The big advantage is weather protection, the big disadvantage is having to take it off for anything particularly tall or oddly shaped etc... especially given that said cap would be 7ft long 5ft wide 2+ feet high and weighs about 150 lbs.

Then, a few months back, the wife and I saw the Softopper on spike TV or vs. or somesuch (one of the "guys" networks), and got very interested.


Basically, it's a boats bimini top with camper curtains, for your pickup truck (The company that makes it started off as a custom boat top manufacturer). The sides can even be rolled up so you can use the thing as a safari top, for riding in the bed.

Here are some photos. One should note, the older models of softopper had side windows, but the new models are smooth sided (for pickup trucks at least. For SUVs they still do); because it is more durable.

I actually rather like that concept, because not only will it be nice to camp in; in states where it's legal to shoot from your bed, it can be used as a covered blind, or varmint shooting station.

The most important part though, is that it is easily folded up in the front of the bed, giving you the full capacity of your bed (minus the small amount of room the folded to takes) in about a minute.



Also, the top detaches and lifts off in just a couple minutes for storage. Theres even an optional screen window for the back, and a carry bag.

Heres a couple videos of the process.

Seems like a great compromise to me. Sure it wont have all the protection or security (what little there is anyway) of a full hard cap, but it doesnt have any of the disadvantages either.

Oh, and it's about 1/3 the cost... A not insignificant factor. The leer cap that we wanted, with the options we wanted, was well over $2k installed. This thing costs just $660 shipped (plus $100 for the scen window, and the storage bag).

Every review I can find of the thing (there aren't too many unfortunately) is very good; so unless we hear different from somone who has personal experience with them, I think we're going to order one this paycheck.

Continuing in the truck prep vein, I need to replace my batteries (yes, batteries. It's a dual battery system). Actually, they aren't dead, but they are thre years old, and in this desert, unless its an optima or something similar, three years is about the limit. I want to put that worry behind me.

So, as with my car, I'm picking up a pair of yellowtops for the truck. I think I'll take the other two batteries, put them in some front of wheel well in-bed battery boxes, and stick them on a charge/isolator circuit. That way when I get the winch, onboard air compressor, and ham rig set up (all coming later), I'll have all that extra juice available to me.

before I put the soft topper on, I need to replace my bedrail and tailgate caps. They're totally knackered, cracked and peeling up off the rails.

Also, the new tires we got for the truck a couple months back are just wide enough that they're throwing rocks and sand off the road up onto the bodywork. I dont care about the diet, but they're dinging and scratching the paint, and that means rust.

So it looks like I need some fender flares.

I figure I'll kill two birds with one stone, and grab the flares and caps from Bushwacker.

I like the plain smooth style for the bed caps:


But I think I want the "pocket" style fender flares:



I think they go will with the overall look of the truck, especially in the no-gloss (not exactly satin or matte) black. It matches the nerf bars.

I think they'll be enough extention to provide proper protection at the least. My truck is wide enough as it is, I dont think I need the extra... I dunno that must be 8" total counting both sides... that something like the "extendaflare" or "cutout" flares:

Anyon have any experience with these bolt on aftermarket fender flares as a whole, and bushwacker in particular?

I'm looking for reviews, and for recommendations, so chime in.

Now I just need to start saving for a set of Reunel bumpers...

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Damn... thems some massive nerf bars.

The weather was most co-operative today, so we put the new battery in the car, and the nerf bars went on the truck.

To be honest, it was getting pretty hard for me to get in the damn thing on bad knee days. Now, with the bars bolted on, the step height is about 6" lower, and it's a lot easier to get in.

Plus they look cool, and protect the door sills.

The nerf bars we got are 4" round tube wheel to wheel (so they include a bed step behind the back doors), from Iron Cross, in matte black powder coat. They look kinda evil, and are SERIOUSLY MASSIVE.



They go well with the truck though, since I've got a 4" round tube exhaust; and I plan on a rear bumper in matte black powdercoat that has a 4" round tube as part of the structure (and a front bumper with 2" round tube brush/light bars).

I'd put some pics up, but the truck is completely covered with dusty water spots from the storm yesterday.

The whole process took about an hour, and that's just because it was the first set, and we were shooting the breeze while installing.

If you really hustled, I bet you could do it in 20 minutes. It's just two brackets with five bolts into the body substructure (it bolts into the same areas the body bolts to the frame on, so no worries about strength there); and two bolts to hold the bars onto the brackets.

And they're STRONG. I was moving the whole truck a couple inches, but not flexing the brackets at all.

I DO wish the brackets had some triangulation (they're folded and rolled, but not triangulated. Plenty strong though, at 1/4" or so... I didn't mic it), but I'm guessing they did that because they mount to the body not the frame; and they'd rather the bracket bends before the body does in the event of a big rock hit, or an accident.

So, note to self, these are NOT in any way shape or form, rock sliders (not that I expected they would be).

Next step, bumpers... some time next year... those damn things are EXPENSIVE.

Friday, November 13, 2009

The Tread is Below Lincolns Head

So, the other day, Steve mentioned his ordeal in finding new tires for his 3/4 ton Dodge Diesel (which I will take the credit/blame for forcing him to buy).

As it happens, I also have a 3/4 ton Dodge Diesel, and I also need tires for it.

As in REALLY need tires for it.

We measured our tires, and instead of 31.6" height as they are supposed to be (265/70-17), they're down to 29.6".

As in "yeah, the tires are going to come out of this paycheck".

They were dramatically under-inflated (even though we inflate them every couple weeks at worst) and are nearly bare of tread. Technically we're at a legal tread depth... just barely at 2/32"... but I'm not happy with that.

Well, that explains the speedometer error (between 2mph and 3mph over at indicated 75. Aint GPS grand).

At any rate, I'm looking for a good compromise tire for my truck.

What I want is tires that will have good rough road, ice, and snow performance, and acceptable light duty offroad performance; without being too noisy or having poor treadlife; and without hurting my city mileage very much.

With the torque of my diesel, and my gearing, it's not really the height of the tire I'm concerned about, it's the rolling resistance. Most tires with nice aggressive offroad tread patterns, are not only noisier than highway tires, but they have far higher rolling resistance.

Unfortunately, smooth, stiff tires, aren't any damn good offroad. Of course to offset that, taller tires means lower revs and better fuel economy, once the actual acceleration portion of the days program is over.

I've got a 2006 Dodge Ram 2500 with the 5.9 Cummins, 4x4, the super heavy duty suspension and tow package, and factory skidplates, and driveline guards.

Straight from the factory with these options, it has a built in almost 6" lift over the standard 1500 2wd with the smaller wheels and tires(245/60-16 is the stock "cheap" wheel and tire package).

Frankly, it's a tall truck already, I'm 6'2", and it's a bit of a climb up, even for me. I definitely need to fit some nerf bar steps. However, the offroad performance of the tires is crap.

Basically, I'd like to have some taller tires both for better offroad performance, and for highway cruising (as I noted above, taller tires means lower revs on the highway, presuming you've got the torque for it, and I do).

Oh and cosmetically, the current wheel and tire combo looks absolutely miniature in those massive wheel wells, especially with the factory lift. I'd like to fill the wells a bit more.

So, I'm wanting to trade up a bit in size from 265/70-17 (which works out to 31.6").

I've been thinking about either a 33"x12.5-17 (obviously 33"diameter... 285/70-17 is roughly equivalent in diameter at 32.7", but about an inch narrower), or 315/70-17 (34.4"x12.4); but I'm not sure about mounting those on my stock 17x8" heavy duty (e rated) rims.

Offroaders go with sidewalls that high and tread that wide on 8" wide rims all the time; but according to tire manufacturers, 295s or 11.5" are the largest tires that will fit on 8" rims.

I learned a rule of thumb a long time ago for street tires, and that was you could go as far over your rim size, as your sidewall series rounded up to the next even size (i.e. 265, 275 etc...), and one even size above that, without causing tread pattern issues (so on 8" rims with 40 series tires, you could go to 245s or 255s)... but that's for pure street tires, not heavy duty truck tires that will be used offroad.

AT/Offroad tires are supposed to balloon out a bit, and with that height of sidewall, the wheeling guys say you can go up to 100mm over the rim with the right tire design (with 100% offroad tires you can go more, but not with street tires).

So by their measurement, 315s (12.4") would be find, but by my rule of thumb and manufacturers recommendations 285s might be a better fit.

