looking at mid sized pickups
- Thread starter Gnick
- Start date
Supermoto
Well-Known Member
I took a car seat with me when I went car/truck shopping. I was surprised at just how big a car/truck you needed to comfortably fit a rearward facing car seat in. My accord fits a car seat better than my Acadia GMC but both are somewhat uncomfortable for my wife (5-11") to sit in the passenger seat. I would have gone with an f150 if I had room to park it.
mwlikesbikes
Well-Known Member
My 2013 f-150 supercrew has plenty of room in the back seat. The newest ones with the V6 ecoboost and 10 speed (!) trans have decent mileage numbers.
Mine with the 5.0 V8 & 6 speed auto struggles to get 18 mpg on the highway, but I tend to have a heavy foot though...
Mine with the 5.0 V8 & 6 speed auto struggles to get 18 mpg on the highway, but I tend to have a heavy foot though...
Tim
aka sptimmy43
I've got a '16 GMC Sierra SLT and I love it. I had a 2004 Colorado before that and never had a problem.
My Sierra gets significantly better gas mileage than my Colorado did. Your observations about midsize fuel economy being less than desired are very correct. They don't get great mileage because they are underpowered. For the increase in price in going to a full size you get better fuel economy, more power and more room i.e. more comfort.
A car seat does fit in my Sierra Crew Cab just fine but I have it behind the passenger seat. I am only 5'10" so even if it were behind the driver seat it would be fine. My brother-in-law just bought a crew cab F150. It has significantly more rear seat leg room than the GM full size. He is 6'4" and has 2 car seats in the back seat and he can adjust the driver seat where he wants it with no problem.
One final note pertaining to bikes. I have the 6.5" bed and for the price of some 2x4s and screws I made a bike rack that fits in the bed. So for less than $20 I was good to go. You can't beat pickups for the versatility.
My Sierra gets significantly better gas mileage than my Colorado did. Your observations about midsize fuel economy being less than desired are very correct. They don't get great mileage because they are underpowered. For the increase in price in going to a full size you get better fuel economy, more power and more room i.e. more comfort.
A car seat does fit in my Sierra Crew Cab just fine but I have it behind the passenger seat. I am only 5'10" so even if it were behind the driver seat it would be fine. My brother-in-law just bought a crew cab F150. It has significantly more rear seat leg room than the GM full size. He is 6'4" and has 2 car seats in the back seat and he can adjust the driver seat where he wants it with no problem.
One final note pertaining to bikes. I have the 6.5" bed and for the price of some 2x4s and screws I made a bike rack that fits in the bed. So for less than $20 I was good to go. You can't beat pickups for the versatility.
Gnick
Active Member
glad to hear you've had a good experience. at this point i'm mainly looking at full sized trucks with crew cabs. i appreciate everyone weighing in.
i'll be shooting for something used. 50-60 thousand miles in the 18-24k range. could spend more, but no reason to. rams seem to be the cheapest, then chevy, then ford. looks like i need to start test driving. from what i've read these trucks commonly hit 200k without much more than maintenance, but of course there are duds in every batch.
Same situation here. Between an aging honda pilot and sierra long bed pickup truck I need a single vehicle for family and utility. As of now I'm leaning towards the ram 1500 crew cab because it has coil springs in the rear instead of leaf. And with all the bed extension gadgets out there a short box can haul 10ft lumber pretty easily. 390 horsepower is cool too.
for both of you looking, the ram crew cab IS available with a 6.5 foot bed you just have to look/ask for it, its not common as most get the 5.5foot bed, i was planning to order one originally just for the sake of future proofing the purchase but the quad cab is definitely big enough for me, at least for the forseeable future.
the 5.3 and 6.2 shut down cylinders when coasting/not accelerating, and they have the power at the base end.
the penalty is weight, but an engine that will last longer than anything boosted. that monster yukon xl i had did better than 20 on the highway.
think i posted a pic of the trip consumption going to lk george - will try to find.
the penalty is weight, but an engine that will last longer than anything boosted. that monster yukon xl i had did better than 20 on the highway.
think i posted a pic of the trip consumption going to lk george - will try to find.
They burn oil instead of gas. Cost me a new engine in my Suburban by 110k miles.
that sucks just out of the 100k - 5.3 or 6.2?
5.3 They had already done pistons and rings the year before to "fix" the problem, then the engine blew. Well at least they credited me the $2k I already paid for the pistons and rings.
Google "5.3 oil consumption." You can read for days how I'm not alone. Done with GM.
Dingo
Well-Known Member
Just one more bash on GM. The 2014-18 have a chitload of stupid problems. I'm there on the front line when the customers are in the shop stomping their feet. Most everyone says "I cannot believe" how much better their old truck was WAY better, pre -2006GM, Ford or Dodge. You have been warned...
I've done a chitload of pistons/rings, and not just on the V/8's. It's only a band aid because 40,000 miles later the oil consumption starts over. Have personal friend that I did the pistons on, just hit 40k and like clockwork the oil is disappearing.
The direct injection engines (2014 to now) have been ok with oil consumption. They have their own problems.
The best thing to do with the DOD engines is disable the lifters from shutting down. Does not seam to effect fuel mileage too badly, but keeps the oil consumption within normal.
5.3 They had already done pistons and rings the year before to "fix" the problem, then the engine blew. Well at least they credited me the $2k I already paid for the pistons and rings.
I've done a chitload of pistons/rings, and not just on the V/8's. It's only a band aid because 40,000 miles later the oil consumption starts over. Have personal friend that I did the pistons on, just hit 40k and like clockwork the oil is disappearing.
The direct injection engines (2014 to now) have been ok with oil consumption. They have their own problems.
The best thing to do with the DOD engines is disable the lifters from shutting down. Does not seam to effect fuel mileage too badly, but keeps the oil consumption within normal.
I'll play. I have a 15 GMC Sierra with the 6.2 - 8 spd tranny. The tranny is a POS. I have the common clunking issue and have developed the shudder within the last month. I have 37k miles. I'm taking it to the dealer tomorrow to have them trouble shoot the shudder which is most likely the torque converter based on what I have read.
My 2000 Chevy Silverado had no problems.
@Dingo what dealer do you work at?
My 2000 Chevy Silverado had no problems.
@Dingo what dealer do you work at?