Given that, 285/70-17 may be the best choice (they'd also be a bit cheaper), but I'd really like a bit bigger.

Oh and before anyone asks, no, I don't want to change my wheels. For one thing, getting decent E rated wheels is EXPENSIVE (around $2k for a set of 5, including spare; and when you change size, you need to change the spare).

Hell,technically speaking, if I wanted to change wheels I could fit larger tires (up to maybe 37") on the truck without fender flares or more lift (seriously, the wheel arches are HUGE, and with the lift, the 17" in there now look like rollerskate wheels); but I don't really need anything so large, and I don't feel like the significantly higher cost, or the reduced fuel economy.

There's a further connundrum, about backspacing. I've talked with several guys online, and a couple different tire places and offroad places; and no-one can seem to agree what backspacing is required for my wheels and truck, for what size tire.

Some places say that 285 is the maximum that will fit without rubbing given my wheel spacing; but some say it's 315. Others say the 315 requires a 2" spacer. Still others say no, I don't need a spacer unless I go for the 33x12.5s (almost the same size as the 315s), and then it's only a 1" spacer.

I'd love to get a straight answer, but I've had two Dodge service managers even give me contradicting answers.

One thing I'm NOT going to do is anything that compromises my load rating. No spacers, no non E rated wheels (even if I were to change my wheels right now, which I'm not), and no non E rated tires.

Which brings me to the biggest problem: finding E rated tires worth buying in larger sizes.

It seems that most E or higher rated tires, are either in much larger size (i.e. F550 dually dump truck size), or in 16"; and most of them only go up to 265 or so.

Almost all the 17" and 18" wider and taller tires top out at D rating. Oh and by the by, you usually pay about $25 per tire extra (on $200+ tires) for the E rating over the D.

In doing some basic research, I identified two options, which have acceptable on and off road traction, without excessive wear and road noise:

Firestone Destination AT: the highest rated tires in the size range at TireRack, though I'm iffy on Firestone.

Bridgestone Dueler AT Revo 2: I've had earlier versions of this tire, with good results, though Bridgestone and Firestone are the same company.

There are some great Cepek options, but none of the sizes larger than 265/70 are E rated. There are a couple of decent Kumho options, but they're a little more aggressively treaded than I'd like for onroad performance.

I've also had strong recommendations from some forum readers for:

General Grabber AT2: Great offroad tire, with good onroad performance, and severe winter weather rated (the snowflake symbol). Unfortunately, the largest size they make in 17" is 265/70... though it is E rated.

Goodyear Wrangler ProGrade SilentArmor
: This looks like a serious option. They're considerably more expensive than the other possibilities (about $50 more each), but they seem to be damn near indestructible. They're also snow rated, and E-rated; and they have the kevlar armor and extra sidewall thickness (and toughness) for the silent armor system. Oh and a 50,000 mile warranty. The only issue being, the largest size they come in 17" is 285/70-17.

At this point I'm leaning strongly towards the Firestone Destination ATs, or the Wrangler pro-grades. The Wranglers seem to be the better tire, but at a much higher price.

Any more suggestions, or personal experience? I'm especially interested if someone else with a 2006 or so Dodge Ram 2500 4x4 can tell me if they know the ACTUAL maximum tire width for our truck.

Oh and I'm putting this up on "nobody reads blogs day" so I can gather info over the weekend and Monday; because I'm going to grab the tires next week most likely.

Monday, March 23, 2009

To cap, or not to cap, that is the question

Actually, I already decided, to cap is the answer; I'm just trying to figure out which cap.

Yes I know, another truck thing; it won't be the last.

I've looked at the specs and pricing on A.R.E., Snugtop, and Leer; and I've decided to go with Leer. They have three models I'm interested in:

The 100xl cab height streamliner

The 180 mid height(8" over cab height)

The 122 high rise (11" over cab height)

The objective discriminating factors for me are the total interior height, the total exterior height, and the minimum door clearance. The subjective factors for me are looks, and "roominess" in the bed with the cap on.

In order to get a medium sized ATV into the bed (if I don't feel like trailering) I need 38" clearance. In order to get a large ATV in I need 43" clearance; both presuming I don't compress the suspension or air down the tires of course. If I feel like ratcheting the suspension down a bit, it's more like 34" and 39".

Basically though, I figure 38" is about the minimum clearance I want.

My truck is 20.2" to the baserail, which means my minimum door clearance is 18", and 19-20" would be preferred. The minimum to get a big ATV in without compression is 23", and 24" would be preferred.

According to the Leer spec chart, the 100xl has a 19" door clearance, with 20" inside height, and 23" outside height (to match the cab contour. The 3" is from the insulated roof).

Oh and by the by, that's why I rejected Snugtop and A.R.E. They offered less door clearance on each model than the equivalent Leer, and at a higher cost.

Anyway, the 100xl has enough room to handle a big ATV with compression, a medium sized one without.

Unfortunately, that's still only 40" of room total, with a 39" opening. That's not a heck of a lot. However, it looks very good; and in terms of streamlining is supposedly good for +1-2 MPG at 75mph.

The reason why 40" is a squeeze, is because we have an SUV type trucktent, and like to sleep in the bed with an air mattress (or we did with the Expedition, and plan to do the same with the Ram). I can JUST barely sit up straight with a 40" overhead and an air mattress.

The 180 has a 21" opening, with a 28" interior height, and 31" exterior height; 8" over cab height. That gives a 41" door clearance, a 48" interior, and an overall height of 87" (the truck is 79" high on stock tires).

So, I don't even need a tiedown to get the big atv into that, I can just put some weight on the bars and pop it under the sill from the ramp, and I'm good. Also a 48" interior is much more comfortable.

On the down side, I'm neutral on the looks of the thing, and you loose some or all of the fuel economy advantage.

I also considered the A.R.E MX series, which is very similar to the Leer 180; but it only has a 20" door clearance, and it's about $400 more than the Leer.

The 122 has a 25" door opening, with a 31" interior, and a 34" exterior height (11" above the cab); for a door clearance of 45", an interior height of 51", and an exterior height of 90".

Basically, the door will clear pretty much whatever I feel like loading; except maybe some large furniture if don't feel like laying it down on it's side. 51" will let me sit up straight, and still have a foot of headroom (though at the front of the cap, the room is basically the same as the 180); though it wont allow me to rise up on my knees fully (perils of being tall).

I'm still neutral about the looks though... and DAMN THE THING IS HUGE.

7 and a half feet tall to the top of the cap... that's a lot. I worry about taking it offroad just for the tree limb issue.

I mean look at this guys pics:

Dodge with Leer 122 - 1

Dodge with Leer 122 - 2

Dodge with Leer 122 - 3


From looks alone, I really like the 100, and I like the +2mpg. I just don't like the low door clearance. The 180 seems like it might be a good compromise, but it's sorta halfway stuck in between, and I'm not sure if half and half is worth it. With the 122, I'm just not sure if I want to strap something that big to the back of my truck.

Oh and the 100 has another advantage, in that it is by far the lightest of the three, and the easiest to handle and store when it's not on the truck. Again, the 180 is in the middle, and the 122 could be used as an emergency homeless shelter.

Physics will not be denied; if I want more room, I need a bigger cap. I'm just having a hard time figuring out if I want to make those tradeoffs.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

The Truck is Dead; Long Live the Truck


So, Tuesday, after three years of workmanlike service, delivering everything we asked of it, (which was sometimes more than we reasonably should have); our truck died, hard.

Specifically, the self leveling suspension crapped out completely. The rear suspension has collapsed; and in terms of ride quality roughly resembles a buckboard. It is drivable, but only in the broadest sense.

Ooooh boy...

Cost, to repair... about 2 grand give or take.

Value of the truck in absolutely perfect condition in a private sale... about 4 grand give or take.

Trade in value of the truck in absolutely perfect condition... about 2 grand give or take.

Yeah...

I should note, Mel is starting a new job next week; and we're definitely going to need both cars; or rather we definitely need a car and a truck, and we don't really have time to wait around.

As it happens, we were considering purchasing a new vehicle anyway, and have been looking for the last few months. We did our research, and test drove a LOT of trucks, then wrote it all up.

The Situation:

Back, in January GM was offering up to $15,000 incentive to buy a truck, that's how bad things had got; and people STILL didn't want to buy the damn things.

So my wife and I headed down to the dealership in early February, to test drive a Tahoe hybrid; figuring that the additional 8+ mpg (or even more around town under 45mph, which is most of her driving) might be a nice bonus.

Unfortunately, the Tahoe is a bit smaller than we need. With the third row seat in place there is NO cargo space; and even with the rear seats flipped forward, it's not that great.

Worse, I literally cannot fit in the SECOND row of seats, never mind the third row. My head has to be cocked to the side 45 degrees to fit under the headliner. On top of all that, the legroom is minimal.

Our Expedition on the other hand, I'm actually quite comfortable in the middle row seat, and there's tolerable headroom (barely, and no legroom) in the third row.

There's even enough space behind the third row (which we generally leave in the house to give us more cargo room) to take a few days worth of groceries home. Of course a bit more room is to be expected, because the Expedition is a bit bigger than the Tahoe (though not as large as the Suburban).

So, we really liked the Tahoe, great power, great interior (my God, GM actually figured out how to make a modern interior. It only took them from 1973 to 2007); it's just a little too small... and honestly we didn't think it was a very good value for what you got.

Maybe if you don't have two kids (and at least one more to come within the next five years), two dogs, a bunch of friends, a bunch of guns, and a bunch of tools, it would be good for you; but we do.

We own a big SUV because it's the best vehicle for what we do, not because it's a status symbol, or because my wife thinks station wagons are uncool. Actually, she really LIKES wagons, and so do I; they just don't have the room, and cant go where we like to go.

Sheets of plywood, long boards, and several hundred pounds of tools and gun gear regularly get loaded up in the truck; never mind the thousand pounds worth of people we frequently toss in there. We've got the extra heavy duty towing and suspension package, and the self levelling air suspension (which effectively makes the thing into a 3/4 ton instead of a half ton); and we've maxed out the load on the thing more than once.

Dirty, messy tools, dirty messy dogs, heavy weight, offroad... Not exactly wagon territory.

Minivans won't do it either. We tow utility trailers, and want to in future be towing camping, atv, and horse trailers. We take this large amount of gear into places where a high ground clearance and a trucks ability are necessary; and 4wd would be better over 2wd.

We keep cars a long time (basically until they are a poor economic propoisition to keep). We are planning for what we'll need two years from now, and five years from now, and even eight or nine years from now.

In the next couple years we plan to move where offroad and roughroad conditions are combined with ice and snow. We need a combination work truck, people hauler, and towing truck. In fact, I'd like a vehicle that can mount a plow if necessary.

The Proposition:

The Expedition is only worth about $4k, even repaired. Edmunds and KBB both say a high of $7k and a low of $4500; but a real private sale in todays economic conditions will get me $4-$5k.

In order to be saleable I need to essentially replace the entire rear suspension (air bags, shocks, air lines, bushings), which will cost about $2000. Also, it could use about $2k worth of additional work (new brakes all the way around, including calipers, rotors, and the master cylinder; plus some other stuff). The brake work isn't critical; we could get by with pads, some seals changed, and a system bleed.

The fact is, the truck is almost 9 years old (it's a 2001, made in late 2000), at 120k miles, and just isn't worth fixing at this point.

It might cost us more in the short term to buy a new vehicle; getting under warranty coverage on a new, or newer used vehicle will help protect against the catastrophic maintenance costs that may be right around the corner on our almost 9 year old truck.

Now, normally we would not even consider new vehicles, because of the generally poor value vs. short term depreciation. However, with the incentives currently being offered by dealers desperate to get new trucks out of inventory, and with new longer warranties, and lower interest rates on new vehicles (a 3 point difference actually); the new vs. used equation is looking much more favorable than it was a year or two ago.

I'm not happy about taking a $10,000+ depreciation hit in the first year, but if I'm going to get $7k off the front end price to begin with, and save $7k on the loan...

The Conditions:

So we decided that the Tahoe was out, as was anything not appreciably larger; dropping the Durango, Toyota Sequoia and Land Cruiser, and Nissan Armada out of the running as well; leaving only the Suburban/GMC Yukon XL, and the Expedition in SUVs.

Ford dropped the Excursion some years ago, and we aren't even considering paying a premium for a rebadged version of either the Expedition or the Suburban (they want almost $20k extra to call a Suburban a Cadillac... yeah, I don't think so).

On the other hand, we decided to seriously consider crew cab pickups. Given the room, and the comfort offered by modern crew cabs, they are a very viable option for a do it all family, haul, work, tow vehicle.

Also, crew cabs can be had with diesels. We LIKE diesels (for so many very good reasons).

In the rest of this post I'm going to refer to the Chevy version of the GM side of things, the Ford version of Ford, and the Dodge version of Chrysler; but they are all substantially identical to their corporate siblings versions, with some trim differences (we actually prefer the look of the GMCs to the Chevys).

I did an analysis of all the major half ton, and 3/4 ton crew cab trucks, and the two available large SUVs; configured as close to the same way as their trim packages and options allowed. I tried multiple configurations with multiple trim packages and options to come up with the optimal configuration for each model.

The features used for comparison were:
  1. 4x4
  2. Crew cab (or bigger if available), or large SUV
  3. Short bed (several had longer beds available) or large SUV
  4. Highest power engine available
  5. Maximum towing package with maximum hitch
  6. Heaviest duty suspension available
  7. plow and trailer wiring kits if available
  8. Cargo organizer system, bedliner, and tiedowns if available
  9. Leather
  10. Power everything
  11. Heated seats (if available)
  12. Captains chairs front, with center console
  13. 60/40 folding split bench rear
  14. Whatever interior cargo storage options are available
  15. Full climate control (auto if available)
  16. Navigation system
  17. CD/DVD changer with handsfree bluetooth speakerphone, and aux input
  18. Rear DVD
  19. Backup camera if available
  20. No sunroof (it cuts 2" out of the headroom)
I included all the prices, current incentives, power and torque, fuel economy towing capacity and payload, locking diff or not, bed length or cargo area length, and front and rear head and leg room.

I only included one diesel, because in all cases Diesels added approximately $7,000 to the cost of the truck, but were only offset by incentives on the Dodge. Otherwise the new diesels were simply too expensive (bringing the trucks into the $60,000 range).

The Numbers:

The spreadsheet I used to tabulate my research numbers is shared here: Truck Analysis

Unless you feel like paying $5,000 extra for the name, I would drop the Toyotas from your consideration entirely. We found that in all cases (all models of large truck and SUV), for equivalent features, the Toyotas were $4,000 to $8,000 more expensive than the other brands.

In general, I found that Dodge offered exceptional value in both 1/2 ton and 3/4 ton models; that Nissan offered just about as good value as Dodge (but with not quite as much in the way of features, and of course in half ton only), that Ford and Toyota were both relatively overpriced (more so for the Toyota), and that Chevy was around the middle.

Also I found that in general you got more for your money (better relative value) with a 3/4 ton. On average they only cost around $2k more, for double the payload, and 30% more towing capacity.

Downgrading from 4x4 to 4x2 generally saves about $4,000; and if you don't need it, deleting it reduces your maintenance cost, improves your fuel economy, your payload, and your towing capacity. However, after five years, it cuts your resale value in half; and in general reduces the utility of the truck.

I've gone on record before saying that I think that for most people, 4wd on a full size truck or SUV is a waste of time and money; and I still believe that.

Most people who buy 4WD never really use it. Also, unless you're very experienced and carry recovery gear around with you; when you do try and use your 4 wheel drive seriously, the only difference is that you're going to get stuck further, harder, and deeper in, than you would have if you only had 2 wheel drive.

However, if you live in snowy climates (especially snowy hills and mountains), drive a lot on rough roads (especially with heavy loads), or have to deal with mud or sand at all; 4wd is a lifesaver, and as I said, also improves the resale value of your truck considerably.

Now, you'll note in the conditions section above, we REALLY loaded up the options, including some that most truck buyers wouldn't really bother with; because this is our family vehicle in addition to our work/tow/haul truck.

Selecting navigation and DVD adds between $3,700 and $8,000 (the Toyota was ridiculous) to the price of each vehicle; and you can save a considerable amount leaving them off, and going for a standard stereo (with standard CD changer systems running in the $500-$1500 range).

Most other interior options were all relatively low cost and deleting them would have minimal impact. If you wanted to save money, removing nav and DVD would be the first place to start; with most vehicles costing $4000-$5,000 or so less without them.

Also, in every case, the backup camera was either included in the nav and DVD package, or was a $500 to $700 extra that can be easily deleted.

We found that it was hard to locate a loaded truck without a sunroof; but if you don't want one (and we don't. They cost 2" in headroom, and reduce the efficiency of your heater and air conditioning), you can save yourself $1000

The Experience:

After going through the analysis, it was time to actually drive the vehicles.

Based on the numbers we excluded Ford, and Toyota entirely; and decided to focus on Chevy and Dodge (because when we started this process Chevy was offering MUCH larger incentives than they are today, and Dodge is offering HUGE incentives).

We seriously considered the Nissan Titan as well, given that it is as roomy inside as the Dodge 1500, and moreso than the Chevy; and has the best payload, and the lowest cost.

However, with the smallest towing capacity and second least power of the bunch; at just about the same price as the Dodge (given the current incentives anyway), we decided to make it our third option.

Chevy:

The first thing we did was check out the Suburban, and my wife really liked it a lot. She likes the room, the power, the cargo space, and the look of it. It's just a great truck.

I should note, I rather like it myself, but not as much as she does. It's a little short on headroom for me; and while I think it's a good looking truck (especially the GMC version), I'm not in love with it.

Even better, the cargo room behind the third seat is great; and with the rears folded, it's as much as our Expedition with the rear seat out.

Oh, and I can fit in not only the second row (just), but the third row (though it's not exactly comfy); though if there's a sunroof I can't even fit in the drivers seat, never mind the rears (the sunroof pulls out 2" of headroom).

So, we like the truck, and we go back to start talking about pricing.

Now as I said, in January GM was offering up to $15k incentive to buy a truck. Well, apparently, now that they've got the gubmint bailout money, things have changed.

It's no wonder GM can't sell a damn vehicle.

List price on the 'burban with the options (3/4 ton 4wd, LT2 package, heavy duty tow package, navigation and entertainment. Not the LTZ which is $7K more, and not available on the 3/4 ton) we want is $56,000.

Let me repeat that.

FIFTY SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS.

Now let me ask you something. If you could afford to buy a truck for $56,000 would you be buying a suburban?

No wonder GM sales are down 58% this quarter.

Well of course, no-one pays MSRP. Right now, the deal is that everyone pays invoice less incentives. Invoice on the model we want is about $49,000 (that's a heck of a markup to MSRP, aint it). Ok, that's still a lot of money, but with a $15k incentive that's only $34,000... and that's not bad. That's actually pretty good, and very doable...

Only now that GM has the bailout money, the incentive isn't $15k anymore.... It's $2k

$47,000....

Ohhhh, I don't think so.

Now, take a look at the exact same truck, same options, but in the 2008 model year (there's four left unsold in the state apparently; all up in or around Flagstaff) and the invoice is $2k lower, and the incentive is still $7k.

Ok, maybe one of those. That brings it to $40k... not as good as with the $15k incentive, but possibly doable...

Until you look at the used price for a 2008 with 12,000 miles on it, equipped the same way... $30k to 33k.

Or a 2007 with 24k miles... $25k to 28k. And that's in absolutely perfect condition, with 5 years left on the warranty.

And those are full retail book. No-one pays retail book. Their resale value is about $8k under that; and you're likely to pay somewhere in between those two numbers.

Even at book though, that's about $25,000 less than MSRP on the new one, and $16,000 less than the actual sale price.

Who on earth is going to spend $54k or even $44k on a truck that will be worth $16-25k less in a year or two years?

Don't even get me started on the Escalade ESV (the Cadillac version of the suburban). They charge $20k more for the EXACT SAME TRUCK, with the exact same equipment; and 2 years later, its only worth $5k more than the Chevy. More than 50% depreciation.

This simply reinforces my long held opinion that you have to be an idiot to buy a new car without a huge incentive; and that goes double for a fully optioned up new car, or a new "premium" car.

But more importantly; it reinforces my opinion that GM is utterly clueless. They take the bailout, and then jack up the price of their trucks, that weren't selling at the LOWER prices.

Here's a hint for GM execs. Guys, if they weren't buying the trucks at $39,000, they aren't going to buy those same trucks two months later, for $11,000 more. We didn't get the bailout, you did.

Oh and not that Ford is much better.

The equivalent Expedition EL is smaller than the Suburban, doesn't have quite as much in the way of features, has 50 less horsepower and 50ftlbs less torque but just as bad fuel economy, isn't available in a 3/4 ton (though the heavy duty suspension package and heavy duty towing package give just a few hundred pounds less towing capacity); and prices out at just over $55,600, with an invoice of $49,800 and $4000 incentive.

Smaller truck, less power, less features, same price... Don't think so.

We also test drove the Crew Cab 1500, and 2500, Silverado; and liked them, though not as much as the Suburban.

The 2500 suspension was a bit harsh, and both trucks were somewhat unrefined. Though the interiors were very nice in the LTZ, and optioned up LT2 models, they were still a bit plasticky and work truck like (especially in the 2500, which had some funky switch gear). Also, the interior accoutrement weren't quite as nice as in the Suburban (you'd think they'd be exactly the same, but they aren't).

Surprisingly, the Suburban also handled better than either truck. Even though it was heavier, it felt more settled, and smoother (probably the weight, combined with passenger tuning rather than load tuning). With the 6 liter in all three, the 1500 clearly had the performance advantage however. That said, non of them were exactly sluggish; the 6 liter offers great power.

I don't want to leave the impression that these weren't very good trucks, they were; they just weren't as nice as the Suburban. I did however think that the Silverado was a bit nicer than the 2004-2008 Fords that I have previously driven (I haven't driven the 2009).

Of course they were also $6,000 MSRP less than the Suburban; which is a consideration. Surprisingly however, invoice was only $4000 under MSRP (on the 'Burban it was $7k under), and the incentive was only $1000 for the crew cab (it's $2000 for every other 1500).

The way they were, I wasn't exactly thrilled with the final pricing, at $44k and $46k for the 1/2 and 3/4 ton respectively.

We decided to move on to Dodge, and wait and see if a used 'Burban came into stock somewhere with the equipment that we liked.

Also because the numbers were so out of line on the 'Burban, and the Expedition; we decided to focus on the crew cabs, and we pulled them off the spreadsheet.

Dodge:

The numbers indicated that the Dodge was going to provide far better value, with their Employee Pricing Plus Plus Program (yes, that's really what they call it); giving a $7000 discount from MSRP, plus an additional $2000 in incentives.

Well, we test drove the 2500 diesel, and the 1500 hemi the week after the Chevys.

First things first, both are spectacular trucks. Far better than the Chevys that we drove the week before, or the Fords that I've driven over the past couple years. Even on the 2500, the interior was nicer, the amenities nicer etc.. and the in cabin storage is brilliant.

We drove the 2500 MegaCab diesel first, and liked it very much. The torque is amazing, and with no traction control (the diesels have stability control but no traction control) that motor will break the rear end loose any time you feel like it. That said, it's also smooth and quiet; not just for a diesel, but for a truck in general.

The only thing I didn't like about the power delivery is a little more delay in the kickdown than I'd like; but they do that on purpose, because with so much torque, and especially if you're hauling and towing heavy loads, a rapid downshift would be very hard on the transmission.

But for just one second, let me give a shoutout back to the torque monster. That is one hell of a motor.

The MegaCab interior is brilliant. It's a crewcab with an extra 4" of legroom, and 10" of space behind the rear seats for storage. That allows the 60/40 split bench to recline, and to fold forward into a more than 20sq foot flat load floor.

Combined with the doors that are 8" longer than normal crewcab doors (with HUGE windows that roll down completely), and you can esily fit a 3 foot square box, or a number of half sheets of plywood into the back.

With the huge double console, and cubbies everywhere, there is no shortage of storage and family room in this truck. The front seat console also folds up into a third seat, with a shoulder belt; that is good for a child, or a booster seat (and yes, it's car seat safe if you so choose; though it doesn't have car seat anchors).

The rear seats on the other hand have more than enough hip, shoulder, and leg room for three full sized adults. I can comfortably sit in the middle seat (yes, really); and with the front seats pushed all the way back, I have over 4" of room between my knees and the seat back.

Overall we were impressed with the 2500s handling; and it's lack of harshness even over poor pavement with no load. It did have slightly soft, long travel brakes, that stopped very well but didn't have great feel. The steering, was very sharp and responsive, but the turning circle on the truck was awful (49.7 feet according to the magazines), and reversing into tight spaces worse.

Happily though, even engaging 4wd low, and locking the diff, didn't worsen the turning circle or reversing circle (which I was surprised by. In most trucks, including the Chevys, there's some driveline backlash, and the turning circle widens slightly in 4 low with the diff locked).

So we were just about sold on the diesel, but wanted to drive the 1500 for comparison.

There is no comparison. It's a completely different truck.

From the minute you get into it, you can feel it's a completely different truck. The 2500 is a "really nice truck", but interior wise it definitely feels and looks like a truck. The 1500 has a completely different interior, and getting into it, the immediate impression is "luxury car".

I really didn't think it was possible they could be so different, but they are.

The 1500 is so much more like a comfortable car than a truck, it's hard to describe. The controls are designed and positioned better, so that nothing is a long reach (not the case with the 2500. All that room is great, but the reaches can be a bit long). The climate control is perfect, the audio/nav system positioning is perfect; and the seats are actually better than the seats in my caddy (and that's saying something).

That said, this is still a damn truck; how does it drive?

Amazing.

Firstly, the power. Yes, the diesel has more torque, but the absolutely instantaneous power delivery of the hemi is unbelievable. 390hp and 407ftlbs of torque with 225+ ftlbs available from 1500 RPM, and peak torque at 4000rpm, means fast off the line, responsive, fast passing and roll on. The feeling of instantly available power with this truck is great.

There is NO highway hop, no wheel hop in hard acceleration (the hemi does have traction control unlike the diesel) no harshness on any surface even with no load, and even in tow/haul mode (which stiffens everything up, and changes the shift program on the transmission).

Quick transitions are accomplished smoothly and with no drama, including accelerating and decelerating rapid lane changes; which usually throw trucks off balance. There is far less body roll in sharp corners than I would expect for a truck; in fact better than a lot of cars.

The 1500s turning circle is considerably better than the 2500 (about 28 feet). On the 2500, I had to three point in a narrow cul de sac; in the 1500 I was able to make full lock circles in it, even in 4wd low with the locker engaged.

Basically, this truck is in all ways far superior to the Chevys that I test drove last weekend; and the 2004-2008 F150s that I have driven before (I chose not to test drive the 2009s, because they are several thousand more expensive for equivalent features).

We went into the test drive expecting to like the 2500 more, and came out of it likeing the 1500 just as much; but for different reasons.

Although you give up a lot of towing capacity and payload with the 1500, and a good bit of room; the road feel, comfort, and manners you get back in exchange make up for it; at least for us, who are primarily using this as a family vehicle, not a work truck.

Now if they only made the MegaCab, with the 1500 interior, and the 1500 handling....

Actually, the 2010 2500/3500 models are getting the interior and exterior facelift the '09 1500s did; though of course they still wont have the independent suspension etc... but that's not what you want for a towing/hauling vehicle.

Nissan:


So, we went down to one of our local Nissan dealerships, and drove the Titan, and the Armada.

First thing, one salesguy took the up, I explained to him exactly what we were looking for, that we wanted only and exactly that; and that we wanted to talk specifics.

So he says "ok, let's go drive one" and he takes me out front, and immediate starts trying to downsell me "Oh, well, why don't you put the nav in aftermarket, it'll be cheaper". Then he says he doesn't have a 4x4 that I can drive. I tell him "look, I'm only interested in a 4x4" and he tries to tell me that I should drive the 2wd, it'll be just the same.

At that point I was rather irritated. I said to him "Look, I don't think you're taking my business seriously here. First you try to downsell me, now you're lying to me. You and I both know a 4x4 and a 2 wheel drive are going to feel, respond, and handle a lot differently. The suspension and drivline are different, the weight is different, the rear end is different... they are NOT comparable, and don't try and pass it off like they are just because you don't have one out here for me to drive. I think I have to go to another dealer".

At that point, he got kind of pissy and defensive, but he asked me to talk to his manager. I relayed exactly what was said, and the manager got me somebody who actually knew the trucks in question, and the product line; and knew what was in inventory.

So I found out from the new salesguy and manager that they haven't been getting any 4x4s with leather or nav from Nissan lately; and that they've had a hard time getting Titans in at all. That said, they did have an all leather and nav 2wd that we could check out the interior on, and they had a 4x4 we could drive.

I said OK, I'm still willing to give you my business, and I appreciate that they're ready to try and accommodate what I want.

So we drove the 4x4 with the crap interior; and we set in and played around with the optioned up interior.

We liked the Titan, but it's not as nice as the Dodge. Not nearly as much power, and the interior, though nice, isn't AS nice. That said, even with half the incentives, it's just as low priced as the Dodge (actually with current incentives, very slightly cheaper. You can get a loaded Titan for under $40k right now).

The wife however liked the Armada a LOT. We had looked at the numbers and decided it was too small initially; but actually sitting in it, and playing with the seats and cargo area, told a different story. It had substantially more room overall than the Tahoe, including more cargo area; and more headroom than the Suburban; as well as a more clever seating configuration that folded into a flat load floor behind the drivers seat (not long enough for plywood of course, just under 7ft; but useful enough that you can take a bungee with you and still pick up the wood)

So we decided to talk numbers about the Armada with the guy, and he finds one equipped like we'd like at an affiliated dealer in California.

Great, let's talk money.

So he goes out to do the manager dance and comes back with a printout for me, with a "market value" (note, not MSRP) listed $3k higher than I know the price is from the 'net.

Then he takes off $3000 in "savings", which is really just taking out the inflation he just put in; and the $4500 incentive.

Ok, that's at least a working number. Not a final number, there' more to come out of that "market value", but we can work with this.

Then there's a line item of $1894 for "accessories and value adds", which if you look into another section of the printout shows as "dealer prep" and "Arizona auto arrangement", on top of which he adds a $399 "documentation fee" and another line item of $1,009.80 in "fees".

So there's a $3200 line item for "Extra Dealer Profit".

Now I've just spent two hours with this guy. I've told him exatly what I'm looking for, exactly what I've done with other dealerships. He knows I know how much the thing actually costs. He knows I know what the options are. He should really know better than to start negotiating from this position... but he puts it down in front of me anyway, and says "So, can we make a deal?"

I literally laughed in his face, looked down at the sheet of paper, and said "not at that number, not even close".

Then he pulls out a sheet that he "can't let me keep" which supposedly shows his invoice and option cost (appx $5k less than the quoted "Market Value", but still $3K over what I KNOW the actual number is), and I laugh again.

The way he had the deal worked, the Armada was actually costing $4,000 more than the Suburban, which lists for more than the Armada, and has less than half the incentive and "savings" right now.

Yeah, I don't think so.

The deal that didn't happen:

So, we found a couple trucks very similar to what we wanted; but nothing exactly right.... or rather, whenever we found exactly the right truck, it would get sold before we could grab it.

It isn't so much that our option choices were selling like hotcakes; it's just the particular configuration we wanted was extremely rare. To order it would have taken 8-12 weeks, and in the mean time the incentive programs and pricing could change, and you can't lock in a price until the order is built... so that really wasn't an option.

We finally found two trucks very close to exactly what we wanted; a 2500 diesel laramie, and a 1500 hemi laramie. Both had nav and leather, but no rear DVD; and the 1500 had a sunroof.

The diesel listed at $57k but has $13k incentives on it, bringing it down to $44k. The 1500 listed at 52k, but had $11k in incentives, bringing it down to $41k.

We actually managed to squeeze'em down to $42.5k and $39.5k plus TLT.

Unfortunately, we just couldn't come to a deal. We never got to the point where the price, tradein, down payment, and rate made us happy; so we walked away from both and said we'd revisit things in a few months; when they'd be trying to get rid of unsold '09s to clear the way for the 2010 models.

Meanwhile I got to dealing with more fraud on my credit report, to help fix that rate issue.

Inflection point:

So that was six weeks ago; and the Expedition died on Tuesday.

I went back to our truck analysis, and looked at exactly what we wanted and needed from a truck:
  1. 3/4 ton preferred, but 1/2 ton acceptable
  2. Crew cab (or dodge mega cab, which is a crew cab, plus an extended cab grafted on) required
  3. 4x4 required
  4. Diesel preferred, gas acceptable
  5. Heavy duty suspension, with offroad package if possible (most dont let you get both)
  6. Towing package required
  7. Leather preferred, but cloth acceptable, if good and power
  8. Nav sytem preferred but not required
  9. Rear seat DVD preferred but not required
  10. NO SUNROOF
Also, I knew that the absolute maximum I could make things stretch would give us $5k for a down payment; and that's really cutting it tight for the next couple weeks.

$4k would be better, which gives us a price range of between $20k and $40k (getting financing today requires 10% to 20% down unless youre at 750 or above). Sadly, with the prices of trucks today, that means used to get what we want.

S'okay, as I said above I think used generally gives you a much better value.

So, we did a quick search on the net for trucks locally, found two dealers who had a number of trucks that were close, but nothing exactly matching the list.

The OTHER deal that didn't happen:

The first dealership had two decent trucks, but not really what we were looking for.

They also had a brand new old stock 2008 Expedition EL (that's the logn wheelbase version) King ranch edition with the tow package. We drove it, and liked it, so we decided to talk numbers.

Now, the truck originally listed at $47k. I told them right off the bat that I wasn't interested in paying anything near that. Also, I owe $6200 on the expedition, which will cost nearly as much to repair as they would give me in trade for it; which means we'd have to finagle the numbers to deal with that as well.

They offered me a great deal on it, but not great enough. They wanted an out the door price of $45k, including the underwater trade.

Now, normally speaking, I'd call that a good deal; but I know something. As of next month, any unsold 2008s will be reclassified for finance purposes by the banks as if they were used vehicles.

The wholesale used value on a 2008 Expedition EL King Ranch with 100 miles on it (it had been test driven a few times obviously) is $30.5k. Assume the Expedition is a total loss giving me a $6200 negative equity, that's $37k, plus TLT on the $30.5 brings me to just about $40k.

As it happens, the wholesale new value on the truck is just at $40k; which is probably what they've got in the truck; and in a month, the bank is going to write it down to $30k.

So I set a hard line, my out the door would have to be $40k. I said to him right off, "look I know you're losing money on this deal, but in a month you're going to be losing even more. This truck has been on this lot for 24 months (why didn't they auction it yet?), and absolutely no-one but me wants to buy an Expedition EL. So the question isn't are you losing money, it's how much money are you willing to lose".

They came down to $43k, but I wasn't interested in a dollar over $40. I told them as much, and said that I'd be looking at other trucks, if they were interested in dealing they had my number.

Yeah, I would have been skinning them blind, if it werent for the fact that I knew that truck wouldn't sell for the next month; and that if they hadn't auctioned it off (for the same loss they'd take with me) I would get the deal I wanted next month.

Found It:

The second dealership was a local truck specialty dealer here. Normally I don't like niche dealers (they tend to overprice a bit, and have iffy service); but we figured if we were going to find exactly what we wanted they were a likely choice, and their internet stock had some promising items.

We got there, and the internet trucks were good as promised, but we saw something else right away...

A big, black, badass of a truck, with chrome grille, chrome HD wheels, chrome bumpers, completely debadged (which looks great) and limoblacked windows.

It was debadged, but I could tell right away it was a 3/4 ton 4x4, megacab ram. Then I walked around back and saw the 4" tailpipe.

YES!

A 3/4 ton, megacab, 4x4, 5.9L Cummins diesel, in pearl black, with the heavy duty suspension, forged aluminum heavy duty wheels, chrome package, PERFECT spray in bedliner, tow package and lockers.

Exactly what we were looking for.

Unfortunately, it was an SLT-G (the upper middle trim package) instead of a Laramie, it had cloth instead of leather; and no nav system. Otherwise, it was fully optioned up. Power everything, perfect interior... I LOVE the megacab...

Yaknow what, we can live with that. Especially since the 3/4 ton diesel, is actually a 1.5 ton (max payload of 3220lbs, max towing 12,500lbs); and that diesel is going to be going strong long after I die (325hp, and 610ftlbs torque is a nice thing, never mind what Banks, King, Bullydog etc... can do with it).

That megacab is the best thing I've ever seen in a pickup.

The same truck, brand new, lists at $52,000 ($5000 less than the one with leather, nav, and DVD) though right now there's $10k in incentives available on it (less incentives than the Laramie as described actually).

This one is 2-1/2 years old with 45,000 miles on it; but it looks like showroom new; and they wanted $35,000 for it.

Seriously, there isn't a scratch, dent, chip, or spec on it; including the undercarriage. It's showroom new in and out. I would think it was a respray considering how good the undercarriage looks, but I know what to look for, and it's PERFECT. The bedliner is perfect except the rail caps are lifting up at the ends (that happens, They're only stuck on with doublestick tape). Even the floormats were perfect.

I did some quick internet research and found out that low wholesale on the truck was $27k, and the retail book was $37k. I offered $28k, $4k down, and no trade. They countered with $28.5k and $5k down, and they'd take the trade and wrap it in.

I made the deal.

They also took my truck in at $2500, which is honestly more than it's worth given the suspension repair required; but it was what they had to do to get the loan values right, and they were good with doing that.

So we're thrilled. This is a damn fine truck. It's gorgeous, it's almost exactly what we want, and it should last forever.

Now I need to get some steps/running boards for it (it really is high); a bed extender, and maybe a cap.

So take a look at this beauty:



The reflection in the tailgate is Mels old truck (now ceded back to her father as an airport/work truck), a '76 Chevy C10 longbed, I6 with 4 on the floor, with a granny and no overdrive.



One, I am not that fat (or that short), the tailgate is like a funhouse mirror. Two, the paint really is that shiny.



We're trying to figure out what to call it. Behemoth and "the beast" were rejected out of hand; but the wife liked Satch' (big, black, with a big mouth, deep lungs, and a deep gravely voice... very fitting).

Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Somethin' I really don't understand

Ok, now this is going to be an odd one for me; though I suspect many of my readers have knowledge and an opinion on this subject.

I am an engineer by training; in particular an aerospace engineer, which is at turns a mechanical engineer, a physicist, a materials scientist, an aerodynamicist, and an artist all rolled up into one.

I was at one time a certified EMT basic, and a certified nurses assistant in the state of Arizona.

Further, I have to say I'm a damn good engineer; and I know my physics, my materials science, my anatomy, and a fair bit about trauma and emergency medicine.

So could somebody please explain to me why Dale Earnhardt is dead?

Now let me just say, I'm not a NASCAR fan, nor a member of the cult of number 3. I do however appreciate the skill, and stamina required to drive at 200 miles per hour in a pack of 40 other cars for 3 hours. I also appreciate the skill and hard work necessary to get an iron block, naturally aspirated, 358 cubic inch engine to produce 850 horsepower while running at 9000 RPM reliably for that three hours.

Others may denigrate NASCAR as low tech, low skill racing; but as an engineer, an automotive enthusiast, an amateur mechanic, and as someone who has raced as an amateur (autocross, ice racing, and amateur rally), I'm not one of them.

What I am, is mystified, that in 8 years of intense scrutiny, we still don't have what I would call a satisfactory answer as to why Dale Earnhardt died.

I've seen the video, I've seen the documentaries and the "investigations" on every TV show. I've seen all the reconstructions. I've read all the reports.

Not one of them has shown me any convincing proof that this crash:



Should have resulted in the death of that man.

Unless Earnhardts safety equipment was either defective (and I don't believe Simpson made bad gear) or he was wearing it improperly (as many have suggested, but the accident reports concluded he was not); I see no reason for him to have died.

I see no severe and sudden g-loading (in comparison to hundreds of other similar, and worse crashes) that would cause his neck and basal skull injuries (which were ruled as his cause of death) without a HANS device. I see no significant telescoping of the frame of his vehicle or cockpit intrusion. Primarily I see non-impact side loading, and relatively minor (if any impact at 150+mph can be called minor) g loading.

If you look at Earnhardts injuries, they suggest that he was moving freely in the cockpit; with 8 broken ribs on his left side (the vehicle did not suffer any substantial left side impacts), a broken left ankle, a broken sternum, and abrasions and contusions from his harness.

... but a Nascar driver is in a very different driving position than you or I are driving in our cars; approximately 8" closer to the centerline of the vehicle; and his restraints (if worn properly and not malfunctioning) should have prevented such injuries from happening

The only way I could understand these injuries, is if he was free in the cockpit, and slammed against the left side door of the vehicle; but the accident report contradicts this possibility.

Now I admit, the human body is a strange and at times frighteningly weak thing. There are times where we will survive amazing injuries, and other times when something relatively minor does devastating damage.

The thing is, I've seen hundreds of other far more severe crashes, that have caused significantly less, and less severe injury than the Earnhardt crash. Also, in all cases I know of with injuries as severe as Earnhardts (and sadly, basal fractures are not uncommon in motorsports. Heads are not well supported, and helmets are heavy), the crashes in question were more severe, or had specific dynamics which would clearly cause the injuries in question.

There is a theory which fits the evidence:

Given Earnhardts injuries, the only thing that makes sense is that he was moving forward and left. If he had properly fastened, properly mounted, functional restraints AS THE REPORTS STATE, that should not have happened.

If that was the case, I understand perfectly why he had the spine/skull injury that killed him. Rather than being properly restrained, his body was moving down, forward, and left at a high rate of speed (left from when his car snapped right, and forward and down from when he hit the wall), and when he snapped to the end of his range of motion (either against loose restraints, or the internal structural members of the vehicle - no-one outside the investigative team has seen the photos so we can't be sure which), his helmet detached the base of his skull from his spinal column.

That absolutely makes sense. It fits the evidence. It fits the physics. It fits the medicine.

And NASCAR swears up and down that it isn't what happened.

So why did Earnhardt die? Is there something I'm missing? Is someone lying?

Am I wrong here?

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Hallelujah, he's finally gone!

Today is a great day my friend. Today is the day that BMW begins its return to grace and greatness; because today is the day that CHRIS BANGLE RESIGNS.

Thank you god.

For those of you who don't understand why I am thankful for this blessed event, let me give you some examples, of both pre and post Bangle BMWs.

Pre-Bangle:





Those are examples of the E34 M5 (1989-1995) and E39 M5 (1996-2004); what I believe to be the two best examples of the classic BMW sports sedan.

Admittedly I'm biased, in that I've owned two E34 5 series; and would still love an E39 540is or M5 (the E34s are still great; but they are getting a bit long in the tooth. Plus the E39 has almost twice the horsepower, more room, and better handling).

Some might call the styling boring, but I disagree. They are smooth, but hard edged. Muscular, but not overblown. Classic, clean, simple, and balanced.

Simply, they are a pure expression of form and function in harmony. Antoine de Saint-Exupery famously said "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.". With these cars, there is nothing left to take away.

Unfortunately, Chris Bangle decided that meant it was a perfect time to start adding stuff:


That, is called a "Bangle Butt"; because Chris Bangle insisted on adding it to all of his designs.

Who on earth could find that attractive?

Actually, just a more basic question, why on earth did BMW make this man head of design, when he admitted he didn't like how BMWs looked. He thinks the hoffmeister kink should be eliminated, and that the double kidney grill is old fashioned.

Bangle said repeatedly in interviews that he thought BMWs looked boring; and that he kinda liked ugly cars because they were interesting.

I guess these are VERY interesting then:


In case you were confused, no, those aren't Pontiacs; they are $40,000 to $90,000 BMWs... though you can certainly be forgive for the comparison. I for one think the recent 5 series looks an awful lot like a Pontiac Bonneville:


Here's a more explicit look at the similarities:

That would be a recent 3 series compared to a Pontiac G8 (what used to be the Grand Prix) of the same year. Striking resemblance wot?

Pontiac is of course famous for the "Excitement" look; achieved by taking standard GM three box products, and adding ridiculous plastic body cladding and pointless frippery.

Here's his latest, and "greatest" effort, the X6:


Which if you ask me, looks a lot like a slightly smoothed out Pontiac Aztek:


But maybe that's just me. I actually like good looking cars... I guess I'm not interesting.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Save Money With a Hybrid?

So, fuel prices are coming back down significantly from their peak; in fact as much as a dollar here, and more in some other areas (the highest we saw here was about $4.39, prices are hovering around $3.35 now).

Even better, they look to remain relatively stable the rest of the year; but they are still significantly higher than they were when I moved back from Ireland at the end of 2003 for example (around $2.30 or so).

The fact is, fuel costs are still a fair percentage of our budget, and are likely to remain so fro the forseeable future. They're probably a fair bit of your budget too.

Although I work at home, and thus don't drive much; we have family that we visit frequently that lives 90 miles away, and who is our weekend babysitter etc... and all the normal running around attendant to a life with two adults, two kids, two dogs, two cats, a house etc...

And of course part of that life is that we need a truck. Really, a minivan or station wagon wont do it for us, we need the cargo hauling, towing, and ruggedness of an honest to god truck.

Said truck gets between 14 and 16mpg.

Our fuel costs on the truck right now run about $500 a month, on about 2000 miles of driving.

A while back we picked up a car that gets 26mpg to take over some of the mileage, and it's certainly helped. It basically kept our fuel costs constant through the big spike, as well as provided more flexibility in transportation and scheduling etc...

We had been a one car family for a while, but we ended up having to rent cars a couple times when we both needed transport at once, or when the truck was down for maintenance etc... so that purchase has proved its value. It's going to do so again in two weeks when we drive to Reno; given that we expect to run 2000 miles for the week, it's going to save us $200 in gas right there.

Still, the truck is still a gashog, and we're coming up on 120,000 miles.

I wasn't seriously considering replacing the truck for another two years though, since at that point it will be fully paid off, and it will probably be just about ready for a new motor, and new shocks (I've got the rear air suspension; not cheap to overhaul).

I WASN'T seriously considering it, until just recently; when Chevy came out with the Tahoe Hybrid.

The truck's had some great reviews. Apparently its around town mileage is even better than the 22mpg its rated for, so I think we'd at least hit the rated average; and supposedly the quality is really excellent.

Now I'm not one for hybrids in general. I don't believe in the whole "paying more to save the environment" BS; and I've yet to see a hybrid that wasn't both an environmental net negative anyway, and didn't end up costing more than you'd save.

Well, GM is in deep trouble right now, and they're offering some huge discounts on trucks... basically because no-one in their right mind is buying one now unless they absolutely need it.

My best friend happens to be a sales guy at one of the biggest GM dealers in the state; in fact he got us into our 26mpg car for $7,000 under book. He and I were shooting the breeze the other day, and he says to me "Hey, if you're looking to replace the truck, I can get you into the new Tahoe Hybrid, fully loaded 2wd, for $39,900...

That's about $14,000 off...

So I thought about it for a minute, and I decided to run the numbers.

The current truck payment is about $320, and we're paying $500 for gas on a 15mpg average and $3.50 a gallon. The truck has about a $4000 trade in value, and we could probably swing a $4000 down payment (though it'd make us cash poor for a while).

On a $40,000 truck, presuming a 6.9% interest rate (what we qualified for from GMAC), that would give us a 72 month payment (which I think would be nuts by the way, but they're doing it all the time now) of about $560.

At our current payment of $320, we'd have to save $240 a month to break even on the deal; presuming we don't have any other factors to account for (like increased insurance rates, or tax breaks for hybrids). Going to the hybrid would save us just under 50 gallons of gas a month, or about $175.

Oh and I think if you look at our numbers, we're about the BEST case you're going to see for a hybrid full size SUV, short of a delivery business; and we're still about $75 a month away from breaking even.

Of course that doesn't count the intangibles of driving a nice brand new truck, with a warranty. On the other side of course it doesn't account for the feeling of not having $40,000 in debt hanging over your head (new vehicles are ALWAYS a bad deal in this regard).

Now, that's against our current vehicle though. What if we were going to buy a new truck anyway; would the fuel savings between a hybrid and a standard SUV be enough to make up for the price difference?

The answer might surprise you...

The 6.0l hybrid 2wd Tahoe gets an average of 22mpg, and lists out at $53,000 with its only two options (navigation system and sun roof) selected (the 4x4 is another $3k). Current incentives make it just under $40k

The 6.2l 2wd Tahoe gets an avg fuel economy of about 16mpg, and lists out at... the exact same price as the hybrid model, when equipped the same way; with current incentives also bringing it down to just under $40k.

Whathahell?

Although the hybrid is likely to have higher maintenance costs over its lifetime, the fuel savings alone could run to $175 a month at current gas prices if you drive as much as we do; and I'd think that would MORE than offset any additional maintenance costs, even presuming gas prices don't go up again (which of course they eventually will).

Honestly, if you're in the market for a new, full size SUV right now, the only reason I could see to NOT buy the hybrid, is if you needed the increased towing capacity of the 6.2l gas over the 6.0l hybrid (8500lbs vs 6200lbs).

I can't believe I'm actually recommending a hybrid.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Tranny has finished dying

So I mentioned about a month ago, that I'd been having transmission issues.

I took it into the shop, and they couldn't find anything wrong (and didn't charge me anything for extensive testing by the way); so we moved on.... but it was never 100%.

Well, yesterday the tranny finally craped itself. It wont shift up until it hits 4000 rpm, wont shift down until the kickdown hits, and the TC is slipping madly all the way to the point where it locks up.

So we took it back in, and they re-ran their tests... the verdict is a full rebuild; at somewhere between $1800 and $2500 estimated (depending on whether they just need to do a rebuild, or whether there needs to be a full replacement). We'll know better Monday.

Have I ever mentioned how much I hate automatic transmissions? God I would be so much happier with a damn five speed, even a four speed. Unfortunately, try and find one in a full size SUV, or pickup truck with the big motor and a non-two truck package, and see what happens.

Anyway, until then, it's rental car time, at $30 a day.

Note: The Dodge Caliber is a total piece of crap.

$17,000 in legal bills, my AC goes out (and is still out by the way, three weeks as of Monday, wont be fixed 'til the end of next week thanks to a SLOOOOW home warranty), my bed breaks...

I'm telling you, I am murphys bitch lately.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

OCD - Obsessive Clarkson Disorder

So for the last three days or so I've been deep in the YouTube soup, watching every episode of the "new" (since 2002 anyway) BBC "Top Gear", 9 minutes at a time.

I lived all over euroland for a few years (mostly in Ireland), and honestly one of the things I miss the most is the cars.

Let's face it, other than the pickup truck, and a couple of sports cars; pretty much every American car made since 1974 is shit. Not just objectively shit by todays standards (I mean even a 70s Mercedes is shit in comparison to a Toyota Camry today) ; American cars were shit in comparison to other countries contemporary cars. A 1977 Ford Grenada is even worse than a 1977 Morris Marina (and for those of you who don't know, that's really saying something).

In fact, American passenger cars are so bad, I'd still rather have a 70s Mercedes today than a brand new Ford Galaxie (and isn't THAT a blasphemy against a classic name), or aChevy.. well, anything really 'cept a 'vette.

The shtick of Top Gear, is that it's three real car guys; Jeremy Clarkson, James May, and Richard Hammond; thrashing the hell out of every kind of car their is, from 70s econoboxes (which they usually destroy in fun and funny ways) all the way up to million dollar hypercars.

I absolutely love the show. It's fun, it's funny, it's irreverent... it's brilliant.

...but it has one major problem; they are all deranged America haters, especially Jeremy Clarkson (in fact, Hammond quite likes American muscle cars - he collects them; he just doesn't like America).

Now, I really like Jeremy Clarkson. You know me, I think sarcasm is the highest form of humor; and nobody brings the snark better than Jezza. Thing is though, he has a pathological hatred of America, and all things American. He's actually said, on the air "I absolutely love this car, it's brilliant in every way, except it's American"... and he wasn't joking... or at least no more than anything else he says.

They did a series of episodes in America, and Jeremy pissed people off so much with his nastiness that they were actually physically attacked by a bunch of good'ol boys down in Alabama.

It's kind of sad really, you can see him, any time he actually likes an American car he has to desperately grasp for things to hate about it to outweigh it's good points. Sometimes he just flatout makes stuff up, or contradicts stuff he said in other shows.

Now, often he makes a lot of very good points. American cars, even high end American cars, tend to have interiors that you wouldn't find on a $10,000 micro hatchback made in Germany. Also, we seem to want cupholders far more than we want road feel.

...But heres the thing, American cars feel cheap, because they ARE cheap, at least in comparison to European cars.

Here's an example, look at this Alfa 156:












It's just gorgeous. Every inch of it, even though it's just a mid level managers sedan, is just beautiful. Of course it's an Alfa so it loses 50% of it's value in a year, and compared to other European cars the quality is shite; but it's just amazing, and moving, and sexy, and incredibly fun to drive.

I know, because I used to own one; the earlier model 156GTA that was even sexier actually; though I wasn't stupid enough to buy one new. I bought it for half price 18 months from new; then sold it for 3/4 what I bought it for after a year (I replaced it with an Opel Astra - a big step down).

I LOVED this car; but most motoring journalists thought it wasn't very good... because in comparison to the other European (mostly German) competition, it wasn't.

But in America, this would be it's competition:


That's a Buick Lacrosse, the closest market segment competition to the Alfa that America has to offer.

They have a similar trim level, similar size, similar straight line performance, and they are aimed at the same target market... at least in theory.

The problem is, the Buick is, quite frankly, shit. In fact it really ISN'T competition for the Alfa, because if you were looking at an Alfa, the cars you'd be comparing to wouldn't be American, they'd be German: the Audi A4, BMW 3 series, and Mercedes Benz C-Class.

The Alfa is the slowest, lowest spec, lowest power, lowest quality of the European bunch, and it's still MILES ahead of the Buick.

BUT...

I started off saying American cars were comparatively cheap; and so they are. That Alfa, turnkey cost in the UK today (well, last year. They've just replaced it with a new model, the 159) would be approximately $64,000.

The Buick?

About $25,000.

For $64,000 in America you can buy a Cadillac CTS-V; a much better car than the Alfa (actually, the CTS-V is a spectacularly good car in it's own right):

... and still have enough left over for two years worth of gas and insurance.

Or you could buy the Buick, and another one for your mother, and still have enough left over for a nice sport bike... and two years worth of gas and insurance for all three of them.

So yes, American cars ARE cheap nasty shit compared to the European cars; if I were paying $65,000 I wouldn't want the equivalent of the Buick either (Actually, I very well might buy the CTS-V... but honestly I'm more likely to buy an M3).

But for 16,000GBP you get what exactly?

Wait a sec, that's about $4000 more than the cost of the Buick... what the heck? The problem is, anything cheaper in the UK would be a small hatchback. You don't get very much at all for 13,000GBP.

But, for 16k, you get a Ford EUCD platform car. Over here they've just renamed the larger version which was the Ford 500 (from the old Galaxie 500) to the new Taurus (it's also the base for the much higher end Volvo S60). They sell a slightly smaller version in europe, and call it the Mondeo:

Which is not a bad car actually, but I wouldn't pay that much for it... 'course I wouldn't pay that much for the Buick either (oh and in America, you don't pay that much. The larger Taurus runs right about the same as the Buick here which is one of the reasons why I used it).

The Ford is probably still the better car actually, but that's because Ford interiors are on the whole a hell of a lot better than GM interiors... and because Buicks suspensions and transmissions are set up for 70 year old golfers with a hot coffee in each cupholder and a self imposed speed limit of 45mph in the middle lane with the left blinker on.

The point being, the difference in quality there is relatively small. TO offset the worse interior and suspension the Buick is probably a fair bit faster, though it doesn't handle quite as well; and it has a bit more room... and is a better looking car.

Or, if you want to keep it in the GM family, you can get an Opel/Vauxhall Vectra, which is sold in this country as a Saturn ION and which sells for pretty much the same as the Mondeo in Europe, and pretty much the same as the Galaxie (now Taurus), and the Buick here in the US.

Now, let me just say, I still think American cars are mostly shit. I wouldn't buy that Buick, fully loaded, for $10,000 never mind the $25,000 I could take it off the lot for (which is about $5000 less than list. Car buyers are almost being paid cash to take them off the lots).

...BUT

Dollar for dollar, American cars are just as good as European cars; it's just that our cars cost a lot less dollars than theirs do. The price they pay for an economy hatchback is what we expect to pay for a medium sized family car.

If I were spending $30,000 on a Chevy Cavalier, I'd want it to be as nice as a Volkswagon Golf GTI too... but to do that I'd have to pay for the Golf GTI; about twice the cost of the Cavalier.

So Clarkson, next time you want to start complaining about how awful our cars are, remember the Z06 Corvette is nearly as fast as the Porsche 911gt3 (both in a straight line, and on the track), costs 1/3rd the price, and gets twice the gas mileage to boot (we... if you keep your foot out of it. )

A funny thing though...

Clarkson...

D'ya know what he drove until a few months ago?

One of these:

An American Ford GT; which on numerous occasions he's called the greatest sports car ever built...

...unfortunately though he also called it the most unreliable sports car ever built; because his electrics failed repeatedly... which coming from an Englishman is a bit of a laugh really. I mean after all, this is the home of British Leyland, and Lucas. For those sins alone no Englishman should ever be allowed to complain about a cars unreliable electrical system ever again.